Saturday, February 14, 2009

For the Month of Love, The Song of Songs

A retelling...

(Thought I'd post something to 33AD, since I haven't in over 2 years...)

ACT I, Scene One

Scene: King SHLOMO’s Harem in Yerushalayim. The Harem denizens are busy preparing for King SHLOMO’s arrival from Beit-Lechem, adorning, powdering and perfuming themselves. Harried looking slaves are busy putting the final touches on the garlanded, netted and bejeweled coiffures/headwear of the concubines, while these primp and inspect the progress with mirrors.

Only one concubine, SHULAMIT – the youngest member of the Harem, is not at all occupied with activity…She has no attendant busy at her side. Instead, she is crouching in the middle of her very spare-looking boudoir, inspecting the scene with a look of boredom, and, frankly, betraying a slight contempt over all the fuss. Sighing, she begins to twirl one of her lengthy (and simply braided and unadorned) locks. As she does so, a frenetic pair of feet (belonging to the GUARDSMAN) suddenly appear below a curtain divider, and, as he approaches closer from the side, he announces quickly, gutturally, and with a short breath:

GUARDSMAN: The dust (huff) of the army has been spotted on the southern ridge!

(huff)…They should be here by the time (wheeeeeze)…the shadow reaches the

top of the Mount of Olives!

All turn to the audience and squint, as if peering through a distant window. The slaves suddenly pick up their pace, while SHULAMIT’s face changes and she swings back quickly the lock that she was twirling. As the guard’s feet disappear from view, she jumps up, excitedly singing:

Song 1: Black Am I

SHULAMIT: Oh, let him kiss me

With the kisses of his mouth!…

(Shulamit looks toward the audience wistfully.)

For your love is more,

More refreshing than wine!…

(The other concubines roll their eyes, while the slave-maidens look at each other and attempt to hide their snickering with their hands.)

And your sweat is so,

So aromatic like incense;

The sound of your name,

Like oil poured to anoint—

(SHULAMIT begins spinning in circles, arms spread outward.)

Thus the maidens love you!

Take me away with you!

Let us run after you!

(The HAREM – that is, the other concubines and the slave-maidens – joins in, in a chorus and in a high, mocking tone)

HAREM: The king has brought me,

Brought me, oh dear,

Into his chambers!

(Looking towards the audience)

We will be glad

And rejoice in you!

For we find your love,…

(They extend one hand towards the audience in an exaggerated gesture, as if offering goblets.)

More refreshing than wine!…

SHULAMIT (quickly, overtaking the chorus contemptuously before they can finish):

THUS the maidens love you!

SHULAMIT addresses the Harem loudly, breaking out energetically at the first stanza, but slowing progressively into a plaintive voice towards the end:

SHULAMIT: Black am I and beautiful,

You-Daughters-of-Yerushalayim,

Like the tents of KeDAR,

Like the drapes of Shlo-moh!

Don’t stare at me

Because I am darker,

Because the sun,

The Sun has so loved me!

My mother’s sons,

They were angry,

So sulky angry with me.

They punished me – Me!

With vineyard keeping…

(She picks up again the lock that she was twirling and looks down at it, as she trails into a quieter voice):

But my own vineyard,

I have long neglected.

(Facing the audience, she begins singing longingly in a high, loud voice):

Tell me, tell me

Love of my soul,

Where your flock grazes,

Am I not able to run

To where your heart lazes

In the hottest hour?…

(As she is singing, a pair of tanned feet – wrapped in rough sandals and powdered with white dust – quietly appear below the curtain divider behind her, as if lowering from a higher opening.)

For why should I I!

Be as one kept veiled

Beside the thin flocks

Of your fat companions??

SHLOMO (laughing): If you don't know,

Greatest of all beauties,
Follow the heels of the sheep!…

(Startled, everyone jumps up with a yelp)…

Bring your kids bleating

Beside the shepherds' tents!

The concubines quickly veil themselves, and send the slave-maidens scurrying quickly off-stage… SHULAMIT (veil-less) runs to the curtain yanking it away to reveal the figure of King SHLOMO in dusty warrior’s raiment, and the pair enrapturously embrace. The other concubines all (somewhat artificially if you ask me) make a swooning sound…

SHLOMO (laughing): Haven’t I compared you, my love,

To a shiny black steed

Among Par`oh’s chariots?

Your glazed cheeks

Are burnished earrings!

Your sweaty neck

As if strung with jewels!

Don’t worry! (Laugh)

We will make you earrings

All golden and studded

With silver and whatnot.

Probably a jumpy number follows here, with lots of belly-dancing involved for sure, …but I’ll leave all those details to your imagination.

End of Scene One.


Monday, October 29, 2007

Love Plays on the Offense



In one of Aesop’s fables, a mighty tree boasts to a little reed, “Who shall pluck me by the roots?” Straightaway a powerful wind blows and uproots the tree, and the little reed, able to sway in the wind, remains in place. The moral: there is an upside to not standing out. Glancing at the Beatitudes opening the Sermon on the Mount, we might evince a similar moral at play in Christ’s words “the meek shall inherit the earth”.

However, is this the same Jesus who once praised John the Baptist for his fatal criticism of Herod Antipas’s adulterous dealings? (For this stance, John’s head was cut off and brought to Herod’s court on a platter). Before the masses, Jesus ironically contrasted the teaching style of their conformist religious leaders with that of John the Baptist’s by asking, “Who did you seek out in the wilderness, a reed swayed by the wind?”[1]

Jesus owned an uneasy style for a moralist of his time (above is not his only stiff maneuver on Aesop). The Sermon on the Mount, both in our time and his audience’s, stands out among his unnerving strings of sayings. Still, a habit in our day is to regard Christ’s estimation of poverty and humility, and especially his saying to “offer the other cheek”, as prompts to passivity. (Is it an accident that the cantankerous philosopher Nietzsche regarded Christ’s call to love one’s neighbor as so much saccharine egalitarianism?) But to an audience under the thumb of Roman oppression, the tack of love carried a certain revolutionary zing. Jesus made that clear by giving ingenious expression to the Torah’s extreme valuation of human dignity.

From the starting blocks of the Law, Christ’s Sermon on the Mount elevates the worth of common-folk humanity to heretofore-unknown majestic heights. Every thinker who has ever read the Sermon has noted Jesus ratcheting up our responsibility to the precepts of the Law. Actually, he is pumping at the lever of human dignity. Using his poetic, Eastern homiletic style, he elbows out human presumptions about the awkward aloofness of God. God clothes the grass with the “lilies of the field” (a Hebraism), but He wraps the children of God in greater finery. Here, the sublimity of Solomon’s raiment is appraised as far inferior to the splendor of human flesh (I’m not kidding!). With Jesus, the wheeling swallows are evidence of God’s relentless decency. In this manner, Christ brings pungent questions to his audience’s trust in the guileless fatherhood of God. He draws attention to the bad habits of hypocrisy, self-advancement and gentile fatalism and worriment to undermine God’s life-giving overtures. Along the way, he drops some stunners – for example: “You must be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect”.[2] In other words, “There must be no limit to your goodness, as your heavenly Father’s goodness knows no bounds”, as the New English Bible perfectly translates this.

Such moral insights remain unparalleled in the history of ethical discourse (we saunter along throughout our days in the West unaware how indebted we are to this sermon of firsts). Christ’s sayings once provoked an Israeli scholar of Early Rabbinics at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem to remark, “These are at once simple and profound, naïve and full of paradox, tempestuous and yet calm. Can anyone plumb their depths?”[3] Another scholar I met in Jerusalem, an expert in the 900 some parables that appear in ancient Jewish literature, remarked that the parables of Jesus easily rise to the foreground of her studies (and, implicitly, her Orthodox Jewish experience). According to her, Yeshua seems to have no peer in Rabbinic history in his homiletic effectiveness with the parable form, namely to draw out the ethical dimensions of the Torah and frame a multi-faceted response to it.

In fine Rabbinic fashion then, Jesus concludes his Sermon with a call to urgent authenticity by telling the parable of the two house builders (perhaps also a thump number on Aesop above). In the parable, “doing” (in addition to “hearing”) invokes the unshakable stance of the Kingdom of God against a violent world. Christ invites his hearers to dare the goodness of God by bringing their new outlook to bear on human activity (living life without setting limits to one’s goodness, apparently, opens up the opposing equivalent of Pandora’s box – the storehouses of God’s exuberant goodness). One can understand here the total punch of the Sermon: what follows the Beatitudes in the next three chapters is a well-built elaboration on the estimation of humility, God-trust and authenticity to aggravate “certainties” in the face of indifference, brutality and the mundane rewards of convention. This is no mere sentimental teaching. Jesus, after all, identifies the mourners, the broken-spirited and those who hunger and thirst for justice (Ts’dakah) not as victims. From God’s vantage, they are the overcomers. Understood this way, the Beatitudes suddenly become unnerving – you might even say that they are Christ’s clarion call to engage the fight. There is no succor here for “supporting the burden of existence” (as Nietzsche claimed) except to encounter it brazenly.

Like a mythic haze, or an arcane poem, the strong, overcoming aspect of Christ’s message seems to have remained only ephemerally present or obscured in the mounds and valleys of Christian history, except in the blaze of a saint’s life here and there (as with the life of St. Francis). A young Indian lawyer and civil-rights activist in South Africa finally rediscovered the strong aspect of Christ’s message only a little over a century ago. To change the course of human events through nonviolent resistance and appealing to the humanity and reason of one’s overlords (interestingly, with their own sacred text providing the ironic inspiration: “Do not resist an evil person”[4]) was an insight that had evaded Western intellectuals up to that time. Drawing inspiration from the Sermon on Mount, this non-Christian lawyer, Mahatma Gandhi, did not consider his political tactic of nonviolence as the weapon of the weak. In fact, he argued for its distinction from the misleading labels of “passive resistance” or (minority) “suffrage”. He called it instead “truth-force” (or “love-force”): the unblinking insistence on truth in patiently dispelling your opponents’ false constructs of life. Gandhi had understood that, with Jesus, love played on the offense. Only until the mid-twentieth century, and only in reflection of the life and thought of Gandhi after the emancipation of the Indian subcontinent, did the West recover an understanding of the strong aspect of Christ’s message. Through the leadership of Martin Luther King, Jr., who adopted Gandhi’s lessons in another civil rights movement, the love-force of Jesus was nudged back to the foreground of Christian history.

With easy conviction, I believe that Jesus was smiling at the Gandhis of history, both renown and unnamed, when he first uttered the Beatitudes. Nietzsche had assumed that only the pitiless Superman would transform history this devastatingly, and the last place Nietzsche would have looked for the kernel of that transformative power was in the words of the Sermon of the Mount. But today, our backs stiffen when we encounter pairs of drinking fountains labeled “white” and “colored” in museum displays. Our head shakes uncomprehendingly at that salt and pepper reality less than 50 years ago when this kind of daily degradation of human dignity was a certainty of human existence. So strong has been that overcoming, the mammoth in the natural history section seems as hoary as these relics.

[1] Matthew 11:7
[2] Matthew 5:48
[3] David Flusser, The Sage from Galilee: Rediscovering Jesus’ Genius, (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI, 2007), p. 30.
[4] Mathew 5:39

Saturday, October 13, 2007

The beauty of perserverence...Excerpt from Tamara's book!

Following is an excerpt from Tamara's book on our trip from Rome to Jerusalem (in Summer 2005). IVP is publishing the book sometime next year I believe. This excerpt is taken from the chapter on our visit to the island of Patmos, where John composed the book of Revelation. Although the version below will probably be shortened for the book (it takes up too many pages currently), Tamara is encouraging me to pitch my Patmos teaching to a magazine or something. I'd appreciate any ideas/advice as to how I could convert the material to a magazine article. I think better understanding the setting of the writing of Revelation would be very beneficial nowadays (esp. in regard to the "Left-Behind" madness). What do you think? ;-)


Excerpt:

A stonewall becomes our bench. The three of us sit side-by-side, as our legs dangle above a terrain that plunges toward the sea. Eric tells us that the apocalyptic book of Revelation is one of tragedy and hope.

“Embedded in the storyline,” Eric declares, “is the tale of the Church's survival. This was one of the deadliest periods of persecution that the Church had ever faced. Had the Revelation never been written, in fact, the Church might have compromised its basic tenets in an effort to survive, and perhaps would not have survived as we know it…

“Unfortunately Revelation has been often misinterpreted and even at times used to promote hatred instead of hope. The early Church Fathers read it with Anti-Semitic overtones. But to really understand the impact of Revelation and its meaning you have to dig a little into its historical context.”

“So, why were Christians in such distress? And, why was John banished to Patmos anyway?” I ask with an urgent tone.

“In short,…beauty.”

“How is this a story of beauty?” I wick my head.

“We can call this a case of 'beauty from ashes'. This story has everything do with the surprising success of a humiliated and defeated people, the Jews…

“After the destruction of Jerusalem and the defeat of the Jewish nation at the hands of Titus in 70 CE, a very interesting thing happened. Droves of gentiles around the Empire became fascinated with Judaism, and by extension, Christianity. The nobility the Jews exhibited to persevere in their desire to be under the dominion of no man but one—and only one—god must have been compelling. Epictetus, a Stoic philosopher, for instance, admired the gallantry displayed by the Jewish resistance in Galilee—he was enamored with the ability of their ancient monotheistic faith to inspire uncompromising steadfastness in the direst circumstances. Regardless, so many gentiles appeared to be converting to Judaism and Christianity that toward the end of the first century the Roman Emperor Domitian began a serious crack down on Christian and Jewish proselytism. He used the tax system to attempt to crush Christians in particular, who were gaining adherents throughout the provinces and threatening the patronage of the local cults, especially in Asia Minor. Domitian also persecuted scores of high-ranking officials in the Roman population who were converting to Judaism and offending Roman sensibilities regarding Roman tradition, especially in respect to worship of the gods and deceased Roman emperors—who, as you know, were honored as gods in that age.”

“Was Domitian worried that no one would end up worshipping him?” Krista asks.

We all laugh. “Actually, Domitian did have a god-complex,” remarks Eric. “In fact, he killed some Stoic senators who had refused to address him as 'Lord and God'. Domitian called it 'atheism', you see, when folks refused to call him by those titles! But even to Romans, addressing a living emperor by such words was unprecedented – kind of a case of picking up the mantle too soon…He once,” says Eric with a smirk, “introduced his wife to the Senate as someone fortunate to visit his 'divine couch'.”

Krista guffaws, “I wonder if she ever visited his ‘divine couch’ again…”

“Ha!”, Eric almost rolls over, “…Well, guess who assassinated Domitian in the year 96? His wife’s house steward…so if that’s one indication.”

There’s no question in Krista’s mind and mine that Domitian’s wife was behind the deicide of Domitian.

“Well…I have to agree with you then,” says Eric still laughing merrily.

“But back (cough) to our story,” Eric tries to compose himself, “…leading up to Domitian’s fateful end. As you can (hu-hughhh) probably imagine, when gentiles converted to Judaism or Christianity life became quite tricky with an emperor who thought he was a deity, for, after all, the first two of the ten commandments bar idolatry and were held to be absolutely obligatory on both Jews and Christians. They might have respectfully bowed to an emperor but not to a god!

“But converts, in general, faced many cultural pressures to continue honoring pagan deities, especially the landed gentry who often held many civic offices and needed to officiate or participate in civic ceremonies, which always included some sort of homage to pagan deities in those days, if not to the emperor. Many aristocratic converts to Judaism and Christianity therefore seemed to disappear from public life…which was held as misanthropic, arrogant and impious by lots of folks once their absence became noted. The only strategy that the converts had, you see, to remain faithful to their adopted faith was to keep cooking up excuses for missing public ceremonies and to try to keep as low a profile as they could. Unfortunately, some Christian groups began teaching that it was OK to participate in civic ceremonies or guild rites (which also typically honored patron gods and goddesses) so long as one honored God in secret. According to these groups what really mattered was the spiritual devotion, not the externals. One of these groups is the 'Nicolatians' mentioned very derisively in Revelation.

“Now, the Romans had always granted the Jews the right to abstain from idolatry, but slowly and surely, this right began accruing a price. Following the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in the year 70, the Emperor Vespasian required the Jews to pay a privilege tax, called the fiscus Iudaicus, and other smaller taxes that guaranteed exemptions from religious and civic duties. Unfortunately, the Christian converts and 'God-fearers' (sympathizers of the Jewish faith) were not always guaranteed exemption by Roman law, even if they paid the fiscus Iudaicus in an attempt to do so. They had to first become full proselytes—for males, this meant circumcision. Circumcision and payment of the tax were assumed by the authorities to be the only valid way to gain exemption from idolatrous civic duties. But it was very unclear if Christian converts and God-fearers, who typically were not circumcised, needed to pay the tax of the fiscus Iudaicus, and for various reasons most simply kept low key and avoided payment of the tax.

“So eventually, in the early 90's, Domitian began a crack down on tax-evading converts, God-fearers and undercover Jews—Jews who had kept their faith secret in order to avoid enriching the Emperor by paying the humiliating fiscus Iudaicus. He demanded that all people who practiced or adopted any kind of Jewish religious practice (and that would include the Christians), whether openly or secretly, to be liable to the fiscus Iudaicus—and, if they were not born Jewish, they were not off the hook for observing civic duties and paying homage to the pagan cults! Furthermore, it they failed to come forward and continued to attempt to hide their identity, the state would hold their properties subject to confiscation upon exposure. In other words, Domitian just sardonically crystallized the predicament the converts were in, but this time, he also gave the tax policy enforcement teeth. Domitian thereupon began to reward informants who exposed tax evaders by granting prosecuting informants part of the proceeds of confiscated properties. As a consequence, many busybodies suddenly found a lucrative trade and many tax evaders began to pay off these informants to avoid prosecution. Blackmail thus grew to rampant proportions.

“Still, the high-ranking Roman converts or Jewish sympathizers remained a burr in the saddle of the Emperor, since, as Roman noblemen, Domitian could not use the tax policy to get at them. So, in the year 95, it all came to a head. Domitian banned secret conversion to Judaism and outright conversion to Christianity, declaring them 'impiety' (or 'atheism'), capital offenses. To make a good show of it, Domitian even executed his own kinsman Flavius Clemens, a nephew of Vespasian. Clemens and his wife Domitilla, who was Domitian's own niece, had apparently been found 'drifting towards Jewish customs'. Domitian executed Clemens on charges of impiety and banished Domitilla from Rome, probably intending to strike fear thus into the hearts of the Roman aristocracy. We cannot rule out, however, that other shady motivations may have been at play. Domitian probably rightly suspected Clemens for maneuvering political will against his draconian tax policies, and had perhaps even sensed his kinsman as a conspirator in a power play for the throne. It appears that Domitian declared conversion an ‘impiety’ in order to conveniently take care of Clemens and other of Clemens’s sympathizers…Such ruthless acts were not unknown for Roman emperors, especially paranoid ones like Domitian. Indeed, the historical record, especially Domitian’s assassination, hints that Clemens was offed for primarily political exigencies and was not an actual convert but merely accused as one for aiding the converts…

“Regardless, it was a dark day for converts and God-fearers when Clemens was executed, as they were now no longer with a prominent champion in the imperial family. For aristocrats, 'impeity' was missing civic ceremonies or failing to address the Emperor as 'Lord and God', and for all others, 'impeity' was hiding one's religious identity, which was proven by demonstrating that the accused had failed to pay the required taxes, namely the fiscus Iudaicus…

“Now, John, being Jewish, had probably always paid the fiscus Iudaicus, and so was probably off the hook for the charge of impiety. However, since he was one of the key evangelists in the Church, Domitian had him exiled to Patmos in 95 CE, right around the time conversion was outlawed. John was probably sent to the island shortly after Clemens was executed, and he might have already witnessed some of the travails his brethren were now facing in the mainland. Clemens's death opened the floodgates of prosecution cases against Christian and Jewish tax-evaders. Many of John’s exposed Christian brothers and sisters were now losing their properties and were going to trial for immanent execution. Jewish tax-evaders had it easier, since declaration of the Jewish faith could not easily be used to demonstrate impiety, as Judaism was an allowed practice in the Empire. But since Christian conversion was outlawed, Christians would have had to seek protection from the Jewish community to help avoid charges of impiety. Most synagogues did their best to protect tax-evaders, since it was a Jewish ethic to honor and treat any gentile who refused to participate in idolatry as if he or she were a member of the Jewish people, following the teaching of the late and beloved Rabbi, Rabban Yohannan ben Zakkai, the most respected teacher to survive the Judean revolt. But, unfortunately, some of the Jews or gentile God-fearers were being blackmailed to expose tax-evaders, particularly at Smyrna and at Philadelphia. More than likely, it was God-fearers or covert Jews (who hid their Jewish identity to avoid paying exemption taxes) who were exposing fellow tax evaders, to get themselves off the hook for impiety charges by proving their loyalty to the Emperor thus…

“That's one of the saddest chapters in history to me,” Eric sighs, “From that point on, the relationship between the Synagogue and the Church would begin to rip apart. The frictions Domitian inflicted on the Jewish community—which up to that point, however marginally, had always included the Christians—became the wedge that drove apart the Synagogue and the Church. The travail and hard feelings that resulted from the cooperation of few synagogues leading to the exposure of Christians seem to have left a deep wound in the Church that never healed. The next generation of Christian leadership, sadly, slid into Anti-Semitic apologetics as a result. Hardly more Anti-Semitic sentiments are found in the works of Christian theologians than in the writings of some of the second century fathers of Asia Minor, such as Melito of Sardis. Revelation may have contributed to the tone, since it contains harsh language against the traitorous synagogues; however, this tone is not unwarranted! One of the greatest sins in Judaism – if not the greatest – is to betray your fellow Jew (or God-fearer – a potential Jew) to the authorities. This is considered an 'unforgivable sin' in Judaism. We must read the polemic against Jewish/God-fearer traitors in Revelation as an inner Jewish debate to keep the book in its context…

“It's just so sad to me…”, Eric pauses and looks down at the slopes below us, “…that history has not remembered the more numerous and noble synagogues around the Empire that must have risked much to sequester Christians in their communities from Domitian's sword.”

I try to imagine how John must have felt as exile in Patmos when he found himself alone in that cave. Was he heartbroken and perhaps afraid knowing that the future of the Church and the bond with his Jewish people was in tremendous jeopardy? Was this what he was praying about when Jesus suddenly appeared to him?

I notice that Eric is also lost in thought. We all sit on the cliff edge silently for a moment. Suddenly, Eric looks back up at the sea, and his face brightens slightly. “But,…as I said, this is a story of beauty from ashes. I am convinced that Revelation is not only fit to be the last book in our Scriptures…but perhaps should be appreciated much more for the beauty in history it represents, and I'm not just talking about the end of the world…

“Asia Minor, what is now Turkey 30 miles that way,” Eric points toward the open sea to our right, “was the most populous, cosmopolitan region in the Empire. More people dwelled in Asia Minor, in fact, than in Italy and Egypt combined. It was actually the heart of the Roman Empire, and the wealth of the Empire flowed through this region of crossroads…call it the Roman version of the 'Midwest'. It was here where Christianity transformed from a sectarian Jewish movement into a full-blown world movement. Had the jolt of hope and encouragement and promises of the message of Revelation never arrived to Asia Minor, I have many reasons to doubt that the Church would have persevered so steadfastly through the grueling second and third centuries of its history … or spread around the world so amazingly.”

“But if it was such a straight-forward message of encouragement,” I ask, “why was it written in such an obtuse way?”

“As you know,” Eric answers, “the Revelation is actually a letter meant to be circulated around all of the churches of Asia Minor (not just the ones mentioned in the seven letters to the angels at the beginning). So some have posited that it was written symbolically to make the message unintelligible to authorities who might have intercepted a copy of the letter. I, however, believe that the distinctly holy language of John's Revelation and descriptions of God and His throne room would have made it highly unlikely that a Jew would have ever written down or copied its words. The language was simply too holy to write down. To have a 'copy', a reader would have had to memorize it. In other words, the letter was transmitted by word of mouth…the couriers themselves were the 'letter'. The text itself hints that it should be transmitted by word of mouth when an angel commands John to eat the scroll of the vision in Rev. 10:10. Besides, if John was worried about prying Roman eyes, then the letter is a very thinly veiled rant against the Emperor indeed. I think any official with a slight bit of intelligence would have seen what it was about.”

“So why did John write that way?”

“A clue is found in the text. Its pervasive Semitisms and poor Greek diction suggests that the language it was originally circulating in was Hebrew, which would have definitely made it a very holy message indeed, but one that is also very particularly aimed at well-learned Jewish sages. The esoteric and holy material would have been familiar to Jewish 'heads of wisdom' who had the Hebrew Scriptures committed to memory. These folks were typically well-trained in advanced memorization techniques…

“Revelation is actually written in a way that makes it extremely easy to memorize…it is full of memory aids. One aid is the vivid imagery, which carries implicit and double-meanings a well-learned Jew would find poignant and prominent and would be able to unpack for his congregation. Another is the pervasive Scriptural symbolism and references, especially to the Prophets—books very important to Jews facing difficult times and that would have been known by rote in those days. But probably most importantly, Revelation is extra-ORRR-dinarily structured to facilitate rapid memorization! I have read many ancient apocalypses and none has quite the same kind of sophisticated literary framework that I can evince throughout the book. It is actually quite artistic. Revelation uses the same literary patterns but tweaks and plays with them to also make each section independently noteworthy in its own special, memorable way—kinda like a purposefully changing composition, much like a Jazz composition, in fact…quite beautiful, but I digress. To get to the point, Tam, it would have probably only taken a couple of hearings of Revelation for a well-trained Jewish scholar to recognize the familiar structures—such as the seven-day creation structure of Genesis 1-2 that figures largely throughout the book—and have the entire message committed to memory through these structural handles. That may sound fantastic and improbable to us, but the ancients were masters at memorization. After all, writing was at a premium in those days and the easiest way to 'copy' something at the least expense (monetarily and time-wise) was to memorize it. In other words, Revelation is a message that was intended to disseminate with blazing speed - to get to the largest audience possible in the fastest way available. It is an urgent letter."

Wednesday, July 04, 2007

Pharisees Too Went Beyond the Letter of the Law

A common assumption concerning what Jesus said in the Sermon of the Mount is to consider the prerogatives of Christ's teachings as discordant (to greater and sometimes lesser degrees) with the Jewish/Pharisaic values and teachings of the religious leaders of Jesus' day. Thanks to the insight of late scholars like David Flusser and Shmuel Safrai, a wrench has been thrown into this oversimplified view of Pharisaism. In fact, a robust ethic is found in the language of Rabbinical writings that not only echoes much of the same insights found in Christ's Sermon on the Mount, but also the philosophical framework underlying it. In fact, there is even in Rabbinic ethics a precise terminology to characterize Christ's exhortation to "exceed the righteousness" of those who teach the injunctions of the Law (Matthew 5:20). It is called "going beyond the line of Torah". To go "beyond the line" means to observe the ethical trust of the Torah (and even innovate or improve) in matters where the Torah remains silent.

I offer here below a diagram which I hope begins to show the distinction between "Torah Observance", in the strict sense, and what is called (among other things) the "Paths of the Righteous" to describe Jewish observance which goes beyond the letter of the Law. To read further on this concept, I encourage reading Chapter XIII "The Commandments" of E.E. Urbach's The Sages and Chapter VI "The Two Ways and the Sermon of the Mount" of Huub Van de Sandt and David Flusser's The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and Its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity.



Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Saturday, February 17, 2007










He said in the same sermon:






Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven (Matthew 5:17).







Be careful not to do your acts of righteousness before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven (Matthew 6:1).




Huh?...What gives? Which teaching supersedes the other? Possibly, we misunderstand the kinds of good deeds Jesus is referring to in the first saying. We find the saying in context with the Beatitudes. I like to think of Jesus' "salt" and "light" analogy a comment on the last Beatitude (which I like to call the "Be-Radical" Beatitude):





Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, for great is your reward in heaven, because in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men. You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven (Matthew 5:11-16).




Further support for this reading is suggested by the cultural background. The land of Israel in Jesus' day got its salt from the Dead Sea (called "Salt Sea" in Hebrew). Jesus may therefore have made a critique against the Qumran sectarians who dwelt on the cliffs overlooking the Salt Sea. These separatists referred to their kind as the "sons of light", and they adhered to strict codes of separation from the realm of the "sons of darkness". They not only guarded their religious practices and wisdom (the "Mysteries of God") jealously, but withheld from conducting any sort of dealings with others outside of their sect. The Essenes wanted as much as possible to refrain from becoming encumbered from any burdensome relations with outsiders. Their attitude was to squirrel away into monastic seclusion until the end of the world arrived, when God would use the remaining elect to conquer the world. In the meantime, they would concern themselves only with purifying their minds, bodies and souls, thus vigilantly awaiting the immanent last battle between the sons of light and sons of darkness.

With the analogies to salt and light in Jesus' saying, it is highly plausible that Jesus' audience, familiar with the introverted piety of the Qumran sectarians, would have picked up on a sly dig at the sectarians, realizing he was criticizing the ineffective, in not misanthropic, sectarian strategy of withdrawal from the present problems of the world.

Here are some images that I think reveal the kind of "good deeds" Jesus would magnify:






Tuesday, January 23, 2007

What they said...




Know thyself.
–Socrates

The life according to reason is best and pleasantest, since reason more than anything else is man.
–Aristotle

The blessed and immortal nature knows no trouble itself nor cause trouble to any other, so that it is never constrained by anger or favor. For all such things exist only in the weak.
–Epicurus

Demand not that events should happen as you wish; but wish them to happen as they do happen, and you will go on well… The only real thing is, to study how to rid life of (the debilitating affects of) lamentation, and complaint, …and misfortune, and failure…For what else is tragedy, but the dramatized sufferings of men, bewildered by an admiration of the externals?

–Epictetus


What He said:

How blessed are the down and out! For of such of these is the Kingdom of God.
How blessed are those weeping! For they will be comforted.

How blessed are the humble! For they will inherit the Earth.
How blessed are the hungry and thirsty for salvation! For they will be fully satisfied.

How blessed are the merciful! For they will be given mercy.
How blessed are the pure-hearted! For they will behold God.

How blessed are those who pursue peace! For they will be called sons of God.
How blessed are those who pursue redemption! For of such of these is the Kingdom of God.

– Jesus

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Light: A Trajectory to Jesus


A Very Divine Mystery Hunt Through Scripture, Involving Seven Points of Ancient Exegesis

Genesis 1:3 Then God said, "Let there be light!"; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light YOM (Day), and the darkness He called Night.

One: The ancients were very curious about everything in the Bible…They were always wondering about things. They were always asking questions. What was the light of the first day of creation? (Do we not see by the light of the sun, moon and stars created on the fourth day?). Where is the light God named YOM?? Was it the light of a lamp??? What did it illuminate???? What is the purpose of this YOM, what time did it keep without the sun????? Have we ever even seen this light?????? If it is around, where might it be??????? If it was around on the first day, where, oh where, did it go????????…The questions piled up.

Two: The ancients read the Bible really carefully, and I mean really carefully. In order to find out where the YOM went, they read through the Bible with a fine-toothed comb. They spotted the YOM first in a very surprising place:

Genesis 22:10 And Abraham stretched out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. 11 But the Angel of the LORD called to him from heaven and said, "Abraham, Abraham!" So he said, "Here I am." 12 And He said, "Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your YAHID [lit. “only-one”] from Me." 13 Then Abraham lifted his eyes and looked, and there behind [him was] a ram caught in a thicket by its horns. So Abraham went and took the ram, and offered it up for a burnt offering instead of his son. 14 And Abraham called the name of the place, The-LORD-Will-Provide; as it is said [to] this YOM [day], "In the Mount of The LORD it shall be provided."

Three: The ancients read the Bible creatively, and I mean really creatively.
The Greek Septuagint (ca. 2nd Century BCE) reads the Hebrew text another way:

(2ndOption, LXX’s) Genesis 22:14: And Abraham called the name of the place, The-LORD-Has-Seen (to it); that they might say today, “In the Mount, The LORD was seen."

Four: The Hebrew text was very important to these ancient interpreters. And the various nuances that the Hebrew text provided (as seen in the verse in question here) could be very significant indeed. …In fact, bearing in mind our “divine mystery hunt” for the enigmatic YOM, an even other interesting way an ancient might have read this verse in Hebrew is as follows:

(3rd Option, possible) Genesis 22:14: And Abraham called the name of the place, The-LORD-Will-Be-Seen; as it is said, “The YOM, in the Mount of The LORD, shall be seen."

Five: The ancients were ready, willing and quickly able to relate disparate verses in Scripture with one another, bringing verses to bear on one another just because of similar Hebrew wording, “thematic material”, or subtle relations….if not flights of fancy altogether. Usually, the appearance of shared words among verses was sufficient enough to warrant a connection; this was called “Stringing Pearls”. Another place where ancient Jews spotted the special YOM is in a Psalm:

Psalm 118:24 This is the YOM that the LORD made.

Six: The ancients could also creatively link entities in adjacent verses that we might not necessarily connect together or perceive as (sufficiently) related. For example, they might connect “the stone that the builder’s rejected” in Psalm 118:22 with “the YOM that the LORD made” in verse 24:

Psalm 118:22 The stone that the builders rejected is become the chief cornerstone. 23 This is the LORD's doing; it is marvellous in our eyes. 24 This is the YOM that the LORD made; we will rejoice and be glad in him.

Seven: Watching the ancients use scripture is as fun as it is enlightening. The Gospel of John links all the verses we discussed above to solve the mystery hunt of the YOM’s identity, its purpose, its special time to keep, its special object to illuminate. It opens up by telling us of the light’s “advent” – its coming into the world, its appearance, as foretold to Abraham (I have included parenthetical remarks to help you “feel” the special bearing of scriptures we referred to above):

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and what God was the Word was. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being [He “illuminates”]. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it …10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him [Only those who are his own can see by his light]. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God [like Isaac]. 14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. ...[The earth experienced a “YOM” of God’s glory.]

John 8:12 "I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life." … 56 "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." ...[What Abraham “saw” is told in Psalm 118.]

John 9:4 "We must work the works of Him who sent Me as long as it is day; night is coming when no one can work. 5 "While I am in the world, I am the Light of the world." ...[While Jesus was in the world, it was “Day One” of God’s work.]

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Measuring the Might of God


In Judaism, the preeminent sign of God's power is not the fact that God spoke the world into being. It is not that He the shaped Adam from the dust, either, that he created him (and her) in His image, and breathed into them His speaking spirit. Nor is the preeminent example of God’s exploits to bring Israel out of the house of bondage seen as enough of a challenge for God,…No, not the splitting of the Reed Sea, nor sustaining Israel with water and heavenly bread, leading them with a pillar of fire and smoke for forty years in the desert, nor vanquishing nations of giants before them.

Sure...Those things are of course evidence of His incomparable greatness, but one act represents the paradigmatic “power” of God. One act affirms God's might before all these. In a prayer religious Jews pray daily, God's might is simply described and praised the following way:

G-d's Might

“You are eternally mighty, my Master, the Resuscitator of the dead are You; abundantly able to save.

“He sustains the living with kindness, resuscitates the dead with abundant mercy, supports the fallen, heals the sick, releases the confined, and maintains His faith to those asleep in the dust. Who is like You, O Master of mighty deeds, and who is comparable to You, O King Who causes death and restores life and makes salvation sprout!

“And You are faithful to resuscitate the dead. Blessed are You, Hashem, Who resuscitates the dead.”

The might of God is tied here to the idea of mankind’s redemption…in particular, mankind’s redemption from death. God’s might to Jews is best evinced in the empowerment of the lowly, which is the definition of redemption in Jewish culture. God’s power is almost cast as a function of God’s mercy for the powerless. So all-encompassing is God’s might that even the carcasses of the lowly shall be raised by Him. There is very little else that could define paradigmatically the relational thrust of Jewish theology. Jewish religion, it could be said, is about the loyalty and devotion of the powerless to their one Great Sustainer…or rather, more accurately, the loyalty of the Great Sustainer to the powerless.

Of all the theological ideas the Jews have contributed to the world, the concept of God as a merciful, powerful resuscitating redeemer, it could be said, is the most definitively “Jewish”. God’s great work is fundamentally redemptive in character and not awaiting our belief in Him (the Pharisees too had “belief”!) God’s might, rather, unseats presents powers and lifts up those without power…those are usually the ones who are pliable, penitent and humble enough to reach out to Him. When Jesus instructs his followers to claim the least desirable seat in the banquets, he is expressing this relational Jewish disposition. John 3:16 is best understood as, “For God so loved the world that He sent down his beloved Son, so that whosoever would grasp His hand should not remain in the grave but be raised up to eternal life.”

Wednesday, July 12, 2006

O Trite Heresy!


Why the DaVinci Code is “Emergent”

Lately, I’ve been somewhat pensive about the impact of Dan Brown’s book (the DaVinci Code--from hereon “DVC” for sake of space). What was the 15 minute appeal of Dan Brown’s book all about? I can think of several reasons, some that make me question what is truly behind the Emergent Christian movement. The DVC may be a poster-child of “emergent faith”. I’m not stating this as a “post-emergent” malcontent, here. I posit the comparison because it usefully clarifies questions I have with the both the Emergent movement and the movement to understand the Jewish underpinnings of the New Testament. I sympathize and participate to some degree in both movements, and I find that the DVC appeals to my loyalty similarly (though not at all convincingly of course). Anyway, here are the reasons:

Reason #1) It reconstructs authentic faith.

The alternate faith history of “authentic” Christianity in the DVC has, I believe, an ambient appeal because it is a palliative response against the insipid faith, contemporary hypocrisy and a spotty popular history of the Church. This has, broadly speaking, an “Emergent” appeal. Of course, that attack was present even before Luther, but I’m referring particularly about the framing of (what today is called) a spiritually bankrupt “narrative” of historical Christianity. This critique paints a picture of Church history as an unmoored drift of the Kingdom of God away from its “authentic” beginnings in Galilee, because of the worldly concerns of the Church, namely its political aspirations. To his credit, Dan Brown uses this appeal against Church worldliness to great effect. Who can blame him for exploiting this tug on our faith-seeking culture, in the wake of church sex scandals and cover-ups, to sell his cheesy, paint-by-numbers mystery novella?

Reason #2) Post-9/11 nostalgia for good ‘ol fashioned Westernism.

But it’s not the “authentic” beginnings of the Church that is the real concern of the DVC…I mean, who are we kidding here? Overall, I’m proud of our ability to immediately spot the DVC’s spongy attack on Christian orthodoxies. What I’m not so proud of is that we have failed to see its underlying target: a wimpy postmodern Westernism that is no longer able to convince and innovate and have some roots and self-pride for once. If we could only throw off the shackles of effete Kantian wallowing or nihilistic deconstructionisms and all that emasculated pop cultural wash! Let’s rescue the Renaissance by God!

The only critiques to have spotted this subtle obsession in the DVC that I have heard thus far are Anthony's (posted on his blog a while ago), as well as Ingrid Rowland's "Pop Esoterica" review in the New Republic(published about two years ago). Reframing old values in the guise of poetry, current causes, and peacenik ideals, like emergent bands, just gives people wounded by the transgressions of organized religion great succor. It’s just nice to see that the human condition can be analyzed in a few simple, aphoristic lyrics that fit better with our bedtime story views of Jesus (the only Jesus we intellectually know). Though Dan Brown does a bad job at presenting anything about Christ’s message at all, notice that (except for the sex stuff) he is not out to do any real harm to teddy-bear Christ.

Reason # 3) We rather like our insipid faiths and shallow philosophies

One of the things that is true of Americans and probably always will be is that we have an approach to faith and values that is irrepressively individualistic. Some may try to pin this way back to American transcendentalism or Thoreau’s cult of the Individual, but the truth is Americans have always had and will always have a great distrust for anything formalized, organized, hierarchical, etc. I hate to say it, but it’s our backwater “don’t tread on me” waspy heritage. This is why American intellectuals have always had a profound ambivalence towards urbanism, industrialism, commercialism, social utopianism, nationalism, and any phenomenon whatsoever that involves the aggregation of more than two people (in Thoreau’s case, more than one). “And as well we should!,” you say, quoting the Bible. But who we really need to credit for this position is not the Kingdom, but Immanuel Kant’s “Two World Ontology”, which posits that we poor industrialized/commercialized masses are fundamentally alienated from our souls. If the German response to Kant was national socialism - the beehive model (John Dewey called it right – Nietzche and Heidegger had little to do with what happened to Germany in the 1930’s), the American response has been Emerson’s transcendental individualism - the hedgehog. Don’t get me wrong, I much rather prefer the hedgehog model myself. But, thankfully, most of us are both “men of valor” and “men of the committee”. (Forgive the archaic language…I’m not leaving out you women-folk by any means). The values of 21st century are risk, innovation and individualistic opportunism but also good ‘ol fashioned back-scratching and hard-nosed pragmatism. Likewise, the noumenal forays of American intellectuals have tended to keep their pragmatic nose to the ground. But every once in a while, we hanker for something more Emerson-like, especially in moments of national crisis, and we stumble about for some private metaphysical juice to suck. I’m not post-modern enough to be opposed to this, but what I think very sad is the pop-cultural tendency to look for it in some pseudo-philosophy or New Age religion that remains fundamentally mysterious and unavailing. The DVC’s goddess-worshipping, mystery cult may offer a cheap veneer of this, but really it is its appeal to a mythical Renaissance “Westernism” that tugs effectively at us…call it “Metaphysical Westernism”, oh, DaVinci our free-thinking savior. The real mission of the DVC and books like it (e.g. The Rule of Four, where Westernism is rescued, how appropriately, in a Princeton eating club) is to replace Christianity with Heretical Westernism and if this is not really possible, then to marry Christianity with the West once and for all.

Pointing out our rampant metaphysical shallowness to our contemporaries, fellow critics, may be much more effective criticism of the “pop-esoterica” of the DVC’s vein. Why, at the very least, we may do our contemporaries a favor by accidentally inspiring a return to the spirited American metaphysical bravado of the 19th century – we’d be doing our forebears a favor if nothing else. Kabbalah, please!…Emerson and Thoreau would be ashamed. Is Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance the best we can do, people?

For example, just look at how badly Dan Brown’s airhead Westernism authentically bungled even New Age values. Lets begin with his obsequious loyalty to the “open-specificity” of Americans’ world-views, which claims that organized religion must be distrusted at face value, analyzed and then retrofitted to reflect contemporary trends and values (this is Immanuel Kant’s victory). The DVC is tentatively innovative but somehow always remains shallow, contrived all the more for its blanket strive for irresolution. In its predictable fair-handed open-endedness, Mr. Brown wants to claim that his book is a celebration of the value of “faith”. And the DVC would attempt to replace the insipidness of faith with a reconstructed Christianity….only (thank you Anthony Smith!) it is exactly in this task that the book ultimately proves not only to be a literal royal disappointment but a bore. The hidden history of a goddess worshipping European family is simply offensive to our sensibilities (religious or otherwise). Christ’s descendants are (white) elites obsessed with Gnostic-sexual rites of Messianic primogeniture (“Gnostic-sexual” is oxymoronic, but not to Dan Brown). The concept is not only un-Christian but wholly un-New Age. To whom is this version of Metaphysical Westernism not distasteful to?…A weed-smoking skinhead cult? Stupid and Insipid.

Sunday, June 25, 2006

Parables of Doing, the "Four-Item" version of Jesus


In our previous post, we showed how Jesus' parable of the housebuilders imitated the flavor and point of others like it circulating in the Rabbinic world.

But scholars have so far not noticed that Jesus uttered another such gem like it. It too elaborates on Exodus 24:7's "Do - Hear" dichotomy, which in Jewish culture is the dichotomy between the doing of Torah and the hearing (or study) of Torah. Jesus, however, expands the comparison structure from the familiar two item comparison to the novel version comparing four items. Probably the most well-known of Jesus' parables is a four item, compare-contrast parable - the Parable of the Sower (or the Parable of the Four Soils).

Compare-contrast aphorisms of four items are well known in Rabbinic writings and are among the most ancient of Jewish homiletic delights. Some famous examples are found in the compilation of Rabbinic sayings Pirke Avot (Sayings of the Fathers), which contains some of the most ancient teachings of Jewish tradition:

Pirke Avot 5:13. There are four characters among men: he who says, "What is mine is mine and what is thine is thine," his is a neutral character; some say, "This is a character like that of Sodom"; he who says, "What is mine is thine and what is thine is mine," is a boor; he who says, "What is mine is thine and what is thine is thine," is a saint; he who says, "What is thine is mine and what is mine is mine," is a wicked man.

14. There are four kinds of tempers: he whom it is easy to provoke and easy to pacify, his loss disappears in his gain; he whom it is hard to provoke and hard to pacify, his gain disappears in his loss; he whom it is hard to provoke and easy to pacify is a saint; he whom it is easy to provoke and hard to pacify is a wicked man.

15. There are four qualities in disciples: he who quickly understands and quickly forgets, his gain disappears in his loss; he who understands with difficulty and forgets with difficulty, his loss disappears in his gain; he who understands quickly and forgets with difficulty, his is a good portion; he who understands with difficulty and forgets quickly, his is an evil portion.

16. As to almsgiving there are four dispositions: he who desires to give, but that others should not give, his eye is evil toward what appertains to others; he who desires that others should give, but will not give himself, his eye is evil against what is his own; he who gives and wishes others to give is a saint; he who will not give and does not wish others to give is a wicked man.

17. There are four characters among those who attend the house of study: he who goes and does not practise secures the reward for going; he who practises but does not go secures the reward for practising; he who goes and practises is a saint; he who neither goes nor practises is a wicked man.

18. There are four qualities among those that sit before the wise: they are like a sponge, a funnel, a strainer, or a sieve: a sponge, which sucks up everything; a funnel, which lets in at one end and out at the other; a strainer, which lets the wine pass out and retains the dregs; a sieve, which lets out the bran and retains the fine flour.

Save except for the last, all of the above sayings contain the structure: A-B, a-B, A-b, a-b. Remember high school biology class, and your fruit fly experiments? Think of this as that Mendel chart you drew:

AB | aB
---------
Ab | ab

Now read the Parable of the Sower and see if you can ascertain the "Mendelian Chart" structure:

Luke 8:4 When a large crowd was coming together, and those from the various cities were journeying to Him, He spoke by way of a parable: 5 "The sower went out to sow his seed; and as he sowed, some fell beside the road, and it was trampled under foot and the birds of the air ate it up. 6 "Other seed fell on rocky soil, and as soon as it grew up, it withered away, because it had no moisture. 7 "Other seed fell among the thorns; and the thorns grew up with it and choked it out. 8 "Other seed fell into the good soil, and grew up, and produced a crop a hundred times as great." As He said these things, He would call out, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." 9 His disciples began questioning Him as to what this parable meant. 10 And He said, "To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the rest it is in parables, so that SEEING THEY MAY NOT SEE, AND HEARING THEY MAY NOT UNDERSTAND. 11 "Now the parable is this: the seed is the word of God. 12 "Those beside the road are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their heart, so that they will not believe and be saved. 13 "Those on the rocky soil are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no firm root; they believe for a while, and in time of temptation fall away. 14 "The seed which fell among the thorns, these are the ones who have heard, and as they go on their way they are choked with worries and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to maturity. 15 "But the seed in the good soil, these are the ones who have heard the word in an honest and good heart, and hold it fast, and bear fruit with perseverance.

It may not immediately be clear to the reader that the "Hear - Do" elements are the contrasting traits of the four soils. In particular the differences between the four soils can be said to be their different qualities of a) the "Hearing"--that is, the reception/implantation of the Word (the seed) and b) the "Doing", the ability of the soils to allow growth to happen. Thus, lets label our Mendel-chart traits as follows:

A -- "Much Study" (the Rabbinic take on "hearing Torah")
a -- "Little Study"
B -- "Much Doing"
b -- "Little Doing"

The logic (and genius) of the Parable of the Sower suddenly pops out:

1) a-b: The soil exposed to the birds (does not study, does not do)
2) A-b: The rocky soil (studies enthusiastically but does not follow through in action)
3) a-B: The thorny soil (fleeting study because it has way too much "doing" going on)
4) A-B: The good soil (studies and does)

As you can see, the purpose of the Parable is purely admonitional (what scholars call "hortative"). Jesus is pointing out the foils that can impede the progress of the Kingdom in our lives. Recognize that soil #2, the shallow soil, above is the exact same foolish fellow we encountered in the "Parable of the Housebuilders", the guy who likes to study but is shallow in execution. He is the hypocrite. But there is another "Kingdom underachiever", the guy who over-executes everything, the ambitious, busy fellow who drowns out the Kingdom among the weeds of his various exploits. These two soils are in fact not far from the Kingdom, but they have recessive deficiencies that prevent true growth...and they can be us at various stages of our lives. Ben, Christy and I discussed that we could all recognize our own stages in life as progressing through all four soil types. In fact, I recognize in myself the recessive soil traits of both shallowness and thorniness. Looking honestly, I think the vast majority of us exist in similar soils. The parable tells us we need to go back to the "Do - Hear" staples of the Kingdom, and to prioritize our lives. If we read this parable fatalistically (as a "mechanics" of predestinary salvation/damnation) we miss the broader hortative point. In simple but revelatory dichotomies (such as those in Pirke Avot above), the parable encourages us to reset our priorities: we need to deepen our soils and push out the distractions that foil our walk in the Word.

Parables of Doing


Exodus 24:7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the hearing of the people; and they said: 'All that the LORD hath spoken will we do, and we will obey (lit. "we will hear").

When the Rabbis read Exodus 24:7 they noticed something curious wording of the Israelite vow. How can the "doing" of the covenant precede the "hearing" of it? Some argued "...we will do and (then) we will hear" meant that they resolved to do Torah before they even heard its injunctions. From this some got that the doing of Torah took precedence over the study of Torah. Others disputed that both were equally important. Thus they launched into "Parables of Doing" to explicate the matter. One Rabbi, Elisha ben Abuyah, seized on the primacy of "doing" in a parable he taught:

If a man does good deeds and studies much Torah, What is he like?
To a man building first with stones and then with bricks;
Even when much water comes and the water stays (the building) does not move from its place.
And if a man does not do good deeds and studies much Torah, What is he like?
To a man who builds first with bricks and then with stones;
Even with a little water (the building) is turned upside down.


Another parallel:
If a man does good deeds and studies much Torah, What is he like?
To a tree that stands by the water, his foliage is small and his roots are large;
And if a man does not do good deeds and studies much Torah, What is he like?
To a tree that grows in the desert, its foliage is great and its roots are small; with a weak wind it is uprooted and tossed away.


Still another parallel:
If a man does good deeds and studies much Torah, What is he like?
To plaster painted on stones; Even when it is washed with running water, it does not move from its place.
And if a man does not do good deeds and studies much Torah, What is he like?
To plaster painted on bricks; Even when only a little rain drops, it is dissolved.


In Luke chapter 6 we encounter Christ teaching with one such "Parable of Doing":

Luke 6:46 "Why do you call Me, `Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say? 47 "Everyone who comes to Me and hears My words and does them, I will show you whom he is like: 48 he is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid a foundation on the rock; and when a flood occurred, the torrent burst against that house and could not shake it, because it had been well built. 49 "But the one who has heard and has not acted accordingly, is like a man who built a house on the ground without any foundation; and the torrent burst against it and immediately it collapsed, and the ruin of that house was great."

It can be easily shown then that Jesus was probably borrowing his parable from those in circulation in the Rabbinic circles of his time. His point, like Elisha ben Abuyah's, is very basic. Hearing the word of God, without doing it, does not serve the student any better than an abacus he knows how to use but never employs to good use. It is in the use where the worth of the instrument stands the test of time. A good student is able to succeed in life with it because its use becomes second nature to him...and is thus able to remain steadfast on a solid foundation no matter what deluge life might throw at him.

Thursday, May 18, 2006

No. 8: Legion visits our Bible Study

So, we usually conduct our Bible studies at a coffee shop which has wine tasting the same night. Anthony shared his thoughts about composing a narrative about the demon Legion and while we are studying the cross and the Jewish people, a Jewish lady at the wine tasting happened to be listening in. She and her husband drop in and out of our conversation. I guess in a spirit of ecumenisism, this lady, who apparently organizes meditation sessions, begins relating to us about her regular visits with "spirit guides"...then it got really weird. Needless to say, I think Anthony is now spooked about inviting Legion's perspective. I just think it's too darn hilarious...I say, let's use the opportunity to plumb his minds, he, he.

Can't wait to see what happens next time. =)

Sunday, April 23, 2006

33AD Huddle Gets Started!

Folks:

Our format for our bi-weekly studies has changed. We are still going to have one "33AD Session" a month, where we will look in depth at certain passages throughout the gospels. We are still continuing with our Gospel of John studies. Every other week, however, we will gather to discuss our book writing project One Hell of a Week which we are undertaking in order to ramp up our personal growth and study of the Gospels...concentrating on the Passion Week of Jesus our Messiah.

So, every other meeting, which I'm calling for now "33AD Huddle", we will discuss your own personal research and hopefully encourage you to write a dramatic account of an event from the Passion Week using your research. If you choose not to contribute a piece to the book effort, that is ok. You can still research on your own topics that will help contribute to our collective research. Although the topic you choose has to have something relevant to the Passion Week, it need not necessarily be limited to the relevant Gospel accounts of the week...You may, for example, choose to research the references to the crucifixion in Romans, the book of Revelation, etc. or study the foreshadows of the Messiah's suffering in Isaiah, the Psalms, or you may choose to look at more in depth other topics of relevance, e.g. the textual differences of the texts, references to the Passion week in other literature, Jewish society and history of the time period, the Roman occupation under Pilate, and so on.

When we gather for our Huddle, we will discuss our research, ask questions, discuss contemporary events in light of Jesus' Passion, go over our creative writing ideas, and so on. I believe this will completely galvanize our learning and understanding of not only the Gospels, but our personal encounters with the Beloved Son of God.

We are attempting to connect with scholars who are not only knowledgeable about the gospels, but they are fluent in Hebrew, read Biblical languages, have studied at Hebrew University, and so are very knowledgeable about first century Jewish literature, history, culture, Biblical interpretation...among many other things. Hopefully, they will help us on our quest through the "Helluva Week" forum referred to above. Please visit this blog to post a current synopsis of the piece you are going to write (if you are game for that) and ask away your questions to begin getting any guidance from them you need about the Passion Week events, the gospel accounts, background and language issues and so on. I'll do my best to answer myself if they don't.

Looking forward to this in so many ways! =)

Friday, April 14, 2006

Session #7: Here Comes the Son



















This image of an Israeli peace activist to me is quite startling. I cannot help to think of the unnerving quality of her empathy...and her look to Heaven perhaps says it all. More than that, her protest has something of a touch of Christ's Messianic vision of his protest in Jerusalem.

For those of you who missed our talk last week, a quick recap: We spoke about the true motivation of the high priesthood in getting Jesus done away with and nature of Christ's problem with them. Jesus sealed his fate with his relentless provocation of the corrupt practices of temple authorities. He opened up his passion week by turning over tables literally. But the final straw came when Jesus made it clear that he was truly coming to recover the fruit of His Father's "vineyard". In the midst of the crowds gathering for Passover, he told the "Parable of the Vineyard, the Tenants and the Son" (Luke 20:1-19). In it, Jesus makes it clear that the "Son" (the Messiah, see Psalm 2) was coming to collect a debt...the fruit owed to the Father. In other words, he was coming to collect the tithes of the temple (the "vineyard" of Isaiah 5, which was a metaphor for the temple among the Jews of the day) that never seemed to leave the pockets of a lavishly wealthy and corrupt high priestly clan (the House of Caiphas/Hanan) who are the "tenants" in the parable, and hardly ever seemed to trickle its way down to the landless Levite, the alien (hmm...shall we say "guest worker"), the orphan and the widow...which Deut 14:29 makes clear the tithes should go to. In fact, Jesus blasts the Saduccean priestly hierarchy for "devouring widows' houses" (Luke 20:47). Why were the early Christians in Acts feeding the widows of Jerusalem one must wonder, when this was the responsibility of the temple authorities? It is not for nothing that Jesus labelled the widow's two mites "more than all" (Luke 21:1-4)...for the incident provokes his disciples to comment on the architecture (v. 5), which those two mites were going sustain. Thereupon, Jesus begins to prophesy the temple's demise. Looked at another way, God sold his house for two mites. For he too was not going to rob widows' purses. A new temple was going to be founded, Jesus foretold, the "stone" that the builders rejected was to become the "chief cornerstone" (Luke 20:17, see Psalm 118). The Jewish church was founded on that cornerstone, and not at all incidentally, its first martyr, Stephen, was one of its chief widow feeders.

What is probably driving the empathy of the woman above:

(A Palestinian woman grieves the loss of her house).

Sunday, February 26, 2006

Session #6: "Cancelling Debts" - The Business Model of Jesus

What we discussed last Thursday warrants much further consideration. Jesus' vision for winning others through personal and financial integrity offers a very convicting and relevant message for our times. Anthony's discussion of the Missio Dei and Bruce's redefinition of the "Tsadik" as the just person who actually produces a "righteousness" that "the city rejoices" in (Proverbs 11:10) are, in a way, perfectly encapsulated in Jesus' elaboration of the Missio Dei through the Parable of the Unjust Steward (Luke 16:1ff).

I would like to open up by recapping Jesus' vision of proselytism.

When we think of proselytism, we normally think of evangelists and missionaries (the bearers of Good News). Successful evangelists are esteemed in America, but when we consider the pious and humble evangelists whose family photos accumulate on our refrigerator - our missionaries, such esteem seems wanting. Typically, these photos remind us our duties to support our dutiful expatriates in love, prayer and financial support. Although not different from other members of our clergy, whose financial support goes unquestioned, missionaries are unfairly thought of as something close to beggars...even those that are "tentmakers", social workers and Bible translators whose work (in scope) brings materialistic as well as spiritual rewards to their host cultures. Missionaries are evangelists on two fronts, in their host country and back home, where they must proselytize for support. While they are thought of admirably by the majority of us, there is still a certain kind of social stigma in evangelical circles associated with their work because of the fact that they must constantly justify our support with what often comes down to a crude head count. Part of the answer, I believe, is in the way the modern evangelical church has calcified a rigid missiological structure that (in its narrowness) has promulgated a tacit economy of (wordly) pietism...we want our missionaries to be beggars, so that when we reward them financially, we get to share in their piety. Unconsciously, thus, they absolve us of our duty to missionize in our own lives. The structure, truthfully, is a system of indulgences...only we're not buying salvation, but a pardon from our evangelical guilt. Something is off kilter here,...What is it?

The answer, I believe, is in our grossly narrow definition of the "Good News" (insert Anthony's and Bruce's comments here). When one studies what Jesus' view of mission work was, a picture emerges (not surprisingly) of a very different view of proselytism. Interestingly, in Christ's "economy", the missionary (laborer) would be supported not by us or even by the personal means of the missionary himself, but by those who hear the message of the Good News, the proselytized! As David Flusser pointed out, "Jesus instructed those whom he sent into the world to eat and drink what was provided for them, 'for the laborer deserves his wages' (Lk. 10:7). In another passage this command is explained as follows: 'You have received without paying, give without charging. Do not take any gold, silver or copper in your belts; take no bag for the journey, nor two tunics, nor sandals nor a staff; for the laborer deserves his food' (Mt. 10:8-10)."

...In other words, those whose debts were being cancelled would cheerfully repay the bearers of Good News for their services. That, to our modern ears, sounds like a truly idealistic model for missionary support, but it is one that actually has a dramatically higher estimation (to speak in understatement) of the redemptive mission of the Good News.

The question and indictment is this:

What would the message of redemption look like if the receivers of the Good News saw it as something unquestionably worth their financial support? What would happen if missionaries did not patronize, but instead brought home funds (as Paul did for the poor of Jerusalem) for our own poor and our own widows and our own marginilized?

Saturday, February 11, 2006

Wednesday, February 08, 2006

Session #5: "Like a Bridegroom Coming Out of His Chamber"

"And he is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoicing to run his course." Psalm 19.5



A Huppah (wedding canopy)
The attendants of the bridegroom would stand guard over them. Kings would have three erected for their wedding. Apparently, the first couple enjoyed ten, according to an ancient Rabbinic tradition. God Himself and the angels were the attendants on that occasion.




What does this have to do with John's prologue? That my friends, begins in an interesting place...in fact, at the (second) giving of the ten commandments, when God restored the tablets, in an interesting way: by pointing to His Lovingkindness. The commandments are restored with words of Lovingkindness. Let's go to that passage:

Exodus 34: 4 And he hewed two tablets of stone like unto the first; and Moses rose up early in the morning, and went up unto mount Sinai, as the LORD had commanded him, and took in his hand two tablets of stone. 5 And the LORD descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD. 6 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed: 'The LORD, the LORD, God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in Lovingkindness and Truth; 7 keeping Lovingkindness unto the thousandth generation, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin; and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and unto the fourth generation.'

Now, my friends, let us enter into a Rabbinic excursus:

Two tablets, what two tablets? "Like unto the first (Ibid)." What was written on these tablets? “What was written on the first (Ibid).” With ten sayings the Holy One, blessed be He, restored them:

On the One:

1) The LORD (I am the LORD thy God)
2) The LORD (Only I--no other gods)
3) God (nor shall you swear by My name—see, even I show deference to My name)
4) Merciful and Gracious (the Shabbat was given to you)
5) Long-suffering (as your father and your mother)

On the Other (that you be in solidarity with your neighbor, who is made in My image):

6) Abundant in Lovingkindness and Truth (Don’t murder—for thy neighbor is like thyself)
7) Keeping mercy unto the generations (Therefore don’t mess up a generation through adultery)
8) Forgiving iniquity (stealing)
9) …transgression (bearing false witness)
10) …and sin (covetousness).

Two tablets, what two tablets? The one with the words “(I am) the LORD (thy) God, etc” (the Torah), and the one with the words “Lovingkindness and Truth” written therein, as it is written:

Proverbs 7:2 Keep my commandments and live, and my Torah as the apple of thine eye 3 Bind them upon thy fingers, write them upon the tablet of thy heart

And,

Proverbs 3:3 Let not Lovingkindness and Truth forsake thee; Bind them about thy neck, write them upon the tablet of thy heart

When does one observe Lovingkindness truthfully? When one shows kindness to a bridegroom, as the Holy One blessed be He bestowed upon Isaac. [Gen. 24--Gen 24:27 is the first appearance in the Bible of the words “Lovingkindness and Truth” together. Read Pirke de Eliezer, Ch. 16 “The Service of Lovingkindness”, describing the service of Lovingkindness to bridegrooms. Note how the rabbis read between the lines to ingeniously “unpack” all the often subtle and hidden ways God shows this the service of Lovingkindess to Isaac. God does not like to advertise His good deeds—a token of “Lovingkindness in Truth”, chesed b’emes—so the Rabbis have to do a brain number just to spot them.]

When else does one observe Lovingkindness truthfully? When one shows kindness to the deceased and their mourners, as the men of Jabesh-Gilead bestowed upon Saul. [1 Sam 31:12-13; see 2 Sam 2:6 where David blesses these men with the words “Lovingkindness and Truth” another rare appearance of these words together. Read Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, Ch. 17 “Loving Service to Mourners”. Note how important the Rabbis make Saul’s burial out to be.]

Note John 2, how the first “sign” shows Jesus bestowing Lovingkindness to a bridegroom, and John 11, how the last “sign” follows the scene of Him mourning in solidarity with the mourners…Accidental? Well, when the gospel opens up with a theophany that describes the Word as the very “fullness of Lovingkindness and Truth” (John 1.14), what do you think?