First book of the New Testament. MATTHEW. Here we are, ready to intro JESUS!! Drumroll….. Ready, set… snore… It’s a genealogy, of all things, to start this party.
But Matthew is writing to a Jewish audience. They would need to know, just at the very ground level of taking him seriously, that Jesus was from the line of David. “Thus there were 14 generations in all from Abraham to David, 14 from David to the exile, and 14 from the exile to the Christ” (Matt. 1:17). The problem is, THERE WERE NOT 14 generations from David to the exile. Matthew was using a common ancient near eastern technique called ‘telescoping’ that skipped generations for structuring a genealogy. We know Matthew did that because he says Uzziah was the father of Jotham when, in fact, he was the great great grandfather of Jotham. (It would not have been an issue to the original author since ‘father’ could just mean ‘ancestor’.) Jews knew the Messiah would need to be a descendant of David. Rather than having a separate numbering system, the Jews used their alphabet as a numbering system. David’s name adds up to 14. By structuring David’s genealogy around the number 14, he’s emphasizing Jesus’ Davidic lineage. Matthew is a Jew writing to Jews about the Messiah. Americans could just snore through a bunch of genealogy names that are unpronounceable, but when I read Matthew 1 and take on the ancient mindset, the snore-able becomes RADICAL.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Beauty
The first-century world was a world of arranged marriages. Parents wanted their sons to marry the right woman because she would bring a large dowry and social and political connections. Parents wanted their daughters to marry the right man so she would be taken care of and also for the same social and political concerns with marrying off a son.
The dowry, a gift from the parents to the family their daughter was marrying into, functioned like an inheritance. Sons would receive their inheritance directly from their fathers. The understanding was that a dowry did not need to be as large as an inheritance because the daughters would take part in the inheritances of their husbands.
What becomes clear real quick is that if you’re a woman a good marriage is essential. You cannot simply go find a job. You are dependent on your husband. That means you were likely to do whatever it took to get the best marriage possible. At that time that meant wearing all sorts of gaudy jewelry and make-up and joining in the rat race. It was like The Bachelor on TV where each wealthy bachelor had many women to chose from and the only way a woman could increase her odds of landing the right man was to go gaudy in the style department.
But what did the apostle Peter have to say about this: “Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. Instead, it should be that of your inner self…”
Peter wasn’t telling women they couldn’t wear make-up or dress up or wear earrings. This is not an anti-woman passage. Far from it. What Peter is saying is that women no longer have to run the dehumanizing rat race to secure the right marriage. This is women’s lib, first-century style, but we miss that when we don’t understand the context in which it was written.
The dowry, a gift from the parents to the family their daughter was marrying into, functioned like an inheritance. Sons would receive their inheritance directly from their fathers. The understanding was that a dowry did not need to be as large as an inheritance because the daughters would take part in the inheritances of their husbands.
What becomes clear real quick is that if you’re a woman a good marriage is essential. You cannot simply go find a job. You are dependent on your husband. That means you were likely to do whatever it took to get the best marriage possible. At that time that meant wearing all sorts of gaudy jewelry and make-up and joining in the rat race. It was like The Bachelor on TV where each wealthy bachelor had many women to chose from and the only way a woman could increase her odds of landing the right man was to go gaudy in the style department.
But what did the apostle Peter have to say about this: “Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. Instead, it should be that of your inner self…”
Peter wasn’t telling women they couldn’t wear make-up or dress up or wear earrings. This is not an anti-woman passage. Far from it. What Peter is saying is that women no longer have to run the dehumanizing rat race to secure the right marriage. This is women’s lib, first-century style, but we miss that when we don’t understand the context in which it was written.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Tithing: Probably NOT What You Think
I find there is a lot of confusion these days around the concept of tithing. In the Old Testament it’s nothing more than a temple tax designed to keep the temple, God’s house, running. In fact, the tithe was common in cultures of the ancient Near East because the temples were the economic centers of those societies. Paying a tithe to the temple was very similar to paying taxes to the government today.
The fact is there is no tithe today because there is no longer a temple. The local church is not the temple, nor is it God’s house. We are God’s house. Ironically, that means that if you are going to pay a tithe, a temple tax, you should pay it to yourself.
The New Testament doesn’t talk about the tithe because they understood what it was and they presumed its payment. No way would Paul or the local congregations ask people to tithe because the tithe was for the temple. How ironic is it that we often think our first 10% should go to the local church, and institution designed for believers, and any giving to missionaries, those reaching the lost, should be above and beyond the 10%.
We should stop talking about the tithe because it simply does not exist anymore. Sure we should give to our local churches and to missionaries and to local charities. We should love God with our resources. But tithing was not giving, it was a tax.
The fact is there is no tithe today because there is no longer a temple. The local church is not the temple, nor is it God’s house. We are God’s house. Ironically, that means that if you are going to pay a tithe, a temple tax, you should pay it to yourself.
The New Testament doesn’t talk about the tithe because they understood what it was and they presumed its payment. No way would Paul or the local congregations ask people to tithe because the tithe was for the temple. How ironic is it that we often think our first 10% should go to the local church, and institution designed for believers, and any giving to missionaries, those reaching the lost, should be above and beyond the 10%.
We should stop talking about the tithe because it simply does not exist anymore. Sure we should give to our local churches and to missionaries and to local charities. We should love God with our resources. But tithing was not giving, it was a tax.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Strength and Wealth
In some ancient Near Eastern languages the words for ‘strength’ and ‘wealth’ are interchangeable. Interestingly, Deuteronomy 6:4, the so-called shema, Moses tells the Israelites to love the Lord their God with all their hearts and with all their souls and with all their strength. The problem with this verse is that it literally says to love God with ‘all your exceedingly.’ Obviously, ‘all your exceedingly’ doesn’t make sense and so translators have to figure out how to put that into sensible English.
Funny thing is that ancient translators experienced the same problem. The translators of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament made before the time of Christ, used the words power or might. This is where we get the translation ‘all your strength.’ The targums, Aramaic translations of the Old Testament, use the word mammon. This is the very word Jesus uses when he says, “You cannot serve both God and mammon,” i.e., money.
The point is that in Deuteronomy we are being told to love God with everything we’ve got, including our money. It’s not about tithing. It’s about loving God with all you’ve got, not just the first 10%. It’s also not a guilt trip. It’s not that Moses is some greasy con-man who just wants people’s money. It’s that God wants us to love him with every financial decision we make: paying rent, eating out, buying groceries, investing in your 401(k)…everything. God’s desire is that we revel in his blessing while eagerly desiring to pay that blessing forward.
Funny thing is that ancient translators experienced the same problem. The translators of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament made before the time of Christ, used the words power or might. This is where we get the translation ‘all your strength.’ The targums, Aramaic translations of the Old Testament, use the word mammon. This is the very word Jesus uses when he says, “You cannot serve both God and mammon,” i.e., money.
The point is that in Deuteronomy we are being told to love God with everything we’ve got, including our money. It’s not about tithing. It’s about loving God with all you’ve got, not just the first 10%. It’s also not a guilt trip. It’s not that Moses is some greasy con-man who just wants people’s money. It’s that God wants us to love him with every financial decision we make: paying rent, eating out, buying groceries, investing in your 401(k)…everything. God’s desire is that we revel in his blessing while eagerly desiring to pay that blessing forward.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Back to School
School started today. I have to admit that I was very excited to get back to school, even though I didn't go out and buy a new bouquet of freshly sharpened pencils.
This semester I'm teaching first year Hebrew, second year Hebrew, and Historical Books (Joshua-Esther). In October I'll be doing an 'intensive' class on the Poetic Books. 'Intensive' just means that the class meets 8-5 for a week. Those are always exhausting, but this year the exhaustion will be mitigated because my friend Peter Hatton is coming over from Bristol, England to take a few days of the class. Not only will it be great fun to hang out with Peter, but it'll be great for the students becuase Peter is a top-notch wisdom scholar.
This semester I'm teaching first year Hebrew, second year Hebrew, and Historical Books (Joshua-Esther). In October I'll be doing an 'intensive' class on the Poetic Books. 'Intensive' just means that the class meets 8-5 for a week. Those are always exhausting, but this year the exhaustion will be mitigated because my friend Peter Hatton is coming over from Bristol, England to take a few days of the class. Not only will it be great fun to hang out with Peter, but it'll be great for the students becuase Peter is a top-notch wisdom scholar.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Job
The beginning of Job describes the man Job with the following four descriptors: blameless, upright, fears God, and shuns evil. Nowhere else in Scripture is a person given such an unqualified glowing description of righteousness.
Ironically, it’s this very righteousness that qualifies Job for suffering.
When Job is in the middle of his suffering, his friends challenge him to look deep into his own heart and life to find the hidden sin that led to the catastrophe. Sounds like good advice, except that we already know Job is blameless. But Job’s friends assume he sinned. They assumed that since Job is suffering he must have done something wrong.
Scripture tells us that generally speaking God blesses the righteous and makes life tough for the wicked. The problem arises when we look at blessing and assume it’s the result of righteousness or, like Job’s friends, look at suffering and assume it’s the result of wickedness or sin. In Job’s case, just the opposite was true: Job’s suffering was a result of his righteousness.
When we look at a tragedy, say a hurricane or a terrorist attack, and claim we know God is judging sin we defy the message of Job. We cannot look at suffering in the world or in our own lives and automatically declare it to be the result of sin. It’s true that our suffering and challenges, heartaches and disappointments can be the result of sin in our lives, but in those cases God is usually clear and the conviction is concrete.
The suffering may very well be the result of righteousness.
Think about when Jesus’ disciples looked at the blind man and asked Jesus, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” The disciples made the same mistake that Job’s friends made. Jesus responded, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned. This happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.”
Ironically, it’s this very righteousness that qualifies Job for suffering.
When Job is in the middle of his suffering, his friends challenge him to look deep into his own heart and life to find the hidden sin that led to the catastrophe. Sounds like good advice, except that we already know Job is blameless. But Job’s friends assume he sinned. They assumed that since Job is suffering he must have done something wrong.
Scripture tells us that generally speaking God blesses the righteous and makes life tough for the wicked. The problem arises when we look at blessing and assume it’s the result of righteousness or, like Job’s friends, look at suffering and assume it’s the result of wickedness or sin. In Job’s case, just the opposite was true: Job’s suffering was a result of his righteousness.
When we look at a tragedy, say a hurricane or a terrorist attack, and claim we know God is judging sin we defy the message of Job. We cannot look at suffering in the world or in our own lives and automatically declare it to be the result of sin. It’s true that our suffering and challenges, heartaches and disappointments can be the result of sin in our lives, but in those cases God is usually clear and the conviction is concrete.
The suffering may very well be the result of righteousness.
Think about when Jesus’ disciples looked at the blind man and asked Jesus, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” The disciples made the same mistake that Job’s friends made. Jesus responded, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned. This happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.”
Friday, August 20, 2010
GHA
There’s an interesting story written in Sumerian about 4000 years ago called Gilgamesh and Huwawa. It tells the story of Gilgamesh’s search for fame. He is confronted with the fact that, like all humans, he is mortal and will one day die. He reasons that if he can figure out a way to establish a name for himself then he will have achieved a sort of immortality.
The irony here is that Gilgamesh is already a man of renown. He is the king of his people. His people love him and view them as his shepherd. He single-handedly built the city defenses for them to protect them from their enemies. In short, he’s got it all.
But Gilgamesh strains his neck over the city wall, the wall that he built, and he laments that his past accomplishments are not good enough. He needs a new adventure to secure his spot in history and establish an eternal name for himself. He wants to live a life of meaning, a life of significance, so he decides to undertake a new adventure. He will travel to the east to defeat the mighty monster Huwawa. Before embarking on his journey, he seeks out and receives the blessing of the sun god.
There’s actually a somewhat similar story in the Bible. In Genesis 11 we are told that there was a group of people who, just like Gilgamesh, wanted to make a name for themselves. They sense their mortality, so they chose to build a tower that will reach into the heavens.
The big difference is that in the Bible God responds negatively to the undertaking. Why? Why did the sun god bless Gilgamesh in his search for fame but God thwarts the people in Genesis 11?
Because God refuses to be manipulated.
You see, the people weren’t building just any old tower. They were building a ziggurat, a tower that also serves as the home for a deity. They figured that if they could build God a home then they could contain him and manipulate him. After all, if they build a nice home for God, shouldn’t God bless them in return?
Maybe we don’t build towers to house God anymore, but we do sometimes fall into the trap of thinking that if we perform--go to church, give to missionaries, read the Bible every day, serve in the youth group--then God is somehow obligated to bless us. He might choose to bless us, but he’s not obligated. In fact, sometimes, like for Job, the ‘reward’ for our faithfulness is suffering.
The irony here is that Gilgamesh is already a man of renown. He is the king of his people. His people love him and view them as his shepherd. He single-handedly built the city defenses for them to protect them from their enemies. In short, he’s got it all.
But Gilgamesh strains his neck over the city wall, the wall that he built, and he laments that his past accomplishments are not good enough. He needs a new adventure to secure his spot in history and establish an eternal name for himself. He wants to live a life of meaning, a life of significance, so he decides to undertake a new adventure. He will travel to the east to defeat the mighty monster Huwawa. Before embarking on his journey, he seeks out and receives the blessing of the sun god.
There’s actually a somewhat similar story in the Bible. In Genesis 11 we are told that there was a group of people who, just like Gilgamesh, wanted to make a name for themselves. They sense their mortality, so they chose to build a tower that will reach into the heavens.
The big difference is that in the Bible God responds negatively to the undertaking. Why? Why did the sun god bless Gilgamesh in his search for fame but God thwarts the people in Genesis 11?
Because God refuses to be manipulated.
You see, the people weren’t building just any old tower. They were building a ziggurat, a tower that also serves as the home for a deity. They figured that if they could build God a home then they could contain him and manipulate him. After all, if they build a nice home for God, shouldn’t God bless them in return?
Maybe we don’t build towers to house God anymore, but we do sometimes fall into the trap of thinking that if we perform--go to church, give to missionaries, read the Bible every day, serve in the youth group--then God is somehow obligated to bless us. He might choose to bless us, but he’s not obligated. In fact, sometimes, like for Job, the ‘reward’ for our faithfulness is suffering.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)