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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)