Even to your old age I will be the same, and even to your graying years I will bear you! I have done it, and I will carry you; and I will bear you and I will deliver you. Isaiah 46:4 NASB

Carry – Who carries your bags? The Hebrew sabal is the verb “to bear, to transport,” but it is also the root of the word for porter. You probably don’t think of YHVH as the one who moves all your baggage from one place to another as you travel the road of life, but that’s what He claims to do. “Even when you are old, I will still act as your porter.” When we think of God carrying our burdens, we often convert the imagery to spiritual dimensions. He carries away our sins. He transports us to heaven. But porters are involved in the mundane. Just picking up the bags from the taxi to the check-in counter. Just collecting the luggage from the carrousel. Just holding the umbrella so we don’t get wet. Ordinary. Insignificant. Without much fanfare, they simply make life easier. What if God does the same? What if all that routine, mundane, aggravating trivial weight of just living could be put in the Porter’s hands? Would you allow God to carry you?

Being a porter is not a glamorous job. No paparazzi take photographs of the porters. No one asks them what they think about the celebrities they serve. No one even notices what they do. They just make the lives of others easier. Imagine God in that role. Don’t immediately assign Him the “big” bags, like salvation, destiny and eternal glory. Imagine Him at work in your tiresome living. See if you can spot Him lifting a few bags that you have trouble carrying. Notice when a burden seems a bit lighter. Do you suppose that happens because you drank Red Bull? Or was it that God got involved when you weren’t looking?

Today I started out feeling overwhelmed. It wasn’t specific. Just the weight of all that ordinary, has-to-be-done stuff. Paperwork, taxes, accounting, mowing, clean up, weeds, mail, dishes, ironing, tickets, cancellations, tire pressure, packing—all the “junk” we have to put up with. All those bags to carry. I collapsed on the floor and thought, “When will this ever end, Lord?” I’m tired. Tired of all of it. Tired of the day-at-a-time do-over stuff. I remember Albert King’s great line, “Everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die.” Sometimes I’m not so sure.

So I did what I always do. Work. Without really noticing, the overwhelming went away. It didn’t go away because I worked at it. I just did the few things that I could. All the rest was still there. But somehow the burden lifted. The weight of it all shifted. “The inner psychological meaning of ‘carrying luggage’ depends on one’s perspective. One can view the suitcase as an efficient way of organizing one’s belongings while traveling or as ‘baggage’—a source of suffering, a burden that weights one down.”[1]

Topical Index: baggage, porter, sabal, Isaiah 46:4

[1] Rabbi Mordechain Dinerman, Rabbi Yanki Tauber, David Pelcovitz, How Happiness Thinks (Jewish Learning Institute, 2014), p. 77.

Ransom me from human oppression, that I may observe Your statutes. Psalm 119:134 (Robert Alter translation)

Human Oppression – What is human oppression? The Hebrew is ‘oseq ‘adam. We easily recognize the second common noun, ‘adam, but what about the first, ‘oseq? Don’t spiritualize this. The word is “concerned with acts of abuse of power or authority, the burdening, trampling, and crushing of those lower in station.”^[1] This sort of terror occurs daily all over the globe. Lord Acton’s famous dictum, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” is on display in every human society. Notice the psalmist’s reasoning. Unless I am ransomed from this sort of abuse, I will not be free to observe the instructions of YHVH. Where oppression reigns, obedience wanes.

It’s easy to apply this reasoning to political and economic tyranny. But that isn’t the end of the story. Let’s expand ‘oseq ‘adam to the psychological and emotional realms. The result is the same. When I am oppressed by ‘adam, the man who is me, I find it extremely difficult to obey the Lord. When my emotions are chaotic, when I am fighting against the ego protection of the yetzer ha’ra, my delight in God’s torah is also under attack. Duty is often not quite enough to bring about obedience. Without a heart free to love YHVH, compliance alone is empty of purpose. What I discover is that the psalmist’s phrase captures much more than my external circumstances. I find that I am the victim of my own human oppression more often than I would like to admit.

What is to be done about this? Lord Acton offers some insight. “Liberty becomes a question of morals more than of politics.”[2] The freedom to obey is found in my moral choices, not in my political environment. When I choose to follow the leanings of the yetzer ha’ra, I oppress myself, and in that state I am not free to serve the Most High God. In order for me to serve with delight, I must be ransomed from my oppressor—me!

Human oppression includes the yetzer ha’ra convincing me that I cannot meet the standard of perfection. God is perfect. The terrible translation of Matthew 5:48 demands that I also be perfect. But, as we all know, this is impossible. I fail—constantly, and my yetzer is quick to oppress me with that fact. Since I am a failure, I stand worthless before the perfect God who judges me. What is the point of trying? I will only fail to be perfect once more.

What is the ransom from this tyranny? It is this: I am not asked to be perfect. I am asked to be good. And I can be good, because all that being good requires is making the choice to do what’s right at this moment. Moral victory produces the freedom to delight in His ways. I overcome my own human oppression each moment I choose what is right.

Topical Index: human oppression, ‘oseq ‘adam, perfect, good, Psalm 119:134

^[1] Allen, R. B. (1999). 1713 עָשַׁק. In R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, Jr. & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament.

[2] http://www.acton.org/research/lord-acton-quote-archive

“Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for He has visited us and accomplished redemption for His people,” Luke 1:68 NASB

Visited us – Zacharias encountered Mary, Joseph and Yeshua at the Temple. According to the text, Zacharias was “filled with the holy spirit” and prophesied. We know the Sunday School story, but we may not have paid attention to the details or the actual history. Unfortunately, that usually means we miss what is actually happening here.

First, let’s clear up some of the translation issues. The Greek text does not include the pronoun following the verb episkeptomai (“visited”). It simply says, “he visited and made redemption,” applying both verbs to the same subject (YHVH) and the same object (to lao – his people). This might seem trivial, but it isn’t. Zacharias is not distinguishing two separate actors or two separate acts. When he sees Yeshua and recognizes him as the Messiah, he exclaims that this is the sign that YHVH has “visited and redeemed.” He does not say that YHVH has tabernacled and subsequently Yeshua redeems. In concert with all the prophets of the Tanakh, Zacharias views YHVH as the redeemer, demonstrated in the appearance of the Messiah.

Now let’s look at the verb episkeptomai. Notice it is constructed from two Greek words,

epi and skopos. Literally it is the imposition of direction over something that is no longer hidden. In other words, the verb is akin to looking through a telescope and seeing what was once far off as if it is now close at hand. This verb is the Greek equivalent of an entirely Hebraic concept of the Messiah. Let me explain.

Joseph Klausner’s seminal work on Messianic expectation in Hebrew thought[1] identifies several key components of the Messianic idea found throughout the prophets. They are: 1) sin results in divine punishment, sometimes including exile, which is followed by 2) repentance producing 3) redemption in both the political-social world and the spiritual-moral world, not only for Jews but for the whole world. 4) Nationalism is replaced by universalism. 5) Israel will assume its intended role as leader in God’s final kingdom over all the earth. 6) The world itself will change. Nature will be altered and the earth will become a place of material and spiritual bliss. 7) The final outcome of this process is found in the distant future.

Originally these stages were not associated with a human figure but rather with the collective Israel, the nation. Over time, and especially in light of the failure of various kings and eras to produce these changes, the idea developed that a supreme human figure would arise to initiate this process and the final result would no longer be found in the distant future but would be nearly immediate. In fact, the more desperate the conditions for life as a Jew became, the more Jewish sages and prophets shortened the separation between the initial stages and the final outcome. By the time of Yeshua, the Messianic expectation included a human king who was both warrior and priest, accomplishing both the social-political change and the spiritual-moral restoration, initiating all the other supernatural changes in the expected process.

With this in mind, notice the use of episkeptomai. What has been hidden because it was a long way off is now brought near and, consequently, revealed for what it truly is. The arrival of the Messiah means that the process has begun. The sin of the people will generate punishment. Just as God used Assyria and Babylon, He will now use Rome to bring the people to repentance. John emerges calling for moral correction. Yeshua’s miracles mean that YHVH is breaking into the natural world in extraordinary ways. All that remains is the overthrow of the wicked, the establishment of the Kingdom and peace on earth. Zacharias’ telescope “sees” this coming in this child before him. The arrival of the Messiah means the YHVH has chosen this time to bring about the Messianic Age.

But, of course, Zacharias was mistaken. The Kingdom didn’t arrive. Rome was not overthrown. Israel did not rise to ascendance. In fact, everything got worse. Does this mean Yeshua was not the Messiah? No, it means that the human perception of the process of Messianic expectations was incorrect. It is God’s timing, not ours. What happened is that those Jews who adopted the paradigm of the prophets understood within their own time, who thought that the sequence was active at that moment, rejected Yeshua because he did not fit the paradigm. But those Jews who accepted him as Messiah moved to a different paradigm, a different way of “seeing” through the telescope. From this new perspective, the “events” were interpreted in another way. Nevertheless, both paradigms are operating in the first century which may be why Paul often writes as if he expects the return immediately. As the delay continued, the paradigm was adjusted. So it is today.

We can’t understand Zacharias’ prophecy apart from his cultural expectations. Nor can we understand any of the prophetic utterances of the men in the Tanakh apart from their own times. Hebrew prophecy is not history in advance. It is the deliverance of a divine message to the people who are hearing it when they are hearing it. It is couched in the milieu of the prophet, spoken in words of that day. Those words might be applied to another time and another place, but that isn’t prophecy. It is paradigm interpretation.

Perhaps the glass in our telescopes is still too dark to see clearly.

Topical Index: Messiah, Klausner, Zacharias, prophecy, Luke 1:68

[1] Joseph Klausner, The Messianic Idea In Israel From Its Beginning To The Completion Of The Mishnab (Macmillan, 1955).

I said, “Oh, that I had wings like a dove! I would fly away and be at rest. Psalm 55:6 NASB

Fly away – Sometimes it’s just too much. Sometimes I get so tired of fighting, struggling, working and being overwhelmed that I just want to fly away. Be a bird. Take off. Of course, that’s not quite the same as the 24,610 miles I just completed in airplanes. That isn’t rest. No, I want what the psalmist pleads for—up, up and away.

Interestingly, the Hebrew verb, עוּף (ʿûp), occurs in two root forms. One means, “fly, fly about, fly away,” the other means, “be dark.” I wonder if both aren’t in mind here. Flying away doesn’t bring me rest. I need to fly away and get dark, that is, disappear. Head for Raja Ampat. Fall off the edge of the earth (if it’s flat). Get off the grid.

“All journeys have secret destinations of which the traveler is unaware,” said Martin Buber. Maybe that’s why I get so tired. Frankly, I don’t know where I’m going. The destination is not in sight. So I must press on—and on the way, hopefully discover that I arrive at a secret place I did not know—someday. But not today.

Do you ever feel like this? Exhausted in the journey. Wanting wings to fly away. Oh, it’s much more than physical retreat, isn’t it? For me, it’s the desire to flee from thinking. Thinking about all this exhausts me. Just a simple little idea wears me out.

Take this one: The prophets of the Tanakh were products of their times. Their Messianic prophecies are expressions related to what was happening to them and to the people of their community. Those prophecies were not written for me. Unless I understand what was happening when they were written (and not, by the way, when they were spoken), I cannot understand what they thought about the Messiah or if they even thought of a Messiah.

What happens when I think about this? Let me tell you. Thousands of pages of research. Book after book. Hundreds of articles. Three thousand years of history. Questions, questions, questions. Challenges to everything I thought I knew. Journeys on paths I didn’t know existed. Exhaustion. And that is only one of the dozens of critical concepts that need to be examined. It’s enough to make you want to fly away.

Did you think this was going to end in some sublime resolution? “God loves you. Keep going.” “Take a break. It’s OK.” “You are free in Christ.” Or some other intellectual pablum? How could it end so sweetly? “Man is born to trouble as the sparks fly upward.” I know, you might say, “This is so dark. I want to hear something positive and uplifting.” So do I, but this is also part of life. Trying to work it out while traveling to a place I don’t know. Maybe you want to get off the plane now. I hope not. It’s harder to travel alone.

Topical Index: fly away, exhaustion, journey, ʿûp, Psalm 55:6

The words of Jeremiah the son of Hilkiah, of the priests who were in Anathoth in the land of Benjamin, 2 to whom the word of the Lord came in the days of Josiah . . .   Jeremiah 1:1-2a NASB

Came – How do you read the Bible? Obviously I am not asking about the physical process. I am asking about your interpretative assumptions when you read the text. What framework do you use to understand the text? Let me offer some suggestions, and some implications.

Most of us read the Bible according to our cultural heritage. We subconsciously add framework to the text. This framework is filled with doctrinal assumptions, traditions, personal experience and history. But it is our framework, not necessarily the framework of the author. Principal among these assumptions is our view of the authorship of the Bible. We believe, as a matter of faith, that God is the final author and therefore, all of the text reflects a uniform and transcendental perspective. In other words, since God wrote it all (through human persons), He has a consistent message in all the text so that the individual details of any particular human writer are ultimately inconsequential. They can be ignored because the timeless and eternal God is the actual author. If we read the text with this framework in mind, then we (perhaps unconsciously) ignore the actual historical and cultural setting of the human writer and view the text as if it too were timeless and eternal. The typical doctrine of inspiration and inerrancy retains this assumption, as does replacement theology. Understanding the actual Jewish culture and history of the writer isn’t necessary in order to read the text.

But what if this entire framework is wrong? What if reading the Bible is like reading any other ancient literature? Even if YHVH motivated the writers to record their experiences with Him, they still wrote in the context of their culture and their history. That means we must know when they wrote and what their cultural issues were if we are going to understand their message. In other words, God spoke in human history, not transcendentally. To make sense of the message, we need to know what the people were thinking at the time the message was delivered.

This seems like a simple little correction. In fact, one can hardly object to this line of inquiry. But the implications are enormous. What this means, among other things, is that the message of the prophets depends on when they lived and what was happening at that particular time. For example, Jeremiah prophesied over a forty year period. A lot of political and social changes occurred during that period. Those changes are reflected in changes in his prophecy. What he said at the beginning of his ministry is not the same as what he said at the end of his ministry because the environment changed. His prophecies are contingent upon the actual historical setting. In other words, God speaks into the world of the original audience and what God says changes as the environment of the audience changes. Here’s the lesson: the Bible is not your history. You can’t read it as if it were written to you. Unless you know what was happening to the original audience, you won’t know the real message. You can apply the text to something in your life if you feel led to do so, but that isn’t that same as what the text means. Furthermore, since the Bible is a collection of God’s interactions with the original audience over thousands of years, the original audience also changes. Every book requires a new investigation of the audience and its history. What Jeremiah says to Israel when Assyria was in power is not the same as what he says to Israel when Babylon ascended. The word of YHVH came clothed in the events of the day.

It’s a daunting task.

But if we don’t do this, we are inevitably persuaded that the Bible is our book, containing transcendental messages without the interference of human conditions. We turn the Bible into a spiritual Boy Scout Handbook.

I’ve tried to make this point when we investigated the early texts of Genesis. All those stories were not written for the people in the stories. They were written for the children of Israel after they came out of Egypt. Therefore, the vocabulary in the stories is vocabulary that makes sense to this audience, not the actors in the stories. For example, the prime directive, to “subdue” the earth, makes no sense to Adam in the Garden, but it makes perfect sense to the children in the wilderness. The serpent in the Garden isn’t a snake. It’s a symbol of the power of Pharaoh and opposition to YHVH. The text must be read as the original audience would understand it. Crushing the head of the serpent is not Messianic until it becomes Messianic when an audience thousands of years later applies it to their circumstances. And so it goes.

Joseph Klausner[1] attempts to investigate the actual historical setting of each of the biblical books that contain Messianic ideas. He shows that the idea of the Messiah depends on the social-political situation at the time of the writing. While there are general themes across the books, the particulars are contingent on the audience. Do you know what was happening to the writer in those Messianic verses? “ . . . a passage of Scripture . . . does not create a new idea; but the new idea, which is already emerging, finds proof and support in the Scriptural passage.”[2] The idea comes first, growing out of the ethos of the time. Then men run to the Scriptures to find proofs. It’s paradigm thinking at work.

Are you listening? Is your Bible couched in your historical assumptions, or is it a collection of material from a galaxy far, far away? How do you read the text?

Topical Index: Jeremiah 1:1-2, inspiration, prophecy, history, Joseph Klausner

[1] Joseph Klausner, The Messianic Idea In Israel From Its Beginning To The Completion Of The Mishnab (Macmillan, 1955).

[2] Ibid., p. 485.

A community is self-correcting.  That means when I make a mistake, someone out there catches it and lets me know.  Thank you, Ginger Hearn, for pointing out a real blunder in the January 30 edition of Today’s Word.  I wrote as if I were speaking about Simeon when the text is actually about Zacharias, the father of John.  So I have corrected it, and if you keep copies of Today’s Word, you will need to go back and get the right one for January 30.

It’s interesting to me that only one person caught this real mistake.  Perhaps the rest of us, including me, were so “familiar” with the story that we didn’t notice or perhaps we were so intent on the Messianic implications that we just skipped over this glaring defect.  Anyway, we are back on track now, thanks to Ginger.
Skip

Now Solomon loved the Lord, walking in the statutes of his father David, except he sacrificed and burned incense on the high places. 1 Kings 3:3 NASB

Except – His insights were more penetrating than ours. His encyclopedic knowledge outstripped us. His success is never been rivaled. He was absolutely fabulous . . . except for just one small detail. The wisest man who ever lived made an exception. That small detail derailed everything he ever did, until at last he could write, “Utter futility—all is futile!” Do you suppose that we pedestrians are any less subject to the exception clause?

The exception clause is very malleable. Each one of us has our own special version. We love the Lord. We do our best to serve Him. We desire to be His faithful followers. And, for the most part, we succeed. We apply determination, so much so that even when we slip, we get back on the path and pursue righteousness. But there’s just this one little thing where we pull back. There’s just this one tiny bit of territory that we use for ego protection. There’s just this one small habit that offers emotional solace. Yes, we are all about serving YHVH, the One True God of the universe. But, just in case things don’t quite go as we wish, we have a little household god tucked away for the really rainy day. Laben had his. So did Saul. And Solomon. And many others. They never denied YHVH. They just added a little extra protection.

Solomon loved YHVH. The text is quite clear. To emphasize the fact, the verb comes first. Vay-ye’ehav shelomoh et-YHVH. ‘ahav is the strong verb for love. There is no doubt at all that Solomon loved YHVH. He also “walked” in the way, having been instructed by his father, David. Then there’s this little adverb, raq. The NASB translates it, “except,” but that disguises its connection to other uses. The first occurrence is in Genesis 6:5 where it is the word only. “His heart was only evil continually,” is YHVH’s assessment of the condition of Man. We also find the word in Pharaoh’s dream about the seven cows where it describes the thin cows of famine. Solomon’s “except” isn’t just a tiny little add-on.   It’s a connection to the collapse of relationships between God and Man and between Man and nature. Raq is the destructive parasite of the world.

And it’s contagious. Solomon didn’t exhibit the symptoms of raq until he turned his life toward politically motivated marriages. Just two verses before this statement, the text reads, “Then Solomon formed a marriage alliance with Pharaoh king of Egypt.” The marriage had nothing to do with YHVH or the woman involved. It was politics, positioning and possession. If it worked so well with Egypt, why not with the other rival political powers? The strategy was set. The addition began. And, of course, to keep all those women happy one must accommodate their own cultural expectations. A little incense burned on the high places won’t matter much, right? After all, Solomon loved YHVH. The seed of raq had to be in place before the symptoms. That means we have to look much deeper into the heart of the man who loved YHVH. Maybe this verse also contains a bit of sarcasm.

Perhaps there’s an exception clause in your life. A “high place” where you accommodate another way of living. It’s not such a big deal because you love YHVH. Right? Look at the symptom and ask yourself, “Where is this coming from?” Somewhere underneath it all is a lethal virus in the heart.

Topical Index: except, raq, only, Solomon, 1 Kings 3:3

For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; and the government will rest on His shoulders; and His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace,   Isaiah 9:6-7a NASB

No end – The tiny nation of Israel, grown from the tiny tribes of the Hebrews, altered forever Man’s view of purpose and progress. When Israel emerged from Egypt, its view of time changed everything. Israel invented history.

“The Messianic expectation is the Golden Age in the future. But all the ancient peoples except Israel could tell only of a Golden Age in the past.”[1]

Consider Eliade’s analysis of ancient man. All non-Hebraic societies in the ancient world instituted rituals that deliberately recalled a primordial time when gods and men occupied the earth in spiritual harmony, a time when the world in its pristine form was saturated with the divine. Pagan rituals, from annual fertility cycles to thousands of years covering the world’s completion, are expressions of the myth of eternal return. They all look back to a time in the “Garden.” In this sense, the cycle removes any meaningful human decision. Everything comes around again, as Koheleth notes. “There is nothing new under the sun.” But Israel was the one exception to the rule. In Hebraic thought, human decisions either advance or retard divine purposes because the universe has direction. It is moving toward a goal, not simply repeating what has already been. The fulfillment of creation is in the future and the future will not be like the past. We are not trying to get back to the Garden. The story of the Garden does not describe our objective. It describes why we are in such a mess. It explains why the myth of eternal return is futile and pointless. The Garden is gone. Something else is before us. The Messianic Age is not to be found in Eden. Idolizing life in the Garden is precisely that—an idol.

“The ancient, primitive history of every people is regularly pictured in its imagination as a period of happiness and tranquility, as is pictured the period of childhood in the mind of every person whose childhood was not most unfortunate. Not so the ancient history of the people of Israel. Dark was the childhood of this people destined for tribulation. The Patriarchs were forced to move from country to country time after time because of severe famine in their homeland. While they were wandering in foreign lands, they suffered from the insolence and tyranny of the kings of those lands. . . . A short time after the death of the Patriarchs began the Egyptian bondage, with all its terrible oppressions. No nation on earth knew such sufferings in its early youth. Israelite history in its earliest time became a history of afflictions. The people of Israel did not have a glorious past, hence it was forced to direct its gaze toward a glorious future.”[2]

But Israel’s history did not move uniformly toward the Messianic Age. Actual events were a mix of progress toward the kingdom of God and terrible mistakes driving the nation away from God. The age of the prophets demonstrates just how rocky the road toward deliverance was. Time and again Israel relived its Egyptian experience. And each time the words of the Lord had to be adjusted to account for actual historical experience. Over centuries, “Political salvation and spiritual redemption of necessity were combined in the consciousness of this nation . . .”[3] The stage was set for a Messiah who would fulfill all the expectations at once. That Messiah has never arrived. All of this only means that the idea of the Messiah continues to evolve as men attempt to explain why the word of God given through the prophets has not been fulfilled.

Does this mean followers of YHVH give up hope? Not at all! But what it does mean is that the expectations concerning the fulfillment of YHVH’s promises change. Men read the promises differently depending on historical circumstances. Thoughts about the Messiah, and indeed, about God Himself, are different after the Holocaust than they were before that hideous demonstration of human depravity. The same shift occurred after the destruction of the Second Temple. It might even happen again. The lesson is this: our explanations of what God means and what He is doing are historically dependent. This we must never forget. We just don’t see the biggest picture. We never will. Hope resides in the conviction that God is doing something even if we can’t figure it out, personally or corporately.

Topical Index: hope, future, Messiah, Isaiah 9:6-7a

[1] Joseph Klausner, The Messianic Idea In Israel From Its Beginning To The Completion Of The Mishnab, p. 14.

[2]Ibid., p. 15.

[3] Joseph Klausner, The Messianic Idea In Israel From Its Beginning To The Completion Of The Mishnab, p. 16.

TRAVEL NOTE:  For those of you who sent requests to me over the last few weeks while I was in Asia, I am sure there were some who did not get what they asked of me.  I probably said, “Remind me when I get home.”  Since I am now bothered by the fact that I might have overlooked you, please REMIND ME.

Gerry and Lianne are pastors of GBG in Geylang, Singapore.  They were instrumental in rescuing “Jane” from sex trafficking, and as a result of their blessed efforts, I met “Jane” and started the support program for Children Under the Bridge in Jakarta.  Now Gerry has an idea that I want to run by all of you.

I will be back in Singapore in September of this year (arrive August 31, depart September 11).  That gives me two weekends to teach in Singapore and four days to go to Jakarta (2 hours away) to see “Jane” and the children.  Gerry has suggested that we can all gather during that time in Singapore to celebrate the program, meet “Jane,” spend time with the children and see what else is happening to rescue girls from the sex trafficking business in Singapore and Jakarta.  This would be a great time of rejoicing, exposure to the problem and hands-on involvement.  He and Lianne will help arrange a facility, accommodations, etc. if we are willing to come.

And you get the added bonus of sitting in on a class on biblical exegesis from the life of Solomon.

So, I put it to you, all of you.  Do you want to come with me to Singapore and get to know all these people face-to-face?

If you do, it means getting a flight to Singapore (under $1000 at the moment) and a flight to Jakarta, hotels and maybe a bit of money for food, and then we make a big impact on this problem.  Want to go?  SEND ME AN EMAIL and let me know.

skipmoen@mac.com

Then Solomon formed a marriage alliance with Pharaoh king of Egypt, and took Pharaoh’s daughter and brought her to the city of David until he had finished building his own house and the house of the Lord and the wall around Jerusalem. 1 Kings 3:1 NASB

Marriage alliance – You can’t interpret the Bible without knowing the history. Unfortunately, sometimes we forget this fact and spiritualize human biblical events as if they were merely morality lessons for the faithful. For example, Philip Ryken comments on this verse: “Since we have no reason to think that Pharaoh’s daughter had faith in the God of Israel, we can only conclude that Solomon was unequally yoked.”[1] He argues that this unequally yoked marriage (and others) led Solomon into idolatry. He then comments, “His poor example is a warning for Christians not to pursue a romantic relationship with anyone who is not committed to Christ.”[2]

This is not exegesis. This is homily. First, it is completely anachronistic. A concept articulated by Paul (unequally yoked) is used to condemn Solomon. It’s just 1000 years late. Secondly, Solomon’s marriage has nothing to do with love. This is politics, pure and simple. TWOT rightly notes:

Once Solomon was established on the throne of Israel, he began the well-known practice of contracting marriages for political purposes (I Kgs 3:1). The nation had been admonished on this very score with regard to the nations already resident in the land of promise (Deut 7:3). The questionable value of contracted marriages to settle problems between peoples had already been witnessed in the case of the sons of Jacob and Shechem the Hivite, who had violated the sanctity of Jacob’s household. Saul the king enticed David to become his son-in-law to satisfy his inordinate jealousy (I Sam 18:26–27). ^[3]

Romance has nothing to do with this. Commitment to Christ isn’t even on the horizon. Nor should it be. Solomon is acting like an ancient Near Eastern king, not the principal actor in a Shakespearean play.

Finally, we should note that Solomon is probably fifteen years old at this time. While hormones might be raging, he is following in the footsteps of his father, David, by cementing political territory through marriage. And just like his father, love doesn’t seem to play any part in these arrangements. This is acquisition. Solomon is not succumbing to lust. He is doing what every king did. Grabbing territory.

Eventually this pattern destroys Solomon and the kingdom with him. But political marriages are not the cause of the downfall. Something else is at work in the wisest man in the world; something far more devastating, so much so that 1000 women could not give him peace.

Ryken’s analysis is colored by his desire to preach relevant topics using Solomon as a springboard. The result is spiritualizing what should have been an in-depth analysis of a very troubled man. Frankly, we don’t learn much from Ryken. I doubt the story of Solomon is in the Bible so that we will avoid dating non-Christians. There’s a lot more here—if you step out of the sanctuary and pay attention to the real world of human actions. We have been lulled to sleep by sermons instead of doing real investigation, and, I’m afraid that the result has been biblical characters whose lives don’t really seem to connect to us. The moral output of these sermons is encouragement to be better people but without truly acknowledging the human struggle it takes to follow God’s directions. It’s time to confront our Pollyanna pictures, our spiritualized excuses and deal with the men and women in the Bible as if they are us! Because they are.

Solomon’s world is about power, wealth, prestige and—yes—sex. But you won’t know how to apply what Solomon’s story tells us if you don’t see him as a king doing what kings usually do.

Topical Index: Philip Ryken, Solomon, marriage, yoked, 1 Kings 3:1

[1] Philip Ryken, King Solomon: The Temptations of Money, Sex and Power (Crossway, 2011, p. 47.

[2] Ibid.

^[3] Feinberg, C. L. (1999). 781 חתן. In R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, Jr. & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament

“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Matthew 3:2 NASB

Is at hand – John the Baptist spoke words that his audience understood. The question is whether or not we understand them. Oh, we’re familiar with the words, of that there is no doubt. But for us they are a call to personal salvation, a challenge to confess our sins and enter into the kingdom of righteousness. Is that what John meant? Klausner’s single sentence on John might cause us to re-evaluate. “Every word of this is completely Talmudic.”[1] That means John’s statement is thoroughly Jewish apocalyptic eschatology. That means John is speaking to an audience who expected certain conditions before the Messiah would initiate the glorious kingdom of God. And it wasn’t about personal salvation.

What were those conditions? First, there was the expectation that the present day sufferings were divinely appointed. Rome was not just another superpower of human origin. God was in charge of the universe and God was using the Romans to bring about afflictions because of the sins of Israel. These sins were personal and corporate. The pain and persecution of the Jews in the first century was God’s work. It had a single purpose. Repentance! The first expectation of the entrance of the Messiah was that things were very bad for human life on purpose. This is always the first expectation in Messianic thought. We should expect it today as well. As the world deteriorates, more and more teachers will come forth proclaiming the end. “Repent while you still can,” is the usual message. But Israel looked for national repentance, not individual confession. John’s message is not for you. It’s for us.

Secondly, Klausner forces us to see that John’s ministry is not Christian. It is the direct outgrowth of rabbinic thinking. Everywhere the sages and the rabbis taught the doctrine of reward and punishment, in this life and the next. Everywhere they taught individual and corporate responsibility. Everywhere they taught the total sovereignty of YHVH. And everywhere they taught that before the Messiah would arrive, the people as a whole would be chastised to bring them to repentance. The kingdom of heaven was at hand, but the population needed to open the door for its arrival by dealing with Sin, with a capital S.

Finally, John’s statement in Jewish context tells his audience that they are living in the birth pangs of the Messiah. Things will get worse! Notice that John himself experiences life getting worse, and asks Yeshua if now, when things seem as bad as they can be, does this mean the Messiah will begin his work of restoration? Punishment produces repentance which produces the dawn of the Messianic Age. At least that’s what the people thought. That’s what they were prepared to think. This has nothing to do with personal salvation. This is about national, ethnic, political resurrection. That’s what they thought. That’s what they were taught. That’s why John himself can still ask the question. And that’s why Yeshua is rejected. He didn’t do what the paradigm expected. He changed the paradigm—and only a few could see the new way. He is still changing the paradigm, and as far as I can see, only a few know it.

Perhaps you will need to reconsider John’s call to repentance as Jewish rather than Christian. Perhaps you will begin to see just how you are tied to everyone else in this call to repentance. Perhaps the Messiah waits until we all plead for forgiveness.

When you pray to the Lord today, maybe you could utter a few sentences about communal repentance and the part you play in that arena. It is so easy in our individualistic Greek paradigm to think that each of us is the center of God’s attention, forgetting that it is His people who first occupy His thoughts.

Topical Index: paradigm, Messiah, expectation, Klausner, John, Matthew 3:2

[1] Joseph Klausner, The Messianic Idea In Israel From Its Beginning To The Completion Of The Mishnab, p. 428.

And He said to them, “Do you not understand this parable? How will you understand all the parables? Mark 4:13 NASB

How will you understand – What motivates people to become enthralled with mystical approaches to the Bible? What causes them to start reading the text as if it is code for some hidden secret? What emotional need is being met by involvement in neo-gnosticism, claiming that the actual events and words of Scripture don’t really matter since the deeper truth must be revealed by the Spirit?

It seems as though even the disciples didn’t understand what Yeshua was teaching. But if that’s the conclusion you draw from this text, then you’re mistaken. Yeshua was not communicating some secret knowledge that only the disciples could understand. They were confused because the lesson was an allegory and only the author of an allegory can tell the audience what the symbols in the allegory mean. This is not a secret. It is a way of teaching, a method, if you will, for drawing people into the lesson. An allegory works because the author has something in mind and until he tells you what it is, your guess is as good as anyone else’s. For thousands of years the Christian Church treated Scripture as if it were allegory. Under that assumption, the Church told the believer what the text really meant. The ring was really the gospel. The space between the breasts was really the cross of Jesus. The thorns and thistles were really Satan and his demons. On and on it goes. And, by the way, it hasn’t stopped today! There are still plenty of interpreters of Scripture who insist that it is secret code and they have the ability to decipher it. It’s not just on the Christian side of the equation. Rabbinic material is also full of this approach. After all, everyone knows that Boaz was studying Torah on the threshing floor late at night, right?

When you encounter interpreters of the text who know nothing about the original audience, the history, the culture, the language, the political environment of the author, be suspicious! No one would expect you to believe that the Gettysburg Address had nothing to do with the civil war, the battle at Gettysburg or the politics of the day. It was given to people who experienced that event. Why should we believe that the Bible is any different? Please don’t tell me, “Yes, but God is the author.” Even if that is true, God communicates in human form. Ignoring the actual life circumstances of the people He used to communicate His message is the equivalent of saying that the Bible was really written just for me and I am the only one who actually knows what it says. That is arrogance bordering on idolatry.

Do you want to know the message of the Bible? Do your homework! There isn’t any shortcut, even if the Spirit is whispering in your ear. Exegesis is not personal interpretation. The voice of the Spirit might make you feel better but that does not mean you know the first thing about the text.

Topical Index: allegory, interpretation, parable, Mark 4:13

I saw that there is nothing better for man than to enjoy his possessions, since that is his portion. For who can enable him to see what will happen afterward? Ecclesiastes 3:22 JPS

Afterward – Qohelet is a rationalist. That means he chooses to see life only on the basis of what he can observe and conclude. No divine revelation from outside the box, please. Just the facts. And what do the facts tell us? Life is one moment at a time. Enjoy what you have now for tomorrow is unknown. Afterward, in Hebrew ‘ahar, is behind you—and you don’t have eyes in the back of your head.

Set aside your penchant for afterlife spiritualization for a moment and consider the implications of Qohelet’s assessment. It’s actually pretty good advice. How many of us are either so entangled with the past or so anxious about the future that we forget to enjoy what we have now. God has provided the present. Yes, He may promise a future and forgive a past, but all He’s really given you to deal with is this moment. Qohelet’s rationalism may prevent him from being very optimistic about tomorrow, but his present advice is worth taking. Later on we can reflect and say with Heschel, “I choose to be an optimist in spite of my better judgment.”

So let’s get practical. Right now, at this very moment, you are enjoying the ability to reflect about God’s gift of the present. Right now you can smell the coffee, feel the sunshine, listen to the raindrops, revel in the sound of your children, notice how confident you are in your work, utter a prayer of thanksgiving for the divine gift of struggle, feel yourself growing and changing. Right now, something wonderful is happening. Don’t miss it! Don’t skim over this precise second because the past or the future seduces you. Even if you didn’t have the assurances of God, you still have now. Make it count! There’s something magical about just being alive.

Let me offer some suggestions about capturing Qohelet’s advice. Hum your favorite tune. Write a line of personal poetry. Make a journal entry. Take a photo of this moment (I bet you have your phone just in case someone calls, right?). Give your spouse a hug. Tell someone close at hand that you love them. Read one verse of the Bible and stop, reflecting as deeply as you can about what it says. Listen to your inner voice. Soak up the feelings of your environment.

And then thank God He engineered it for you.

James Bond was wrong. Tomorrow does die. Every day. Every day we either squander or invest in what was once tomorrow. Tomorrow has arrived for you. What happens next is entirely your choice.

By the way, today is Patrick Sullivan’s 40^th birthday, my great friend who years ago help start Today’s Word. We all owe him thanks. We have all been blessed by his effort. Happy birthday, Patrick!

Topical Index: afterward, ‘ahar, behind, Ecclesiastes 3:22, today

LAST REMINDER:  If you are attending the conference in Tacoma, WA in a couple of days, and you have not registered, CLICK HERE so we know you are coming.

Then I accounted those who died long since more fortunate than those who are still living. Ecclesiastes 4:2 JPS

Fortunate – Take a hard look at life! A very hard look. Without your continued hope in God, wouldn’t you have to agree with Solomon? Those who have already died are finished with all this injustice, chaos, disappointment, suffering and betrayal. Their race is over. Now they have some peace. Solomon isn’t the only one who came to this conclusion. Theognis penned a similar remark:

Best of all for mortal beings is never to have been born at all

Nor ever to have set eyes on the bright light of the sun

But, since he is born, a man should make utmost haste through the gates of Death

And then repose, the earth piled into a mound round himself.[1]

Are these assessments too negative? It’s true that we do our best to be optimistic (“in spite of our better judgment”), but a really hard look at human history is no less consoling. Millions upon millions have suffered and died, even at the hands of the religious. To what end? Has the world radically improved? Is life better for the 2.5 billion who live on less than one dollar a day? If Solomon was the wisest man who ever lived, don’t you suppose he was also the most broken, the most shattered, the one who saw most clearly just how desperate humanity is? It’s enough to want to die and be done with it all.

Qohelet uses the Hebrew word shabah in the translation “fortunate.” One form of the root means, “to be free of care.” That seems to fit quite nicely. But the other form means, “to praise,” and is used of praising God. Interesting. Can it be that the dead, being free of the cares of life, are a praise to God because they are dead? They no longer experience the injustice of life. Their toil is over. They have found rest. Does this include the idea that God has finally given them justice? It seems as if this teacher’s view of living is completely absorbed in dying. For him, death is the only way out of a world of sorrow and pain.

Of course, the Bible attempts to rescue this deep nihilism. Ecclesiastes adds the last two verses. Love God and do the commandments. If you’re lucky, you’ll get to enjoy a few moments with your spouse, eat enough food not to be hungry today and see a smile on a child’s face. If you’re lucky! Otherwise it’s pretty much about those sparks that fly upward.[2] Except—

Except, there is a God who loves what He creates, and cares about us. There is a reason to hope, not in some reward after we die but in a purpose for living now. There is divine involvement in spite of all the mess. There are kairos moments in the tragic chronology. There is joy even in pain. There is something about being human that draws us beyond the observable—that stretches us to touch a world where the sparks don’t always fly upward. Certainly there is no consolation for the loss of Job’s children, but there is YHVH. Look around you with another set of eyes. Look past Solomon’s artificial container and see if you can’t find rumors of another world. Today might just be a “why bother” day, but faith is perseverance even when the dead seem more fortunate. So persevere—and see what happens.

Topical Index: fortunate, Ecclesiastes 4:2, shabah, death

[1] Theognis of Megara, Greek poet of 6th century BCE.

[2] Job 5:7

“Come now, and let us reason together,” says the Lord, “Though your sins are as scarlet, they will be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they will be like wool.” Isaiah 1:18 NASB

Reason – “ . . . the prophet is not a philosopher of logic, but a philosopher of emotion; in other words, not a philosopher of a system, but a philosopher of life.”[1] Klausner’s insight should prevent us from thinking that God’s invitation to “reason together” has anything to do with arguments and conclusions. This statement is not about apologetics. It isn’t even about theology. It is about the emotional trauma of sin. We might feel like scarlet signposts of depravity. We might feel like we are gashed and bleeding all over. We might feel exposed, butchered by life’s choices. But God is willing, more than willing, to change all that. He invites us to be as pure as snow, as white as wool. This is the divinely proffered solution to habitual neurophysical mismanagement of emotion. In other words, God wants us to experience a love that transcends our addictions.

The Hebrew root here is yakah. It is translated by “decide, judge, prove, rebuke, reprove” and “correct.” Gilchrist notes:

the most familiar passage where yākaḥ occurs is in Isa 1:18 which is within a covenant lawsuit. Following a record of rebellion where Yahweh, the plaintiff, condemns Judah for their self-designed religious festivals (1:10–15), Isaiah issues a call to repentance (1:16–20). Within this context then we should understand the expression “let us reason together”^[2]

While the context is forensic, the implication is emotional. God is not asking for us to come to court to justify our actions. He is asking us to enter His court so that we might find forgiveness. Our actions are undeniable. It is the consequence that is at issue. This is not a trial. The trial is over. God’s complaint is vindicated. What matters now is our situation. The Judge is ready to address our conviction and He pleads with us to allow Him to rectify this breach. Will we? Will we come before Him as guilty? Or will we continue to excuse our infractions? Will we acknowledge not simply our misdeeds but also our emotional mismanagement? Will we allow ourselves to feel what the Judge feels—our trauma, our pain, our bloodied identity? This Judge is not here to condemn us, although He would be within the Law to do so. He looks upon us and sees the trauma of what we have done—to ourselves and to others—and He desperately desires to heal those wounds. This is not a logical conclusion. This is an emotional response. This is God involving Himself in our lives as they are, battered, beaten and broken. This is mercy. Do you know what it feels like?

Topical Index: reason, yakah, guilty, emotion, healing, Isaiah 1:18

[1] Joseph Klausner, The Messianic Idea In Israel From Its Beginning To The Completion Of The Mishnab, p. 55.

^[2] Gilchrist, P. R. (1999). 865 . In R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, Jr. & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed.) (377). Chicago: Moody Press.

REMINDER:  The Tacoma Conference is ready for this Saturday and Sunday.  It starts at 1PM at 1110 South Puget Sound Ave, Tacoma.  The NE corner of 12th and Union.  See you there!

Oops! I forgot to say that the Tacoma conference starts at 3PM on Saturday and 1PM on Sunday.
Both days we will meet at 1110 South Puget Sound Ave, Tacoma. The NE corner of 12th and Union.

See you there!

Now Jabez was more honorable than his brothers, and his mother called his name Jabez, saying, “Because I bore him in pain.” And Jabez called on the God of Israel saying, “Oh, that You would bless me indeed, and enlarge my territory, that Your hand would be with me, and that You would keep me from evil, that I may not cause pain!” So God granted him what he requested. 1 Chronicles 4:9-10 NASB

Jabez – Bruce Wilkinson made significant mileage out of this obscure passage. In his popular book, he tried to demonstrate that the prayer of Jabez could be incorporated in the lives of current believers in such a way that they would experience material and spiritual blessing. Of course, the book sold. It was exactly what people wanted to hear. Wilkinson turned the offhand story into a kind of incantation—the “secret” to success straight from the mouth of God. But anyone who really understood the text would have balked at his exegesis. Biblical Hebrew includes some odd linguistic arrangements. One of these is that names in Hebrew often portend the destiny of the person. This very short story tells us that Jabez is named because of the pain that his mother endured at his birth. Apparently Jabez thought that such a name would cause him to experience pain, so he prayed that God would prevent this ominous future. Jabez simply responds to the Hebrew idea that a name will bear consequences for the person. He wished to avoid the decree incorporated in his name. And he does. End of story. This two sentence plot is not God’s success plan in summary form. It is a tip of the hat to the biblical connection between names and destinies. It’s as if the author wanted to remind us that we need to pay attention to the meaning of a name, so much so that at times we might want to ask God to alter that meaning. Why does the author include this little sidebar? Because there are more important names that should be read with the same perspective. Like Solomon.

“Solomon is heir to this tradition, but does he himself continue it? Is his destiny—as ruler, as temple-builder, as sage—also encoded in his name?”[1] Weitzman points out that the birth of Solomon is completely unremarkable. In contrast to other crucial biblical personages, Solomon enjoys none of the notoriety associated with kings. “ . . . the text does not suggest any meaning for his name, much less one that portends his destiny.”[2] That hasn’t stopped people suggesting meanings. Weitzman notes that one theory is based on the fact that the letters of Solomon’s name (Shin-Lamed-Mem) can be read as “his replacement,” suggesting Solomon is named because his brother died as punishment for David’s sin. Imagine if this is true. What does it say about the value of Solomon himself in the eyes of his father? Is he nothing more than a substitute? What kind of relationship would you have with a father who named you for a child he lost as God’s punishment? What would your name remind you of? Perhaps Solomon’s birth story is nondescript because it isn’t really about Solomon at all. Perhaps it is about David’s emotional disconnection from his living son. Perhaps the absence of a meaning is more revealing than the presence.

Topical Index: Jabez, Solomon, name, 1 Chronicles 4:9-10

[1] Steven Weitzmann, Solomon: The Lure of Wisdom (Yale University Press, 2011), p. 4.

[2] Ibid., p. 5.