Archive for the Category » Today’s Word «

Midrash Rehash

Thursday, May 17th, 2012 | Author:

Then God spoke to Noah, saying, “Go out of the ark, . . .”  Genesis 8:15-16 NASB

Go out – How do you interpret the Bible?  When you read the text, what process do you use in order to understand the meaning?  Some believers use the “meditate, pray and wait for illumination” technique.  They believe that the Spirit will interact directly with their souls and provide them with the meaning.  “God revealed to me” is the common expression of these believers.  Other believers who have been taught or influenced by critical scholarship approach Scripture with a different technique.  They ask questions like, “What do these words mean in the context of the culture and time they were written?” or “What is the linguistic environment of this sentence?” or “How does this sentence fit into our understanding of theology?”  There are other approaches as well, but one we Christians rarely consider is the approach most often used by the rabbis.  Since Christian exegesis doesn’t recognize rabbinic techniques, we often cannot follow the train of thought in Scripture itself because important parts of the Bible were written using these rabbinic techniques.  Therefore, it seems critical to have an example of a common rabbinic technique in mind when we try to understand how New Testament authors actually use Scripture.

One of these techniques is the midrash.  Midrash is the technique of investigating connections, drawing conclusions and elucidating circumstances from many different verses in order to reveal deeper meanings.  On the surface, midrash appears to tie together unrelated, incidental and sometimes apparently random elements of the text.  For this reason, midrash seems completely arbitrary to the Western mind.  We often read a midrash and wonder how in the world someone could even think like this.  But we must remember that this was a common exegetical process of the rabbis and therefore a crucial factor in how they understood Scripture.  When we read Paul, John, James or Peter, we cannot apply our exegetical standards to the way that they as rabbis applied their standards.  An example will help you see the radical difference.  Here is a midrash from Tanhuma Noah 11:

“Come out of the ark.”  David said, “Free my soul from prison.” When Noah was in the ark, he prayed constantly, “Free my soul from prison,” as it is said, “Therefore let every faithful man pray to You, in a time when You may be found, that the rushing mighty waters [shetef mayim rabbim] not overtake him” [Psalms 32:6].  God said to Noah, “It is decreed before Me that you shall not leave this prison [closed condition] till twelve months are up.”  So we find in Isaiah 49:8, “in an hour of favor I answer you  . . . saying to the prisoners, ‘Go free.’” For they [the people of the ark] were forbidden [lit., imprisoned] to have sexual relations.  Why? Because when the world is in trouble and destruction, human beings are forbidden to procreate; so that there should not be a situation in which man is building while God is destroying.[1]

Does this exegesis of the Genesis passage, “Go out of the ark,” seem strange?  Does it seem contrived?  Do you find it difficult to understand how Psalms and Isaiah can be used to elucidate something God said to Noah thousands of years earlier?  Do you find it nearly impossible to connect a prohibition of sexual intercourse with a statement about leaving the ark?  If you do, you aren’t alone.  Nearly all Western interpretation of this text would be stunned at such “arbitrary” exegesis.  But the rabbis considered it perfectly normal, in fact, even genius.

Why should we care about such odd exegesis?  Ah, the point is that when we read much of the New Testament we are reading the work of rabbis.  In order to understand what they are writing and how they connect their thoughts, we must remember that they do not handle the text like we handle the text.  We cannot apply our models to their methods.

Just one observation will suffice to underscore this point.  Did you notice that this midrash treats all of the Tanakh as if it were written contemporaneously?  It assumes that David, Isaiah and Moses all wrote from the same perspective at the same time.  It completely ignores the temporal and cultural differences.  Why?  Because the midrash assumes that since it is all God’s word, it is all immediately available to exegetical analysis.  It is as if the whole Bible were written yesterday.

Now when you read Paul you might ask yourself if you read the Tanakh like he reads the Tanakh – and does it make a difference in your understanding of Paul’s use of the Tanakh?

Topical Index: midrash, Genesis 8:16, Tanhuma Noah 11

You can see more about the Tanhuma here.


[1] Takhuma, Noah 11 as cited in Zornberg, The Beginning of Desire, p. 49.

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , ,  | One Comment

Bending the Word

Wednesday, May 16th, 2012 | Author:

If a man takes his sister, a daughter of his father or a daughter of his mother, and sees her nakedness, and she sees his nakedness, it is a disgrace, and they shall be cut off in the sight of the children of their people.  He has uncovered his sister’s nakedness, and he shall bear his iniquity.  Leviticus 20:17 ESV

Disgrace – Would you be surprised to discover that the word translated “disgrace” is hesed?  That’s right, hesed, the same word for faithful loyalty, voluntary obligation and reciprocity.  Hesed is a fundamental term for God’s character and covenant.  But here it takes on almost the exact opposite meaning.  How can this be?

Lexicons like TWOT suggest that there are two separate roots, one involving faithful loyalty and the other involving shame and reproach.  But the second root fits only two verses in Scripture, Leviticus 20:17 and Proverbs 14:34.  While the text in Proverbs is general (“sin is a shame to any people”), the Leviticus passage is quite specific.  The sin that brings shame is overstepping sexual boundaries.  Zornberg writes, “It is not etymological coincidence that incest and other sexual taboos are called hesed.”[1]  Zornberg goes on to point out that there is a direct connection between the collapse of sexual boundaries and the indiscriminate judgment of God that sweeps away both the wicked and the righteous (e.g., the flood).  When hesed is bent just enough to convert exclusive mutual obligation into sexual self-satisfaction, the fundamental core of hesed is corrupted even though the outward expression appears the same.  Sex without boundaries produces judgment, and judgment falls on both the wicked and the righteous.  Always.

Let’s put this another way.  God expresses His love within the context of hesed.  That means that the paradigm of love is found in exclusive, faithful, voluntary loyalty toward another.  Love is the expression of care, concern and costly benevolence for the well-being of the other.  In this context, sexual intimacy is not taking.  It is not possessing another.  Rather, it is openness without second agendas, without thought of personal gain.  It is vulnerability cherished in exclusivity.  But when the external behavior of sexual intimacy is substituted for the exclusive loyalty of its inner nature, there is a false appearance of hesed.  The core of exclusive, faithful, voluntary loyalty is replaced with acquisition of pleasure or satisfaction of curiosity or the will to power.  When this happens, what should have been faithful commitment becomes something else.  Mutual loyalty that honors God is corrupted, not erased.  It is bent to serve a different purpose.  Scripture tells us that when a society reaches the point where exclusivity in this deepest expression of loyal commitment is lost, extinction follows.  It is as if God will no longer tolerate the insult to hesed.  He determines to wipe the idolaters off the face of the earth in order to re-establish the proper sense and respect for this most fundamental concept – faithful loyalty.

How can hesed be translated “disgrace” or “shame”?  Because disgrace and shame are the result of using relationships rather than treasuring them.  Such actions insult and humiliate God Himself.  Do you think that such a God will withhold His jealous rage over insults to His own character and creation?  Ask the generation of Noah.

By the way, did you notice that the waters are rising again?

Topical Index:  hesed, shame, disgrace, Leviticus 20:17, Zornberg


[1] Avivah Zornberg, The Beginning of Desire, p. 51.

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , ,  | 7 Comments

Paul’s Summation (4)

Tuesday, May 15th, 2012 | Author:

“Behold, his soul is puffed up, it is not upright within him, but the righteous shall live by his faith.”  Habakkuk 2:4  ESV

Faith – Finally we come to the most crucial term – faith.  Once again we must turn to the Hebrew background.  The Hebrew stem is ‘aman.  It means, “to confirm, support, uphold, establish, be certain.”  The TWOT article makes an important observation. “This very important concept in biblical doctrine gives clear evidence of the biblical meaning of ‘faith’ in contradistinction to the many popular concepts of the term. At the heart of the meaning of the root is the idea of certainty. And this is borne out by the nt definition of faith found in Heb 11:1.  The basic root idea is firmness or certainty.” [1]  Now that we have the basic idea, we must look at the derivative ‘emunah, the word used in Habakkuk.  We should notice right away that this word is translated “faith” because of Paul’s use of the Greek term pistin (faith) in his quotation of Habakkuk in Romans 1:17.  If it were not for Paul, we would have to translate this Hebrew word faithfulness or fidelity, not faith.  That would help us see that ‘emunah is not about some creed or doctrinal statement.  It is about reliable living, living that is based on some constant, unshakeable standard.  In other words, Habakkuk seems to be saying that those who judge correctly, whose lives are a reflection of the divine standard, live on the basis of utter reliance upon that standard.  They behave according to the firm conviction that the measuring rod is true and reliable.  A man of “faith” is a man who is in alignment with God’s words.

You might want to look again at our studies of Leviticus 18:5  and Romans 1:17  or the previous times we studied this verse in Habakkuk.

All of these are consistent.  Faith is not words.  It is deeds.  It is the power of words displayed in action (“Let there be light.  And there was light.”).  The emphasis is always on the behavior.  Yes, behavior is the result of right thought and right attitude, what in Hebrew would be lev (heart), but it never stays there.  A man does not live in his mind.  He lives in the real world of motion.  And that’s where tsaddiq shows up.  It is exhibited in the ‘emunah of consistency, of uniformity to the code, of fidelity to the author of the code.  If that isn’t present, faith isn’t present, no matter what you want to call it.

Topical Index: faith, faithfulness, ‘emunah, ‘aman, Habakkuk 2:4, Romans 1:17


[1] Harris, R. L., Harris, R. L., Archer, G. L., & Waltke, B. K. (1999). Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed.) (51). Chicago: Moody Press.

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , , ,  | 4 Comments

Paul’s Summation (3)

Monday, May 14th, 2012 | Author:

“Behold, his soul is puffed up, it is not upright within him, but the righteous shall live by his faith.”  Habakkuk 2:4  ESV

Righteous – What does it mean to say, “He is righteous”?  Would you answer, “That means he has a right relationship with God”?  Answers like this are common among Christians, but maybe not so common among Hebrews.  That’s because the Hebrew word tsaddiq takes a little different  direction.  Its first occurrences in Scripture are associated with the role of judges.  In other words, tsaddiq describes honest, truthful, legitimate legal decisions.  Tsaddiq is conformity to a standard.  Whether that standard involves human relationships or physical properties (like weights and measures), the basic idea behind tsaddiq is alignment with a known ethical and moral measuring rod.  In the Hebraic worldview, this measuring rod is not merely a cultural norm.  It is a measuring rod set by God’s revealed instructions for living.  In other words, God’s standard is Torah.  This is why there is no distinction in Torah between spiritual expectations and civil regulations.  Torah is the standard for all human behavior in the Hebraic world.  In the tribal cultural of Israel, to be righteous is to be in conformity with Torah.

“Wait a minute!” you complain.  “Are you saying that righteousness doesn’t depend on Jesus?  Are you telling me that all I need is to conform to the Law?  What about forgiveness?  What about being saved?”  OK, OK.  One at a time.  If righteousness is conformity to Torah, then we all have a problem.  We have all disobeyed.  That’s Paul’s point when he quotes Habakkuk.  God’s word through Habakkuk reiterates the standard.  None of us have met it.  Therefore, we need help.  We need a way to meet the standard in spite of our disobedience.  Yeshua’s sacrifice exonerates us.  We are released from the death sentence.  We are rescued.  But that doesn’t mean Torah no longer applies.  It is still the standard.  As we shall see, the man whose life is measured by Torah lives by his “faith” (we still have to understand what this word means).  It doesn’t say that he dies by Torah.  It says he lives by Torah.  Once the guilt associated with his past disobedience has been overcome, he is able to live by the standard.

The biblical view is that tsaddiq applies equally to everyone, rich or poor, high or low, slave or free.  It applies to all nations in all circumstances in every time.  Why?  Because Torah reflects the character of God and in this created universe, God’s standard is the only standard.  This biblical claim was the reason the Romans hated Judaism.  Judaism’s exclusivity, its intolerance toward any other cultural standard, was abhorrent to the liberalism of Rome.  It is still abhorrent today.  The implication that all other measuring rods are inadequate or false incites non-believers to intense animosity.  But the Bible doesn’t really care.  It presents one uniform message.  God sets the standard.  Men either accept that standard or they do not.  Those who do not are outside the Kingdom.

If tsaddiq is a description of living in accordance with God’s instructions (Torah), then where did the Christian idea of living apart from Torah originate?  No one will argue that tsaddiq means anything except conformity to God’s standard.  So how did we decide that the standard no longer applies?  When did tsaddiq become a synonym for “forgiveness without a measuring rod”?

Topical Index:  tsaddiq, righteous, Torah, Habakkuk 2:4

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , ,  | 58 Comments

Paul’s Summation (2)

Sunday, May 13th, 2012 | Author:

“Behold, his soul is puffed up, it is not upright within him, but the righteous shall live by his faith.”  Habakkuk 2:4  ESV

Puffed up – Let’s get the Greek out.  Neither Habakkuk nor Paul nor God Himself use the word “soul.”  The Hebrew is nephesh.  We have the English translation “soul” because of the influence of the Greek word psyche.  It is true that the LXX translates nephesh with the Greek psyche, but I can assure you that there is no Hebrew thought of a man’s soul separated from the rest of what it means to be human.  The division of man into body-mind-soul is a thoroughly Greek invention.  In Hebrew, human beings are one homogenized entity, the person, the nephesh.  Paul certainly knew this.  When he cites Habakkuk, he is not speaking about the soul as if the soul could be saved but the body could not.  Paul is speaking about the entire person, just as the verse in Habakkuk suggests.  It is not a man’s soul that is “puffed up.”   It is a man’s entire way of being in the world.  It involves everything about this man – his thoughts, his choices, his feelings, his will, his bodily actions.  God says (through Habakkuk) that this man is ‘uppelah, here translated as “puffed up.”  But what does that mean?

There are some issues with this word.  When we examine the verb ‘afal (the root of ‘uppelah), we find two schools of thought.  One school ties this verb to an Arabic verb meaning “to be heedless, neglectful, reckless.”  This school believes the verb in Habakkuk comes from this root, and therefore means “to be proud, presumptuous.”  The other school notes that ‘afal is used only one other time in this way in the Tanakh (Numbers 14:44) and it is not clear that the word in Habakkuk is directly connected.  The majority of these uses are nouns, not verbs, describing boils or abscesses (thus, “puffed up”).  The idea is something diseased, something abnormally swollen.  In Habakkuk, the man who is not upright is considered infected and sick.  His entire person, not his soul, is diseased.  Saving his soul is not going to fix the problem.  He has a serious health issue – an issue that affects the entire person.  This is Paul’s argument as well.  We are not in need of a soul doctor.  We are in need of a completely new nephesh.

The translation says that this sick person is sick because he is “not upright within him.”  But that doesn’t quite capture the image.  The verb yashar means “to be level, straight, right, just or lawful.”  As an adjective, it means “upright” and is used extensively to describe the character of God.  In the phrase, “to do what is right,” obedience is linked to righteousness.  God says that this man is sick because he is bent, twisted, not level in himself.  He appears swollen, but on the inside he is mortally damaged.  The disease has metastasized.  It has infected every part of him.

All of this stands in utter contrast to the righteous.  In order to see the scope of this contrast, we must recognize the depth of this recklessness.  Habakkuk paints the picture of a man whose cancer has spread throughout his body.  He is still functioning but his days are numbered.  Just watching him, we see the results of the illness.  His thoughts, his will, his movements are all affected.  He is dying before our eyes.  And there is no cure.  It’s too late for any self-determined remedy.  “Look and see,” says the Lord.  “Don’t you recognize the signs?”

Only when we realize that our tiny external symptoms are indicators of a much greater problem will we confront the true illness.  A little swelling, a small bump, a tiny spot – perhaps we ignore.  We pretend we can handle it.  But underneath something else is happening.  Something tragic and disastrous.

Twisted or straight.  Which is it to be?  There are no small issues here.

Topical Index:  puffed up, ‘afal, twisted, yashar, soul, nephesh, Habakkuk 2:4

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , , , ,  | 10 Comments

Paul’s Summation (1)

Saturday, May 12th, 2012 | Author:

“Behold, his soul is puffed up, it is not upright within him, but the righteous shall live by his faith.”  Habakkuk 2:4  ESV

Behold – How would you summarize Paul’s entire message in a single verse?  The question is important not only for theological reasons but also because your answer will reveal what you believe to be the central teaching of the gospel.  Paul, the messenger to the Gentiles, is the guiding light for most of us.  We are the Gentiles he intended to bring into the fold.  So it’s appropriate to know what he was trying to communicate.

Most of us would probably say that Paul’s central message was, “Jesus died for your sins,” or something like this.  But New Testament scholars will tell you that this citation from Habakkuk in the letter to the Romans is the central thought of Paul’s message.  Paul is concerned with the life of the righteous.  Yes, the death and resurrection of Yeshua play an enormous role in his concern (“to know Christ crucified,” for example), but the real issue is how we are to live after that event.  And for that, Paul turns to the prophet Habakkuk.  Since this verse is the key to understanding the entire letter to the assembly in Rome, it might be useful if we actually knew what it says in Hebrew.  Far too often we have assumed that the English translation captures the thought of Paul and the prophet.  What we will find is that due to the Greek influence this verse has been altered.  What it really says is a far cry from the way we read it in translation.

Let’s start with the opening word, hinneh.  It’s a very common word in the Tanakh (over 1000 times).  Translating it as “behold” makes us think that it is nothing more than an introductory exclamation, sort of like us saying, “Look here!”  But T. O. Lambkin points out that hinneh “emphasizes the immediacy, the here-and-now-ness, of the situation,”[1] often in the prophets as a declaration of God’s will.  That is the case here in Habakkuk.  This verse is not what the prophet is saying.  It is God’s speech communicated through the prophet.  We need to take this to heart.  God is telling us what it means to be righteous.

This is especially important.  Why? For two reasons.  First, whatever this verse actually means, God expects it to be true of the righteous.  That implies that we who call ourselves righteous should be characterized by the substance of this verse.  This is God’s definition.  It better be ours as well.  Secondly, you will notice the absence of any suggestion of forgiveness.  This verse is about living a righteous life, not about being invited to share in the Kingdom.  Our usual characterization of “saved” or “forgiven” may have far less to do with being righteous than we are led to believe.  At any rate, Habakkuk tells us what God thinks about all this.  “Behold” is God’s “look here and see” announcement.  Are you ready to examine your definition of righteous and see if it matches God’s?

Topical Index: behold, hinneh, Habakkuk 2:4, Romans 1:17


[1] TWOT, Vol. 1, p. 220

THIS IS Today’s Word Number 4000.  Hardly seems possible, but one day at a time, we have examined 4000 words.

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , ,  | 11 Comments

Who Says?

Friday, May 11th, 2012 | Author:

“because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” (Thus He declared all foods clean.) Mark 7:19 NASB

Clean – What a mess this verse has created!  Why it became a mess is a study in the program of self-identity that the Church undertook in the third century.  Suffice it to say that the early fathers of the Church made deliberate attempts to remove themselves from Jewish origins, and dietary laws were front and center in that battle.  But third century exegesis does not make good first century commentary.  There is more here than meets the eye, especially if you are wearing “Christian-dogma” colored glasses.

In the past we have noted Tim Hegg’s excellent article on the problems with the Greek text, and the misinterpretation of this text based on the addition of “Thus He declared.”  No such subject occurs in the Greek, making the dangling participle (cleansed) awkward.  Hegg points out that a perfectly legitimate translation of the text would focus on the bodily cleansing process of elimination, contrasting this process with the defilement of the heart which is not cleansed through normal elimination.

But Daniel Boyarin provides an even clearer solution to this difficult passage by treating it for what it is in context.  Yeshua is engaged in an intramural debate with other Pharisees over the precise requirements of the purification of food.  Boyarin points out that in the first century some Pharisees advocated strict observance of the oral Torah which added stipulations about handling kosher food so that it might not be contaminated by contact with unclean substances.  As Boyarin notes, the debate is not about the necessity of kashrut (kosher eating).  Boyarin observes that the dialog never challenges the need for dietary laws.  The dialogue challenges the Pharisee’s added requirements about handling food (and in Torah, anything not kosher is not food).  Boyarin indicates that “the system of purity and impurity laws and the system of dietary laws are two different systems within the Torah’s rules for eating.”[1]  Yeshua is addressing the former, not the latter.  Yeshua simply says that the Pharisees additional requirements concerning hand washing are unnecessary since no impurity is attached to what God has already designated as “food” simply because a man doesn’t wash his hands before touching it.  Such supposed impurity cannot defile a man because it passes through him.  Yeshua recalls the emphasis of the written Torah, noting that only what comes out of a man can defile him.  And Torah is quite specific on what those things are (menstrual blood and semen).  These things, and only these things, that come out of the body can render someone impure.  Food cannot do so.  Thus, concludes Yeshua, the additional requirement of hand-washing is not only superfluous, it is not found in Torah.

Then Yeshua makes an object lesson of this event.  He explains to his disciples that the added requirements of the Pharisees have missed the point.  What matters when it comes to purity is the condition of the heart.  This is not a statement about kashrut.  Kosher still applies.  No one in the circle of this conversation ever doubted that.  When Mark adds the editorial, “Cleansing all foods,” he was not abrogating kashrut.  He was explaining that food touched by impure substances does not render the consumer impure.  Any food (and that means kosher) is already cleansed because God has already designated it food.

Boyarin puts to rest the tortured exegesis of Christian apologists who wish to claim Yeshua abolished kashrut.  Everyone present on that day was Jewish.  Everyone was Torah observant when it came to kashrut.  Yeshua never suggested otherwise.  He simply took issue with the Pharisaical practice of hand-washing as a useless addition.  If Boyarin, a Jewish scholar, can see that this is the heart of Yeshua’s comment, then why do Christian theologians insist on adding “Thus He declared,” as Origen did in the 2nd century?  Could it be that they want to be rid of kashrut even if Yeshua doesn’t say so?

Topical Index:  clean, kashrut,  kosher, Mark 7:19, Boyarin


[1] Daniel Boyarin, The Jewish Gospels, p. 113.

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , ,  | Leave a Comment

The Jewish Gospel

Thursday, May 10th, 2012 | Author:

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.  Mark 1:1  NASB

Son of God – Jewish orthodox rabbi Daniel Boyarin (yes, the Daniel Boyarin) wrote The Jewish Gospels, just published this year.  In it he makes the claim that the gospels are thoroughly Jewish, including the idea of a divine Messiah who will suffer and die.  Working from the Jewish understanding of the prophetic passage of Daniel 7, Boyarin shows that long before Yeshua was born, some elements of Judaism were already teaching about, and looking forward to, a second divine person who would fulfill the role of the Messiah.  In fact, Boyarin shows that in ancient Jewish thought the title “son of God” designates a human potentate, anointed by God as king of His people, while the title “son of Man” designates a divine personage who comes to earth with the full authority of God’s throne.  That’s right.  I didn’t mix these up.  “Son of God” is the human savior.  “Son of Man” is the divine manifestation.  Boyarin’s point is that both of these figures were present in Judaism from at least the 2nd century BC.  Boyarin suggests that we can now perfectly understand why thousands of Jews accepted Yeshua as the prophesied Messiah.  They were expecting him.  The only significant difference between Judaism’s view of the Messiah and the claim of the gospels is that the gospels tell us that the Messiah has arrived.  Clearly, those Jews who accepted Yeshua’s claim did not do so because they converted to a new religion called Christianity.  Christianity as a separate religious system (with a separate Christology) didn’t emerge for another 200 years.  The earliest followers of the good news of Yeshua were Jews, and they remained Jews while they believed Yeshua was the Jewish Messiah.

Boyarin’s book is just one more in a line of scholarly works that questions the traditionally held Christian position concerning the uniqueness of Yeshua.  But Boyarin is a Jew.  Other scholars such as Gage, Young, Eisenbaum, Hengel and Hegg have been in the Christian camp.  Now a world-famous Jew has announced that the precursor to Trinitarian dogma and the inclusion of Torah in the Messianic community is Jewish, not Christian.  “The implication of my argument,” says Boyarin, “is that Christianity hijacked not only the Old Testament but the New Testament as well by turning that thoroughly Jewish text away from its cultural origins among the Jewish communities of Palestine in the first century and making it an attack on the traditions of the Jews, traditions, I maintain, it sought to uphold and not destroy, traditions that give the narrative its richest literary and hermeneutical context.”[1]  Take that to the bank!

If Boyarin is right, then Christianity has been reading the text of the New Testament from the wrong direction.  If Judaism already embraced what is commonly held to be Christian-only doctrines, maybe we need to rethink the whole demarcation between Judaism and Christianity in those early centuries.  Maybe “the Way” was never anything but a sect of Judaism.  Maybe the Christianity that we know today isn’t what we find in “the beginning of the good news of Yeshua HaMashiach, the Anointed King.”

Topical Index:  Son of God, Boyarin, Trinity, Mark 1:1


[1] Daniel Boyarin, The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ, p. 157.

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , ,  | 27 Comments

Zekhut

Wednesday, May 09th, 2012 | Author:

“And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’” Matthew 25:40 NASB

The least – Benevolence toward others without any expectation of gain.  That’s the idea.  No financial repayment.  No profit.  No enhanced reputation.  No celebrity status.  Not even the recognition of others.  This is action in the dark.  This is zekhut.

“There is an untranslatable Hebrew word for the matter, zekhut, meaning, ‘the heritage of superrogatory virtue and its consequent entitlement.’ In Rabbinic Judaism zekhut stands for the empowerment, of a supernatural character, that derives from the virtue of one’s ancestry or from one’s own virtuous deeds of a particular kind, specifically, deeds not commanded but impelled by utter generosity of the heart.  They make a difference only when they are done without hope let alone prospect of recompense and without pressure of any kind.  No single word in American English bears the same meaning, nor is there a synonym for zekhut in the canonical writings.  But there is an antonym, sin.”[1]

Notice a few things about zekhut.  It is not generous giving.  Far too often generous giving is a euphemism for planned distribution of wealth to take advantage of charity tax breaks.  It is not dutiful compassion like taking your turn at the soup kitchen or handing out food baskets at Christmas.  It isn’t even giving that extra offering when the missions chairman makes an appeal.  Zekhut is strictly motivated by the move of the Spirit.  It is heartfelt compulsion to care for another when there is absolutely no reason to do so.  That’s when the action is god-like.  That’s when the King recognizes it as if it were done to Him.  No wonder there is no translation into English.  The concept is inexplicable in a language based in personal fulfillment.

Notice something else about the Hebrew idea of zekhut.  It is trans-generational.  It has effect far beyond the lifetime of the actor.  God spares many of the wicked kings because David was God’s friend.  Zekhut.  The jailer’s decision brings salvation to his entire household.  Zekhut.  The obedience of a woman produces fellowship for her children and husband.   Zekhut.  Ruth’s hesed heals ancient animosity.  Zekhut.

I suppose this causes us to ask if we have an Hebraic view of benevolence.  Are our kind acts motivated by nothing but the Spirit?  Or do we respond to some other kind of pressure?  Is zekhut translatable in your life?  Do the “least of these” know you?

Topical Index:  zekhut, benevolence, least of these, Matthew 25:40

 

Don’t forget the conference in Phoenix starts on May 11.


[1] Jacob Neusner, Judaism When Christianity Began, p. 122.

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , ,  | 7 Comments

Sin’s Opposite

Tuesday, May 08th, 2012 | Author:

Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do, and does not do it, to him it is sin.  James 4:17 NASB

Right thing – Two factors are immediately apparent from James’ statement.  First, sin attaches to what I know, not what I don’t know.  And second, if I know what is the right thing to do, it is assumed that I am able to do it.  Knowledge and ability are essential to the concept of sin.  Let’s examine these factors more carefully.

James is Jewish, of course.  In the Jewish context, it is possible for me to commit a sinful act and not know it.  Sins like this are covered in Leviticus.  There are ritual atonements for unintentional sins.  No man is held accountable for sins he was unaware of committing – until he is aware of them!  As soon as awareness dawns, he is guilty.  But God has made provision for such a dawning.  Atonement is available.  When James states that sin is attached to what is known to be disobedience, he is not pointing toward unintentional acts.  He is pointing toward a much more serious problem – sins that I willfully commit!  James chooses a Greek word to describe this moral choice before us.  The word is kalos.  In classical Greek this word is connected to agathon, the idea of the divine.  In Greek thought this word expresses the ideal life.  Kalos is Plato’s concept of the Good (with a capital G).  For Plato, and for the Greeks, the Good is what is naturally beautiful, moral and true.  Kalos connects men with the realm of the divine.  Of course, this raises a crucial question:  How do I determine what is naturally beautiful, moral and true?  And that becomes the quest of Greek ethical debate for the next 2500 years.

But James isn’t Greek.  He is Jewish.  He uses this powerful Greek word, kalos, as a translation of the Hebrew yafah (lovely, beautiful, healthy, useful, and by extension, morally good).  However, the Hebrew is a far cry from the robust Greek idea of kalos, a word connected directly to the eternal.  In Hebrew thinking, there is no human ideal life apart from the will of God revealed in Torah.  If anything, the Hebrew ideal is connected to the Greek word doxa (glory), not to a word that expresses human utopia.  Therefore, when James uses kalos, he is referring to what is morally good according to the Jewish standard of Torah.  James does not have a problem with determining what is ethically proper because James already has the final word on this matter.  He does not have to enter into 2500 years of ethical debate about what is ultimately right.  He already knows.  God told him.  Perhaps 1 Maccabees 4:24 gives us the best Jewish connection between what is good and what is holy.  Good is thanksgiving, praise and enduring mercy.

If we read James within the Jewish context of his time, we realize that his statement is a reiteration of Torah observance.  I know what is right because Torah directs my behavior.  If I do not do what I know from Torah, then I sin.  This assumes that Torah is known, and that is precisely what James advocates in Acts 15.  Teach Torah and men will know what to do.  Teach Torah and men will be accountable.  Teach Torah and sin will be obvious.  It is not a matter of my inner conscience or my particular slant on what I consider right.  James is a Torah observant Jew.  What is right is what God has revealed.  What I think about it doesn’t really matter.  The only thing that matters is whether or not I do what God tells me to do.

By the way, most Christian ethics is Platonic.  By adopting an anti-Torah view, Christians are thrust into the same Greek debate about a basis for ethical action.  Without Torah they must determine for themselves what constitutes the Good.  Thus you find all kinds of proposals for determining moral behavior – the “law” of love, the moral “situation,” the cultural conditions, political correctness, some abridged version of the Ten Commandments, the “do no harm” rule.  On and on it goes.  Why?  Because just like Plato, Christians without Torah must produce a human solution to a divine problem.

“He has showed you, O man, what is good.  And what does the LORD require of you?  To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8 NIV).

Topical Index:  James 4:17, Micah 6:8, good, sin, kalos, right thing

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , , ,  | 19 Comments
« Previous Entries