Tag-Archive for » adam «

Switch

Friday, February 15th, 2013 | Author:

The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: She shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” Genesis 2:23  NASB

Man – Something odd is happening in this story about the first man.  Up to this point, the word used for “man” is adam.  God formed the adam from the dust of the ground.  God breathed life into the adam.  The adam was placed in the Garden.  The adam walked and talked with God in Eden.  God gave the adam the first commandment.  God recognized that it was not good for the adam to be alone.  But when the adam woke from God’s formation of woman, he (the adam) said, “This is now bone of my bones . . . she shall be called ishshah because she was taken out of ish.”  What?!  How did the word ish get in there?  Everything up to this point is about adam, not ish.  The first occurrence of ish is in the mouth of the adam.  Why?  And even more puzzling, when we come to the principle verse about marriage, the very next verse, the word used is ish, not adam (“an ish shall leave his father and mother and cling to his ishshah”) but the next verse switches back to adam (“and they were both naked, the adam and his ishshah”).

We might suppose that adam is used to describe man in relation to God and ish is used to describe man in relation to other human beings and the world, but the linguistic evidence doesn’t bear this out (e.g., Genesis 4:1 uses adam, not ish.  Likewise, Genesis 3 uses adam).  But there must be a reason why the word ish, used 2174 times in the Tanakh versus adam, used 562 times, is introduced in this verse.  If we look at usage outside of the Genesis story, we find that adam is almost always a collective noun; a word for Mankind.  Of course, in the Genesis account it is the name of a particular being, but this isn’t its usual application.  In the Genesis account, adam includes several key elements: uniqueness in creation, dependence on God, accountability, and recipient of revelation.  But ish also carries essential elements of what it means to be human.  Ish is about connection.  It is predominately a word about identity in relationship.  In other words, in Hebrew thought I am not human simply because God formed me as adam.  I myself recognize that an essential part of who I am is the connection created by being ish.  In Hebrew thought there are no human islands.  We are all part of the same land.

Perhaps we cannot solve the riddle of ish other than to note that it is introduced deliberately to form a connection with ishshah, a connection, by the way, that has no etymological basis.  Ishshah is not a linguistic derivative of ish.  It is simply a word play.  But that doesn’t make it any less crucial.  The adam realizes that he needs the ishshah, and when he expresses this need, he calls himself by a word that connects him to her.  Think about that for just a moment.  He could have said, “She shall be called ishshah because she came from ha-adam” and he would have been correct.  But he doesn’t say that.  Instead, he alters the description of himself to fit her existence.  He changes who he is because of her.  Adam becomes ish because there is an ‘ezer kenegdo who is ishshah.  Men, do you see what this means?  Have you changed who you are because of her?  Isn’t that what the next verse, the verse about marriage, is all about.  We men are to be transformed into unity with our wives because they are our wives, because of who they are not what they do.  We change in order to become one with them.  Right?

Topical Index:  adam, ish, ishshah, Genesis 2:23, man, woman

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , , ,  | 9 Comments

First of His Kind – A Short Study

Wednesday, January 09th, 2013 | Author:

Then God said, “Let us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule . . . “  Genesis 1:26  NASB

Man – The first chapter of Genesis continues to provide inspiring insights into who we are and how we live.  In fact, a thorough study of just the first chapter might take a lifetime because it is so rich.  We have gleaned some of the depth of these verses in our studies of the meaning of being human.  We combined these insights with the recognition that even the typical word for “man” (ish) is relational, not substantive.  But now we need to take another look at the specific word that describes mankind in this verse, namely, adam.

We must start with some linguistic background.  After all, we can assume that Moses is writing to an audience with certain presuppositions about gods and men.  If Moses is going to be successful in communicating what YHWH thinks, he must speak in terms that his audience understands.  But immediately we have a problem.  The etymological history of adam is completely uncertain.  That means we don’t know where the word actually came from.  Was it from Akkadian (related to “red” and “blood”) or from Arabic (related to “people” or “skin”) or Semitic (related to “build”) or Sumerian (related to “father”) or something else?  The usual assertion that adam is related to red dirt or blood is difficult to sustain from the etymological evidence.  Of course, we could follow Frank Seekins’ pictographic analysis and claim that adam is the “first blood,” the combination of Aleph (first) and Dalet-Mem (blood)[1], and this may be true, but it doesn’t help with our etymological issue. So even if we learn something from the word pictures, we cannot confidently say that the word picture meaning is the meaning of the term.  It all depends on how you look at it.  If we knew where the word came from, we would have a better understanding of its meaning, but apparently that isn’t possible.

That means we must look at the way the word is used in the Tanakh.  Adam occurs 562 times in the Tanakh, one fourth occurring in the single book of Ezekiel.  In usage, the word carries the following characteristics:  1) Man is the sole participant in the divine breath and as the sole participant is set apart from all the rest of creation, 2) only Man receives the commandment(s) and is held accountable to God for following them, 3) in the created world, only Man is capable of sin, 4) Man is totally dependent on God and is not free to determine his own destiny, 5) Man’s life as an individual is a test, 6) Man is sinful.  He fails continually to live up to God’s standard and as a result experiences consequences in this life, and 7) even after his disobedience, Man experiences divine protection and compassion with the promise of redemption.

These seven characteristics govern the usage of adam in the Tanakh.  All of them play a role in the Genesis account, but in Man’s creation, the element of sin is absent.  Rabbinic Judaism teaches that Man’s creation includes both yetzer ha’ra (the inclination toward evil) and yetzer ha’tov (the inclination toward good) and we should recognize that Man, even in his “innocent” state, was still the nexus of these two opposing forces.

So what did God make when He said, “Let us make man in our image”?  If Moses draws on ideas current in Egypt when the children of Israel were taken out of bondage, there is reason to believe that they would have understood “in our image” as representatives of God.  Pharaoh was considered an incarnation of the gods and he was no less in bodily form than any other human being.  But Moses also seems to draw on the “father-son” relationship.  God “begets” man and desires and maintains a relationship that is quite familiar, the relationship between father and son in the culture of Israel.  Finally, the Genesis account clearly marks man as special and unique in his relationship and obligations.  He is the only recipient of divine revelation and the only creature who can be either a sinner or righteous.  The word adam summarizes these qualities.

I have argued in other investigations that we need to think of Genesis as tribal literature, that is, as an explanation of the origins and purposes of what it means to be human within the tribe of Israel.  This investigation shows us that Moses distinguishes Israel’s origin (the creation of the first man) from other ancient cosmologies by asserting that Man is a partner with God and not merely His slave, that Man is uniquely responsible for the commandments which are clearly revealed to Him (as opposed to cultures where men are held accountable but do not receive revelation) and that Man is God’s representative in the world, functioning as if he were God but not becoming gods.  This makes the Hebrew account different from all other accounts.

If we accept Moses’ account, then we are left with a self-examination.  Do we act as if we are partners with God?  Do we recognize that we are uniquely accountable for His commandments?  Do we acknowledge that we have received His revelation?  Are we living as His representatives? To be “Man” created in the image of God is to answer these questions affirmatively.  Any other answer seems to fall outside the usage of adam and therefore, outside the idea of being human.

Topical Index:  man, adam, Genesis 1:26, image of God


[1] Seekins suggests that Dalet-Mem (blood) comes from the picture “door of water.”  So, Adam is the “first door of water.”  In the ancient world, water was sometimes considered one of the basic elements.  This might help us connect “door of water” to the idea of blood.  But one of the problems with all pictographs is the multiple meanings attached to a single consonant picture.  For example, Dalet means “door,” “pathway” and “to enter.”  And Mem means “liquid,” “massive,” and “chaos.”  Since Hebrew is verbally based, we might be inclined to read Dalet-Mem as “to enter chaos,” a legitimate word picture but hardly appropriate for the context.  Here’s the lesson.  The actual pictures are fluid.  The picture we choose depends on the context and the presuppositions we bring to the text.  Some pictures are instructive.  Some less so.  See the work of N. R. Hanson (Perception and Discovery).

CORRECTION:  PHOENIX CONFERENCE is May 10-11, not May 9-10.  SORRY about yesterday’s mistaken dates.

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , ,  | 8 Comments

Tractate Sanhedrin

Wednesday, December 05th, 2012 | Author:

For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.  Romans 5:19  NIV

The one man – Paul was a rabbinic scholar.  Each time we read his letters, we must keep this in mind.  If we don’t, we will assume that Paul’s theology stands in opposition to his Jewish heritage and we will wrongly conclude that Paul is separating himself from Judaism in the first century.  But if we are careful, if we look, we will find precedence for much of Paul’s thinking among the rabbis.  The wonder and beauty of Paul’s insights is not that they are new but that they draw a clearer conclusion from the same source.  Paul does what Yeshua did before him.  He demonstrates that the same thoughts and the same texts that were so familiar to his Jewish brothers can be seen in a new light.  They can be rearranged so that we see something else in them.  Matthew does exactly the same thing when he uses prophetic texts from the Tanakh.  He provides a new way of seeing the old material.  This is a standard rabbinic practice and those rabbis who were able to rearrange the connections most eloquently were considered geniuses.  Certainly Paul fits that evaluation.

With this in mind, let’s read something from Tractate Sanhedrin in the Talmud.

“Therefore but a single person was created in the world, to teach that if any man has caused a single life to perish from Israel, he is deemed by Scripture as if he had caused a whole world to perish; and anyone who saves a single soul from Israel, he is deemed by Scripture as if he had saved a whole world.”[1]

Did you think Paul invented the idea of one dying for many?  We know that it certainly was not a Greek idea.  Such a concept was considered impossible by the Greeks.  But here we have a rabbinic teaching that virtually parallels Paul’s claim.  The only difference, and it is an important one, is that Paul identifies the “single person” in the rabbinic Tractate.  The first is Adam.  The second is Yeshua.  The thought is entirely rabbinic but the connection displays the genius of Paul.

Most Christian believers not only do not know the rabbinic literature, they don’t even know it exists!  What a shame!  Paul’s insights would have been impossible without this prior rabbinic heritage.  When we read his predecessors, we discover that they prepared the way for the Messiah just as much as the prophets.  They established the intellectual and religious environment necessary for Yeshua to be recognized as the Messiah.  And if Paul is any example, many rabbinic Jews and their followers did recognize Yeshua as the one they were waiting for.  Now we, as contemporary believers, reap the rewards of their labor.  Don’t you think it’s time we knew what they taught?

Topical Index:  Tractate Sanhedrin, one man, Adam, Christ, Romans 5:19


[1] Sanhedrin, Chapter 4, Mishnah 5, (3)

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , ,  | 8 Comments

The Last Adam

Wednesday, February 01st, 2012 | Author:

For as through one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the one many will be made righteous.  Romans 5:19  NASB

The one – Who is the last Adam?  Christians are quick to answer, “Jesus.”  But Jewish followers of YHWH have provided a different answer for the last 2000 years; an answer that most Christians and Messianic believers simply don’t understand or appreciate.  Once we realize that our Jewish brothers and sisters have another answer to this question, an answer that is perfectly legitimate within Judaism, we gain two very important insights.

The first insight is the realization that Paul offers a theological shift within the Jewish rabbinic perspective, not a radical break.  The groundwork for a “last Adam” theology was already in place.  All Paul had to do was point in a slightly different direction.

The second insight is that contemporary orthodox Judaism still retains the fundamental framework for a “last Adam” theology that could follow Paul’s direction.  In other words, if it were not for the additional baggage added by the Church’s dismissal of Torah, Jews today might easily follow Paul’s rabbinic thought in Romans Chapter 5.  It’s all there, waiting to be revealed by moving from one exegetical scheme to another.

Notice what Neusner says about this “last Adam” idea.  “Israel is like Adam, but Israel is the other, the last Adam, comparable to but ultimately the opposite of the first Adam: God’s final solution to the Adam problem. . . . For Judaism, what is important is how sages explicitly compare Adam and Israel, the first man and the last, and show how the story of Adam matches the story of Israel – but with a difference not to be missed.”[1]

Did you catch the connection rabbinic Judaism provides?  The first Adam was that man in the Garden who disobeyed YHWH’s command.  As a result, human progeny were propelled into a world dominated by the unrestrained yetzer ha’ra.  Then came God’s selection of Israel!  Because the sages adopted an exegetical method that employed typology and allegory, they looked at Israel as the last Adam.  Israel, God’s chosen people, became the substitute Adam.  Israel ushered in the possibility of obedience that reconciled the error made by the first Adam.  Because the sages saw the divinely-chosen nation as God’s answer to a lost world, they offered a different answer to the problem of the Fall.  Within rabbinic thought, that answer was legitimate.  The problem with the answer is not the formula “last Adam = Israel.”  The problem is the exegetical method that produces the formula.

When Paul offers a different formula (“last Adam = Yeshua”) he is still working within the framework of rabbinic theology.  He is still trying to solve the fall-death problem.  But his exegetical method is based on historical event, not on allegory and type.  Therefore, he points in a different direction.  He points to the actual man, Yeshua, as the solution rather than to a typology found in the idea of Israel.  Paul certainly was familiar with the exegesis of typology.  He uses it himself.  But on this crucial issue, he anchors his claim in the historical record.  If Yeshua didn’t live and die and rise again as the Messiah, then Paul’s claim is bogus.  Paul recognizes that even the idea of Israel can’t really solve this problem because the people of Israel have not been perfectly obedient.  They still need an advocate on Yom Kippur.  The high priest can’t atone for his own sins and neither can the nation.  God Himself must solve this problem and God does so with a man, the Messiah, not with a type.

What does this mean for us?  First, we learn that Paul is much more of a rabbi than we commonly believe.  Even in his view of Yeshua as mediator, he does not step out of the rabbinic framework.  He merely offers another solution.  Secondly, we learn that if we are going to interact with our Jewish compatriots today, we must become sensitive to the exegetical methods they have used for 2400 years; methods that produce the answers they embrace today.  If we are going to talk about Yeshua as the Messiah, we better understand how they would view the same original material.  And finally, we realize that we too have presuppositions that guide our exegesis.  If we don’t know why we believe what we believe, if we don’t understand how our paradigms shape the reading to the text, then we are in no better position than those rabbis who rejected Paul’s other direction.  If unity is our goal, the goal that Paul expressed over and over, we have a lot to learn, don’t we?

Topical Index:  Adam, last Adam, Judaism, Neusner, Romans 5:19

 

[1] Jacob Neusner, Judaism When Christianity Began, p. 57

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , ,  | 6 Comments

Adam’s Real Sin

Thursday, November 18th, 2010 | Author:

You are the anointed cherub that covers, I have set you so Ezekiel 28:14

Anointed Cherub – Ezekiel’s prophetic announcement to the king of Tyre describes more than we might think.  Ezekiel provides us with a midrash on Adam.  We need to pay close attention to the prophet’s words since they tell us a great deal about God’s intention for creating human beings.  “You were in Eden, the garden of God,” Ezekiel writes.  This is certainly not historically true of the king of Tyre, but it is true if we look at the general pattern of human behavior as seen in our progenitor, Adam.  The prophet tells us that Adam had it all.  Everything was prepared for him.  He was placed on the holy mountain of God, blameless from the moment of his creation.  He was anointed cherub.

Now what does that mean?  What do the cherubs do?  The word kerub isn’t used very often in Scripture. Our English word cherubim is a transliteration of the Hebrew kerubim (plural), not a translation.  Why?  The root word kerub is supposed to be the past participle of the verb karab (according to the way Hebrew nouns are formed), but this verb does not exist in Hebrew.  The word does occur as a noun in other places, some of which are quite interesting:  Genesis 3:24, Psalm 99:1 and Psalm 18:10.  The design of the cherubim above the ark is similar to the description found in the vision of Ezekiel (1:4-14).  Ezekiel adds to the picture in 10:18-22.  You can compare this with John’s vision in Revelation 4:6-8.  The kerubim were assigned the task of keeping sinful Adam and Havvah out of the Garden.  Their images also guarded the ark of the covenant, standing on both sides of the mercy seat covering.  In other words, they are guardians of God’s purposes for righteousness.  Now Ezekiel tells us that Adam was supposed to play that role.  He was anointed to guard (cover) the Garden, the representation of God’s good creation.

But something happened.

Ezekiel’s prophetic word describes the tragic event of Adam’s sin as idolatry.  Adam served the serpent rather than YHWH.  Adam listened to the voice of the serpent rather than the voice of YHWH.  Adam remembered the words of the serpent but forgot the words of YHWH.  Adam, not Eve, made the deliberate choice to serve himself and someone other than YHWH.  Adam was created for leadership (mashah – anointed – is often used to describe a ceremonial ritual designating a leader).  What kind of leadership?  The leadership of the kerub, the guardian of God’s Garden, the protector of all that is good in the eyes of the Lord.   But Adam took care of himself.  He became the guardian of his own interests.  That made him an idolater and required God to remove him from the Garden of Good.  By the way, Havvah was also appointed a guardian – the guardian of Adam.

Men, do we want to recover the role YHWH gave us when we were created His image bearers?  Then guard what He says is good.  Guard His righteousness.  Guard His name.  Protect His creation against the sedition of the enemy.  Become the anointed kerubim that He made us to be.  The objective is crystal clear.  God leaves no doubt about what He says is good.  Our job is to protect His order of creation.  In doing so, we will ensure the well being of every worshipper.  A little less than angels?  You bet!  And for very good reasons.  Will you take up the angelic role God assigned?

Oh yes, this anointed role is not accomplished alone.  Women have a covenant relationship with the Lord to protect their men and bring blessings into their lives by making sure we men protect God’s good.  It’s a big job, especially since men have a propensity to act like Adam.

Topical Index:  Adam, Ezekiel 28:14, kerub, mashah, anointed, cherub, leadership

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

No One In Particular?

Wednesday, October 27th, 2010 | Author:

The steps of a man are ordered from YHWH, and He will delight in his way.  Though he falls, he will not be cast down, for YHWH upholds his hand. Psalm 37:23-24

Man – It is certainly a shame that some English translations use the word “man” for the Hebrew geber in this verse.  The KJV offers some help with its parenthetical expression “good” and the NLT provides “godly,” but in general most English translations ignore the fact that this is not the Hebrew word ish or adam.  We have seen these distinctions before (April 12 and May 16).  In this verse, we really need to know the difference between these three Hebrew words.  Geber is particularly important in David’s use.  These are the mighty men, the warriors, the ones of spiritual strength.  Job uses the word fifteen times to distinguish the character of the geber from ordinary men.  Most importantly, Zechariah 13:7 describes God as geber (a statement we will need to look at more carefully).  The lesson is clear.  Not every man has steps ordered by the Lord.

What kind of man is a geber?  Let’s see what Job suggests.  A geber is:

A man child, born perhaps for tests and trials (3:3)

A man whose way may be hidden by God (3:23)

A man who is just and pure (4:17)

A man who is aware of his mortality (10:5)

A man who knows he will certainly die (14:10)

A man who pleads with God (16:21)

A man who intercedes for a neighbor (16:21)

A man who is vigorous in usefulness to God (22:2)

A man who is wise and useful to himself (22:2)

A man who keeps from pride and turns aside from bad conduct (33:17)

A man who desires to be redeemed (33:28-29)

A man who may suffer in this life (34:7)

A man who understands there may be no profit when he is pleased with God (34:9)

A man of true understanding (34:34)

A man who is ready to take action (38:3)

A man who will answer to God (40:7)

Clearly not every man may have his steps ordered by YHWH.

Are these your characteristics?  Do you see yourself in each of these descriptions from Job?  Better yet, do others see you described by Job’s words?  If you find a few vacancies when you apply Job’s definition of geber to yourself, perhaps you need to reconsider what being a man really is.  There are lots of men who are nothing more than male homo sapiens (ish).  And all men (and women) are adam.  But only a few are geber.

Topical Index:  geber, man, Psalm 37:23, ish, adam

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , ,  | 9 Comments

The Genesis Syndrome

Monday, August 16th, 2010 | Author:

Commit your way to YHWH, trust also in Him, and He shall bring it to pass. Psalm 37:5 (Hebrew text)


Commit/Trust – David demonstrates that the fulfillment of God’s purposes in our lives depends on two related actions.  The first is voluntarily granting God ownership.  The second is acting with complete confidence of God.  David wasn’t the first to notice this combination.  In fact, it is built into the very fabric of successful human relationship.  If we look closely, we will find that our best relationships with each other are merely copies of the divine-human pattern.  The whole story begins in Genesis.

God established the perfect pattern of human relationships when He presented Adam with his needed companion, Havvah.  You will recall that God built Havvah according to a preconceived blueprint for a specific purpose.  That purpose was to act as Adam’s guide; to insure that Adam had the necessary advice and counsel to keep God’s commandment and fulfill God’s assigned task in the world.  In order to act in this enormously important role, God designed Havvah with the intelligence, spiritual acumen and relationship management skills necessary to set the boundaries for the couple.  Adam was created to remember. Havvah was built to guide.

Since Havvah was built from the substance of Adam, she became the perfect match for Adam, “bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh.”  Adam is the beneficiary of God’s design covenant with the woman.  But since she is now a separate being, the first step in the process of reunion (“and the two shall become one”) is voluntary.  Men do not have a voluntary relationship with themselves, but if they are going to have any kind of successful relationship with their spouses, it will have to be voluntary.  More importantly, it will have to be the voluntary relinquishing of self-ownership.  Marriage means giving up my rights to myself and giving those rights into the hands of my spouse.  This applies to every aspect of the marriage, including my own body (cf. Paul’s remark).  The first step in the first human relationship is galal, to roll, to roll that cylinder of ownership on my actions and my attitudes.  They don’t belong to me anymore.

The second step is just as important.  Proverbs 31:11 underscores the trust component in marriage.  It tells me that a man should trust (batach) his wife with the same actions that he trusts God.  Notice that Proverbs 31:11 concludes with the same category of thought as Psalm 37:5.  When we commit and trust in God, He completes His work.  When a man trusts his wife, it is prosperous to him.  Things get done that benefit him.  God’s actions are reflected in her actions.  Ownership and trust are defined by the vertical relationship to God, but they are demonstrated in the horizontal relationship between spouses.  Just how crucial this proper alignment is can be seen in Genesis 3, a story about a tiny twist on the correct alignment.

David may have reflected on the Genesis syndrome when he wrote these words.  He might have seen this ancient design pattern stretching across all flourishing relationships.  He could have considered the tragic consequences of not combining ownership and trust.  We don’t know what David was thinking, but we do know what God thinks about the matter.  Roll and rely.  Does that describe your divine and human relationships?

Topical Index:  Psalm 37:5, Adam, Havvah, commit, trust, galal, batach

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , , , ,  | 2 Comments

Time Travel

Tuesday, July 27th, 2010 | Author:

And God created Man in His image and in the image of God He created him, male and female He created them. Genesis 1:27

Image – An enormous amount of material has been written about this word,tselem. Most of it attempts to elucidate the attributes of the divine image found in human beings. That approach is a bit too Greek for me. I prefer to deal with the action and relations that are implied in the God who is action and relation. I think that the image of God is more about what we do than it is about what attributes we have. But we won’t cover that ground again (if you want to see where we have been, look here). Today we need to think about something else that is implied in this verse. Adam was not a “primitive.”

Something amazing has happened in the last several hundred years. Men have decided that they are the current top rung of the progressive ascent toward utopia. Our society believes that we are coming closer and closer to the final truths of the universe. We think of ourselves as the ones who are at the leading edge of progress. With a few more discoveries, a few more adjustments and a few more visionary leaders, we will arrive at the pinnacle of rationality. We will become our destiny.

There is a religious parallel to this political, scientific and economic hubris. It is the belief that men have progressed from primitive worship of idols toward higher and higher forms of religious awareness until one day they came upon the idea of a monotheistic God. Men moved from the worship of divinities in thunder and lightning to the worship of multiple gods to the worship of one supreme being. Just like its utopian counterpart, this progression in religion moved up the incline from ignorance to rational supremacy until it reached our lofty consciousness.

What all of this implies is that Adam was an idiot. This utopian view implies that Adam was primitive and therefore, he must have been stupid. He must have been an animist or a polytheist. He certainly could not have been a sophisticated monotheist like us. He is ancient, a synonym for ignorant. What this means is that nothing ancient has much to say to me today. If the truth is in the future, what can I possibly learn from the past except error? I don’t need history. History is a record of man’s mistakes and erroneous beliefs. What I need is a constant view toward what is yet to come. I can turn my back on all that ancient mumbo-jumbo. It is useless.

A society without a past is one step away from collapse. Without a foundation, any structure will fall. The Bible makes a staggering claim. Things in the beginning were better than they are today. In fact, they were better than they will ever be no matter how sophisticated men become. We began perfect. We have been moving toward imperfect ever since. According to the biblical foundation, the future is not our home. We left the home in the Garden. We are now strangers to ourselves and to the world. Without restoration to the original, we are doomed.

The biblical idea of the image of Man stands in utter contradiction to the entire progressive hubris of the world. Any action or endorsement of this utopian progressivism is idolatrous. It will lead nowhere but to destruction. “Return to Me,” isn’t just about moral forgiveness. It is about a restoration of the image of God in the actions of men – and that is Garden talk.

Topical Index: image, tselem, progressive, utopia, Adam, Genesis 1:27

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , , ,  | 33 Comments

Undercover Adam

Wednesday, April 21st, 2010 | Author:

And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not wanting to disgrace her, desired to put her way secretly. Matthew 1:19

To Disgrace – We don’t have much trouble identifying the Hebraic pattern in the gospel of John.  “In the beginning was the Word” is deliberately arranged to parallel “In the beginning God” from Genesis 1:1.  But we are not so quick to see that Matthew also uses a Hebrew frame of reference.  But looking a little deeper into the structure of his gospel, we will discover that he wrote assuming that the readers would be very familiar with the Genesis account.  Just like John, Matthew’s audience knew the Scripture – the Tanakh – and they would have recognized immediately that these gospel accounts were designed to create a seamless continuity between the text of the Tanakh and the writings of the apostles.  Much later, this style of writing came to be called “writing with Scripture.”  It was a common practice of the rabbis.

Let’s look at the account of Joseph and see how Matthew disguises something about Adam.  Mary is Joseph’s ‘ezer kenegdo, just like Havvah is Adam’s ‘ezer kenegdo.  Just like Havvah, Mary appears to have betrayed Joseph.  At least that is Joseph’s perspective.  The next verse suggests that Joseph was enraged at the news of her pregnancy.  Yes, I know, the translation doesn’t say that, but the Greek text does.  We translate enthumethentos as “considering” or “meditating on” or “thinking about,” but everywhere else in Scripture the root word thumos is about anger or wrath.  In fact, this makes a lot more sense.  Joseph was mad about what appeared to have happened.  Who wouldn’t be?  Just like Adam, Joseph feels betrayed.  But there is one big difference in the Joseph story.  Joseph forgives!

Joseph is a just man.  That’s what the Greek text says (dikaios).  This does not mean that he was scrupulously legal.  It means that he understood compassion.  He loved Mary.  Before he even knew the whole story, he didn’t want her to be disgraced.  The Greek text actually says that he didn’t want her to be publicly shamed (paradeigmatisai).  Literally, this means to make a public example of.  Joseph had every right to expose her offense.  But his rights didn’t come before her self-esteem.  That’s dikaios.  To treat the apparently unlovable, the ones who have done us harm, with tender compassion.  Joseph is not Adam.  Adam not only doesn’t forgive, he names his ‘ezer kenegdo with a name that forever humiliates her.  Joseph puts aside his pride and loves Mary.  Adam gets even.

There are two powerful lessons here.  The first is the easy one.  If we don’t read the gospels as Jews, we won’t see all that’s really there.  We will read these stories as if they are new events, not pattern repetitions.  So, lesson number one – we have a lot to learn.

Lesson number two is the reason why Matthew includes this small description of Joseph.  Joseph is Adam undercover, but this Adam demonstrates the power of forgiveness just as the first Adam exhibited the tragedy of revenge.  What does this mean for us?  Ah, we have two role models before us – Adam or Joseph.  Which will you be today?  Will you be just, or will you be justified?

Topical Index:  Joseph, Adam, just, dikaios, public shame, Matthew 1:19

IT’S WORKING:  If you want to see what happens when a community cares, go read about Melanie.  God is on the move.

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , , ,  | 13 Comments

Life Insurance

Tuesday, February 23rd, 2010 | Author:

And it happened as the sun was setting and a deep sleep fell on Abram, and behold, a terror of great darkness falling on him Genesis 15:12

Deep Sleep –

One of the principles of Hebraic interpretation is connecting thoughts based on similar words.  When a word appears only a few times in Scripture, the connections become even more important because each “dot” adds to the overall concept.  So, when we encounter a word like tardema (deep sleep) which occurs only seven times, we want to be sure we see where the connections lead us.  This is particularly important when we draw the connection between Abraham and Adam.

Genesis repeats themes that are crucial for living according to God’s plan.  Here we have the first (but not the last) repetition of the story of Adam and Havvah replayed in the lives of Abraham and Sarah.  The choice of tardema is a reminder of the story of Adam.  We need to pay close attention to the implications.  Here’s what we discover.

In both cases, God causes this trance.  In both cases, God is the active agent in the covenant formation.  Notice the results.  Abraham sleeps while God does the work.  Abraham is the beneficiary of the resulting covenant.  He is not a material partner in the agreement.  Everything important happens while he sleeps.  He wakes to find a new situation, one that establishes an eternal promise for his benefit.

Apply that insight to Adam.  While Adam sleeps, God works.  God brings into existence the Woman who is specifically designed to reflect the application of God’s will.  She is built to have an intuitive understanding of God’s boundaries and moment-to-moment direction.  She is the partner in covenant relationship with God.  Adam wakes to find that his world has changed.  But he had nothing to do with it.  He is the beneficiary of the relationship between God and Havvah.  In Adam’s situation, the ‘ezer kenegdo has a connection to God that benefits the man, just as Abraham is benefited by God’s promise to Himself.  In other words, the red-flag marker of tardema begs us to see that the work of the Lord is for the well-being of the male even though neither male actively participates in the arrangement.  This helps us realize that there are really two covenants in marriage.  One covenant is the promise of fidelity between the husband and wife.  The other is the covenant relationship between the ‘ezer and God.  One is voluntary; the other is divinely-designed.

What does this mean?  It means that God’s work in creating the ‘ezer kenegdo is connected to God’s work in establishing the covenant of promise with Abraham.  The Woman is God’s first manifestation of promise.  Man needs help.  God supplies help.  Man is the beneficiary of God’s supply.  We are reminded of the critical role the Woman plays.  We see that her role is to provide shalom to her charge.  The design of God’s covenant for Abraham results in the opportunity for shalom for all Mankind.   Don’t you suppose that the design of God’s “helper” for Adam has the same horizon?  Did you think the creation story was disconnected from the redemption story?  The ‘ezer kenegdo is God’s answer to the problem of being alone, just as the covenant with Abraham is God’s answer to the problem of being separated.  The similarities are impossible to deny.  The Woman plays a crucial role in the manifestation of reunion.  She is the foretaste of the promise of unity and marriage is the vehicle though which this unity is accomplished.

Topical Index:  covenant, sleep, tardema, Adam, Abraham, ‘ezer, Genesis 15:12

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , , , ,  | 4 Comments
« Previous Entries