Tag-Archive for » dead «

Ruth and Rebekah

Thursday, August 16th, 2012 | Author:

Naomi said to her daughter-in-law, “Blessed be he of the LORD, who has not failed in His kindness to the living or to the dead!”  Ruth 2:20  JPS

Has not failed – What does Ruth have to do with Rebekah?  If you read the two stories in Hebrew, you would be struck by the repeated phrase lo-azav hasdo (has not abandoned his hesed).   This phrase is found in the mouth of Abraham’s servant when Rebekah appears at the well (Genesis 24:27).  Eskenazi points out that this phrase occurs only twice in the Tanakh,[1] so it would be hard to miss the connection.  While the pronoun in this verse in Ruth is ambiguous (does it refer to God or to Boaz?), the statement in Genesis is quite clear.  God is the subject of lo-azav hasdo.

This little linguistic link highlights three important points.  First, of course, is the fact that if you read the Tanakh in any other language you will probably miss these exquisite clues.  Just like the name of the Messiah, Yeshua, is only a play on the word “salvation” only in Hebrew (which is why the name “Jesus” conveys nothing about this connection), so we find many, many connections between stories and people only in Hebrew.  The first lesson of lo-azav hesed is that translations fail us.

The second lesson is not so pleasant.  Many scholars argue that Ruth is fiction.  They make this claim because, among other things, they find these Hebrew word connections too contrived to be actual events.  As we study Ruth, we will find many word plays, allusions and clues to other Hebrew verses.  Some scholars consider these indications that the author of Ruth fabricated the story in order to artificially produce these connections.  Ruth becomes a teaching tool, not an actual record of real people.  I don’t agree, but I do notice that even those who challenge the historical authenticity of Ruth recognize these connections.  So how can we who believe the story is real ignore them!  I believe that Ruth reflects a culture saturated with God’s language and God’s history.  It wouldn’t surprise me to find these clues any more than it surprises me to find allusions to American historical events in the cultural idioms of contemporary American English.

The third lesson is a puzzle.  Naomi speaks of God not abandoning His hesed to the dead.  But in what way does God show hesed to the dead?  Even some of the rabbis struggled with this idea.  On this basis, they claimed that the pronoun must refer to Boaz.  But this cannot be the case in Genesis so it seems unlikely in Ruth.  That leaves us with the question, “What is hesed for the dead?”  What does it mean to show benevolence, to take on obligation, to pass on favor to someone who has died?  Perhaps the puzzle of Ruth 2:20 can’t be answered yet.  Perhaps we need to rethink our idea that “dead and gone” is the final act of life.

Topical Index:  has not failed, lo-azav, hesed, Genesis 24:27, Ruth 2:20, dead


[1] Tamara Eskenazi and Tikva Frymer-Kensky, Ruth: The JPS Bible Commentary, p. 43.

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , , ,  | 18 Comments

Ordinal Insanity

Saturday, August 11th, 2012 | Author:

Another of the disciples said to him, “Lord, let me first go and bury my father.”  Matthew 8:21  ESV

First – Someone called me with a personal dilemma.  “I feel as if my wife and I need to move [to another city].  But I have so much family here and they are in such need.  My cousin is really sick and I have been ministering to him.  My sister is having real trouble and I want to be here for her.  And I’m concerned about my own health.  What if I get sick and we are so far away from my doctor?”

I heard the similarity to Matthew.  “First, let me take care of my family obligations, Lord.  Then I will come and follow you.”  Is it any different today?  There are always things to take care of; things that are perfectly reasonable (or so it seems) that prevent us from doing what God is asking us to do.

But let’s take a closer look at this story in Matthew.  Notice that the speaker is one of the disciples!  Don’t write him off as some fair-weather follower.  He is mathetes, a Greek word that means “disciple.”  He was serious about learning from Yeshua.  Ah, but that’s only part of the story.  The TDNT notes that the root word, manthano, is used hundreds of times in classical Greek to describe the activity of a disciple, but in the New Testament it is astonishingly rare.  In fact, manthano is used only 3 times in Matthew whereas didasko (to serve) is far more frequent and akolouthein (to follow) is the “true mark of the mathetes.”[1]  What does this mean?  It means that in spite of the fact that this man is designated a matheton, he was not characterized by akolouthein.  He was a disciple of learning, not a disciple of following.

There is a bit more to the story if we examine the culture.  For this man to say, “Give me permission to first bury my father,” means that he is asking for an undetermined temporal hiatus.  If his father were already dead, he wouldn’t even be with Yeshua.  He would be sitting shiva (Leviticus 21:1-3).  Therefore, his request is the equivalent of “Give me permission not to follow you until I bury my father.”  Once we add the cultural element, it is clear that this man wanted only the intellectual lessons, not the transformational demands.

Matthew’s account ends with Yeshua’s statement, “Let the dead bury the dead.”  Far too often Christian exegetes have treated this as if it were a spiritualized proclamation about salvation.  They think that Yeshua is saying, “Let those who have not experienced forgiveness take care of those who are still outside the Kingdom.  After all, they are all dead in their trespasses and sins.”  But I doubt anyone present would have drawn such a conclusion.  Everyone there knew that if this man’s father were actually dead he would be sitting shiva.  Yeshua’s statement merely emphasizes this point.  Death requires ritual performance.  The dead demand compliance.  Those who sit shiva are treated as if they were bound to the dead.  Festival participation is cancelled.  No one leaves the house.  Speech is restricted to topics about the deceased.  Ordinary activities of life are suspended.  Prayers are recited.  Services are held.  And all of this continues for seven days.  Yeshua is acknowledging that if this man were sitting shiva he would already be associated with the dead.  Permission is not necessary.  Shiva is commanded.

Are we any different than this excuse-prone disciple?  Our conversations about following often begin with “First, give me permission.”  What really comes first is “Follow me.”

Topical Index:  dead, shiva, first, proton, Matthew 8:21


[1] TDNT abridged, p. 554.

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , ,  | 29 Comments

The Grave Comes First

Friday, June 22nd, 2012 | Author:

But Naomi said to her two daughters-in-law, “Turn back, each of you to her mother’s house.  May the LORD deal kindly with you, as you have dealt with the dead and with me.”   Ruth 1:8  JPS

The dead – Why should God express hesed toward Ruth and Orpah?  Naomi’s answer demonstrates that she isn’t an evangelical.  She does not suggest that God showers His benevolence on foreigners simply because He loves them.  She doesn’t even suggest that God’s benevolence is unconditional.  She says that God will show hesed toward these two Moabite women because they have shown hesed toward the dead and the living.  In other words, their actions create reciprocal obligation.  They did something first.  God’s grace follows.

But what exactly did they do?  Answering this question places us squarely in the Semitic culture of the Middle East.  They showed proper care and respect for the dead.  This action demonstrated kindness as no other action could – because the dead cannot repay.  There can be no ulterior motive for caring for the dead, and that is precisely why such actions are the epitome of hesed – benevolence shown without any prior moral or social obligation; benevolence that comes purely from the heart.

Now you know why Naomi puts this act first, before the subsequent act of hesed toward her.  Even if Naomi receives pure-hearted kindness, there is always the possibility of expected reciprocity.  This is obviously never the case with the dead.  If Ruth and Orpah are willing to show such kindness toward those who can never repay, then their true character is revealed.  We can expect them to continue since we have seen that this is truly who they are.

This raises a very interesting question for our contemporary “stay young forever” culture.  What do we discover about our own hearts when it comes to the dead?  Oh, I don’t mean, “Do we place flowers on the grave sites of those we loved?”  Yes, maybe that is also revealing.  Perhaps it is more revealing to ask if we even visit those graves, or are we caught up in the “let go of the past” frenzy to deny our own mortality?  But let me ask another question, perhaps a bit more personal.  What are your behaviors around those who are dying?  How do you act toward those who are ready to pass from this life?  Most likely, they also cannot repay.  How do you show kindness and respect toward them?

My daughter told me once that she made friends with an elderly woman who is a distant relative.  This woman suffers from several diseases of the aged.  She is difficult to be around.  She often loses track of conversations and forgets who people are.  Most of her other family members just don’t want to be with her.  It is too difficult.  But Rachel engages this woman simply because Rachel’s heart tells her that comfort and care are important even if you don’t know who you’re talking to.  Naomi would agree.  The dead reveal the true hearts of the living.

Topical Index:  dead, hesed, Ruth 1:8

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

Altered State

Friday, December 18th, 2009 | Author:

But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless? James 2:20  NASB

Useless – According to this translation, James doesn’t say, “faith without works is false belief.”  He doesn’t say, “faith without works is carnal.”  He doesn’t say, “faith without works is hypocrisy.”  According to this translation, he says that it is useless.  It doesn’t accomplish its intended purpose.  It has no place in God’s grand scheme.  It is insipid, sick and ineffective.  It doesn’t produce.  It isn’t natural.

But the Greek is a bit stronger.  The word is nekra.  Dead!  Oh, it’s useless alright.  But the reason it’s useless is not simply because it is weak, insipid or ineffective.  The reason it’s useless is because it is dead!  It doesn’t have any life.  It is the unnatural bastardization of what God intended.  Faith produces spiritual fruit.  Spiritual fruit produces lasting, tangible transformation.  This is the natural and inevitable consequence of faith.  Wherever there is real faith in the God of Israel, things happen.  God guarantees it because He is jealous over His children.  He puts His spirit into us, resulting in the natural outgrowth of His character in our lives.  So, those who espouse faith but do not bear fruit are dead!  They aren’t carnal, confused or incapacitated.  They are tombstones.  Softening the blow by altering the translation from “dead” to “useless” doesn’t do anything but provide a back-handed excuse.  James won’t have it.  Faith without works isn’t just sick.  It’s terminal!

Do you agree with James?  Do you recognize that a claim of faith necessarily means an obligation to produce good fruit?  If you agree, then you should be able to look around at the fruit that grows naturally from your life with God.  You should see real results.  Of course, the fruit you produce isn’t for you.  It’s for others to enjoy.  The transformation that is occurring in your life must be recognized as blessing to others.  A tree does not eat its own production.  So, if you really are in flow with God, then others will be blessed by your efforts and your presence.  They will see transformation even if you don’t recognize it.  But if they aren’t discovering blessings through you, then you may want to take a closer look.  You just might be planted in a graveyard.

Does any “work” qualify?  No.  The fruit of the Spirit is quite specific.  You can find the list in Galatians 5.  But that’s only the beginning.  You see, “works” is a Hebrew idiom for tzedakah, the Hebrew word for the acts that we call “charity” in English.  However, the nature of tzedakah is very different from our idea of charity.  The word “charity” suggests benevolence and generosity, a magnanimous act by the wealthy and powerful for the benefit of the poor and needy.  But the word tzedakah is derived from the Hebrew Tzadei-Dalet-Qof, meaning righteousness, justice or fairness.  In charitable application, giving to the poor is not viewed as a generous, magnanimous act; it is simply an act of justice and righteousness, the performance of a duty, giving the poor their due.  Furthermore, since “works” includes righteousness and justice, it implies a life governed by Torah, the ultimate guide to righteousness and justice.  “Works” are not what I want to do.  “Works” are what God instructs me to do.

Faith without the committed application of God’s instructions is dead.  It might look noble and religious, but it is not aligned with God’s view of truth, justice and righteousness.  God’s way of living is not some nebulous “love each other” feeling.  It is specific behaviors covering every aspect of life.  It is the glorious privilege of serving Him by doing what He asks.  It is life as He defines it.

Ah, but you already knew that, didn’t you?  You are already living according to God’s instructions, aren’t you?  That’s why life is such a wonderful adventure, right?

Topical Index:  faith, works, dead, nekra, tzedakah, James 2:20

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