Tag-Archive for » Havvah «

Friendly Reminder (2)

Sunday, July 10th, 2011 | Author:

Therefore, whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. James 4:4  (almost NASB)

Friend of the world – Who is a philos tou kosmou (friend of the world)?  This is a vitally important question, perhaps equal to the scribe’s inquiry, “Who is my neighbor?”  If we have the wrong answer to this question, we might fall prey to the same seduction Havvah experienced.

Here’s the simple answer:  a friend of the world is an enemy of God.  Obvious, but perhaps not too helpful, until we realize that God has given us quite an exhaustive list of the thoughts and behaviors of those who wish to befriend the world.  That list is found in the 613 Torah commandments.  A friend of the world disregards God’s instructions for living, replacing His instructions with guidance from the kosmos.  Since there can only be one true God, replacing His instructions with different directions about life can only mean that the replacements come from a false god.  To be a friend of the world is to be idolatrous.  To be a friend of the world is to serve a god other than YHWH.  It doesn’t require debauchery, treachery or megalomania.  It only requires asserting that God’s instructions don’t matter.

Was that a body blow?  Did that remark suddenly cause you to shudder?  If it is true that Torah disobedience puts you in the position of an idolater, are you still able to claim friendship with the Most High God?  Do you have a greater appreciation for the dilemma facing Havvah?  She wanted to do all that she was expected to do.  She wanted to be the best ‘ezer kenegdo she could possibly be.  Don’t you want something similar?  Don’t you want to be all you can be, all God intended you to be?  But are you willing to manifest that desire within the boundaries God sets?  Havvah doesn’t sin because she is selfish or power-hungry or rebellious.  She sins because she desires to improve God’s plan.  The desire is genuine and noble.  The means are sinful.  She befriends what the world has to offer in order to do what God wants.  I wonder how many of us do the same.

Of course, this truth entails two imperatives.  The first is that I must know the 613.  Not all apply to me, of course, but to ignore or disregard them is an act of rebellion, according to the implication in James.  So I must look and see which apply to me.

The second is that I am called to love my enemies.  Now I realize that this commandment (one of the 613) extends to those who willfully or ignorantly disregard the 613.  They are my enemies because they are God’s enemies because they serve another master.  And I must love them with such a compelling love that they return to the 613, the fellowship of His community and the experience of His presence.  Love of enemies doesn’t mean simply turning the other cheek to those who carry a gun.  It can also mean caring for those who carry an altered Book.

Topical Index:  enemy, friend, world, James 4:4, commandments, Havvah

 

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , , ,  | 20 Comments

Janis in Genesis

Wednesday, February 23rd, 2011 | Author:

NOTE: The only way to really feel this edition of Today’s Word is to click here to read and listen to it on the web site.  -Skip

Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, “I have gotten a manchild with the help of the LORD.” Genesis 4:1  NASB

The man - The common language of all humanity is pain.  That covers the gamut.  It’s not just physical pain.  There is plenty of that, to be sure.  Humanity’s common language also involves emotional pain.  Since the time of the Garden there seems to be more than enough of that version as well.  Perhaps we can see some of the source of this tragedy if we read between the lines, or in this case, add the music between the words in the Genesis account.  Let’s start with “the man.”  This short insight into Havvah’s life after her fall begins with an unexpected Hebrew word, ha-adam.  I believe there is a good reason why the name of the man is not included in this text.  The text doesn’t say “Adam knew Eve.”  It says, “the man knew his wife.”  Adam is no longer the lover in the Garden.  He has become her oppressor.  He is no longer the man she once knew.  He is the source of her emotional pain.  I am quite sure she could sing along with Janis.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

“Try just a little bit harder.”  Isn’t that what we do when we have serious conflict with the one in love?  We try.  We try harder.  The world’s advice, before telling us to give up and get divorced, is simple:  try harder.  Sometimes it works – for awhile.  But serious conflict, like the conflict that comes from refusing to forgive, or from crossing the boundaries God established for roles in marriage, or from upside-down power struggles hardly ever gets resolved by trying harder.  The Genesis account tells us why this is the case.  Nevertheless, we try, hoping that we will get what Janis wanted.  Everyone wants someone, and the clamor in the soul to have companionship runs so deep that we project the hope we need into the life of another.  

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

“Get it while you can.”  If we can’t have the deep harmony that fills the whole (yes, this is intentional) in our hearts, we will take what we can find.  But we know it’s not enough.  It’s an anesthetic.  Emotional numbness.  Eventually it wears off and the pain is back.  Now we reach the suffering stage.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

That’s right, baby! Take another piece of my heart.  Break another piece of my heart.  I’m going to hang in there.  I’m going to hold on while you do the damage.  One of my dear friends said to me, “I’m so sad.  We used to be so good together.  Now there’s just sadness.”

Janis helps us feel Genesis.  Adam becomes “the man” because the relationship is broken.  I am quite sure that Havvah tried to get it back.  I am quite sure that she did all she could to make her man feel as if he were the only one.  I have no doubt she took the love she could get, hoping it would heal.  Jewish legend supplies the outcome.  Adam leaves her.  For more than one hundred years, they are separated.  I imagine that Havvah saw the handwriting on the wall (to use an anachronism).  She knew long before he left that it was headed toward disaster.  So, she did what any woman would do – any woman who carried an unrelenting guilt, a man who refused to forgive and a suffering love.  She found another.  In the Genesis account, she barters for a replacement.  Kayin (Cain) becomes the new man.  She concludes her story with the song, Ball and Chain.  

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Janis Joplin never found her way out.  Perhaps Havvah didn’t either.  Havvah did have the promise.  Someday justice would come.  Someday mercy would prevail.  The head of the serpent would be crushed.  But most of us don’t seem to be able to hang on until that day.  Most of us go out with Janis.  “Move over, baby.”  After we experience betrayal, heartache and faithlessness, we move on, repeating the very actions that caused us so much pain.  We feel justified because it happened to us.  We forget that we have trampled on God’s honor and He didn’t leave us!  We eat from the Tree of what’s best for me.  We forget that it was God’s Tree in the first place and that it also has a blessed purpose.

Janis in Genesis shows us who we are, not who we can become.  Havvah still walks the earth, struggling with “the man.”  What happens to her is up to each of us – male or female.

Topical Index: Janis Joplin, Havvah, Genesis 4:1, pain

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

Agendas

Monday, March 29th, 2010 | Author:

For it is written, “He is the one who catches the wise in their craftiness.” 1 Corinthians 3:19 (citing Job 5:13)

Craftiness – When rabbi Sha’ul cites Eliphaz’s comment in Job 5:13, he certainly recalled another use of a similar consonant stem (Ayin-Resh-Mem).  Craftiness is the supreme characteristic of the serpent (Genesis 3:1).

We wouldn’t expect hokmah (wisdom) to be associated with ‘orem (craftiness).  After all, wisdom is a noble virtue and a spiritual prize.  But Eliphaz sees a danger here – a danger that we must also see.  There is a wisdom that has a second agenda.  It looks good on the outside, but its motives are as sinister as the serpent’s.

The serpent was wise from the world’s perspective.  This wisdom is the ability to apply information to achieve a goal.  It is the same wisdom we find when pagans manipulate their influence in the world to accomplish their objectives.  Whether the goals are noble or nefarious, a certain amount of savvy gets a lot done.  But this kind of wisdom sidesteps the fundamentals of the biblical definition of wisdom.  In the Bible, wisdom begins with a full commitment in thought and deed to the sovereignty of God.  Biblical wisdom is reverential.  Biblical wisdom recognizes first that we don’t know.  God knows.  And insofar as we wish to understand what He knows and what He is doing, we must acknowledge our dependency and embrace His mystery.  That doesn’t mean we don’t get things done.  It just means that applying information and insight to accomplish a goal without first determining God’s desire is craftiness, not faithfulness.

Craftiness is generally discovered in the revelation of a second agenda.  We don’t always see it.  Havvah was deceived.  The serpent had a hidden agenda.  Havvah didn’t sin because she determined to do whatever she wanted to do.  She sinned because she attempted to reach a good goal outside obedience to God’s boundaries.  The serpent seduced her into believing that it was perfectly justifiable to reach beyond the boundary.  The serpent accomplished his objective by disguising the real agenda inside a reasonable suggestion.

Who will unearth these second agendas?  Sha’ul turns to Eliphaz to remind us that God alone knows the hearts of men.  God reveals the real motives.  Intelligence, savvy, street-smarts and educated influence do not equal wisdom from God.  In a world that is starstruck by credentials, we must learn to test everything against His word.  Even more importantly, we must look at our own desire for credentialed recognition.  It’s just too easy to slip into craftiness.

Topical Index:  craftiness, ‘orem, ‘arum, serpent, Havvah, Job 5:13, 1 Corinthians 3:19

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

Adam and Abram

Thursday, November 26th, 2009 | Author:

So Sarai said to Abram, “Now behold, the LORD has prevented me from bearing [children].  Please go in to my maid; perhaps I will obtain children through her.”  And Abram listened to the voice of Sarai. Genesis 16:2

Listened To The Voice – Ah, now you see the connection.  Adam listened to the voice of his wife.  Something terrible happened.  Abram listened to the voice of his wife.  Something terrible happened.  The Hebrew phrase yishma lekol in this verse in not an accidental choice of words.  Look at Genesis 3:17.  God uses the same phrase when He confronts Adam.  Genesis deliberately recalls the fundamental disobedience of human beings in this story about the first parents of the faithful.  Apparently the apple doesn’t fall too far from the tree.  It looks like we can hardly claim Abram and Sarai were chosen for their righteousness.  They are acting just like Adam and Havvah.

This intentional similarity highlights another aspect of the story.  Hagar is the forbidden fruit!  Havvah recognized the forbidden fruit was good for food, pleasant to the eyes and could provide something that was missing.  Sarai sees Hagar in the same way.  Hagar has the potential to provide something missing.  So, Sarai takes and gives Hagar to Abram, in the same way (and with the same words) that Havvah took and gave the fruit to Adam.  And both men consume what their wives give them.  They don’t stand up against their wives.  They don’t say, “Wait.  This is not pleasing to YHWH.”  They don’t utter a word.  They just do what they’re told.  In the process, Abram treats Hagar just like a piece of fruit.

Of course, they do it willingly.  They aren’t compelled to eat.  They are complicit in the action.  But the story draws the parallel in ways we can’t miss.  Abram is Adam all over again.

Does Abram know God will provide the means of acquiring the promised blessing?  I should hope so.  God reiterated the blessing several times.  There is not a hint that any part of the blessing depends on Abram.  God is the initiator and the consummator of this promise.  Abram should have known that Sarai’s plan was flawed from the beginning.  Perhaps he did.  But Abram was like Adam.  The “fruit” looked good.  It promised to be enjoyable.  It promised to add something to his life.  So, he took and ate.

What’s the lesson here?  If you’re male, you probably thought, “Don’t listen to your wife!”  That would be a big mistake.  That’s not the lesson.  The lesson is about the mutual responsibilities between the ‘ezer and the ‘zakar.  Do you remember those words?  ‘Ezer is God’s designed spiritual guide, the one who listens most intently to the Spirit and directs the couple toward God’s purposes.  Havvah thought she could be better at this job if she just enlarged the fence around life.  Sarai thought she could be better at her job if she just managed the promise herself.  The zakar (male) is the one who remembers.  In these stories, both men forget that God is in charge.  So, what’s the lesson?  Once the pattern of self-reliance and self-sufficiency starts, it will expand along the same uncontrollable (even if unintentional) lines unless someone breaks the chain.  Adam affects Havvah.  Havvah affects Cain.  Cain affects Abel.  Abram affects Sarai.  Sarai affects Hagar.  And on it goes.

Are you breaking chains today?

Topical Index:  listened, Sarai, Abram, Adam, Havvah, Genesis 16:2, yishma lekol

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , , , ,  | 3 Comments

No Fault Insurance

Sunday, October 25th, 2009 | Author:

And the man said, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree and I ate.” Genesis 3:12

You Gave – Sometimes the smallest details carry substantial implications. The story of Adam and Havvah is filled with very small details. Most are ignored by our all-too-familiar readings. What a mistake! When God gives us a story about the beginning of human involvement with the Creator, it’s advisable to search even the tiny nuances. Let’s see what happens when we look at just such an implication in Adam’s shift of the blame.

The story goes like this: God creates Adam. God builds an ‘ezer for Adam. The ‘ezer is deceived by the serpent, steps over the boundary of human dependency and provides an opportunity for deliberate disobedience to Adam. Adam chooses to follow his ‘ezer rather than obey God’s external word. Bad things happen. God confronts all the parties. They shift blame, but not in the same direction.

Adam blames the woman. The woman blames the serpent. The serpent blames no one (it accepts the verdict). But Adam doesn’t imply the woman alone is to blame. Adam ultimately shifts the blame onto God! It isn’t just the woman who is responsible for his condition. It is God Himself who created this woman whom he has followed. From Adam’s perspective, the real design flaw rests with God so God is culpable for the resulting disobedience. Adam doesn’t turn to the woman and say, “It’s your fault!” He turns to God and says, “It’s Your fault!”

Katherine Bushnell notes that Adam’s excuse puts him on the same side as the serpent, in opposition to the Creator. Adam attempts to hold God responsible for the consequences. The woman does not offer the same argument. She opposes the serpent, blaming it for her deception. By the way, she is correct about this. She has responsibility for her act, but she doesn’t say, “You, God, made me an ‘ezer. What else could I do but choose to accumulate all that I can to be an ‘ezer? It’s really Your fault, God. You made me like this.” No, she sees where the line of responsibility lies – with the serpent. In spite of her deflection, she acknowledges God is not part of the fault line.

But not Adam.

There are some pretty significant implications here, not least of which are God’s observations about the differences in consequences for the man and the woman. But there is also a lesson. We recognize Adam and Havvah are both accountable, but do we recognize how subtly Adam changes sides? Do we do the same thing when we offer an excuse to the Holy One of Israel? It’s one thing to say, “Yes, Lord, I have sinned.” That leads to repentance which is ultimately an acknowledgment that God’s perspective on actions is the only true perspective. It’s quite another thing to say, “Well, Lord, I’ve sinned but I couldn’t really help it. The people you put in my life were bad influences. You engineered my circumstances and I got overwhelmed. I mean, You’re the sovereign God, so you could have prevented this if You really wanted to.” We might not be so bold in our accusations, but our actions might be just as audacious.

When it comes to facing our choices, whose side are we really on?

Topical Index: Adam, Havvah, ‘ezer, blame, Genesis 3:12

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

Seguro Sin Culpa

Sunday, October 25th, 2009 | Author:


Y el hombre respondió: La mujer que tú me diste por compañera me dio del árbol, y yo comí. Genesis 3:12

Tú Me Diste – Algunas veces los detalles más pequeños contienen implicaciones sustanciosas. La historia de Adán y Havvah está repleta detalles pequeños. La mayoría son ignoradas en nuestras lecturas tan familiares. ¡Qué error! Cuando Dios nos da una historia sobre los inicios de la relación humana con el Creador, es aconsejable buscar aun en los matices más ínfimos. Veamos lo que sucede cuando vemos sólo las implicaciones del intento por Adán de trasladar la culpa.

La historia va algo así: Dios crea a Adán. Dios le construye a Adán una ´ezer. Esta ´ezer es engañada por la serpiente, cruza la línea de dependencia humana y provee a Adán una oportunidad de desobediencia abierta. Adán escoge seguir a su ´ezer en vez de obedecer la voz externa de Dios. Suceden cosas malas. Dios confronta  todas las partes. Todos delegan la culpa, pero no en la misma dirección.

Adán culpa a la mujer. La mujer culpa a la serpiente. La serpiente no culpa a nadie (y acepta el veredicto). Pero Adán no dice que solo la mujer tiene la culpa. A fin de cuentas, ¡Adán desplaza la culpa en Dios! La  mujer no es la única responsable de su condición. Es el mismo Dios quién creó a ésta mujer a quién él ha seguido. Desde la perspectiva de Adán, el fallo real de diseño descansa con Dios y es Dios el culpable de la desobediencia consecuente. Adán no le dice a la mujer, “¡Es tu culpa!” El dice a Dios, “¡Es tu culpa!”

Katherine Bushnell señala que la excusa de Adán lo coloca del mismo lado que la serpiente, en oposición al Creador. Adán intenta responsabilizar a Dios de las consecuencias. La mujer no ofrece el mismo argumento. Ella se opone a la serpiente, culpándola de su decepción. Dicho sea de paso, ella está en lo correcto. Ella es responsable de sus acciones, pero no dice, “Dios, tu solo me hiciste una ´ezer. ¿Qué más podía escoger que acumular todo lo que pueda para ser una ´ezer? En realidad es tu culpa, Dios. Tú me hiciste así.”  No, ella ve por donde pasa la línea de responsabilidad – por la serpiente. A pesar de su deflexión, reconoce que Dios no es parte de la línea de culpa.

Pero Adán no.

Aquí hay algunas implicaciones sumamente importantes, la menor de las cuales no es la observación sobre las diferencias en consecuencias para el hombre y la mujer. Pero también hay una lección. Reconocemos que Adán y Havvah son responsables, ¿pero reconocemos cuán sutilmente se cambia de lado Adán? ¿Hacemos lo mismo cada vez que ofrecemos una excusa al Santo de Israel? Una cosa es decir, “Si, Señor, he pecado.” Eso nos lleva al arrepentimiento que es a fin de cuentas el reconocimiento que la perspectiva de Dios sobre nuestras acciones es la única perspectiva real. Otra cosa es decir, “Bien, Señor, he pecado pero en verdad no pude evitarlo. Las personas que pusiste en mi vida fueron malas influencias. Has diseñado mis circunstancias de tal manera que me sobrecogieron. Es que Tu eres el Dios sobreaño, pudiste prevenirlo si en verdad lo hubieses deseado.” Quizás no seamos tan audaces en nuestras acusaciones, pero nuestras acciones podrían serlo.

¿Cuándo confrontamos nuestras opciones, ¿de qué lado estamos?

Adán, Havvah, ´ezer, Culpa, Génesis 3:12

Category: La Palabra de Hoy  | Tags: , , , ,  | Comments off

Genesis In Technicolor

Saturday, October 10th, 2009 | Author:

and Hevel became a keeper of sheep, but Qayin became a tiller of the ground. Genesis 4:2

Keeper/Tiller – Do you think we will ever be finished with Genesis? Each time we look there is more to see. Take this apparently innocuous verse. It doesn’t seem to have much theological importance, does it? But maybe that’s because we haven’t looked deep enough.

Here are some suggestions.

Hevel (Abel) became a ro’eh tson (a shepherd of sheep). Seems pretty uneventful until we look at the pictographs. Ro’eh is the picture of “what comes from one who sees.” Does that remind you of a similar phrase used later in Genesis? Are you reminded of the name Abraham gave to the place where Isaac was to be sacrificed? “The God who sees” just might be tied to the idea of a shepherd. Ancient kings were called shepherds. Do you suppose this name has something to do with their ability (and gifts) of “seeing” what the people need? Doesn’t this sound like the kind of shepherding that characterizes God? Is it just an accident that Hevel becomes a ro’eh?  Oh, and by the way, the Hebrew word for “sheep” (tson) means “desire for strength of life.” A shepherd is one who sees that his flock desires (needs) strength of life. It is his job to provide it.

What about Qayin (Cain)? His phonetic name is derived from the verb “to acquire;” quite fitting given the statement his mother makes in Genesis 4:1. Qayin is a man through acquisition. The pictograph shows us an added nuance. This pictograph is “what comes after making life,” an apt description of the result of the first pregnancy. Without venturing too far afield, consider how this name fits the circumstances. First, Qayin is named by Havvah, not Adam. Secondly, Havvah explicitly says that this son is her new ish (a man, not a child). She has acquired him in a deal with God. But recognize there are two meanings, the phonetic and the pictographic, flowing together to produce the image of Qayin. He shares the same characteristics as his mother after the Fall. As a direct result of her acquisition, he is also a man who acquires for himself.

Finally, we see that Qayin is a “tiller” of the ground. The words in Hebrew are oved adamah. The pictures help once again. Oved is “to experience the door of the house.” Since the Hebrew idea of knowing is not principally cognitive but rather experiential, this picture portrays what it means to see, know and experience the passage in and out of the family dwelling. This role should have fallen to Adam, but the text quietly suggests something else. Qayin has replaced Adam. That replacement is further underlined by the connection to adamah (ground). The pictograph is “what comes from first blood, i.e. door of water.” Applied to Adam, we see the obvious connection. But now Qayin is the one who knows the door of the house. He is the user of what comes from first blood. Once again, the text hints at Adam’s replacement. Adam disappears from the scene as it shifts to Qayin.

Of course, there is one more hint here that we cannot overlook. The user and usurper becomes the perpetrator. The one who sees (Havel, the shepherd) is sacrificed. His blood cries out from the usurped source of human being. This painting begins to look like something from the Passion, doesn’t it?

Do you still think it an accident that Qayin was a tiller and his brother a shepherd?

Topical Index: Qayin, Hevel, Havvah, Genesis 4:2, ro’eh, oved, tson, adamah

For a photo today, click here.

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

Génesis en Tecnicolor

Saturday, October 10th, 2009 | Author:

Y Abel fue pastor de ovejas y Caín fue labrador de la tierra. Génesis 4:2

Pastor/Labrador – ¿Crees que algún dia terminaremos con Génesis? Cada vez que lo vemos hay más que ver. Por ejemplo éste versículo aparentemente inocuo. No parece tener mucha importancia teológica, ¿no crees? Pero quizás es porque no hemos visto con profundidad.

He aquí algunas sugerencias.

Hevel (Abel) se convirtió en ro´eh tson (pastor de ovejas). Parece poco interesante hasta que vemos los pictógrafos. Ro´eh es la imagen de “lo que viene de uno que ve.” ¿Te recuerda de una frase similar utilizada más adelante en Génesis? ¿Te recuerda del nombre que le dio Abraham al lugar donde Isaac sería sacrificado? “El Dios que ve” bien podría unirse a la idea de un pastor. Los reyes de la antigüedad eran llamados pastores. ¿Supones que este nombre tiene que ver con su habilidad (y don) de “ver” las necesidades de las personas? ¿Acaso no suena como la clase de pastoreo que caracteriza a Dios? ¿Es un accidente que Hevel se haya convertido en ro´eh? Ah, y dicho sea de paso, la palabra hebrea para “cordero” (tson) significa “deseo de fuerza de vida.” El pastor es quién ve que su grey desea (necesita) fuerza de vida. Es su trabajo proveerlo.

¿Y que de Qayin (Caín)? Su nombre fonético se deriva del verbo “adquirir;” muy apropiado por cuanto lo declaró su madre en Génesis 4:1. Qayin es un hombre por medio de la adquisición. El pictógrafo nos muestra una sutileza adicional. Este pictógrafo es “lo que viene después de crear vida,” una descripción apta del resultado del primer embarazo. Si aventurarse muy lejos en el campo, considera como este nombre encaja con las circunstancias. Primero, Qayin recibe su nombre de Havvah, no de Adán. Segundo, Havvah dice explícitamente que su hijo es su nuevo ish (un hombre, no un niño). Ella lo ha adquirido en un trato con Dios. Pero reconoce que existen dos significados, el fonético y el pictográfico, que fluyen y se unen para producir la imagen de Qayin. El comparte las mismas características con su madre después de la Caída. Como resultado inmediato de su adquisición, también es un hombre que adquiere para el mismo.

Finalmente, vemos que Qayin es un “labrador” de la tierra. Las palabras en hebreo son oved adamah. Una vez más la imagen nos ayuda. Oved es “experimentar en la puerta de la casa.” Puesto que la idea hebrea de saber no es primordialmente cognitiva sino más bien experiencial, esta imagen retrata lo que significa ver, conocer y experimentar el pasaje por dentro y fuera del recinto familiar. Este rol debió recaer sobre Adán, pero el texto sutilmente sugiere algo diferente.  Qayin ha remplazado a Adán. Este remplazo se subraya aun mas con la conexión a adamah (suelo). El pictógrafo es “lo que viene de la primera sangre, i.e. puerta de agua.” Aplicado a Adán, vemos la conexión obvia. Pero ahora Qayin es quién conoce la puerta de la casa. El es el usuario de lo que viene de la primera sangre. Una vez más, el texto señala el remplazo de Adán. Adán desaparece de la escena cuando esta se gira hacia Qayin.

Evidentemente, existe una pista más aquí que no podemos dejar de ver. El usuario y el usurpador se convierten en el perpetrador. Quién ve (este es Hevel, el pastor) es sacrificado. Su sangre clama de la fuente usurpada del ser humano. Esta imagen comienza a verse como algo de la Pasión, ¿no crees?

¿Aun crees que fue casualidad que Qayin fue labrador y su hermano un pastor?

Qayin, Hevel, Havvah, Génesis 4:2, ro´eh, oved, tson, adamah

Category: La Palabra de Hoy  | Tags: , , , , , , ,  | Comments off

The Great Commission

Thursday, October 01st, 2009 | Author:

“and I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; . . .” Matthew 16:18

I – We need a new Bible, the Word of God according to evangelical interpreters. Of course, you might argue that we already have such a book. I had two men show up at my door this morning who wanted to share the “good news.” I think they were a little dismayed when I began to explain Scriptures to them in Hebrew terms. One man vociferously defended the fact that we are born sinners by consistently pointing to the verse in Romans – “as by one man sin entered into the world”- arguing that this means we all have a sinful nature. He refused to acknowledge that the verse doesn’t actually say this. It didn’t matter what the verse said. It only mattered what he believed it said.

Yeshua tells us something about the great commission in this verse in Matthew. He says that He will build His church. I don’t think we actually hear what He says. We think He says, “You will build My church by proselytizing, recruiting, programming, planting or otherwise making members.” Our great commission is church planting. Yeshua’s great commission is quite different – disciple! Yeshua is most concerned with pouring life into other lives so that others will experience first-hand the presence of God in their midst. Yeshua makes us responsible for attaching ourselves to others in life-to-life involvement. He rejects all of the disconnected, passive, hierarchical systems of the world. He pleads for unity.

But we build. We build organizations, programs, processes, campaigns, schools and missions. We construct edifices that absorb funds, time and people without creating community. We make the “Church” the head of the organization and we become its CEO’s. No wonder the “church” is a mess, emulating the behavior of the world, driven by the same systems and goals. This is a variation on an old, old theme – taking God’s goals into my hand so that I can control the outcome. Havvah tried it in Genesis 4:1. We are still attempting to make it work today. We call it “partnership” with the Lord (just as she did) but the truth is that we only want the Lord to assist us, not to run the show.

Today the “church” loves control. In spite of the rhetoric, it endorses a passive Body, a professional hierarchy and a financial model that spends but doesn’t produce. It seems to reflect one of those basic patterns of the world. Heaven forbid we actually empowered believers in the Body to do what God has equipped them to do. That would threaten the staff’s control. If we allowed (notice the word) such a thing, it would be His church, not ours.

The great commission isn’t about bringing in the un-churched. What kind of word is that? What does it imply about our focus? Most of us seem to attend the “church” started by Eve – a church that thinks it is the general partner is a joint venture. Maybe it’s time to stop trying to do God’s work for Him. “Disciples, wanted, not decisions.”

Topical Index: church, Eve, Havvah, Matthew 16:18

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , ,  | 11 Comments
« Previous Entries