Friday, August 26, 2011

Haggai: The Time is Now (Haggai 1:1)

To what governor did Haggai prophesy? Zerubabbel (Haggai 1:1)

Haggai prophesied from Jerusalem in 520 BCE. His work is canonized as one of the twelve Minor Prophets. The book appears third from last in the Old Testament as its material covers the last days of the era. The Bible includes no biographical details concerning Haggai and he is given no introduction other than designating him as a prophet (Ezra 5:1; 6:14; Haggai 1:1). The book of Haggai is very short, spanning only two chapters and containing just 38 verses. You can hear the entire book read (in a British accent no less) in just 7:16 in this YouTube clip. Haggai is addressed to the governor, Zerubabbel, and the high priest, Joshua (Haggai 1:1). One of Haggai’s primary functions was to motivate a politician. He might even be deemed a lobbyist by today’s standards. Zerubabbel is persuaded and at the book’s conclusion, God refers to Zerebbabel as “my servant” and confers upon him a “signet ring”, a symbol of divine favor (Haggai 2:20-23).

Are any modern lobbyists doing work that might be deemed prophetic? How does Haggai factor into the discussion of the relationship between church and state?

Contrary to popular belief about prophets, Haggai did not speak to the future (not that the book is not useful today). Haggai spoke directly to the present. In fact, Haggai is easy to date (as in place in history as opposed to engage in a romantic encounter) as he documented the dates of his prophecies. Haggai emerged during the second year of Darius I (Haggai 1:1). Based on the records in the book, Haggai’s messages were delivered within a fifteen week period from August 29 to December 18, 520 BCE.

Haggai’s mission was to convince the people and government to utilize new government allowances to rebuild the temple. The question was not if the temple should be rebuilt but when. In any building project, there are nay sayers who wish to delay (Haggai 1:2). Haggai exhorted that the right time was now. The message of Haggai is the message of The Chambers Brothers - “Time Has Come Today” (1968). (Ironically, their eleven minute song has a longer run time than Haggai’s entire book.)

What shelved project have you felt like God calling you to? Is the time now?

Haggai was one of the catalysts behind the rebuilding of the temple. His mission was successful and the temple was rebuilt (Haggai 1:12, 1:14-15). It is unknown what happened to Haggai after his final message but his work was continued by his contemporary, Zechariah. Haggai’s entire work took fifteen weeks. What will you be doing in the next four months?

Thursday, August 25, 2011

Elisha and the Killer Bears (II Kings 2:24)

What happened to children who made fun of Elisha’s bald head? Bears ate them (II Kings 2:24)

Elisha was involved in a graphic incident at Bethel in which the prophet’s curse led to the death of his critics (II Kings 2:23-24). The story seems out of character for Elisha who had just completed a mercy mission in Jericho (II Kings 2:15-22) and went to Bethel not to curse, but to bless. Bethel had a history of idolatry as King Jeroboam had promoted pagan worship there (I Kings 12:28-33). Elisha arrived to criticism from a group of youth and cursed the offending parties, 42 of whom were subsequently devoured by bears (II Kings 2:23-24). This troublesome text has often been viewed as a cautionary tale to not harm God’s anointed (Psalm 105:15).

This short horror story has evoked images like the one above from New Zealand caricaturist Graham Williamson and nonbelievers have often cited this atrocity as reason to reject the faith. Not surprisingly, apologists have attempted to soften the story. The mitigating circumstances used to cushion the text include posing that the victims were not children, that their criticism of Elisha had little to do with his bald head and that the bears likely only mauled rather than ate the children.

The age of the bears’ victims is debated. The wording “little children” comes from the King James Version (II Kings 2:23). The standard refutation of this understanding is exemplified by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. (b. 1933):

“Little children” is an unfortunate translation. The Hebrew expression ne‘urîm qeţannîm is best rendered “young lads” or “young men.” From numerous examples where ages are specified in the Old Testament, we know that these were boys from twelve to thirty years old. One of these words described Isaac at his sacrifice in Genesis 22:12, when he was easily in his early twenties. It described Joseph in Genesis 37:2 when he was seventeen years old. In fact, the same word described army men in 1 Kings 20:14-15...these are young men ages between twelve and thirty (Kaiser, Hard Sayings of the Bible, 232).
Ancient Jewish society did consider a male to be a young lad until he reached the age of thirty and the cases Kaiser cites of the use of the Hebrew na’ar (“lads”) are accurate but in this text, the adjective quatan (“small”) is added to na’ar . In response, Kaiser cites the case of David being described by similar terms when he was old enough to serve as a shepherd (I Samuel 16:11-12). Kaiser’s argument is not conclusive as evidenced by the various translations of the text. While different translations make the age of the victims seem slightly different, they all affirm that the victims were younger. The text is alternately rendered “small boys” (ESV, HCSB, NRSV, RSV), “boys” (CEV, NIV, NLT), “young lads” (ASV, NASB), “youths” (NKJV), and “little kids” (MSG). The real issue regarding the age is that of innocense.

Because of the youth of the adversaries and their numeric advantage, Norman Geisler (b. 1932) defends the prophet by attacking the youths: “As best we can tell, this was a violent mob of dangerous teenagers, comparable to a modern street gang (Lee Strobel [b.1952], The Case for Faith, 123).” It has also been speculated that this group was associated with prophets of Ba’al making the text parallel Elijah’s triumph on Mount Carmel (I Kings 18:16-40). Coincidentally, Mount Carmel was Elisha’s next destination (II Kings 2:25).

Was the prophet in danger? Even if he was, is the punishment not severe? How does the age of the children effect your reading of the passage? Does your interpretation change if you picture the Hitler Youth instead of elementary school students? Does God ever ordain the killing of children?

The divisive issue was not Elisha’s hairstyle. The prophet is mocked with the refrain “Go up, you baldhead (II Kings 2:23 NASB)”. The command “go up” both mocked the ascension of Elijah (II Kings 2:1-12) and instructed the prophet to leave the premises. The juvenile epithet “you bald head” was then added. Given that prophets’ heads were covered it is doubtful they knew whether or not Elisha was bald. Baldness was rare in the Ancient Near East and could have been associated with leprosy (Isaiah 3:17, 24).

F.W. Krummacher (1796-1868) expounds:

Baldness was regarded by the lower orders as a kind of disgrace; for as it was one of the usual consequences of leprosy, so it was accounted a sign of personal and mental degradation. Hence, in using this opprobrious epithet, the young profligates had a most malicious intention (Krummacher, Elisha, A Prophet For Our Times, 13).
The prophet’s credibility, not alopecia, was the real issue. Their mocking strategically attacked both God’s message and the messenger.

In response, Elisha cursed his detractors “in the name of the LORD” which resulted in two she-bears emerging from the woods to maul 42 youths (II Kings 2:24 NASB). The Hebrew for “cursed” (qalal) does not entail being laced with profanity. It has been speculated that Elisha pronounced a curse similar to the covenant curse of Leviticus 26:21-22. Elisha neither summoned the bears nor called for the youths’ deaths. He merely pronounced judgment on the demonstrators and God decided the form of the response.

Did Elisha intend for the youths to die? What should Elisha have done? What would you have done had you been surrounded by a horde of mockers?

Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. (b. 1933) sees mercy in the text:

The savagery of wild animals was brutal enough, but it was mild compared to the legendary cruelty of the Assyrians who would appear to complete God's judgment in 722 BC. The disastrous fall of Samaria would have been avoided had the people repented after the bear attack and the increasingly sever divine judgments that followed it. But instead of turning back to God, Israel, as would Judah in a later day, “mocked God’s messengers, despised his words and scoffed at his prophets until the wrath of the LORD was aroused against his people and there was no remedy” (II Chronicles 36:16). (Kaiser, Hard Sayings of the Bible, 233-34)
While this provides a positive slant on this text, a lot of harm could be done and has been done using this same rationale (Read: The Inquisition).

Even taking the most tame version of the story - a prophet’s ministry was in peril (not a hypersensitive image conscience leader) by a gang of miscreants (not preschoolers) who were mauled (not eaten) by bears - the story is problematic and God appears harsh.

The passage does not bear any resemblance to the teachings of Jesus. How should a Christian handle this text? Why was the misdeed of the youths punished so severely when others in Scripture were not? Is there a moral to this story? Why is this passage included in the Scriptures? Is it simply a cautionary tale?

“We’re all born bald, Baby!” - Telly Savalas (1922-1994)

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

The Perfect Gift (II Corinthians 9:15)

Who wrote “Thanks be to God for His inexpressible gift”? Paul (II Corinthians 9:15)

While exhorting the Corinthians to fulfill their promise to prepare an offering (II Corinthians 9:5), Paul reminded them that all our giving is a poor imitation of God’s generosity (II Corinthians 9:10-15). At the conclusion of his discourse, Paul adds the doxology “Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift (II Corinthians 9:15 NASB)!” Paul gets wrapped up in the gift and cannot help but to praise God.

When Paul writes of the indescribable gift, he uses a word not only not found elsewhere in the New Testament but also absent from any extant Greek writing before his time. Apparently, Paul invented a word for the occasion and even when he created a word to describe God’s gift the word meant indescribable. The word he concocted, anekdiegetos, is a negative version of ekdiegeomai which means “to declare, relate”. The word means “it cannot be declared”. Paul is not claiming that one should not describe the gift only that we cannot adequately do so. Anekdiegtos has been translated as “indescribable” (HCSB, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NRSV), “inexpressible” (CEV, RSV), “unspeakable” (ASV, KJV), and “too wonderful for words” (CEV, NLT). The Message paraphrases “no language can praise it enough”. God’s gift is beyond words and left the verbose apostle speechless.

Have you ever been rendered speechless by someone’s gift? What is the best gift anyone ever got you? (Anything better than a Lexus or even a Big Wheel?) What is God’s inexpressible gift?

Whether Paul speaks directly of the gift of Christ or salvation is disputed. This argument is superfluous as the two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they are so linked that they cannot be separated. For the purposes of this post, God’s greatest gift is the gift of his own son to save the world (John 3:16).

It has all the earmarks of a great gift. It is suitable for all occasions. It is appropriate for people of any age, gender or nationality. It is practical yet extravagant. It is thoughtful and was given in love. It required sacrifice on the part of the giver. It had an element of surprise. It will hopefully become a conversation piece and be part of celebrations in the recipient’s life forever. It gave the giver as much joy as the recipient (Luke 15:10). It is a gift the world would not have thought to give itself and could not give itself. It was grace.

Most gifts, no matter how magnificently received at the time, become underappreciated. Do we ever lose sight of the inexpressibleness of God’s gift? Do we, like Paul, still break into praise when considering it? If you had to attach an adjective to characterize God’s gift, what would it be? What will you do or have you done in response to this gift?

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

An Eye for an Eye (Exodus 21:24)

In which book do these words first appear: eye for eye, tooth for tooth? Exodus (Exodus 21:24)

The phrase “eye for eye” appears in three of the five books of the Law, first in Exodus (Exodus 21:23-25; Leviticus 24:19-20; Deuteronomy 19:21). The expression is connected to personal injury law and entitles an injured party to compensation. The principle of an eye for an eye is often referred to by the Latin phrase lex talionis, the law of talion. Talion indicates a punishment identical to the offense. An eye for an eye insures that a punishment fits a crime.

An eye for an eye did not necessitate retaliation but instead capped the reprisal. This reciprocal justice was intended to minimize retribution. Human nature often seeks to “win” instead of breaking even. In the acclaimed 1987 movie The Untouchables, Jim Malone (Sean Connery [b. 1930]) advises Eliot Ness (Kevin Costner [b. 1955]), “They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He [Al Capone] sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue.” An eye for an eye was designed to limit such escalating revenge.

Judaism has historically interpreted the eye for eye passages as allowing for injured parties to seek proportional compensation, usually monetary. This is seen in the Talmud (Bava Kamma, 83b-84a). It is far easier to determine fair monetary compensation than to mirror exact physical injury. The literal reading has also been refuted using the argument that blind or eyeless offenders would be exempt from the law.

There are many parts of the world where lex taliones is still practiced. Is any U.S. law based upon this principle? Why were eyes and teeth selected as the representative body parts? There have been many detractors of an eye for an eye as it seems to suggest that two wrongs equal a right. Jesus could be numbered among those critics. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says, “You have heard that it was said, ‘an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also (Matthew 5:38-39 NASB).” The revolutionary nature of this teaching is lost today.

In the centuries since Jesus instructed his followers to turn the other cheek, many have attempted to live his words literally. Billy Bray (1794-1868) was a drunkard and coal miner who became a Christian at the age of 29. After his conversion, he transformed into a charismatic evangelist and folk hero in his native Cornwall.

D. Martyn-Lloyd-Jones (1899-1981) describes an incident where Bray turned the other cheek:

Billy Bray, who before his conversion was a pugilist, and a very good one. Billy Bray was converted; but one day, down in the mine, another man who used to live in mortal dread and terror of Billy Bray before Bray’s conversion, knowing he was converted, thought he had at last found his opportunity. Without any provocation at all he struck Billy Bray, who could very easily have revenged himself upon him and laid him down unconscious on the round. But instead of doing that Billy Bray looked at him and said, ‘May God forgive you, even as I forgive you’, and no more. The result was that that man endured for several days an agony of mind and spirit which led directly to his conversion. (Lloyd-Jones, Studies in the Sermon on the Mount, 248.)
Is there a time when seeking an eye for an eye is preferable to turning the other cheek? Which do your practice, taking an eye for an eye or turning the other cheek? Which is more natural?

“An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind.” - attributed to Mohandas Gandhi (1869-1948)

Monday, August 22, 2011

Wrestling: Who’s The Man? (Genesis 32)

With whom did Jacob wrestle? An angel (Genesis 32:24-32)

The patriarch Jacob was involved in the Bible’s most famous wrestling match (Genesis 32:24-32). Jacob, a natural heel (“bad guy” in wrestling parlance, Genesis 25:26 pun intended) was caught between a rock and a hard place as he was fleeing from his feud with his uncle Laban (Genesis 31:20) and running towards his oldest rival, his brother Esau (Genesis 27:41). Having exhausted his flight options, Jacob chose to return home and face the brother he had defrauded twenty years earlier. (The Bible knew how to build to a match). Jacob sent his family away and spent his last night before the meeting alone at the ford of the Jabbok (Genesis 32:22-24). A mystery man emerged (from “parts unknown”) and the two grappled throughout the night. Just before dawn (the opponent’s “time limit”), Jacob set the purse - naturally a “blessing” (Genesis 32:26). Though no falls were scored, Jacob secured his blessing (Genesis 32:29) and a permanent injury (Genesis 32:25, 31-32). Jacob was forever changed and received a new gimmick: Israel - “he who wrestles with God.” (Genesis 32:28).

The tale is shrouded in mystery and part of the puzzle is the ambiguity around who Jacob is wrestling. The text identifies the opponent as “a man” (Genesis 32:24) but in blessing Jacob the man informs him that he has “striven with God and with men” (Genesis 32:28 NASB). The fact that the opponent refuses to identify himself has been traditionally read as an indication that the nocturnal wrestler is not human. At the end of the bout, Jacob says “I have seen God face to face, yet my life has been preserved (Genesis 32:30).” (That is putting your opponent over.) From this exclamation it has been inferred that Jacob’s wrestling match is an encounter with the divine. The traditional reading of the text claims Jacob wrestled an angel (Hosea 12:4) though Genesis never refers to the assailant as anything other than a man. There are three contenders as to who was Jacob’s opponent: the natural (a human being), the supernatural (God or an emissary), and the psychological (an internal struggle within Jacob himself).

With whom did Jacob wrestle? Who is “the man”? (In keeping with wrestling jargon, the obvious answer is “Big Van Vader”.) Does the man represent an external or an internal force? With whom or what do you wrestle?

The traditional reading is that Jacob battled a supernatural opponent. Suggestions range from an angel to the pre-incarnate Christ. The most traditional view of angel is cemented in Hosea which reads “he [Jacob] wrestled with the angel and prevailed (Hosea 12:4 NASB).”

Using the supernatural reading, French literary critic, Roland Barthes (1915-1918) analyzed the story of Jacob’s wrestling through the lens of folklore’s hero cycle. The story follows a standard pattern as the Hero (Jacob) is sent on a Quest (to return home) by the Originator of the Quest (God) when an Opponent (the man) obstructs the Hero. The expectation is for the Originator to help or send a Helper so the Hero can complete the Quest. Here, however, the Originator and the Opponent are revealed to be the same character. (Barton, Reading the Old Testament: method in biblical study,116-119.)

Others opt for a more natural reading and speculate that the opponent was a human. The assault is administered by an ’iysh (Genesis 32:24), a word almost always rendered “man.” The text makes no reference to any “angel” (mal’ak). If Jacob battled a man, the most likely suspect is his own brother. Jacob and Esau were literally born wrestling (Genesis 25:26) and Esau had motive as he would be contesting his loss of the birthright/blessing (Genesis 25:28-34, 27:30-41). The man acts like Esau as like a hunter (Genesis 25:27), he is comfortable out in the woods at night and physically overpowers Jacob. The fact that “blessing” is at stake also fits their situation as Isaac’s blessing was at the heart of the enmity between the brothers. Using this interpretation, the silence of the competitor in relation to his name represents Esau’s shame as he could not force Jacob into submission. When Jacob finally meets Esau, he greets him with the suggestive words “for I see your face as one sees the face of God” (Genesis 33:10 NASB) mirroring his claim of his opponent on the previous night (Genesis 32:30). The context clearly permits the reader to identify Jacob’s attacker as Esau. In this reading, Jacob would have finally dueled his brother to a draw and legitimized his claim to Isaac’s birthright and blessing.

Many have gained insight into viewing the event as a psychological encounter. Jacob faced his dark night of the soul alone as the bout came at a time of transition in Jacob’s life in which in modern terms, he lost his job, was trying to relocate, and was preparing to face his old foes and sins. As such, it is easy to read the story as an internal battle within the overwhelmed Jacob.

Using this slant, the opponent is Jacob’s shadow side and the story brings into the open what he had experienced subconsciously. Jacob’s feeling undeserving having had to cheat to gain the birthright bubble to the surface. He knows he has deceitfully gained blessings and needed to legitimize himself in his own mind. After the match, Jacob has an inner transformation in which his personal identity and moral autonomy are changed. Jacob, the deceiver, becomes “Israel” who can now openly struggle to fulfill his divine destiny.

This battle is a picture of the human experience of wrestling with God, an opponent whom humans cannot fully understand and certainly cannot control. Joan Chittister (b. 1936) explains, “God is not a puppeteer and God is not a magic act. God is the ground of our being, the energy of life, the goodness out of which all things are intended to grow to fullness. Yet it is a struggle…How can we possibly deal with the great erupting changes of life and come away more whole because of having been through them than we would possibly have been without them? To do that takes a spirituality of struggle.” (Chittister, Scarred by Struggle, Transformed by Hope, 16)

Regardless of which interpretation the reader prefers, Jacob encountered God and is transformed by the event. Battles with family, friends, enemies, and our own demons can all result in encounters with God, or in Jacob’s terms seeing God “face to face”.

Does it matter whom Jacob fought? If so, why does Genesis fail to mention it? Why does Jacob experience this wrestling match alone? To what extent do Jacob’s experiences wrestling mirror your own encounters with God?

“To be the man, you got to beat the man!” - Wrestling great “Nature Boy” Ric Flair (b. 1949)