Uninsurance

Leave a reply

Eight minutes.  I had eight minutes to get from my car to my desk.  The uncovered lot was the sticky wet of rain and oil.  It frothed a little as I walked.  I still wore ties back then.  You have to make a good impression while you are in training.

I’m a tactile guy.  “Phone, wallet, keys,” is my pat-down mantra whenever I leave home or work.  Since starting the new job I had forgotten to add a line.

“Agh! Where’s my badge?” I thought as I pivoted back to my car.

Center console. Empty. Man-purse. Empty. Side cubby. Empty.  I began doing the math thinking, “Six minutes left, and if I search another three, fail to find my bag… I better just get the guard to credential me in now.”  I frothed across the lot.

Door one opened to a tiled entry way.  I took a right at the slippery when wet sign and into the carpeted lobby.  Door two hit me with sixty-three degree air that made me very aware of how damp my shirt was.  I young woman sat on the fake leather couch waiting to interview for the position of any temps who got fired for being late.  I smiled at her thinking, “Don’t take my job.”  The guard station behind the blue counter was vacant.  I approached it hoping to find a button or a bell to summon my savior.

The badge read “D. McFarland” over a bar code.  We were supposed to turn them in every day during training.  I had forgotten for the first two days to turn in my badge.  Friday I had remembered to turn in my badge.  With pride I had placed it in the security guard’s cubby.  Today I had forgotten that I had remembered.

I clipped the badge to my belt and swiped it over the grey scanner of the office door.  I pulled the badge on its retractable lanyard twice as I walked down the hallway to the break room.  I knew that playing with my badge like a four year old breaking a set of blinds or a car window looked unprofessional, but I felt like Batman using my “utility belt.”  It was okay if Batman was late.  I turned right, swiped the badge again and entered the windowless break room.

“Put the lunch in the fridge, pour coffee, get out, four minutes.” I picked fridge number two and jammed my lunch bag between two casserole dishes.  I thought to myself, “Potluck on a Monday, weird.”  My amusement melted as I approached the empty coffee pots.  I didn’t care if I made it on time any more.  I cared about coffee.  I almost fell asleep in training on Friday and today we were supposed to meet all the managers and the new boss.  Coffee was necessary, but I didn’t want to cross an office taboo.  See some offices have specific people who are allowed or supposed to make coffee and some offices are a free for all.  I didn’t know which kind of office environment I was in.  I turned to a man who looked like he had been here a while.  I spoke in an un-rushed manner, “I’m Daniel, the new guy.  Do you know the coffee protocol here.  Can anybody make more?”

“Well Daniel the new guy, I’m Bob and I’m newer than you.  I say go for it.  I give you permission,” said over relaxed Bob from his seat at the break table.  I thought Bob seemed out of place.  He should be just as late as I was.

“I’ve been here three days, and haven’t seen you around.  What department are you in?”  I said to Bob as I poured grounds into a fresh filter.  The aroma gave me hope for my 10am break.  He responded as he stood up, “I’m fresh from the mid-west. I’m excited to finally start here.”  As I walked to the door I said to the sitting Bob, “Well we work hard, but the team is good.  You’ll love Austin.  Have a good day.”

I sat in my training desk and dumped out my study materials.  The trainer said, “Now that we are all here.  Please welcome our management team.  We’ll start with my new boss, Bob.”

 

Theology of Hell #3

Leave a reply

The mornings are still pleasant, but soon the heat will be on.  Central Texas catches on fire several times each summer.  People say things like “It’s a dry heat” or “It’s extra muggy.”  Heat is heat. As we look to the last installment in the examination of how Jesus refers to hell we turn to pur, fire.  What does Jesus mean when he speaks of eternal fire? Is it judgment? Is it a regular fire?

Agricultural Fire

If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch, and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. (John 15:6 NASB)

Jesus uses metaphors that his people understand.  In John 15 Jesus is giving a final speech to the disciples before his priestly prayers of John 17.  The topics all center around the idea that Jesus is leaving, but the “helper” is coming so the disciples should “abide” in Jesus during incoming persecution. In all the grand rhetoric Jesus has no problem describing a common agricultural practice of his day, burning unproductive and dry brambles.  Israel is a place that is not heavily treed.  There isn’t lumber and timber in abundance.  So if heat or fuel is necessary, then anything combustible is burned.  Jesus is describing some fruit producing branch that is cut off from the vine, dries out, and then is burned with the other wood scraps. The point, if you aren’t connected to the source of life, then fire.

Matt 7:19 picks up this same metaphor but puts the emphasis not on abiding but on bearing fruit, “Every tree that does not bear good fruit is… thrown into the fire.”  This similar metaphor is preached in a very different context from John 15.  Jesus is delivering the Sermon on the Mount.  These are newly recruited disciples who likely will abandon Jesus before he even gets to Jerusalem. The thrust of the warning then is for people to “recognize” others by their “fruits” in reference to the “prophets” of v15.  In short, there are people who call themselves prophets.  Do you want to know how to judge them?  Don’t look at what they say, but instead look at the fruit of their life/prophecy.  The fruitless prophecy/prophets are garbage that will be burned.

“Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field” is a great request by the disciples in Matt 13:36.  Jesus just delivered the parable of the weeds in 13:24-30, and the disciples clearly don’t want to be on the losing team that meets the reapers and is bundled up and burned.  Jesus explains: weeds = sons of the evil one; evil sower = devil; harvest = close of the age. This metaphor crosses the line between a very in-the-moment agricultural metaphor and eschatology, the end of history. “Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the close of the age” (13:40). What you disciples see every day, using brambles for fuel, is not that different form the end of history. We will save the discussion of the eschatology (v42) for the next section, but notice what is very different about this agricultural fire. In the previous two metaphors, the weeds are there “just because”.  Either they didn’t stick with the living vine or they didn’t produce fruit.

However, this metaphor contains layers of intrigue.  Wiley Coyote sneaks into the field and tries to thwart the field owners plan to grow a good crop (v25).  But the field owner will show him.  He will let everything grow up and then collect the weeds to burn them (v30). Notice that there is no repentance, there is no abiding offered to the weeds.  They exist for an evil purpose by an evil devil. So the question is, “What are the weeds?” or furthermore, “What are sons of the evil one?” We know that Jesus has no problem calling humans sons of the devil (John 8:44), but the explanation in v41 says, “all causes of sin and all law-breakers.” Some of the weeds are impersonal and some are “law-breakers.” The pur is for the sources of sin and persons who seek to choke out the sower’s good seed. So could the disciples end up on the losing team?  Could you? If your goal is to choke out sower’s good seed, then yes. But the point of the parable is actually to touch at the age old question, “Why does persecution and evil in general happen?” 1) There’s a bad guy, the evil sower. 2) The good sower like a good farmer doesn’t blast the whole field, but he lets the good and bad grow up. God doesn’t smash all the evil people/forces in the world because he wants to give good people/forces time to sprout up. 3) Once again, God doesn’t lose.  The Wiley Coyote character is not very formidable, neither is the devil compared to God.

Descriptive Fire

And if your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life crippled, than having your two hands, to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire, where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched … For everyone will be salted with fire. (Mar 9:43-44, 49 NASB)

This passage also popped up in the gehenna passages.  These verses describe the gehenna of pur in more detail than Matt 5:30; 18:8-9.  Mark emphasizes of “unquenchable fire” and adds “where the worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.”  Furthermore, Matthew spreads these teachings out, but Mark crams them all together and follows up with a version of the “salt of the earth” by leading into it with “everyone will be salted with fire.” Clearly, Jesus is more descriptive of hell and judgment in Mark 9, “It’s like this,” than he is in Matt 5, “Avoid it at all costs.”  So, what is Jesus describing? The worm as a form of curse first occurs in Deu 28:39 “You shall plant and cultivate vineyards, but you shall neither drink of the wine nor gather the grapes, for the worm shall devour them.” The curses are looming over Israel’s disobedience.  If they disobey their new God, their grapes will be worthless, fall off the vine, and be eaten by worms.  Jesus is quoting the last verse in Isaiah, 66:24.  That passage is very eschatological and pictures a day when God would gather all nations and judge peoples’ visible deeds and even their secret thoughts (Isa 66:18). The first part of 66:24 says, “And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me.” So in the context of Isaiah, the vision describes a battleground that God is gloriously victorious over. The victory is so decisive that the fires for the dead rebel’s bodies will burn and fester. It’s a pretty gruesome end to a shiny and happy vision. But Jesus intentionally doesn’t quote the first part of the verse. In doing so he emphasizes the unending-ness of the vision. More importantly, he quotes Isaiah 66:24 to add to the intensity of controlling your hands.  Modern readers are most shocked that Jesus would recommend chopping of your hand, Jewish listeners who had Isaiah practically memorized, saw that he was putting hand-sin in the same category of the not-on-Yahweh’s-side of Isaiah 66. Your hands are more important than your lineage.

Just as his audience is being scandalized by Isaiah 66, Jesus throws in the bit about salt. Is this still a statement about the end of the world or a statement about what Jesus’ followers should expect?  It is easy to go both ways. If it is about Jesus’ followers the metaphor works like, “Fire, or trials, will come. Only the steadfast, or salty, will persevere.  Don’t be like garbage-salt and lose/hide your saltiness.” If it is about the whole of humanity, “All will be judged. The righteous ones are self-evident, like salt is inherently salty. The unrighteous are self-evident too, like unsalty salt. My disciples should be self-evident and have peace with each other.” The “whole of humanity” option seems to fit the passage better.  What does that do for how Jesus talks about the fire of hell? As he zooms out to an Isaiah 66 view of history, the eternal fires are a testament to God’s victory, and it’s no secret why the damned are defeated.  We think justice is complex, but when it comes to eternal justice it is easy as tasting salt and deciding salty or not.

And [the Son of Man’s angels] will cast [causes of sin and all law-breakers] into the furnace of fire; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear. (Mat 13:42-43 NAS)

This parable of the wicked sower was discussed above, but now focus on how Jesus describes the pur.  It is a furnace that is accompanied by “weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Notice that this fire does not emphasize the usually good quality of light. The fire burns and is very unpleasant, but the source of light is the righteous shining “as the sun.” The fire is not a semi-positive thing, it is wholly negative. The furnace goes beyond the agricultural metaphor begun in Matt 13:30. The farmer would gather the brambles and burn them. But there is no need to burn the brambles in the furnace. Even modern farmers and ranchers don’t take brush to be burned at a special facility. Jesus is likening hell to a specifically prepared place, not a brush pile. “Weeping and gnashing of teeth” also occurs in Luke 13:28 where Jesus is describing the sense of angst and remorse that the Pharisees will have at being tossed out of the heavenly banquet. Jesus uses the phrase not just to mean discomfort but also to describe awareness of “missing out.”

Eschatological Fire

Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. (Matt 25:41 NASB)

The Sheep and the Goats passage is unique to Matthew.  Jesus’ purpose is to describe the eschaton, the end of history. The righteous and unrighteous are as evident as sheep and goats. In v41 hell is a fiery place that is intentionally designed for the devil and fallen angels. Furthermore v46 adds “they will go away to eternal punishment.” The idea is that God has settled everything and there is no revisiting. Also, hell has multiple tiers of beings there. There is no, “But the devil made me do it.” The word for eternal is aionios, which is the general term for eternity and is linked to the modern word eon. There is no end in sight for the final state. The theology of the passage is bigger than this examination of what Jesus means when he references hell, but what is important is that Jesus frames this vision of the final judgment with the Son of Man coming in glory. Jesus is describing a glorious thing, the historical culmination of his work. He came for the cross, but that is connected to his glorious authority to judge the world.

What do we learn about Hell from how Jesus uses pur?

Throughout all these passages Jesus describes hell as an agonizing and eternal place. From Matthew 25 we see that the pur of hell certainly takes on a quality that is different from a friendly camp fire. It is more than just the chemical process of combustion. But, the fire, like an ancient battlefield, is a testament to defeat and death (Mark 9). There is the horrifying reality that those in hell are aware of their judgment and “missing out” on heaven (Matt 13). Also, hell is a prepared location that God intends not just for rebellious humans but every source of sin including the devil and fallen angels. Most importantly, Jesus never describes the fire just because knowledge is fun. Like in Matthew 5 or Mark 9, Jesus describes the fire in order to warn away from it. Or like in Matthew 25, Jesus describes the fire in order to describe his glory. A king’s authority to eternally enact his judgment is a sign of power and authority. If a king can only enact a judgment for a few months but then the judgment gets ignored, then that king is weak.

At the end of this very bleak discussion you may be thinking, “Well that sounds terrible and unfair!” Next time we will tease out that reaction and revisit three very important things that Jesus brings up in his statements on hell: repentance, abiding, and fruit. Also, you may have another great question, “How do I find out more about hell?” Well remember this examination got started as a question, “What do you believe about hell?” I went through and cataloged from all the NT the references to Gehenna, Hades, Pur. Also, I searched all the OT for references to esh, and fire, sheol. The attached file is the compilation of all those verses. Study them all to develop a full biblical theology of hell.

Take and read: Brief Theology of Hell Research

Theology of Hell #2

Leave a reply

Easter has come and gone. Time for another entry examining all of the ways Jesus discusses hell in the gospels.  Last time we looked at how Jesus references the valley of Gehenna.  The simplified conclusion, “Really, really, REALLY try to avoid hell.”  This time Jesus will talk about Hades as a consequence, an adversary, and a parable.

Hades

“And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will be brought down to Hades!” (Luke 10:15 NASB)

Next time you think your pastor is wrong for referencing pop culture, remember that Jesus references popular culture and religions all the time.  Hades is a Greek word for the pagan idea of a netherworld.  Hades is definitely a god in the Greek pantheon, but by saying “brought down” Jesus is clearly using hades to mean the realm of the dead.  Furthermore, Jesus is referencing a specific cosmological idea of underworld, specifically a world that is “under.”

Hades as Consequence

Matthew 11:23 “And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You shall descend to Hades; for if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day. (Mat 11:23 NASB)

Jesus is bemoaning Capernaum as well as the other Galilean towns.  What was the issue?  They saw his miracles, but something still was off.  The trouble in v20-21 is that these towns see the miracles but don’t respond with repentance. Therefore, the towns won’t “go up” but will “go down.”  Does Jesus really think heaven is in the sky and hell is in the ground?  The verb for “be exalted” is a nuanced way of going up.  The Greek version of Isaiah 33:10 has three words “arise”, “exalted” and “lifted up” that are close in meaning.  Matt 11:23 and use Luke 10:15 use this same verb upsow.  Matthew reuses this verb in 23:12 to say “whoever exalts himself shall be humbled.”   Why spend so much time on the heaven verb?  If Matthew is speaking beyond the most basic spatial use of the verb “go up”, then it is likely he is using more than the spatial use of the verb “descend,” katabainw.  Capernaum won’t be exalted to heaven, it will descend to hades, which is a lowering of glory and not elevation.  But, if Jesus is speaking more along the lines of humbling the city, was Capernaum a prosperous world city?  Not really.  It was certainly a hub for the Galilee region, but that is like being the biggest town in the Yukon territories (although Dawson City is great).  So, if in terms of prestige, the city of Capernaum is on the bottom floor, what exactly is the consequence?  Since Matthew 4:25 gobs of people have been following Jesus all over Galilee, and his home base was Capernaum.  What Jesus is saying, “Since there is not repentance, my miracles that make you great will actually condemn you.”  Jesus’ miracles are a weight that brings an unrepentant city down instead of up.  So is hell “down there?”  No, but if by “down there” you mean an inglorious state, then yes.  But most importantly, repentance is the key to the elevator.  Hades is the consequence for a city that saw miracles and did not heed them with repentance.

Hades as Adversary

Matthew 16:18 “And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it. (Mat 16:18 NAS)

Katisxuw only occurs three times in the gospels.  Luke 21:36 says, “Keep on the alert at all times… that you may have strength to escape.”  Also, concerning the raucous crowds at Jesus’ trial Luke 23:23 says, “They were insistent… and their voices began to prevail.”  We often read “overpower it” from Matt 16:18 and think, “The church will handle any attack from hell.”  But what Jesus is saying, “Hell won’t be able to overcome any attack from the church.”  Hell is on the defensive.  Hell is the one with gates.  The Jewish people knew siege warfare.  A few years after Jesus’ death and resurrection, Jerusalem itself would be put under siege by Rome.  The hope was that you could stay holed up in your city walls until the attacking army got diverted somewhere else or another larger force came around.  So, hell is an adversary for Jesus’ disciples.  Hell represents an enemy force worthy of being besieged, but victory is assured.

Hades as Parable

Luke 16:23 “And in Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away, and Lazarus in his bosom. (Luke 16:23 NAS)

The parable of the rich man and Lazarus is connected to Jesus’ rebuke of the Pharisees in 16:13-14 “You cannot serve both God and money… God knows your hearts.  What people value highly is detestable in God’s sight” (TNIV).  The parable explains those one-off statements.  The parable discusses money, God’s knowledge of hearts, and God’s detesting.  Short version (but seriously read Luke 16:19-31), rich man ignores poor and sick Lazarus at his front gate.  Both guys die.  Rich man is in Hades “in torment” and “in agony… in fire,” and he can see Lazarus in “Abrahams bosom” which is a place of comfort and apparently has cool water.  There is an uncrossable space between Hades and the Bosom.  And what is the punch line of the parable?  Rich guy wants to warn others to repent from being rich jerks by coming back from the dead, but Abraham shuts him down.  The super Easter foreshadowing is “They will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead” (v31).  Notice that this parable is not meant to be an dictionary entry on the afterlife.  Parables are stories that essentially are about something not in the story.  What is the parable about?  1) You cannot serve God and money 2) God knows your hearts 3) What people value is detestable to God 4) and the new idea, resurrection is not more convicting then Moses and the Prophets.  Jesus’ use of parable does not make him a liar, but we can learn a lot about his perception of Hades by how it has to function in this parable.

Hades is agony (v25).  The parable only works if the rich man is aware of himself and his circumstance (v23).  Hades is permanent separation (v26). And as all of our passages on hell have shown, Hades should be avoided (v28), specifically avoided by repentance (v30).  If Jesus was to tell this parable, but actually believe or mean the opposite of these statements (e.g. “The afterlife has no negative experiences”) then the parable would be incoherent and nonsensical.  Jesus tells this parable to hit home his rebuke of the Pharisees.

What do we learn about Hell from how Jesus uses Hades?

From the passage on Capernaum we learn that Hades is sort of in a cause-effect relationship with Jesus’ ministry and miracles.  If you react to Jesus without repentance, then you are missing the point of Jesus.  What should bring glory, such as Jesus working in your city, now stands to shame you.

In the adversary passage, we learn something that sounds like it clashes with the “who is the boss” passages from last time.  If God is the boss of hell, which should be a comfort, how can Jesus talk about Hades as an adversary?  How can Hades be like any enemy city, if God is “the boss”?  If we really believe that God is the boss, then it makes sense that Jesus tells Peter, “The gates won’t hold you back.”  It helps to remember that Jesus had no room for dualism.  There are not eternal forces of good and evil.  Good was always from God and the forces of Hades are a new thing.  They hide behind gates that God controls.  Jesus can assure Peter the gates won’t hold.

From the parable of Lazarus and the rich man we must be cautious in what we use to define the after-life, because it is not primarily about the afterlife but money and repentance.  But for the parable to function at all, Jesus had to have a very concrete idea that there is a permanent self-aware agony awaiting those who don’t repent.  This parable plus the gehenna passages make it very hard to think that Jesus had a fluffy version of the afterlife. Furthermore, Jesus specifically targets the Pharisees’ hidden love of money.  The sin is two-fold.  The Pharisees think they can hide their love of money from God, and they plainly love money more than God.  So on the other side of Easter and headed to April 15th,  take comfort or take caution that God is with you.

God’s Commands: Numbers 1-9

Leave a reply

I am in Austin now.  Highway 35 ebbs and flows off my balcony.  I smell barbeque every morning.  People flock from miles around to wait in line for perfection, the perfect brisket.  As we turn to Numbers, the people of Israel, the ex-slaves, will wander far and wide searching for something, the promised-land. Like any good road trip, they will have time for self-discovery and disappointment.  Waiting and standing in line is boring and sometimes dangerous, but getting to the end and receiving your juicy reward is sweet.  As usual, my guide to working through Numbers is the imperatives in scripture.  These are not the commands in the traditional sense.  They are the times when God breaks into the story and says, “Do this thing here, right now.”

Num 1:2 “Take a census of all the congregation” Lit. “Lift up the heads.”  The idea is that Moses and crew are doing a head count to see how big their army is.  The same phrase is in Exo 30:12, where the counted are supposed to provide a ransom of a half shekel.  This time there is no mention of ransoms.

Num 1:50 “Appoint the Levites to be in charge of the tabernacle” The Levites aren’t counted as part of the 603,550 from v46 because they are not supposed to be fighting men.  In v53 the Levites are talked about as a buffer between God’s presence in the tabernacle and the rest of the people.  They are more than soft skinned churchy guys.  They exist to create a barrier for God’s wrath.

Num 3:6 “Bring the tribe of Levi near and set them before Aaron” Aaron’s family is supposed to be the priestly line.  Out of the first five priests, Aaron, the father, and Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar the sons, two of the priests died on the job.  Left with three priests, the people of Israel need people to help run the tabernacle.  Interestingly, the verb for “bring near” is the same root as 3:4 “made an offering.”  The idea being that the Levites are an offering, not for human sacrifice but service.

Num 3:15 “Number the sons of Levi by their fathers’ households” Now Moses is commanded to count the not-army men.  The Gershon, Kohath and Merari clans total 22,000 in v39.

Num 3:40 “Count all the firstborn Israelite males… make a list of their names” The idea is that Moses counts all the Israelite first born, 22,273 in v43, and finds the difference with the total number of Levites.  The difference of 273 in v46 is redeemed by paying shekels.  However, the bulk of the Israelite first born are redeemed at a 1 to 1 exchange with a Levite.  This is not human sacrifice, but the implication is that this “taking” is a prevention of blood-shed.  All the animal firstborn are to be offered or redeemed, but humans can’t be offered so there is a replacement put into service at the tabernacle (Exo 13:15).  That may sound not fair to the Levites.  Well, atonement isn’t fair.

Num 3:45 “Take the Levites instead of all the first-born among the sons of Israel” The flocks and herds of the Levites as well as their inheritance exists to serve Yahweh.  The language of “shall be mine” echoes Exo 13:2 “the first offspring of every womb among the Israelites belongs to me.”

Num 4:19 “So that they may live and not die… do this for them” Chapter 4 is the big break down of jobs for the Kohathite, Gershonite and Merarite clans.  The Merarites carry the frame and structural stuff.  The Gershonites carry the walls and general setup.  The Kohathites carry the décor and get the details ready for priest-stuff.  The Kohathites are closest to all the priestly action and are most likely to be lured by ideas of performing Aaron’s duties or feeling self-important.  So God specifically warns Moses and Aaron to be very precise and mindful of the Kohathites.  Fast forward to Num 16:32 and God opens up the ground and swallows Korah and his fellow Kohathites for starting a religious rebellion.  In short, they thought they could be the priests while ignoring the promise, “they will die.”  God chooses his priests. The priests don’t get to choose their god.

Num 5:2 “Command the Israelites to send away… every leper” All the ceremonially unclean have to be put outside.  This wasn’t a death sentence, but it wasn’t a life sentence.  For a nomadic people, straggling behind the camp is dangerous.  Also, the shame of expulsion is much worse than not getting picked for dodgeball. Why send them away?  They would defile, tame, the camp.  However, Lev 5:2-13 records how an unclean person gets restored through sacrifice.  Numbers 5 answers the question, “If they don’t care about being clean, why would they offer the sacrifice?” Because, you have to be a straggler till you do.

Num 5:6, 12 “Speak to the Israelites… who wrongs… wife goes astray” These two passages are setup as parallels concerning sins against your fellow Israelite.  The first is if you intentionally wrong someone.  Think swindling, stealing, conning, etc.  The restitution is financial, specifically 120% of what the loss was.  This makes Zacchaeus 400% repayment even more extravagant (Luke 19:8).  But then the question arises, “What if the wrong is something you can’t put a value on? What if someone robs you of trust?”  In v11-31 the scenario is that a husband is suspicious and jealous of his wife. Although this passage shocks our modern idea of marriage, in the ancient world women could be killed for simply speaking out of turn (Esther 4:16).  God is putting a clear line on how far jealous husbands can go.  They can go to the priest, who will essentially give a stern warning to the wife.  This command would not apply to an actual case of adultery, someone caught in the act.  The sentence for adultery is death (Lev 20:10).

Num 6:2 “Speak to the Israelites… the vow of the Nazirite” Now to the other side of the spectrum, from wrong doers to the super dedicated.  The Nazirite vow seems weird, but at its heart is the idea that God desires our spurts of devotion.  Every other purity ritual was for people who didn’t have a choice.  Priests are born that way. Levites are born that way.  Sinners and the unclean, they are responsible, but the purification is pretty compulsory if you don’t want to rot in the desert.  Nazirites are for the people who want to nazar, “consecrate oneself.” They intentionally distance themselves from society.  They have to steer clear of booze and funerals, and they can’t visit the barber.  And God knows that they won’t be perfect, so most of the discussion of Nazarites is what to do when they do mess up or how they can still keep their vows.  The end result is that Nazarites shave their grown out hair and can have wine again.

Num 6:23 “Speak to Aaron and his sons” Moses is to tell the priests how to do their job, specifically how to bless the people.

Num 7:5 “Accept these things from them” The tabernacle parts are all constructed, then the common people spontaneously donate ways to move it around.  God didn’t command them to, and Moses didn’t ask them to.  I bet the Gershonites and Merarites were relieved.  But notice that the Kohathites, the ones tasked with carrying the priceless stuff, don’t receive any pack animals (v9).

Num 8:2 “Speak to Aaron and say, ‘When you set up the lamps’” Chapter 7 details all the material gifts that the Israelite clans brought for the tabernacle.  The altar is dedicated, and then Moses goes inside and hears a voice in the darkness saying, “Hey, turn on the lights!”

Num 8:6, 7 “Take the Levites… Sprinkle purifying water” Notice that Moses by himself setup the tabernacle (Num 7:1).  The first task God has him do is prepare his helpers.  The tabernacle was big and heavy.

Num 8:12 “Then offer one for a sin offering” God will eventually say, “the Levites will be mine,” but first they have to have their sin atoned (8:14).  Notice that a bull can be sacrificed if it is without spot or blemish and not sick.  But God doesn’t say, “Find the perfect Levites, no need for a sacrifice for them. I’ll take them as they are.”

Num 9:10 “Speak to the Israelites… unclean because of a dead person” This is amazing!  The people asked Moses a “Well but what if” question, and Moses gets an answer from God.  And the answer is, “There is a second chance for Passover observance.”  If your circumstances don’t line up with the festival, fine; but if your attitude doesn’t line up, then that is trouble.  Those intentionally skipping Passover are exiled (9:13).

God desired to be with the ex-slaves.  He provided ways to restore wrong doers.  He even moves his calendar to their needs.  But he isn’t a push over.  Moses better keep an eye on those Kohathites.  So in closing, do you treat God like a pushover? Do you need to set aside a specific time or observance, a vow perhaps, to help you remember who God is and who you are? Devotion to God may seem tedious, but at the end of the line, it is good.

Theology of Hell #1

1 Reply

“What do you believe about hell?” She said earnestly.

That was a problem.  We were supposed to be discussing the life of Jesus.  I had invited this couple over along with several other friends to eat food, vent about our jobs and stresses, and read scripture.  Our lives were the serious things, the theology wasn’t supposed to be.  We were supposed to discuss divorcing friends, quitting or getting fired from jobs, how scary it is to talk to our neighbors.  Life was scary, not the theology.  I said the wisest answer possible, “I don’t know.”

I knew stuff about hell, but I still don’t “know” hell.  When it comes to the afterlife, I have no firsthand experience.  Is there fire?  Do people continue in agony forever?  Is it God’s idea?  Where is it at? I resolved to look for answers.  I followed with, “I’ll find out.”

So, to continue my theological explorations of terrible, dreary, and scary things (see last January’s “Brief Theology of Miscarriage” http://wp.me/p5pi3B-h); I present a theology of hell.  It was supposed to be brief.  Then my wife in her wisdom said, “That’s not brief.  You should chop it up.”

First off, hell presents a scriptural problem.  Not because of too few references, as is the case with miscarriage.  Hell or judgement by fire is mentioned over one hundred and thirty times in scripture.  From all these references questions arise.  Where is hell?  What is it like?  How absolute is it?  And most importantly, how do I not go there? Add to all these other questions the fact that there is a gradual progression of cosmology – how the universe is structured – and eschatology – how everything ends – in scripture.  Instead of chasing every loose end, I will examine just Jesus’ statements from the Gospels on hell.  Why Jesus?  If you believe he is the Son of God, then his opinion on the afterlife is pretty important.  Jesus references hell using three words or phrases: gehenna, hades, pur.

Gehenna

“Whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.” (Matt 5:22 NASB)

Jesus invents hell.  That is to say, if you are using a very literal translation of the Greek or Hebrew from scripture the word “hell” won’t occur until Matthew 5:22.  Jesus is repurposing the word gehenna to mean hell. Today the valley of Ge Hinnom is a place you can visit, and it is pretty scenic.  You can drive down Gey Ben Hinnom Street just south of old town Jerusalem.

Why would Jesus reference this scenic valley to discuss the severity and danger of anger, judgment, and sin in general?  The valley of Hinnom, ge hinnom, is a pretty evil zip code in Jeremiah 7:31.  In this valley just outside of Jerusalem, people were performing child sacrifices.  Also, during the gap between the writing of the Old Testament (OT) and the New Testament (NT) the idea that a valley or pit would be the place of end times torment enters Jewish thought (1Enoch 27:2; 4Ezra 7:36).  When Jesus says gehenna, he is using his audiences’ understanding that 1) the Hinnom Valley is an evil or tainted place, and 2) that end-time torment involves a pit or valley.  Let’s look at the “flavors” of how Jesus uses gehenna.

Do Anything to Avoid Passages

“If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell.” (Matt 5:29 NASB)

These are some of the scariest verses in scripture.  Jesus wanted them to be.  If your body is causing you to sin, you are better off with self-mutilation than hell.  Pluck out your eye; chop off your hand.  Matt 5:29-30; Matt 18:9; Mark 9:43-47 all have this idea of mutilation to avoid sin in order to avoid hell, but listen to the hyperbole.  The context of Matt 5:29-30 is Jesus’ teaching on adultery.  Jesus wouldn’t tell an adulterer, “Oh you plucked out your eyes!  All good now.”  The context of Mark 9:43-47 is causing “little ones” to sin.  Jesus wouldn’t tell a lead-others-to-sin amputee, “You lost your hand! That made it all better.”   These passages are hyperbole, but not because they overestimate the severity of sin or the extremes that should be taken to avoid hell.  Jesus is overplaying what “causes” – skandalizw – to snare, to cause to stumble – sin.  He reveals a more fleshed out theology on human corruption in Matthew 15:18-29; Mark 7:20-22.  “Out of the heart” is the source of evil.  Your eye can’t force you to sin.  Your hand can’t make you do evil.  You make you sin.  Jesus is playing up to the audience, “Do whatever it takes to avoid hell,” but he hasn’t revealed just how drastic the measures will be.  And remember, these are Jews who might say, “We have Abraham as our father,” which meant that God was categorically on their side (Matt 3:9).  He is teaching that sin is dangerous; hell is a possibility; and you should do anything to avoid both.

Judging Passages

“You serpents, you brood of vipers, how shall you escape the sentence of hell?” (Matt 23:33 NASB)

Jesus is kind and merciful to a lot of people: tax collectors, adulterers, zealots/terrorists, gentiles, crazed demoniacs, old Pharisees, etc.  However, he doesn’t shy away from judgment.  Matt 23:15, 33 detail how Jesus is pronouncing “Woe” against the Pharisees.  These were Jewish religious guys whose mission in life was to be righteous enough and train enough disciples to usher in God’s kingdom. Interestingly, v23 details how the Pharisees and scribes are in trouble for not showing “justice and mercy and faithfulness” while overemphasizing super tithing.  The root for the word justice is krisis, which is the same root for “the sentence/judgment of hell.”  They neglected justice; they will know the krisis of gehenna.

Mat 23:15 is condemning the Pharisees’ whole disciple-making enterprise, “you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves” (Mat 23:15 NASB).  This verse is less intense than v33, but it does undercut half of the Pharisees’ game plan.  Their making disciples isn’t bringing God’s kingdom closer but instead advances gehenna.

“But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, ‘Raca,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever shall say, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.” (Mat 5:22 NASB)

Here is the progression laid out in this verse.  Anger => court; Raca/Empty-one => supreme court; Fool => fiery gehenna.  This passage is part of Jesus’ super expansion of the Mosaic law. “Don’t commit adultery” now is don’t look lustfully.  “Don’t swear falsely” now is don’t swear.  We are way past “Don’t murder.” Insults are worthy of hell.  Jesus is using gehenna here as a warning, but notice that the language is court room language.  Read v23-26.  All those words for court and judge are krisis words.  Unlike the Pharisees that would say, “Take care of the dill and mint tithes before the krisis,” Jesus is saying, “Leave the altar, pause the temple stuff!  Run and take care of krisis right now.”  Jesus is teaching that hell is a just response to our refusal to be just.

Who Is the Boss Passages

Matt 10:28; Luke 12:5

“But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who, after He has killed, has authority to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear Him!” (Luke 12:5 NASB)

Luke 12:5 and its parallel in Matt 10:28 come after Jesus’ warning about future persecution.  Luke 12 is more centered on the Pharisees challenging and silencing the message.  Matt 10 is more broad and end-timesy.  From either passage, Jesus’ message is, “They (Pharisees/World in general) will try to stop you.  Don’t fear them.  Fear God.”  And why should they fear God?  God has authority over hell.  The smiter has the smite button.  However, both Luke and Matthew pair this fear passage with, “Fear not; you are of more value than many sparrows” (Matt 10:31; Luke 12:7).  The root word for the verb “fear not” and the noun “fear” in these passages is phobos, which is common everyday fear.  Jesus warns about hell, but he tells us to fear the God who is the boss of hell.  However, the boss cares for us more than we can imagine.

What do we learn about Hell from how Jesus uses gehenna?

Most importantly, God is the boss of hell, and this should be a source of comfort.  Our imaginations have run wild with the concept of hell.  We think the devil sits on a throne and commands legions of biker-gangs who are eternally partying.  God is the boss.  There are no demons that will drag you there.  And no earthly judgment can send you there.  There is no dualism for Jesus.  There isn’t a kingdom of darkness with skills and forces strong enough to pose a real threat.  He knows his followers will die from persecution just like he will, but it is only a flesh wound.

Hell is not unjust.  We are unjust.  The Pharisees were much better at their religion than you ever will be.  They tried to follow every law, but they couldn’t produce an ounce of justice.  It is important that we see Jesus pronouncing judgments or sentences.  Hell is not an accidental place.  God doesn’t look at those in hell and say, “Oops!  That one was a mistake.”

Now that we have laid out that God is the boss, and hell is not unjust, there is a big question.  What is hell?  After all, gehenna was a place Jesus could point to.  This was part of the reason he references the valley in his teaching.  We say, “in hell” and “in heaven,” but can you pull them up on a map?  From these passages, we haven’t determined much about the character of hell.  We just know it is connected to sin, and we should try to avoid it.  But since Jesus is so severe in these passages, it is safe to assume he is not joking.  That is to say, sometimes people read gehenna passages and begin analogizing and making everything metaphor.  Does Jesus sound like he wants us to make gehenna less scary?  Since Jesus invented hell, we will have to study the other ways he references it to understand more of its nature and character.  Next time is hades.

Book/Movie Review: The Martian

1 Reply

Andy Weir made me tear up with relief.  He also got me through New Mexico.  I recently took a cross-continent road trip with my wife.  After twelve days of travel, we now live in Austin.  Road trips normally grind down my patience till I am a sullen bear of a husband.  Mark Watney’s struggles to stay alive and travel 3200 km on Mars made all of my travel woes insignificant.  Technically I traveled farther, but I never ran out of ketchup.  I’ll start with the book.

I listened to this book as an audio book.  The reader for the Audible version was fantastic.  R.C. Bray commands so many different accents and characters.  But, Bray’s interpretation of the characters taints my view of each character.  The story itself is stressful and exhausting.  People with a heart condition should allow for breaks to relieve built up stress.  There were several times that I fist pumped when one of the several likable characters succeeded in the face of death by implosion, fire, jettison, starvation, explosion, infection, etc.  Weir’s story is simple.  One guy versus one planet.  The only criticism I would have of the story is that the human administrative drama of how to reveal details about Watney’s survival is unnecessary and distracting.  Weir devotes story space to use white collar drama to spell out “Astronauts have to be brave” whenever there is an astronaut on a deserted planet actually being brave.  This space could have been devoted to more buddy-scenes or communication between Watney and the crew or even provide a more fleshed out epilogue.  The plot ends abruptly with Watney, a character who has spelled out every step he will take every hour, not answering the question, “How will I survive now?”  The closing message of “Humanity bands together” is a very surprising Star Trekian theme out of a book that I thought would be Castaway in space.

Speaking of Castaway, I knew that Ridley Scott’s 2015 film would have to maroon lots of content and have more straightforward plot structure than the book.  Overall the plot choices and big decision to follow fairly linear plot progression were perfect.  Matt Damon’s performance was good, but I felt that he brought too much self-doubt to Watney – except for the space rescue scene, which was probably not Damon’s call, but it was so fun.  Watney’s cockiness and humor is his main defense mechanism in the novel; whereas, Damon’s Watney is more well adjusted and survives by connecting to his crew.  This hurts the basic story of one guy versus one planet.  The main plot difference in the film pertains to Watney’s ability to stay connected to earth and his team.  This would have played into the theme of “Humanity bands together” if the movie’s extended epilogue went that direction; however, the closing theme of the movie is “Pioneers are going to pioneer.  Try hard.”  I laughed harder at the Council of Elrond scene more than I ever have at any fourth-wall awareness in any film.  Sean Bean blew my mind.

So which is better?  Weir’s novel is a wonderful suspense filled survival story.  Ridley’s film is better than any popcorn level teamwork film.  However, both stories are supposed to be about survival.  Survival stories are most compelling when you aren’t sure if the characters will survive.  Weir never lets the reader take Watney’s survival for granted. Ridley’s montage filled adaptation skimps on loneliness and desperation.  The novel wins. Also, you should watch your back around Boromir.

God’s Commands: Leviticus 18-27

Leave a reply

It’s been a while.  Everything is changing.  God’s word stays true forever.  Last time we heard all of the imperatives regarding offerings, emissions and food.  Now we turn to the imperatives that are more severe in tone.

Lev 18:2 “Speak to the people… I am the LORD your God.”  The first command of this section is for Moses to tell the people that who their boss is makes them different.  If you are going to be different from Egypt, you can’t act like Egypt.  This is the context of the following commands on uncovering nakedness.  Apparently the Egyptians were nudists.  And what’s the promise?   If the Israelites do these things, “lest the land vomit you out” (18:28).

Lev 19:2 “Speak to all the congregation… you shall be holy for I the LORD your God am holy.”  This introduces a loosely held together section running to 20:26.  The binding theme is holiness.  Statutes based on who God is and less on how not to be like other people (although 20:23).  Lev 19 has: revere parents (v3); make acceptable offerings (v5); leave some harvest for the poor (v10); oppression, injustice and vengeance aren’t okay (v11-18); instructions on everything from concubines to scales (v19-36).

Lev 20 has no imperatives.  The passage deals with potential problems and future promises.  Notice all the “if” statements.

Lev 21:1 “Speak to the priests… no one shall make himself unclean for the dead.”  There are lots of exceptions for family members, but priests are supposed to have a different loyalty.  Why?  “They offer the LORD’s food offerings, the bread of their God” (v8).

Lev 21:17 “Speak to Aaron… none of your offspring… who has a blemish may draw near.”  Pretty harsh.  God already took one of Aaron’s sons.  Being a priest is a serious deal.  If someone is going to do it right, they will have to be perfect.

Lev 22:2 “Speak to Aaron… abstain from the holy things.”  What?  Aren’t priests supposed to be around holy stuff all the time?  This idea is supposed to be connected to “while he has an uncleanness” (v3).  The priests’ job isn’t getting any easier.

Lev 22:18-19 “Speak to Aaron and… all the people of Israel, ‘When anyone presents a burnt offering… if it is to be accepted for you it shall be a male without blemish.”  At a meeting of medical missionaries and supporters I heard the quote, “No junk for Jesus.”  I think that applies here.  A sacrificial system completely breaks down if you start bringing junk.  God shouldn’t have to command this, but he knows his people.

Lev 23:2 “Speak to the people… ‘These are the appointed feasts.”  God commands Moses four times in this chapter to speak to the people about feasts and calendar stuff.  This first section covers the two most important.  The Sabbath is to be a day of “no work” (v3).  The Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread create a whole week of offerings capped by a day of rest.  Unlike Exo 20:11 or Exo 12:17 and other times that Sabbath or Passover is mentioned, there is not a “Why do we do this?” in Lev 23.  God has the right to set the calendar.

Lev 23:10 “Speak to the people… bring the sheaf of the first-fruits.”  If you aren’t a farmer, a “sheaf” is a bundled up stack of grain.  Think of those grain bundle things that you see around caricatures of pilgrims at Thanksgiving.  This idea is bigger than grain.  All produce is offer-able (v13).  Then seven weeks plus fifty days later is the ‘feast of weeks’ although that name isn’t in the text.  Essentially, the people are to thank God for stuff popping out of the ground and for a good harvest at the end.  So the actual ‘no work day’ is at the end of the Feast of Weeks  (v21).

Lev 23:24 “Speak to the people… observe a day of solemn rest, a memorial proclaimed with blast of trumpets.”  I don’t know.  For me rest doesn’t equal trumpet blowing.

In v26 there is no imperative introducing the Day of Atonement.  It still is a no work day (v28), but it has been intricately described earlier in Leviticus 16.

Lev 23:34 “Speak to the people… for seven days is the Feast of Booths to the LORD.”  This is the only feast day with the ‘to the LORD’ designation.  The description of this feast is very vague here, but essentially everyone is to go camping on order to remember the Exodus.

Lev 24:2 “Command the people… to bring pure oil for the lamp.”  This tsavah is more intense than the “speak” of our previous imperatives.  Who keeps the lamps burning?  The people do.

Lev 24:14 “Speak to the people… ‘Whoever curses God shall bear his sin.'” Seems fair enough.  You curse God, you bear the consequences.  However, in 2015, can we be okay with a God who commands the death penalty for religious belief?  It happened.  Deal with it.

Lev 25:2 “Speak to the people… ‘The land shall keep a Sabbath to the LORD.'”  After seven years the land gets a break.  Letting a field go unused or rotating crops is a wise farming practice.  But, what God is getting across is that Sabbath provides food (v6).  That is the opposite of a Black Friday world.

Leviticus 26 has no imperatives.  It is more of a “when you get there” passage.  It ends with stark warnings of how God will personally deal with sin, and it promises exile.  “Then the land shall enjoy its Sabbaths… while you are in your enemies’ land” Lev 36:34.  Notice that this promise of destruction is not tied to a “You turned to other gods” idea but that the people will not do what God asked concerning Sabbath, proper sacrifice, purity, etc.

Lev 27:2 “Speak to the people… if anyone makes a special vow.”  This chapter is so weird to us.  Jacob is the first person to do this in scripture (Gen 28:20-22).  In short, due to intense circumstances you promise to devote something to God. Jacob said a specific amount, but you could just name a person or animal.  You can’t fully devote land because God hands out the land as ancestral heritage (Lev 27:24).  But, you can devote the produce of the land or potential produce of the land.  In the case of a person devoted, you must redeem them by paying money to the temple.  For an animal the option is to pay the money or hand over the animal to become property of the temple.

This system seems so bizarre to us.  Think of your prayer life.  Usually in times of panic we ask God for something.  Heal me.  Save me.  However, the Israelites in moments of panic offered things to God.  At worst, this was viewed as perfunctory transaction, but at best, this is a preemptive offering of gratitude for God’s deliverance.  “I will give this to God because of the good he will do.”

That’s Leviticus.  We saw over and over that God’s commands in this usually “boring” book are actually a tale of intimacy.  You set up house rules because you want to live with someone.  Now it’s time for the people to start heading where they are supposed to live.  The Hebrew title for the next book is “In the Wilderness”, but English bibles have “Numbers” because counting is important.

God’s Commands: Leviticus 8-17

Leave a reply

Whales are not common.  But, I have seen one every August in Alaska.  God’s instructions aren’t common.  We don’t find his plans under every rock and behind every door.  How many of us have languished waiting for God’s next step.  Yet, when we read Leviticus we read it as oppressive.  The book of law is also a book of intimacy.  God speaks into every facet of the ex-slaves lives.  God had been silent for 400 years.  Now they are getting a buffet of speech.  God has a plan for the Israelites’ medicine cabinets and pantries.

Lev 8:2-3 “Take Aaron and his sons… assemble all the congregation.”  There is a long list of things in v2: Aaron, sons, garments, anointing oil, bull, two rams, bread.  But notice at the heart is the priest and the people.  In this chapter God takes a family of people, purifies them, and sets them apart from the set-apart people.  This is scandalous to how we want God to work.  How dare God be so specific?

Lev 8:31 “Boil the meat at the entrance.” This is the end of the ordination festivities.  Aaron and sons are priests.  What is their first duty?  Climb a mountain?  Meditate for days?  Sing a beautiful song?  Get out of the tent of meeting and eat your food.  The priests don’t take the place of God.  They aren’t even allowed to eat there.

Lev 9:2-3 “Take a bull… take a goat… [to the congregation] take a bull, goat, lamb.” The first sin offering [chattath] and burnt offering [olah] by the new priests.  These first offerings have a promise, “Today Yahweh will appear to you” (v4).  The new guys better not screw up.

Lev 9:7 “Approach the altar… make your sin offering [chattath]… atone for your… make the offering [qorban] of the people… atone for them.”  The priest’s sins come first.  Was the promised fulfilled?  “Fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed the burnt offering and the fat portions on the altar. And when all the people saw it, they shouted for joy and fell facedown” (v24).

Lev 10:4 “Come near… carry your brothers.”  Aaron’s sons Nadab and Abihu are consumed by fire from the tent for bringing “strange fire” before God.  It appears they messed up the command for incense from Exo 30:34-38.  The result, “So Aaron kept silent.”  At first, I want to read this as Aaron the stoic father, but Leviticus is a book about priests.  Here’s what happened.  When God’s glory was most sullied, which was only “strange fire”, the first and head priest was silent.  Not because he was lazy or complacent, but because he didn’t need to defend God’s honor.  Aaron’s God can defend his own honor.

Lev 10:12 “Moses said… ‘Take the grain offering… eat it unleavened.”  The rest of Lev 10 is a scene between Moses and the priests.  What is interesting is Aaron and the priests disobey Moses.  They compromise Moses’ command about how to eat this grain offering and consume the non-sin offering.  They blow it.  Aaron’s excuse?  “I’m having a bad day.”  Moses is satisfied.  Notice how there is no internalization of God’s holiness by Moses or Aaron.  Moses is not self-righteous.  Aaron is honest about his weakness.  Reconciliation occurs.  These two brothers just witnessed a cataclysmic display of God’s holiness, they respond with grace and mercy.

Lev 11:2 “Speak to the Israelites, ‘Of all the animals… these are the ones you may eat.’”  The priests have had their turn.  Now God has a message for the average Joe, “Watch what you eat!”  I have heard it said that these animal regulations have to do with not mixing categories.  Essentially, if an animal looks more hybridized it’s no good.  Fish that look like fish are good.  Catfish, fish that are so weird they are named after a land mammal are no good.  I’m not sure I buy that.

Lev 12:1 “Speak to the Israelites, ‘A woman… will be ceremonially unclean.’”  From diet to childbirth the uncleanliness flows.  Specifically, a woman’s bleeding after childbirth is unclean.  She has eight days of “don’t touch anything” uncleanliness for a boy, and fourteen for a girl.  Then she moves into a period of “don’t touch holy stuff” uncleanliness.  Why the difference between boys and girls.  At eight days it is time for circumcision so people need to come around.

Lev 13-14 has all the regulations on diagnosing and cleansing people from skin disease.  Also, there is a snippet on molds.  This whole section contains no imperatives.  Was Moses just writing this part down?  Why?  Let’s see.

Lev 15:2 “Speak to the Israelites, ‘When any man… his discharge will be unclean.’”  Now men are unclean.  The discharge in this chapter is specifically from the genitals.  Essentially, if anything comes out, the man and anything he touches, or even spits on is unclean in the “don’t touch holy stuff” sense.  So, the man’s uncleanliness is shorter than the woman’s, but it is always ‘contagious’ in the sense that everything near him becomes unclean.

What’s the big deal?  “‘You must keep the Israelites separate from things that make them unclean, so they will not die in their uncleanness for defiling my dwelling place” (v31).  That’s a good reason.  But more seriously, these ex-slaves have to be confused.  Almost every other ancient deity had temple prostitutes, phallic rituals, or some fertility cult.  Ancient religions were essentially an enshrining of sex and fertility.  You lived and died by whether or not your wife, your sons, your crops, your herds had offspring.  Sex was life.  The otherness of this Yahweh was strange.  He doesn’t need our fertility to create.

Lev 16:2 “Tell your brother Aaron that he shall not enter… the holy place.”  The book of Leviticus sure spends a lot of time undercutting the potency of the Levitical priesthood.

Lev 17:2 “Speak to Aaron and his sons… this is what the LORD has commanded [tsavah].”  Moses is to tell the priests how to protect the tabernacle system.  If anyone kills an animal for a sacrifice someplace else, then they are cut off from the community.  Yahweh’s people are the people that use the tent Yahweh designed.  The place mattered because Yahweh made it matter.  This is a new thing.  Jacob didn’t have to worry about place (Gen 31:54).  The patriarchs definitely listened to God’s call for sacrifice at specific times and places (Gen 22:2), but there isn’t really a category of right or wrong places.  After Judah and Israel split, the northern kingdom is condemned beginning with Jeroboam’s setting up an alternate temple at Bethel and Dan (1Kings 12:25-30).  A whole nation was doomed to worship at the wrong place.

God cares about medicine cabinets and pantries.  He cares about you.  The ex-slaves had served a god-king that didn’t care about them.  He made them make bricks with no straw.  Their new God-king cares about all of the details of their lives.  What’s different?  Pharaoh cared about how much the people could produce before they died.  This new God-king cares about how holy the people are while they live.  Notice that so far, none of these instructions are impossible.  The only one that would be a big challenge to a modern person would be no pork.  The biggest shock to our lives would not be abstaining from grubs, eating eagles, or cleaning our house of mold.  The biggest shock to our world would be the unending stream of blood and sacrifices.  As Yahweh sets up a tent in the midst of his people, sins become more serious not less.

God’s Commands: Leviticus 1-7

Leave a reply

Summer is the thing.  Denali peaked at me as I ran this morning.  All of my friends and neighbors smell of canoes and fishing trips.  Summer is the thing.

I have been on a journey through scripture.  My quest is to catalog all of the imperatives uttered by God.  I want to list every time God shouts a life giving “Stop!”, “Come!”, “Listen!”  Now we are in the book of Leviticus.  God just taught the people how to build a tabernacle, and now he teaches them how to use it.  A tabernacle should be used like everything.  Everything is for the glory of God.

Lev 1:2 “Speak to the people of Israel…”  God does what God does.  The prophet Moses does what a prophet does.  To open this walk through of Leviticus, I must point out the phrase, “you shall bring,” is not a true imperative.  This statement is more about possibility than the present.  For chapter 2 and 3 notice that there are lots of if/when statements.  These all fall under this same imperfect category.

Lev 4:2 “Speak to the people of Israel, saying, if anyone sins unintentionally…” The previous command was for the prophet to speak to the people about general offerings.  These offerings are specifically for the case of someone who has gone “Oops!” before God.  So far, Leviticus assumes that people wouldn’t be dumb enough to intentionally sin.  No one says, “Yeah that God who blew up all the Egyptian army, I don’t want him to be the boss of me.”  For the treatment of true rebels, see Numbers 15:30-31.

It is interesting that the sacrificial system begins in Lev 1 as a discussion of glorifying God and moves in Lev 4 to a discussion of how to deal with our inevitable screw ups.  Leviticus is not a book of self righteousness.

Lev 6:9 “Command Aaron and his sons, saying, ‘This is the law of the burnt offering.'” Moses is to command the priests.  Lev 1 uses the word qorban to discuss offerings from the lay persons perspective.  Qorban also usually refers to offerings given in obligation to an oath.  “God if you do X, I will praise you with Y”, which is not unbiblical.  See 1Samuel 1:11-28.  However, here we see the discussion of the olah from the priests perspective.  What are the rules for actually burning these offerings?

Lev 6:25 “Speak to Aaron and his sons, saying, This is the law of the sin offering.”  Moses is to speak to the priests about the chattah, the sin offering.  Notice that this offering unlike the olah or qorban is not consumed by fire and there is a great emphasis on the priests consuming this offering.  These offerings are strictly forbidden from serving double duty as tabernacle-purifying and sin atoning (v30).  A glut of sin causes fat priests.

Lev 7:23 “Speak to the people of Israel… you shall eat no fat.”  Why can’t they eat fat?  Is it a diet? “The fat of an animal of which a food offering may be made to Yahweh” belongs to Yahweh (v25).  So in these chapters about all the types of sacrifice we have this huge dietary restriction.  This is so otherworldly.  We look at the meat department or a butcher shop and think, “That cow looks delicious.”  God is making it clear that the sacrificial mindset enters the realm of the backyard barbecue.

Lev 7:29 “Speak to the people of Israel… whoever offers a peace offering shall bring his offering to Yahweh.”  There is no peace by proxy.  The sacrificer’s “own hands” must bring the carcass before the altar.

Burnt offerings, grain offerings, sin offerings, guilt offerings, ordination offerings and peace offerings. Notice in all of these commands and regulations that there is an attitude about God’s provision.  Offerings and sacrifices are a terrible thing if the worshipper is flying solo.  Left to our own devices humans think God wants everything and nothing and we end up sacrificing children or starving our elders.  But, Leviticus does not read itself as burdensome.  “Ex-slaves, listen, God provided your flocks.  This is how you can glorify God.  And you don’t have to guess.  These are offerings he likes.” This is not a first date where you bring flowers that result in a epinephrine shot.  And here’s the basic pattern, when you praise God everything gets consumed.  When you sin and come back, you share a meal.  Next time we come to Leviticus Aaron and his sons will get dressed for the party.

Book/Movie Review: Unbroken

Leave a reply

Laura Hillenbrand’s 2010 “Unbroken” is my favorite non-fiction novelization.  Laura didn’t invent the story, but she did craft the context.  You begin Louis Zamperini’s story knowing it will be a war novel.  People will die. There will be pain and a glorification of brother in arms.  However, the novelization rides the swells of Louis’ life to become much more than a war story.  The message is more than, “War sucks,” but “Life sucks, and there is redemption.”  Also, Laura doesn’t frame the story as “these hardships prepared Louis for being a POW.” This focus-on-the-present biography was critical for me identifying with Louis.  I knew going into the novel that I would respect Louis for his story of survival, but Hillenbrand’s determination to tell each stage of Louis’ life as if it were the most important moment lets you grow up with Louis and root for him as a boy, as a teenager, as an Olympian, as bombardier, etc.

Angelina Jolie’s 2014 film “Unbroken” made me cry when it was supposed to and it masterfully disoriented me.  At first, I was upset that Jolie or the Coens decided to open the movie in a rickety B-24.  I asked myself, “Does everything have to be Tarantino-ed.”  I loved the novel because every aspect of Louis’ life mattered.  But, the choppy story telling grew on me because it stopped me from anticipating the novelization.  One of the most disappointing things for thriller or action dependent Book/Movies is that when you have heard the story once you keep waiting for the boogeyman.  You start the movie asking yourself, “How will they show Dumbledore’s death?” Jolie’s reorganized plot actually put me back in the story, and I went into the “beheading scene” terrified with the thought, “Wait, does Phil actually die?”  And yes, I cried at two points.  When Louis’ family listens to the broadcast of his record breaking lap and when his family hears POW Louis’ broadcast, I cried for my momma.  It is pretty awesome that the emotional effects of a non-visual medium affected me so much on film.  I was crying at a movie of people crying at the radio.

So, which is better?  Hillenbrand wins because she tells Louis’ story to the point of redemption.  Jolie had the story setup for a battle between Louis’ darkness and light.  The message is actually preached, but this theme is never picked back up.  The climax of the film is Louis persevering and defying the Bird.  It is an inspiring story, but Louis’ story is more than Braveheart.  I know Jolie and Hollywood won’t get as loose with Louis’ faith as Hillenbrand was, but Louis’ life can be secularly stated.  Louis’ discovers that perseverance keeps you alive through a war, but he learns that forgiveness and redemption makes you human on the other side.  I don’t want to be too hard on the film.  Movies are usually about one thing, one enemy.  I don’t know how I would have fit it in, but in a film filled with flash forwards and backs, some scene could have added emotional weight to what Louis experienced after the war.  The heartwarming scene of him running in Japan is cool, but it only adds to the “Most Interesting Man in The World” mystique.  Louis battled demons that are very relevant to a society stressed out by war.

Here’s my final take.  Louis’ story is so good in any medium.  It could be a coloring book and still be a great story.  The movie doesn’t give treatment to the whole character arc.  Do yourself a favor and read the rest of the story.