The Secrets of the Cross Trilogy by Elizabeth Musser

Last month, I read this fascinating trilogy by Elizabeth Musser. It doesn't directly touch on Jewish culture (though there are Jewish characters in the series), but I did see correlation as far as honor/shame cultures and the importance of family.

So, I wanted to share the Secrets of the Cross Trilogy with you!

Set primarily in the early 1960s (book 3 is set in 1994), the story follows characters in southern France and northern Algeria during the French-Algerian conflict, detailing the dynamics of racism and clashing cultures between Algerians loyal to their country, descendants of Algerian soldiers who are loyal to the French army and fought against Algeria in the war, Europeans living in Algeria as a result of the conflict, and all of those 3 also living in France. 

From a cultural standpoint, it's a fascinating story to explore, as I knew little of this dynamic. Combined with daring rescues, harrowing escapes, plots, and intrigue, it's a great read!

But what I wanted to share is what stood out to me on page 204, as the character of Ali, an Algerian socialist, vows revenge on his father's death against the descendants of the man who killed his father (who is also dead): "Ali spat. 'Captain Duchemin! You traitor. I'll find your daughter and granddaughter, and then I can draw the line through your family no one will remember them. My father will be avenged'".

This reminded of the blogs I wrote a few years ago about the importance of family, names, and the dynamics of honor and shame in Eastern cultures. This character is so focused on revenge that he wants to wipe out the whole family line of a man who is already dead (so he won't know it happened) in order to avenge his dead father.

He's focused on the name. He wants to completely remove the name. There is importance in names in Eastern cultures that we don't pick up on right away in Western cultures. As I stated in this blog, "The idea is so much deeper in Jewish culture, however. 'It's hard to overstate how important names were in Biblical times,' Lois Tverberg states in Walking in the Dust of Rabbi Jesus. 'In ancient thought, without a name, an object or being didn't even exist. Egyptian documents describe the time before creation as "when no name of anything had yet been named,' and it was only when God created and named things that they officially existed.

Names in ancient Near Eastern culture were more than just descriptive words. They were reputations... legacies... identities."

Wow! That's very different from Western culture. What other media (books, movies, tv shows, etc have you seen this)? I'd love to know in the comments below!

You can find the trilogy here on Amazon!

Walking in the Dust of Rabbi Jesus: Read this Book!

That's all for our series on Walking in the Dust of Rabbi Jesus by Lois Tverberg. I hope you enjoyed it!

There's so much truth and wisdom in this book that there was no way I could summarize it. I hope the topics we discussed interested you enough to get this book and do your own study! If you do, please let me know—I'd love to talk with you about it!

To buy it, check it out here on Amazon!

Honi and Chutzpah

In 2011, Mark Batterson published a book called, The Circle Maker. It took me a while to get around to reading it, mostly because it make instantly trendy (like The Prayer of Jabez years ago) and I sometimes find myself suspicious of things like this—how accurate are they? Are they just popular because of prosperity Gospel? What does the Bible really say?

However, after reading Lois Tverberg's chapter on chutzpah on in Walking in the Dust of Rabbi Jesus, I couldn't help think of this book. Of which... I don't remember much other than that it's based on the premise of the story of a Jewish who lived a century before Jesus named Honi. Apparently, Honi was a humble man who loved God. Once, during a severe drought, the people asked him to pray for rain.

So, Honi went out and drew a circle in the sand. He got in it and prayed for rain, ending with "I'm not leaving this circle until it rains!" 

And it began to rain, just gentle drops. And Honi said, "That's not what I wanted, but rain to fill cisterns, pits, and caverns". 

And it began to rain violently. "So again, he prayed, 'This is not what I wanted, but rain of goodwill, blessing, and graciousness.' Then it began in just the right way, nourishing crops and restoring the land. (page 124 of Walking in the Dust of Rabbi Jesus). 

I love that this story comes from the inter-Testamental period, the 400 years of silence between Malachi and the birth of Jesus in the Gospels, because it shows how there were those who truly loved God and remained faithful during that time. 

Honi is a great example of chutzpah. But while he definitely benefited from the rain as well, I love that this falls in line with Tverberg's principle of chutzpah often being for the sake of others. He wasn't praying rain for himself, but for the community that was suffering greatly and would continue to without it.

I asked this last week, but I'll ask it again. How can we pray with chutzpah for those around us?

Walking in the Dust of Rabbi Jesus: Chutzpah

In Chapter 9 of Walking in the Dust of Rabbi Jesus, Lois Tverberg talks about the Jewish concept of chutzpah.

Chutzpah is, in Tverberg's words, "utter nerve, sheer audacity, bordering on obnoxiousness" (page 118). She tells a story about elderly lady who boarded a bus she was on and sat down without paying. The driver asked where she was going, and the lady replied, but didn't get up to pay. Even though they were on the busiest street in rush hour in Jerusalem, the driver stopped, pulled out a newspaper, and waited for the woman to pay. Traffic came to a standstill and he refused to move. Eventually, the woman left the bus and the woman moved on.

Just summarizing the story above is making my heart race dangerously fast. Being from the South of the US, where you are always polite, don't make waves, etc., I'm stressed out just imagining this, haha. 

That woman had chutzpah—and Tverberg points out that it's part of the culture of the Bible as well. The first story she references with this is the story Jesus told of the Syrophoenician widow pleading with a judge for justice. She eventually wears him down and he decides to give her justice just so she'll go away. 

It's funny, because I used to cringe at that story for that reason. In my culture, it's rude and "wrong" to keep coming back after a "No". Imagine a child who wants ice cream before dinner, and the mom says "No", and the child keeps pleading, "Please, pleeeeeeeeeaaaasssseeeee, pleeeease!" (Even the thought of that makes me nervous!) I was taught, "No means no, don't keep asking." But there are so many stories in the Bible where people continue to plead with Him after a "No". 

Another example Tverberg gives is Abram 'bargaining' with God over not destroying Sodom and Gomorrah: "What if there are 50 righteous people? What if there are 45? But what about..." Even as a kid, I remember thinking, "Why does he keep going back at God like this? God could change His mind and say, '0, then, because you keep pushing it and pushing me.'" But as Tverberg points out, "Jesus liked a little chutzpah" (page 119), and then asks us the question that is the title of the chapter: 

What if we prayed with a little chutzpah? The point faith we're supposed to have is not supposed to be in the outcome, but in God Himself. What do our prayers reveal about what we believe about God?

Before moving on, I do want to say that Tverberg also talks about the danger of prosperity Gospel or "name it and claim it" theology. She says that most often the difference is the Jewish attitude of chutzpah in prayer is not for oneself, but on behalf of others (page 127). That's going to be really important to think about in my next post. But until then...

How can we pray with chutzpah for others? How does this concept widen our perspective on certain stories we've maybe ready a hundred times?

Walking in the Dust of Rabbi Jesus: Names

In Chapter 6 of Walking in the Dust of Rabbi Jesus, Lois Tverberg focuses on the mystery of names in Jewish culture. This is something that is very different from Western culture.

Tverberg states that from ancient times until today saying "in the name of" is the equivalent of claiming that's person's authority or behalf. It's like how today, when we pray, we often end with, "... in Jesus' name, Amen". We are claiming his status and authority as God's Son in that moment.

The idea is so much deeper in Jewish culture, however. "It's hard to overstate how important names were in Biblical times," Tverberg states on page 84. "In ancient thought, without a name, an object or being didn't even exist. Egyptian documents describe the time before creation as "when no name of anything had yet been named," and it was only when God created and named things that they officially existed.

Names in ancient Near Eastern culture were more than just descriptive words. They were reputations... legacies... identities. As we talked about in the posts "Family is Important" and "Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: Honor and Shame", your name and the name of your family are vitally important in this culture. This is why when God redirected someone's life, he often changed their names (like Abram, Jacob, Saul, etc). And why Moses appealed to God's name in his attempt to persuade God not to destroy the Israelites for worshipping the golden calf in Exodus 32.

Throughout the Bible, the concept of God's name spreading throughout the earth is a common theme. And this is why the 3rd commandment, "You shall not take the Lord your God's name in vain" is such an important thing. Western Christians often see it as not swearing with God's name. But it's so much more than that. Tverberg states, "The text literally says, 'you shall not lift up God's name as an empty thing.' One of the was that rabbis interpreted this was as doing something evil publicly and associating God with it. It is a sin against God Himself, who suffers from having his reputation defamed" (page 88).

We see examples like this every day, and throughout history. From slavery, oppression, and prejudice, people who blow up abortion clinics or abuse family members who are under their leadership. We see it in religions of the world as well—horrible things done in the name of the god they believe in. The rest of the world is thinking, 'what kind of god is this that he would want you to do such a horrible thing?" His reputation is damaged, or taken in vain, just as God's is when people do things in His name that aren't of His commands or character.

Small examples are just as important here—businessmen who will cheat others and sit on the front pew on Sunday. Or what about cutting someone off with ours car while we have Christian bumper sticker on the back? It's giving a false witness, or a witness against Christ to the world around us.

As Christians, we carry God's name in all we do and say. And while we do know this, the full meaning of it is so much deeper because of the cultural connotations that we don't have. It's name and reputation that has been proclaimed for millennia throughout the earth—the universe—with great breadth and weight. For this reason, family names are so important in Near Eastern culture—because the name will last beyond those who bear it. In the West, it's considered admirable if someone has to rise from the adversity of overcoming negative (or toxic) dynamics and start a new, separate life. This would not be a positive thing in Near Eastern culture.

In fact, I once heard a story about a Jewish woman who heard about a practice in Germany that, due to limit land availability, grave sites are only leased for 15-30 years. After that, the grave's contents (and headstone) are removed and the land is available for a new inhabitant.

Upon hearing this, the Jewish woman said, "But what happens to their name?"

When I heard this story, I couldn't stop thinking about it. It's why it's so important to families from collective cultures to have children, and especially male children, to continue the family name. While this is important in Western culture, it's doesn't have the same gravitas. There might be shame and great pain over infertility, but the cultural implication of a complete loss of the weight of a name (identity and reputation) isn't necessarily as big of a deal. And as to people being removed from their graves 30 years after death (when it's likely that those who would visit have already passed on) is practical in light of limited land availability.

What do you think? How does the important of a name in Jewish culture from one on your own?

Walking in the Dust of Rabbi Jesus

For the next few weeks, we're going to explore another of Lois Tverberg's books: Walking in the Dust of Rabbi Jesus.

Like Tverberg's other books, this book is a deep dive into the importance of understanding the Jewish context of Jesus. This one specifically focuses on Jesus' words (teachings).

I'm currently about halfway through it and so far several things have really stood out to me. So we'll explore those topics and more in the weeks to come!

What if It's True?: The Shelter of His Wings

As I said in the last post, I love pretty much everything Charles Martin writes. But he mostly writes fiction, so when he published a nonfiction book this year, I was curious. What if it's True? didn't disappoint!

In chapter 2, "We're all bleeders", he explores the concept of the tassels on the hems of garments, which reminded me of this post I wrote last year from Ann Spangler and Lois Tverberg's book, Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus. 

They basically explore the concept of tassels on the hem of the garments of Jewish men, especially in ancient Israel, and gave me a perspective how specific stories from the Bible that I'd never thought of before: David cutting the hem off Saul's robe and the woman with the issue of blood touching Jesus' hem. 

So, when I saw that Martin wrote a chapter that also talked about this concept and these stories, I wanted to share it here.

What I love is that Martin expands on the concepts I learned from Spangler and Tverberg's book. While they spoke about the hem showing authority, power, and holiness, he talks about its protection. Martin talks about the word "wings" used in the Old Testament to show God's protection of the Israelites, threading it from Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, 1 Samuel, Psalms, Malachi... and all the way to Matthew.

The meaning of "wings" in the passages he cites have to do with cover, refuge, deliverance, and trust" (page 21). He points out that when God commands in Numbers for the Israelites to put tassels on their garments, it was because "God is practical and He doesn't want His people to forget" (page 21) and later on this page shows that the corner/border of a garment is the same word used for wings in these passages. "God was making a mental connection for His people. In a sense, He was saying, 'The corner of your garment should remind you of Me and My protection—of My deliverance and your healing" (pages 21-22).

As with the story of David cutting off the tassel of Saul's robe, Martin points out, "That tassel represented God's covering and protection. God had given Saul into David's hand. And when David held it up and showed it to Saul, and Saul glanced down at his now three-winged shirt, Saul knew it. He understood" (page 22).

As for the woman with the issue of blood:

"This woman believed the Word was more true than her circumstances" (page 27).

WOW. Read that about 50 times more, please. I know I need to.

It wasn't just her though. Martin points out in Matthew 14:35-36: "And when the men of that place recognized Him, they sent out into all that surrounding region, brought to Him all who were sick, and begged Him that they might only touch the hem of His garment. And as many as touched it were made perfectly well."

What about us? As Martin states: "The wings of His garment are here. Now. Will you reach out and grab hold?" (page 27)

So now, we've seen a connection of this physical picture of God's authority, power, holiness, and protection. How does this continuation of this theme deepen our understanding of this practice and God's Word?

Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus: Get this Book!

That's it for our study of Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus!

I hope it gave you a fresh perspective on some of the things we might not see as modern, Western readers. I also hope it inspired you to get this book as part of a study of your own! I only touched on a few things inside, because like I always say—if the authors went to this much trouble to write a book, then it deserves to be read, not just summarized.

So, please get this book!

Also, this will be my final post of the year, as I will take a break while we celebrate Christmas and New Year's (not Jewish holidays, I know. One day, I'm going to explore all the Jewish holidays on this blog—that will be fun!).

Until then, Merry Christmas and happy new year! See you in 2019!

Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus: An Answer to My Question

Ahhh! This is too good not to share!

In reading on in Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus, the authors start describing the place where Jesus gave the Sermon on the Mount.

Remember how I wondered in the post "When Jesus does Math" how the 15,000+ people were able to hear Him speaking, since they were outside—and before sound systems?

Spangler and Tverberg answered this for me! "How is it possible that Jesus could have been heard by thousands of people without a megaphone to amplify His voice? A number of years ago, biblical scholar B. Cobbey Crisler discovered the answer in the land itself. He found that the hillside near this rounded shoreline forms a natural amphitheater. Because of the acoustical properties of the surrounding land, a person could stand at the bottom of the hill or sit in a boat just offshore and be heard by someone far up on the side of the hill. So good were the acoustics that the speaker could talk in a normal voice and be heard" (page 174).

Sounds silly, but I'm so proud of myself for catching this, something I'd never thought of before seeing the place where Jesus taught that famous sermon. And finding this answer today felt like a "Great job being a student of Me, My Daughter" moment.

Thank you, Jesus!

Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus: The Hem of His Garment

In "Touching the Rabbi's Fringe" (Chapter 11) of Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus, authors Ann Spangler and Lois Tverberg explored a concept I've never heard of before.

The authors are talking about the tradition of Jewish men wearing tzitziyot, or tassels, on the hem of their garments. They explain, "In ancient times, these garments people wore indicated their status in society. The hem was particularly important because it symbolized the owner's identity and authority. Legal contracts written on clay tablets were 'signed' by pressing the corner of one's hem into the clay" (page 159).

This is interesting to me, because to me, a hem, especially of a longer, outer garment worn in ancient times would be the dirtiest part of the garment (in my imagination). It could possibly skim the ground, drag in puddles, and swirl in the dust. For it to be the most important part of the garment never crossed my mind.

So then, they use 2 examples. The first is the story in 1 Samuel 24:4-5 of when David sneaked up behind Saul in a cave and cut off a piece of his hem in En Gedi. (Remember these caves where this happened?) The authors point out, "Afterward, David is overwhelmed with remorse for what He has done. But why? Hasn't He just spared the live of a power-mad king intent on killing him? However, by cutting the corner of Saul's robe, David was symbolically assaulting the king's authority to reign. His action was tantamount to knocking the crown off Saul's head, a job David believed belonged only to the Almighty" (page 159). 

Wow, did you know that? I didn't! I always stopped at what I inferred was almost a mocking of Saul—proof that David could have killed him but didn't. Like he was shaming Saul. But this understanding makes it go so much deeper than that!

Here's another reference to a hem, this time it's Jesus' hem when the woman with the issue of blood touches it. "The hem would have signified Jesus' identity and authority. What's more, the place where the tassels were attached would have been considered the holiest part of his garment. So it seems likely that the woman knew exactly what she was reaching for. Jesus' purity was so great that instead of becoming defiled by her touch, it healed her impurity. What a beautiful picture of the power of Christ's holiness to heal and to bless" (page 163).

This is a story talked about often in churches, and I always saw the woman reaching for the hem to be a sign of her utter humility and even shame—that she was reaching for the lowest, dirtiest part. I saw the crush of the crowd maybe even forcing her to the ground as she gathered her courage to just touch a piece of Jesus' clothes. I never imagined she knew she was reaching for what was seen as the holiest and most authoritative part! 

While I was writing this blog, another reference struck me, this one from Isaiah 6:1: "In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord, high and exalted, seated on a throne; and the train of His robe filled the Temple."

I wonder if we can use the teaching on the importance of the hem in reading this? The train would definitely have a hem. Could it be that the train filling the Temple is also a symbol of God's ultimate power, authority, and holiness?

(Edit added July 29, 2019: for a further exploration on this theme and the stories above, check out this post).

Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus: Rabbi Jesus

In Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus, authors Ann Spangler and Lois Tverberg spend a lot of time explaining what it means for Jesus to be called a "Rabbi". I'm not going to describe it all, but they make their case well through describing the cultural characteristics and practices of being a rabbi in the first century.

In Chapter 4, "Following the Rabbi", they explore the custom of how students of a rabbi, or, disciples (talmidim in Hebrew) would literally leave their homes and families to live with and literally follow their rabbi wherever they went. Rabbis traditionally married later, and spent their time traveling throughout Israel, teaching from the Tanakh (the Law, Prophets, and writings, or what we now call the Old Testament). Because a rabbi was a respected position in Israel and hospitality is a vital cultural practice, the rabbi and his disciples stayed in the homes of the people they taught. 

The authors point out just how extreme this act of following was for the disciples of the rabbi. Everything he did, he did alongside them. In turn, they served him in every way except for untying his sandals (a servant's job). It was more of an apprenticeship than school. 

But the relationship went even beyond that. On page 63, the authors state, "During the time of Jesus, one's rabbi was considered to be as dear as one's own father, and it was traditional for disciples to show the same reverence for their rabbi as their father, or even more." There were even common statements that show this even deeper: "If a man's father and his rabbi are both taken captive, a disciple should ransom his rabbi first."

The authors point out that it's no wonder that Peter said things like, even if I have to die with you, I'd never disown you" (Mark 14:31). And how even more shocking is his betrayal of Jesus... and even more so, Judas'! "Peter's devotion was in direct contrast to Judas' disloyalty, highlighting how unthinkable it would have been for a disciple to betray his rabbi with a kiss! By understanding the traditional bond between the rabbi and disciple, we can also sense the depth of Peter's anguish after denying Jesus three times" (page 64).

Reading that really struck me. I always pictured it in the terms of, "They spent 3 years with Him and grew very close, so the betrayal was terrible," but now, thanks to Spangler and Tverberg, I have an even deeper sense of the horror and anguish they must have felt.

Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus: Things left Unsaid

In chapter 3 of Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus, authors Ann Spangler and Lois Tverberg explore the concept of "stringing pearls".

Early rabbinic tradition shows as classic technique where a rabbi would quote part of a verse and leave the rest unsaid. It was the job of the audience to know (or find) the reference (and context) to understand the full extent of this reference. 

Jesus Himself used this technique as well. There are places in the Gospels where He replies to someone or says something that seems innocuous to a modern reader, but then the next passage talks about how the people were enraged and wanted to kill Him. To us, it seems extreme, especially because what He said wasn't that provoking. But the authors point out that what Jesus was saying was what He wasn't saying. In fact, they state, "There are times when knowing what Jesus doesn't say is becomes as important as knowing what He does say.....The passages from which Jesus quoted provide background for understanding His meaning more fully. If we miss His reference, we may miss His point" (page 42).

For instance, an example of this will be Matthew 21:16, where Jesus quotes Psalm 8:2, "Have you never read, 'From the lips of children and infants you have ordained praise?' But the rest of the verse in Psalm reads, "because of your enemies, to silence the foe and the avenger." How does that change our understanding of the story?

The authors say this can happen with just a simple word or phrase. A good rabbi could make references like this, linking verses together from the law, the prophets, and the writings, which is the process of stringing pearls. They would link these verses based on those very words or phrases. Every culture has symbolism or specific references. For instance, if you say "towers" in the United States, people will think of the September 11, 2001. The authors also use the example of a 'bloody glove' that we'd know references OJ Simpson's famous trail in 1996. These are references are things that other cultures might not necessarily pick up on. Add into the mix that modern, Western readers are reading a translation, and we can miss a lot.

Here is an example the author's give that I find fascinating: When Jesus said in Matthew 13:33: "The kingdom of Heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into a large amount of flour until it worked all the way through the dough", the words "a large amount of flour" are actually the words for "3 seahs" in Hebrew.

This is a very specific references, that everyone would have pick up on, a reference "to the story of when God and 2 angels visited Abraham. As Abraham was hurrying off to catch his fattest calf, he caught up with Sarah and told her, 'Quick.... get 3 seahs of the finest flour and knead it and bake some bread' (Genesis 18:6). Three seahs is is about fifty pounds of flower, enough to feed a hundred people! These huge quantity of bread that Sarah baked for just 3 strangers must have awed ancient listeners, and the details of the event would have stuck in their minds... [In fact] the fact that Sarah's leavening was sufficient for such a huge baking project must have seemed like a tiny miracle" (pages 43-44). 

Knowing this reference, suddenly the words "a large amount of flour" seems extremely specific instead of general!

Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus: Anointing a King

There is so much good stuff in Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus! The authors Ann Spangler and Lois Tverberg explore how the Jewishness of Jesus can transform a Christian's faith—and it's so true!

In this post, I'm going to talk about something stood out to me from the first chapter, which builds on a topic I explored in this post, about what it means to have a king.

The authors open with a reference to the story of Mary anointing the feet of Jesus in John 12. This is a story that is studied a lot in churches, and I've personally heard a lot of teachings on it—on the expensive nature of the perfume (about a year's wages), of the rudeness of the host in not having Jesus' feet washed, in the shocking nature of Mary wiping His feet with her hair, that she was also preparing His body for burial (Matthew 26:12), of how she gave the greatest gift as an act of worship.

But I've never heard this before.

The authors clarify (what is also in Reading the Bible with Rabbi Jesus) that "Messiah" means "the Anointed One". They state: "The word 'Messiah' alludes to the ceremony used to set apart someone chosen by God, like a king or a priest. Instead of being crowned during a coronation, Hebrew kings were anointed with sacred oil perfumed with extremely expensive spices. Only used for consecrating objects in the temple and for anointing priests and kinds, the sacred anointing oil would have been more valuable than diamonds. The marvelous scent that it left behind acted like an invisible 'crown,' conferring an aura of holiness on its recipients..... In the ancient Middle East, the majesty of a kind was expressed no only by what he wore—his jewelry and robes—but by his royal 'aroma.'" (pages 20-21)

But it doesn't stop there, because the authors point out that Mary's perfume likely lingered on Jesus for days, and could possibly still have been smelled while He was on the cross.

And what about this Paul's words in 2 Corinthians 2:14-16:
"But thanks be to God, who always leads us in Christ’s triumphal procession and uses us to spread the aroma of the knowledge of him everywhere. For we are to God the pleasing aroma of Christ among those who are being saved and those who are perishing. To the one we are an aroma that brings death; to the other, an aroma that brings life. And who is equal to such a task?"

Knowing this important aspect of Jewish first-century culture definitely does what the authors claim: gives a much richer Bible study and understanding!

Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus

All right, it's time for another book study on the culture of first century Israel! Are you ready? We're going to be reading:

This is another book by Lois Tverberg (and this one is also with Ann Spangler), and (spoiler alert!) I have two more in my "to be read" pile. I can't wait to see what I learn from these authors!

See you next week for our first post!

Reading Through the Bible with Rabbi Jesus: Read it Yourself!

That's all for this series on Reading the Bible with Rabbi Jesus!

Lois Tverberg talked about SO MUCH MORE than I summarized, and it is all sooooo good. But I'm going to stop here because she went to a lot of work on this book, and I think everyone should read it and not my summaries of the points that really hit home to me.

So, go out and read this book! And then please come back and tell me what you think!

Reading the Bible with Rabbi Jesus: Y'all

In chapter 7 of Reading the Bible with Rabbi Jesus, Lois Tverberg dives deep into a description of what it means to be from a collective society (community-oriented).

She begins by pointing out itself how the language in the Bible is community-oriented. A primary example is the word "you". In English, we don't have an official word for "you plural"... unless you count the southern "y'all" (and I do!). Officially, "you" can mean 1 person or a group.

But many languages, including Hebrew, differentiate between the two forms. And Tverberg says that many places in the Bible where English speakers see "you" and automatically think "me" should think "us". For instance, on page 132 she uses the example of 1 Corinthians 6:19, where Paul says, "Don't you know that you are the temple of the living God?" The "you" there is plural (y'all). How does that change how we read this verse? Or Jesus saying, "You are the light of the world"?

This concept ties in directly with the idea of the importance of family and group identity, as we talked about in the last post, and it is mind-boggling (in a good way) for a Western reader. 

How would our understanding of the Bible be different if we looked for the "y'all" in the context?

Reading the Bible with Rabbi Jesus: Family is important

In Chapter 6 of Reading the Bible with Rabbi Jesus, Lois Tverberg talks about the importance of family in a way I've never thought of before.

Being from the West, while family is important in my culture, it doesn't have the same focus and weight as in the East. Maybe it's because my country is less than 300 years old. My family's "memory" is really only goes back around 3-4 generations. 

But for those from the East, it's very different. 

In the West, we say, "I'm so and so and I do this job". We put our identities in what we do.

In the East, Tverberg says they say, "I am so and so, from the family of _____". Their identity is bound up in the identity of their family. Why? Because the family is what will last long after the individual passes away (p. 119). This is why it's so important for your family to have a good reputation, why honor and shame is so important, and why every action needs to be thought of in terms of what it means for the family name, not the individual. (Edited April 4, 2020: For more about this, check out the post on names in Near Eastern culture here).

This is also why it is so important for people to marry and have children, and why barrenness is a curse. And why when God says He will bless someone's name and family, it is so important. It means a great, lasting reputation.

But the coolest thing to me, is how in Romans, Paul says that Gentiles who accept Him are grafted into the family of God. We have that legacy, and are part of it—not because of birth, but because of grace. 

What do you think? How does our concept of identity change when we think in terms of family and relational status, instead of our profession? How does that impact our thinking of what it means to be part of the family of God?

Reading the Bible with Rabbi Jesus: Words and the Meaning of Words

In Chapter 4 of Reading the Bible with Rabbi Jesus, Lois Tverberg talks about understanding the depth and breadth of Hebrew words can really help in understanding what is being said.

An example she uses is found on page 64, where she says that the word for "work" is the same word for "worship", and the word for "listen" as "obey".

What I think is so interesting for that is the implied action involved in each of those words. Each have a "forward action", if you will. There's an assumption, almost, that if you are working, you are worshipping. And if you are listening, you need to obey.

She also talks about the words "remember" and "forget" also as having accompanying meanings—which makes sense. When God tells the Israelites, "I will remember you", He's not just saying that He'll think of them. It means He'll act on their behalf. "Forget" has the opposite connotation—it's not just an absence in the mind, but a removal.

How can the deeper meanings of these words have significance to us as we read the Bible in 2018?

Reading the Bible with Rabbi Jesus: What does it mean to have a King?

In Chapter 3 of her book, Reading the Bible with Rabbi Jesus, Lois Tverberg asks the question, "What does 'Christ' mean, anyway?"

When I first read that, I thought, Well, Messiah, of course. After all, that's what I was taught: Jesus the Messiah. "Christ" isn't a last name, but a title.

But as Tverberg explored the true meaning of Messiah (you really need to read this book!) and takes it so much deeper.

Through example after example, verse after verse, Tverberg proves that "Christ" means "God's chosen King"—something a first century reader would have understood.

This really got me thinking. What does it mean to live under a king? As an American, I come from a political system where every 4 years, I have the opportunity to vote for the leader of my country. Any leader cannot serve for more than 8 years (or 10, for special circumstances*). Even if I am not a fan of my current leader, I have a voice in choosing the next one, and I know that no matter what, he will be gone in a few years.

In the Western world, we glamorize the word "king". All the best stories have a king. In fact, it's not even the West that does this. Proof of this is the enormous international audience during both Prince William and Princess Kate's wedding in 2011 and Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's wedding earlier this year. The numbers of people who watched were astronomical... one source even says 1.9 billion people watched Harry and Meghan's. 

But having a king, in some countries, might seem more like a nightmare than a fairy tale. After all, kings have absolute power. They can help their countries; or they can seriously hurt them. We see this time and time again throughout history. And maybe the hardest of all, they can do this for life. They don't lose their power after a few years.

I don't know what it means to live in a system where I don't have a vote and maybe won't see a change in power in my lifetime. I don't know what it means to pledge allegiance to a king in a practical sense. Yet, we talk about God as the King of Kings and we sing praise songs referring to Him as such. But do we, do I, really understand what that means?

First century readers did. They would have known immediately what the word "Messiah" meant, and what it could mean for them. This is why, when Peter made his declaration in Matthew 16 at Caesarea Philippi, Jesus shushed him. The time for him to be proclaimed as king wasn't ready.

What else can we, as 21st century readers in the Western, glean from this concept of having a king?

Reading the Bible with Rabbi Jesus: WEIRD Filters

In her book, Reading the Bible with Rabbi Jesus, Lois Tverberg writes about how American, European, and Australian readers we have WEIRD filters.

WEIRD doesn't mean bad or strange*. In fact, it's an acronym for:

• Western (they are Eastern)
• Educated (we think in abstractions and logic, they thought in pictures and parables)
• Industrialized (We focus on work outside of the home; they focus on growth and strength of family)
• Rich (easy access to food and housing)
• Democratic- in voting countries. (We focus on individual good versus the good of the community)

Tverberg shares an example I've never thought of before in her description for "Rich". She mentions the story of Luke 12:15-21, how the rich man built barns for his overflowing crops, in order to take care of him in the future. This makes sense to a modern, Western reader. But Tverberg points out that this would have shocked readers in the first century, because it means he didn't share his wealth with the community first. 

What does this example and the WEIRD filters show us about the difference in first-world life? How can it help us read the Bible differently?

*from pages 36-38

Update on September 24, 2018—check out this updated discussion here!