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.

Happy Thanksgiving!

It might not be a Jewish holiday, but there are so many examples in the Bible of (and commands to) give thanks.

There's so much I am thankful for, but going along with the theme of this blog, I am so thankful for all I have learned about Israel and Biblical history. I'm thankful for those have gone before me in studying these things, that I can learn from them, and for all the teachings out there (and so many to discover) of Jewish culture and ancient times.

Happy Thanksgiving!

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!

Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: Get this Book!

That's it for our series on Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes. I honestly could keep going, but I believe that anyone who went to the trouble to write a book deserves to have people read it, not the reviews on summaries. I hope my series on it has piqued your interest!

I can't state strongly enough just how much I believe every Western Christian should read this book. It will not only give great insight into other cultures (and our own), but it will reveal things we didn't even know we were reading (or missing) in the Bible. It's so good that I'm already on my second read through!

You can get it on Amazon here. Check it out and then let me know what you think!

Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: Honor and Shame

Fast-forwarding ahead to Part II of Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes, the authors take us deeper into the 'iceberg' of understanding culture and worldview.

In chapter 4, they talk about the difference between Individualist (Western) and Collectivist cultures (Eastern), and give examples of this from the Bible.

Then, in chapter 5, they explore what it means that Individualist cultures are right/wrong cultures and Collectivist cultures are honor/shame cultures—and why this is important in the Bible, which was an honor/shame world (page 114). If that sentence doesn't make sense, I definitely recommend researching this topic. It's fascinating!

To oversimplify this, Westerners see the world through right and wrong, and believe the Holy Spirit (or their own conscience) will convict them of right and wrong. Yes, actions have impact on others, but ultimately, conviction and repentance is about the individual.

In the East, "people are more likely to choose right behavior on the basis of what society expects from them. It's not a matter of guilt, or an inner voice of direction, but outer pressures and opinions that direct a person to behave a certain way. Rules and laws are less a deterrent for bad behavior than the risk of bringing shame on oneself or one's family.... If a person from a shame culture commits a 'sin', he will not likely feel guilty about it if no one else knows, for it is the community (not the individual) that determines where one has lost face" (page 116-117). The authors continue to unpack this on pages 120-127 by talking about the honor/shame language, customs, and actions in the story of David and Bathsheba in 2 Samuel 11-12. It's too long for me to summarize, but WOW- seeing this influence in this well known story really gave me another perspective!

Here are some short examples, however. In Exodus 32, when God is angry and wants to destroy the Israelites for worshipping the golden calf, Moses appeals to God's honor. "He makes a two-pronged argument to persuade God to change His mind: 1) think about what the Egyptians will say about Your name, and 2) You swore on Your name and You don't want to get a bad name! Moses doesn't appeal to God's sense of justice ('it wouldn't be right') but to His sense of honor ('You will be shamed')" p. 128.

Another example comes from Jesus. In this example, it's also important to realize something important about the concept of honor/shame. Basically, there's only so much honor. For someone to gain honor through interpersonal interaction, it means that they gained honor by shaming someone else (again, an oversimplification). Richards and O'Brien say that, "Public questions were contests. The winner was determined by the audience, who represented the community. If you silenced your opponent, you gained honor and they lost some" (page 129). This is why the disciples asked Jesus questions privately instead of publicly, as well as Nicodemus. But when the Pharisees asked questions in the open, at the Temple, it was a challenge, and every time they "lost", they lost honor. It was so enraging that they decided to kill Jesus as a criminal—this public disgrace would get their honor back (page 130).

WOW! How do these concepts impact how we can read the Scriptures? The authors conclude the chapter by recommending Bible readers to pay attention to where stories take place in Scripture (in private or in public). For us, it's a good clue as to what is a true quest for truth or a challenge.

Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: the Insignificance of Jerusalem

In Chapter 2 of Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes, authors Richards and O'Brien explore the influence of ethnicity in both the Old and New Testaments. They assert that missing the ethnic markers and their importance in the ancient world can lead the modern reader to missing key elements in the text.

In addition to cultural, lingual, physical, and citizenship significance, the regional world played a key role as well. On page 65, they say, "It's easy for us to assume, for example, that Jerusalem was the center of the action in the ancient world. The city was certainly important to the Jews....But Jerusalem was insignificant in Jesus' time."

The importance of Israel was only geographic in Bible times. Situated at the crossroads of Africa, Europe, and the Middle East, it was the best place to transport goods to and from the different continents. "It was important that Roman controlled the land [for tax reasons], but the activities that took place there were rarely of Roman interest. Pilate was more than the main finance officer or tax collector than anything else. 

"The events of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection, so important for Jews and Christians at the time, were marginal events in a nothing town on the edge of an empire with more important matters to consider. If we fail to recognize this, we can fail to recognize just how remarkable the rapid growth of the earth church really was" (page 65).

Jerusalem was not an 'important' city in the eyes of the world. Israel was not an important piece of land. It's easy to read the Bible and see it as the center of the action, with great significance, but this wasn't the case.

How does this regional distinction affect how we read the Bible?

I highly recommend going through the questions at the end of every chapter of this book, as the authors point out key passages and ask the reader to consider the impact of the chapter's them on that story. Are you ready to read the Bible with a new perspective?

Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: Race and Ethnicity

In Chapter 2 of Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes, the authors focus on the issues of race and ethnicity in the Bible.

There were so many "WHOA" moments for me in this chapter that I'm going to make it two posts, and even then, I won't hit it all. (Basically, every Western Christian needs to read this book).

The title of this chapter is "The Bible in Color", and wow—they did a GREAT job of showing this in just a few pages. I want to read a whole book just on this topic! On page 56, they state the reason for this chapter: "Being oblivious to ethnicities can cause us to miss things in the Bible.... Like the world we inhabit today, the worlds of both the Old and New Testaments were ethnically diverse and richly textured by an assortment of cultures, languages, and customs."

Ethnicity goes beyond skin color and national boundaries... it touches lingual, regional, and cultural significance as well.

It's easy to read the Bible and miss the mentions of ethnicity because we weren't alive then (and don't live there now), and as the authors convinced me, to do that would be to miss SO MUCH. 

Example #1: For instance, the authors give an example how in the time New Testament, anyone who didn't speak Greek were (from a Greek and Roman perspective) considered uneducated barbarians, because the Greeks equivocated speech with reason. "Barbarian" comes from the sound they made to imitate out languages... the equivalent of English speakers today saying, "blah, blah, blah" when imitating non-English speakers today.

So, in Acts 21, when the Romans were looking for Paul, they didn't know who he was—and when they caught him, they assumed he was Egyptian. Why? Because he was undergoing a purification ritual and had shaved his head. To a Roman, all of "those barbarians" looked alike. "The Roman who arrested Paul was surprised he could speak Greek (Acts 21:37). He never imagined Paul, a barbarian, might be a fellow Roman citizen." (pages 57-58)

Example #2: Here is another example they give: Moses married a Cushite woman and his brother and sister were upset. Why? Cushites were from the southern Nile Valley and were dark-skinned Africans. But the difference in skin color and cultural practices were not why Aaron and Miriam were upset. 

The authors point out that the Israelites had just left Egypt after 400 years of slavery. There were a slave race. "The Cushites were not demeaned as a slave race in the ancient world they were respected as highly skilled soldiers. It is more likely that Miriam and Aaron though Moses was being presumptuous by marrying above himself" (pages 59-61). There was a distinctive class system at play here that modern Western readers can miss because we don't understand the dynamics at play—Moses, from a slave race, married a woman from the people who enslaved the Jews. 

Example #3: Here is a final example, another one from Paul's world. On page 66, the authors point out how Paul, in talking to the church in Corinth, placed ethnic markers in the text, for example, "Apollos the Alexandrian Jew" or calling Peter by his Aramaic name, Cephas. The authors say Paul isn't addressing any theological differences between all of these people. Why? "There weren't any. The problem was ethnic division: Aramaic-speaking Jews, Greek-speaking Jews, Romans, and Alexandrians". 

How do these three examples impact how you read the Bible? How can we, as Western readers, be more aware of the influence of ethnicity in the Bible?

Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: Social Mores

On August 6, 2018, post from Reading the Bible with Rabbi Jesus, I talk about author Lois Tverberg's concept of WEIRD filters. Tverberg claims that being Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (in countries with voting systems) affects our interpretation of the Bible.

She then goes on to use an example concerning money and the accumulation of wealth, and shows how it could be read differently to Middle Eastern readers.

Authors E. Randolph Richards and Brandon J. O'Brien continue this idea in Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes by talking about social "mores" (or social conventions that dictate which behaviors are considered appropriate or inappropriate) and how those from the West influence Western readers.

The authors specifically focus on the "mores" of sex, food, and money. On page 41, they highlight an interesting dichotomy:

"Westerners instinctively consider wealth an unlimited resource. There's more than enough to go around, we believe. Everyone could be wealthy, if only they tried hard enough. So if you don't have all the money you want, it's because you lack the virtues required for success—industry, frugality, and determination.....

"This understanding of wealth is the very opposite of how many non-Western cultures view it. Outside the West, wealth is often viewed as a limited resource. There is only so much money to be had, so if one person has a lot of it, then everyone else has less to divide among themselves. If you make your slice of the pie larger, then my slice is smaller. In those cultures, folks are more likely to consider the accumulation of wealth to be immoral, since you can only become wealthy if other people become poor."

Having already discussed the "more" of sex, the authors references mentions of modesty in the Bible and point out that to an Eastern reader, they could also be reading "financial modesty" into the text, as well as physical modesty.

How does this affect how we read references to the wealth, the wealthy, and modesty in Scripture?

This book has made me think beyond my WEIRD filters in a new way, and I'm so thankful to have read it. I highly recommend it! Check it out on Amazon if you haven't already!