Nowhere in Luke 2 does it imply that Mary, the mother of the Messiah, went into labor on the way to Bethlehem - in fact the passage suggests quite the opposite.
“And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. And while they were there, the time came for her to give birth. And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.”
(Luke 2:4–7 ESV)
We often assume that because "there was no place for them in the inn" then the labor must have been hurried - it's like we are trying to make a Lifetime special out of the first Advent. Even if the line "no place for them in the inn" is a correct translation, which is highly suspect, there is no reason to believe that Mary was about to "bring forth" as she reached the hometown of King David. The line "And while they were there, the time came for her to give birth" makes it abundantly clear that there was a sequence of events at work here. The journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem, an unknown length of time in which Mary and Joseph settled in before the birth of the King, and finally the birth of the Firstfruits of God.
Moreover, the Greek phrase underlying "no place for them in the inn" should be read "no place for them in the guest room." The word kataluma is only used two other times in the New Testament and in both cases it is referring to the same event - Jesus telling his disciples to go and secure the room for the Last Supper.
“And tell the master of the house, ‘The Teacher says to you, Where is the guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’ (Luke 22:11 ESV see also Mark 14:14).
The translation "guest room" eliminates any need for a hurried delivery on Mary's part or any amount of desperate consternation upon Joseph the soon-to-be father. Beyond that this translation is much more fitting with the cultural context of the story - Mary and Joseph, Judeans of Davidic origin, would have had family members living in Bethlehem who would have been more than happy to host the expecting parents (remember how Mary stayed with her cousin Elizabeth 6 months earlier - somewhere around Jerusalem only 5 miles from Bethlehem). However, due to the overcrowding caused by the census guest rooms were full so they had to move their extended family to other rooms in the home - the next candidate would be the stable (which were almost exclusively built into the homes since the livestock of the family was an integral part of its livelihood, as well as acting as a free furnace during cold months).
This reconstruction then means that Mary came to Bethlehem towards the end of her pregnancy, but not to the point where she would give birth as soon as she got there. (Seriously why would Mary and Joseph do this? It's not like they did not know when the census was supposed to be - Rome worked on a rigorous schedule, it's no coincidence that the modern calendar has it's foundations in the Roman one. Mary and Joseph would have had to have been extremely irresponsible or just plain naive to wait until the last minute.) When they arrived in the ancestral home of their fathers they stayed with family (most likely extended as their immediate family was in Nazareth) whose guest room had already been filled by other extended family - thus they were put in the next likeliest location - the stable where the God/Man was born and placed in a stone manger.
Let us cast aside the traditional fanciful interpretation of the advent of our Lord - the actual story of his condescending and taking flesh is humble enough - let us not go beyond the Bible in our attempts to steep lowliness upon the shoulders of the Lord. Let us add the myth of the "no-vacancy inn" to the myth that the "three kings" were present at the manger - perhaps they can stay in this mythical inn during their alleged visit to the manger.
Showing posts with label Biblical Culture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Biblical Culture. Show all posts
March 16, 2010
May 18, 2009
Cultural Relevance pt. 6 (Polygamy)
Polygamy is one of the most troubling problems modern interpreters face when they approach the Hebrew Old Testament. It is almost unfathomable in the modern west for evangelicals to accept polygamy as a legitimate form of a family structure in the biblical text. Yet the evidence from Scripture shows that polygamy was frequently practiced in ancient Israel. The typical evangelical response to polygamy in Scripture sounds something like this, “Yes, its true that polygamy existed in the Old Testament and God never said that it was a sin, however, every case of polygamy in Scripture is portrayed in a negative light.” The principle behind this thinking is commendable, clearly, polygamy was obviously never God’s ideal design (Gen. 2:24 “becoming one flesh” is exclusive of everyone else). However is that statement and others like it fair to the evidence of Scripture and its world? If so, then how should the Song of Solomon be read? Is the Song of Solomon negative? Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines and yet it exemplifies the holy intimacy of biblical sexuality in marriage. Moreover, Isaac, Joseph, Samuel, and Solomon all come out of polygamous marriages. Were their lives portrayed as negative? On the one hand, there is solid truth behind the statement above and in fact all of the polygamous marriages in Scripture, save the Song of Solomon, express the inherent difficulties of having multiple wives. On the other hand, polygamy is not explicitly condemned in Scripture as being an iniquity.
It seems that the typical diagnosis of biblical polygamy has not been looking in the right location for a proper identification of the problem. The source of the issue lies within the culture of the ancient Near East. As a rule polygamy was a rampant practice among all of the nations of the ancient Levant. Israel and her neighbors were no exception to this rule; the fathers of Israel (Jacob) (Gen. 29), Edom (Esau) (Gen. 26:34), Ammon (Lot) and Moab (Lot) (Gen. 19:31-38) all had polygamous marriages. Torah does not expressly condemn nor commend these polygamous actions. When subsequent generations of Israelites practiced polygamy they did so with no thought of wrongdoing. They acted out of an ideal that was completely embedded within their culture and heritage.
The polygamous relationships in ancient Israel can be broken down into two different categories, regular polygamy and royal polygamy. The difference between the two categories is purpose. Most royal polygamous marriages were for the advantage of the state (e.g. 1 Kings 9:16; 1 Kings 16:31; 1 Chr. 3:1-2), whereas regular polygamy was mainly for the pro-creational and/or recreational advantage of the patriarch of the beit av (e.g. Gen. 16:1-4; Judg. 19:11; Gen. 38:92). Although admittedly there is some overlap between the two categories. For instance it is unlikely that King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines only for the benefit of the United Monarchy (1 Kings 11:13).
A thorough examination of the evidence shows that Yahweh did not outright condemn polygamy. Instead of condemnations for the practice, Scripture tries to conform/sanctify polygamy (of the regular type) within the Yahwistic theocracy (Leviticus 18:83; Deuteronomy 21:10-17). These attempts at conformation in Torah show that Yahweh did not choose the total condemnation of polygamy as a proverbial “hill to die on” (as say the making of “graven images” (Ex. 20:4)) in his shaping of Israel as a peculiar people (Exodus 19:5-6). In addition Scripture also gives instruction for royal polygamy that instructs the king to “not acquire many wives lest his heart turn away” (Deuteronomy 17:16). Once again this instruction does not expressly forbid the acquiring of more than one wife, but warns of the consequences of having many wives. It is impossible this side of Heaven (and maybe there also) to know Yahweh’s complete reasoning behind not condemning polygamy. Moreover, it is difficult and even exegetically dangerous to find reasons why something was or was not written. However, some humble suggestions may be made regarding the nature of polygamy in Yahweh’s theocracy.
Torah was counter-culture, but was not anti-culture. Torah operated within the culture of the ancient Near East not outside of it. There are many examples of a complete break from Levantine culture in Torah (e.g. commands against making “graven images” (Ex. 20:4), eating unclean animals (Lev. 5), circumcision on the eighth day (Lev. 12:3)). However there are also examples of a reforming of Levantine culture (e.g. “an eye for an eye” ends continual, vengeful bloodshed (Ex. 21:24), proper treatment of slaves (Ex. 21:20-27)). Polygamy would fall into the latter category. Yahweh in his infinite knowledge and wisdom established Torah for his people both to be distinguished from and to operate within the nations. It would seem that a total break from polygamous relationships would have drastic effects on the second purpose. Polygamous relationships were used effectively in ancient Israel, particularly in the case of royal polygamy. The United Kingdom of David and Solomon would not have reached its lofty state had it not used political marriages. Likewise, regular polygamy produced the twelve tribes of Israel through Rachel and Leah.
In conclusion, ancient Near Eastern polygamy as refined by Torah should not be seen as ontologically moral or immoral, but as amoral. The Israelites operated within a culture that accepted polygamy as a legitimate form of a family structure and Torah reformed this culture to Yahweh’s standard. Certainly a case can be made that these reforms eventually transformed the culture, which led to recognizing the insufficiency of polygamy, but that does not change the fact that polygamy was not condemned in Torah. It was therefore not immoral to be polygamous in ancient Israel. However, since the New Testament clearly defines monogamy as the ideal (1 Tim. 3:2), modern polygamy is thus completely immoral.4
Footnotes:
1 In this general framework the having of concubines is to be considered polygamous.
2 This is an example of Levirate marriage (Deut. 25:5-10), but it is still an example of polygamy since Onan was “saving” his seed for his own line, although it is unclear from Genesis 38 if Onan had a wife at that time.
3 In Lev. 18:7 the command is not to uncover the nakedness of your mother. Lev. 18:8 gives the same command, but applies it to “your father’s wife,” which is general enough to cover polygamous marriages and remarriages.
4 Modern western culture subsequently rejects polygamy as a legitimate family structure.
It seems that the typical diagnosis of biblical polygamy has not been looking in the right location for a proper identification of the problem. The source of the issue lies within the culture of the ancient Near East. As a rule polygamy was a rampant practice among all of the nations of the ancient Levant. Israel and her neighbors were no exception to this rule; the fathers of Israel (Jacob) (Gen. 29), Edom (Esau) (Gen. 26:34), Ammon (Lot) and Moab (Lot) (Gen. 19:31-38) all had polygamous marriages. Torah does not expressly condemn nor commend these polygamous actions. When subsequent generations of Israelites practiced polygamy they did so with no thought of wrongdoing. They acted out of an ideal that was completely embedded within their culture and heritage.
The polygamous relationships in ancient Israel can be broken down into two different categories, regular polygamy and royal polygamy. The difference between the two categories is purpose. Most royal polygamous marriages were for the advantage of the state (e.g. 1 Kings 9:16; 1 Kings 16:31; 1 Chr. 3:1-2), whereas regular polygamy was mainly for the pro-creational and/or recreational advantage of the patriarch of the beit av (e.g. Gen. 16:1-4; Judg. 19:11; Gen. 38:92). Although admittedly there is some overlap between the two categories. For instance it is unlikely that King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines only for the benefit of the United Monarchy (1 Kings 11:13).
A thorough examination of the evidence shows that Yahweh did not outright condemn polygamy. Instead of condemnations for the practice, Scripture tries to conform/sanctify polygamy (of the regular type) within the Yahwistic theocracy (Leviticus 18:83; Deuteronomy 21:10-17). These attempts at conformation in Torah show that Yahweh did not choose the total condemnation of polygamy as a proverbial “hill to die on” (as say the making of “graven images” (Ex. 20:4)) in his shaping of Israel as a peculiar people (Exodus 19:5-6). In addition Scripture also gives instruction for royal polygamy that instructs the king to “not acquire many wives lest his heart turn away” (Deuteronomy 17:16). Once again this instruction does not expressly forbid the acquiring of more than one wife, but warns of the consequences of having many wives. It is impossible this side of Heaven (and maybe there also) to know Yahweh’s complete reasoning behind not condemning polygamy. Moreover, it is difficult and even exegetically dangerous to find reasons why something was or was not written. However, some humble suggestions may be made regarding the nature of polygamy in Yahweh’s theocracy.
Torah was counter-culture, but was not anti-culture. Torah operated within the culture of the ancient Near East not outside of it. There are many examples of a complete break from Levantine culture in Torah (e.g. commands against making “graven images” (Ex. 20:4), eating unclean animals (Lev. 5), circumcision on the eighth day (Lev. 12:3)). However there are also examples of a reforming of Levantine culture (e.g. “an eye for an eye” ends continual, vengeful bloodshed (Ex. 21:24), proper treatment of slaves (Ex. 21:20-27)). Polygamy would fall into the latter category. Yahweh in his infinite knowledge and wisdom established Torah for his people both to be distinguished from and to operate within the nations. It would seem that a total break from polygamous relationships would have drastic effects on the second purpose. Polygamous relationships were used effectively in ancient Israel, particularly in the case of royal polygamy. The United Kingdom of David and Solomon would not have reached its lofty state had it not used political marriages. Likewise, regular polygamy produced the twelve tribes of Israel through Rachel and Leah.
In conclusion, ancient Near Eastern polygamy as refined by Torah should not be seen as ontologically moral or immoral, but as amoral. The Israelites operated within a culture that accepted polygamy as a legitimate form of a family structure and Torah reformed this culture to Yahweh’s standard. Certainly a case can be made that these reforms eventually transformed the culture, which led to recognizing the insufficiency of polygamy, but that does not change the fact that polygamy was not condemned in Torah. It was therefore not immoral to be polygamous in ancient Israel. However, since the New Testament clearly defines monogamy as the ideal (1 Tim. 3:2), modern polygamy is thus completely immoral.4
Footnotes:
1 In this general framework the having of concubines is to be considered polygamous.
2 This is an example of Levirate marriage (Deut. 25:5-10), but it is still an example of polygamy since Onan was “saving” his seed for his own line, although it is unclear from Genesis 38 if Onan had a wife at that time.
3 In Lev. 18:7 the command is not to uncover the nakedness of your mother. Lev. 18:8 gives the same command, but applies it to “your father’s wife,” which is general enough to cover polygamous marriages and remarriages.
4 Modern western culture subsequently rejects polygamy as a legitimate family structure.
May 16, 2009
The Travels of a Short-Term Bedouin
Over the past week I returned to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. This time I went with a class focused on understanding the cultural background of the biblical world. Specifically this trip was directed at experiencing the day to day life of Bedouin and poor villagers. The idea behind doing a trip like this is to gain some experiential knowledge by looking at the ethnographic present of the Old Testament past. What that basically means is that the lifestyles of the present-day Bedouin and poor villagers resemble the lifestyles of the Israelites in the Old Testament. This can only be seen in places where there is little to know advancement in technology (including electricity and plumbing). Since the technology (or the ability to have technology) has not changed and the geographical, climactic factors remain unchanged there must be similarity between the two groups. After experiencing about a week among them (which is nowhere near enough to make a definitive statement - but enough to know that I am glad I live in the modern world) there is no question that there is a good deal of similarity between the modern Bedouin and the ancient patriarchal world.
Here are some pics from my journey.
The Bedouin tent is made up of goat skins, rope, and wooden poles. The goat skin provides
a barrier from the brutally hot sun and insulation from the cold night. Much of the patriarchal
story in Genesis occurs within the confines of the Bedouin tent.
Dinner - the bloody world of the patriarchs. We ate this sheep about 6 hours after it was killed.
It provided good insight into the connection between life (food) and death (the food)
in the biblical world and how that developed into a redemptive work. "Indeed, under the law
almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is
no forgiveness of sins." (Heb. 9:22)
Camels - the ships of the desert. In antiquity people groups like the Edomites and Nabateans
used camels as their vessels - shipping off from one port to the next. Taking their cargo from
as far as India to the ports of Gaza and Caesarea.
My favorite part of the desert was the sunset. Unbelievable.
Here are some pics from my journey.
The Bedouin tent is made up of goat skins, rope, and wooden poles. The goat skin providesa barrier from the brutally hot sun and insulation from the cold night. Much of the patriarchal
story in Genesis occurs within the confines of the Bedouin tent.
Dinner - the bloody world of the patriarchs. We ate this sheep about 6 hours after it was killed.It provided good insight into the connection between life (food) and death (the food)
in the biblical world and how that developed into a redemptive work. "Indeed, under the law
almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is
no forgiveness of sins." (Heb. 9:22)
Camels - the ships of the desert. In antiquity people groups like the Edomites and Nabateansused camels as their vessels - shipping off from one port to the next. Taking their cargo from
as far as India to the ports of Gaza and Caesarea.
My favorite part of the desert was the sunset. Unbelievable.(For more pics - look at my Facebook page)
May 5, 2009
Cultural Relevance pt. 5 (Torah as Law)
As part of my take home final exam for one of my classes this semester - I had to answer the following question.
It is mid-summer of the eighteenth year of the reign of Jehoshaphat, our good and just king (may he live and grant us shalom!). You are a 20-year old vinedresser from the village of Eincerem, still single (although you have made certain discrete inquiries from the daughter of your neighbor, the son of the brother of your father’s brother.) Unfortunately, a hungry ox belonging to this very neighbor has broken the stonewall surrounding your vineyard and trampled a good portion of your vines. This ox-owner has a reputation in Eincerem (as well as in surrounding villages) for being a very hard man (you are hoping that this characteristic has not been passed on genetically), but he also enjoys the support of many of the leading men of the village who have deferred to him on a variety of matters in the past. What do you do?
My name is Yochanan son of Zecharyahu, son of Zecharyahu of the tribe of Levi. King Jehoshaphat my king is in his mid-fifties (53 according to 1 Kings 22:42) and Ahaziah the son of Ahab has just ascended to the throne of Israel a year ago (1 Kings 22:51). My grapes were due to be exceptional this year (as they are every year – well except for those three years of drought during the days of my father (1 Kings 17:1) – praise Yahweh that King Jehoshaphat did not marry a Phoenician!) What else would you expect from a vineyard in a town called “the spring of the vineyard?” However, my neighbor, Shaul, has proven that he cannot control his oxen. Shaul’s irresponsibility has caused severe damage to my family’s livelihood. This is especially egregious when you consider that my father’s father, Zecharyahu, built those terraces and my beit av has been maintaining them for the last thirty years! Luckily, my father, Zecharyahu, was diligent to the mizva (command) of Moshe (Deut. 11:19) and taught me Torah all the days of his life until his death at Ramoth-Gilead at the hands of Syria three years ago (May Yahweh bash their little ones against a stone! (Ps. 137:9). On this specific matter Torah is as clear as the waters of En Gedi (Exodus 22:5). Shaul should give me the choice vintage of his vineyard, which is not as good as the vintage of Zecharyahu, but .90 cents on the shekel is still better than letting my mother, Elisheba, and my sisters, Rivka and Miriam, starve. The problem is that Shaul is very influential over the elders of Eincerem, and although he is a Levite like myself his father neglected to teach him the mizvaot of Moshe. Another problem is Shaul’s 14-year-old daughter, Yehudit, (whose hips seem wide enough to bear many sons and whose “dibs” (grape honey) is the best in Judah) is my best option for a wife.
Because of my affinity for Yehudit it seems better to deal with Shaul directly rather then to go before the elders at the gate (Deut. 21:19) and present my case (even though my neighbors, Uriyahu and Baal-zephon (he is a proselyte, cut him a brit (circumcision)) saw the dreaded ox trample my vines to pieces (Deut. 17:6)). After all I am not a young man any more and the beit av (father's house) of Yochanan should not die with me! Maybe Shaul out of respect for my father’s memory and my knowledge of Torah will follow Moshe’s mizva. Who knows maybe we can close two deals at the same time – half-a-year’s crop and a wife – that would be a good day’s work. May Yahweh let it be so! Besides if he does not concede to the mizva of Moshe I can always appeal to the elders at the gate and if they let their respect of Shaul cloud their judgment I can appeal to King Jehoshaphat’s appointed judges in Jerusalem (2 Chr. 19:8) (he’s named “Yahweh judges” for a reason). Enough thinking, it is time to go to Shaul and present my complaint – I will have Miriam prepare some cakes for our inevitably lengthy discussion. “Vindicate me, O LORD, for I have walked in my integrity, and I have trusted in the LORD without wavering.” (Psalm 26:1)
12 hours later…
Praise be to Adoneinu Eloheinu (Our Lord, Our God)! Shaul, despite driving a hard bargain, heeded the mizva of Moshe and promised to give me the best of his vintage (luckily for him he has many vines – his beit av will come out even this year). More than that Yahweh has seen it fit to bless me with a wife! Hopefully all of the arrangements will be finished before the harvest so that my beloved and I may spend our first night under the succa (tents for Feast of Booths festival.) The marriage timing is perfect since it looks like that pesky Mesha of Moab is stirring up trouble again (2 Chr. 20). It will only be a matter of time before King Jehoshaphat invades the sheep-breeders (2 Kings 3 and Mesha Stele/Moabite Stone). War is most assuredly on the horizon, but not for my Yehudit and I for this year at least, that is if the village elders will respect the mizva of Moshe (Deut. 24:5).
It is mid-summer of the eighteenth year of the reign of Jehoshaphat, our good and just king (may he live and grant us shalom!). You are a 20-year old vinedresser from the village of Eincerem, still single (although you have made certain discrete inquiries from the daughter of your neighbor, the son of the brother of your father’s brother.) Unfortunately, a hungry ox belonging to this very neighbor has broken the stonewall surrounding your vineyard and trampled a good portion of your vines. This ox-owner has a reputation in Eincerem (as well as in surrounding villages) for being a very hard man (you are hoping that this characteristic has not been passed on genetically), but he also enjoys the support of many of the leading men of the village who have deferred to him on a variety of matters in the past. What do you do?
My name is Yochanan son of Zecharyahu, son of Zecharyahu of the tribe of Levi. King Jehoshaphat my king is in his mid-fifties (53 according to 1 Kings 22:42) and Ahaziah the son of Ahab has just ascended to the throne of Israel a year ago (1 Kings 22:51). My grapes were due to be exceptional this year (as they are every year – well except for those three years of drought during the days of my father (1 Kings 17:1) – praise Yahweh that King Jehoshaphat did not marry a Phoenician!) What else would you expect from a vineyard in a town called “the spring of the vineyard?” However, my neighbor, Shaul, has proven that he cannot control his oxen. Shaul’s irresponsibility has caused severe damage to my family’s livelihood. This is especially egregious when you consider that my father’s father, Zecharyahu, built those terraces and my beit av has been maintaining them for the last thirty years! Luckily, my father, Zecharyahu, was diligent to the mizva (command) of Moshe (Deut. 11:19) and taught me Torah all the days of his life until his death at Ramoth-Gilead at the hands of Syria three years ago (May Yahweh bash their little ones against a stone! (Ps. 137:9). On this specific matter Torah is as clear as the waters of En Gedi (Exodus 22:5). Shaul should give me the choice vintage of his vineyard, which is not as good as the vintage of Zecharyahu, but .90 cents on the shekel is still better than letting my mother, Elisheba, and my sisters, Rivka and Miriam, starve. The problem is that Shaul is very influential over the elders of Eincerem, and although he is a Levite like myself his father neglected to teach him the mizvaot of Moshe. Another problem is Shaul’s 14-year-old daughter, Yehudit, (whose hips seem wide enough to bear many sons and whose “dibs” (grape honey) is the best in Judah) is my best option for a wife.
Because of my affinity for Yehudit it seems better to deal with Shaul directly rather then to go before the elders at the gate (Deut. 21:19) and present my case (even though my neighbors, Uriyahu and Baal-zephon (he is a proselyte, cut him a brit (circumcision)) saw the dreaded ox trample my vines to pieces (Deut. 17:6)). After all I am not a young man any more and the beit av (father's house) of Yochanan should not die with me! Maybe Shaul out of respect for my father’s memory and my knowledge of Torah will follow Moshe’s mizva. Who knows maybe we can close two deals at the same time – half-a-year’s crop and a wife – that would be a good day’s work. May Yahweh let it be so! Besides if he does not concede to the mizva of Moshe I can always appeal to the elders at the gate and if they let their respect of Shaul cloud their judgment I can appeal to King Jehoshaphat’s appointed judges in Jerusalem (2 Chr. 19:8) (he’s named “Yahweh judges” for a reason). Enough thinking, it is time to go to Shaul and present my complaint – I will have Miriam prepare some cakes for our inevitably lengthy discussion. “Vindicate me, O LORD, for I have walked in my integrity, and I have trusted in the LORD without wavering.” (Psalm 26:1)
12 hours later…
Praise be to Adoneinu Eloheinu (Our Lord, Our God)! Shaul, despite driving a hard bargain, heeded the mizva of Moshe and promised to give me the best of his vintage (luckily for him he has many vines – his beit av will come out even this year). More than that Yahweh has seen it fit to bless me with a wife! Hopefully all of the arrangements will be finished before the harvest so that my beloved and I may spend our first night under the succa (tents for Feast of Booths festival.) The marriage timing is perfect since it looks like that pesky Mesha of Moab is stirring up trouble again (2 Chr. 20). It will only be a matter of time before King Jehoshaphat invades the sheep-breeders (2 Kings 3 and Mesha Stele/Moabite Stone). War is most assuredly on the horizon, but not for my Yehudit and I for this year at least, that is if the village elders will respect the mizva of Moshe (Deut. 24:5).
March 25, 2009
Cultural Relevance pt. 4 (Genesis 18:1-15)
Gen. 18:1 (ESV) And the LORD appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the door of his tent in the heat of the day.
Abraham sits at the opening of his tent to receive the channeled breeze through the doorway. This would have been the place where he received and entertained guests – the first room in the tent.
Gen. 18:2-5 (ESV) He lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing in front of him. When he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them and bowed himself to the earth and said, “O Lord, if I have found favor in your sight, do not pass by your servant. Let a little water be brought, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree, while I bring a morsel of bread, that you may refresh yourselves, and after that you may pass on—since you have come to your servant.” So they said, “Do as you have said.”
Abraham runs in order to show his eagerness to care for the travelers. In bowing himself to them he is showing that he is physically willing to serve them and care for them (cf. Gen 19:1). He also makes it clear that he is not their superior despite his obvious wealth that the three men would have seen while being within the midst of his camp (Gen. 13 describes the wealth of Abraham). This may show that the hospitality of the ancient near east in relation to hosts and strangers transcended rich and poor realities.
Abraham plays the role of ancient near eastern host perfectly by further defining his relationship to them, calling them master and himself their servant. He then makes his offer to the road-weary travelers – water, washed feet, rest, and food – with the understanding that “after (the refreshments) you may pass on.” It is difficult to tell if Abraham is intending for them to leave after his hospitality, only expecting them to press on, or a combination of the two. The travelers accept Abraham offer (maybe after an initial refusal Moses probably is not giving us every detail in this interchange) and they are temporarily brought into Abraham’s protection and care, into his beit av.
Gen. 18:6-8 (ESV) And Abraham went quickly into the tent to Sarah and said, “Quick! Three seahs of fine flour! Knead it, and make cakes.” And Abraham ran to the herd and took a calf, tender and good, and gave it to a young man, who prepared it quickly. Then he took curds and milk and the calf that he had prepared, and set it before them. And he stood by them under the tree while they ate.
Abraham snaps into action. He starts the process of preparing a three-course meal of the best of his wealth. The first step is to go into the tent of Sarah – to go to her domain and have her spring into her role as food preparer. This would serve as the appetizer to the guests. Abraham then goes and finds a calf suitable for his guests, "tender and good," the equivalent of prime – for Abraham choice or select simply would not do. The loss of a calf was a huge financial blow for Abraham, cattle were generally uncommon for semi-nomads like Abraham and the death of one at a young age cost him future dairy products and calves. His decision to slaughter the calf is a testament to his sizable wealth and devotion to being a good host to his special guests. Next he delegates the household cook to barbeque the calf while he collects the milk and curds (which were/are a delicacy). Abraham now has all three elements of the meal going at the same time, maximizing his efficiency in order to serve his guests. After the meal is finished Abraham himself serves his guests. Interestingly the text says that he “stood by while they ate” Abraham does not even take part in the meal that took over half a day to make.
Gen. 18:9 (ESV) They said to him, “Where is Sarah your wife?” And he said, “She is in the tent.”
Once again Abraham’s role is seen as presenter and host by the absence of his wife. The fact that the guest even asks about Sarah is odd, because he would have obviously understood that she was in her place in her tent. The question is meant to sound odd and draw emphasis to the fact that the speaker is someone of importance with an important message to deliver.
Gen. 18:10-15 (ESV) The LORD said, “I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah your wife shall have a son.” And Sarah was listening at the tent door behind him. Now Abraham and Sarah were old, advanced in years. The way of women had ceased to be with Sarah. So Sarah laughed to herself, saying, “After I am worn out, and my lord is old, shall I have pleasure?” The LORD said to Abraham, “Why did Sarah laugh and say, ‘Shall I indeed bear a child, now that I am old?’ Is anything too hard for the LORD? At the appointed time I will return to you, about this time next year, and Sarah shall have a son.” But Sarah denied it, saying, “I did not laugh,” for she was afraid. He said, “No, but you did laugh.”
Once again Sarah is shown behind the scene, “listening at the tent door” unseen and trying to remain unnoticed. Moses provides an epexegetical statement to explain the heir/inheritance situation with Abraham and Sarah. For Sarah the fact that she has not provided Abraham with an heir has been a constant weight of shame upon her, since family and land are the most important possessions one can have and she is the chosen wife of inheritance. If she does not bear a son then the line of Abraham dies and the promises of God have failed. Despite that it seems that Sarah has come to grips with the fact that she will never bear Abraham children since she was already well past menopause. When Sarah denies laughing she might be trying to not offend the guest.
Abraham sits at the opening of his tent to receive the channeled breeze through the doorway. This would have been the place where he received and entertained guests – the first room in the tent.
Gen. 18:2-5 (ESV) He lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing in front of him. When he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them and bowed himself to the earth and said, “O Lord, if I have found favor in your sight, do not pass by your servant. Let a little water be brought, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree, while I bring a morsel of bread, that you may refresh yourselves, and after that you may pass on—since you have come to your servant.” So they said, “Do as you have said.”
Abraham runs in order to show his eagerness to care for the travelers. In bowing himself to them he is showing that he is physically willing to serve them and care for them (cf. Gen 19:1). He also makes it clear that he is not their superior despite his obvious wealth that the three men would have seen while being within the midst of his camp (Gen. 13 describes the wealth of Abraham). This may show that the hospitality of the ancient near east in relation to hosts and strangers transcended rich and poor realities.
Abraham plays the role of ancient near eastern host perfectly by further defining his relationship to them, calling them master and himself their servant. He then makes his offer to the road-weary travelers – water, washed feet, rest, and food – with the understanding that “after (the refreshments) you may pass on.” It is difficult to tell if Abraham is intending for them to leave after his hospitality, only expecting them to press on, or a combination of the two. The travelers accept Abraham offer (maybe after an initial refusal Moses probably is not giving us every detail in this interchange) and they are temporarily brought into Abraham’s protection and care, into his beit av.
Gen. 18:6-8 (ESV) And Abraham went quickly into the tent to Sarah and said, “Quick! Three seahs of fine flour! Knead it, and make cakes.” And Abraham ran to the herd and took a calf, tender and good, and gave it to a young man, who prepared it quickly. Then he took curds and milk and the calf that he had prepared, and set it before them. And he stood by them under the tree while they ate.
Abraham snaps into action. He starts the process of preparing a three-course meal of the best of his wealth. The first step is to go into the tent of Sarah – to go to her domain and have her spring into her role as food preparer. This would serve as the appetizer to the guests. Abraham then goes and finds a calf suitable for his guests, "tender and good," the equivalent of prime – for Abraham choice or select simply would not do. The loss of a calf was a huge financial blow for Abraham, cattle were generally uncommon for semi-nomads like Abraham and the death of one at a young age cost him future dairy products and calves. His decision to slaughter the calf is a testament to his sizable wealth and devotion to being a good host to his special guests. Next he delegates the household cook to barbeque the calf while he collects the milk and curds (which were/are a delicacy). Abraham now has all three elements of the meal going at the same time, maximizing his efficiency in order to serve his guests. After the meal is finished Abraham himself serves his guests. Interestingly the text says that he “stood by while they ate” Abraham does not even take part in the meal that took over half a day to make.
Gen. 18:9 (ESV) They said to him, “Where is Sarah your wife?” And he said, “She is in the tent.”
Once again Abraham’s role is seen as presenter and host by the absence of his wife. The fact that the guest even asks about Sarah is odd, because he would have obviously understood that she was in her place in her tent. The question is meant to sound odd and draw emphasis to the fact that the speaker is someone of importance with an important message to deliver.
Gen. 18:10-15 (ESV) The LORD said, “I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah your wife shall have a son.” And Sarah was listening at the tent door behind him. Now Abraham and Sarah were old, advanced in years. The way of women had ceased to be with Sarah. So Sarah laughed to herself, saying, “After I am worn out, and my lord is old, shall I have pleasure?” The LORD said to Abraham, “Why did Sarah laugh and say, ‘Shall I indeed bear a child, now that I am old?’ Is anything too hard for the LORD? At the appointed time I will return to you, about this time next year, and Sarah shall have a son.” But Sarah denied it, saying, “I did not laugh,” for she was afraid. He said, “No, but you did laugh.”
Once again Sarah is shown behind the scene, “listening at the tent door” unseen and trying to remain unnoticed. Moses provides an epexegetical statement to explain the heir/inheritance situation with Abraham and Sarah. For Sarah the fact that she has not provided Abraham with an heir has been a constant weight of shame upon her, since family and land are the most important possessions one can have and she is the chosen wife of inheritance. If she does not bear a son then the line of Abraham dies and the promises of God have failed. Despite that it seems that Sarah has come to grips with the fact that she will never bear Abraham children since she was already well past menopause. When Sarah denies laughing she might be trying to not offend the guest.
Cultural Relevance pt. 3 (Hospitality)
The near eastern responsibility of hospitality was reserved for the patriarch. It was his duty to meet the needs of foreigners and travelers that came to his beit av. To properly understand the importance of hospitality within the culture it is important to understand what traveling in the biblical world entailed. Family and land are not only the two most important possessions of individual ancient near easterners they are also the two essentials for living. The ancestral land and family was the life support of every individual. So for one to leave and travel meant that they would be leaving the things that were necessary for their own survival. The troubles that beset travelers are humorously recounted in “A Satirical Letter,” which describes a traveler who encounters the dangerous elements of the land, both natural and human. [1. James Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1955), 475-479.] There were no Holiday Inns or Motel 8’s so if people were going to travel they had to stay with people for protection. The hosts and travelers both understood this necessity and therefore acted in such a way to counteract it. Matthews and Benjamin describe the role of hosts and strangers this way,
Hosts:
Another interesting aspect in this discussion is the relationship of biblical humility to host-stranger or superior-inferior relationships. In Exodus 3 Yahweh and Moses discuss Moses’ calling to bring Israel out of Egypt and Moses says that he cannot do it. How much of that is humility and how much of it is a cultural nuance? It’s difficult to tell. (Some other examples include: Gen. 18; Job 31:31-32; Ps. 41; Is. 6; 40:22; Jer. 1; Luke 9; 10).
Hosts:
- Are fathers of households in their own village (Judges 19)
- Offer an invitation, then repeat it (Genesis 19)
- Wash stranger’s feet to signify they are guests (Genesis 18:4; John 13)
- Provide food and protection (Genesis 19)
- Do not question guests
- Refuse first invitation, accept second (Genesis 19)
- Remain only for agreed upon time, which may be extended (Genesis 18:2)
- Do not ask for or covet their host’s possessions
- Bless host’s household upon departing [ 2. Victor Matthews and Don Benjamin, Social World of Ancient Israel (1250-587 BCE), (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993), 83.]
Another interesting aspect in this discussion is the relationship of biblical humility to host-stranger or superior-inferior relationships. In Exodus 3 Yahweh and Moses discuss Moses’ calling to bring Israel out of Egypt and Moses says that he cannot do it. How much of that is humility and how much of it is a cultural nuance? It’s difficult to tell. (Some other examples include: Gen. 18; Job 31:31-32; Ps. 41; Is. 6; 40:22; Jer. 1; Luke 9; 10).
March 20, 2009
Cultural Relevance pt. 2 (Social Framework)
Ancient Israel’s society was founded on different levels of social identity. Moving spherically from outside to inside ancient Israelite society fell into the following groups:
To protect and provide for his land and children, the father of the household is authorized to:
- People Group – Israelites (Ex. 19:1; Ezra 2:2)
- Dynasty – House of “name of king” – regal based (2 Kings 9:8)
- Tribe – of the tribe of “name of tribe” (Judges 6:34)
- Village – locality based (Judges 6:11)
- Clan – uncles, aunts, and cousins (Judges 6:11,34)
- Beit Av (Father’s House) – extended family (Judges 6:11) [1. Paul Wright, Course Handbook: Cultural Background of the Bible, (Jerusalem: JUC), 23]
- The Biblical family was jointed or connected. Fathers and brothers living under one roof. Property was held in common under the patriarchal head. (Gen. 34-35)
- The Biblical family was patriarchal. The oldest living male with the direct tie to the official family line ruled the beit av. The oldest living ancestral male from the line of firstborn sons, in practical terms.
- The Biblical family was patrilineal. The line of succession went through the father. Descent and inheritance based on the line of the father. Levirate marriage was setup as a local, practical mechanism to ensure that the line would continue (Gen. 38, Matt. 22).
- The Biblical family was patrilocal. The act of marriage was bringing the wife into the tent – bringing her under the umbrella of the patriarch (Gen. 24).
- The Biblical family was endogamous. Marriage was kept within the family – marrying cousins, between close blood relatives (Gen. 12). Not following this normative is usually not allowed (Judg. 16).
- The Biblical family was sometimes polygamous. The true wife was the one through whom the inheritance was named. Lesser wives existed within the framework of the beit av (Gen. 16,21). (Adapted from Cultural Backgrounds of the Bible - Paul Wright - JUC)
To protect and provide for his land and children, the father of the household is authorized to:
- Adopt or excommunicate sons and daughters (Gen. 22)
- Recruit workers and warriors (Lev. 19:13)
- Negotiate marriages and covenants (Gen. 24)
- Host strangers (Gen. 18)
- Designate Heirs (Gen. 49) [2. Victor Matthews and Don Benjamin, Social World of Ancient Israel (1250-587 BCE), (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993), 8. ]
Cultural Relevance
The inescapable Western culture is the biggest obstacle modern observers face in trying to understand the detail and nuance of the people of the Bible. Modern observers generally approach the Bible as they would any other book, reading it through the lens of their own culture and applying all of the preconceived notions of modern life and thought to the stories recorded in the Bible. In so doing they apply a culture that has become increasingly individualistic in all manners of life including: family, faith, and finance. In many ways these modern cultural developments are 180º different from the ancient culture of Scripture. Smith and Benjamin comment on the difference between the two cultures this way,
“The world of the Bible is ancient; our world is modern. It is an Eastern world; ours is Western. The world of the Bible is virtually changeless; our world is ever changing. It is agricultural; ours is industrial. Biblical people think of their goods and resources as limited. We consider ours renewable. They think of themselves as households; we think of ourselves as individuals. In their world old age is a blessing; in our world it is a burden. Their favorite genre of literature is story; ours is history. And perhaps most difficult of all for us to understand, in the world of the Bible there is no separation between religion and daily life or between church and state.” [1. Victor Matthews and Don Benjamin, Social World of Ancient Israel (1250-587 BCE), (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993), xiii.]
The culture of the Middle East (ancient and modern) is conservative only open to change through minor borrowing from other cultures. Stability is of utmost importance. So therefore, tradition and storytelling take on significant roles within the social framework. Family and land are the most important possessions one can acquire. The culture of the west is liberal and open to changes of all types. Diversity is of utmost importance. The wealth of a person is judged by his bank account and current possessions. Consequently the past is seen as unimportant and forgettable, because the focus is on the ever-approaching horizon of change. These differences make understanding cultural milieus and nuances difficult for westerners. Other difficulties for understanding the culture aspects of the Bible include:
Another aid in this discussion is the study of the ethnographic present. The ethnographic present is a term used by anthropologists for observing and studying modern people group’s customs and manners in order to understand ancient customs and manners. In the modern Middle East this is accomplished through studying Arab village and Bedouin tent life that may or may not have evolved over the ages.
The family dwellings in the Bible are one of the clearest examples of the vast differences between ancient Israelite culture and modern western culture. The space syntax of the dwellings is of particular interest. The most common dwelling of the Biblical period is the Israelite Four-Room house. King and Stager explain the characteristics of the Israelite four-room house this way,
“The typical Israelite house in the Iron Age was rectilinear and consisted of two, three, or four rooms, entered through a wooden door (analogous to wooden city-gates) from an exterior courtyard. A mud-brick oven for baking and cooking was located in the open courtyard. Two rows of stone pillars separated central, larger room from the two parallel side rooms. These three parallel rooms extended from a perpendicular 'broadroom' running the width of the building. This back room formed on of the main exterior walls of the rectangular house. The entrance to the house was on the short side and led from the exterior courtyard into the larger central room. The broadroom across the back served mainly for storage." [2. Philip King and Lawrence Stager. Life in Biblical Israel. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 28-29.]
The broad room at the back of the house was also the room where the family would congregate, eat their meals, sleep, procreate, give birth, and hide in times of danger. In reference to the Israelite dwellings Amos 6:10 speaks of shell-shocked Israelites hiding in the “innermost parts of the house.” Psalm 128:3a (NET) also hints at the privacy and intimacy associated with inner most room of the Israelite dwellings by writing, “Your wife will be like a fruitful vine in the inner rooms of your house.” The biblical dwellings placed a premium on function over luxury and the space syntax of the dwellings reflect this.
“The world of the Bible is ancient; our world is modern. It is an Eastern world; ours is Western. The world of the Bible is virtually changeless; our world is ever changing. It is agricultural; ours is industrial. Biblical people think of their goods and resources as limited. We consider ours renewable. They think of themselves as households; we think of ourselves as individuals. In their world old age is a blessing; in our world it is a burden. Their favorite genre of literature is story; ours is history. And perhaps most difficult of all for us to understand, in the world of the Bible there is no separation between religion and daily life or between church and state.” [1. Victor Matthews and Don Benjamin, Social World of Ancient Israel (1250-587 BCE), (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993), xiii.]
The culture of the Middle East (ancient and modern) is conservative only open to change through minor borrowing from other cultures. Stability is of utmost importance. So therefore, tradition and storytelling take on significant roles within the social framework. Family and land are the most important possessions one can acquire. The culture of the west is liberal and open to changes of all types. Diversity is of utmost importance. The wealth of a person is judged by his bank account and current possessions. Consequently the past is seen as unimportant and forgettable, because the focus is on the ever-approaching horizon of change. These differences make understanding cultural milieus and nuances difficult for westerners. Other difficulties for understanding the culture aspects of the Bible include:
- The lack of complete textual evidence (nuances are usually not written, they are assumed by the writer (i.e. Judges 11:26)).
- Proscription of standard vs. description of events (death penalty for murder and adultery – David impregnates Bathsheba and murders her husband 2 Samuel 11).
- The lack of complete archaeological evidence (archaeology is defined as the recovery of randomly preserved material).
- Over-generalization of the limited sources that have been preserved (the Hurrian texts are often used as the definitive statement on Genesis despite the fact that they are 400-500 years later and over 500 miles away). (Adapted from Cultural Backgrounds of the Bible - Paul Wright - JUC)
Another aid in this discussion is the study of the ethnographic present. The ethnographic present is a term used by anthropologists for observing and studying modern people group’s customs and manners in order to understand ancient customs and manners. In the modern Middle East this is accomplished through studying Arab village and Bedouin tent life that may or may not have evolved over the ages.
The family dwellings in the Bible are one of the clearest examples of the vast differences between ancient Israelite culture and modern western culture. The space syntax of the dwellings is of particular interest. The most common dwelling of the Biblical period is the Israelite Four-Room house. King and Stager explain the characteristics of the Israelite four-room house this way,
“The typical Israelite house in the Iron Age was rectilinear and consisted of two, three, or four rooms, entered through a wooden door (analogous to wooden city-gates) from an exterior courtyard. A mud-brick oven for baking and cooking was located in the open courtyard. Two rows of stone pillars separated central, larger room from the two parallel side rooms. These three parallel rooms extended from a perpendicular 'broadroom' running the width of the building. This back room formed on of the main exterior walls of the rectangular house. The entrance to the house was on the short side and led from the exterior courtyard into the larger central room. The broadroom across the back served mainly for storage." [2. Philip King and Lawrence Stager. Life in Biblical Israel. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 28-29.]
The broad room at the back of the house was also the room where the family would congregate, eat their meals, sleep, procreate, give birth, and hide in times of danger. In reference to the Israelite dwellings Amos 6:10 speaks of shell-shocked Israelites hiding in the “innermost parts of the house.” Psalm 128:3a (NET) also hints at the privacy and intimacy associated with inner most room of the Israelite dwellings by writing, “Your wife will be like a fruitful vine in the inner rooms of your house.” The biblical dwellings placed a premium on function over luxury and the space syntax of the dwellings reflect this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)