Some Thoughts on Revelation 1-3

In church last Saturday (yes that's the only weekend-day in Israel) we discussed the seven churches of the Revelation.  All in all it was a solid sermon that discussed the various churches of Asia Minor - highlighting their strengths and weaknesses while discussing and hoping to prevent our own.  I always enjoy good, text-based sermons on the Revelation, because of its vast richness and imagery. As I was sitting in my chair attentively listening to the sermon I noticed a few things in King Jesus' proclamation that I had never picked up on before.  Here is one of them.

The High Priest in His Real Sanctuary (Rev. 1:12-15)

Many preachers and expositors have noted the similarity between Christ's figure in Rev. 1:12-15 and the figure of an unidentified person in Dan. 10:5-6.  Some even go so far as to say that this striking similarity indicates that the person in Daniel is none other than the pre-incarnated Lord Jesus.  Personally, I think that is a bit of a stretch mainly due to the fact that the identification of the character of Dan. 10:5-6 is later revealed as an angel who was held up by the "Prince of Persia."  Even if one were to say that the person of Dan. 10:5-6 was a different person than the "he" that comforts and speaks to Daniel that would mean that the person of Dan. 10:5-6 failed in delivering the message to Daniel and needed another angel (Gabriel?) to step in, which of course would again argue that the person is not Christ.  Nevertheless, John/the Holy Spirit through the vision of the Christ is for sure picking up on this similarity of appearance to make a distinct connection between the apocalyptic prophecies of Daniel and the coming Revelation.  Note the following similarities:

"a man clothed in linen, with a belt of fine gold from Uphaz around his waist. His body was like beryl, his face like the appearance of lightning, his eyes like flaming torches, his arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze, and the sound of his words like the sound of a multitude." (Daniel 10:5-6 ESV)


“Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden sash around his chest. The hairs of his head were white, like white wool, like snow. His eyes were like a flame of fire, his feet were like burnished bronze, refined in a furnace, and his voice was like the roar of many waters.” (Revelation 1:12–15 ESV)


This Daniel connection is clear, but could there be more at work than just a textual connection?  Maybe.  Could it be that Jesus was revealing himself to John in his Melchizedekian, priestly garments (vs. the earlier prescribed Aaronic garments) in the midst of his "real" sanctuary?  Definitely the book of Hebrews was in existence during the time of John's vision (95-96 AD - Hebrews was written pre-70 AD) and would have been known by the apostle "whom Jesus loved."  Unconvinced? Consider these passages.

“You shall speak to all the skillful, whom I have filled with a spirit of skill, that they make Aaron’s garments to consecrate him for my priesthood. These are the garments that they shall make: a breastpiece, an ephod, a robe, a coat of checker work, a turban, and a sash. They shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother and his sons to serve me as priests. They shall receive gold, blue and purple and scarlet yarns, and fine twined linen.” (Exodus 28:3–5 ESV)

My own very meager attempt at reproducing the high priestly garments based on Exodus 28.  Yes, I am aware that my high priest's body shape is "formless and void."

“For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life. For it is witnessed of him, “You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.” For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.” (Hebrews 7:14–19 ESV)

“Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man. For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, “See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.” But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.” (Hebrews 8:1–7 ESV)

These passages show the existence of a heavenly "real" sanctuary, but what might that sanctuary look like? Moses gave the Israelites a "type" tabernacle through the decrees of Torah, but he was only able to re-construct it based on the vision he saw on Mt. Sinai.  Among other things this tabernacle included a seven-branched lampstand (known as the menorah popularized by the holiday of Chanukah and the arch of Titus in Rome).

Tabernacle model in Timnah Valley, Israel 1:1 model - highly recommend going for a visit.

Seven-branched lampstand (also known as a Menorah or a candelabrum) also inside Timnah's model.  Their depiction of the high priest garments are in the upper right of the photo.

Where is the impressively dressed King Jesus in the Revelation 1 passage? "In the midst of the (seven golden) lampstands." Could these lampstands be what Moses saw and tried to duplicate in the menorah?  It is important to note that the term "lampstand" in the Bible is only used in conjunction with the tabernacle/temple precinct (save one reference in Daniel 5:5 - but there it is talking about a lampstand in Belshazar's palace).  The lampstand is inexorably tied to the tabernacle/temple - why should that connection stop in Revelation?  Conversely, it is true that Rev. 1:20 says that the seven golden lampstands represent the seven churches of Asia Minor, but that does not exclude them from having further meaning or further inter-text relatedness.  It is my opinion that Revelation 1 is presenting a picture of the resurrected Christ that is a witness both to his coming judgment on the world (Daniel connection, which will be further expounded upon in Rev. 4-21) and his covenant, high priestly mediation for his beleaguered and persecuted church (Hebrew/Melchizedekian connection which covers Rev. 1-3).

Hippus: A City on a Hill?

During Jesus' Galilean ministry he delivered perhaps the world's most influential sermon - dubbed the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7; Luke 12).  In this sermon the greatest rabbi and theologian asks His hearers to weigh their actions against Torah - removing the already difficult standard of the righteousness of the elite and replacing it with faithful obedience.  The teaching delves deeply into the conscience of its hearers by teaching wisdom through everyday occurrences.  Jesus the consummate teacher and illustrator as He often did, once again, used the 1st-century Galilean sites and sounds of his surroundings to portray His timeless and boundless truths.  Among the many illustrations, the King of the Universe compares the manner of a believer's obedient life to a "city set on a hill that cannot be hidden” (Matthew 5:14b ESV) hmmmm....  Interesting - more on that later.

I think it is important to note that Jesus taught almost exclusively outdoors and the majority of the time in Galilee both among and to farmers and fishermen.  He knew the realities each faced in this complex, eclectic region.  Consider the following map:

Notice the three big regions.  Galilee was ruled by Herod Antipas (Herod the Great's son) with his capital in Tiberias it was primarily Jewish with cities like Capernaum and Chorazin on the western half of the Lake.  The Tetrarchy of Philip - most of which was in modern Syria and the Golan Heights.  Philip had a very small sliver of the lake where Philip (also the son of Herod the Great) established the city of Julia - his populace was a mix of Jew and Gentile.  The eastern half was under direct Roman rule with the free city-states of the Decapolis (literally 10 cities - although it was more than that - this would be cities like Gadera, Gerasa, Scytholpolis and Hippus). This region was almost exclusively Gentile. The casting out of demons into swine Matt. 8:30 happened in this region.  All three of these regions would have their own governmental (read taxation) system and radically different diets.  One can easily imagine the Jewish fishermen selling the non-kosher fish to their Gentile neighbors in an attempt to sell all of their catch.  It was within this cultural context that the Son of God was revealed and eloquently interacted.  

I say all of that to make one observation from the Sermon on the Mount.  I will do so in the form of a question.

Is it possible that Jesus was referring to an actual city when he said “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden?"   I think he may have been - examine the following images.

This is a view of the traditional location of the Mt. of Beattitudes (likely its a small hill between Capernaum and Tabgha) looking southeast at Hippus - the only major city sitting on a hill during the time of Jesus in the vicinity.

Hippus/Susita (horse) named such because the city resembled a horse's head as it sits alone connected to the Golan Heights by a small spur line.

View from the east looking west across the Sea of Galilee to the Plain of Gennesaret and Tiberias.  Looking at the back of the head of a very schematic horse (with no mane or ears of course).

Would it have been shining?  Probably not Thomas Edison would not be born until about 20 centuries later, but Hippus would have had large tall Roman buildings like these (remains are a little later but are indicative of the city) made out of white limestone shining in the hot Galilean sunshine.  The Decapolis city could have easily been seen from all locations around the Lake, as the hill can still be readily spotted today. 

More or less the same view as the first one.  Clearly Hippus could have easily been seen by Jesus' audience. (all images Google Earth and Mindy McKinny).

 It could be that Jesus not only pointed to Hippus (or maybe shrugged his head there emphatically) when he referred to a "city on a hill that cannot be hidden," but he also looked to the eastern shore later in his message when he said the following: “Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.” (Matthew 7:6 ESV)  Pigs would have been found in abundance on the eastern shore (remember Matt. 8:30) and would have been very scarce on the Jewish western shore from where Jesus was speaking.  

In the end this argumentation cannot be proven - it is difficult enough to uncover the meaning of texts -  all the more difficult to discern a speaker's thoughts and unrecorded actions.  Regardless, I believe interacting with the text geographically provides it with a certain realness that it might not have otherwise.  Most believers believe the Bible is inerrant (free from error), but sometimes we forget that its people lived in a real place, in a real time, with real geographicall realities.

The Reigns of Uzziah of Judah and Jeroboam II of Israel in Historical Perspective

Uzziah of Judah

The reign of Uzziah of Judah was a period of unparalleled expansion the Judahite kingdom. Uzziah, who is consistently called Uzziah in Chronicles and Azariah in Kings,[1] reigned for 52 years over Judah (792/791-740/739).[2] He came to power at the age of 16 after the assassination of his father Amaziah. His reign is defined by 2 Kings 15:3 and 2 Chr. 26:4 which state, “He did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, according to all that his father Amaziah had done.” Uzziah expanded the southern border back to the port city of Elath (2 Kings 14:22; 2 Chr. 26:2) as it was during the days of United Monarchy (1 Kings 9:26, 2 Chr. 8:17), as Jehoshaphat had unsuccessfully tried to do (1 Kings 22:48). He subjugated the Philistines (2 Chr. 26:6-7) conquering the cities of Gath, Jabneh, and Ashdod and then building Judahite cities within Philistia. Uzziah also successfully fought against the Arab tribes in the Negev highlands (2 Chr. 26:7) and received tribute from Ammon (2 Chr. 26:8). In conjunction with Uzziah’s expansions Rainey writes, “He (Uzziah) succeeded in imposing his control over the Arabian elements, specifically the Meunites (according to the LXX), which action gave him a monopoly over the trade routes across Sinai and as far as Egypt.”[3] Uzziah’s subjugation of the Philistines would have allowed him unparalleled access to the best farmland in the country, the Philistine Coastal Plain, which he would have exploited to his benefit since “he loved the soil” (2 Chr. 26:10). Uzziah’s other feats include: the fortifications of Jerusalem and the Shephelah (2 Chr. 26:9-10), large agricultural and agrarian structures in the Shephelah (2 Chr. 26:10), and the formation of a vast war machine of 2,600 “men of valor” (2 Chr. 26:12), an army of 307, 500 (2 Chr. 26:13), advanced war equipment (2 Chr. 26:14), and siege engines (2 Chr. 26:15). The Chronicler who claims that Uzziah’s fame and amazing feats became his downfall. Uzziah apparently became puffed up in his own great wealth and fame. He entered the temple and officiated illegally as a priest on the incense alter when he was confronted he became angry. Consequently he was struck by the Lord and became a leper living in a separate house for the rest of his reign as his son Jotham reigned in his place (2 Kings 15:5; 2 Chr. 26:16-23). During his lifetime Uzziah was able to expand the kingdom of Judah farther than any king since the division of the kingdom. Isaiah (1:1; 6:1; 7:1), Hosea (1:1), and Amos (1:1) all ministered during the long reign of Uzziah. Interestingly in Amos 1:1 and Zechariah 14:5 an earthquake is said to have occurred during the reigns of Uzziah and Jeroboam II. Uzziah’s rise to prominence can largely be attributed to the overall weakness of the Assyrian kingdom at this point in history. During the 8^th century BCE Assyria had many local invasions and uprisings, which made the more outreaching objectives of their empire less important.[4] This gave Israel and Judah a period of time in which to prosper, but with the death of Uzziah this window of opportunity ended. In connection with this Rainey writes,

“With the death of Uzziah in 740 BCE the window of opportunity for Judah and Israel to dominate the southern Levant and to enjoy great prestige in the central Levant was closed. Israel was split apart and Judah became embroiled in disputes with her neighbors that led to the loss of all her geopolitical advantages in the south and west.”[5]

Jeroboam II of Israel

Jeroboam II reigned from Samaria for 41 years (2 Kings 14:23) (793-753 BCE).[6] His reign is defined as is all the kings of Israel by the statement in 2 Kings 14:24 that says, “He did what was evil in the sight of the Lord. He did not depart from all the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, which he made Israel to sin.” Despite this pronouncement against him the writer of Kings makes it clear that Jeroboam II was used greatly by Yahweh to save Israel. Jeroboam was able to restore the border of Lebo-hamath and restore Damascus and Hamath to the Israelites (1 Kings 14:25, 28). He had expanded Israel’s territory from the watershed Lebanese Beqa to Transjordan as far as the Dead Sea.[7] Like Judah, Israel’s expansion was largely due to the decline of the Assyrian empire. This is the time of the prophet Jonah (2 Kings 14:25) who also might reflect the weakness of the Assyrian empire in the prophetic book of Jonah. During this period of unparalleled expansion in the kingdoms of Israel and Judah the prophetic schools produced prophets to combat the rampant economic equality in the flourishing states. The prophet Amos proclaims judgment against the enemies of Judah and Israel for their iniquities against God’s people (1:3-2:3), but then turns his attention to the sins of Judah and Israel. Judah is berated for not keeping the Law of the Lord and is promised coming judgment upon their strongholds in Jerusalem (2:4-5). Likewise Israel is denounced for their disobedience in 2:6-16.[8] Judah’s disobedience is defined generally, but Israel’s iniquity is specifically addressed. Amos condemns Israel’s disregard for the poor saying, “they sell the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of sandals –those who trample the poor into the dust of the earth and turn aside the way of the afflicted (2:6b-7a).” He goes on to denounce Israel for its gross debauchery and boastings of accomplishment. When seen against the background of the rich prosperity of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel this proclamation makes perfect sense. Jeroboam II like his Judahite counterpart, Uzziah, became puffed up with his success and did not attribute his victories to Yahweh. On account of this Jeroboam’s death and the exile of Israel were predicted by the prophet Amos in Amos 7:9-11 “And the LORD said to me, “Amos, what do you see?” And I said, “A plumb line.” Then the Lord said, “Behold, I am setting a plumb line in the midst of my people Israel; I will never again pass by them; the high places of Isaac shall be made desolate, and the sanctuaries of Israel shall be laid waste, and I will rise against the house of Jeroboam with the sword.” Then Amaziah the priest of Bethel sent to Jeroboam king of Israel, saying, “Amos has conspired against you in the midst of the house of Israel. The land is not able to bear all his words. For thus Amos has said, “‘Jeroboam shall die by the sword, and Israel must go into exile away from his land.” Amos’ prophecy was fulfilled only a mere thirty years after the death of Jeroboam II when the Assyrian empire exiled Israel in 722 BCE.

---

[1] Anson Rainey and Steve Notley, The Sacred Bridge: Carta’s Atlas of the Biblical World, (Jerusalem: Carta, 2006). 217.

[2] For a discussion on Uzziah’s coregencies with his father Amaziah and his son Jotham see Ibid, 217-218 and Edwin Thiele, The Mysterious Number of the Hebrew Kings, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965). 53-115.

[3] Ibid, 217.

[4] Ibid, 215-216.

[5] Ibid, 220.

[6] Ibid, 217.

[7] Ibid, 217.

[8] Yohanan Aharoni and Michael.Avi-Yonah, The Carta Bible Atlas, Jerusalem: Carta, 2002. 142.

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.

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).

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.