What Moabite?

In Deuteronomy 23:3 we have a stern prohibition from the Lord,"No...Moabite shall enter the congregation of the Lord... forever". This sounds fairly final. He means it! You know the Lord has put his foot down. But  as we look at the beautiful story of Ruth and Boaz we realize that Ruth was a Moabitess! But she also received the right of kinsman, goel, from Boaz. It sounds like Ruth had become a part, may be even an important part of the assembly of Israel. How then could this happen? May be God didn't really mean it. (I know some fathers like that.) But let us take a closer look and see if we can find out what made God change his mind or make an exception or whatever.
First this story is a wonderful story of redemption. It is loaded with God's grace. We mentioned the genealogy of Ruth, but we did leave out one other genealogy, Boaz's. At the beginning of the book of Ruth the author as most good author's do, tells us the time of the story. It happened during the time when  "judges judged" (literal Hebrew). This period is immediately after the conquest and settling of the land of Canaan. As we look to the book of Matthew in the first chapter we find that Boaz's father was Salmon.  And look who his mother is! That's right the righteous hooker on the wall of Jericho. (Could Salmon have been one of the spies that she hid? A great love story may be hidden there too.) But back to Boaz the son of a harlot. So the apple doesn't fall far. I guess that is a bit unfair. He did not ask for this  Moabitess to come "uncover" his feet while he was drunk on the threshing floor, did he? Well she did and the rest is history. But wait that still does not explain how God has made this exception to his congregation. It just might show a pattern of grace.
To really answer that question we should look at two places. One is Genesis 2:23. Here the man leaves his mother and father, which is backwards to the way we do our ceremonies, and cleaves (KJV) to his wife. This word in Hebrew is q∞Ab∂d which means, to cleave, is the same word that is used when Ruth cleaves to Naomi in chapter one verse 14. Did the author intend this to be a literary bridge to Genesis? Interestingly enough both of these verses are used in marriage ceremonies! And I think it is no accident. Ruth joined Naomi as a husband would "leave his father and mother". Ruth left all her family in favor of Naomi, and a bitter Naomi at that. This act is followed by the beautiful, oft quoted, proclamation, "Where you go I will go, where you lodge I will lodge, your people will be my people and your god will be my god...."  Ruth married into the Jewish faith that day. She was no longer a Moabite. Agreeing with this line of thinking is Dr. Tremper Longman. He sites the acts against mixed marriages in Nehemiah are against marriages that involve unbelievers, fulfilling the Deuteronomic prohibition.  He feels that this was a marriage, Ruth and Boaz, involving two believers.
We know that Boaz's mother was included in the "role call of faith" in Hebrews 11:31. The author of Hebrews basically stops with her. It is obvious that Ruth belongs on that long list of the faithful, too. We know this because she became the Great grandmother of David out of which comes  the "root of Jesse", our redeemer Jesus Christ (Romans 15:12). The redeemed becomes the womb of the redeemer. Ruth a righteous daughter of Abraham by faith, and there is no other way, takes her rightful place in the genealogy of our Lord the redeemer of the world and of course a Jew. As a foot note it is said that the Jewish blood line is trace back through the mothers.  Don't you love the Bible!

judge

 Rachel was a piece of work, but she did give birth to some of the great men of God in the Bible. I don't know if she ever fully gave herself to Jacob or ever really left her father's house. Even though Jacob loved her it seemed like he respected Leah more.  After all in the end, Jacob buried Rachel by the side of the road on the way to Bethlehem. You can still see her tomb there to this day. However, Jacob buried Leah with his father and mother at Hebron with  the Patriarchs and Matriarchs of the OT in the "cave of Machpelah, in the field of Ephron the son of Zohar the Hittite, which is before Mamre." This is the traditional spot of Abraham  and Sara's burial. 
 But this blog is about the name Dan and what it may mean.  Rachel was barren and so she gave her handmaid to Jacob to bear a son "on her knees". In giving birth she proclaimed that God had heard her and given her a male. She said God hath judged me so I will call his name Dan.
 Rachel of course came from the part of Abraham's family that was back in the old country. If you were to look on a map you might find that Haran, hometown to Rachel,  is East of Israel back in the area of Mesopotamia, present day Iraq. This is old country indeed. The language there was Akkadian. And if you look in Akkadian you will find that the word for "judge" is dianum or dayyanum. In semitic languages they often put nouns in "construct" form. In Akkadian the main noun is shortened. So "dianmu" could easily be "dian" or dan.  Rachel could have used a bit of her father's language to name Dan. At the birth Rachel proclaimed that "God had judged me.... so I will call him Dan". 
 Akkadian is a semitic language. It is believed that Hebrew a semitic language has its beginning in Mesopotamia. But the fun thing about this word is that it does not have the negative feel for the word "judge' or judgment that I have. It means that  there is a decision in favor of Rachel. God judged or heard me and gave me deliverance from barrenness and my sister's scorn. There was deliverance in the decision of God. It is interesting the way the Hebrew puts Rachel story. Ná∂;d wäømVv h¶Da√r∂q N¢E;k_lAo N¡E;b y™Il_NR;tˆ¥yÅw y$IlOqV;b o∞AmDv ‹MÅg◊w My$IhølTa yˆ…n∞An∂;d ‹ lEj∂r rRmaôø;tÅw     Hebrew is written from right to left so it begins on this line and end on the line above with the last word in red being Dan. The other red letter word is also dan, meaning "judged me". If you look close you can see that the last two letters of the second red word is the attached pronoun "me" -ne. Now both first letters and the small "T" which is the vowel, are identical. Actually the second letters "n" are identical they are just written slightly different because one is at the end of a word. So both words say "dan". As a final note one of the prophecies over Dan is that he will "judge his people". This same connotation carries over into the Book of Judges as these are stories of deliverers and not so much about court room decisions or God's wrath on someone. 

The Father's Family

Recently we have been hearing sermons on our Father's Family or something near to this theme. In our youth meeting one of the leaders, we will call him Jon, decided to substitute the word  family for the word kingdom. He read us a whole bunch of fun scriptures that allowed us to see them differently. Why don't we do the same? Let us look at Matthew 18 when the disciples came to ask Jesus who was the greatest in the (now substitute kingdom with family) who is the greatest in the family of God. Jesus pulled over a little child and said unless you become as a little child you will no way see the family of God. Wow. It works fairly well there. But wait we are not trying to change scripture and make a new "Family Bible Translation" that would be the FBT bible. No we are just taking a different read on some familiar maybe too familiar verses. On many of the stories and parables it is amazing how much household language is used. A common usage of the Kingdom is found in the "Lord's Prayer".  Here we have Jesus as the "Lord" which is of course kingly language. But really that name is applied to the prayer by others and not Jesus.  To him he was teaching his disciples how to talk to the Father. He begins the prayer with family language. "Our Father..." Of course if He is our Father then we are his sons and daughters. We are in His family. I looked up basilei√a, kingdom, in Louw & Nida. Now not to stretch the point, but well yes I am. Anyway they do talk about kingdom being related to blood line and being inherited. A domain that is inherited. We know this to be true that families pass on the kingship or try too. The one in England is a grand example where the king and queen are seen simply as a "royal family". We do not have many real life examples around, but England does. God Bless the Queen! 
Having this little back story let us substitute family for kingdom in our brother Jesus' prayer. "Our Father who art in Heaven Holy be your name, Your Family come Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation but deliver us from the evil one. For your is the Family and glory forever amen."
Well it works fairly well. That last family doesn't quite get it for me.  Anyway it might be a fun exercise to do those substitutions and watch how many times house hold language follows "kingdom".   One last scripture comes to mind. Ephesians 3:14-15;  "For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named."
Today I took my grandson to the local mountains (big hills) to play in some snow. As I was ridding along I saw most of Los Angeles up on hills with their families sliding, building snowmen and generally having fun. It struck me how our Father is so good to us in providing in his wonderful creation times for our families to play and relate. It was so easy to worship Him as our heavenly Father who gives us every good gift (James 1:17).

"Call on the Name of Yahweh"

After Abram left Egypt, he journeyed back to a place between  Bethel and Ai. There he built an altar and "Called on the name of the Lord"(Genesis 13:4). :h`Dwh◊y M¶EvV;b Mä∂rVbAa M¢Dv añ∂rVqˆ¥yÅw.  
What is the name of the Lord that Abram used?  Is God the name of the Lord? Lord, God?  Is Yahweh (Jehovah) the name? Remember Yahweh means "I am who I am" - so is that the name Abram used? "Hey I am !" saith Abram? "Lord, I am."  I don't mean to be disrespectful, but what is God's name? (for a little backstory see my Dec.19, 2009 blog.)
Let us look at it this way. What is a god? What is a human? I am a human, but my name is Doug. God is a god but what is His name? One of the great mysteries of Judaism is in the question Moses asked "What is your name?" Of course Moses blamed it on the COI, saying that they would want to know who sent him. Just to say "God sent me", evidently was not enough. I agree with them. Who sent you, Moses? And don't say God! What's his name? Yes.
 This whole conversation reminds me of Abbott and Costellos' "Who is on First?" Who? The guy on first? Who? Yes, Who is on first." "That's what I want to know". The great comedy bit by Abbott and Costello is reminiscent of  Moses and God on Mt. Sinai. We still do not know the name of the God on Sinai. You may say "yes we do". I would say who? You would say Lord God. I would say which God? You would say "the one on the Mountain"?!!. I would say Yes that one. And you would say" Yes God."  
God really is more a general noun for a higher being or substance. You can have many gods. The only way I can tell the difference is whether the "g" is capitalized. 
Abram built an altar and called on the name of Yahweh. Notice how the Hebrew uses the word "Yahweh" which the Jews will not even say!  But here is the problem again, Is Yahweh the name of God? I am beginning to see the beauty of why the Jews will not say the word Yahweh. 
There is an old tradition that says once you know a persons' name, you have a certain amount of power with that person. Certainly you have a certain amount of access. I wonder if the access we have is through the powerful name of Jesus the Christ. 
I started thinking about this when one of my readers in response to my blog on this subject,  wrote to me and said "What about Jesus whose name is above all names?" Is Jesus name above God's name? Does God have a name? Jesus said "I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father but through me". Our only access to know the Father is through Jesus. That is what is even more amazing about God. That he would take on a name to allow us to know him. But really he exists beyond names. It is almost unfathomable, like envisioning eternity. Envisioning something with no name is like that. Try it. Take a moment and think of something that can not have a name. 
 We as human can not know a name that takes in all of God. Sure we know adjectivals that describe Him; Father, omnipotent, omniscient, all loving. But to know him in total is impossible. He in his love has come down so that we can know him in and that through Jesus Christ. Amazing. That is why Jesus is name about all names but not above God. Jesus is one with God, the same essence of God,  but not above God.  No one is above God not even a name. John 1:14 says "the word became flesh". If I may take a little liberty and say "the unnamed became a name". The unknowable allowed Himself to be known in Jesus Christ. As Paul put it so succinctly in Colosians 2:9, o{ti e∆n aujtw/Ç katoikeiæ paÇn to; plhvrwma th:ß qeovthtoß swmatikwÇß,  That is "in Him (Christ) dwelt all the fullness of the deity in bodily form." Wow that is amazing. Even now to me having a door of access to God is almost beyond belief. I mean it challenges my faith to believe for such a great salvation. "How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation", Hebrews 2:3. I love that song "How Great Is Our God?" Amazingly great, and yet He can live in our hearts! Now that is someone I want to know. You know, what's his name.

One Body

I was reading yesterday in James,  chapter two. James was hammering away at the different levels that existed in the church. This is the same James that is the brother of Jesus. This is much debated especially by Catholics for obvious reasons. Some have called him the half brother, others adelphostheos, brother of God. Archeological note; A find in the last few years of the burial box called an ossuary from the first century has appeared on the unproven antiques market marked "James, the son of Joseph, brother of Jesus". We do not have the bones but we may have the box. In any event James was writing to the churches in chapter two about division in the services, if not the fellowship. This occurred when preference was given to one segment of the body. Evidently they were seating and recognizing the rich and "important" people and ignoring the poorer more invisible people. This is by most everyones account an administrative error. It is the type of error we allow today in our fellowship when an important person announces that "everyone can not be invited, but no one should have their feelings hurt". It is always announced to be sure by someone who is invited. Or we have these seats saved for important persons less important are further back. It is how our society of red carpeted attendees operate. I grew up in the South where country clubs proliferated the landscape. They were especially populated by persons of preferred treatment. Their off springs were the Greek fraternities and sororities that begin and still exist in the High Schools. Yes they exist not just in the colleges, but in the High Schools. I know I was a president of such a High School frat. It seems James had his sights set on this type of socialization. It is anti community. James as you may remember was the bishop of Jerusalem. The same city who had experienced the much envied fellowship (church if you must) of Acts 2. The fellowship where no one had a need. Imagine being in a church (not a small one at that) where no one was feeling a need. The important people weren't feeling the need to sit someplace special and the administrators, we may call them presbyters, did not feel the need to over look anyone that may be feeling a need. Wow. I want to be in that church! Unfortunately,  James saw that church reach a point where the widows were being neglected. Well not all widows were feeling that, just a certain group, a sect, well an ethnic group. James saw his wonderful fellowship develop needs that were being ignored. Maybe they did not have room at the tables. I am sure there was a good reason. Thank God it was pointed out and the problem was corrected. But often it is not pointed out and if it is, it is excused.  Peter was found eating with his ethnic group and ignoring the others less rich in Judaism. What if Paul had not pointed that out?  When someone stands up and states to the family of God that there is no room to invite everyone maybe someone needs to point out a solution so no one feels left out. Telling them not to feel left out is not the solution. Peter could have told Paul "they shouldn't feel left out! Why have they not included themselves!" Again Thank God that was not the response. May be a solution could be to invite everyone and ask for volunteers not to come, especially from those rich in position. Or maybe someone should get a bigger place. Or have the church celebrate in the sanctuary. What should never happen is that the eye say to the foot we have no need of you. Telling the congregants that there is no room and not to feel left out is the same thing. Asking those of lessor maturity to have more than those saying it, is presumptuous and the thing James was screaming at. Those who are the living stones of the building should not be asked to not be apart of the very building they are giving their lives to create. James 2:1 NIV," My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don’t show favoritism." Or as the Greek best puts it, "My brothers, do not hold in favoritism the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ of glory".  James uses the word e“cete  meaning a command, the present active imperative of echo. We are commanded not to show and excuse favoritism. 

The Ancient Apostolic Anointing

On September 16, 2009 I wrote a little blog inspired by Luke 18 and a sermon I heard about the ancient apostolic anointing. After hearing that sermon I read about Christ reading from Isaiah about himself and his mission here on earth. This morning I was reading in Exodus about God's call to Moses. I am very interested in the "name" that God gives himself. But in the process of studying that I noticed that the Septuagint (LXX) uses the word "apostle" when God tell Moses he is going to send him to Egypt and to his people. In the Latin Vulgate the word "sent" is from mittare the verb meaning to send. It is where we get the word missionary from. Missionaries are sent to a certain peoples. Moses was sent to the sons of Israel. Jesus was sent to me and you. The simple point I am making is that Moses falls into this category of ancient apostolic anointing. He came to set the captives free and proclaim liberty to those in bondage. Moses could have read from Isaiah in that synagogue also. In fact I think at one point Moses and Elijah appeared to Christ on the Mount (Luke 9). Point being Moses was a part of that ancient apostolic anointing. I wonder how many of us have been "sent" into this earth by God under this same anointing? It may be more than I realize. Although in Matthew we are reminded that "many are called, but few are chosen." polloi… ga◊r ei∆sin klhtoi√, ojli√goi de… e∆klektoi√. Matthew 22:14. I am not sure what that all means except it does say that many are called, but (could be and) few are chosen. Is it up to us to choose? Was there more than one burning bush and only Moses "turned aside"? Here the word "choosen" can mean "elect". This is getting into deep Calvin waters and I elect or choose to stop. 

Pastors and teachers and kids

Last week our church blessed the teachers of our fellowship who teach at the church's school. During the course of the message, the pastor read from Ephesians 4:11 where Paul lists the gifts that Christ gave to the church. Kai… aujto;ß e“dwken tou;ß me…n a˙postovlouß, tou;ß de… profhvtaß, tou;ß de… eujaggelista◊ß, tou;ß de… poime√naß kai… didaska◊louß, (for translation see your Bible :) 

In the Greek the article which we take for granted was not done so by the Greeks. In the Greek it was important as designating different uses of nouns in a sentence. If the article preceded a noun it was an important designation. Usually it meant that the noun was the subject of the sentence. A famous case is found in chapter one of the Gospel of John, verse 1.The last phrase in verse one," the word was God", in the Greek the order is completely reversed from the way we would arrange or do translated it in English. The Greeks put the predicate nominative  Theos first and the subject ho logos last. Since the article with a noun is an indicator of the subject it could be put any where in the sentence, not so in English. I am diverting from the simple point I would like to make. In Ephesians 4 Paul lists, what is known in Pentecostal circles, as the five fold ministries. They are; the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists and the pastor and teachers. Notice that shepherds and teachers are governed by the same article. This puts them into the same ministry. Paul does not separate these two ministries. We have a tendency to want to put these in separate categories, the ministry of pastor and the ministry of the teacher, Paul did not do this. Actually in 1 Corinthians 12:28 Paul just lists, apostles, prophets and teachers. He does not lists "pastors". This word "pastors" is from the Vulgate, not the Greek. The true Greek noun meaning of  poime√naß is shepherd, or protector. The verb form is most impressively found in the words of Christ to Peter on the shores of Galilee after his resurrection. (The verb is found elsewhere in the NT also). 

Our pastor, shepherd last Sunday correctly connected the two ministries together. He said that the teachers are with the kids all day and do more shepherding (of the youth and sometimes indirectly the family) than do some of the pastors who see them once or twice a week. I think he was dead on, and not just scripturally. Our nations youth have been in trouble for years and one of the main reasons is that we have take the "protection" quality away from public teaching. Our teachers need to be empowered to "shepherd" their flock of God, on a daily basis. Much of learning is being able to discipline correctly, and lovingly. Because of the weirdness in our society we have abandoned our kids. Christ told Peter who had withdrawn from the flock of God, if he loved Christ to Shepherd the flock.I stand with my pastors proclamation that the teachers are going to be true shepherds, protectors of their flock thereby fulfilling the law of Christ. Paul gives the reason for these ministries in verse 15 and 16 which underlines how important these ministries are to the church and the Kingdom of God in this earth.