Archives For Stories

cvggo taking

Why Judas Betrayed Jesus with a Kiss

December 2, 2014 — 10 Comments

Why did Judas betray Jesus with a kiss?  The simplest explanation is of course the one we find in Matthew and Mark.  It was the prearranged sign by which Judas identified Jesus to the arresting soldiers (Mark 14:44, Matt. 26:48).  Ok.  But that explanation still leaves a major issue unanswered.  Why a kiss?  There are certainly far less intimate ways to identify someone, pointing or a simple tap on the shoulder being among them.  Why a kiss?  The answer has everything to do with Jesus’ claim to be king.

4

When Jesus entered Jerusalem on a donkey days before the betrayal, he publicly proclaimed himself the Christ/Messiah, the Son of David, the rightful king of Israel.  The crowd of people present that day certainly understood his actions. Their interpretation is found recorded in each of the four Gospels.  In Matthew they shout, “Hosanna to the Son of David!” In Mark they say, “Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David!” In Luke we hear them proclaim, “Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord!  And in John they cry, “Blessed is the King of Israel.”

The question we need to ask is why did these people connect Jesus’ entrance into Jerusalem on a donkey with an implicit claim to the throne? Matthew and John of course point to a prophetic fulfillment of Zachariah 9:9,

Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion!

Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem!

Behold, your king is coming to you;

righteous and having salvation is he,

humble and mounted on a donkey,

on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

And this is typically where our answers end.

But there’s an even bigger reason to connect Jesus’ entrance into Jerusalem with his claim to be king than this short verse in Zachariah.  We know that the act of riding a mule into Jerusalem was the sign by which Solomon was proclaimed king of Israel.  This event is found in 1 Kings 1.  The ride on David’s mule is there emphasized, being repeated three times. This is a particularly crucial event in Israel’s history.  It’s Israel’s first dynastic succession.  Though Saul had been the first king of Israel, he had no dynasty.  He and his sons were killed and the rule passed to a new line in David.  It’s not until Solomon’s coronation in 1 Kings 1, however, that we find David’s royal linage established.  And it’s established in none other than Solomon’s ride into Jerusalem on David’s mule. Given this events historical and symbolic importance, I believe its probable that it was repeated in all subsequent coronation ceremonies.  In the same way George Washington’s personal decision to swear on a Bible has been repeated in all subsequent presidential inaugurations, so the riding into Jerusalem on a mule formed the basis for future coronations. Jesus, by entering Jerusalem on a donkey, appears to be invoking a royal ceremony which the people recognized.

In this specific act, Jesus publicly proclaimed himself to be the restoration of the fallen house of David.  In 2 Samuel 7, God had made an eternal promise to David that one of his sons would sit on Israel’s throne. And yet by the time of the Gospels, David’s throne had been empty for more than five hundred years.  Psalms 89, bemoans this situation.  In it God says, “

Once for all I have sworn by my holiness;

I will not lie to David.

His offspring shall endure forever,

his throne as long as the sun before me.

Like the moon it shall be established forever,

a faithful witness in the skies.” (89:35-37)

And yet the Psalmist grieves the fact that God has now

cast off and rejected;

you are full of wrath against your anointed.

You have renounced the covenant with your servant;

you have defiled his crown in the dust. (89:38-39).

Psalms 89 looks back on the original promise made to David in 2 Samuel 7.  And its 2 Samuel 7 which is especially important for our understanding of David’s successors and therefore Jesus’ self understanding as He enters into Jerusalem.  It explains what it means for Jesus to be the “Christ,” “the Son of David” and yes, even “the Son of God.”

In 2 Samuel 7, David tells Nathan the prophet of his plans to build a “house” for God. David has built himself a “house of cedar” and thus finds it unbearable that the ark of God should still reside in a tent.  Nathan endorses the plan but then suddenly changes his mind when he receives a message from God. God says He doesn’t want David to build him a “house.” Instead God promises to make a “house” (i.e. dynasty – note the play on words), for David.

“Moreover, the Lord declares to you that the Lord will make you a house. When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever.’” (2 Samuel 7:11-16)

Note that the Son of David has a special relationship to God. The king is here described as God’s son.  Oddly, God is the father of David’s son.  By this point you should be recognizing the echoes in the Gospels.  In the Gospels, God himself calls Jesus his “Son” while Jesus calls God his “Father.” In reading 2 Samuel 7 it’s also quite natural to see a reference to Solomon since Solomon, the first son of David, did in fact build a “house” or temple for God.  But it’s also important to see in this promise a note to Jesus’ self understanding. Jesus first act, after his entrance into Jerusalem (again, in the manner of Solomon’s coronation) is to inspect and “cleanse” the temple.  The establishment of a “house” for God is the special prerogative of David’s son. Jesus acts accordingly.  And the people respond with appropriate anticipation.

The problem, however, is that Jesus’ coronation doesn’t occur in the way the people expect. Jesus is subsequently crucified which would suggest that Jesus was just a pretender, a false claimant to David’s throne.  But that’s not how Mark and the other Gospel writers see it.  They do indeed place Jesus on the throne but it’s ironically the cross, the moment of Jesus’ greatest glory.   We know this is how the Gospel writers see it because of the details they choose to emphasize.

There’s a special turning point in each of the first three Gospels where Jesus asks his disciples the question everyone has been asking, who is Jesus?  “Who do you say that I am?” (Mark 8:29, Matt. 16:15, Luke 9:20)  Peter declares, “You are the Anointed one.”  In other words, Peter says you are “David’s son, the Christ, the messiah, the king, the rightful heir to the throne.”  It’s a significant hair-raising announcement.  And it’s with this announcement that Jesus turns his attention to Jerusalem and his ultimate destiny.  Jesus warns them not to tell anyone what Peter has just said and at the same time begins to teach them that he will be rejected, killed and three days later rise again.  The disciples, however, choke on this prediction.  Peter rebukes him.  When he said “Christ” he clearly didn’t mean “loser.”  Instead he meant a royal kick-ass leader who would free Israel from its foreign oppressors.  But Jesus in-turn rebukes Peter, teaching his disciples that to save ones life is to lose it and to lose ones life is to save it.  This pattern is repeated two more times in the journey to Jerusalem.  When Jesus predicts his death, the disciples express pride in their earthly position and Jesus in turn must once again adjust their perspective through a paradoxical teaching.  To be the greatest you must become the least.  To be first you must be last.  To rule you must become a servant.

The last example of this pattern occurs when James and John approach Jesus with a request to sit on his right and left in his glory. Jesus has just told them he is going to Jerusalem to die but they apparently still believe he’s going up to sit on a golden throne. Jesus, however, knows that his glory is the cross and his questions to them specifically points to that. “Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?”  They, not at all understanding what’s he’s talking about, nod their heads with blank stares, saying that they are able.  But Jesus says, “to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.” (Matt. 20:23, Mark 10:40)

This is significant because the only place we find anyone on Jesus right and left in the Gospels is in the crucifixion.  Mark 15:27 says, “they crucified two robbers with him, one on his right and one on his left.”  Its clear that when the disciples ask to sit with Jesus in his glory, Jesus points them to the cross.  The cross is his glory.  The placing of the thieves on Jesus right and left comes significantly at the culmination of a long list of coronation elements (15:16-27).  With Pilates order to have Jesus crucified, Mark tells us that the soldiers lead Jesus into the praetorium and there assembled the whole battalion before him. In this act Mark’s original readers would have heard echoes of the coronation of Caesar who was himself proclaimed Lord through the vote of the praetorian guard.  Mark then tells us that they clothed him in a purple cloak (a color only rulers could legally wear) and put a crown of thorns on his head.  They saluted him, “Hail, King of the Jews,” on bended knee in mock homage.  They post his charge, “the King of the Jews.”

The Gospel writers find a further irony in the “sarcasm” of the soldiers act. Jesus is indeed receiving the kingdom in the cross. In losing his life, he’s saving it. In serving, he’s becoming Lord.  This is truly his coronation.  His inauguration. Jesus’ crown is in fact bestowed in the crucifixion.

So what does this have to do with Judas’ kiss?  The answer is found in Psalms 2.  It’s one of the psalters coronation hymns and as such it was sung at the inauguration of each new davidic king. It tells us something important about the historic coronation ceremony but in that it also tells us about the ironic coronation of Jesus found in the Gospels. Read Psalms 2 with that in mind.

Why do the nations rage

and the peoples plot in vain?

The kings of the earth set themselves,

and the rulers take counsel together,

against the Lord and against his Anointed, saying,

“Let us burst their bonds apart

and cast away their cords from us.”

He who sits in the heavens laughs;

the Lord holds them in derision.

Then he will speak to them in his wrath,

and terrify them in his fury, saying,

“As for me, I have set my King

    on Zion, my holy hill.”

I will tell of the decree:

The Lord said to me, “You are my Son;

today I have begotten you.

Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage,

and the ends of the earth your possession.

You shall break them with a rod of iron

and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.”

Now therefore, O kings, be wise;

be warned, O rulers of the earth.

Serve the Lord with fear,

and rejoice with trembling.

Kiss the Son,

lest he be angry, and you perish in the way,

for his wrath is quickly kindled.

Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

“Kiss the Son…”  Some translations hide the explicit connection by rendering it “do homage to the son.”  The action is of course homage but the literal verb is “kiss.”  And the word kiss is relatively rare in the Old and New Testament, least of all an imperative to kiss the son/the anointed king.

Is there a connection to Judas and Jesus here?  I think there absolutely is.  We know that the disciples recognized Jesus as the christ, the king, the son of David.  We saw this in Matthew 16, Mark 8 and Luke 9. They went to Jerusalem to see Jesus established on the throne.  They knew the davidic coronation script.  They knew what it meant for Jesus to enter Jerusalem riding on a donkey.  But for some reason Judas lost faith.  I think in light of the Gospels it’s quit probable that Judas couldn’t get over Jesus’ rejection of traditional messiah role. He realized there would be no earthly glory and thus he chose to sarcastically betray Jesus, the supposed “son”, with a kiss.  His kiss is deeply ironic. As with the soldiers, He mocks Jesus in his claim to be the rightful king of Israel.  And yet in the Gospels we find it is the Lord who turns his sarcasm into an further layer of irony and its is the Lord who enjoys the last laugh.

In Bible, Easter, Gospels, Stories
permalink
Hostage Mailer Front

Why I Call My Experience the “Baptism in the Holy Spirit”

March 7, 2014 — 1 Comment

I’ve been asked more than once recently what I mean when I say I was “baptized in the Holy Spirit”?  In the first of 25 Random Things About Me I say, “I’ve had a wedding and I’ve seen each of my four children born, but the happiest day of my life is still being baptized in the Holy Spirit June 31, 1991 at the age of 13.”  What do I mean by that the use of that term?  Is that the day I was saved?

When I used this term for my experience I used it in the same sense that Luke uses it in the book of Acts, namely as an empowerment for witness.  I know that many Christians use the term “baptism in the Holy Spirit” as a reference to salvation.  Paul of course uses a similar phrase in 1 Corinthians 12:12-13 with regard to salvation (“we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body”).  Baptism in water and baptism in the Holy Spirit are linked in the scriptures (Mark 1:8 and many others).  The first signifies repentance and an acceptance of the Gospel and so it makes sense to see this Spirit baptism as being part of the overall transition into God’s kingdom. I therefore don’t have a problem acknowledging that all who are saved have in one sense been baptized in the Spirit.  However, I don’t think this is the only scriptural use of the term.

At the beginning of Acts Jesus tells the disciples that they will be “baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now” (Acts 1:5).  And of course this event is fulfilled when the disciples begin to speak in other tongues on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:4).  We find this experience repeated several more times in Acts: in the Samaritans (Acts 8), among Cornelius’ household (Acts 10) and in the Ephesian disciples (Acts 19).  I know some regard these experiences as being simultaneous with conversion and therefore nothing other than what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 12:12-13.  But I disagree.  Not all these experiences can be conflated with salvation.  The time lapse between acceptance of the message and the reception of the Spirit in the case of the Samaritans and the Ephesian disciples is telling.  It appears to me that Luke wants his readers to see something else.

That something is almost certainly empowerment for witness.  Acts 1:8 is universally acknowledged as Luke’s thesis statement.  Here Jesus tells the disciple that they will “receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon” them and they will be his “witnesses.”  It’s therefore not surprising to find an opened mouth in witness or praise every time the Holy Spirit comes upon (i.e. baptizes or fills) some one in Luke-Acts.  Elizabeth exclaims in a loud voice (Luke 1:42-43). Zachariah prophecies (Luke 1:67-79). The 120 “speak in other tongues” (Acts 2:4). Peter testifies (Acts 4:8). The believers “speak the word of God boldly” (Acts 4:31). Cornelius and his household speak in tongues (Acts 10:44-46). Paul curses Elymas (Acts 13:9). The Ephesian disciples speak in tongues and prophesy (Acts 19:6).  Luke, following a pattern in the Old Testament, continually points to the audible results of those moved by the Spirit; tongues, prophecy, boldness in preaching, even singing. It therefore appears to me that Luke used “baptism in the Holy Spirit” among other terms not as a reference to salvation (though it certainly may coincide) but as a particular experience of empowerment which results in Spirit directed speech.

This was my experience.  While I accepted Jesus into my heart at the age of five and probably several more times after that, I struggled with my faith, even more so as I entered junior high.  I was overcome with lust.  At school I was a sarcastic bully, trying to make it to the pinnacle of popularity.  I dreamed of the freedom I would experience when I turned 18 and moved away from my families Christian home.  But in youth group, I began to pray and repent, asking God to help me change.  But the change never materialized.  I was afraid of what my friends would think.

But I did change suddenly and radically one day on a missions to Mexico.  One night after a time of worship and prayer, I asked my teenage roommates to pray for me to receive the “baptism in the Holy Spirit.”  They did.  After confessing my sin and praising God for his forgiveness, I felt a warmth rush over my head and down to my feet.  And as it passed my mouth I began to speak in a language I did not know.  I knew it did not come from me since I had tried unconvincing to fake it some years before.  This experience resulted in a strong passion and desire to share Jesus with everyone, no matter the cost.  A desire I still carry with me to this day.

I believe its important to earnestly seek this empowering experience.  I don’t however think it is simply equated with tongues.  The result of the “baptism of the Holy Spirit” is an opened mouth in witness and praise.  Some people are empowered with that at salvation.  Others, like myself, need a further experience.

In Bible, Stories
permalink
glass of water

What does it mean to be “born of water”?

March 7, 2014 — 2 Comments

In John 3:5, Jesus tells Nicodemus that to enter the kingdom one must be “born of water and the Spirit”. How is this phrase understood? Is it a single construct (i.e. one birth of both water and Spirit)? Or are two births in view (one of water and one of Spirit)? And what does it mean to be born of water?

Context is the key to interpretation. You’ve heard the mantra in real-estate, “location, location, location.” Well in interpretation its, “context, context, context.” The location of a verse matters in its interpretation.

Think of the word “hand,” for instance. What does it mean? Without context “hand” could have quite a few meanings.

  • the hired hand fixed the railing
  • his hand was illegible
  • he wanted to try his hand at singing
  • I didn’t hold a good hand all evening
  • The hands read 3:25
  • give the little lady a great big hand
  • hand me the spoon, please

we can see the words meaning more clearly in context.

The Immediate Context

The phrase “born of water and Spirit” appears in Jesus’ night time conversation with Nicodimus. In John 3:3, Jesus says,

I tell you the truth, no one can see the Kingdom of God unless he is born again.

Nicodimus is dumbfounded

How can a man be born when he is old…surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!

Jesus then rephrases his earlier statement

I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of god unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.

The contrast between flesh and spirit in the last verse would seem to indicate that water stands for natural birth.

Beyond the Chapter

But there’s an even broader context to John 3:5 that others pick up on. Two chapters earlier, in John 1:32-33, John the baptist testifies,

I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a a dove and remain on him. I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, “the man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.”

Here water and Spirit are linked in the Baptist’s ministry and testimony. John baptizes with water but Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit. If John 3:5 is linked to this verse, water could refer to baptism (or repentance which John’s baptism is often said to represent).

A Look to the Whole Book

But there’s still a greater context which defines the meaning of water. Water isn’t simply mentioned in these two scenes. It’s used everywhere in John as a metaphor and a symbol.

  • John says three times that he baptizes in water (1:26, 31, 33)
  • Jesus turns water into wine (2:1-10)
  • Jesus says we must be born of water and the spirit (3:5)
  • John baptizes at Aenon near Salim because “there was much water there.” (3:23)
  • Jesus promises the woman by the well living water (4:4-28)
  • The lame man wants to get healed in the troubled waters of Bethesda (5:7)
  • Jesus walks on water (6:19)
  • Jesus invites the thirsty to come to him and drink (7:37-39)
  • Jesus heals blind man in pool of Siloam (9:6-7)
  • Jesus washes his disciples feet (13:4-5)
  • Water flows from Jesus’ side (19:34)

With the exception of John’s baptism and Jesus walk on water, these references do not appear in Matthew, Mark or Luke. They are entirely unique to John.

Each of these scenes plays a crucial role in revealing the water’s intended meaning. John develops this meaning early in his gospel, contrasting water that is used in ritual and tradition with a higher, heavenly water offered in Jesus.

John the Baptist’s Testimony (1:19-34): John says Jesus’ baptism in the Holy Spirit surpasses his baptism in water. Water here is the medium of a traditional ritual of purification. But Jesus’ in a comparative and a contrasting sense baptizes with the Holy Spirit (i.e water from above).

Jesus Wedding Miracle (2:1-11): Jesus’ “water-turned-wine” is better than the choice wine/water which came before. The water which becomes wine is drawn from containers used for ritual purification. Though Jesus could presumably have reused the empty wine jars, he instead has the servants fill six waterpots which John says were “set there for the Jewish custom of purification.” Jesus surpasses this ritual water by transforming it into wine (spirit water) which the headwaiter testifies surpasses the wine that came before.

Jesus Conversation by the Well (4:4-26): Jesus’ living water is greater than Jacob’s well. The well itself is a traditional site analogous to the Samaritan’s worship on the mountain. The woman points to the greatness of the well by pointing to “father” Jacob as the source and user of the water. The word “father” is again used when the topic of conversation moves from well to worship. Just as ‘father” Jacob gave the well, the Samaritan “fathers” had given them worship on the mountain. When Jesus offers the woman living water she responds by asking if he is “greater” than Jacob who gave them the well. Jesus indicates that it is by contrasting the limitations of the well water with the never-ending life-giving water he supplies. His water is “Spirit” like the true worship God seeks.

His Healing by the Pool of Bethesda (5:1-9): Jesus’ healing is greater than the troubled water in the pool of Bethesda. Once again the waters of Bethesda are linked with tradition. While the tradition mentioned in 5:3 may not be original to John, it appears to be in line with John’s repeated use of water. While the man looks to the traditional water to heal him, he is powerless to reach it. Because Jesus reaches the man at his need, His power is revealed to be greater than the stirred water’s of the pool.

Jesus’ Invitation to Drink (7:37-39): Jesus’ “living water” is greater than the feasts water ceremony. Jesus invitation occurs on the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles. On this day the High Priest poured water out in the temple as a symbol of the later day river that would flow from the temple (Ez. 47:1-12; Zech. 14:8). Jesus’ invitation and reference indicates that he is the scriptures true fulfillment. The water here is explicitly connected with the Holy Spirit (John 7:39).

The cumulative effect of these scenes indicates that there’s more than one meaning given to water. Sometimes water is simply a clear physical liquid used for washing, drinking etc. However when associated with Christ, water signifies the Spirit (i.e. “living-water or water from above).

A contrast between two waters (higher and lower) fits within John’s narrative’s dualism. Many of John’s metaphors and symbols have natural polarity. For instance John employees the imagery of light and darkness, life and death, above and below, true and false. Each refers to a separation between tangible world in which we live and the intangible realm of the Spirit. Because it’s immaterial, the world “above” is separate from the world “below.” For instance in John 3:12, Christ distinguishes between “earthly things” and “heavenly things” and in 8:23 He separates Himself from His opponents, stating, “You are from below I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world.” The higher world represents an intangible reality which man cannot perceive. The prologue asserts “No one has seen God at any time” (1:18). Yet, it also goes on to equally claim that Jesus’ physical presence “explained” or “made known” the invisible God (1:14, 18).

Through metaphors and symbols, John constructs a ladder of understanding from the lower physical world to the higher world of the Spirit. A symbol, according to ordinary sense, is “that which represents something else by virtue of an analogical relationship.” H. Levin describes it simply as “a connecting link between two different spheres.” The symbol, “points beyond itself”, and in someway “embodies that which it represents.” Thus, John takes tangible images and infuses them with a higher connotation in order to define the imperceptible world of God.

Water function within this dualism.

Reading John 3:5 in light of its context

Returning to John 3:5 we can see how this repeated contrast between two different waters fits into the phrase “born of water and the Spirit.”

Most interpretations hold that water and Spirit exist as two distinct elements in the process of rebirth. The English word “and” implies two distinct things. This would certainly fit the apparent contrast between the lower water and the Spirit (higher water) in the scenes outlined above. But these scenes also make a comparison between water and Spirit and unlike the English translation, the Greek may suggest that water and Spirit are one thing and not two. C.H. Talbert states,

The construction in Greek is that of two terms joined by “and” (kai) and governed by one preposition. This Greek construction normally points to one act: e.g., Titus 3:5. If two acts were involved, normally two prepositions would occur.

Though Talbert appears confident in this translation, J. Ramsey Michaels counters with a more moderate approach. He states,

The fact that both are governed by a single preposition in Greek suggests that they are one. Yet in 1 John 5:6, the same sort of construction is immediately followed by a singling out of each element with its own preposition and definite article. The decision must therefore be made on other than grammatical grounds.

Given room to maneuver, immediate context points to water symbolizing the Spirit. “Born of water and Spirit” occurs as a reiteration of John 3:3’s phrase “born again”. The word, “again” possess two meanings. Though Nicodemus translates the word as “a second time,” the word also means “from above.” It is this later interpretation, which Jesus seems to intend. Thus Jesus, in John 3:3 and 3:5, speaks of one birth from above. According to the freedom granted by both grammar and context, Jesus tells Nicodemus that he must be “born of water from above, which is the Holy Spirit.”

In Bible, Gospels, Stories
permalink

When Jesus Gave Birth (Part 7)

November 25, 2013 — Leave a comment

As I pointed out in the last post, the Gospel of John’s emphasis on a birth from God points to John’s thematic climax, the cross, as Jesus’ labor for the birth of the believer.  And there’s simply no better picture of birth in this scene than the well-attested allusion to the creation of Eve in the depiction of Jesus’ pierced side  (John 19:34).

Though she comes from the side of a man, Eve’s creation is in fact the first birth recorded in scripture.  Note the implicit twist in the fact that the woman comes out of the man instead of the other way around. Genesis 2:21-22 reads,

So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was asleep, he took part of the man’s side and closed up the place with flesh.  Then the Lord God made a woman from the part he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.  Then the man said, “This one at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one will be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.

The languages of the original readers also indicates they would have understood it this way.  In Hebrew, the imagery of coming from a man is at the heart of several idioms referring to a man’s offspring.

  • the fruit of the man’s belly/womb.  (Deut 28:4, 11, 18, 53, 30:9, Psalms 132:11, Mic 6:7)
  • One who will come fourth from the man’s inward parts  (2 Samuel 7:12, I Chr 17:11)
  • That which comes out from the man’s loins.  (Gen 46:26, Ex 1:5, Judges 8:30, 1 Kings 8:19)

These word-pictures allude to a male parallel to a woman’s labor and delivery, a fact which is somewhat obscured by our English translations.  For instance, the Hebrew word for loins above is not exclusive to men.  It’s the seat of a woman’s labor pains.  And the Hebrew word “belly” has the broader meaning of abdomen which includes the womb.

The LXX, the first translations of the Bible into Greek 200 years before the time of Christ, moved further in this direction.  It rendered “belly” and “inward parts” in the first two examples as koilia, a Greek word which mean’s “hallow” but by extension refers to the abdomen and womb. We might expect than that the translators would have rendered “loins” in the parallel expression of 1 Kings 8:19 in the same way.  Not so.  Instead they translated it as “sides.” (pleura).  This is interesting.  According to the earliest translation of the Hebrew Bible, a man’s child idiomatically comes from his belly, womb, and or sides.  These idiom appear to be linked in no small degree to the “birth” of Eve.

To be continued…

In Bible, Gospels, Stories
permalink

Star Wars, Literary Parallels and the Bible

April 11, 2013 — 1 Comment

Have you noticed how the second Star Wars trilogy (episodes I-III) parallels the first (episodes IV-VI)? Here are a few examples.

A New Hope (IV) and the Phantom Menace (I)

  • Both Luke and Anakin Skywalker leave their family on Tatooine to be trained by Obi-wan as a Jedi.
  • Obi-wan is killed by a Sith lord in front of his apprentice Luke just as Qui Gon is killed by a Sith lord in front of his apprentice Obi-wan
  • Both films climax with Skywalkers (Luke and Anakin) in a space battle in which they blow up the enemy space-station
  • Full cast appears in triumphant award ceremony

The Empire Strikes Back (V) and Attack of the Clones (II)

  • Male leads are separated during “romantic” chapter of the film.
  • Both Boba and Jango Fett follow heros in Slave I through astroid field while heros hide behind an asteroid and escape with the garbage.
  • The first begins with a battle against giant robot walkers and the later ends with battle against giant robot walkers
  • C-3PO is dismantled in a droid factory
  • Both Luke and Anakin Skywalker lose an appendage and get a robotic replacement.

Return of the Jedi (VI) and Revenge of the Sith (III)

  • The original title of Return of the Jedi was Revege of the Jedi
  • The Emperor makes his first real appearance both these films
  • Both Luke and Anakin Skywalker wear a black glove to cover their robotic hands.
  • Luke battles Vader while Palpatine watches just as Anakin battles Dooku while Palpatine watches
  • Luke cuts off Vader’s robotic hand in light saber duel just as Obi wan cuts off Grevous’ robotic hand in the same way
  • Ewoks battle from tree homes on Endor just as Wookies battle from tree homes on Kashyyk
  • Vader unmasked in the former while Vader is masked in the later
  • Ends with funeral

The list of parallels goes on. You can find a more complete list here webpage.  It’s pretty clear that the two Star Wars trilogies were arranged in a parallel a-b-c-a’-b’-c’ pattern.

Parallel Patterns in the Old Testament

I bring this up because I think it’s interesting that at least some people still recognize and value such implicit parallels. For the ancient writer and reader it was no different. These parallels in Star Wars are great illustration of the way the biblical writers structured some of their writings.  Here’s what David Dorsey says in his extremely helpful book the Literary Structure of the Old Testament.

Parallel arrangements are relatively common in the Hebrew Bible. They generally feature two sets (or panels) of units, in which the units of the first set are matched in the same order by those of the first set (a-b-c II a’-b’-c’ or variations).  When a parallel scheme has an odd number of units, the unmatched unit can be placed at the end (a-b-c II a’-b’-c’ II d), center (a-b-c-d-a’-b’-c’), or (more rarely) beginning (a-b-c-d II b’-c’-d’).

Parallelism frequently occurs in Hebrew poetry.  Note for example, the a-b-c II a’-b’-c’ pattern in Psalm 19:1-2 {19:2-3}:

a the heavens

b tell of

c God’s glory

a’ the sky

b’ proclaims

c’ his handiwork

a day by day

b they pour forth

c speech

a’ night by night

b’ they declare

c’ knowledge

The pattern can also be found in larger unites.  For example, the creation story in Genesis 1:1-2:4, although primarily linear (first day, second day, etc.), exhibits a secondary parallel pattern (a-b-c II a’-c’c’ II d):

a light

b sea and sky

c dry land

a’ lights

b’ fish and birds

c’ land animals and humans

d Sabbath

Whole books may likewise be arranged in this way.  The seven parts of Jonah are primarily linear in arrangement (following a chronological order), but also exhibit a secondary parallel pattern (a-b-c II a’-b’-c’ II d):

a Jonah’s commissioning and disobedience (1:1-3)

b Jonah and pagan sailors: Yahweh is merciful (1:4-16)

c Jonah’s response to Yahweh’s mercy: praise (1:17-2:10 {2:1-11})

a’ Jonah’s recommissioning and obedience (3:1-3a)

b’ Jonah and pagan Ninevites: Yahweh is merciful (3:3b-10)

c’ Jonah’s response to Yahweh’s mercy: resentment (4:1-4)

d Yahweh’s lesson (4:5-11)

Parallel Patterns in the New Testament

But its not just in the Old Testament.  I’m fascinated by the way the Gospel writers conveyed meaning through the arrangement of there parts.  Here’s one very significant example.

We all know that Luke begins his story with two annunciation scenes.  But did you know that Luke uses parallels to arrange them in a meaningful structure.  Look at this:

a Description of Zacharias and his situation (1:5-10)

b Angel’s message to Zacharias (1:11-22)

c Zacharias returns home and Elizabeth reacts to the news (1:23-25)

a’ Description of Mary and her situation (1:26-27)

b’ The Angel’s message to Mary (1:28-38)

c’ Mary goes to Zacharias’ home and Elizabeth reacts to the news (1:39-

d Mary’s sings a song

When we miss the pattern we miss some of the message that Luke’s attempting to convey.  And the same goes for other patterns in the New Testament.  For more on how Luke uses this parallel pattern to convey meaning check out these two posts: What Happens When You’re Filled with the Spirit and Why God Shut Zachariah’s Mouth.

In Bible, Culture, Film, Gospels
permalink