Lois Tverberg

Having a Single Eye

Lois Tverberg

by Lois Tverberg

Have a Single Eye 1The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. Matthew 6:22-23 KJV

What does Jesus mean in the strange passage above when he refers to having “a single eye”? Figures of speech in other documents from that time help illuminate Jesus’ puzzling words. Several idioms that mentioned the “eye” were about a person’s attitude toward others. A person who possessed a “good eye” was generous toward others, and a person with a “bad eye” was stingy and self-centered.

It has been suggested that Jesus was referring to having a “good eye,” but the Greek in the passage actually does not say “good” (kalos), rather it says “single” (haplous).

In fact, being “single” is not an uncommon idiom in that time, however, not in the precise sense we understand it today. Throughout the New Testament the idea of “singleness” (haplotes) is used to mean “sincere” or “undivided,” often in exhortations to have a “single heart” (See 2 Cor. 1:12, 11:3, Eph. 6:5, Col. 3:22). Sincerity and lack of duplicity seems to be the idea of the following passage:

The good man has not an eye of darkness that cannot see; for he shows mercy to all men, sinners though they may be, and though they may plot his ruin.…His good mind will not let him speak with two tongues, one of blessing and one of cursing, one of insult and one of compliment, one of sorrow and one of joy, one of hypocrisy and one of truth, one of poverty and one of wealth; but it has a single disposition only, simple and pure, that says the same thing to everyone. (1)

This passage describes a man’s “eye” in terms of his caring for the needs of others, and contrasts an “eye of darkness” to a disposition of “singleness”. The contrast seems to be between pretending to care about others with an inward attitude of self-advancement and of having a genuine concern for others, without hidden motives.

And, we do actually find the idiom of having a “single eye” in Jesus’ time too:

I never slandered anyone, nor did I censure the life of any man, walking as I did in singleness of eye (3:4)… And now hearken to me, my children, and walk in singleness of heart….The single [minded] man covets not gold.…There is no envy in his thoughts, nor [does he] worry with insatiable desire in his mind. For he walks in singleness, and beholds all things in uprightness of heart….Keep, therefore, my children, the law of God, and attain singleness…(2)

Here, the idea of “singleness” was associated with a freedom from envy of money. “Singleness” in this passage refers to a person of sincerity who does not have a secret agenda of self-advancement. This translates into a lack of covetousness and greed.

Now Jesus’ words in Matthew 6:22-23 gain more clarity in their context. Jesus seems to be talking about our attitude towards others. Do we have a simple desire to serve God by caring for the needs of others? Or are we insincere people who are self-centered and serving our own agenda? If all we recognize is our own needs, we are blind indeed.

To explore this topic more, see chapter 5, “Gaining a Good Eye” in Walking in the Dust of Rabbi Jesus, Zondervan, 2012, p 69-80.

(1) Testament of Benjamin 4:2-3 The Testament of Benjamin is of the body of literature called the “pseudepigrapha” — Jewish writings from 200 B.C. to 200 A.D. that are not canonical, but are helpful for showing the cultural expressions and religious understandings of that time.

(2) Testament of Issachar, 3:4, 4:1-2, 5-6; 5:1 Also from the pseudepigrapha.

For more this, see the article, “If Your Eye Be Single” by Steven Notley at www.jerusalemperspective.com.

Photo: Vladimer Shioshvili and Marc Baronnet

Atoning for the Nation

Lois Tverberg

by Lois Tverberg

Atoning for the NationFrom that time Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day. Matthew 16:21

When modern Jews and Christians discuss the role of the Messiah, Christians often bring up the idea that he would atone for the sins of his people. Jews protest, and often say that there is no idea that the death of one person can atone for the sins of others in Judaism.

Are Christians reading the New Testament through the eyes of a later, foreign theology? If we look at 2 Maccabees, which describes the Maccabean revolt in 172 BC, we find a surprising insight. 1 There we find a story about a Jewish woman and her seven sons who refused to publicly reject their faith in God, and each of the brothers is tortured to death for his faith. These are the final words of the last brother to the emperor who is persecuting them:

For our brothers after enduring a brief suffering have drunk of everflowing life under God’s covenant; but you, by the judgment of God, will receive just punishment for your arrogance. I, like my brothers, give up body and life for the laws of our fathers, appealing to God to show mercy soon to our nation and by afflictions and plagues to make you confess that he alone is God, and through me and my brothers to bring to an end the wrath of the Almighty which has justly fallen on our whole nation.
(2 Maccabees 7:36-38)

The last line here is quite fascinating. The speaker expected that somehow, through the suffering of himself and his brothers, they would bring about God’s forgiveness of their nation. Likely he is thinking of Isaiah 53 that talks about the suffering servant whose death atones for the nation.

The next chapter describes the Maccabean revolt and relays how they prayed that God would remember all the suffering of the Jews who had tried to be faithful to his laws yet were murdered in spite of it. We read,

“As soon as Maccabeus got his army organized, the Gentiles could not withstand him, for the wrath of the Lord had turned to mercy.” (2 Maccabees 8:5)

The text implies that the suffering of the seven brothers and others was indeed effective. It had caused God to forgive his people and come to their aid, allowing them to regain control of the Temple. This victory, celebrated in Jesus’ time as the “Feast of Dedication,” today is celebrated as Hanukkah. This helps us better understand the passage in John:

At that time the Feast of the Dedication took place at Jerusalem; it was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple in the portico of Solomon. The Jews then gathered around Him, and were saying to Him, “How long will You keep us in suspense? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly.” (John 10:22-24)

Knowing more about the Maccabean victory helps us understand why people were questioning Jesus about whether he was the Messiah or not. At this celebration they would be mindful of the events of generations before, when they were being persecuted by the Greeks for their faith. This time the Jewish nation was undergoing great suffering at the hands of the Romans, and they wondered if Jesus was going to end God’s wrath and deliver them from that too.

It also helps us understand why the first question that the disciples asked the risen Christ was, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6) If the Maccabees had gained victory because of the death of a few of the faithful, how much more did they expect that if the Messiah had come and suffered and died for his people, and God had raised him from the dead, the final victory was certainly at hand.

They didn’t understand yet that God’s victory through the atonement of Christ would not only be for their nation, but for a kingdom that would reach the whole world, purchasing eternal life for all who believed.

1 The books of 1 and 2 Maccabees are from the apocrypha, a group of texts that are not included in either the Jewish or Protestant canons of Scripture, although they are included in the Catholic Bible. Whether or not one believes they are inspired, they are often very helpful in understanding the context of Jesus because many of them were written shortly before his time and reflect the Jewish thinking of his day.

Photo: Saint Catherine’s Monastery in Sinai  and Chenspec

Learning from God’s Laws for Animals

Lois Tverberg

by Lois Tverberg

Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father.  (Matthew 10:29)

Learning Frm Creation1Frequently Jesus speaks about how God deals with people by using animals as an example. God watches over the sparrow (10:29) and provides for the ravens (Luke 12:24). So wouldn’t he watch over us too?

When Paul argues that preachers deserve to be supported by the church, he quotes the law not to muzzle an ox as it treads out the grain, and then assumes that it applies even more to people. (1 Cor. 9:9, 1 Tim 5:18).

How is it logical to infer that any law that applies to animals applies to people? A passage in the Mishnah points out the Scriptural basis:

Have you ever seen a wild beast or a bird who has a trade? Yet they get along without difficulty. And were they not created only to serve me (a human)? And I was created to serve my Master, God. So is it not logical that I should get along without difficulty? But I have done evil and forfeited my right to sustenance without difficulty. Simeon ben Eleazar, Mishnah, Kiddushim 4:14

This rabbi points out that in Genesis 1:26, humans were created to serve God. But they were also made in God’s image to reign over creation, so just as a king’s subjects are his “servants,” animals are man’s “servants.” If God gives a rule for how our animal “servants” should be treated, how much more should it apply to human beings.

Learning from Creation 2

Jesus uses this same logic in his ruling about healing the woman on the Sabbath. Many laws in the Torah sought to prevent distress to animals, like not yoking together two different animals (Dt 22:10), and letting animals rest on the Sabbath (Dt 5:14). They included even waving a mother bird away from a nest if you took the eggs or chicks to eat! (Dt 22:6) From this, the rabbis inferred that God was teaching the principle of Tzar Baalei Hayim, which means to “prevent suffering to living things.”

From this they made special rulings to prevent distress to animals. Even though it was forbidden to untie a donkey on the Sabbath to do any work, taking the donkey to get a drink was permitted, to alleviate its thirst. Likewise, an animal that falls into a pit could wait until the next day to be rescued, but to prevent its distress, the owner was allowed to do work not normally allowed on the day.

Jesus Uses Rabbinic Logic

Jesus was using rabbinic logic in Luke 13:15-16 to say that if some Sabbath laws can be set aside for the prevention of distress to animals, how much more can they be set aside to prevent distress to humans.

Doesn’t each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or donkey from the stall and lead it out to give it water? Then should not this woman, a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has kept bound for eighteen long years, be set free on the Sabbath day from what bound her?  (Luke 13:15-16)

We hear the “how much more” comparison when he points out that an animal can be untied to be led to water to prevent its thirst on the Sabbath, how much more should a human be released from suffering, and even more, a “daughter of Abraham,” one of God’s chosen people. He’s taking the laws that consider distress of animals and expanding them to apply to humans too.

In the past, Christians have assumed that Jesus broke with Judaism in his interpretation of the Law. But here we see Jesus employing the same logic and interpretive principles as other rabbis of his day—and building upon them to bring them to the highest level.

Photo: Laitche and trialsanderrors

Eager to Please

Lois Tverberg

by Lois Tverberg

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied. Matthew 5:6

The Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7 is lovely, but you have to admit that it’s also a challenge. He tells us to “turn the other cheek” and tightens up many laws, pointing out that anger is as bad as murder, and that lust is as bad as adultery. Why does he do this?

Some have thought that Jesus’ goal was to show that God’s standards are impossibly high, so we should give up on trying to do the right thing and instead trust in God’s forgiveness in Christ.

There is another possibility though. Jesus may have been preaching on the Jewish idea of hasidut – (hah-see-DOOT), a later rabbinic term which is often translated “piety.” It means to walk intimately with God and live entirely to serve him. It means to eagerly obey God out of love, asking the question, “What more can I do to please you?”

Jesus begins the Sermon on the Mount with the Beatitudes, which describe what it is like to be a true hasid (hah-SEED), a “pious one.” They are hungry and thirsty to do God’s will, and greatly desire to see God use them to accomplish his mission on earth. They are peace-makers, meek and merciful, and they are pure in heart, earnestly avoiding sin.

Part of the idea of hasidut was that a hasid would go far out of his way to avoid sin, for fear of grieving God’s spirit and breaking the communion he has with God. As a result, the person tightened his own standards and lived beyond the minimum, to make sure he is within God’s will.

Throughout the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus urges us to ask what is the maximum we can do to please God, not what is the minimum required by the Law. So great should our love for God be that we’d tear out our eyes rather than be led away from him by sin. We should be persons of such honesty that we never need to take a vow—our yes is always yes, and our no, always no. We don’t just love our friends, we love even those who are hateful. This should be our goal, even if we aren’t that way right now.

A modern orthodox Jewish commentary describes hasidut this way:

The hasid is one who goes beyond the letter of the law in his service of G-d. He does not do only what he is told, but he looks for ways to fulfill G-d’s will. This requires intelligence and planning; one must anticipate just what G-d wants of him and how he can best use his own talents in service of his Creator. As we also saw, this was in direct contrast to the mock-piety—fasting, wailing, rolling in the snow, etc…. G-d has no interest in senseless service—that we do things just because they’re hard (and get us a lot of notice). Piety is not doing things which hurt. It is careful, planned and responsible service of G-d. We are not to sacrifice ourselves for G-d with self-destructive acts of devotion; we are to live for Him—as responsible, thinking beings who make intelligent choices in our religious service. We are to maximize our potential—and to use that potential in service of our Creator.1

Jesus’ words are a description of what our goal is to become as followers of him. As we grow closer, our desire is to have nothing come between us. And the first thing that we pursue is God’s will, not our own.

1Adapted from http://www.torah.org/learning/pirkei-avos/chapter2-10and11c.html. (The reason that some Jews spell the word “God” with a hyphen is out of reverence, to not lightly use the holy name of God. This itself is an example of piety*—*hasidut.) See Bivin, *New Light on the Difficult Words of Jesus*, pp.55-58, (En-Gedi, 2005).

The idea of *hasidut* is explained in more depth in an excellent talk called, “Jesus, the Sin-Fearer” by David Pileggi, as part of the *Insights into Jesus of Nazareth DVD Series*. See also page 174 of *Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus*, in the chapter called “Jesus and the Torah.”

Photo by Ben White on Unsplash

Aiming for Perfection

Lois Tverberg

by Lois Tverberg

For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses [goes beyond] that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven…You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.” But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven;…You are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. Matthew 5:20, 43-45, 48

Jesus gives one of his most challenging teachings in the Sermon on the Mount. He frames it at both the beginning and the end with an exhortation to perfection. He says that those who do and teach others to do even the least of God’s commands will be called “great” in his kingdom. And then he says that “unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees” you are not a part of God’s kingdom. He continues by stating several rulings about divorce, anger and lust that each go beyond the laws of the day, and then ends with words about aiming to be perfect, like God himself.

Many people read this passage as saying that these are the qualifications for earning your way to heaven, and an extremely tough list of rules to follow. It’s easy to be overwhelmed by this interpretation.

It’s important to understand that the phrase “enter the kingdom of heaven” is idiomatic, not meaning “go to heaven when you die.” It means to be a part of God’s redemptive reign on earth right now—to live with God on the throne of your life and do his will. Rabbis from Jesus’ day used the phrase “kingdom of heaven” frequently in this way, and his Jewish context allows us to unlock this passage. Jesus is describing how to do God’s will, not how to earn your way to heaven. Our salvation is based on Jesus’ atonement for our sins and the trust we place in him, not that we “earn our way.”

Another thing that can help us understand this passage is insight on the difficult line: “unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees.” The verse sounds competitive – as if we are trying to beat certain people in their strict observance of regulations. But it’s likely that the idea of the phrase about “surpassing the scribes and Pharisees” is not about them as people, but about them as interpreters of the law. The passage isn’t about outperforming them in one’s stringent piety, but about seeking to do God’s will beyond the official interpretation of the law.

The word that we translate “surpass” is from the Greek word “perissos”, meaning “to abound, overflow, exceed.” One translation says “Unless your righteousness goes beyond that of the experts in the law…” (NET Bible).

We can interpret this line as, “do more than what the finest interpreters of the law say that you must do.” Then it fits the rest of the passage where Jesus points out various minimums set in the law, and instructs his disciples to go beyond that. The law says “don’t kill” but you should try not to even stay angry. The law says, “don’t commit adultery” but you should even avoid lust. Not only should you not seek revenge against your enemies, you should find ways to show them the love of God. Loan them money, carry their burdens. Anything.

This whole passage is not so much about a list of toughened rules, but about encouraging us to change where our aim is. It is easy to look for what is the minimum so that you can just do that. But in every case Jesus is saying, “Don’t live by the minimum!” Don’t say to yourself, as long as I don’t commit adultery, it’s fine to lust. Don’t say that as long as I don’t kill someone, I can be furious with them. If you want to be a part of God’s redemptive kingdom on earth, don’t ask how little you can do, but ask how much you can do, to please your Father in heaven.

~~~~

SittingTo explore this topic more, see chapter 12, “Jesus and the Torah” in Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus, Zondervan, 2009, p. 163-179.

The Logic of Sabbath

Lois Tverberg

by Lois Tverberg

Doesn’t each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or donkey from the stall and lead it out to give it water? Then should not this woman, a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has kept bound for eighteen long years, be set free on the Sabbath day from what bound her?” Luke 13:15-16

Historically, many Christians have misinterpreted Jesus’ teachings about Sabbath, reading them as an annulment of all Jewish law. Without knowing the context of his words, we can’t know the debates going at the time and how Jesus’ words fit in.

First, many underestimate the importance and holiness of the Sabbath in God’s covenant with the nation of Israel. It was called a “sign” of the covenant, a weekly day to honor the entire covenant. Breaking it was punishable by death according to the Scriptures (Ex. 31:14-16), because doing so was considered a rejection of the entire agreement God had made with his people. Often Jesus himself did not heal on the Sabbath, but waited until after sunset, when the day officially ended.

donkeys

In Jesus’ time there was a strong emphasis on keeping the Sabbath as devotedly as possible, because only a few hundred years earlier the Jews had been exiled from their land due to their disobedience to God’s laws. Therefore the Jewish people took special care to outline what activities constituted “work,” so that they could avoid them and fully rest on the Sabbath. “Work” included untying animals to take them out to plow, since animals were supposed to rest on the Sabbath too. Certain types of healing activities were proscribed also, because they involved grinding herbs or other actions not allowed on the Sabbath. People with long-term illnesses simply endured them through the day.

While strict adherence to the Sabbath was valued, the early rabbis ruled that some situations warranted an override of Sabbath regulations. If human life was in danger, all rules against working would be set aside for the reason of “pikuah nephesh” — to save life. Also, some rules were set aside out of compassion for animals, so they wouldn’t suffer from not being fed or taken out for water. This was called tzar baalei hayim—preventing suffering to living things.

Jesus seems to be using the logic of tzar baalei hayim in his statement about healing the woman. It was not a life-or-death need that she be healed that day, but she had suffered for 18 years. If an animal can be untied to be led to water to prevent its suffering thirst, shouldn’t she be “unbound” too?

Interestingly, the one “breaking” the Sabbath was not Jesus in this case—he merely prayed for her healing, which wouldn’t have been prohibited by anyone. Those who protested even this prayer would have been seen as extreme by the rest of the rabbinic community too. According to Jesus’ logic, the one who did the “unbinding” was God himself! So contrary to popular belief, Jesus was working within the rules, not negating them, and showing how God longs to take every opportunity to show compassion for the suffering of his people.

~~~~

To explore this topic more, see chapter 10, “Thinking with Both Hands” in Walking in the Dust of Rabbi Jesus, Zondervan, 2012, p 130-42.

Fulfilling the Law

Lois Tverberg

by Lois Tverberg

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:17-19

Why does Jesus speak about “fulfilling the Law”? He does not mean “annul it” as many have said. The phrase “to fulfill the Law” means “doing exactly what God wants” in other places in the New Testament and rabbinic writings too.1

David Bivin says that the phrase “fulfill the Law” was also used as an idiom that meant to “interpret the Torah correctly.” The Hebrew word for “fulfill” that Jesus would have used when speaking is kayem (KAI-yem) which literally means, “to uphold” or “to establish,” as well as “to fulfill.” 2  In the Mishnah, it is actually used both ways. It can mean to describe teaching the Torah in the sense of confirming, explaining, or interpreting correctly, but it also can mean to carry out and obey, to actually do what the law commands says. Sometimes it carries both ideas—to interpret the Torah in order to follow it correctly. Here are some examples of the variety of usages:

“If this is how you act, you have never in your whole life fulfilled (kayem) the religious requirement of dwelling in a sukkah!'” Sukkot 2:7 (One rabbi is criticising another’s interpretation of the Torah, which caused him not to do what it really says.)

R. Yonatan says, “Whoever keeps (kayem) the Torah when poor will in the end keep it in wealth. And whoever treats the Torah as nothing when he is wealthy in the end will treat it as nothing in poverty.” Avot 4:9 (Here it means “to obey” – definitely the opposite of “fulfill in order to do away with.”)

R. Nehorai says, “Go into exile to a place of Torah, and do not suppose that it will come to you. For your fellow disciples will make it solid (kayem) in your hand. And on your own understanding do not rely.” Avot 4:14 (Here it means to explain it and fill it with meaning.)

Fulfilling the Law 2

We can see from these passages that when used of the Torah, the word “fulfill” means to interpret God’s word correctly, and also to live it out. This is key to understanding Matthew 5:17-19:

(17) Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. … (19) Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Verse 19 parallels and expands on verse 17. “Fulfill” in vs. 17 is a parallel to both of the two words “practice” and “teach” in vs. 19, which makes sense with how the rabbis used the word. The words “break” and “teaches others to break” is the sense of the word “abolish” in Matthew 5:17.

Likely, Jesus’ opponents had accused him of misinterpreting the Scriptures. But here he emphatically states that his goal was to explain God’s word and obey it fully, so that we can understand how God wants us to live. All who are in his kingdom are likewise called to imitate him in obeying God’s laws, and to correctly teach others to live like him too.

To explore this topic more, see chapter 12, “Jesus and the Torah” in Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus, Zondervan, 2009, p. 163-179.

1 See “Love is the Fulfillment of the Law.”

2 David Bivin, New Light on the Difficult Words of Jesus (En-Gedi, 2005), p 93-94.

Photo: Sergei Mikhailovich Prokudin-Gorskii Collection

Together Again

Lois Tverberg

by Lois Tverberg

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” (Matthew 19:3-6)

Sometimes we can better understand Jesus’ teaching when we recognize how he and others of his time read the Scriptures. Oftentimes, this may not be the same way we read them. One example is in the teaching of Jesus’ on marriage. When asked about whether divorce should be permitted for any reason, he quotes Genesis 1:27: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” To us, this verse doesn’t obviously connect to marriage, and also doesn’t relate to his quotation from Genesis 2:24, that a man will leave his parents and be joined to his wife.

However, when we examine how Jews at that time understood the creation of Adam and Eve, a connection begins to emerge. Genesis mentions the creation of mankind twice. In Genesis 1:26-27 it says:

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

Later, Genesis 2 describes how God formed the man from the dust of the ground and then later formed the woman. At first these two creation accounts seem to disagree. Were both male and female created at the same time, as in 1:27, or was the man formed first and the woman afterward, as in chapter 2?

From before Jesus’ time, it was believed that when God first formed the human, he somehow molded both man and woman together in that person. Then, Eve was taken out of Adam since she existed before then too. The verse in chapter 1 that states that God created them “male and female” was understood to mean that each original human was both male and female.

While this seems like a stretch, the Hebrew text supports this in several ways. Before the creation of the woman, Adam is never referred to as a “man” but as ha’adam which means “the human.” It is only after Adam names Eve as ishah, “woman,” that he is referred to as ish, “man.” Also, when God “operates” on Adam, he takes out tzela echad—literally “one side” of him. The translation of tzela as “rib” occurs only here—everywhere else it refers to one “side” of something, like when poles were inserted each of the two sides of the ark in Exodus 37:3. A better description of the scene is that somehow God split Adam in half, and the other half was Eve. They perfectly complemented each other, because they were once one person.

If Jesus read Genesis 1:27 this way, it explains why he used the phrase that God “made them male and female,”  to address God’s intentions for marriage. By connecting this verse to “for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh,” Jesus creates a beautiful picture: that in marriage, a man and woman are reunited into one complete person, because that was how they were originally created in the first place.

Part of the beauty of the image is that the Hebrew verb in this line, dabaq, which is translated as “is united,” “cleaves,” or “clings” also refers to romantic love. After the prince of Shechem seduced Jacob’s daughter Dinah, he desperately wanted to marry her. Genesis 34:3 says that he “dabaq” (was deeply attracted to) her. He had fallen in love with her.

Putting all these ideas together within Jesus’ words, we find him saying that because God took apart one whole being to make Adam and Eve, that is the reason why men and women fall in love and want to become one being once again, both physically and spiritually. When they are united in marriage, God himself puts together what he separated at first, and no one should try to tear that apart.

Photos: Fred Moon on Unsplash,  Foto Pettine on Unsplash

Together Again

Lois Tverberg

by Lois Tverberg

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” – Matthew 19:3-6

Sometimes we can have a much better understanding of Jesus’ teaching when we see how he and others of his time read the Scriptures, which may not be the same as how we do. One example is in the teaching of Jesus’ on marriage. When asked about whether divorce for any reason is OK, he quoted Genesis 1:27, which says, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” In our way of reading this verse, it doesn’t have any connection to marriage, and also doesn’t relate to his quotation from Genesis 2:24 that a man will leave his parents and be joined to his wife.

Knowing more about the way the creation of Adam and Eve was understood in Jesus’ time will help us. Twice in Genesis it mentions the creation of mankind – first in Genesis 1:26-27:

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

Together AgainThen, later, in Genesis 2, it says that God formed the man from the dust of the ground and then describes how woman was taken out of the first man. At first, these two creation accounts seem to be in disagreement – were both male and female created at the same time, as in 1:27, or was the man formed first and the woman later, as in chapter 2?

The solution might initially seem fantastic, but is supported by the text in several places. From before Jesus’ time, it was understood that when God first formed the human, he somehow put both man and woman together in that person. Then, when Eve was taken out of Adam, it was because she existed before then too. The verse in chapter one that that says that God created them “male and female” was read to mean that each original human was both male and female.

While this seems like a stretch, there are several other ways the text supports this. First, the word adam is a neutral term for human, and before the creation of the woman, Adam is never referred to as a “man” – always as ha’adam which means “the human.” It is only after Adam names Eve as ishah, woman, that he is referred to as ish, man.

Also, when God “operates” on Adam, he takes out tzela echad – literally one side of him. The translation of tzela as “rib” occurs only here – everywhere else it refers to one “side” of something, like when poles were inserted each of the two sides of the ark in Exodus 37:3. A better way to describe the scene is that somehow God split Adam in half, and the other half was Eve, and they perfectly complemented each other, because they were once one person.

Looking again at Jesus’ words, if he read Genesis 1:27 the same way that other rabbis did, it explains why Jesus would use this verse in terms of God’s intentions for marriage. Jesus is painting a beautiful picture when he connect that verse to “for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” Here the image is that in marriage, a man and woman are reunited back together into one complete person because somehow they were originally made together in the first place.

Part of the beauty of the image is in the Hebrew word dabaq, which is translated as “be united,” “cleave to,” “cling to,” or “hold fast.” Delightfully, the word can also mean “to fall in love with”! Genesis 34:3 says that Shechem dabaq Dinah, which is translated “was deeply attracted to her.” Also, 1 Kings 11:2 says that Solomon dabaq (clung to) his foreign wives in love.

Putting this together, Jesus is saying that because God took apart one whole being to make Adam and Eve, that is the reason why men and women fall in love and want to become one being once again, both physically and spiritually. When they are united in marriage, God himself puts together what he separated at first, and no one should try to tear that apart.

Photo: Joseph Mischyshyn

Why All the Woes?

Lois Tverberg

by Lois Tverberg

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean.” Matthew 23:27

Why All Woes?

Jesus confronts the Pharisees many times in the Gospels, so many assume that entire group was corrupt. It may surprise you to know that Jesus’ theology and teaching style was actually very similar to theirs. The Pharisees were a movement among laypeople eager to study God’s word and apply it to their lives, and later many of them became followers of Jesus. From their passion for study they raised up rabbis who traveled the land to teach, just as Jesus did.

When we read Jesus’ seven statements of “Woe to you” it is hard to conclude that there was anything redeemable about the bunch. But believe it or not, the Pharisees were known for their own self-critical sayings that closely paralleled Jesus’ words. They used to talk about both good and bad kinds of Pharisees:

There are seven kinds of Pharisees: the “shoulder” Pharisee, who ostentatiously carries his good deeds on his shoulder so all can see them; the “wait-a-moment” Pharisee, who wants you to wait while he performs a mitzvah (good deed); the bruised Pharisee, who runs into a wall while looking at the ground to avoid seeing a woman; the “reckoning” Pharisee, who commits a sin, then does a good deed and balances the one against the other; the “pestle” Pharisee, whose head is bowed in false humility, like a pestle in a mortar; the Pharisee who asks, “What is my duty, so that I may do it?” as if he thought he had fulfilled every obligation already; the Pharisee from fear, like Job; and the Pharisee from love – like Abraham.

This passage reveals that the Pharisaic movement practiced its own honest self-examination and could see that some in their ranks had fallen into error. They list character flaws very similar to those that Jesus criticized—pride, hypocrisy, and legalism. But still they describe at least one type of Pharisee that is good— one who obeys God’s word simply out of love for him.

Several commentators have suggested that Jesus’ statements might be more like the “seven kinds” saying in another way. They suggest that instead of Jesus accusing every person in the group of the sins he names, each “woe” is is pointed at only the people are falling into those sins. Instead of saying “Woe to all of you – you’re all greedy, legalistic, and hypocritical” he was saying something like, “Woe to you who are greedy, and woe to you who are legalistic, and you who are hypocritical!” Rather than condemning the whole group, he’s pointing out the errors that the group could fall into, just as the rabbis did.

It is easy for us to read these passages smugly, as if only the foolish Pharisees could ever have fallen into these problems. Instead, we should see the sayings of Jesus and the rabbis as wise words to anyone who yearns to obey God. Taking this difficult path leads to many temptations—like slipping into pride, or legalism, or hypocrisy. We also should examine our rationale. Is the reason we are aiming for obedience because we’re terrified by what God will do to us if we don’t do everything perfectly? The only reason we should follow God’s laws is out of love for him, not for any other.

To explore this topic more, see Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus, Zondervan, 2009.

Article photo: Brooklyn Museum