Lord’s Prayer, Booting the Quartos, Sabbath as Eden

1. Source: David Flusser, “Psalms, Hymns, and Prayers,” Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period, ed. Michael E. Stone (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) 560-561.

“Of special interest is line 11b-12a: ‘Do not bring me into difficulties insurmountable for me; keep me far from the sins of my youth.’ This does not only resemble the rabbinic prayers of the apotropaic type, but also the last sentence of the Lord’s prayer: ‘And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil’ (Matt. 6:13; cf. Luke 11:4 and see especially Luke 10:13).”

Flusser is referring to the Syriac Psalms, whose Hebrew originals he places at Qumran. I don’t know much about this topic, but I’ve heard that Flusser sort of has a thing for hypothetical Hebrew originals. He believes that the New Testament was originally in Hebrew.

“Lead us not into temptation.” When I lived in New York, I attended the New York Metro Adventist Forum, which is a liberal Seventh-Day Adventist group. A lady there asked me what “Lead us not into temptation” means. For her, it was a pretty problematic statement. We actually have to ask God to lead us not into temptation? Why would he lead us into it in the first place? God is good, right?

To be honest, I’m still not sure how to answer her question. On the one hand, there are clear passages denying that God tempts people to sin. James 1:13 affirms, for example, that “God cannot be tempted by evil and he himself tempts no one” (NRSV). On the other hand, there are other passages in which God seems to lead people into sin. God hardens Pharaoh’s heart (Exodus 4:21 et al). He incites David to conduct a census (II Samuel 24:1). He sends a lying spirit to deceive King Ahab (I Kings 22). God also tests his people, for Deuteronomy 13:3 states that God uses idolatrous prophets to put Israel to the test. Does God lead people into temptation? Maybe so.

A blogger who wrestles with this issue is Ryan, a conservative Christian who comments here every now and then. In one of his blogs, Ryan’s Notes From God’s Word, he has a post: “Difficult Passages: Do 2 Sam 24:1 and 1 Chron 21:1 Contradict?” Ryan’s argument seems to be that God may lead into temptation those who are already sinful and unrepentant. For example, Pharaoh was a jerk before God hardened his heart. So God may harden people’s heart in judgment of their sins, as Isaiah 6:9-10 appears to indicate.

Another point: the Lord’s prayer may be based on previous Jewish ideas. If I’m not mistaken, I’ve read things in Ben Sira about God not tempting people (although I also vaguely recall an acknowledgement in that book that God hardens people’s hearts). And Ben Sira 29:2-5 says that God will only forgive those who forgive others, an idea that appears in the Lord’s prayer.

Some may say that Jesus’ command to love your enemies was revolutionary. On some level, it was. The Qumran community didn’t really follow that idea. But the concept does appear in the Hebrew Bible. An Israelite was to return the lost ass of one who hated him (Exodus 23:5). And Proverbs 21:25 says, “If your enemies are hungry, give them bread to eat; and if they are thirsty, give them water to drink.”

Maybe Jesus was preaching new stuff, but he proclaimed old truths as well.

2. Source: Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume II: Ante-Nicene Christianity (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1910) 217.

“Victor turned a deaf ear to this remonstrance, branded the Asiatics as heretics, and threatened to excommunicate them. But many of the Eastern bishops, and even Irenaeus, in the name of the Gallic Christians, though he agreed with Victor on the disputed point, earnestly reproved with for such arrogance, and reminded him of the more Christian and brotherly conduct of his predecessors…who sent the eucharist to their dissenting brethren.”

Schaff is discussing the Quartodeciman controversy, which occurred in the second century and concerned a question of the festival calendar: will the church observe Easter Sunday, as Rome desired? Or would it commemorate Jesus’ death on the Jewish Passover, as many Christians in Asia Minor did? Victor excommunicated the Asiatics who observed the Passover.

I’m surprised that Irenaeus challenged the pope. One thing I don’t know is this: How much power do Catholics think the pope has? Sometimes, they talk like the pope has ultimate authority on faith and practice. God tells Peter in Matthew 16:19, after all, that Peter has authority to bind and loose, and there are Catholics who read Acts 15 to mean that the church had to accept the Gentiles after Peter gave his little speech, since Peter was pope.

At the same time, they don’t exactly treat Peter or subsequent popes as infallible. They recognize that Paul challenged Peter’s alienation of the Gentiles in Galatians 2, and they acknowledge there were corrupt popes in history. If memory serves me correctly, they usually address this by saying that these were mere foibles. In matters of faith and practice, however, God will guide the pope to make the right decision.

But, here, we see a pope exercising his authority to excommunicate, and a church father tells him that he’s not acting very Christian. Maybe Irenaeus respected Victor’s authority and decision, but he didn’t think it corresponded with how Jesus would handle the situation. For Irenaeus, Jesus would still treat the Asiatics as brethren, rather than excommunicating them.

3. Jacob Neusner, Judaism’s Story of Creation: Scripture, Halakhah, Aggadah (Boston: Brill, 2000) 40.

“The household on the Sabbath recapitulates Eden…”

Neusner may be discussing the rabbinic rules for the table, and how they treated a meal like a mini-temple service. I’m intrigued by his statement that the Sabbath recapitulates Eden. In a sense, I’ve felt that way when I have gone to Jewish Sabbath services: it’s an atmosphere of peace and relaxation, in which God seems to be present. In a world of continual chaos, it’s good to have a mini-Eden in the week.

I wonder, however, if the rabbinic rules of the Sabbath are conducive to this or not. We read in the New Testament that Jesus was critical of Pharisaic regulations regarding the Sabbath, since he believed that they subordinated human well-being to a day (e.g., Mark 2:27). But there are Jews who have argued that such rules are designed to protect the peace and sanctity of the Sabbath. Maybe they do. Maybe they don’t. Personally, I wouldn’t be too at peace if I had to worry about rules about a Sabbath days’ journey, or what technically constitutes work, etc.

Canon and Ben Sira

Source: M. Gilbert, “Wisdom Literature,” Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period, ed. Michael E. Stone (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) 300.

On Ben Sira:

“In the first century C.E. the book continued to circulate, as at Masada and Qumran. But nothing is known about the use made of it or the interpretation it was given in Judaism. There is no trace of its canonicity being debated at the synod of Jamnia (Yavneh) at the end of the century. One even has the impression that no objections were raised to its not being part of the Jewish canon of scripture. The opinion of Rabbi Akiba (d. after 135 C.E.) is of great importance. According to P.T. Sanhedrin 10, 28a, Akiba held that the book of Ben Sira was one of the ‘exterior books, the reading of which excludes from the world to come.’ According to Moore, the ‘exterior books’ would be the equivalent of ‘the books of the minim’, meaning those of heretics, as can be seen from B.T. Sanhedrin 100b, and probably according to T. Yadaim 2:13, Christian books. But Ginsberg has shown that ‘exterior books’ are simply ‘books which are not part of the canon of scripture’. According to Rabbi Akiba, they could not be used for public reading or for school instruction. But Ben Sira could be read in private. And the many quotations from it given by the Tannaim and the Amoraim show that it was highly esteemed.”

Ben Sira may have considered himself divinely-inspired. In Sirach 24:33, he says that he will, “pour out teaching like prophecy, and leave it to all future generations” (NRSV).

I’m not sure why some believed he belonged in the biblical canon, or why others did not. I’ve learned at least one thing from my study of the deutero-canonical writings: the post-apostolic fathers disagreed about the status of what Protestants call the “apocrypha.” And scholars usually seek ideological reasons that Jews rejected the deutero-canonical writings: Ben Sira, for example, doesn’t believe in an afterlife.

But there are books that made it into the Jewish canon, and they don’t really believe in an afterlife either. Job is one example. Ecclesiastes is another. And, as we saw in Uninspired Canonical Books?, rabbis debated about Ecclesiastes’ inspiration.

Some think that the deutero-canonical writings were excluded because the Christians used them. That’s what a Catholic apologist said in a debate with James White. Maybe, but I don’t see how the “apocrypha” supports Christian doctrine more than other books of the Hebrew Bible.

One professor told me years ago that the problem was their language: they weren’t in Hebrew or Aramaic. But some of them had Hebrew or Aramaic originals (i.e., Ben Sira, possibly Tobit), so language can’t be the only factor behind their rejection.

I’ve read somewhere that the rabbis closed the canon with Ezra, implying that they viewed Ezra as the last prophet. And that fits the Jewish canon quite well. The Hebrew Bible does not contain a prophet after the time of Ezra. While liberal scholars date Daniel to the second century B.C.E., the book presents itself as exilic, and that’s probably what the rabbis went with when they included it in the canon. And Jewish tradition affirms that Ezra wrote Chronicles, the last book of the Hebrew Bible.

Why did Christians accept the deutero-canonical writings? I’m not sure. Maybe it was because Jews in the diaspora embraced them (for whatever reason). Or perhaps they weren’t eager to close the canon with Ezra, since they believed that prophecy still continued. After all, they had their own set of new biblical books, which post-dated Ezra by over five centuries. We call it the New Testament. So why wouldn’t they believe that books after Ezra could be inspired?

The Palestinian Jews, however, may have desired a clear cut-off point because of the instability of prophecy. As a professor at Hebrew Union College once said, prophets create instability, since they can claim a divine revelation that undermines the social structure. And, in the time of the Romans, the Jews felt they didn’t need prophets who continually instigated political revolution. That may be why they made Ezra the cut-off man.

Elitist Wisdom Literature

Source: M. Gilbert, “Wisdom Literature,” Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period, ed. Michael E. Stone (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) 283.

“Solomon played a still more important part in the development of wisdom in Israel. As organizer of the new state, he had to have capable administrators around him, and it is possible that schools or academies were set up for this purpose, to train the flower of the youth adequately, since they were called to take on responsibilities in the city or state.”

I’m not sure what biblical scholars say about the authorship of Proverbs, but M. Gilbert treats wisdom literature as an elitist exercise. And I’ve heard this from other sources as well. For example, Proverbs and Ben Sira say that people shouldn’t provide surety for someone else’s debt, since the indebted one may not be able to pay his debtor back. A TA at Harvard said such a perspective reflects the elitist, conservative worldview of wisdom literature. And it wasn’t always too generous (though it does have a lot supporting almsgiving)!

I think an elitist mileau may play a role in how wisdom literature addresses evil. Proverbs assumes that the wicked are punished and the righteous are rewarded. And Ecclesiastes seems to think it strange that life has problems and unfairness, when that would be pretty obvious to your average Israelite.

At the same time, Ben Sira writes as someone who sees social mobility: the poor can easily become rich, and the rich can easily become poor. For him, it all depends on God’s favor to a person. Would Ben Sira write this, if he could take his comfortable position for granted? And Ben Sira also prays for deliverance from his enemies. How comfortable was he, socially speaking?

I’m not sure what role wisdom literature played when Ben Sira wrote. At that time, Israel did not have a monarchy, and I assume she was ruled by a foreign power, since the Hasmoneans had not yet declared Israel’s independence. But maybe he was still part of an elite that trained people for power, for some Judeans had to run the show, even though ultimate power laid overseas.

My Dawkins Mood (and It’s Unrelated to Dating)

Source: Malcom Schofield, “The Presocratics,” The Cambridge Companion to Greek and Roman Philosophy, ed. David Sedley (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003) 52:

“One clue to the distinctive focus of the Pythagorean way of life is the fact that Herodotus associated it with the rites and writings of Orphic religion. By the fifth century BC the name of Orpheus had become attached to the doctrine that the body is a prison in which the soul serves out its punishment for sin, and to practices designed to purify initiates and ensure their happiness before and after death (these included renunciation of animal sacrifice). A similar belief as to how and why the soul must be purified if it is to achieve ultimate escape from the cycle of reincarnation is what seems to have animated Pythagoreanism.”

That’s one view of life and the afterlife. And how do we know it’s wrong?

I’m sorry. I’m in a skeptical mood today.

I was thinking today about different beliefs about the afterlife. To be honest, none of them really satisfy me. I’ll state my reason before I go into them: there are people who die at birth. Infant mortality exists here and in other parts of the world. Okay, now let’s see how this poses a problem for various views on the afterlife:

Evangelical view: God either sends the babies to hell, or he lets them into heaven because they didn’t reach the age of accountability. Why would God create them if they were going to die so quickly?

Armstrongite view: God will give them a chance to receive salvation after their resurrection. Why couldn’t God have given them a chance the first time around–by allowing them to grow up?

Reincarnation view: The souls are in the body to learn lessons, and their afterlife depends on how they do in this life. Well, well, well. The souls sure had a short stay when they were in the bodies of the babies who died. They’re in, then they’re out. Hasta la vista!

No afterlife religious view: Here, I think of Ben Sira, much of the Hebrew Bible, and various strands of Judaism, which don’t really believe in an afterlife. According to this view, God created human beings and rewards or punishes them in this life. But why would God create someone who would die at birth? It makes absolutely no sense!

I just feel sometimes that religions try to get around the absurdity of life. They act like they’re making sense of everything, or that they’re needed for life to make sense. Actually, it seems like they’re trying to add meaning to a reality that’s absurd.

That’s my first point. Here’s my second one:

You know, people for generations have had various ideas about life and the afterlife. Why should I assume that they’re wrong, while embracing a belief system that is 2,000 years old–Christianity? I get so sick of Christian dogmatism, when it seems that Christianity is one belief among many in the history of ideas. And its ideas are historically placed. You don’t see much about bodily resurrection in many parts of the Hebrew Bible. But Daniel talks about it, the Pharisees picked it up, and the belief formed part of the cultural context in which Christianity emerged. Christianity looks like it was floating on the currents of its historical context–at least in this case. It absorbs an idea from its time, which wasn’t held in every era of biblical composition. What’s that do to the idea of the entire Bible conveying one absolute truth from beginning to end?

Don’t worry, folks. I’m not an atheist. I just have questions every now and then.

Ben Sira’s View of the Afterlife

I finished Ben Sira last night. Something that many scholars point out is that Ben Sira didn’t really believe in an afterlife. He told his readers to enjoy the pleasures of life and the fruits of their labors, since they won’t be able to do so in Hades (Sirach 14:10-16). At the same time, he doesn’t promote gluttony, drunkenness, or fornication, since such activity can have bad effects in the here-and-now (Sirach 9; 23; 31:27-28; 37:29-31).

And his focus is not exactly “eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow may bring pain or death,” for he also believes people should enjoy spiritual pleasures while they still can. He says in Sirach 17:27-28: “Who will sing praises to the Most High in Hades in place of the living who give thanks? From the dead, as from one who does not exist, thanksgiving has ceased; those who are alive and well sing the Lord’s praises” (NRSV). His message there is “Repent while you still can, for you won’t always be able to enjoy God.” You don’t hear that message in a lot of pulpits! There, it’s often “Repent, or else!”

There is one passage that presents a fiery hell for the wicked, Sirach 7:17: “Humble yourself to the utmost, for the punishment of the ungodly is fire and worms.” The deuterocanonical writings show some movement in the direction of eternal torment, for Judith 16:17 states regarding the nations: “The Lord Almighty will take vengeance on them in the day of judgment; he will send fire and worms into their flesh; they shall weep in pain forever.” But Sirach 7:17 appears so out-of-sync with Ben Sira’s overall view of the afterlife, that Alexander A. Di Lella views it as a later addition in his Anchor Bible Dictionary article, “Wisdom of Ben Sira.”

Overall, Ben-Sira maintains that God punishes the wicked in this life, often with premature death (Sirach 21:10). Granted, there are wicked people who prosper up to the end of their lives, but God is able to give them a miserable death so that they forget their past pleasures (Sirach 11:26-28). And because we all live so short a time, God shows a lot of patience towards us so we have time to get things right (Sirach 18:9-13).

What is the hope of the righteous? According to Ben Sira, because wisdom disciplines us, we may go through difficult times, but God will reward us if we persevere in obedience (Sirach 2). God is able to lift the poor out of poverty, while bringing down the rich (Sirach 11:12-19). As Di Lella states, “In the long run…the upright will enjoy long life (1:12), good health (1:18), a good marriage (26:3), happiness (26:4), joy in their children (25:7c), and a good and lasting name (37:26; 39:11).”

Two puzzling verses about immortality are Sirach 46:12 and 49:10:

46:12: “May [the judges'] bones send forth new life from where they lie, and may the names of those who have been honored live again in their children!”

49:10: “May the bones of the Twelve Prophets send forth new life from where they lie, for they comforted the people of Jacob and delivered them with confident hope.”

I don’t know what it means for bones to send forth new life. Is Ben Sira saying that the words of the prophets continue to have a positive impact? That God honors the people on account of the righteous lives and deaths of the judges and prophets? That the biblical figures live on through their children? I’m not sure. In any case, these verses remind me of Elisha’s bones bringing a corpse to life (II Kings 13:21), something Ben Sira refers to in Sirach 49:13-14.

Overall, Ben Sira has an Old Testament view on life after death: God rewards the righteous and punishes the wicked in this life (Deuteronomy, Proverbs); when God rescues people from Sheol, that means he’s saving them from death, not that he’s resurrecting them (e.g., Psalm 30); people live on through their descendants and the property they pass on, explaining why the Hebrew Bible has levirite marriage and inheritance laws (Numbers 27; 36; Deuteronomy 25:5-10).

I don’t understand how people could live in real life and believe that way. After all, isn’t it obvious that life is messier than that–that many righteous people suffer, while many wicked people prosper? Job eventually comes along and affirms that there are wicked people who prosper up to the time of their deaths (Job 21; 24). So much for the Psalmist’s view that the wicked get their come-uppance in this life! But did no one notice this injustice before the time of Job?

Maybe God at one time was more active in rewarding the righteous and punishing the wicked. In Genesis 38:7, he kills wicked Er right on the spot! Or perhaps there were biblical authors who were cloistered from society at large, so they viewed life from their ivory towers as fairer than it actually was. I don’t know.

One thing that’s interesting: You’d expect many of the biblical authors to judge the poor because of their poverty. After all, the poor are not prospering, so they must not have been obeying God! But virtually all of the biblical writings stress that God has a special concern for the poor, to the point that they have his ear when someone helps or hurts them (Deuteronomy 24:13, 15; Proverbs 19:17). And Sirach believes this too (Sirach 21:5).

Moreover, Marx said that religion is the opium of the masses, which means that the poor workers look to a “pie-in-the-sky” afterlife because their present situation is so miserable. And the rich love this sort of set-up, since the poor will keep on enduring their misery as they work for the rich, deluded that their afterlife will be a lot better. But if that’s the sum-total explanation of religion’s origin, how’s it account for the Old Testament’s religious strands that lack an afterlife?

These themes relate to the Feast of Tabernacles. I once read a book by Rabbi Harold Kushner about the Book of Ecclesiastes, which many Jews read on Succoth. Ecclesiastes is about life being short, and nothing really satisfying a person because of that fact. It ends with a message of “Enjoy life while you still can, and don’t forget to fear God, for that’s your purpose in life” (Ecclesiastes 11-12). My last post interpreted the Feast of Tabernacles in terms of waiting for the afterlife. But maybe it can also communicate a message of enjoying this life to the full, since life is a sort of temporary dwelling.

FOT 2008, Day 5

This will be somewhat of a wandering post, so be forewarned!

One Feast of Tabernacles sermon that I remember was given by Ron Dart. I don’t entirely remember where it was–Florida? French Lick? Williamsburg? Kentucky? I’m not sure.

But Ron Dart brought up Matthew 6:25-34, which concerns not worrying about life’s necessities. Jesus says in v 33, “But strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well” (NRSV).

Dart told a story about a student at Ambassador College who was worried about exams. He decided to spend an hour on prayer and Bible study each day, and he ended up doing better on his exams than the other students. Dart’s lesson was “Put God first, and everything else will fall into place.”

I’ve lived by this rule for a long period of my life. I need to trust in God for academic success. Tests are intimidating. I have to remember a bunch of stuff, and I feel limited in my capacities. You don’t think that I’ll be going into those tests relying only on myself, do you? You know the old saying: “As long as there are math tests, there will be school prayer.”

Moreover, if I had to spend my life only thinking about work or school, I’d be miserable. I need to feed my spiritual self. That’s another reason I pray every day–or “put God first.”

But do things always work out? You know, there are many times when I feel that God exists for other people, but not for me–or anyone else with Asperger’s, for that matter. I don’t feel like complaining about the specifics of that here, however, since I’ve done so in numerous other posts.

I always rest on the Sabbath and the holy days, because I assume that God will take care of me if I do so. This has worked so far. If I had an exam on a holy day, I could talk with my professors and take it at another time. At Harvard, there were enough Jewish students that I could take the test with a room-full of other people. And, at Jewish Theological Seminary and Hebrew Union College, I actually got the holy days off.

But how do things work in the real world? I remember reading J’s blog about employment and the Sabbath and holy days. Those festivals can give a lot of employees problems, let me tell you! Does God provide in those cases? They don’t always keep their jobs, if that’s what’s being asked. But I doubt that many of them are going homeless, so maybe he does.

While I’m pondering the existence of God, I want to comment on one of J’s posts, “shiny-happy-bible-beating whitewash”. One of the posters there, I think it was Byker Bob, said that he noticed that Christian ex-Armstrongites were less bitter than the atheistic and agnostic ones. I’m not going to judge either group, but it got me thinking some about my life. You know, there were times this week when I really hated God, though I must say that, in the midst of all that rancor, I told God that I didn’t want to hate him. And I don’t. But why do I hate him? Because this life is so hard. My life doesn’t work out like what I see on movies or on television. Heck, it doesn’t even work out like what I see in other peoples’ lives!

Hating God does not make me feel better. But neither does telling myself happy-happy things that I have a hard time accepting. There have been many times in my life when I have tried the Christian route. I attempted to convince myself that God had a plan for my life and would bless me in the future. I sought to obey what I believed to be the will of God: to sell others a fundamentalist Christian script that I memorized, to attend church and Bible studies, etc. But my life still didn’t work out. I’ve still never had a girlfriend. I still didn’t fit into most settings. It just gets to the point where faith seems like a pie-in-the-sky delusion.

But I feel that God ministered to me through Ben Sira this week. This was one of my daily quiet times where I couldn’t sleep, so I got up and prayed. Ben Sira believes that God made everything for a reason (Sirach 39:33-34). And he talks a lot about how good it is for a man to have a nice wife as his help mate (7:19; 25:8; 26:1-4, 14-18; 36:26-31). 36:29-30 exemplifies Ben Sira’s positive treatment of women: “He who acquires a wife gets his best possession, a helper fit for him and a pillar of support. Where there is no fence, the property will be plundered; and where there is no wife, a man will become a fugitive and a wanderer.”

Yet, there are times when Ben Sira can be downright misogynist. I think many writers focus on these incidents to the exclusion of the good things he says about women, but one has to admit that this remark is pretty bad: “Better is the wickedness of a man than a woman who does good; it is woman who brings shame and disgrace” (42:14). Yikes!

But Ben Sira explains what he means throughout Sirach 42: men have lots of worries when it comes to their daughters. Will they be raped? Will they get seduced by a scumbag? When women had sex before marriage in those days, their bridal price went down, since virgins were more valuable. And a loose woman could also bring shame to her father.

I have a variety of reactions to Ben Sira here. For one, he somewhat creeps me out, since I can see a father using what he says as a pretext for abuse. I think of what Beverley Marsh’s father said on Stephen King’s IT: “Bev, I need to protect you from these boys.” But I also poked fun at Ben Sira in my meditation. “What’s the matter, Ben Sira?” I thought. “You said God made everything for a good reason! Are you saying God made a mistake when he gave you a daughter?” Then my mind turned to how unfair life can be. When women have lots of sex, they’re called whores. When men have lots of sex, they’re called studs. I can understand why there are bitter feminists.

So where did God minister to me in all this? Look, I can’t really say I know what God does. But I was reminded of two things that helped me out: (1.) God made all things for a purpose, but life is still hard and has lots of worries. Even a godly man like Ben Sira can acknowledge that, and (2.) Many people are bitter and view life as unfair, and for good reason, since society is discriminatory and unfair.

That doesn’t totally make me feel better, since my mind can easily bring up, “Well, at least they have social skills, or a job, or a date, etc.” But it helped me get out of my self-pity mode for just a little while.

I’m going to go outside to enjoy this beautiful day. I may finish up Ben Sira before the day is over!

Feast of Tabernacles 2008

Today is the first day of the Feast of Tabernacles. If you want to read my reflections on last year’s feast, see Feast of Tabernacles 2007.

The first day of the Feast of Tabernacles is a Sabbath. Ordinarily, I do a weekly quiet time on Sabbath days. For my current one, I’m in I Samuel. I study a chapter, which includes listening to sermons about it, reading the Hebrew and Greek, and perusing Christian, Jewish, and historical-critical commentaries. At the end, I pray about what I studied. This sounds like a lot to accomplish, but I do much of it simultaneously. For example, I may read John Gill while I listen to Jake’s hero, Chuck Missler. And I also do leisurely things as I study. I may play Pac-Man while listening to Jon Courson, or watch the Waltons while reading Matthew Henry.

Today, I wasn’t really up to this. The weather is beautiful outside, and I wanted to enjoy it while the autumn is still here. Winter is coming, and I won’t be able to relish the outdoors at that time! So what did I do? I did a few chapters for my daily quiet time, which I can do while I’m walking. That’s not always the most productive way to do it, since my mind can easily degenerate into stinkin-thinkin! But I take my Bible with me to remind myself what the chapter is about. And I’ve started jotting down notes to jolt my memory.

This practice is especially appropriate right now because I’m reading Ben Sira, also known as Sirach and Ecclesiasticus. Reading Ben Sira is like reading Proverbs. When I was at Jewish Theological Seminary, I was doing Proverbs for my daily quiet time (among other books). It could be frustrating, for the author discussed various subjects in a given chapter, and I didn’t always remember all of his topics while I was walking to school (which was my prayer time). That’s why I’m trying not to make the same mistake with Ben Sira!

Today, my Ben Sira quiet times were pretty good. I did a few of them for the past couple of days, and they can be stressful, let me tell you! I feel like I have to comment on all the ramifications of what he’s saying. And he contradicts himself a lot. Do you hang around with the rich and powerful, or do you not? Do you show your wisdom when you are poor, or do you hold your tongue? Following Ben Sira would be a hard task, since I’d feel like I was making a wrong step wherever I turned! But I was a little more laid back today. I looked at the chapter and summarized what it was saying, then I focused on the points that especially spoke to me. Right now, what’s on my mind from my Ben Sira quiet times are two points: (1.) Don’t rely on dreams as much as the Torah, wisdom, and God for divine revelation and (in turn) hope, and (2.) What’s the point of becoming clean, when you’ll go back out and become dirty all over again?

The second point is understandable, but I don’t know how to apply it in every area of my life. I ask God to forgive sins that I have no intention of forsaking (e.g., lusting after women). Why do I ask God for forgiveness? Because I want him in my life! I want to be blessed! I want to know that someone is looking out for me. But I feel like I have to appease him and wipe my slate clean on a continual basis, even when I’m not repentant. It’s like I recognize a rule, but it doesn’t make sense to me, so I have a hard time beating myself up when I break it. Does that make any sense?

I ate at a cheap Italian restaurant. I can’t say much for the service, since the hot waitresses never offered me a refill on my drink. But the food was good. And maybe it’s nice not to go there too often, since I’m rather strapped for funds.

I took some leftovers, and I noticed a homeless lady standing outside. I gave her my leftovers. Am I saying this to brag? Partly. But I think there’s a lesson in this experience. I usually feel bad when I see this lady standing outside, since I don’t buy her a sandwich. But, these days, I only have money to buy myself lunch, not someone else’s. Today, however, I had something to give. I realized that I had plenty of food at home, so I could give my leftovers to someone who’d really appreciate them. That reminds me of what John the Baptist said in Luke 3:11: “Whoever has two coats must share with anyone who has none; and whoever has food must do likewise” (NRSV). We give from what we have, not from what we don’t have.

At the same time, I should place all of this in perspective before I pat myself on the back. For one, sure, I gave her food for today. But what will happen to her tomorrow and the next day? I did well to give her relief for a little bit of time, but, in the grand scheme of things, that’s not really enough. But it’s still something.

Second, even homeless people want to be treated with dignity. She asked me if I had eaten off of the food, and I said no. You’d expect her to be happy with whatever she got, but she’s like everyone else: she doesn’t want people’s germs! I told her to enjoy the food, and she said thanks in a cold, abrupt manner, though she was really appreciative when I first asked her if she wanted some wings and bread. I’m not sure if there was unintentional sarcasm in my voice when I told her to enjoy her food–meaning that I didn’t intend to be sarcastic, but that’s how I came across. Ben Sira says that coming across as a reluctant giver is a bad thing. Oh well! Ben Sira seems to be like a lot of Christians, who think that if you don’t do something perfectly, then you’d might as well not do it. That’s hogwash! If that were true, then no one would do anything, including those who believe this way (but, then again, they probably see themselves as perfect, so there goes that!).

What will I do for the rest of the day? I may call some of my family. There’s a book on Asperger’s and employment that I want to look at. I have to find my fourth step worksheet for Alcoholics Anonymous. I need to watch a few episodes of the Waltons to free up a couple of hours on the video-tape, so I can tape the Waltons tomorrow morning. And Eli Stone’s season premier is tonight! We’ll have another season of leftist politics with a religious twist.

But today is a day to enjoy myself. And, whatever this post may communicate, I did precisely that!

What Helps Me Love My Enemies…

Here are some thoughts that help me to love my enemies:

1. I do a weekly quiet time on holy days and weekly Sabbaths. Yesterday, on the Day of Atonement, I studied I Samuel 1. The Encyclopedia Judaica‘s article on Peninnah says the following about Elkanah’s wife Peninnah, who had lots of children and taunted Elkanah’s childless wife, Hannah:

“[Peninnah] was…ultimately punished. Two of her children died whenever Hannah gave birth; and she thus witnessed the death of eight of her ten children. The last two were spared solely as a result of Hannah’s intercession with the Almighty on her behalf (PR, ibid., 182a).

That’s horrible! Whenever Hanna had a child, two of Peninnah’s kids died. There are plenty of people I can’t stand, but I wouldn’t wish that on my worst enemy!

Isn’t that what forgiveness is, in part? Freeing our enemies from punishment?

2. As I was fasting yesterday, some hateful thoughts entered my mind. I can be pretty mean when I’m hungry! But my hunger reminded me that I share something with the rest of humanity: I need to eat to survive. And the same is true of my enemies. That insight tended to make them more vulnerable and human in my eyes, so I didn’t hate them as much at that moment. But it also made me look more human. I often see myself as righteous, and my enemies as sub-human sinners. Not so! We’re all human beings, with the same needs.

I encountered the same idea this morning, when I read Sirach 8:4-7:

“Do not make fun of one who is ill-bred, or your ancestors may be insulted. Do not reproach one who is turning away from sin; remember that we all deserve punishment. Do not disdain one who is old, for some of us are also growing old. Do not rejoice over any one’s death; remember that we must all die.”

We’re all human! We sin, we grow old, and we die. So who are we to look down on someone else? We can hope that the other person chooses a better path, but we shouldn’t vaunt ourselves, as if we’re superior. All of us are vulnerable.