Welcome to Flock's Diner

MP3 Format

How aware are we of the most fundamental, genetic tendencies of the human species? How many of us are aware of the natural order that causes most species to preserve themselves?

Wolves stop mating when there is not enough food, and monkeys will destroy any monkey from another pack in order to preserve their pack. Can these tendencies be seen, in some form, in the human species?

I would argue that those tendencies of the human species that we like or accept, we call “acceptable,” while other tendencies that we don’t like, we call a ”socially innapropriate.”

When the political or social climate of a particular society deems it appropriate, the natural tendencies that are debatable among that society, as to whether they are a menace or an accepted practice, are either given the mandate to be suppressed or they are given the liberty to be expressed.

For example: When someone expresses a tendency toward preserving their species through ethnocentricity, we call it “racism” and we tell those who express this tendency that it is wrong and this behavior should not be displayed by the human population.

But when someone expresses another natural tendency such as same sex relationships (which some argue is the genetic solution to over-population [along with the practice of abortion]), we call it “homosexuality” and some of us tell them that this should be suppressed, while others say it should be expressed as a “natural” tendency.

Are we choosing, as a society, to call one genetic tendency a menace while calling another acceptable? Is a desire to preserve the species, by way of racial segregation and ethnocentricity, more sinful than a desire to express one’s affection toward the same sex, if they are indeed only natural, genetic expressions?

In John’s gospel, the story of Jesus speaking with a Samaritan woman is used by many biblical teachers to show how Jesus pulled down the barriers of racism and male chauvinism. Apparently, these natural tendencies are considered social ills as understood biblically. Those tendencies that are expressed throughout the animal kingdom, which are used to preserve species and develop a protective hierarchy are those which separate other animals from human beings.

It may surprise many of us to know that, according to some scientists and their studies, at least 1,500 animal species practice homosexuality.

The argument among most Christians is that homosexuality is unnatural. Maybe the tendency toward homosexuality is more “natural” than we might expect. With this approach, I would argue that it is possible to make the case that, like racism, homosexuality is a human tendency that must be resisted rather than practiced. Like racism, homosexuality, if fully expressed by humanity would destroy the human species, even faster than a lack of food or disease. (That is to say, if every human began to practice this “natural” tendency to reduce the population of humans.)

Most human beings call racism a social ill, because of the obvious decay it causes to societies. But, like eating donuts or smoking cigarettes, the immediate detriment caused by homosexual relationships is not seen; therefore it appears not to be a harmful practice.

If we are going to work diligently to stop social ills, how do we determine what is a social ill?

Is it ethical to expect one person to control his or her natural tendencies, such as the desire to preserve their species through ethnocentricity, while letting another freely express their natural tendencies to be homosexual, knowing that both cause damage to the social economy of humanity?

Or, should we allow those who desire to live as racists do so, while appreciating those who practice the interracial behavior needed to reduce racism, much as we would encourage those who are homosexual to live as such, while being grateful for those who continue to mate with the oppostite sex in order to continue the future existance of human beings?

And, if we decide that natural tendencies should be expressed freely, such as homosexuality, then shouldn’t we consider asking ourselves, “Who are we to stop someone from expressing their tendency toward species preservation, calling them racists and bigots?”

Who is it that makes the decision as to which basic, genetic tendencies should be suppressed and which should be expressed?

The Christian stance is that anything that makes us less than human, reducing ourselves to expressing our most basic instincts, without considering the harm they do to humanity, is “missing the mark,” also called “sin.”

How then do we define a sin? Is it okay to consider natural behavior as something to be freely expressed like other animals? Or should we, as human beings, be expected to rise above all of our natural, though harmful, tendencies?

Should we be human or just act like animals?

In His dust,
Johnny

© 2009 Jonathan P. Gainey and Flock’s Diner.
All Rights Reserved

There is a really funny scene in the movie, “Oh Brother, Where Art Thou,” where the character who plays Pete, appeared to have disappeared, leaving nothing behind but his clothes, which were in the position in which he was last seen alive. After seeing the spot where Pete’s heart should have been, apparently beating, the other two goofs discovered a frog, and believed that Pete had been turned into a frog by the witches he was letting “love up on him.”

John Nelson Darby, an evangelist who died in April, 1882, believed that a “secret rapture” was described by the Scriptures.

“Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left. Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come”. (Mat 24:40 NIV used throughout unless otherwise stated).

“According to the Lord’s own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever” (1Th 4:15-17).

In these two passages, Darby concluded that Jesus would return, and all those who were believers would mysteriously disappear. Two people would be outside working, and one of them would simply vanish, leaving the other to wonder in amazement, “What in the world happened to Pete?”

From the 19th-century until today, an entire branch of the evangelical church has assumed that Darby’s conclusions were solid and should be accepted as theologically and biblically correct.

As we do a word study of the two passages above, one Greek word must be evaluated critically before accepting the ideas of the well-intentioned John Darby, and that word is paralambano (Greek: παραλαμβάνω).

This word is a Greek, compound verb that can be used to mean “to take” or “receive,” but, as Matthew uses the verb in 27:27, as John uses the verb in 19:16, and as Luke uses the verb in Acts 23:18, it can also be used in the context of “taking someone away to imprison” or “to punish.”

“Then the governor’s soldiers παραλαμβάνω (took) Jesus into the Praetorium and gathered the whole company of soldiers around him” (Mat 27:27).

“Finally Pilate παραλαμβάνω (handed him over) to them to be crucified. So the soldiers took charge of Jesus” (John 19:16).

“So he παραλαμβάνω (took him to) the commander. The centurion said, “Paul, the prisoner, sent for me and asked me to bring this young man to you because he has something to tell you.” (Acts 23:18).

The assumption of whether it is those who are “left” or those who are “taken”, being those who are punished, has no bearing on the point of the passages, which is to tell the reader, “Jesus is coming back; be ready at all times.” But it does have a bearing on where we believe heaven is when Jesus returns.

Is it in the sky? Then we believe that it is those who are taken. Is it in another realm? Then we believe that it is those who are taken. Will it be on earth? That is the most important question in discovering what happens to those who are left and those who are punished.

Jesus defines the Kingdom of Heaven in many ways. He says that it’s like virgins with lamps, it’s like yeast. He even said, “The Kingdom of God is near” (see Mark 1:15). And Jesus speaks of going to his Father’s house to prepare a place for his followers (see John 14:1-3).

Paul says that one group of sinners will not inherit or “receive” God’s kingdom (see 1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

Paul also says of the Kingdom, “…for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom 14:17). Paul then says, “For the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power” (1Co 4:20).

And then there is this strange passage from Luke’s gospel, “Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you” (17:20-21).

Jesus also says something else strange in regards to the place or property that will be inherited by a group of believers. “Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the EARTH” (Mat 5:5). Will those who are meek not go to heaven, John Darby? Hmmm.

I believe the answer to the place of heaven lies in the words of Scripture that are clearly stated, even to the staunchest of Premillennialists.

“But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness” (2Pe 3:13).

“Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. (The “sea” no longer existing probably reflects a first-century Jewish belief that the sea represented the passageway to Hades, which is probably why Jesus cast the demon-possessed pigs into the lake (see Matthew 8:30-32). That is, after all, where demons were believed to dwell.) I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away” (Rev 21:1-4).

In conclusion, to accept a Premillennialist theology, which includes a belief that Jesus will return and cause all believers to pass from this earth and into heaven by rapidly vanishing, one must also believe that heaven is “out there.” I would argue that this view leads Christians to permeate the world with a “replacement” theology or an “abandonment” theology, which causes some Christians to give up on this world, waiting in hope for the escape of the believers in the wild blue yonder of the rapture.

As stated by John in his Revelation, God will come and “dwell with men (people)” in the Holy City which will come down out of οὐρανός (oo-ra-nos English: heaven, sky) heaven.

Could it be that it is those who are “Left Behind” who are going to be “in heaven?”

I think it is safe to conclude that the only one who has all the answers to every mystery is God. But, as one theologian said, “We may see through a glass darkly, but we do see.”

In His dust,
Johnny

© 2009 Jonathan P. Gainey and Flock’s Diner.
All Rights Reserved

In Luke’s gospel, Jesus tells us to get ready for a dramatic, life changing, universe altering experience. “Be dressed ready for service, and keep your lamps burning” (12v35a NIV).

My favorite version of the first half of this verse comes from the ESV, “Stay dressed ready for action…” And a more literal translation is found in the KJV, “Let your loins be girded about…” In other words, “Tighten up your robes with a belt around your waste.”

The first verse of this passage is an important key to understanding the kind of event the return of Jesus will be. Jesus’ words are a reference to another passage of Scripture from the book of Exodus and Deuteronomy. “This is how you are to eat it: with your cloak tucked into your belt, your sandals on your feet and your staff in your hand. Eat it in haste; it is the Lord’s Passover” (Exodus 12:11).

During the Passover in Egypt, the Hebrews were told to eat their meal in “haste.” The Hebrew word for haste is חִפָּזוֹן (transliterated khip-paw-zone) and it means “to hurry with anxiety. It’s a word that is associated only with the Exodus.

Eastern garb was like a long skirt that must be drawn up and belted when a person had to move quickly. This is the instruction from God to the Hebrews when they were preparing to leave Egypt: “Dress like you are ready to run. Get excited and be ready for your lives to completely change.”

It is the khip-paw-zone of leaving Egypt that Jesus refers to when he tells his followers to “Be dressed ready for service and keep your lamps burning.”

No longer will you be in bondage, but you will be free and live in a land that has been specifically prepared for you—the Promised Land.

A clue to going to the place Jesus has prepared (see John 14:2) is also found in the message of the Passover. The Hebrews were to “eat bread without yeast.” This bread is called matzah or plural matzot.

The matzah is made without yeast, which is understood to have been left out because it would take time to rise, and they didn’t have enough time to wait. This understanding (which may be a misunderstanding) comes from a reading of Exodus 12:39, “With the dough they had brought from Egypt, they baked cakes of unleavened bread. The dough was without yeast because they had been driven out of Egypt and did not have time to prepare food for themselves.”

The removal of yeast may also have something to do with a pagan use of yeast in Egypt and its ability to cause fermentation. Because fermentation happens during the decay of certain grains, it was taken figuratively to represent moral corruption and sin. This would be important in understanding why the Israelites were told to remove this symbol of paganism or sin from their entire homes and were not to take it into their bodies or into the Promised Land. The Hebrews loaded their dough without yeast into kneading troughs and carried it out of Egypt (Exodus 12:34).

Paul said to the Corinthians, “…a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough…Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with…the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with…the bread of sincerity and truth” (portions of 1Co 5:6-8).

Too many of us are not prepared for the King’s return. We are carrying around sins that will keep us from running with khip-paw-zone into the Promised Land when Christ returns.

Sir James Barrie said, “One of the most dangerous days in a man’s life is when he discovers the word ‘tomorrow.’”

Get rid of the agents of decay in your life. Jesus could return today!

In His dust,

Johnny

© 2009 Jonathan P. Gainey and Flock’s Diner.
All Rights Reserved

I was having a conversation with my wife concerning a topic from her recent class about whether or not a church should give a baby shower to an unwed teen who becomes pregnant.

If I, as her pastor, were to elect not to give her a baby shower, then I have a dilemma, because the teenage girl is not the only one who needs some correction. And I’m not talking about her parents or the person who helped her to conceive.

“…you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, because my flock lacks a shepherd and so has been plundered and has become food for all the wild animals, and because my shepherds did not search for my flock but cared for themselves rather than for my flock, therefore, O shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: This is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am against the shepherds and will hold them accountable for my flock. I will remove them from tending the flock so that the shepherds can no longer feed themselves. I will rescue my flock from their mouths, and it will no longer be food for them” (Ezekiel 34:7-10 NIV). This entire passage of Ezekiel 34 should be read by everyone who chooses to lead in the Church.

Proactive discipline is essential, and reactive forgiveness is mandatory.

You probably recall a guy named Lamech who thought a lot of himself. He was so egocentric that he said, “If Cain is avenged seven times, then Lamech seventy-seven times” (Genesis 4:24). Seventy-seven times is a figurative number that means “immeasurable.”

Jesus uses the opposite of punishment to make a point about giving immeasurable forgiveness to those who sin. “Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, ‘Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?’ Jesus answered, ‘I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.”

Though the ungodly give immeasurable punishment, the godly give immeasurable forgiveness.

My conclusion would be: If the girl and her baby can’t celebrate the life of the child God has provided, and receive the needs of raising a child from her church body, then I, as her pastor, shouldn’t have the tools to preach and lead worship, because I have also failed, and she is no more a sinner than I.

She gave in to lust, and I gave in to lazy.

Fortunately, immeasurable forgiveness is also given to the undershepherd who has lost track of one of the Shepherd’s sheep. God watches as we both make our way back home, and He celebrates our return (Luke 15:20ff).

There will be those, like the older brother in the parable of the “Prodigal Son,” who think that the young girl should be punished and shamed. But the big brother in the story has forgotten that he is also a sinner, and has been no less lost than the one who went astray.

It is the first-century, Jewish expectation that the oldest brother serves as the undershepherd of his father’s family. When the younger children get out of hand, like the younger, selfish brother in the story, it is the older brother’s role to offer correction and guidance on the father’s behalf. In this story we notice that the older brother offers neither correction nor guidance, and therefore has neglected his role and given opportunity for the younger son to stray.

We must not make the mistake of assuming the role of the pastor as that of the father in the story. The father, of course, represents God who has provided all. It is the oldest son who represents the neglectful undershepherd of his father’s sheep.

“Lord, forgive me for the sin of allowing these little ones under my care to be attacked by the beasts of immorality.”

In His dust,
Johnny

© 2009 Jonathan P. Gainey and Flock’s Diner.
All Rights Reserved

Some of us never grow out of that attitude of wanting big responses for little deeds, and no responsibility for the things that really matter to others.

During one particularly long road trip, I remember listening to a talk radio show, when a woman who was very upset called the host with a complaint. This woman said to the host, “I cannot believe that my husband forgot my birthday. We have been married for years. How could he have been so insensitive to such an important day of my life?”

The response from the host was powerful.

“You were born. You had no part in it, and now you want to hold everyone responsible for remembering it, as if somehow your birthday was a great personal accomplishment. The truth is, the only person that should be remembered is your mother, and the only person who should be held responsible for remembering is you. If anything, you should be the one to give your mother a present for all the pain she went through in giving birth to you, and the hardships she dealt with in raising you. Stop holding people accountable for celebrating something for you that you had almost nothing to do with and you will stop being so upset when they forget to give you a present you don’t deserve anyway” (my paraphrase).

We also like to give a lot to the little things and very little to the things that really matter.

Zig Zigglar said, “Most people a lot of time, money and effort planning th wedding and very little on the marriage.”

Jesus said, “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices–mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice (fairness in how people are treated), mercy (to be kind and forgiving) and faithfulness (being consistent and having the ability to inspire faith in others). You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel” (Matthew 23:23-24 NIV).

In Matthew 23:23-24, Jesus uses a kal v’chomer (English – light and heavy argument) to prove a point about the sinfulness of religious people.

The Torah teachers and the Pharisees were considered very godly people among the first-century Jews. They were those who spent their lives doing and teaching the Word of God. But, like many religious people, some of them have become devoted to their religion rather than the God of their religion.

Jesus calls them actors. The word “hypocrite” is the Greek word for stage actor. The goal of the actors was to please the audience in order to receive their reward of applause and appreciation.

And he cut at the hearts of these people of God when he said to them, “You actors. You tithe on these tiny things, but the big things that involve caring for others you ignore.”

Using a couple of familiar passages in Leviticus 11, Jesus brings to these Jewish leaders’ attention, God’s instruction for what they can and can’t eat. God tells the Jews that, among the living creatures of the world, he has declared some clean and some unclean. The Jews go to great lengths to make sure that they do not ingest any of the unclean creatures.

In Leviticus 11:4 and 20 there are two creatures which God specifically points out that are not to be eaten.

“There are some that only chew the cud or only have a split hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you…All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you.”

Gnats were easily removed from wine by running the fermented drink through a strainer. A camel would be ridiculous to have in your cup of wine, which is why Jesus brings this up. He is basically saying, “You remove the tiny little gnat, but the giant camel, you leave in your cup and drink it down like it’s not even there.”

“You put on a great wedding, but your marriage is a disaster!”

Jesus compares removing a gnat from a cup of whine to the tiny requirement of tithing on spices. And he compares the giant, filthy camel to the destructive sins of neglecting justice, mercy, and faithfulness.

The Torah teachers and Pharisees, to whom Jesus is speaking, are aware that Jesus is referring to words of the prophet, Micah.

“… And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8 NIV).

These three requirements of God are not acts that are personally beneficial, they are beneficial to an entire community.

Walt Emerson said, “What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.”

Everything you care about enough to act upon is a reflection of what you are truly about. If you only focus on tiny things, it’s because, inside, you are tiny Christians. And a tiny Christian is only an actor. He or she is only pretending to be a Christian.

If you don’t care that everyone receives fair justice and mercy, and if you are not consistent in your desire to see that justice and mercy are equally given, then you are just dressing up for a show on Sunday. People will tell you how wonderful you look, and they will brag about the chores you do for the church. But if you ignore the things that really matter to God…Justice, Mercy and faithfulness, you are just an over-dressed sinner who strains out the gnat and swallows a camel.

In His dust,
Johnny

© 2009 Jonathan P. Gainey and Flock’s Diner.
All Rights Reserved

The background of The Parable of the Tenants in Luke 20 has a sinister history which is very often unknown by the majority of those of us who read the Bible.

Often this parable is taught with the understanding that the “tenants/farmers” are the Jews, the “servants” are the prophets, and “others” refers to the Gentiles, non-Jews, or Christians. However, a closer look at the history of the Temple reveals that this parable is more likely a direct reference to the corruption among the Temple authorities and God’s ability to remove and re-staff His Temple with new leadership, such as the case after the destruction of the first Temple.

According to important and reliable writings of antiquity, the background of the parable has to do with some Levite families. One particular family is that of the high priest, Ananias, who was a wealthy landowner. By the time of the Second Temple period, in Jesus day, it is well documented that many Levites were wealthy landowners, though they were not supposed to own land. Realizing that these wealthy worship leaders no longer required the sharing of their crops and herds, many Jews discontinued their tithes.

Ironically, Levites who were wealthy landowners were given great honor by the Jews because of their wealth and prestige. Unfortunately, this wealth led to oppression by some Levite families. When the priests (servants) came to receive from the tithes (fruit) provided at the Temple (vineyard), the Levites (tenant/farmers) would not give them their food and the priests would even be physically beaten and or killed by the slaves who were owned by the Levite and his family. Many of these priests simply starved to death.

The high priest, Ananias (tenant), would not give to the priests (servants) who came for food, which he was required to provide to the servants of the temple when they came to the owner’s vineyard (God’s Temple) for their fruit (food to feed their families).

Ananias is spoken of by the first century historian, Josephus, as “a supplier of money.” “Supplier” is another name for “robber,” which is the title that robbers would call themselves. Josephus also says of the Levite family of Ananias: “Such was the shamelessness and effrontery which possessed the high priests that they were so brazen as to send servants to the threshing floors to receive the tithes that were due to the priests, with the result that the poorer priests starved to death” (Jesus’ Last Week, 69).

Ananias and his family are characterized as a “mafia” who bullied the priests of the temple in Jesus’ day and began making a lucrative living off of the tithes of the people.

It is worth noting that purchasing sacrificial animals from the temple would not have been a reason for Jesus’ aggressive behavior since Deuteronomy 14:25-26 makes provision for purchasing offerings.

Jesus’ rampage through the Temple was a result of his unyielding tolerance for the Temple leaders’ gross neglect of reaching the lost and their lawless brutality as organized criminals. Anyone in earshot of Jesus telling The Parable of the Talents knows exactly to whom he’s referring. After all, all of Jerusalem is frustrated and disgusted by corruption of the Temple authorities.

Imagine everyone’s surprise when Jesus takes on the Mob. This historical information could reveal a hint at an explanation to the illegal trial and the fact that no one tried to stop Jesus in the Temple.

In His dust,
Johnny

© 2009 Jonathan P. Gainey and Flock’s Diner.
All Rights Reserved

Bibliography:

Notley, Steven R., Turnage, Marc. and Becker, Brian. Jesus’ Last Week. The Netherlands: Brill Academic Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP, 2006.

Every once in awhile, a book comes along that literally changes a person’s life. Recently that book for me was A Little Exercise for Young Theologians by Helmut Thielicke.

This very small, 41-page book should be read by everyone who goes about the task of theological study. The sins of young students of the Word are brought out so simply and powerfully that one cannot read this book without reflecting on his or her own arrogance as a pubecent adventurer of holy writ.

So much of what Theilicke had to say was powerfully accurate. His insights should be read by everyone who attempts the task of theological education, formally or otherwise. Jut about every page of the book has some amount of highlighting, because I could not resist the urge to be able to go back to his thoughts with ease.

The arrogance or “theological puberty” that Thielicke speaks about is dead on with most of us, and few can resist the urge to “wallow in our ownership” of new findings, which are shared with passionate urgency as if all the secrets of the universe have been discovered by the young theologian, and others have been left in the dark.

The temptation to speak down to the congregation rather than speak with them is also a temptation that is sometimes heightened by theological studies. Pouring out our defense for hymns of old as more theologically stirring and rich as apposed to the simple and shallow words of newer worship music becomes a constant agenda of the learned master of all things God.

As a Salvation Army officer and pastor, I have found myself with the same urges, especially in Sunday school settings, Bible studies and small groups, to correct all those who have not been privy to my level of discovery. I say that with sarcasm. I can go back and almost hear my words sending the message, “Oh ye of simple faith.”

Even the introduction of Thielicke’s book is full of informational wealth. As Martin E. Marty points out, those who study deeply do change their minds about what they believe quite often. This is a healthy sign of a growing Christian, but the one experiencing such a crisis must be patient with those who rarely question anything spiritual. I find myself in this predicament of philosophical transitioning so often that I have wondered if there are any definite truths to be discovered from the biblical text. And then, I realize that I am also guilty of the tendency to read the Scriptures only to discover what can become a sermon.

This book has truly opened my eyes to the dangers of theological adolescence, and I am determined to get this book into more hands, especially those who are called to the task of teaching.

As for my own ministry, I have been made more aware of my task to learn as much from my pastor, the church, as I teach. And although the need for life-long learning must never cease, there will be times when the learning that I am able to glean from the most humble of theologians may very well contain the richest, life-giving instructions of my life.

As Thielicke so wisely states, “Even an orthodox theologian can be spiritually dead, while perhaps a heretic crawls on forbidden bypaths to the sources of life” (Thielicke, 37).

In His dust,
Johnny

© 2009 Jonathan P. Gainey and Flock’s Diner.
All Rights Reserved

When I lived in Jacksonville, Florida and first came to The Salvation Army back in 1998, I can remember how the homeless were very distinct from those who were poor but lived in a home. It wasn’t just their buggies that they collected stuff in and pushed all over town. It wasn’t just their unkempt hair, and dirty beards.

The thing that made the biggest impression on me about homeless people wasn’t what I could see or touch, but what I smelled. Homeless people have a very unique smell. It is a strangely sweet, putrid odor that is hard to explain.

We all recognize the aromas of different people in our lives. Anytime I smell sawdust, I immediately think of my grandfather. And there are certain colognes and perfumes that remind me of my mother and father.

When I was leaving for Germany, after only one year of marriage, I took along a shirt that my wife had worn the night before I left and the smell of her lingered on the shirt for months. Every night I would sleep with that shirt, holding it close to my face on the pillow to think about the woman of my life and imagine her being close when I closed my eyes.

In Luke 10:38-42 we read a story of two ladies who hosted Jesus in their home.

Yose ben Yoezer, a Jewish sage who was born two hundred years before Jesus, said, “Let your home be a meeting-house for the sages, and cover yourself with the dust of their feet, and drink in their words thirstily.” By allowing one’s home to be a classroom for scholars, the community made it possible for these teachers of God’s word to share their wisdom with all of Israel. Mary and Martha obeyed this injunction by offering their hospitality and home to Jesus the Jewish sage and Messiah. (Bivin, 12-13).

We are also given another important historical clue when the text says that Mary was sitting at the feet of Jesus and listening to his teaching. She was “covering herself with the dust of her rabbi.”

The “dust of the rabbi” was a reference to walking so closely behind a rabbi that, as he walked, the dust from his sandals would get on his followers’ clothes. This was a way of saying, “Stay so close to your teacher that you don’t miss a thing!”

Mary was at the best place in the meeting-house; she was at the feet of the rabbi. She was covering herself in the dust of Jesus and drinking in his teaching. Martha, on the other hand, was so busy preparing that she was missing out on the best seat in the house.

“’Martha, Martha,’ the Lord answered, ‘you are worried and upset about many things, but only one things is needed. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her.’”

There are clues in the holy text that tell us that Mary knew that Jesus was much more than a Rabbi.

In chapter 12 of John’s gospel the scriptures record an incident when Jesus had an entire bottle of anointing perfume poured over him, and the text says, “The house was filled with the fragrance…”

In the 26th chapter of Matthew Jesus explains that Mary is preparing him for burial. And there is something more to this act of devotion from Mary. This act of anointing Jesus with an expensive perfume may show that Mary believed Jesus was the Messiah.

In Hebrew, the word for Messiah is Mashiach. Mashiach means “the Anointed One” or “the Christ” in Greek. Messiah or Anointed One comes from the ceremony that is done to someone who is set apart and chosen by God, such as a king or a priest. Rather than being crowned, Hebrew kings were anointed with expensive perfumes and spices, and so were sacred objects that were used in the temple (Spangler and Tverberg, 16).

The aroma that followed the object or the person, who had been anointed, served as an invisible crown. Anything and anyone that had this fragrance upon it or him was recognized as belonging to God and having a special task.

In the ancient Middle East, kings were not only recognized by their robes and jewelry, but they also carried with them an “aroma of royalty.” This was important during royal processions when the crowds needed to be aware that the king was about to walk by (Spangler and Tverberg, 17).

There is an example of just such a procession when Solomon was anointed as the new king of Israel.

“So Zadok the pries…went down and put Solomon on King David’s mule and escorted him to Gihon. Zadok the priest took the horn of oil from the sacred tent and anointed Solomon. Then they sounded the trumpet and all the people shouted, ‘Long live King Solomon!’ And all the people went up after him, playing flutes and rejoicing greatly, so that the ground shook with the sound. (1 Kings 1:38-40)

Right after Mary anointed Jesus, he rode through Jerusalem on, what we call, “the triumphal entry.” And as this rabbi, covered in a royal aroma passed through Jerusalem, the people shouted, “Hosannah! Blessed is the king of Israel.”

For most of Jesus’ last three years, his travels often gave him the look of a dusty, sweaty transient. But regardless of how he looked, Jesus spent his last week smelling like a king (Spangler and Tverberg, 18).

In His dust,
Johnny

© 2009 Jonathan P. Gainey and Flock’s Diner.
All Rights Reserved

Bibliography:

Ann Spangler and Lois Tverberg, Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009).

David Bivin, New Light on the Difficult Words of Jesus (Holland, MI: En-Gedi Resource Center, Inc., 2005).

There is a connection between the giving of the Law on Mt. Sinai and the giving of the Spirit on Mt. Zion. Both are associated with Pentecost, or the biblical Feast called Shavu’ot or Weeks (e.g., Deut 16:9-10).

In studying the Scriptures, the Jewish Sages of old concluded that the Torah (Law) was given to Israel seven weeks (shavu’ot) or the fiftieth day (pentecostos) following the Exodus from Egypt. At Sinai, Israel’s Redeemer became Israel’s Teacher. Through His servant Moses, the Almighty conveyed divine instruction to His beloved children when the fiery radiance of His Spirit came down on the mountain and wrote upon Tablets of Stone.

Ancient Jewish commentary suggests that the Divine Voice at Sinai separated into tongues of flame that went throughout the earth, so that all nations could hear: “I am the LORD your God … you shall have no other gods before me” (Ex 20:2-3).

Not surprisingly, echoes of Sinai reverberate behind the Acts account of the historic events on Mt. Zion “when the day of Pentecost had fully come” (Ac 2:1ff).

Fifty days after the sacrifice of the Passover Lamb, the disciples of Yeshua, along with the people of Israel and Jewish pilgrims from the nations, assembled at the House of the Lord to commemorate the Festival of Shavu’ot. Once again, to a newly redeemed people, the Almighty came to rest upon a mountain by the fire of His Spirit.

This time He wrote the Torah upon the tablets of the believers’ hearts – in accord with Jeremiah’s promise of a “new covenant” (31:33). As tongues of flame came to rest upon them, the Divine Voice once again gave utterance to the nations. Many heard the good news. Even as three thousand perished at Sinai due to rebellion, at Zion three thousand were added due to faith (Ex 32:28; Ac 2:41).

CHRISTIANS WHO WANT to develop the Hebraic mind of the Messiah will find it helpful to rethink the Torah (Law) in the light of the Spirit. We tend to overlook the baseline biblical truth that “the Torah (Law) is spiritual” (Romans 7:14); that our true selves delight in it (7:22); and that when we walk by the Spirit we will fulfill its righteous requirements (8:4), as did our Lord.

Historically, Christian polemics against Judaism have stressed negative aspects of the Law as that which identifies and condemns sin and brings curse instead of blessing upon the rebellious and disobedient. Here are some Hebraic principles that will help you develop a more positive attitude toward the Torah (Law).

1] The Torah is a loving Father’s teaching. The Hebrew word torah fundamentally connotes guidance and instruction – that which aims you so that you hit the mark. And the mark for the Torah always is life. The English word Law (from the Greek nomos) seldom has such a positive connotation; so you may find it helpful instead to use the Hebrew term that Jesus used, Torah.

2] The Torah is a treasure. Only in light of the above can we appreciate the Psalmist’s attitude: “O how I love your Torah!” (Ps 119:97). Psalm 119 consists of 8 verses for each of the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet, and every one of the 176 verses extols the wisdom and will of God found in the multifaceted Torah.

3] The Torah is a gift of the Spirit. The Torah was written by “the finger of God” (Ex 31:18; Deut 9:10). This Hebrew idiom is found also in Luke 11:20 and explained in the parallel of Matthew 12:28. It means “the Spirit of God”. Truly the Torah – the foundational “Scripture” to which the Apostle Paul alludes in 2 Timothy 3:16 – is “inspired”, i.e., in-Spirited. It is God breathed.

4] The Torah is guidance for a redeemed people. The Law was given to Israel after they had been saved out of Egypt, not as the basis or means of their salvation. It was meant to guide the covenant people in paths of righteousness that would bring them to the appointed place of promise and productivity. As followers of Jesus of Nazareth, it is good to be reminded that these things “were written for our instruction” (1 Cor 10:11) as well.

God’s Word is truth (Ps 119:160; Jn 17:17), and Yeshua reminds us that the Holy Spirit is a Spirit of Truth (Jn 15:26). We would do well this Pentecost season to study the spiritual connection between Sinai and Zion.

Dr. Pryor is Founder and President of the
Center for Judaic-Christian Studies.
www.jcstudies.com

© 2009 Dr. Dwight Pryor and The Center for Judaic-Christian Studies. All Rights Reserved.