I decided to take on reading through the Bible in a year this year. So I started on January 1st and found a schedule to guide me, which combines everyday readings of the old and new testaments, working through from beginning to end. I decided to read the version that is called The Message, which is a contemporary language account. For the Old Testament, I decided that when the text states “GOD,” I would read this as “Jesus,” and just see how it goes. I am particularly interested to notice instances that give examples of use of the constructive mindset.
Early on in the book of Exodus, I came across an innocent looking statement that I realized has profound significance. The text is an account of the family tree of Moses and his older brother Aaron, who would become High Priest. It states: “Aaron married Elisheba, the daughter of Amminadab and sister of Nahshon, and she had Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar.” I don’t know about you, but usually I find such statements to be dry and matter-of-fact, but as I read this one, a light turned on.
It turns out that there is other information about Amminadab and his son Nahshon elsewhere in the biblical account of history. Nahshon has a son named Salmon. This means that Salmon’s uncle is Aaron, and one of his cousins is Aaron’s son Eleazar. We are told in the account of Matthew that Salmon marries Rahab of Jericho, and they have a son named Boaz. Aaron is therefore Great Uncle to Boaz, with Moses being the brother to Boaz’ Great Uncle. Even though they don’t meet, it is a close family connection.
Eleazar’s son continues as high priest, and his name is Phinehas; it means that Phinehas and Boaz are second cousins. What I think is sweet is that the lineage from Boaz continues to David, who becomes King (which is further traced down many generations to Jesus), and the lineage of high priests continues from Phinehas and is also further listed for many generations. There appears to be a close family connection between the kingly line within the tribe of Judah, and the priestly line within the tribe of Levi, at least early on in the history of the Israelite nation.
How is this significant as far as examples of the constructive mindset? One account of the wanderings of the Israelites before they cross the Jordan into the promised land has it that the king of Moab hires a seer by the name of Balaam to curse the Israelites as they are camped on the Plains of Moab at Jordan-Jericho. Moab is afraid of the Israelites, but the curses are not successful. The next we are told is that Moabite and Midianite women start having relations with Israelite men, relations that are part of their religion practices but not according to Israelite religious practices. As a result, a plague breaks out against the Israelite men, and at least 24,000 die.
It is Phinehas who takes a stand against what is going on, and his severe actions stop the plague and save Israel. Phinehas is confirmed as High Priest, and the Israelites move on to cross the Jordan to take on Jericho. Warnings are issued against Midian and likely Moab, who had treated the Israelites as enemies. It is in Jericho that we meet Rahab, who is to become wife of Salmon and mother of Boaz.
Sometime later in the biblical account we hear of the story of Elimelech and his wife Naomi, who with their sons Mahlon and Kilion move from Bethlehem to Moab to avert a famine at the time. I can imagine this must have been a radical move, as the memory of what happened in Moab to the Israelites must still be fairly fresh. As it turns out, the sons marry Moabite women. Then tragedy: Elimelech dies, and then ten years later, both sons die while they are still living in Moab. We are not told this, but it is possible that Naomi is wondering if these deaths may be punishment for going and integrating with Moab. Naomi decides to return to Bethlehem, and her Moabite daughter-in-law Ruth decides to follow her and adopt the Israelite ways as her own.
Once again we are not aware of the depth of reaction to Ruth, a Moabitess, arriving in Bethlehem, but Naomi and Ruth come up with a plan to protect her as best they can. It is possible that Ruth is subject to destructive mindset reaction within Israel such as: “Oh, watch out for Ruth the Moabitess, one look at her and you could die.” In other words, she could be regarded as a “potato.”
However, Boaz, who is the High Priest Phinehas’ close relative, and who also has a non-Israelite mother, Rahab, relates with Ruth with dignity and respect. Ruth is not a potato. Boaz gives us an example of the constructive mindset in action. There is a difference between a person and a potato. Eventually, Ruth and Boaz marry, and Ruth in time becomes Great-Grandmother to David, who would become King.
You can read the accounts for yourself to fill in the details. Of interest, there is later in biblical history another situation of close relational ties between the royal and priestly lines. Mary is cousin to Elizabeth, whose husband Zechariah performs priestly duties. Their son John becomes cousin to Mary’s son Jesus, once again close family connections between the tribe of Levi and the tribe of Judah. I can’t say I fully understand the significance of this, but maybe someday another light will turn on …
Musings: I’ve been thinking about the yin-yang symbol. Could it be possible that this symbol be a representation of the Trinity? Yin and yang are said to represent the negative and the positive, in terms of opposites rather than in terms of good and bad. If so, perhaps the part of the Godhead that we do not see and cannot represent by any form is represented by the negative and by intuition represents God the Father? By further intuition, the form that we hear (the Word) and became flesh (Jesus), is represented by the positive which represents God the Son? By further intuition, the relationship between the two is represented as a third entity. In the yin-yang symbol they are the two smaller circles within the light and dark halves. Can we understand this as representing God the Spirit? I find this an interesting meditation.
One Response
Good catch on the complicated relationships in the OT Dr Sinn!
As for your musings on the yin-yang and the Trinity, perhaps there is something to chew on there. The ‘via negativa’ (negative theology, or apophatic theology) has a long tradition in Christian thought as a way to speak about God by what He is ‘not’, or what He is ‘beyond’. The revelation of the Father in the person of Jesus Christ is obvious in the NT, and the person the Holy Spirit has sometimes been described primarily as the love relationship between the Father and Son (esp. in Western theologians like Augustine, Jonathan Edwards, and our denomination’s own Stanley Grenz). Interesting thoughts!