Aged "Detri-Nuts": A Delicacy 18 Years in the Making

The 18-year cicada is about to make its emergence into adulthood. An estimated 50 million of the adult cicadas are expected to grace Chicagoland in a number of weeks. In strict accordance with the Dead Sea Sect's preparation specifications for locusts, the Sander kids have begun the process of harvesting the nutrient benefit of these calorie-packed sources of protein, essential fatty acids (especially Omega 3), B-vitamins, and photolipids. Below is a picture of Elianna taking in her first cicada nymph of the season, relishing the moment.



When asked what her favorite part of eating cicada nymph is, Elianna responded, "They are so juicy, but you have to bite them fast before they start to move in your moth." Below is a picture of Schmuel about to conduct a swift dental removal of a cicada nymph's head.

Schmuel states, "I like the nymphs better than the adults because they taste sweet and are unencumbered by a set of tasteless wings."

“Detri-nuts” is the affectionate term that Mr. Sander uses to describe the cicada nymph. He explains that the 18-year cicada is like a donut because of the calorie saturation and the ratio of fat calories to other calories in the organism. Though they typically eat them in the field, sometimes Mr. Sander and his kids will sauté living “detri-nuts” in an olive-oil, garlic spread. Mr. Sander states, though, that he prefers to eat them “like the good-Lord intended” – uncooked, raw, and literally “dancing on the tip of your tongue.”

Violence in Islam...A Review of Sources

Violence in Islam…a Review of Sources

There are many misconceptions among Christians about the relationship between violence and Islam. Unfortunately, many Christians assert that the Qur’an and the Sunnah both endorse violence against infidels or unbelievers. I would like to ask my readers to ponder the following passage:

"Let the purified ones be exuberant in glory, let them sing aloud from their couches—the high praises of Allah in their mouth and a two-edged sword in their hand. [They will] execute vengeance upon the infidels, and punishments upon the people, binding their kings with chains, and their nobles with iron fetters, executing upon them the judgment written…"

This passage betrays the synthesis between military exploit and the worship of Allah. Jews, Christians and Muslim believe that God will punish the wicked—yet this passage seems to deliver the responsibility of such punishment into the hands of the servants of God. The image here depicted is one of the God’s servants “exuberant in glory” reciting the “praises of Allah” while they slaughter the infidels with a two-edged sword. Could there be a picture more at odds with Western religious sensibilities? Does this passage not depict a religion that advocates violence and hostility?

Those familiar with the Qur’an and the Bible might have recognized this already. Our passage does not come from the Qu’ran. Rather, this passage is from an Arabic version of the Bible, Psalm 149:5-9. Hence, God is rendered as the generic Arabic title for God which is “Allah.” Does the source of this passage surprise you?

I present this passage as a challenge. In my reading Christian revues of Islamic literature (especially the Qur’an), I have found that there is widespread bigotry, over-generalization, and misrepresentation about the role of violence in Islam. Through mishandling Islamic literature, Christians have demonstrated unequal weights and measures—an act deplored both in the Bible and the Qur’an. Christians over-represent violence in Islam while ignoring a very very parallel presence of such “problems” in their sacred texts.

May Y-H-W-H grant us success!

More Righteous Than Us...Islamic Hijab

In Special Laws III X.56 Philo the Jew comments on Numbers 5 where the women suspected of adultery stands before the priest in the Temple. Philo states,

“…the priest shall…take away from her the head-dress of her head, that she may
be judged with her head bare, and deprived of the symbol of modesty, which all
those women are accustomed to wear who are completely blameless…”

This evidences the presence of women head coverings in Philo’s time (mid-1st century). In a similar vein, Paul directly instructs the faithful women to cover their heads “as in all the assemblies of God” when he states,

“But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered
dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if
the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a
woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered” (I Cor 11:5-6).

Picking up from the Judeo-Christian tradition, the Qur’an instructs women:

“…And let them wear their head-coverings over their bosoms. And they
should not display their adornment…And turn to [God] all, o faithful, so that
you may be successful” (24:31).

While Christians and Messianic women go about bare-headed, the Muslimahs (Muslim women) condemn us by their be-garbed piety. We do not incline ourselves to the witness of tradition and Scripture, and the Muslim, aware of our obligations, finds us hypocritical and inconsistent.

The following link is a Muslim song about the value of the hijab. Hijab represents the distinctive styles of Islamic modesty including the female head scarf. The example that Muslim women offer to Christian women is outstanding. We would do well to awaken from our cultural stupor against women head coverings and fall back on the traditional Christian and Jewish understanding of this practice.

“This Hijab”
http://www.prohijab.net/english/hijab-nasheed.mp3

Foolishness to the Greeks...

My God is Y-H-W-H.

He is not a deity contained.

Eternally incarnate in the Nazarene,

He is foolishness to the Greeks and a stumbling stone to the Judeans.

My God stood beneath the heavens and felt the wonder of the stars.

His feet trod the path to His execution and His blood congealed with the dust.

He came, He saw, He surrendered all,

Purchasing us with His blood.

Knowledge

Some seek knowledge for
The sake of knowledge:
That is curiosity;

Others seek knowledge so that
They themselves may be known:
That is vanity;

But there are still others
Who seek knowledge in
Order to serve and edify others;
And that is charity.

Bernard of Clairveaux

"God is Not a Man..." Part IV

God is a non-corporeal being. That is, His essence is not bound to a form or a body. Where do we learn this from written Torah? Deuteronomy 4:15 states:

כִּי לֹא רְאִיתֶם, כָּל-תְּמוּנָה

In context, this phrase is found as follows:
“Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude (כִּי לֹא רְאִיתֶם, כָּל-תְּמוּנָה) on the day that YHWH spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire”

Of interest, the Pentateuch does not provide us with a systematic delineation about the nature of God. The Pentateuchal revelation of God is not propositionally ontological—dealing with abstract principles such as omniscience, omnipotence, and transcendence as systematized in classic theology. The Pentateuchal revelation of God deals with concrete functionality. In other words, we learn about God through the functions that He assumes. This does not mean that ontic revelation about God cannot be derived from the Pentateuch; rather, Pentateuchal functional revelation carries implicit ontology. For example, God as transcendent Creator is understood not through a systematic delineation of His nature in Genesis 1 but rather through the actions that He, as a Being outside of creation, took to create out of nothing.

Of critical interest to the question of the deity of Yeshua, the Synoptic Gospels are often used as a silent witness against the assertion that Yeshua is God. The Synoptics, like the Pentateuch, do not deal with ontology but functionality. And, as in the Pentateuchal revelation, the functions assumed by Yeshua are a direct reflection of His ontology—God incarnate (healer, forgiver of sins, etc.).

Deuteronomy 4:15 is a functional revelation. After the assertion is made that no form or similitude was seen by the nation at Sinai, our passage then prohibits the construction of forms or images intended to represent God. No explicit statement exists to deny form to God in the Pentateuch; rather, His nature as such (ontology) is implicit in the fact that His Sinai revelation was devoid of form.

The formlessness or non-corporeality of God does not preclude the ability of God to cause Himself to be revealed or manifested in terms of form. There is nothing in the Pentateuch to preclude this possibility. In fact, God does reveal Himself through such forms as the “malakh YHWH” (Angel of the LORD). The preclusion of form as understood in modern Judaism is not inherent to biblical theism.

(this is an early draft…it will likely change, time permitting)

"God is Not a Man..." Part III

Ironically, this past Shabbat my six-year old son asked me, “Does God have a body?” After I advised him that God does not have a body, he asked me, “Then is God not real?” The childlike mind thinks concretely. Our passage speaks concretely too.

This passage presents Balaam’s promulgation of the perpetual priority that God’s people hold with Providence. As already demonstrated with nachmat Elohim, this passage does not constitute a comprehensive statement about the nature of God. Rather, here God seeks to correct Balak’s false belief that Israel could be disenfranchised of her portion and allotment as God’s people. Why then does Balaam state, “God is not a man that he should repent…”? Why would God make reference to man in this passage?

Before answering this question, note that Numbers 23:19 exhibits poetic parallelism. Notice the following:

A God is not a man
A1 that He should lie
A neither the son of man
A1 that He should repent

B He hath said
B1 will He not do it
B …He hath spoken
B1 will He not make it good?

Our passage pairs the following terms: ish (man) with ben adam (son of man) and kazeiv (lie or disappoint) with nacham (repent). The parallel presentation of this passage provides each phrase with lexical precincts that can be used to determine precise lexical pith. Hence, the statement God is not a man is synonymous with [God is not] a son of man. The objection, then, that Yeshua is referred to as the “son of man” does not resonate here. We find that man and son of man are synonyms in this passage through this chiastic parallelism.

God is not a man…again, why does this passage contain such a statement? Contextually, this passage relates to Israel’s relationship with God and not to apodictic revelation about the nature of God. We have already demonstrated that this passage is inconsistent with the nature of God revealed elsewhere. Why the connection: God is not a man?

The connection is a concretion. The God of the Bible is dynamic. He is not an abstract principle. He is personality and presence. The Greek mind seeks to keep Him abstract and ethereal, yet the prophets are not reluctant to call Him the Rock or the Shepherd. Yes, they also speak of His right hand and sitting at His feet. Likewise, they are not afraid to compare Him to a man in this passage. The comparison, though, relates to the attribute of man that God does not possess: a fickle mind.

God speaks in concretions. This type of concretion is known as anthropomorphism in which the dynamic God is revealed as possessing human attributes. The next post will deal with the incorporeal nature of God.