Four Faces of the Gospel

“Four. There’s nothing special about four in the Bible, is there?”

Well, there is no number that’s not special or interesting. Suppose N is the first uninteresting number, isn't that interesting?

Anyway, someone did say that to me last winter. And in one of life’s non-coincidences, I had learned about the four faces of the Gospel just that month. There are plenty of other “fours” in the Bible (Google [1]) that you can read about, but I was surprised to learn that the four Gospels parallel the four “living beings” of Revelation 4, and also parallel ancient Israel. The four living beings have four different faces - lion, ox, man, and eagle. The banners or flags that ancient Israel camped by had the same four faces.

The Israelites were instructed to camp around the Tabernacle by tribe, Levites nearest to the Tabernacle, and the other tribes camped around the Levites  in a specific order.  According to Jewish tradition (Keil Commentary on the Old Testament [2]) it was believed that the banners of the tribes were as follows (I couldn't find clipart that matched the Keil text exactly, this was the closest I could find).

The Four Banners [3]

Judah - East (Lion of gold with a scarlet background).

Reuben - South (Man on gold background).

Ephraim - West (Ox of black on gold background).

Dan - North (Eagle of gold on a blue background).



It’s not clear whether the tribes camped in rings outward from the temple or in spokes.

Jesuswalk.com [5]

A History of Israel [4]

Either way, all the depictions seem to be inaccurate because they don’t account for the large number of people and tents and livestock. See Google Image Search [6] for a variety of opinions of how they camped around the Tabernacle, I assert that all of them are wrong, a topic for another day.

What has this got to do with the gospel? Well, there is the obvious fact that there are four animals, four faces, four gospels. Is there a connection? Early church writers taught so. And it makes sense. The only problem is that these early writers don’t agree on which Gospel writer is represented by which face. Consider this chart from  http://catholic-resources.org/Art/Evangelists_Symbols.htm  [7]. There is good agreement here that Matthew is the Human (Rueben) and John is the Eagle (Dan), but there are at least four opinions. Apparently, almost every combination has been suggested (24 permutations).

Early Christian Author	Human/Angel	Lion	Ox	Eagle
St. Irenaeus of Lyons	Matthew	John	Luke	Mark
St. Augustine of Hippo	Mark	Matthew	Luke	John
Pseudo-Athanasius	Matthew	Luke	Mark	John
St. Jerome	Matthew	Mark	Luke	John

Matthew, Mark, and Luke are known as the synoptic Gospels, that is they “form a general summary”.  John’s Gospel is different from the other three.  So I wanted to say “one of these animals is not like the others” to fit the Gospel of John.  But I can find ways in which each is different – there is only one human, the ox is the head of tame animals, the eagle is the only bird, the lion the head of wild animals. John may be considered as loftier than the others, a bird’s eye view so to speak. 

While the early Church writers may not have agreed on which face went with which gospel, they were unanimous that the symbolism existed, and it pictured four different faces or aspects of Christ’s ministry. Spiritandtruth.org [8] tells us:

The unanimity of the early church regarding acceptance of some combination of such symbolism is remarkable

Notwithstanding the careful chart above, I think the weight of evidence goes to Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary [9]:

the lion expressing royalty, as Matthew gives prominence to this feature of Christ; the ox, laborious endurance, Christ's prominent characteristic in Mark; man, brotherly sympathy with the whole race of man, Christ's prominent feature in Luke; the eagle, soaring majesty, prominent in John's description of Christ as the Divine Word.

Again from JFB:

(1)   kingly righteousness with hatred of evil and judicial equity, answering to the "lion";

(2)   laborious diligence in every duty, the "ox";

(3)   human sympathy, the "man";

(4)   the contemplation of heavenly truth, the "eagle."

Spiritandtruth.org [8] agrees with JFB, adding this

There is objective evidence found within Scripture itself which reliably establishes the intended emphasis of each gospel. This evidence is found in the genealogies of Christ which establish the line of Jesus from Abraham (Matthew), Adam (Luke), and eternity (John). Thus we know with some certainty that Matthew presents Jesus as King of the Jews, Luke as the Son of Man, and John as the Son of God. The only remaining question is that of the presentation of Mark. There being no genealogy in Mark, it seems plain that the emphasis of servant fits his gospel.

In other words, none of the combinations in the chart above.

Gospel	Face
Matthew	Lion
Mark	Ox
Luke	Man
John	Eagle

The number four also suggests the whole world is involved, as in these common expressions, “four points of the compass”, “to the four winds”, “the four corners of the earth”.  As far as I know, the four horsemen of the Apocalypse bear no relation to the four living creatures except they are worldwide.  The Gospel is to go to all the world. Many verses in the Old Testament point out that Israel (not just the Jews) were chosen to be a light to the world, that salvation would go to all the world through them.  Sadly, they did not fulfill this role

Ex 19:6  and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests

Dt 7:6 For you are a people holy to the Lord your God; the Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for his own possession

Is 42:6 I am the Lord, I have called you in righteousness, I have taken you by the hand and kept you; I have given you as a covenant to the people, a light to the nations, to open the eyes that are blind

Isaiah 49:6. It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved of Israel; I will give you as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.

Spiritandtruth.org [8] has much more detail there than I give here.  However, it suggests that the one “face” of Christ represented by Mark focused on the Romans, and the face represented by John focused on the Greeks.  I think that is skipping over the notion above that Israel was to be the light to the nations, the Gospel was to go to Israel first. Mt 10:6 & 15:24 “But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

Since the Tabernacle is a shadow of the heavenly throne (Heb 8:5), consider this - the four living beings surround the throne, while the four banners surround the Tabernacle. And Christ is surrounded by the four Gospels, which go out to the whole world.


There is something quite special about four in the Bible, it's a shorthand way of saying Christ's Gospel has four aspects, came from heaven, and is going to Israel and the world.

References

1. https://www.google.com/search?q=biblical+four

2. http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_adv_b/?search-alias=stripbooks&unfiltered=1&field-title=Commentary%20on%20the%20Old%20Testament
3. http://seekianseng.blogspot.com/
4. http://www.israel-a-history-of.com/zebulun.html#gallery[pageGallery]/4/
5. http://www.jesuswalk.com/moses/7_tabernacle.htm
6. https://www.google.com/search?q=images&q=israel+camping+around+the+tabernacle
7. http://catholic-resources.org/Art/Evangelists_Symbols.htm
8. http://www.spiritandtruth.org/teaching/Book_of_Revelation/commentary/htm/topics/four_gospels.html
9. http://biblehub.com/commentaries/jfb/revelation/4.htm

Camping Foreshadows the Gospel

The story of the Exodus, ancient Israel leaving Egypt for the Promised Land, is rich with symbolism, perhaps more than any other event in the Bible.  Consider some parallels between Exodus and the life of a believer.  Egypt pictures slavery or bondage to sin.  Pharaoh pictures the evil one, the one we were enslaved to.  Crossing the Red Sea pictures deliverance from that bondage.  Although God Himself was right there, the people saw Moses as their deliverer.  Wandering for 40 years in the wilderness pictures a lifetime of testing, training, and proving. They didn't really wander in the wilderness – God led them the whole time by a pillar of fire or pillar of smoke. Crossing the Jordan to the Promised Land is a second deliverance, this time by Joshua.  The Promised Land was their reward. 

I doubt that the Israelites understood at the time that their journey, their entire lives, were symbolic of every believer's journey.  In short, the Exodus story pictures the gospel of the Kingdom of God. We must be delivered from slavery.  We must "wander" in this world being tried and tested.  We must be delivered from death into our Promised Land, the Kingdom of God.

Why camping?

Aside from the spiritual parallels which we will explore soon, there are physical benefits to camping. Outdoor recreation (camping) has been studied for decades. Quoting from the University of Minnesota Forestry Research Notes 1969 [1]:

Outdoor recreation gives rise to many kinds of social effects which are valued highly. One of these effects appears to be stronger family cohesiveness; i.e., enhancement of person-to-person intimacy binding a family group together. Family cohesiveness is important for several reasons: (1) it can promote effective socialization of children; (2) it can strengthen self-concepts of family members; and (3) it can improve the participant's satisfactions gained from association with other people.

Patrick C West writes about the group struggle, the shared recollection, and isolation in camping as factors that contribute to family cohesiveness (Outdoor Recreation and Family Cohesiveness) [2].  Those shared recollections may have been passed down through the generations to us (America and Britain are the descendants of ancient Israel*), and may explain why camping is so popular today.

But camping?

Ancient Israel was commanded to keep the Feast of Tabernacles to remember year-by-year that their ancestors dwelt in tents when they came out of Egypt, in other words, reminded that their forefathers camped. Israel dwelt in tents 40 years while they were in the wilderness between Egypt and the Promised Land. Actually they dwelt in tents longer than that, until Israel was settled in the land of Canaan, which took some time (When did Israel stop dwelling in tents?) [3]. A lot was happening while they were camping there. In addition to developing the cohesiveness mentioned above, and more than just remembering their humble beginnings, during the time in the wilderness the “old man” who left Egypt had to die, similar to what it says in Romans 6:6 "that our old man was crucified …that we would no longer be enslaved to sin".  And it was the new man, ie. the son, who entered Canaan.  

Not just any camping, but ancient Israel's camping in the wilderness foreshadowed the Gospel.  We still picture that today by keeping the Feast of Tabernacles.

Many teach that the Holy Days in Leviticus 23 picture the plan of salvation, which also parallels the journey from Egypt to Canaan.  The Feast of Tabernacles is the last festival of the seven and is often associated with the soon coming millennium, a kind of Promised Land, if you will. Tabernacles pictures many things, not just the millennium.

Why would God make a point to remind Israel they dwelt in booths when they came out of Egypt?  It doesn't look forward to a future fulfillment, but looks back to the Exodus. Lev 23:

⁴² You shall dwell in booths for seven days. All who are native Israelites shall dwell in booths, ⁴³ that your generations may know that I made the children of Israel dwell in booths when I brought them out of the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.                   

The booths (Hebrew word sukkot) are also described in Lev 23:

⁴⁰ And you shall take for yourselves on the first day the fruit of beautiful trees, branches of palm trees, the boughs of leafy trees, and willows of the brook

A little more info on sukkot from Wikipedia [4]:

The Hebrew word sukkot is the plural of sukkah, "booth or tabernacle", which is a walled structure covered with schach (plant material such as leafy tree overgrowth or palm leaves). 

The sukkah is intended as a reminiscence of the type of fragile dwellings in which the Israelites dwelt during their 40 years of travel in the desert after the Exodus from slavery in Egypt.

These sukkot only lasted the seven days of the Feast. The branches dried up and the sukkot fell apart.  Seven days pictures seven decades of a man's life.  But the same word sukkot is used in vs 43, not ohel, the normal word for tent, that is, it says Israel dwelt in sukkot when they left Egypt, but they lived in tents (ohel), not huts made from palm branches (sukkot).  Both tents and sukkot certainly are fragile dwellings.

Tents? Sukkot?

Traditionally, the book of Ecclesiastes is associated with the Feast of Tabernacles.  It is not a prophetic book about our future reward, but a reminder that life is fleeting – vanity of vanities, all is vanity (Eccl 1:1). In other words - Life is like a sukkot. Life is like a tent. Life is like a tent in the wilderness.

This is not a new idea, the apostle Paul wrote:

2Cor 5:1 For we know that if the earthly tent which is our house is torn down, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

Some translations actually use the word tabernacle instead of tent.

We are the earthly tabernacles.

We are the tents.

Life is being played out in our bodies, our earthly tents, and the old man who came out of Egypt (slavery to sin) is dying while the new man is preparing to enter Canaan (enter the kingdom of God).  Is that not the good news of the Gospel?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*This is a big but important topic.  Many "Churches of God" have written extensively on it, see United Church of God, The United States and Britain in Bible Prophecy [5], or Christian Biblical Church of God, America and Britain--Their Biblical Origin and Prophetic Destiny [6].  For a more scholarly and thorough examination of the subject, I recommend Steve Collins, author of five books on the identity of Israel, Covering the Lost Tribes of Irsrael [7].

References

[1] http://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/57940/1/1969-201.pdf
[2] http://www.questia.com/read/1G1-206687213/outdoor-recreation-and-family-cohesiveness-a-research
[3] http://www.dabhand.org/MannersAndCustoms/tents.htm
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukkot
[5] http://www.ucg.org/booklet/united-states-and-britain-bible-prophecy/
[6] http://www.churchathome.org/pdf/America-and-Britain.pdf
[7] http://stevenmcollins.com/

Hamas in the Bible

HAMAS, the Palestinian Sunni Islamic organization, is actually an acronym, chosen to spell the Arabic word “hamas”, meaning zeal or enthusiasm (wikipedia - hamas [1]). But it is also a Hebrew word hamas (חָמָס), meaning violence. According to (Bible Tools [2]), hamas suggests immoral, cruel violence. (Ha Aretz [3]) adds:

As a verb, hamas also means “to take by violence,” “to rob” and “to destroy.” …

The Hebrew word that parallels the name of the Islamic terror group can itself be traced back to the Arabic. Etymologist Ernest Klein writes that the Hebrew hamas is linguistically linked to the Aramaic word hamas and the Arabic word hamisa, both meaning “was hard,” …

Messianic Teacher Glenn Kay has done some research on hamas in the Bible, finding that it occurs 68 times (messianicfellowship [4]). Strong’s Concordance (Biblehub [5]) lists 60. The first of these is in Genesis, and it’s cited as the primary reason for the flood. Gen 6:13 “The end of all flesh is come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence (hamas) through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.”

In a TV interview August 2014, Rabbi Jonathan Cahn explained to Jim Bakker several of the verses from the Bible that contain the word hamas. Here are some of them, but I encourage you to watch the interview for yourself, it’s only four minutes (YouTube [6])

Psalm 55:11 Hamas forces are at work in the city;

Psalm 74:20 For the dark places of the earth are full of the dwelling places of hamas. (Cahn points out the similarity to tunnels)

Psalm 11:5 But the wicked and he who loves hamas His soul hates.

Isaiah 53:9 Because He had done no hamas, Nor was any deceit in His mouth. (Speaking of the Messiah Jesus Christ)

Obadiah 1:10 For hamas against your brother Jacob, Shame shall cover you, And you shall be cut off forever. (The eventual reward for HAMAS)

Isaiah 60:18 For hamas shall no more be heard in you land. (The eventual reward for Israel)

Roots of the Israel/Palestine conflict

The Israel/Palestine conflict is thousands of years old, originally a family feud and now a religious conflict, rather than a political one. Don’t take my word for it, here’s what Article 15 of the HAMAS charter says “It is necessary to instill in the minds of the Moslem generations that the Palestinian problem is a religious problem, and should be dealt with on this basis (HAMAS Charter [7]). If the Moslems think it’s a religious problem, the West would be making a mistake to treat it as a political one. The HAMAS charter also really does call for the destruction of Israel “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it”. In a commentary entitled “Hamas in Prophecy [8]” written in 2006, Tom Robinson of United Church of God [9] examines hamas in the Bible and gives historical background, which is even more important for us to understand today. Here is a short quote from the article.

The Bible has much to say regarding the clash between Israel and the Palestinians, tracing the roots of this ancient blood feud and declaring how it will ultimately be resolved. The conflict actually goes back to two sibling rivalries—between Abraham's sons Ishmael and Isaac (see Genesis 16–17; 21) and between Isaac's sons Esau and Jacob (see Genesis 25; 27–28). Ishmael was the father of many of the Arabs while from Isaac, through Jacob, came the Israelites. …

Hamas reminds me of this verse “John 16:2 the time comes, that whosoever kills you will think that he does God service.” Allah is not God, and they are not doing God a service.


I stand with Israel, not because of the study of one word in the Bible, but because God gave that land to the people of Israel (not just the Jews by the way). I stand with Israel, but not because Israel is a perfect nation. I stand with Israel because I understand who they are in the plan of God, and who the enemy is that wants to destroy them. I stand with Israel because I understand who Palestine and HAMAS are, in Hebrew “anshei hamas” - “the people of violence” Ha Aretz [3].

References

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas

2. http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/cgg/ID/5266/Hamas.htm

3. http://www.haaretz.com/news/features/word-of-the-day/1.608751

4. http://messianicfellowship.50webs.com/hamas.html

5. http://biblehub.com/hebrew/2555.htm

6. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvNoZDVw8Mg

7. http://www.standwithus.com/online_booklets/HamasCharter/HamasCharter.pdf

8. http://www.ucg.org/commentary/hamas-prophecy/

9. http://www.ucg.org/

The Gospel In Six

A while back, I posted a challenge to our local church Facebook group:

Describe the gospel in 25 words or less. Can we explain it to someone without diving into too much detail? Suppose we all wore Tshirts that said "Ask me about the Gospel". You get on an elevator with someone, they say "I'll bite, tell me about the gospel". You have 7 seconds (25 words) to get them to say "Tell me more".

I didn’t get a lot of responses, but here is my attempt “You're gonna die, you're not going to heaven or hell. But God, through Jesus, has a plan to bring you back to life, forever. Interested?" I know, I used two contractions and “gonna” to keep it to 25 words. It’s the best I’ve come up with so far. Perhaps you can do better.

What if I told you that God managed to pack the gospel into one word of six letters? Yes we have to go back to Hebrew to see it. But it is the very first word in the Bible. In English, the Bible starts “In the beginning”, in Hebrew it starts “beresheet”, that is בראשית. The word Beresheet has also come to mean the first book of Moses, what we call Genesis in English.

This is Beresheet in an actual torah scroll (sefer torah) used in a synagogue. It’s crooked because it’s a photo of an uneven scroll.

Gen 1:1 Torah Scroll (1)

Since Hebrew is written without vowels, this gives different ways to parse a word like beresheet. We will consider three ways – maybe there are more.

1. B’resheet
2. Bar’asheet
3. Bara’sheet

Number 1 (B’resheet ) is the usual meaning of the word – in the beginning, although it would be more accurate to translate it “in a beginning” - see Kehillat Israel (2).

Number 2 (Bar’asheet) I found comments from several sources.

The Amazing Word of God (3) - If you take the word for "son" in Hebrew (bar) and the word for "I make" (asheet) and put them together, you have the first word of the Scriptures: "in the beginning" (barasheet).

Bible Society in Israel (4) - The first word of the Bible, b’resheet, can be divided into two words, “bar asheet,” meaning “I will appoint a son.” This strengthens the parallel we have already noted in John 1. … So from the very first word of the creation story we get the hint that God will appoint a son through whom the redemption will come.

In case you remembered the Hebrew word for son is “ben”, as in Benjamin, Yahoo Answers (5) explains.

Q. In Hebrew bar and ben both mean 'son of' what is the difference that determines which you use?

A. This is an easy one: "ben" is Hebrew, "bar" is Aramaic. In Hebrew you always use "ben" except for imported phrases such as "bar mitzvah" or names like "Shim'on bar Yokhai".

Grant Luton of Beth Tikkun adds this in his article In The Beginning (6).

Now if we recombine the definitions of these two Hebrew words, we arrive at the phrase “A Son I shall put/place/appoint”. A better rendering might be, “A Son I shall establish.” The introduction of only a slight separation between the second and third letters of the Bible provides us with this insight

Let’s look at number 3 – (Bara’sheet) - Bara (ברא) is the second word of the bible and means “he created”. Sheet is a variant of shesh (שש) or “six”. The question is “six what?” We have to read through verse 3 to see it, but one answer is six alephs (א). There are six alephs in the first sentence of the Hebrew Bible (verses 1-3). And aleph sounds exactly like eleph (אלף), which means “thousand”. In other words, six alephs equals six thousand years. Two alephs during the darkness (verses 1-2) two alephs where God speaks (verse 3), and two alephs in “let there be light” (verse 3). In other words, 2000 years of darkness till Abraham, 2000 years after revealing his torah, and 2000 years in the light of Christ. Note the progression from darkness to speech to light. Luton gives much more detail about the derivation at In The Beginning (6) and also shows where this notion came from:

The Talmud also suggests allusions to Messiah in the opening words of Genesis. The Talmud (b.Avodah Zarah 9a) states the following:

The world is to exist for six thousand years; the first two thousand years are to be void; the next two thousand years are the period of the Torah, and the following two thousand years are the period of the Messiah. Through our many sins some of these have already passed [and the Messiah has not yet come].3

3 The words that appear in brackets were added by Rashi (R’ Shlomo ben Yitzchak, 1040-1105 C.E.)

The Talmud quote can be found in Avodah Zarah (7) at juchre.org. 

So if we put them all together [B’resheet, Bar’asheet, Bara’sheet], taking a little license, we have “In the beginning, God appointed a Son, and gave man six thousand years”.

Admittedly, you have to read through verse 3 plus other sources to get the interpretation of 6000 years, so technically it wasn’t one word. But still it is an incredible thing – the essence of the gospel in one six letter word.

These observations in the Talmud were made many hundreds of years ago, Wikipedia dates this tractate to about 100AD [wikipedia - Avodah Zarah (8)]. What we know as the “six thousand year plan” has been known for thousands of years already. It isn’t an idea discovered in these end times, but it is all the more urgent now to understand that time is up, and Jesus is returning soon. It was foretold from the first word of the Bible.

The Scroll of Esther

My idea of a Town Crier (1)

Until recently, if I ever thought about reading from a scroll, I imagined reading from top to bottom like a town crier crying "Hear Ye, Hear Ye", like this guy.

"Modern" Town Crier (2)

  Not like this guy. reading from his iPad.

Then I chanced across an Old Testament scroll (online of course). These read from right to left, as they are written in Hebrew. And they can be 20 feet long or more. But they don't read from end to end before going to the next line. The scrolls are divided into pages, just like we know pages today. It all makes sense when I think about it, which I had never done before.

Torah Scroll

I was reading about the scroll of Esther when I learned these things.  Esther is the origin story for the Jewish Festival of Purim, which occurs the 14th of Adar on the Hebrew calendar, sometime in March on the Roman calendar.  In the story, Haman is bent on exterminating the Jews, and Esther, who had become queen, and her uncle Mordecai play key roles in saving them, and in a twist of fate, Haman gets hanged on the gallows he had built for Mordecai.  Then Esther asks that the sons of Haman also be hanged, even though it seems they were already dead.

12 The king said to Queen Esther, “The Jews have killed and destroyed five hundred men and the ten sons of Haman at the citadel in Susa. What then have they done in the rest of the king’s provinces! Now what is your petition? It shall even be granted you. And what is your further request? It shall also be done.” 13 Then said Esther, “If it pleases the king, let tomorrow also be granted to the Jews who are in Susa to do according to the edict of today; and let Haman’s ten sons be hanged on the gallows.” (7)

Here, take a look at a hand decorated scroll of Esther (4).  Isn't that beautiful?

Hand decorated Scroll of Esther

Notice that the scroll has eleven panels or pages?  One of these things is not like the others -- see the third page from the left?  Even at this resolution you can tell there is something different about it. The text, whatever it is, is larger and spaced differently.

Old Megillah Scroll (5)

It's not just done that way because it's a hand decorated scroll, here is a synagogue scroll with the same unusual page.

Esther 9:7-9 Closeup.

Closeup of that page.  These are the ten sons of Haman, the villain in the story.  These ten sons were hanged.  You wouldn't know they were listed in a special format from an English Bible.

7 And Parshandatha, and Dalphon, and Aspatha,8 And Poratha, and Adalia, and Aridatha,9 And Parmashta, and Arisai, and Aridai, and Vajezatha,10 The ten sons of Haman the son of Hammedatha, the enemy of the Jews, slew they (7)...

Even modern Hebrew Bibles, known as Tanach, are printed in a normal font without special spacing, giving no hint of the original scroll. See http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt3309.htm for example.

Which brings me to the question, why are Haman's sons listed this way?  After all, they aren't major characters in the Book of Esther.  They're not Israelites.  They aren't mentioned anywhere else in the Bible.  There are arguably more important people in the Bible whose names aren't even recorded - Lot's wife, the Centurion, the woman at the well, etc. Why Haman's sons?  What's so special about them?

And what is the meaning of the four letters of different size, one larger, three smaller? Some sources list a fourth smaller letter, reason unknown.  Some sources also list variations of the smaller letters (11), also reason unknown.

According to Nachmanides (the introduction to his commentary on Genesis) any change from the usual way of writing a word or letter indicates some hidden meaning in a text.  If we examine the list of Haman's sons, we notice that three letters are written smaller: the taf of Parshandata the shin of Parmashta the zayin of Vizata (The enlarged vav of Vizata may refer to the sixth millenium.) The three letters together form taf-shin-zayin*, the Jewish year 5707 (1946 C.E.)  (8)

What happened in 1946?  

"Purim Fest 1946!" Julius Streicher shouted his last words as he was hanged. Wait. What? Julius Streicher, the Nazi war criminal? Yes, him. Julius Streicher and nine other Nazi war criminals were hanged Oct 16, 1946. (10) Streicher got the festival wrong, but he probably wasn't familiar with the Hebrew calendar. Oct 16 was in fact the 7th day of the Feast of Tabernacles, not Purim. Nazarenespace.com says this:

In an apparent connection made by Hitler between his Nazi regime and the role of Haman, he stated in a speech made on January 30, 1944, that if the Nazis were defeated, the Jews could celebrate "a second Purim". (8)

 Talkreason.org gives these details.

Of the 23 Nazi war criminals on trial in Nuremberg, 11 were in fact sentenced to execution by hanging. Two hours before the sentence was due to be carried out, Goering committed suicide--so that only 10 descendents of Amalek were hung, thus fulfilling the request of Esther: 

"let Haman's ten sons be hanged." 

Furthermore, since the trial was conducted by a military tribunal, the sentence handed down should have been death by firing squad, or by electric chair as practiced in the U.S.A. However, the court specifically prescribed hanging, exactly as in Esther's original request: 

"let Haman's ten sons be hanged." (11)

Newspaper clipping of Oct 16, 1946 (9).

According to Jewish tradition, the nation of Germany is thought to have descended from the biblical Amalekites. (12)

Is this the real meaning of the unusual page in the scroll of Esther? And the unusual letters on that page? I'm no authority so it's not for me to make a determination, but there certainly are striking parallels - Haman and Hitler both bent on destroying the Jews, ten men hanged in each case, the "prediction" of the year, etc. The biggest problem I see is that there is no predictive value in this analysis. It only shows something after it happens. That doesn't mean it's wrong. There are many layers to any scripture, and they are all true, but may point to different things. If a scripture can be interpreted multiple ways, do it. For example, in this scroll there are other possible dates, maybe something will happen on one of them, but some are past. Some sources give more evidence from examining the text, some dispute it (11). There is a surprising amount written about it, just Google for Haman and Nuremburg to find more info.

As far as I know I'm not Jewish, (though some advocate that the Scots are descended from Judah, and I am half Scot), but I understand why Purim is important to the Jews, and why the scroll of Esther is important. It certainly is fascinating.

How To Comfort

[This is a transcript of a speech I gave to our church men’s club in 2012.  Minor details were edited to accommodate the written form.]

In 2011 (three years ago as I write this), I spent three weeks in the hospital after a stroke in which I was paralyzed on my right side. I have regained much movement, but still have a limp and right sided weakness.  See my Caring Bridge journal for details. I think I learned some things about comforting that I thought I would share with you. This is all based on my experience, not research. I didn't condense some seven point sermon on comforting, or read a book or a magazine article. These are just my observations. You can observe a lot just by watching… Let me start on the lighter side with some of my pet peeves…

There are things not to say. Even if they're true. There are a lot of things that the victim can say that you can't.  For instance:

James 1:2 My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials, 3 knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience.

Don’t tell me to count it all joy. I know it's in the Bible, and I know it's true. I just haven't been able to live up to it yet.

If you can't relate, don't try. People will say "I know how you feel". To be blunt, no you don't. Just because your uncle had a stroke doesn't mean you know what it's like. There are 1001 illnesses, injuries, and losses I haven't experienced.  For instance, even though I had a stroke, I can only begin to imagine what it is like for Helen Golz (the audience all knew her – she had a series of stroke and was quite disabled.  She died this year, 2014).

A quote from friend Sarah Witt, a speech pathologist, "The first thing we were taught in aphasia class is NEVER to say you understand. I've seen enough of how messy life can be to know I don't understand a bit. I can't even imagine I could have half the gumption it must take to be you and Kit every day. The only opportunity it seems to be is for the rest of us to tearfully stand back in awe at people who go thru life changing trials bravely and with dignity. We miss you both a lot."  (She gives me too much credit, I did not face this trial with dignity or bravery.)

On the flipside, if you can relate, please do. If you have gone through something similar, it really does help to swap stories. That's one reason why I go to the stroke support group every month, and why I volunteer at Regions Hospital to visit new stroke survivors.

Don't tell me about other people's miraculous healings. You may think it's encouraging, but I just think "where's my miracle?"

Don't blame the victim. Even if someone is dying of lung cancer after smoking for 40 years, don't say it. They can say "I should've quit smoking years ago". But no one else can say that.

Actual things people have said to me.

·                    “Think of it as an adventure” - no, an adventure is two cruise tickets to Barbados.

·                    “What an opportunity” – no, opening that brewpub you always wanted - that's an opportunity.

·                    “People would kill to trade places with you.”

Actual things people have said to others

·                    “I wonder what secret sin you must have.” (to a woman wheelchair bound from arthritis)

·                    “You asked for it” - said to cancer patient (name omitted)

Let me give you the first rule of comfort. Show up.

Like I said, I was in the hospital for about three weeks. During that time I had about 100 different visitors. Obviously some visited more than once.  Many of you in this room came to visit me, some of you even visited me when I was in Duluth the first three days. Yes I kept track. I had my laptop, and every night I would record the names of visitors. This is the gold standard of showing up - actually showing up. Obviously that's not always possible.

I also got enough get well cards to fill a shoebox. And some of those were from entire congregations like Eau Claire, with dozens of signatures. There are lots of reasons why you can't physically show up in person - a card can be a pretty close second. Sometimes they arrived just when I needed a boost. Don't forget phone calls and e-mail and Facebook.

Let me give you the ultimate example of showing up - Jill Taylor's mother. Jill is a neuroscientist who had a stroke at age 37. Eight years later, after a nearly complete recovery, she wrote the book "My Stroke of Insight (1)". A blood clot the size of a golf ball damaged her speech, both understanding speech and making speech. When her mother GG found out, she put her affairs in order and came to be with her daughter. Let me read you a paragraph:

“I remember clearly the moment GG came around the corner into my room. She looked me straight in the eye and came right to my bedside. She was gracious and calm, said her hellos to those in the room, and then lifted my sheet and proceeded to crawl into bed with me. She immediately wrapped me up in her arms and I melted into the familiarity of her snuggle. It was an amazing moment in my life. Somehow she understood that I was no longer her Harvard doctor daughter, but instead I was now her infant again. She says she did what any other mother would have done. But I'm not so sure. Having been born to my mother was truly my first and greatest blessing. Being born to her a second time has been my greatest fortune.”

That doesn't mean that I wanted any of you to crawl into bed with me however.

Let me give you a different kind of example. Twenty years ago I was in the hospital for an appendectomy. I was hospitalized for five days (I think appendectomies are faster now). Our minister at the time never came to see me. He called me on the telephone. Let me put it plainly - he phoned it in.  At least he did call.  That minister left our church in 2011, I chose not to follow him.

Suppose somebody is in the hospital, which is better? Spend an hour on your knees praying for healing or drive to the hospital and visit them?  Here's one answer.

Matthew 25:35 for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; 36 I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me. (King James 2000)(2)

In the “Freeman” translation: when I was sick, you showed up. When I was hungry, you showed up - with food. When I was naked, you showed up - with blankets, and clothes.

Don't get me wrong, though, I'm very very grateful for all the prayers that went up on my behalf.

The second rule of comfort - I don't have a second rule of comfort.

What I know about comforting I learned from you, from your example. You don't need a seven-point sermon on how to comfort. I was sick and you showed up - with food, with games, toys, stuffed animals, chocolate, with cards and more. You may think I know some great secret to comforting based on my experience. I'll say it again, what I know I learned from you.

Christ said "if you have seen me, you have seen the Father." He sent you, and many many others. I have seen the Father through you.