Skip to main content

God's Nudniks

Matthew 7:1-12 (CJB)

7 “Keep asking, and it will be given to you; keep seeking, and you will find; keep knocking, and the door will be opened to you.  8 For everyone who keeps asking receives; he who keeps seeking finds; and to him who keeps knocking, the door will be opened.  9 Is there anyone here who, if his son asks him for a loaf of bread, will give him a stone?  10 or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake?  11 So if you, even though you are bad, know how to give your children gifts that are good, how much more will your Father in heaven keep giving good things to those who keep asking him! 12 “Always treat others as you would like them to treat you; that sums up the teaching of the Torah and the Prophets.

I’ve switched to the translation called the Complete Jewish Bible, because for me it seems to provide a more fertile ground for reflection. At least for the time being. I almost always compare several translations in my work of Lectio Divina, and the phrase construction in the CJB often elicits something in my thoughts that feels true and real.

Anyway, the difference between “ask” and “keep asking” seemed really noteworthy to me. It links with the other gospel about the pestiferous widow who kept after the corrupt judge until he finally heard her case:

Luke 18:4-5 “4 For a long time he refused; but after awhile, he said to himself, ‘I don’t fear God, and I don’t respect other people;  5 but because this widow is such a nudnik, I will see to it that she gets justice — otherwise, she’ll keep coming and pestering me till she wears me out!’””

It’s because this theme is repeated, that I feel that my sense of its significance is accurate.

So, keep on pestering God.

I’m not sure why or how, but today I got sidetracked into looking at the names of God, and then on into the names of Jesus. I started with HaShem, rather dubiously translated by one author as “The Significance,” when every other source translates it as “the Name,” which is a linguistic device intended to protect folks from saying the true Name of God out loud.

(I kind of liked “The Significance” as a descriptive title for God. Oh, well…)

The other word I liked very much was “Shekinah.” It means “the dwelling” in Hebrew, and it denotes God’s presence with us, dwelling among us. It’s often translated as “the Glory (of God).” The Talmudic Rabbis liked to use it as a word for “God” because it “avoided the anthropomorphic expressions in the Bible.” (From the Jewish Encyclopedia website.) The article also says this: “Nevertheless the word "Shekinah" occurs most frequently in the Aramaic versions, since they were intended for the people and were actually read to them, and since precautions had therefore to be taken against possible misunderstandings in regard to the conception of God.”

(Digression: I’ve said many times, and I’ll say it again, at the risk of being a nudnik! An anthropomorphic God is the most pernicious misrepresentation, promoted by folks with an axe to grind. They always endorse it in service to their own advantage, and for their own benefit. These are the same folks that Jesus called hypocrites and double-dealers. Okay, I’ll get off my soapbox now.)

Then I went looking at the meaning of the Hebrew name ‘Yeshua’, which is the same as ‘Jesus’. It comes to us through the Greek. ‘Jesus’ is just a transliteration of ‘Iesous’, which in turn was a transliteration of ‘Jeshua’ or ‘Joshua’. (Pronounced Yeshua or Yoshua. ‘J’ is pronounced ‘Y’ in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew.)

I found out something else cool. The ‘Yeh’ part of the name is the same as the ‘Jeh’ in ‘Jehovah’, and ‘Yah’ in ‘Yahweh’. The ‘-shua’ part comes from a word that means “a cry for help” with the implication that the cry is answered. The source I read used the phrase “a saving cry.” “Cry” is a little bit archaic in the sense it’s used, so I thought “shout” might be a reasonable modern substitute: “A saving shout.” There’s no ambiguity in the phrases, “I heard someone shouting for help,” or, “My shout saved me.”

So the name Yeshua means “A God-answered shout for help.” That made me think of the passage in John, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

So, Yeshua is both the ‘Shout-for-Help to God’, and the Answer to the ‘Shout-for-Help to God’.

In Lectio Divina, the test of the ‘response’ part of the practice is to see if it all hangs together and echoes into deeper and deeper meaning. If my digression into the meaning of the names of God and Jesus had turned out to have nothing to do with the reading of the day, then I would have scrapped it and never posted it.

I can’t help feeling like I’ve had a penetrating insight here. I feel a little bit transfixed; impaled by an idea; pierced by a Reality beyond words, even though it’s about a Word.
My insight that the name of Yeshua has an involuted and liminal meaning of both ‘the-one-whose-shout-for-help-to-God-is-answered’, and ‘the-one-who-answers-a-shout-for-help-to-God’ is still echoing in my mind, but it’s quite clear that the reading for today is relevant to that understanding. I don’t know what led me from today’s reading into an internet search for the meaning of the Names of God, but I’m sure it was not mere distraction.

So, back to the reading:

Keep on asking; keep on searching; keep on knocking -- because the asking itself is the answer, the searching itself is the discovery, and the knocking itself is the clear and open Way.

Could it be that simple? Just “Keep on keepin’ on”? Just “Don’t give up?” Just “Be God’s nudniks”? Just “Go on down the Way, and don’t stop”?

‘Fraid So.

Popular posts from this blog

Temple Mysticism and the Eucharist

(I originally wrote this in November 2015, after reading a book on understanding Jesus's teachings in the light of first century Jewish Temple mysticism. I had been struggling with the cannibalistic implications in the Eucharist of "eating Jesus's body and drinking his blood." It was such a relief to discover this interpretation which connects neatly with the way his disciples would likely have understood the language Jesus was using.)
Eucharist A little bit of research on the internet produced a description of Jewish ritual sacrifice in the time of Jesus. A person, say a woman named Sarah, offers a goat. She buys it and takes it to the priest at the Temple. He examines it to see if it is “perfect,” i.e. healthy and unblemished. He then takes it and slits its throat with the ritual words, “This is Sarah’s blood.” The meaning should obviously be, that this is the blood belonging to Sarah and offered on her behalf. The blood would then be poured out at the base of the …

Zen, Social Activism, and Suffering

I almost always have a feeling of discontent (dukkha) when I encounter a way of looking at the world that exhorts me to define suffering as victimization. This way leads people to become social activists, fighting “injustice,” “poverty,” “violence,” and causes them to want to change “society” to make it a 'better' place. This way of thinking seems to me to miss the point. I call it "bootstrapping,” because it makes me think of the old saying that describes a certain kind of futility by the phrase, “trying to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps.” It can't be done. It seems to me that people often perceive concepts like "injustice" as entities in their own right, with a kind of inimical but impersonal life of their own. This leads to the belief that ideas can do battle in the arena of social activism and when righteousness is the victor, then "society" will change for the better. I see this as a form of delusion, and exactly the sort of error tha…

Thought Tantrums

I've been thinking a bit about emotional states and reactions, trying to figure out if what I personally experience is at all relevant to what other people experience. I've come to believe that it doesn't matter. I know I do a thing that everyone else also seems to do, and that is to think about everything only in reference to myself. I've learned over and over that doing so doesn't improve a thing, and I've even come up with a name for it: "bootstrapping." As in 'trying to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps.' Here's what I've provisionally understood: Attempting to evaluate or make judgments about a thing, or a state, or a condition, based on nothing more than a set of ideas that I have about it (especially any ideas that include the concept of "should") is utterly deluded.
If the condition is entirely internal, and my ideas about it also have no outside referents, then any attempt to change the situation by thinking ab…