Insulting Nimrod

“Nimrod” has never been a favorite insult of mine (not that I have a “favorite” insult), but I know what it means. You probably do to.

Or maybe you don’t.

When we hear “Nimrod” we tend to think of a bumbling fool.  (“We” meaning people in America - outside America this definition is not used.) Well, did you know that Nimrod is actually a guy in the Bible – the Old Testament to be specific. You can read his story here  http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2010:8-12&version=NIV.

Go ahead and click there – it’s only 5 sentences.

So when you read that, did the  mighty hunter who established Babylon, Uruk, Akkad, and a host of other places sound like a bumbling fool to you?

No?

So…what’s going on? Why do we use this guy’s name for an insult?  Is there something hidden in the Hebrew that tells a different story?

Well, some commentaries say Nimrod was a bad dude based on one word. The word used for “hunter.” Because this word is used in Jeremiah 16.16 to refer to those who hunt humans some want to say that Nimrod hunted humans. Um, no. If I say I’m going hunting does that mean I only hunt deer? Nope. The item hunted is not contained in the word “hunted.” English and Hebrew are the same here.

So that's not where Nimrod's reputation comes from.

In fact the verse says “a mighty hunter before God.” This actually means he was in good standing before God. The phrase “before God” used in this type of context is a GOOD thing.  Him and God were cool.

Bumbling fools ran from this mighty hunter!

The internet claims that the abuse of the name Nimrod actually comes from the much beloved children’s cartoon Bugs Bunny. Now the funny thing is – if you google this you can find several people talking about it – but no one actually provides hard evidence. According to internet claims an episode made in the 40s started the confusion. Everyone’s favorite bumbling hunter – Elmer Fudd – was, again, no match for Bugs Bunny. Well, Bugs Bunny  - using SARCASM  - calls Elmer “Nimrod.” Sarcasm. 

Uh, Nimrod, I'm over here.

Problem….those without a working knowledge of Genesis 10 thought it was a new word that meant a bumbling fool. They completely missed the sarcasm!

Now the problem is that I cannot find any actual evidence of this cartoon. (Youtube has failed me.) Some internet links even  point to an episode that does not use the word nimrod! On a side note – providing a citation that is false does not help your claim.

Now I was able to find a later Looney Toons Cartoon in which Daffy Duck calls Elmer Fudd a “Nimrod.” I had wanted to post a link to a youtube clip of it – but it was taken down for copyright infringement – so you’ll just have to take my word for it that such a clip exists.

 Was Looney Tunes really the first to use this word sarcastically and the first to be misunderstood about it? The vast majority of the internet say yes. However, a wiktionary article cites a 1933 dictionary where "nimrod" is defined as a "fool." This predates the mysteriously absent Bugs Bunny episode (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nimrod). So maybe the cartoonists meant it sarcastically, or  maybe they already took it to mean a "bumbling fool."

Wherever it was first misused, I highly suspect misunderstood sarcasm is to blame. 

So what did we learn today? Three things. 

1) Some people don’t get sarcasm.

2) Nimrod was actually a pretty cool guy who was close to God.

3) Every time you call a bumbling fool a “nimrod” you are actually insulting the real Nimrod.

Learning to Lament

Do you remember the “bop bags” from when you were a kid? Those air filled punching bags with sand at the bottom. My brothers had one with batman on it. I prefer the clown one. If you ask me, clowns are just asking to be hit.

Hit me! Please!

These kiddy punching bags summarize what 2011 was for a great number of my friends. Where people are the bag and life is the little hyper kid who snuck into the kitchen pantry and ate spoonfuls of sugar. First he punches the bag once and watches in amazement that the little air filled bag picks itself back up – asking for another punch. The kid happily obliges. However, fuelled by the spoonfuls of sugar the kid doesn’t hit the bag – he pummels it – giving the sadistically smiling clown no chance to get up, until finally the kid just jumps on the bag, pinning it down, and wails on it. The clown’s only hope is that the parents will call the kid in for dinner… which of course, the kid won’t eat, because he ruined his dinner with the spoonfuls of sugar.

2011 was a year when many of my friends were pummeled. It was a year full of suffering. Suffering ranging from the loss of one or more close family members to small (but costly) problems that just kept coming and drained patience, pocketbooks and sanity; and every type of suffering in between.

Suffering sucks. We live in a world that is cursed, so sometimes bad things (calamity or &#$!) happen. There is much that can be said about the source of evil and calamity. But that’s for another blog. I want to discuss how Christians should respond to suffering.

In America Christians are tempted  - nay, encouraged - to ignore or at least downplay suffering. We slap on a fake smile and sing happy-happy-joy-joy songs.

But the fake smile does not negate our suffering.

Some have left the church because they have seen the fakeness, or were even pressured into living with a fake smile. Today there are many weeping behind their mask. 

We need – as the Church – to learn how to lament. Nearly 1/3 of the Psalms are lament psalms. That’s a lot of lamenting. Sadly, lament songs seldom never get updated and put into modern church repertoire. Why? We're afraid to lament. Often our theology is so weak it can't handle it.

Let's take a quick look at lament psalms. Lament psalms have seven typical features (not all lament psalms have each feature). (Ex: Ps 3, 10, 22, 42, 54, 56, 77, 86, 142)

1) Address to God (basically a salutation)

2) Description of suffering

3) Curse called against the one causing the pain

4) Declaration of innocence (or admission of guilt)

5) Petition for God to intervene and stop the suffering

6) Confidence expressed that God will respond

7) Thanksgiving/praise for what God will do

Lamenting does not mean that we wallow in self-pity, or that we pat ourselves on the back for being martyrs. No!  Lamenting is honestly acknowledging the suffering and, if known, it's cause (#2-4). Don’t treat it as the “thing-which-must-not-be-named.” No, boldly call it by its proper name! 

But don’t stop there. Acceptance is a poor place to end. We are not called to just accept suffering. Learn from the psalmists. They see the God who is bigger than their pain, they ask Him to intervene, and they praise him (#5-7). They praise him after lamenting, and even while lamenting. God is praised because the psalmists have confidence that – even though they don't understand how – God would make all things right. Now, because of the revelation in the New Testament, we know that one day God will return to restore his creation, to recreate it, to remove all sin and suffering. So even though we suffer and lament today we know there will come a day when all things are made right and there will be no more lamenting. Cling to that future hope.

When a spouse dies, when a parent dies, when someone is suffering with a horrible sickness, when everything around you is falling apart – Lament!  Wail! Cry out! Be honest with God. Ask the hard questions. But in it all and through it all know that God is bigger. It may not make a lick of sense why such horrible suffering is allowed to happen; but know that God is great. God is compassionate and just. And live with hope, knowing that He has promised that He is coming again and he will make all things right. There will come a time when there will be no more mourning and no more lamenting. Lament and pray for that day to come soon. 

On a final note, I'm going to point out something that is so obvious that you may have overlooked it. Lament psalms are in a songbook. These songs were sung by levitical choirs. While one person wrote the song because of a horrible situation they were going through, they were included in an ancient hymnal for the community to sing... together. Can you imagine what a church community would look like that sings lament songs together? When one member of the community is suffering their fellow Believers gather around them on Sunday morning (or whenever) and belt out a mournful lamenting melody; a melody full of grief but under-girded with hope.

We need to learn how to lament and how to lament with those who are lamenting.

---
Here is a  short clip from a practical theologian who does a great job describing the need for lament.

Biblical Witchcraft

Witchcraft is biblical. Well, it's in the Bible, so depending on how you define "biblical" - witchcraft is "biblical." Not surprisingly, though, the Bible condemns any form of witchcraft, or any related thing. But what exactly did the people of the ancient Near East (Israel and their neighbors) consider witchcraft?  Well it sure wasn't the modern cultural version of witches and wizards that we picture today. 

 Putting up a picture of Wendy & Casper instead of 

Harry Potter probably gives you a clue as to how old I am.

Witchcraft and related things, as described in the Old Testament, were ways that people tried to find favor with the gods. The gods were finicky. They had to bribe them and cajole them to get things to go their way. Well, that's how it started. Witchcraft soon developed into a way to control the gods. While they did not use wands, or big black cauldrons, they did use potions, incantations, hymns and prayers. It basically boiled down to bribing the gods and stroking their egos; or pulling their puppet strings. There were also branches of spiritualism that that tried to interact with the dead instead of gods.


There is a story about a witch in the Bible, you know her as the Witch of Endor. Only... she wasn’t a witch. If you are not familiar with the story go to 1 Samuel 28 and give it a quick read. Go ahead, I’ll wait.

Strange story right? Let's take a quick look at what's going on in the story.

First, she wasn't a witch, she was a person who practiced necromancy, she talked to the dead. 

"I see dead people."

These were usually old women and they are called, “ghost mistresses.”  (Now, now...not that kind of mistress. Get your mind out of the gutter.) Ghost mistresses tried to bribe the dead to come back and visit their old earthly stomping grounds. Ghost mistresses are well known in a variety of ancient near east cultures. In those cultures the dead were thought to live in the underworld – literally under your feet. So if you want to talk to them there’s one thing you've got to do…dig a hole! This "witch" didn't have a cauldron, she had a pit. Ghost mistresses did a variety of things to entreat the dead to come visit. How do you bribe the dead? What does a dead person want? Food, of course! The restaurants in the underworld aren't exactly 5 star quality. So ghost mistresses placed food in the pit, along with other things meant to entice the dead to take a little vacation.

Whether or not the ghost mistresses were successful is a whole other topic. Basically, I think it’s possible - in a way. I believe there is a spiritual realm and that for ghost mistresses to thrive in the ancient world they had to have some results of some kind. Maybe they were just charlatans or maybe demonic activity brought them some form of results. Both probably happened.

The great thing about the story of the witch of Endor... she freaked out when Samuel actually appeared. Freaked out! Even though a disguised Saul asked her to bring him up from the dead, the lady was extremely shocked. Why? She wasn't expecting it! So either the lady was a charlatan and didn't expect anything real to happen, or the real Samuel was so different from what the demonic activity usually showed her that she peed her pants.

"A ghost!!"

So did Samuel really come back as a ghost? I don't know. But I think it's great that even though Saul had sinned greatly God had a sense of humor. "Okay, Saul, you want to talk to Samuel. Fine. But you're going to regret it!" Better yet, imagine what Samuel thought. He was hanging with God in the afterlife when God turns to him and says, "Hey Samuel, are you up for a little field trip?" And people think the Old Testament is boring. Ha!

So witches existed in Bible times. But it was all about manipulating or controlling the gods. And God actually used a "witch" to deliver a message to Saul. But remember, just because God used it does not mean it receives his seal of approval. 

Creation Myth

If you ask a random person on the street what they think about Genesis chapter 1 you’re likely to get one of two responses. Either they believe it is an extremely literal historical account of how God created everything in six days, napping on the seventh; or they think it’s all a fanciful myth with no truth to it. I would like to propose another position. One based on genre.

A common misconception with the Bible is that it was written in the genre of a history book. This is believed by many, both Christians and non-Christians. This is not true. It contains history but is not a history book. Rather, the Bible is composed of numerous types of genre. The Old Testament alone contains narrative, lament poetry, pessimistic wisdom literature, parables, and steaming love poetry, to name just a few. Genesis 1 is no exception. It is not written in the genre of a history book, it is written in the genre of a myth.

Now before some of you attempt to lynch me or others start cheering, please hear me out. Myth here is used in the scholarly sense. By myth genre I refer to a story of the god or gods with no implication of whether or not the story is true. Now, as a Christian I firmly believe that Genesis 1 is a true story of the one true God creating all of creation. But even though I believe it is truth it is still written in a specific genre. You must understand the genre to know how to read it. After all you don’t want to take a modern proverb as a medical textbook, otherwise you’d eat apples when your appendix starts to hurt instead of going to the doctor and having him cut the sucker out.

I believe Genesis 1 was written to convey the truth that God created all creation. But it is also presented in such as way as to serve another purpose. And that is to serve as a polemic against the gods that the surrounding nations worshiped (a common use of the myth genre in the ancient Near East). In other words, it’s a way of saying “My God is bigger and better than all of your gods combined! Nah, nah, nah, boo, boo!” (But with much more decorum than that.)

Within this theory of Genesis 1 there are two trains of thought. One is that it is written in a way to say that God is better than the Egyptian gods. For example, the Egyptians viewed creation as a daily occurrence. Each day’s beginning (rising of the sun) and ending (setting of sun) represents creation with the gods continually working to make it happen. It was a never ending cycle, the gods never truly rested.

A depiction of the Egyptian gods holding together creation.

Move along folks. He's just holding up the heavens. Honest!

Genesis 1 shows the God of the Bible as better than the Egyptian gods because he takes his time in creation, merely has to speak for it to occur, and…he stops.

The second train of thought is that it may also be a polemic against the Mesopotamian gods. One of the reasons for this is that the Mesopotamian gods created humanity to be their slaves, to do all the work so the gods could spend their days sunbathing on the beach and drinking fancy drinks with umbrellas in them.

The god Shamash sitting on a beach (notice the water at his feet).

One of his attendants is fetching him a fresh umbrella drink.

Genesis 1 stands in sharp contrast to this because the God of the Bible did not create humanity as slaves, but instead he created them to rule with authority (Gen 1.28).

Now all of these issues are much greater than those two short paragraphs could even begin to explain. I’ve only given you a small taste of what may really be going on in Genesis 1.

So what’s the point? Read the bible with an eye on the genre. You may be surprised how understanding genre explains away a lot of problems and perceived contradictions. (Such as perceived contradictions between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.)

Now, with this information some might be tempted to say, “Ha! Genesis 1 is a myth, which means it’s not true. I now have biblical proof against all those annoying creationist Christians! Booyah!” Um…no. Even if you want to write off Genesis 1 you must deal with Genesis 2. Genesis 2 is written not as a myth genre, but more in lines with the style of a history book, and it clearly states that God created everything.

Some of you may ask if, based on this, God did create in six days. My answer… possibly. God may have created the whole of the universe in six days. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least. But if I find out some day that God created it in an instant or over a length of time greater than six days my faith will not be shaken.