As If I Didn’t Love Chipotle Enough Already

I’m a bit Chipotle obsessed, I’ll admit. No kidding: given the option of going to literally any restaurant in the world, I’d pick Chipotle at least half the time. That’s a little ridiculous, I know, just as I also know that not everyone is where I’m at with them. But as I continue to read more about the company, I also find myself more and more impressed not only with their food, but with everything about their business model. The simple “Food with Integrity” slogan actually does seem to carry into everything they do.

Here is yet one more profile and example of why, taken from a list of the top 50 most innovative companies, which was interesting all the way around.

(HT: Z)

The Victory of Deep Thinking in the Elephant Room Controversy (Hopefully).

When I used to write for Christians in Context, I found myself foraying into political discussions fairly often. I was writing for that blog when Prop 8 was on the table here in California, and like many excitable bloggers, I just had to weigh in. From there I found myself writing on homosexuality, law, and politics a few times on that blog. If you were to go back and trace those posts (which is not worth your time), you would find some woeful inconsistency in my opinions.

That’s because I didn’t know what I was talking about.

I think I’m a reasonably smart guy, but politics and law are huge, complex issues that people at the highest levels disagree about. I know a few things about the Bible, and I have some basic intellectual background on how to approach some ethical and moral issues. I feel ok talking about that sort of stuff with some intelligence. But as I continued to write about how all of that was playing out in the public sphere, I found commenters (one in particular) regularly exposing how little I really knew about all of it.

This is a regular problem for thoughtful people with public arenas for their opinions: we know we have something to say, we know we can say it reasonably clearly, we know we like to talk about it, and we know we have an audience. This combination leads to people like me saying dumb things in a way that sounds smart. It leads, in a word, to being sophomoric.

Pastors (especially mega church pastors who speak at and host conferences and have popular blogs) are especially likely to fall prey to this. We pastors are accustomed to speaking authoritatively about subjects. The authority is always supposed to come from the text of Scripture, but for sinners like me, it is easy to half-consciously transfer that authority to my own brilliant (read: sophomoric) opinions.

Which, at long last, leads me to the point of this post: that’s the heart of the problem with the controversy surrounding T. D. Jakes, James MacDonald, the Trinity, and the Elephant Room. There have been a lot of sweeping statements about the relative importance of careful theological thinking in all of this. So we get questions like, How much does it matter if the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are “persons” or “manifestations”? Shouldn’t we stick to biblical language (like “manifestation”, not “person”) to talk about the three, uh, personifestations of the Trinity? Aren’t people out there really “dying from lack of love, not from lack of theology?” Also, T. D. Jakes is black. What does that mean for all of this?

And so the evangelical blogosphere goes crazy. There is much yelling (or much boldness and italicizing, anyway) by guys who are successful at pastoring big churches, and for that matter, at expository preaching that really does pay attention to the text of Scripture. Jakes doesn’t fall into the latter category, but MacDonald does, so he seems to be “one of us” who cares about theology and careful biblical thinking.

He seems to, at least, until he says this:

I affirm the doctrine of the Trinity as I find it in Scripture. I believe it is clearly presented but not detailed or nuanced. I believe God is very happy with His Word as given to us and does not wish to update or clarify anything that He has purposefully left opaque. Somethings [sic] are stark and immensely clear, such as the deity of Jesus Christ; others are taught but shrouded in mystery, such as the Trinity. I do not trace my beliefs to creedal statements that seek clarity on things the Bible clouds with mystery. I do not require T. D. Jakes or anyone else to define the details of Trinitarianism the way that I might. His [Jakes's] website states clearly that he believes God has existed eternally in three manifestations.

Many pastors give their “amen” to this because it really does seem logical on the surface. MacDonald isn’t dumb. That’s not the problem. In fact here it sounds like he is actually holding more closely to the Protestant doctrine of “Scripture Alone” than the rest of us pseudo-Catholic, creed-loving detractors.

The trouble is that MacDonald saying something like this strikes me as roughly equivalent to me offering my sage wisdom about law and politics. Perhaps MacDonald is well trained in historical theology. But I doubt it, considering how flippantly he writes off the theological guideposts of 1,700 years of Christians. Really James? Do the creeds that people gave their lives to write and uphold really matter so little?

I tend not to think so, just as I tend to think that someone who has thought through the role of creeds and the development of theology would say, “You are ignorant of how much this stuff has mattered in every possible way for the every day practice of the church.”

And now, finally, two sources have said just that. First, Carl Trueman brought up the anti-historical contemporary arrogance of this dismissal of theology with his usual wit and obvious frustration. And now, Tim Keller and D. A. Carson have reflected at length on the theological statements being thrown around. By the way, each of these three men have Ph.D.’s in related fields. Each really does qualify as an expert. And each agrees: MacDonald and others have been foolhardy.

Not that having a Ph.D. makes someone right, of course, but that this is the kind of thinking we need. We need less quick, sweeping statements from pastors with loud voices and big audiences and more thoughtful reflection from the godly experts who are, at the end of the day, all on our same team. My hope is that articles like those by Trueman and Keller/Carson will win the day, and folks like MacDonald will rethink their approach to these huge, complex issues.

Perhaps God would be pleased to make the enduring lessons of the second Elephant Room less about ministry philosophies and more about thinking more deeply, listening more carefully, and speaking more slowly. These have always been important and hard lessons for Christians. How much more in the internet age?

Trust God Because of the Gospel, Not Today’s Circumstances

Who is left among you who saw [the temple] in its former glory? How do you see it now? Is it not as nothing in your eyes? Yet now be strong, O Zerubbabel, declares the LORD. Be strong, O Joshua, son of Jehozadak, the high priest. Be strong, all you people of the land, declares the LORD. Work, for I am with you, declares the LORD of hosts, according to the covenant that I made with you when you came out of Egypt. My Spirit remains in your midst. Fear not.

- Haggai 2:3-5

———————————————-

The prophecy above is part of the larger collection of Haggai’s 5 prophecies to the people of Israel who had returned from exile in Babylon under the Persian king Darius in 538 b.c. That was nearly 50 years after they had been ripped out of their land and had their temple destroyed by the Babylonians. The natural reaction was a crisis of faith: if the temple was where God’s presence was with His people, then how could God have allowed it to be destroyed. Further, was God’s presence even with them when they had returned to the land since the temple was still destroyed?

Actually, apparently “crisis of faith” is overstated. Rather than start rebuilding the temple as soon as they got back home the people built up their own homes instead (Hag. 1:2-4). In any case, God apparently felt the need to reassure the people that rebuilding was not something to be afraid of (thus the repetition of “be strong” and the final “fear not” in the passage above).

But what should have been the basis for the people’s fearlessness? The promise God had made hundreds of years prior: “Work, for I am with you, declares the LORD of hosts, according to the covenant that I made with you when you came out of Egypt. My Spirit remains in your midst. Fear not.” Apparently the ancient faithfulness of God in one key, community-forming event was to be the basis of people’s ongoing faith despite present circumstances.

And present circumstances were, indeed, not great. They had no temple. They had just been in exile. Apparently their crops were not growing the way they were supposed to be (Hag. 1:5-6). They were still ultimately under the rule of a foreign (even if benevolent) king. Present circumstances appeared to indicate that God had not been faithful.

But He had been faithful. He formed them as His people when He brought them out of slavery so many years ago and had given them covenants to bank on. That key event was to be the basis of the people’s trust in God in the day-to-day.

God’s call for us is the same today. Perhaps your present circumstances make it look like God has abandoned you. This would not be surprising. The reality of living in a sin-cursed world is that present circumstances will often be troubling. That is why if you are always looking for proof of God’s faithfulness and love in the day-to-day, you’ll always find yourself on a spiritual teeter-totter. One day you spend time with a great friend who is encouraging. The next, your dog dies. The next, you wake up to a beautiful sunset and fresh coffee. The next, you do not know how you will pay all of your bills. And so on.

We point this sort of thing out when we (rightly) mock the prosperity gospel, or even the semi-prosperity Osteenish gospel. But there is an even more subtle sheen on American Christianity, perpetuated by Christian music stations, Christian pastors’ tweets, and Christian self-help books. The sum total of their message is that if your life isn’t successful and bubble-gum happy each day, then you’re doing something wrong.

That is an empty promise. Circumstances do get hard. Sometimes they never let up at all. There are real questions in life. So what are we to do?

We are to root our trust in God in the gospel- that is, in that community-forming event two thousand years ago where our Lord died for our sins and rose again in victory, bringing us to Him. No matter the day’s circumstances, He has brought us out of slavery to sin, the worst of all masters, and brought us to slavery to Him, the Master of Love and Grace. And in the end, what you get is better than the changing daily pleasures of life: you get God Himself, the greatest, fullest source of joy there is.

That is the ultimate goodness of God to us and the only firm footing for our day-to-day walk with Him.

The Goings’ On of The Devious Means

Hey friends.

If you like indie rock/indie pop music, then perhaps you’ll find my band, The Devious Means, of some interest. While I try not to use this space for constant self-promotion, these days there is a lot of energy around what we are doing, so I thought I’d pass it along.

First and foremost, we have a new EP coming out sometime around the end of March. As a little preview, we’ve released one of my favorite of our songs, “Witmer”, for a pre-release listen. Check out our producer/engineer’s (Dallas Kruse of Zion Studios) mad skillz with the synth work on the breakdown in the middle. I eat it up each time, and I can say that without bragging since I didn’t have much say in writing it.

As we gear up to release the EP we’ll be playing each Monday night in January (starting tonight) for free at our residency at The Detroit Bar in Costa Mesa. For that we’ve teamed up with Collaborative World (a TOMS-esque, “give one for every one we sell” clothing company run by some really swell guys) who will be on hand each night selling their wares…or wears…or something. We got to pick the bands we’re playing with for these shows and it’s a bunch of folks we’re quite proud to be friends with, including The Silent Comedy (who feature the world’s greatest mustache–seriously, click the link), Paulie Pesh, and Midnight Hour among others. So come and enjoy some of that.

We’re also set to play at the live showcases for the Orange County Music Awards, starting on February 14th at The Constellation Room in Santa Ana. That’s right, gentlemen. Don’t know what you want to do with your lady for Valentine’s Day? Problem solved: come root for The Devious Means. The showcases basically put us up as possible nominees for “Best Live Band” in Orange County. We were also already officially nominated for “Best Indie Band” alongside Young the Giant, Kiev, The Gromble, and The Steelwells. We think that’s pretty good company.

Finally, there’s also been some fun press. We’re pleased with articles like this and this, but even more exciting to us is that our website was mentioned on a design blog as one of “30 Inspiring Music Websites for Design Inspiration”. Pretty fun to see your website next to Coldplay’s and Lady Gaga’s. All credit there goes to the Mexicuban Sensation, Ralph Polendo, who has done all of our design work along the way. So go check that out.

It’s a lot of fun playing music I am proud of with folks I love, but what takes it over the top is seeing others enjoy it along the way. Here’s hoping that it strikes your fancy too. And if it does, the best ways to follow along in the future are via facebook and twitter. Muchas gracias in advance.

Next Time We Hang Out, I’ll Be Using You to Get to God

The Bible teaches that God created humans “in His image” (Gen. 1:27-28). Nearly every discussion I have ever had about the meaning and implications of this phrase emphasize one or both of the following points: (1) humans reflect something about God when they do anything good; (2) all human life has inherent value and dignity.

Both of these points are true, just as they are important for thinking rightly about a Christian doctrine of humanity.

But I was somewhat floored this evening when I read this quote from Athanasius’s On the Incarnation concerning why God made humans in His image: “Simply in order that through this gift of God-likeness in themselves they may be able to perceive the Image Absolute, that is the Word* Himself, and through Him to apprehend the Father; which knowledge of their Maker is for men the only really happy and blessed life.”

To rephrase a bit, Athanasius is taking implication #1 above to its next step, saying that God created humans in His image precisely so that humans could look at one another and say, “I see something of what God is like in that person, and therefore I can know God more because of it.” Humans themselves are meant to avenues of God’s revelation of Himself. Thus when I see Glen’s tenderhearted love toward his friends (which is ample), I now have categories, language, and, uh, images (for lack of a better word), with which to think about what God is like, and in turn I can know Him more. Glen reveals God to me. And indeed, God is tenderhearted toward those whom He loves. The Bible says so, and Glen is a walking picture of what the Bible means by that.

Athanasius works out the equation on how this works, too: seeing something of God’s image in Glen points me to the ultimate picture of God’s image, Jesus. Jesus then points me to the Father Himself, and in the end what I get is a greater, fuller, deeper knowledge of God, which is the final goal of human life and the ultimate source of human joy.

Part of what I find so interesting about this is that I have been relating to God just this way for as long as I can remember, just without realizing it. That is, when I think of God being loving, or when I see how He has shown His love to me in my own life, I have no other way of thinking about what “love” is other than my knowledge of it from human relationships. The same is true of concepts like jealousy, wrath, kindness, faithfulness, and so on. The Bible did not teach me these words. Rather, the Bible teaches me which human character traits are actually “godly”, often by teaching me how they exist in their purest, truest, fullest forms in God’s character and actions.

Lest you think this is a bunch of theological claptrap, let’s go straight for the implication that blew my mind grapes: when I interact with other people, I ought not only to find them valuable as individuals, but I ought to see them as pointers to the greater goodness of God. I should constantly be saying, “If Glen is so kind, how much more so must God Himself be!”

What a remarkable truth then, that God did not only create Bach and Beethoven in His image, but also the Beatles. These musical masters express something about God’s creativity (He, by the way, is the One who invented ears, voices, tone, pitch, polyphony, scales, and everything else related to music) across various genres and styles and cultures. The more I get to know and enjoy all kinds of different people with their different talents and personalities, the more I will see the even greater beauty of the God who created each one.

So then, every person I meet is indeed remarkable and worthy of my enjoyment and pleasure now. But each also points me to the great God in Whom such traits exist in their greatest forms, and in Whom I can now and forever will enjoy them ever-increasingly. What greater role can a human fulfill?

——————————–

*Just in case you didn’t know, the “Word” in theological material takes a cue from John 1:1-18 and refers to the Second Person of the Trinity, normally with a view to His existence before that Word “became flesh” (Jn. 1:14). It is simply a way to distinguish the Son from the Father and the Spirit without being limited to the human name, “Jesus”, or human title, “Christ”, both of which refer specifically to the incarnate Word. I’ll resist adding another 500 clarifications and assume you get the point.

——————————–

File Under: Here’s hoping, yet again, this actually gets me back to blogging. And Glen too.

Surprised by C. S. Lewis, Again

I just finished reading Surprised by the Joy and I was, well, surprised by just how good to me it was.

I have read very little C. S. Lewis since my first couple years of college. This experience was much different than it was then, when the combination of Lewis, Tozer, and Piper (along with formative relationships with a few friends and professors) opened up to me a key biblical theme, without which Christianity is of very little value even if true: the greatest possible joy is in God. The psalmist says it clearly: “At His right hand there are pleasures forevermore; in His presence there is fullness of joy.”

Though I was already a Christian, I did not consciously, explicitly understand that truth when I was first exposed to Lewis and the rest in those days. But when I did learn it, Christianity suddenly became a lifelong pursuit of finding joy in God. The knowledge of that central Christian truth has never left me.

But the actual, experiential joy of it at times has in some degree. That is natural enough: most of us recognize that Christian living has cycles and seasons. Not that Christianity has ever been fully joyless. Rather, my drift from pursuing joy in God has been subtle and I still find myself to be a relatively joyful person. But it has been nonetheless real.

It took reading Surprised by Joy for me to realize it though. Lewis re-centered me on that truth, and today I find myself deeply thankful for that. It was more recovery than discovery, like realizing I had made a wrong turn and getting back to the road rather than finding that road in the first place.

I suspect I am not the only Christian who has thus drifted. If you find yourself in a similar place, consider picking up Surprised by Joy. Or else pray that God would lead you to some other similarly themed book. Maybe the Bible wouldn’t be a bad one…

And if you have stumbled across this post and are not a Christian, may I offer a comment? In Jesus there is more joy than there is anywhere else in this world, certainly including in your own pursuits and passions. Shoot me an email (andrewjfaris at gmail dot com), leave a comment, or even go pick up some Lewis (SBJ or Mere Christianity would be good places to start) or the Bible itself (The Gospel of John would be a good place to start) and read.

There is real joy in Him.

The Complexity and Simplicity of Social Justice

Right now I’m sitting in the newest, coolest, designer/craft coffee shop in Orange County, called Portola Coffee Lab. Go ahead, try and walk up to the counter and just ask for a cup of coffee. I dare you.

Thankfully, the employees are not snobby. The woman at the counter explained to me my coffee options, including my brewing options, of which there are at least 3 (none of them are regular drip coffee or french press), ranging in price from $3.75 to $7.50 for a single cup. I went the cheapest route. It was good but didn’t knock my socks off for four bucks.

You won’t be surprised to hear that at a place like this you can also buy a number of different coffee books, including one called Brewing Justice, which looks like a semi-scholarly discussion of the ins-and-outs-and-what-have-you’s (there are a lot of each) of the fair trade movement.

Which brings me to my point. I have heard arguments for and against Fair Trade certification as a way to promote justice in the global coffee trade. Big coffee companies exploit third world farmers so they can sell to western consumers for cheaper and turn higher profits. Disgusting. We all agree on that. But what should be done?

I got talking about all this with a woman who I think is the owner’s wife. She was kind, reasonably educated on the issue, and clearly wanted to do what was best. We agreed that it was a hard issue and that the principles of the fair trade movement made sense. But is that the be-all, end-all answer? Neither of us knew.

And here’s what that makes me think: whatever the answer is, can’t Christians just agree that we should want it? Can’t we agree that we are anti-exploitation and pro-fair wages? We can, right?

Evangelical Christians go round and round about the place of social justice ministry compared to gospel proclamation and world missions. Hopefully we also recognize that issues of exploitation are necessarily tied to the large-scale complexities of globalization and macroeconomics. Yes, yes, it’s all very difficult.

But there is also a simplicity to this issue that continually resurfaces for me: look, if someone is being regularly exploited, then don’t support it. Whatever the answer is, be for it with both your mouth and your money. I know that there are exegetical, theological, and practical difficulties on every corner. But the central, simple truth that Christians should hate and oppose exploitation in all forms needs to always be there.

So on the one side, we Reformed types who tend to get our theological panties in a wad about how to work all this out need to keep the simplicity, well, simple. And on the other, you socially conscious types who get frustrated any time any one of us wants to slow you down and force you to think a little harder about some of the issues- well, you need to recognize that the issues are complex and we don’t hate poor people.

Whatever else we say, there is, as usual, a radical middle. Christians of all stripes need to aim for it while we work out the details with both the theological carefulness of the one side and the zeal for people on the other.

Andrew Can’t Post Videos from his Computer…

…so sometimes he has me do it. It’s weird, I know, but for whatever reason we post the very same code, and nothing comes out for him.

Anywho, this video is rad and he wanted you to see it. I do too. There’s something about good art which allows you to suspend disbelief and see what the artist would have you see, even for a minute.

There’s also something to be said for retelling our story, the story of God’s faithfulness and provision in history, and doing so in a compelling manner. Hope you enjoy.

HT: Vitamin Z.
File Under: Andrew also told me I could title this post as whatever I wanted. I wonder if he had this in mind.

Way of the Donkey: An Interview with Ken Way, author of Donkeys in the Biblical World – Part 2

I thought about calling these interviews, “Everything You Wanted to Know about Donkeys but Never Would Have Thought to Ask” — but it was too long and a nice pun won the day.

We conclude with Dr. Ken Way, Talbot Old Testament professor, with some more practical questions. If you missed yesterday’s post, please go back and read it right this second. Don’t worry, we’ll wait for you…

As a 21st Century American, I can’t even recall of the last time I saw a donkey (besides maybe Eeorye). Are there practical things about donkeys we miss when thinking about ancient Hebrew life or in our reading of Scripture?

Yes, we must keep in mind that the donkey was extremely valuable in the biblical world–you might call it “equidy.” Because of its use as a form of capital and because of its intrinsic value as a draft, pack or riding animal, it could also serve as a sacrificial offering. In fact a number of texts (Akkadian, Ugaritic) and burial types (foundation deposits, etc.) attest to sacrificial usage, and this is a phenomenon that may be alluded to in Exodus 13:13; 34:20 where there’s a reference to donkey dispatch.

When I think about specific instances in Scripture which contain donkeys, I think about the story of Baalam, Mary’s trek to Bethlehem, and of course, Jesus’ Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem during his Passion Week. Do you have others which are personal favorites?

Another donkey passage which is one of my favorites is in 1 Kings 13. It is the story about a disobedient prophet from Judah who is ominously mauled to death while riding home on his donkey. God sends a lion that kills the prophet but leaves the donkey unscathed. Then both animals stand beside the corpse of the prophet to make it clear that God orchestrated the events. This is a case where the animals serve as divine agents to bring judgment on a prophet who took the word of the LORD too lightly. …a chilling story, indeed!

I could see the story of Balaam’s Ass being an odd can-o-worms, but what about Jesus’ Triumphal Entry? Can you fill in some things we might lose in translation?

The main point of Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem is not so much about humility. Rather, the point is that Jesus is the KING. The imagery of the Messiah on a jackass is a direct fulfillment of Zechariah 9:9 which is clearly a royal context. So the point is that Jesus is the massianic king who has already effectively won the victory and now returns in peace. Of course, the unanticipated nature of Christ’s kingship is the surprising development of the First Advent. Another detail that comes out from the phraseology of Zechariah 9:9 is that the animal was to be a purebred jackass. The ritual purity of the messianic mount was necessary because it is a covenant/treaty context. Covenants among the Amorites were ratified with purebred jackasses (using the same phrase as that in Zech 9:9), and the New Covenant required similar purity.

So, what’s next for you? Maybe a sequel? If I had a vote, I might say “Donkeys in the Biblical World 2: The Electric Boogaloo”. Any new projects on the horizon?

I’m so sorry to dassapoint, but I am not planning a sequel at this time. My first book and dassertation have already branded me as “the ass man” for my peers, and there is nothing I can do to change that distinction. My next book will instead be a commentary on the book of Judges (for Baker’s Teach the Text series) that will be aimed primarily at evangelical pastors and Bible teachers. But don’t worry, I will still work in a few remarks about the asses (both human and animal!) that appear in the book of Judges.

Big thanks to Dr. Way for letting us harass him. Writing a big paper or want to blow someone away at parties with your vast knowledge of biblical equids? Check out Donkeys in the Biblical World. Tell your friends. Remember, Christmas is coming soon and nothing says I love you quite like it.

Way of the Donkey: An Interview with Ken Way, author of Donkeys in the Biblical World – Part 1

I had the fortune of interviewing Dr. Ken Way, Old Testament Professor at Talbot School of Theology about his recent book, Donkeys in the Biblical World: Ceremony and Symbol, a book about… well, donkeys in the Biblical world.

I’ll let him speak to the book more specifically, but I had the fortune of taking Dr. Way’s Old Testament Survey class last semester and my major take-away and favorite part about the class was understanding better how God chose to interact with Israel within history. Dr. Way had way of synthesizing palatable chunks of archeology, especially current archeological studies, as well as an understanding of ancient Near Eastern texts to derive important and relevant hermeneutical significance from the Biblical texts. That is to say, the class confronted my own presuppositions I held about and brought clarity to the Old Testament text by demonstrating what they would have meant to someone living in Israel or to one of their neighbors. Yep, it was cool.

So I was excited and curious to ask him some questions about his new book. I had to guess that if someone I find interesting can write a massive academic work on something (or some creature) which — outside of elaborate church pageants or if I were descending into the Grand Canyon — I have given basically zero thought to, I might very well have a blind spot when it comes to reading Scripture.

Without further ado:

So, Dr. Way, it looks like in other places you’ve clarified “Donkeys in the Biblical World” is not the kind of book you anticipate most Christians will have, say, bedside like they might Oswald Chambers or combed through in a Bible study. Who’d you write it for and why?

Yes, it’s true that my book will likely not take its place next to Rick Warren’s Purpose Driven Life, but that was never my intention to begin with. The 977 footnotes and the excessive bibliography really say it all about the nature of the work. It was actually conceived as my doctoral dissertation at Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion (Ph.D., 2006). So it was written directly for the academy and indirectly for the church. That is, my primary audience is scholars of Bible and ancient Near East (regardless of faith persuasion). In my circumstance, the dissertation was designed to demonstrate my competence in the field and my ability to contribute to the field in the future. And it apparently achieved that goal since somehow I graduated and am now gainfully employed at Talbot/Biola. Now, I don’t mean for this information to discourage anyone from acquiring and reading the book. Just be advised that it may read more like a reference work than a novel. I don’t expect many people to read the book cover to cover. Rather they will likely only refer to it for a particular chapter or to see how I treat a specific passage, tablet, or burial.

Okay, what may be the most obvious question, why donkeys? There’s a host of swarming, creeping critters in Scripture, even dragons and leviathans — what drew you to donkeys as a field of study?

Why donkeys? Well, that is a great question because I sure didn’t go into doctoral studies with a plan to research donkeys. I actually had no previous background with equids. In fact, I was planning for years to write a dissertation on a very different topic (temple iconography), but four years into my program I discovered that the donkey would make for a more focused and manageable study. Honestly, I was open to doing ANY topic that would allow me to integrate Hebrew Bible with archaeology and ancient Near Eastern texts. If a topic was conducive to bridging those three fields, then I was interested in it. And the donkey provided me with such an occasion. Furthermore, a number of interesting donkey burials (in religious contexts) had been identified in excavations that were crying out for explanation. So I decided to explain these burials in light of biblical and ancient Near Eastern literature before someone else beat me to it.

If I turn to a passage in the Bible which has a donkey in it, should I be on the lookout for certain concepts, meanings or symbols — or is seeing a donkey in Scripture too common for generalization?

In general, I would say that when you see a donkey in the Bible, you can pretty much always assume some degree of prestige or socio-economic status. As a means of personal transport, the donkey could be likened to the modern use of a Mercedes-Benz. The mule (i.e., a sterile cross between a horse and donkey) on the other hand, could be likened to a Rolls Royce. As in our day, the Mercedes is frequently seen around town, while the Rolls is still pretty rare. But both vehicles are clearly elite means of transport. Now, related to this concept of prestige is the association of equines with royalty in the biblical world. Kings, princes and other executive officials are frequently associated with donkeys, mules and horses. And the same individuals are often found buried with their equid “vehicles” because they can presumably use them in the afterlife.

Wait– I know that the Egyptians believed you could “take it with you”, but are you saying that this would have also been a belief shared by ancient Israel?

Yes, the Egyptians were not alone in the practice of burying people with valuables. In fact, when you look at burial practices all over the ancient Near East (Mesopotamia, Canaan/Israel, etc.), it seems clear that one’s socio-economic status in life is directly related to the same position in the netherworld. Thus, burial furnishings may include various consumable (food) items, transport vehicles, weapons, currency, etc. It is also not uncommon to inter elite individuals with additional (human!) servants. After all, if one needed servants in life, then one will likely need them in the netherworld. There is even a fine example of an Judahite grave (in 8th century BC Jerusalem) that shows this kind of thinking. Now, please don’t misunderstand. I am not saying that the Bible teaches these practices. Rather, I suspect that these customs/beliefs are “normative” among people who have little (or no) revelation about the afterlife.

Tune in tomorrow for the second half of Donkeypalooza, where Dr. Way talks about Jesus’ donkey-ride into Jerusalem and he reveals his donkey-centric nickname given him by his colleagues (spoiler alert: it’s probably exactly what you think it is).