Presented at the Conference on Christianity, Culture and Diversity in America held in Tulsa, Oklahoma November 2006.
The Judaeo-Christian Concept of Hesed as an Essential Element of Reconciliation, Peace, and Unity
Lenore Mullican
Abstract: In America, we pride ourselves as a nation of diversity—and that we certainly are! Diversity can add variety, strength of character, moral values, and purpose, as well as cultural richness to the fabric of our society—but the daily news abounds with the negative consequences of diversity that are expressed as bigotry, disappointment, disillusionment, hatred, heartache, mistrust, misunderstanding, and violence. This paper explores the Judaeo-Christian concept of hesed as an essential element in the Book of Ruth, in the life and teachings of Jesus, and in modern, effective reconciliation ministries grappling with the violence and hatred of the Middle East.
Can an understanding of the biblical meaning of loving-kindness or mercy as demonstrated through stories in both the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and the New Testament help us effect restoration, peace, and unity in the midst of diversity? In this paper we shall look at the story of Ruth as an example of loving-kindness shown by someone outside of the believing community and the blessings of restoration, peace and unity that resulted from her loving-kindness. We shall also look at Jesus’ understanding of “Who is my neighbor?” through the example he gave in the Parable of the Good Samaritan. Finally, I shall give present day examples of endeavors to facilitate reconciliation between Arabs and Jews in Israel that I have had the opportunity to observe.
Hesed is the Hebrew term that means loving-kindness or mercy. It connotes favor, grace, elegance, goodness, charm and loyalty. (Brown, Driver & Briggs, 2000, p. 336; Koehler & Baumgartner, 2001, p. 338). As we shall see in the following biblical examples this is the term we find when a generous act is done that goes beyond legal formulas and surpasses the narrow legalistic view. The Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures) translates this Hebrew word, which appears 247 times, as eleos. The English for eleos is mercy. Another Hebrew term hen (beauty or loveliness) is usually translated grace. In the Hebrew Bible hen appears only sixty-nine times, thus giving the impression that that there is little grace in the Hebrew Scriptures (grace appears 39 times in the King James Version and only seven times in the Revised Standard Version). According to David Bivin:
There was a phenomenon that contributed to this distortion. Towards the end of the period in which the Hebrew Scriptures were written, hesed lost its distinctiveness and came very near in meaning to hen, normally translated by charis (charm, grace; favor) in the Septuagint. Thus in the later books of the Hebrew Scriptures, the translators of the Septuagint tended to use charis to render hesed. In the New Testament this tendency became full-blown, and charis usually appears in the sense of “mercy.” In spite of this change of meaning, English versions of Scripture continued to render charis woodenly as “grace.” Therefore, the reader of the New Testament encounters a great deal of grace, and because the context usually dictates the sense of “mercy,” the Christian reader has come to see “grace” primarily in the sense of “mercy” rather than in its ordinary English sense of “charm, loveliness. (Bivin, 1992, pp. 14-15).
The book of Ruth is a book about hesed, about kindness given freely, regardless of differences whether racial, national, or economical. It is a story of restoration, peace, and unity.
The Story of Ruth
“For what reason was the book of Ruth written? To teach us how great the reward is for those who practice hesed” (Midrash Rabbah 2:14).
The setting for the story of Ruth is during the time of the judges of ancient Israel. This was a period of oppression by enemies both from within and without the borders of Israel, and the judges had only limited authority. These functioned not in the legal sense of deciding disputes, but rather arose to serve as national leaders in time of national emergency. Due to restriction of borders, the tribes generally acted independently of one another. It was a time of moral depravity and anarchy. The story begins during a period of famine in Israel, Elimelech and Naomi left Bethlehem to sojourn in Moab with their two sons, Mahlon and Chilion, until the famine ended. The sons married Moabite women, Ruth and Orpah. Tragically, within ten years the three men died. When Naomi heard that the famine was over in Israel, she decided to return to Bethlehem. She tried to persuade her daughters-in-law to return to their Moabite families but Ruth insisted on remaining with Naomi. The ancient rabbis determined that Ruth showed her sincerity in following the God of Israel by declaring that she would go with Naomi wherever she went, lodge there, and accept her God (Megillas Ruth, 1976, p. 81).
Ruth demonstrated hesed by showing kindness, love, and mercy to Naomi. This was done both in humility and in practical ways. Ruth’s actions demonstrate a contrast between ordinary and exceptional goodness, between kindness over and above conventional duty. Boaz also demonstrates exceptional goodness in that he surpasses others in his generosity. While the poor were to be allowed to glean the corners of the fields Boaz insisted that Ruth glean among the sheaves and even told his men to deliberately leave some stalks of grain. His interpretation of the law went beyond following a strict legal requirement when he exhibited extraordinary generosity to a Moabite woman. While hospitality was considered of extreme importance in Israel, it was not extended to Moabites. The Moabites were considered enemies because they had refused to help the Israelites when they entered the land and even had paid Balaam to curse Israel. Therefore, the Torah explicitly stated that no Ammonite or Moabite or any of their descendants were to be part of the community of Israel. They were not even to seek a treaty of friendship with them (Deut. 23:3-6).
And yet Ruth received abundance because of her hesed. When Ruth asked Boaz why he favored her even though she was a foreigner he told her it was because of her goodness and kindness, hesed, that she showed toward her mother-in-law (Ruth 2:11). Ruth, on the instruction of Naomi, sought to have Boaz marry her so that the inheritance her mother-in-law was forced to sell because of her poverty would remain in the family. Boaz’ obligation was to Naomi, not to Ruth, yet he did marry her after making sure a closer kinsman would not do so. Under levirate law, if an Israelite had to sell his property due to poverty, the nearest relative was to redeem it in order to retain the property within the extended family (Lev. 25:25). A Moabite, however, would be excluded from this requirement (Deut. 23:3). Boaz went beyond that which was required by the strict legal sense of the law. Thus, the Book of Ruth gives us an interpretation of Torah that goes beyond the narrow confines of legalism.
Before proceeding further, we shall endeavor to present a correct understanding of the term Torah. The word appears 208 times in the Hebrew Scriptures and is usually translated as law. However, this can be quite misleading since it is generally used in the sense of instruction. Israel understood her value in the eyes of God as a people who accepted God’s Torah and lovingly fulfilled it (Montefiore & Loewe, 1974, p. 116) and the obligations of the Torah were not that of an oppressive legal servitude but one of joyous service to God which led to the sanctification of the individual life (Cohen, 1975, p. 151). This is apparent in the use of synonyms in Psalm 119: teaching, instruction, to bear witness, precepts, statutes, commandments, judgments, ordinances and the word or expressed will of God (Mullican, 2004).
Diversity in terms of race, religion and nationality are emphasized in the Book of Ruth. As the story unfolds, blessings result when differences are overcome with loving-kindness, with actions that go beyond the expected, the traditional, or that required by law. Ruth, Naomi and Boaz were blessed as was the whole community and the blessing continued from generation to generation. Ruth the Moabite became the great-grandmother of King David and ancestor of the Messiah
The Parable of the Good Samaritan
In relating the parable of the Good Samaritan I would like to reconstruct a possible scenario to put the story in context. This reconstruction is based upon the Synoptic Gospel research of my father, Robert Lindsey, in which he discovered what he considered to be Jesus’ teaching format. As Jesus moved about the country in his peripatetic ministry, whenever he observed something of interest or someone asked a question, he would comment on the incident or question, and follow with a teaching discourse. Jesus seems to have concluded his teaching with two parables to emphasize the point of his teaching. In some cases the twin parables occur together in one or the other Synoptic Gospels, but others, as well as the associated teaching discourse, have been separated from their original context. Lindsey (1990) reconstructed fourteen units by finding connections of incident, teaching, and parables. These connections were determined linguistically and thematically. The parable of the Good Samaritan is one of the few reconstructions where there does not appear to be a surviving twin or double parable. This parable, however, serves to illustrate and clarify the truth that Jesus is trying to convey through his teaching.
The Incident: The Lawyer’s Question (Mt. 22:36; Luke 10:25-28)
The incident that led to the Parable of the Good Samaritan began with a question by a lawyer or Torah scholar well versed in the Scriptures, who asked what he should do to inherit eternal life. Jesus, in typical rabbinic style of teaching, answered the question with another question, “What is written in the law? How do you read?” The Torah scholar answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself” (Luke 10:25-27, New International Version). Jesus agreed with the Torah scholar whose answer came from Deut. 6:5 and Lev. 19:18. The importance of this verse can be seen in the comments by rabbis of the period. Rabbi Akiva, commenting on Lev. 19:18, stated, “This is the great principle of the Torah” (Sifra 89b). When challenged by a pagan to teach him the whole Torah while standing on one foot, Rabbi Hillel’s famous reply was, “What is hateful to you, do not do to anyone else” (b. Shab. 31a).
Jesus elsewhere rephrased this command in what has come to be known as the Golden Rule: “Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the Torah and the Prophets” (Matt. 7:12). The Didache, a first century Christian manual of Church morals, rituals and disciplines contains a negative form of the Golden Rule that is similar to Rabbi Hillel’s teaching: “Now the way of life is this: you shall love first the God who created you, then your neighbor as yourself, and do not yourself do to another what you would not want done to you” (Van de Sandt & Flusser, 2002, p. 10). Both Jesus and other rabbis regarded loving one’s neighbor as precondition to reconciliation with God (M.Yoma 8:9; Matt. 6:14-15). The lawyer then pressed Jesus for further clarification asking, “And who is my neighbor?” (Luke 10:28).
The Teaching: On Love of One’s Enemies (Mt. 5:43-48)
You have heard it said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not event the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore as your heavenly Father is perfect.
The Hebrew word re’a was understood only to mean a neighbor or friend but never an enemy (Young, 1989, p. 240). In rabbinic literature we find that re’a is often used to exclude the non-Jew. However, nowhere in biblical or rabbinic Judaism is one called upon to transcend human nature and actually to love one’s enemies. This does not, however, preclude positive moral actions toward those who are your enemies.
The phrase, “and hate your enemies” is nowhere to be found in the Bible, nor in rabbinic writings. Since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, however, we have a better understanding of where this concept may have originated. In the Manual of Discipline, the instruction manual for members of the Qumran community, members are instructed to “love all the children of light . . . and to hate all the children of darkness” (1QS 1:9-10). They saw humanity divided into children of light and children of darkness. Their community comprised the children of light while everyone else outside their community, even other Jewish sects, were the children of darkness. Consequently, they separated themselves from contact with people outside their community as much as possible. Jesus, however, taught the principle of universal love that was to be expressed even to sinners. He shows the universality of God’s love by reminding his listeners that the blessings of rain benefit both good and evil people. Jesus required those who follow him to live in brotherly love with the outside world.
Jesus concludes his teaching with “Be ye perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Mt. 5:48), while the parallel reading in Luke states, “Be ye merciful even as your Father is merciful” (6:36). Flusser has written that the New English Bible provides the best translation: “There must be no limit to your goodness, as your heavenly Father’s goodness knows no bounds.” This translation demonstrates that “God reaches out in love to all people regardless of their attitude and behavior toward Him” (1997. p. 83).
Jesus Illustrates His Teaching with the Parable of the Good Samaritan
(Luke 10:30-37)
In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’ Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?” The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.” Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”
The parable of the Good Samaritan is a story parable given in answer to the question of a Torah scholar who asked, “And who is my neighbor?” The purpose of the story parable is not to entertain but to communicate. Other than Jesus’ parables in the New Testament, parables are found only in rabbinic literature and they always are written in Hebrew. Although this parable could have been based upon an actual occurrence, parables were not generally understood to be statements of facts but rather to serve the purpose of illustrating or clarifying an issue. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus illustrates the meaning of “neighbor” in the context of hesed (Young, 1998, p. 102).
According to Young, the question is genuine because the term for neighbor in Hebrew re’a has a range of meanings.
The dialectic discussion between Jesus and the scholar was not characterized by hostility or confrontation, as many NT scholars have assumed. The question is a genuine inquiry. Jewish learning involved asking questions and answering questions with more questions. The Torah scholar is viewed much more positively in Luke’s version, for he answers correctly. Not only is this the case in regard to the two commandments that speak of love for God and love for people; it is also true in regard to the conclusion of the parable of the Good Samaritan. When Jesus asked him who was the neighbor to the man in need, the Torah scholar answered correctly, “The one who showed mercy” (Young, 1998, pp. 102-104).
Without a Hebraic understanding of the parable, we are likely to view the priest and the Levite as unfeeling, religious hypocrites. Although Jesus obviously views their response as unacceptable, a cultural understanding enables the modern reader to appreciate why they acted as they did. Their action was not arbitrary but was a byproduct of their theology. Both the priest and Levite would have been Sadducees and foundational to their theology was acceptance only of the Written Torah and rejection of the Oral Torah. The Oral Torah was a constantly evolving interpretation of the Written Torah, much like our body of United States law is a constantly evolving interpretation of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. If the priest and Levite thought the wounded man was dead, according to the Written Torah they were forbidden to defile themselves by burying a dead body, thus rendering themselves unfit for service, even if the dead were a parent. In contrast, Jesus, like the Pharisees, accepted both the Written and Oral Torah. The Oral Torah permitted a person to bury dead kindred without becoming defiled, and only became defiled by contact with a neglected corpse. According to the story, however, the robbers abandoned the man, leaving him “half dead” indicating that the man was still alive (Young, 1998, pp.109-111).
In Jewish oral tradition, the principle of saving life at all costs gained unsurpassed and uncompromised priority. The rabbis treated the question of preservation of life . . . with great severity. All written laws of the Torah must be violated to preserve life (Young, 1998, p. 112).
It is important to note that the Samaritan, like the priest and Levite who were Sadducees, accepted only the Written Torah and rejected the Oral Torah of the Pharisees. Not only did the Samaritan risk defilement should the wounded man die before they reached an inn, but he also risked being implicated in the crime because of the enmity between Jews and Samaritans. It is remarkable that the despised Samaritan was compassionate enough to risk any danger in order to preserve life (Young, 1998, pp. 116-117). Thus, Jesus’ shocking parable maintains that even a despised enemy is capable of showing hesed and acting in the capacity of a neighbor. Consequently, since all people are made in the image of God, we are to view everyone as our neighbor and conduct ourselves with mercy and compassion.
Current Examples from Israel
What should be the Christian response today to hostility, violence, hatred, and injustice perpetrated from without and within our community? What do the teachings of Jesus as illumined by the Holy Spirit demand of those who follow Jesus as Lord. These questions are particularly relevant to Messianic Jews and Arab Christians in the Middle East as they grapple with multi-generational distrust and hatred. As I have conversed with individuals involved with ministry in the Holy Land, both citizens and expatriates, it has become clear that the key is in hesed, loving-kindness, mercy, going beyond that which is expected. The foundation of hesed necessarily must be based upon humility and forgiveness. Indeed, hesed embraces humility and humility involves forgiveness; both are inherent in reconciliation. In addition to the obvious example of Jesus’ life and ministry, following are three current examples of effective reconciliation ministry in the Middle East.
Abuna Elias Chacour and Mar Elias Educational Institutions
Elias Chacour was born November 29, 1939 in the village of Biram in Upper Galilee in Palestine to a Palestinian Christian family, members of the Melkite Catholic Church, an Eastern Byzantine Church in communion with Rome. At the age of eight, he was evicted, along with his whole village, by the Israeli authorities and became a deportee and a refugee in his own country. Because his family remained in the country, he was granted citizenship when the state of Israel was created in 1948. As he grew up he was well aware of the lack of employment opportunities among Palestinian Arabs (now termed Israeli Arabs). Most came from agricultural backgrounds but when dispossessed from their farms and homes, they migrated to the cities. Limited opportunities for further education or technical training made their outlook bleak indeed. Consequently, when he was given the opportunity to study for the priesthood, he accepted without hesitation. Always the activist even as a youth, Father Chacour chose the path of peace, however, while others of those around him chose the path of violence.
Abuna Elias Chacour (Abuna is an Arabic term of endearment “Our Father”) was assigned to the village of Ibillin in Galilee in 1965. He quickly saw the lack of educational opportunities for Arab youth beyond the eighth grade. A vision of a school for all the children of Israel regardless of ethnic or religious background began to take shape in his mind. In the early 1980’s, on an empty hillside now known as the Mount of Light, a classroom building was built to house the newly formed high school. Today, the educational facilities have expanded to include not only grades K through 12 but also a fully accredited college as well as a continuing education center for teachers. In addition to his priesthood, Father Chacour holds a Ph.D. in Engineering from Michigan State University and an M.BA. from the Technion Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel. He serves as Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Mar Elias College, Ibillin, Israel.
Father Chacour has become a tireless ambassador for non-violence around the world, and one who not only preaches, but also who lives, the Sermon on the Mount. In addition, hundreds of visitors, fact-finding missions, and pilgrims continue to visit him in Ibillin. He has received many International peace awards and has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize on three occasions. His dream of reconciliation between the peoples of the Middle East has begun to become a reality. In the Mar Elias Educational Institutions, faculty and staff are composed of both Arabs and Jews and the student body is made up of Christians, Muslims, Jews, and Druse. (www.meei.org)
In December of 2003 I was privileged to spend a couple of hours with Father Chacour at the schools he established on Jabal al Nuur (Mountain of Light) in the city of Ibillin in Galilee. He impressed me as being very friendly, patient, energetic, humble and forgiving. He is also passionate in promoting education and relationship as essential to reconciliation and a better life for all the peoples of the land. As is usually the case with the truly great people, Father Chacour seems oblivious to his fame and importance and retains his sense of humility and servanthood. One of the most memorable events of the visit was when he showed us the cathedral that was almost complete. It serves not only for worship but also as the main auditorium for the schools and college. A large mural honors peacemakers from nations around the world. Also a short wall across the front of the balcony is painted to resemble a stone wall. The wall is called “The Wall of Peace” and each graduate is expected to truly become a living stone as he or she seeks to live a life of peace.
Musalaha
“Musalaha” is an Arabic word that means forgiveness and reconciliation. The non-profit organization, founded in 1990, seeks to promote reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians as demonstrated in the life and teaching of Jesus. They seek to be an encouragement and facilitator of reconciliation, first among Palestinian Christians and Messianic Israelis, and then beyond to their respective communities. Salim J. Munayer, Director of Musalaha (2006), writes:
Identity is often found at the heart of conflict. It is evident that identity plays a critical role in both the Israeli and Palestinian society. Both societies are still in a deep inner search to define their identities. What does it mean to call oneself a “Palestinian” or an “Arab Israeli”? “Who is a Jew?” is frequently debated in Israeli government and Jewish discourse. . . . While parts of our identity are positive expressions of culture, tradition, and rich history, at the same time, our identification with a group can mean adopting certain negative attitudes towards the other. In order to embrace and understand the other, we must also comprehend ourselves, and as such identity is an important factor in reconciliation. Identity comes into play not only when trying to define it from within the group, but also when groups interact either in positive encounters or inter-group conflict. Practitioners in reconciliation have recognized that identity is both a root and a consequence of inter-group hostility and offenses. Social science research shows that the issue of identity plays an important role and may contribute to conflict, and at the same time conflict also influences people’s identity. . . . Often in group relationships, there is a denial and rejection of the other’s identity. One group puts demands on the other to submit or to conform their identity. Aspects of culture, heritage and history are suppressed because they are uncomfortable or different. In this context, there is the added dimension that Israeli Messianic and Palestinian Christian believers are minorities in their communities, often feeling that they have to prove their loyalties to their people. In facing the issues of identity, the forum for healing is community and reconciliation. While some may have the instinct to withdraw and separate, they must move past this withdrawal phase in order to progress in reconciliation. The wounds caused by identities in conflict will be healed and redeemed through relationship that is initiated by Christ’s act of reconciliation on the cross.
In spite of finding themselves in the midst of a violent and intractable struggle, many Palestinian Arab Christians and Israeli Messianic Jews have reached across the considerable gap between their communities and have developed relationships. Many believers in the land have chosen to pursue reconciliation, following the Biblical commandments to love their neighbors, brothers and even their enemies. Musalaha endeavors to foster reconciliation through several programs: 1) Desert Encounters. The desert is a uniquely neutral atmosphere where participants are away from their comfort zones and are compelled to rely upon each other. The challenges of the desert journey provide an excellent occasion for spiritual discovery, relationship building and open communication. 2) Conferences with Biblical and historical themes, theological seminars, and conflict-resolution workshops. 3) Youth activities: desert encounters, youth gatherings, trips, and conferences. 4) Women’s activities: conferences, leadership retreats. 5) Leadership training: training for congregational and youth leaders. 6) Book publication and website articles. (www.musalah.org, 2006)
Having followed the work of Musalaha for several years, in July 2006 I was privileged to personally observe two Musalaha camps for children in progress at Baptist Village Camp and Retreat Center near Petah Tikva, Israel. One camp was for Israeli Arab and Palestinian Christians with Messianic Jews. The other camp was for secular Jews and Muslim Arabs. As they ran and played, sat at lunch together, or gathered around tables doing craft projects, it was difficult to tell one group from the other. The camp leaders and staff were composed of both Arab Christians and Messianic Jews who genuinely loved and respected each other. The work of Musalaha and other groups endeavoring to promote reconciliation are quietly providing light and hope through forgiveness and relationship building in the midst of hostility and hatred. These programs of reconciliation offer reason for much optimism for peace in the Middle East.
Shevet Achim
In Israel, a certain Christian has taken the bold step of seeking first the Kingdom of Heaven above all other agendas. His name is Jonathan Miles who, with his wife Michelle and five children, lived for several years in the heart of Rafah, a sprawling refugee city in the Gaza Strip. When I spent several days with them in 2000, the members of their family were the only known Christians in this Muslim city of 150,000. The high incidence of intermarriage with cousins in Arab society has resulted in an increased number of cases of congenital heart defects and other deformities. Addressing the needs of these children requires sophisticated surgical procedures which the Palestinian Authority cannot provide. Consequently, children were dying unnecessarily merely kilometers away from fully staffed and equipped hospitals in Israel. In response to the need, Miles established a non-profit organization, Shevet Achim (Brothers Dwelling Together), and assembled a team in Jerusalem to serve as liaison between desperate families in Gaza and the West Bank and Jewish medical personnel in Israel. Shevet Achim raises the necessary funds primarily from caring Christians. (www.shevet.org )
Jewish doctors and nurses volunteer their time to operate on terminally-ill Arab children (mostly Muslim) at facilities inside of Israel. The hospitals make their operating rooms and equipment available at cost. Following the U.S. led war in Iraq, Shevet Achim began bringing children from Iraq to Israel, India, and the U.S. for heart surgery with the aid of a Shevet Achim team in Amman, Jordan. Jonathan Miles has pioneered an innovative model for ministry with a powerful dynamic. Arab children are spared death because of the charity of Jewish medical experts operating in Israeli hospitals. The life-saving encounter between Jew and Arab paves over suspicion with trust, anger with hope, and hate with goodwill. And equally as significant, the healing moment was realized through the efforts of a Christian committed to Jesus’ instructions: “Whatever city you enter… heal those who are sick, and say to them, ‘the Kingdom of God has come upon you’” (J. Frankovic, personal communication, January 14, 2005).
Conclusion
This paper has explored the Judaeo-Christian concept of hesed as an essential element in the Book of Ruth, in the life and teachings of Jesus, and in modern, effective reconciliation ministries grappling with the violence and hatred of the Middle East. In the Book of Ruth, problems of diversity in terms of race, religion and nationality were overcome by loving-kindness and mercy implicit in the Hebrew term hesed. The solutions to the problems faced in Ruth, as well as in the Parable of the Good Samaritan, depended upon Ruth, Boaz, and the Samaritan choosing to respond with hesed. In the three examples of current creative reconciliation ministries in the Middle East, the key to their effectiveness is based upon the participants choosing the path of hesed, embracing humility and forgiveness. The principles elicited from these examples are valid to form a foundation for addressing the problems of diversity involving differences in ethnicity, race, gender, culture, age, and religion that we each encounter in our own educational communities.
References
Book references:
Brown, F., Driver S.R., & Briggs C.A. (2000). The New
Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon (Rev. ed.).
Peabody: Hendrickson.
Cohen, A. (1995). Everyman’s Talmud: The Major Teachings of the Rabbinic Sages (Rev. ed.). New York: Schocken.
Flusser, D. (1988). Judaism and the origins of Christianity. Jerusalem: Magnes.
Flusser, D. (1997), Jesus. Jerusalem: Magnes.
Koehler, L and Baumgartner W. (2001) The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. (M.E.J. Richardson, Trans.) (Vol.1). Leiden: Brill.
Lachs, S. T. (1987). A Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. New Jersey: KTAV.
LaCocque, A. (2004). Ruth: A Continental Commentary, (K.C. Hanson, Trans.). Minneapolis: Fortress
Lindsey, R. L. (1990). Jesus, Rabbi and Lord: The Hebrew Story of Jesus Behind our Gospels. Oak Creek, WI: Cornerstone.
Montefiort, C. G. & Loewe, H. (1974). A Rabbinic Anthology. New York: Schocken.
Scherman, N. & Zlotowitz, M. (1979). The Book of Ruth/Megillas Ruth. The Artscroll Tanach Series. Brooklyn: Mesorah.
Van de Sandt, H. & Flusser D. (2002), The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity. Netherlands: Royal Van Gorcum.
Young, B.H. (1989). Jesus and His Jewish Parables: Rediscovering the Roots of Jesus’ Teaching. New York: Paulist.
Journal references:
Bivin, D. (1992). Grace Compared, Jerusalem Perspective, 5(1), 14-15.
Conference references:
Mullican, L. (2004, July), Joy n the Torah: Experiencing Delight in
God’s Instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
European Association of Biblical Studies Conference, Groningen,
Netherlands.
Web references:
Mar Elias Educational Institutions. (n.d.). Abuna Elias Chacour.
Retrieved October 20, 2006, from http://www.meei.org/who/abuna.html.
Shevet Achim. (n.d.). Opening the Doors of Israeli Hospitals to our Neighbors’Dying Children. Retrived October 20, 2006 fromhttp:// www.shevet.org/Purpose.htm
Munayer, S. (2006). From Foreigners to Fellow Citizens: Reconciliation and Identity, Retrieved October 20, 2006, from http://www.musalaha.org /newsletters/mar_2006.php