Link to top Back of the Envelope

Blog
Writings About Me Photos
Links

Friday, May 25, 2007

Ezekiel's vision of God's throne
So on Thursday, I got into work and suddenly remembered that I was supposed to be leading the Bible Study for my Thursday night small group. As I hadn't even thought about what I would be presenting, my Bible study got to see "whatever Donald's currently reading in his personal quiet time," which happened to be the beginning of Ezekiel, and his vision of God's glory. I guess I should be glad it was something easy ;) This post is based on that Bible study, complete with some of the illustrations I shared with my group.

Let's begin by reading Ezekiel Chapter 1 (NIV):
1 In the thirtieth year, in the fourth month on the fifth day, while I was among the exiles by the Kebar River, the heavens were opened and I saw visions of God.

2 On the fifth of the month—it was the fifth year of the exile of King Jehoiachin— 3 the word of the LORD came to Ezekiel the priest, the son of Buzi, by the Kebar River in the land of the Babylonians. There the hand of the LORD was upon him.

4 I looked, and I saw a windstorm coming out of the north—an immense cloud with flashing lightning and surrounded by brilliant light. The center of the fire looked like glowing metal, 5 and in the fire was what looked like four living creatures. In appearance their form was that of a man, 6 but each of them had four faces and four wings. 7 Their legs were straight; their feet were like those of a calf and gleamed like burnished bronze. 8 Under their wings on their four sides they had the hands of a man. All four of them had faces and wings, 9 and their wings touched one another. Each one went straight ahead; they did not turn as they moved.

10 Their faces looked like this: Each of the four had the face of a man, and on the right side each had the face of a lion, and on the left the face of an ox; each also had the face of an eagle. 11 Such were their faces. Their wings were spread out upward; each had two wings, one touching the wing of another creature on either side, and two wings covering its body. 12 Each one went straight ahead. Wherever the spirit would go, they would go, without turning as they went. 13 The appearance of the living creatures was like burning coals of fire or like torches. Fire moved back and forth among the creatures; it was bright, and lightning flashed out of it. 14 The creatures sped back and forth like flashes of lightning.

15 As I looked at the living creatures, I saw a wheel on the ground beside each creature with its four faces. 16 This was the appearance and structure of the wheels: They sparkled like chrysolite, and all four looked alike. Each appeared to be made like a wheel intersecting a wheel. 17 As they moved, they would go in any one of the four directions the creatures faced; the wheels did not turn about as the creatures went. 18 Their rims were high and awesome, and all four rims were full of eyes all around.

19 When the living creatures moved, the wheels beside them moved; and when the living creatures rose from the ground, the wheels also rose. 20 Wherever the spirit would go, they would go, and the wheels would rise along with them, because the spirit of the living creatures was in the wheels. 21 When the creatures moved, they also moved; when the creatures stood still, they also stood still; and when the creatures rose from the ground, the wheels rose along with them, because the spirit of the living creatures was in the wheels.

22 Spread out above the heads of the living creatures was what looked like an expanse, sparkling like ice, and awesome. 23 Under the expanse their wings were stretched out one toward the other, and each had two wings covering its body. 24 When the creatures moved, I heard the sound of their wings, like the roar of rushing waters, like the voice of the Almighty, like the tumult of an army. When they stood still, they lowered their wings.

25 Then there came a voice from above the expanse over their heads as they stood with lowered wings. 26 Above the expanse over their heads was what looked like a throne of sapphire, and high above on the throne was a figure like that of a man. 27 I saw that from what appeared to be his waist up he looked like glowing metal, as if full of fire, and that from there down he looked like fire; and brilliant light surrounded him. 28 Like the appearance of a rainbow in the clouds on a rainy day, so was the radiance around him.

This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. When I saw it, I fell facedown, and I heard the voice of one speaking.

Ezekiel's vision of God's glory is one of the stranger visions in the Bible. There are a few in Revelation and Daniel that might be stranger, but it's a near thing. It's so strange, in fact, that some people don't think that Ezekiel actually saw what he claimed to see. Some of these folks think that what Ezekiel actually saw was a UFO that he simply mistook for God. The picture on the left is a NASA scientist's idea of what Ezekiel might have actually seen. (From Josef Blumrich's The Spaceships of Ezekiel.)

Christians, of course, believe that it is a prophecy of God, which is backed up by the fact that the next forty-seven chapters of Ezekiel contain rather straightforward Biblical prophecy directed at the nation of Israel: predicting its judgement for disobeying God, then the judgement of the other nations, and finally Israel's restoration. Not exactly what you'd expect from space aliens. No, Christians have a different problem, namely that their eyes glaze over when they read all the wheels within wheels covered with eyes stuff, so they ignore it. This can be seen even in Renaissance paintings of the event, such as Raphael's The Vision of Ezekiel shown on the right, which pictures God reclining on some very Renaissance cherubs, who lack any of that distracting plethora of wings or heads. Eyed wheels and crystal expanses are likewise missing, giving us a vision in the Renaissance style which has little resemblance to the one described by Ezekiel.

Once you give an artist modern software and the ability to do lighting effects, you tend to get illustrations that focus on the brightness of it all, sometimes making it hard to see the actual details. While that may have been the case even to Ezekiel, it's still not very helpful in visualizing it. Maybe one of the closest illustrations is this one, from a woodcut in the Bear Bible, on the left. It does a decent job of illustrating the perpendicular wheels within wheels, the four headed angels covering their bodies with wings, and God in his throne atop an expanse, even if the expanse looks more like a cloth canopy than crystal and it's atop what looks like a wagon. It's not the prettiest of the illustrations, and there's some additional stuff, but it gets more of details correct than most of the others. And confusing details those are, too.

What most people seem to be missing is that while Ezekiel's version is extreme, the symbology employed is not unique to him. Ezekiel is describing an encounter with the throne of God, such as that described in Isaiah 6, who also mentions creatures with a multitude of wings, and in Revelation 4, where we get not just lots of wings, but plenty of eyes and also the same four animals: ox, lion, eagle, and man. Neither vision is identical to Ezekiel's, but then, all three are visions. There is, we may take for granted, symbolism involved, and a message in the symbols that relates not just to the nature of God, but also to the condition of the one receiving it. And here, I think, is the key to understanding Ezekiel's vision.

The Book of Ezekiel opens by describing the where and the when of his vision, which occurred shortly after the first group of exiles was taken from Judah into Babylon. Ezekiel was among them, and had this vision while in Babylon. Jerusalem, and most importantly the temple there, had yet to be destroyed, but it would be happening soon. Ezekiel himself was of the priestly line, so he would have been intimately familiar with the temple, where the presence of God dwelt, specifically in the holy of holies on the mercy seat, between the two cherubs of the Ark of the Covenant. The vision in chapter 6 of Isaiah takes place there, with God's throne filling the temple. While God's presence had traveled with his people in the Exodus, it had dwelt with the Ark of Covenant since it had been built, first in the tabernacle and later in the temple. This fact was central to the identity of the Jewish people at the time: God dwelt among them, in their temple. The temple was where they went on their pilgrimages, to make their sacrifices and to celebrate their holy days. Only now they were in exile, banished to Babylon and unable to return to Jerusalem, denied their pilgrimages and their holy days. Had they left God behind when they came to Babylon? Was he still in the temple while they were there? Did he even see them or hear their prayers any more? Those are the questions this vision was intended to answer.

The first thing to notice about this vision is movement. It fills this passage: it's central to it. The rushing wings and gigantic wheels are symbols of movement, and they come and go with tremendous speed, like lighting (Ezekiel 1:14). They move from side to side, even lift aloft (Ezekiel 1:19), but they don't turn (Ezekiel 1:12,17). The wheels within wheels are perpendicular, so that the wheels may move in any direction without turning. The creatures likewise have four heads, looking in every direction, so they too can move without turning. The idea conveyed here is effortless, natural, and fast movement. And above those wheels and the angelic beings, between their outstretched wings, is the throne of God, just as he dwells between the outstretched wings of the cherubs atop the Ark of the Covenant. The idea here is actually pretty easy to see. Whereas in Isaiah's vision, God's throne had been fixed in the temple, here we're shown a mobile throne. God is not confined to the temple. He goes where he wills with the speed of thought, even to visit his people in Babylon, to let them know that he was there too. Although it's not clearly stated, the suggestion of omnipresence, the fact that God is everywhere, echoes through this passage.

The second thing that stands out in this passage is the eyes. Each of the four creatures has eight eyes, two for each head, and all four living creatures are looking in the four cardinal directions at once. The wheels themselves are covered with eyes, and since the wheels within wheels are perpendicular, they too look in all four directions. Eyes are one of the most common symbols throughout literature, both ancient and modern. They indicate seeing and knowledge. The message is that God is not ignorant of anything. His fast-moving chariot is filled with eyes which see all, so he fully knows the plight of his exiled people in Babylon. Aside from omnipresence, we also get an indication of omniscience.

The creatures themselves have four heads: man, eagle, ox, and lion. Although it may not be obvious to our modern sensibilities, these four represent four types. To the ancient Near East mind, at least, the eagle was chief among the birds of the sky, the ox the strongest of the domesticated animals, the lion the most powerful of the wild animals. And man was the noblest of all, created in God's own image and given dominion over all the Earth. So the four faces of the living creatures can be seen as four lords, each with a separate dominion. And yet these four living creatures are under the control of the figure on the throne. The spirit unites them and their wheels, guiding them as one unit, and the figure on the throne dwells above and separate from them, an expanse like crystal between. The word "expanse" is the same one used in Genesis 1:7-8. for the sky. God on his throne is exalted in dominion not only over the creatures of dominion, but also above the sky itself (an important point, as astrology played an powerful role in Babylonian culture).

And surrounding God is a rainbow, the symbol of his first covenant with man, made to Noah after the flood (Genesis 9:8-17). It was not a two-way covenant like the one made with the Israelites on Mt. Sinai, but a promise motivated by nothing more than simple mercy on God's part, and thus a promise that could never be broken, for it depended on God's faithfulness rather than man's.

There are, of course, numerous other symbols that I could discuss (the fire and lightning, for example, or the hands hidden by the wings), but I think this is sufficient to understand the central message of the passage, and while the vision itself was awesome and frightening, its message was one of reassurance. God had not been left behind in Jerusalem. His presence and perception were with the exiles in Babylon, and his dominion extended there as well. And while his people had broken their covenant and were being punished for it, God still intended to keep his promise, one of mercy that reached them even there, and which in the fullness of time would bring them back.

Friday, March 4, 2005

Patronage and Reciprocity
This is the third and final post based on the notes from last week's Thursday night Bible study. Next week, maybe I'll post the notes from this week's Bible study.


One of the societal relationships that contributed to the stability of the society was the patron-client relationship. "It's not what you know, but who you know"

Think of mob movies - I do this for you, you don't do this for me? No laws, but a code of sorts.

Patronage was expected and publicized - Seneca said that the giving and receiving of favors was the practice that constituted the chief bond of human society.

In the world of the NT, it was essential for acquiring access to certain out of the ordinary goods, employment and advancement.

"For anything outside the ordinary the person sought out the individual who possessed or controlled access to what the person needed and received it as a favor."
  • money to start a business
  • appointment to political office
  • advancement of some sort
  • citizenship (access to Emperor, etc)
If the patron granted the petition, the petitioner would become a client and a long-term relationship would begin.

Mutual exchange of good/services
  • patron available for assistance
  • client doing everything to enhance the patron's fame and honor (publicize the benefits, showing respect, remaining loyal and ready to help if needed
  • client available for assistance
Big Gift - access and influence with another patron who had power over the sought benefit

Patron 2: Trajan - Roman Emperor
Patron 1/Broker: Pliny - governor of Bithynia
Client: Voconius - petitions for senatorial appointment

Pliny offers his own character as a guarantee of his client's character - he vouches for him. Trajan's favorable judgment of Pliny is the basis for Trajan granting this favor. Voconius becomes indebted to both. Pliny becomes further indebted to Trajan.

Client indebted to both patron and broker

In a relationship among persons with unequal social status:
  1. the patron provides material gifts or opportunities for advancement
  2. the client contributes to the patron's reputation and power base
Another name for a broker is a 'mediator' - Jesus is a broker/mediator for God's favor (though this does not exhaust his relationship, of course)

Reciprocal relationship - not law based/enforced but enforced by honor/shame values. Client clearly refers to patron as patron, but not reverse to avoid mention of inferiority

Social equals can engage in the same - 'friendships' still have reciprocity and mutual fidelity as bedrock
Farmer who does more favors than he receives becomes a local patron of sorts

Public Benefaction - wealthy benefactors gave public entertainments (feasts, festivals, etc) and civic improvements (temples, theaters, etc) to the city. Also they would supply aid in times of crisis. There was public indebtedness to the benefactor but no personal relationships formed
  • public honors like crowning at a festival, special seating at games, honorary inscriptions, statues
  • extreme form of response is the offering of worship

The Social Context of Grace

These make up the social context of 'grace'
  1. The willingness of a patron to grant some benefit to another person or group
    • favor or favorable disposition
    • Aristotle quote
  2. Denotes the gift itself, the result of the giver's beneficent actions
  3. The response to a benefactor - aka gratitude
Grace can be used to speak of both the act and response. Grace must be met with grace in the "dance of grace"

Code of conduct for the giver: (guidelines that sought to preserve the nobility of the generous act)

Motive - the giver must act not in self-interest, but in the interest of the recipient. If the motive is primarily self-interest, the sense of 'favor' is nullified and any deep feelings of gratitude and obligation are negated
Aristotle quote from Rhetoric 1385a35-1385b3

Wrong - Not out of the virtue of generosity, but anticipation of profit

Eg: Do not give to an elderly person to get into their will
Honor and Shame
This is a continuation of Brian's notes from last week's Bible Study. Once again, this is a rough draft.


"The one firm conviction from which we move to the proof of other points is this: that which is honorable is held dear for no other reason than because it is honorable."
Seneca (De Ben. 4.16.2)

Honor and Shame - these are the core values in the Mediterranean world, including the world of the Bible. The concept of honor is fundamental to the thinking of these people.

Honor - a claim to worth that is publicly acknowledged by the relevant group of 'significant others'
To "have honor" is to have publicly acknowledged worth. It is a group-given value, not just internal. This is contrast to self-respect. One's self-respect could be high, but honor low.

Shame - generally, a claim to worth that is publicly denied

To "be shamed" is negative, meaning to be denied or diminished on honor.

However - To "have shame" is positive, meaning to be sensitive to one's honor and behavior that could damage it. This is a secondary meaning. For now think of shame as dishonor.

A man born in these cultures is to seek honor and avoid dishonor (disgrace, shame of the negative sort). Honor comes form the affirmation of a person's worth by peers and society, awarded on the basis of the individual's ability to embody the virtues and attributes the society values. Women have different 'rules' - generally they have honor and are expected to keep it by remaining sexually pure until marriage.

Two ways of getting honor:
  • ascribed honor - given, not earned (birth/adoption into a powerful family, ethnicity, political appointments)
  • acquired/achieved honor - performing actions that earn honor (virtues such as piety, courage, reliability, military prowess in waging war)

The honor/shame dynamic allows for group stability - to reward group-approved behavior with honor and to bring deviants back in line through the threat of dishonor helps to prohibit socially destructive behaviors.

Courage in battle wins honor, because it contributes to the good of the group. Cowardice and fleeing means dishonor, because it places the interests of the individual above the group.

shaming tactics - range from mild scorn to physical assault and execution

What exactly constitutes things that are honorable is culturally dependent. Education in Torah (the Jewish law) is honorable among the Jews, but irrelevant among Gentiles.

It is essential to define who are the 'significant others' (the court of reputation) and to insulate group members from concern about the honor/dishonor they receive from people outside the group. "They don't matter because they are ignorant." This is very important for minority cultures. "We are not the deviants even though we are a minority. We have a higher court of reputation." A group can offset minority status by claiming God/reason/nature agrees with the minority. Also available are ancestors in the faith and the angels in the court of God.

Hebrews 12:1
Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, we must get rid of every weight and the sin that clings so closely, and run with endurance the race set out for us


Challenge-Riposte - this a very significant means of achieving honor
  1. challenge
    • positive challenges (eg. gifts, compliments) leave one indebted if accepted, response is required
    • negative challenges (eg. insults, challenge questions) cause loss of honor if not responded to adequately
  2. perception of the challenge
    • by the person challenged
    • by the public (the judges who determine who gains/loses honor)
  3. riposte - response by the challenged
    • positive rejection - if the challenger is inferior, the correct response is a rejection of the challenge (scorn)
    • negative rejection - cowardice results in dishonor
    • accepting the challenge requires a response that meets or exceeds the challenge
    • failure by offering an inadequate response is less dishonoring than not responding (cowardice)
  4. public verdict by the observers

Arenas for Challenge-Riposte game

Within a grouping/family one ethic applies - the individual's honor is embedded in the group so there's no competitive honor challenges within the group. Brothers don't try to take honor from each other since this doesn't increase the honor of the group.

Between groups - social equals interact in a zero-sum game and 'public opinion' is determinative.

The Challenge-Riposte game is played between equals. A social superior wouldn't bother to challenge an inferior. If an inferior tried to challenge a social superior, the social superior would just punish the insubordination. This would be one form of 'positive rejection'.

Also, the game is played by males. It falls to the males to defend and increase the family's honor, so they are the ones that engage in this risk-taking game.

Turning Dishonor into Honor

As part of the task of helping believers make sense of their dishonor in the eyes of nonbelievers, the NT authors show that the experiences of dishonor are actually marks of honor in the sight of God, the true court of reputation.

1 Peter 4:13-16
But rejoice in the degree that you have shared in the sufferings of Christ, so that when his glory is revealed you may also rejoice and be glad. If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory, who is the Spirit of God, rests on you. But let none of you suffer as a murderer or thief or criminal or as a troublemaker. But if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but glorify God that you bear such a name.

Noble Contest - Hardships are turned into an opportunity to manifest the virtues of courage and endurance. The hostility of the world is the challenge over which the believer can win an honorable victory and show their loyalty. It's easy to just say you have loyalty to someone, it's another to show it during times of testing. The metaphor of an athletic contest is used often in Jewish literature and in the NT.

Hebrews 12:1-2
Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, we must get rid of every weight and the sin that clings so closely, and run with endurance the race set out for us, keeping our eyes fixed on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of our faith. For the joy set out for him he endured the cross, disregarding its shame, and has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of God.
High context, low context, re-context!
These are notes on last week's Thursday Night Bible study, written by the group leader, Brian Bucher, then cleaned up by myself. Brian warns that these are a rough draft, and may be replaced later.


High context situation/society- people are assumed to be familiar with the relevant context
Low context situation/society - people are not assumed to be familiar with the relevant context

Quiz: You walk into the home of someone in the ancient Near East (ANE). He says, "You have honored me by coming into my home. I am not worthy of it. This house is yours. You may burn it if you wish." What is your reaction?
  1. Leave quickly because he's gone nuts.
  2. Woo hoo! Free house!
  3. Reply, "I am unworthy of your honor and of being a guest in your home."

People in that society were expected to recognize this use of language as literary and not 'literal'. Someone who is unfamiliar with such language might well be confused.

The New Testament was written in what anthropologists call a "high-context" society. People who communicate with each other in high-context societies presume a broadly shared, well-understood knowledge of the context of anything referred to in conversation or in writing. For example, everyone in ancient Mediterranean villages would have had a clear and concrete knowledge of what sowing entailed,largely because the skills involved were shared by most (male) members of that society. no writer would need to explain. Thus writers in such societies usually produce sketchy and impressionistic writings, leaving much to the reader's or hearer's imagination. They also encode much information in widely known symbolic or stereotypical statements. In this way, they require the reader to fill in large gaps in the unwritten portion of the writing. All readers are expected to know the context and therefore to understand the references in question." [Malina and Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, pg 11.]

Low context readers often assume that they are free to fill in the gaps (read between the lines) of the New Testament from their own experience. When our modern context doesn't match the ancient Near East context, we fill in the gaps with ideas that are different from theirs. This causes problems. Here are some examples:

Luke 14:25-26
Now large crowds were accompanying Jesus, and turning to them he said, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother, and wife and children, and brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple."

I have to hate my own family? When one isn't used to the type of extremist (hyperbolic) language used so commonly in the ANE, then one might think one is literally to 'hate' his family and not recognize that the meaning is just to 'love less' things other than Jesus.

Lev 13:9-13
When someone has a diseased infection, he must be brought to the priest. The priest will then examine it, and if a white swelling is on the skin, it has turned the hair white, and there is raw flesh in the swelling, it is a chronic disease on the skin of his body, so the priest is to pronounce him unclean. The priest must not merely quarantine him, for he is unclean. If, however, the disease breaks out on the skin so that the disease covers all the skin of the person with the infection from his head to his feet, as far as the priest can see, the priest must then examine it, and if the disease covers his whole body, he is to pronounce the person with the infection clean. He has
turned all white, so he is clean.

Hmmm, so
  1. If he has a skin disease he's unclean.
  2. If the skin disease covers the whole person he's clean.

HUH?

This is another example of where we fill in the gap of 'clean/unclean' with our own context. Is it the right context? We'll see in the next biblestudy. :)

Recontextualization - putting a text back into the correct context

This is what we do to understand what the text means. We begin to fill in the gaps with the right context instead of our own experience.

Group-oriented culture versus Individual-oriented culture

Question: What makes a person?

One of the major differences between our modern Western society and the societies of the ANE is the difference in how people understood themselves in relation to the rest of society.

Modern peoples in the 'West' are individual-oriented:
We are persons with identities independent of our family group. They do not define who we are. We are supposed to form our own opinions. My behavior reflects on me and should not be considered to reflect on whatever group I belong to.

Ancient peoples were group-oriented, or 'collectivistic':
A person is embedded in others and his identity defined in relation to the group(s) in which he belonged. Groups included ethnicity, citizenship, nation/clan/family with kinship (family) generally being the most important.

We are not independent of our family group. What one member is, all members are. We are expected to adopt the opinions of others, especially those in high esteem. My behavior reflects on my group.

Individuals depend on others for:
  • sense of identity
  • understanding of status and role in society
  • understanding of duties and rights they have
  • understanding what is honorable and shameful behavior

They will internalize the expectations of the group and consider themselves successful when they fulfill them.

Acts 21:37-39
As the soldiers were about to take Paul into the barracks, he asked the commander, "May I say something to you?"

"Do you speak Greek?" he replied. "Aren't you the Egyptian who started a revolt and led four thousand terrorists out into the desert some time ago?"

Paul answered, "I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no ordinary city. Please let me speak to the people."

Paul is saying in effect "I am from Tarsus, so you should accord me the credibility that is given to all citizens of Tarsus."

Phil 3:4-5
If someone thinks he has good reasons to put confidence in human credentials, I have more: I was circumcised on the eighth day, from the people of Israel and the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews. I lived according to the law as a Pharisee.

Paul has great 'human credentials' because of which groups he belongs to.

Because one's identity is embedded in the group, groups and group stability were of the highest importance. Societal/group stability was extremely important because of the tenuous nature of life. People were a lot closer to disaster and death than those of us in the modern west. Instability for us means losing one of our cars. For them instability means death.

A high value was placed on structure in society because structure contributes and provides for stability. This is like a company where good structure is necessary for stability. One 'president' and ten thousand workers without any chain of command would be chaos.

Question: How does one promote social stability and retard social deviancy?

Next time: Honor and Shame, Patronage and Reciprocity

If you can, get Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity by David Desilva. It's a great (and inexpensive) introduction to these four core concepts in the ancient Near East.

Other good ones:
Handbook of Biblical Social Values by Pilch and Malina
Honor and Shame in the Gospel of Matthew by Jerome Neyrey

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. Patronage and Reciprocity
  2. Honor and Shame
  3. High context, low context, re-context!

Thursday, March 3, 2005

Cool Bible study
Last Friday, I didn't have any posts up because I was at a Bible study. This Friday, I'll see if I can post some of what we discussed during last week's Bible study so you'll see why I like it better than blogging. I intend to cut and paste from the notes the leader e-mailed out, so I'll have to ask his permission first. For the moment I'll just post a fun excerpt:
Quiz: You walk into the home of someone in the ancient Near East (ANE). He says, "You have honored me by coming into my home. I am not worthy of it. This house is yours. You may burn it if you wish." What is your reaction?
  1. Leave quickly because he's gone nuts.
  2. Woo hoo! Free house!
  3. Reply, "I am unworthy of your honor and of being a guest in your home."

I like option 2. I'm creating a new category for these posts, called Bible study notes.