The Feeding of the 5000: Jesus and the New Exodus

Jesus frequently referred to himself as a prophet and behaved as one. He frequently prophesized, performed miracles similar to that of Old Testament prophets, gave prophetic parables, and performed actions that can only be described as enacted parables. Actions such as withering a fig tree, raising the dead, and cleansing the Temple were not just acts of power meant to impress the disciples but pointed towards a higher truth of God’s immediate actions in the world right then and there in Jesus’ ministry.

The main thrust of his prophetic mission, as he understood it, was to enact Yahweh coming to Zion, God returning to his people, the Lord bringing his people out of Exile by the forgiveness of sins. At the same time, Jesus giving the prophetic warning that if the people refused to believe in him (i.e., follow his way of being the people of God) then God would allow the Romans to destroy them (see Matthew 24-25; Luke 21:10-38; Revelation 4-19). God was fulfilling his promises in Jesus but the people were missing it.

So when we come to Jesus’ Feeding of the 5000 people (Matthew 14:13-21; Mark 6:30-44; Luke 9:10-17; John 6:1-14) we can assuredly expect that Jesus is not just feeding people and not simply exhibiting his power to impress the disciples.

For the past few month the Children’s Ministry has been covering many of the miracles of Jesus and explaining to the kids how they show Jesus’ power over creation and how God was supporting Jesus’ ministry. That, of course, is all true and its good milk that tastes like meat for the spiritually young. However, there is, as I’ve suggested, more to Jesus’ action that to build excitement among the faithful.

John, in his Gospel, does the best job of interpreting Jesus’ actions by having him explain in his version that he is “the bread of life” (John 6:35, 48). He further states that “Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he which comes down from heaven, and gives life unto the world” (John 6:32-33). John is writing his Gospel long after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 CE but he still maintains the connection to Moses in the wilderness.

When we turn back to a less “spiritual” account as found in the Synoptic Gospels, we are still drawn to the comparison of Moses and the Israelites in the wilderness. Jesus has been reconstituting Israel around himself by appointing 12 disciples (12 tribes of Israel), giving new commandments ala Moses (the Sermon on the Mount), and eventually holding a new Passover meal (the Last Supper). In feeding the 5000, Jesus assumes another role of Moses: providing the manna from heaven.

For Jesus’ contemporaries, these actions pointed to the idea of Exodus from captivity. The Jews of Jesus’ day still believed that they were in spiritual exile due to their sins and they were waiting for a spiritual exodus when God would return to his people and release them. In enacting these parables, Jesus was associating himself with Moses and declaring that he was the promised deliver, here to bring the people out of captivity.

The prophetic act of feeding 5000 people was not simply an act of wonder performed to amaze the crowds like a magician pulling a rabbit out of his hat. This was a pointed declaration that Jesus was a great prophet, a new Moses, sent by God to deliver his people out of their spiritual captivity.

Christian Leadership vs Secular Leadership

Part of Jesus’ ministry was a reconstituting of the relationships of life, particularly as it applies to the people of God. Much of his teaching is a putting to rights of many of the ways in which think about human relationships between men and women, parent and child, God and Man, Church and State, Jew and Gentile, friend and enemy, pastor and parishioner, and employer and employee. Much of these teachings, radical as they were at the time, have become commonplace in Western thinking; other teachings still seem profoundly contrary to how we think the world generally works (e.g., he first shall be last, the last shall be first; prohibitions against lawsuits; going the extra mile; pacifism; etc.).

Here is what Jesus taught regarding leadership:

“You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be servant of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Mark 10:42-45)

We often read these verses and appreciate it in theory … but then fail to put it into practice, either out of ignorance or defiance to the truth. As always, we need our thinking transformed by the renewing of our minds through the submission of our thought processes to what God is doing (Romans 12:2).

A good way of distinguishing between the two forms of leadership presented in the Scriptures is as follows:

Secular leadership proceeds from the idea that “You all work for me”.

Christian leadership proceeds from the idea that “I work for all of you”.

Again, this Christian conception of leadership is a radical reversal of how the world thinks and works.

As Paul worked it out in his writings, pastoring/ministering becomes a process of equipping other believers to do the work of the Kingdom of God (Ephesians 4:12-16). It is in no way a position of honor and prestige but of servile grunt work, empowering others to reach their God-given potential. It is not “what can you do for me?” but “what can I do for you?”

Again, this is not how we normally think of leadership. We are far too colored by our inherited worldview with which we unconsciously and unquestionably read the Scriptures and then put unbiblical concepts into practice. We are conformed to the patterns of this world because we do not even think there is another way, and that pattern colors the way we interpret Scripture. Worldviews are like glasses that we wear to see the world around us. The difficulty is that we have to take the glasses off to look at them … but then we can no longer see what we’re looking at.

Unsurprisingly, the Christian view of leadership is a far more effective means of achieving Kingdom goals … because that’s how it was designed to work. All other methods are counterproductive, hindering legitimate Kingdom work. If we are to achieve the radical reformulation of relationships that was inaugurated by Jesus’ ministry we must apply those radical methods. In order to achieve the future, we must live the future in the present. This is part of the meaning of Jesus and his ministry being the first fruits of New Creation (1 Cor 15:20-23).

First and Last Interactions between Yahweh and Man in the J-Source

I was thinking today about the J (or Yahwist) source of the Pentateuch. Interestingly, Yahweh’s first interaction with Man in this work is his forming man out of the dust/dirt of the ground (Genesis 2:7) and then subsequently telling him that from the ground Man was created and to the ground Man returns (Genesis 3:19). If you turn all the way to the end of Deuteronomy 34, Yahweh’s last interaction with Man in the J-source is his burying Moses (Deuteronomy 34:5-6).

Hermann Broch's The Sleepwalkers

Last night I finished reading Hermann Broch’s epic trilogy, The Sleepwalkers. Broch was an Austrian Christian novelist and is considered (along with Joyce, Mann, Musil, Proust, and Kazantzakis) to be one of the premier modernist writers. Born into a Jewish family in Vienna in 1886, Broch converted to Christianity in 1909 and began writing in 1926. The Sleepwalkers was his first novel.

The Sleepwalkers is a work about the disintegration of values, specifically the decline in thinking and behavior that occurred between fin de siècle Europe and the end of World War I. During those 30 years, we are introduced to dozens of characters in various places, though three main characters (Joachim von Pasenow, August Esch, and Huguenau) are the philosophical and narrative focus.

Book One, The Romantic, is more of a straightforward novel and deals with both von Pasenow’s disgust and participation in the decline of values.

Book Two, The Anarchist, with its expressionistic prose, follows the life of socialist Esch as he struggles with the substance-less of his social progressivism.

Book Three, The Realist, is written in the style of pure modernism, like that of Joyce’s Ulysses. Characters from the previous books come together and interact within Broch’s philosophical plotting. It contains parallel stories of a young woman alienated from her family; of shell-shocked and mutilated soldiers and field hospital nurses; and that of a Salvation Army girl in Berlin. The plot of each chapter determines the genre used (occasional verse for the story of a Salvation Army girl, journalistic style of the hospital chapters, etc.). While the previous books subtly touched upon religious themes, here, in book three, his conception of the theology and philosophy of Christianity are on full display. Huguenau is the focus of this book. He is a war deserter who pretends to be a businessman and publisher in order to cheat Esch out of his newspaper and ingratiate himself to Pasenow.

The most unusual element of the third novel is the multi-part essay titled The Disintegration of Values. It both comments upon the plots and characters while examining the Western world’s descent from communal values following the Renaissance and Protestant Reformation.

This was a really amazing book. Probably the best Christian work I’ve ever read. It was also a very difficult read (only Ulysses, Finnegans Wake, Doctor Faustus, and In Search of Lost Time have been more difficult).

An Excellent Woman (Proverbs 31)

For those more traditional Christians who believe it is unwise for a woman/wife to work outside of the home, here are few verses from Proverbs 31 giving qualities of an excellent or virtuous woman:

“She is like merchant ships; She brings her food from afar.” (v. 14)

“She considers a field and buys it; From her earnings she plants a vineyard.” (v. 16)

“She makes linen garments and sells them, And supplies belts to the tradesmen.” (v. 24)

"Your Body is a Temple"

“Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?” (1 Corinthians 6:19)

One of the problems with English translations of this verse is that our language does not differentiate the singular “your” from the plural “your”.

In the Greek of this verse the “your” is plural (ὑμῶν) while “body” (σῶμα) is singular. Paul is here speaking into a group of individuals about their communal body and not to their individual bodies. The same is true in 1 Corinthians 3:16 and 2 Corinthians 6:16.

In no place does Paul (or any other New Testament writer) describe an individual Christian’s body as being a temple. If he had, he would have written “Your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit”.

The only time an individual is referred to as a temple is Jesus whose body is a temple (John 2:19-21; Revelation 21:22). The Church (universal) is also referred to as the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:27; Romans 12:5; Ephesians 4:12; 5:23; Colossians 1:18). Therefore, the Church (an aggregate of individual believers) = the body of Christ = a temple of the Holy Spirit.

Tubal-cain in Genesis 4:22

While I was reading through the early chapters of Genesis, I came to the name Tubal-cain in Genesis 4:22.

“As for Zillah, she also gave birth to Tubal-cain, the forger of all implements of bronze and iron.”

The Hebrew of his name is תּוּבַל  קַיִן and can be transliterated as Tuwbal Qayin and is pronounced as tü·val' kah'·yin. The “b” is pronounced as a “v”.

I read one “commentary” (before seminary) that suggested that the name Tubal-cain eventually descended down to Tuval-Cain and then to Tu Vulcan and then to Vulcan, the Roman god of of fire, volcanoes, metalworking, and the forge in Roman mythology.

The idea was that Tubal-cain (forger of all implements of bronze and iron) came down through mythology as Vulcan (the god of metalworking and the forge).

I don’t think this theory is in anyway true … but it still appears in the margins of my Bible in ink.

A Time to Lie

I recently mentioned my theory (based on Micah 3:5-7) that people who lie, demagogue, and deceive lose their ability to comprehend reality and the truth. While reading through the book of Exodus this week I was reminded of one exception to this rule. There actually is a proper time to lie.

In Exodus 1:15-21, Pharaoh tells the Hebrew midwives to put to death every male child that is born. But the midwives feared God and did not do as Pharaoh commanded, instead saying, “Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are vigorous and give birth before the midwife can get to them.”

Essentially, the midwives lie to Pharaoh in order to protect the male babies from being killed.

Verses 20-21 are the kicker: “So God was good to the midwives, and the people multiplied, and became very mighty. Because the midwives feared God, He established households for them.”

Essentially, God blessed the midwives for lying to the authorities in order to protect the lives of others.

From this passage we can learn that lying to save someone from certain death is not a sin and is something for which God may bless one.

So all those Christians who housed Jews from the Nazis and lied to the authorities … God was pleased with their lies.

Origin, Headship, Authority, and Sanctification in Paul

The issue of male/female source/origin (and authority) is touched upon by Paul in 1^st Corinthians. He references in 11:11-12 the interdependence of men and women based upon their supposed interconnected origin. Paul previously references this interconnection in 7:4 when he teaches that husbands and wives have authority over each other’s bodies. This link of origin is Paul’s basis for his egalitarian approach to male-female (or female-male) relationships. Both man and wife are to have authority over the other, both are to submit to the other (Ephesians 5:21).

In both 1 Corinthians 11 and Ephesians 5, Paul references the concept of headship. Despite the common interpretation of this referring directly to “authority”, the actual understanding of head (kephale; κεφαλή) in these passages should be understood as “source” or “origin” (as in head of a river). God is the source of Christ, Christ is the source of the Church, man is the source of the woman, and woman is the source of the man. However, it is because of this mutual origin that women and men are both mutually submissive and mutually authoritarian over each other. (This reminds me of some of the paradoxes of Jesus: the least shall be great [Luke 9:8]; leaders are to be servants [Luke 22:25-26])

One of the purposes of this connection of source and subjectivity and mutual love is process of sanctification. Sanctification is the process of becoming more Christ-like, more God-like, and less sinful. Paul references the link between Christ and the Church and Man and Woman in Ephesians 5, noting that the commonality of bodies (vv. 30-31) is the source of sanctification (vv. 26-27).

Going back to 1 Corinthians 7, having established that husbands and wives have authority over each other (v. 4) and having just previously stated that male and female bodies come together as one (6:16), Paul states husbands and wives sanctify each other and then sanctify their children.

Therefore, God is the source by which Christ is sanctified because they are one (John 10:30), Christ is the source by which the Church is sanctified because they are one, and husbands and wives are the source by which each other are sanctified because they are one.

Play on Words in Genesis 2-3

Some of the play on words in the second creation account in Genesis 2-3:
“And the LORD God formed man (adam; אָדָם) of the dust of the ground (adamah; אֲדָמָה), and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” (Genesis 2:7)

Here humans are referred to as adam because they were taking from adamah (the ground). This play on words highlights that humans are creations made out of the stuff of creation. Unlike God, humans are made of the stuff of the earth … and when we die, we return back to the earth (3:19).

“And Adam said, ‘This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman ('ishshah; אִשָּׁה), because she was taken out of Man ('iysh; אִישׁ).’” (Genesis 2:23)

Humans are collectively understood as being Man (adam) but they are then delineated into two separate forms of Man: male and female (Genesis 1:27; 5:2). In the above verse, the author indicates the special relationship and connection between male and female. The woman is referred to as 'ishshah because she was created from man, 'iysh. Yet, everyone that lives, including males, come from women (3:20). The author indicates that there can be no superiority of source between male and female. Both derive from the other and come together as one (Genesis 2:24).

“And they were both naked (`arowm; עָרוֹם), the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. Now the serpent was more subtle (`aruwm; עָרוּם) than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.” (Genesis 2:25-3:1)

Oddly enough, the author here makes a connection between the nakedness (“smooth-skinned”; `arowm) of Adam and Eve and the subtleness (“smooth-tongued”; `aruwm) of the serpent’ words. While many scholars have noticed this obvious connection, I’ve yet to read a commentary that offers and explanation.

Expounding on Micah 3:5-7

I’ve been meditating on the following verses for the past few months. Micah 3:5-7:

“Thus saith the LORD concerning the prophets that make my people err, that bite with their teeth, and cry, Peace; and he that putteth not into their mouths, they even prepare war against him. Therefore night shall be unto you, that ye shall not have a vision; and it shall be dark unto you, that ye shall not divine; and the sun shall go down over the prophets, and the day shall be dark over them. Then shall the seers be ashamed, and the diviners confounded: yea, they shall all cover their lips; for there is no answer of God.”

The context of this verse (and many like it) is that when kings of Judah or Israel wished to make decisions that they knew would be unpopular or against the Torah or Covenant, they would hire prophets to declare oracles that proclaimed the king was acting in accordance with Yahweh. Like so many politicians before them and since, the kings wanted the cover of God over their state actions and would use false prophets to manipulate scriptures and proclaim God’s will.

These verses state that the punishment these prophets receive for their lies, disingenuousness, and false prophecies is the loss of their abilities to see and proclaim the truth.

I would like to expound upon this a bit. I’m very interested in how people think, and I suspect there’s a mechanism at work here, a cause and effect. I’ve noticed that people I know (both privately and publicly) who lie, deceive, demagogue, are disingenuous, lack transparency, relativize truth, and purposely take things out of context often have difficulty recognizing the truth when they want to. By this I mean it seems that people who are intentionally deceptive seem to unintentionally lose their ability to grasp truth. They become out of touch with reality.

Now this isn’t exactly the same as someone who keeps lying until they begin to believe the lie themselves. This is more like the deceptive distortions that one engages in to obfuscate the truth progressively breaks down and hinders the mechanisms used to self-comprehend the truth.

Now why is this? My running theory for why the rational faculties breakdown due to lies and obfuscation is that the human soul (body and mind) was not originally made for sin. We were designed to reflect the image of God in this world. We were created to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. But because we choose to deceive, because we choose to twist the truth and obscure reality, we go against our nature and the hardware breaks down. We start running a machine counter to its construction or program, and it forgets how it was originally designed and wired.

The worst outcome of this is simply that if one cannot see the world accurately, it becomes extremely difficult to make the right choices in life. From this one will continually flounder. Reality will seem an impenetrable labyrinth in which the effects of all decisions seem arbitrary. The rational thought of others will be both indecipherable and suspicious. What simple truths one does grasp will seem either inordinately complex or surprisingly profound. And one will be profoundly resentful and distrustful of those who can see the truth. I think the latter outcome is the main cause for the solidification of irrational beliefs. Nothing hardens the heart like resentment.

The only answer to anyone in the predicament of losing their capacity to comprehend the truth is a full turning back. Humble yourself to truth and wisdom. Pray for guidance and revelation. Explore how you think and what your mechanisms are for making decisions and comprehending the truth. Explore how other people think. Begin to question and work through your worldview, biases, prejudices, assumptions, and meta-narrative. Always give extra consideration to truths and scenarios that you either wish were the case or wish weren’t. Take personality tests and assessments and learn how scientific research understands who you are. Be brutally honest with yourself and as objective as possible in everything you do.

Remember that every disingenuous word is one more pebble being thrown into the gears of your comprehension.

Two Exoduses?

I’ve been reading this great commentary on the book of Joshua. While doing so this weekend I was reminded of a theory that I heard in seminary pertaining to the following verse:

“All Israel with their elders and officers and their judges were standing on both sides of the ark before the Levitical priests who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD, the stranger as well as the native.” (Joshua 8:33)

The theory is that this verse indicates that there were already Israelites living in the Palestine when Joshua entered with those from the Mosaic Exodus from Egypt. While there was an historic exodus led by Moses, there was also a gradual exodus that proceeded it for several generations. Therefore, when we “all Israel” comes together in verse 33, it includes those who were new to Palestine (“strangers”, ger) and those who had already been in the land for some time (“native”, ezrach).

Such a scenario might explain some of the apparent historical inconsistencies we find in the Bible (the Exodus occurring either in c.1446 BCE and/or 1250–1200 BCE; the 2 million people that supposedly left Egypt with Moses). This would also correspond with Josephus’ debates about the possibility of two Exoduses mentioned by the Egyptian historian Manetho (Against Apion). While the foreign Semitic Hyksos ruled Egypt during the years of Joseph’s time there, they were finally expelled and non-Semitic pharaohs began to rule Egypt (Exodus 1:8). It is possible that many Israelites were expelled or began to immigrate out of Egypt at this time. The exodus of Moses would then have occurred a few centuries later.

Often the “historical” books of the Old Testament will conflate history in order to demonstrate a theological truth that covers various historical events. This is mostly seen in the apocalyptic books (Daniel, Revelation, etc.) but also in books such as Joshua and Judges.

Animal Death: Comprehending the World through Scripture

Certainly, we live in a fallen world where sin and death pervade every aspect of life. Nevertheless, we need to comprehend that world of sin and death as taught by Scripture and not based upon our personal preferences of how the world should work. I say this because I was reminded this week of a seminary professor who wrote an article against biological evolution based upon his distaste of a scene from a TV nature show which depicted a pig being eaten by a python. This professor asked the question: Is this what God intended for his creation? Naturally, his answer was in the negative. I, however, decided to dip into the Scriptures and determine how God views the animal kingdom. I was drawn to the following verses about God from Psalm 104:20-21:

“You make darkness, and it is night: wherein all the beasts of the forest do creep forth. The young lions roar after their prey, and seek their meat from God.”

I interpret from these verses that God created animals to eat and be eaten. Whether we like it or not, God is perfectly content for the animal kingdom to struggle their lives away hunting, evading, searching, defending, devouring, being eating, and dying.

Think of it this way: why did God give some animals claws and jaws to eat meat? Why did God give some animals the ability to hide and evade being caught long enough to reproduce? It’s not from Adam’s sin that skunks spray and anteaters have long tongues. God created them that way. I’m reminded of that scene in the film Master and Commander where the young shipman examines a stick bug (who uses his appearances to hide from predators) and asks the physician/naturalist whether God made them that way.

Indeed, God (and his Son) seems to have no problem with the death of animals (Genesis 3:21; John 21:9). Nevertheless, God does care for animals (Matthew 6:26; Numbers 23:27-30).

This is why we need the Scriptures to help navigate our understanding of truth and creation. Without it, we may find ourselves preferring a reality of our own liking and not one that coheres to reality.

Purpose of Pastors and churches (little 'c')

The purpose of a pastor, whether he or she works with adults, children, or youth, is to equip church members to do the work of the Kingdom of God (Ephesians 4:12). Specifically, the purpose of gathering together at church each week is to prepare believers to go out and be the Church in their daily lives outside of the church building. The work of the Kingdom of God can happen on the weekends in a church building … but it is supposed to grow, spread, and build outside of the church walls during the week. If a church congregation focuses on building itself and not the Kingdom, it is simply either a social club or an insular self-help group. Demographic research shows that what most people look for in a church is recreation. Accordingly, many churches (believe it or not) attempt to accommodate, often to the point where recreation and entertainment becomes an end unto itself. This is the worst case scenario. Only slightly better is the pastor and church that focuses on the spiritual (i.e. the moral) life of members but provide no direction for that personal growth. Remember: in this age, the primary purpose of being moral, of being Christ-like, is to do the work of the Kingdom of God. It may be a cliché, but too often liberal Christians want to pursue Kingdom goals without the morality, while conservative Christians want to pursue morality with limited Kingdom goals. You cannot separate morality from Kingdom purposes. The Kingdom without morality is self-defeating. Morality without the Kingdom is purposeless. You need both. Pastors and churches are there to prepare you to do both.

The Parables of the Talents/Minas - Matthew 25:14-30; Luke 19:12-27

Most people have long supposed that Biblical parables that speak of a king going away and coming back again are to be read without question as meaning Jesus going away (in death, resurrection, and exaltation), leaving the Church with spiritual gifts and tasks to perform, and then coming back a long time later to see how they’ve been getting on.

In truth, these parables, in their first century context, were about Yahweh going away at the time of the Exile, having left the Jews with the Torah and the vocation to be the light of the world, and Yahweh now returning.

Jesus saw the coming of Yahweh back to Zion as an event so intimately bound up in his own ministry and its immediately climax that he could speak of the one in terms of the other. 

Brief Info on Elders/Pastors/Bishops

This week I sent a woman a research paper I wrote a decade ago about the various Scriptural basis for women’s complete engagement in the church. In doing so, I was reminded about the function of pastors in a church.

In the Bible, the terms “elder”, “pastor”, and “bishop” are used interchangeably referring to the same function of use in the church (Acts 20:17,28-30; Titus 1:5-9; 1 Peter 5:1-3). The qualifications and work are identical. The purpose of an elder/pastor/bishop is to teach and mentor younger believers in the faith (1 Tim 3:2; 4:13; 5:17; 2 Tim 3:13-17; 4:2; Titus 1:7, 9; 1 Peter 5:1-2) so that the latter can become fully functioning members of the Kingdom of God. In this way, every mature believer teaching sound doctrine can be an elder/pastor/bishop to a younger (less mature) believer. In this way, every Sunday School teacher (teaching children all the way to adults) is a an elder/pastor/bishop.

Here is a bit of controversy: elders/pastors/bishops have no authority over other believers (Matthew 20:25-26; 1 Timothy 2:12; 1 Peter 5:2-3). When in seminary, I used to receive howls of protests from future pastors when I would make the argument that pastors are not supposed to have authority over other believers. I would point to the above Scriptures and several others to no avail. Usually, I would ask them “what authority do elders/pastors/bishops then have?”

Going back to my research paper, I noted that women can be elders/pastors/overseers (1 Timonthy 5:2; Titus 2:3), deacons (Romans 16:1; 1 Timothy 3:11), prophets (Exodus 15:20; Judges 4:4; 2 Kings 22:14; Isaiah 8:3; Luke 2:36), and apostles (Romans 16:7).

Specifically, with regards to being an elder/pastor/bishop, elder women have the same responsibility and purpose as their male counterparts: to mentor young believers in the faith (Titus 2:3-5).

Reading Hamlet: Fatal Flaws

I finished reading Hamlet Friday night. I don’t think there is too much novel to say about this play that hasn’t been said countless times before (I could revolutionize your thinking of the Henriad, though). However, I still maintain my opinion of the past 20 years that the character of Hamlet does not have a fatal flaw. I argued this with my high school English teacher and then again with my university professors. Generally, the idea is that the play Hamlet conforms to the classical forms of Greek tragedy as expressed in Aristotle’s Poetics, including the necessity of the harmartia, the error or fatal flaw that, in the thinking of Dante, moves the hero to act in a way that moves the plot towards its tragic end, enabling the audience to experience Catharsis. Shakespeare employs this classical device with the jealousy of Othello, the ambition of Macbeth, and the pleasure as a dynamic of power of Antony and Cleopatra. Nevertheless, I maintain that such classical forms begin to breakdown when it comes to Hamlet. Perhaps, the theoretical Ur-Hamlet contained a harmartia, but subsequent re-writes by Shakespeare (some of which is evident between the First Quarto and First Folio) may have been eliminated as he continued to reexamine his work. The most popular theory is that Hamlet suffers from indecisiveness which leads to a delay of justice. In this view, Hamlet waits to long to seek his revenge upon Claudius. Instead of immediately believing the Ghost’s accusations, Hamlet searches for proof. Having found proof, Hamlet doesn’t immediately attack Claudius when the latter is vulnerable at prayer. Accordingly, if Hamlet had killed Claudius outright – even during prayer – he would have avoided disaster. I’ve never bought this theory. Certainly Hamlet is unsure about the truthfulness of the ghost but he decisively decides to find proof in a specifically planned ruse that successfully verifies what the ghost told Hamlet. One could fault Hamlet for not wanting to kill Claudius at prayer … but this is one episode that is never again remarked upon and does not spring from a pattern of behavior. Hamlet specifically and decisively avoids killing Claudius at prayer so the latter will not go to heaven at death. In every move he makes, Hamlet thinks about what his options are, what his questions are, debates within himself, and then proceeds along a predetermined plan to solve his problems. And most of the time his decisions are correct. The one grave mistake he makes is the impulsive killing of Polonius who is hiding behind a curtain. Hamlet, in the midst of a heated exchange with his mother, angrily thinks the figure hiding in the room is Claudius and kills him. The mistaken killing of Polonius leads to Hamlet’s exile, the death of Ophelia, the death of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, and almost every other major character. But even in this major error, Hamlet acts decisively. In fact, he acts impulsively, without thinking, completely out of his normal character, and kills the wrong man. What then can we say about Hamlet’s fatal flaw? That he once acted out of character? That sort of flies in the face of the whole idea of a character’s fatal flaw. I think the complexity of Hamlet’s character and that of the play itself goes far beyond the traditional constraints of classical forms of tragedy.

Lord Malquist and Mr. Moon, by Tom Stoppard: A Review

Yesterday, in between long bouts of sleeping, I finished reading the novel Lord Malquist and Mr. Moon, by Tom Stoppard. Stoppard is one of my favorite writers and, in my opinion, the greatest currently living. Lord Malquist is his first and only novel written in 1966 before he began writing the plays and film scripts for which he became renowned. The book has been in and out of print for the past 50 years and, naturally, is considered and oddity in Stoppard’s oeuvre. I’ve had a copy of the book for a couple of years now but only started reading it recently.

Despite being written in the mid-sixties, the book is quite like Stoppard’s “lighter” works from the seventies. There is no overall philosophical point to the work like his more “serious” plays … the book is just a lot of fun. Sure, there are a lot of witty asides about literature, politics, relationships, and religion, but nothing tying it altogether as a cohesive work. This is not a criticism, only a description. Stoppard’s On the Razzle has no meaningful point at all, but it’s a masterpiece and the funniest play ever written.

Lord Malquist and Mr. Moon is set around the day of Churchill’s funeral and is about a man, named Moon, who is hired to be the biographer of the ninth Lord of Malquist (the Boswell to Malquist’s Johnson). Moon is something of a radical who keeps a ticking bomb on his person waiting for someone in society to offend him enough to use it. Lord Malquist is a dandified effete who has a pet lion (banned from the Ritz), drives around in an 18^th century carriage, and is at the end of his financial rope.

Also thrown in are two cowboys in constant warfare throughout London, the frustrated servants of Malquist, a general, a donkey, the wives of the two main characters, and an anarchist out for revenge.

My favorite character is an Irishman who believes himself to be The Risen Christ. Any other author would use such a character to make fun of Jesus or the Christian Faith. Stoppard does neither. This character, though clearly delusional, is quite serious about the part and is doing his best to behave accordingly. The other characters, of course, realize he is mad but either don’t want to hurt his feelings or (in Malquist’s case) are just as mad as he is. Some of the best lines and most poignantly funny moments come from The Risen Christ.

I really didn’t know what to expect from this lone, mostly out-of print, Stoppard novel so my expectations were actually pretty low. That was a good thing because I came away pleasantly surprised.

The Resurrected Body

One of the oddities of the Resurrection of the Jesus was the body that Jesus now had.

It was indeed a physical body that could be touched (Matthew 28:9; Luke 24:39) and could touch things (Luke 24:30; John 21:13). He could breathe (John 20:22) and he could eat (Luke 24:41-43; John 21:12-15). It was a physical body in every sense that one can imagine. Indeed, it was the very same body that Jesus had before he was resurrected. We know this from the fact that it had the scars of the crucifixion (Luke 24:39; John 20:20, 27).

Yet, while it was the same body, it was also a changed body. The people who knew him best did not always recognize him at first (Luke 24:15-31; John 20:4). The body was able to appear and disappear (Luke 24:31, 36; John 20:19, 26).

This was not simply a resuscitated corpse (John 11:44) but a complete retranslation of the same body in a new context. This is something that had never happened before and has yet to happen again.

Interestingly enough, in the pre-modern world, particularly among the Greco-Romans, the idea of disembodied ghosts was not an unbelievable idea. However, the concept of a resurrected physical body was considered complete nonsense by those  within the Greek worldview (Acts 17:18, 32). The idea that humans are holistic beings in which body and spirit are indivisible is a Hebrew concept. The body does not have a soul; the body is a soul (נֶפֶשׁ nephesh; ψυχή psyche).

The importance of this for Christians is that while everyone dies and both body and spirit afre destroyed and "sleep" in the earth, one day all believers will be resurrected (both body and spirit) into glorified bodies like Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:52; 2 Corinthians 3:18). This is why Jesus is referred to as the first fruits of the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:20, 23).

The Book of J: A Review

I just finished re-reading The Book of J, by Harold Bloom (translated by David Rosenberg). The books of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament) are comprised a four primary sources, usually designated by the letters J, E, D, and P. J stands for Jahweh or Yahweh because this source uses the name of Yahweh for God, while the E source uses Elohim for God. The J-Writer’s material starts in Genesis 2 and covers parts of the rest of Genesis, parts of Exodus and Numbers, and minute parts of Deuteronomy.

The Book of J, by Bloom and Rosenberg, is an attempt to isolate just the J material and organize it as its originally-intended, self-contained work.

Rosenberg, as translator, more or less succeeds. He brings out the books Ancient Near Eastern qualities. The reads more like an early 20^th century translation of the Epic of Gilgamesh than the New International Version or even the New American Standard. One thing that I greatly appreciate is the attempts to indicate the puns and wordplay in the original Hebrew. This doesn’t make for smooth reading but it does highlight the J-Writer’s talents as an author.

(I say “author” even though the commentator, Harold Bloom, frequently mentions his theory that the J-Writer was a woman.)

Other than Luke, the J-Writer is probably the greatest of the Biblical writers (Deutero-Isaiah, the author of Job, and the author of Judges is also up there). He had an enormous God-given talent for characterization, epic-writing, plot development, wordplay, and the arrangement of the historical material. He also had a profound reverence for Yahweh and a thorough understanding for how God was using the children of Abraham to bless the whole world and renew Creation.

Purely as literature, J’s work is an amazing achievement. He puts great characterization within the framework of an epic backdrop of history, intermixed with funny, tragic, and poignant scenes. Here Yahweh physically interacts with people, historic figures go from highs to lows to highs, angels and “gods” interact with humans, we have the intimacy of personal meals around the fire and the cataclysmic destruction of cities an armies. It’s sort of like the Hebrew version of The Lord of the Rings.

The portrayal of Yahweh is probably the best in the Bible. In the J source, Yahweh physically walks around with his people, making Man out of mud with his hands, enjoying a meal with Abraham, and personally burying Moses. Here Yahweh’s sense of humor is often on display. He jokes with his people, points out irony, and makes puns (On a side note: this is why I believe the pun is the highest form of humor and not the lowest). We also see Yahweh’s profound sense of justice for both his people and the injustices innocent people suffer everywhere, even if those people worship other gods. And even in the midst of his wrath at the injustices done, Yahweh shows both grace and patience, even to the most evil of people. You can see where Jesus got it from.

Some of the funniest (most disturbing?) parts of the book are the ways in which the J-Writer highlights the faults of Israel’s neighbors (the Edomites, the Moabites, and the Ammonites) by focusing on the sins and stupidity of their ancestors. Sure, he does it to Israel too … but he’s a little bit rougher on the distant relatives. Not very culturally sensitive based upon the contemporary notions in post-modernity … but if you have a problem with it … take it up with the J’s Editor.

I would not recommend the commentary in the second half of the book to too many people. Harold Bloom is a phenomenal literary critic with keen insights into literature but he doesn’t understand religion. Every time he has delved into realms of faith and practice it’s laughable. The Book of J is no exception. Read the commentary for the literary insights and skip over the inept attempts to talk about the ancient Yahweh-worship among the Israelites.

Three Reasons for the Resurrection

1)      Jesus was vindicated. When God raised Jesus from the dead, it proved that God supported Jesus’ message and claims. It proved Jesus’ claims to be a prophet of God and the Messiah. It proved his claims of the coming of the Kingdom of God, the return of God to Zion, and the imminent judgment of Israel by God via destruction by Rome.

2)      Death and Evil were defeated. The Resurrection proved that evil and death could do their worst on Jesus and his followers but that God would ultimately prevail. Death cannot hold Jesus.

3)      New Creation inaugurated. The Resurrection of Jesus was evidence that God was fulfilling his promise to save the world and resurrect his followers into unperishable bodies. Jesus was the “first fruits” of that promise.

Three Arguments for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus

1)      Hundreds of people were witnesses to the resurrection, many of them known historical personages, writing their accounts contemporaneously.

2)      Saul of Tarsus was a well-known zealot and persecutor of the followers of Jesus, who denied the resurrection and used violence in an attempt to squash the nascent Christian movement. His experience of seeing the resurrected Jesus on his journey to Damascus was the cause of this immediate conversion to Christianity. This historical episode is well-founded and by various sources, including three by Saul (now Paul) himself.

3)      The third argument is based on the cultural expectation of the Messiah to which Jesus made his claim and his followers agreed. For a century prior to Jesus and a century following, many individuals made claims to be the Messiah. The three qualifications of a Messiah were as follows: sit on the throne of David, rebuild the Temple, and defeat Israel’s enemies. Yet, every single one of them died by some form or another, usually by Rome, disproving to everyone, particularly, their followers, that they were not the Messiah. A dead Messiah was a failed Messiah. It would be something of a historical anomaly for people to say, “You know that guy who was killed by the Romans … maybe he was the Messiah.” That doesn’t make historic sense. In Jesus case, there had to have been something that superseded the basic disqualification of being put to death by Rome.