Notes on the Cuff & Other Stories by Mikhail Bulgakov

Last night I read Notes on the Cuff & Other Stories by Mikhail Bulgakov. I’ve been a big fan of Bulgakov for many years. He is one of my top 20 favorite modern authors. He is well known for his satirical masterpiece The Master & Margarita and his novella Heart of a Dog. Bulgakov was a Christian who wrote during the early Soviet period. He was quite critical of what he saw as both the inherent evil and absurdity of socialism. Because of this, much of his work was banned during his lifetime though he himself avoided the gulag. Indeed, of all the short stories in Notes on the Cuff & Other Stories, only “Notes on the Cuff” was ever originally published, and even then with severe edits by the censors.

The title story is quite good. Late last year I read Bulgakov’s Black Snow (also published as A Dead Man's Memoir and A Theatrical Novel) which appears to be the sequel to “Notes on the Cuff”. Both seem to be about a struggling writer attempting to survive and create a career amidst the Muscavite literati of Soviet Russia. Both works are heavily autobiographical though the narrator struggles more than Bulgakov did and is far less successful. But while Black Snow is a more continuous narrative and mostly a satire specifically about the Soviet theatre system, “Notes on the Cuff” jumps around to different parts of Soviet literature: novelists, poets, playwrights, publishers, producers, etc. The story also has several sections where up-and-coming writers talk (often hilariously) about the great Russian writers of the past (Pushkin, Tolstoy, Gogol, etc.). If you like a writer writing about writers talking about writers, this is quite fun. And, again, very humorous.

This is where Bulgakov’s extraordinary gift comes in. While he could create great historical dramas (see The White Guard), comedy and satire was what distinguished him from all his contemporaries. Bulgakov had the ability to observe a situation of which everyone else was apparently taking seriously, see its absolute absurdity, and then spin the whole episode into literary gold. Obviously, such situations abound in socialism. Leaders would make foolish decisions causing chaos and disaster while most everyone else spoke highly of the decision and how great the result actually was, usually out of fear. Walter Wink designated such a system “delusion and domination”, while Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn dubbed it the “great lie”. Bulgakov saw the absurdity of the lie and the pretentions of those who went along with it. He responded by highlighting the absurdity and becoming absurd himself. So the devil and his entrourage visits fervently atheistic Soviet Union, a stray dog takes human form, and enormous quantity of large and overly aggressive snakes fight the Red Army. In Notes on the Cuff, Bulgakov is not quite at the level of magical realism for which he would become famous. However, the critique of the absurd and the willful delusion of the masses is already present. This is early Bulgakov.

I recommend this book and others by the author (particularly The Master & Margarita and Heart of a Dog). This particular book is a quick and easy read. Again, “Notes on the Cuff” is very good. “The Red Crown” and “The Komarov Case” are two other short stories in this collection that are choice reads.

Enter a Free Man, by Tom Stoppard

I’m a huge Tom Stoppard fan and have been since high school. He never fails to disappoint. A number of years ago I stumbled upon a used copy of one of the Stoppard works I had not read, Enter a Free Man. This is a reworked play from 1968 based upon Stoppard’s earlier A Walk on Water (1960). I purchased it years ago but never got around to reading it. I usually would read the first couple of pages and then abandon it altogether. That happened at least twice. Not sure why. Last night I ended up reading the entire play in one sitting after having finished The Aeneid. Remarkably I found it to be quick and easy read.

The story is about George Riley, a perpetually unemployed and failed inventor living with his wife and his 19-year old daughter, the latter who supports the family with her income. Every Saturday George leaves home (“This time for good!”), swearing never to return, to go down to the pub where he entertains the denizens with his half-truth, half-imaginary exploits and new, glorious invention. Wealth and success are always just around the corner. There is a tinge of Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman in this.

And while the pub scenes are classic 1960s-1970s Stoppard with their kaleidoscope of wit, word play, humor, and farce, the family scenes are much more dramedy and resemble similar stylistic approaches that Stoppard would embrace fully in 1982’s The Real Thing and after. This is sort of pleasantly surprising to me. He always had it in him to do dramedy, he just preferred mostly comedy during his early period.

I also note in this play a hint of the undercurrent of cyclical plots that Stoppard employed in his previous Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead (1966) and his next The Real Inspector Hound (1968). In this there is the suggestion that the story continued after the curtain closes and that the characters in the play continue the same pattern of plot and behavior indefinitely. George Riley will always leave home in frustration, he will always threaten to never come back, he will always regale his pub retinue, he will always come home that night, and he will always be an unemployed, failed inventor.

In this particular cycle, George believes he has found a great new idea in reusable envelopes. He continues to put his family under pressure just as his daughter has begun searching for her own independence in the form of men. She wants to leave home but feels obligated to stay and support her family. Thus she continues to encourage and frustratingly ridicule George into finding a job or at least going on unemployment. This is the cause of much fighting and George’s desire to leave home for good. While George threatens to leave and Linda tries, the play concludes with everyone in the same position in which they had begun the story. Naturally and expectedly, the reusable envelope idea fails. However, the touching, final moments of the play show George promising to seek work the next morning, just as one of his latest inventions (in-door rain for the naturally watering of household plants) looks like it has worked … only to exhibit it’s fatal flaw: how do you turn it off if it doesn’t stop raining? A humorously cute ending to a very well-crafted dramedy.

The Aeneid by Virgil (verse translation by Rolfe Humphries)

Last night I finally finished re-reading The Aeneid by Virgil (verse translation by Rolfe Humphries). I purchased my copy back in college to help me translate some passages when I was studying Latin. From the looks of a few notations, I also read books V-VI around ten years ago. About three years ago I read N.T. Wright’s Paul and the Faithfulness of God. In that book Wright notes that the Bible offers a teleological view of history that argues all of history has been building up to the coming of Jesus the Christ. He further states that the only other ancient literary work that advances anything close to such a history is The Aeneid. In this 12-book epic poem in dactylic hexameter, Virgil constructs a narrative which argues that history from the Fall of Troy through the victorious war upon the Latins and beyond culminates in the reign of Augustus Caesar. Indeed, parts of the work is open propaganda giving mythic legitimization to the rule of Julius Caesar and, by extension, to his adopted son Augustus. All well and good. Modern distaste for propaganda should not cause us to shrink back from and appreciate its ancient examples. As my New Testament professor once said, “Is not the New Testament a collection of propaganda pieces promoting God, Jesus, and the Gospel?” So some two years ago I dusted off my personal copy of the book to see how another ancient work works their teleological propaganda.

Here is a good example. In Book VI, Aeneas goes down to the Underworld and hears the following prophecy from his dead father, Anchises:

“Turn your two eyes

 This way and see this people, your own Romans.

 Here is Caesar, and all the line of Iulus,

 All who shall one day pass under the dome

 Of the great sky: this is the man, this one,

 Of whom so often you have heard the promise,

Caesar Augustus son of the deified,

 Who shall bring once again an Age of Gold

 To Latium, to the land where Saturn reigned

 In early times.”

Pretty grand stuff. Interestingly, Aeneas's son, Ascanius (also called Illus from Illium, meaning Troy) has his named changed to Iulus to correspond to the family line of Julius Caesar. Heavy stuff that.

The book as a whole is magnificent on every level. The poetry, the metaphor, the plot, the wide canvas, the characters, the battles scenes, all of it comes together perfectly. After recently reading the somewhat dull epic poem Troilus and Criseyde by Chaucer, the last half of this book was refreshing and vitalic. You quickly understand why Dante held Virgil in such high regard. Oddly enough, one notices that the antagonists in the book (such as Dido, Turnus, and Camilla) are more interesting characters than the protagonists like Aeneas. Very Shakespearean that.

Dwelling Places in “My Father’s House”

“‘In My Father’s house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also. And you know the way where I am going.’” (John 14:2-4)

A very famous passage in the Gospel of John. Traditionally these verses have been interpreted as referring to heaven and that Jesus will soon be departing there. However, a closer examination of the passage reveals otherwise. The phrase “my Father’s house” usually refers to the Temple in Jerusalem. In John 2:16, when Jesus cleanses the Temple, he says, “’Take these things away; stop making My Father’s house a place of business.’” Here in John the phrase “my Father’s House” specifically refers to the Temple of God. But in 14:2, Jesus says that there are many “dwelling places” (monā) in this house and that Jesus is going to prepare a place for his disciples. Given that the Temple in Jerusalem could not hold all of Jesus’ disciples (beyond the 12) and that it seems odd that Jesus would prepare a place for them there (which he did not), it seems that a less than literal interpretation of the Temple is warranted. Such a symbolic and metaphorical understanding is in keeping with John’s method in his Gospel (e.g., 6:35; 8:12; 10:7; 15:1). So what then is this Temple, this Father’s House to which Jesus is referring? The answer becomes clearer when we look at how Jesus metaphorically uses the Temple, his Father’s House earlier in John 2:20-22.

“The Jews then said to Him, ‘What sign do You show us as your authority for doing these things?’ Jesus answered them, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’ The Jews then said, ‘It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?’ But He was speaking of the temple of His body. So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.”

Here John is stating that Jesus was referring to his own body as a temple that would be crucified and resurrected. This is not an isolated metaphor. In John’s other book, Revelation, he again uses the imagery of the Temple in reference to Jesus and to God. “I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb are its temple” (21:22). The Lamb, of course, is Jesus. John often associates Jesus with a Lamb in reference to his crucifixion (Revelation 5:6, 12; 7:14; 12:11). In the Gospel, Jesus is the Lamb that takes away the sins of the world (1:29, 36).

So in John 2, “My Father’s House” is the Temple which is a metaphor for the body of Jesus, with reference to the crucifixion. And preceding the reference to the My Father’s House/Temple in 14:2, we get the following exchange in 13:36-38:

“Simon Peter said to Him, ‘Lord, where are You going?’ Jesus answered, ‘Where I go, you cannot follow Me now; but you will follow later.’ Peter said to Him, ‘Lord, why can I not follow You right now? I will lay down my life for You.’ Jesus answered, ‘Will you lay down your life for Me? Truly, truly, I say to you, a rooster will not crow until you deny Me three times.’”

This dialogue takes place at the Last Supper, just prior to Jesus’ arrest and crucifixion. Jesus is about to go to the cross and is telling the disciples that where he is going they cannot follow. Peter, not understanding that Jesus is referring to the cross, proclaims that he would be willing to die for Jesus. Jesus replies that Peter will not lay down his life to face death for the cause of Christ at this time, but he and the other disciples will at some point (v. 36).

So when in 14:2-3, when Jesus says he is going to prepare a place for his followers, he is referring to his work on the cross. His work on the cross, his crucifixion and subsequent resurrection enable him to prepare a place for his followers in him. Here we get into some deep theology about the corporate nature of Christ, in which the Messiah, the Christ, is representative of all of God’s people, so that one can even state that what one does to a follower is equated to Christ himself (see Matthew 25:34-40 for one example). Thus we have the voluminous references to people being “in Christ” throughout the New Testament (Romans 8:2, 39; 12:5; 1 Corinthians 1:2, 30; 15:18, 22; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 2:4; 3:28; 6:15; Ephesians 1:3, 10, 12, 20). Indeed, the followers of Jesus, the Church itself, is frequently called the “body of Christ” (Romans 12:5; 1 Corinthians 12:12-27; Ephesians 3:6; 5:23; Colossians 1:18, 24). Not only that, Christian believers as a group are referred to as a Temple (1 Corinthians 3:16, 17; 6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 2:21). To put this altogether: believers are in Christ, they are the body of Christ, they are a Temple, Jesus is a Temple, and believers are a part of that Temple body.

Therefore, Jesus’ work on the cross prepares a place in the Father’s House with many dwelling-places (monā) for believers in him (see also Revelation 3:12). But notice 14:23: “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode (monā) with him.” So not only do we have a dwelling place with Jesus, but Jesus and God have a dwelling place with us. Notice it is both God and Jesus. This fits within one of the arguments John is making: Jesus is in God the Father, and God the Father is within Jesus (14:7, 9-11). They are one (10:30). We already noted that in Revelation 21:22 that both God and Jesus are the Temple. John has Jesus wrap up this entire idea in John 14:20: “I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you.”

So when Jesus indicates that his crucifixion is preparing a place in the Father’s House with many dwelling-places (monā), he is stating that his work on the cross bring about a new relationship between God the Father, himself, and his followers. This is not a relationship that will exist at some future date in heaven, but a relationship that a person can have now if he has a relationship with Jesus and God. In chapter 15, Jesus says, “Abide (menō) in Me, and I in you” (v. 4), “he who abides (menō) in Me and I in him” (v. 5), and “If you abide (menō) in Me, and My words abide (menō) in you” (v. 7). The crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus has accomplished this.

The Concept of the Tithe

The concept of the tithe, the giving of ten-percent of something, paid either as a contribution to a religious organization or compulsory tax to the government was a widespread practice in the Ancient Near East. It is found in documents all over Mesopotamia, not just in Israel. The Old Testament shows that it was practiced by the Patriarchs even before the Law of Moses was given (Genesis 14:18-20; 28:12-22). The Law of Moses established the tithe in Israel which functioned more like taxes and were mandatory, not optional giving. This tithe was distributed locally "within towns" to support the Levites and assist the poor (Deuteronomy 14:28). So the tithe in Israel was specifically directed towards supporting the Levitical priesthood and the Temple system. This is why no specific command to tithe appears in the New Testament. Without the priesthood/Temple system, the tithe becomes meaningless, certainly not mandatory.

However, the New Testament does promote giving while not requiring a tithe. 2 Corinthians 9:7 talks about giving cheerfully, 2 Corinthians 8:12 encourages giving what you can afford, 1 Corinthians 16:1–2 discusses giving weekly (although this is a saved amount for Jerusalem), 1 Timothy 5:17–18 exhorts supporting the financial needs of Christian workers, Acts 11:29 promotes feeding the hungry wherever they may be and James 1:27 states that pure religion is to help widows and orphans.

So while tithing is not required for Christians, the New Testament encourages giving for the purposes of the Kingdom of God. If someone wants to tithe as the basis for their giving, that is fine as well. There is nothing that prohibits a Christian from doing so. Just like there is nothing that prohibits a Christian from eating kosher if they so desire.

Now churches are always encouraging tithing by citing Malachi 3:8-10:

“’Will a man rob God? Yet you are robbing Me! But you say, “How have we robbed You?” In tithes and offerings. You are cursed with a curse, for you are robbing Me, the whole nation of you! Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in My house, and test Me now in this,’ says the Lord of hosts, ‘if I will not open for you the windows of heaven and pour out for you a blessing until it overflows.’”

Again, I think applying these verses is somewhat dubious. However, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Churches and pastors, cite Malachi 3 all you want … BUT, please be sure to cite Malachi 1 first. Before God even gets to the people tithing in chapter 3, he precedes it in chapter 1 with condemnation of the priests.

“‘A son honors his father, and a servant his master. Then if I am a father, where is My honor? And if I am a master, where is My respect?’ says the Lord of hosts to you, O priests who despise My name. But you say, ‘How have we despised Your name?’ You are presenting defiled food upon My altar. But you say, ‘How have we defiled You?’ In that you say, ‘The table of the Lord is to be despised.’ But when you present the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? And when you present the lame and sick, is it not evil? Why not offer it to your governor? Would he be pleased with you? Or would he receive you kindly?” says the Lord of hosts. “But now will you not entreat God’s favor, that He may be gracious to us? With such an offering on your part, will He receive any of you kindly?” says the Lord of hosts. “Oh that there were one among you who would shut the gates, that you might not uselessly kindle fire on My altar! I am not pleased with you,” says the Lord of hosts, “nor will I accept an offering from you. For from the rising of the sun even to its setting, My name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense is going to be offered to My name, and a grain offering that is pure; for My name will be great among the nations,” says the Lord of hosts. “But you are profaning it, in that you say, ‘The table of the Lord is defiled, and as for its fruit, its food is to be despised.’ You also say, ‘My, how tiresome it is!’ And you disdainfully sniff at it,” says the Lord of hosts, “and you bring what was taken by robbery and what is lame or sick; so you bring the offering! Should I receive that from your hand?” says the Lord. “But cursed be the swindler who has a male in his flock and vows it, but sacrifices a blemished animal to the Lord, for I am a great King,” says the Lord of hosts, “and My name is feared among the nations.”

Here God is stating that the priests are taking the offerings, keeping the choice offerings for themselves, and only sacrificing the blemished offerings to God. If a pastor is going to apply Malachi 3 as a principle to the church then he or she must also apply the principle of Malachi 1: don’t mismanage the money that the people bring in as their tithes and offerings.

St. Francis, by Nikos Kazantzakis

Last night I finished reading St. Francis by one of my favorite authors, Nikos Kazantzakis. One of the distinguishing characteristics of early 20^th century literature was the belief that modernity had divested

contemporary life of its spirituality and that the traditional paradigms and mental structures of comprehending and expressing faith had been forever extinguished. Some writers attempted to push forward with a secular and atheistic conception of the world. Other writers understood that there was a specific and undeniable need in humanity for the spiritual (however it was conceived) and sought to replenish it while still acknowledging that Western civilization could not return to its previous patterns. In this latter way we see various authors trying various methods: James Joyce (Greek mythology and Viconian philosophy), T.S. Eliot (fertility mythology, Buddhism, and Christianity), C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien (modern reconception of medieval Christianity), and Kazantzakis (Greek Mythology, Christianity, Buddhism, and Nietzschean mythology).

Kazantzakis was not a Christian but he had a healthy respect for the Faith and Jesus himself. Christ and Christianity are constant themes and subjects of his writings. His book, Saint Francis, is a fictionalized biography of the widely venerated Christian figure. Its subject is a familiar one for Kazantzakis readers: the anguished expression of the eternal struggle between the spirit and flesh. Indeed, though this is a fine book, the subject matter has been treated by Kazantzakis better elsewhere. And the portrait of Francis is more manic and passionately jutting that the gentle, humble, and spirit-filled Francis that history records. Instead, Kazantzakis turns the saint into a very fine 20th century existentialist character but without the 13^th century cultural underpinnings to make the figure credible to the story. This is unfortunate and a major flaw since he was able to achieve a perfect symbiosis of modern existentialism and 1^st century reality with his portrait of Jesus in The Last Temptation. Kazantzakis should have studied Thomas Mann’s The Holy Sinner in preparation for his book.

Nevertheless, despite some misgivings, the book itself is an enjoyable read while still not reaching the heights of his other books. Kazantzakis postulates that the life of a genuine seeker of God is one of constant crucifixion. It is a life of self-denial and of total sacrifice of the ego at the altar of the divine. St. Francis embodies this sacrifice in all that he does in his life thru poverty, prayer, stewardship, alms-giving, and ultimately stigmata.

I don’t think this book is for everyone, even those interested in attaining a greater spirituality through self-denial. I seriously doubt that those interested in the historical St. Francis of Assisi will get anything out of it. I think this is more a book for those already interested in the writings of Kazantzakis.

Justice and the Covenantal Law: Reflections on MLKJr Day

In his open “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” (1963), Pastor Martin Luther King, Jr. quotes the Book of Amos in order to address the moral laxity of his fellow Southern clergymen during the Civil Rights era, both those who saw his non-violent methods as extreme and those who thought his methods were not violent enough. The quote in full:

“But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.” (Amos 5:24)

The Book of Amos was one of the earliest prophetic books to be written (between 765 and 760 CE). Amos, an older contemporary of Hosea and Isaiah, lived in the kingdom of Judah but preached in the northern kingdom of Israel. He was not a professional prophet but a rich, educated landowner. His written work expresses a deep concern for social justice, but, as I would like to point, a very specific understanding of social justice.

Amos articulates a standard conception of what creational monotheism means to the world and to Israel. Yahweh is the creator god and is thus the god of all people, Jews and Gentile alike. God expects the same level of moral and social purity of the all nation as he does Israel. God shows no partiality. Israel liberated and elected Israel so that they could make him known throughout the world. Their special calling is that of vocation and does not give them liberty to ignore ethical and social concerns. Indeed, election by God means that those elected have a duty to live according to the responsibilities and purposes clearly taught in the covenant. Part of those responsibilities is care for the poor. So important is this that the book of Amos elevates social justice and morality above religious practices and ritual observances.

The context of Amos 5:24 is the prophetic denunciation of the “sacrifices and meal offerings” of a people who have failed to keep the covenant, which is constituted by justice, fairness, and concern for the poor. As a wealthy landowner himself, Amos condemns the rulers and the rich for burdening the poor with taxes and regulation while exempting others through bribes. What’s more, after having behaved unfairly, these elites then proceed to publicly display their devotion to God through ritual sacrifices and observances. Yahweh will have none of that. He will not honor their sacrifices. He will not be pleased with their outward show of devotion. Instead, he will bring judgement and exile upon them. This prophecy was fulfilled in 720 BCE.

Yet when progressive Christians quote and echo Amos and the other prophets concerning “justice”, they too often divorce the term from its biblical context, preferring to use it a vague, abstract, philosophical designation to be used for whatever societal issue they themselves deem “unjust”. These supposed “injustices” are derived more from personal preferences, biased worldviews, societal trends, philosophical fads, causes célèbres, and economic ignorance than from the biblical witness. Indeed, progressive Christians will denounce as biblically unjust the Bible itself. But one cannot talk about the justice of the Bible apart the covenantal context. When Amos and the other prophets use the term “justice” they are speaking specifically about the covenant between Yahweh and Israel, the Law (Torah) from which it derives, and the commands contained within that Law. Amos is not speaking about an abstract sense of justice for which each successive generation can make-up for themselves as their preferences see fit. He’s talking about very specific commands encompassing the whole of the Law (Torah). Fairness for the poor, widows, orphans, and homeless derives from the Law. Now … what that fairness looks like, how these principles are applied, how it manifests itself for each generation may differ, BUT these applied principles should not contradict the commands of the Bible from which the principles stem. This is why when we consider justice we must always go back to the Bible for what that looks like. Otherwise “justice” will manifest itself as self-serving preferences reflecting the biases and vices of our fluid worldview. History shows that such “justice” ultimately favors the strong and harms the weak.

Weeping and Restoration: The Use of Jeremiah 31:15-17 in Matthew 2:18

While studying the book of Jeremiah, I came across the passage 31:15-17:

“Thus says the Lord, ‘A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping. Rachel is weeping for her children; she refuses to be comforted for her children, because they are no more.’ Thus says the Lord, ‘Restrain your voice from weeping and your eyes from tears; for your work will be rewarded,’ declares the Lord, ‘and they will return from the land of the enemy. There is hope for your future,’ declares the Lord, ‘and your children will return to their own territory.’”

The first verse (v. 15) is famous got its inclusion by Matthew in his account of the events surrounding Jesus’ birth. In seeking to kill the child Jesus, Herod sends forces into Bethlehem to kill all the children under the age of 2 years (Matthew 2:16-17). Matthew crowns this episode with the following:

“Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled: ‘A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more’” (2:18).

One of the questions people have is what Matthew is doing inserting these verses into this particular story. When Jeremiah wrote this oracle he was specifically referring to those from the Kingdom of Israel who were deported by the Assyrians in 760 BCE. This is indicated by the references to Ephraim in verses 18 and 20 of this chapter and the surrounding mentions of Israel and Jacob in both chapters 30 and 31. Jeremiah’s specific intention was to point to the calamity of the Exile and not to predict Herod’s slaughter in 6-4 BCE. But if this is the case, then what is Matthew’s point in including these verses from Jeremiah in his account? I think the answer lies in the second half of the original passage in Jeremiah, verses 16-17:

“‘Restrain your voice from weeping and your eyes from tears; for your work will be rewarded,’ declares the Lord, ‘and they will return from the land of the enemy. There is hope for your future,’ declares the Lord, ‘and your children will return to their own territory.’”

I think in quoting verse 15 and linking it with his narrative, Matthew was pointing to the idea of the overall passage and, indeed, to the surrounding chapters (30-33) in which God promises restoration from Exile for his people. I’ve written before that the Exile was the one of the defining events in the history of Israel. God’s people had been deported from the Promise Land, the Temple destroyed and God’s presence left, the Davidic line ended, and pagans ruled – and all because God’s people had repeatedly sinned, rejected the prophets, and refused offers of forgiveness for repentance. But even after the fall of Babylon in 539 BCE when the exiled Jews were permitted to return to their homeland, there was still a belief that the full exile had not ended. Yahweh had not returned to Zion. The land was still being ruled by pagans. The Spirit had not been poured out. God had not yet forgiven the sins. One of the main arguments of the New Testament writers is that the coming of Jesus, his mission, death and resurrection meant the end of Exile and the forgiveness of sins, that God had turned to Zion, that evil had been defeated.

Therefore, when Matthew is quoting Jeremiah 31:15-17, he is not stating that Jeremiah predicted Herod’s slaughter of the children. Instead, he is pointing to the entire idea of the passage, indicating that, yes, God’s people have wept over the loss of their children before, but now the comfort that Jeremiah predicted has come true. God is truly restoring his people. Yahweh has returned to Zion. Sins are forgiven. The Spirit is poured out. The prophecy of Jeremiah was fulfilled.

Jeremiah: Life, Work, and Writings

Last night I finished reading John Bright’s commentary on Jeremiah (The Anchor Bible Commentary). This was an excellent book, one of the best commentaries I’ve ever read. I thought I would give some general overview of the prophet and his work.

Jeremiah was born into a priestly family from the Benjamite village of Anathoth. He had his call to the prophetic vocation as a youth (626 BCE), a call he was reluctant to take and with which he himself never seems to have reconciled. He seems to have been most influenced by the book of Deuteronomy and the prophet Hosea, but also Amos and first Isaiah. One of his earliest visions (if not the first) was the ultimate impending doom facing God’s people for their sins. This prophecy set the tone and mission for most of Jeremiah’s life and career. Because of the certainty of destruction, he neither married nor had children. He also abstained from many of the joys of the life, setting his own body up as a living example of the immediate nation’s future. A life of mourning.

Jeremiah had visions, performed prophetic acts, dictated oracles, and wrote both poetry and prose. Though his writings fell under the general theme of the coming Exile, there was a lot of diversity within that subject. What we have as the Book of Jeremiah is a collection of various material written by and about the prophet, probably built around the nucleus of the scroll Jeremiah originally constructed of his early prophetic sayings and which was burned by King Jehoiakim (Jer. 36). The book includes oracles concerning Judah and Jerusalem (people, prophets, government, etc.), oracles concerning the judgeemnt of surrounding nations (Jeremiah 46-51), personal confessions, and biographical episodes written by another hand, possibly Jeremiah’s friend and associate Baruch. Unfortunately, during the extended assembling process, with too many cooks in the kitchen, the material in the Book of Jeremiah is largely disorganized. I appreciate John Bright’s efforts at remedying some of the confusion.

Throughout the early parts of his ministry, Jeremiah’s prophetic oracles about the coming destruction from Babylon went largely unheeded (the prophecies concerning the Temple [Jeremiah 7, 21] and the Valley of Gehinnom [Jeremiah 7, 19, 22] are two of my favorites). Indeed, he frequently received persecution from the people, priests, government officials, and other prophets because of his dire warnings. There were a minority of people from all strata of society (including government officials) who took Jeremiah’s warnings seriously and sought to protect him and his associates from persecution. However, this minority, even at high levels of leadership in Judah, was unable to divert the nation and government from destruction. Even as the prophecy began to come true, Jeremiah’s further warnings and advice continued to be unheeded.

Jeremiah seems to have resented his life and calling. It was something he never wanted. He was called to proclaim absolute destruction upon his society, culture, nation – everything he knew – without hope of divergence. He knew that few would listen to him. He knew he would be persecuted. When persecution hit and he cried out to God, Yahweh told him to expect more of the same. Jeremiah continued praying for his people and nation, but God continued telling him to stop because it wouldn’t do any good. In his confessional poetry, Jeremiah empties himself out before God, weeping because of his lot, praying for vengeance upon his enemies, and even accusing Yahweh himself of unfaithfulness (Jer. 15:5-21).

Not all of the Jeremiah’s oracles were entirely negative. Despite the national disaster of the Exile, Jeremiah also proclaimed that Yahweh would one day restore his people, bringing them back, forgiving their sins, and establishing a new covenant with them (Jeremiah 30-31). While he himself never saw this restoration, he nevertheless was certain of it. If Jeremiah was right about the destruction of Israel, he would be right about its reconstruction. If Yahweh spoke Exile, Exile it would be. If Yahweh spoke Restoration, Restoration it would be. God will do what he says he will do. That is his righteousness. That is his covenant-faithfulness. That is hope. See Jeremiah 23:6.

After the assassination of Gedaliah, the governor appointed by Nebuchadnezzar, Jeremiah was carried off to Egypt against his will by the remaining Judeans fearful of the wrath of Babylon. He probably spent the remainder of his life there.

Top Ten Books of 2016

The Assault, by Harry Mulisch

Black Snow, by Mikhail Bulgakov

The Challenge of Jesus, by N.T. Wright

The Investigation, by Peter Weiss

Joshua: The Anchor Bible Commentary, by Robert G. Boling and G. Ernest Wright

Journeying, by Nikos Kazantzakis

Marginalia on Casanova: St. Orpheus Breviary, by Miklos Szentkuthy

New and Collected Poems, by Geoffrey Hill

The Powers Trilogy, by Walter Wink

The Resurrection of the Son of God, by N.T. Wright

Christmas in the First Century BCE

When we attempt to grasp the meaning of Christmas today we approach a conceptual event loaded with 2000 years of traditions, cultural baggage, misconceptions, faux images, and layered worldviews. It’s difficult to pull back the layers and see the event in the way first century Jews would have understood it. I think there are three primary ways – all interrelated – in which one would have understood the Christmas story: 1) coming of the Messiah, 2) fulfillment of Yahweh’s covenant to Abraham, and 3) the end of exile. I want to focus on the latter because I think it was the most relevant to the first century Jew.

The Babylonian exile (597-539 BCE) was one of the most important events in the history of Israel. It was seen as the time when Yahweh had abandoned his people because of their sins, allowing gentile enemies to conquer the Promised Land, destroy the house of God, and rule over Yahweh’s people. Yet God through his prophets had promised an eventual end to this exile and salvation for Israel from its enemies. Indeed, the Israelites did eventually return to Palestine, but while the physical exile had ended, the Jewish people believed that the spiritual exile had not ended. While Yahweh had returned his people to their homeland, there were things that indicated that the exile was not yet over. What things? For one, Israel was still being ruled over by pagan gentiles (first the Persians, then the Greeks, the Syrians, and, in the first century, the Romans). For another, the Temple had not been rebuilt to its former glory. Most importantly, many of the prophecies of Deutero-Isaiah had yet to be fulfilled, particularly those that foretold the return of Yahweh to his people. So what was preventing the complete ending of exile? The answer was sin against God. The very thing that caused exile in the first place. The first century Jews believed that exile continued because God had not yet fully forgiven Israel for its corporate sin.

So note the proclamation of Gabriel to Zechariah concerning John the Baptist in Luke 1:16-17 (cf. Mark 1:1-3):

“He will bring back many of the people of Israel to the Lord their God. And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the parents to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous—to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”

This prophecy concerns the corporate forgiveness of the corporate sin of Israel still in exile. This is about Israel repenting of their sins because Yahweh (the Lord) is returning to his people as he promised that he would (Isaiah 40:3; Malachi 3:1-2). This is about the end of exile.

Now note the prophecy of Zechariah at the birth of John (Luke 1:68-79):

“Praise be to the Lord, the God of Israel, because he has come to his people and redeemed them. He has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David (as he said through his holy prophets of long ago), salvation from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us — to show mercy to our ancestors and to remember his holy covenant, the oath he swore to our father Abraham: to rescue us from the hand of our enemies, and to enable us to serve him without fear in holiness and righteousness before him all our days. And you, my child, will be called a prophet of the Most High; for you will go on before the Lord to prepare the way for him, to give his people the knowledge of salvation through the forgiveness of their sins, because of the tender mercy of our God, by which the rising sun will come to us from heaven to shine on those living in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the path of peace.”

Again, Yahweh is returning to his people, Israel. He will bring salvation, specifically salvation from Israel’s enemies, i.e., the gentile rulers, i.e., Rome. John is preparing the way for this salvation by telling the people to repent of their sins. Yahweh is offering the forgiveness of sins to his people to end exile, and he is doing it primarily first through the ministry of John.

For the first century Jew who had ears to hear and eyes to see, he would have understood the Christmas story first and foremost as an end to Exile. That Yahweh was forgiving the sins of his people and returning to them to bring salvation by delivering them from their enemies. A first century Jew would have understood references to “forgiveness of sins” as denoting the specific sins that caused and continued the exile. “Salvation” would have been understood, not as an individualistic rescue of “going to heaven when you die”, but as a corporate rescue for the nation of Israel from its pagan enemies. There are various subset issues of this conception, but it would be the general thrust of how the original audience would have understood the good tidings of great joy.

 

Acts of God

"I see that your home insurance policy covers Acts of God. However, we’ve determined that this specific hurricane was an act of Ba`al. Unfortunately, with your current policy, you’re only covered for Yahweh. So unless you are willing to invoke the Jeroboam Clause of your policy - see section 12, lines 28-30 of 1 Kings – and equate Yahweh with the Ba'al cult, then I’m afraid we’ll be unable to help you. Granted, while pantheonic religions like Ba`al worship offer wider coverage over weather-related claims like lightening, wind, rain, and fertility, the premium is first fruits of the harvest and the deductible is a human sacrifice. So not much different from standard ACA healthcare coverage. Given your situation, though, I would advise you to remain with the Yahweh plan. It has a great life insurance policy, covering all claims. And your public adjustor has already negotiated a settlement on your behalf."

The Investigation by Peter Weiss

The other day I finished reading The Investigation by Peter Weiss. This play took the actual transcripts of the 1963-1965 Frankfurt Auschwitz Trials and arranges the material into 11 cantos giving witness and defendant testimonies of the concentration camps experience from beginning to end. Obviously, this is a tough read but an interesting experience.

I’m very interested in how people think and why people believe what they believe. The next step beyond that interest is why people behave the way they behave. How does power work, particularly within an organization, be it a nation, corporation, or business? How does power dominate individuals within a system?

Theologian Walter Wink assessed the nature of power in the Bible in his Powers Trilogy, discussing how a minority of people can dominate a vast collective through fear. He called it the delusional-dominating system.

So what was most interesting to me in this play was how the system dominated the soldiers, guards, administrators, doctors, and prisoners to perpetuate such evil. So say that they were all just evil is incorrect and an over-simplification. The clichéd excuse we now mock, “We just followed orders”, is also a rather more complex scenario than we would like to think. It seemed that a system was created in which every individual was given tasks that in of itself was not horrendous but when set in motion as an aggregate committed these crimes. Every person could claim that they were simply engaged in a detached task, by orders, on threat of punishment, which could be considered individual and morally removed from collective result. Blame was everywhere and blame was nowhere. There was a practical, rational, moral, and psychological disassociation inherent in all the parts of the system that kept it working, that propped it up. The system could not have maintained itself any other way.

Even concentration camp prisoners were forced to carry out these tasks on fear of death. Should they be held responsible for their actions within this system? If not, then what about concentration camp guards who were forced to carry out tasks on fear of death? Auschwitz had a specific prison block to punish guards.

So I am continuing my studies into how people think and believe and how this relates to the theory of the delusional-dominating system. I am re-reading Tom Stoppard’s play, Every Good Boy Deserves Favour, about the Soviet practice of treating political dissidence as a form of mental illness.  I’ve also begun reading Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago about the forced labor camp system of the Soviet Union. A number of Solzhenitsyn works are probably in order. He himself used the term “The Great Lie” to designate the method by which the Soviet leaders dominated the Russian people. Socialist systems (like the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany) tend to be excellent areas of study for this subject.

Marginalia on Casanova (Saint Orpheus’s Breviary, Book 1)

Thursday night I finished reading Marginalia on Casanova, which is Book 1 of Miklós Szentkuthy’s Saint Orpheus’s Breviary series. In this book and through the character of St. Orpheus, Szentkuthy uses the exegetical techniques of Karl Barth’s magnum opus Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans as the basic structure to provide commentary on the Memoirs of Casanova as the starting point for synthesizing 2,000 years of European culture, religion, philosophy, art, etc. The aim of the entire series is to find the human ideal and an acceptable lifestyle that a thinking mind in search of happiness can hope for after the broadest possible circle of historical, cultural, and religious experiences.

Given this expansive aim it should be no surprise that the subject matters of Marginalia are extensive, profound, and meandering. A summation of its contents would be both impossible and pointless.

I will note, however, one passage in the book in which Szentkuthy correctly states that the ultimate endgame of the Christian hope for the future is not a disembodied existence in heaven but resurrection of the physical body for an existence on a redeemed earth. It’s nice to see someone get this right.

Tithing

The concept of the tithe, the giving of ten-percent of something, paid either as a contribution to a religious organization or compulsory tax to the government was a widespread practice in the Ancient Near East. It is found in documents all over Mesopotamia, not just in Israel. The Old Testament shows that it was practiced by the Patriarchs even before the Law of Moses was given (Genesis 14:18-20; 28:12-22). The Law of Moses established the tithe in Israel which functioned more like taxes and were mandatory, not optional giving. This tithe was distributed locally "within towns" to support the Levites and assist the poor (Deuteronomy 14:28). So the tithe in Israel was specifically directed towards supporting the Levitical priesthood and the Temple system. This is why no specific command to tithe appears in the New Testament. Without the priesthood/Temple system, the tithe becomes meaningless, certainly not mandatory.

However, the New Testament does promotes giving while not requiring a tithe. 2 Corinthians 9:7 talks about giving cheerfully, 2 Corinthians 8:12 encourages giving what you can afford, 1 Corinthians 16:1–2 discusses giving weekly (although this is a saved amount for Jerusalem), 1 Timothy 5:17–18 exhorts supporting the financial needs of Christian workers, Acts 11:29 promotes feeding the hungry wherever they may be and James 1:27 states that pure religion is to help widows and orphans.

So while tithing is not required for Christians, the New Testament encourages giving for the purposes of the Kingdom of God. If someone wants to tithe as the basis for their giving, that is fine as well. There is nothing that prohibits a Christian from doing so. Just like there is nothing that prohibits a Christian from eating kosher if they so desire.

How Big is Your Worship?

How big is your worship? When you worship the creator of the universe, the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jesus, does such worship appear big or small in your estimation?

I’ve written before that “worship is a lifestyle which one reveres and honors God. It is an ongoing act which should never cease. However, there are times when one puts a special emphasis on worship (bowing down on one’s face and such). There are also times when groups of people put a special emphasis on collective worship (i.e., worship services).”

This remains true. Worship is a broad concept encompassing the whole of the Christian life. It involves our devotion to God as our creator and our allegiance to his plans for both the world and for our personal lives.

As I’ve also written, “Too often, Christians think worship is simply and only going into a room once a week to sing songs, pray, and hear a sermon.”

We too often fall into the trap of pale reductionism when it comes to worship, mistaking the part for the whole. It’s akin to walking into the Sistine Chapel and focusing one’s attention completely on the Creation of Man while ignoring the magnificence of all that Michelangelo has created.

But even if we reduce worship to one building, one room, once a week, we still find that the act of worshipping God is multi-formed and multi-tasked.

We worship God with singing (Psalm 68:4), with bowing down (Psalm 95:6), with pipes and trumpets (Psalm 150:3, 4), with stringed instruments (Psalm 81:2; 150:3, 4), with dancing (Psalm 149:3; 150:4), with drums (Exodus 15:20; 1 Samuel 18:6; Psalm 81:2; Isaiah 30:32).

We can also worship God with our service. The word latreuō (λατρεύω) is found throughout the New Testament and is translated as either worship or service (Philippians 3:3; Luke 2:37; 2 Timothy 1:3; Acts 24:14; Revelation 7:15; 22:3). It is related to latreia (λατρεία) which is the service of God connected with the sacred religious services (Romans 9:4; Romans 12:1; Hebrews 9:1, 6).

All this is what Scripture teaches, but too often we allow our traditions and personal preferences to limit our worship experience and, even worse, to dictate how we expect others to praise their creator.

We can’t all play musical instruments to worship God. Why then are we all expected to sing? Are we all required to bow down as an act of Sunday worship? Are we all required to dance? Why do we consider worship the sum total of sitting down to listen to a sermon but not the act of serving God?

Again, it’s like a tour guide escorting a group of people into the Sistine Chapel and demanding that they everyone focus their attention exclusively on the Creation of Man or else they will be accused of not appreciating art.

When one expects others to adhere to a particular method of worship and to conform to a particular pattern, then that is legalism.

When one mistakes the part for the whole, then we limit our potential to experience authentic worship of God and hinder others from a greater experience.

Then again, if our conception of worship is small, then maybe it is because our conception of God is small. How big is your God?

Top Albums of 2015

Top Albums of 2015

8-Track, Soulfood76 (1998)

Above, Mad Season (1995)

British Steel, Judas Priest (1980)

Carrie & Lowell, Sufjan Stevens (2015)

Evergreen, Echo & The Bunnymen (1997)

Girls in Peacetime Want to Dance, Belle and Sebastian (2015)

Menace to Sobriety, Ugly Kid Joe (1995)

Modern Vampires of the City, Vampire Weekend (2013)

Tell Another Joke from the Ol’ Choppin’ Block, Danielson (1997

Thirty-Three & 1/3, George Harrison (1976)

 

Honorable Mentions:

Brother is to Son, Danielson (2004)

Guitar, Frank Zappa (1988)

Lazaretto, Jack White (2014)

God Will Be With You: The Christmas Story

The Christmas Story:

Mark launches his Gospel with a quote from Malachi 3:1: “Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.” (Mark 1:1-3)

This verse concern the coming of Yahweh back to his people after the long spiritual exile that began with the Babylonian Captivity of 588 BCE. Following the destruction of the Temple of Yahweh built by Solomon in Jerusalem, Yahweh was seen to have departed from it and abandoned his people to their sins. In the first century CE, the Jews were still eagerly waiting for Yahweh to return and doing so under the rule of the conquering Roman Empire. When Mark cites this verse he is specifically stating that Yahweh is returning in the person and work of Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah, the Christ. What does the angel Gabriel say the nickname of Jesus will be? “They will call him ‘Immanuel’ (which means God with us’).” (Matthew 1:23).

Ominously, the verse in Malachi is followed with the warning “But who can endure the day of his coming?” (3:2)

The coming of Yahweh in the person and work of Jesus was a time of both liberation and judgment. Look at what the Christmas story states:

“Behold, this Child is appointed for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and for a sign to be opposed.” (Luke 2:34)

“He has scattered those who were proud in the thoughts of their heart. He has brought down rulers from their thrones, and sent away the rich empty-handed.” (Luke 1:51-53)

No wonder King Herod wanted to kill Jesus. The Christmas story is a highly political account of God inaugurating the Kingdom with Jesus, threatening all other kings, rulers, and governments.

Part of Jesus’ message was to the rulers, elders, scholars, and priests. He was telling them that the long awaited hope of Israel had arrived. Yahweh was returning to his people ... but they were missing it! Jesus was telling the priests and elders (the ministers and pastors of his day) that God was acting now … and you’d better get on the same page. This was now the time to get right, to shake off egos, to abandon personal kingdoms … before it’s too late.

Christmas is a time for people in authority (businessmen, governments, and pastors) to ask themselves if they are behaving in their respective positions in the way God wants them to behave. If they are not, now is the time to get with Gods’ agenda and not your own. Otherwise …

God will be with you.

Putting Christ Back in Christmas

Ah, Christmas! The most wonderful time of the year. The time to celebrate the birth of Jesus. Just think of the lovely manger scene with the cute, cuddly baby, the chubby cherubs, and the little lambs looking up in awe at the holy scene. Mary, did you know? Did you know? What were your thoughts about God working through your son?

“He has scattered those who were proud in the thoughts of their heart. He has brought down rulers from their thrones, and sent away the rich empty-handed.” (Luke 1:51-53)

Well! Surely, that’s the labor pains talking, Mary. And the smell of the donkeys. What about you, Simeon? You held the infant Jesus. Did you feel the warm tidings of peace, goodwill, mistletoe, and presents under the tree? What went through your mind?

“Behold, this Child is appointed for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and for a sign to be opposed.” (Luke 2:34)

Uh … well, your old, Simeon and old people are grouchy. Don’t be a Scrooge. This is a time for peace on earth and good will towards men. Set them straight, Jesus.

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (Matthew 10:34)

Look, what’s the matter with everyone? This is Christmas time! It’s a time for Christmas trees, wreaths, and garlands! It’s about candles and lights and manger scenes. It’s about Jingle Bells! You know, deck them halls and all that stuff. You know, Santa Claus and ho-ho-ho and mistletoe and presents to pretty girls.

To hear them talk you would think that the focus of Christmas should be about God radically breaking into the world in the purpose and mission of Christ the anointed king and not just simply the holy birth of Jesus and presents. Christmas is a merry season. A feeling. It’s about sitting by the fire, holding a cup of cocoa with two massive marshmallows while the snow falls outside and carolers sing "O Tannenbaum" accompanied by a small brass band. It’s a feeling. A good feeling. It’s good news.

Yes, yes, there is all that stuff in the Bible about the Good News of the coming of the Kingdom of God, and the coming of justice and hope for the poor, but this is jolly Christmas time! Christmas is supposed to be happy occasion. It’s not supposed to be deeply and thoroughly political.  It’s not supposed to be about the redemption of Israel and of the nation and the coming of God’s kingdom on earth.

Yes, glory to the newborn king, but this is not the time to emphasize a king who is going to uproot the nations and establish his rule and dominance upon the governments of the world. That won’t play in Peoria. Christmas is a time of coming together. Let’s invite the kings of this earth to celebrate the baby Jesus. As the Bible says:

“Go and search carefully for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him.” (Matthew 2:8)

See? With those holiday greetings and gay happy meetings when friends come to call it's the hap- happiest season of all. Let’s not be overtly or uncomfortably political … Unless someone tells you “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas” … then just lay into them. Let’s put the Christ (Χριστός) back in Christmas (Χ-mas).