The Immature, Proud, Impatient Reader

   …learning the contours of a fictional world or the intricacies of an author's methods always takes time. Robert Penn Warren commented that the most "intuitive and immediate" reading of a poem will likely not come at the first reading, but rather at the tenth or even the fiftieth reading. To grasp the whole, one must, he speculated, be able not only to remember the beginning of the poem, but remember its ends; one must be able to "remember forward." Patience, in short, is an essential quality of a good reader, and this too is an act of humility. 

   Readers may fail to listen carefully to catch the author's tone of voice, rushing to judgment without asking whether the author means to be deathly serious, sentimental, satirical, or whatever. A recent example is so absurd that it parodies itself. Near the beginning of the 2000 school year, black parents at a Catholic school in Louisiana complained about the "racist" language and stories of Georgia writer Flannery O'Connor. It would be a mistake to charge these parents with a pathetic misreading of O'Connor. It would be a mistake because the parents had not read the stories at all. Their opposition was apparently based on a few titles and passages. Too frequently, Christians are guilty of equal absurdities. 

   Harry Potter creator J. K. Rowling has been quoted all over the Internet as saying that she is happy that her books have produced a surge in children's involvement in Satanism. This quotation has been used as evidence that the Potter books are infernal propaganda. The original source of the quotation, however, was a story from a satirical electronic magazine. For anyone who took a moment to check the original source, and took another moment to ask about the tone of the article, it was clear that the author was mocking hysterical responses to Rowling's books. It must be a delicious irony to the article's author that the satire has become fuel for even more hysteria.

   Though they may be harsh opponents of postmodernism, readers who took the Rowling quote at face value are as domineering and prideful in their reading practices as any deconstructionist. But how was one to know that the Rowling quotation was a fake? The text did not come with a label "Satire." The author expected the readers to recognize the clues and read in submission to them. Quick and ignorant judgments such as these are not only an embarrassment that often makes Christians, quite rightly, objects of ridicule. Far worse, these misreadings signal an appalling lack of Christian character. Patience before the text is not merely a readerly virtue. It is a fruit of the Spirit. 

   Patience is necessary not only to learn the contours of a particular work, but also to learn how literature works. Flannery O'Connor noted in one of her essays that some works of fiction should be commended only to mature readers. She acknowledges that works should be judged according their "total effect," not by isolated passages. A book may have sexual content, for example, and not be pornographic or immoral. O'Connor wisely goes on to say that an immature reader lacks the tools and literary maturity to feel the "total effect." Immature readers will not be able to integrate passages that arouse passion into the total experience of reading a book. They may return again and again to the sexy passages to reexperience the original titillation, without ever realizing that the sexy passages are in a book that challenges cheap sex. Only long exposure to literature develops the skills necessary to recognize what a particular book or author is up to. O'Connor ended the essay by protesting that high school reading should not be selected by what the students wish to read: "Their tastes should not be consulted; they are being formed."1

1.  Peter J. Leithart, "Authors, Authority, and the Humble Reader"; excerpt from Leland Ryken, The Christian Imagination [Colorado Springs, CO: WaterBrook Press, 2002], pp. 212-214

Feasting vs Fasting

In 9:9-17, Matthew contrasts two types of disciples who are given a choice to follow Jesus, except this time they’re not known merely by their “denomination.” Rather, they’re known by whom they’re willing to eat with.   

First, Matthew writes that Jesus was “reclining at table” (ἀνακειμένου). Then he continues, saying that “many tax collectors and sinners” sat and ate next to him, and that Pharisees didn’t like this. After that, the disciples of John the Baptist come to Jesus, asking why his disciples don’t fast as the Pharisees and themselves do. This is especially obvious when compared with Mark and Luke. Through all of this, we aren’t told about any trouble that was raised, but we are told how Jesus responded, and the impression left is that the disciples of John and the Pharisees had come to disrupt table fellowship. They're in Matthew's home not to feast, but to fast, and to question the appropriateness of this great feast. A sign of those who wish to follow Jesus is that they recline at table with him (a theme that returns in chapters 14—16).  

According to Matthew, feasting and table-fellowship provides a framework for partnership that promotes peace among “denominational” lines and party lines. If attempts of table fellowship across denominational lines don’t produce peace, then the root of remaining disunity and factions runs much deeper than mere denominational distinctives. A sign of those who don’t wish to follow Jesus is that they disrupt table fellowship and sow seeds of discord among brethren (Prov. 6:19; Rom. 16:17-18). Those who recline at table with Jesus are the peacemakers, and it is they who shall be called sons of God (Matt. 5:9).

Nondenominational Jesus

An important aspect of mission often lost in the shuffle of activity throughout Matthew's gospel is Jesus’ posture around people of various Israelite parties (or “denominations,” for lack of a better contemporary term). In Matthew 8:18-22 and 9:9-17 we are given two different accounts about two types of disciples.[i] In 8:18-22, the first disciple is a scribe, and he comes to Jesus addressing him as his “Teacher,” seeking to follow him “where ever” (ὅπου ἐὰν) he goes. Sensing his embellished commitment, Jesus tests his willingness to commit as a disciple by warning him that he will have “no where” (οὐκ που) to rest from his labors if he follows Jesus “where ever.” Then a second disciple enters the scene, but we aren’t told anything about him. Jesus simply tells him to let the dead bury their own dead. However, this unnamed disciple is at least given some hope. At least Jesus responds to his expressed commitment by saying “follow me.” Jesus didn’t bother saying much else to the scribe. 

I realize that preachers often interpret this passage as though this second disciple wasn’t willing to place Jesus first in his mission of life, but I think that Matthew had a different point to make in this portion of the narrative.  Perhaps this second disciple really did not attend his father's funeral.  For all we know, Jesus' words cut right to his heart and the second disciple followed Jesus onto the boat and to the other side of the sea.  We don't know, and no other synoptic gospel alludes to the contrary.  If this second disciple is set in contrast with the first disciple—the scribe who was rejected by Jesus—then it's possible that this second disciple is an example of one who did count the cost and actually followed Jesus.  Certainly there is a lesson of priorities to be gleaned from this story.  The second disciple is concerned about burying his father first, before following in Jesus’ footsteps.  But an equally obvious lesson to be gleaned from this story is that those who actually commit to following Jesus "wherever" he goes, even though they may not have a place to rest because of the many burdens to be carried, are actually gaining life.  "Follow me," Jesus said, "and let those who are dead bury their own dead."  In other words, Jesus is saying: "By following in my footsteps, there is life." And with both of these types of disciples, Jesus doesn’t waste any time. He tested their willingness to commit, and then moved on. If they truly did follow him “wherever,” Jesus knew he would have opportunity to train them later on, as the days and weeks passed by.  This example of drawing boundaries and setting priorities for one’s mission, yet still being willing to generously serve those who get on board with the seriousness of Jesus’ mission, in is an important skill to acquire for those interested in gathering disciples.

---

[i] R T. France, [NICNT Commentary on Matthew] notes that these ten miracles were presented as one "collection," and that there also appears to be a unique placement of each miracle into three distinctive groups when compared with the other two synoptic gospels.  He writes: “The collection consists of nine separate miracle stories comprising ten individual miracles (since one of the stories, 9:18-26, contains two intertwined miracles of healing), which are arranged in three groups of three (8:1-17; 8:23-9:8; 9:18-34).  Between these three groups are two narrative interludes (8:18-22; 9:9-17) each of which focuses on the call to discipleship and the response of a variety of individuals to that call." (p. 300).  The result of his description looks something like this (below):

Miracle #1 - Leper  (8:1—5)

Miracle #2 – A Gentile's “son”  (8:5—13)

Miracle #3 - Peter's mother-in-law  (8:14—17)

•    Narrative interlude: Two types of disciples  (8:18—22)

Miracle #4 - Miracle on the sea with disciples -- calms the sea  (8:23—27)

Miracle #5 - Miracle across the sea in another city – casts out demonic-oppressors  (8:28—34)

Miracle #6 - Miracle back across the sea in his own city -- comforts & heals paralytic  (9:1—8)

•    Narrative interlude: Two types of disciples  (9:9—17)

Miracles #7 & #8 - Dead daughter & Bleeding woman  (9:18—26)

Miracles #9 - Two blind men  (9:27—31)

Miracle #10 - Demon-possessed mute man  (9:32—34)

Gratitude: Never simply intrahuman

Old Testament benefactors are indignant when their favors are met with ingratitude. David later operates by similar principles in his dealings with the fool Nabal. While on the run from Saul, David and his men mingle with the shepherds who care for Nabal's flocks. His men do not interfere with or harass the shepherds. On the contrary, they provide protection. David naturally expects Nabal to be grateful for his service, and to express that gratitude concretely by supplying provisions for his men. When Nabal dismisses David, David's anger at the ingratitude is so intense that he marches toward Nabal's house with the intention of carrying out a war of utter destruction against him. He is arrested only by a gift from Nabal's beautiful, shrewd wife, Abigail. She brings a "blessing" (berekah) that pacifies David's rage. The conclusion to the story illustrates the flip side of Yahweh's promise to reward the generous. When David decides not to carry out "negative reciprocity" against Nabal, Yahweh steps in to repay Nabal for his ingratitude. Nabal's heart stops as he is relieving his bladder after a night of drinking. This suggests that for the Hebrew imagination, the circulations of gifts and gratefulnesses are never simply intrahuman. God is always involved, not only in exchanges between rich and poor but also in those among the wealthy. Yahweh takes the side of the recipient of gifts to reward the generous; Yahweh also takes the side of the insulted to pay back the ingrate.1

 1.  Peter J. Leithart, Gratitude: An Intellectual History [Waco, TX: Baylor University Press; 2014], p. 63

 

Living as a Prize of War (Jeremiah 21:1-10)

In Jeremiah 21:1-10 the prophet is confronted by Zedekiah, king of Judah, whom Nebuchadnezzar had installed on the throne in place of Jehoiakin (Zedekiah's nephew). In verses 1-2 king Zedekiah sends ambassadors to Jeremiah, hoping to hear news that Yahweh would be faithful to His covenant with Israel and deliver Judah with the same kind of "wonderful deeds" He used to deliver Israel in times past. These "wondrous deeds" are the same "mighty powers" and "wonders" of Exodus 3:20, Deuteronomy 34:12, and Psa. 106:8 (LXX). Zedekiah thinks Yahweh's faithfulness is a one-way street of blessing, as though Yahweh would do whatever it took to protect the reputation of His own house (i.e. the Temple in Jerusalem). Zedekiah knows that Yahweh delivered His people out of Egypt, through the wilderness, and into the promised land to build His house, and now that His house has been established in Judah, surely He wouldn't allow His enemies to destroy it, would He? 

In verses 3 - 10, Jeremiah responds to Zedekiah. There we find out that Yahweh does not plan on destroying His own house, let alone allowing its destruction from the hand of His enemies. Instead, Yahweh is determined to destroy Israel's temple by the hand of Israel's enemies. In chapter 29, during this same period recorded in chapter 21, Yahweh commissions Jeremiah to write a letter to the Jewish exiles in Babylon, telling them to build Yahweh's house there, in Babylon, and to reject any prophet who claims otherwise. The same message is found briefly in this chapter, too:

He who stays in this city shall die by the sword, by famine, and by pestilence, but he who goes out and surrenders to the Chaldeans who are besieging you shall live and shall have his life as a prize of war. (v. 9) 

In 21:3-10, Yahweh does promise the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, but by that time Yahweh had left Jerusalem and built His house elsewhere; by that time Babylon was also Yahweh's vassal state, and Israel was Yahweh's enemy. 

I Myself will fight against you with outstretched hand and strong arm, in anger and fury and in great wrath. And I will strike down the inhabitants of this city, both man and beast. They shall die of a great pestilence. (21:5-6)

Here Jeremiah mentions Yahweh's "strong arm" and "outstretched hand," which is a description of holy war that Yahweh wages against His enemies (Exod. 6, Deut. 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 26). But this holy war is against Jerusalem and their idolatrous rulers. This holy war is Yahweh vs. Israel, and the great Exodus power is still in Yahweh's hand. In verses 8-10 Yahweh graciously offers Israel a choice of life or death much like that given by Moses before crossing the Jordan (Deut 30:11-12), and later in the book of Jeremiah we learn that Israel responded to that offer by accusing Jeremiah of two sins: first, of conspiring with the rulers of Babylon, and second, of undermining Yahweh's promise to dwell in the midst of Israel in his "house", the temple. For those in Israel who were actually paying attention to Jeremiah's preaching, Jeremiah is clearly not pro-Babylon; he is pro-Yahweh, and he knows that Yahweh is using Babylon to wage holy war against a greater threat to His Kingship: Judah. 

This was good news for the people of Israel, among whom Yahweh was building His house. Just because Yahweh had set His face against Israel (v. 10), that did not mean He had abandoned His people entirely. He simply chose to build His house elsewhere, in Babylon. During that time in Babylon, the land of Israel would have it's promised rest (ch. 29). During that time Yahweh would remain faithful to His covenant. He would bring rest to His people and their land, and he would deliver them from His enemies. After that deliverance and rest their Jubilee would come.

There are many lessons which can be gleaned from this history. Perhaps the most important one is found by recognizing that Yahweh's faithfulness includes His covenant curses, not just blessings. Christians often presume that God's faithfulness to us is equivalent to Him blessing us, and that is not true. God's faithfulness includes discipline and punishment. An important distinction  can be made between those two, also. Discipline is what God does as a Father to His children. Punishment is what God does as a holy Judge against His enemies, even those enemies in covenant with Him. 

Why do Christians presume that God will not punish them? Is it because they're in a covenant-relationship with Him? Why do professing Christians presume that they are always in a position of safety from God's judgment? Is it because Yahweh is thought of only as their Father? Do they really believe God ceased being the just Judge of all at the cross? 

Christians like Zedekiah are certainly able to conjure up a cheap view of God's grace in their minds. The same is true with their understanding of God's covenant loyalty. Like Zedekiah, it is often presumed that Yahweh will not destroy those who take refuge in His house. They think Yahweh still dwells among them, and that they haven't contributed to anything wicked, thus provoking His wrath; and if they have, the sacrifice of Christ becomes their excuse to still live wickedly sometimes. Like Zedekiah, some of us presume that our Christian community, our church, our households, are not in any danger because that's where Yahweh chose to build His house in the first place, just like He did with the temple in Jerusalem. But was the temple under Zedekiah's reign still Yahweh's house? And was Jerusalem still His holy city? Jeremiah's message seems to portray otherwise. 

Yahweh did leave Israel with hope though. But that hope was not in the temple in Jerusalem. That hope was in Him, and He went with His people to Babylon. Surely the voice of Rachel's weeping would be heard in Ramah, where her children would be slain by sword, famine, and pestilence (Jer. 31:15). But Yahweh's good news to those who hoped in Him was different. A virgin Israel   would trust in Him and return from Babylon (Jer. 31:21). Unlike Rachel, she would be told to keep her voice from weeping and her eyes from shedding tears, because there was a promised reward from her faithfulness in Babylon (31:16-17). There was hope for the future of virgin Israel, as long as she trusted in God's covenant faithfulness to bless those who bless Him and curse those who curse Him--as long as she lived as His peculiar treasure gathered from the holy warfare waged against His enemies.

Another Exodus for Jacob (Jeremiah 30:18-22)

Jeremiah 30 (NASB)

18 “Thus says the Lord, ‘Behold, I will restore the fortunes of the tents of Jacob and have compassion on his dwelling places; and the city will be rebuilt on its ruin, and the palace will stand on its rightful place.

19 ‘From them will proceed thanksgiving and the voice of those who celebrate; and I will multiply them and they will not be diminished; I will also honor them and they will not be insignificant.

20 ‘Their children also will be as formerly, and their congregation shall be established before Me; and I will punish all their oppressors.

21 ‘Their leader shall be one of them, and their ruler shall come forth from their midst; and I will bring him near and he shall approach Me; for who would dare to risk his life to approach Me?’ declares the Lord.

22 ‘You shall be My people, and I will be your God.’”

Chapter 30 of Jeremiah begins the first proclamation of good news to Yahweh's people in exile. Chapters 1-29 present a tour of Yahweh's faithfulness to Israel wherein he repeatedly confirms his hatred for Israel's repeated rebellion. Israel wants to live and think idolatrously like all the other nations, so Yahweh is going to pluck them up from their own land and plant them in the midst of the Gentiles. Only in chapter 30 do we begin the first lengthy exposition of good news. Yahweh would indeed punish Israel like all the other rebellious nations, as promised, but yet again he would spare Israel for his name's sake, and establish his covenant with them again. 

The language of chapter 30 is filled with Exodus imagery, but especially in verses 18-22, which begin with Yahweh's calling of Jacob, the son of Abraham who would later be called "Israel," and would lead Israel into Egypt. Egypt, of course, is where Yahweh delivered Israel from captivity in the beginning of their formation as a nation. This call of Yahweh in 30:18 recapitulates Yahweh's call to Jacob, before Israel was formed as a royal priesthood at Sinai, eventually developing into a kingdom-city with a royal palace and Yahweh enthroned in their midst. In verses 18 and 19, Yahweh says he is coming again to restore those fortunes of Jacob, to start a new beginning, just as he did with Jacob's descendants all the way up to David and his descendants. From them will come another great thanksgiving and celebration like the time in which it's city and palace was first established. 

Verses 20-22 are also reminiscent of the Exodus, which describes the blessings and curses pronounced upon Israel in Deuteronomy just prior to parting the Jordan, thereby completing the Exodus which began in Egypt and waited for 40 years in the wilderness. This time the restoration is from Babylonian captivity, and will follow all the curses of Yahweh's Law which sentenced them there in the first place (Deut. 28:15-68). Once that exodus begins, tremendous covenant blessings will accompany Israel as promised in the Law (Deut 28:1-14). Instead of decreasing in number, Israel will be as the sand of the seashore, multiplying greatly in number. The Lord will honor them in the sight of all nations, and that honor will be significantly great. Yahweh will establish them again, and drive out all their oppressors from the land, like he did when they first entered Canaan. Yahweh will even bring all rulers into account who live in their midst, and will cause them to draw near to Him. This Israel will be reformed, like the first formation out of Egypt. Israel would again be Yahweh's people, and again have Yahweh as their God (Ex. 6:7; Lev. 26:12; Jer. 7:23; 11:4; 30:22). 

Time after time Yahweh proved his loyal love toward Israel. Over and over Yahweh proved himself to be merciful and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in tremendously gracious love toward Jacob. But the days were coming, according to Jeremiah's next prophecy (in chapter 31), that Yahweh would establish a new covenant with the house of Israel, a covenant unlike the one he made with Israel during the first Exodus. With this new covenant he would write his Law upon their hearts and not on tablets of stone. No longer would each Israelite teach his neighbor through the old covenant administration of sacrifice, temple, and priesthood. All of Israel and their surrounding neighbors would know Yahweh intimately, in a powerful sweeping way which had never been accomplished before. Yahweh would forgive their iniquity once for all, and remember their sin no more, through the sacrifice of his Son. Then finally, once for all time, under that new covenant in his blood, it could be said of Israel that Yahweh is their God, and they are his people (Jer. 31:33).

Holding all things together (Colossians 1:16-20)

In Colossians 1:16-20, Paul presents a neat little chiastic poem of praise to God for the glorious redemption he accomplished for the Gentiles in Colossae: 

A)  For "in him" (en auto), "through him" (dia autou), and "into him" (eis auton) all things were created  (v. 16)

     

     B)  He is before all things (pro panton) and in him (en auto) all things hold together  (v. 17)

     

          C)  He is the head of the body, the Church  (v. 18a)

     

     B')  He is the beginning (arxe), the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he himself (en pasin autos) he might be preeminent  (v. 18b)

A')  For "in him" (en auto), "through him" (dia autou), and "into him" (eis auton) all things were reconciled through the blood of the cross  (vv. 19-20)

The language used here by Paul should remind us of the way God works throughout all of history, but with a singular focus in mind: God created all things with a body for himself in mind. He receives the preeminence in all things, but because he is the head of his body, the Church, she too receives an eminent place in creation. All things in creation were created in, through, and into him, but his desire from all eternity--before the beginning--was to share all things with His Bride. All things hold together in him, including what fell into sin because of Adam, but Jesus came to begin a new creation, beginning with his incarnation and working reconciliation between God and man through his death and resurrection, through the blood of the cross. God's story--the overarching story of history--is a story of creation, fall, and recreation in, through, and into Christ Jesus; but let's not forget that it's also a story he shares with his bride, the Church. It is not a story of creation to recreation merely for himself. It's a story which moves from glorious creation to even more glorious creation, holding all things together for the glory of he and his bride together.