Sunday, February 25, 2007

Augustine’s Enchiridion: A little book worth reading

Most anything by Augustine is worth reading. At the top, arguably, is the Confessions, but equally famous, and more lengthy, is a book that might serve as stepladder for some (or as the supreme work on the follies of paganism for others), the massive, City of God. Somewhat less lengthy but no less stimulating is On the Trinity. And what about all the other works he wrote on such topics as rhetoric, Donatism, Pelagianism, semi-Pelagianism, the bible, and so on.

For the uninitiated-to-Augustine The Augustine Catechism: Enchiridion on Faith, Hope, and Love is an excellent place to begin. Why? Mainly because Augustine adumbrates many doctrines in this work which he expands upon in his other works.

For instance, Augustine discusses his conception of evil as “a removal of good” (11). Evil, Augustine says, doesn’t exist of itself, but always corrupts the good. For “evils cannot exist at all without goods, and they can only exist in goods, although goods can exist without evils” (14). This thought reminds me of J.R.R. Tolkien’s orcs: they were once elves that were corrupted. In this respect, Tolkien was very much an Augustinian.

Augustine, ever the rhetorician, has some choice quotes in his little book. Take this one:

“[E]ven in the one sin which came into the world through one man and passed to all men…we can understand there to be many sins, if the one sin is divided into its component parts. For there is pride there, by which the man preferred to be in his own power rather than God’s, and sacrilege because he did not believe God, and murder because he cast himself down to death, and spiritual fornication, because the integrity of a human mind was corrupted by the persuasion of the serpent, and theft, because a forbidden food was wrongfully taken, and avarice, because he sought more than should have been sufficient for him” (45).

Augustine also briefly discusses his theology of depravity, lying, theodicy, grace, original sin, baptism, the church, purgatory, merit, the two cities, and love.

So, for those who want a taste of Augustine’s thought this is a good place to begin. And, by the way, it is also an edifying work, challenging the reader to greater faith, hope and love.

Labels:

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

What’s so fishy about Jesus’ teaching?

(I was teaching a Sunday School class on Leviticus and someone said later that I offered an allegorical interpretation.)

I. The difference between symbolic actions and allegorical interpretation.

Jesus came eating fish and calling fishermen to be his disciples. Rather than Jesus’ fishy diet being an historical curiosity, his diet ties in with several OT themes, all of which taken together show that Jesus was eating fish because he going to “eat” the Gentiles (i.e., the Gentiles will be included in the new covenant.).

Is linking Jesus’ diet to the Gentiles an allegorical interpretation? To answer this one must define allegorical. It is good to make a distinction between interpretive allegory and compositional allegory. “Interpretive allegory takes the details of a text, whether fictional or not, and seeks to discover what philosophical or theological or moral principles are symbolized in its words and images. Compositional allegory begins with moral principles or spiritual truths and creates a fictional tale to display them in narrative form.”[1] Pilgrim’s Progress is a compositional allegorical story because each character represents some reality outside the text. Christian represents the typical Christian. The slough of despond equals the effect of sin on one’s emotions

Iterpretive allegory seeks to misinterpret the text by reading into the text meanings that are not there. Greek philosophers who disdained the straight-forward interpretation of Greek myths illustrate interpretive allegory. They thought it would be impious to associate heinous acts (e.g., Zeus carousing with earthly women) with divine beings. Better to interpret these tales by way of allegory.

But authors can compose allegories and intend for them to be read as allegories. I do not think that the Bible was written as an allegory like Pilgrim’s Progress but that does not mean that the Bible does not have symbolic (or typological) dimensions to it. That is, literary themes and types reoccur throughout the Scriptures. Israel goes down into Egypt and so does Jesus (Matthew 2:13-15). Jesus goes into the wilderness for 40 days and, unlike Israel, he survives the test. Could it be that Jesus is the true Israel, who will save his people from their sins not just on the cross but by “reliving” what they failed to do? God, being the consummate storyteller, expects us to find the links, resonances, repetitions, and allusions in His (true) story.

And so I do not think that linking Jesus’ diet to the Gentiles is allegorical. Rather, I’d prefer to say that his eating has symbolic dimensions to it. To take a parallel example, when Jesus cursed the fig tree, why did he do that (Mark 11:12-25)? When you study the OT you see that God calls Israel a fig tree (Hos. 9:10, Nah. 3:12). Right after Jesus curses the fig tree he cleanses the temple, ceasing the sacrificial activity for the day. Both the fig tree and the temple are symbols of Israel. If God calls Israel a fig tree and then Jesus curses a fig tree it is not allegorical to say that Jesus is cursing Israel. That is the logical interpretation of the symbolic action. If I burn the flag of the United States you know that is probably a symbolic action of protest against the nation.

What about when Jesus fed the 5000? How many baskets are left over? Twelve (Matthew 14:19). Is this number recorded as a mere historical curiosity with no symbolic import whatsoever? If I named my son George Washington Crain and wrote that in the family history registry would it have no symbolic import whatsoever? The number twelve has historical importance because God constituted Israel as twelve tribes. Jesus called twelve disciples to reconstitute the true Israel and twelve baskets are left over (filled with “Gentile” fish, mind you) as a sign of the coming new age: True Israel will gather in the Gentiles. (But I’m getting ahead of myself).

Let’s take a modern day example. The terrorists said that they flew the planes into the WTC because those buildings stood for what they hate in the West. They “cursed” the West in their act. Their notorious flight was a way to denounce the Western way of life. It had symbolic import far beyond two planes hitting two buildings.

So, when I claim that Jesus’ diet has symbolic import I am saying so because the OT lays a foundation for this sort of interpretation when it consistently links Gentiles with the sea. These themes of the OT tie in with Jesus’ practice of eating fish and serving his disciples fish.

II. God’s diet in the OT

In the OT God limits his diet to the clean sacrificial animals (Lev. 1-7). I’m using “God’s diet” here anthropomorphically. Obviously God doesn’t need to eat. God, as the catechism says, doesn’t have a body as we do. Yet the OT describes the sacrifices as “bread for God.” God smells the food and it is a pleasing aroma to him (Lev. 1:9, 17). Symbolically, God eats the sacrifice, which represents the worshiper.

Although some sea creatures are clean in the OT (Lev. 11:9-12), God doesn’t eat them sacrificially. Though the Israelite may eat some sea creatures, they are not part of God’s diet. God has limited his diet to certain clean land animals. This is an important point, as we shall “sea.”

III. In the OT the sea is used as a poetic metaphor for Gentiles nations

While many passages point to the sea as a metaphor for the Gentile nations I’ll limit myself to a few. If it is true that a few passages prove the connection then an abundance of passages is superfluous. If I claim a spider is in the room I only need to find one spider to prove my point.

In Psalm 65:5-8 the Psalmist praises the awesome deeds of God, proclaiming that he is

“the hope of all the ends of the earth and of the farthest seas.” The Psalmist then goes on to highlight God’s ability to still “the roaring of the seas, the roaring of their waves.” The very next poetic line is “the tumult of the peoples.” Using the common Hebrew poetic device of repetition, the author has conceptually linked the roaring of seas and waves with the tumult of the peoples, a connection that links the sea with the gentile nations.

In Isaiah 8:6-8 the author rebukes the people of Israel for rejecting him. He then proclaims that the Lord will bring the king of Assyria upon them in judgment. He compares the king of Assyria to “the waters of the River,” which “rise over all its channels and go over all its banks.” Though not using the word “sea” here the idea is still the same. The waters of the world are a fit metaphor for gentiles because they are chaotic. The sea is stormy and rivers flood, both signs of their “chaotic-ness.”

In Isaiah 17:12-13 the prophet compares the thunder and roaring of the peoples and nations to the thunder and roaring of the sea and mighty warriors:

Ah, the thunder of many peoples;

they thunder like the thundering of the sea!

Ah, the roar of nations;

they roar like the roaring of mighty waters!

[13] The nations roar like the roaring of many waters,

but he will rebuke them, and they will flee far away,

chased like chaff on the mountains before the wind

and whirling dust before the storm.

Isaiah can use the sea as a metaphor because this poetic motif is so firmly entrenched in the Hebraic mind and Scriptures. Christ himself would have read these Scriptures and the same motifs would have been part of his mental furniture.

When Jeremiah prophesies of the coming kingdom of Babylon he links this coming to the roaring of the sea:

They lay hold on bow and javelin;

they are cruel and have no mercy;

the sound of them is like the roaring sea;

they ride on horses,

set in array as a man for battle,

against you, O daughter of Zion!" (6:23).

When Daniel prophesies he mentions four beasts that come out of the sea:

“Daniel declared, "I saw in my vision by night, and behold, the four winds of heaven were stirring up the great sea. [3] And four great beasts came up out of the sea, different from one another” (7:2-3). The Lord interprets this verse for Daniel, saying, “These four great beasts are four kings who shall arise out of the earth” (7:17). The Bible is poetically flexible in that the beasts come out of the sea and the kings come out of the earth because in its less metaphorical moments the Bible knows that no nation exists solely at sea.

IV. Jesus, fish and the sea

The NT continues the OT practice of linking the gentile nations with the sea. In Revelation, a vision given to John by Jesus, a beast rises out of the sea (13:1-4). This vision is like the vision that Daniel had in that the beasts coming out of the sea equal nations.

But preeminently we see the theme continue in Jesus’ life and ministry. When Jesus comes calling fishermen (Mark 1:16), asking them to be fishermen of men (Mark 1:17), stilling storms (Mark 7:35-41), walking across water (Mark 6:45-52), and serving fish from the sea (Matthew 14:19; John 21:1-14), all of these watery motifs tie in with the sea themes of the OT.

The OT likens the gentiles to the sea and so in God’s providence Jesus comes calling fishermen to be his disciples. Formerly these men caught fish from the sea but now they will catch men from the sea of nations. God has decided to “eat” the gentiles now. His fishermen are gathering fish for him. Far from being allegorical, this fishy interpretation does justice to the OT literary practice of describing the nations as “sea” and the NT picking up that same theme not just poetically but in the lived practice of Jesus’ miracles, ministry through his disciples (his fishermen), and his eating habits.



[1] Robert Louis Wilken, The Spirit of Early Christian Thought: Seeking the Face of God (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), 229.

Labels: , ,

Thursday, February 01, 2007

Heating the Family

A few weeks ago our heat went out and the part to fix it was on back order until this past Monday. We had space heaters to keep us warm but our family tended to congregate in the only room with a fireplace.

And this made me think about the blessings of a heat furnace and its pontential problems. Technology shapes people. In times when fireplaces were a necessity and not a luxury families spent their time together in the most heated room. That's the way it appears in Laura Ingalls Wilder's books and in Jane Austen's too.

With the advent of modern heating systems family members can be in different parts of the house, not interacting, but staying warm. While I don't intend on getting rid of my furnace anytime soon, I am more aware of where my warmth should come: cuddling up on a couch with my kids and wife all around me as we read a good book together.