I like Mike

Well, I'm showing my hand and betting on Mike Huckabee. I have been very impressed with his answers in debates, and his responses to attacks. I must say I also liked his Christmas ad. :-) I think he has a really neat combination of tried-and-true Republican and Democrat values, taking the best from both worlds rather than being pidgeon-holed into both the good and the not-so-good of either party. I also like his take on the question of whether people of faith (especially pastors like him) have any business being in politics.

I like Mike.

Thank you, C. S. Lewis

C. S. Lewis has become a significant influence for me rather quickly. This has happened in perhaps a rather unusual way, since it started with his books on literary criticism rather than, say, the Chronicles of Narnia or Mere Christianity (for whatever odd reason, I find Mere Christianity really hard to read - I've been sitting at half-way through for the longest time...). Most recently I've been reading his collection of essays "On Stories". In one of the early essays he talks about the difference between his style of reading and that of a former pupil of his. Whereas the pupil enjoyed suspense and danger for their own sake, Lewis enjoyed them in so far as they were extraordinary. It was not enough for a person to be faced with death by freezing - they had to be faced with death by freezing *on the moon*. It was not enough for an enemy French ship to be sighted on the horizon - it had to be a *pirate* ship.

This last comment led me to re-read Treasure Island, which I hadn't read since...1992? (I think we lived on Cypress Lane when I read it.) Treasure Island was the first book that I remember really getting into and really enjoying, so perhaps it was fitting that it was also the first book that I have ever read a second time (not counting pieces like Othello that I read more than once in school). And it was fun. :-) I had forgotten almost everything in the plot, beyond the basic outline (boy gets hold of map, goes to island, faces off with Long John Silver, makes it home safe and sound), but as I read I remembered more and more about what was about to happen. I think the biggest surprise was the fate of Silver. My (also dim) memories of the movie interfered here and led me to expect young Hawkins to help Silver push out to see in a little rowboat. I must say, the book's version is much more satisfying.

I also found some recordings of C. S. Lewis' BBC broadcasts and found that his voice and accent are not at all like I had imagined!

Nicodemus: A Reflection in Post-Modernism

Let me quote a few portions of the story of Nicodemus (John 3:1-21):

• "Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, 'Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.'"
• "Nicodemus said to him, 'How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?' Jesus answered, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.'"
• "Nicodemus said to him, 'How can these things be?'"
• "Jesus answered him, '[...] Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony. If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.'"

It seems to me that Nicodemus is a fairly good representative of post-modern man, and Jesus' response to him might be a particularly useful one for us post-moderns to think about. What is going on here? Nicodemus comes to Jesus because he is intrigued by what he sees and hears about Jesus - "no one can do these signs that you do unless..." Unless what? Nicodemus seems almost to be asking a question - "unless God is with him...Right?" If true, the implication is that God truly is with Jesus. But Nicodemus isn't ready to commit to that - he questions, twice, "How can this be?" In this sense he takes something like a typical post-modern position. We can know only what we have experienced, and we can have only this-worldly experiences. (When was the last time you saw someone enter into his mother's womb and be born again?) Nicodemus is also rather post-modern is the sense that he is skeptical - he remains uncommitted. He might well have been thinking, "Here is this intriguing person who does things that no one else can do unless (could it be true?) God is with him. But the facts of the matter are that people are just not born again every day of the week. What can it all mean?" No decision has been made, no conclusion drawn, no mystery revealed. Nicodemus remains in the dark. And notice, too, that Nicodemus comes to Jesus at night. I suppose one might draw the following parallel: in post-modern culture it is hard to think about God. As soon as one does so in public, the others around him react by being very uncomfortable, as if to say "you're not allowed to say/think that - you're breaking the rules of the game!". Or, in the words of Professor Henry Higgens, "It is impossible for an Englishman to open his mouth without making some other Englishman despise him." So we keep to ourselves. We entertain our thoughts about God and salvation and the after-life in our own private minds, far away from where others can see. In the same way, Nicodemus comes to Jesus by night, and he comes to entertain the possibility that God might be with Jesus. But he is left in the dark, precisely where he started out, because he cannot break free of his post-modern mindset.

On the other hand, there is Jesus' response. Jesus seems to acknowledge the post-modern way of thinking, up to a point. "We speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen". Jesus is claiming to have experience, and hence knowledge, of the kingdom of God. He goes on to affirm that man cannot have such knowledge or experience on his own naturalistic terms - "No one has ascended into heaven". In section 11 of Hume's "Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding", he deals with the problem of "return[ing] from the cause to the effect" – which is to say, we may well infer a particular cause for a particular observation, but we cannot then attribute particular qualities to that cause from which to predict new effects. Jesus in effect agrees with this - man cannot ascend to heaven on the basis of his observations on earth and then return to earth with new understanding. But Jesus came from heaven to earth, bringing revelation with him, and then returned to heaven - precisely the opposite of Hume's problem, and Nicodemus' problem. "If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man." And yet Jesus does tell Nicodemus heavenly things - "God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."

And this brings us to another, rather subtle point. Initially, when Nicodemus comes to Jesus, he tells him "We know", namely, "that you are a teacher come from God." It is as if Nicodemus is trying to work from his post-modern roots upward - "We observe that no one else does these things, so therefore we know that you must be from God...Right?" Jesus replies "Unless one is born again he cannot know" - cannot know the kingdom of God. (This is usually translated "no one can see the kingdom", but the root is the same word that Nicodemus uses, the Greek “oida”.) It is as if Jesus is confronting Nicodemus' post-modernism and correcting him - "You say you know something, but I say you know nothing, unless..." Then Nicodemus says "A man can't enter his mother's womb and be born a second time...Right?" Jesus replies, "Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter" - cannot enter the kingdom of God. Again, Jesus is paralleling Nicodemus' words - "You say you cannot enter the womb, but I say you cannot enter the kingdom, unless..." "How can these things be?" "We speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony - you do not apprehend it, you do not grasp it, you do not get it - If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? [...] God gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." Jesus is changing the face of the game while adhering to its rules - "You cannot know what you have not experienced, but I have experienced and know, and I declare it to you - what is left for you to do is believe."

Notice, though, that by insisting on belief, Jesus is not asking for a "blind faith" in which we must close our minds and turn our backs on the facts of our existence. Rather, he acknowledges our post-modern limitations - that we cannot know, that we cannot enter - and provides a way out - "I have known, I have entered... And I declare it to you." "I am the light of the world", "the true light, which enlightens everyone." But "the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not comprehended it", "the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light", "We speak and bear witness, but you do not receive our testimony. If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?" Jesus provides a way out, and invites Nicodemus to take it. He acknowledges Nicodemus’ post-modern limitations, and breaks through them by descending from Heaven itself and declaring the Gospel to Nicodemus – to us. All that is left is to believe, in the same way that we do not doubt what others tell us based on their own experience, even if we have not experienced the same things.

Beware the Infinite Loop!

I just lost several hours of bleary-eyed data organization/collection due to an infinite loop. Grrrrr. Fortunately I got *some* measurements first. I wrote a little script to save the newly organized files, and decided to test it on just a single file first, to make sure the script worked properly. Well, I had the following lines:

>> k = 1;
>> while k < 2,
>> ...
>> endwhile;

See the problem? I left out the line k = k + 1;

So now I get to redo all the work I had just finished. :-( But not right now... I'm bleary-eyed and tired enough that I'm just going to go home (it's just about 8pm, after all).

Thoughts about the Pentateuch

I'm going to dive right into this one without a preamble...

The Pentateuch *might* be a large chiastic structure:

Genesis
.....Exodus
..........Leviticus
.....Numbers
Deuteronomy

In a chiasm, the middle part is the central focus, the first and last parts correspond to each other, and the second and second-to-last parts correspond to each other. So we have Leviticus at the center, and the correspondences between Genesis and Deuteronomy, and between Exodus and Numbers. If this is true, the content in Deuteronomy ought to parallel the content in Genesis, and the content in Numbers ought to parallel the content in Exodus. Now, I'm not fully convinced that this really works, but I've been a little surprised to find that there actually are a number of parallels:

1) Genesis ends with Jacob blessing his sons (in the form of a poem), each one by name; and then Jacob's death is recounted. Deuteronomy ends with Moses blessing the tribes of Israel (in the form of a poem), each one by name; and then Moses' death is recounted.

2) Genesis begins with the creation of Adam and Eve in Eden, and the command to obey God, followed by their rebellion against Him (by eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil - making them judges), and their subsequent expulsion from Eden. Deuteronomy begins with the command to enter the Promised Land - the second Eden, which even includes the land around the Euphrates just as the first Eden did - and the command to obey Moses (as the mediator standing in the place of God toward Israel), followed by their rebellion against Moses (and God) by making their own judgment about the feasibility of occupying the Promised Land, and their subsequent expulsion from the Promised Land and the penalty of wandering in the wilderness.

3) The bulk of Genesis is all about the covenant God makes with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The bulk of Deuteronomy is all about the covenant God makes with Moses and the whole people of Israel.

4) Exodus kicks off with the increase of the people of Israel, followed by God's command to "let my people go" because "Israel is my firstborn". After many plagues, the Passover occurs in which the firstborn of Egypt are slain. Following this Israel leaves Egypt and is protected by the pillar of cloud and fire. With much fanfare the cross the Red Sea and leave all of Egypt behind them. Then the people complain that they don't have food, so God sends quail and manna. After that Moses' father-in-law Jethro meets them and advises Moses to appoint elders to help him. This is the first half of Exodus. Now consider Numbers. It starts with a numbering of the people, followed by God's command that the firstborn are His. After a few chapters that don't seem to correspond to anything in Exodus, the Passover is celebrated, and then the pillar of cloud and fire protected and guided the people. After much fanfare (with two silver trumpets) Israel leaves Sinai behind. Immediately the people complain about the food (and a description of the manna they've been eating is given which is very similar to that given in Exodus), so God sends quail (with a plague this time). In between the complaining and the quail-plague, God advises Moses to appoint elders to help him.

5) The second half of Exodus is itself a chiasm. First you have the detailing of the Law and how to construct the Tabernacle and everything that goes with it. Then you have the Golden Calf incident in which Israel sins and the Levites kill a bunch of the guilty Israelites. Then you have the reiteration of the Law and the building of the Tabernacle. In Numbers there is a also a chiasm, although much more loosely defined than in Exodus. In Numbers the first part of the chiasm discusses various laws (similar to those in Exodus). Then you have the incident with Balaam and Baal worship at Beth-Peor, and Phineas (a Levite) and the chiefs of Israel kill a bunch of the guilty Israelites. Then there is a further discussion of laws and of how to set up the nation of Israel once it enters the Promised Land (parallel to setting up the Tabernacle).

6) In a broader sense, Exodus is about the travels from Egypt to Sinai and the giving of the Law and setting up the Tabernacle. Numbers is about the travels from Sinai to Canaan and the giving of the Law and setting up the nation of Israel.

7) In the same broad sense, Genesis is about Eden, how it was ours, how it was lost, and how it will be restored (in the future). Deuteronomy is about the Promised Land, how it should have been Israel's, how it was "lost" (they failed to occupy it), and how it will be restored (in the future, in Joshua). Oh, and another interesting point is that just as in Joshua (which means "God saves") the promises are fulfilled, the Promises are fulfilled in Jesus (which means "God saves"). ("Joshua" and "Jesus" are really the same name, but one is the Hebrew form and the other is the Greek form - just like "John" and "Johann" are the same except that one is English and the other is German). After the Promised Land has been occupied, we have (all too human) Judges. After Jesus redeems and renews the heavens and the earth, He will set up judges (in the sense that Paul says "we will judge angels", and in the sense that David says "you have put all things under [man's] feet", and in the sense that God gave dominion to Adam, then to Noah). Unlike the history of imperfect Israel which clamored for a king from among themselves and to replace God as their King, God will continue to be our King in the new heavens and the new earth. (This, by the way, is the ordering in the Jewish Bible - Ruth does not come between Judges and Samuel.) The rest is history - because Jesus has not yet come and because the new heavens and earth have not yet been established, Israel cannot permanently succeed. The results are 1) the history that proves the point in Kings/Chronicles, 2) the prophetic warnings, 3) the unraveling of the entire thing in the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities, and finally 4) the partial redemption of God's people and the rebuilding of the temple. What happens next? 5) Israel, kingless, waits for her King. But "the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple" - this is the promise in the last book of the Old Testament, in Malachi, the last prophet.

Ok, enough for now. But I would like to suggest that perhaps we should call Deuteronomy ("the second law") Deuterogeny ("the second beginning"). And we could change Numbers to Eisodus to mirrow Exodus and the fact that Numbers is about Israel being about to enter the Promised Land. I don't have any clever suggestions for renaming Leviticus, but just wait! ;-) Maybe we could call it "Holiness"? And on one last note, I think it's interesting that Adam and Eve thought God didn't want them to be like Him although they wanted it for themselves, so they ate the forbidden fruit. But in Leviticus God says that we're supposed to be holy just like Him - our problem is that God wanted/wants us to be like Him but we end up being unlike Him, so the effect of the first sin by the first Adam has to be undone by the final atonement by the final Adam (Jesus).