BREAD, STONE, FISH, SNAKE

Franz von Defregger (1835-1921)

 ⁷ `Ask, and it shall be given to you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you;

⁸ for every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it shall be opened.

⁹ Anyone among you, if his son asks for a loaf of bread, surely he will not give him a stone?

¹⁰ and if he asks for a fish, surely he will not give him a snake?

¹¹ if therefore you, being bad, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your Father who [is] in the heavens give good things to those who ask him?

¹² `All those things, therefore, that you may want men to do to you, so also do to them; for this is the law and the prophets.

 

I am taking these passages together, because they seem to be linked in the text; but the links are not always completely evident.

            The opening two lines state a truth. As it stands, it is a comforting truth to be told. If we pray (which is what, in relation to our heavenly father, asking, seeking and knocking are), our prayer will be granted. Simple. 

            And moreover, it is reinforced, as is so often the case with Yeshua’s sayings, by two examples, which lead to an a fortiori emphasis. If we do not disappoint our children asking for food, why should we not trust God to do at least as much for us? Simple. 

            Except. Except that the majority of petitionary prayers are not granted, and Christians have spent two thousand years working out excuses for that fact. The usual explanation is that we can only ask for spiritual benefits (I have written a number of posts on the impropriety of praying, as Huck Finn did, for “fishhooks”), and some add that such prayer also needs to be intense and only for oneself.

            My recent posts on prayer discuss all this at greater length. I believe that intercessory prayer – prayer for, on behalf of, others – is valuable, for two reasons and on two conditions. First, such prayer helps the beneficiary whether or not its specific requests are granted. If I know that X is praying for me, my own healing powers will be strengthened, partly because I know it and partly because X’s prayers add to an energy field maintained by prayer. The conditions, I think, are that we must first pray for Y’s spiritual wellbeing, and only then, “if it be Thy will”, for Y’s physical, mental or social health; and secondly, that we do so with as much concentration and intensity as we can muster. 

            One is tempted to think that the only prayer we can really utter is “Thy will be done”. And yet that doesn’t chime with the image of the child asking for bread or with the “good things” our heavenly Father is said to have in store for us. I do think, though, that when one is going through a great trial the appropriate prayer is always for faith and strength to undergo it as God wills; and that applies also to those for whom we pray. And we need to remind ourselves that whatever enemies or Nature throw at us, our Father does, really and truly, love us.

 

            The final surprise of this passage is that it ends with the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule, than which nothing could be less exclusively Jewish and than which nothing could be less original to Yeshua. Not only that: he claims that that same Golden Rule “is the Law and the Prophets”, i.e. is the Torah. How? Why? 

            Because, I think, in this simple and rather banal way Yeshua is in fact saying something enormous: the essential, the necessary, symmetry of Love. What, after all, are the two Great Commandments? One: that we should love God with all our heart, all our mind, and all our strength – as He loves us. Two: that we should love our neighbour – as ourself. If you distil these two commandments, which really are “the Law and the Prophets”, you find a symmetry. Loving God on our part will simply return His existing love for us and thus complete the circle; loving our neighbour, both spiritually and also practically, as we love ourself – doing for him what I’d do for myself, no less – not only highlights one existential symmetry but provokes another: loving him may well make him love me and complete that circle too. 

            And finally, by putting this in the terms of the ubiquitous Golden Rule Yeshua reminds his hearers once again that his completed Torah is for everyone, for the goyim as well as for the Jews, for the Nations as well as for Israel.  

 

 

OUCH!

 

Mè dōte to hagion tois kusin mède balète tous margaritas humōn emprosthen tōn choirōn mèpote katapatèsousin autous en tois posin autōn, kai straphentes hrèxōsin humas.

 

 ⁶ `Do may not give [that which is] holy to the dogs, nor throw your pearls to /before the swine, or they may trample them among their feet, and turn and rip you.

 

A curious interlude in the Sermon on the Mount. It seems quite separate from the surrounding sayings, which is perhaps evidence that the Sermon was not noted down as one continuous sequence but compiled from scattered jottings. 

 

What is the point Yeshua is making here? Who are the dogs, who are the swine, and are they the same? If they are, the second saying is a restatement of the first, in a manner familiar to us from the Psalms. 

            One theory is that they are goyim, non-Jews, unbelievers: when the Samaritan woman appealed to Yeshua, his first response was to say that he was sent to help Israel, and that one does not give the children’s food to the dogs. The dogs, here, the kunes in the Greek, are of course not pets like ours: they are at best hounds for hunting, at worst semi-feral scavengers: the word, used of humans, was a term of clear opprobrium. The hagion, that which is holy, might be interpreted as a Temple offering of meat or other food, deposited upon an altar. To throw it to the dogs is an act of desecration.

            The swine here might be domestic pigs, but in view of the final verb which means “to wound grievously” I suspect it refers rather to a boar, as well as to the dogs.[1] Why one would be tempted to throw down pearls before a pig or a boar is not made clear, but the image is obviously constructed out of one element of something precious and another element of something unclean (all pigs were unclean) as well as dangerous. 

            The image, then, is clear and relatively uncomplicated. What about the tenor, though? The simplest explanation is an injunction not to give the Torah to infidels, who not only will not appreciate it and will not be able to be nourished by it but who, so far from thanking you, may in return gore and savage you. And yet the upshot of Yeshua’s teaching, both here in the Sermon and elsewhere, is that the Gentiles are part of the new Israel, and as such both merit and need the new, completed Torah. 

            This creates a real and pressing problem. One solution is perhaps the following: the dogs and the swine might not be known to be such beforehand, but might prove to be so by their reaction to the holy and the pearls. In which case the injunction is a call to discernment. Be careful, think carefully, about the persons to whom you may preach the new Torah that is the eu-angelion. Because if you misjudge them, not only will it not help them but it may put you in danger. And given the fact that Christianity is in our time the most persecuted religion in the world, such an injunction can be said still to be topical.

            

[The majority of commentaries I have read see no problem here at all, because they see it as a text for the modern world – example: do not open a boxing-match with prayers; do not hang a crucifix in a night-club. There may be something in that, but it does not interest me: I want to try to understand what Yeshua said and what his hearers (thought they) heard.]

Image: a drawing by Pieter Brueghel Jr (1564-1638), from a series on Flemish proverbs. The Flemish proverbial version is "Do not throw roses before swine".

              

---

[1] Many commentaries see this as a Jewish inverted parallellism, reading it as “Do not give what is holy to dogs who will rend you; do not toss pearls before pigs who will trample them underfoot.”

CRUMBS!

This very peculiar painting of the unpaintable is by Domenico Fetti (1589-1623). Baroque, indeed.

7 Do not condemn, that you may not be condemned.

² for with the same judgement with which you judge, you shall be judged, and with the same measure you measure with, it shall be measured to you.

³ `And why you look at the crumb in your brother's eye, and the beam that [is] in your own eye you do not even notice?

⁴ or, how will you say to your brother, Let me take out the crumb from your eye, and look, the beam [is] in your own eye?

⁵ Hypocrite, first get rid of the beam out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly enough to get rid of the crumb out of your brother's eye.

The theme here, is of course a variant of “do as you would be done by”. It urges the hearers to look at themselves before looking – crossly, judgementally – at their brothers. [The usual translation of the opening verb is "judge", but "Matthew"'s Greek word would, for its first readers, have had a thoroughly negative overtone, and a connotation of taking to court and/or condemning.] It reminds us that we tend to see small faults in others more clearly than large ones in ourselves. As such, it is neither very original nor very complex. And yet. In the first place, it is much easier said than done. We do tend to be more indulgent with ourselves than with others, and expend great ingenuity in finding good excuses to do so. 

            Secondly, the injunction goes much deeper in its implications. To begin with, who is my brother? Well, that one was answered in the story of the traveller and the Samaritan. But then, of what part of the Torah is this an example? Well, it takes us, the hearers, back to “eye for eye and tooth for tooth”; and thus it takes us back also to the way that equitable rule was contested, or rather, “completed” by Yeshua. And thus, also, to the question of inwardness.

            We have seen inwardness to be the root of Yeshua’s completion of the Torah. If, then, we look here, we see not the spirit of observing a proper distinction and, if necessary, a proper sanction of a brother’s fault, but a self-questioning, a confrontation of self with self without illusions or excuses. In fact, an inwardness. And that inwardness, if it takes place, completes the Torah by fulfilling one of the Great Commandments: loving my brother as myself. 

GENTLY NOW . . .

 

Makarioi hoi praeis, hoti autoi klèronomèsousin tèn gèn: ”Fortunate are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth.”

 

In his television series (later a book) “Civilisation” Lord Clark wrote “We are so much accustomed to the humanitarian outlook that we forget how little it counted in earlier ages of civilisation. Ask any decent person in England or America what he thinks matters most in human conduct: five to one his answer will be "kindness." It's not a word that would have crossed the lips of any of the earlier heroes of this series. If you had asked St. Francis what mattered in life, he would, we know, have answered "chastity, obedience and poverty"; if you had asked Dante or Michelangelo, they might have answered "disdain of baseness and injustice"; if you had asked Goethe, he would have said "to live in the whole and the beautiful." But kindness, never. Our ancestors didn't use the word, and they did not greatly value the quality — except perhaps insofar as they valued compassion.”

 

I used to agree with this, and think that it was perhaps the Victorians who made the change; and broadly I still do. But there is a precedent, and I believe it is in the Third Beatitude. It is usually remembered, because of the Authorised Version, as saying that “Blessed are the meek”, and that translation has caused untold harm. “Meek” is not an adjective most people sense as positive or attractive: it conjures up images of a donkey bowing under a rain of blows from a cruel master’s stick; of oppressed or tyrannised people too passive to rebel; of Nietszche’s characterisation of Christianity as “slave morality”. But if we look at the Greek praos, the meanings given are subtly different. Of things, it is “soft, mild” as in a mild breeze; of animals, it is “gentle, tame” as of a horse not restive; of persons, it is “mild, gentle, meek” – in a case in Herodotus, of one who has been toweringly angry and subsides into being praos again. 

 

So I think it would be much better to translate its use in the Beatitude as “gentle” or “kind”, thus providing a precedent for that long-underrated value mentioned by Lord Clark. The praeis, then, are the “dear hearts and gentle people” that Bing Crosby sang (nostalgically) about as living in his home town in Idaho. And who, indeed, live everywhere, though they are only very rarely in the news. And being gentle, they are of course often taken advantage of, trodden upon, ignored, looked down on, sneered at, the butt of those (like Nietzsche) with “stronger, tougher” values. 

 

They also live, though, in all our memories. Almost all of us remember one or more truly gentle persons we knew when we were young. And we are certainly right in that, because the young have an unerring feeling for true gentleness in adults. And later we remember amusing posters calling for “random acts of kindness” which resonated because we had known such acts, and perhaps even from time to time performed them. 

 

Now, why are the gentle fortunate? Because, says Yeshua in a breathtaking sweep, “they shall inherit the earth”, no less. The planet, the whole kit and caboodle. Inherit it, as heirs; take possession of it, as the Children of Israel took possession of Canaan; be given it,  be left it, take possession of it, own it. And, my children, this is the new Law. This is the new Torah. The earth will no longer belong to the strong, the mighty, the superrich, the One Percent, the strongmen and dictators, the Führers and the corporations. It will belong to the gentle, the kind. In a way, this continues the First Beatitude, in its reversal of the values we take for granted. The basileia, the kingly rule, of Heaven will belong to the Beggars of the Spirit, while the earth will belong to the Gentle, the Kind. 

 

And while the Greek leaves it at that, the English translators added a twist that Yeshua himself might have approved: they changed “will” to “shall”. Now those of us old enough to remember prescriptive grammar recall that “shall” can mean a simple future only in the first person, singular or plural: in the third person, as here, “shall” combines future with imperative in a uniquely compact way. So, faced with the new Law, we should not simply wait for it to happen, but get on with making it so, in every small way we can. 

 

"LOVE FULFILS THE LAW" (ROMANS 13:10)

This is the tightest condensation of Yeshua’s teaching yet. Remember, he said “I come not to abolish the Law but to fulfil it”? Well, now we know what that means. In Romans, it is linked to the love of neighbour – which, of course, is what we always gravitate to. But we ought to remember more often that that is the second Great Commandment: the First is that we must love the Lord our God with all our heart, all our soul, all our mind, and all our strength. 

 

            I have written about this before, wondering how we can be commanded to love, when the essence of love is precisely that it cannot be commanded, that it must be free. That, after all, is the reason that however appalling Man gets, he must still be allowed free will, because the God he offends is Love, and Love can do no other than accord freedom. How, then, can we be commanded to love God (or, indeed, our neighbour)?

 

            It occurred to me that perhaps the word “commandment” is, for our understanding, inaccurate. I remember my late father saying that to him the Ten Commandments were not so much laws in the juridical sense as natural laws, such as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, so memorably resumed by Flanders and Swann: “Heat can’t pass from a cooler to a hotter:/You can try if you like but you’d far better notta”. Or another image might be the points made in the User Manual of a complex machine. Is it a “commandment” to say “Do not attempt a gear change without depressing the clutch pedal”? What it means is “If you do X, something will go seriously wrong” (in this case in the harmony of your condition as a created and loved being).

 

            So if we are commanded to love God as described above, what does that mean? First of all, that “love” here probably does not mean a great wave of serotonin, a tsunami of emotion. Still, it does involve all our heart. It helps, perhaps, to remember that we are encouraged to be childlike. A small child does not reason its love for its parent: it jumps into a waiting lap and snuggles. Even a brief counting of blessings will produce a similar effect in us. Hearts do not reason. 

 

            What about all your soul? At first sight, that seems more abstract; and yet, my soul is, almost by definition, nearer to God than my heart is. Here, I think, we go to the core of the Meshiach’s teaching and action. “For God so loved the world/us/me, that he gave his only-begotten son” etc. “Ransomed, healed, restored, forgiven.” If we can really take this on board, how can we not love the Father who has given us such a gift?

 

            Now for all your mind. For many people, the mind is the seat of unbelief: how can you go on believing if you use your adult, aware, reasoning mind? Look at the Universe (on the one hand); look at Auschwitz (on the other): believe? you must be joking. And yet we are told to love God with all our mind. I think that this is where the User Manual comes in. If you love God with everything but your mind, either your faith is weak and vulnerable or you have abdicated your adult human judgement. The world, the universe, life, will be wholly without meaning. Yet, as Joseph Ratzinger has so often pointed out, if you love God with all your mind, everything falls into place, and even reason becomes both more rational and more reasonable. 

 

            Finally, all your strength. What strength? we sometimes ask. We feel puny, and weak, and tired, and worn out. Daily living is bad enough, and takes almost all of our strength: do we have any left for loving God? Well, again the User Manual chips in. If you put all your strength into loving God (in all the ways mentioned above), to your absolute surprise you find that you have more strength; that loving God produces an excess, an overplus of strength that allows you to fulfil all the other things that await you as well, and quite possibly better. 

 

           And as a consequence, fulfilling this first commandment itself helps you, gives you the discernment and the strength, needed for the second one. Which is why it’s the First. Q.E.D. 

Image: restored Torah scroll guaranteed kosher by a modern scribe, for sale on Amazon at $28,000

NOT THE WILL TO POWER

Orthodox icon: Christ and Moses

In his meditation on the perfect all-purpose prayer, I imagine Yeshua, having hallowed the Name (Baruch HaShem) and expressed hope for the coming of the malkut, the kingship, the Reign, now turning to the Divine Will. This flowed naturally from its predecessor: if a king reigns, his subjects do his will. What is God’s will? The Hebrew ratzon, when linked to the Deity, leads one directly to the Torah: God’s Will for Israel – and, eventually, for humanity – is that they keep his commandments, his statues, his testimonies. By itself the prayer that this be done is large and seems adequate for a Divine instruction; but Yeshua here added “on earth as it is in heaven” (ba’arets ka’asher na’asah vashamayim). In a sense this multiplies it: we pray that His will may be done on earth, not imperfectly in our usual sloppy human way, but the way it is done in Heaven, in His own presence, where the Reign is eternal and accomplished. There, we may imagine, His will is naturally done; and since His nature is Love, the natural doing of His will is a permanent activity of love, involving all the inhabitants of Heaven. Although we cannot equal this, we can strive for it.

Whether, when he composed the prayer, he already knew it or not, Yeshua was (to be) the new Torah: the divine commandments became two, then eventually one: first, to love the Lord our God with all our heart, mind and strength, and to love our neighbours as ourselves; then, simply, to love and follow Yeshua Meshiach in everything.

 For earthling humans, though, questions remain. If we are to help bring about that Reign where his Will is done, we nevertheless ask ourselves, on almost a daily basis, what God’s will is. In this or that situation, hypothetical, actual or urgent, what should A do? Similarly, and sometimes even more anguishingly, what, in all that happens, does so by God’s will? If we say to someone “I’ll see you next month, Deo volente”, what does that imply?

It is comforting for us to remember that Yeshua himself faced this problem. When, in Gethsemane, he prays that the bitter cup he faces may be taken from him, he ends, “Yet not as I will, but as Thou wilt”. In that case at least, the Father’s will was clear: the Son’s sacrifice had to be carried through to the end.

We are often, and rightly, taught not to confuse our desire with God’s will. Even in an apparently good cause, Deus vult is more often than not a projection and thus an error. Sometimes an attitude of suspicion, particularly toward ourselves, is salutary. On the other hand, neither should we fall into the trap of assuming the Divine will always to be the opposite of our own. It is independent of us, and of our desire. How to discern it, then?

I think that the best way is to remember the nature of the God who wills. His nature is Love. Whatever is congruent with Love at its highest may safely be considered congruent with His will. Which brings us back to the conflation of commandments in the new Alliance: 10 > 2 > 1. The eu-angelion, the authoritative good message, is precisely that: that doing God’s will is no longer a matter of memorising and following detailed rules, but of being definitively touched by the absolute, sacrificial Love of the Anointed One, and transforming one’s heart, mind and life accordingly. We are still stumbling earthlings, and will never do it as completely or as elegantly as the angels: but that, we may be assured, will be taken into account.

Once we have been touched by that Love, all we really need to do is (as I wrote before) to keep our shutters, our windows, and our doors wide open to the grace that is poured upon us unceasingly: Grace Abounding. It will fill us gradually, until perhaps one day, like Myriam Yeshua’s Mother, we will be gratia plena.

APORIA? ROAD MAP?

James Tissot, "The Last Supper" ca. 1890, Brooklyn Museum

A night of the full moon in the South of France. Awake at 4 a.m., I do not hear but am filled with a group of words, a phrase of a great intensity.

I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH, AND THE LIFE.

I know this, of course: John 14:6. Yet I have never before thought it, meditated it, pondered it, let it echo, and pursue it to its reverberating depths. This time, it presents itself in the context of Benedict XVI’s saying, in his Jesus of Nazareth, that Jesus does not give or proclaim or write or promulgate a new Torah, but that Jesus is himself the new Torah. This is a concept of almost frightening density, rather like a Black Hole that swallows up all light and matter around it. Jesus is fully man; Jesus is fully God; and Jesus is the new Law, the new Torah for mankind. How does one respond to this? A simple WWJD (WhatWouldJesusDo?) in every circumstance is not enough.

I have written recently about the prayer of adoration as a form of energy. If Jesus is the new Torah, our proper response would be one of a focused intensity of which that prayer is only the faint beginning. To a devout Jew, the Law must not only be obeyed but it must be internalised: it must become part of you.

How I love your Torah!

I meditate on it all day. 

I am wiser than my foes,

because your mitzvot are mine forever.

I have more understanding than all my teachers,

because I meditate on your instruction.

I understand more than my elders,

because I keep your precepts.

I keep my feet from every evil way,

in order to observe your word.

I don’t turn away from your rulings,

because you have instructed me.

How sweet to my tongue is your promise,

truly sweeter than honey in my mouth!    (Ps. 119:97-103)

If Jesus is the new Torah, all the laws, the precepts, the ruling, the mitzvot, are all gathered into one – not one sentence but one human figure, just large enough to fill a cross. If we are to meditate on this, keep to it, observe it, not turn away from it, and eventually know it as sweeter than honey in our souls, we need to find a way of condensing all the energy of our spirit into a beam that circles until it suddenly, or finally, meets the opposing beam that is circling seeking us, and the two fuse into one along which angels rise and descend.

So here I was with John 14:6 echoing in my moonlit head.  I AM THE WAY. Whither? He explains it: no one comes to the Father save through me. The way to God the Father. But what this time struck me utterly was the verb. I do not tell you the way, as a philosopher or a theologian might. I do not show you the way, as a spiritual guide, a Christian Vergil, might. I do not even accompany you upon the way, as if you were Clopas trudging to Emmaus.  I AM the way. And the verb is the Name of God. Your mind is kicked smartly and completely off its normal path. If you ARE the way, how do I walk you?

I AM THE TRUTH. I do not tell you, show you, or guide you to the truth: I AM the truth. (And the verb is the Name of God.) One of the great philosophical problems of our age – and perhaps the great one – is that we no longer believe that if A (unproveable) is true, then B (the opposite of A but equally unproveable) must be false. Yet at the same time we have no philosophical theory for reconciling incompatible factors as both “true”. In the normal sense, for instance, Christian theology of the afterlife is incompatible with Buddhist reincarnation; so if one is true, the other is false. Since we now tend to count respect for others human beings as more crucial than being right about metaphysics, we have learnt to fudge such questions and treat them as irrelevant. But if Jesus Christ IS the truth, the whole question is yanked out of its tired ruts and reconfigured as a spiritual laser beam. I AM the truth then means: there is no truth outside me. And when we think about it, we realise that there is no logical opposite to the statement, at least beyond the childish tu quoque “No you’re not.”  The apt response to this saying is Thomas Didymus’ falling to his knees and breathing “My Lord and my God!”

I AM THE LIFE. Again, this stills arguments, not only among theologians but within ourselves. What is the proper Christian life? we worry. Is it active or contemplative? Helping the helpless or praying in a Carmel? Is it compatible with – divorce, abortion, homosexuality, serving in a war, being a banker? What is eternal life? Pie in the sky when you die? The timeless, endless presence of God’s love? Or simply an extra dimension to this life on earth? These are arguments we have with ourselves as much as with others. Yet they are stunned into silence when Jesus says I AM the Life. (And the verb is the Name of God.) No, we are not to live like him. We are to live him. What does that mean? Rationally, we do not know. But there are things that pull us out of rationality: the recent Feast of the Transfiguration was such an occasion. So if we know we are to live him but we cannot get our minds around that, the message is perhaps quite simply that we had better start trying to do so, with all the urgency and focusing we are capable of.

It is all a little beyond us; yet he himself said it clearly and unambiguously to eleven not terribly sophisticated men (and to Thomas in particular). Two codas help. In the first place: “And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.” And finally: “If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.” That last passage I have always found utterly moving.

CARPENTRY AND DANGEROUS READING

Benedict/Ratzinger cites 'liberal theology' as theorising that Jesus, having hitherto lived a perfectly normal life in Galilee, at his baptism by John underwent a shattering experience that began his ministry. He condemns this as being the attitude of a 'Jesus novel', and claims that Jesus is above our psychologising, that we should read the whole episode theologically.

He is doubtless right in the major sense. But I do not think that it is either irrelevant or reprehensible that we, as humans reacting to the story of a God who took full humanity upon him, should wonder how he came to the point where, ca. 30 years of age, he began his ministry. And if this is a 'Jesus novel', then so be it: a novel conceived, composed, and read in faith.

I have spent a number of years wondering about, and being fascinated by, the 'lost years' of Jesus, between 13 (in the Temple) and 30 (on the bank of the Jordan). The image that suggests itself to me pleases me but is not therefore necessarily wrong. 

It is of a young man much marked by his childhood, much marked by his mother's presence and stories, but otherwise a young carpenter (teenagers worked) of Nazareth; a young Jewish carpenter, i.e. one who not only learnt the trade but learnt to read and spent much of his spare time studying the Scriptures. A little later, say ca. 21 or 22, I suspect he is taking over the shop: he is the eldest son, and Joseph is either retired or already deceased. So he is a young professional craftsman, running a small business -- and reading, reading the scriptures at night, as well as conversing with his mother, who must have been a major presence.

During this time, partly because of the climate of the period, partly because of what Myriam may have told him about his birth, what he reads is especially the passages about the Messiah, and notably those of Deutero-Isaiah, that show a counterintuitive Messiah, a Messiah who is not a conquering king, not a supreme warlord, but a sacrificial lamb, a scapegoat almost, a Messiah who takes upon him, into himself, all the sheer awfulness of crapulous humanity and bears it into the mouth of Hell. And gradually, there must have come upon him as he read these scriptures an awful (in every sense) sense of recognition. My feeling is that the Revelation came upon him gradually, that it stole into his consciousness, that it crept in upon him, until one day, at the age of perhaps 29, he could no longer put it aside or ignore it -- much as he may well have wanted to. The recognition that 'OMG, it's me.' But also the day his regular and devout prayers open, open up a vast space in which at first he is lost, but which then surrounds him like cosmic skin, immeasurably vast and utterly close and intimate at the same time, where he is fully one with the Father he has been praying to and with the Ruach Qadosh who has been doing the praying, through him.

And then, having heard about John the Baptist, he realises that not only must he now go out and live this destiny in the world, but that being baptised by John is the only true and perfect beginning to such a road. He has always been God and man/boy; now he has truly become God and Man. And if Man, then he must, even if he is sinless, join with the sinners who are immersed in the water of the river overhung with trees and skimmed by kingfishers. John, remember, is his cousin; and John too has grown into his destiny. When it is Jesus' turn, he recognises him, both as Cousin Yeshua and as the Meschiach: briefly taken aback, he quickly sees the point. And the heavens open. Were they two the only ones who heard the Voice and saw the dove?

  Of course, this is novelistic, in a way. But it is also the cry of human historical inquiry since Ranke: Wie es eigentlich gewesen: What really happened? We want to know, about human events that occurred in this world, what really happened? We wish we could time-travel; we want to have been there. And it is very hard, if not impossible, for us not to think that the only alternative to 'this really happened' is 'this didn't happen, at least not in this way.' And that if we are told, as in the ancient Catalan beginning of tales, 'Aixa era y no era', 'this was and was not, that we are being told a fiction, something made up.

Perhaps this is one of the reasons so many modern people have turned away from religion: because we have lost the particular scale of reality it demands. A scale where what we are told is true, the form in which it is expressed is true, it is not fiction, yet it did not happen in the way that this morning's subway ride happened. It is this truth that Genmesis expresses; it is this truth that Revelations communicates; it is this truth that the story of Jesus' baptism offers us. 

Perhaps -- to continue the inquiry -- this is one of the reasons, if not the main one, that we are told to become as little children. A child at a certain age does not distinguish between truth and happoening: the stories you tell him make sense, that is all and that is enough. We all experience our children's or our grandchildren's first questioning of Father Christmas as somehow a fall from grace; and this, while inevitable, is also true. The child now begins to believe that there is a difference between truth and fiction, and that truth resides in happening. Only much later, if he is fortunate, does he relearn a sort of unity, when he is taught that fiction can contain important truths; but in that educated-adult universe, its fictionality remains. What Jesus teaches us is that what we need to be close to his, and our, Father is to regain the pre-factual sense of truth.

How to do this? That was Nicodemus's question. How can an adult become a child again? Isn't it against nature? No: it's against culture, not against nature. What we have to do is to allow ourselves to be children again. Nature will let us do this; culture disapproves. Rereading Genesis, we allow ourselves to be thrilled all over again, unquestioningly, by the image of the Spirit of God brooding over the waters. We react with absolute simplicity and enthusiasm to the story of Abraham making lunch for the angels. We see the three Children of Israel in the fiery furnace, and shiver at the fleeting vision of a fourth. And while we do so, the truth is silently building in our minds and hearts an edifice: a synagogue that can allow truth to be transmitted, a temple that can receive Emmanuel.

Benedict/Ratzinger says, and he is right, that the texts tell us nothing about Jesus's years between 13 and 30; he also says, and there I'm not sure he is right for everyone, that that means we should not try to go beyond the texts but read therm as they were intended to be read: as a young Church's attempt to make sense of the life, the death, and the resurrection of the Messiah. Again, I believe that ultimately he is right in this; but proximately I believe that a fragmentary 'Jesus novel', if conceived and received in faith, may have the virtue of helping us be, or become again, the children our daily lives and even our serious religion all too often disallow.

THROUGH THE DESERT

   I have long been fascinated by the lengthy Psalm 119, that curious love-song to the Law. One of its most striking features is the repetition of certain words: "Law", "commandments", "statutes" and "testimonies". They keep turning up in slightly different contexts, and strongly suggest a formal pattern. When I started looking them up on the Web, I found there are eight in all, and
this useful downloadable PDF lists them in Hebrew, in the usual translation, and gives the places and ways they are used by the Psalmist, as well as his responses to each.
 
   The overall impression one gets is indeed that of a formal song, but a formal song of passionate gratitude to God the Lawgiver: the gratitude of a nomadic desert people for a signpost, for a clear path through the wilderness, a path that shows shifting sands to be avoided, oases where one may rest and be refreshed, and at the end a promised land of milk (protein and fat, hard to come by in the Nefud) and honey (the universal sweetener before sugar, giving energy and pleasure). As so often, it teaches a Christian how absolutely the Old Alliance belongs to his own faith as well. I may believe that there is a new Torah, and that a living guide is even more precious than an Ordnance Survey map; studying such a Psalm in any depth explains why the new Torah in no way banishes or replaces the old but fulfils it: not an iota or punctuation mark of the old shall be eliminated, it keeps its full and glorious value.
 
   Moreover, one thing the Fathers teach us is that beyond studying the Psalms there is another approach:  praying the Psalms. For some psalms, this is both simple (though not necessarily easy) and evident: the Penitential Psalms and the Psalms of Praise, for instance. For others, it is much more difficult. Sometimes it's harder because of the spiritual depth and complexity: Psalm 22, even without its immense Christian resonance, has a range of thought and emotion that takes years to absorb fully into prayer. And what about 119? Its very length and insistence makes it difficult to pray: we tend to think, 'OK, enough already, I get the point, no need to go on and on . . .' The change-ringing of the terms for God's Word is alien to our ideas of both poetry and prayer.

   So how to pray Psalm 119? I think the answer lies in the list I cited above, in the notes on the full range of meanings attached to each term; and in a constant application of all these meanings to one's own life and experience. For instance, simply following and meditating upon the mishpatim, to us almost inexplicably glossed as 'judgements, ordinances', leads us to the insight that such judgements are those that express and echo God's loving-kindness by their justice. And that, in turn, sheds light upon on the one hand Angela Merkel's decision to receive positively the greatest possible number of refugees in Germany, and other hand my wife's decision to go and visit our 96-year-old peasant neighbour who lives a placid old age but is happy to be remembered. If one admits to one's reading of Psalm 119 such background and such echoes, praying  the psalm becomes both possible and a delight.

TORAH TORAH, or, THE JOY OF JOY

This is a rambling post; but I was trying to think through some ideas, and react to some things I’d heard, and I thought I’d share the thoughts.

“Their delight in the Law is a delight in having touched firmness; like the pedestrian’s delight in feeling the hard road beneath his feet after a false short cut has long entangled him in muddy fields.” (C.S. Lewis on Psalm 119 in Reflections on the Psalms) It was Lewis who first made me realise that the Torah and the Old Alliance gave the people of Israel the joy of a clear way through a trackless desert – or a firm path through a muddy field or, worse, a bog of quicksand. It was a clear and firm guidance.

Now in his admirable Jesus of Nazareth, Pope Benedict XVI alias Joseph Ratzinger explains that in the New Alliance Jesus is himself the new Torah. So that on the one hand not a jot or tittle of the old Law will be annulled, because it is fulfilled in him; on the other hand the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath, and whoever believes in him – follows him -- will have eternal life.

If this is so (and it seems to me magnificently plausible), then this new Torah and this New Alliance should give the new Israel, the community of believers i.e. the Church, a similar joy: they are not told how to cross the desert, they are shown. Not a road map but a living guide.

So is this WWJD (What Would Jesus Do)? Up to point, yes: always a good start. But it’s not just a matter of imitating deeds: following him means going much further, and following him – for example – into the High Priestly Prayer, into the heart of God: it means the Transfiguration, it means the forty days in the desert. It means knowing the Old Alliance and its texts almost by heart. And it leads, we mustn’t forget, to the Cross. He is the King of Jews; he is the King of the world, says Ratzinger. But he reigns from the Cross: there is the paradox the Sanhedrin couldn’t accept and that intelligent but cowardly Roman Pontius Pilate could only recognise in irony. Tragedy, then? No: because the Cross, when not avoided but accepted, leads in turn to the Resurrection – “and death shall be no more: Death, thou shalt die” (John Donne).

This is a joy far greater even that the path through the desert. So the new Israel should be filled with incredulous happiness, a beacon of alegria throughout history. Its two chief elements have names that begin with the prefix “Good”:  eu-angelion (the authoritative Good Message) and  eu-charistia (the Good Thanksgiving). So why is the New Alliance so rarely communicated, and felt, as joy?

I was listening the other day on French radio to the delightful Cardinal Barbarin (archbishop of Lyon) explaining Pope Francis’ text Evangelii Gaudium (“the Joy of the Gospel”). And time and time again the emphasis – a rather gleeful emphasis – was on how uncomfortable the Faith ought to make us; how it should discombobulate us, shake us up, kick us in the fundament and yank us out of everything we are used to and love. But as Henry Rydal put it in Charles Morgan’s The Empty Room, “The world is very sick, Mr Flower, but you won’t cure the patient by kicking him out of bed.” It’s as if the only saying of Jesus we should treasure were “I come not to bring peace but a sword”.

If that had been so, I thought, would thousands have followed him, running, not walking around the whole of the Sea of Galilee to get to the other shore before his boat? Would they have flocked to his teaching? Would the two travellers to Emmaus have felt their hearts on fire within them as he explained the Torah? The five thousand did not come to be fed: they came to hear him speak – the bread and the fish were an afterthought. I’ve always been fascinated by those crowds, who are never mentioned again afterwards. Something must have remained in their very ordinary lives --  something sweeter than the honeycomb, as John Ruusbroec said, following the Psalms.

To hear some current church authorities, Jesus was understood only by twelve men, and that most imperfectly; and we must be like them, only better – eleven of them, after all, ducked Golgotha. We must this, we must that; we emphatically must not the other; doesn’t it sound like the Law all over again? Is this an eu-angelion? We are told we must be disciples, in order to be Christians. But there were only twelve of those, out of all the thousands. What about those who, He said, were saved by their faith but who did not spend the rest of their time following him around – the paralytic, the centurion, the woman with the issue of blood? Their lives, certainly, were changed; they walked in a fog of happiness for some days, then went on living normally, yet with a new sweetness that must have radiated in their little towns and neighbourhoods.

As Ratzinger says, the key to following him lies in the Beatitudes, especially the pure in heart. They shall see God. Like Abraham; like Moses. Perhaps those nameless ones I’m thinking of had their hearts made pure by seeing him, touching his garment, listening to his words. Perhaps they, as much as the Twelve (who, remember, could still argue, and in his presence, about rank and precedence in Heaven!), saw God. After all, they saw, and some of them really saw, Him: and “who has seen me, has seen the Father”.

Good deeds are important; they are humanly important. They come in many different forms, from the Boy Scout’s good deed to the NGO’s aid worker’s, but also from the church-music composer’s motet to the Carthusian monk’s prayer. As C.S. Lewis (him again) put it: “Not nice people, but new men”. Even the hearts of the best of us are pure only in spots, like the Curate’s Egg: our vision of God is blurry and occasional. But even blurry and occasional, it remains to haunt us.

What is it like? What was it like, for those people in Galilee? They saw a man, in some ways ordinary; but there was something. To me, the most convincing imaginary portrait of Jesus has always been Rembrandt’s: a youngish Jewish man with long dark hair – and those eyes. Because when they saw him, the ones who really saw him saw through him. They saw more – this, I suspect, is where the halo comes from.

Contrary to some sentimental portraits, they did not see someone down in the gutter, the Highest of the High having become the Lowest of the Low. Yeshua bar Yosef was at first a respectable Galilean artisan, running the family carpentry firm; then he became a noted itinerant rabbi admired for his learning and followed by crowds, who taught in synagogues and in the Temple. He wasn’t a little weakling because he walked and walked and walked, everywhere. So what they saw was, as E.V. Rieu put it in his Introduction to The Four Gospels, “tremendous power, rigidly controlled”. And the ones who saw through him saw, intermittently and blurred but frighteningly, God. “Depart from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man!” was Peter’s reaction (Luke 5:8). And John – the only disciple who didn’t duck Golgotha – thinking back as an old man, found the words: “The Word was with God; and the Word was God…. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”

Image: Rembrandt van Rijn, "Head of Christ"