Doctors Woefully Wrong in Two Ways

Miracle baby born after mom advised to have abortion!!

My Beautiful Woman: Virtue is True and Beautiful

Inclusio: Encircling St. Matthew's Gospel

If one was going to take anything away from her high school English composition classes, it was the teacher’s tenacity concerning the unparalleled importance of a good, strong thesis statement and conclusion. The body of a writing assignment, we were always reminded, would drip from our pens if these two elements were carefully created. Further, we were encouraged to treat the first and last sentence of each paragraph in generally the same manner. This is not a modern phenomenon, however. Although the ancients did not stress certain minutia such as insisting the thesis be in the first paragraph, consist of only a single sentence, and the conclusion as an indicative restatement of the thesis, they did make a copious use of this composition convention.

Within the world of literature found in the scriptures and other extant ancient documents is a figure of speech that the Latin students called the inclusio, while the Greeks called same the figure the cyclus. Essentially, like our thesis-conclusion convention, this figure is applied near the beginning and the end of a sentence, a chapter, a unit, or even an entire book. As the Greek name implies, it creates an encircling around the body of work. It is often the case that the author encircles the body of his work with a strong or evocative statement, which he intends to guide the reader’s interpretation of each element between these two outer poles. In lesser to greater degrees, these words or fuller statements at each end of the work will color everything in between. When we can spot these features, we can be sure that we are near to discovering the author’s deepest purposes in his writing.

St. Matthew’s gospel contains several examples of this literary device, the inclusio. For example, the Evangelist begins his work, “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ...son of Abraham” (1:1). To any reader conscious of the Old Testament, these introductory words, especially “genealogy” and the mention of Abraham, would have evoked the covenant promises to Abraham, which involved his “seed” bringing Yahweh’s covenant blessings to “all nations” (e.g., Gen. 12:1—3). And then St. Matthew ends with Jesus’ commission to his disciples to take those blessings of his glorious gospel to “all nations” (28:19). This is a textbook inclusio.

Then there is also 1:23, Jesus’ Isaianic title, “Immanuel’ (which means, God with us).” This is met with Jesus’ promised presence to all of his disciples, “And, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world” (28:20). On this divine note, it is worth mentioning that Jesus was “worshipped” at the opening (by the magi, 2:2, 11) and close (by disciples, 28:9, 17) of St. Matthew.

Jesus begins (4:13—16) and ends (ch. 28) his public ministry in “Galilee of the gentiles.” It is there, in Galilee, that he has his first (4:18—22) and final (28:7—10, 16) gathering of his disciples. Additionally, “the angel of the Lord” announced both Jesus’ incarnation (1:18—21) and resurrection (28:1—7).

Perhaps most importantly to St. Matthew are some of the political implications of the Messiah. In the moments of his greatest humiliation and weakness, Jesus brought (and brings) terror and trouble to the worldly powers that stand against him. In his infancy, Jesus “troubled” the supreme Jewish civil authority, Herod (ch. 2); in his trial, while beaten, bloodied, and bound, Jesus struck fear in the Emperor’s extended-self in Pilate (ch. 27). Things are hardly different today. This is likely connected to the fact that people well beyond the Jewish society recognized Jesus for who he was, the “King of the Jews,” the anointed One, the Messiah, who would rule over all. Representing the eastern world, the magi understood this (2:2); representing the western world, Pilate, too, understood the same, even if not wittingly (27:37).

These threads, these themes must color our understanding of the body of St. Matthew’s gospel. If they don’t, we risk misreading the rest of it.  

Working a Chiasm

Lord willing, it will change sooner than later; but, as it is, Fanny is on the shift schedule at her work. One of the benefits it offers is highlighting how pervasive the chiasmus pattern is in our experience...God indeed orders all things beautifully. Check it out. 

A. 7 Day Break
    B. 4 On
        C. 3 Off
            D. 3 On
                X. 1 Off
            D. 3 On
        C. 3 Off
    B. 4 On
A. 7 Day Break

Another thing this does is demonstrate that, when we recognize chiasmi in literature, especially biblical literature, we shouldn't jump to the conclusion that the chi, the X, the center, is the author's primary point. In this example, one would think that whoever authored this schedule structure wanted to highlight or emphasize the drudgery of the job, since the chi is the meager one day off, which separates a three day stretch of 12 hour days on top and a three day stretch of 12 hour nights on bottom, which can turn one's sleep pattern upside down, literally (it ain't healthy).

Moreover, it illustrates that each set of members plays an important role in the author's point(s), which may be far more dynamic than our Westerner's linear reading-hermeneutical methods generally allow for. In fact, if the context were an HR situation, and I was trying to make the job attractive to interested folk, I would want the cycli members (A/A') to be the readers' focal point(s). And the fact is it likely would be. In such a case, we wouldn't point to the chi, the center member, and say, "But, hey! You missed my main point!!" That would be counter-productive.

Neither should get so focused on the chi when we find a chiasm in scripture that we marginalize or even miss the author’s real point with the structure. We should first determine the author's broader rhetoric, mood and tone, etc. and then begin searching how each set of members contribute to those more general aspects of the unit or chapter.
_______________________________________

Addendum: God be praised! Fanny’s soon to be off the shift rotation, as God has blessed us—and her employer—by promoting her into an assistant admin position in the maintenance department. For the first time in seven years our schedules will be nearly parallel! Her last day in her original position is 02/28, then the new adventure begins!  

 

Christian Feminism? Exploring the Implications of God Making Man’s “Help” (Part III)

On Saturday, I posted the first of a three-part series on considering the possible beginnings of a biblically faithful Christian feminism (see part one here). Then yesterday, we explored the semantic range of the term ‛êzer, which is consistently translated “help(er)” in the AV (see here). Today, then, we’ll wrap things up by returning to the term’s first instance in Genesis 2 in order to allow yesterday’s word study to inform our understanding of what it means a woman to be a “help meet” for her husband for sake of his growth in faith and life.

Having done a brief survey of the term’s semantic range, then, we can now carry our findings back to the context of Yahweh’s intentions in the woman-wife’s creation. If we allow the consistent meaning throughout the Old Testament to determine the meaning in Genesis 2, then even the more accommodating ideas surrounding the English sense of “help” as ‘assistant…one who supplements what is lacking in another’s attributes and abilities’ doesn’t quite work, though it is moving in the right direction.

Without any straining or stretching, we may read Genesis 2 as Yahweh making Adam’s/man’s counterpart as a defender and protector of the man. While a fuller look at biblical anthropology would clearly show that the husband is first and primarily the wife’s protector and defender, we cannot ignore that here the wife’s role shares in this function for sake of her husband.

In no wise does this threaten a biblical complimentarian perspective on manhood and womanhood. (If one felt that it did, he would still have to reckon with the term’s meaning in the context of Gen. 2 and explain why this isolated situation means something other than the word consistently and statically means elsewhere throughout scripture.)   What it does do is challenge some of our assumptions about what it means to be a wife. If John Piper’s “Christian hedonism,” which seems like a contradiction in terms, actually enjoys biblical justification—and I believe it does—then perhaps these observations could be the beginnings of a “Christian feminism.” Who knows?

Let me provide one illustration from my experience last week, one which I think qualifies as a fulfillment of the êzer-wife.

From my rising in the morning to returning to bed late that night, I had one of those really, really tough days last week. Despite the sticky-note that Fanny left for me, warning me that the Impala was parked slightly behind the Jeep, and me carrying all the way to the Jeep, I hopped in, fired her up, dropped it in reverse, and six feet later was careening into the driver’s rear door of the Impala in my own driveway!! UGH! This event served as an archetype for the rest of the day.

My beloved Fanny prayed for me and with me that evening and through her overnight shift at work. The next morning, I found another sticky-note written in Fanny’s own hand, hanging from the kitchen cabinet, almost exactly where the warning note was the morning before. This time, though, it reminded me of her all-night prayer vigil she held for me. All night, she engaged in several battles, interceding before the throne of grace on my behalf. In this, she was being my true êzer. More than that, she was taking the fight to our great Ĕzer, the warrior-Captain of our salvation, who is the Help of his people.

Additionally, the note contained words not her own. It was full of the words of St. Paul. She put the weapon of Phil. 4:8 in my hands and heart, the “sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God” (Eph. 6:17). It read:

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

St. Paul’s words were followed by more of Fanny’s: “I love you. Be blessed today!” This was a radical move by Fanny! This was a woman living out the role of the êzer-wife. Granted, I didn’t need the devil’s minions’ to do stupid things like bang up our cars. Nevertheless, all the various and attending circumstances that week were fertile battlegrounds for the powers and principalities to attack; I believe they were. So, my êzer-wife was defending her head; she was protecting and “shielding” me in Christ. These means, these weapons, were the source of my deliverance, salvation, and rescue through a rough season in life. This is biblical womanhood. And despite the seeming antinomy, caused by tensions between polar factions within the church, this is Christian feminism. Good and godly men need their êzer-wives—it is God’s originally-good creational intention. How much more, then, do we not-so-good and not-so-godly men need them!

“A virtuous woman is a crown to her husband” (Prov. 12:4); an êzer-woman is his shield and buckler! Men of God, we need both, and we need to be men enough to admit it! As Yahweh judged, man alone ain’t good; neither is it good to try to act and fight the good fight of the faith alone.