Food Spoilage and the Preservative Power of Faith

Spoilage

...and the preservative power of faith.

Theme: Keep it fresh by trusting God.

Faith is like eating what is local and in season. Putting up--and putting by--canning, freezing, etc.--is like trying to hold on to our "daily bread" for more than one day. Holding on to what we have is like seeking Jesus "just for the signs" and not as our "daily bread," the true bread of heaven.

Context

We know the saying of Jesus in Luke 17:33: "Whoever tries to keep his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life will preserve it." The keeping (peripoieo, "cause to remain over and above"; "acquire, obtain, gain for oneself" BDAG) that Jesus opposes is a striving after more than I need for today, so that by preserving my more I may accumulate wealth and pile up riches--it is a getting of more than I can use today so that I may start ahead of the game of life tomorrow. The "preserving" ("give life, make alive, keep alive" BDAG) is something that only God can truly do (1 Timothy 6:13). That there is some ambivalence about a piling up of goods (and its usefulness) may be seen in a few examples of such "getting" in the Bible: for example, Jacob piles up wealth (Genesis 31:18; but so does Esau, Genesis 36:6) and Solomon has a great personal treasure (1 Chronicles 29:3, but he gives it up for the purpose of building the temple).

How should we understand the ambivalence? Perhaps it is best summed up in the wisdom tradition of Israel with this line from Proverbs: "Those who are generous will be blessed; for they share their bread with the poor." Excess is for sharing, not hoarding--or, in more polite terms, "keeping" or "preserving"--for ourselves. In a counter-intuitive way, by giving away our bread we will preserve it for the day when we need it most. Nowhere is this better seen than in the parable Jesus tells about the rich fool in Luke 12. It is not accidental that the condemnation of this fool for building "even bigger" storehouses is followed by the command not to worry about life (have faith!) and the example of the ravens (who do not sow, but are fed by God) and the lilies (a famine food, like the sycamore and like manna) whose "clothing" is more glorious than Solomon's (who, as we've already seen, accumulated great treasures of his own). The point is that it is better to be "rich in God" (to rely on God completely for all we need) than to "store up treasures for ourselves." That is how Luke 12:33-34 summarizes Jesus' teaching: "Sell your stuff and give money to the poor. Make yourselves reliable, permanent storage units in heaven for your treasure, where it cannot be stolen by thieves or eaten by moths. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."

Worms.



Piling up and hoarding, trying to preserve one's life, just attracts flies and leads to worms, which appear in Scripture as a metaphor for death and decay (Job 7:5, 17:14, 21:26, 24:20, 25:6). Worms (maggots) are especially appropriate as symbols of a reversal of fortune--the oppressor king, once a high and mighty accumulator of wealth, bane of the poor--has met his match. The one who was once on top of the world now rests in a grave with worms on top of him (Isaiah 14:11; Acts 12:23). In fact, hell (Gehenna) is conceived in biblical parlance as that place where so much greed and waste has accumulated that "the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched" (Isaiah 66:24 as quoted in Mark 9:48).

Exodus 16:2-4, 9-15; Psalm 78:23-29

In the poetic form, in Psalm 78, the teacher-psalmist recounts Israel's journey through the wilderness in short, memorable stanzas. The poet's purpose is to hand on from one generation to the next "the song-worthy strength of the LORD, and the wonders he has done" (tehillot, niphle'ot). The poem does this by making a metaphor (78:2, mashal and its relatively close parallel synonym "dark sayings," chiydot) out of a shorthand account of Israel's history. The point is that the younger generation should learn the lessons of their elders and not repeat their mistakes. The younger generation should take the opposite path of the older generation, being faithful instead of faithless, loyal instead of traitorous.

The verses that concern us today (23-29) are set up by the preceding stanzas, which alternate between what God has done (deliverance from Egypt, guidance through the wilderness, provision of water in the desert) and what a previous generation of Israel has done (craving the food of Egypt, straying from the road-map drawn up for them, testing God's provision). The set up is concluded with verses 18-20, when they now demand food in addition to water, asking the provocative question whether God is able to "set a table" in the desert (vs. 19, using language similar to that of Psalm 23:5, "you set a table in the presence of my opponents"). God's response, though angry, is once again to provide for his people in abundance.

The scene is perhaps better known in its prose version from Exodus 16, where the yearning for what they've escaped ("the fleshpots of Egypt," 16:3) is explicit and the juxtaposition with their joy at deliverance (Exodus 15) is stark. Another account of the manna is given in Numbers 11, where the desert food is contrasted with the fish, the cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic of Egypt (11:5-6). And yet another short hand version of Israel's history is given in Nehemiah 9 (see verse 20), where the dramatic outline is the same and manna is again given a supporting role. The story in Exodus 16 contains more details than the poem, including specific instructions regarding how much manna to gather each day (1 omer [1/10 ephah] per person per day, except in preparation for the Sabbath, when they would gather twice as much because there would be no gathering on the Sabbath), the command not to gather more on any one day than they needed (to gather only their "daily" bread), and information about what happened when the previous two instructions were disregarded: 1) excess manna spoiled and became wormy, and 2) those who did not gather twice as much on Friday went hungry on Saturday.

Manna? "Whaddayacallit?"

According to Exodus 16:31, manna was like coriander seed,



(Image Source, http://thymeforfood.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/coriander-seed-7.jpg)

white, with a taste like honey crackers. The same description is given in Numbers 11, with the addition that the color was that of "gum resin." Both accounts indicate that it appeared without effort on the part of the people in association with the dew fall (over night, so that it was available in the morning), but that it had to be gathered or collected for use. Numbers 11 adds some detail regarding the ways it was processed for eating:

ground in mills,



(Image Source, http://www.mindspring.com/~breadforlife/grinder.jpg)



beat in mortars,



(Image Source, http://importfood.com/media/mortarpestlesq_3l.jpg)



boiled in pots,



(Image Source, http://shininghappypeople.net/rwotd/media/blogs/rwotd/kasha.jpg; a nice blog article on the use of boiled grains in Russian cooking.)



made into cakes.



(Image Source, Kate in the Kitchen, http://cooknkate.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/millet-cakes-001.jpg?w=499&h=375. Of course the Israelite version of millet cakes would have been sans leeks, greens, and PORK!)



Clearly manna was used in the same sorts of way any grain, e.g., wheat, maize/corn, or rice, would have been had they been located permanently in an arable land. Because of manna's association with "the heavens" as its source--evidently because of the serendipity of its appearance and its association with the source of the dew (or rain)--manna was also called the "grain of heaven" or "heavenly food" (e.g., Psalm 78:24 and Psalm 105:40; see 1 Corinthians 10:3). This heavenly association--its grace-filled, merciful serendipity and the reference to its source--is the reason for the famous formulation: "one does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD" (Deuteronomy 8:3, NRSV). Its name, manna, appears to be a play on the phrase "what is it?" (man hu', Exodus 16:15).

So what is this mystery food? Here are a few suggestions from the natural world (as opposed to the miraculous or supernatural). One thing to keep in mind is that manna is "famine food," desert food; the equivalent of the "lily of the field" or the "sycamore tree."

Alhagi maurorum (Sinai manna, camelthorn)

(Image source, Israel Plant Gene Bank database, Alhagi maurorum, http://igb.agri.gov.il/main/resultat11.pl?GENUS=Alhagi&SPAUTHOR=Medik.&SPECIES=maurorum)

A sweet tasting manna is produced from the twigs at flowering time.

Tamarisk gallica

(© 1995 Saint Mary's College of California. Image source, CalPhotos, Tamarisk, http://calphotos.berkeley.edu/cgi/img_query?query_src=photos_index&seq_num=13138&one=T).

AKA saltcedar for its salinity tolerance. Considered a noxious weed, an invasive plant, in the USA. (See the USDA Plant profile for Tamarix or Tamarisk and the Invasive Tamarisk page at Earlham College.) There is some reporting of a sweet and mucilaginous manna produced in response to insect damage to the stems. See Plants for a Future (Tamarix or Tamarisk, http://www.pfaf.org/database/plants.php?Tamarix+gallica).

Fraxinus ornus (flowering ash, or manna ash)

(Image Source, Colors, Issue 69, http://www.colorsmagazine.com/issues/69/index.php?page=13).

Manna in this case comes from an incision in the living wood of the tree to which a fishing line has been attached so that the sap will flow down, forming a white tube that can be gathered when it has hardened.

John 6:24-35

The connection of John 6 with the Old Testament lection and the Psalm for this week comes from Jesus' claim to be "the bread that came down from heaven" (John 6:41, one of Jesus' I AM sayings).

Soil Testing for Love

Ephesians 3:14-21

The apostle prays that the Ephesian church may be "rooted and grounded in love" as if that were its "growing medium," its soil, thick context, or life matrix. Since God is Love, as the Bible says, the apostle's prayer is spot on.

The verb used in Ephesians 3:17 and in Colossians 2:7 to mean "rooted" is "rizo-oh," which is rather obviously built on the closely related noun "riza" (root). In Ephesians the writer says that the church is to be rooted in love; in Colossians the church is to be rooted in Christ by faith. The point of the analogy (after all churches do not literally have roots, only figuratively--though their figurative roots may be quite strong) seems to be that "rooted-ness" is a form of fixation. If I'm rooted, I'll not be moved easily. Literally, the verb means to cause something (a plant) to take root; but figuratively, the focus of that rooting is narrowed to mean "put on a firm foundation; fix firmly" (BDAG).

Thankfully, in my opinion, we are not limited to the more narrow implications suggested by the lexicon's figurative definitions. There is more to rooted-ness than fixation, though that is surely one element of the analogy. One need remember only the critique by organic farmers of more modern, soil-depleting methods of farming to understand the poverty inherent in this narrower, reductionist vision of "rooted-ness." Soil is properly understood as living. So "Rooted-ness" has (or should have) everything to do with the life-giving nature of the living soil in which the plant (the church) grows. Jesus Christ (or love) is the living soil and source of our own life. The "rooted-ness" we seek is therefore more akin to "soil husbandry" than "soil science." Listen to Wendell Berry's description of the contrast: “'Soil science,' as practiced by soil scientists, and even more as it has been handed down to farmers, has tended to treat the soil as a lifeless matrix in which 'soil chemistry' takes place and 'nutrients' are 'made available.' And this, in turn, has made farming increasingly shallow—literally so—in its understanding of the soil. The modern farm is understood as a surface on which various mechanical operations are performed, and to which various chemicals are applied. The undersurface reality of organisms and roots is mostly ignored." (Berry, "Renewing Husbandry.") The "rooted-ness" for which the Apostle prays is "deeper" than this. It is more biological--and therefore, also, more spiritual. Being rooted is more than being mechanically anchored. The "rooted-ness" the church seeks is a living relationship to her living Lord--or a loving relationship with Love itself.

As Wendell Berry says, "The topsoil exists as such because it is ceaselessly transforming death into life, ceaselessly supplying food and water to all that lives in it and from it; otherwise, 'All flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust.'" (Home Economics, "Two Economies," p. 67) Our being rooted in Christ (and thus also "in love") requires faith in the "ceaselessness of these processes." "Christ's prayer for 'daily bread' is an affirmation of such faith, just as it is a repudiation of faith in 'much goods laid up.'" (ibid.) The just-in-time feeding of the multitude (below) is an example of Christ's love, of Christ's provision of this "daily bread."

Note the Mycorrhizal association between the roots and the soil fungi. (See also the University of Winnipeg's Specialized Roots page for great visual examples of root specialization.)

A church rooted and sustained other than by the love of Christ is as unnatural as "the attempt to raise natural earth-borne crops on an exclusive diet of water and mineral dope--the so-called science of hydroponics--[a] science gone mad; it is an absurdity which has nothing in common with the ancient art of cultivation." (See my review of Sir Albert Howard, The Soil and Health, quote from p. 194 of the book.) In other words, sustaining the life of the spirit without the life-giving Spirit is impossible. Without the daily bread of heaven we die of malnutrition.

So, it is imperative to get rooted quickly! In the next couple of days, we'll explore how that is done.





Maybe it requires the aid of some sort of rooting hormone (with fungicide for faster, healthier rooting from plant cuttings). Successful propagation from cuttings depends a lot on the environment surrounding the soil in which the cuttings are placed. Is it too hot, too cold, too wet too dry? So, does the community--the church--have an impact on the successful rooting of individuals?

Join us as we tease out these and other questions and look at the other lectionary passages this week!

Psalm 14

John 6:1-21

2 Samuel 11:1-15

2 Kings 4:42-44

Dealing with Thorns

What is worse than kneeling on a thorn while weeding? Or reaching for a ripe fruit only to have your hands torn by a thorn? Have you ever cut down a thorn tree? Even if you wear gloves, you are not immune to the poisons on the spines. So, how does God want his children to deal with thorns? Endurance is one key; dependence another.




Honey Locust thorns are large enough and strong enough to puncture a tennis shoe while walking, or even a tractor tire! (Image Source, http://www.mitzenmacher.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/01/thorn.jpg)

The point of dealing with thorns is not to get stuck! ...and, if inevitably stuck, to get unstuck quickly, but carefully (extraction without additional sticks)!

2 Corinthians 12:2-10

Paul uses the Greek word, skolops, which in its widest sense means anything sharp and pointy, to name his famous, or infamous, "'thorn' in the flesh." (In medical parlance, this more general definition would be comparable to "sharps," needles, lancets, etc., that are intended to bring health, but when disposed of improperly may bring injury and death.) In Paul's use the "sharp object" clearly has a negative connotation, and so may mean thorn or splinter or other cause of "serious annoyance," an "injurious foreign body" (BDAG).

What is Paul's Thorn?

Sin?

Or some existential angst? Emmanuel Levinas, Existence and Ethics (opens a .pdf file) raises an interesting question regarding the "thorn in the flesh" of our human condition. Levinas says regarding Kierkegaard's view of the problem of subjectivity: "the subject had a secret, forever inexpressible, and it was this secret that defined its subjectivity. The secret was not like a piece of information passed over in silence, but was essentially inexpressible and associated above all with the burning pain of sin. There was no victory for rational and universal truth; nor was there any means of expression that could either cover up the secret or extinguish it. This incommunicable burning, this 'thorn in the flesh', testified to subjectivity as a tension over itself (tension sur soi)." Levinas goes on to say that this problem of the subject's subjectivity is akin to the ancient tension of the human soul's desire for salvation and the tension of "the soul consumed by desire." Is Paul's "thorn" sin? We must be careful here, because the use of the passive, "a thorn 'was given' me," is often in biblical and theological texts a form of indirection. (The active would be "God 'has given' me a thorn.") In other words, Paul may see his thorn as God's doing, as a gift to him from God. Perhaps the fact that the Lord denies the apostle's three-fold request that the thorn might leave him be also supports this interpretation. Of course, seeing sin as a gift from God is theologically problematic at best.

...but perhaps we should not so quickly dismiss the idea of the thorn as sin. Paul also speaks of this thorn as an "angel of Satan." And any "messenger of Satan" could--and probably should--be associated with sin. In this regard, one could think of any and all pangs of conscience and inward temptations to sin.

After all, who hasn't reached for a beautiful rose, just to be stuck by a thorn?





(Image Source, "Lilacs and Roses" blog,http://lilacsandroses.blogspot.com, April 16, 2009.)

Illness?

Perhaps the most commonly held position is that Paul's "thorn in the flesh" was some sort of painful, long-term illness. Something that, again in modern medical parlance, could be treated and managed by human effort, but not cured. (Sound a little like sin?) The degree to which this assumption regarding the precise identity of Paul's thorn is shared--and the altogether speculative nature of this assumption--is on full display in the BDAG statement that Paul uses kolaphizo figuratively here (2 Cor. 12:7) for "painful attacks of an illness." More literally, Paul describes a physical beating by a messenger of Satan. In other words, the proper definition of kolaphizo is to "strike with the fist, beat, cuff" someone--i.e., "to cause physical impairment, torment." Obviously, we have somewhat incongruous metaphors here used side-by-side. Thorns--at least the non-human ones--do not beat a person about the head and shoulders, despite the views of some harassed rose gardeners. Neither do illnesses.

Nevertheless, BAGD trots out a list of Paul's proposed illnesses that would be hilarious if not so obviously without any basis. The list includes epilepsy, hysteria, depression, headaches, eye troubles, malaria, leprosy, speech impediment (stammering) and the like. This leaves aside for a moment such things as the "anxieties of a missionary's life" and the "attacks of opponents" that do not quite reach the level of diagnosable physical or mental illness.

Enemies?

This interpretation of Paul's "thorn" is given some credence by Paul's list of things he delights in (2 Cor. 12:10), including insults and persecutions. Insults and persecutions arise from enemies without, not the enemies within. Such an interpretation also resonates with Psalm 123:3-4, "Have mercy on us, LORD, for we have endured the contempt and ridicule of proud and arrogant people." But the rather constant reference to Paul's weakness tends to point in the opposite direction, toward an inward condition rather than an external source.

What are we to make of such conflicting clues? Perhaps Paul's metaphors refer to human weakness in sum, in which he has to contend both with self-inflicted pains and the persecution of his enemies. What do you think?

Maybe Paul was thinking of the long thorns of the Locust, or the smaller thorns of the rose.

Or maybe he was thinking of that time he reached for forbidden fruit and had his hand scratched as he pulled away.



(Image Credit: © Georgette Douwma / naturepl.com)

What sorts of thorns are impaling and paining you?