Good stuff ahead...

With abject relief, I am happy to report that my beloved fluff ball seems immensely better than he was last night.  He refused to drink anything all evening and all night and was this immovable lump uninterested in draping his canine self across his puppy momma.  I really was worried.

This morning, he awoke and immediately drained an entire bowl of water.  Both meals were wolfed down in record time.  And both meals have remained in his stomach.  He is also a tad more frisky.  I am rather flummoxed as to what could have caused his distress, but he seems to be just fine.

Right now, he's serving as my pillow in the GREEN chair.
Bliss for us both.
My puppy dog likes being weighted down as much as do I.

Today is the third day during which I have not taken any cold medication.  I still have hours of bearability and hours where I am feeling rather wretched.  It feels like the germs have taken up residence in my ears, but not.  They hurt more, but not enough to even really complain about.  They itch less, but feel ... heavy.  My cough is a bit worse, but then I go hours without coughing.  Whenever I have to blow my nose, it bleeds, but the dripping and stuffiness is also sporadic.  I thought I would try no medications for a while so as not to mask anything.  The near ever-present low-grade fever has returned.  With just 15 days until my GP check-in, I'm still trying to hang in there until I see her.  After all, I am near certain these are some half-hearted virus germs and, thus, there would be no need for antibiotics.

I have wondered, though, being on daily Erythromycin, what would happen were I prescribed antibiotics.  Would I be asked to stop it?  Would the daily Erythromycin affect the efficacy of any other antibiotic?

Mostly, I am just sick and tired of being sick and tired.

Last night, I did make up some more of the "enhanced" refried black beans.  Of course, I did not stop to actually measure most of the ingredients out, but I did a better job of achieving the flavor I wanted.  Funny how cinnamon can make a non-dessert dish more tasty.  I also used Becky's smoked seasoning salt.  That stuff is amazing with guacamole.  There I was, about to go with the Redmond's Real Salt that I use now and literally changed the position of my hand so that what few out went into the sink instead of the bowl.  Anyway, it is really darned tasty stuff to me.

I started reading Michael Card's commentary on Luke: The Gospel of Amazement.  But I thought I would give an example of Matthew's minimalism even though his Gospel is admittedly a lengthy book:

     He was still speaking to the crowds when suddenly His mother and brothers were standing outside wanting to speak to Him.  Someone told Him, "Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to You."
     But He replied to the one who told Him, "Who is My mother and who are My brothers?" And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, "Here are My mother and my brothers!  For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven, that person is My brother and sister and mother."  ~Matthew 12:46-50

We can use Mark's version of this story (Mk 3:21) to clarify this story.  They are in Capernaum, probably in Peter's house.

The picture is one of Jesus being inundated by the crowd.  His mother and brothers cannot even get into the house, it is so filled with people.  They must send Jesus a message that they are waiting outside to see him.  Once again, Matthew has stripped the story of detail.  Only Mark tells us that they have come to take Jesus away from the crowd.  Jesus has been so covered up with ministry, he has ceased eating, and they are understandably worried.  In fact, they have concluded that he is out of his mind (Mk 3:21).

But Matthew wants to focus on the heart of the story, not the details.  he is interested in the demand of Jesus in regard to faith before family.  Certainly Jesus is not violating the law concerning family (Ex 20:12).  He will express his opinion on this clearly (Mt 15:4).

This is a moment that would have resonated with Matthew's original audience.  Many of their families have determined that they are out of their minds as well.  But for Matthew, that is not the point.  Identity is the real issue.  And he has good news for his first hearers, many of whom are about to lose their families.  The good news:  they have become the brothers and sisters of Jesus himself.  They are not a part of his family, even as he chose, years ago in Capernaum, to make himself a part of their family.

That made me pause and ponder.  I mean, one of the things you tick off on a list about Jesus was that even his family did not respect his teachings; they thought he was crazy.  Matthew's minimizing the detail cuts to the heart of his presentation of the testimony of the Gospel of Jesus, of His Good News for us.    The Good News is not that Jesus' family thought he was nuts.  Matthew's testimony is themed by who Christ is and who we are in Him.  Amongst the list of how Jesus identifies Himself, beginning with being a sinner, is being the believer's brother, being family.  To Matthew, writing to his first hearers, that's the Good News of the story, the detail that is important to remember, to know.

Each time Michael Card points out a place where Matthew has left off the detail of a story found in other Gospels, he demonstrates that the omission is purposeful.  In a way, he exults in the minimalism found in the lengthy Gospel.

I tried to talk with Mary about this and fumbled it badly.  By literary definition, the Gospels are not very good biographies of Jesus.  The all leave out more of His life than they include.  But the Gospels are not biographies, they are testimonies.

We (Mary and I) agreed that mainline evangelicalism has pretty much ruined the word "testimony" because of the focus on personal testimonies of relationships with Jesus rather than on our triune God and His work and promises.  But if you use the word "testimony" properly, as a witness giving account of what took place (and in this case was taught), you see the importance of pondering the audience receiving the account, the author giving it, and what can be gleaned from that testimony.

Michael Card notes that as biographies the Gospels fall short, but as testimonies they are perfect.  It is that perfection, what it illumines, that is explored in the commentaries.

Yes, I wrestled mightily with Matthew's Jesus and there are whole swaths of his Gospel that still frighten me.  However, having Mark's Jesus and Matthew's Jesus in my grasp, now, shows how foolish it is to try and compare the Gospels to find fault with their veracity.  The distinctions amongst them are perfect and, therefore, should be valued and praise just as much as their parallels (if that is the best way to put the bits that align with each other).

In reading through the introduction to Luke, I discovered that it is actually the first commentary that Michael Card wrote in the series.  So, the literacy professor in me will be interested to see if I note differences from the approach as compared to the later commentaries I have read.  The other bit that leapt up and grabbed ahold of me is the note that Luke is more pre-occupied with the Holy Spirit than any of the other Gospels.  I very much look forward to seeing the ... proving ... of that description of the author ... of seeing the Holy Spirit at work whilst encountering Luke's Jesus.  Those two things are from the introduction to the commentary. They were followed by the most fascinating stuff in the introduction to the Gospel.

Michael Card lists what is known and what is assumed about Luke.  The first of these is that he was Paul's companion.  That relationship and its depth was not really known to me.  I immediately thought about how Mark was companion to Peter and how that clearly ... colors ... the portrait of Jesus in his Gospel.  It was so fascinating, therefore, first to think about how being Paul's companion might color Luke's portrait.  Of course, being very ignorant on the matter, I very much savored the presentation Michael Card gave about that.

What is known and assumed:  Luke was Paul's companion; Luke was not an eyewitness; Luke was a doctor; Luke was a gentile; Luke very likely was a slave, given his occupation.  How do those things affect the testimony he gives, especially since it is not the testimony of an eye-witness, but the presentation of a testimony given to him by eye-witnesses.  Oh, my, I was practically salivating over the things I am going to learn by the end of the introduction! 

I really wanted to type up the entire thing here.  But that would be disrespectful of the copyright and I do have my highlighting to serve as a rememberer, if you will, for the text.

One note about Luke made me think about my friend Mary, since she leads a choir and sings in a choir and is wont to do choral work in the church.  Luke could be noted as the "singing" Gospel.

Luke loved songs.  In the opening chapters everyone seems to be singing.  Mary sings her Magnificat. The angels pronounce their Gloria in Excelsis.  The father of John the Baptist, Zechariah, sings his Benedictus as he holds the infant prophet in his arms.  And as Simeon embraces the infant Jesus, he sings his swan song, his Nunc Dimittis.  While I would love to make a connection back to his companion, I do not see Paul as a very musical person.  There are only a few fragments of hymns in his writings (Phil 2:6-11).  All I can conclude is that Luke, in his own right, was a lover of songs.  Perhaps in his experience as a slave he found that singing was an effective way to cope with his suffering.  Whenever one of his eyewitnesses spoke or perhaps sang a song to him, Luke was carful, and it seems to me, delighted to put it down.

I have written, often, of late how lovely and powerful and important is the word "okay," as in "It's okay that ______."  In reading these commentaries, I am beginning to highly value the world "only," as in "Only Mark ______" or "Only Matthew ______" or "Only Luke _______."

Michael Card has several fascinating "Only Luke" bits in the introduction.  The last of which is that Luke shows the prayer life of Jesus more than any other Gospel writer.  In short, Michael Card has clearly made a case that there is good stuff ahead for me in learning about Luke's Jesus.