We Need More Jonathans

Saul’s son Jonathan went to David…and helped him find strength in God.  I Samuel 23:16

Saul started out well as the first king of Israel, but eventually he lost the humility and dependency on God he had first exhibited.  He knew that David was admired more by the people than he was.  His son Jonathan, who in Saul’s mind should have succeeded him on the throne, was a very good friend of David, and completely accepting of the fact that it was David who would be the next king.  This infuriated Saul, and he desired to kill David.  David had to go into hiding.

It is in this context that Jonathan came to David and helped him “find strength in God.”  It seems to me that we don’t talk enough about Jonathan.  We hear stories of the great accomplishments of David, and of course, he is the author of many of the Psalms.  He was obviously a very gifted person innately, and also one who relied on God as a source of his creativity and strength in meeting his foes.  But, consider Jonathan!

Jonathan could have been as bitter as Saul.  It would have been in keeping with the cultures of other surrounding people groups that he should become king after his father.  Jonathan did not make this assumption.  His own relationship with God was such that he knew that God had chosen David.  Jonathan was willing to submit to God’s plan without bitterness.  He was even willing to take an active role in protecting and encouraging David.

Saul was searching for David, and Jonathan knew it.  We aren’t told how Jonathan learned of David’s hiding spot, but it is obvious he didn’t let Saul in on the secret.  In keeping with a relationship of absolute trust, Jonathan did not fear that David would kill him or hold him hostage.  David did not fear that Jonathan would reveal his whereabouts to Saul.  They were closer than biological brothers, because they were brothers spiritually.

As Christians, we sometimes refer to other believers as brothers and sisters in Christ.  I am afraid, however, that we often fall short of the relationship that Jonathan and David model for us.  We may help one another “find strength in God” through encouraging words, prayer, and helpful actions.  But, it is pretty rare to find someone who graciously steps aside and promotes someone else above himself.  I have been fortunate to have seen this, but not often enough.

We need more Jonathans! 

I need to be more like Jonathan.

It doesn’t come naturally.

The Knights by Aristophanes

This play centers on Demus, and who controls him, although he is not the character from whom we hear the most.  He is presented as a ruler who is elderly and easily swayed, and it seems that he represents the government or perhaps, the will of the people.  At the beginning of the play, his steward who has enormous influence is Paphlagon, but play-goers at the time would have understood him to be an actual person named Cleon, who was no friend of Aristophanes.

Two servants in the household of Demus, complain about Paphlagon, who is cheating Demus and abusing them and other servants.  They determine that there is a prophecy that he will be ousted and replaced by a Sausage-Seller, and conveniently one appears on the scene.  The Sausage-Seller is an uneducated and coarse fellow, who at first doesn’t believe the prophecy, but is eventually convinced of it.

The Sausage Seller (whose name is revealed in the last scene to be Agoracritus) and Paphlagon engage in all manner of argument and insult hurling.  It is clear that they are both scoundrels.  The chorus, which is comprised of Knights, side with the Sausage Seller, who wants peace, rather than with Paphlagon, who is apparently using his influence to prevent Demus from resolving the current conflict.

Eventually, the argument comes down to each of them seeing who can outdo the other in pampering, flattering and otherwise catering to Demus.  Demus chooses the Sausage-Seller, who “boils him” as he would meat or sausage and in so doing, returns him to a younger and more vigorous state.  He then presents him with two young women, whom he refers to as “peace treaties.”  Paphlagon is sent off to the market (agora) to sell sausage.

Aristophanes was clearly cynical about social conventions and government.  The biggest scoundrel seems to get the upper hand and is only unseated by someone else who is a scoundrel, although maybe a less objectionable one.  It is difficult to understand and interpret what he has written without being steeped in the cultural context, especially when he employs bizarre imagery….such as boiling Demus to make him more youthful and vigorous.

I am amazed at the proficiency of whoever translated this play from Greek into English.  The entire play is formed of rhyming couplets.  Although length and rhythm vary throughout the play, the translator has managed to rhyme in English what was written in Greek.  This must have been a huge challenge.

And the take-away….looking at the current candidates for the US presidency, will the election be won by whomever promises to pamper, flatter and cater the most to the voters?  Aristophanes thinks so.

Closing My Eyes

If I wish to close my eyes,

There is nothing to stop me.

There are, in my house,

No babies who may soon awaken,

No toddlers whose safety depends on me.

I have no pressing appointments today.

No tasks that can’t wait until tomorrow.

If I am weary and my eyelids heavy

I can close them without fear that

I have been irresponsible.

I fall asleep in peace.

When I finally close my eyes,

I hope nothing will stop me.

That in my life, there will be

No one unloved, uncared for,

No one unwarned, if wayward,

No one unhelped, if hurting.

No commitments unfulfilled.

If I am weary and my eyelids heavy

I will close them without guilt,

Or remorse or fear, but trusting.

I will fall asleep in Jesus.

The Acharnians by Aristophanes

This is the first play I have read by Aristophanes, and I am feeling overwhelmed.  More so than the other Greek playwrights, his work is filled with references to people, places and situations which would have been known to his contemporaries, but which are way out of my league.

I recognize that this is supposed to be a comedy, and that he employs sarcasm and ridicule and the totally bizarre in working out his humor, but I’m pretty sure I’m catching less than twenty percent of the humorous references that would have been recognized by his audience at the time.  One thing that is apparent is that there was political disagreement and bad-mouthing of the opposition back then too.  Some of it sounds like the current presidential campaign.

The main character is Dicaeopolis.  He has despaired of the Athenians being able to negotiate a peace treaty with the Spartans, so he has privately negotiated one.  Various politicians are ridiculed for being self-serving and deceitful.

                Theorus: And he, with deep libations, vowed to help us with such an host that every one would say, “Heavens! What a swarm of locusts come this way”

                Dicaeopolis:  Hang me, if I believe a single word of all that speech, except about the locusts.

Dicaeopolis seems to be a man of reason and political forbearance:  Yet I know that these our foemen, who our bitter wrath excite, were not always wrong entirely, nor ourselves entirely right.

The Acharnians (who comprise the chorus) react very negatively to this statement and accuse Dicaeopolis of being a traitor to Athens.  However, by the end of the play, they seem to be on his side.

After considerable pontificating by Dicaeopolis, the scene changes, and we find ourselves in a market place where he is doing some ridiculous buying and selling.  He buys two pigs which are really children posing as pigs.  I have no idea what this is supposed to signify.

At the end, a contrast is drawn between Dicaeopolis and Lamachus who wanted to solve problems by going to war and is injured.  Dicaeopolis is carousing with some young women.  Dicaeopolis and Lamachus speak alternate lines.

L:  O Paean, Healer!  Heal me, Paean, pray.

D: ‘Tis not the Healer’s festival today.

L:  O lift me gently round the hips, My comrades true! 

D:  O kiss me warmly on the lips, My darlings, do!

L:  My brain is dizzy with the blow of hostile stone.

D:  Mine’s dizzy too; to bed I’ll go, and not alone.

So, it seems to me that Lamachus is a “hawk” and Dicaeopolis is a “dove” and that we haven’t progressed very far over the centuries since this was written.