How I Have Felt for a While Now

Joshua Johnson

Dr. John Reganold

Soil Science 101

3 April 2014

Why I Want to Farm Organically

For thousands of years, humans grew crops using their own hands, their own livestock, and their own simple tools. In the years following the Great War, statesmen declared that food production needed to increase. Coupled with the Industrial Revolution, the United States government subsequently subsidized big agriculture in order to produce food for millions, both domestically, for Americans, and abroad, for the European nations recovering from the World Wars. At this time, farmers, government officials, and the people traded quality for quantity.

From the vantage point from which we stand today, this decision to industrialize farming seems foolhardy, especially to those of us who value health over hard cash. It is not really the mechanization that represents the problem, but the synthetic materials lavishly applied to our crops nowadays — insecticides, pesticides, fertilizers, and most recently, transgenes.

I want to do organic agriculture for a reason that may be more romantic than realistic — to get back to nature. I want to work with the land to see how this amazing world works. I want to follow the seasons. I want to walk in the path in which our ancestors have walked for millennia. It may be more out of dissatisfaction with the suburbia in which I grew up and a yearning for something more, but it is still something that I want to do. I am tired of sitting cooped up inside, studying. I am going blind due to the computer. I want to be free. I want to be outdoors. I could become a wilderness ranger or I could go Into the Wild, but unless I can forge or hunt, I probably would not be able to procure food. So organic farming presents itself as the next best thing. I can be outside, enjoying nature, while working at the same time, and producing food for the future. Not only would I be feeding myself, but also my family, friends, community, and world. I would also be contributing to the overall health of the world, since I would not be spraying Round-Up, which is inundating the world and taking a long time to break down. I would not be spreading transgenics into the environment. I would be replenishing and building the soil. I would be preserving genetic flora diversity. I would be tending animals and allowing them to run free and roam around in rotations. The livestock would aerate the soil and poop and pee, producing nitrogen and nutrients for the fields. I would move the livestock each day. And I would feel rewarded for doing all this work and receiving a crop at the end.

In short, it may be romantic, but it is one of the few lifestyles I can actually imagine myself doing. And I would be learning daily, and would be living a beautiful life. To summarize, I want to farm organically to provide healthy food for the world, to do satisfying work, and to fill up my senses with God’s good, green world. What more could a man want?

Thoughts on the Son of God Movie

Today, I watched the Son of God movie. I thought it was a faithful retelling of the Gospel narrative, which fell prey, at times, to the traditional Western, yet not always accurate, rendition of Jesus, while at other times offered some refreshing emphases and surprises.

I shall not need tell of its faithful points, because one can look that up in the Gospels themselves. As for it's points that were faithful to the Western understanding of the text, and not the cultural context of the text, I will briefly state.

Jesus' name. First, and this is not a critique of the movie, so much as a critique of the Western understanding of the Bible, divorced from its Jewish heritage, was Jesus' name. Everyone knows His name was Jesus. Right? Wrong. His name was not Jesus, which is a Latinized transliteration of a Greek term which means nothing, which, itself is another transliteration of the G-d-Man's real, Hebrew/Aramaic name. (There is some scholarly uncertainty whether the name is originally Hebrew or its sister language Aramaic--both of which could have been spoken by the commoners in His day.) His name was, and is, Yeshua (Yay-SHOO-ah), in English letters; in Hebrew letters, יֵשׁוּעַ . יֵשׁוּעַ means "Salvation," "Deliverance," or "Redemption," and is derived from the Hebrew word for Joshua: יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, Yehoshuah, which means "YHWH is salvation" or "YHWH saves." So when the Wise Men asked Miryam what the Child's name is, in the movie, she responds, "Jesus," which means absolutely nothing in terms of grammatical significance (but the name means a lot in terms of other significances—spiritual, religious, historical, and intellectual). More conducive would be if she responded "Salvation," and if—though it would fast become pedantic—every "Jesus" in our English Bibles to "Salvation" or "Deliverance," since that is what His name means. Call me heretical, but I don't like calling Him Jee-zuz, I prefer Yeshua.
- Second, in the infancy narrative, Yeshua is again born in a barn, which did not happen. Not that He was not born, but He was not born in a barn. I read an article on this matter, which revealed to me that Middle Eastern homes had two rooms—one room for the humans that was a platform, and the entrance room which was the stable, for the animals. One would enter the house, into the stable, and then ascend the small flight of stairs to the human living area. The stable was divided from the living space by (1) a small drop-off, (2) a fence or wooden bar, and (3) a manger. The Middle Eastern manger was a hollow in the cement, into which the cattle could stick their noses into the human area and from which they could eat. So that changes the picture a slight bit, but this fault is not particular to the movie, but to our Western tradition.
- Third, the wise men, according to the Biblical account, did not come the night of Yeshua's birth, but when He was a bit older.

Now onto the positives of the movie.

For one thing, the movie did a very good job of showing the plight of the Jewish people during occupied Yisrael. For example, the film shows ogre-like Roman centurions pushing over a halted cart during Pilate's arrival to Yerushalayim, crushing the young boy on top. The mothers and family mourn. At other times, the Romans rush into the Jewish towns and kill people who were resisting taxes. At another time, the Romans, in order to quell any rebellion, slaughter a host of Jewish people during one of Pilate's public "talks." The film clearly shows the power play at work and it is obvious that Rome is a big problem for the Jews.

Second, and relatedly, the film shows that the high priest, Caiaphas, and his Pharisees were scheming early on to destroy Yeshua. The reason? Because they feared that Pilate would kill more Jews if Yeshua or His followers did anything radical. The film shows the human side of both Caiaphas and Pilate. For Caiaphas, I, at least, could see the understandable desire to safeguard the continuance of the Jewish people. One Pharisee that Yeshua repeatedly encounters says something to the effect of, "We have tried so hard to keep our customs, our faith, our nation alive, and then this guy." In truth, Caiaphas did urge the death of one man, Yeshua, in order to safeguard the continued presence of the whole people. As the Yochanan (John) recorded in his Gospel, "But it was Qaypha who counseled the Jews that it was better that one man should die for the sake of the nation" (John 18:14, Aramaic Bible in Plain English). Caiaphas understood, if not on a spiritual level, that Yeshua had to die, in some sense, for the people. (According to Christian theology, instead of the people, so they did not have to die, and for the sins, so that they did not have to die for their own sins, but He did.)

Another feature was unique about this film was that Mary Magdalene is included as one of the gang, that is, one of the Twelve disciples. I have never really thought of her as following Yeshua around everywhere with the rest of His disciples, but I suppose it might have been so. Luke reported, "It happened after these things that Yeshua was traveling a circuit in the cities and villages and preaching and announcing the Kingdom of God and his twelve were with him and these women who had been healed from sicknesses and from evil spirits: Maryam who is called Magdalitha, she from whom seven demons had gone out" (Luke 8:1-2).

Another feature that I really enjoyed about this film portrayal was that it showed Yeshua in a Jewish light. This Jewish portrayal is good because of the simple fact that Jesus/Yeshua was (and is) Jewish and a Jew. In the film, it shows Him going to synagogue, taking the Torah scroll, unrolling it, reading it, and speaking a midrash regarding the text that He read. A midrash is a Jewish interpretive take on a passage, which goes beyond the plain meaning of the text and tries to infer another meaning. In this case, even though the text He read did not say "Yeshua" or directly point to Him, His midrash interpreted that the prophecy was, indeed, about Him.

At other times, the film showed the Jews speaking berakhot(h), blessings. The barukh that I enjoyed the most was the one that Nikodemus spoke over Yeshua's dead body, while the women anointed, washed, and wrapped Him. Berakhot are spoken by Jews during any situation for which they would praise G-d. Whenever the Gospels say that Yeshua "blessed" the food or the children, it means, due to the cultural context, that He spoke a barukh over it. The barukh I know the most is "Barukh atah Adonai, malek haOlam, asher kidshanu vamitsvotav" ("Blessed are You, O LORD, king of all the earth, who makes us holy by His mitsvoth, that is, His commandments" - this blessing is even true regarding Yeshua because Yeshua made us holy and He perfectly kept every mitsvoth revealed by G-d in the Torah.)

As a whole, then, this film was an intriguing, fresh take on the life of the greatest Man who ever lived, Who also happened to be G-d Himself, for which He was executed for blasphemy.

While watching, I could not help but think, "When God comes to earth, the people kill Him." Humans killed God. What wondrous love is this!