Monthly Archives: June 2012

Story Saturday: The Synoptic Problem

From Unsettled Christianity:

The Gospel of Mark was the first draft of a doctoral candidate’s dissertation. He submitted it to his advisor who suggested the need for more background information about Jesus’ birth, maybe some more teaching material, and a stronger ending. The student rewrote his dissertation and submitted the Gospel of Matthew.

His advisor thought the revision was much stronger but felt that the teaching material should be better integrated into the narrative, thought a story about Jesus’ youth might be helpful, and suggested that the genealogy could be expanded back to Adam, etc. The PhD candidate did another major revision and produced the Gospel of Luke.

Once again the advisor was critical and asked for major revisions. Frustrated, the student took drugs and wrote the Gospel of John.

- Jordan R. Scharf

Be sure to read the comment section on Unsettled Christianity for more info on the creator of this parable.

Fear the Lord

…that you may fear the LORD your God, you and your son and your son’s son, by keeping all his statutes and his commandments, which I command you, all the days of your life, and that your days may be long.
(Deuteronomy 6:2 ESV)

The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.   (Ecclesiastes 12:13 ESV)

Some thoughts on the fear of God or the fear of the LORD:

I’ve read the commentaries and the debates.  Sometimes semantics from dictionaries or commentaries just don’t get you far.  In some ways, thinking existentially helps us here.  Most likely and often, the authors of the Bible mimic the power structures they encounter in real life.

The fear of the LORD probably is reflective of Suzerain treaties and relationships.  Relations between the leaders of unequal city-states or tribes.  You owe your allegiance to the suzerain.  Maybe you pay some taxes, maybe you send some men for his army, you get the picture.  And so the language of fearing the LORD ought to be thought as originating from this political relationship.

Again, to make the ontological move to “the LORD is our suzerain,” is not necessary, and should not be the first theological move.  One reason for this is that mimesis can often be a form of political resistance.

Even though a vassal state may show allegiance to the suzerain in political practice, the vassal’s citizens also enact through cultic ritual the “fear of the LORD.”  This is as if to say, “We may pay lip service to a human, but our true allegiance is to YHWH.”  This may seem contradictory and problematic, and it is, but we need not judge the ancients in our analysis, since we are not much better (if at all).

Instead, the practice is simple.  Pay homage to the human suzerain to survive, materially.  But the cultic homage of YHWH, the “fear of the LORD,” is a communal enactment of identity, and act of resistance against perceived unjust powers.

Therefore, we are not necessarily committed to the theological images of God in the Bible that depict God as suzerain or Caesar, but instead, the Bible in using these images suggests that our allegiance and identity ought to be found in God.

A Lectionary Experience: Mark 5:21-43

First, on my old blog, I’ve dealt with this passage before:

The writer of Mark favors what are called sandwich stories, A-B-A’ constructions, where B as the central point in the story, says something crucial about A and A’.  Have a look:

A.  21 And when Jesus had crossed again in the boat to the other side, a great crowd gathered about him, and he was beside the sea.  22 Then came one of the rulers of the synagogue, Jairus by name, and seeing him, he fell at his feet  23and implored him earnestly, saying, “My little daughter is at the point of death. Come and lay your hands on her, so that she may be made well and live.”  24 And he went with him. And a great crowd followed him and thronged about him.

B. 25 And there was a woman who had had a discharge of blood for twelve years,  26 and who had suffered much under many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was no better but rather grew worse.  27 She had heard the reports about Jesus and came up behind him in the crowd and touched his garment.  28 For she said, “If I touch even his garments, I will be made well.” 29 And immediately the flow of blood dried up, and she felt in her body that she was healed of her disease.  30 And Jesus, perceiving in himself that power had gone out from him, immediately turned about in the crowd and said, “Who touched my garments?”  31 And his disciples said to him, “You see the crowd pressing around you, and yet you say, ‘Who touched me?’”  32 And he looked around to see who had done it.  33 But the woman, knowing what had happened to her, came in fear and trembling and fell down before him and told him the whole truth.  34 And he said to her, “Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace, and be healed of your disease.”

A’. 35 While he was still speaking, there came from the ruler’s house some who said, “Your daughter is dead. Why trouble the Teacher any further?”  36 But overhearing what they said, Jesus said to the ruler of the synagogue, “Do not fear, only believe.”  37 And he allowed no one to follow him except Peter and James and John the brother of James.  38 They came to the house of the ruler of the synagogue, and Jesus saw a commotion, people weeping and wailing loudly.  39 And when he had entered, he said to them, “Why are you making a commotion and weeping? The child is not dead but sleeping.”  40 And they laughed at him. But he put them all outside and took the child’s father and mother and those who were with him and went in where the child was.  41Taking her by the hand he said to her, “Talitha cumi,” which means, “Little girl, I say to you, arise.”  42 And immediately the girl got up and began walking (for she was twelve years of age), and they were immediately overcome with amazement.  43 And he strictly charged them that no one should know this, and told them to give her something to eat.

In the two stories above, an elite (ruler of the synagogue, male, house owner) comes to Jesus asking for him to heal his daughter and save her from imminent death.  But Jesus, on the way to the ruler’s house, pauses for a disenfranchised woman with an impure discharge who has no money.  He pauses, because this woman touched his garment to be made well.  And Jesus calls her, Daughter, not by mistake, but most likely in the presence of Jairus.  This girl too is a daughter.  Then Jesus continues and heals the daughter of Jairus.

In this story, Mark wonderfully juxtaposes the poor and the elite, and shows the priority of the Divine Dominion is for the poor and marginalized first, and then to the elites.  But not only that, but by calling her daughter, Jesus somehow connects the two daughters, perhaps calling Jairus, and other elites, to look upon this woman as a daughter as well.

Existentially, I imagine the experience of the Mark’s readers were concerned for their health and subsistence as this woman was.  Perhaps, the call then, is rather than simply be wrapped up in one’s own existential concerns, we may understand the universality of such concerns, and share the concerns of others, especially with regards to health and subsistence.

Don’t do that.

One of my favorite emergers, Peter Rollins, says we shouldn’t teach Jesus ethics:

The trick is to create an atmosphere of love, grace and acceptance where people are not told what to do. Where people learn that heresy which claims that, while not everything is beneficial, everything is permissible. In other words, while there are destructive things we do, they can be brought to the light without fear of condemnation. In such an environment ethical acts will emanate from the body just as heat emanates from light. One will not have to be taught that they should look after their neighbour as if it were something that we need to be told, they will simply be more inclined to do so.

While that’s a decent method, I don’t think it’s for everyone.  The problem always comes when we try to decide which behavior to prohibit in our communities.  I think though, we can come up with principles, rather than a list of rules that one must follow.  Jesus favored the disenfranchised.  Jesus condemned abuses of power. Etc.  I think coming up with basic principles, ethics if you will, ought to allow us to say “Don’t do that.”  ”Don’t treat the women that way.”  ”Don’t be a bully.”
If we can’t say things like that, then, I fear for the disenfranchised.

Bible as Word of God?

Another great post from Rachel Held Evans today on reading the Bible we have.

Although, one statement had an underlying assumption that I want to clarify:

It is somewhat ironic, it seems to me, that both liberals and conservatives make the same error. They both assume that something worthy of the title word of God would look different from what we actually have.

Not all “liberals” (nor conservatives, dare I say?) consider the Bible as “Word of God.”  My denomination makes it clear (most of the time) that the Word of God is first and foremost, CHRIST.  And if the word of God is infallible and inerrant, it is because the Word of God is Christ.

Again, nowhere in the Bible does it say that the whole Bible is the Word of God.  Why?  The Bible is a collection of independent scrolls which were, for the most part, written without the intention to be “in the Bible.”  The Bible is not aware of itself being the Bible.

Therefore, again, claiming that the Bible is the ‘Word of God’ is a faith-claim external to the text itself.  It is a choice, but one that is not often viewed as a choice.  Conceptions making reality again, and experiences being ignored.  We can do better.

 

On Lording

Over at Storied Theology there’s some nervousness about anti-Roman studies within New Testament.

Did Jesus resist Rome?  Was Jesus anti-Roman?  Would Jesus have taken up arms against Rome if he had the means?

Take this into account:

And he said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves. For who is the greater, one who reclines at table or one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? But I am among you as the one who serves.” (Luke 22:25-27 ESV)

In my opinion, Jesus was anti-lordship, anti-domination of others, and in this way, he was anti-Roman.  It’s difficult to say if Jesus would have defended his homeland if he had had the army or weapons.  We’d like to think not.  But one thing is for sure, Jesus wanted to change hearts, and that’s what he did.  Against a Roman way of life.

So, when in Rome, don’t do as the Romans did.

Story Saturday: A Lending Parable

Know where this one’s from?

There was a rich man who had a manager, and charges were brought to him that this man was wasting his possessions. And he called him and said to him, ‘What is this that I hear about you? Turn in the account of your management, for you can no longer be manager.’ And the manager said to himself, ‘What shall I do, since my master is taking the management away from me? I am not strong enough to dig, and I am ashamed to beg. I have decided what to do, so that when I am removed from management, people may receive me into their houses.’ So, summoning his master’s debtors one by one, he said to the first, ‘How much do you owe my master?’ He said, ‘A hundred measures of oil.’ He said to him, ‘Take your bill, and sit down quickly and write fifty.’ Then he said to another, ‘And how much do you owe?’ He said, ‘A hundred measures of wheat.’ He said to him, ‘Take your bill, and write eighty.’ The master commended the dishonest manager for his shrewdness. For the sons of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than the sons of light. And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous wealth, so that when it fails they may receive you into the eternal dwellings.