gregoryjenks

Category: Lectionary

Links to lectionary notes from the Jesus Database site.

  • Seventh Sunday after Pentecost (27 July 2014)

    Contents

    Lectionary

    • Genesis 29:15-28 & Psalm 105:1-11, 45b (or Psalm 128) [alt 1 Kings 3:5-12 & Psalm 119:129-136]
    • Romans 8:26-39
    • Matthew 13:31-33, 44-52

    Gospel: More parables from Matthew

    The notes gathered here highlight comments on the various parables from a select group of scholars.

    Mustard Seed

    Crossan [Historical Jesus, 276-79] treats The Mustard Seed as one of 5 parables and 7 other items that comprise a list of 12 multiply-attested complexes that refer to the kingdom of God. He notes that this is the only extant parable with triple independent attestation. He notes three “converging vectors” along which the tradition has adapted the parable as it was handed on:

    (1) developing the original contrast between seed and plant to emphasize the transition from smallness to greatness; (2) transformation of the mustard plant into a substantial tree (as in Sayings Gospel Q); and (3) inter textual links with the biblical traditions such as Ps 104:12; Ezek 31:3,6; Dan 4:10-12

    Crossan cites the comments on the mustard plant by Pliny the Elder (fl. 23-79 CE) in his Natural History 19.170-71:

    Mustard … with its pungent taste and fiery effect is extremely beneficial for the health. It grows entirely wild, though it is improved by being transplanted: but on the other hand when it has once been sown it is scarcely possible to get the place free of it, as the seed when it falls germinates at once.

    Citing his own earlier work on the parable (In Parables: The Challenge of the Historical Jesus. Harper & Row, 1973), Crossan points out:

    When one starts a parable with a mustard seed one cannot end it with a tree, much less the great apocalyptic tree, unless, of course, one plans to lampoon rather crudely the whole apocalyptic tradition. After noting the way in which mustard plants tend to proliferate in both field and garden with negative results for both, so that the Mishnah (around 200 CE) would regulate its cultivation, Crossan cites with approval Douglas Oakman’s observation: “It is hard to escape the conclusion that Jesus deliberately likens the rule of God to a weed.”

    In the end, Crossan concludes:

    The point, in other words, is not just that the mustard plant starts as a proverbially small seed and grows into a shrub of three or four feet, or even higher, it is that it tends to take over where it is not wanted, that it tends to get out of control, and that it tends to attract birds within cultivated areas where they are not particularly desired. And that, said Jesus, was what the Kingdom was like: not like the mighty cedar of Lebanon and not quite like a common weed, like a pungent shrub with dangerous takeover qualities. Something you would want only in small and carefully controlled doses—if you could control it.

    The Mustard Seed secured a combined red and pink score of 89% in the deliberations of the Jesus Seminar, putting it just marginally behind The Leaven (see below). The notes in The Parables of Jesus. Red Letter Edition (Polebridge:1988) read as follows:

    The Mustard Seed originated with Jesus because the proverbially small mustard seed is a surprising metaphor for the kingdom. In everyday usage, the proper figure for the kingdom of God is greatness, not smallness. As the parable was handed on, interpreters converted the parable into the contrast between small beginnings (small seed) and great outcome (great tree). This process can be observed in both Mark and Thomas, where the small seed becomes a great shrub or plant; in Matthew and Luke, the shrub (plant) has actually become a tree, probably under the influence of Ezekiel 17:22-23—the great cedar representing Israel. In the hands of Jesus, the Mustard Seed is a parody of the noble cedar. Subsequent interpreters transformed the modest shrub into the traditional towering tree. (p. 34)

    Brandon Scott [Reimagine the World, 35-40] provides a fresh look at this parable, but I shall cite just a few observations that he poses about the nature of the Jesus tradition within the church:

    … for Jesus, God’s empire is more pervasive than dominant. It is like a pungent weed that takes over everything and in which the birds of the air can nest; it bears little if any resemblance to the mighty, majestic, and noble symbol of empire of Israel or Caesar. Take your choice, says the parable. The history of this parable’s interpretation is a clear example of how Jesus’ own language betrayed him, because the tradition had a clear preference for the cedar of Lebanon … Why did the parable of the Leaven and the Mustard Plant fail in the later tradition? Why did Christian preaching so perversely misunderstand them? The fault lies in the language of the parable. In these two parables Jesus took on the fundamental assumptions of his society—and nearly every human society—about how God acts. How are we to imagine God’s activity? As leaven or unleavened? As mustard plant or mighty cedar? The tradition either pretended or preferred not to hear in parable his re-imagined God. (p. 39-40)

    The Leaven

    Crossan discusses this parable as one of several in the section “A Kingdom of Undesirables” (Historical Jesus, 276-82).

    The essential point is “that leaven in the ancient world was a symbol of moral corruption,” according to Brandon Scott, since it was “made by taking a piece of bread and storing it in a damp, dark place until mold forms. The bread rots and decays … modern yeast … is domesticated.” Furthermore, “in Israel there is an equation that leaven is the unholy everyday, and unleaven the holy, the sacred, the feast” (324). Once again, we are confronted with an image of the Kingdom that is immediately shocking and provocative. And it is compounded by the fact that, again from Scott, “woman as a symbolic structure was associated in Judaism, as in other Mediterranean cultures, with the unclean, the religiously impure. The male was the symbol for purity.” Furthermore, “the figurative use of hiding to describe the mixing of leaven and flour is otherwise unattested in Greek or Hebrew” (326). With mustard and darnel, then, stands another and triply shocking image for the Kingdom: a woman hiding leaven in her dough. It’s there, it’s natural, it’s normal, it’s necessary, but society has a problem with it.

    In the considerations of the Jesus Seminar, this parable received the highest rating of any saying attributed to Jesus. The combined red and pink vote was 90% and not a single black vote was cast in this case. That strong vote seems to have rested primarily on the reversal of expectations when Jesus used leaven (an agent of corruption typically associated with impurity in Jewish thought) as a metaphor for God’s kingdom. Brandon Scott [Reimagine the World, 21-34] has an excellent discussion of some key dimensions to this parable. (1) the inter textual allusion of the “three measures” to Abraham’s hospitality to three anonymous sacred visitors in Genesis 18:

    When the parable employs the term three measures it conjures up from the audience’s repertoire the story of Abraham and the birth of Isaac. In parable it suggests a comparison between the woman’s actions and the birth of Isaac. Now we begin to understand the difference between parabolic or oral thinking and our own literate, more abstract way of thinking. In parable “three measures” serves to compare the event of Isaac’s birth with the event of the parable. Literally and abstractly it makes little sense. But parable is a concrete way of thinking, not an abstract way. (p. 28)

    (2) leaven as a symbol of decay and corruption:

    In the ancient world the process of leavening frequently stood as a metaphor for moral corruption. … The New Testament contains several examples of this negative use of leaven. In Mark’s Gospel Jesus warns the disciples concerning the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod (Mark 8:15). .. Twice Paul quotes the proverb, “A little leaven leavens the whole lump.” … In the Hebrew Bible unleavened bread is a powerful symbol of the holy. During the feast of Passover, the feast of unleavened bread, all leavened bread was to be cleansed out of the house. When we reflect how leaven is a product of rotten bread and is associated with a corpse, we begin to see how it can serve as a powerful metaphor for corruption and how its opposite, unleavened bread, can serve as a metaphor for the sacred and holy. The very beginning of the parables with the simple word “leaven,” would throw an audience off guard and maybe into panic. For leaven is surely no correct symbol of the kingdom of God. (pp. 25-27)

    (3) a woman concealed … :

    In the normal process of baking one might expect a woman to be kneading the dough. There is nothing untoward about her role here. But as a parable for the kingdom of God, a woman’s role as an emblem of the sacred becomes highly problematic. Again, there is nothing wrong with the kingdom of God being hidden. But in this parable an unexpected word is used for hiding. “Concealed”—krypto (Luke) or enkrypto (Matthew)—is a much more negative term, for hiding than the more neutral kalypto. Krypto has some sense of concealment. (p. 27f)

    Finally, under the delightful subheading “Kneading the parable,” Scott begins to sketch out a way of hearing this parable:

    … my contention is that Jesus told parables to let people in on his experience of God. Parables were his way of making God available to them. Actually, empire of God is a symbol used to make God available to folks, to provide them with an alternative to their everyday life in the empire of Caesar or in the kingdom of Caesar’s puppet, Herod Antipas. If we listen to the parable it says something like this. “The empire of God is like moral corruption.” Well of course that is a very bad start. Most folks in Jesus’ audience would have blanched at the first term “leaven.” Perhaps they would snicker that the empire of Caesar is more like leaven. “which a woman took.” Again how can a woman, weak as she is, have anything to do with God’s empire? But if it is like leaven, then there is a certain logic, a weird logic, to the parable. “and concealed …” Does she do it while no one is looking? How can she keep it concealed? Will folks be unaware that it is leavened bread? After all most bread in the ancient world was flat bread, like tortillas or pita. “in three measures of flour …” Now we are getting somewhere. Finally an image of great size, an image appropriate to God. And this tells us we are on the right track. Three measures assures us that this is after all the empire of God. What a huge banquet she is preparing, enough for a hundred people! This is an event like the birth of Isaac. Is she preparing the messianic banquet? “until it was all leavened …” Until it has worked its way through everything, until it has corrupted the whole mass of dough. Surely such total corruption is nonsense as a way of talking about God or experiencing God. What is this about?

    Scott then poses the question: “for whom would this parable be good news?” Whether or not it seems good news for me probably depends on whether I see myself as doing well under the status quo, or whether I yearn for change and freedom. The following poem by Gene Stecher explores some of the themes relating to this parable:

    GIVE US TODAY A LEAVENED LOAF Nothing is hidden that won’t be revealed, nothing is veiled that will not be unveiled! The Leaven was placed and no one knew, but can you miss the 50 pound flour effect? (Th 5:2, Lk 12:2; 13:20-21) The mustard seed will burst from the earth. The treasure and pearl are going to be found. Wedding garments and fruit reveal the truth. The spotlight shines on what comes out of you. (Th 20, Mt 13:44, Th 76, Mt 7:16; 22:11, Mk 7:15) The lamp goes on top of the bushel. The lost are found, whether sheep or coin. The seed ripens, and it is harvested. Log removal brings one’s friend into focus. (Lk 8:16, Lk 15:4-9, Mk 4:26, Th 26) Investment matters, so expect good gifts. The embers smolder. Uh oh, the jar is empty! The leavened demon came out screaming! This Jesus is now exalted to Lord and Messiah! (Mt 25:14, Th 97, Mt 7:9, Th 10, Lk 11:20, Acts 2:32-36) Is there any better feeling, than finding or discovering something of value that had been hidden, even rising to giddiness at seeing the hidden emerge, like when one’s ten year old daughter picks up a basketball for the first time, walks up to the playground, and knocks down shot after shot. [Gene Stecher – Chambersburg, Pa.]

    The Treasure

    There is a rabbinic parallel to this story:

    R. Simeon b. Yohai taught [that the Egyptians were] like a man who inherited a piece of ground used as a dunghill. Being an indolent man he went and sold it for a trifling sum. The purchaser began working and digging it up and he found a treasure there out of which he built himself a fine palace. He began going about in public followed by a retinue of servants, all out of the treasure he found in it. When the seller saw it, he was ready to choke and exclaimed, “Alas, what have I thrown away?” So when Israel was in Egypt they were set to work at bricks and mortar, and they were despised in the eyes of the Egyptians. But when the Egyptians saw them encamped under their standards by the sea in military array, they were deeply mortified and exclaimed, “Alas, what have we sent forth from our land.” [Midrash Rabbah, Song of Songs 4.12.1 tr. H. Freedman and Maurice Simon] (London: Soncino Press, 1939. Vol 9, pages 292-20)

    The Jesus Seminar (The Parables of Jesus) voted both the Matthew and Thomas versions of this parable pink, but Matthew seems to be closer to the presumed original form. The version in Thomas is closer to the rabbinic parallel than the version in Matthew, suggesting that perhaps it has been adapted to conform to the better-known rabbinic parable. The Matthean version also has a slightly more scandalous character as the person who finds the treasure is not the rightful owner, but secures title to the treasure by deceit. This twist to the tale is also seen in parables such as 466 The Unjust Steward (Luke 16:1-7). John Dominic Crossan (In Parables) suggests that The Treasure, The Pearl and The Fishnet belong together as stories that affirm the advent of God’s kingdom, describe the reversal of fortunes flowing from its arrival among us, and create new possibilities for action. He then goes on to structure his study of the parable tradition around those key descriptors: parables of advent, parable of reversal, and parables of action. He writes:

    These are surely humble and everyday examples and yet they are startling in their implications. It has always been clear that Jesus criticized many of the notions open to the religious experience of his contemporaries: the Sadducees, the Pharisees, the Zealots, the Essenes. But usually, and especially since Paul and the Reformation, it is his critique of the Law that is to the forefront. It is here suggested that the basic attack of Jesus is on an idolatry of time and that this is the center whence issued forth what Yeats called that “Galilean turbulence” which set Jesus against all the major religious options of his contemporaries. It should be quite clear that he forged a two-edged sword which strikes as lethally against his contemporary Judaism as it should have done against primitive Christianity; thereafter it was much too late. The one who plans, projects, and programs a future, even and especially if one covers the denial of finitude by calling it God’s future disclosed or disclosable to oneself, is in idolatry against the sovereign freedom of God’s advent to create one’s time and establish one’s historicity. This is the central challenge of Jesus. The geographers tell us we do not live on firm earth but on giant moving plates whose grinding passage and tortured depths give us earthquake and volcano. Jesus tells us that we do not live in firm time but on giant shifting epochs whose transitions and changes are the eschatological advent of God. It is the view of time as man’s future that Jesus opposed in the name of time as God’s presence, not as eternity beyond us but as advent within us. Jesus simply took the third commandment seriously: keep time holy! (p. 35)

     

    The Pearl

    The Jesus Seminar (The Parables of Jesus) simply notes that Matthew and Thomas seem to preserve independent versions of this saying, with each source developing the underlying tradition in slightly different directions. The saying was voted pink in both its versions. Another poem by Gene Stecher:

    The surprise within and the systematic search among. The subject of the surprise, the subject of the searching. Pearls and treasures come from either direction. Better stay alert for the knock! or maybe we’re talking about JOY! The joy of the surprise, the joy of priceless discovery, the joy of paying the full value. A pearl in a field? Hard to find! After you rush to buy the field, the joy of walking barefoot through luscious HJ grass. But you have to pay the full value, everything you have! [Gene Stecher – Chambersburg, Pa.]

    The Fishnet

    There is a parallel to this story from Aesop:

    A fisherman drew in the dragnet he had cast <into the sea> only a short time before. As luck would have it, it was filled with all kinds <of fish>. The small fish made for the bottom of the net and escaped through its porous mesh. The large fish were trapped and lay stretched out in the boat.

    While Crossan gives this item a positive historical assessment, he notes [Historical Jesus, 350f] that it is also a prime example of the ambiguity inherent in the traditions associated with Jesus:

    Nothing could illustrate more clearly the problem of deciding original materials even within the first stratum. Jesus could use a more or less proverbial or parabolic image that is radical only in its application, namely, that his vision, his message, or his challenge is as obvious, ordinary, or necessary as this or that action. It is as clear as a fisherman choosing the better fish or a harvester choosing the right moment to begin reaping. But the transmission could just as easily interpret common sense as sapiential mystery hidden from the dawn of creation or eschatological secret to be revealed at the imminent eschaton. Jesus, like all the Cynics, would claim that their life was simply the wisdom of common sense open to all with eyes to see and ears to hear

    The Jesus Seminar (The Parables of Jesus) notes that both versions of this parable were given a black vote as the saying seems to originate from the common lore of the ancient world:

    The Fishnet, like the Planted Weeds, reflects the necessity of the young Christian movement to mark off its social boundaries from the larger world, hence the interest in sorting out the good from the bad. The separation to take place at the close of the age (Matt 13:49-50) is a typical Matthean theme and represents the way he understood the parable. (p. 70)

    The Kingdom’s Scribe

    The Jesus Seminar report on this item in The Five Gospels reads as follows:

    This saying has probably been composed by Matthew as the conclusion to his collection of parables. For Matthew, scholars schooled in Heaven’s imperial rule will understand the parables in much the same way that the disciples respond in this exchange. The toastmaster at a banquet produces both mature and young wine from a large cellar (drawing images and stories, old and new, from a large repertoire and then explaining what they mean for those present). This is the way Jesus tells and explains parables according to Matthew. (p. 198)

    Jesus Database

    • 035 The Mustard Seed – (1) GThom. 20:1-2; (2) 1or2?Q: Luke 13:18-19 = Matt 13:31-32; (3) Mark 4:30-32 = Matt 13:31-32
    • 104 The Leaven – (1) GThom. 96:1; (2) 1or2?Q: Luke 13:20-21 = Matt 13:33

    Liturgies and Prayers

    For liturgies and sermons each week, shaped by a progressive theology, check Rex Hunt’s web site Other recommended sites include:

    Music Suggestions

    See the following sites for recommendations from a variety of contemporary genre:

  • Sixth Sunday after Pentecost (20 July 2014)

    Contents

    Lectionary

    • Genesis 28:10-19a and Psalm 139:1-12, 23-24 [or Wisdom of Solomon 12:13, 16-19 (or Isaiah 44:6-8) and Psalm 86:11-17]
    • Romans 8:12-25
    • Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43

    The Parables — Matthew 13 (continued)

    This week the major western lectionaries offer a set of sayings (mostly parables) from Matthew 13, although there is some variation in the set offered by each lectionary:

    Saying

    ECUSA

    RC

    RCL
    The Planted Weeds

    Yes

    Yes

    Yes
    Mustard Seed

    Next Sunday

    Yes

    Next Sunday
    Leaven

    Next Sunday

    Yes

    Next Sunday
    Speaking in Parables

    No

    Yes

    No
    Hidden From Eternity

    No

    Yes

    No
    Planted Weeds Explained

    Yes

    Yes

    Yes
    Who Has Ears

    Yes

    Yes

    Yes
    Gnashing of Teeth

    Yes

    Yes

    Yes

    As the parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven will be considered in the ECUSA and RCL cycles next week, these notes will focus on the Planted Weeds.

    Before looking specifically at this week’s parable, it is interesting to note the diversity of attestation enjoyed by the items in Matthew 13. Bold type is used to indicate the probable source of each item, following the suggestions in The Five Gospels so far as possible, while ordinary type is used for secondary sources.

    Item

    Paul

    Thomas

    Q Gospel

    Mark

    Matt

    Luke-Acts

    John
    Other NT

    Outside
    NT
    From the Boat

    No

    No

    No

    Yes

    Yes

    Yes

    No
    No
    No
    The Sower

    No

    Yes

    No

    Yes

    Yes

    Yes

    No
    No
    Yes
    Who Has Ears

    No

    Yes

    No

    Yes

    Yes

    Yes

    No
    Yes
    No
    Knowing the Mystery

    No

    Yes

    No

    Yes

    Yes

    Yes

    No
    No
    No
    Have and Receive

    No

    Yes

    Yes

    Yes

    Yes

    Yes

    No
    No
    No
    Eye, Ear, Mind

    Yes

    Yes

    Yes

    No

    Yes

    Yes

    No
    No
    Yes
    Interpreting the Sower

    No

    No

    No

    Yes

    Yes

    Yes

    No
    No
    No
    The Planted Weeds
    No
    Yes
    No
    No
    Yes
    No
    No
    No
    No
    The Mustard Seed
    No
    Yes
    Yes
    Yes
    Yes
    Yes
    No
    No
    No
    The Leaven
    No
    Yes
    Yes
    No
    Yes
    Yes
    No
    No
    No
    Speaking in Parables
    No
    No
    No
    Yes
    Yes
    No
    No
    No
    No
    Planted Weeds Explained
    No
    No
    No
    No
    Yes
    No
    No
    No
    No
    Gnashing of Teeth

    No

    No

    Yes

    No

    Yes

    Yes

    No

    No

    Yes
    Hidden Since Eternity
    Yes
    No
    No
    No
    Yes
    No
    No
    No
    No
    The Treasure
    No
    Yes
    No
    No
    Matt
    No
    No
    No
    No
    The Pearl
    No
    Yes
    No
    No
    Yes
    No
    No
    No
    No
    The Fishnet
    No
    Yes
    No
    No
    Yes
    No
    No
    No
    No
    The Fishnet Explained
    No
    No
    No
    No
    Yes
    No
    No
    No
    No
    The Kingdom’s Scribe
    No
    No
    No
    No
    Yes
    No
    No
    No
    No
    Prophet’s Own Country
    No
    Yes
    No
    Yes
    Yes
    Yes
    Yes
    No
    No

    The Planted Weeds

    It is clear from the following horizontal line synopsis that the version in Matthew has undergone additional development beyond the simpler version found in Thomas.

    Thom: Jesus said,
    Matt: He put before them another parable:

    Thom: The Father’s imperial rule is like a person who had [good] seed.
    Matt: “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to someone who sowed good seed in his field;

    Thom: His enemy came during the night and sowed weeds among the good seed.
    Matt: but while everybody was asleep, an enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and then went away.

    Thom: —
    Matt: So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared as well.

    Thom: —
    Matt: And the slaves of the householder came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? Where, then, did these weeds come from?’

    Thom: —
    Matt: He answered, ‘An enemy has done this.’

    Thom: The person did not let the workers pull up the weeds,
    Matt: The slaves said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’

    Thom: but said to them, “No, otherwise you might go to pull up the weeds and pull up the wheat along with them.”
    Matt: But he replied, ‘No; for in gathering the weeds you would uproot the wheat along with them.

    Thom: For on the day of the harvest the weeds will be conspicuous, and will be pulled up and burned.
    Matt: Let both of them grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Collect the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.’”

     

    Samuel Lachs [Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament, 224] notes that there are no rabbinic parallels to this saying, but he does offer this comment on the rabbinic view of darnel (Lolium temulentum):

    Heb. zun, Aram. zuna. Darnel closely resembles wheat, and since it cannot readily be distinguished from wheat, it is left in the field until harvest time. The Rabbis looked upon darnel as a degenerative form of wheat, the product of sexual excesses that took place in the plant world before the Flood. The Rabbis fancifully derive its meaning from z-n-h, which means “to commit fornication.”

    This is one of the sayings considered at the opening session of the Jesus Seminar, but it was then reconsidered at the second session later in 1986. At the first session, both versions were given a Gray vote but at the second session they each were voted Black.

    While the Seminar recognized that its occurrence in Thomas showed that it was circulating in Christian circles from a very early time, this parable’s eventual Black vote marked it as an item that could not be considered for inclusion in the database of sayings attributed to Jesus. The summary opinion of the Seminar is stated as follows:

    The parable reflects the concern of a young Christian community attempting to define itself over against an evil world, a concern not characteristic of Jesus. Letting the wheat and weeds grow up together suggests the final judgment rather than agricultural practice. [Five Gospels, 194]

    The main shift of opinion between the two sessions seems to have concerned the “distant echo of the final apocalyptic judgment” in the Thomas version of the parable. The allegorical interpretation appended to the parable in Matt 13:16-43a makes the theme of judgment on the last day explicit:

    Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples approached him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field.” He answered, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man; the field is the world, and the good seed are the children of the kingdom; the weeds are the children of the evil one, and the enemy who sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels. Just as the weeds are collected and burned up with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will collect out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers, and they will throw them into the furnace of fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Let anyone with ears listen!

    The Seminar comments as follows on this interpretation of the parable:

    Matthew certainly created the allegory that interprets the parable: it reflects his notion of a mixed domain, made up of good and evil, that is to be separated only at the final coming of Jesus as the son of Adam. [Five Gospels, 196]

    John Dominic Crossan, who was co-chair of the Jesus Seminar during the period when it studied the sayings of Jesus, is more optimistic about the authenticity of this parable as a saying of Jesus. He gives it a positive historical rating and suggests a kind of ironic humor that might often persuade people that this saying can be understood on the lips of Jesus.

    Crossan writes:

    When I first worked on this parable I thought that it intended to praise the wisdom of the landowner’s decision caught, as he was, between twin evils (In Parables. 1973:64,85). But I find Oakman’s recent arguments entirely persuasive, as is also his contention that Jesus’ hearers are being asked to laugh a little at this relatively well-to-do landowner. Since darnel is a natural problem, only its great extent in a specific field would need to be explained, within the narrative of the parable and not just the paranoia of the owner, as due to an enemy’s action. So he is stuck. “Weeding after the appearance of grain might pose the danger of uprooting wheat along with the darnel,” according to Oakman, “but it possibly can lay claim to be the lesser of two evils.” (Jesus and the Economic Questions of His Day. 1986:118) And that, says Jesus, is what the Kingdom is like. From the viewpoint of the well-to-do with their fields of best wheat and plural servants, it is a noxious weed. But they are stuck with it. Mustard and darnel, then, stand together, surely with some ironic humor, as twin images of the Kingdom, seen, however, from the angle of the landless poor. [Historical Jesus, 280]

    Jesus Database

    • 035 The Mustard Seed: (1) GThom. 20:1-2; (2) 1or2?Q: Luke 13:18-19 = Matt 13:31-32; (3) Mark 4:30-32 = Matt 13:31-32
    • 104 The Leaven: (1) GThom. 96:1; (2) 1or2?Q: Luke 13:20-21 = Matt 13:33
    • 009 Who Has Ears: (1a) GThom. 8:2; (1b) GThom. 21:5; (1c) GThom. 24:2; (1d) GThom. 63:2; (1e) GThom. 65:2; (1f) GThom. 96:2; (2a) Mark 4:9 = Matt 13:9 = Luke 8:8b; (2b) Mark 4:23 =Matt 13:43b; (3) Matt 11:15; (4) Luke 14:35b; (5) Rev 2:7,11,17, 29; 3:6,13,22; 13:9
    • 125 Gnashing of Teeth: (1a) 2Q: Luke 13:28a = Matt 8:12b; (1b) Matt 13:42b; (1c) Matt 13:50b; (1d) Matt 22:13b; (1e) Matt 24:51b; (1f) Matt 25:30b; (2) Dial. Sav. 14e

    Liturgies and Prayers

    For liturgies and sermons each week, shaped by a progressive theology, check Rex Hunt’s web site

    Other recommended sites include:

    Music Suggestions

    See the following sites for recommendations from a variety of contemporary genre:

  • Fifth Sunday after Pentecost (13 July 2014)

    Contents

    Lectionary

    • Genesis 25:19-34 and Psalm 119:105-112 [or Isaiah 55:10-13 and Psalm 65:(1-8), 9-13]
    • Romans 8:1-11
    • Matthew 13:1-9, 18-23

    The twin sons of Isaac: Esau and Jacob

    For those wishing to continue following the ancestral narratives, the following excerpt from Nahum Sarna’s comments in the New JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis (1989:169-71) may provide some helpful material.

    The second series of patriarchal narratives, that relating to Isaac, now begins. The data about him are exceedingly sparse. Much of what is preserved—his birth and circumcision, the Akedah, and his marriage—is integrated into the biography of Abraham, while other episodes belong to the large collection of traditions regarding Jacob. Nothing is recorded of the first twenty years of Isaac’s marriage. Only a few isolated events in his life are preserved in the literature, where he is eclipsed by the towering figure of his father Abraham and overshadowed by the dynamic, forceful personality of his son Jacob.

    Yet Isaac is more than a mere transition between Abraham and Jacob, and the biblical account does contain unmistakable elements of individuality. Isaac’s name, uniquely bestowed by God, is not changed; his pastoral wanderings are restricted to a narrow range and largely center around Beer-sheba; unlike Abraham, he does not live at Hebron-Kiriat-arba but settles there only in his old age; he alone remains monogamous; he is the only patriarch to engage in agriculture and the only one never to leave the promised land; finally, the unique divine name pachad yitschak (31:42) suggests some episode, not recorded, in which this particular name would have been meaningful. References in Amos 7:9, 16 to “the shrines of Isaac” and to “the house of Isaac” as an epithet for Israel seem to indicate that a more extensive account of his life once existed.

    The story of Isaac, interrupted by the genealogies of chapter 25, now resumes with the main emphasis on the birth of Esau and Jacob and the rivalry between them. These narratives present an ancient belief that the bitter hostility that marked the later relationships between the peoples of Israel and Edom had its origin in the prenatal experience of their founding fathers, who were twins.

    The idea that Jacob/Israel and Esau/Edom were siblings finds expression in several biblical texts. Deuteronomy 23:8 says: “You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your kinsman.” Numbers 20:14 reports that in the course of the wilderness wanderings Moses sent a message to the king of Edom that opened with the phrase, “ Thus says your brother Israel.” The prophet Obadiah, in his indictment of Edom, also refers to “your brother Jacob” (v. 10), and Malachi (1:2) assumes it to be common knowledge that “Esau is Jacob’s brother.” This tradition is so extraordinary, given the long and bitter history of enmity between Israel and Edom, that it must reflect authentic historical experience. The two peoples must have shared memories of an early common ancestry, blood kinship, or treaty associations.

    According to Genesis 36:6–8, the clan of Esau originally lived in Canaan but later settled in “the hill country of Seir.” The national territory of Edom lay east of the Jordan in the southernmost part of the country. It stretched from the Gulf of Elath northward for a distance of about 100 miles (170 km.) to Nachal Zered (Wadi Chasa’), which formed the natural boundary between Edom and Moab. It shared a common boundary with Judea along the rift of the Arabah, which extends from the Dead Sea to the Gulf of Akaba.

    It was this geographic reality that engendered the hostility between the two peoples. The western side of the Edomite homeland enjoyed a strategic and climatic advantage. Its steep precipices, rising to 5,000 feet (1,525 m.) above sea level, overlook the Arabah. Their westerly exposure assures the receipt of respectable amounts of precipitation, thereby sustaining agriculture and forests. The “king’s highway,” one of the main arteries of communication in the ancient world, traversed the country from north to south. This gave it control over the precious caravan trade from India and southern Arabia and connected it with Egypt, Syria, and Mesopotamia. Punon, an important copper mining and smelting site, was also situated within Edom.

    On the western side of the rift lay the Arabah, arid and far from the Judean centers of population. This necessitated long lines of communication and the hauling of supplies over considerable distances and treacherous terrain. The copper deposits of the Arabah were unexploitable without a local supply of fuel. A strategic highway led through the region from the Gulf of Akaba across the Negeb to Beersheba, where it split into a network of roads joining the important towns of Judea and Northern Israel. Without control of the Arabah, the nomadic tribes that roamed the Negeb were a constant menace.

    Both Edom and Israel had abundant incentive to encroach upon each other’s territory. It was easier for the Edomites to infiltrate westward into the Arabah than for the Judeans to penetrate Edom. The Edomites exploited their strategic advantage to the full, while the temptation to shorten communication lines, to have a supply source close by, and to have access to fuel for the copper mines as well as control over the lucrative spice trade proved irresistible to the Judean kings. It was David who defeated the Edomites, stationed permanent garrisons in their land, and made them vassals of his kingdom, as described in 2 Samuel 8:13f.

    These observations do not foreclose the literary questions that attend the ancestral narratives of ancient Israel and Judah. As readers separated by more than two millennia from the cultural and historical details of everyday life in biblical Palestine, we find it helpful to be reminded of the physical, cultural and political realities that would have needed no explanation to the original audiences for whom this narrative was composed. But such information only gives us an approximate parity with those first hearers, and should not be mistaken for an explanation of the story’s significance.

    The more important questions are not whether younger sons could displace elder brothers in ancient Middle Eastern societies, but how such a story would have been experienced by the struggling Judean community in the post-exilic period (5C BCE / 4C BCE). Whether the “historical David” was anything more than a local Judean chieftain, or whether he actually conquered the Edomites as described in 2 Samuel 8, is less significant to us as “people of the Book” than the question of why those who understood themselves as successors of the legendary David now saw advantage in telling the story of their ancestors (and thus themselves) in a way that simultaneously affirmed common origins and asserted a superior claim to the sacred blessing (covenant, land, progeny).

    Gospel: Jesus and the Parables

    This week’s Gospel brings us to a major collection of parables, and provides an opportunity for us to reflect on the significance of Jesus as a composer of parables. In Reimagine the World: An Introduction to the Parables of Jesus (Polebridge, 2001), B. Brandon Scott suggests that the history of parable studies can be divided into two major stages.

    First Stage

    This stage is dominated by a number of important European scholars: Adolf Jülicher, C.H. Dodd and Joachim Jeremias. Scott gives the following “report card” comments of the contributions of these pioneer studies into the parables of Jesus:

    Adolf Jülicher (Die Gleichnisreden Jesu – 1910) attached the traditional method of interpreting the parables as allegories, but also showed that the parables themselves often fit rather poorly with their immediate literary context in the NT Gospels. The parables had a life prior to their incorporation into the Gospels, and the allegories that are sometimes found in their Gospel context do not represent the original interpretations of the parables.

    Gain – Rejection of allegory
    Loss – Parables are not dependent on their Gospel context

    C.H. Dodd (The Parables of the Kingdom – 1935) built on the foundation laid by Jülicher but added the suggestion that the parables had a distinctive interest in eschatology. Dodd used the phrase, “realized eschatology,” to describe the parables’ interest in a kingdom which is already present for the hearers. As Scott notes, Dodd also crafted one of the most influential definitions of parable:

    At its simplest the parable is a metaphor or simile drawn from nature or common life, arresting the hearer by its vividness or strangeness, and leaving the mind in sufficient doubt about its precise application to tease it into active thought.

    Gain – Introduced the question of the parables; eschatology

    Joachim Jeremias (The Parables of Jesus – 1947) adopted the insights of Form Criticism to develop a convincing account of the oral transmission process for the parables prior to their inclusion in the written gospels. He applied these “laws of transmission” to specific parables in order to reconstruct the original words of Jesus, even suggesting the Aramaic phrases that he believed lay behind the extant Greek version of the parables. Jeremias understood the original life situation (Sitz im Leben) of the parables to have been oral disputes between Jesus and the Pharisees, although scholars these days are more cautious about the presence of Pharisees in Galilee during Jesus’ life time. Interestingly, despite his conservative theological tendencies, Jeremias was a pioneer in using the Gospel of Thomas as an independent witness to the parable tradition.

    Gain – Outlined the stages for a history of the parables from Jesus to the Gospels

    Second Stage

    The next stage of critical study of the parables reflects the contributions made by American scholars: Robert Funk, Dan Via, John Dominic Crossan and Brandon Scott.

    Over a number of studies beginning in the 1960s, Robert W. Funk and Dan Via independently drew on the well-established models of literary studies familiar to students in English departments across North America. Both scholars studied the parable as an object in its own right (an “aesthetic object” for Dan Via, and a “metaphor” for Funk).

    Dan Via (The Parables: Their Literary and Existential Dimension – 1967) overcame the limitations of historical criticism by focusing on the parable as an autonomous text. What matters is the “internal meaning” of the parable, not the historical context or its possible original sense. The original audiences may not have fully understood the meaning of the parable, just as later generations find new layers of significance while finding older interpretations unconvincing. Like any aesthetic object, the parable can be appreciated but never fully understood.

    Gain – The specific historical situation does not determine meaning, or the meaning of the parable cannot be reduced to a specific situation in the ministry of Jesus.

    Robert W. Funk (Language, Hermeneutics and the Word of God – 1966 and Jesus as Precursor – 1975) contrasted the logic of discursive language and metaphorical language, and proposed a way of reading the parables that took seriously their character as metaphorical languages that creates (new) meaning by juxtaposing “two discrete and not entirely comparable entities.” In a sense this project built upon Dodd’s definition of parables as incongruous metaphors that provoke thought.

    Gain – Parables function as a metaphorical structure or system
    Loss – Attention must be paid to the very metaphorical nature of the words themselves.

    John Dominic Crossan (The Dark Interval: Towards a Theology of Story – 1975 and In Parables: The Challenge of the Historical Jesus – 1973) explored and expanded the creative insights of Dan Via and Robert Funk, consolidated their gains, and made this new approach to the parables accessible to a wide audience. Crossan understands the parables as promoting what he calls “permanent eschatology” as the “permanent presence of God” confronts, challenges and shatters the complacency of human individuals and systems. Where Jeremias had sought to recover the very words (ipsissima verba) of Jesus, Crossan argues that what was remembered in the oral parable tradition was not the words themselves but the structure (ipsissima structura), the form, and the pattern of the parables.

    Gain – We are dealing not with the very words of Jesus but with the structure (the memory and performance) of the parables.

    Bernard Brandon Scott (Hear Then the Parable – 1989) was the first person since Jülicher to deal with all of the parables in a single study. Scott took seriously the different dimensions of orality and literacy in the parable tradition, and drew on reader-response criticism to develop a comprehensive literary strategy for interpreting (hearing) the parables. He asks not so much what Jesus intended by the particular parable, but what effect the parable might have on its audiences. Scott also drew on insights from the social sciences to develop what he calls the “repertoire” of a text — those social conventions and assumptions that the teller and audience hold in common.

    William Herzog (Parables as Subversive Speech: Jesus as Pedagogue of the Oppressed – 1994) also draws on social science studies to make sense of the parables, but has rejected the embrace of literary criticism by Via, Funk and Crossan. For Herzog, the parables encode first century structures of oppression and, as Scott says, “Herzog often produces illuminating readings of the parables, making sense of details that have often left one confused.”

    Gain – Literary methods and social science method are both necessary to interpret the parables.

    The tradition of critical study of the parables was to play a significant part in the work undertaken by the Jesus Seminar in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The seminar was jointly chaired by Robert Funk and Dominic Crossan, and many of their graduate students (including Brandon Scott) were included among the Fellows. Crossan’s compilation, Sayings Parallels: A Workbook for the Jesus Tradition (Fortress, 1986) provided the basic text for the Seminar as it went about its work, and a careful analysis of the sayings attributed to Jesus was the primary focus for the first phase of the Seminar. The results of that phase were reported in the bestseller The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus (Macmillan, 1993).

    This creative new work on parables allowed the Jesus Seminar to break new ground with its inquiry into historical Jesus research. By giving primacy to the sayings of Jesus rather than the deeds of Jesus, the Seminar believes that historical Jesus research reaches back to an earlier stage of the tradition as well as drawing closer to the heart of the Jesus tradition.What Jesus himself may have said has a certain spiritual cache that no third party report of events involving him can ever have. In addition, with each performance of the parables their spiritual power may be experienced afresh.

    The actions of Jesus are another matter. Particular events happen just once. The reports of them are always second hand. They are especially susceptible to legendary development, and they seem to be used in the tradition for theological purposes rather than as simple accounts of specific events. As Lane McGaughy (“Why Start with the Sayings,” p. 20) notes:

    The best one can hope to recover with respect to deeds are the earliest reports of bystanders about what they thought they saw, whereas the authentic sayings indicate what Jesus himself thought or intended …

    McGaughy cites with approval the couplet coined by (Jesus Seminar Fellow) Julian Hills: “sayings are repeated, deeds are reported.”

    Jesus Database

    • 034 The Sower – (1) GThom. 9; (2) Mark 4:3-8 = Matt 13:3b-8 = Luke 8:5-8a; (3) 1 Clem. 24:5.
    • 009 Who Has Ears – (1a) GThom. 8:2; (1b) GThom. 21:5; (1c) GThom. 24:2; (1d) GThom. 63:2; (1e) GThom. 65:2; (1f) GThom. 96:2; (2a) Mark 4:9 = Matt 13:9 = Luke 8:8b; (2b) Mark 4:23 =Matt 13:43b; (3) Matt 11:15; (4) Luke 14:35b; (5) Rev 2:7,11,17, 29; 3:6,13,22; 13:9.
    • 092 Knowing the Mystery – 1) GThom. 62:1; (2a) Secret Mark f2r10;(2b) Mark 4:10-12 = Matt 13:10-11,13-15 = Luke 8:9-10.
    • 040 Have and Receive – (1) GThom. 41; (2) 2Q: Luke 19:(25-)26 = Matt 25:29; (3) Mark 4:25 = Matt 13:12 = Luke 8:18b.
    • 014 Eye Ear Mind – (1a) 1 Cor 2:9a; (1b) 1 Clem. 34:8; (2) GThom. 17; (3) 2Q: Luke 10:23-24 = Matt 13:16-17; (4) Dial. Sav. 57a [140:1-4].

    Liturgies and Prayers

    For liturgies and sermons each week, shaped by a progressive theology, check Rex Hunt’s web site

    Other recommended sites include:

    Music Suggestions

    See the following sites for recommendations from a variety of contemporary genre:

  • Fourth Sunday after Pentecost (6 July 2014)

    Contents

    Lectionary

    • Genesis 24:34-38, 42-49, 58-67 and Psalm 45:10-17 (or Song of Solomon 2:8-13)
    • Romans 7:15-25a
    • Matthew 11:16-19, 25-30

    Isaac: The In-Between Ancestor

    In the formal account of ancient Israel’s ancestors, Isaac has an honored place. He was the only child of Abraham and Sarah, and he was the father of Jacob (Israel) and Esau. His name occurs in the common triplet, “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.”

    However, on closer examination, Isaac has been all but crowded out of the ancestral narrative by his son Jacob and his grandson, Joseph.

    The name “Isaac” is found some 134 times in the Bible, but the data really falls into two categories: stories and lists from Genesis 17-35, and references to Isaac in other parts of the Bible.

    The ancestral narratives are structured around the three key figures:

    11:27-25:18 The Story of Abr(ha)am, son of Terah
    11:27-32 Introduction
    12:1-3 The Divine Call of Abram
    12:4-25:11 Stories about Abraham
    25:12-18 Concluding genealogy

    25:19-37:1 The Story of Isaac, son of Abraham
    25:19-34 Introduction: Birth and rise of Jacob
    26:1-35:29 Stories about Jacob (ending with death of Isaac)
    36:1-37:1 Concluding genealogy

    37:2-50:26 The Story of the Sons of Jacob
    37:2-11 Introduction: Joseph the dreamer
    37:12-36 Joseph sold into slavery
    38:1-30 Judah’s mistreatment of Tamar
    39:1-41:57 Joseph’s ascent to high office in Egypt
    42:1-45:28 Joseph and his brothers
    46:1-47:31 Jacob comes to live in Egypt
    48:1-49:33 Jacob’s deathbed blessings
    50:1-21 Burial of Jacob
    50:22-26 Death of Joseph

    On that basis, it seems that Isaac is little more than the narrative link between the Abraham cycle and the Jacob cycle. Most of the stories in Genesis 25-36 center on Jacob, while the so-called Jacob cycle is really the extended Joseph saga. However, there are more traditions about Isaac here than immediately meets the eye:

    18:1-15 Isaac’s birth is promised
    21:1-8 Birth and infancy of Isaac
    22:1-19 The Akedah of Isaac
    24:1-67 Finding a wife for Isaac
    25:7-11 Isaac (and Ishmael) bury Abraham
    25:19-20 Brief list of the descendants of Isaac
    25:21-34 Twin sons (Esau and Jacob) for Isaac
    26:1-33 Isaac and Abimelech
    26:34-28:4 Jacob steals Isaac’s blessing
    35:27-29 Isaac dies and is buried by Esau and Jacob

    In many ways Isaac is presented as little more than an imitation of his father, Abraham:

    • His wife is barren until God intervenes.
    • Isaac has two sons: the twins, Esau and Jacob.
    • The divine blessing goes to the younger of the boys, and the older son leaves to establish his own life separated from the clan.
    • Isaac’s wife, Rebekah, is caught up in a potential sexual scandal with the local ruler (Abimelech) who previously tried to acquire Sarah for his harem after Abraham, like Isaac in this episode, pretended his wife was actually his sister.
    • The designated heir must seek a wife from the old country in Mesopotamia, rather than taking a wife from the people of Canaan.

    The list of parallels between Isaac and his father in Genesis 26 alone is impressive:

    Whereas the surrounding sections focus primarily on Isaac’s descendants, this chapter focuses on Isaac apart from, his children. Although relatively little is told about Isaac, it is significant that each element makes him parallel to his father Abraham:

    • the initial notes linking his trip to Gerar with Abraham’s initial journey to Egypt (v. 1; cf. 12.10),
    • the travel command and promise (vv. 2-5; see 12:1-3; 22.18),
    • the story of the endangerment of the matriarch (vv. 6-11; cf. 12.10-13.1 and 20:1-18),
    • the manifestation of the blessing on Isaac (vv. 12-14; cf. 12.16; 20.14),
    • the recognition of that blessing by Abimelech (v. 28; cf. 21.22),
    • and the well stories (vv. 17-33; see 21.22-34).

    By the end of the chapter it is clear that Isaac has successfully inherited Abraham’s blessing and is thus prepared to pass it on to one of his sons (see Genesis 27).

    Apart from the references to Isaac in these stories from Genesis, the remaining occurrences of the name “Isaac” are almost entirely in genealogies or in compound descriptions of the God of the ancestors. The few exceptions are the following:

    • Amos 7:9,16 – “Isaac” occurs as a synonym for “Israel” in poetic speech
    • Acts 7 – Stephen twice refers to Isaac when recounting Israel’s history
    • In Galatians 4, Paul draws on the story of Isaac and Ishmael:

    For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and the other by a free woman. One, the child of the slave, was born according to the flesh; the other, the child of the free woman, was born through the promise. Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants. One woman, in fact, is Hagar, from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the other woman corresponds to the Jerusalem above; she is free, and she is our mother. For it is written, “Rejoice, you childless one, you who bear no children, burst into song and shout, you who endure no birth pangs; for the children of the desolate woman are more numerous than the children of the one who is married.” Now you, my friends, are children of the promise, like Isaac. But just as at that time the child who was born according to the flesh persecuted the child who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also. [Galatians 4:22-29]

    • In Romans 9, Paul makes explicit use of the parallels between Abraham and Isaac to explore theological issues relating to the place of the Gentiles in God’s purposes:

    It is not as though the word of God had failed. For not all Israelites truly belong to Israel, and not all of Abraham’s children are his true descendants; but “It is through Isaac that descendants shall be named for you.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as descendants. For this is what the promise said, “About this time I will return and Sarah shall have a son.” Nor is that all; something similar happened to Rebecca when she had conceived children by one husband, our ancestor Isaac. Even before they had been born or had done anything good or bad (so that God’s purpose of election might continue, not by works but by his call) she was told, “The elder shall serve the younger.” As it is written, “I have loved Jacob, but I have hated Esau.” What then are we to say? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who shows mercy. [Romans 9:6-16]

    • Hebrews 11 offers a brief summary of Isaac as a model of faith:

    By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to set out for a place that he was to receive as an inheritance; and he set out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he stayed for a time in the land he had been promised, as in a foreign land, living in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. For he looked forward to the city that has foundations, whose architect and builder is God. By faith he received power of procreation, even though he was too old–and Sarah herself was barren–because he considered him faithful who had promised. Therefore from one person, and this one as good as dead, descendants were born, “as many as the stars of heaven and as the innumerable grains of sand by the seashore.” All of these died in faith without having received the promises, but from a distance they saw and greeted them. They confessed that they were strangers and foreigners on the earth, for people who speak in this way make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. If they had been thinking of the land that they had left behind, they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; indeed, he has prepared a city for them. By faith Abraham, when put to the test, offered up Isaac. He who had received the promises was ready to offer up his only son, of whom he had been told, “It is through Isaac that descendants shall be named for you.” He considered the fact that God is able even to raise someone from the dead–and figuratively speaking, he did receive him back. By faith Isaac invoked blessings for the future on Jacob and Esau. [Hebrews 11:8-20]

    • Finally, James has the following brief reference:

    Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? [James 2:21]

     

    Finding a wife for Isaac

    Having passed the final test of his faithfulness (the Akedah in Genesis 22), Abraham has nothing else of substance to achieve—except to bury his wife (ch 23) and to arrange an appropriate wife for his chosen heir (ch 24).

    Nahum Sarna (JPS commentary on Genesis) offers this helpful overview of this week’s passage (my italics):

    Having discharged his duty to the dead, Abraham now turns his attention to the needs of the living. As long as Isaac is unmarried, the divine promise of posterity remains unfulfilled. The patriarch therefore commissions his trusted servant to set out for far-off Aram-naharaim in order to find a wife for his son from among Abraham’s own kinfolk.
    This narrative, the longest chapter in Genesis, is a kind of novella, though it is somewhat dependent for its background on a knowledge of previous events. Its underlying motif is the abhorrence of the local Canaanites, who are presented in the Torah sources as unregenerately corrupt and who, for that reason, have forfeited all rights to their land.

    The action in the narrative unfolds in five scenes. At the outset Abraham is the dominant personality. But the movement of the story gradually shifts to Isaac, so that at its conclusion it is the son who is the center of attention and the father has faded from the scene. The repeated phrase “my master Abraham” gives way to “my master Isaac” (v. 65). The betrothal episode effects the transition from the cycle of Abrahamic stories to the Isaac narratives. This progression from the older to the successor generation is mediated by the servant, who has no other function here and is never heard of again. For this reason, his anonymity is thoroughly appropriate. The fact that his statement, “I am Abraham’s servant” (v. 34), constitutes the exact middle verse of the chapter is symbolic of his role: to forge the link between the generations.
    The transition to Isaac and Rebekah as the successors of Abraham and Sarah and as the heirs to the divine promises is effected through the deliberate use of several literary devices. Rebekah’s departure for Canaan, recounted in verse 7, is so styled as to bring to mind Abraham’s original exodus from his homeland, and the words are borrowed directly from 12:7. Key words and phrases of 12:1–3 also are repeated here, such as “native land” (vv. 4, 7),”father’s house” (vv. 3, 7, 8, 41), “to the land” (vv. 5, 7), “blessing” (vv. 1, 35), and “becoming great” (v. 35). The divine order to Abraham, “Go forth,” and his unfaltering response (12:1, 4) are paralleled here by Rebekah’s unquestioning willingness to go at once (v. 58). “I will go,” she firmly declares in response to the query, “Will you go?” This crucial verb “to go” (Heb. h-l-kh) occurs seven times in connection with Rebekah, a sure sign of its seminal importance. Finally, the divine blessing bestowed on Abraham, “Your descendants shall seize the gates of their foes” (22:17), is repeated almost verbatim in the farewell blessing to the bride in verse 60.
    One other feature of the narrative deserves special mention. Although God does not intervene in a supernatural manner, the reader nevertheless is left with the absolute conviction that the guiding hand of Providence is present from first to last. The narrative conveys the clear impression that the commonplace and the natural are the arena for the realization of God’s unfolding plan of history.

    We now know that the ancestors of ancient Israel and Judah did not arrive in Palestine from some other place, but were essentially “Canaanites with a new zip code.” That is, the population that created and occupied the new settlements that appear around 1,200 BCE had not come from anywhere other than Palestine. Their material remains and their cultural characteristics (language, religion, etc) are indistinguishable from the other inhabitants of the land.

    Most likely they had no more of an experience of “Egyptian slavery” than any other peoples living in Syro-Palestine during the past 4,000+ years, during which time Egypt has exercised a natural hegemony over the coastal strip to its north which also serves as a strategic land bridge to Mesopotamia and Greece/Turkey. Like present day populations in Central America and the Caribbean, the Canaanites lived under the shadow of a large imperial power. They were all, in some sense, slaves of Egypt.

    The current debates in “biblical archaeology” are not concerned with the historical existence of the Patriarchs, or even the dating of the Exodus. Those topics that loomed so large on the agenda of theological students in the 1970s and 1980s are no longer the focus of historical debate. Rather, the debate concerns the possibility that David was anything more than a minor chieftain in a remote and impoverished rural area, and whether Jerusalem was anything more significant than a small village without walls prior to the 10C BCE. Once we rid ourselves of the idea that these stories are historical memories, however garbled, of actual events, we are free to ask some rather more significant questions about the narrative:

    • By what kind of people (and at what point in ancient Israel’s history) might these stories have been told this way?
    • How do these stories shape faith?
    • How are these stories critiqued by faith?

    Origin stories that project an oppressed community’s beginnings in the heartland of the dominant world powers serve a social function. History for its own sake was not known in pre-Hellenistic oriental societies such as we find in Palestine before the time of Alexander the Great.

    The Judahite community that had established itself in and around Jerusalem early in the Persian period had a very good reason to depict Israel’s ancestors as not only coming from the land of the Babylonians (Ur of the Chaldeans), but also as taking exceptional care to project and preserve the purity (sic) of their line by acquiring wives from the old families back in Mesopotamia.

    We know that the myth of a pure Jewish community was public policy in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, and that considerable hardship was caused to families that included parents from both Jewish and indigenous lines:

    Then all the people of Judah and Benjamin assembled at Jerusalem within the three days; it was the ninth month, on the twentieth day of the month. All the people sat in the open square before the house of God, trembling because of this matter and because of the heavy rain. Then Ezra the priest stood up and said to them, “You have trespassed and married foreign women, and so increased the guilt of Israel. Now make confession to the LORD the God of your ancestors, and do his will; separate yourselves from the peoples of the land and from the foreign wives.” Then all the assembly answered with a loud voice, “It is so; we must do as you have said. But the people are many, and it is a time of heavy rain; we cannot stand in the open. Nor is this a task for one day or for two, for many of us have transgressed in this matter. Let our officials represent the whole assembly, and let all in our towns who have taken foreign wives come at appointed times, and with them the elders and judges of every town, until the fierce wrath of our God on this account is averted from us.” Only Jonathan son of Asahel and Jahzeiah son of Tikvah opposed this, and Meshullam and Shabbethai the Levites supported them. Then the returned exiles did so. Ezra the priest selected men, heads of families, according to their families, each of them designated by name. On the first day of the tenth month they sat down to examine the matter. By the first day of the first month they had come to the end of all the men who had married foreign women. [Ezra 10:9-17]

    It is possible that the delightful little book of Ruth was written partly in response to this program, making the point that even the legendary David had a Moabite grandmother!

    This week’s story, which reeks of tribal patriarchy and xenophobia has shaped generations of believers.

    In fifth century Jerusalem there were compelling (and even life-affirming) reasons to identify their ancestors with Mesopotamia and prefer Babylonian Jewish brides to local girls. But those reasons too quickly became exercises in communal prejudice and tribalism, and especially when the myth-makers acquired real political and military power.

    This is not a peculiarly Jewish dilemma. Apocalyptic dreams may bring hope to oppressed people, but they can also validate the worst kinds of oppression against others when the emperor becomes a believer. Manifest destiny might be a source of empowerment to a colonial outpost seeking self-determination, but it can also be a nightmare to others when the colony becomes a global superpower.

    Jesus Database

    Liturgies and Prayers

    For liturgies and sermons each week, shaped by a progressive theology, check Rex Hunt’s web site

    Other recommended sites include:

    Music Suggestions

    See the following sites for recommendations from a variety of contemporary genre:

  • Third Sunday after Pentecost (29 June 2014)

    Contents

    Lectionary

    • Genesis 22:1-14 and Psalm 13 [or Jeremiah 28:5-9 and Psalm 89:1-4, 15-18]
    • Romans 6:12-23
    • Matthew 10:40-42

    Abraham offers his son as a human sacrifice

    In Jewish tradition, the story of Abraham’s willingness to offer his son as a human sacrifice as (apparently) demanded by God, even though the fulfillment of the divine promises seemed to rest of the child’s survival, is known as the Akedah (or Binding) of Isaac.

    This story has fascinated and horrified readers for the best part of 3,000 years. It emerges from a culture where human sacrifice was a part of life, and where even a society such as ancient Israel (which had rejected the practice) still felt the power unleashed by such sacred violence. Not only do the prophets condemn such sacrifices in honor of Molech, but the Hebrew Bible even notes the power of such sacrifices when deployed against Israel in battle:

    When the king of Moab saw that the battle was going against him, he took with him seven hundred swordsmen to break through, opposite the king of Edom; but they could not.Then he took his firstborn son who was to succeed him, and offered him as a burnt offering on the wall. And great wrath came upon Israel, so they withdrew from him and returned to their own land. [2Kings 3:26-27]

    This story—horrific as it is—must also be read alongside the even worse story in Judges 11 where Jephthah offers his daughter as a human sacrifice in fulfillment of a vow.

    As we shall see, the story of Abraham (almost) offering his son, Isaac, was to be celebrated as a great triumph of faith on both their parts, but the story of Jephthah and his daughter is relegated to a footnote in the biblical religions. In her classic study of this terrible text, Phyllis Trible (“The Daughter of Jephthah: An Inhuman Sacrifice,” Texts of Terror 1984:93-116) writes as follows:

    She is “the one and only child;” by herself she greets her father with music and dances; and she requests that he let her alone for two months. But then she adds, “I (‘anoki) and my female friends.” At the time of deepest sorrow, the last days of her life, the girl reaches out to other women. She chooses them to go with her to wander upon the hills and lament her virginity. In communion with her own kind, she transcends the distance between daughter and father. After this reference to female friends, she speaks no more. Within the limits of the inevitable she has shaped meaning for herself.
    Simply and succinctly the father grants the request. “Go,” he says — his last word in the story (11:38a). From here on, only the narrator speaks. Adopting the daughter’s speech pattern, the storyteller reports the fulfillment of her plan: “So he sent her away for two months. She went, she and her female friends, and she lamented her virginity upon the hills.” (11:38) In the company of other women who acknowledged her tragedy, she is neither alone nor isolated. She spends the last days of her life as she has requested.
    At the end of two months, the appointed time, the daughter returns to the father (11:39). Quickly, without passing judgment, the narrator tells the deed: “He did to her his vow which he had vowed” (11:39b). How different is this story from Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac, where detail heaped upon detail slows down the narrative to build suspense for the climactic moment:

    When they came to the place of which God had told him,
    Abraham built an altar there and laid the wood in order,
    and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar, upon the wood.
    Then Abraham put forth his hand and took the knife to slay his son. (Gen. 22:9-10)

    That suspense is bearable because Isaac is to be spared. … But in the story of the daughter of Jephthah, no angel intervenes to save the child. The father carries out the vow precisely as he spoke it; neither God nor man nor woman negates it. (p. 104f)

    The story of the Akedah

    The original story is to be found in Genesis 22:

    Some time afterward, God put Abraham to the test. He said to him, “Abraham,” and he answered, “Here I am.” 2And He said, “Take your son, your favored one, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the heights that I will point out to you.” 3So early next morning, Abraham saddled his ass and took with him two of his servants and his son Isaac. He split the wood for the burnt offering, and he set out for the place of which God had told him. 4On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place from afar. 5Then Abraham said to his servants, “You stay here with the ass. The boy and I will go up there; we will worship and we will return to you.”
    6Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and put it on his son Isaac. He himself took the firestone and the knife; and the two walked off together. 7Then Isaac said to his father Abraham, “Father!” And he answered, “ Yes, my son.” And he said, “Here are the firestone and the wood; but where is the sheep for the burnt offering?” 8And Abraham said, “God will see to the sheep for His burnt offering, my son.” And the two of them walked on together. 9They arrived at the place of which God had told him. Abraham built an altar there; he laid out the wood; he bound his son Isaac; he laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. 10And Abraham picked up the knife to slay his son. 11Then an angel of the LORD called to him from heaven: “Abraham! Abraham!” And he answered, “ Here I am.” 12And he said, “Do not raise your hand against the boy, or do anything to him. For now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your favored one, from Me.” 13When Abraham looked up, his eye fell upon a ram, caught in the thicket by its horns. So Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering in place of his son. 14And Abraham named that site Adonai-yireh, whence the present saying, “On the mount of the LORD there is vision.”
    15The angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time from heaven, 16and said, “By Myself I swear, the LORD declares: Because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your favored one, 17I will bestow My blessing upon you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars of heaven and the sands on the seashore; and your descendants shall seize the gates of their foes. 18All the nations of the earth shall bless themselves by your descendants, because you have obeyed My command.” 19Abraham then returned to his servants, and they departed together for Beer-sheba; and Abraham stayed in Beer-sheba. [JPS translation]

    The Akedah in Jewish tradition

    Nahum M. Sarna, in the JPS commentary on Genesis, provides a good statement of the traditional Jewish interpretation of this story:

    The Akedah, as the story is popularly called—because of the Hebrew stem ‘-I’d, “ to bind,” in verse 9—is organically connected with the preceding chapter. Abraham has lost one son and now seems about to lose the other. In both narratives, the child is saved by divine intervention at the critical moment, the only two biblical instances of an angel calling from heaven to human beings. In both cases there is a fortuitous discovery: a well of water in the earlier story, a ram in the thicket here.
    Beyond its connection with the foregoing chapter, the Akedah brings to a close Abraham’s spiritual odyssey that began with God’s call at Haran. The curtain rises and falls on the patriarch as he receives a divine word that demands agonizing decisions. The first time God bids him to take leave of his father and to cut himself off from his past; now, in this last theophany that he is to receive, God asks that he sacrifice his beloved, longed-for son and thereby abandon all hope of posterity. On both occasions Abraham responds with unquestioning obedience and steadfast loyalty.

    As there are no other biblical references to this critical incident in the life of Abraham, we may conclude that the story did not have the same significance for Jewish people until Hellenistic times when they came to have a new appreciation for faithful in testing circumstances, and especially the value of martyrdom.

     

    4 Maccabees

    4 Maccabees is the first Jewish text to make considerable use of the Akedah tradition:

    [13] Most amazing, indeed, though (Eleazar) was an old man, his body no longer tense and firm, his muscles flabby, his sinews feeble, he came young again [14] in spirit through reason; and by reason like that of Isaac he rendered the many-headed rack ineffective. (4Macc 7:13-14)

    [12] and another reminded them, “Remember whence you came, and the father by whose hand Isaac would have submitted to being slain for the sake of religion.” [13] Each of them and all of them together looking at one another, cheerful and undaunted, said, “Let us with all our hearts consecrate ourselves to God who gave us our lives, … [16] Therefore let us put on the full armour of self-control, which is divine reason. [17] For if we so die, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will welcome us, and all the fathers will praise us.” … But sympathy for her children did not sway the mother of the young men; she was of the same mind as Abraham. (4Macc 13:12-17, 20)

    [18] Remember that it is through God that you have a share in the world and have enjoyed life, [19] and therefore you ought to endure any suffering for the sake of God. [20] For his sake also our father Abraham was zealous to sacrifice his son Isaac, the ancestor of our nation; and when Isaac saw his father’s hand wielding a knife and descending upon him, he did not cower. (4Macc 16:18-20)

    [10] While he was still with you, he taught you the law and the prophets. [11] He read to you about Abel slain by Cain, and Isaac who was offered as a burnt offering, and about Joseph in prison. (4Macc 18:10-11)

     

    Jubilees

    In the Book of Jubilees, we find the story developed as something of a parallel to the story of Job, complete with a Satan figure (Prince Mastemah) who is the ultimate cause for this most cruel test of Abraham. In this version of the tradition, the theological embarassment of God seeking Isaac as a human sacrifice, is being managed by the introduction of Mastemah. God has full confidence that Abraham will prove faithful and thus there is no real threat to Isaac, although Abraham is unaware of the divine drama unfolding out of his comprehension.

    [15] And it came to pass in the seventh week, in its first year, in the first month, in that jubilee, on the twelfth of that month, that words came in heaven concerning Abraham that he was faithful in everything which was told him and he loved the LORD and was faithful in all affliction. [16] And Prince Mastema came and he said before God, “Behold, Abraham loves Isaac his son. And he is more pleased with him than everything. Tell him to offer him (as) a burnt offering upon the altar. And you will see whether he will do this thing. And you will know whether he is faithful in everything in which you test him.”
    [17] And the LORD was aware that Abraham was faithful in all of his afflictions because he tested him with his land, and with famine. And he tested him with the wealth of kings. And he tested him again with his wife, when she was taken (from him), and with circumcision. And he tested him with Ishmael and with Hagar, his maidservant, when he sent them away. [18] And in everything in which he tested him, he was found faithful. And his soul was not impatient. And he was not slow to act because he was faithful and a lover of the LORD.
    18 [1] And the LORD said to him, “Abraham, Abraham.” And he said, “Here I am.” [2] And he said, “Take your beloved son, whom you love, Isaac, and go unto the high land and offer him up on one of the mountains that I will make known to you.
    [3] And he arose while it was still dark at daybreak and he loaded his ass and took two of his young men servants with him and Isaac, his son. And he split the wood of the sacrifice and he went to the place on the third day. And he saw the place from afar. [4] And he arrived at a well of water and he said to the young men, “Stay here with the ass and I and the child shall go. And when we have worshipped we shall return to you.”
    [5] And he took the wood of the sacrifice and put it on the shoulder of Isaac, his son, and he took the fire and the knife in his hand. And the two of them went together to that place. [6] And Isaac said to his father, “Father.” And he said, “Here I am, my son.” And he said to him, “Behold, the fire and the knife and the wood, but where is the lamb for the burnt offering, father?” [7] And he said, “The LORD will see about the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.” And they drew near to the (holy) place of the mountain of the LORD. [8] And he built an altar and he placed the wood on the altar. And he bound Isaac, his son, and he placed him on the wood which was on top of the altar, and he stretched forth his hand, and took the knife in order to slay Isaac, his son.
    [9] And I stood before him and before Prince Mastema. And the LORD said, “Speak to him. Do not let his hand descend upon the child. And do not let him do anything to him because I know that he is one who fears the LORD.” [10] And I called out to him from heaven and I said to him, “Abraham, Abraham.” And he was terrified and said, “Here I am.” [11] And I said to him, “Do not put forth your hand against the child and do not do anything to him because now I know that you are one that fears the LORD and you did not deny your firstborn son to me.”
    [12] And Prince Mastema was shamed. And Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw a ram was caught in the thicket by his horns. And Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up for a burnt offering instead of his son. [13] And Abraham called that place, “The LORD has seen,” so it is said “in the mountain the LORD has seen.” It is Mount Zion.
    [14] And the LORD called Abraham by his name again from heaven just as he caused us to appear so that we might speak to him in the name of the LORD. [15] And he said, “I swear by myself, says the LORD, because you have done this thing and you have not denied your firstborn son, whom you love, to me that I shall surely bless you and I shall surely multiply your seed like the stars of heaven and like the sand of the seashore and your seed shall inherit the cities of their enemies. [16] And all of the nations of the earth will bless themselves by your seed because you obeyed my word. And I have made known to all that you are faithful to me in everything which I say to you. Go in peace.”
    [17] And Abraham went to his young men and they got up and went (to) Beer-sheba together. And Abraham dwelt by the Well of the Oath. [18] And he observed this festival every year (for) seven days with rejoicing. And he named it “the feast of the LORD” according to the seven days during which he went and returned in peace. [19] And thus it is ordained and written in the heavenly tablets concerning Israel and his seed to observe this festival seven days with festal joy.[Jubilees 17.15-18.19 (extant in full only in Ethiopic) OTP 2,90f]

     

    Philo of Alexandria

    Philo, a contemporary of both Jesus and Paul, demonstrates that this interest in Isaac as a model for the faithful Jew was familiar to literate circles of Jewish society. In his treatise, On Abraham, Philo devotes chapters 32-36 to this episode and extols the great virtue of Abraham and begins to develop an interpretation of Isaac as also a model of faith. Here is his defence of Abraham against critics who observed that a great many other parents have also lost their children in such rites:

    33. [177] So Isaac was saved, since God returned the gift of him and used the offering which piety rendered to Him to repay the offerer, while for Abraham the action, though not followed by the intended ending, was complete and perfect, for the record of it stands graven not only in the sacred books but in the minds of the readers.
    [178] But quarrelsome critics who misconstrue everything and have a way of valuing censure above praise do not think Abraham’s action great or wonderful, as we suppose it to be.
    [179] They say that many other persons, full of love for their kinsfolk and offspring, have given their children, some to be sacrificed for their country to serve as a price to redeem it from wars or drought or excessive rainfall or pestilence, others for the sake of what was held to be piety though it is not really so.
    [180] Indeed they say that among the Greeks men of the highest reputation, not only private individuals but kings, have with little thought of their offspring put them to death, and thereby saved armed forces of great strength and magnitude when enlisted as their allies, and destroyed them without striking a blow when arrayed as enemies.
    [181] Barbarian nations, they add, have for long admitted child sacrifice as a holy deed acceptable to God, and this practice of theirs is mentioned by Moses as an abomination, for, charging them with this pollution, he says that “they burn their sons and daughters to their gods.”
    [182] Again they point out that in India the gymnosophists even now when the long incurable disease of old age begins to take hold of them, even before they are completely in its clutches, make up a funeral pile and burn themselves on it, though they might possibly last out many years more. And the womenfolk when their husbands die before them have been known to hasten rejoicing to share their pyre, and allow themselves to be burned alive with the corpses of the men.
    [183] These women might reasonably, no doubt, be praised for their courage, so great and more than great is their contempt for death, and the breathless eagerness with which they rush to it as though it were immortality. 34. Why, then, they ask, should we praise Abraham, as though the deed which he undertook was unprecedented, when private individuals and kings and whole nations do it when occasion calls?
    [184] To their malignity and bitterness I reply as follows. Some of those who sacrifice their children follow customs in doing do, as was the case according to the critics with some of the barbarians. Others have important and painful reasons for their action because their cities and countries cannot but fail otherwise. These give their children partly under compulsion and the pressure of higher powers, partly through desire for glory and honour, to win fame at the time and a good name in the future.
    [185] Now those who are led by custom to make the sacrifice would not seem to be doing anything great, for long-standing custom often becomes equal to nature, so that in matters where patience and resolution are difficult to attain it gives ease and relief by reducing their terrors to moderate dimensions. [186] Where the gift is made through fear no praise is due, for praise is recorded for voluntary good deeds, while for those which are involuntary other things are responsible, favourable occasions, chances or force brought to bear by men.
    [187] And if anyone throws away a son or a daughter through desire for glory he will be justly blamed rather than praised, for with the life of his dearest he is purchasing an honour which he ought to cast aside, if he possessed it, to ensure the safety of his children.
    [188] We must therefore examine whether Abraham, when he intended to sacrifice his son, was mastered by any of these motives, custom or love of honour or fear. Now in Babylonia and Mesopotamia and with the nation of the Chaldeans with whom he was brought up and lived the greater part of his life the custom of child slaughter does not obtain, so as to suggest that his realization of its horrors was rendered less powerful by the regularity of such a practice.
    [189] Surely, too, he had nothing to fear from man, since no one knew of the oracular message which he alone had received; nor was he under the pressure of any public misfortune which could be remedied only by the immolation of a child of special worth.
    [190] Or was the quest of praise from the multitude the motive which urged him to the deed? What praise could there be in a solitude where no one was present to report his fame afterwards, but even the two servants had been purposely left afar off lest he should appear to be making a boastful parade by bringing witnesses to his pious conduct?
    35. [191] Let them, therefore, set bolt and bar to their unbridled evil-speaking mouths, control, their envy and hatred of excellence and not mar the virtues of men who have lived a good life, virtues which they should rather help,to glorify by their good report. That the deed really deserves our praise and love can easily be seen in many ways.
    [192] First, then, he made a special practice of obedience to God, a duty which every right-minded person holds to be worthy of all respect and effort. Hitherto he had not neglected any of God’s commands, nor ever met them with repining or discontent, however charged with toils and pains they might be, and therefore he bore the sentence pronounced on his son with all nobleness and firmness.
    [193] Secondly, since human sacrifice was not in that country, as it was perhaps in some, sanctioned by custom which is so apt through constant repetition to weaken the realization of the terrible, he would have been the first himself to initiate a totally new and extraordinary procedure, and this, to my mind, is a thing which no one could have brought himself to do even if his soul had been made of iron or adamant, for, as it has been said, it is hard work to fight against nature.
    [194] And, as he had begotten no son in the truest sense but Isaac, his feeling of affection for him was necessarily on the same high level of truth, higher even than the chaste forms of love and also the much talked-of ties of friendship.
    [195] Furthermore, he had a most potent incentive to love in that he had begotten the boy in his old age and not in his years of vigour. For parents somehow dote on their late-born children, either because they have longed for their birth for so many years or because they do not hope to have any more, since nature comes to a halt at this point as its final and furthermost boundary.
    [196] For a father to surrender one of a numerous family as a tithe to God is nothing extraordinary, since each of the survivors continues to give him pleasure, and this is no small solace and mitigation of his grief for the one who has been sacrificed. But one who gives his only darling son performs an action for which no language is adequate, since he concedes nothing to the tie of relationship, but his whole weight is thrown into the scale on the side of acceptability with God.
    [197] The following point is exceptional, and his conduct in it practically unique. Other fathers, even if they give their children to be sacrificed for the safety of their country or their armies, either stay at home or stand far away from the altars, or, if they are present, turn away their eyes, since they cannot bear the sight, and leave others to kill the victim.
    [198] But here we have the most affectionate of fathers himself beginning the sacrificial rite as priest with the very best of sons for victim. Perhaps too, following the law of burnt offering, he would have dismembered his son and offered him limb by limb. Thus we see that he did not incline partly to the boy and partly to piety, but devoted his whole soul through and through to holiness and disregarded the claims of their common blood.
    [199] Which of all the points mentioned is shared by others? Which does not stand by itself and defy description? Thus everyone who is not malignant or a lover of evil must be overwhelmed with admiration for his extraordinary piety; and he need not take into consideration at once all the points which I have mentioned, for any single one of them would be enough. For to picture in the mind one of these, however small the form which the picture takes, though no action of the Sage is small, is enough to show the greatness and loftiness of his soul. [Loeb Classical Library]

    Flavius Josephus

    Somewhat later in the first century Josephus would recount the story with the following elaboration as he explored the meaning of the episode:

    3. [228] As soon as the altar was prepared, and Abraham had laid on the wood, and all things were entirely ready, he said to his son, “O son! I poured out a vast number of prayers that I might have thee for my son; when thou wast come into the world, there was nothing that could contribute to thy support for which I was not greatly solicitous, nor anything wherein I thought myself happier than to see thee grown up to man’s estate, and that I might leave thee at my death the successor to my dominion;
    [229] but since it was by God’s will that I became thy father, and it is now his will that I relinquish thee, bear this consecration to God with a generous mind; for I resign thee up to God, who has thought fit now to require this testimony of honor to himself, on account of the favors he hath conferred on me, in being to me a supporter and defender.
    [230] Accordingly thou, my son, wilt now die, not in any common way of going out of the world, but sent to God, the Father of all men, beforehand, by thy own father, in the nature of a sacrifice. I suppose he thinks thee worthy to get clear of this world neither by disease, neither by war, nor by any other severe way, by which death usually comes upon men,
    [231] but so that he will receive thy soul with prayers and holy offices of religion, and will place thee near to himself, and thou wilt be there to me a succorer and supporter in my old age; on which account I principally brought thee up, and thou wilt thereby procure me God for my Comforter instead of thyself.
    4. [232] Now Isaac was of such a generous disposition as became the son of such a father, and was pleased with this discourse; and said, “That he was not worthy to be born at first, if he should reject the determination of God and of his father, and should not resign himself up readily to both their pleasures; since it would have been unjust if he had not obeyed, even if his father alone had so resolved.” So he went immediately to the altar to be sacrificed. [Antiquities I.13.3-4]

    Early Christian use of the Akedah tradition

    It seems likely that many of the earliest Christian authors were also familiar with these traditions and the Akedah may well have influenced how some Christians interpreted the death of Jesus.

    However, the evidence within the NT itself is slight, with only two explicit references and a couple of possible allusions:

    Paul

    He who did not withhold his own Son, but gave him up for all of us, will he not with him also give us everything else? (Romans 8:32)

    Gospel of John

    The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him and declared, “Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29) For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. (John 3:16) So they took Jesus; [17] and carrying the cross by himself, he went out to what is called The Place of the Skull, which in Hebrew is called Golgotha. (John 19:16b-17)

    Hebrews

    [17] By faith Abraham, when he was put to the test, offered up Isaac. He who had received the promises was ready to offer up his only son, [18] of whom he had been told, “It is through Isaac that descendants will be named for you.” [19] He considered the fact that God is able even to raise someone from the dead — and figuratively speaking, he did receive him back. (Heb 11:17-19)

    James

    [21] Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? [22] You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works. [23] Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” and he was called the friend of God. (James 2:21-23)

    Patristic period

    While the evidence for developments in the first century is slight, we know that there was a flurry of theological speculation by Christians and Jews in the second and third centuries as Christians developed the prophetic significance of the Akedah (seeing Isaac as a type of Jesus) and Jews developed a theology around the salvation of the Jewish people on the basis of the virtue created by Isaac’s active willingness to be offered. This latter development seems to have been a response the Christian interpretation of Jesus’ death as an atoning sacrifice, and it is not clear whether pre-Christian Jewish traditions already had this element or whether it emerged from the interaction of these two faiths.

    The following examples will suffice to demonstrate patristic use of the Akedah in Christian theology and in polemic with the Jews:

    For as a ram was He bound
    (he says he concerning our Lord Jesus Christ),
    and as a lamb he was shorn,
    and as a sheep he was led to slaughter,
    and as a lamb he was crucified;
    and he carried the wood on his shoulders
    as he was led up to be slain like Isaac by his Father.
    But Christ suffered, whereas Isaac did not suffer;
    for he was a model of the Christ who was going to suffer.
    But by merely being the model of Christ
    he caused astonishment and fear among men.
    For it was a strange mystery to behold,
    a son led by his father to a mountain for slaughter,
    whose feet he bound and whom he put on the wood of the offering,
    preparing with zeal the things for his slaughter.
    But Isaac was silent, bound like a ram,
    not opening his mouth, nor uttering a sound.
    For not frightened by the sword
    nor alarmed at the fire,
    nor sorrowful at the suffering,
    he carried with fortitude the model of the Lord.
    Thus Isaac was offered in the midst foot-bound like a ram,
    and Abraham stood by and held the sword unsheathed,
    not ashamed to put to death his son. (Melitto of Sardis, Fragment 9) [HALL, 75]

     

    And, of course, it had been meet that the mystery of the passion itself should be figuratively set forth in predictions; and the more incredible (that mystery), the more likely to be “a stumbling stone,” if it had been nakedly predicted; and the more magnificent, the more to be adumbrated, that the difficulty of its intelligence might seek (help from) the grace of God. Accordingly, to begin with, Isaac, when led by his father as a victim, and himself bearing his own “wood,” was even at that early period pointing to Christ’s death; conceded, as He was, as a victim of the Father; carrying, as He did, the “wood” of His own passion. (Tertullian, An Answer to the Jews 10) [ANF 4,165]

    The Akedah in later Jewish tradition

    Sarna (JPS commentary on Genesis) describes the significance of the Akedah in the post-biblical Jewish tradition as follows:

    The story of Isaac’s near sacrifice on the altar, although not mentioned again in biblical literature, captured the popular imagination and deeply penetrated the religious consciousness of the Jewish people. As the occasion prompted, one or another aspect of the episode acquired special relevance. Thus, from early times the liturgy of fast days, called because of impending disaster, included the following prayer: “ May He who answered Abraham on Mount Moriah answer you and hearken this day to the sound of your cry” (Mish. Ta‘an. 2:4). Here, it is God’s last-minute intervention that seemed to be singularly appropriate to the day. On Rosh Hashanah, when the fate of Israel hangs precariously in the balance because of its sins, the following passage is included in the Musaf, or additional, service: “Be Mindful of Abraham’s binding of Isaac his son on the altar, how he suppressed his compassion in order to perform Your will wholeheartedly. In the same way, may Your compassion overcome Your anger toward us. . . . In behalf of his posterity may You this day recall with compassion the binding of Isaac.”
    So powerful and enduring is the impact of the Akedah that God is asked, as it were, to emulate Abraham’s superhuman behavior in controlling His emotions. This daring notion has its source in a midrash (Gen. R. 56:15), according to which Abraham is said finally to pour out his soul, reminding God of his uncomplaining, unquestioning obedience despite the obvious contradiction between the Akedah and the previous promises. The old man pleads with God that just as he had suppressed his compassion to perform the divine request, so should God be mindful of the Akedah and be filled with compassion for Israel when it finds itself in adversity or mired in sin.
    The reinterpretation of the Akedah in terms of expiation of sin contributed toward its selection as the Torah reading for the second day of Rosh Hashanah (Meg. 31a). The increasing emphasis on this motif, especially in the liturgy, was in all probability the rabbinic response to the teachings of the mystery cults. In opposition to the pagan idea that atonement for the sins of the faithful may be effected through the sacrifice of the god or of his son, the sages stressed the doctrine of patriarchal merit. The willingness of the founding father to sacrifice his son as a proof of his devotion to God created an inexhaustible store of spiritual credit upon which future generations may draw.
    More than anything else, however, it was the recurring experience of persecution— from the Hellenistic age down through the Roman oppression, the Christian massacres on an unprecedented scale, and Muslim fanaticism—that secured the prominence of the Akedah as a theme in the Jewish liturgy. Abraham and Isaac became the supreme exemplars of wholehearted loyalty to God and to His Torah, even to the extent of self-sacrifice. Jewish martyrdom derived unfailing inspiration from the Akedah narrative, and medieval poets produced a whole genre of penitential poetry in which the central theme was the Akedah as a metaphor of martyrdom ‘al kiddush ha-shem, “in sanctification of the Name of God.” The blowing of the ram’s horn on Rosh Hashanah (Lev. 23:24) was interpreted in terms of the Akedah. Said R. Abbahu, “Why does one blow a shofar taken from a ram? The Holy-One-Blessed-Be-He said: Blow a ram’s horn before Me so that I remember in your behalf the binding of Isaac son of Abraham and count it to you as though you had bound yourselves (as a sacrifice) before Me” (RH 16a).

    The Akedah in Muslim tradition

    According to Muslim tradition it was Ishmael (Ismail) that Abraham was commanded to offer, rather than Isaac.The relevant portion of the Qur’an reads as follows:

    [37:83] Among his followers was Abraham.
    [37:84] He came to his Lord wholeheartedly.
    [37:85] He said to his father and his people, “What are you worshipping?
    [37:86] “Is it these fabricated gods, instead of GOD, that you want?
    [37:87] “What do you think of the Lord of the universe?”
    [37:88] He looked carefully at the stars.
    [37:89] Then he gave up and said, “I am tired of this!”
    [37:90] They turned away from him.
    [37:91] He then turned on their idols, saying, “Would you like to eat?
    [37:92] “Why do you not speak?”
    [37:93] He then destroyed them.
    [37:94] They went to him in a great rage.
    [37:95] He said, “How can you worship what you carve?
    [37:96] “When GOD has created you, and everything you make!”
    [37:97] They said, “Let us build a great fire, and throw him into it.”
    [37:98] They schemed against him, but we made them the losers.
    [37:99] He said, “I am going to my Lord; He will guide me.”
    [37:100] “My Lord, grant me righteous children.”
    [37:101] We gave him good news of a good child.
    [37:102] When he grew enough to work with him, he said,
    ” My son, I see in a dream that I am sacrificing you. What do you think?”
    He said, “O my father, do what you are commanded to do. You will find me, GOD willing, patient.”
    [37:103] They both submitted, and he put his forehead down (to sacrifice him).
    [37:104] We called him: “O Abraham.
    [37:105] “You have believed the dream.” We thus reward the righteous.
    [37:106] That was an exacting test indeed.
    [37:107] We ransomed (Ismail) by substituting an animal sacrifice.
    [37:108] And we preserved his history for subsequent generations.
    [37:109] Peace be upon Abraham.
    [37:110] We thus reward the righteous.
    [37:111] He is one of our believing servants.
    [ http://www.submission.org/suras/sura37.html ]

    Sacred violence

    All three Abrahamic religions have taken up this ancient and grisly story. It has spoken words of courage and hope to people of faith in different generations and in very different circumstances, but it must be a problematic text for contemporary Christians.

    Despite all the pious explanations wrapped around this tale, and all the comfort derived from it, this is a story of divine violence inflicted upon an innocent child. There can be no accommodation with such texts of terror, and churches who struggle with our own shameful history of abuse against children and women cannot be so glib as to claim this as a “Good News” story.

    Just as we each have a shadow side to our own selves, perhaps there comes a point when we need to recognise and name the dark side of religion?

    Jesus Database

    • 044 Carrying Ones Cross: (1) GThom. 55:2b; (2) 1Q: Luke 14:27 = Matt 10:38; (3) Mark 8:34 = Matt 16:24 = Luke 9:23
    • 063 Saving One’s Life: (1) 1Q: Luke 17:33 = Matt 10:39; (2) Mark 8:35 = Matt 16:25 = Luke 9:24; (3) John 12:25-26:
    • 010 Receiving the Sender: 1) 1Q: Luke 10:16 = Matt 10:40; (2) Mark 9:36-37 = Matt 18: 2,5 = Luke 9:47-48a; (3) Did. 11:4-5; (4a) John 5:23b; (4b) John 12:44-50; (4c) John 13:20; (5) Ign. Eph. 6:1

    Liturgies and Prayers

    For liturgies and sermons each week, shaped by a progressive theology, check Rex Hunt’s web site

    Other recommended sites include:

    Music Suggestions

    See the following sites for recommendations from a variety of contemporary genre:

  • Second Sunday after Pentecost (22 June 2014)

    Contents

    Lectionary

    • Genesis 21:8–21 and Psalm 86:1–10, 16–17
    • Romans 6:1b–11
    • Matthew 10:24–39

    Introduction

    This week we begin a new series of readings:

    • for the next 9 weeks the first reading will come from Genesis
    • for the next 10 weeks the second reading will come from Romans
    • from now until Christ the King on 23 November, the Gospel readings will all be from Matthew

    In some ways these are familiar texts, so the challenge is to look beyond that familiarity in our quest for information about the past and wisdom for the present.

    The video recordings from lecturers on the Synoptic Gospels, and especially the Gospel of Matthew, earlier this year may be interest. Go to my video page and scroll down to the relevant set of videos.

    First Reading: Abraham expels Hagar and Ishmael

    This is a strange and disturbing reading. It is never easy to read this passage in church, and it is especially odd to choose it for the first in a series of readings from Genesis as we move back into ordinary time after the great fifty days of Easter. Given next week’s reading from Genesis 22, where Abraham is willing to sacrifice his other son (Isaac) as an act of devotion to God, this gets increasingly problematic.

    At the heart of this story is the remarkable affirmation that Ishmael and his descendants are blessed by God. In a tradition that too-often privileges Jews and Christians, this is a minority witness to the divine presence and blessing among other communities.

    Yet this small gem comes in the wrapping of a story of betrayal and suspicion.

    In the back story that will not have been read in church, an ageing and childless Sarah has arranged for Abraham to have sex with one of her own servant girls (Hagar) so that Sarah could adopt the child as her own. This is not simply surrogate parenting, but a social system in which the slaves of the patriarch are at his disposal. The master can enjoy them and their bodies, their labour and their affections. The servant girl who becomes pregnant with the master’s child is not given the status of a second wife or even a concubine. Instead, as time passes and Sarah herself bears a son for Abraham (note the sexist language embedded in this tale), rivalry between the two women with unequal power in the household deepens. Sarah demands that the “other woman” be driven out from the camp.

    So much for biblical family values?

    As it happens, the two boys are the only people who really act with integrity in this story and the one that will follow next. Ishmael is a teenager by this point in the story, while Isaac has just been weaned. The older boy is playing with his young half-brother.

    Jealousy intervenes. The boys will not grow up with the blessings of a sibling in their life. Other people’s hatred and fear will drive them apart.

    While Abraham will show no emotion in Genesis 22 when commanded to kill his “only” son, Isaac, here he is grieved by Sarah’s demand. Still, after reassurance by God, Abraham goes along with his wife’s cruel plan and drives his firstborn son and the boy’s mother out into the wildness.

    No good can come to a vulnerable woman and child in such dire straits, unless God intervenes …

    Such a tale surely deserves a place of shame among the “texts of terror” in the Bible. We cannot acquiesce as Paul (in Gal 4:29) accuses Ishmael of persecuting Isaac, and demeans Hagar as a slave mother bearing children destined for slavery. The promise is neither a privilege to evade compassion nor an excuse to exploit those with lesser status. What do we think we hear the Spirit saying to the churches as we proclaim this strange story in our congregations this weekend? Kyrie eleison …

    Second Reading: Buried with Christ in baptism

    The lectionary parachutes us into chapter six of Romans and we find ourselves awash with baptism symbolism. However, these are not themes of renewal and revival as fresh waters bring life to a barren land, but rather images of death and resurrection. Our “old self” has to be crucified with Christ so that a new person can emerge from the self-immolation.

    One can only hope that no fragile souls find their way into our congregations this coming Sunday.

    Images of abuse and self-harm seem to have too great a profile in our sacred texts this weekend.

    The scribes and Pharisees of contemporary Christianity will doubtless craft sermons that speak of sharing the mystery of Christ’s death and resurrection. But there comes a time when the people of God need alternative texts to read in our gatherings.

    Gospel: The cost of discipleship

    The reading from Matthew 10 hardly relieves the doom and gloom of this week’s lectionary:

    • If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household!
    • Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
    • … whoever denies me before others, I also will deny before my Father in heaven.
    • Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth …
    • Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me…
    • … and whoever does not take up the cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
    • Those who find their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it.

    Without reverting to comfortable expressions of religion that Dietrich Bonheoffer rightly condemned as “cheap grace”, it seems appropriate to ask why we have such a dark set of texts for this weekend.

    Is the God whose compassion is the beating heart at the centre of the Universe really calling us to be so deeply estranged from everyone around us? Are we to take (and give) the kind of mutual recrimination we see Jesus dishing out in Matthew 23? Are we to seek division rather than reconciliation? Have the peacemakers of the Beatitudes been demobilised by the warrior god of tribal religion? Are we to despise the gift of life and prefer death?

    Like the other two readings this week, this passage is going to require careful theological engagement from anyone called to lead the liturgy or preach the word.

    Jesus Database

    Liturgies and Prayers

    For liturgies and sermons each week, shaped by a progressive theology, check Rex Hunt’s web site

    Other recommended sites include:

    Music Suggestions

    See the following sites for recommendations from a variety of contemporary genre:

Exit mobile version