Tag: Pentecost 5A

  • 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:

Exit mobile version