gregoryjenks

Tag: RCL

  • Twenty-fourth Sunday after Pentecost (3 November 2013)

    Contents

    Lectionary

    • Habakkuk 1:1-4; 2:1-4 & Psalm 119:137-144
    • 2 Thessalonians 1:1-4, 11-12
    • Luke 19:1-10

    First Reading: Habakkuk

    The first reading this week strikes a prophetic tone that fits well with the eschatological themes that will dominate the next few Sundays as the liturgical year draws to a close.

    It seems that this prophetic message was shaped by the crisis in Jerusalem during the decade or two prior to the destruction of the city by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BCE. Out of the darkness of that difficult time this prophet wonders “how long” it will be before the end comes:

    O LORD, how long shall I cry for help, and you will not listen?
    Or cry to you “Violence!” and you will not save?
    Why do you make me see wrong-doing and look at trouble?
    Destruction and violence are before me; strife and contention arise.
    So the law becomes slack and justice never prevails.
    The wicked surround the righteous– therefore judgment comes forth perverted.

    The answer that Habakkuk received continues to reverberate across the centuries thanks to the way Paul used one line from this prophet:

    Then the LORD answered me and said:
    Write the vision; make it plain on tablets, so that a runner may read it.
    For there is still a vision for the appointed time; it speaks of the end, and does not lie.
    If it seems to tarry, wait for it; it will surely come, it will not delay.
    Look at the proud! Their spirit is not right in them,
    but the righteous live by their faith.

    The first part of that message is directly relevant to issues about the delay in Christ’s parousia that lie at the heart of 2 Thessalonians, but the final line in that excerpt was to be taken up by Paul of Tarsus as a key theological principle: those who are just live by their faith/trust. For Paul that becomes not so much the key to “when will it all end,” as the key to how to live within the blessing here and now. In the process he exploits an ambiguity in the Hebrew text which can be rendered, “the just by-their-faith-will-live” or even (as in Paul) “those who are justified-by-faith will live.”

    In Paul’s lexicon of faith, Jesus is both “the Just One, the Righteous One” and also the one whose unwavering trust in God brought blessings to all humanity just as Abraham’s unwavering trust brought blessing to his physical progeny.

     

     

    Second Reading: 2 Thessalonians

    Having completed a series of readings from the Pastoral Epistles, the RCL will conclude the year with a short series from 2 Thessalonians:

    • Proper 31C – 2Thess 1:1-4, 11-12
    • Proper 32C – 2Thess 2:1-5, 13-17
    • Proper 33C – 2Thess 3:6-13

    Quite unintentionally, this letter indicates just how important the legacy of Paul was in some Christian circles towards the end of the first century. As a self-conscious forgery that seeks to pass itself off as a genuine letter from Paul even while condemning other spurious letters circulating in his name, 2 Thessalonians reveals the importance of Paul’s authority even some decades after his death.

    Bart Ehrman comments on the question of forgeries in the ancient world:

    The frequent occurence of forgery in this period does not suggest a basic tolerance of the practice. In actuality, it was widely and strongly condemned, sometimes even within documents that are themselves patently forged. This latter ploy serves, of course, to throw the scent off one’s own deceit. One of its striking occurrences is in the orthodox Apostolic Constitutions, a book of ecclesiastical instructions, ostensibly written in the name of Jesus’ apostles, which warns its readers to avoid books falsely written in the name of Jesus’ apostles (VI, 16). One cannot help thinking of 2 Thessalonians, which cautions against letters falsely penned in Paul’s name (2:1-2); many New Testament scholars believe that 2 Thessalonians is itself non-Pauline.” [The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 23]

    For further resources on 2 Thessalonians, see Peter Kirby’s Early Christian Writings page.

    Gospel: Jesus and Zaccheus

    This week’s Gospel is the last of the units to be taken from the long narrative section that is unique to Luke, and it comes near the end of that extended reflection on discipleship.

    Several units that occur between last week’s story of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector (Luke 18:9-14) and this week’s lection have been skipped by the lectionary editors:

    • Jesus Blesses the Children (18:15–17 = Mark 10:13-16 & Matt 19:13-15)
    • The Rich Young Man (18:18–30 = Mark 10:17-31 & Matt 19:16-30)
    • The Third Prediction of the Passion (18:31–34 = Mark 10:32-34 & Matt 20:17-19)
    • Healing of Bartimaeus (18:35–43 = Mark 10:46-52 & Matt 20:29-34)

    After the Zacchaeus story (another item with no parallel in the other Gospels) Luke has the Parable of the Pounds (19:11-27), which is also unique to his Gospel. His narrative then rejoins the Markan order with the story of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem.

    When dealing with a story that is known only from a single source there is always the possibility that we have an example of the author’s literary creativity rather than the chance survival of earlier material taken over from pre-existing tradition. While it is always possible that an authentic saying has survived in just a single witness, the probability of an item with single attestation being authentic is lower than an item that enjoys multiple independent attestation.

    This is a significant issue when reading Luke-Acts since so much of the tradition found there is not attested in any other source, for example:

    • Of the 522 items in John Dominic Crossan’s inventory of historical Jesus materials 342 items have single attestation
    • Luke uses 262 of the 522 items: 143 of these come from the 342 with single attestation, and 49 of them occur only in Luke. (The remaining 94 items with single attestation also occur in related texts such as Mark or Matthew, but the duplicate attestation is not independent.) These 143 items, and especially the subset of 49 unique to Luke, give us a window into the distinctive emphases of the Jesus movement known to Luke. It may be worth reflecting what our understanding of Christianity would be if we had only the material unique to Luke?

    The items unique to Luke include such classics as:

    • Conception of John the Baptist
    • Birth of John the Baptist
    • Jesus (in the Temple) at Twelve
    • The Good Samaritan
    • Martha and Mary
    • The Lost Coin
    • The Prodigal Son
    • The Unjust Steward
    • Rich Man and Lazarus
    • The Unjust Judge
    • Pharisee and the Publican
    • Salvation for Zacchaeus
    • Ascension of Jesus

    For further detailed information about the special Lucan material and its use in the lectionary, see:

    The Jesus Seminar developed a set of rules of evidence as it went about its task of reviewing all the extant Jesus materials. One of the subsets comprised the “Rules of Attestation” [A1—A4] and this outlines the issues when considering varying degrees of attestation:

    A1. Sayings or parables that are attested in two or more independent sources are likely to be old.
    A2. Sayings or parables that are attested in two different contexts probably circulated independently at an earlier time.
    A3. The same or similar content attested in two or more different forms has a life of its own and therefore may stem from old tradition.
    A4. Unwritten tradition that was captured by the written gospels relatively late may preserve very old memories.

    (These rules of evidence are outlined with examples and brief commentary in Robert W. Funk & Mahlon H. Smith, The Gospel of Mark, Red Letter Edition. Polebridge, 1991. Pages 29-52.)

     

    In this case, there seems to be general agreement that the story of Jesus converting Zacchaeus is a Lukan creation rather than being an older tradition that he took over and adapted. Most commentators see it as a remake of the story of Jesus calling Levi. For example, the conclusion of the Jesus Seminar is expressed as follows in The Acts of Jesus:

     

    Luke has constructed this scene to counterbalance the story of the rich ruler who has just rejected Jesus’ advice that he give his wealth to the poor (18:22). Although the ruler had observed the commandments his whole life, he apparently could not be saved without that final act of obedience (18:26). Zacchaeus is presented as Luke’s model for gaining the salvation the rich ruler failed to attain. (page 335)

    Taking our lead from that comment, we might note the way that the stories in 18:18-30 (The Rich Man) and 19:1-10 (Salvation for Zacchaeus) relate to the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector in Luke 1:9-14. The observant and respectable believer fails to find salvation, while the humble and repentant tax farmer enjoys God’s favor in both cases. As a footnote, it is interesting that we know of a wealthy (and presumably respectable) tax collector at Jericho with the name Zacchaeus, as well as another from Caesarea with the name John. [E. Schurer, History of the Jewish People. (rev.ed. Vermes & Millar) I.374-76]

    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 David MacGregor’s Together to Celebrate site for recommendations from a variety of contemporary genre.

  • Twenty-second Sunday after Pentecost (20 October 2013)

    Contents

    Lectionary

    • Jeremiah 31:27-34 & Psalm 119:97-104
    • 2 Timothy 3:14-4:5
    • Luke 18:1-8

    First Reading: A new covenant

    The first reading offers one of the classic prophetic texts from the Hebrew Bible, and the source for the familiar phrase “new covenant” (or, “new testament”).

    During the last couple of decades of the 7C BCE and the first decade or so of the 6C BCE, Jeremiah found himself exploring the boundaries and contours of his relationship with God. He seems to have begun as an avid supporter of the deuteronomistic reform agenda in the kingdom of Judah. That movement is named “deuteronomic” or “deuteronomistic” by scholars of ancient Israel and Judah because its key ideas seem to have been encapsulated in the book of Deuteronomy. Indeed, it is possible that the mysterious document “found” during the “repairs” to the temple of Yahweh in Jerusalem was an early form of the central chapters of Deuteronomy.

    These religious reformers developed an early form of prosperity theology. The well-being of the nation could be assured if it observed the laws of Moses with great care. In this theology, blessings were promised by God to those who obeyed the “statutes and ordinances”—and severe curses were to fall on those who did not. Such a theology could cut both ways. Success was a visible demonstration of God’s favour, while calamity was a sure sign that the person had sinned and was under divine wrath. The friends who arrive to comfort Job in his predicament are almost caricatures for this kind of orthodoxy.

    After initially investing his personal and national hopes in the simplistic algorithm of the Deuteronomists, Jeremiah eventually came to a different view. He realised that the covenant required radical obedience from the nation, and that calamity would almost certainly befall the city if it failed to keep the covenant. The old covenant, once the most sacred concept in Jeremiah’s religion, came to be seen by him as a symbol of failure and judgment.

    However, Jeremiah did not abandon the idea of covenant. Rather, he looked for a new and different kind of covenant. In this new convenant, there would be no need of religious experts and teachers of Torah, because each person would have the divine Torah inscribed on their hearts.

    There is also a radical idea of personal and individual responsibility emerging in this passage. Without losing his profound sense of solidarity with the whole community, Jeremiah asserts that people will now be blessed (or judged) on the basis of their own faithfulness to God’s demands.

    Second Reading: The sacred tradition

    The second letter to Timothy is not counted among the genuine letters of Paul, and the passage chosen for this week illustrates why this document is correctly assigned to a much later stage in the development of early Christianity.

    The recipient, Timothy, is described as having grown up in a religiously observant family—presumably Jewish, although by late in the first century it could have been a Christian family. Sacred tradition plays a major part in the way that faith is understood, and right at the centre of the faith are the inspired writings—the Scriptures:

    … from childhood you have known the sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.

    The phrase “all scripture is inspired by God and is useful …” is perhaps not the best rendering of the Greek (pasa graphe theopneustos kai ophelimos … ), which might be more accurately translated as:

    “every God-breathed writing is also useful for …”

    In any case, it soon becomes apparent that the author is is not so much seeking to define the Bible nor to describe Timothy’s upbringing. Rather, we are in the midst of a tirade against opponents whose views, were they to prevail, would—at least in the imagination of the writer—ruin the faith and the lives of anyone who came under their influence.

    You must understand this, that in the last days distressing times will come. For people will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, inhuman, implacable, slanderers, profligates, brutes, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to the outward form of godliness but denying its power. Avoid them! For among them are those who make their way into households and captivate silly women, overwhelmed by their sins and swayed by all kinds of desires, who are always being instructed and can never arrive at a knowledge of the truth. As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these people, of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith, also oppose the truth. But they will not make much progress, because, as in the case of those two men, their folly will become plain to everyone.” (2Tim 3:1-9 NRSV)

    Similarly, the words that follow the compliments about Timothy’s upbringing and his sound grasp of the tradition, urge him to resist false teaching:

    In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I solemnly urge you: proclaim the message; be persistent whether the time is favorable or unfavorable; convince, rebuke, and encourage, with the utmost patience in teaching. For the time is coming when people will not put up with sound doctrine, but having itching ears, they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own desires, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander away to myths. As for you, always be sober, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, carry out your ministry fully.” (2Tim 4:1-5 NRSV)

    These words reflect the tensions within Christianity in the final decades of the 1C and the opening decades of the 2C. The descriptions of the opponents draw on traditional Jewish descriptions of moral and religious decay “in the last days,” but they also reflect the growing estrangement between what came to known as the “catholic” and the “gnostic” expressions of Christianity. The Pastoral Epistles prescribe a good dose of patriarchal authority as the cure for these problems, and for the best part of the next 2,000 years that was to be the recipe adopted by the church.

    Gospel: The unjust judge

    This story presents commentators and worshippers alike with a dilemma. Like the Shrewd Manager, this is a story about someone who is not doing the right thing. While the story has mostly been domesticated, so that the persistent woman is a metaphor for perseverance in prayer, the underlying assumptions challenge and confront us.

    As a story with only single attestation (there are no parallel versions in other Christian texts), this episode is suspect in some eyes. On the other hand, there seems to be a general consensus that this parable may indeed derive from Jesus.
    The Jesus Seminar identified the core parable (vv. 2-5) as possibly coming from Jesus:

    It exhibits the kind of unconventional features that are characteristic of the parables Jesus told: the judge grants the widow’s request not because her case has merit or because he is impartial and just in his judgments. He decides in her favor to be rid of her. He wants to avoid being harassed, perhaps to avoid having his honor or reputation beaten black-and-blue (such is the implication of the Greek term used here) by her continual coming to demand vindication. (Five Gospels, 368)

    The Seminar understood v. 1 to be an introduction created by Luke to provide a framework for the parable, while vv. 6-8 reflect other Lucan interests of prayer and parousia.

    In a similar vein, Gerd Lüdemann affirms the historicity of the core story in vss 2-5:

    These verses, the original stratum of the parable, certainly go back to Jesus. That is supported by (a) the criterion of growth, for here with vv. 2-5, calculated backwards, we are at the third stage, and (b) the offensive character of what is narrated. Normally a judge should pronounce judgment on a legal basis. But here he is godless and pronounces judgment only because he is forced to. (Jesus, 375)

    Bill Loader notes the “playfully shocking” character of this story:

    The parable is not unlike that story Jesus told about the rogue in 16:1-8. Here, too, we may be dealing with a story that was going the rounds at the time and which Jesus picked up and used. The woman was likely to be such a nuisance that the judge relented and dealt with her case. Good on her! In 18:6 Jesus turns the attention of the listener to the unjust judge and proceeds in 18:7 to make a statement about God. If this kind of judge was willing to respond to this poor widow, can’t you believe that God will respond to us? The point is not that God is also corrupt, but that God is likely to respond. The parable is playfully shocking in the way it is prepared to liken God to the judge. This enhances its effect.

    Eduard Schweizer suggests a historical process as the tradition gave different meanings to the story at various stages:

    The earliest form of the parable culminated in “how much more.” It inculcated the certainty that God hears the prayers of the oppressed “widow,” i.e., the community, which prays for the coming of the kingdom. The parable would be entirely altered if the appellant were a wealthy property owner with all kinds of connections, who could bring a variety of pressures to bear in order to receive vindication. The parable thus also tells the community that its prayers reflect its relationship with God. It cannot, need not, coerce. It can take comfort in the knowledge that it is entirely dependent on God and learn to pray even in times when prayer seems totally meaningless. God in freedom will give the community the kingdom, when and wherever the time comes. This confidence springs from the fact that it is Jesus who tells the parable (or that the community traces it back to him), for in Christ the kingdom is already coming to those who can really hear the parable.
    Later it became important that the kingdom come soon (vss. 7b, 8b). The admonitory question in vs. 8b was also added. Finally, Luke takes a sober look at the community of his own day and recognizes that prayer plays too small a part in its life; he, therefore, puts more emphasis on the summons to pray (vs. 1). In the context of 17:22-37, he is probably thinking of prayer for the coming of the Son of Man. (Good News according to Luke, 280)

    John Drury offers an interesting and very different assessment. Drury looks at the story of the corrupt judge from the perspective that the long narrative section between Luke 9:51 and 18:14 (“one of the great riddles of gospel study”) is a Christian Deuteronomy — “a handbook on the Christian life in the historical setting of s journey to Jerusalem, just as Deuteronomy is a guide for the devout Jew set in the historical perspective of the journey into the promised land with Jerusalem, the place where God will cause his name to dwell, as its centre.”

    Next Deuteronomy insists upon the judge’s duty to condemn the guilty and to acquit the innocent, setting Luke to his more sophisticated parable about the godless judge who did justice out of self-interest. We have seen him mixing the blacks and whites of Deuteronomy into grey before. The parable is an obvious pair with the friend at midnight (Lk 11:5-13), having the same construction — the grudging giving of men as a shadow of God’s generosity.(Tradition and Design in Luke’s Gospel, 140)

    There is something very attractive about Drury’s understanding of Luke as a self-conscious historical narrative designed to instruct the reader in the dynamics of faithful living. Whether or not we accept his historical assessment of this saying, that seems like an interpretation of Luke-Acts worth retaining.

    Still most interpreters put considerable weight on the fact that Luke himself understood this parable as a model of prayerful perseverance. John P. Meier notes this intention by Luke when discussing the relationship between this parable and the short eschatological discourse that precedes it in Luke 17:

    With regard to the eschatological discourse in 17:20-37, some may wish to include the parable of the widow and the judge in 18:1-8 as the concluding section of the discourse (so Feuillet, “La double venue,” 5, 25-28). Notice how the reference to the Son of Man in 18:8 forms an inclusion with the mention of him at the beginning of the main section of the discourse in 17:22 + 24. However, the separate introduction at 18:1, indicating that Luke understands the parable mainly as an exhortation to persevering prayer, weakens the possible connection of the parable with the preceding discourse. (A Marginal Jew, II: page 477, note 107)

    This interest in exhorting the faithful to persevere in prayer, confident that God will never treat them like a powerful patron who finds the demands of his clients burdensome, is also seen in the rabbinic tradition.

    Samuel Lachs notes the following parallel:

    She will wear me out Gr. hupopiaze me, lit., “she will give me a black eye.” One suggestion to explain this difficult expression is that it is a translation of tashechir panai, “she will blacken my face,” meaning she will embarrass me. (Rabbinic Commentary on the NT, 323)

    Bill Loader is one contemporary reader of this ancient story who seems able to find a seam of gold running through this troublesome tale. In his “First Thoughts” commentary for this week, written in the shadow of the 9/11 attacks in 2001, Bill observed:

    … it is missing the mark if we treat the passage as a general teaching about intercessory prayer. It is primarily about the yearning for change. It was very appropriate that the story told of a poor widow. She represents a behaviour, but she also represents the poverty and vulnerability which is the point of the parable’s message. The story has been shaped in the cruelty of exploitation and the arbitrary abuse of power. It belongs in the world which Jesus is addressing. Jesus is reading the signs in the wounds of the people. The contours of their devastation shape the structures of his thought, because this is where he belongs and these are the people whose cries he hears. Take some heart, even from the behaviour of a corrupt judge who has no respect for anyone! This is digging deep, scraping the bottom of the barrel in pastoral care. The alternative for many is despair, if malnutrition has not already dulled the senses to other possibilities. We know such corrupt figures exist. Does God? Does a God exist who cares? The paralysis of hope can occur at many levels. For many it plummeted with the towers of the World Trade Centre. Faith then retreats into survival mode or fences itself within petty concerns, loses its political and social edge in a sweet jellied peace of mind, or surrenders to the demagogues and demigods of hate. People do not need to avoid pain. It is our role to be there with them in it and not to collude with the alternatives. It means being in touch with the struggles, with the poverty, with all that makes people cry out in our world. It also means living with the affirmation of a God who cares, even though, unlike the promise of 18:8, the solution does not come speedily. In that sense we are to be building supportive communities where people can sustain the crying day and night and not lose heart, where we do not tune out, but live in hope and with a sense of trust that does not make us feel we have to carry the whole world on our shoulders. For facing the pain of the world is, indeed, a crushing experience which most of us cannot bear and which, without support and acceptance of our own limitations, we will inevitably either deny or ourselves become part of the hopelessness. Finding a glint of God in the grey of corruption is a way of affirming we do not have to be God; we are not alone; faith and hope are possible.

    That seems like a good note on which to conclude this week’s materials.

    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

    • Lord, your almighty Word – AHB 61
    • God has spoken by his prophets – AHB 92
    • Take up your cross – AHB 496
    • Forth in thy name, O Lord, I go – AHB 480

    See David MacGregor’s Together to Celebrate site for recommendations from a variety of contemporary genre.

  • Twenty-first Sunday after Pentecost (13 October 2013)

    Contents

    Lectionary

    • Jeremiah 29:1, 4-7 & Psalm 66:1-12
    • 2 Timothy 2:8-15
    • Luke 17:11-19

    First Reading: Letter to the exiles

    This week the lectionary designers take us back to the scroll of Jeremiah. We are now in that period between the capture of Jerusalem and the forced flight of the prophet to Egypt. Jeremiah 29 is our first example of a letter to a Jewish diaspora community:

    Build houses and live in them;
    plant gardens and eat what they produce.
    Take wives and have sons and daughters;
    take wives for your sons, and give your daughters in marriage,
    that they may bear sons and daughters;
    multiply there, and do not decrease.
    But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile,
    and pray to the LORD on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare. (Jer 29:5-7)

    This is a most interesting example of theology on the run (as much prophecy must be), and it invites the recipients to imagine a future beyond their past—and certainly beyond their present realities.

    The exiles to whom this letter is addressed are advised to put down their roots and become part of the place where they now find themselves. Indeed, they are to seek the welfare of the city (empire) which has destroyed their past and seemingly foreclosed on their future. Their best efforts are not to be directed to restoring the past, but rather to making a future for themselves in the strange new land where it seems impossible even to sing the “LORD’s song.”

    For generations of Jews since Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BCE, diaspora has been the fundamental reality. Even in modern times, and not withstanding the creation of Israel as a distinctively Jewish national state in 1948, the majority of Jewish people live in the Diaspora. Christians in the secular west are increasingly finding themselves exiles, living as disapora among the citizens of the global village. Beyond the borders of surviving outposts of Christendom we find the “believers in exile” for whom John Shelby Spong prepares his widely-acclaimed books.

    When people of faith live in sustained cognitive and social disconnect from the prevailing cultural norms of the society in which they are embedded there can be a temptation to revert to sectarian dynamics. Raise the draw bridge! Draw the wagons in a circle! Reinforce the boundaries! Preserve the tradition, and reject the intruders!

    Jeremiah’s letter to the exiles suggests “a more excellent way.” It is indeed the way of love (cf. 1 Corinthians 13). It keeps no count of wrong, and seeks what is best for the other. It is a choice to live in ways that reflect deep generosity, and to eschew the primitive instinct to fear the stranger.

    Love is always patient and kind; love is never jealous; love is not boastful or conceited, it is never rude and never seeks its own advantage, it does not take offence or store up grievances. Love does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but finds its joy in the truth. It is always ready to make allowances, to trust, to hope and to endure whatever comes. (1 Cor 13:4–7 NJB)

    Second Reading: Formulae for faithful living

    At the heart of this week’s second reading is the following set of carefully crafted lines:

    The saying is sure: If we have died with him, we will also live with him;
    if we endure, we will also reign with him; if we deny him, he will also deny us;
    if we are faithless, he remains faithful– for he cannot deny himself. (2Tim 2:11-13)

    These lines seem to preserve an ancient Christian poetic fragment. In any case, they seem to invite us inside the faith structures of the author and his recipients. These are words that belong to a collection of “reliable words” (literally, “the saying is sure”). This is one of 5 examples of this formula, and all of them are found in the Pastoral Letters:

    • 1 Tim 1:15
    • 1 Tim 3:1
    • 1 Tim 4:9
    • 2 Tim 2:11–13
    • Titus 3:8

    What is it about the dynamics of Christianity at the time when the Pastorals were composed that generated such a formula for faithful living and right believing? It seems that orthodoxy has come to be an important virtue in its own right, and this almost seems to require its shadow—the murky world of deviant ideas that refuse to conform to the prescriptions of the theological thought police. In time these free souls will be tagged as “heretics,” but at this stage they are more dangerous; not as external competitors, but as alternative (internal) ways of imagining holy living.

    How ironic then that the section climaxes with an appeal to avoid arguing over words:

    Remind them of this,
    and warn them before God that they are to avoid wrangling over words,
    which does no good but only ruins those who are listening.

    Gospel: Jesus and the lepers

    In the NT Gospels we have two stories about Jesus healing people suffering from some kind of feared skin disease, commonly called leprosy (but more likely Hansen’s Disease). In Mark 1:40-45 (and its parallels in Matthew 8 and Luke 5) we have a report of a single person being healed by Jesus. In Luke 17 we have another story, not preserved in either Mark or Matthew, about Jesus healing a group of ten persons.

    As it happens, a fragmentary Christian text (the so-called Egerton Gospel, or Papyrus Egerton 2) with a mere 87 lines of text surviving on three pieces of papyrus provides a possible additional witness to the history of this tradition. This is the second oldest surviving Christian document, being dated on paleographical grounds to the first half of the second century. Only the John Rylands fragment (P52) with its precious snippet of John’s Gospel is likely to be older than this document.

    Helmut Koester and John Dominic Crossan have argued that GEger is not dependent on the NT Gospels. If so, then it would provide independent attestation for at least a few of the stories now known to us from the NT Gospels. It may also give us some insight into the way that the miracle tradition developed between the time of Jesus and the writing of the Gospels.

    The introduction to GEger in The Complete Gospels outlines the issues:

    On the one hand, some scholars have maintained that Egerton’s unknown author composed by borrowing from the canonical gospels. This solution has not proved satisfactory for several reasons: The Egerton Gospel’s parallels to the synoptic gospels lack editorial language peculiar to the synoptic authors, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. They also lack features that are common to the synoptic gospels, a difficult fact to explain if those gospels were Egerton’s source.

    The Egerton Gospel does have very close parallels to John, but because Egerton’s versions of these parallels show less development than John’s, Egerton may preserve earlier forms of the tradition.

    On the other hand, suggestions that the Egerton Gospel served as a souce for the authors of Mark and/or John also lack conclusive evidence. The most likely explanation for the Egerton Gospel’s similarities and differences from the canonical gospels is that Egerton’s author made independent use of traditional sayings and stories of Jesus that were also used by the other gospel writers.
    The full texts of the surviving stories of Jesus healing lepers are as follows:

    (1) GEger 2b [35-47]

    Just then a leper comes up to him and says, “Teacher, Jesus, in wandering around with lepers and eating with them in the inn, I became a leper myself. If you want to, I’ll be made clean.” The master said to him, “Okay-you’re clean!” And at once his leprosy vanished from him. Jesus says to him, “Go and have the priests examine <your skin>. Then offer your cleansing what Moses commanded-and no more sinning.” [ . . . ] [Complete Gospels]

    (2) Synoptic Gospels

    (2a) Mark 1:40-45

    A leper came to him begging him, and kneeling he said to him, “If you choose, you can make me clean.” Moved with pity, Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, and said to him, “I do choose. Be made clean!” Immediately the leprosy left him, and he was made clean. After sternly warning him he sent him away at once, saying to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone; but go, show yourself to the priest, and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, as a testimony to them.” But he went out and began to proclaim it freely, and to spread the word, so that Jesus could no longer go into a town openly, but stayed out in the country; and people came to him from every quarter.
    =Matt 8:1-4
    When Jesus had come down from the mountain, great crowds followed him; and there was a leper who came to him and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, if you choose, you can make me clean.” He stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, “I do choose. Be made clean!” Immediately his leprosy was cleansed. Then Jesus said to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone; but go, show yourself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, as a testimony to them.”
    =Luke 5:12-16
    Once, when he was in one of the cities, there was a man covered with leprosy. When he saw Jesus, he bowed with his face to the ground and begged him, “Lord, if you choose, you can make me clean.” Then Jesus stretched out his hand, touched him, and said, “I do choose. Be made clean.” Immediately the leprosy left him. And he ordered him to tell no one. “Go,” he said, “and show yourself to the priest, and, as Moses commanded, make an offering for your cleansing, for a testimony to them.” But now more than ever the word about Jesus spread abroad; many crowds would gather to hear him and to be cured of their diseases. But he would withdraw to deserted places and pray.

    (2b) Luke 17:11-19
    On the way to Jerusalem Jesus was going through the region between Samaria and Galilee. As he entered a village, ten lepers approached him. Keeping their distance, they called out, saying, “Jesus, Master, have mercy on us!” When he saw them, he said to them, “Go and show yourselves to the priests.” And as they went, they were made clean. Then one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, praising God with a loud voice. He prostrated himself at Jesus’ feet and thanked him. And he was a Samaritan. Then Jesus asked, “Were not ten made clean? But the other nine, where are they? Was none of them found to return and give praise to God except this foreigner?” Then he said to him, “Get up and go on your way; your faith has made you well.”

    John Dominic Crossan

    Crossan [Historical Jesus, 322] notes the significance of the unusual formulation of the request for a healing: “if you will/I will …”

    It seems to underline a striking ambiguity between “declared clean” and “made (healed) clean.” This sets Jesus’ power and authority on a par with, or even above that of the Temple itself. It is not just a simple request for and granting of a cure. Jesus can, if he wants, both cure and declare cured.

    Although the story of Jesus healing a leper seems to affirm the authority and power of Jesus to heal and declare clean, there is also the detail that has Jesus instructing the healed leper(s) to go and seek certification from the traditional priestly authorities.

    Jesus, accordingly, is carefully obedient to the purity regulations on leprosy, as in Deuteronomy 24:8-9. Those two points [Jesus as authoritative healer and Jesus seeking certification of the healing by the priest] must derive from the common source available to the Egerton Gospel as well as to Mark, but they seem in flat contradiction with one another. How is that to be explained?

    Crossan then outlines a four-step process as the tradition develooped from an original story (that did not include the referral to the priests) came under two very different influences:

    The common source version had already reversed and rectified the image of Jesus as an alternative to or negation of Mosaic purity regulations by that terminally appended injunction to legal fidelity. The twin texts now available to us move that common source in opposite directions. The Egerton Gospel continues and intensifies the vision of Jesus as law-observant teacher. The leper’s opening autobiographical admission shows him as one either ignorant of or disobedient to legal purity regulations. And Jesus’ final admonition, “sin no more,” a phrase found also in John 5:14 and 8:11, indicate that Jesus does not agree with such “sinning.” Mark, on the other hand, continues and intensifies the thrust of the original story over and against that of the common source. He has the leper deeply reverential to Jesus, has Jesus actually touch the leper, and qualifies the fulfillment of the purity regulations with the confrontational challenge “as a witness (against) them,” namely, the priests. Do it, in other words, to show them who I am and what I can do. For Mark, then, Jesus is precisely not a law-observant Jew.

    Leprosy and the purity code

    The book of Leviticus devotes two chapters to the diagnosis and control of such skin diseases: see chs 13-14. The aim was not to cure the disease, but to control its possible dissemination within the community:

    Leviticus 13:2-17
    When a person has on the skin of his body a swelling or an eruption or a spot, and it turns into a leprous disease on the skin of his body, he shall be brought to Aaron the priest or to one of his sons the priests. 3The priest shall examine the disease on the skin of his body, and if it is a leprous disease; after the priest has examined him he shall pronounce him ceremonially unclean. … 17the priest shall examine him, and if the disease has turned white, the priest shall pronounce the diseased person clean. He is clean.

    Deuteronomy 24:8-9
    Guard against an outbreak of a leprous skin disease by being very careful; you shall carefully observe whatever the levitical priests instruct you, just as I have commanded them. 9Remember what the LORD your God did to Miriam on your journey out of Egypt.

    See also Numbers 12:1-15 (Miriam’s leprosy)

    The victim of such a public health policy was the person with the skin disease, as they were excluded from the community and banned from any contact with their family. Interestingly, in this miracle story the leper does not ask to be healed, but to be made clean!

    Jesus, and the compassionate holiness of God

    The fact that Jesus was remembered as “healing lepers” is significant for our knowledge of his historical focus on the poor and the marginalized.

    Marcus Borg cites the healing of a leper as an example of Jesus’ radical view of holiness as a contagious and transforming power, rather than as a static condition requiring protection from pollution:

    In the healing of the leper in Mark 1:40-45, Mark reports that Jesus “stretched out his hand and touched him and said, ‘Be clean.’” Leprosy excluded one from human community because it rendered one unclean and everything touched by a leper became unclean. For Jesus to touch a leper ought to have involved defilement, just as in touching a corpse. Yet the narrative reverses this: it was not Jesus who was made unclean by touching the leper. Rather, the leper was made clean. The viewpoint of the Jesus movement in Palestine is clear: holiness was understood to overpower uncleanness rather than the converse. (Conflict, Holiness and Politics in the Teachings of Jesus,1998:147f)

    As the story goes, the “leper” seems already to know about Jesus’ reputation for compassion, since the man approaches Jesus and kneels down to implore his intervention. In return, Jesus touches the leper. Another barrier falls.

    Jesus, Francis and the lepers

    Franciscan communities around the world celebrate the feast day of St Francis of Assisi (October 4), and Proper 28C sometimes coincides with those observances.

    One of the turning points in the journey of St Francis seems to have been an encounter with a leper; just as much an outcast in 12C (Christian) Italy as in 1C Palestine.

    There is also a suggestion that Francis himself may have contracted tuberculoid leprosy, and that this may be the explanation for the stigmata (or signs of Christ’s Passion) that appeared on his body:

    Jesus Database

    • 110 A Leper Cured – (1) Eger. Gos. 2b [35-47]; (2a) Mark 1:40-45 = Matt 8:1-4 = Luke 5:12-16; (2b) Luke 17:11-19

    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

    • God of Day and God of Darkness – GA541
    • Ubi Caritas – GA324
    • Lord of Creation – GA423
    • Now thank we all our God – GA425

    See David MacGregor’s Together to Celebrate site for recommendations from a variety of contemporary genre.

  • Twentieth Sunday after Pentecost (6 October 2013)

    Contents

    Lectionary

    • Lamentations 1:1-6 & Lam 3:19-26 (or Psalm 137)
    • 2 Timothy 1:1-14
    • Luke 17:5-10

    First Reading: Lamenting the fall of Zion

    This week’s passage from Lamentations interrupts a series of readings from Jeremiah. The scroll of Lamentations seems to take us directly into the pain and confusion when the armies of Babylon, under the command of Nebuchadnezzar, captured Jerusalem and destroyed its temple. These poetic laments are traditionally attributed to Jeremiah, but their authorship is unknown. They are mostly formal pieces, written to fit with a strict alphabetical acrostic pattern. This classic device of the idle literate is also seen in texts such as Proverbs 31:10–31 (The Good Wife) and Psalm 119. Whatever else we know from the use of an acrostic, we can be sure that these laments were not composed in haste and anguish, but in the leisure of a sage’s study—perhaps sometime during the exilic period when there seemed little likelihood of a return to Zion?

    These poems have survived as part of the Bible because of their use in the liturgies of 9th Ab that commemorate the capture of Jerusalem. As one of the five festival scrolls (the Megiloth), Lamentations has served as a classic text for “believers in exile.” In time the 9th Ab came to be associated in Jewish worship with the disasters that befell Jerusalem in 70 CE and again in 135 CE, as well as other occasions of collective suffering that have marked their history.

    Second Reading: Invoking the legacy of Paul

    This week we begin a series of four Sundays when the second reading comes from 2 Timothy.

    First and Second Timothy, together with Titus, comprise a distinctive set of writings among the NT letters of Paul, usually described as the “Pastoral Episltes.” Unlike most of the other letters attributed to Paul, these three are addressed to individuals. Timothy and Titus each appear as associates of Paul in his authentic letters, but now they are being offered advice on how to conduct themselves and how to order the lives of the Christian communities where they serve. Key themes in these letters include the danger of false teachings, the need for careful selection of those men (sic) chosen to serve as deacons and bishops, and the importance of correct behavior by various classes of people. The world of thought in these letters is similar to what we find in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch and in Luke-Acts. All three sets of writings presumably come from a similar time early in the second century.

    The creation of false Pauline texts did not stop with these NT writings. Apocryphal texts attributed to Paul include the Acts of Paul and Thecla, the Acts of Andrew and Paul, the Greek Acts of Peter and Paul, the Apocalypse of Paul, the Epistles of Paul and Seneca, the Martyrdom of Paul, the Passions of Peter and Paul, and the Vision of Paul. There were also additional letters by Paul: to the Alexandrians, to the Laodiceans, and a third letter to the Corinthians!

    This week’s selection from 2 Timothy invokes the character of Paul, already long-dead but now portrayed as writing to his junior associate from prison while calmly contemplating his own death. This imaginary Paul is being deployed to assist in the struggle with opponents of the emerging centrist tradition in early second century Christianity. The actual recipients of this letter from Paul are engaged in a struggle on two fronts.

    • On the one side there were those who shared to some extent the anti-Jewish agenda of Marcion. These over-eager enthusiasts for a Paulinist perspective in early Christianity believed that all ties with the Jewish traditions needed to be cut. The Jewish Scriptures were to be rejected, and an expurgated collection of Pauline letters (now missing any traditionalist Jewish elements) was promoted as the basis for Christianity. In the social dynamics of that time and place, with several Jewish uprisings in between the major Jewish-Roman Wars of 66-73 and 132-135, a desire to put some distance between Christians and Jews in the public mind is perhaps understandable. However, Marcion’s prescription was seen as too radical, and his claims to be safeguarding the legacy of Paul needed to be addressed. The Pastoral Letters, and especially 2 Timothy, were composed to counter the co-opting of Paul’s authority for this anti-Jewish agenda.
    • On the other hand there were others within Christianity at the time who were pushing the boundaries in directions that the centrists considered gnostic. The schismatics whose rupture with the Johannine community triggered the Letters of John, come to mind as Christians prepared to discount (and even deny) the humanity of Jesus in their enthusiasm for a more speculative spirituality. Such groups continued to value texts such as the Gospel of John. Indeed, the first commentary on any NT book is a commentary on the Gospel of John by Heracleon, a Gnostic Christian, around 170 CE. The developing traditions now found in the Gospel of Thomas, seem also to reflect a tendency to abandon history in favor of myth. This constituted another threat to the centrist Christians who were eager to enlist Paul the Apostle in their cause.

    We shall see these themes in some of the readings over the next few weeks. In this week’s portion we see Paul affirming the continuity of his faith, and the faith of Timothy, with Paul’s ancestors and Timothy’s mother (Eunice), as well as his maternal grandmother (Lois). Unless already alerted to the wider agenda, such a passing reference might go unnoticed. But when read in context we begin to pick up the point. Note especially the significant affirmation of Timothy’s Jewish upbringing and the positive value of the Jewish Scriptures in 2 Timothy 3:

    But as for you, continue in what you have learned and firmly believed,
    knowing from whom you learned it,
    and how from childhood you have known the sacred writings
    that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. (2Timothy 3:14–15 NRSV)

    Gospel: Luke 17:5-10

    Faith’s Power

    The saying in Luke 17:5-6 seems to be a Lukan variant of a more widely-attested saying of Jesus about the power of faith to achieve what seems impossible, and should not be confused with the well-known parable at 035 The Mustard Seed:

    (1) The earliest witness to this saying comes from 1 Corinthians 13, where Paul seems to be using it against those spiritual enthusiasts who claimed to be possessed (as individuals) of just such an amazing faith and yet, so Paul implies, lacked the underlying Christian charism of love:

    1 Corinthians 13:2b
    If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

    (2) The version attested by the Sayings Gospel Q has been reconstructed as follows:

    If you have faith like a mustard seed, you might say to this mulberry tree:
    Be uprooted and planted in the sea! And it would obey you.

    (3) The Gospel of Thomas has two versions of this saying:

    Thomas 48
    Jesus said, “If two make peace with each other in a single house,
    they will say to the mountain, ‘Move from here!’ and it will move.”

    Thomas 106
    Jesus said, “When you make the two into one, you will become children of Adam,
    2and when you say, ‘Mountain, move from here!’ it will move.”

    (4) The Gospel of Mark uses this saying in the context of Jesus cursing the fig tree, itself a symbol of the destruction that would befall Jerusalem and its awesome Temple structures. The important thing here is that there must not be even the slightest hint of doubt in the believer’s faith:

    Mark 11:22-23
    Jesus answered them, “Have faith in God.
    Truly I tell you, if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and thrown into the sea,’
    and if you do not doubt in your heart, but believe that what you say will come to pass,
    it will be done for you.

    = Matt 21:21
    Jesus answered them, “Truly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt,
    not only will you do what has been done to the fig tree,
    but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,’
    it will be done.

    (5) Finally, Matthew and Luke each develop the saying so that the emphasis falls on the point that even “little” (mustard seed sized) faith is effective:

    Matt 17:20
    He said to them, “Because of your little faith.
    For truly I tell you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain,
    ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move;
    and nothing will be impossible for you.”

    = Luke 17:5-6
    The apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith!”
    The Lord replied, “If you had faith the size of a mustard seed,
    you could say to this mulberry tree, ‘Be uprooted and planted in the sea,’
    and it would obey you.

    In these various instances of this widespread aphorism we can see the persistence of an underlying structure. The conclusion is always the same: subject to some condition being fulfilled, the impossible becomes achievable. But the description of what that prior condition changes from one example to the next: is it individual faith (free of any shadow of doubt), faith no matter how miniscule/fragile, common/shared faith (rather than individual charisma), or unity and harmony within the community (or the individual)?

    The Servant’s Duty

    The other part of this week’s Gospel takes us into a social setting that is quite foreign to most Western readers. The story assumes not only the acceptance of slavery, but an honor/shame social system in which honor is presumed to lie with the powerful while the subservient have no inherent dignity. This mindset now stands in stark contrast to the values expressed in documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [UDHR], which asserts the dignity and worth of each and every human person.

    These are the liberal values of contemporary secular Western societies, although they are often attacked by both Western Neo-Conservatives as well as by Two-Thirds World leaders who resent Western cultural and political domination. They are not biblical values, even if many people see them as vaguely Christian in character. They have more to do with the spirit of the Enlightenment than with traditional religious views of humanity and society.

    There is a partial parallel to the story in the version of 046 The Tenants given in the Shepherd of Hermas, a Christian text thought to have been written in Rome around 100 CE. In this version, one of the servant’s has a “proper” sense of his duty as a slave and is commended for this by the master–even being made a joint heir with the master’s own son:

    He deliberated to himself saying: ‘I have completed the lord’s command. Now I will dig up this vineyard, and it will look better when it is dug; without weeds it will give better fruit, since the weeds will not be choking it.’ So he dug up the vineyard and pulled out all the weeds that were in it. That vineyard improved and was thriving without weeds choking it. 5After a while, the owner of the slave and the vineyard returned and went to the vineyard. Seeing the vineyard nicely enclosed and even dug and weeded, and the vines thriving, he was extremely happy about what the slave did. 6Calling his loved son whom he held as heir, and his friends whom he held as advisors, he told them what he had commanded the slave and what he found achieved. These congratulated the slave according to the testimony given by the owner. 7He said to them: ‘I promised freedom to this slave if he kept the commandment I gave him. He kept my commandment and added good work to the vineyard, and so has pleased me greatly. In return for this work he has done, I want to make him joint heir with my son, for he appreciates the good and did not neglect it, but completed it.’ [Hermeneia]

    Both the Gospel of Luke and the Shepherd of Hermas reflect the social conservatism of Christianity in the early decades of the second century. It is from this same period that we get the Pastoral Epistles (1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus) with their household codes that exhort Christians to reflect proper respect to those above them in the social order: wives to husbands, children to fathers, slaves to masters, etc.

    The radical vision of Jesus (“give Caesar what belongs to Caesar, but give God what belongs to God”) soon gave way to the collective instinct that traditional values should not be challenged. Christians were told to pray for the emperor and to show respect to those in authority.

    The ancient tension between Gospel values and cultural norms may be again exposed in contemporary calls for “family values” and faith-based engagement in party politics. Are Gospel values to be found in historical expressions of human society, or in a prophetic critique of any and every human institution that claims ultimate value?

    Current conflict over human sexuality, and especially same-sex relationships, points to deep-seated cultural values that are in tension with the liberal secular values enshrined in artefacts such as the UDHR. Conservatives opposed to homosexuality appeal to the Bible as if it provided timeless truths free of the cultural conditioning of its authors and original audiences. To their chagrin, progressives also appeal to the counter-cultural instinct of the faith tradition that birthed the Bible in the first place.

    The Bible does not serve either side well in such disputes. It is a flawed text insofar as it assumes and promotes such things as slavery, demon possession, ethnic cleansing, racial superiority, a three-tiered universe, and the subordination of women. Such realities should be an embarrassment to traditionalists and progressives alike. The Bible does not fit neatly with our cultural assumptions, as this week’s Gospel reminds us. The immense spiritual value of the Bible may lie more in its capacity to empower our human quest than its ability to (re)solve our immediate challenges.

    Jesus Database

    • 035 The Mustard Seed – (1) Gos. Thom. 20:1-2; (2) 1or2?Q: Luke 13:18-19 = Matt 13:31-32 ; (3) Mark 4:30-32 = Matt 13:31-3.
    • 055 Caesar and God – (1) Gos. Thom. 100; (2) Eger. Gos. 3a [50-57a]; (3) Mark 12:13-17 = Matt 22:15-22 = Luke 20:20-26.
    • 173 Faiths Power – (1) 1Q or ?2Q: Luke 17:5-6 = Matt 17:20
    • 383 The Servants Duty – (1) Luke 17:7-10; (2) Her. Sim. 5.2,4-7

    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 David MacGregor’s Together to Celebrate site for recommendations from a variety of contemporary genre.

  • Nineteenth Sunday after Pentecost (29 September 2013)

    Contents

    Lectionary

    • Jeremiah 32:1-3a, 6-15 & Psalm 91:1-6, 14-16
    • 1 Timothy 6:6-19
    • Luke 16:19-31

    Introduction: Riches and Reversal

    This week’s Gospel works with popular themes in the religious tradition: the fate of rich and poor, and hopes of an eventual reversal in ther fortunes in the next life.

    The details of the story are sometimes drawn into service when people speculate on the “geography of eternity”—the existence and form of heaven and hell. This makes little more sense than using the story of Good Samaritan to prepare a map of the road from Jerusalem to Jericho, or the parable of the Sower to reconstruct ancient farming methods. Such details are not the point of the story, and may not do anything more than reflect popular conceptions among Jesus’ listeners.

    Interfaith parallels

    There are many parallels in world literature to this kind of tale that contrasts the fates of a rich man and a poor person in the next life.

    Rabbinic sources

    Samuel T. Lachs [Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament, 312ff] cites the following Jewish parallels as of special interest:

    Two godly men lived in Ashkelon. They ate together, drank together, and studied the Law together. One of them died and kindness was not shown to him [i.e., nobody attended his funeral]. The son of Ma’yan, a tax collector, died and the whole city stopped work to show him kindness. The [surviving] pious man began to complain; he said, “Alas that no [evil] comes upon the haters of Israel [i.e., the wicked in Israel].” In a dream he saw a vision, and one said to him, “Do not despise the children of your Lord. The one had committed one sin and departed this life in it, and the other had performed one good deed and departed in it. What sin had the one committed? Far be it that he had ever committed a sin. But once he put on the tephilim for the head before the tephilim for the hand. And what good deed had the other performed? Far be it that he had ever done a deed. But once he had arranged a meal for the bouleutai [municipal councillors] of the city and they did not come. And he said, “Let the poor eat that it not be wasted.” Others say, He once went through the market-place, and he dropped a loaf, and a poor man picked it up, and he said nothing so as not to make him blush or shame. After some days the pious man saw in a dream his companion walking in the Garden under trees and by wells of water; and he saw the tax-collector, and his tongue sought to drink at the brink of a river; he tried to reach the water but he could not. [TJ Sanh. 6.9,23c]

    Consider two wicked men who associated with one another in this world. One of them repented of his evil deeds before his death, while the other did not, with the result that the formers stands in the company of the righteous,while his fellow stands in the company of the wicked. And beholding him he says, “Woe is me … is there then favor shown here? We both of us committed robberies, we both of us committed murders together, yet he stands in the company of the righteous and I in the company of the wicked!” And they reply to him and say, “You fool! You were despicable after your death and lay for three days, and did not they drag you to your grave with ropes? … And your associate understood and repented of his evil ways, and you, you also had the opportunity of repenting and you did not take it.” He thereupon says to them, “Permit me to go and repent!” And they answer him and say, “You fool! Do you know that this world is the Sabbath, and the world whence you have come is like the eve of the Sabbath? If a man does not prepare his meal on the eve of the Sabbath, what shall he eat on the Sabbath?” [TJ Hag. 2.2, 77d]

    Muslim sources

    Tarif Khalidi [The Muslim Jesus] provides the following traditions relevant to this cluster.

    [125] They asked Jesus, “Show us an act by which we may enter paradise.” Jesus said, “Do not speak at all.” They said, “We cannot do this.” Jesus replied, “Then speak only good.” [late Ninth Century CE]

    [144] In the time of Jesus, there was a man nick¬named Mal’un (Damned) because of his avarice. One day a man who was going on a military campaign came to him and said, Mal’un, if you give me some weapons to help me wage war, you will be saved from hell-fire.” But Mal’un shunned him and gave him nothing. As the man turned away, Mal’un regretted his decision and called him back to give him his sword. When the man returned home he was met by Jesus, accompanied by a devout man who had worshiped God for seventy years. “Where did you get this sword from?” Jesus asked. The man replied, Mal’un gave it to me,” and Jesus was pleased with his charity. The next time Jesus and the devout man passed by, Mal’un, who was sitting at his door step, said to himself, “I will go and look upon Jesus’ face and the face of the devout man.” When he did so, the devout man said, “I will flee from this Mal’un before he burns me with his fire.”
    Then God inspired Jesus to say, “Tell this sinful servant of mine, ‘I have forgiven you because of your charity with the sword and your love for Jesus, and tell the devout man that you will be his companion in heaven.” The devout man replied, “As God is my witness! I do not want heaven with him and I do not want a companion like him.” God Almighty inspired Jesus to reply, “You are not content with my decree and you have denigrated my servant. Thus, I will see you damned in hell. I have exchanged your places, and have given your station in heaven to my servant and his station in hell to you.” [Tenth Century CE]

    Gospel: Lazarus and the Rich Man

    Kenneth E. Bailey

    Drawing on his many years of living and teaching in Beirut, Kenneth Baily offers some fascinating insights into the Gospel traditions as he draws on a combination of ancient Arabic commentaries and contemporary Middle Eastern peasant perspectives.

    In “The Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man” (Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies and the Gospels. ch. 30. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008), Bailey offers a fresh reading of this week’s Gospel passage. He assigns it to the category of “pearly gate story” that continues to be popular in modern Middle Eastern societies, but which have more to do with humorous reflection on “the ambiguities of public life in the Midle East” than providing a detailed outline of the speaker’s view of the afterlife.

    For those without easy access to his book, this essay is also available online.

    For this week’s lectionary notes, it may suffice to highlight three of the points Bailey offers in relation to the rich man, to Lazarus and to the friendly dogs:

    • Bailey notes that the first scene features a self-indulgent rich man, who feasted sumptuously every single day of the week (and thus ignores the Sabbath requirements for his servants to rest from their labours). This man is decked out in the most expensive purple robes and enjoys underwear made from the finest linen. Conspicuous consumption par excellence.
    • Lazarus is the only character in any of Jesus’ parables who is named. And his name means, “the one whom God helps.” Watch this space, for blessed are the poor!
    • Then there are the dogs. Presumably there as savage guard dogs to patrol the rich man’s estate (it boasted both door and gates), the dogs befriend Lazarus while their master ignores his plight as his pampered guests arrive each day to share his banquets. Bailey observes:

    The rich man will do nothing for Lazarus, but these wild guard dogs, who attack all strangers, know that Lazarus is their friend and do what they can—they lick his sores. Lazarus lay each day in the heat and flies of the village street. The dogs gathered to help him.

    Bailey then cites the comments of Ibn al-Tayyib, a medieval cleric, biblical scholar and medical doctor from eleventh century Baghdad:

    I understand the licking of Lazarus’s sores gave him relief and eased his pain. This reminds us that the silent, unspeaking animals felt compassion for him and they helped him and cared for him more than the humans. He was naked without medical attention other than what he received from the dogs.

    Jesus Seminar

    The Jesus Seminar [The Five Gospels, 361] was divided on the authenticity of this story. While the votes were evenly split between Red/Pink and Gray/Black, the weighting system used by the Seminar resulted in a definite Gray outcome.

    Factors identified as weighing against the authenticity include:

    • the motif of reversal of the fortunes of the poor and the rich in the next world is widely-attested in the ancient Near East;
    • characters in Jesus’ parables do not usually have personal names;
    • an interest in the fate of the poor is a key Lucan theme.

    On the other hand, there are some aspects of this story that do fit with Jesus as storyteller:

    • the focus is on the extreme indifference of the wealthy man, not his wealth as such;
    • there is no judgment scene;
    • the reversal of their fates is similar to the reversals seen in 419 The Vineyard Laborers and 095 The Feast.

    While half the Fellows were inclined to retain the core story within the historical Jesus database, there was near unanimity on the post-Easter origins of the conclusion in verses 27-31.

    John Dominic Crossan

    John Dominic Crossan [In Parables, 65f] considers this parables as one of several “Reversal Parables” — 447 The Good Samaritan, 474 Pharisee and Publican, 459 Place at Table (Wedding Guest), 460 Inviting the Outcasts (The Proper Guests), and 095 The Feast, and 465 The Prodigal Son. He begins the discussion of this saying with a reference to the literary unity of 16:1-31:

    Whatever may be the redactional activity of Luke himself in all this it is clear that the positioning of 16:19-31 within this larger literary complex places the emphasis on the proper use of worldly goods and on the failure of the rich man to do so. But if 16:19-31 is isolated from this context furnished by the tradition and the focus is placed on its own internal content, what could such a story have meant for the historical Jesus?

    Crossan dismisses the concluding section in 16:27-31 as originating with the early Church rather than with Jesus himself. He identifies four specific reasons for this view:

    First, there is the theme of disbelief before the resurrected one in 16:31, “neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead,” and in 24:11,25,41, “and they did not believe them … ‘O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe’ … And while they still disbelieved.” Second, there is the double mention of Moses and the prophets in 16:29,31 and 24:27,44. Third, the resurrected one is mentioned in 16:31, “one should rise from the dead,” and in 24:46, “on the third day rise from the dead.” Finally, the use of “they will repent” in 16:30 will reappear in Acts 2:38; 3:19; 8:22; 17:30; and 26:20 in kerygmatic contexts. Methodologically, Luke 16:27-31 cannot be taken as part of the original parable of Jesus. Most likely it is pre-Lukan and is a post-resurrectional application of the parable. It allegorically alludes to the Jewish refusal to accept either Moses or the prophets as witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus, or even to accept the risen Jesus himself. When one reads 16:31, “He said to them, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead,’” in its present context one thinks of Jesus and not the rich man.

    Having separated the polemical conclusion from core parable, Crossan places the original saying in the context of ancient wisdom:

    What is striking, especially against this background, is Jesus’ omission of any moral preparation for the reversal or any ethical judgment on the earthly status of the participants. In a situation where riches were often construed as God’s approval, and sickness often understood as God’s curse or punishment, it cannot be immediately presumed that 16:19-26, as told here, would automatically beget moral judgment for Lazarus and against the rich man. It seems best, then, to take 16:19-26 as an actual parable of Jesus. Its literal point was a strikingly amoral description of situational reversal between the rich man and Lazarus. Its metaphorical point was the reversaal of expectation and situation, of value and judgment, which is the concomitant of the Kingdom’s advent. As the judgments which have to be made on the clerics as against the Samaritan are forcibly reversed, so also those which be expected concerning the sick beggar and rich man are turned upside down. Jesus was not interested in moral admonition on the dangers of riches–the folktale had already done this quite admirably–but in the reversal of human situation in which the Kingdom’s disruptive advent could be metaphorically portrayed and linguistically made present.

    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 David MacGregor’s Together to Celebrate site for recommendations from a variety of contemporary genre.

  • Eighteenth Sunday after Pentecost (22 September 2013)

    Contents

    Lectionary

    • Jeremiah 8:18-9:1 & Psalm 79:1-9
    • I Timothy 2:1-7
    • Luke 16:1-13

    Gospel: The Shrewd Manager

    All commentators confirm what the typical Bible reader senses: this is a parable that challenges our normal way of looking at life, and of hearing Jesus. We do not anticipate hearing Jesus commend a corrupt manager, and we find it all but impossible to separate the Kingdom message of Jesus from the immorality of the characters.

    Of course, this is not the only parable to challenge our skills as active listeners.

    As we saw when discussing the Good Samaritan, the morality of the characters is not usually the focus of a parable. This is more easily recognised in parables that involve no moral agents, but is more difficult to keep in mind when the key characters seem to be enagged in immoral conduct as part of the storyteller’s art:

    When Jesus gave the Sower parable, for example, his first hearers and his modern readers would probably all agree on one thing: Jesus was not interested in agrarian reform in eastern Galilee. Whatever he might have meant one is immediately certain that agriculture is not the point of the story. But when Jesus tells parables whose content is not some morally neutral activity such as sowing or harvesting but involves a morally significant action, it may or may not be at all so clear if he is giving examples (act/do not act like this) or telling parables. It will be argued in this chapter that the parables of reversal have been turned in almost all cases into examples precisely because of this ambiguity. It will also be clear that Luke is especially fond of this type of transformed parable. (John Dominic Crossan, In Parables: The Challenge of the Historical Jesus p. 55)

    To that insight from Crossan we might add the observation that what strikes us as immoral or unacceptable behaviour will be largely determined by our own social location. Wealthy internet-connected property-owning westerners will see the failure of trust implicit in this story more keenly than a poverty-stricken landless farmer in many parts of the Third World. The horror of finding our pension plan has been obliterated by the self-serving actions of a trusted advisor is only a nightmare for those with wealth to entrust to the care of another. What is it about a corrupt trust fund manager that speaks to us of God’s empire?

    John Dominic Crossan [In Parables, 106-108] discusses this saying as one of four “action parables” that reverse the expected development of the story line. In this case, rather than being punished for his crooked bookkeeping, the manager is commended even (and especially) by his master.

    He begins by noting the care with which Luke places this saying in a wider context within Luke 16:1-13:

    There is already a scholarly consensus that a variety of applications have been added to this parable in the succeeding verse (sic) in Luke 16:1-13. The classical statement of this is in C.H. Dodd: “We can almost see here notes for three separate sermons on the parable as text.” But this consensus breaks down completely when one discusses where the original parable ended and the additions began.

    Crossan later highlights the significance of 16:2 “within the literary economy of the story.”

    Whatever is happening in 16:5-7 there was already a problem between master and servant as early as 16:2 (“wasting his goods”). When 16:2 and 16:5-7 are read together within the literary tension of the story, one has the picture of laziness organizing itself under crisis. The steward has not obtained sufficient return for the master and is therefore being removed 916:2). In such a situation he may as well get some terminal benefits from the master’s losses and so ingratiates hismelf with the debtors (16:5-7). When he is later out of a job they will, hopefully, feel grateful to him for his help and maybe even responsible for his firing (16:3-4). He has created a sort of Robin Hood image out of his inefficiency.

    After outling a three-part structure of this “carefully formed mini-drama,” Crossan concludes:

    The cleverness of the steward consisted not only in solving his problem but in solving it by means of the very reason (low profits) that had created it in the first place. In the light of this the parable ends quite adequately at 16:7. The rest, including 16:8a, is commentary.

    Bernard Brandon Scott [Re-Imagine the World: An Introduction to the Parables of Jesus, 85-95] discusses this saying in some detail. He begins by alerting us to two common misconceptions that distort many interpretations of the parable:

    This is one of the strangest and most difficult of Jesus’ parables. Two customary assumptions undermine most attempts to interpret the parable.

    • The master is God.
    • The economics system is capitalism.

    As Scott points out, those who identify the master with God then face the embarrassment of the master’s commendation of the manager for his immoral conduct. This approach results in interpretive contortions to excuse God from condoning dishonesty and to find (impose?) some other meaning on the parable. Similarly, if the underlying economic system is assumed to be capitalism we again miss the central thrust of the parable, as we are distracted by our natural empathy for the master/capitalist who has been defrauded by his corrupt employee. The actions of the master and manager need to be read within the context of an ancient honor/shame society. Scott observes:

    The manager’s situation is precarious. He is not simply out of work, as in a capitalist system. He can’t just go to look for work somewhere else. He is homeless and without resources. He will soon be in a life or death situation, for he has no way to earn a living. …

    The manager envisions as his options two of the most disgraceful things in the ancient world. “To dig ditches” is too contemporary a reference. “To dig” in the Greek probably refers to digging in the mines which is slave work and nearly always a death sentence.

    The quotation from Sirach [40:28-30, below] makes clear that begging is also a condemnation to death. Someone who is reduced to begging is without resources. Without the patronage of his master, the manager is in real danger. …

    Digging and begging are images of his desperation.

    My child, do not lead the life of a beggar;
    it is better to die than to beg.
    When one looks to the table of another,
    one’s way of life cannot be considered a life.
    One loses self-respect with another person’s food,
    but one who is intelligent and well instructed guards against that.
    In the mouth of the shameless begging is sweet,
    but it kindles a fire inside him. [Sirach 40:28-30]

    In his desperation the manager contrives to create a social space that will sustain him as the interacting lines of honor and shame enmesh around his crisis. He extends generous discounts to his master’s major debtors, and puts them in debt to him as a result. Scott continues:

    Just what does the manager do to gain the good will of his master’s debtors? Apparently he eliminates the profit or usurious interest. When the word gets back to the master of what has happened he has two options.

    • The master can repudiate his ex-manager’s action. But this would involve severe loss of face on the master’s part. When those whose debts have been so generously reduced begin to praise the master, it’s unlikely he will risk owning up to what happened.
    • He can accept his ex-manager’s action.

    What then? How is the tension — created by this shrewd move on the manager’s part — to be relieved? Scott sugegsts one way of reading the intentional tension left as the story concludes. It begins by noting that the accusation against the manager is, from the beginning, a slanderous misrepresentation. The Greek word diaballein in 16:2 has the sense “accuse” in the sense of “falsely accuse, slander, lie about.” The great Accuser in the Greek Bible is the Devil, diabolos. Our word diabolic comes from the same root. So the manager has been innocent all along, but sees no way to prove his innocence other than by demonstrating what a shrewd operator he really is (and always has been). Scott then questions whether the manager is to be dismissed after all?

    The master had originally dismissed the manager because he had [allegedly] squandered the master’s property. Now he commends him for acting shrewdly — the way a manager is supposed to act. If the master cannot repudiate the reductions in debt instituted by the manager without loss of face, do we have to imagine that the master let his dismissal stand or could he have taken the manager back?

    In the social world of 1C Palestine, where debt burdens reduced people to poverty and consigned many to slavery as a consequence, the master would not have been the object of public sympathy as Jesus’ listeners first heard this tale. As Scott points out, both the master and the shrewd manager have been dishonest. The master has been making a huge profit at the expense of his fellows, while the manager has been willing to fiddle the books to gain himself new friends.

    In this parable the manager gets even with the master by appropriating the master’s profit, which itself is morally suspect — for as we have seen no characters in this parable are innocent. When the master commends the manager for his shrewdness, he also reminds us that the manager is unjust or dishonest. We are reminded that the moral holiday is not really a holiday. Wrong has been done, lots of wrong on all sides.

    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

    • All the earth, proclaim the Lord – AHB 100
    • Alleluia, the gospel is among us (Bruxvoort-Colligan)
    • Jesus the Lord said I am the bread – AHB 185
    • Lord of the dance – AHB 183

    See David MacGregor’s Together to Celebrate site for recommendations from a variety of contemporary genre.

Exit mobile version