gregoryjenks

Tag: RCL

  • Easter Day (31 March 2013)

    Contents

    Lectionaries

    At the Vigil
    First Reading
    A selection from the following list …

    • Genesis 1:1-2:4a and Psalm 136:1-9, 23-26
    • Genesis 7:1-5, 11-18; 8:6-18; 9:8-13 and Psalm 46
    • Genesis 22:1-18 and Psalm 16
    • Exodus 14:10-31; 15:20-21 and Exodus 15:1b-13, 17-18
    • Isaiah 55:1-11 and Isaiah 12:2-6
    • Baruch 3:9-15, 3:32-4:4 or Proverbs 8:1-8, 19-21; 9:4b-6 and Psalm 19
    • Ezekiel 36:24-28 and Psalm 42 and 43
    • Ezekiel 37:1-14 and Psalm 143
    • Zephaniah 3:14-20 and Psalm 98

    Romans 6:3-11 and Psalm 114
    Luke 24:1-12
    In the morning of Easter Day
    Acts 10:34-43 or Isaiah 25:6-9
    Ps. 118:1-2, 14-24
    I Cor. 15:1-11 or Acts 10:34-43
    John 20:1-18 or Luke 24:1-12

    In the evening of Easter Day
    Isaiah 25:6-9
    Psalm 114
    I Corinthians 5:6b-8
    Luke 24:13-49
    The readings shown here are from the RCL list, and some passages may slightly in other listings.

    Introduction

    The traditions associated with Holy Week and Easter lie at the heart of the Christian faith dealing, as they do, with the character of Jesus, the circumstances of his death and the affirmation that not even death could prevent the successful outcome of the divine program (the good news of God’s alternative empire) which Christians believe to have been expressed (indeed, embodied) in and through his words and actions.

    There are doubtless historical elements in all this, however inaccessible to us after two thousand years, and no matter how variously weighted by those studying them.

    There is also a powerful mythology at work here, as the imagination of faith sees through and beyond the historical details to catch a glimpse of a transforming reality; a faith to live by.

    Our primary access to both the history of Jesus and the myth of Jesus is through story, and it is that story which Christian communities around the world will recount all over this week.

    Like the Native American storyteller quoted in Marcus Borg, Reading the Bible Again for the First Time (page 50) we may find ourselves saying:

    “Now I don’t know if it happened this way or not,
    but I know this story is true.”

    For many people, their personal and communal preparations for Easter are deeply impacted by the publication of some new discovery, or a controversial new theory, relating to Christian origins. It is, I suppose, a perverse kind of compliment to the enduring influence of Christianity even in our largely secular societies that the media sees an opportunity to make an impact (increase viewers, and multiply advertising revenues) by such tactics. In 2006 it was the Gospel of Judas story, in 2007 the so-called Jesus Tomb story, and in 2011 the anticipated Paschal media beat up was a claim to have two of the nails used to crucify Jesus. Up to the time of reviewing these notes, we seem to have been spared such a media event in 2013. Maybe the election of a new pope has exhausted the media interest in religion for now?

    These regular media events timed for release around Easter reinforce the wisdom of the native story tellers who know the truth power of a story lies in its capacity to speak the truth to the present, not the accuracy of its description of the past or its projection of the future.

    At the very least, we know that the earliest Christians found story telling a powerful way to develop and test their theology. The different stories created by those ancient Christian faith communities both encapsulated what they were thinking and also extended their thoughts in new directions. The contest of sacred stories reflects a contest of theologies.

    Our modern question (But did it happen that way?) is ultimately not as urgent, nor its answer so satisfying, as the ancient question: What truth is in this story?

    Jesus Database

    There are several items from the Jesus Database inventory of historical Jesus traditions that are relevant to the Easter celebrations, and a convenient single gateway to those items has been provided at the following page:

    For items that are more closely related to the Passion Narrative, see:

    Jesus Seminar Voting Data

    A convenient summary of the Jesus Seminar’s work on the resurrection traditions is available at:

    The Once and Future Bible: Easter essay

    One important topic not able to be considered in chapter 9 of The Once and Future Bible was the death and resurrection of Jesus. This would include what we know about the circumstances of Jesus’ death, the date of his death, who was directly responsible for it, how Jesus may have viewed the prospect of his own death, and how the earliest resurrection traditions may have developed.

    This online essay offers supplementary materials around some of these questions.Some of these pages will continue to be edited and modified, but you are welcome to use the material that has already been prepared and published.

    The original form of the material is also available as a PDF download from that site for those wishing to print and read as a traditional text. Naturally, this means a loss of access to the hyperlinked materials embedded at various points.

    Sermons and Liturgies for Easter

    Please add links at this point for liturgies, prayers and sermons relevant to this weekend’s services, whether they are part of this wiki site or located on an external site.

  • Palm Sunday (24 March 2013)

    Contents

    Lectionaries

    Liturgy of the Palms
    Matthew 21:1-11 (Year A)
    Mark 11:1-11 or John 12:12-16 (Year B)
    Luke 19:28-40 (Year C)
    Liturgy of the Passion
    Hebrew Scriptures: Isaiah 50:4-9a & Psalm 31:9-16
    The Apostle: Phil 2:5-11
    The Gospel:
    Matthew 26:14-27:66 or Matthew 27:11-54 (Year A)
    Mark 14:1-15:47 or Mark 15:1-39,(40-47) (Year B)
    Luke 22:14-23:56 or Luke 23:1-49 (Year C)

    The readings shown here are from the RCL list, and some passages may slightly in other listings.

    For links to resources for other holy days this week, see:

    Introduction

    This Sunday marks the transition from the observance of Lent to the beginning of Holy Week. Its themes are not restricted to those of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem, but extend through to the trial and execution of Jesus. With the solemn reading of the Passion at the Gospel, there is a vast amount of biblical text to process.

    The passion narrative is the most history-like part of the Gospel tradition. Here we are dealing with political events, in a familiar place and involving historical figures known to us. Further, we are dealing with perhaps the most secure historical fact of the entire Jesus tradition, namely his crucifixion. In addition, here we seem to have a connected and coherent series of events from the Last Supper through to the arrest in the garden and then the trials and the execution itself.

    • See Passion Narrative for a list of the major episodes with links to texts and discussion.

    The international controversy surrounding the release of Mel Gibson’s film, The Passion of the Christ a few years ago now (2004) made regular worshippers as well as the wider community more conscious of the personal and historical dimensions of Jesus’ trial and execution. Whether we affirm the film or take issue with some aspect or other of its treatment of the story, the interest shown in the film may deepen our appreciation of Palm Sunday and Holy Week.
    NT scholarship in the mid-20C was persuaded that the Passion Narrative was the first part of the Gospel tradition to take definite shape. The events were so central to the apostolic preaching (the “kerygma”) that some account of how Christians came to believe in a crucified Messiah would have had to be offered to Jews and Greeks alike.

    More recent scholarship has questioned this assumption. Even if the story of Jesus’ betrayal and death was fashioned in the 40s, as Crossan suggests, it is no longer seen as a simple historical narrative. In particular, the relationship between the OT prophecies and the Gospel narrative has been reconsidered.

    As a result, while the historicity of the core event (Jesus crucified) is affirmed, the political and theological agenda of the Gospel narratives has been increasingly recognized.

    Key themes running through the passion narrative include:

    • Jesus as an heroic figure familiar to a Greek world
    • Jesus as an innocent victim familiar from Jewish tradition
    • “according to the Scriptures” as a sign of divine providence
    • transfer of responsibility for Jesus’ death from Rome to the Jews
    • claims to apostolic authority by those who were witnesses to the resurrection

    The online resources gathered in this site may be helpful when thinking about these traditions, along with the following selected perspectives.

    Perspectives

    The Greek hero myth

    The pervasive Greek hero myth seems to have provided GMark with a way of presenting the Jesus story to people familiar with Greek culture. The classic forms of the hero myth, as outlined by Gregory Riley in One Jesus, Many Christs (1997:39ff), may be paraphrased as follows. The points of contact with the familiar story of Jesus are immediately evident.

    The Greek hero was properly the offspring of divine and human parents: most often a virgin human mother and a male god. As offspring of divine-human liaisons they were especially gifted: prowess, or strength, or beauty, or wisdom. The hero was a kind of bridge between divine and human worlds, and destined to be a central player in divine plan to control balance of justice (diké) among humans. As the one chosen by fate for such a destiny, the hero was also something of a victim to fate: constrained by something beyond personal control. Under these circumstances the willing choice to die for principle and with honor could be a pivotal heroic event. These gifted yet tragic heroes often found they had powerful enemies: sometimes a divine parent (or a jealous divine rival) may turn against the hero. In any case, success and popularity could provoke divine envy. Closer to home, however, were the major human opponents—usually rulers and kings with the hero cast as a subversive element boldly refusing the unjust dictates of those in authority. In the stories of the hero, ruler and city can suffer for their unjust treatment of the innocent hero. Inevitably, the hero faces a test of character that provides an opportunity to reveal his true colors. Not all heroes pass the test, but those who do can find that suffering results in learning. At times the hero is something of a bait in a cosmic trap, with his own suffering and death serving as bait to catch and destroy the wicked. In the Greek tradition, heroes often face an early death: painful and in the prime of life. While skepticism about an afterlife was typical of the Greek outlook, heroes were assured a place of honor after death. They would inherit immortality and claim their place in the Elysian Fields. The dead hero could then become an immortal protector of the living, having secured an ironic victory in his untimely and undeserved death. After such a faithful death the hero could protect his own devotees as they also faced the test of living faithfully in a dangerous world. These dead heroes offered protection and help in dire circumstances, with the cult of the heroes being most widespread religious activity in ancient world.

    It is immediately clear that the early Christian accounts of Jesus fit well with this common structure of meaning in the Hellenistic world. Those accounts would have resonated with the ancient archetype of The Hero. Indeed, Jesus himself would have been affected to some degree at least by such models of perfection. While the ancient Jewish biblical tradition can be assumed as the major influence upon Jesus, we cannot exclude the possibility that he was familiar with this widely-attested Hellenistic myth. At the same time, it is more likely that the early Christian story tellers chose to cast Jesus into this role, rather than the traditional assumption that Jesus is described this way because that was the historical reality.

    The Innocent Victim

    Jewish traditions about the suffering of the innocent victim would also have played their part in shaping Jesus’s own mind set and in determining how Christians would later choose to describe him.

    This pattern is best known to many people these days from the stories of Joseph (Genesis 37-50) or perhaps Daniel in the lions’ den (Daniel 6), but in the 1C the Wisdom of Solomon 2:12-5:23 offered a powerful outline of the innocent victim who suffers at the hands of the wicked. When reading that passage, it is not hard to imagine a Jewish-Christian audience hearing it as a description of Jesus.

    Burton L. Mack (A Myth of Innocence, 1988:267) has taken up the work done by George W.E. Nickelsburg on the innocent victim tradition in second Temple Judaism and applied it to Mark’s Gospel. The basic elements of this Jewish myth of the innocent victim may be paraphrased as follows:

    After an introduction to the characters, there is some act by the victim that provokes the unjustified hostility of the wicked and results in them engaging in a conspiracy to eliminate this threat to their power. When the decision is made to dispose of this troublesome opponent, the response by the victim is one of trust and obedience to the divine requirements. A false accusation is brought against the innocent person, resulting in a trial and condemnation. The innocent can protest in vain (when the accusation is false) and pray for deliverance, but must still suffer the ordeal imposed on them by the unjust rulers. The reaction of others to the unjust treatment of the victim may also be noted. In the end, of course, the victim is rescued in some way and vindicated. This vindication can involve some form of exaltation to a place of substantial dignity and power, much to the shame of the unjust perpetrators. the newly invested judge/ruler is acclaimed by the faithful, while those who had mistreated him fear for their own fates before receiving their deserved punishment.

    This indigenous Jewish tradition about the innocent victim may offer one way to interpret the early Christian claim that Jesus’ suffering and exaltation were “according to the Scriptures.” We may be mistaken to look for texts that predict the suffering of the Messiah. Instead, perhaps we need to read the story of Jesus through the lens of the suffering Righteous One.

    The words placed on the lips of Peter by the author of Luke-Acts show just such a way of speaking about Jesus’ death:

    When Peter saw it, he addressed the people, “You Israelites, why do you wonder at this, or why do you stare at us, as though by our own power or piety we had made him walk? The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our ancestors has glorified his servant Jesus, whom you handed over and rejected in the presence of Pilate, though he had decided to release him. But you rejected the Holy and Righteous One and asked to have a murderer given to you, and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses. [Acts 3:12-15]

    Biblical Interpretation

    Jewish midrash, and particularly the technique of pesher interpretation, may provide a clue as to how such classic models from both Greek and Jewish sources could be applied to Jesus. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has given us many examples of how the ancient sacred writings were read during the time of Jesus and the first Christians. Operating from the assumption that the texts were intended to provide clues for the reader to identify God’s purposes in the present time, details in the older writings were reinterpreted as cryptic references to current events and persons.

    What is true of isolated lines from the Psalms is also true of extended passages such as Psalm 22 (widely seen until recently as an awesome prediction of Jesus’ crucifixion rather than as the quarry from which Mark derived the details for his passion narrative) or Isaiah — both of which feature in this week’s lectionaries.

    The Letters of Paul

    Paul’s own writings offer an opportunity to approach the traditions of Jesus’ death from another perspective. While the impact of the previous considerations has been to deconstruct the historicity of the Gospel accounts, the letters of Paul allow us to see how someone writing before any of the Gospels were composed could talk about the death of Jesus.

    Several important passages are to be found in 1 Corinthians. In 1 Cor 11, Paul refers to the last supper as an event on the night that Jesus was betrayed and to the institution of the “Supper of the Lord.” Later, in ch. 15, Paul quotes a summary of the core events concerning Jesus:

    Now I would remind you, brothers and sisters, of the good news that I proclaimed to you, which you in turn received, in which also you stand, through which also you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message that I proclaimed to you–unless you have come to believe in vain. For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. (1Cor 15:1-7)

    Elsewhere in that same letter we find Paul extolling the cross as the central theme of the gospel that he proclaims:

    For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.” Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, God decided, through the foolishness of our proclamation, to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. (1Cor 1:18-24)

    It is clear that Paul has an interpretation of Jesus that is centered around his death. While the later Gospel narratives might present Jesus’ life and death in heroic terms, and eulogize him as the innocent victim of corrupt rulers, those are not the notes struck by Paul. Instead, Paul is more inclined to speak of Jesus’ death as a sacrificial demonstration of ultimate trust (pistis) by Jesus in God — a trust that allows God to be forgiving to everyone, just as Abraham’s legendary trust had resulted in covenant blessings for the Jewish people.

    Elizabeth A. Johnson

    Johnson offers a fresh interpretation of the death of Jesus in her essay, “The Word was Made Flesh and Dwelt Among Us: Jesus Research and Christian Faith.” Her views are perhaps captured in this provocative paragraph:

    To put it simply, Jesus, far from being a masochist, came not to die but to live and to help others live in the joy of the divine love. To put it boldly, God the Creator and Lover of the human race did not need Jesus’ death as an act of atonement but wanted him to flourish in his ministry of the coming reign of God. Human sin thwarted this divine desire yet did not defeat it. (p. 158)

    See Jesus Research and Christian Faith for additional notes and extracts from Johnson’s essay.

    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:

  • Lent 5C (17 March 2013)

    Contents

    Lectionary

    • Isaiah 43:16-21 and Psalm 126
    • Philippians 3:4b-14
    • John 12:1-8

    First Reading: Remember not the former things

    Thus says the LORD,
    who makes a way in the sea,
    a path in the mighty waters,
    who brings out chariot and horse,
    army and warrior;
    they lie down, they cannot rise,
    they are extinguished, quenched like a wick:
    Do not remember the former things,
    or consider the things of old.
    I am about to do a new thing;
    now it springs forth, do you not perceive it?
    I will make a way in the wilderness
    and rivers in the desert.
    The wild animals will honor me,
    the jackals and the ostriches;
    for I give water in the wilderness,
    rivers in the desert,
    to give drink to my chosen people,
    the people whom I formed for myself
    so that they might declare my praise. (Isa 43:16-21)

    This passage reflects the change in emphasis – from condemnation to encouragement – as the Scroll of the Prophet Isaiah moves from anticipating destruction (which came with the Babylonian forces under the command of Nebuchanezzar ca. 586 BCE) to looking for a divine restoration of Israel’s fortunes.

    The much-celebrated wonders of the Exodus tradition, as Moses led the people from slavery in Egypt to a new future as the covenant people in the land God promised them, was held up as a great moment of blessing. Yet, says the anonymous prophet of the exile, God is about to do something even greater and they do not need to think about the past. Rather, they should look to the future.

    Second Reading: Paul’s personal quest

    The excerpt from Paul’s letter to the Philippians fits very well with the central theme of the first reading and psalm while also contributing to the change of gear as we move into the final two weeks of Lent. Like the anonymous spiritual leader within the Isaiah school during the Babylonian exile, Paul’s previous commitments to the great acts of God in the past have been relativized by his sense that God was doing something new. In Paul’s case, it is his personal investment in identity, learning and religious practice that is being discounted (indeed, “trashed”) by the new and better thing he has found in Christ.

    If anyone else has reason to be confident in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, a member of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless.
    Yet whatever gains I had, these I have come to regard as loss because of Christ. More than that, I regard everything as loss because of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and I regard them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but one that comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God based on faith. I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings by becoming like him in his death, if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead.
    Not that I have already obtained this or have already reached the goal; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Beloved, I do not consider that I have made it my own; but this one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the heavenly call of God in Christ Jesus. (Phil 3:4-14 NRSV)

    The radical nature of Paul’s religious commitment to Christ can easily pass us without its full impact being felt. By his own account, Paul was a Torah-observant Jew with an impeccable pedigree and an unblemished personal record. How many of us could claim (like Paul – and the rich young ruler) that we have observed all the requirements of Torah? Yet this Paul has had an encounter with Christ that has turned his life upside down. While it is undoubtedly correct that we should not decribe the Damascus road event as his “conversion” from Judaism to Christianity, it is clear that Paul has undergone a profound religious conversion; albeit one that left him no less a Jew than he was before. Without abandoning his Jewishness, Paul has come to appreciate that he belongs to Christ, and the measure of his own worth will now be the extent to which his life reflects the character of Jesus.

    Gospel: A woman anoints Jesus with Oil

    Each of the NT Gospels has a version of this story. As the following horizontal line synopsis shows, the relationships between these versions is complex.

    Mark: While he was at Bethany
    Matt: Now while Jesus was at Bethany
    Luke:
    John: Six days before the Passover Jesus came to Bethany,

    Mark: in the house of Simon the leper,
    Matt: in the house of Simon the leper,
    Luke: One of the Pharisees asked Jesus to eat with him,
    John: the home of Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead.

    Mark: as he sat at the table,
    Matt: [see below]
    Luke: and he went into the Pharisee’s house and took his place at the table.
    John: There they gave a dinner for him. Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those at the table with him.

    Mark: a woman came with an alabaster jar of very costly ointment of nard,
    Matt: a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very costly ointment,
    Luke: And a woman in the city, who was a sinner, having learned that he was eating in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster jar of ointment.
    John: Mary took a pound of costly perfume made of pure nard,

    Mark: and she broke open the jar and poured the ointment on his head.
    Matt: and she poured it on his head as he sat at the table.
    Luke: She stood behind him at his feet, weeping, and began to bathe his feet with her tears and to dry them with her hair. Then she continued kissing his feet and anointing them with the ointment.
    John: anointed Jesus’ feet, and wiped them with her hair. The house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.

    Mark: But some were there who said to one another in anger,
    Matt: But when the disciples saw it, they were angry and said,
    Luke: Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw it, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what kind of woman this is who is touching him–that she is a sinner.”
    John: But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (the one who was about to betray him), said,

    Mark: “Why was the ointment wasted in this way?
    Matt: “Why this waste?
    Luke:
    John:

    Mark: For this ointment could have been sold for more than three hundred denarii,
    Matt: For this ointment could have been sold for a large sum,
    Luke:
    John: “Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii

    Mark: and the money given to the poor.”
    Matt: and the money given to the poor.”
    Luke:
    John: and the money given to the poor?”

    Mark: And they scolded her.
    Matt:
    Luke:
    John: (He said this not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief; he kept the common purse and used to steal what was put into it.)

    Mark: But Jesus said, “Let her alone; why do you trouble her?
    Matt: But Jesus, aware of this, said to them, “Why do you trouble the woman?
    Luke: Jesus spoke up and said to him, “Simon, I have something to say to you.” “Teacher,” he replied, “speak.” “A certain creditor had two debtors; one owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. When they could not pay, he canceled the debts for both of them. Now which of them will love him more?” Simon answered, “I suppose the one for whom he canceled the greater debt.” And Jesus said to him, “You have judged rightly.”Then turning toward the woman, he said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has bathed my feet with her tears and dried them with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not stopped kissing my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. Therefore, I tell you, her sins, which were many, have been forgiven; hence she has shown great love. But the one to whom little is forgiven, loves little.” Then he said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.” But those who were at the table with him began to say among themselves, “Who is this who even forgives sins?” And he said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”
    John: Jesus said, “Leave her alone.

    Mark: She has performed a good service for me.
    Matt: She has performed a good service for me.
    Luke:
    John: She bought it so that she might keep it for the day of my burial.

    Mark: For you always have the poor with you,
    Matt: For you always have the poor with you,
    Luke:
    John: You always have the poor with you,

    Mark: and you can show kindness to them whenever you wish;
    Matt:
    Luke:
    John:

    Mark: but you will not always have me.
    Matt: but you will not always have me.
    Luke:
    John: but you do not always have me.”

    Mark: She has done what she could;
    Matt:
    Luke:
    John:

    Mark: she has anointed my body beforehand for its burial.
    Matt: By pouring this ointment on my body she has prepared me for burial.
    Luke:
    John: [see above]

    Mark: Truly I tell you, wherever the good news is proclaimed in the whole world,
    Matt: Truly I tell you, wherever this good news is proclaimed in the whole world,
    Luke:
    John:

    Mark: what she has done will be told in remembrance of her.”
    Matt: what she has done will be told in remembrance of her.”
    Luke:
    John:

    While Matthew is clearly dependent on Mark, both Luke and John represent something of a puzzle. The host in Luke is still a man named Simon, but now he is a (Galilean?) Pharisee rather than a leper resident in Bethany. In John the hosts have become the three Bethany siblings (Martha, Mary & Lazarus), and that gives the Johannine version a special twist.

    A story such as this raises several questions. Mostly they defy our desire for explanation, but some of them are still worth consideration and reflection:

    • Does the tradition preserve a memory of female prophets within the original group of Jesus’ followers? Was this strand ignored or suppressed as traditional patriarchal values reasserted themselves in the early Christian community?
    • Is it possible that John preserves a memory of Mary of Bethany as such a prophet?
    • Was the unnamed woman in Mark/Matthew originally Mary Magdalene?
    • What is it about Jesus that seems to have inspired such an expression of love?
    • How does the freedom with which the early Christians have treated this story affect our views of Scripture?
    • Why has the Revised Common Lectionary (RCL) chosen to use John’s version of this episode, rather than the version in Luke 7, and especially in this year of Luke?

    Jesus Database

    • 192 Woman with Ointment – (1a) Mark 14:3-9 = Matt 26:6-13, (2a) Luke 7:36-50, (1b/2b) John 12:1-8, (3) Ign. Eph. 17:2.

    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.

  • Lent 4C (10 March 2013)

    Contents

    Lectionary

    • Joshua 5:9-12 & Psalm 32
    • 2Corinthians 5:16-21
    • Luke 15:1-3,11b-32

     

    A Man had Two Sons

    While the parable of the Prodigal Son is found only in Luke, it may be part of a wider tradition that played with the domestic triangle of a father and two sons. If one were inclined—as an ancient Jewish or Christian might well be—to seek biblical roots for such a device, the Genesis stories offer more than one example:

    • Cain and Abel (Gen 4) would perhaps qualify as the original pair of unequal sons even though their father, Adam, seems to vanish from the story once they are conceived.
    • Abraham and his two sons, Ishmael and Isaac (Gen 16-21), comprise another archetypal triangle; this time with competing mothers.
    • Isaac himself would have to deal with two very different sons, Esau and Jacob (Gen 25-27).
    • Finally, within the Genesis series, Joseph would have two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh (Gen 48). They are blessed by their dying grandfather, Jacob, but not in the order that Joseph had intended.

     

    A related theme, that it will suffice simply to note, concerns the blessing be given to the younger son, whether the chosen youngster has one or several elder siblings. Examples include:

    • Isaac (younger sibling to Ishmael)
    • Jacob (Esau)
    • Joseph (several older brothers born of “senior” wives)
    • Ephraim (Manasseh)
    • David, the youngest son of Jesse.

    In traditional wisdom lore, the aged sage offers advice and instruction to his son, as in these two representative samples:

    Hear, my child, your father’s instruction,
    
and do not reject your mother’s teaching;
    
for they are a fair garland for your head,
    
and pendants for your neck.
    My child, if sinners entice you,
    
do not consent.
    If they say, “Come with us, let us lie in wait for blood;
    let us wantonly ambush the innocent;
    like Sheol let us swallow them alive
    
and whole,
    like those who go down to the Pit.
    We shall find all kinds of costly things;
    we shall fill our houses with booty.
    Throw in your lot among us;
    we will all have one purse”–
    my child, do not walk in their way,
    keep your foot from their paths;
    [Proverbs 1:8-15]

    


    My child, when you come to serve the Lord,
    prepare yourself for testing.
    Set your heart right and be steadfast,
    and do not be impetuous in time of calamity.
    Cling to him and do not depart,
    so that your last days may be prosperous.
    [Sirach 2:1-3]

    Jesus seems to have played with this same tradition in his sayings about fathers with two sons:

    The prodigal

    Then Jesus said, “There was a man who had two sons. 12The younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of the property that will belong to me.’ So he divided his property between them. 13A few days later the younger son gathered all he had and traveled to a distant country, and there he squandered his property in dissolute living. 14When he had spent everything, a severe famine took place throughout that country, and he began to be in need. 15So he went and hired himself out to one of the citizens of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed the pigs. 16He would gladly have filled himself with the pods that the pigs were eating; and no one gave him anything. 17But when he came to himself he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired hands have bread enough and to spare, but here I am dying of hunger! 18I will get up and go to my father, and I will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; 19I am no longer worthy to be called your son; treat me like one of your hired hands.”‘ 20So he set off and went to his father. But while he was still far off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion; he ran and put his arms around him and kissed him. 21Then the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’ 22But the father said to his slaves, ‘Quickly, bring out a robe–the best one–and put it on him; put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. 23And get the fatted calf and kill it, and let us eat and celebrate; 24for this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found!’ And they began to celebrate. 25″Now his elder son was in the field; and when he came and approached the house, he heard music and dancing. 26He called one of the slaves and asked what was going on. 27He replied, ‘Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fatted calf, because he has got him back safe and sound.’ 28Then he became angry and refused to go in. His father came out and began to plead with him. 29But he answered his father, ‘Listen! For all these years I have been working like a slave for you, and I have never disobeyed your command; yet you have never given me even a young goat so that I might celebrate with my friends. 30But when this son of yours came back, who has devoured your property with prostitutes, you killed the fatted calf for him!’ 31Then the father said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. 32But we had to celebrate and rejoice, because this brother of yours was dead and has come to life; he was lost and has been found.’” [Luke 15:11-32]

    Man with Two Sons

    “What do you think? A man had two sons; he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ 29He answered, ‘I will not’; but later he changed his mind and went. 30The father went to the second and said the same; and he answered, ‘I go, sir’; but he did not go.
    
[Matthew 21:28-30]

    In his Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament, Samuel Lachs offers this tantalising possibilty about a Jewish version of this parable:

    The Parable of the Prodigal Son, or the Two Sons, most likely goes back to Jewish sources, but no exact parallel survives. Some parallel phrases have been traced to Ahikar and some of the ideas to Philo. More cogent proof is the fact that in a Genizah fragment the Gason R. Aha quotes Sanh. 99a, not extant in toto in our texts, in which R. Abbahu cites a parable of “a king with two sons, one who went in the proper way, the other who went out to ‘evil culture.” Abrahams comments. “This looks like a reminiscence of Luke’s Parable, and it may have been removed from the Talmud text by scribes more cognizant than Abbahu was of the source of the story.” Ginzberg comments, “The source for the Parable … is not known to me. Obviously R. Aha must have had it in his text of the Talmud … In any event, it is the short, original form of the New Testament parable of the prodigal son.” 


    Lachs also cites the following saying attested from Palestinian Rabbis:

    When a son [abroad] goes barefoot [through poverty]
    he remembers the comfort of his father’s house.
    
[Lam. R. I.7]

    We can see that the underlying social and domestic issue was clearly known to Jews in the Hellenistic period, as Sirach offers this advice to those who find themselves in the situation of the father in this parable:

    20To son or wife, to brother or friend,
    do not give power over yourself, as long as you live;
    and do not give your property to another,
    in case you change your mind and must ask for it.
    21While you are still alive and have breath in you,
    do not let anyone take your place.
    22For it is better that your children should ask from you
    than that you should look to the hand of your children.
    23Excel in all that you do;
    
bring no stain upon your honor.
    24At the time when you end the days of your life,
    in the hour of death, distribute your inheritance.
    
[Sirach 33:20-24]

    The Parable of Rabbi Meir

    Finally, we note the following rabbinic passage which provides at least a partial parallel to this story:

    Rabbi Meir was famous for his parables (‘When R. Meir died there were no more makers of parables’ [Sota 9.15]), and this one is to be compared with the Prodigal Son. It is quite probably older than R. Meir himself (second century AD), having been attributed to him because of his reputation for parables: 


    A King’s son went out into evil courses, and the King sent his guardian (paidagogos) after him. ‘Return, my son,’ said he. But the son sent him back, saying to his father: ‘How can I return, I am ashamed.’ His father sent again saying: ‘My son, art thou indeed ashamed to return? Is it not to thy father that thou returnest?’ 
(Deut. R. 2.24 quoted from I. Abrahams, Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels: First Series [Cambridge: University Press, 1917], p. 142.) Here we have the characteristic Jewish hope: the Lord God of Heaven and Earth is their father; he will accept his penitent son.
    [This extract is from Norman Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (ch 2: The Kingdom of God), and is available at Religion-Online as part of their extensive collection of online texts.] 


    


    The following extract from Marcus Borg, Conflict, Holiness and Politics in the Teachings of Jesus (1998:104-107) may also be of interest:

    Though the parable of the lost son is much more detailed, the climax of its first half is the same as the two parables above [the lost sheep, and the lost coin]. The son was genuinely prodigal: emigrating to a “far country,” a Gentile land, he wasted his assets in loose living, ignoring the moral claim which his father still had on his property. When he had exhausted his resources, instead of seeking charity at a Diaspora synagogue, he worked for a Gentile, rendering impossible the observance of such Jewish ordinances as the sabbath. Not only did he become a despised herdsman, but a swineherd. He lived in gross impurity and had become, according to the standards of the quest for holiness, a non-Jew, and his father’s statement, “This my son was dead,” was correct in an important sense: his son had ceased to be a Jew. Nevertheless, when the son returned, what did the father do? Like the shepherd and the woman, he celebrated his return and, significantly, arranged for a festive banquet.
    As responses to the protests of his opponents, these parables were both a defense of Jesus’ behavior and an invitation to his opponents to join in the celebration. Jesus defended his table fellowship as festive celebrations of the return of the outcasts (who were also children of Abraham). The defense, however, was also an invitation to his opponents, as suggested by the parabolic form.
    Unlike a straightforward defense or indictment, the parables of Jesus frequently functioned to lead people to see things differently by inviting them to make a judgment about an everyday situation and then to transfer that judgment to the situation at hand. The parables sought to bridge the gap between speaker and hearer, frequently accomplishing this by being cast in the form of a question, explicitly or implicitly: what will a shepherd do when he finds a lost sheep? Will he not celebrate? By appealing to the normal reactions of ordinary human beings when they recover something of value (whether a sheep, a coin, or a child), Jesus implicitly asks his hearers, “Do you not see that it makes sense to celebrate?” The invitation became explicit in the second half of the parable. Just as the lost son in the first half of the parable has a historical equivalent (the outcasts who had become as non-Jews), so the elder son in the second half has his equivalent: he represents the protesters. Like them, he has been dutiful, consistently obeying his father’s commands; like them, he was outraged by the acceptance of the wastrel.
    The words spoken to the elder son were implicitly directed to Jesus’ opponents. They repeat, gently and imploringly, the justification for the festive celebration: “Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. It was fitting to make merry and be glad, for this your brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost and is found.” As the climax to a spoken parable in a setting of actual controversy over table fellowship, the final words hang in the air trailing an unexpressed question. Will the elder son join the festivity? Or will he let his own standard of proper behavior prevent him from joining the celebration? Will the protesters’ commitment to the quest for holiness make them adamant that outcasts such as these cannot be part of the people of God? For them to have accepted the invitation would have required a seismic change in their understanding of what the people of God were intended to be, a radical reorientation of both their perception and their animating vision, one that would fundamentally transform their social world.

    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. 

  • Lent 3C (3 March 20143)

    Contents

    Lectionary

    • Isaiah 55:1-9 & and Ps 63:1-8
    • 1Cor 10:1-13
    • Luke 13:1-9

     

    Introduction

    This week’s Gospel focuses on the prophetic theme of repentance and also preserves echoes of a popular memory of Pilate as a cruel ruler.

    Josephus on Pontius Pilate

    The 1C Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, refers to Pilate’s cruelty and nastiness as part his description of the events that would culminate in the Jewish-Roman War.

    Pilate and the Jews

    1. BUT now Pilate, the procurator of Judea, removed the army from Caesarea to Jerusalem, to take their winter quarters there, in order to abolish the Jewish laws. So he introduced Caesar’s effigies, which were upon the ensigns, and brought them into the city; whereas our law forbids us the very making of images; on which account the former procurators were wont to make their entry into the city with such ensigns as had not those ornaments. Pilate was the first who brought those images to Jerusalem, and set them up there; which was done without the knowledge of the people, because it was done in the night time; but as soon as they knew it, they came in multitudes to Caesarea, and interceded with Pilate many days that he would remove the images; and when he would not grant their requests, because it would tend to the injury of Caesar, while yet they persevered in their request, on the sixth day he ordered his soldiers to have their weapons privately, while he came and sat upon his judgment-seat, which seat was so prepared in the open place of the city, that it concealed the army that lay ready to oppress them; and when the Jews petitioned him again, he gave a signal to the soldiers to encompass them routed, and threatened that their punishment should be no less than immediate death, unless they would leave off disturbing him, and go their ways home. But they threw themselves upon the ground, and laid their necks bare, and said they would take their death very willingly, rather than the wisdom of their laws should be transgressed; upon which Pilate was deeply affected with their firm resolution to keep their laws inviolable, and presently commanded the images to be carried back from Jerusalem to Caesarea.
    2. But Pilate undertook to bring a current of water to Jerusalem, and did it with the sacred money, and derived the origin of the stream from the distance of two hundred furlongs. However, the Jews were not pleased with what had been done about this water; and many ten thousands of the people got together, and made a clamor against him, and insisted that he should leave off that design. Some of them also used reproaches, and abused the man, as crowds of such people usually do. So he habited a great number of his soldiers in their habit, who carried daggers under their garments, and sent them to a place where they might surround them. So he bid the Jews himself go away; but they boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal which had been beforehand agreed on; who laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them, and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not; nor did they spare them in the least: and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded. And thus an end was put to this sedition.
    3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
    [Antiquities, XVIII.3.1-3]

    There is also a parallel account in The Jewish War:

    1. AND now as the ethnarchy of Archelaus was fallen into a Roman province, the other sons of Herod, Philip, and that Herod who was called Antipas, each of them took upon them the administration of their own tetrarchies; for when Salome died, she bequeathed to Julia, the wife of Augustus, both her toparchy, and Jamriga, as also her plantation of palm trees that were in Phasaelis. But when the Roman empire was translated to Tiberius, the son of Julia, upon the death of Augustus, who had reigned fifty-seven years, six months, and two days, both Herod and Philip continued in their tetrarchies; and the latter of them built the city Caesarea, at the fountains of Jordan, and in the region of Paneas; as also the city Julias, in the lower Gaulonitis. Herod also built the city Tiberius in Galilee, and in Perea [beyond Jordan] another that was also called Julias.
    2. Now Pilate, who was sent as procurator into Judea by Tiberius, sent by night those images of Caesar that are called ensigns into Jerusalem. This excited a very among great tumult among the Jews when it was day; for those that were near them were astonished at the sight of them, as indications that their laws were trodden under foot; for those laws do not permit any sort of image to be brought into the city. Nay, besides the indignation which the citizens had themselves at this procedure, a vast number of people came running out of the country. These came zealously to Pilate to Cesarea, and besought him to carry those ensigns out of Jerusalem, and to preserve them their ancient laws inviolable; but upon Pilate’s denial of their request, they fell (9) down prostrate upon the ground, and continued immovable in that posture for five days and as many nights.
    3. On the next day Pilate sat upon his tribunal, in the open market-place, and called to him the multitude, as desirous to give them an answer; and then gave a signal to the soldiers, that they should all by agreement at once encompass the Jews with their weapons; so the band of soldiers stood round about the Jews in three ranks. The Jews were under the utmost consternation at that unexpected sight. Pilate also said to them that they should be cut in pieces, unless they would admit of Caesar’s images, and gave intimation to the soldiers to draw their naked swords. Hereupon the Jews, as it were at one signal, fell down in vast numbers together, and exposed their necks bare, and cried out that they were sooner ready to be slain, than that their law should be transgressed. Hereupon Pilate was greatly surprised at their prodigious superstition, and gave order that the ensigns should be presently carried out of Jerusalem.
    4. After this he raised another disturbance, by expending that sacred treasure which is called Corban (10) upon aqueducts, whereby he brought water from the distance of four hundred furlongs. At this the multitude had indignation; and when Pilate was come to Jerusalem, they came about his tribunal, and made a clamor at it. Now when he was apprized aforehand of this disturbance, he mixed his own soldiers in their armor with the multitude, and ordered them to conceal themselves under the habits of private men, and not indeed to use their swords, but with their staves to beat those that made the clamor. He then gave the signal from his tribunal [to do as he had bidden them]. Now the Jews were so sadly beaten, that many of them perished by the stripes they received, and many of them perished as trodden to death by themselves; by which means the multitude was astonished at the calamity of those that were slain, and held their peace. [War, II.9.1-4]

     

    Pilate and the Samaritans

    1. BUT the nation of the Samaritans did not escape without tumults. The man who excited them to it was one who thought lying a thing of little consequence, and who contrived every thing so that the multitude might be pleased; so he bid them to get together upon Mount Gerizzim, which is by them looked upon as the most holy of all mountains, and assured them, that when they were come thither, he would show them those sacred vessels which were laid under that place, because Moses put them there So they came thither armed, and thought the discourse of the man probable; and as they abode at a certain village, which was called Tirathaba, they got the rest together to them, and desired to go up the mountain in a great multitude together; but Pilate prevented their going up, by seizing upon file roads with a great band of horsemen and foot-men, who fell upon those that were gotten together in the village; and when it came to an action, some of them they slew, and others of them they put to flight, and took a great many alive, the principal of which, and also the most potent of those that fled away, Pilate ordered to be slain.
    2. But when this tumult was appeased, the Samaritan senate sent an embassy to Vitellius, a man that had been consul, and who was now president of Syria, and accused Pilate of the murder of those that were killed; for that they did not go to Tirathaba in order to revolt from the Romans, but to escape the violence of Pilate. So Vitellius sent Marcellus, a friend of his, to take care of the affairs of Judea, and ordered Pilate to go to Rome, to answer before the emperor to the accusations of the Jews. So Pilate, when he had tarried ten years in Judea, made haste to Rome, and this in obedience to the orders of Vitellius, which he durst not contradict; but before he could get to Rome Tiberius was dead. [Antiquities, XVIII.4.1-2]

    It is not clear whether Luke 13:1-3 is a variant of the stories about Pilate that were known to Josephus, or an independent tradition. Gerd Lüdemann (Jesus, 2000:352) considers Luke to offer a garbled version of the Samaritan massacre, the event which led to Pilate’s recall.

    The event described in Luke 13:1-3 is not attested in any other source, but fits with what was commonly said about Pilate at the time. Whether a false report presented to Jesus by Pharisees–who may themselves have been acting in good faith or with ulterior motives–or an historical error by Luke, the alleged episode was credible in the tense realities of Roman-occupied Palestine.

    Quite apart from historical questions about the particular episode, the allegation reminds us of the brutality that was part and parcel of life in those circumstances. Jesus was neither the first nor the last Jew to be crucified by the Roman occupiers. He was one of 250,000 estimated victims. His suffering was no more brutal than that of thousands of other victims, and should not be made the focus of Christian interpretations of his death.

     

    The rock that followed them

    In 1 Cor 10:1-3, Paul draws on an ancient Jewish midrash about a miraculous rock that followed the tribes of Israel through the wilderness of Sinai, providing them with water for their sojourn.

    The tradition to which Paul refers is found in the targums to Numbers 21;16-20. In essence, the midrash addresses the question of how the water continued to be available to the Israelites even after they left the location of the rock from which Moses had miraculously drawn abundant water. Rather than imagine leaking rocks all over the Sinai desert, the ancient Jewish stiry tellers imagined this rock as one of the wonders of creation; indeed one of ten such special things created by God on the evening of the sixth day of creation.

    This miraculous rock followed the Israelites as they moved through the desert, and it was one of the three great exodus miracles (signs) given to Miriam, Aaron, and Moses.

    Where our minds question how a rock that supplied sufficient megaliters of water every day to support two million Israelites for 40 years could have failed to turn the Sinai green, Paul latches onto a quite different dimension of the legend. That mobile monolith was Christ—meeting their thirst then, just as he meets our thirst now. This is poetry not geology, myth not history; but all the more powerful for that—and, Paul suggests, a lesson for our instruction.

    Luke and the Good News of Repentance

    What ever the historical value of the tragic episodes recounted here, Luke has clearly used them to convey a message about making wise use of the time available for repentance:

    • 13:1-3 Galileans killed by Pilate
    • 13:4-5 Judeans killed by a collapsing tower
    • 13:6-9 The barren fig tree

    The concluding parable has a well-known parallel in the later Syriac versions of the much earlier (5C BCE) Story of Ahikar:

    And Ahiqar said to him, ‘O my boy! thou art like the tree which was fruitless beside the water, and its master was fain to cut it down, and it said to him, “Remove me to another place, and if I do not bear frult, cut me down.” And its master said to it, “Thou being beside the water hast not borne fruit, how shalt thou bear fruit when thou art in another place?”

    Luke is widely considered to be responsible for compiling this unit with its focus on repentance while there is time to do so, but there seems to be a strong sense that the parable itself may go back to Jesus.

    The Jesus Seminar voted the saying Pink; an outcome that suggests the “voice print” of Jesus can be discerned in this passage. In this case, the Fellows of the Seminar seem to have been persuaded by the surviving features of a story transmitted orally as well as by its “exaggerated hope” that God’s patience be sufficient to elicit repentance and reform.

    While his own methodological rigor would require John Dominic Crossan to exclude this saying from his inventory of historical Jesus materials (since it is attested only in a single source), Crossan still gives the passage a positive historical rating.

    The idea that Jesus proclaimed a message about the unstoppable love and mercy of God is one that most of us would find very attractive. It is therefore hard for us to reject from the core sayings of Jesus a text such as this. Just as we have stereotypes of Pilate and the brutality of the crucifixion, we have our personal and collective stereotypes of Jesus.

    One of the points where our stereotypes of Jesus clash with the canonical tradition is the story of Jesus cursing a fig tree that failed to provide him with fruit to relieve his hunger; even though it was not the season for figs. Scholars have considered the possible links between the cursing of the “barren” fig tree in Mark and Matthew, and this parable about a barren fig tree in Luke.

    After a detailed discussion of the tradition, John P. Meier (A Marginal Jew, II.884-96) concludes that “the story of the cursing of the fig tree has no claim to go back to the public ministry of the historical Jesus.” His suggestion for the development of the complex intertwining of words and deeds against the Jerusalem Temple and the cursing of the fig tree is as follows:

    In the beginning, quite early in the first Christian generation, the stories of Jesus’ triumphal entry, his cleansing of the temple, and the temple officials’ challenge to his authority were told as a single block of material, a narrative unit in which one story followed immediately upon the other. Perhaps we have here an early sign of a primitive yet already expanding Passion Narrative, reflected in different ways in both Mark’s and John’s tradition. As the passion tradition developed, a pre-Marcan author sought to emphasize that the cleansing of the temple was not an act of reform and purification but rather a prophetic judgment on the temple. He accomplished this by creating the story of the cursing of the fig tree and wrapping it around the account of the cleansing. By mutual interpretation, the two interrelated stories made clear that Jesus was not urging the temple’s reform but pronouncing the temple’s doom.

    Without necessarily accepting every element in that creative reconstruction of the prehistory of Mark 11, we can perhaps posit the parable of a barren fig tree—preserved as a saying of Jesus—as the creative spark for the process of enclosing the prophetic incident at the Temple within another symbolic narrative that drew on the ancient metaphor of the fig tree. Our short parable in this week’s lectionary may well have been the catalyst for the dramatic symbol of the cursed fig tree that was found without fruit when God came visiting!

    There is no opportunity for repentance in Mark’s version of the story. That may be one reason that Luke omitted the story of Jesus cursing the fig tree? (And why just one victim of Jesus’ fit of pique? Why not a curse upon all the fruitless fig trees on the hills around the city?)

    Perhaps Luke wanted to offer an interpretation of Jesus that offered hope to the poor without ostracizing his intended audience of wealthy and influential readers?

    Questions for reflection:

    • Where do we find the good news in the legacy of Jesus?
    • And how do we interpret it in ways that keep our comfortable church-attending selves reassured that all is well?

     

    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.

  • Lent 2C (24 February 2013)

    Contents

    Lectionary

    • Genesis 15:1-12, 17-18 and Psalm 27
    • Philippians 3:17-4:1
    • Luke 13:31-35 or Luke 9:28-36, (37-43)

    Despite the usual high degree of convergence in the lectionary texts during Lent, this week we see several options for the Gospel:

    • RCL: Luke 13:31-35
    • RCL alternative: Luke 9:28-36
    • RC: Luke 9:28b-36
    • ECUSA: Luke 13:(22-30)31-35
    • Australian Anglican: Luke 13:1-9

    If your community is using the Transfiguration readings this weekend, you may wish to consult the notes from the Last Sunday after Epiphany.

    This week’s notes will focus on the text in Luke 13:31-35, and specifically Jesus’ prophetic oracle against Jerusalem.

    Jesus and the Jerusalem Temple

    The traditional material dealing with Jesus’ words about the temple’s fate is particularly complex. That, in itself, may be an indicator of the sensitivity of the core question for Jesus’ earliest followers and especially so after the Jewish War of 66/73CE ended with the temple in ruins.

    There seem to be four intertwined traditions that have an explicit reference to the fate of the temple:

    1. A saying of Jesus threatening to destroy the temple
    2. A saying where Jesus foretells the siege of the city and its destruction
    3. A saying of Jesus predicting total destruction of the imposing structures (not one stone upon another)
    4. An incident where Jesus threatened or symbolically enacted the destruction of the temple

    The sources are cited in full in the Jesus Database but can be listed as follows:

    (1) Thom 71
    (2a) Mark 13:1-2 = Matt 24:1-2 = Luke 21:5-6*
    (2b) Luke 19:41-44*
    (2c) Mark 14:55-59 = Matt 26:59-61
    (2d) Mark 15:29-32a = Matt 27:39-43= (!)Luke 23:35-37
    (2e) Acts 6:11-14
    (2f) Mark 11:15-17 = Matt 21:12-13 = Luke 19:45-46
    (2g) Luke 13:34-35*
    (2h) Mark 13:14a = Matt 24.15a = Luke 21:20* (3a) John 2:13-17*
    (3b) John 2:18-22

    Texts marked with * are not in Crossan’s inventory of early Jesus traditions, but they are included in his Sayings Parallels:

    • 191. Jerusalem Indicted;
    • 449. Temple’s Symbolic Destruction;
    • 456. Temple’s Actual Destruction;
    • 457. Jerusalem Destroyed;
    • 466. Temple and Jesus.

    (Note: The item numbers in that collection do not match with numbers used in his later inventory that forms the basis of the Jesus Database.)

    Josephus, Jewish War 6.300-305

    The 1C Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, has left us a fascinating description of prophecies against the city, this time featuring a later Jesus:

    Four years before the war [62 CE], when the city was at peace and enjoying the greatest prosperity, an uneducated peasant, one Jesus ben Hananiah came to the feast when all the people make booths for God [i.e., Sukkoth]. 301Suddenly he began to cry out through the temple:

    A voice from the East, a voice from the West,
    a voice from the four winds:
    a voice against Jerusalem and the temple,
    a voice against the bridegroom and the bride
    a voice against all the people!

    Crying this day and night he went through all the streets. 302But some of the prominent citizens, upset by this evil announcement, arrested the man and tortured him with many blows. But without a sound concerning himself or for the persons of his persecutors, he kept on crying the “voices” as before.
    303So thinking that the man was moved by some greater force, as indeed he was, the rulers brought him up before the Roman governor. 304Although he was there flayed to the bone by scourges, he neither begged nor wailed. But bending his “voices” to greater laments, he responded to each blow: “Woe to Jerusalem!” 305When Albinus,…who was then governor, asked him who he was and where he was from and why he uttered these things, he did not respond at all to these questions. But he would not stop repeating his lament for the city, until Albinus judged him a madman and released him.

    [SOURCE: Mahlon Smith, Into His Own ]

    Marcus J. Borg

    Borg devotes chapter 7 of his Conflict, Holiness and Politics in the Teachings of Jesus to a discussion of Jesus and the Temple, with an extended treatment of the texts found in this cluster.

    He begins with a brief study of Temple ideology in the Second Temple period, citing the interesting parallel from Paul in 1 Cor 3:16-17 which retains that traditional ideology even when reinterpreting “temple” as a reference to the physical body of the Christian:

    Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you?
    17If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple.

    Like Crossan (see below), Borg understands the “disruption in the Temple” as a prophetic or symbolic act (p. 182) that would never have been without some prophetic pronouncement to clarify its significance (p. 184).

    Borg then directs his attention to the prophetic saying as attested by the complex set of sayings relating to the fate of Jerusalem and its Temple that are placed on the lips of Jesus in our sources. He identifies 8 texts as example of “words against the Temple” and works his way through them carefully. Four of these sayings (Mark 14:58; 15:29-30; John 2:19; Acts 6:14) speak of Jesus as the agent of the Temple’s destruction and promise its replacement. They are also typically attributed to the enemies of Jesus. Another set of 4 sayings (Mark 13:2; Luke 19:42-44; 21:20-24; 13:34-35) are more likely to have originated from the prophetic oracle of Jesus that must have accompanied his symbolic act in the Temple. Borg also associates the enigmatic “desolating sacrilege” saying with this group.

    … if Jesus did not prophesy about Jerusalem, then who was the insightful prophet in that generation [after him] who was responsible for both this concern and this use of the Hebrew Bible? Of course, the rhetorical question does not imply that the oracles contain the ipsissima verba Jesus, but it does imply that they reflect the ipsissima vox Jesus. Quite probably the Jesus movement and perhaps the evangelist reworked the language of the threats, but without an initial impulse from Jesus, it is difficult to account for their presence in the primitive tradition. (p. 203)

    Then Borg draws upon the sayings of Jesus that speak of a threat of war coming on the inhabitants of Jerusalem: Luke 13:1-5; 23:27-31; 17:31 (= Mark 13:14b-16); Matt 26:52b.

    Unlike Crossan, Borg observes that Jesus’ prediction of the Temple’s destruction was not because Jesus opposed the Temple:

    … the destruction was not threatened because of an in-principle objection to Temple worship … Indeed, about the role of the Temple in Jewish worship (including sacrifice), Jesus did not say much. There is only the vague notion of “another Temple” coming from the mouths of accusers and mockers. Though the early Christian movement rapidly spiritualized the understanding of the Temple … there is little evidence for this in the synoptics. They never report that Jesus opposed the Temple on the grounds that it was obsolete, or that he objected to sacrifice in principle. Indeed, about the Temple as cult there is silence. (p. 211)

     

    John Dominic Crossan

    Crossan [Historical Jesus, 354-60] begins by noting the work of Jonathan Z. Smith (“The Temple and the Magician,” 1977) who established that a deep tension between traditional sacred places and the emerging role of the sacred person was typical of hellenistic societies in the last two centuries before the Common Era. Crossan goes on to outline the structural conflict between Jesus and the Temple as follows:

    Not only John the Baptist but, even more, Jesus, fit within that wider and profounder antinomy. John offered an alternative to the Temple but from another fixed location, from desert and Jordan rather than from Zion and Jerusalem. Jesus was, as we have seen, atopic, moving from place to place, he coming to the people rather than they to him. This is an even more radical challenge to the localized univocity of Jerusalem’s Temple, and its itinerancy mirrored and symbolized the egalitarian challenge of its protagonist. No matter, therefore, what Jesus thought, said, or did about the Temple, he was its functional opponent, alternative, and substitute; his relationship with it does not depend, at its deepest level, on this or that saying, this or that action. (p. 355)

    In seeking to unravel the complexities represented in this cluster of sayings, Crossan notes the “intensive damage control” to be observed in Mark 13, 14 and 15. Mark is at pains to argue that Jesus did not threaten to destroy the Temple himself; only his enemies make that assertion in Mark’s Gospel while Jesus (in ch 13) pointedly schedules the destruction of Jerusalem some time prior to the parousia of the Son of Adam. Still, as Crossan observes, that Markan spin only seeks to underline the fact that in certain Christian circles prior to and contemporary with Mark, there had been a belief that Jesus had said or done something to threaten destruction of the Temple and also that the destruction of the Temple was understood to be associated with the parousia.

    Behind the confused set of sayings about the fate of the Temple there lies the incident in which Jesus is described as taking some action to disrupt the functioning of the Temple. We seem to have two independent versions of this tradition: Mark (with Matt and Luke parallels) and John (where it occurs near the start of Jesus’ ministry). Mark’s version makes it clear that this event was a prophetic condemnation of the Temple, as the events in the Temple are bracketed by the story of Jesus cursing a useless fig tree and then returning to find it withered and dead.

    Crossan proposes that there was some historical action by Jesus that symbolically destroyed to Temple (at least to the extent of some disruption to its functioning), and that this action was accompanied by a prophetic saying by Jesus in which he foretold the complete and utter destruction of the site.

    Subsequently, according to Crossan, the story of the action in the Temple developed with various biblical texts being drawn into service to explain and justify Jesus’ actions. Meanwhile the saying came to reinterpreted as either a reference to the resurrection or to the parousia.

    Paula Fredriksen

    Fredriksen [Jesus of Nazareth, 207-14] discusses the so-called “Cleansing of the Temple” — a label she rejects but still uses as a sub-heading in her text. She works from a concern to counter any historical method that opposes Jesus to his contemporaries over issues of ritual observance. Drawing on Josephus’ description of the Jews’ universal piety and reverence for the Temple’s rites, Fredriksen asks “how then do we fit this report of Jesus’ action into the solid evidence we have that Jews everywhere overwhelmingly supported the Temple service?” (p. 209)

    In addition to other gospel accounts of Jesus’ attitude to the Temple, Fredriksen cites the widespread apocalyptic “expectation that, in the new age, in God’s kingdom, God would splendidly renew the current Temple or establish a new and more glorious one.” (p. 210) She then concludes that Jesus’ action in the Temple had a symbolic meaning:

    By overturning the tables, Jesus was symbolically enacting an apocalyptic prophecy: The current Temple was soon to be destroyed (understood: not by Jesus, nor by invading armies; but by God), to cede place to the eschatological Temple (understood: not built by the hand of man) at the close of the age. (p. 210)

     

    Jesus Seminar

    While “a substantial majority of the Fellows agreed that Jesus spoke some word against the temple” [The Five Gospels, 108], the weighted average reduced the outcome to Gray. Note the summary in Acts of Jesus (p. 121):

    The Fellows of the Jesus Seminar approved on three different occasions over a ten-year period the statement that Jesus performed some anti-temple act and spoke some word against the temple. More than a hundred scholars participated in these affirmations. In spite of the confidence that some historical event underlies the report of Mark, the Fellows have had serious difficulty in pinpointing what Jesus actually did.

     

    Gerd Lüdemann

    Lüdemann [Jesus, 77f & 87f] considers Mark 13 to be a Christian reworking of an earlier Jewish apocalypse created during the crisis over Claudius’ plans to erect a statue of himself in the Temple. However, he regards the saying in 13:2 as coming from traditional sources before it was used here by Mark. He also accepts the historicity of some incident in the Temple as the basis for the accusation that Jesus had threatened/announced its destruction.

    Muslim Jesus Traditions

    Tarif Khalidi [The Muslim Jesus, p. 91] provides the following example of how this memory of Jesus continued to function within the Muslim tradition long after the 1C:

    /71/ The disciples said, “Christ of God, look at the house of God—how beautiful it is!” He replied, “Amen, Amen, Truly I say to you, God will not leave one stone of this mosque upon another but will destroy it utterly because of the sins of its people. God does nothing with gold, silver, or these stones. More dear to God than all these are the pure in heart. Through them, God builds up the earth, or else destroys it if these hearts are other than pure. [mid-ninth century CE]

    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.