gregoryjenks

Tag: RCL

  • Twelfth Sunday after Pentecost (31 August 2014)

    Contents

    Lectionary

    • Exodus 3:1-15 & Psalm 105:1-6, 23-26, 45b (or Jeremiah 15:15-21 & Psalm 26:1-8)
    • Romans 12:9-21
    • Matthew 16:21-28

    First Reading: Theophany at Sinai

    The story of Moses and the burning bush is one of the great religious classics of humanity. This quintessential “I-thou” story of encounter with the Sacred Other captures themes that lie at the heart of the religious experience.

    Within the traditional Hebrew narrative structures that run through this part of the Pentateuch, this episode is a key part of the Moses narrative. The encounter with God in the burning bush epiphany is a revelation of the identity of the One who will redeem the Hebrew slaves and also the divine call for Moses to play his part in the drama of salvation. Both the prophetic character of Moses and also the special nature of his relationship with God are established in this episode.

    While there is no historical value to this tradition as an account of ancient Israel’s historical origins, this is a powerful story about the origins of the religious quest that became Israel’s great contribution to human culture and which is today expressed in all three biblical religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

    At the heart of this story lies the mysterious dialogue in which God reveals the divine name, using a formula that evades precise translation.

    Martin Buber

    For one especially famous exposition of the religious significance of the Sinai theophany the writings of the Jewish philosopher, Martin Buber (1878-1965): extract

    Nahum Sarna

    The following commentary comes from the JPS Torah Commentary edited by Nahum Sarna:

    Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh This phrase has variously been translated, “I Am That I Am,” “I Am Who I Am,” and “I Will Be What I Will Be.” It clearly evokes YHVH, the specific proper name of Israel’s God, known in English as the Tetragrammaton, that is, “the four consonants.” The phrase also indicates that the earliest recorded understanding of the divine name was as a verb derived from the stem h-v-h, taken as an earlier form of h-y-h, “to be.” Either it expresses the quality of absolute Being, the eternal, unchanging, dynamic presence, or it means, “He causes to be.” YHVH is the third person masculine singular; ehyeh is the corresponding first person singular. This latter is used here because name-giving in the ancient world implied the wielding of power over the one named; hence, the divine name can only proceed from God Himself.
    In the course of the Second Temple period the Tetragrammaton came to be regarded as charged with metaphysical potency and therefore ceased to be pronounced. It was replaced in speech by ’adonai, “Lord,” rendered into Greek Kyrios. Often the vowels of ’adonai would later accompany YHVH in written texts. This gave rise to the mistaken form Jehovah. The original pronunciation was eventually lost; modern attempts at recovery are conjectural.
    God’s response to Moses’ query cannot be the disclosure of a hitherto unknown name, for that would be unintelligible to the people and would not resolve Moses’ dilemma. However, taken together with the statement in 6:3, the implication is that the name YHVH only came into prominence as the characteristic personal name of the God of Israel in the time of Moses. This tradition accords with the facts that the various divine names found in Genesis are no longer used, except occasionally in poetic texts; that of all the personal names listed hitherto, none is constructed of the prefixed yeho-/yo- or the suffixed -yahu/yah contractions of YHVH; that the first name of this type is yokheved (Jochebed), that of Moses’ mother. Ibn Ezra points out that Moses, in his direct speech, invariably uses the name YHVH, not ’elohim, “God.” Without doubt, the revelation of the divine name YHVH to Moses registers a new stage in the history of Israelite monotheism.

    W. G. Plaut

    The following extracts from W.G. Plaut, The Torah. A Modern Commentary provide some further examples of Jewish interpretation of this tradition:

    In this first theophany, the divine Presence is called by three names: “God” (Elohim), “Lord” (YHVH), and a name not translated in our English text, “Ehyeh.” Of these, only the last name is new to Moses, the other two are familiar to him and are not explained: Elohim is the basic generic name for any god and hence also for the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (verse 6); and “Lord” or YHVH is God’s own, personal name, known to him, but — as chapter 6 will show — not yet understood in its full meaning. Here it is merely restated that, whatever the additional and newly revealed name Ehyeh betokens, God’s own name YHVH will not be affected, it will remain the same (verse 15).
    The name Elohim is known to the reader from the story of Creation on. It is an expansion or variant of the name El, which generally describes the godhead in Semitic languages (Ugaritic El; Babylonian Ilu; Arabic Allah). Prevailing scholarly opinion connects it with a root meaning “to be strong.” In the Hebrew Bible, Elohim is used both for the God of Israel and generically for the gods of the nations, and, in the Torah, Elohim is the name preferred by the tradition called Elohist (or E; in contrast to J which prefers YHVH).
    YHVH (“Lord”) is the distinguishing name by which Israelites called their God. After the theophany related here, in chapter 3, Moses will bring the message of salvation to Israel as well as to Egypt, and the result of this mission will necessitate a further revelation of God, who (in chapter 6) will give to the old name YHVH a new dimension. …
    In the first meeting with God, Moses is satisfied that his knowledge of the divine Name, that is, his knowledge of God’s nature, will be sufficient to arm him for the mission ahead, though we are not told how a knowledge of the Name, if it were unknown to the people, would validate Moses’ claim. But, in any case, upon his inquiry he is not given the clear answer he seeks; instead he is told that the Lord may, in addition to being and continuing to be YHVH, also be known as Ehyeh or Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh. This revelation only deepens the mystery, for the new name is not further explained. Still, Moses makes no additional inquiry, and we may therefore assume that the name was meaningful to him, or at least that he believed he understood its import. What then was it? Over the centuries a number of answers have been attempted, though none has won universal acceptance.
    Ehyeh is quite evidently the first person singular of the word “to be.” One problem is that the tense is not clear; it could mean “I am” or “I will be” (or “I shall be”). This uncertainty is multiplied in the name Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh, for the first Ehyeh might be of one tense (for instance, “I am”) and the second another (for instance, “I will be”), or they might both be the same tense (“I am who I am” or “I will be who I will be”). To add to the difficulty, Asher could mean either “who” or “what.”
    The majority of the commentators have understood both occurrences of Ehyeh to convey the future tense and to mean: “I will be what tomorrow demands,” that is, God emphasizes that He is capable of responding to human need. This was the message, they say, Moses was to take back to the enslaved people and thereby assure them that the God whom they called YHVH was also “Ehyeh,” who would be ready in the near future to redeem them. A variant interpretation was offered by S.R. Hirsch who saw a philosophical meaning in Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh: “I will be what I want to be,” that is, God stresses His own freedom to act as He wills, in contrast to earthly creatures who are never totally free. But is it likely that Moses could take such an opaque message to the people and satisfy their thirst for the knowledge that God was still their God?
    It appears therefore that the impact of this story lies elsewhere. The most important factor to be taken into consideration is that, though Moses is given the new name to take back to Israel, not a single instance is reported in the Torah where he is shown to have actually used it. From this we can conclude that the revelation was never meant for the people at all, nor did Moses really inquire for the sake of the people: Moses had asked for himself, and the answer he receives is also meant for him — for God understands what Moses wants, and the very vagueness of His answer is purposeful. When Moses asks, “What shall I say to them” he is asking to satisfy his own needs and does so by pretending to ask for the sake of others. This view alone makes it possible to arrive at a satisfactory interpretation of God’s mysterious self-revelation. Moses wants to know the nature of God by inquiring about the inner meaning of His name, but God will not be fully known and therefore evades a clear answer. His response is intentionally vague, for it is a response to Moses only, and not a name suitable for communication. “You ask to know My name,” God says, “and I will tell you: I am what I am, I will be what I will be. And when you tell your people of this experience, tell them it is the same YHVH they know about.” God reveals Himself to Moses as He does to no other human being (Deut. 34:10), but even to Moses He shows himself wrapped in mystery. It is an aspect of God’s freedom to conceal his essence, and hence Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh must remain elusive. Therefore it is well to keep the divine response in its original form and, as our English translation does, convey it, untranslated and inexplicable, as Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh. The Midrash conveys a similar interpretation: while God is called by many names, He is what he is by virtue of His deeds. That is to say, you cannot really know Him until you experience Him in your own life. (pp. 404-406)

    The Gospel: Intimations of suffering and glory

    The Gospel passage follows on from last week’s confession of faith by Peter, located by Mark in Caesarea Philippi in the far north of the Jordan catchment area. Matthew has drawn together material from Mark:

    Predictions of death and resurrection

    Matt 16:21 From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and undergo great suffering at the hands of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. 22 And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, “God forbid it, Lord! This must never happen to you.” 23 But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; for you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things.”

    Matthew has adopted, with minimal adjustment, the series of three prophecies in which Jesus predicts his own demise in Jerusalem as well as his resurrection. The series of predictions can be found at:

    • Mark 8:31-33 = Matt 16:21-23 = Luke 9:22
    • Mark 9:30-32= Matt 17:22-23 = Luke 9:43b-45
    • Mark 10:32-34 = Matt 20:17-19 = Luke 18:31-34

    Robert Fortna [The Gospel of Matthew, 145f] observes:

    I believe it is most unlikely that Jesus foresaw this early his eventual arrest and execution, still less his resurrection, or that he solemnly predicted them to this disciples. Rather, the three episdoes were introduced later in the story, perhaps not until the writing of Mark, to justify Jesus’ fate: If he had predicted it, it was acceptable, much as the Old Testament prophecy made an event inevitable (see … 27:27-66).

    The way of the cross

    At the heart of this week’s Gospel is the theme of the cross: a fate embraced by Jesus (as the gospel writers tell the story) and the benchmark for Christian discipleship.

    We have an ancient Greek reference crucifixion as the test of integrity [cited in Crossan, Historical Jesus (353)]:

    If you want to be crucified, just wait.
    The cross will come.
    If it seems reasonable to comply, and the circumstances are right,
    then it’s to be carried through, and your integrity maintained.
    (Epictetus, Discourses 2.2.20; Oldfather, 1.228-231)

    Lachs [Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament, 187] notes that there are no rabbinic parallels to this saying but that there are many rabbinic passages that share the idea that the faithful should be willing to face martyrdom for their beliefs, for instance:

    The words of the Law are only established in a man who would die for them. [B.Ber. 63b]

    John Dominic Crossan, [Historical Jesus 353] observes:

    The complex Carrying Ones Cross [1/3] could be dismissed almost immediately as a retrojection of Jesus’ death back onto his own prophetic lips. This would be especially persuasive if it were found only in Mark 8:34, but it is found in both Gospel of Thomas 55:2b and the Sayings Gospel Q at Luke 14:27 = Matthew 10:38, neither of which show any great interest in the historical crucifixion of Jesus.

    After citing the passage from Epictetus (see above), Crossan continues:

    There is, therefore, no need to take Jesus’ saying as either retrojected or projected prophecy. Jesus “was discussing,” as Leif Vaage put it about Epictetus, “the (possible) consequences of following a certain philosophy … The cost of adopting a particular way of life is … graphically imagined … The fate portrayed … certainly seems a conceivable outcome of the kind of social challenge and outrageous behavior” (1989:173) seen so often throughout this chapter.

    Note: The Vaage reference is to “Q1 and the Historical Jesus: Some Peculiar Sayings (7:33-34; 9:57-58,59-60; 14:26-27)” Forum 5/2, 1989, 159-76.

    Unlike its co-chair, the Jesus Seminar was more sceptical of this saying’s authenticity. This saying is deeply embedded in the early traditions appearing in three independent sources and in two different forms: as a negative saying in Q/Thom and as a positive saying in Mark. In the end, and only after a second consideration of the question, the Fellows rejected the saying from the database of authentic Jesus sayings on the grounds that its post-Easter understanding of the cross as the defining symbol for Jesus.

    Gerd Lüdemann [Jesus, 57], agrees with the final view of the Jesus Seminar and considers Mark 8:34b “a saying of post-Easter prophet.”

    John P. Meier [Marginal Jew, III, 64-66], discusses this saying as part of his treatment of the disciples. He considers that the “shocking imagery” and the multiple attestation both support the case that Jesus created this saying. Meier suggests that the saying would not have spoken of carrying one’s own cross (rather than Jesus’ cross) had it been a post-Easter creation, and he also cites the parallel from Epictetus (c. 55-135 CE) in support of a wide dissemination of the crucifixion metaphor in the early Roman period.

    Some standing here

    Matt 16:27 “For the Son of Man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay everyone for what has been done. 28 Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

    Belief in Jesus’ return (parousia) is one of the most strongly attested items in the historical Jesus tradition, and continues to be a core belief in some modern Christian communities. In every generation there have been Christians who expected to see the end of the world before they died, but in the Synoptic tradition such a statement perhaps indicates this saying is circulating within the range of living memory deriving from the late 20s of the first century; not later than 90 CE or thereabouts.

    Jesus Database

    • 240 Passion Resurrection Prophecy – (1a) Mark 8:31-33 = Matt 16:2l-23 = Luke 9:22; (1b) Mark 9:9b = Matt 17:9b; (1c) Mark 9:12b = Matt 17:12b; (1d) Mark 9:30-32= Matt 17:22-23 = Luke 9:43b-45; (1e) Luke 17:25; (1f) Mark 10:32-34 = Matt 20:17-19 = Luke 18:31-34; (1g) Matt 26:1-2; (1h) Mark 14:21 = Matt 26:24 = Luke 22:22; (1i) Mark 14:41= Matt 26:45b; (1j) Luke 24:7.
    • 044 Carrying Ones Cross – (1) GThom. 55:2b; (2) 1Q: Luke 14:27 = Matt 10:38; (3) Mark 8:34 = Matt 16:24 = Luke 9:23.
    • 063 Saving Ones Life – (1) 1Q: Luke 17:33 = Matt 10:39; (2) Mark 8:35 = Matt 16:25 = Luke 9:24; (3) John 12:25-26.
    • 241 What Profit – (1a) Mark 8:36 = Matt 16:26a = Luke 9:25; (1b) 2 Clem. 6:2.
    • 028 Before the Angels – (1a) 2Q: Luke 12:8-9 = Matt 10:32-33; (1b) 2 Clem. 3:2 [from Matt 10:32]; (2) Mark 8:38 = Matt 16:27 = Luke 9:26; (3) Rev 3:5; (4) 2 Tim 2:12b.

    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:

  • Eleventh Sunday after Pentecost (24 August 2014)

    Contents

    Lectionary

    • Exodus 1:8-2:10 & Psalm 124 (or, Isaiah 51:1-6 & Psalm 138)
    • Romans 12:1-8
    • Matthew 16:13-20

    First Reading: The birth of a saviour, Moses

    While the sacred traditions of ancient Israel and Judah celebrate Abraham and Jacob as the ancestors of the nation, or even David as the archetypal dynastic founder, it is Moses who is honoured with a classic birth story as befits the founder of a new religious tradition.

    For an introduction to some of the ancient birth stories now known to us, and as an aid to reflection on the significance of the Moses story, the following pages are especially relevant:

    Gospel: Who is Jesus

    This week’s Gospel passage is one of the classic scenes in the Synoptic Gospels.

    Jesus travels to the far north of the Holy Land, to the area around Caesarea Philippi. This was a city created by Philip, a son of Herod the Great, who had was given authority over a portion of his father’s kingdom by Augustus, emperor of Rome. Best known as Philip the Tetrarch, this “Herod” appears in the NT record and this extract from the Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (vol. 5, p. 311) outlines what we know of him:

    Philip is known primarily as a builder. He refounded the city of Panias and named it Caesarea—the Caesarea Philippi (literally, “Philip’s Caesarea”) of the New Testament (Matt 16:13; Mark 5:27). He also refounded the town of Bethsaida: he supplemented its population, strengthened its fortifications, and named it Julias after Julia, Augustus’ daughter. The refoundation will therefore have taken place early, presumably before Julia’s exile in 2 B.C. (Ant 18.27–8). The foundation and refoundation of cities named after the emperor and his family was characteristic of client rulers under the Principate (Suet. Aug. 60 with Braund 1984: 107–11). Such cities tended to be centers of imperial cult: Herod the Great had already built a splendid temple near Panias for Augustus (Ant 15.363–64; JW 1.404–6). Philip’s subjects were predominantly non-Jewish. Thus Philip’s coinage bears images, most notably the heads of Augustus and Tiberius respectively. They also depict a temple, probably the temple which Herod had built near Panias. These coins indicate that Philip called himself simply “Philip, tetrarch” (HJP2 1: 340 n. 9).
    Philip reigned as tetrarch from 4 B.C. until his death in A.D. 33/4. According to Josephus, he was a good ruler. His reign was mild and he avoided external entanglements. He traveled about his territories with only a small, select entourage, which would not be a burden upon his subjects. He dispensed justice promptly and fairly from a throne which he took with him in his travels around his tetrarchy. He died at Julias, where, after a costly funeral, his body was consigned to a tomb which he had built in preparation for his death (Ant 18.106–8).
    Philip had married Salome, daughter of Antipas and Herodias, whose dancing had cost the head of John the Baptist (Mark 6:22) and who survived Philip to marry again (Ant 18.137). But Philip had no children: Tiberius annexed his territories upon his death (Ant 18.108).

    For a more detailed discussion of the coins issued by the successors of Herod, including Philip, see:

    The imperial politics in which Herod and his sons were immersed clearly impacted on Jesus in various ways, and not least in his crucifixion. While the reference to John the Baptist may strike the modern reader as a religious reference, in the ancient world it was perhaps a more directly political note.

    Within that world, and within the confused network of competing claims to authority and loyalty, Mark tells a story of Jesus travelling to a region closely associated with both the Herodian succession and the continuation of that dynasty before, during and after the great war with Rome in 66-73 CE. Caesarea Philippi was the seat of government for Agrippa II, who sided with Rome at the time of the Jewish rebellion and was later a confidant of Flavius Josephus, on whose writings we rely for much of our knowledge of Jewish history at this time.

    Whether Jesus actually was in the region of Caesarea Philippi during the reign of Philip the Tetrarch, or whether Mark is creating that location because of its significance as the centre of Jewish authority after 70 CE, this scene is of great significance in Mark’s narrative. Indeed, given Mark’s own understanding of Jesus as “son of God” (cf. 1:1; 1:11; 3:11; 15:39), the answers he puts on the lips of the disciples are quite restrained:

    • John the Baptist
    • Elijah
    • one of the prophets
    • the Messiah

    These issues are teased out in a longer discussion in Gregory C. Jenks, Jesus Then and Jesus Now: Looking for Jesus, Finding Ourselves (Melbourne: Morning Star, 2014). See, “One of the prophets” ch 4 (pp. 45–57).

    While “Messiah” is clearly the answer Mark wants the readers to embrace, this is a term that has not appeared in his Gospel until now (except for the opening line of the narrative, best understood as a superscription or title for the work as a whole:

    • “The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” (Mark 1:1)

    However, after this point the Greek word christos (anointed, messiah, Christ) is found a number of times:

    • “For truly I tell you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ will by no means lose the reward.” (Mark 9:41)
    • “While Jesus was teaching in the temple, he said, ‘How can the scribes say that the Messiah is the son of David?’” (Mark 12:35)
    • “And if anyone says to you at that time, ‘Look! Here is the Messiah!’ or ‘Look! There he is!’—do not believe it.” (Mark 13:21)
    • “But he was silent and did not answer. Again the high priest asked him, ‘Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?’” (Mark 14:61)
    • “‘Let the Messiah, the King of Israel, come down from the cross now, so that we may see and believe.’ Those who were crucified with him also taunted him.” (Mark 15:32)

    It is possible that Mark is deliberately restrained with his narrative here. While “son of God”—with all its political overtones in an empire whose rulers claimed to be sons of the divine ruler who had preceded them, and in which local rulers dedicated temples such as we find at Bethsaida and Caesarea Philippi to the imperial cult—was important for his view of Jesus, he chooses to speak of Jesus in traditional Jewish terms, as the anointed one, the messiah.

    Matthew will change Mark’s narrative to make Peter profess the faith held by Matthew’s early Christian community:

    • “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God …” (Matt 16:16)

    And Luke will also assert the special relationship between this Messiah and Israel’s God:

    • “the Messiah of God”

    Almost 2,000 years later we still find ourselves reflecting on the question: Who is Jesus? We may answer it differently from earlier generations, but the question persists and the way we answer it shapes the way we live.

    Jesus Database

    • 073 Who is Jesus – (1) GThom. 13; (2a) Mark 8:27-30 = Matt 16:13-20 = Luke 9:18-21; (2b) GNaz. 14; (2c) John 6:67-69.

    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:

  • Tenth Sunday after Pentecost (17 August 2014)

    Contents

    Lectionary

    • Genesis 45:1-15 & Psalm 133 [or, Isaiah 56:1, 6-8 & Psalm 67]
    • Romans 11:1-2a, 29-32
    • Matthew 15: (10-20), 21-28

     

    Gospel: Distant Girl Cured

    The story of Jesus engaging with a Canaanite woman who was the mother of a sick daughter is known to us from Mark and Matthew. Interestingly, Luke has chosen not to use this story even though he must have been aware of it. It survives only in Mark and Matthew.

    The basic stories are as follows:

    (1) Mark 7:24-30
    From there he set out and went away to the region of Tyre. He entered a house and did not want anyone to know he was there. Yet he could not escape notice, but a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit immediately heard about him, and she came and bowed down at his feet. Now the woman was a Gentile, of Syrophoenician origin. She begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. He said to her, “Let the children be fed first, for it is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.” But she answered him, “Sir, even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.” Then he said to her, “For saying that, you may go–the demon has left your daughter.” So she went home, found the child lying on the bed, and the demon gone.

    = Matt 15:21-23,25-28
    Jesus left that place and went away to the district of Tyre and Sidon. Just then a Canaanite woman from that region came out and started shouting, “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is tormented by a demon.” But he did not answer her at all. And his disciples came and urged him, saying, “Send her away, for she keeps shouting after us.”
    But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” He answered, “It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.” She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” Then Jesus answered her, “Woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish.” And her daughter was healed instantly.

     

    Horizontal Line Synopsis

    When placed in a horizontal parallel format, the close literary relationships between the original in Mark and the duplicate in Matthew are very clear:

    Mark 7:24-30 || Matt 15:21-23,25-28

     

    John P. Meier

    Meier deals with this miracle in A Marginal Jew II,659-61. On this particular story he concludes:

    Weighing all the pros and cons, it seems to me that the story of the Syrophoenician woman is so shot through with Christian missionary theology and concerns that creation by first-generation Christians is the more likely conclusion. (p. 660f)

    After this negative conclusion (the equivalent of a Black vote in Jesus Seminar terms), Meier outlines his considered judgment on the seven exorcisms attributed to Jesus in the NT tradition:

    If, however, one is pressed to judge whether some historical core lies behind the stories of exorcism in the the narrative sections of the Gospel, the following positions, are, in my view, the most likely: (1) The story of the possessed boy and the brief reference to Mary Magdalene’s exorcism probably go back to historical events in Jesus’ ministry. I tend to think the same is true of the story of the Gerasene demoniac, though in this case the arguments are less probative. (2) In its present form, the exorcism of the demoniac in the Capernaum synagogue may be a Christian creation, but it probably represents “the sort of thing” Jesus did during his ministry in Capernaum. (3) The brief story of the exorcism of a mute (and blind?) demoniac in the Q tradition (Matt 12:24 || Luke 11:14-15) is difficult to judge. It could go back to some historical incident, or it could be a literary creation used to introduce the Beelzebul controversy. (4) In contrast, it seems very likely that the story of the mute demoniac in Matt 9:32-33 is a redactional creation of Matthew to fill out his schema of three groups of three miracle stories in chaps. 8-9 of his Gospel. (5) The story of the Syrophoenician woman is probably a Christian creation to exemplify the missionary theology of the early church. (p. 661)

    Jesus Seminar

    In the opinion of the Seminar, there probably was a historical core to Mark’s story. (57% of Fellows voted Red or Pink).

    A Greek woman regarded Jesus as an exorcist.
    Jesus had a conversation with that woman .
    Their conversation involved an exchange of witticisms in which the woman got the better of Jesus.
    Jesus visited the region of Tyre in southern Lebanon.
    Jesus viewed foreigners as “dogs.”
    Jesus said: “It isn’t good to take bread out of children’s mouths and throw it to the dogs.”
    Jesus said: “Let the children be fed first.”
    A demon left the girl because of her mother’s wit.
    A demon left the girl because her mother trusted Jesus.

     

    John Dominic Crossan

    In Historical Jesus (1991:328), Crossan suggests that this story is the product of Christian imagination rather than Christian memory:

    119 Distant Boy Cured [1/2] and 237 Distant Girl Cured [2/1] are the only two miracles that Jesus performed for Gentiles and performed at a distance. And, although this is not unique to those cases, they are performed for a child rather than the child’s parent. It is hard not to consider those twin miracles, requested by a father for his son and a mother for her daughter, as programmatic defenses of the later Gentile mission, as Jesus’ proleptic initiation of that process. It is quite likely, it seems to me, that those cases are not at all a movement from event to process but actually from process to event. Early Christian communities symbolically retrojected their own activities back into the life of Jesus.

     

    Elaine Wainwright

    In the opinions cited so far, we have observed the historical assessments made by (predominantly) male scholars. However, it will not be surprising to note that feminist scholars tend to focus on the characterization of the Canaanite woman, and to put the largely negative historical judgments to one side.

    One such scholar is Elaine Wainwright. In her 2001 Ideas at the Powerhouse lecture, Elaine Wainwright connects the story of the woman she calls “Justa” with the story of an Australian Aboriginal woman, Nan:

    Nan’s storied experience evokes a similar story for me in the Christian tradition enabling these stories to rub up against one another. It is the story of the Canaanite woman [named Justa in the later tradition] who seeks healing from Jesus for her daughter. As her story is told in the Matthean gospel, the Jesus of the story places a number of obstacles before her, finally citing the proverbial saying—its not fair to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs [Matt 15:25] [words similar to those which Nan must have heard to have brought her to feel like a “beast of the field”]. As outsider to the resources the Matthean Jesus claimed only for Israel in this story, Justa, the Canaanite, appropriates to herself the status of ‘dog’ as Nan had appropriated the treatment from white Australia which had make her feel like a ‘beast’. As if shocked by Justa’s consequent appropriation, the Matthean Jesus sets aside the obstacles he has constructed and heals her daughter. While we hear Nan’s own voice through her granddaughter Sally, Justa’s voice is constructed by the Matthean storyteller who sets her story in the context of the ancient Canaanite/Israelite struggle. Jesus whose birth and life story generally placed him among the colonised of the Roman empire, preaching a message that was counter-Imperial, is placed in this story in the role of the coloniser. He stands with and for ancient Israel as this story evokes that of another conquest of land, namely ancient Israel’s violent appropriation of the land of the Canaanites on the grounds of its being promised as divine gift. This is a story which has been used to support many land grabs especially among Christians informed not only by the stories of ancient Israel but by a story such as the encounter between Jesus and Justa. And yes, it is not surprising to learn that it has been used in white European appropriation of indigenous Australian lands.
    Attentiveness to present Australian experience and a telling of our stories has brought with it a critically attentive reading of a traditional religious story which has functioned in the past and still functions in the meaning-making process among many Australians. Just as our spirit and imagination is touched by Nan and her indigenous sisters and brothers, so too is it touched by Justa, the feisty Canaanite and all her Canaanite ancestors whose names we do not know. Both stories take our spirit beyond self-absorption to an awareness of, an encounter with the experience of the other as Clendinnen suggests, enabling us to allow space for the sacredness of the story of the other. And as these two stories intersect, the Jesus of this new story-telling, this shaping of a new spiritual imagination emerges not in doctrinal or dogmatic formulae but engaged in the process of recognizing his own complicity in colonialism even while steeped in a broader life vision of seeking to eradicate it. We are always unlearning and learning on this path toward transformation and stories which remind us of this aspect of the journeying can sustain our spirits along the way. Justa, the fiery Canaanite who is being re-membered in diverse contexts from Musa Dube’s native Botswana to our ideas fest here at the Powerhouse; Nan, the dying indigenous Australian grandmother; and Jesus, the first-century Jew who stands between coloniser and colonised accompany us through our re-membering, our re-telling of their stories.

    In an earlier piece — originally written for Reading from This Place. 2: Social Location and Biblical Interpretation Internationally (Fortress, 1995) but later republished in Songlines 5(1996) — Elaine Wainwright creates a new narrative that imagines how the story of Justa may have functioned in the second- and third-generation Christian communities of Antioch. She sets the scene by inviting us to imagine a number of house churches scattered across the city, some with significant numbers of Aramaic-speaking Jewish disciples and others mostly Greek-speaking Gentiles. Leaders from these various house churches have met to assist in the gathering up of traditions that had particular significance among one or more of the groups. On this occasion they are re-membering the story of a woman who had asked Jesus to heal her daughter.

    Miriam was the first to speak because this story was particularly significant in her house church. She told it as the story of Justa, the woman of Tyre whose granddaughter was now a member of their community. Justa had told and retold the story of her encounter with Jesus when he was in her region at a particular time when her young daughter had been ill for so long that many thought that she must have been demon possessed.
    Justa was desperate and so she called out for help to this itinerant Jew who wandered into the area and who was being followed by such a close-knit group of women and men that he gave the appearance of being a holy one. How taken aback she was when she received this insulting rebuff: It is not fair to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.
    Justa’s need, however, was greater than any humiliation she could receive and so, led by some power even beyond her own consciousness, she quipped back: Ah. but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table. She remembered her own fear at the realisation of what she had just said but also her experience of a new power which she had not known before, a power which would never again allow her to be put down in such a way.
    She remembered also the look of astonishment, recognition and even shame that passed across the face of the Jewish holy man whom she later came to know as Jesus. He spontaneously held out his hand to her in welcome, drawing her up from her position of supplication, and he acclaimed her: Woman, great is your faith. Miriam acknowledged that their community had extended the saying of Jesus: Let it be done for you as you desire, so as to highlight Jesus’ recognition of what Justa had taught him; a recognition that linked her insight into wholeness with that of God whose way, whose dream, Jesus was to establish on earth.
    At this point in Miriam’s storytelling, Johannan interrupted: You tell this story as if it were a story of Justa rather than Jesus. Our community is much more aware of the outrage that Jesus must have felt when confronted by this foreigner who was not only Syrophoenician — a veritable Canaanite according to our tradition — but also female. We have it on good authority from those who knew Jesus’ companions of that day, that Jesus at first ignored the woman. He was forever faithful to the traditions of his religion and he would not have spoken to such a woman in public. Indeed, his stance was even furthered by those companions who begged him to send her away.
    Furthermore, in the story as we received it from our Hellenistic Jewish brothers and sisters in southern Syria, Jesus is reported as saying to the woman: I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. This is a very different picture of Jesus than that presented by Miriam. Jesus may eventually have given the woman what she wanted because she was crying after them as the disciples suggested, but the story still preserves the integrity of his mission to Israel rather than to the Gentiles, and our God-given gender distinctions.
    It was now Justinian’s turn to intervene: Johannan, we have had this conversation many times before, I know, but Jesus’ own vision of his ministry was more universal than you say. This is one of our key stories which illustrates the movement within Jesus during his lifetime enabling him to see his mission as one including us.
    This woman, whom we don’t name and I am happy to learn her name, this woman Justa, is indeed for us the foremother of the mission which includes us as Gentiles. Just as she won healing and wholeness for her daughter, so too she won it for us, her daughters and sons today. While she does not have a name in our story, she does, however, have a voice. She addresses Jesus as ‘Kyrios’ and as ‘Son of David’ and she cries out in the language of prayer and liturgy: ‘have mercy on me’ and ‘help me.’
    Indeed, for us, her voice echoes the voice of the women of our community who participate in the liturgical life of the community and in our theological reflection. I hadn’t heard the conclusion to the story as Miriam has told it but I can tell you, Ruth and Matthias, it will be significant in our house community and we will add it to our telling of the story, so you would do well to include it also.

     

    Alan Cadwallader

    For a monograph length study of this passage, see Alan Cadwallader’s book, Beyond the Word of a Woman: Recovering the Bodies of the Syrophoenician Woman (ATF Press, 2008). The abstract reads as follows:

    Ethology to the ancients was the study of character; to the moderns it is the study of human beings through the behavioural patterns of animals. These studies in fact have a common genealogy with classical writers convinced that the dimorphism of gender was naturally ordered with all its consequent inequalities in strength, virtue and above all in the location of reason. In the encounter between Jesus and the Syrophoenician women in the Gospel of Mark this ethology dominates the story. Women are described as dogs. This highly original work utilises the common emphases of ancient and modern ethology to unlock new dimensions of the story. It demonstrates that in the Syrophoenician critique of Jesus, delivered by a woman and her daughter, exalted reason must yield its monopoly to the equally privileged life of the body. The author is a New Testament Biblical Scholar at Australian Cathollic Univeristy in Canberra, Australia. The book won the Lynlea Rodger Australasian Theological Book Prize in 2009 for the best Theological Book written in 2008/2009.

    For an earlier work by Cadwallader in which his developing ideas about this passage are presented, see his 2005 essay “When a Woman is a Dog: Ancient and Modern Ethology meet the Syrophonecian Women” in The Bible and Critical Theory 1,4 (2005).

    Cadwallader offers this summary of the impact of Matthew’s retelling of Mark’s story has had upon the subsequent reception and interpretation of the story, and identifies three new perspectives for approaching this story:

    Up until relatively recently, Mark’s story has been overwhelmed by its dependent off-spring born(e) in a didactic, diasporan matrix (Mt 15:21–28). The faith of a humble, gentile woman has characterised the reading of both pericopes. Such a (mis-) reading of Mark has a remarkable tenacity—Gerd Lüdemann, for example, has claimed that, although the woman’s faith is not mentioned explicitly, ‘as a phenomenon it is present in the story’. The retrieval of the blatant affirmation of the word of a woman (Mk 7:29) has brought considerable reassessment of the significance of the story. This ‘word of a woman’ has become prized in a socio-political climate of the recovery of distinctive and critical women’s voices in contemporary church and society (especially in the West). However, even as this ‘word of a woman’ is still yielding a rich fecundity for the life of church and of those exploring other communal expressions of faith, I name three concerns (at least) for further reflection:
    i) the problematisation of the accent upon word by the rehabilitation of corporeality as a positive, contributing presence.
    ii) the significance of the application of animal epithets in an encounter involving a woman.
    iii) the neglect of the daughter’s role in/for the story. (Beyond the Word of a Woman, xxxiv)

     

    Jesus Database

     

    Liturgies and Prayers

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

    Other recommended sites include:

     

    Music Suggestions

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

  • Ninth Sunday after Pentecost (10 August 2014)

    Contents

    Lectionary

    • Genesis 37:1-4, 12-28 & Psalm 105: 1-6, 16-22, 45b [or, 1 Kings 19:9-18 & Psalm 85:8-13]
    • Romans 10:5-15
    • Matthew 14:22-33

     

    Jesus and the stormy sea

    The story of Jesus exercising divine powers over the sea – whether by claiming a storm brewing over its waves, or by walking across the surface of the water – is especially problematic for modern readers. Unlike a healing miracle – or even an exorcism – such a “nature miracle” seems to lack any moral purpose as no one’s suffering is alleviated. Rather, the point of the story seems to be a demonstration of Jesus’ divine powers over an aspect of nature that the ancient story-teller found especially frightening.

    Ancient near eastern traditions

    The ancient peoples from the biblical lands and nearby regions had a deep fear of the sea. Their stories of creation often involved a conflict between the gods that resulted in the slaying of the sea-monster as a prerequisite for human existence. This example comes from the Babylonian Creation myths

    In the beginning, neither heaven nor earth had names. Apsu, the god of fresh waters, and Tiamat, the goddess of the salt oceans, and Mummu, the god of the mist that rises from both of them, were still mingled as one. There were no mountains, there was no pasture land, and not even a reed-marsh could be found to break the surface of the waters.
    It was then that Apsu and Tiamat parented two gods, and then two more who outgrew the first pair. These further parented gods, until Ea, who was the god of rivers and was Tiamat and Apsu’s great-grandson, was born. Ea was the cleverest of the gods, and with his magic Ea became the most powerful of the gods, ruling even his forebears.
    Apsu and Tiamat’s descendents became an unruly crowd. Eventually Apsu, in his frustration and inability to sleep with the clamor, went to Tiamat, and he proposed to her that he slay their noisy offspring. Tiamat was furious at his suggestion to kill their clan, but after leaving her Apsu resolved to proceed with his murderous plan. When the young gods heard of his plot against them, they were silent and fearful, but soon Ea was hatching a scheme. He cast a spell on Apsu, pulled Apsu’s crown from his head, and slew him. Ea then built his palace on Apsu’s waters, and it was there that, with the goddess Damkina, he fathered Marduk, the four-eared, four-eyed giant who was god of the rains and storms.
    The other gods, however, went to Tiamat and complained of how Ea had slain her husband. Aroused, she collected an army of dragons and monsters, and at its head she placed the god Kingu, whom she gave magical powers as well. Even Ea was at a loss how to combat such a host, until he finally called on his son Marduk. Marduk gladly agreed to take on his father’s battle, on the condition that he, Marduk, would rule the gods after achieving this victory. The other gods agreed, and at a banquet they gave him his royal robes and scepter.
    Marduk armed himself with a bow and arrows, a club, and lightning, and he went in search of Tiamat’s monstrous army. Rolling his thunder and storms in front him, he attacked, and Kingu’s battle plan soon disintegrated. Tiamat was left alone to fight Marduk, and she howled as they closed for battle. They struggled as Marduk caught her in his nets. When she opened her mouth to devour him, he filled it with the evil wind that served him. She could not close her mouth with his gale blasting in it, and he shot an arrow down her throat. It split her heart, and she was slain. After subduing the rest of her host, he took his club and split Tiamat’s water-laden body in half like a clam shell. Half he put in the sky and made the heavens, and he posted guards there to make sure that Tiamat’s salt waters could not escape. Across the heavens he made stations in the stars for the gods, and he made the moon and set it forth on its schedule across the heavens. From the other half of Tiamat’s body he made the land, which he placed over Apsu’s fresh waters, which now arise in wells and springs. From her eyes he made flow the Tigris and Euphrates. Across this land he made the grains and herbs, the pastures and fields, the rains and the seeds, the cows and ewes, and the forests and the orchards.
    Marduk set the vanquished gods who had supported Tiamat to a variety of tasks, including work in the fields and canals. Soon they complained of their work, however, and they rebeled by burning their spades and baskets. Marduk saw a solution to their labors, though, and proposed it to Ea. He had Kingu, Timat’s general, brought forward from the ranks of the defeated gods, and Kingu was slain. With Kingu’s blood, with clay from the earth, and with spittle from the other gods, Ea and the birth-goddess Nintu created humans. On them Ea imposed the labor previously assigned to the gods. Thus the humans were set to maintain the canals and boundary ditches, to hoe and to carry, to irrigate the land and to raise crops, to raise animals and fill the granaries, and to worship the gods at their regular festivals.

     

    The cosmic waters in the Bible

    There are echoes of this in the Bible, both in the creation hymn of Genesis 1 and in the scattered references to Leviathan, the Serpent and the Dragon.

    Genesis 1:1-13

    In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, 2 the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. 3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
    6 And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. 8 God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
    9 And God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, “Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it.” And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.

    Job 3:8

    Let those curse it who curse the Sea,
    those who are skilled to rouse up Leviathan.

    Job 41:12

    Can you draw out Leviathan with a fishhook,
    or press down its tongue with a cord?

    Psalm 74:14

    You crushed the heads of Leviathan;
    you gave him as food for the creatures of the wilderness.

    Psalm 104:26

    There go the ships,
    and Leviathan that you formed to sport in it.

    Isaiah 27:1

    On that day the Lord
    with his cruel and great and strong sword
    will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent,
    Leviathan the twisting serpent,
    and he will kill the dragon that is in the sea.

    Even the classic account of the crossing of the Red Sea (Sea of Reeds?) can be understood as a variant of the ancient myth of the slaying of the sea-monster. Moses divides (slays) the Sea and the people walk across on dry land.

    Exodus 15

    6Your right hand, O Lord, glorious in power–
    your right hand, O Lord, shattered the enemy.
    7In the greatness of your majesty you overthrew your adversaries;
    you sent out your fury, it consumed them like stubble.
    8At the blast of your nostrils the waters piled up,
    the floods stood up in a heap;
    the deeps congealed in the heart of the sea.
    9The enemy said, ‘I will pursue, I will overtake,
    I will divide the spoil, my desire shall have its fill of them.
    I will draw my sword, my hand shall destroy them.’
    10You blew with your wind, the sea covered them;
    they sank like lead in the mighty waters.

    In some Jewish traditions these monsters will be served up as food for the faithful in the great messianic banquet at the end of time:

    2 Esdras 6:49, 51

    Then you kept in existence two living creatures; the one you called Behemoth and the name of the other Leviathan.
    …but to Leviathan you gave the seventh part, the watery part; and you have kept them to be eaten by whom you wish, and when you wish.

    The many variants of this ancient mythic theme include the legend of St George (who slays the dragon) and the archetypal Antichrist Myth in which a victorious Christ figure rides upon a white horse to slay the ancient dragon:

    Revelation 19:11-16

    Then I saw heaven opened, and there was a white horse! Its rider is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war.12 His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems; and he has a name inscribed that no one knows but himself.13 He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is called The Word of God.14 And the armies of heaven, wearing fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses.15 From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron; he will tread the wine press of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.16 On his robe and on his thigh he has a name inscribed, “King of kings and Lord of lords.”

    GeorgeDragonIcon.jpg
    This image is of a modern reproduction of an ancient Byzantine icon, and shows St George mounted on his white horse as he slays the dragon. This image is found in churches and monasteries throughout the Middle East, and sometimes in the exterior decoration of Christian homes.

    Power over the Sea

    We find that the theme of special powers over the sea occurs in diverse religious traditions beyond the biblical texts:

    Homer, Odyssey

    Homer describes Hermes’ ability to move across the surface of the sea:

    Right away he strapped onto his feet
    his beautiful sandals, immortal and golden,
    which were able to bear him quickly
    over the waters of the sea
    and over the limitless land
    like the blasts of the wind.
    …
    Thus did Hermes ride on the myriad waves.
    Odyssey 5.44-46,54

     

    The Buddha and his disciples

    Miracles stories involving the capacity to walk across water are also found in Buddhism:

    The Buddha told this story at Jetavana Monastery about a pious lay follower. One evening, when this faithful disciple came to the bank of the Aciravati River on his way to Jetavana to hear the Buddha, there was no boat at the landing stage. The ferrymen had pulled their boats onto the far shore and had gone themselves to hear the Buddha. The disciple’s mind was so full of delightful thoughts of the Buddha, however, that even though he walked into the river, his feet did not sink below the surface and he walked across the water as if he were on dry land. When, however, he noticed the waves on reaching the middle of the river, his ecstasy subsided and his feet began to sink. But as soon as he again focused his mind on the qualities of the Buddha, his feet rose and he was able to continue walking joyously over the water. When he arrived at Jetavana, he paid his respects to the Master and took a seat on one side.
    “Good layman,” the Buddha said, addressing the disciple, “I hope you had no mishap on your way.”
    “Venerable sir,” the disciple replied, “while coming here, I was so absorbed in thoughts of the Buddha that, when I came to the river, I was able to walk across it as though it were solid.” “My friend,” the Blessed One said, “you’re not the only one who has been protected in this way. In olden days pious laymen were shipwrecked in mid-ocean and saved themselves by remembering the virtues of the Buddha.”
    SOURCE: Jataka Tales of the Buddha

     

    Porphyry

    This 3C pagan writer derides the Gospel accounts of Jesus possessing such powers:

    Experts in the truth about those places [in Galilee] report that there is no sea there, except they do refer to a small river-fed lake at the foot of the mountain in Galilee near the city Tiberius, a lake easily traversed in small canoes in no more than two hours and insufficiently capricious for waves or storms. So Mark greatly exaggerates the truth when he ludicrously composes the fiction of a nine-hour journey and Jesus striding upon the water in the tenth to find his disciples sailing on the pond [Gk: lakko]. Then he calls it thalassa, not merely a sea but one beset by storms, dreadfully wild, and terrifyingly agitated by the heaving of the waves, so that from these details he could represent Christ as performing a great sign, naming calming a mighty and violent storm and rescuing his scarcely endangered disciples from the deep and open sea.
    [Porphyry, Contra christianos frag. 55. Tr. by MacDonald and cited in The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, 2000:57)

     

    Sibylline Oracles

    Crossan [Historical Jesus. 406] notes the following passage in the Christian section of the Sibylline Oracles:

    With a word he makes the winds to cease, and calm the sea
    While it rages walking on it with feet of peace and in faith.
    And from five loaves and fish of the sea
    He shall feed five thousand men in the desert,
    And then taking all the fragments left over
    He will fill twelve baskets for a hope of the people.
    [SibOr 8:273-78 (OTP 1.424)]

     

    Jesus walks on the sea

    Given this cultural context, it is no surprise to find that the early Christians had stories about Jesus in which he demonstrated divine powers over the chaotic elements of the sea. What is perhaps surprising is that these stories are so restrained in their descriptions.
    The Gospel of John has a fairly simple account of Jesus walking on the sea:

    6:16 When evening came, his disciples went down to the sea, 6:17 got into a boat, and started across the sea to Capernaum. It was now dark, and Jesus had not yet come to them. 6:18 The sea became rough because a strong wind was blowing. 6:19 When they had rowed about three or four miles, they saw Jesus walking on the sea and coming near the boat, and they were terrified. 6:20 But he said to them, “It is I; do not be afraid.” 6:21 Then they wanted to take him into the boat, and immediately the boat reached the land toward which they were going.

    Mark 6:45-52 (followed by Matthew) seems to know a more developed form of this tradition:

    6:45 Immediately he made his disciples get into the boat and go on ahead to the other side, to Bethsaida, while he dismissed the crowd. 6:46 After saying farewell to them, he went up on the mountain to pray. 6:47 When evening came, the boat was out on the sea, and he was alone on the land. 6:48 When he saw that they were straining at the oars against an adverse wind, he came towards them early in the morning, walking on the sea. He intended to pass them by. 6:49 But when they saw him walking on the sea, they thought it was a ghost and cried out; 6:50 for they all saw him and were terrified. But immediately he spoke to them and said, “Take heart, it is I; do not be afraid.” 6:51 Then he got into the boat with them and the wind ceased. And they were utterly astounded, 6:52 for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened.

    = Matt 14:22-27
    14:22 Immediately he made the disciples get into the boat and go on ahead to the other side, while he dismissed the crowds. 14:23 And after he had dismissed the crowds, he went up the mountain by himself to pray. When evening came, he was there alone, 14:24 but by this time the boat, battered by the waves, was far from the land, for the wind was against them. 14:25 And early in the morning he came walking toward them on the sea. 14:26 But when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were terrified, saying, “It is a ghost!” And they cried out in fear. 14:27 But immediately Jesus spoke to them and said, “Take heart, it is I; do not be afraid.”

     

    Jesus calms the storm

    A related story tells of Jesus claming a sudden storm that had burst over the disciples’ boat as they were on the sea:

    Mark 4:35-41

    4:35 On that day, when evening had come, he said to them, “Let us go across to the other side.” 4:36 And leaving the crowd behind, they took him with them in the boat, just as he was. Other boats were with him. 4:37 A great windstorm arose, and the waves beat into the boat, so that the boat was already being swamped. 4:38 But he was in the stern, asleep on the cushion; and they woke him up and said to him, “Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?” 4:39 He woke up and rebuked the wind, and said to the sea, “Peace! Be still!” Then the wind ceased, and there was a dead calm. 4:40 He said to them, “Why are you afraid? Have you still no faith?” 4:41 And they were filled with great awe and said to one another, “Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?”

    = Matt 8:18,23-27
    8:18 Now when Jesus saw great crowds around him, he gave orders to go over to the other side. … 8:23 And when he got into the boat, his disciples followed him. 8:24 A windstorm arose on the sea, so great that the boat was being swamped by the waves; but he was asleep. 8:25 And they went and woke him up, saying, “Lord, save us! We are perishing!” 8:26 And he said to them, “Why are you afraid, you of little faith?” Then he got up and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a dead calm. 8:27 They were amazed, saying, “What sort of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him?”

    = Luke 8:22-25
    8:22 One day he got into a boat with his disciples, and he said to them, “Let us go across to the other side of the lake.” So they put out, 8:23 and while they were sailing he fell asleep. A windstorm swept down on the lake, and the boat was filling with water, and they were in danger. 8:24 They went to him and woke him up, shouting, “Master, Master, we are perishing!” And he woke up and rebuked the wind and the raging waves; they ceased, and there was a calm. 8:25 He said to them, “Where is your faith?” They were afraid and amazed, and said to one another, “Who then is this, that he commands even the winds and the water, and they obey him?”

     

    Peter sinks

    Matthew alone has the story of Peter sinking when he sought to walk to Jesus across the surface of the sea:

    Peter answered him, “Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water.” 14:29 He said, “Come.” So Peter got out of the boat, started walking on the water, and came toward Jesus. 14:30 But when he noticed the strong wind, he became frightened, and beginning to sink, he cried out, “Lord, save me!” 14:31 Jesus immediately reached out his hand and caught him, saying to him, “You of little faith, why did you doubt?” 14:32 When they got into the boat, the wind ceased. 14:33 And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.” [Matt 14:28-33]

    This may be related in some way to the tradition found in 190 Fishing for Humans:

    • (1a) Mark 1:16-20 = Matt 4:18-22
    • (1b) GEbi. 1b
    • (2) Luke 5:4-11
    • (3) John 21:1-8

    Whatever we make of those possible links, it seems that Matthew has used the story as part of his treatment of Peter as a leader among the disciples.

    Jesus Database

     

    Liturgies and Prayers

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

    Other recommended sites include:

     

    Music Suggestions

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

  • Eighth Sunday after Pentecost (3 August 2014)

    Contents

    Lectionary

    • Genesis 32:22-31 & Psalm 17:1-7, 15 (Isaiah 55:1-5 & Psalm 145:8-9, 14-21)
    • Romans 9:1-5
    • Matthew 14:13-21

     

    Gospel: Bread and fish

    It seems that an open table was an integral aspect of the way Jesus engaged people in the experience of God’s domain as a present reality, unrelated to the Temple ritual. Many of his sayings and miracles are remembered as having their life setting in the context of a communal meal.

    The complex 016 Supper and Eucharist provides some insight into this dimension of the early Jesus tradition:

    (1a) 1 Cor 10:14-22
    (1b) 1 Cor 11:23-25
    (2) Mark 14:22-25 = Matt 26:26-29 = Luke 22:15-19a[19b-20]
    (3) Did. 9:1-4
    (4) John 6:51b-58

    This week’s Gospel takes us to another way in which that tradition was preserved. Since the meal features the everyday fare of Galilean fish and Mediterranean bread (rather than the ritual elements of bread and wine), it is possible that this preserves an authentic memory of a meal involving a large number of people. On the other hand, the miraculous dimensions of the story seem to reflect some development in the tradition, and perhaps even a post-Easter setting for the core event.

    In any case, it may be worthwhile to review the texts that John Dominic Crossan associates with this complex in the historical Jesus inventory.

    1 Corinthians 15:6

    Next he appeared to a crowd of more than five hundred believers at the same time, most of whom are still alive, although some have died.

    This short text comes from the list of resurrection appearances cited by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15. It has been suggested by some scholars that this event, which seems otherwise unattested in the New Testament, may be the core event for either the multiplication of the loaves or the Pentecost story (or both). No matter what view we hold on those possibilities, it is clear that this is a very early reference to a tradition about some miraculous event involving a large crowd of people. The tradition predates Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, and may be dated to some time in the 40s and traced to the earliest Jesus community in which Paul’s own Christian instruction took place after his conversion. We cannot really say whether that community was located in Antioch, Damascus or Jerusalem. Paul’s own statement in Galatians leaves the question open:

    For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin;12 for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
    13 You have heard, no doubt, of my earlier life in Judaism. I was violently persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy it.14 I advanced in Judaism beyond many among my people of the same age, for I was far more zealous for the traditions of my ancestors.15 But when God, who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace, was pleased16 to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with any human being,17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me, but I went away at once into Arabia, and afterwards I returned to Damascus.
    18 Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days;19 but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother.20 In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!21 Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia,22 and I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea that are in Christ;23 they only heard it said, “The one who formerly was persecuting us is now proclaiming the faith he once tried to destroy.”24 And they glorified God because of me. [Gal 1:11-24]

    John 6:1-15

    After this Jesus went to the other side of the Sea of Galilee, also called the Sea of Tiberias. 2 A large crowd kept following him, because they saw the signs that he was doing for the sick. 3 Jesus went up the mountain and sat down there with his disciples. 4 Now the Passover, the festival of the Jews, was near. 5 When he looked up and saw a large crowd coming toward him, Jesus said to Philip, “Where are we to buy bread for these people to eat?” 6 He said this to test him, for he himself knew what he was going to do. 7 Philip answered him, “Six months’ wages would not buy enough bread for each of them to get a little.” 8 One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, said to him, 9″There is a boy here who has five barley loaves and two fish. But what are they among so many people?” 10 Jesus said, “Make the people sit down.” Now there was a great deal of grass in the place; so they sat down, about five thousand in all. 11 Then Jesus took the loaves, and when he had given thanks, he distributed them to those who were seated; so also the fish, as much as they wanted. 12 When they were satisfied, he told his disciples, “Gather up the fragments left over, so that nothing may be lost.” 13 So they gathered them up, and from the fragments of the five barley loaves, left by those who had eaten, they filled twelve baskets. 14 When the people saw the sign that he had done, they began to say, “This is indeed the prophet who is to come into the world.” 15 When Jesus realized that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, he withdrew again to the mountain by himself.

    It may be something of a surprise to see a passage from the Gospel of John listed as a source and dated prior to Mark’s Gospel, but this is presumably because this event is understood to be one of the items from the “Miracle Collection” that may have served as a source for both Mark and John.

    11. Miracles Collection now imbedded within the Gospels of Mark and John. Of the seven miracles in John 2-9, the five in John 5,6 (two),9,11 which have Markan parallels, appear in the same order in Mark 2,6 (two),8 and Secret Mark. Collections of Jesus’ deeds, like collections of Jesus’ words, were already being composed by the 50s CE. [Crossan, Historical Jesus, 429]

    The various common elements in Mark and John are impressive, and the more so if they share a common source in a pre-gospel tradition rather than John using Mark as a source.

    Mark 6:33-44 and 8:1-10 (and parallels)

    Five Thousand Fed – Mark 6:33-44

    Now many saw them going and recognized them, and they hurried there on foot from all the towns and arrived ahead of them. 34 As he went ashore, he saw a great crowd; and he had compassion for them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd; and he began to teach them many things. 35 When it grew late, his disciples came to him and said, “This is a deserted place, and the hour is now very late; 36 send them away so that they may go into the surrounding country and villages and buy something for themselves to eat.” 37 But he answered them, “You give them something to eat.” They said to him, “Are we to go and buy two hundred denarii worth of bread, and give it to them to eat?” 38 And he said to them, “How many loaves have you? Go and see.” When they had found out, they said, “Five, and two fish.” 39 Then he ordered them to get all the people to sit down in groups on the green grass. 40 So they sat down in groups of hundreds and of fifties. 41 Taking the five loaves and the two fish, he looked up to heaven, and blessed and broke the loaves, and gave them to his disciples to set before the people; and he divided the two fish among them all. 42 And all ate and were filled; 43 and they took up twelve baskets full of broken pieces and of the fish. 44 Those who had eaten the loaves numbered five thousand men.

    =Matt 14:15-21
    When it was evening, the disciples came to him and said, “This is a deserted place, and the hour is now late; send the crowds away so that they may go into the villages and buy food for themselves.” 16 Jesus said to them, “They need not go away; you give them something to eat.” 17 They replied, “We have nothing here but five loaves and two fish.” 18 And he said, “Bring them here to me.” 19 Then he ordered the crowds to sit down on the grass. Taking the five loaves and the two fish, he looked up to heaven, and blessed and broke the loaves, and gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the crowds. 20 And all ate and were filled; and they took up what was left over of the broken pieces, twelve baskets full. 21 And those who ate were about five thousand men, besides women and children.

    =Luke 9:12-17
    The day was drawing to a close, and the twelve came to him and said, “Send the crowd away, so that they may go into the surrounding villages and countryside, to lodge and get provisions; for we are here in a deserted place.” 13 But he said to them, “You give them something to eat.” They said, “We have no more than five loaves and two fish -unless we are to go and buy food for all these people.” 14 For there were about five thousand men. And he said to his disciples, “Make them sit down in groups of about fifty each.” 15 They did so and made them all sit down. 16 And taking the five loaves and the two fish, he looked up to heaven, and blessed and broke them, and gave them to the disciples to set before the crowd. 17 And all ate and were filled. What was left over was gathered up, twelve baskets of broken pieces.

    It is clear that Mark (followed later by Matthew and Luke) knows a tradition similar to that found in John 6. The common elements include:

    • location near the Sea of Galilee
    • questions about the cost (and availability) of food for such a crowd
    • five loaves and two fish
    • reference to grass
    • all are satisfied
    • fragments and left overs are collected afterwards
    • twelve baskets
    • 5,000 figure

    However, Mark has also given us a variant of the same tradition and there are some subtle differences between the two stories.
    Four Thousand Fed – Mark 8:1-10

    In those days when there was again a great crowd without anything to eat, he called his disciples and said to them, /2 / “I have compassion for the crowd, because they have been with me now for three days and have nothing to eat. /3/ If I send them away hungry to their homes, they will faint on the way -and some of them have come from a great distance.” /4/ His disciples replied, “How can one feed these people with bread here in the desert?” /5/ He asked them, “How many loaves do you have?” They said, “Seven.” /6/ Then he ordered the crowd to sit down on the ground; and he took the seven loaves, and after giving thanks he broke them and gave them to his disciples to distribute; and they distributed them to the crowd. /7/ They had also a few small fish; and after blessing them, he ordered that these too should be distributed. /8/ They ate and were filled; and they took up the broken pieces left over, seven baskets full. /9/ Now there were about four thousand people. And he sent them away. /10/ And immediately he got into the boat with his disciples and went to the district of Dalmanutha.

    =Matt 15:32-39
    /32/ Then Jesus called his disciples to him and said, “I have compassion for the crowd, because they have been with me now for three days and have nothing to eat; and I do not want to send them away hungry, for they might faint on the way.” /33/ The disciples said to him, “Where are we to get enough bread in the desert to feed so great a crowd?” /34/ Jesus asked them, “How many loaves have you?” They said, “Seven, and a few small fish.” /35/ Then ordering the crowd to sit down on the ground, /36/ he took the seven loaves and the fish; and after giving thanks he broke them and gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the crowds. /37/ And all of them ate and were filled; and they took up the broken pieces left over, seven baskets full. /38/ Those who had eaten were four thousand men, besides women and children. /39/ After sending away the crowds, he got into the boat and went to the region of Magadan.

    (Note that Luke omits the duplicate account of the multiplication miracle.)
    What are we to make of this variant?

    The following suggestions come from Dean W. Chapman [The Orphan Gospel. Mark’s Perspective on Jesus. Sheffield, 1993] and they invite us to see the symbolic layers to these familiar stories:

    … why did Mark feel it necessary to have two feeding stories? In a work as short as Mark’s Gospel, it seems odd that the author would devote so much space to the same kind of miracle, especially since it did not seem to impress the participants. Since Mark had Jesus stress the number of baskets, it may be that the numbers twelve and seven were both necessary, in Mark’s eyes, if the disciples were going to discover Jesus’ identity. It is not much to go on, but there must be some reason why Mark devoted such a large part of his work to the telling of two nearly identical stories.
    The Village Idiot Theory does offer a solution: Mark told the story twice because he did not know any better. This suggestion has been made by more than one Markan scholar. But here too the Village Idiot Theory stretches the limits of credulity, especially considering the eight verses (8.14-21) that Mark spent on interpreting the feeding. …
    There is an alternative hypothesis: that both numbers, in fact both feedings, were essential parts of the sign which revealed Jesus as the Christ. Only when both parts were in place could the disciples be expected to ‘see everything clearly.’

    Chapman notes that many people have suggested (“since at least as early as the fourth century”) that one feeding miracle was performed for Jews and the other for Gentiles. Jewish features of the feeding of the five thousand have been said to include the location in Galilee rather than in the Decapolis, the different Greek words used for “basket” in the two stories, and the significance of five loaves (suggesting the five books of Torah?). Chapman notes many of these proposals and even suggests some more of his own. However, his comments on the significance of the Greek terms for “desert” seem especially interesting.

    In the story of the five thousand, the word for desert is eremos: “the same word that describes where John was preaching (1.4), where Jesus was tempted (1.9), where the Israelites received the Ten Commandments (Exod. 19.1-6), and where the prophet Hosea envisioned the Lord forming a new agreement (covenant) with his people … (Hos. 2.14).” (p. 63) However in the second story Mark uses the word eremia, which has a similar meaning but occurs nowhere else in the NT except in Matthew’s parallel to Mark’s story. Chapman observes that while eremos occurs 374 in the Greek version of the Old Testament, eremia occurs only 5 times — and always refers to Gentile territory:

    • Those nations (which will not serve Jerusalem) will be utterly laid waste. (Isa. 60.12)
    • [Edom] shall become a desolation. (Ezek. 35.4)
    • I will make [Edom] a perpetual desolation. (Ezek. 35.9)
    • The [Egyptian] workman … toiled in the wilderness. (Wis. 17.17)
    • [Babylon] will be grieved at her own desolation. (Bar. 4.33)

    On balance, Chapman suggests that Mark was affirming the priority of Jews among the followers of Jesus while also asserting the proper place of the Gentiles within the early Jesus movement. There was a symbolic meaning, as Mark tells the story, in the five loaves and twelve Jewish baskets (kophinos) of scraps, and also in the seven loaves that resulted in seven Greek baskets (spuris) of scraps. Could the layers of meaning have also included the fact that the sum of five and seven is twelve, and traditionally there were twelve loaves of sacred bread before the altar in the Temple? Why does Mark’s Jesus focus the attention of the disciples on the meaning of the loaves and of the baskets left over?

    Now the disciples had forgotten to bring any bread; and they had only one loaf with them in the boat. 15 And he cautioned them, saying,”Watch out–beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and the yeast of Herod.” 16 They said to one another, “It is because we have no bread.” 17 And becoming aware of it, Jesus said to them,”Why are you talking about having no bread? Do you still not perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened? 18 Do you have eyes, and fail to see? Do you have ears, and fail to hear? And do you not remember? 19 When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you collect?” They said to him, “Twelve.” 20 “And the seven for the four thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you collect?” And they said to him, “Seven.” 21 Then he said to them,”Do you not yet understand?”

    Luke 24:13-33, 35

    Now on that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem, 14 and talking with each other about all these things that had happened. 15 While they were talking and discussing, Jesus himself came near and went with them, 16 but their eyes were kept from recognizing him. 17 And he said to them, “What are you discussing with each other while you walk along?” They stood still, looking sad. 18 Then one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answered him, “Are you the only stranger in Jerusalem who does not know the things that have taken place there in these days?” 19 He asked them, “What things?” They replied, “The things about Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, 20 and how our chief priests and leaders handed him over to be condemned to death and crucified him. 21 But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things took place. 22 Moreover, some women of our group astounded us. They were at the tomb early this morning, 23 and when they did not find his body there, they came back and told us that they had indeed seen a vision of angels who said that he was alive. 24 Some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said; but they did not see him.” 25 Then he said to them, “Oh, how foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have declared! 26 Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and then enter into his glory?” 27 Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things about himself in all the scriptures. 28 As they came near the village to which they were going, he walked ahead as if he were going on. 29 But they urged him strongly, saying, “Stay with us, because it is almost evening and the day is now nearly over.” So he went in to stay with them. 30 When he was at the table with them, he took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened, and they recognized him; and he vanished from their sight. 32 They said to each other, “Were not our hearts burning within us while he was talking to us on the road, while he was opening the scriptures to us?” 33 That same hour they got up and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven and their companions gathered together. 35 Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he had been made known to them in the breaking of the bread.

    This much-loved Easter story, found only in Luke, preserves a memory of meals together (“the breaking of the bread”) as moments of encounter with the risen Lord present among his followers. The historicity of the episode is dubious, but the understanding of sharing bread with one another as a profound moment of encounter seems to lie close to the center of Christian experience. As Michael Morwood reminds us (for example in Praying the New Story), this is not so much about invoking an absent God to come join our celebration as recognizing that God is always present, and that God’s presence is identified and named in the breaking of the bread together.

    Luke 24:41-43

    While in their joy they were disbelieving and still wondering, he said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate in their presence.

    John 21:9,12-13

    When they had gone ashore, they saw a charcoal fire there, with fish on it, and bread. 12 Jesus said to them, “Come and have breakfast.” Now none of the disciples dared to ask him, “Who are you?” because they knew it was the Lord. 13 Jesus came and took the bread and gave it to them, and did the same with the fish.

    These two brief references to bread and fish again occur in the context of the Easter traditions.

    Crossan (Historical Jesus, 398) cites two archaeological reports that also point to the significance of bread and fish in the meal traditions of early Christianity:

    … paintings on the walls of the earliest Christian catacombs in Rome, dating from slightly before 200 A.D., characteristically depict seven or eleven male figures, presumably the apostles, seated at table, about to partake of two fish and five loaves … [and] … two fish also appear accompanied by five loaves of bread, in early Christian funerary carvings and inscriptions. (Richard Hiers & Charles Kennedy , 21-23). This data matches with independent findings that “there are no known Last Supper scenes in catacomb or sarcophagus art” (Irvine, 25)

    In other words the common meal tradition, with its simple fare of bread and fish, may be a more authentic reflection of the practice of Jesus and his first followers than the last supper tradition with its stylized ritual of “the bread” and “the cup.”

    Jesus Database

    • 003 Bread and Fish – (1?) 1 Cor 15:6; (2) John 6:1-15; (3a) Mark 6:33-44 =Matt 9:36; 14:13b-21 = Luke 9:11-17; (3b) Mark 8:1-10 = Matt 15:32-39; (4) Luke 24:13-33,35; (5) Luke 24:41-43; (6) John 21:9,12-13.
    • 232 The Disciples Return – (1) Mark 6:30-32 = Matt 14:12b-13a = Luke 9:10.

     

    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:

  • Seventh Sunday after Pentecost (27 July 2014)

    Contents

    Lectionary

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

    Gospel: More parables from Matthew

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

    Mustard Seed

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In the end, Crossan concludes:

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

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

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

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

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

    The Leaven

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (3) a woman concealed … :

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

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

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

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

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

    The Treasure

    There is a rabbinic parallel to this story:

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

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

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

     

    The Pearl

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

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

    The Fishnet

    There is a parallel to this story from Aesop:

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

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

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

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

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

    The Kingdom’s Scribe

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

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

    Jesus Database

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

    Liturgies and Prayers

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

    Music Suggestions

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