Watching films in the thriller, action, or mainstream horror genres, I feel sympathy for characters who, it seems, are only introduced into the narrative to be killed off in the next change of scene. A recent Facebook quiz, “Would you survive in a slasher/horror movie?”, dives into the motif of the just-introduced, now covered in fake-ketchup extras: “You're in an old town and an 80-year citizen informs you that the five-storey house you're about to stay in is haunted. You...a) Laugh it off and forget about it. Houses can’t be haunted”, etc.
The Hebrew Scripture lectionary reading, 2 Samuel 11:26 - 12:13a, also features what one might call an “extra”: a character who is killed off in the same chapter in which we are introduced to him. In the prophet Nathan’s narrative about the poor man and his only sheep, through which Yahweh indicts King David for murder, Uriah has already left the stage. And yet the biblical narrative economically evokes our sympathy for this soldier in the few scenes that characterize him leading up to his death.
The reader’s respect and pity for Uriah is critical to the overall narrative arc of 2Samuel. Starting in this scene, David is portrayed, not purely as a “man after God’s heart,” the quintessential righteous king and defender, but as someone willing to commit murder to get the woman he wants. This scene is important to establish that the Bible is by no means a collection of Lives of the Saints. Rather, many of the narratives probe the psychology of individuals whose love for God does not prevent them from brutal acts. We thus see negative traits of David that show up again as his family life spirals into warfare and chaos. This narrative also gives a meditation on the nature of forgiveness; at the end of the passage, David repents. Yet the forgiveness he receives does not spare him from all consequences of his act.
2 Samuel 11, the chapter that sets events in motion begins with the line, “In the spring of the year, the time when kings go out to battle . . . David remained at Jerusalem.” It is possible to read this line as foreshadowing on the part of the writer that David is not fulfilling the proper role of a king; instead of risking himself with his army in battle, he is staying at home (NOAB, 460).
Uriah is first introduced into the story indirectly. Walking on his rooftop, David notices Uriah’s wife Bathsheba bathing. He sends an inquiry about her, and is told she is the wife of Uriah the Hittite. Rather than backing off upon learning that she is married to one of his soldiers, David “sent messengers to get her, and she came to him, and he lay with her” (2 Samuel 11:4). Bathsheba later sends David a message that she is pregnant. Since her husband is not at home with the army, it will be clear that he is not the father of her child.
In the following scenes, readers are introduced to Uriah for the first and only time. David’s first motivation is to bring him back to sleep with his wife Bathsheba, so that it will look like her child is Uriah’s. David calls Uriah back from the front to Jerusalem and asks “how Joab and the people fared, and how the war was going” (7).
David then tells Uriah, “Go down to your house, and wash your feet.” The Hebrew word for “feet” is also used to indicate genitals, and this may be taken as a command to sleep with his wife. According to the editorial notes from NOAB, it would have been odd for a soldier to be called back from the front of a battle in this manner for a personal audience with the king. Although the writer of the narrative does not presume to tell Uriah’s thoughts, it is possible to assume that Uriah thought David was testing his loyalty. Another passage indicates that it was a norm during this time for soldiers to remain celibate before going into batter. 1 Samuel 21:5 includes the scene Jesus references in which David and his soldiers eat bread considered consecrated for priests; arguing for the soldier’s purity, David tells a priest, “Indeed women have been kept from us, as always when I go on an expedition; the vessels of the young men are holy . . .” (NOAB, 461).
After leaving, instead of going to his wife, Uriah sleeps at the entrance to David’s house with his servants. When David asks him why he does this, Uriah makes a speech of clarity, rhetorical power, and passion:
The ark and Israel and Judah remain in booths; and my lord Joab and the servants of my lord are camping in the open field; shall I then go to my house, to eat and drink, and to lie with my wife? As you live, and as your soul lives, I will not do such a thing.
In the story, there is an odd tonal mixture of farce and tragedy. On the second night, David invited Uriah to a banquet, and the writer states directly that David “made him drunk.” Yet even in this compromised state, instead of going home to his wife, Uriah sleeps with David’s servants.
On the third day, David writes the letter which in effect gives the commander Joab orders for Uriah’s execution. The editor of NOAB writes that one can see David’s trust in Uriah’s loyalty was so great, David entrusts Uriah himself to deliver the order for his own death; the implication is that David knows Uriah will not read the letter. It states,
Set Uriah in the forefront of the hardest fighting, and then draw back from him, so that he may be struck down and die.
Joab, the commander of the army, fulfills David’s order without compunction. There is even a suggestion that Joab, in his message to David, uses Uriah’s death as a way to excuse his own tactical error of placing soldiers too close to the Ammonites’ fortifications (NOAB, 461).
This is the point in the narrative at which this week’s lectionary passage begins:
When the wife of Uriah heard that her husband was dead, she made lamentation for him. When the mourning was over, David sent and brought her to his house, and she became his wife, and bore him a son (11:26).
In this narrative, there is symmetry between Bathsheba and Joab’s passivity in the face of hierarchical power. Neither resists David’s commands that result in Uriah being betrayed, and then killed.
Although other humans do not challenge commands David issues as King, the prophet Nathan expresses Yahweh’s judgment of David through the parable. The parable’s beginning indicates a continuity of Jewish storytelling conventions with parables of Jesus retold in the Gospels. When we here, “There were two men in a certain city, the one rich, the other poor” (12:1), we know where the story is going. The rich man with many flocks of sheep steals a poor man’s single ewe lamb. Upon hearing the story, David exclaims, “the man who has done this deserves to die” (5).
Nathan expresses the reaction of Yahweh (translated as “the LORD”) thus:
Then Nathan said to David, "You are the man! This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. . . . And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.
Why did you despise the word of the LORD by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own' (7-10).
David’s response is repentance: “I have sinned against the LORD” (13). The writer explains, although the LORD “puts away” David’s act and forgives him, David will be nevertheless be punished through future suffering.
There are many implicit values informing 2 Samuel narratives that modern readers of faith arguably do not share: most obvious would be the implication that waging aggressive warfare, not only defense, is the right and responsibility of kings; the idea that women, whether daughters or wives, are considered the property of their male family members; and the implication that the sins of an older generation are taken out on a younger one—David’s punishment is the death of his son with Bathsheba.
However, the story of Uriah contains implications about the nature of the human relationship with God that are timeless. Even as King of Israel, moreover a man who God loves, David not portrayed as immune to horrible moral failings. Although no human has the status or will to challenge him when he sleeps with Bathsheba and arranges the murder of her husband Uriah, Yahweh does not turn a blind eye to gross injustice but intervenes. David will be made to suffer, even as he has inflicted suffering. At the same time, he is restored into relationship with Yahweh by acknowledging his wrongdoing.
Coogan, Michael, Ed. The New Oxford Annotated Bible (3rd ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
--Elizabeth Fels
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Monday, July 20, 2009
July 26: Father Language
The lectionary readings for this week are the following: 2 Samuel 11:1-15 or 2 Kings 4:42-44 ; Psalm 14 or Psalm 145:10-18; Ephesians 3:14-21; and John 6:1-21.
Ephesians 3:14-21
For this reason I kneel before the Father, 15 from whom his whole family in heaven and on earth derives its name. 16 I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, 17 so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, 18 may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, 19 and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God.
20 Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, 21 to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen.
In this passage, according to notes in The New Oxford Annotated Bible, Paul is creating a play on the Greek words “Pater,” father, and “Patria,” family. The passage is a “prayer for the church’s maturity in spiritual strength (v. 16), faith in Christ and love for each other (v. 17), and complete comprehension of Christ’s fathomless love (v. 18-19)” (NOAB, 324).
Years ago I saw a theatrical performance in a church, in the form of a monologue of a victim of abuse. The speaker felt anguish using the term “Father” for God, after having been terrorized by her own father. She described how difficult it was for her to build a relationship with God using what one might call Father-language; as a survivor of physical abuse, she navigated phrases such as “Our Father,” “Dear Lord, Heavenly Father,” and “God and Father of all” as one would a mine field.
This monologue came back to me recently when a friend who himself had been abused as a child by his father shared his own difficulty with Father-language. “Phrases like ‘God loves you like a father’ makes no sense to me,” he explained. “If I use a human metaphor to describe the love I feel from God, I imagine a mother’s love instead. That makes sense to me.”
In a recent panel discussion of religious leaders and counselors in the Boston area at Harvard Divinity School, the topic of Father-language was discussed in an overall context of how to give pastoral care to victims of abuse in one’s congregation. Panelists advised pastors to connect victims to resources in their community--including health, mental, and legal services--rather than to attempt to respond to victims’ needs alone. Attendees were also reminded that language they personally might consider a great source of spiritual comfort in times of crisis—such as the Lord’s Prayer—might resonate with survivors of abuse in ways they don’t anticipate.
A central message is to keep in mind how symbolic language with which we articulate our faith—even its most central concepts—may sound different depending on one’s life experience. Members of a religious community who have been deeply hurt mentally or physically by their parents may shudder at passages from the Bible that portray the human relationship with God as a child’s relationship to a parent. This is useful to keep in mind with passages such as the opening of this week’s New Testament reading, “I kneel before the Father.” Qualities such as submission to and dependence on God may also be mapped onto human relationships in destructive ways.
Citing a study published in the journal Pastoral Psychology for her article Faith in the Face of Abuse, Nancy Nienhuis describes how “in a 2004 study, only 37 percent of clergy who counseled those involved in intimate partner violence referred them to agencies in their communities that offered services to victims of domestic violence” (1). Following Mary Fortune, a researcher on the topic of domestic violence, Nienhuis writes that women may get
“. . . unhelpful ‘advice’ from religious leaders in the following ways: Submit to your husband; pray harder; try to get your husband to church; be a better wife; lift the abuse up to God; forgive your abuser and take him back. These responses blame the woman, suggest it's her responsibility to fix the relationship, and require forgiveness of the abuse without justice. They make the woman responsible for stopping the violence, and they do nothing to hold the perpetrator accountable” (2).
Nienhuis however concludes that clergy have much potential to assist families in which violence occurs. She also cites a study from the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion indicating that batterers referred to an intervention program by a clergy member are more likely to complete it than those referred to such a program by the judicial system (3).
Father-language in aspects of religious worship such as the Lord’s Prayer, and in Biblical passages such as this week’s lectionary reading, may do much toward conveying the meaning of divine sacrificial love for humanity. Yet when they are counseling victims of violence, it is useful for pastors to consider how Father-language might convey a different message to victims of abuse than that which they intend. Resources in a community such as shelters and legal aid services can provide important assistance when a pastor is counseling a survivor.
(1) Rob J. Rotunda et al., "Clergy Response to Domestic Violence: A Preliminary Survey of Clergy Members, Victims, and Batterers," Pastoral Psychology, 52, no. 4 (March 2004): 363.
(2) http://www.hds.harvard.edu/news/bulletin_mag/articles/37-23/nienhuis.html
(3) Nancy Nason-Clark, "When Terror Strikes at Home: The Interface Between Religion and Domestic Violence," Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 43, no. 3 (September 2004): 303.
Coogan, Michael, Ed. The New Oxford Annotated Bible (3rd ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Ephesians 3:14-21
For this reason I kneel before the Father, 15 from whom his whole family in heaven and on earth derives its name. 16 I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, 17 so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, 18 may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, 19 and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God.
20 Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, 21 to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen.
In this passage, according to notes in The New Oxford Annotated Bible, Paul is creating a play on the Greek words “Pater,” father, and “Patria,” family. The passage is a “prayer for the church’s maturity in spiritual strength (v. 16), faith in Christ and love for each other (v. 17), and complete comprehension of Christ’s fathomless love (v. 18-19)” (NOAB, 324).
Years ago I saw a theatrical performance in a church, in the form of a monologue of a victim of abuse. The speaker felt anguish using the term “Father” for God, after having been terrorized by her own father. She described how difficult it was for her to build a relationship with God using what one might call Father-language; as a survivor of physical abuse, she navigated phrases such as “Our Father,” “Dear Lord, Heavenly Father,” and “God and Father of all” as one would a mine field.
This monologue came back to me recently when a friend who himself had been abused as a child by his father shared his own difficulty with Father-language. “Phrases like ‘God loves you like a father’ makes no sense to me,” he explained. “If I use a human metaphor to describe the love I feel from God, I imagine a mother’s love instead. That makes sense to me.”
In a recent panel discussion of religious leaders and counselors in the Boston area at Harvard Divinity School, the topic of Father-language was discussed in an overall context of how to give pastoral care to victims of abuse in one’s congregation. Panelists advised pastors to connect victims to resources in their community--including health, mental, and legal services--rather than to attempt to respond to victims’ needs alone. Attendees were also reminded that language they personally might consider a great source of spiritual comfort in times of crisis—such as the Lord’s Prayer—might resonate with survivors of abuse in ways they don’t anticipate.
A central message is to keep in mind how symbolic language with which we articulate our faith—even its most central concepts—may sound different depending on one’s life experience. Members of a religious community who have been deeply hurt mentally or physically by their parents may shudder at passages from the Bible that portray the human relationship with God as a child’s relationship to a parent. This is useful to keep in mind with passages such as the opening of this week’s New Testament reading, “I kneel before the Father.” Qualities such as submission to and dependence on God may also be mapped onto human relationships in destructive ways.
Citing a study published in the journal Pastoral Psychology for her article Faith in the Face of Abuse, Nancy Nienhuis describes how “in a 2004 study, only 37 percent of clergy who counseled those involved in intimate partner violence referred them to agencies in their communities that offered services to victims of domestic violence” (1). Following Mary Fortune, a researcher on the topic of domestic violence, Nienhuis writes that women may get
“. . . unhelpful ‘advice’ from religious leaders in the following ways: Submit to your husband; pray harder; try to get your husband to church; be a better wife; lift the abuse up to God; forgive your abuser and take him back. These responses blame the woman, suggest it's her responsibility to fix the relationship, and require forgiveness of the abuse without justice. They make the woman responsible for stopping the violence, and they do nothing to hold the perpetrator accountable” (2).
Nienhuis however concludes that clergy have much potential to assist families in which violence occurs. She also cites a study from the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion indicating that batterers referred to an intervention program by a clergy member are more likely to complete it than those referred to such a program by the judicial system (3).
Father-language in aspects of religious worship such as the Lord’s Prayer, and in Biblical passages such as this week’s lectionary reading, may do much toward conveying the meaning of divine sacrificial love for humanity. Yet when they are counseling victims of violence, it is useful for pastors to consider how Father-language might convey a different message to victims of abuse than that which they intend. Resources in a community such as shelters and legal aid services can provide important assistance when a pastor is counseling a survivor.
(1) Rob J. Rotunda et al., "Clergy Response to Domestic Violence: A Preliminary Survey of Clergy Members, Victims, and Batterers," Pastoral Psychology, 52, no. 4 (March 2004): 363.
(2) http://www.hds.harvard.edu/news/bulletin_mag/articles/37-23/nienhuis.html
(3) Nancy Nason-Clark, "When Terror Strikes at Home: The Interface Between Religion and Domestic Violence," Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 43, no. 3 (September 2004): 303.
Coogan, Michael, Ed. The New Oxford Annotated Bible (3rd ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Monday, July 13, 2009
July 19: the Ark of the Covenant
The Hebrew scripture lectionary reading from this week focuses on a figure who has recently been cited in media ranging from the New York Times to the Daily Show: King David. When explaining his decision not to resign from office after visiting his mistress in Argentina, Mark Sanford wrote that, like David, he “fell mightily, he fell in very significant ways, but was able to pick up the pieces.” In a clip called “Mark Sanford Consults the Old Testament,” Jon Stewart protested, “You’re a conservative Christian, and you’re dipping into my book?”
The passage for this week centers around an object of ancient Israelite religious practice called the Ark of the Covenant. Readers who grew up during the 80s probably have a mental image of the Ark as the object that Indiana Jones was trying to rescue in Raiders of the Lost Ark, which, in the movie’s climax, unleashed primeval chaos upon the Nazis who sought to control its power. 2 Samuel 7:1-14a describes the prophet Nathan conveying to David’s Yahweh’s desire that the Ark be housed, not in a portable tent as it was during pre-monarchic times, but in a Temple in Jerusalem:
After the king was settled in his palace and the LORD had given him rest from all his enemies around him, 2 he said to Nathan the prophet, "Here I am, living in a palace of cedar, while the ark of God remains in a tent."
3 Nathan replied to the king, "Whatever you have in mind, go ahead and do it, for the LORD is with you."
4 That night the word of the LORD came to Nathan, saying:
5 "Go and tell my servant David, 'This is what the LORD says: Are you the one to build me a house to dwell in? 6 I have not dwelt in a house from the day I brought the Israelites up out of Egypt to this day. I have been moving from place to place with a tent as my dwelling. 7 Wherever I have moved with all the Israelites, did I ever say to any of their rulers whom I commanded to shepherd my people Israel, "Why have you not built me a house of cedar?"’
What exactly was the Ark of the Covenant? What were its uses, and how was it perceived? Michael Coogan describes it as having multiple functions: it was a sort of safety-deposit box in which the tablets of the covenant were held; it was viewed as the footstool of Yahweh’s throne; and in battle, it served as a war emblem (Coogan, 116, 126). Exodus 25 is written as a transcription of Yahweh’s instructions to Moses as to how and of what materials the Ark should be built. Yahweh commands that an offering be taken up from the people of “gold, silver, and bronze, blue, purple, and crimson yarns and fine linen . . . spices for the anointing oil and for the fragrant incense, onyx stones and gems . . .” (25:3-7). Yahweh commands an Ark made of acacia wood which Coogan notes was considered resistant to insects. He also suggests that the descriptions of the Ark’s material would have been unlikely to be available to a group of runaway slaves in the wilderness. Yahweh is quotes as saying to Moses, “And have them make me a sanctuary, so that I may dwell among them” (25:8).
One aspect of this passage that may sound strange to readers who perceive God as omnipresent is the depiction of the Ark as the physical location of Yahweh’s being. The line, “I have been moving from place to place with a tent as my dwelling”, conveys an image of God as an ambulatory nomad accompanying the Israelites. Coogan explains how the Ark would have functioned as a physical indicator of Yahweh’s presence, without violating the prohibition against physical images of “anything that is in heaven above” (Exodus 20: 4; Coogan, 116). While Yahweh might have been invisible, Yahweh’s footstool was viewed as a focal point of religious ritual.
Finally, there was also the perception that the Ark, brought out to the field of battle, would represent divine sanctification. Coogan writes,
“As the visible sign of the invisible divine presence, the ark also served as what is called a palladium, a war emblem. When the Ark participated in war, the divine presence was through to be there (see 1 Samuel 4:6-7), and so the war became a kind of ‘holy war’ . . . An ancient battle cry associated with the ark is preserved in Numbers:
Arise, O LORD, let your enemies be scattered, and your foes flee before you (Num 10.35; compare Ps 68.1)” (Coogan, 125).
1 Samuel 4-6 contains an extended narrative describing a battle scene against the Philistines in which the Ark was brought to the field. Thirty thousand Israelite soldiers die, and the Philistines capture the Ark. In a storyline that may have served as inspiration for the ending of Raiders, the “hand of the LORD” strikes, causing panic and death among the Philistines who eventually return the Ark.
8 "Now then, tell my servant David, 'This is what the LORD Almighty says: I took you from the pasture and from following the flock to be ruler over my people Israel. 9 I have been with you wherever you have gone, and I have cut off all your enemies from before you. Now I will make your name great, like the names of the greatest men of the earth. 10 And I will provide a place for my people Israel and will plant them so that they can have a home of their own and no longer be disturbed. Wicked people will not oppress them anymore, as they did at the beginning 11 and have done ever since the time I appointed leaders [a] over my people Israel. I will also give you rest from all your enemies.
" 'The LORD declares to you that the LORD himself will establish a house for you: 12 When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be his father, and he will be my son.
For pastors and readers interested in reading more about connections between monarchic ideology and the Ark of the Covenant, The Oxford History of the Biblical World is a useful resource. In particular, in the section “Sacral-Royal Ideologies of the Monarchic State” in the essay Kings and Kingship, Carol Meyers examines techniques available to political rulers in the Ancient Near East to consolidate power through positing intimacy between ruler and deity.
Referencing two lectionary readings from this week—Psalm 89 and 2 Samuel 7:14—Meyers draws attention to the “adoption formula”, language in which the deity refers to the ruler as a “son.” 7:14, in which David’s “offspring” who built the “house for my Name” is cited, can be considered a reference to Solomon, under whose rule the Temple in Jerusalem was built. In Psalm 89, the Israelite king described as God’s firstborn son is David (Meyers, 197-198). Psalm 89:27 reads, “I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth.”
I submit that the rhetorical gestures described in these ancient texts, in which political rulers claim divine sponsorship, are extremely relevant to understanding similar gestures used today. I will close with a quote from Meyers on the topic of kingship ideology:
“The ability of a national ruler to exercise power over a large group of people—over kinship groups with which he has little or no connection—was facilitated by military successes, by favorable redistribution policies (2 Sam. 6.18-19), and by securing loyal subjects and staff through both those means. All these processes are related to or contingent upon an ideological component of royal rule. A king’s power ultimately rested on and was legitimized by a series of symbolic acts, attitudes, icons, and structures connecting the king with the deity and human kingship with divine rule (Meyers, 197).
Other lectionary readings for this week include Psalm 89:20-37; Ephesians 2:11-22; and Mark 6:30-34, 53-56.
Sources:
Coogan, Michael D. The Old Testament: a Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2006.
Meyers, Carol. “Kinship and Kingship: the Early Monarchy,” in Coogan, Michael D. The Oxford History of the Biblical World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
The passage for this week centers around an object of ancient Israelite religious practice called the Ark of the Covenant. Readers who grew up during the 80s probably have a mental image of the Ark as the object that Indiana Jones was trying to rescue in Raiders of the Lost Ark, which, in the movie’s climax, unleashed primeval chaos upon the Nazis who sought to control its power. 2 Samuel 7:1-14a describes the prophet Nathan conveying to David’s Yahweh’s desire that the Ark be housed, not in a portable tent as it was during pre-monarchic times, but in a Temple in Jerusalem:
After the king was settled in his palace and the LORD had given him rest from all his enemies around him, 2 he said to Nathan the prophet, "Here I am, living in a palace of cedar, while the ark of God remains in a tent."
3 Nathan replied to the king, "Whatever you have in mind, go ahead and do it, for the LORD is with you."
4 That night the word of the LORD came to Nathan, saying:
5 "Go and tell my servant David, 'This is what the LORD says: Are you the one to build me a house to dwell in? 6 I have not dwelt in a house from the day I brought the Israelites up out of Egypt to this day. I have been moving from place to place with a tent as my dwelling. 7 Wherever I have moved with all the Israelites, did I ever say to any of their rulers whom I commanded to shepherd my people Israel, "Why have you not built me a house of cedar?"’
What exactly was the Ark of the Covenant? What were its uses, and how was it perceived? Michael Coogan describes it as having multiple functions: it was a sort of safety-deposit box in which the tablets of the covenant were held; it was viewed as the footstool of Yahweh’s throne; and in battle, it served as a war emblem (Coogan, 116, 126). Exodus 25 is written as a transcription of Yahweh’s instructions to Moses as to how and of what materials the Ark should be built. Yahweh commands that an offering be taken up from the people of “gold, silver, and bronze, blue, purple, and crimson yarns and fine linen . . . spices for the anointing oil and for the fragrant incense, onyx stones and gems . . .” (25:3-7). Yahweh commands an Ark made of acacia wood which Coogan notes was considered resistant to insects. He also suggests that the descriptions of the Ark’s material would have been unlikely to be available to a group of runaway slaves in the wilderness. Yahweh is quotes as saying to Moses, “And have them make me a sanctuary, so that I may dwell among them” (25:8).
One aspect of this passage that may sound strange to readers who perceive God as omnipresent is the depiction of the Ark as the physical location of Yahweh’s being. The line, “I have been moving from place to place with a tent as my dwelling”, conveys an image of God as an ambulatory nomad accompanying the Israelites. Coogan explains how the Ark would have functioned as a physical indicator of Yahweh’s presence, without violating the prohibition against physical images of “anything that is in heaven above” (Exodus 20: 4; Coogan, 116). While Yahweh might have been invisible, Yahweh’s footstool was viewed as a focal point of religious ritual.
Finally, there was also the perception that the Ark, brought out to the field of battle, would represent divine sanctification. Coogan writes,
“As the visible sign of the invisible divine presence, the ark also served as what is called a palladium, a war emblem. When the Ark participated in war, the divine presence was through to be there (see 1 Samuel 4:6-7), and so the war became a kind of ‘holy war’ . . . An ancient battle cry associated with the ark is preserved in Numbers:
Arise, O LORD, let your enemies be scattered, and your foes flee before you (Num 10.35; compare Ps 68.1)” (Coogan, 125).
1 Samuel 4-6 contains an extended narrative describing a battle scene against the Philistines in which the Ark was brought to the field. Thirty thousand Israelite soldiers die, and the Philistines capture the Ark. In a storyline that may have served as inspiration for the ending of Raiders, the “hand of the LORD” strikes, causing panic and death among the Philistines who eventually return the Ark.
8 "Now then, tell my servant David, 'This is what the LORD Almighty says: I took you from the pasture and from following the flock to be ruler over my people Israel. 9 I have been with you wherever you have gone, and I have cut off all your enemies from before you. Now I will make your name great, like the names of the greatest men of the earth. 10 And I will provide a place for my people Israel and will plant them so that they can have a home of their own and no longer be disturbed. Wicked people will not oppress them anymore, as they did at the beginning 11 and have done ever since the time I appointed leaders [a] over my people Israel. I will also give you rest from all your enemies.
" 'The LORD declares to you that the LORD himself will establish a house for you: 12 When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be his father, and he will be my son.
For pastors and readers interested in reading more about connections between monarchic ideology and the Ark of the Covenant, The Oxford History of the Biblical World is a useful resource. In particular, in the section “Sacral-Royal Ideologies of the Monarchic State” in the essay Kings and Kingship, Carol Meyers examines techniques available to political rulers in the Ancient Near East to consolidate power through positing intimacy between ruler and deity.
Referencing two lectionary readings from this week—Psalm 89 and 2 Samuel 7:14—Meyers draws attention to the “adoption formula”, language in which the deity refers to the ruler as a “son.” 7:14, in which David’s “offspring” who built the “house for my Name” is cited, can be considered a reference to Solomon, under whose rule the Temple in Jerusalem was built. In Psalm 89, the Israelite king described as God’s firstborn son is David (Meyers, 197-198). Psalm 89:27 reads, “I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth.”
I submit that the rhetorical gestures described in these ancient texts, in which political rulers claim divine sponsorship, are extremely relevant to understanding similar gestures used today. I will close with a quote from Meyers on the topic of kingship ideology:
“The ability of a national ruler to exercise power over a large group of people—over kinship groups with which he has little or no connection—was facilitated by military successes, by favorable redistribution policies (2 Sam. 6.18-19), and by securing loyal subjects and staff through both those means. All these processes are related to or contingent upon an ideological component of royal rule. A king’s power ultimately rested on and was legitimized by a series of symbolic acts, attitudes, icons, and structures connecting the king with the deity and human kingship with divine rule (Meyers, 197).
Other lectionary readings for this week include Psalm 89:20-37; Ephesians 2:11-22; and Mark 6:30-34, 53-56.
Sources:
Coogan, Michael D. The Old Testament: a Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2006.
Meyers, Carol. “Kinship and Kingship: the Early Monarchy,” in Coogan, Michael D. The Oxford History of the Biblical World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
July 12: Amos and Social Justice
The current media topic in which direct quotations of the Bible are arguably most present is marriage equality. While public policy debates over health care or unemployment are not likely to feature quotes from Hebrew Scripture or the Pauline letters writ bold, lately it seems like every time I click the Comments section of a blog entry about marriage equality, I can’t go far before stumbling over a quote from Leviticus or Romans.
The strategy that proponents of equality adopt is to pull out biblical passages that the US government would never hold up as normative. A recent example would be a video released in the wake of Prop 8, in which a bearded Jack Black plays Jesus in a musical theater production. Informed that the “Bible says” that homosexuals are an abomination, Black remarks that it says the same about shrimp cocktail. When Gavin Newsome, the Catholic mayor of San Francisco and a frontrunner in the campaign for governor of California, spoke to a Times reporter recently about Leviticus signs at protests, he described reading Leviticus to see what was there: “‘It says that I may possess many slaves, male and female, as long as they are purchased from nearby nations,’ Newsom said with a laugh”. (1)
A result of this trend is that when self-identifying progressives speak about the Bible in public, the verses most quickly reached for are those that in today’s cultural setting are the most offensive, ridiculous, or blatantly immoral.
If progressives aim to pass public policy with the support of conservatives—especially in light of the massive dislocation among society’s most vulnerable as the economic crisis drags on—then in order to locate common ground, the “Religious Left” might also call attention in public discourse to Bible verses with a strong message of social justice. The book of Amos, one of the Hebrew Scripture options for this week’s lectionary, contains passage that directly address issues of economic justice that are relevant today.
The Amos passage that is arguably the most well known in America is part of Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech:
We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their self-hood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating: "For Whites Only." We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until "justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream."
Readers interested in either seeing the entire video of the speech or reading the text can find them here: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm
The line “justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream” comes from Amos 5:24. The passage that it comes from is written in the voice of Yahweh (translated as the LORD):
“I hate, I despise your festivals,
And I take no delight in your sacred assemblies.
22 Though you offer Me burnt offerings and your grain offerings,
I will not accept them,
Nor will I regard your fattened peace offerings.
23 Take away from Me the noise of your songs,
For I will not hear the melody of your harps.
24 But let justice run down like water,
And righteousness like a mighty stream.
Amos preached during the 8th century, BCE, during the reign of Jeraboam II. The New Oxford Annotated Bible’s introduction describes how Amos’ task was preaching repentance during a time that was prosperous for the upper class. Through the exploitation of landowners, a small debt could result in a farmer losing his family’s lands and being enslaved.
“In this period, Israel attained a height of territorial expansion and national prosperity never again reached. At the same time, this prosperity led to gross inequities between urban elites and the poor. Through manipulation of debit and credit, wealthy landowners amassed capital and estates at the expense of small farmers” (NOAB 1302).
In The Prophets, the Jewish scholar Abraham Heschel brings together passages in the book of Amos that describe economic inequity:
“The rich had their summer and winter palaces adorned with costly ivory (3:15), gorgeous couches with damask pillows (3:12), on which they reclined at their sumptuous feasts. . . At the same time there was no justice in the land (3:10), the poor were afflicted, exploited, even sold into slavery (2:6-8; 5:11), and the judges were corrupt (5:12)” (Heschel, 33).
In A History of Prophecy in Israel, Joseph Blenkinsopp provides specific historical detail about what a shift from an agrarian, relatively egalitarian, way of life to a more rigid hierarchy looked like in the 8th century BCE. Landowners employed slaves and exacted heavy taxes (“exactions of wheat,” Amos 5:11). Insolvent laborers could be forced into slavery or military service, losing their land. While trade with Phoenician cities brought about economic expansion, the resulting prosperity did not equally benefit all social class. Much like religious institutions have a non-profit tax status in America today, the personnel who organized the animal sacrifice systems were tax-exempt. The hardship of sacrificing livestock in times of poverty could have contributed to resentment Amos voices in the passage Martin Luther King cites (Blenkinsopp, 81).
Blenkinsopp interprets the passage King uses as a radical critique of symbols ingrained in communal life of the state: “One of the more remarkable aspects of the book is the presentation of worship as the expression of a radically sinful way of life. The entire apparatus of festivals, sacrifice, religious music, and tithing is rejected as hateful to Yahweh” (Blenkinsopp, 40). Blenkinsopp stresses than in eighth century BCE Israel, it would be unrealistic to replace worship with a religion boiled down exclusively to ethics. He interprets Amos as critiquing the way settled religious practice can lend legitimacy to an unjust state:
“Rather, the point seems to be that worship was (as it is still) a very powerful way of legitimating the current political and social status quo. Quite simply, Amos was not taken in by the religiosity of his contemporaries” (Blenkinsopp, 81).
The passage from this week’s lectionary, 7:7-15, begins with Amos describing a vision of the destruction of Israel. Although King Jeroboam was not killed in the way Amos describes, Israel would later be taken over by succeeding armies of Assyrians and Babylonians, culminating the in destruction of the Temple and exile in 586 BCE. The “plumb line” in this passage, according to NOAB, was also mentioned in 2 Kings 21:13-15. It was “a device for determining the true vertical line of a structure,” implying that “Israel’s religious and political institutions do not measure up . . .” (NOAB, 1313).
7 This is what he showed me: The Lord was standing by a wall that had been built true to plumb, with a plumb line in his hand. 8 And the LORD asked me, "What do you see, Amos?"
"A plumb line," I replied.
Then the Lord said, "Look, I am setting a plumb line among my people Israel; I will spare them no longer.
9 "The high places of Isaac will be destroyed
and the sanctuaries of Israel will be ruined;
with my sword I will rise against the house of Jeroboam."
Amos then describes his face-off against the official royal priest, Amaziah. As the insider religious spokesman, Amaziah accuses Amos of treason and commands him to leave. If can be inferred that after his banishment, Amos or his followers wrote the text that became the book of Amos:
10 Then Amaziah the priest of Bethel sent a message to Jeroboam king of Israel: "Amos is raising a conspiracy against you in the very heart of Israel. The land cannot bear all his words. 11 For this is what Amos is saying:
" 'Jeroboam will die by the sword,
and Israel will surely go into exile,
away from their native land.' "
12 Then Amaziah said to Amos, "Get out, you seer! Go back to the land of Judah. Earn your bread there and do your prophesying there. 13 Don't prophesy anymore at Bethel, because this is the king's sanctuary and the temple of the kingdom."
14 Amos answered Amaziah, "I was neither a prophet nor a prophet's son, but I was a shepherd, and a dresser of sycamore trees. 15 But the LORD took me from tending the flock and said to me, 'Go, prophesy to my people Israel.'
During this time, the figs produced by sycamore trees would have been slit with knives to speed the ripening process. Amos’s response means that he is not a member of a prophetic guild, and did not receive formal training as a prophet. At this time period, the profession of “prophet” was one that could be pursued through officially sanctioned channels (1 Samuel 9:6-10, Micah 3:5-8, 11). However, Amos claims to have receiving his calling directly from the Lord, in the tradition of “outsider” leaders such as Gideon who the Lord raises up to accomplish a task.
A line in the book of Amos which arguably sums up the prophet’s message is the command, in Yahweh’s voice, “For thus says the LORD to the house of Israel: Seek me, and live” (Amos 5:4). In closing, a last important aspect of the book of Amos which Heschel emphasizes is the message that peoples outside the Israelites are explicitly valued by the Lord:
Are you not like the Ethiopians to Me,
O People of Israel? Says the Lord.
Did I not bring up Israel from the land of Egypt,
and the Philistines from Caphtor and the Syrians from Kir? (Amos 9:7).
Heschel writes, “The God of Israel is the God of all nations, and all men’s history is His concern” (Heschel, 40).
(1) Source of the article on Gavin Newsome is
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/05/magazine/05California-t.html?ref=magazine
Other sources:
Blenkinsopp. Joseph. A History of Prophecy in Israel. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1983.
Coogan, Michael, Ed. The New Oxford Annotated Bible (3rd ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Heschel, Abraham. The Prophets. New York: HarperCollins, 1962.
The strategy that proponents of equality adopt is to pull out biblical passages that the US government would never hold up as normative. A recent example would be a video released in the wake of Prop 8, in which a bearded Jack Black plays Jesus in a musical theater production. Informed that the “Bible says” that homosexuals are an abomination, Black remarks that it says the same about shrimp cocktail. When Gavin Newsome, the Catholic mayor of San Francisco and a frontrunner in the campaign for governor of California, spoke to a Times reporter recently about Leviticus signs at protests, he described reading Leviticus to see what was there: “‘It says that I may possess many slaves, male and female, as long as they are purchased from nearby nations,’ Newsom said with a laugh”. (1)
A result of this trend is that when self-identifying progressives speak about the Bible in public, the verses most quickly reached for are those that in today’s cultural setting are the most offensive, ridiculous, or blatantly immoral.
If progressives aim to pass public policy with the support of conservatives—especially in light of the massive dislocation among society’s most vulnerable as the economic crisis drags on—then in order to locate common ground, the “Religious Left” might also call attention in public discourse to Bible verses with a strong message of social justice. The book of Amos, one of the Hebrew Scripture options for this week’s lectionary, contains passage that directly address issues of economic justice that are relevant today.
The Amos passage that is arguably the most well known in America is part of Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech:
We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their self-hood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating: "For Whites Only." We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until "justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream."
Readers interested in either seeing the entire video of the speech or reading the text can find them here: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm
The line “justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream” comes from Amos 5:24. The passage that it comes from is written in the voice of Yahweh (translated as the LORD):
“I hate, I despise your festivals,
And I take no delight in your sacred assemblies.
22 Though you offer Me burnt offerings and your grain offerings,
I will not accept them,
Nor will I regard your fattened peace offerings.
23 Take away from Me the noise of your songs,
For I will not hear the melody of your harps.
24 But let justice run down like water,
And righteousness like a mighty stream.
Amos preached during the 8th century, BCE, during the reign of Jeraboam II. The New Oxford Annotated Bible’s introduction describes how Amos’ task was preaching repentance during a time that was prosperous for the upper class. Through the exploitation of landowners, a small debt could result in a farmer losing his family’s lands and being enslaved.
“In this period, Israel attained a height of territorial expansion and national prosperity never again reached. At the same time, this prosperity led to gross inequities between urban elites and the poor. Through manipulation of debit and credit, wealthy landowners amassed capital and estates at the expense of small farmers” (NOAB 1302).
In The Prophets, the Jewish scholar Abraham Heschel brings together passages in the book of Amos that describe economic inequity:
“The rich had their summer and winter palaces adorned with costly ivory (3:15), gorgeous couches with damask pillows (3:12), on which they reclined at their sumptuous feasts. . . At the same time there was no justice in the land (3:10), the poor were afflicted, exploited, even sold into slavery (2:6-8; 5:11), and the judges were corrupt (5:12)” (Heschel, 33).
In A History of Prophecy in Israel, Joseph Blenkinsopp provides specific historical detail about what a shift from an agrarian, relatively egalitarian, way of life to a more rigid hierarchy looked like in the 8th century BCE. Landowners employed slaves and exacted heavy taxes (“exactions of wheat,” Amos 5:11). Insolvent laborers could be forced into slavery or military service, losing their land. While trade with Phoenician cities brought about economic expansion, the resulting prosperity did not equally benefit all social class. Much like religious institutions have a non-profit tax status in America today, the personnel who organized the animal sacrifice systems were tax-exempt. The hardship of sacrificing livestock in times of poverty could have contributed to resentment Amos voices in the passage Martin Luther King cites (Blenkinsopp, 81).
Blenkinsopp interprets the passage King uses as a radical critique of symbols ingrained in communal life of the state: “One of the more remarkable aspects of the book is the presentation of worship as the expression of a radically sinful way of life. The entire apparatus of festivals, sacrifice, religious music, and tithing is rejected as hateful to Yahweh” (Blenkinsopp, 40). Blenkinsopp stresses than in eighth century BCE Israel, it would be unrealistic to replace worship with a religion boiled down exclusively to ethics. He interprets Amos as critiquing the way settled religious practice can lend legitimacy to an unjust state:
“Rather, the point seems to be that worship was (as it is still) a very powerful way of legitimating the current political and social status quo. Quite simply, Amos was not taken in by the religiosity of his contemporaries” (Blenkinsopp, 81).
The passage from this week’s lectionary, 7:7-15, begins with Amos describing a vision of the destruction of Israel. Although King Jeroboam was not killed in the way Amos describes, Israel would later be taken over by succeeding armies of Assyrians and Babylonians, culminating the in destruction of the Temple and exile in 586 BCE. The “plumb line” in this passage, according to NOAB, was also mentioned in 2 Kings 21:13-15. It was “a device for determining the true vertical line of a structure,” implying that “Israel’s religious and political institutions do not measure up . . .” (NOAB, 1313).
7 This is what he showed me: The Lord was standing by a wall that had been built true to plumb, with a plumb line in his hand. 8 And the LORD asked me, "What do you see, Amos?"
"A plumb line," I replied.
Then the Lord said, "Look, I am setting a plumb line among my people Israel; I will spare them no longer.
9 "The high places of Isaac will be destroyed
and the sanctuaries of Israel will be ruined;
with my sword I will rise against the house of Jeroboam."
Amos then describes his face-off against the official royal priest, Amaziah. As the insider religious spokesman, Amaziah accuses Amos of treason and commands him to leave. If can be inferred that after his banishment, Amos or his followers wrote the text that became the book of Amos:
10 Then Amaziah the priest of Bethel sent a message to Jeroboam king of Israel: "Amos is raising a conspiracy against you in the very heart of Israel. The land cannot bear all his words. 11 For this is what Amos is saying:
" 'Jeroboam will die by the sword,
and Israel will surely go into exile,
away from their native land.' "
12 Then Amaziah said to Amos, "Get out, you seer! Go back to the land of Judah. Earn your bread there and do your prophesying there. 13 Don't prophesy anymore at Bethel, because this is the king's sanctuary and the temple of the kingdom."
14 Amos answered Amaziah, "I was neither a prophet nor a prophet's son, but I was a shepherd, and a dresser of sycamore trees. 15 But the LORD took me from tending the flock and said to me, 'Go, prophesy to my people Israel.'
During this time, the figs produced by sycamore trees would have been slit with knives to speed the ripening process. Amos’s response means that he is not a member of a prophetic guild, and did not receive formal training as a prophet. At this time period, the profession of “prophet” was one that could be pursued through officially sanctioned channels (1 Samuel 9:6-10, Micah 3:5-8, 11). However, Amos claims to have receiving his calling directly from the Lord, in the tradition of “outsider” leaders such as Gideon who the Lord raises up to accomplish a task.
A line in the book of Amos which arguably sums up the prophet’s message is the command, in Yahweh’s voice, “For thus says the LORD to the house of Israel: Seek me, and live” (Amos 5:4). In closing, a last important aspect of the book of Amos which Heschel emphasizes is the message that peoples outside the Israelites are explicitly valued by the Lord:
Are you not like the Ethiopians to Me,
O People of Israel? Says the Lord.
Did I not bring up Israel from the land of Egypt,
and the Philistines from Caphtor and the Syrians from Kir? (Amos 9:7).
Heschel writes, “The God of Israel is the God of all nations, and all men’s history is His concern” (Heschel, 40).
(1) Source of the article on Gavin Newsome is
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/05/magazine/05California-t.html?ref=magazine
Other sources:
Blenkinsopp. Joseph. A History of Prophecy in Israel. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1983.
Coogan, Michael, Ed. The New Oxford Annotated Bible (3rd ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Heschel, Abraham. The Prophets. New York: HarperCollins, 1962.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
July 5: Thorn in the Side
In a March column from this year, the journalist Nicholas Kristof considers the transition from “ink on dead trees” journalism to online news. While it is possible to argue that proliferating online news exposes readers to a greater diversity of viewpoints, Kristof argues the opposite: “When we go online, each of us is our own editor, our own gatekeeper. We select the kind of news and opinions that we care most about. Nicholas Negroponte of M.I.T. has called this emerging news product "The Daily Me.”
Kristof goes on to describe a study in which Democrats and Republicans were both offered mailings purporting to contain political research. In the study, both sides were eager to see on the one hand, research that would confirm their own views, and on the other hand, “manifestly silly” arguments in favor of views they oppose.
Kristof’s conclusion is that it Americans increasingly live in insulated chambers, and that our access to media can reinforce, rather than puncture, social divisions. He cites statistics that almost half of Americans live in “landslide counties” that vote overwhelming Democrat or Republican: a change from the 60s and 70s. As a result, Kristof recommends that readers regularly engage with partners with views unlike their own, and ends with a joke that he is off to read the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page.
I submit that a similar dynamic can often play out in American Christian communities. One can imagine the above research study playing out along similar lines if “Evangelical” and “Liberal” were substituted for “Democratic” and “Republican.”
Continuing in 2 Corinthians, this week’s lectionary reading contains a passage that, like the Prodigal Son and the Good Samaritan, has become a universal trope in the English language: the thorn in the side, or, depending on the translation, thorn in my flesh. The context, as I described earlier, is a series of letters to a Corinthian church in the wake of conflict. Paul sarcastically derides the “Super-Apostles” with whom he disagrees, and makes a series of appeals to mend the relationship with the Corinthians. We do not know exactly the nature of this conflict—Paul was writing to an audience familiar with the details, and thus does, like a character in a play, launch into a monologue answering the Who What When Where Why questions. Similarly, the nature of the “thorn in the flesh” is never made clear:
7To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. 8Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. 9But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness."
Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me. 10That is why, for Christ's sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong (2 Corinthians 12, 7-10).
In the context of this passage, Paul is making an appeal for the legitimacy of his teaching. Just as Ezekiel does in the lectionary passage from Hebrew Scripture, Paul claims that he received divine revelation to validate the truth of his words. His rhetorical aim is: “don’t believe what these others (“Super-Apostles”) tell you; believe me.” While the context is not explicit, the book of Acts describes the kinds of conflict that early Christians faced; at one point, Paul argues that circumcision is not essential for those who want to follow Christ.
Yet Paul interrupts his description of visions, making an abrupt switch from the 3rd person to the 1st person. He emphasizes that he is not telling the Corinthians about his revelations just so they will admire him and think him extremely fortunate: “To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me.”
While there has been much speculation as to the nature of the actual condition Paul refers to metaphorically as a thorn, it is simply not clarified in the letter. One possibility is that Paul is nursing an injury from physical abuse he survived on his missions. Just before this moment he writes, "Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep" 2 (Corinthians 11:25). However, the mysterious nature of the thorn invites readers who have undergone chronic pain of any kind to identify with Paul.
In an essay called The Bible and Suffering, Rev. Peter Gomes draws attention to the line in which Paul states that the thorn comes from “Satan,” not from God. Gomes describes how frustrating it can be for victims of a great loss when well-wishers come up and say, “This is God’s will.” He quotes a man who had undergone a great loss saying, “God was the first who cried.” Gomes writes of Paul, “The source of his trouble, whatever it is, is not God” (Gomes, 216, 218).
However, Paul is able to reinterpret his suffering. He perceives the thorn, not as a meaningless burden, but as a steady source of humility in the context of his mission. Paul’s thorn links him to the pain Christ endured on the cross:
“This is not suffering for sufferings sake; it is suffering for Christ’s sake, so that Paul and all who see and learn from him might learn of the strength that Christ supplies. We learn as well that God’s role is not to relieve suffering or to spare us from it, but to enable us to bear and endure it so that even our suffering is redemptive for ourselves and others” (Gomes, 218-219).
In the passage, Paul does not immediately accept his suffering. He describes appealing three times to God to relieve the thorn—implying faith that in some instances, God responds to prayer for healing. The many narratives in which Christ heals those who appeal to him arguably emboldened Paul to also ask directly for healing in prayer. Yet Paul does not understand the absence of relief from the thorn as a sign that God has abandoned him. Gomes writes,
“Thus, God will not interfere despite the three appeals of the apostle. Why not? So that Paul will learn that he can rely upon Christ when he needs him, that is, in his weakness. The sufferings, the persecutions, the calamities, the insults and hardships, all of these are not ends in themselves but means to a greater end, the demonstration that Christ gets us through such things” (Gomes, 219).
After reading Nicholas Kristof’s article about the polarization of American civic life, I decided to try harder to understand religious traditions outside my own, even if I do not share their beliefs. In the nonfiction book God’s Daughters: Evangelical Women and the Power of Submission, Marie Griffith describes her fieldwork attending meetings of Women’s Aglow Fellowship International, an interdenominational organization of charismatic Christian worshippers. While Griffith takes an analytical, academic approach in her project of describing the group to a larger audience, the portrait that emerges does not depict women who passively embrace second-class status in a religious patriarchy. This complexity is evident in the chapter discussing how members respond to sources of pain that, like Paul’s thorn, do not recede with prayer.
In one example with which I will conclude, Griffith describes the account of a young woman, “Joyce,” diagnosed with cancer. Although she and her family and friends pray for healing, her symptoms worsen. She describes how her faith helps her, not to heal her disease, but to take pleasure in the life she has that remains: ‘The difference is . . . I’m living again. I’m watching the flowers bloom. I’m hearing the birds sing. I’m cuddling (my children)” (Griffith, 90). Summarizing common themes that appear in the evangelical women’s accounts of suffering, Griffith writes,
“Here again, the lesson to be learned about faith is not about the fulfillment of physical healing but about accepting death and appreciating everyday pleasures in the meantime. Her wistful closing words about her husband and children, ‘And they will remember me when they laugh,’ are poignantly suggestive of the heartache entailed in forsaking her family for the promise of heaven, a task that Joyce suggests is ongoing and perhaps never wholly finished until death” (Griffith, 90).
Other lectionary readings for this week are: 2 Samuel 5: 1-5, 9-10 or Ezekiel 2:1-5; Mark 6: 1-13; and Psalm 48.
--Elizabeth Fels
Sources:
Gomes, Peter. The Good Book: Reading the Bible with Heart and Mind. HarperSanFrancisco: San Francisco, California, 1996.
Griffith, R. Marie. God’s Daughters: Evangelical Women and the Power of Submission. University of California Press: Berkeley, California, 2000.
Kristof, Nicholas. “The Daily Me,” published at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/opinion/19kristof.html?scp=2&sq=kristof%20wall%20street%20journal&st=cse
Kristof goes on to describe a study in which Democrats and Republicans were both offered mailings purporting to contain political research. In the study, both sides were eager to see on the one hand, research that would confirm their own views, and on the other hand, “manifestly silly” arguments in favor of views they oppose.
Kristof’s conclusion is that it Americans increasingly live in insulated chambers, and that our access to media can reinforce, rather than puncture, social divisions. He cites statistics that almost half of Americans live in “landslide counties” that vote overwhelming Democrat or Republican: a change from the 60s and 70s. As a result, Kristof recommends that readers regularly engage with partners with views unlike their own, and ends with a joke that he is off to read the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page.
I submit that a similar dynamic can often play out in American Christian communities. One can imagine the above research study playing out along similar lines if “Evangelical” and “Liberal” were substituted for “Democratic” and “Republican.”
Continuing in 2 Corinthians, this week’s lectionary reading contains a passage that, like the Prodigal Son and the Good Samaritan, has become a universal trope in the English language: the thorn in the side, or, depending on the translation, thorn in my flesh. The context, as I described earlier, is a series of letters to a Corinthian church in the wake of conflict. Paul sarcastically derides the “Super-Apostles” with whom he disagrees, and makes a series of appeals to mend the relationship with the Corinthians. We do not know exactly the nature of this conflict—Paul was writing to an audience familiar with the details, and thus does, like a character in a play, launch into a monologue answering the Who What When Where Why questions. Similarly, the nature of the “thorn in the flesh” is never made clear:
7To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. 8Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. 9But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness."
Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me. 10That is why, for Christ's sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong (2 Corinthians 12, 7-10).
In the context of this passage, Paul is making an appeal for the legitimacy of his teaching. Just as Ezekiel does in the lectionary passage from Hebrew Scripture, Paul claims that he received divine revelation to validate the truth of his words. His rhetorical aim is: “don’t believe what these others (“Super-Apostles”) tell you; believe me.” While the context is not explicit, the book of Acts describes the kinds of conflict that early Christians faced; at one point, Paul argues that circumcision is not essential for those who want to follow Christ.
Yet Paul interrupts his description of visions, making an abrupt switch from the 3rd person to the 1st person. He emphasizes that he is not telling the Corinthians about his revelations just so they will admire him and think him extremely fortunate: “To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me.”
While there has been much speculation as to the nature of the actual condition Paul refers to metaphorically as a thorn, it is simply not clarified in the letter. One possibility is that Paul is nursing an injury from physical abuse he survived on his missions. Just before this moment he writes, "Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep" 2 (Corinthians 11:25). However, the mysterious nature of the thorn invites readers who have undergone chronic pain of any kind to identify with Paul.
In an essay called The Bible and Suffering, Rev. Peter Gomes draws attention to the line in which Paul states that the thorn comes from “Satan,” not from God. Gomes describes how frustrating it can be for victims of a great loss when well-wishers come up and say, “This is God’s will.” He quotes a man who had undergone a great loss saying, “God was the first who cried.” Gomes writes of Paul, “The source of his trouble, whatever it is, is not God” (Gomes, 216, 218).
However, Paul is able to reinterpret his suffering. He perceives the thorn, not as a meaningless burden, but as a steady source of humility in the context of his mission. Paul’s thorn links him to the pain Christ endured on the cross:
“This is not suffering for sufferings sake; it is suffering for Christ’s sake, so that Paul and all who see and learn from him might learn of the strength that Christ supplies. We learn as well that God’s role is not to relieve suffering or to spare us from it, but to enable us to bear and endure it so that even our suffering is redemptive for ourselves and others” (Gomes, 218-219).
In the passage, Paul does not immediately accept his suffering. He describes appealing three times to God to relieve the thorn—implying faith that in some instances, God responds to prayer for healing. The many narratives in which Christ heals those who appeal to him arguably emboldened Paul to also ask directly for healing in prayer. Yet Paul does not understand the absence of relief from the thorn as a sign that God has abandoned him. Gomes writes,
“Thus, God will not interfere despite the three appeals of the apostle. Why not? So that Paul will learn that he can rely upon Christ when he needs him, that is, in his weakness. The sufferings, the persecutions, the calamities, the insults and hardships, all of these are not ends in themselves but means to a greater end, the demonstration that Christ gets us through such things” (Gomes, 219).
After reading Nicholas Kristof’s article about the polarization of American civic life, I decided to try harder to understand religious traditions outside my own, even if I do not share their beliefs. In the nonfiction book God’s Daughters: Evangelical Women and the Power of Submission, Marie Griffith describes her fieldwork attending meetings of Women’s Aglow Fellowship International, an interdenominational organization of charismatic Christian worshippers. While Griffith takes an analytical, academic approach in her project of describing the group to a larger audience, the portrait that emerges does not depict women who passively embrace second-class status in a religious patriarchy. This complexity is evident in the chapter discussing how members respond to sources of pain that, like Paul’s thorn, do not recede with prayer.
In one example with which I will conclude, Griffith describes the account of a young woman, “Joyce,” diagnosed with cancer. Although she and her family and friends pray for healing, her symptoms worsen. She describes how her faith helps her, not to heal her disease, but to take pleasure in the life she has that remains: ‘The difference is . . . I’m living again. I’m watching the flowers bloom. I’m hearing the birds sing. I’m cuddling (my children)” (Griffith, 90). Summarizing common themes that appear in the evangelical women’s accounts of suffering, Griffith writes,
“Here again, the lesson to be learned about faith is not about the fulfillment of physical healing but about accepting death and appreciating everyday pleasures in the meantime. Her wistful closing words about her husband and children, ‘And they will remember me when they laugh,’ are poignantly suggestive of the heartache entailed in forsaking her family for the promise of heaven, a task that Joyce suggests is ongoing and perhaps never wholly finished until death” (Griffith, 90).
Other lectionary readings for this week are: 2 Samuel 5: 1-5, 9-10 or Ezekiel 2:1-5; Mark 6: 1-13; and Psalm 48.
--Elizabeth Fels
Sources:
Gomes, Peter. The Good Book: Reading the Bible with Heart and Mind. HarperSanFrancisco: San Francisco, California, 1996.
Griffith, R. Marie. God’s Daughters: Evangelical Women and the Power of Submission. University of California Press: Berkeley, California, 2000.
Kristof, Nicholas. “The Daily Me,” published at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/opinion/19kristof.html?scp=2&sq=kristof%20wall%20street%20journal&st=cse
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
June 28: Wisdom, Theodicy, & Immortality
The two options for the Hebrew scripture reading for this week’s lectionary are 2 Samuel 1, 17-27, and The Wisdom of Solomon, 1:13-15 and 2:23-24. This week I will focus on the passages from The Wisdom of Solomon (Wisdom).
The books in the Biblegrouped under the heading “Wisdom Literature” are rich in poetry and lyricism. In the Protestant canon, these include Ecclesiastes, Job, and the Song of Solomon. The Wisdom of Solomon is in the Protestant Apocrypha, but it is a part of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox canons. Books such as Ecclesiastes and Job stand out from other Hebrew Scripture books, as they do not include extended textual references to Israelite history. The literary form they take is that of poems and stories, without an explicit attempt to fit their narratives into the historical line of patriarchs and prophets like Abraham, Moses, Jacob, and David.
Two central motifs in The Wisdom of Solomon are “immortality” and “wisdom.” Although the author uses “Solomon” as a pseudonym, this book has been dated to approximately the first century BCE, or the early first century CE, after the Greco-Roman Empire extended into Mesopotamia. The editors of NOAB write that the book “reflects extensive interaction with Greek literary and philosophical conventions” (AP 70). For example, in Wisdom 8:7 the writer extols the four cardinal virtues recognized in Greek philosophy: self-control, prudence, courage, and justice. The opening chapters take the rhetorical structure of a diatribe used by Greek and Roman philosophers. A diatribe often features an extended argument with an enemy; in this case, the writer, contrasts the actions of those he calls wicked and those he calls righteous. The writer was likely a Jewish person addressing a community Jewish in exile to remind them of the core principles of their faith. He appropriates aspects of Greek culture to argue for the vitality of Judaism (AP 70-72).
In so doing, the writer elevates a term that is present in older Hebrew texts, although not heavily highlighted or laid out with clarity: the immortality of the soul.
. . . God did not make death, and he does not delight in the death of the living.
For he created all things so that they might exist;
the generative forces of the world are wholesome,
and there is no destructive poison in them,
and the dominion of Hades is not on earth.
For righteousness is immortal. (1:13-15)
. . . for God created us for incorruption,
and made us in the image of his own eternity.
But through the devil’s envy death entered the world,
And those who belong to his company experience it. (2:23-24)
The book is written in Greek—we can see this even in translation, since in the passage above, the term Hades is used to describe what we would call hell. According to Greek mythological understanding, Hades was an underground, cavernous place where all souls went after death, in a comparatively emaciated, subdued existence compared to life on earth. Greek myths in which the location Hades figures prominently include the Orpheus narrative, in which Orpheus tries and fails to rescue his beloved from Hades, and the Persephone narrative, in which Ceres, the goddess of the harvest, succeeds in gaining her daughter’s freedom from Hades for half of each year, resulting in the changing seasons. In Hebrew texts, the term for what we call hell is Sheol. Sheol appears in the well-known passage from The Song of Solomon, not to be confused with The Wisdom of Solomon, that can be translated, “Set me as a seal upon your heart, as a seal upon your arm; for love is as strong as death, passion as fierce as the grave” (8:6).
In Greek, the noun for wisdom, Sophia, has a feminine gender. In the first chapter, the writer, like the writer of Proverbs, personifies wisdom in terms that can be described as human, and yet also evoke descriptions of the Holy Spirit, the third part of the Trinity: “. . . for wisdom will not enter a deceitful soul,” and “For wisdom is a kindly spirit . . .” (1:4, 6). There is similarity to the female personification of Wisdom in the first chapter of Proverbs:
Wisdom cries out in the streets,
in the squares she raises her voice.
At the busiest corner she cries out;
At the entrance of the city gates she speaks . . . (1:20-21).
The term “wisdom” has loomed large in political media recently, because of the attention given to Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s remark about a “wise Latina woman.” The controversy surrounded her hearing has given way to reflections of all stripes as to what, indeed, constitutes wisdom.
In Wisdom Ways, the feminist biblical scholar Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza describes it thus:
“Wisdom is a state of the human mind and spirit characterized by deep understanding and profound insight. It is elaborated as a quality possessed by the sages but also treasured as folk wisdom and wit. . . . Its root meaning comes to the fore in the Latin word sapientia, which is derived from the verb sapere=to taste and to savor something. . . . Wisdom, unlike intelligence, is not something with which a person is born. It comes only from living, from making mistakes and trying again and from listening to others who have made mistakes and tried to learn from them” (ESF, 23).
The picture of the Divine that emerges from the passages in the lectionary is absolutely not that of God who, from a vengeful perch on high, uses death as a means of punishing humans. The image is one of beneficence and generative power:
“God did not make death, and he does not delight in the death of the living. For he created all things so that they might exist;
the generative forces of the world are wholesome . . .” The passage uses the motif that humans are made in the image of God: “for God created us for incorruption, and made us in the image of his own eternity.”
The Wisdom of Solomon as whole is noteworthy for the answer it gives to what is often called the theodicy problem, concerning the justice of God. For readers interested in learning more on this topic, I recommend C. S. Lewis’ book, The Problem of Pain. The philosophical question, simplistically formulated, is as follows: How can God be omnipotent and benevolent, when innocent beings suffer in the world? Either God must be A) benevolent but not omnipotent, B) omnipotent but unjust, or C) unjust and not omnipotent. Public acts of unprovoked suffering and death, such as the death of the girl Neda, cause many to consider this line of questioning.
The writer provides an answer to the theodicy problem through his explanation of immortality. In chapter 2, taking on the voice of the wicked lying in wait for a righteous man, the Wisdom author writes,
Let us test him with insult and torture,
so that we may find out how gentle he is,
and make trial of his forbearance.
Let us condemn him to a shameful death,
for, according to what he says, he will be protected. (1:19-20).
The answer of the Wisdom writer to this problem is formulated well by Michael Coogan:
“The doctrine of the immortality of the soul solves the problem of theodicy, of divine justice in this life: God will reward the good in the life to come. The wicked will have sided with death (who in 1:16 is almost a deity, like the Greek god Hades, the ruler of the underworld that has his name), but God has created life for the righteous, a life that is immortal. The way to achieve this eternal life is through the pursuit of wisdom, to which the author next turns” (Coogan, 521).
Other lectionary readings for this week are the following: Psalm 130 or Psalm 30; 2 Corinthians 8:7-15; Mark 5:21-43 (optional Psalm reading: Lamentations 3:23-33).
--Elizabeth Fels
Works Cited:
Coogan, Michael, Ed. The New Oxford Annotated Bible (3rd ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Coogan, Michael D. The Old Testament: a Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2006.
Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth. Wisdom Ways: Introducing Feminist Biblical Interpretation. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 2001.
The books in the Biblegrouped under the heading “Wisdom Literature” are rich in poetry and lyricism. In the Protestant canon, these include Ecclesiastes, Job, and the Song of Solomon. The Wisdom of Solomon is in the Protestant Apocrypha, but it is a part of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox canons. Books such as Ecclesiastes and Job stand out from other Hebrew Scripture books, as they do not include extended textual references to Israelite history. The literary form they take is that of poems and stories, without an explicit attempt to fit their narratives into the historical line of patriarchs and prophets like Abraham, Moses, Jacob, and David.
Two central motifs in The Wisdom of Solomon are “immortality” and “wisdom.” Although the author uses “Solomon” as a pseudonym, this book has been dated to approximately the first century BCE, or the early first century CE, after the Greco-Roman Empire extended into Mesopotamia. The editors of NOAB write that the book “reflects extensive interaction with Greek literary and philosophical conventions” (AP 70). For example, in Wisdom 8:7 the writer extols the four cardinal virtues recognized in Greek philosophy: self-control, prudence, courage, and justice. The opening chapters take the rhetorical structure of a diatribe used by Greek and Roman philosophers. A diatribe often features an extended argument with an enemy; in this case, the writer, contrasts the actions of those he calls wicked and those he calls righteous. The writer was likely a Jewish person addressing a community Jewish in exile to remind them of the core principles of their faith. He appropriates aspects of Greek culture to argue for the vitality of Judaism (AP 70-72).
In so doing, the writer elevates a term that is present in older Hebrew texts, although not heavily highlighted or laid out with clarity: the immortality of the soul.
. . . God did not make death, and he does not delight in the death of the living.
For he created all things so that they might exist;
the generative forces of the world are wholesome,
and there is no destructive poison in them,
and the dominion of Hades is not on earth.
For righteousness is immortal. (1:13-15)
. . . for God created us for incorruption,
and made us in the image of his own eternity.
But through the devil’s envy death entered the world,
And those who belong to his company experience it. (2:23-24)
The book is written in Greek—we can see this even in translation, since in the passage above, the term Hades is used to describe what we would call hell. According to Greek mythological understanding, Hades was an underground, cavernous place where all souls went after death, in a comparatively emaciated, subdued existence compared to life on earth. Greek myths in which the location Hades figures prominently include the Orpheus narrative, in which Orpheus tries and fails to rescue his beloved from Hades, and the Persephone narrative, in which Ceres, the goddess of the harvest, succeeds in gaining her daughter’s freedom from Hades for half of each year, resulting in the changing seasons. In Hebrew texts, the term for what we call hell is Sheol. Sheol appears in the well-known passage from The Song of Solomon, not to be confused with The Wisdom of Solomon, that can be translated, “Set me as a seal upon your heart, as a seal upon your arm; for love is as strong as death, passion as fierce as the grave” (8:6).
In Greek, the noun for wisdom, Sophia, has a feminine gender. In the first chapter, the writer, like the writer of Proverbs, personifies wisdom in terms that can be described as human, and yet also evoke descriptions of the Holy Spirit, the third part of the Trinity: “. . . for wisdom will not enter a deceitful soul,” and “For wisdom is a kindly spirit . . .” (1:4, 6). There is similarity to the female personification of Wisdom in the first chapter of Proverbs:
Wisdom cries out in the streets,
in the squares she raises her voice.
At the busiest corner she cries out;
At the entrance of the city gates she speaks . . . (1:20-21).
The term “wisdom” has loomed large in political media recently, because of the attention given to Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s remark about a “wise Latina woman.” The controversy surrounded her hearing has given way to reflections of all stripes as to what, indeed, constitutes wisdom.
In Wisdom Ways, the feminist biblical scholar Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza describes it thus:
“Wisdom is a state of the human mind and spirit characterized by deep understanding and profound insight. It is elaborated as a quality possessed by the sages but also treasured as folk wisdom and wit. . . . Its root meaning comes to the fore in the Latin word sapientia, which is derived from the verb sapere=to taste and to savor something. . . . Wisdom, unlike intelligence, is not something with which a person is born. It comes only from living, from making mistakes and trying again and from listening to others who have made mistakes and tried to learn from them” (ESF, 23).
The picture of the Divine that emerges from the passages in the lectionary is absolutely not that of God who, from a vengeful perch on high, uses death as a means of punishing humans. The image is one of beneficence and generative power:
“God did not make death, and he does not delight in the death of the living. For he created all things so that they might exist;
the generative forces of the world are wholesome . . .” The passage uses the motif that humans are made in the image of God: “for God created us for incorruption, and made us in the image of his own eternity.”
The Wisdom of Solomon as whole is noteworthy for the answer it gives to what is often called the theodicy problem, concerning the justice of God. For readers interested in learning more on this topic, I recommend C. S. Lewis’ book, The Problem of Pain. The philosophical question, simplistically formulated, is as follows: How can God be omnipotent and benevolent, when innocent beings suffer in the world? Either God must be A) benevolent but not omnipotent, B) omnipotent but unjust, or C) unjust and not omnipotent. Public acts of unprovoked suffering and death, such as the death of the girl Neda, cause many to consider this line of questioning.
The writer provides an answer to the theodicy problem through his explanation of immortality. In chapter 2, taking on the voice of the wicked lying in wait for a righteous man, the Wisdom author writes,
Let us test him with insult and torture,
so that we may find out how gentle he is,
and make trial of his forbearance.
Let us condemn him to a shameful death,
for, according to what he says, he will be protected. (1:19-20).
The answer of the Wisdom writer to this problem is formulated well by Michael Coogan:
“The doctrine of the immortality of the soul solves the problem of theodicy, of divine justice in this life: God will reward the good in the life to come. The wicked will have sided with death (who in 1:16 is almost a deity, like the Greek god Hades, the ruler of the underworld that has his name), but God has created life for the righteous, a life that is immortal. The way to achieve this eternal life is through the pursuit of wisdom, to which the author next turns” (Coogan, 521).
Other lectionary readings for this week are the following: Psalm 130 or Psalm 30; 2 Corinthians 8:7-15; Mark 5:21-43 (optional Psalm reading: Lamentations 3:23-33).
--Elizabeth Fels
Works Cited:
Coogan, Michael, Ed. The New Oxford Annotated Bible (3rd ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Coogan, Michael D. The Old Testament: a Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2006.
Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth. Wisdom Ways: Introducing Feminist Biblical Interpretation. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 2001.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
June 21: Afflication and Consolation
In this entry I will focus on the lectionary reading passage 2 Corinthians 6:1-13.
In the letters dating from the 50s CE, Paul addresses a Christian community that he founded with assistance of Timothy, Priscilla, Aquila, and Phoebe. At that time, Corinth was a Greek metropolis of approximately 250,000, huge by the standards of that time. It was located by the isthmus running between Peloponnesus and the Greek mainland. To see a copyright-protected map of Corinth in relationship to other cities Paul visited, click on http://www.bible.org/assets/netbible/jp1.jpg.
Although the Romans had destroyed Corinth in 146 BCE for leading a rebellion, it was rebuilt in 44 BCE. According to NOAB, it was “a colony to which the Roman patricians sent surplus population from Rome itself, such as recently freed slaves, displaced peasants, and army veterans. Corinth quickly developed into a busy hub of east-west trade in the empire, and the center of Roman imperial culture in Greece” (NT 267).
As indicated in Acts 18:11, Paul organized gatherings in private homes in Corinth with the assistance of Timothy, Priscilla, Aquila, and Phoebe for approximately a year and a half (NT 267). The letters to the Corinthians are thus an indication of the leadership roles women took on in the early church, as well as the importance of what today are called house circles.
While I was living in Germany in 2006, on my way to watch friends compete in the German college debating championships, I met a young Iranian at a train station. Soccer’s World Cup was on, and I was thus able to recognize that the shirt he wore was an Iranian Jersey. As we talked about why we were living in Germany, Mahmoud, as he introduced himself, explained that he had been forced to immigrate after converting to Christianity.
Mahmoud described seeing American Christian programming on television, and writing the show to request a Bible in Persian. The organization he corresponded with sent him the Persian Bible, as well as music recordings. Mahmoud became a Christian and plugged himself into the underground Christian network in his home town, which, like Corinth in the 50s, organized through private gatherings in homes.
One night when Mahmoud hosted a Bible study at his house, he invited a Muslim friend, who made a video recording. The friend lived with his family; his father, upon finding this recording, turned it in to the police. Shortly later, officials arrived at Mahmoud’s house to arrest him, but he was not home at that time.
Mahmoud’s being away from his home during the arrest attempt possibly saved his life. In Iran, although it is not illegal to be a Christian, attempts to convert a Muslim, that is, actions that could be interpreted as proselytizing can be punished by execution. Mahmoud’s family told him to immediately leave for Turkey. Through Turkey he immigrated to Germany, where he found work at a carpet store. When I asked whether it was difficult for him to adjust to life in Germany, he seemed surprised; “Ich kann hier einfach beten,” he said, meaning, “I can simply pray here.”
Over the last days, I have been in touch with Iranian friends studying in Massachusetts who express frustration with the results of the election. They describe how Iranians are upset, both by the likelihood of a rigged voting process, and by the prospect of the leader least supportive of personal freedom and international peace efforts remaining in power.
Readers interested in reading an Iranian’s perspective on the election on Facebook can find commentary here: http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/note.php?note_id=111235289609&id=33821&ref=share
Stories like Mahmoud’s remind me of the difficulties early communities must have faced in the Roman Empire. As records of early Christian martyrs indicate, religious activity perceived as a threat to political authority in the Roman Empire could have been punished by death, by crucifixion (Jesus, Peter), or as public entertainment (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/131christians/martyrs/perpetua.html)
2 Corinthians, because of its fragmentary structure, has been described as a collection of letters Paul wrote to the Corinthian Christian community in response to a crisis. The nature of the crisis is not clearly spelled out, as it would have already been known to the audience (NAB). In the introduction to 2 Corinthians, the editor(s) of the New American Bible write,
“The letter is remarkable for its rhetoric. Paul falls naturally into the style and argumentation of contemporary philosophic preachers, employing with ease the stock devices of the ‘diatribe.’ By a barrage of questions, by challenges both serious and ironic, by paradox heaped upon paradox, even by insults hurled at his opponents, he strives to awaken in his hearers a true sense of values and an appropriate response. All his argument centers on the destiny of Jesus, in which a paradoxical reversal of values is revealed. But Paul appeals to his own personal experience as well” (usccb.org).
The passage reads as follows, from the NIV:
1As God's fellow workers we urge you not to receive God's grace in vain. 2For he says,
"In the time of my favor I heard you,
and in the day of salvation I helped you." I tell you, now is the time of God's favor, now is the day of salvation.
The phrase “the time of God’s favor” is a reference to Isaiah 49:8 in the Septuagint, or the Greek translation of Hebrew Scripture. The editors of NAB note that this phrase is parallel to “on the day of salvation.”
3We put no stumbling block in anyone's path, so that our ministry will not be discredited. 4Rather, as servants of God we commend ourselves in every way: in great endurance; in troubles, hardships and distresses; 5in beatings, imprisonments and riots; in hard work, sleepless nights and hunger;
Paul makes an appeal to the Corinthians to see him as authentic, listing the suffering he has endured while trying to build up Christian communities and spread the Gospel. I once heard sermon in which the speaker explained how he would be afraid to face the trials Paul did, which included beatings and being imprisoned.
6in purity, understanding, patience and kindness; in the Holy Spirit and in sincere love; 7in truthful speech and in the power of God; with weapons of righteousness in the right hand and in the left; 8through glory and dishonor, bad report and good report; genuine, yet regarded as impostors; 9known, yet regarded as unknown; dying, and yet we live on; beaten, and yet not killed; 10sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; poor, yet making many rich; having nothing, and yet possessing everything.
This passage powerfully builds on the theme which the NOAB commentary call “affliction and consolation,” begun in the first chapter and elaborated throughout the book (NT 293-294). Paul take up a motif one could trace back to the Sermon on the Mount, as well as to the “Inappropriate Heroes” of Hebrew Scripture like Gideon, of power located in weakness: God uses human weakness to showcase divine strength.
11We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you. 12We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us. 13As a fair exchange—I speak as to my children—open wide your hearts also.
Other lectionary passages for this week include 1 Samuel 17:(1a, 4-11, 19-23), 32-49; Psalm 9:9-20; Mark 4:35-41.
Sources:
Coogan, Michael, Ed. The New Oxford Annotated Bible (3rd ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
New American Bible notes on 2 Corinthians. Published by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and found on (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/2corinthians/2corinthians6.htm).
Xenos Christian Fellowship notes on 2 Corinthians (www.xenos.org).
In the letters dating from the 50s CE, Paul addresses a Christian community that he founded with assistance of Timothy, Priscilla, Aquila, and Phoebe. At that time, Corinth was a Greek metropolis of approximately 250,000, huge by the standards of that time. It was located by the isthmus running between Peloponnesus and the Greek mainland. To see a copyright-protected map of Corinth in relationship to other cities Paul visited, click on http://www.bible.org/assets/netbible/jp1.jpg.
Although the Romans had destroyed Corinth in 146 BCE for leading a rebellion, it was rebuilt in 44 BCE. According to NOAB, it was “a colony to which the Roman patricians sent surplus population from Rome itself, such as recently freed slaves, displaced peasants, and army veterans. Corinth quickly developed into a busy hub of east-west trade in the empire, and the center of Roman imperial culture in Greece” (NT 267).
As indicated in Acts 18:11, Paul organized gatherings in private homes in Corinth with the assistance of Timothy, Priscilla, Aquila, and Phoebe for approximately a year and a half (NT 267). The letters to the Corinthians are thus an indication of the leadership roles women took on in the early church, as well as the importance of what today are called house circles.
While I was living in Germany in 2006, on my way to watch friends compete in the German college debating championships, I met a young Iranian at a train station. Soccer’s World Cup was on, and I was thus able to recognize that the shirt he wore was an Iranian Jersey. As we talked about why we were living in Germany, Mahmoud, as he introduced himself, explained that he had been forced to immigrate after converting to Christianity.
Mahmoud described seeing American Christian programming on television, and writing the show to request a Bible in Persian. The organization he corresponded with sent him the Persian Bible, as well as music recordings. Mahmoud became a Christian and plugged himself into the underground Christian network in his home town, which, like Corinth in the 50s, organized through private gatherings in homes.
One night when Mahmoud hosted a Bible study at his house, he invited a Muslim friend, who made a video recording. The friend lived with his family; his father, upon finding this recording, turned it in to the police. Shortly later, officials arrived at Mahmoud’s house to arrest him, but he was not home at that time.
Mahmoud’s being away from his home during the arrest attempt possibly saved his life. In Iran, although it is not illegal to be a Christian, attempts to convert a Muslim, that is, actions that could be interpreted as proselytizing can be punished by execution. Mahmoud’s family told him to immediately leave for Turkey. Through Turkey he immigrated to Germany, where he found work at a carpet store. When I asked whether it was difficult for him to adjust to life in Germany, he seemed surprised; “Ich kann hier einfach beten,” he said, meaning, “I can simply pray here.”
Over the last days, I have been in touch with Iranian friends studying in Massachusetts who express frustration with the results of the election. They describe how Iranians are upset, both by the likelihood of a rigged voting process, and by the prospect of the leader least supportive of personal freedom and international peace efforts remaining in power.
Readers interested in reading an Iranian’s perspective on the election on Facebook can find commentary here: http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/note.php?note_id=111235289609&id=33821&ref=share
Stories like Mahmoud’s remind me of the difficulties early communities must have faced in the Roman Empire. As records of early Christian martyrs indicate, religious activity perceived as a threat to political authority in the Roman Empire could have been punished by death, by crucifixion (Jesus, Peter), or as public entertainment (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/131christians/martyrs/perpetua.html)
2 Corinthians, because of its fragmentary structure, has been described as a collection of letters Paul wrote to the Corinthian Christian community in response to a crisis. The nature of the crisis is not clearly spelled out, as it would have already been known to the audience (NAB). In the introduction to 2 Corinthians, the editor(s) of the New American Bible write,
“The letter is remarkable for its rhetoric. Paul falls naturally into the style and argumentation of contemporary philosophic preachers, employing with ease the stock devices of the ‘diatribe.’ By a barrage of questions, by challenges both serious and ironic, by paradox heaped upon paradox, even by insults hurled at his opponents, he strives to awaken in his hearers a true sense of values and an appropriate response. All his argument centers on the destiny of Jesus, in which a paradoxical reversal of values is revealed. But Paul appeals to his own personal experience as well” (usccb.org).
The passage reads as follows, from the NIV:
1As God's fellow workers we urge you not to receive God's grace in vain. 2For he says,
"In the time of my favor I heard you,
and in the day of salvation I helped you." I tell you, now is the time of God's favor, now is the day of salvation.
The phrase “the time of God’s favor” is a reference to Isaiah 49:8 in the Septuagint, or the Greek translation of Hebrew Scripture. The editors of NAB note that this phrase is parallel to “on the day of salvation.”
3We put no stumbling block in anyone's path, so that our ministry will not be discredited. 4Rather, as servants of God we commend ourselves in every way: in great endurance; in troubles, hardships and distresses; 5in beatings, imprisonments and riots; in hard work, sleepless nights and hunger;
Paul makes an appeal to the Corinthians to see him as authentic, listing the suffering he has endured while trying to build up Christian communities and spread the Gospel. I once heard sermon in which the speaker explained how he would be afraid to face the trials Paul did, which included beatings and being imprisoned.
6in purity, understanding, patience and kindness; in the Holy Spirit and in sincere love; 7in truthful speech and in the power of God; with weapons of righteousness in the right hand and in the left; 8through glory and dishonor, bad report and good report; genuine, yet regarded as impostors; 9known, yet regarded as unknown; dying, and yet we live on; beaten, and yet not killed; 10sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; poor, yet making many rich; having nothing, and yet possessing everything.
This passage powerfully builds on the theme which the NOAB commentary call “affliction and consolation,” begun in the first chapter and elaborated throughout the book (NT 293-294). Paul take up a motif one could trace back to the Sermon on the Mount, as well as to the “Inappropriate Heroes” of Hebrew Scripture like Gideon, of power located in weakness: God uses human weakness to showcase divine strength.
11We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you. 12We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us. 13As a fair exchange—I speak as to my children—open wide your hearts also.
Other lectionary passages for this week include 1 Samuel 17:(1a, 4-11, 19-23), 32-49; Psalm 9:9-20; Mark 4:35-41.
Sources:
Coogan, Michael, Ed. The New Oxford Annotated Bible (3rd ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
New American Bible notes on 2 Corinthians. Published by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and found on (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/2corinthians/2corinthians6.htm).
Xenos Christian Fellowship notes on 2 Corinthians (www.xenos.org).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)