The Other Brother
In Matthew 5:21-22, Jesus equates hate, insult and name-calling with murder. For a long time, I just accepted the common explanation that Jesus is “reinterpreting” the Law, pushing for a “deeper” understanding of “what God really meant”. As I blogged several days ago, however, I am beginning to see that Jesus was reading the Law through the lens of love defined as self-sacrifice. Thus, all commandments must be reexamined through that lens. And so what of “Thou shalt not murder”?
What is murder, exactly? In his compelling analysis of the Cain and Able myth, Volf argues (quite persuasively) that Cain murders Abel because he refuses to redefine himself. Able is the quintessential nothing – he is the second son, he is a shepherd, even his name means something like “vapor”. Cain, on the other hand is strong. He is a farmer, the first son, strong and able (hahaha, get it?). For no good reason we can see, God chooses Abel. God. Chooses. Abel. Cain cannot accept this; the very fact of Abel’s existence now calls his own understanding of himself into question. And, rather than reevaluate himself, Cain chooses to remove that which caused him existential dissonance. He strikes down his brother, the Other, thereby allowing him to maintain his identity unchanged.
If we allow this story to be paradigmatic for understanding the process of murder (and I know it’s not going to be 100%, so let’s agree not to get caught up in the details), I think this sheds some interesting light on Jesus’ comments. Murder arises from a challenge to the integrity of our Selfs. So too I suggest do hate, insult and labeling. Rarely do we hate something that does not affect us; apathy is a much commoner response to these nonentities. Our hatred arises from that which is a challenge to our Selves. Consider, for example, racism in the States – the races that bore the brunt of race-based hatred (Irish, Italian, African, etc) were always those races whose proximity to the dominant culture forced those in power to question and to reevaluate their assumptions about what made them human. We have a tendency toward self-preservation and stability; it seems to be human nature to lash out in anger against that which threatens us. Insult and labeling are public means by which we can consign the Other to safe categories that no longer threaten us.
And so I can see why Jesus considers murder, hatred, name-calling and labeling to be related. They are really all symptoms of the same problem: our tendency to objectify and dehumanize that which threatens our Selfs, our identities. Jesus calls us to lay down our Selfs in favor of embracing the Other. If we cannot allow the Other into our Selfs, to challenge and reshape us, then we will never be able to allow God, who is entirely more Other than any human, to enter into us, to shape us and to change us. Perhaps this is what Jesus means when he teaches us a few verses later to pray, “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us,” and then follows that with, “If you do not forgive sin here on Earth, neither will your Father forgive your sins in heaven.” We are not in a place to accept God’s forgiveness, to repent, unless we can learn how to do the same down here. Only the peacemakers are called children of God.
And let’s not reduce this to cause-effect. We miss the point if we pull a magic formula, a one-to-one correlation between forgiveness on Earth and forgiveness in Heaven. Rather, we learn to be forgiven, to live as the forgiven, in the kingdom of Heaven that is coming to Earth, even as we learn to forgive sin here on Earth.
“Dead man, is it being high that makes you alive, that makes you leave behind three boys and a wife? …As the track marks work their way up your arm, my mother taught my brothers and I not to call you ‘Daddy’, but to call you ‘Father’. And I believe there is something here to be learned of Grace, ’cause I can’t help but love you.”
– “The Widow”, As Cities Burn
What strikes me about this entire thread is the way that we have consistently skirted the issue that was originally brought up – an issue of heart and an issue of the application of theology. Honestly I find it disturbing that at this point that almost no one has ACTUALLY ENGAGED the point of the original post.
It is much easier to interact in the cerebral realm. We do not actually have to work at being conformed to the image of Christ or dealing with our own selfish nature as long as we discuss issues of semantics.
Bob, is God not big enough that His word can stand outside of your definition? Is God invalidated because some godly people do not think it matters if parts of the Bible are True Story rather than history.
The Bible is a remarkable book – multi-faceted and beautiful. It is the sort of book that an uneducated person can read and it can transform their life. The same story can be read by different readers or the same reader at different times, and every reading opens up to new insights.
What is the purpose of the Bible? Is it a book of history? Is it a book that tells a story – the Story of God and Humanity? Is it a book that shows us how to build the Kingdom of God?
Stop avoiding the honest heart issue! How do we become agents of God rather than people who hate? How do we become peace makers? What is violence? Can you address these questions and use biblical examples to support your case? Can you take these theological ideas and make them mean something in the world?
Amen Jesse. We need to make ours a lived religion. JR’s post, no matter if you let the ancients speak for themselves or not, goes a long way in applying the lessons learned in Genesis and from Jesus to our lives, in the here and now.
During this 50+ comment avalanche I kept thinking that I wish there was someway to segment the discussion into on topic and off topic groups. Both were extremely valuable and necessary not only for understanding how the Christian Other thinks and interprets, but also in seeing the strengths and weaknesses of our own arguments. Even though that discussion sidetracked an important post on how Jesus would have us love the Other.
JR
I liked something you said and was hoping to ask you to further advanced your thoughts on the topic.
I enjoyed your comments on this topic. Thought-provoking and insightful (I probably don’t agree with some of it–but that is neither here nor there).
One of your last comments was on how Pro-Myth students study differently than myth-busters. Pro-mythers use different tools than the ghost-busters (anti).
Please explain. I would enjoy learning what you might consider useful tools in studying. What principles governs your system of thought. (it might be easy if you number them).
I think for me to better understand if I have differences with you it would be helpful if I knew more about “your tools.”
I actually have written a new post for this topic, but I have not published it yet.
Travis,
Please don't reduce what I said to "the law of non-contradiction never applies to the Bible". I should have been more clear. Western Philosophy is bound to such things as the LoNC; nothing can be valid if it (among other basic laws) is violated. That's all fine and good, and as you pointed out, sometimes the NT writers (the more Hellenized of them) did use Greek/Western philosophy. But we have to accept the fact that lots of places in the Scriptures don't follow Western logic. Most of the Scriptures are a product of the Semitic mind, and this mind simply does not function the same way the Western mind does (ask anyone who's learned Hebrew). Far from being the overarching hermeneutical paradigm, Western Logic is a tool the biblical writers employ. Please reread my statement. At no point did I say the LoNC was false, or that the Bible is entirely illogical. In fact, my discussion of LoNC was one example, not the crux of my argument. I feel that you have blown my statement entirely out of proportion.
Bob,
If I understand you rightly, you are saying that in order for my post to be valid, you believe that I must read Genesis literally/historically. It would help me to understand your position a lot if you could elaborate on specifically what portions of my post are invalidated by a mythic reading of Cain/Abel. I appreciate your willingness to continue this discussion; I am finding it quite fruitful.
Casey,
Welcome to the string. Let me work on your request and get something together. And props for the ghost-busters shout-out. :)
Jessie asked:
“Bob, is God not big enough that His word can stand outside of your definition?”
That’s one of those “Have you stopped beating your wife?” sort of questions. The issue isn’t “bigness” of God, everybody’s accusing opposing theologies of “putting God in boxes”, the issue is did He in inspiring Genesis 1-11 give us real history or is it myth (quasi-history as JR put it) for the mere purpose of teaching lessons.
JR, you are right, as far as your main point in the post a mythological/truly historical view has little bearing. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter, to think that way is pragmatism. My issue is that you have no Biblical reason to treat the text that way. Also, as far as domino effects are concerned, I wonder why you don’t treat the Gospel accounts in the same manner. What would you say to dissuade someone from holding that the narratives of Christ feeding 5000 or walking on water are just stories intended to teach a “God inspired message”? These things didn’t really happen but it’s the message in them effecting us that counts. I mean the point is still there, right?
Bob,
There was a time in my hermeneutical journey (that is still far from over, I assure you) where I was at a crisis point such as you described – If I choose not to take Genesis literally, then mustn't I throw out everything else? What settled it for me was the question "What was the point of the original writing?" Of course, this is an unknowable question – we can't know for sure what the original writing context was; we only have our best guesses (and so I think a good deal of humility must be offered up with any interpretation).
For me, it was seeing two very different creation narratives in Genesis 1 and 2. Genesis 1:1-2:4 follows the Enuma Elish, the Babylonian creation epic in order of creation. We know that the Elish predates Genesis by at least 1,000 years. And so, in the face of what clearly seemed to be Genesis copying the Elish, I had to ask myself "Why would God allow, much less inspire such a thing?" I came to see that Genesis as we now have it dates to the post-Exilic period, which was a time in which the Hebrew people was watching their unique identity as God's chosen people be subsumed into the larger Babylonian culture. I came to read Genesis 1 as a piece of subversive, identity-affirming literature. The authors, far from attempting to be historical, were intentionally taking Babylonian myth and stripping it of its gods and themes in order to make very important statements about the character of Yahweh and his people.
Genesis 2 contradicts Genesis 1 in some important ways. For instance, Adam was created before the plants and animals in 2, and Eve created last. There is no mention of days in 2, while an essential piece of 1 is the reinforcement of the 7-day week and the Sabbath rest, as well as the festivals and Hebrew calendar (day 4). While the texts are factually contradictory (and yes, I've read the literalist/historical attempts to reconcile them; I find them utterly non-compelling), I see them to be very much thematically compatible and complementary (but not complementarian).
So in looking at the Genesis accounts, and in looking at the final redacted piece that is Genesis 1-11, I saw that the point was not to offer a compelling historical narrative of the origins of the Earth; rather, it was to tell a story that shaped and drove the people of God to be the people of God. I think that to ask how many facts the story contains is to miss the point of the narratives. It may indeed, as Tom commented earlier, a worthy pursuit, but it is not one with which I concern myself. (in contrast, part of the stated point of the Gospels is to provide compelling historical evidence for the life and work of Jesus, especially in Luke and John)
Does that help to clarify my position at all?
For all involved in this post, I would kindly like to ask that you ‘footnote’ any positions that may be difficult for readers to understand, showing what resources convinced you of your certain beliefs regarding this issue.
As an example, when you someone says
I would like to know where one could go and in what resource one would find this postulate.
I ask this in all sincerity and humility. Thanks friends.
Brad,
I would recommend that you check any pretty decent Intro to Old Testament History. These are fairly accepted scholarly opinions that you can find in any critical introduction. I would refer you especially to the writings of Walter Brueggemann.
Also, I tried to convey that that was my thought process. After my study and in my opinion, that seems to be the most compelling explanation. So, I suppose I could footnote myself, but that might get redundant :)
if people were wanting to elaborate further on specific cases/issues, that might make excellent post fodder!
what's wrong Honzo, don't wanna reach 60? ;)
Man… looks like I missed all the fun!
And it looks like I am no longer the sole “liberal” that hangs out occasionally around here.
And this thread has surpassed our previous record of 47 comments of me and come crazy guy (who threatened to sue me) arguing!
Smiles and I also went at it for a while, but I don’t know if it got this long. I can’t seem to find that fun thread. Ah… here it is. I guess it was only 19 comments. Fun times.
Hey JR, sorry about taking so long to get back, here are my thoughts on what you said:
“For me, it was seeing two very different creation narratives in Genesis 1 and 2. Genesis 1:1-2:4 follows the Enuma Elish, the Babylonian creation epic in order of creation. We know that the Elish predates Genesis by at least 1,000 years.”
Well, there are numerous “scholars” who argue that many of the aspects of Christ’s life (the resurrection in particular) which are just borrowed from earlier myth as well. Why do you accept this line of reasoning for Genesis but not the Gospel accounts?
Next you write:
“Genesis 2 contradicts Genesis 1 in some important ways. For instance, Adam was created before the plants and animals in 2, and Eve created last.”
Again, you yourself have said that the geneologies in Luke and Matthew are contradictory accounts. When it comes to what you see as a contradiction in Genesis’ historical accounts you come to the conclusion that it is quasi-historical, however, when (according to you) there is a contradiction in the testimonies surrounding the life of Jesus you don’t treat the gospels as quasi-historical or myth?
I can’t help but see this as anything but an unbalanced scale and an unequal weight. The same arguments (which I of course do not accept in either case thus this isn’t a problem for me) you level against Genesis can and have been leveled against the Gospel accounts themselves one of which you yourself pointed out as a “contradiction”. Given that, I can’t see how you can reach different verdicts as to the historicity of these different narratives without being inconsistent to your own arguments.
There are other ramifications as well, but this is just [what] stands out to me in light of your most recent comment on this subject.
I never seem to have time when I’m wanting to post…short answer, yet again.
Bob,
I can’t speak for JR. (although I think he’d agree with me). For me, though, a history of religions approach doesn’t fare well when it comes to Jesus because the Gospels present him as a man of his time. That is to say that he is a figure that fits quite well into the scheme of Second Temple Judaism. Events such as miracles/signs and even the resurrection fit well into the apocalyptic expectation that laced the air during his day. In short, those lines of argumentation are far more durable (but not air-tight) than those that seek to pit the Jesus of history against the Christ of faith (a la Jesus Seminar); the two are one and the same.
Again, there is so much more to say, but time’s not on my side.
[...] I like the way Peter Enns articulates the problem of myth and biblical studies, especially given our discussions on the term. [...]