Theology for the Masses

tom May 10th, 2008

There is some disagreement over exactly what kind of Pharisee the apostle Paul was before he converted to the Jesus movement on the Damascus road. One thing we do know from the book of Acts is that Paul was a righteously violent one. We read in the early chapters of Acts that Paul was probably quite influential in the stoning of the early Christian martyr Stephen, and that he was on his way to kill more Christians when he met the risen Christ on the Damascus road.

Whatever brand of Judaism he espoused, it was one that saw the early Christian movement as a heretical sect of Judaism – a sect that needed to be violently put down. Violence was considered a justifiable action. Violence, moreover, was the manner in which the true community of Yahweh remained pure. His justification of violence was not merely out of hatred, but more out of righteous anger. His actions were, indeed, justified by the Torah. He was, after all, going to kill those people who said they had experienced Yahweh in the flesh. If there were ever a justifiable reason for violence it would be the protection of the community of Yahweh.

This violent streak changes after Paul’s conversion. While seeing himself in line with the prophets of the Hebrew Bible, Paul does not act in the manner of Elijah in his interaction with the prophets of Baal. Paul does not see pagan peoples as undeserving of life – even those ones who were oppressive to him and his Christ. Rather, Paul takes the position that through his suffering at their hands, he will “fill up that which is lacking in Christ’s sufferings” (Colossians 1:24). That is, he will be a living example of Christ’s unjust suffering at the hands of violent, sinful people. He fully expects this witness (same Gk. word as martyr) to be a living narrative of the death of Christ, and His love for unbelievers.

What I find particularly interesting here is that Paul’s position on violence has a dramatic shift. Before his conversion he sees violence as a justifiable action – especially against heretics. In fact, his Hebrew Bible justifies violent actions against non-Jews as well*. But when Paul converts we find no desire or justification for aggression and violence. As I noted before, even in relationship to Rome Paul command submission as a means of overcoming “evil with good.”

This dramatic change in Paul, combined with other arguments, demonstrates for me that the violence justified and even commanded by God in the Hebrew Bible is not an option for the Christian. Even the Canaanite genocides were performed in order to take the Promised Land from the pagans. Now, for Paul and Christians in general, there is no Promised Land. The kingdom of God transcends a Promised Land.** A people who have no/limited nationalistic identity, a people whose new law of love has surpassed the divinely instructed violence, and a people whose chief example (besides Christ) Paul forsakes violence have no justification for violence.

Paul’s letters are filled with his comments that say something like, “formerly you were {insert something bad}, but now you are {insert something related to being saved by Christ}.” I think his life expemplifies this: Formerly: Righteous Zealot. Currently: Apostle of Peace.

*Yes, I am aware the Torah also provided means of accepting non-Jews. However, I am primarily responding here to the genocides of Joshua.

**Dispensationalists have got it backward.

• Dispensationalism , Ethics
• Comments(2)

tom February 28th, 2008

In one of the more misunderstood passages dealing with the life of Jesus, the Son of God encounters a gentile woman who seeks his assistance in casting a demon out of her daughter. The gospel of Mark provides her pedigree for us: “a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia.”[1] Before we get to hear Jesus’ response to her request, Mark supplies us with the three strikes against her from the average Jewish standpoint. She was A. a woman, B. a gentile woman, and C. gentile woman who hailed from the insufferable Syrophoenician region, a region filled with people who should have been destroyed in the Canaanite genocides – their very presence a continual reminder to the Jews of their failure to fully obey Yahweh. Even the most hated woman in the Hebrew Bible, Queen Jezebel, hailed from this region. But as we shall see, our narrative redeems the Canaanite people and our woman serves as a reminder that Yahweh’s mind has changed about the decedents of Queen Jezebel.

While others would have considered her unclean, Jesus has just completed teaching that uncleanness is a matter of the heart, not the body, “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him ‘unclean?’…What comes out of a man is what makes him ‘unclean.’ For from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance, and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man ‘unclean.’”[2]

In context, Jesus puts into practice what he preaches. Even trekking through the region of Tyre and Sidon betrayed an act of rebellion. 1st century Jewish stereotypes considered this an area of “seduction to false gods and hostility to the Jewish people.”[3] Instead of judging this woman based on her gender, ancestry, and the side of the tracks she came from, Jesus addresses her as a person, not a mere stereotype.[4] Interestingly Yahweh, who originally commanded the Canaanite genocide, is, in this text, informing us that power, dehumanization and domination are inadequate means by which to spread God’s kingdom. The superiority of the gospel to violence is a probable ethical principle one could draw from this passage.The Canaanites who were once supposed be destroyed now find a place within God’s redemptive plan. This text, then, is intended to counter the Canaanite genocides - this text, above that one, displays the character of God!

While Jesus response to this gentile woman may seem harsh, he does not respond to her with sexism or racism, for that would be a violation of the sermon he has just preached. Initially the text informs us that Jesus refuses the woman’s request. Jesus notifies the woman that, as a dog (gentile), she will have to wait for the children (Israel) to be finished feasting before she can eat. While this may sound offensive to us, the woman has no such reaction. She does not react as if Jesus has insulted her. More likely, she understands that Jesus is merely stating that the time for ministry among the gentiles has not yet arrived. Demonstrating great intelligence and wit[5], she tells Jesus that sometimes dogs eat the scraps that fall from the table as the children are eating. “Now is a good time for my daughter to be healed, even if the time of the gentiles has not arrived,” she says.

Without regard for her gender or race, Jesus grants the woman’s request. With no consideration for whether or not this woman or her daughter are deemed unclean because of their gender, Jesus heals them both. He casts the unclean spirit out of the daughter, symbolizing that the gentiles by virtue of their race, and women by virtue of their gender, should no longer be categorized as unclean. He shows this woman she is not subhuman simply because of her gender or race. Neither Jesus nor the gospel writers concerned themselves with her gender; they simply marveled at her “great faith.”[6]

——————————————————————————–

[1] Mark 7:26

[2] Mark 7:20-23 – Interestingly enough, Mark describes the evil spirit within this woman’s daughter as an unclean spirit. While many of our English translations translate the word evil, in context it seems infinitely more appropriate to translate the word as unclean.

[3] Mary Anne Getty-Sullivan, Women in the New Testament. (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 2001), 87. Getty-Sullivan also notes that this area was considered profane to the ancient Jews because it represented their own failures. The area was originally given to the tribe of Asher, but they failed to completely occupy it as God had commanded. This was also the area that the most hated of all OT women was birthed: Queen Jezebel, who was the great persecutor of the prophet Elijah, and the great dominator of her puppet of a husband Ahab.

[4] Stereotypes are created by people in order to make sense of an increasingly complex world. The pluralistic world of Jesus’ day and ours is filled with stereotypes simply because people are groping for a simple way to understand their crazy pluralistic world. Unfortunately, this is never neutral. Stereotypes also dehumanize the ‘other’ and keep them perpetually in a state of being sub-human. They are a means of power maintenance.

[5] Intelligence and wit are only a small part of what this woman displays. Her determination to get what she has come to Jesus for is another quite remarkable attribute.

[6] Matt. 15:28 – Matthew adds this praise for the woman in his account of the event. Mark, the earlier gospel that Matthew used as a source for his gospel, does not record Jesus praising her for her great faith. We see, however, in Matthew’s addition, that it was important for him to correct first century assumptions about the faithlessness of women and gentiles.

• Ethics , Featured , Women in Christianity
• Comments(5)

tom October 15th, 2007

As Paul draws on narratives from the Hebrew Bible to support his case, and as he considers it authoritative for the Ephesian church, I think it is necessary for us to look at Genesis 2 and 3 over the next few posts. As they are often used to justify patriarchy, and as chapter 2 is (as I argued in my last post) what the redeemed community is to reflect; a detailed examination is needed. The next few posts may ‘fill in’ what some of you felt was lacking in the previous post.

First A Brief Word Study:

It is often argued that the word “helper” in Genesis 2 has an inherent idea of subordination. That is, for the woman to be created as man’s helper, means she is supposed to be subject to him.

What I would like to demonstrate here is that patriarchy is placed onto the text, not drawn from it. The Hebrew word ezer does not have to mean subordination.

Let’s take a few examples:

Genesis 49:25 – where God is described as being an ezer – a helper. Now, what kind of theological problems would arise if we said God was subordinated to anyone simply because he is described as a helper?

Exodus 18:4 – where, again, God is described as helping them ‘escape the sword of Pharoah.’ No subordination implied here.

I Samuel 7:12 – where the word is used in the title Ebenezer – God is my helper.

I could go on, but this will suffice for now. There are many uses of this word in the Hebrew Bible, and most, if not all*, of them have no connotation of subordination of the helper.

In fact, as this word is employed in Genesis – it only refers to two beings – the woman and Yahweh. Would this not, then, suggest that the female gender is an exalted gender – one reflecting Yahweh’s assistance in ways that men need. Who’s the “weaker vessel” in reality? The woman is never said to need the man, he is said to need her. He needs her help, not her subordination. The idea of subordination is read onto the passage unnecessarily. We assume patriarchy, so we see it wherever we want.

If the church is to reflect, as a new creation – a new humanity, the original created order, it doesn’t appear patriarchy is part of that order. In fact, patriarchy is part of “the fall,” which I will examine in my next post.

• Women in Christianity
• Comments(11)