BiBulletin Board

Colbert — O'Reilly Proves God's Existence

2011-06-11T15:25:00.000-07:00

The West Wing - Homosexuality is an Abomination

2011-06-11T13:45:00.000-07:00

In this epic scene from The West Wing, President Bartlett recites some of the Old Testament's most challenge laws.

Exodus 21:7

"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are." (NLT)

Exodus 35:2

"You have six days each week for your ordinary work, but the seventh day must be a Sabbath day of complete rest, a holy day dedicated to the LORD. Anyone who works on that day must be put to death." (NLT)

Leviticus 11:7-8

"And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you." (NLT)

His point is, if Christians no longer insist on the enforcement of these laws then why do they make such a big deal about others, namely:

Leviticus 18:22
"Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin." (NLT)

My next few posts shall be devoted to examining these Bible verses. We will examine their cultural context, their intended meanings and the purpose of their inclusion in Scripture. I will also look into when/why things changed and they were no longer considered as laws that needed to be upheld. I might even be able to promise you some feedback from real-life modern Christians.

Check back soon for more!

The Bible Should Be Banned in Schools!

2011-06-10T12:26:00.000-07:00

At the moment there is a wee battle ragging in the state of Idaho over whether or not religious texts ought to be banned from schools.

Nampa Classical Academy v. William Goesling

The Idaho Public Charter School Commission (IPCSC) has placed a full ban to prevent Christian texts from being included in the curriculum at The Nampa Classical Academy. The academy, represented by the Allience Defence Fund (ADF) has taken the IDPCSC to court, arguing:

“The government’s hyperactive censorship of classical religious texts severely limits the education of students by leaving them with an incomplete understanding of history and their heritage.” — David Cortman, ADF Senior Counsel

"...a wholesale ban on such books conflicts with established U.S. Supreme Court precedent stating that even 'the Bible may constitutionally be used in an appropriate study of history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion, or the like." — Cortman

"Not only is the commission on safe constitutional ground to allow the school to use the Bible as an educational resource, it would be unconstitutional to deny the school the ability to include it as one resource among its many other texts." — Cortman

http://www.888webtoday.com/articles/viewnews.cgi?id=EkZlVFyplVytAIxcjO

But where are all of the quotes defending the IPCSC?

I sure haven't found any. The best I came across was a summary of their strongest, perhaps only, argument:

"...use of Scripture as a primary text necessarily promotes one religious view over another, picking between denominational versions - for example - in a way that permits government discretion in restricting its use."*

A valid point but is that all they've got?

I gathered my housemates (a theological philosopher & a linguist) together and we had a late night brainstorm for all the reasons why the Bible should be banned from schools. We struggled. No wonder the IPCSC haven't published much in their defence. At a loose end we had to come up with reasons, however unreasonable, that we could imagine people offering in defence of the ban. It was easier to think of reasons why the Bibles message should not be taught in schools than it was to think why the Bible should not be use as a complimentary primary-source document, when appropriate, i.e. when it influenced the curriculum topics such as history or literature.

Here's our list.

1) The Bible is an unreliable historical document.

2) Teachers and children could misunderstand or misinterpret the Bible.

3) The Bible contains too much violence.

4) If we include one religious text in the curriculum we would have to study all of the religious texts and there simply is not time for that.

5) Religious texts are too complex for a child.

6) It is not the teachers job to be educating children on religious and spiritual subjects. That is the parent's job.

7) Misinformed teaching of a religious text or the teaching of a variety of texts could lead children astray from their own religions. This would predominately be a problem for devote families who don't want their children exposed to other religions, some of which may be considered demonic by some congregations.

8) The Bible and other religious texts naturally educe discussion and debate. There is not enough time in a class to allow for this distraction from the main curriculum. If a religious text is going to be taught at all then there should be a specific class devoted to the purpose of religious discussion.

9) Teaching religious texts in public schools blurs the line for separation of church and state.

10) Only teachers educated in religious texts or theology ought to teach on that subject.

11) Religious practitioners could be insulted that the Bible would be used for only historical or literary purposes because in their eyes it deserves to be treated as much more than that. It is a Holy Book, not something to be tossed around in class as nothing more than background reading.

*(http://www.bjconline.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4464&Itemid=134)

Essay: Honour & Shame in Matthew’s Birth Narrative (Matthew 1:18-25)

2011-06-09T16:58:00.000-07:00

Matthew’s birth narrative has been interpreted for centuries, but the passage has yet to be explored in great depth with social scientific criticism. The earliest commentaries, written by the Church Fathers, focus largely on defending the passage’s theological significance but make virtually no reference to its social dimensions. The majority of contemporary commentaries have begun to explain the cultural customs seen in the passage but fail to expand their exploration to view the passage within its full social context.

http://pilgrimpathways.wordpress.com/2010/12/25/matthews-birth-infancy-narrative-birth-of-the-anointed-deliverer/

They only touch upon social aspects such as honour and shame, which are most relevant to this paper, but do not develop their discussion fully to address the impact and consequences these values have within the society. Such a task requires reading between the lines and the insight afforded by social sciences. On turning to the birth narrative itself we will see it is more of a skeletal outline than a full account. It is a high context text, meaning Matthew wrote this passage assuming his readers would be well acquainted with the cultural context of the story and could therefore leave much unsaid. As a result, there is much more to be drawn from the passage than what is explicitly stated in the eight verses of abridged narrative. As a twenty-first century North Atlantic audience we are significantly distanced from the passage’s first-century Mediterranean culture. Therefore, the subtler messages built into this high context passage are not as obvious to us as they would have been to Matthew’s original audience. Without an understanding of the culture by which Mary and Joseph were influenced, we risk anachronistic interpretations of the story as well as overlooking key implications. In this paper we will use social scientific criticism to interpret Matthew 1:18-25. We will work our way through the passage applying ethnographies and social models, primarily that of honour and shame, in order to delve deeper into the issues mentioned only cursorily in the majority of commentaries. The aim of this paper is to provide a culturally enlightened explanation for Mary and Joseph’s behaviour that aligns with the overarching themes of Matthew’s gospel.

http://www.sarakatsani-folk-museum.gr/index.php?page=14

Before we can attempt to fill in the events and experiences occurring between the lines of Matthew’s short pericope, we must develop a foundational understanding of how first century Mediterranean society functioned. We will need to have enough information about general social life in that culture in order to know what behaviour was expected and therefore move forward to bridge the gaps. Social anthropologist J.K. Campbell’s study of the Sarakatsan people of modern Greece provides insight into the potential social workings of ancient biblical society; which this contemporary community still resembles. Similarly, Peter Walcot has studied the community at Vasilika in Greece, providing another cultural comparison for the society to which Mary and Joseph belonged. These ethnographies provide an opportunity for us to lay aside hypothetical models and observe real communities. Both Campbell and Walcot have observed that their respective communities revolve around the key value of honour.

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/aoCkMjSNSf4/0.jpg

Social scientific bible scholars define honour as a person’s publicly verified claim to status, worth or value within their community. With shame as its counterpart, honour was the most important social value in first-century Mediterranean culture. The attainment of honour was everyone’s life goal. At the pinnacle of honour was female chastity. A female’s virginity was heavily protected and highly valued because in this patriarchal society reproductive power was of the utmost importance. Honour was attained both through inheritance, i.e. a child born into a more honourable family would have more honour than a child born into a less honourable family, and also through public victory in competitive social interactions. These two means of attaining honour are referred to as ascribed honour and acquired honour, respectively. In ancient Mediterranean culture, every social interaction was an opportunity to compete for acquired honour, which resulted in a foreseeably agonistic society. If one’s honour was challenged and one failed to defend it with a satisfactory response, it was transferred to the victorious challenger. The critical and very relative part of this social model is that this pattern of challenge and response had to occur publicly because it was the public that determined who emerged from the interaction victoriously. Matthew’s birth narrative is riddled with issues of honour both ascribed and acquired. Reading the passage with this in mind can produce fresh insight into the behaviour of Mary and Joseph.

http://thesocialsciences.com/2011/06/06/shame-and-honor-increase-cooperation/

The first thing we learn about Mary and Joseph is that they were betrothed. Betrothal preceded marriage and lasted for one year. During this year, the couple would remain living in their respective households. Betrothal was viewed, not as an agreement between two individuals but rather a serious contract between two families.[1] According to Freed, marriages were proposed by the father of the man to the father of the woman,[2] with little involvement from the young couple. With this in mind we can venture a guess that Mary and Joseph probably did not yet know each other well.[3] The purpose of arranging marriages was intentionally to unite two families in a mutually strengthening social and economic merger. The betrothal was agreed upon with an official contract, which transferred guardianship of the girl from her father to her future husband[4] and was as binding as marriage itself.[5] Therefore, during the period of betrothal, should the bridegroom die, the bride would be considered a widow and should they decide to break off the betrothal, a formal divorce would be required.[6] The distinction between betrothal and marriage was primarily the official marriage ceremony and cohabitation; the couple lived apart during the year of betrothal, which ensured the first offspring of the marriage were conceived within marriage. During this period, the couple would be watched carefully by their families to ensure no sexual misconduct occurred.[7] “Jewish texts suggest that Galilean couples were allowed no privacy (hence neither chance for intercourse nor private conversation) together until the wedding…”[8] This was a serious concern for both families seeing as sexual chastity was paramount for honour.

http://revoltinthedesert.blogspot.com/2006/12/poverty-and-power-in-luke.html

In light of this, the next thing we learn about Mary appears extremely scandalous. We are informed that while she is still a virgin she becomes pregnant. As readers, we have the advantage of also being informed that her pregnancy is from the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately Mary and her family did not receive this explanation. Unlike Luke’s birth narrative, Matthew’s gives no indication that Mary was divinely informed of her pregnancy. We can only assume she became aware of her condition through the natural signs of physiological changes. We must also remember Mary would not have been the only person observing her body. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, during this period of betrothal, family members would closely supervise the young couple. For a better understanding of the type of supervision to which Mary would have been subjected we will turn to the work of Lidia Sciama. Sciama utilizes J.K. Campbell’s work with the Sarakatsan to illuminate her research on privacy within Mediterranean anthropology. Her work indicates the close proximity and lack of privacy that would have been experienced by New Testament women.

http://www.zagorihotel.com/enpage4.html

According to Campbell, the Sarakatsan live in family huts that have a diameter and height of approximately fourteen feet. The entire family share this one space.[9] It is only natural that in such confined quarters there was little privacy for any member of the family. We can also learn from Bruce Malina’s work on ancient Mediterranean anthropology that family houses were divided into female and male spaces. The female spaces were the innermost parts of the house so as to turn female attention inward. The outer communal areas were male spaces.[10] Women lived private lives and would only venture outside of the house regularly to fetch water from the well. They were typically chaperoned and covered from head to foot.

“Among the Sarakatsani [fetching water from the well] is regarded as a singularly hazardous activity as far as the risk to the family honour is concerned. A man intent on seduction need only wait at the well and he will in due course encounter virtually every woman in the village. The Sarakatsani often require their womenfolk to be chaperoned when getting water, not just to head off actual assault or elopement, but to prevent their neighbours, ever on the look-out for reasons to impugn the family honour, obtaining the slightest pretext for doing so, even if that involves making a false allegation.”[11]

“Thus the honorable woman,…strives to avoid the human contacts that might expose her to dishonor.”[12] We can speculate that these studies illustrate a lifestyle similar to that lived by Mary. It is therefore not unreasonable to suggest at least the female members of her family would quickly become aware of Mary’s pregnancy simply by the physiological signs. It is especially likely if we consider the possibility that Mary may not have been aware of her pregnancy and therefore would be making no effort to conceal any of these signs. It is likely she was quite young and perhaps not yet acquainted with the symptoms of pregnancy. Such innocence would surely enhance the probability of the pregnancy being discovered by other members of the family. At the very least we can assume Mary’s entire household would have been aware of her situation as soon as she began to display the symptoms.

http://www.sarakatsani-folk-museum.gr/index.php?page=14

Upon discovery of her pregnancy, Mary would no doubt be facing great dilemmas and worries. Living in a culture where family honour was paramount and largely based on female virtue, she would be faced with the burden of having shamed her entire family for her apparent sexual misconduct. In this patriarchal society, the men were responsible for protecting the females. Her pregnancy out of wedlock displayed to the community that her male protectors, primarily her father, her eldest brothers and her betrothed, had failed. As Matthew gives no indication that Mary was aware of her pregnancy, she would surely have been surprised and confused. She was aware of her innocence, but as far as everyone around her was concerned there would be only three possible explanations; she was raped, she committed adultery or Joseph impregnated her premaritally. As a member of Israelite society, Mary would have been aware of the various laws and consequences surrounding her situation. According to Mosaic laws regarding rape her life would have been endangered.

“In Old Testament law the penalty for the rape of an engaged virgin was death. If a man has sexual relations with such a woman in the town where she lives, both shall be stoned to death, ‘the young woman because she did not cry for help in the town and the man because he violated his neighbor’s wife.’ But if the woman is raped in the open country, where a cry for help would not be heard, only the man is to be put to death.”[13]

If adultery, instead of rape, was the decided explanation divorce was definite and death was probable. As a betrothed woman, Mary would be treated as if she were already married.[14] “Jewish, Greek, and Roman law all demanded that a man divorce his wife if she were guilty of adultery.”[15] There would be no second chances and Mary faced a severe threat of being stoned.[16] The dishonour that she had brought onto her family could only be washed away with her death.[17]

http://thisfragiletent.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/bible-nasties-3-truth-and-scripture/

The work of some scholars, including that of Craig Keener, Ulrich Luz and David Instone-Brewer, suggests Mary’s life may not have been in danger. Keener claims the Jewish courts of this period in history did not enforce the death penalty required in the Jewish laws regarding adultery. Luz asserts that stoning, as the punishment for adultery, was no longer practiced at the time of Mary’s pregnancy.[18] Instone-Brewer claims that according to ancient Near Eastern law, if a virgin is raped it is only the rapist that is punished.[19] As we can see, these studies address official laws and court sentencing. They fail to take into account the reality of what happened unofficially in the family’s home. Even if Mary’s life may not have been at risk in a public court, much evidence remains to suggest her family would have taken her punishment into their own hands. In today’s society, this consequence is commonly referred to as an ‘honour killing.’ Many modern interpreters dismiss or ignore the possibility that Mary was at risk of being killed. This assumption leads to anachronistic interpretations of the passage based on ignorance or disbelief of a culture so driven to protect honour. Matthew J. Marohl, however, explores the relationship of honour killings to Matthew’s birth narrative and exposes how our modern North Atlantic perspective has inhibited our interpretation of the social reality behind the passage. He explains in the case of adultery, it was not Mary’s honour at stake, as most commentators suggest, but rather that of her family.[20] He quotes Suad Abu Daya, a modern Palestinian woman, who says, “All the burden, even in cases of rape, is on the woman. She is the one who bears the consequences in any case, even by paying with her own life.”[21] These modern understandings of honour killings provide strong insight into how Mary’s situation could have been perceived and dealt with in her society. Moreover, we see similar behaviour in the Sarakatsan;

“In these circumstances [of female sexual misconduct] vengeance becomes primarily an act of purification. A father (or brother) must first destroy his daughter (or sister) and only afterwards turn his attention to the lover. Similarly, a husband ought first to kill a wife taken in adultery and then the paramour.”[22]

Appreciating the significance of honour within these communities reveals a high likelihood that Mary was facing death as a punishment for dishonouring her family.

The third possible explanation, that Joseph was the child’s father, presented lesser threat but was still unfavourable. “While [the] town would not have viewed a betrothed couple’s intercourse as seriously as adultery… townspeople would have questioned the moral commitment of both parties.”[23] If Joseph had chosen to reject her, her reputation and future chances of an honorable marriage would have been ruined. As a woman, her sole purpose and value was her ability to procreate[24] and without a husband to make this possible she would have been nothing more than a shameful burden to her family. “A girl who loses her virginity is liable to be punished with physical or ‘moral’ death; the latter involves isolation and virtual house arrest.”[25] While Mary was concerned about the consequences of her shameful situation, her family would have been facing the risk of losing the merger with Joseph’s family. They would have been wondering how and when Mary had managed to escape their close observation and dreading the public shame that was to come. It would have been her father’s responsibility to inform the male head of Joseph’s household of Mary’s pregnancy. They would then have awaited the response of Joseph and his family.

http://denbighcatholicchurch.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-sermon-for-4th-sunday-in-advent-year.html

Upon learning of Mary’s pregnancy, Joseph would have been faced with a dilemma. Since Mary had not claimed rape and he knew he had not had intercourse with her, he would have been left to assume she had committed adultery. J.K. Campbell explains that among the Sarakatsan, “adultery attacks the moral integrity and honour of the family and makes a laughing-stock of its leader and head.”[26] Assuming Joseph’s society was similar to the Sarakatsan he would be facing

“…the pain of apparent betrayal in a world that considered adultery the ultimate theft – the stealing of another mans most precious possession, the undivided affection of his wife…the emotional response to such betrayal was often quite serious…Because a wife’s adultery could imply the husband’s inadequacy or his family’s poor choice of a mate, it shamed the husband as well.”[27]

As previously mentioned, the law would have required Joseph to break off his engagement in response to Mary’s supposed adultery. If he had not complied he would have faced serious social consequences.

“Roman law actually treated a husband who failed to divorce an unfaithful wife as a panderer exploiting his wife as a prostitute….Mediterranean society viewed with contempt the weakness of a man who let his love for his wife outweigh his appropriate honour in repudiating her…”[28]

http://www.mitchellteachers.org/WorldHistory/AncientRome/DailyLifeinAncientRome.htm

Thus, Joseph would have viewed divorce as his only option. His choice would have been whether he was going to make the divorce public or private.[29]

It is therefore not surprising the next thing Matthew tells his audience is that “Joseph…being a just man, decided to break the engagement quietly, so as not to disgrace Mary publicly.” Divorce would indicate to society Joseph had found something unacceptable about Mary. This would be confirmed by her pregnancy. If he did not charge her for adultery, people would assume it was rape. It is possible Mary’s family would suffer less shame from rape, which could be pitied[30], than adultery. Therefore with a quiet divorce Joseph chose the lesser of two evils.[31] Interestingly, this conclusion does not fit with the aforementioned evidence of Mediterranean anthropology, which suggests no mercy was shown to females who dishonoured their families. In this situation, the social norm would have been a public divorce resulting in great shame for Mary’s family. An unjust man would have seized upon the opportunity for vengeful punishment and relished in shaming her publicly.[32] Had Joseph done this and taken her to court he could have profited greatly by potentially confiscating her dowry and being refunded the bride price he had paid upon betrothal.[33] Instead, Matthew makes it clear that Joseph is a just man. Therefore, not only does he not relish in Mary’s shame, he makes a counter-cultural effort to limit her punishment. Joseph’s behaviour can be contrasted to that of Judah who orders Tamar to be burned to death when her extramarital pregnancy is discovered.[34] Kroeger states that “[Joseph loved Mary too much] to expose her to public disgrace…”[35] This interpretation risks ethnocentrism because as mentioned previously, it is unlikely that Joseph and Mary knew each other well, let alone were in love. Matthew makes it clear that Joseph’s decision did not stem from spousal love so much as from righteousness.

http://tomatothoughts.blogdrive.com/

Joseph’s righteousness is emphasized as he manages both to uphold the law by divorcing Mary and repay her shameful deed with an honourable one, i.e. protecting her family’s honour as much as possible.[36] Matthew demonstrates how, as a just man, Joseph is willing to sacrifice social and economic growth in order to obey God.[37] An understanding of how the significance of divorce differs between modern Western society and ancient Mediterranean society further emphasizes Joseph’s sacrifice. In modern Western society divorce is primarily the concern of the couple while in ancient Mediterranean society it affected the entirety of both families who had hoped to unite and benefit from a social and economic alliance.[38] Therefore, both families would have felt the severity of Mary’s shameful situation and Joseph’s unexpected response. Both families were shamed and by divorcing her quietly Joseph’s family loses the potential to regain honour and finances.

Although Joseph’s actions express sensitivity to Mary’s honour, there is no indication he attempts to establish her innocence.[39] If he did not know her well he would have had little reason to trust her. Most biblical commentators seem to assume Joseph believed Mary to be guilty of adultery.[40] He would have been aware of the aforementioned punishment for such a betrayal and we can assume he considered it when deciding to break the engagement quietly. It is not unreasonable to suggest Joseph was concerned about subjecting both woman and child to probable death. As a godly man, Joseph probably knew of Abraham’s wife Sarah’s miraculous conception. He may have entertained the possibility Mary was somehow miraculously innocent and therefore was not willing to bring public shame upon a potentially blameless. Moreover, and for the most part unaddressed by biblical interpreters, Joseph’s own family would also have been severely shamed. By keeping the divorce quiet he may have been able to downplay the scandal, thereby protecting his own family from further shame.

http://www.biblical-quotes-and-poems.com/

After Joseph’s decision has been made, we learn he has a dream in which the Lord tells him the child was conceived by the Holy Spirit and he should therefore have no fear in going ahead with his marriage to Mary. It is here where we really begin to appreciate Joseph’s obedience to God. Matthew explains how when Joseph awoke he did as the Lord commanded and took Mary home to be his wife. It appears at this point that Joseph is the only person with an explanation for Mary’s pregnancy. Matthew does not indicate whether or not Joseph informs anyone else of this divine knowledge. We can only assume he would have told his family to inform Mary’s family of his willingness to proceed with the marriage. This news would have shocked Joseph’s family who would have desired no further association with Mary, and relieved Mary’s family whose shame would have been lessened.

http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/opencollection/objects/661/Wedding_of_Mary_and_Joseph

The day the bridegroom collected the bride from her father’s house and returned with her to his own home, took place right after the year of betrothal. It was a very eventful occasion containing much ritual, sadness and rejoicing.[41] It is unclear how far into their betrothal Mary and Joseph were at the time her pregnancy was discovered. It is also unclear whether Joseph took her back to his home immediately after his dream or whether he waited until the end of the betrothal year. We might assume that Joseph did marry her immediately so as to minimize her shame. It would appear better for Mary to be carrying a child in her husband’s home rather than while still in her father’s. All we can know is that sometime within the remainder of their year Joseph took Mary to his home as his wife.

http://www.visualbiblealive.com/stock_image.php?id=75236

Largely ignored by most commentators is what Mary and Joseph experienced after the wedding. Campbell explains the transition that occurs with Sarakatsan marriage is very difficult.

“…it causes individuals real psychological distress when a girl at her marriage must abandon the family of her birth or when another family must receive a strange woman into the circle of their close and exclusive relationships.”[42]

What is more, upon her arrival into her husband’s household, “the new bride is subordinate to all other adults in the extended family."[43] She is welcomed as a genuine member of the family but she is required to learn their ways through hard work, modesty, and obedience. Not until she has her own children is she relieved of such inferior status. Knowing this about the Sarakatsan, we can presume Mary found the transition into Joseph’s family very difficult. She may have faced even harsher treatment seeing as she shamed her new family before even meeting them. To top it all off, Matthew tells us that Mary and Joseph refrained from intercourse until after the child was born. This is extremely significant in regards to their family’s honour. It was customary to display the bloodied bed sheets from the wedding night to prove the bride’s virginity. By deciding to postpone intercourse until after the child’s birth, Mary and Joseph surrender their only opportunity to prove Mary’s virginity and the miraculous conception. This decision demonstrates their willingness to sacrifice honour in order to obey God. Additionally, Mary would have to trust Joseph because without proof of her virginity she would have nothing with which to vindicate or protect herself should he reject her later.[44] Finally, we learn that Joseph names the child Jesus. By naming the child, Joseph accepts it into his royally descended household as his own son.[45]

http://daughtersoflight.wordpress.com/

In his gospel, Matthew intentionally constructs shameful circumstances, such as Mary’s premarital pregnancy, so as to provide God with an obstacle to overcome. A child conceived during betrothal would have shamed, if not totally destroyed the honour of, both families. It is unlikely the child would survive as the mother faced the risk of being killed. If they did survive, the child would suffer throughout life from its shameful origins. As Campbell explains, “A mother who is thought to have lost her virginity before marriage...infects her children with the taint of her dishonour…”[46]

http://holly6669666.deviantart.com/art/Good-and-Evil-Life-and-Death-118659792

By accepting Mary and the child, Joseph acts against his culture and saves their lives thereby allowing Jesus to be born with honour.[47] Additionally, Matthew associates Mary with the four women in the genealogy whose shameful behaviour is justified instead of punished. These five women are thus viewed as righteous because of their notable contributions to the Jewish people.[48] Having interpreted this passage using social scientific criticism we can appreciate how Matthew uses Mary and Joseph’s behaviour to demonstrate how obedience to God, though it may require counter-cultural sacrifices, can bring godly honour from human shame. With the birth narrative, Matthew also sets the tone for the major theme of unexpected life coming from expected death, which is woven throughout his gospel and finds its climax in the Passion narrative.[49] A child, which society would have killed before it was born, is saved by a just man only to be killed later in life by the very same society, which he then saves through his death. Thus, Matthew frames his gospel with the birth narrative and the Passion; both shameful circumstances from which Jesus emerges with life and honour.

Bibliography

al-Khayyat, Sana. (1999) Honour and Shame: Woman in Modern Iraq. London: Saqi Books. cited in Marohl (2008) pg 5

Aquinas, Thomas (1842) Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels, Collected out of the Works of the Fathers. Volume 1. St. Matthew. Translated by John Henry Parker in Oxford. London: J. G. F. and J. Rivington.

Antonelli, Alessandra. (1998) “Crimes Not Stories.” Palestine Report. Cited in Marohl (2008) pg 30

Ardener, Shirley. (1993) Women and Space: Ground Rules and Social Maps. Volume 5 of Cross-Cultural Perspective on Women. 2nd Revised Edition. New York and Oxford: Berg Publishers Limited. (Google Books)

Brandes, Stanley. (1987) “Reflections on Honor and Shame in the Mediterranean.” In Honor and Shame in the Unity of the Mediterranean, edited by David D. Gilmore, 121-34. Washington DC: American Anthropology Association. Cited in Marohl (2008) pg 4

Broadus, John A. (1990) Commentary on Matthew. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Classics.

Bruner, Frederick Dale. (2004) Matthew: The Christbook, Matthew 1-12. Revised and Expanded Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. (Google Books)

Campbell, J.K. (1964) Honour, Family, and Patronage: A Study of Institutions and Moral Values in a Greek Mountain Community. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Clarke, Howard W. (2003) The Gospel of Matthew and its readers; a historical introduction to the First Gospel. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press.

Deiss, Lucien and Madeleine Beaumont. (1996) Joseph, Mary, Jesus. Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press.

Esler, Philip F. (1994) The First Christians in Their Social Worlds: Social-Scientific Approaches to New Testament Interpretation. London and New York: Routledge.

France, R.T. (1985) The Gospel according to Matthew: an introduction and commentary. Volume 1 of the Tyndale New Testament commentaries. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B Eerdmans Publishing Company. (Google Books)

Freed, Edwin D. (2001) The Stories of Jesus’ birth; a critical introduction. Volume 72 of The Biblical Seminar. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press Ltd.

Gundry, Robert Horton. (1994) Matthew: a commentary on his handbook for a mixed church under persecution. Second Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Instone-Brewer, David. (2002) Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible; The Social and Literary Context. Grand Rapids and Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Keener, Craig S. (1999) A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. (Google Books)

Kroeger, Catherine Clark. And Evans, Mary J., ed. (2002) The IVP Women’s Bible Commentary: An indispensable resourse for all who want to view Scripture through different eyes. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press. (Google Books)

Malina, Bruce J. (2001) The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology. Third edition, revised and expanded. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Marohl, Matthew J. (2008) Joseph’s Dilemma: ‘Honor Killing’ in the Birth Narrative of Matthew. Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books.

Neyrey, Jerome H. (1998) Honor and shame in the Gospel of Matthew. Louisville, KT: Westminster John Knox Press. (Google Books)

Rohrbaugh, Richard L. (1991) 'The Pre-Industrial City in Luke-Acts: Urban Social Relations', in Neyrey 1991: 125-49. -- (2010) 'Honor: Core Value in the Biblical World', in Neufeld and DeMaris 2010: 109-25.

Ruggi, Suzanne. (1998) “Honor Killings in Palestine: Commodifying Honor in Female Sexuality.” Middle East Report 28. Cited in Marohl (2008) pg 17

Satlow, Michael L. (2001) Jewish Marriage in Antiquity. Princton: Princeton University Press. (Google Books)

Sciama, Lidia. ‘The Problem of Privacy in Mediterranean Anthropology’, in Ardener 1993: 87-111

Souad. (2004) Burned Alive: The Shocking, True Story of One Woman’s Escape from an ‘Honour’ Killing. With Marie-Therese Cuny. London: Bantam. Cited in Marohl, Matthew J. (2008) Joseph’s Dilemma: ‘Honor Killing’ in the Birth Narrative of Matthew. Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books. pg 9

Walcot, Peter. (1970) Greek peasants, ancient and modern: a comparison of social and moral values. Kent: W &J Mackay & Co Ltd.

Williams, Ritva. An Illustration of Historical Inquiry: Histories of Jesus and Matthew 1:1-25. In Handbook of early Christianity: social science approaches. Blasi, Anthony J., Turcotte, Paul-André, and Duhaime, Jean. (Eds.) (2002) Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. pg 105-124 (Google Books)

Footnotes

[1] Kroeger, 522

[2] Freed, 46-48

[3] Keener, 91-95

[4] Williams, 113

[5] Keener, 90

[6] Diess, 25

[7] Kroeger, 522

[8] Keener, 91-95

[9] Sciama, 95

[10] Malina, 46-47

[11] Esler, 21-32

[12] Malina, 47

[13] Freed, 47

[14] Deuteronomy 22:23f

[15] Keener, 91

[16] Leviticus 20:10

[17] Marohl, 14

[18] Marohl critiques Luz’s evidence and demonstrates the law, though not applicable to some members of ancient society, would still have applied to Mary. (Marohl, 28)

[19] Instone-Brewer, 27

[20] Marohl, 37

[21] Suad Abu Daya quoted by Antonelli cited in Marohl, 30

[22] J. K. Campbell, 199

[23] Keener, 91-92

[24] Brandes cited in Marohl, 4; Marohl, 11; Sharif Kanaana quoted by Ruggi cited in Marohl, 17

[25] al-Khayyat cited in Marohl, 5

[26] Campbell, 152

[27] Keener, 92

[28] Keener, 91

[29] Marohl, 37

[30] Philo, Spec 3.76 cited in Williams 114

[31] Williams, 114

[32] Broadus, 9

[33] Keener, 93-94

[34] Genesis 38

[35] Kroeger, 522

[36] 1 Samuel 24:17 is an example of how a just man repays evil with good.

[37] Keener, 94-95

[38] Esler, 34

[39] Freed, 48

[40] Marohl, 37

[41] Esler, 33

[42] Campbell, 59

[43] Campbell, 64

[44] Keener, 89

[45] Williams, 117

[46] Campbell, 169

[47] Williams, 122

[48] Freed, 37

[49] Marohl, 63-71

Godde - God's Gender & Our Language

2011-06-07T10:29:00.000-07:00

Does God have a gender?

Gender is a thing of this world — identified by natural distinctions of sex and associated with various mental & emotional attributes.

Surely, God's character encompasses all of the attributes we see in humans since we are 'made in the image of God'. God doesn't have a physical body with which we can associate these attributes.

God transcends gender.

In our society we're accustomed to referring to God in masculine terms and envisaging God with a male physical body. It sounds so foreign to say "Mother God, Praise Her. She is good to Her children." Hearing God spoken of with feminine terminology brings to mind ignorant stereotypes of new-age-earth-loving-spirituality.
I think its a problem that it sounds weird or 'wrong' to speak of God with feminine words, especially when we claim to know that God transcends gender.

I've heard many Christians defend their use of masculine language because Jesus was a male. They argue that Jesus is how God has presented 'himself' to the world and therefore that is how God would want us to think/speak about 'him.'

Photo Credit: http://www.god.com.bz/articles.html

When becoming incarnate God doesn't seem to have much choice. It was 50/50 whether 'he' was going to show up as male or female. Some people say God chose to be male when 'he' came as Jesus because in that culture only males had the respect/power/ability to do what God wanted to do while visiting us. Not a bad argument if you ask me.

The fact that God came to earth in the form of a man says less about God and more about the culture he came into.

Why does it matter what language (masculine/feminine) we use when we speak of God?

“Turning the historical particularity of Jesus’ maleness into an ontological and Christological principle, the church not only emphasized the conceptualization of God as male but also denied that women were fully human, the image of the divine, and thus representative of the Christ.”[2]

There is a strong relationship between the words we speak and images/beliefs we hold in our minds. Every Christian I've spoken with says that although they speak about God using masculine terms, they know in their head that God doesn't actually have a gender. Even if you know something that does not necessarily make it a reality for you. You can know/believe that God exists but that doesn't guarantee that you'll know God's and feel God's presence in your life. Even though we know God transcends gender, its pretty difficult to not imagine God up in heaven as a guy.

Photo Credit: http://mattstone.blogs.com/photos/female_crucifixion_art/female-jesus-image.html

However, I think the bigger problem is not that we refer to God as a male but that we completely fail to refer to God as a female! It is a reflection of a patriarchal society that silences women. I think that language ought to evolve in order to keep up to date with the evolving ideas of an ever changing society.

“When that manhood is deconstructed, and replaced by crucified womanhood, this radical paradigm shift reveals, at the very least, how embedded male imagery is within traditional Christianity, and how far it needs to go to be comfortable with a truly inclusive symbol of redemption.”[1]

I experimented with thinking of God as a woman, as a mother, as a girl-friend. I was surprised to find that I actually felt differently towards God as a result of this. When thinking about God as father I felt a sense of God's power over us tiny creatures, but when thinking about God as mother I felt more supported as if God was by my side with an arm around me rather than above me hollering down helpful advice. When praying to God as male everything felt pretty standard but when praying to God as female I felt a new sense of openness and again a support that I feel with my girl-friends. Surely, God's 'femininity' should be encouraged if it helps believers drawer closer to 'him.'

Now, this is all very nice but why does it matter, especially for men who would rather be buddies with a male God than hang around with a God who is going to mommy them?

3 Reasons why I think we should make an effort to speak of God in both male & female language and evoke both male and female images when thinking of God:

1) We'll be understanding & representing God more accurately
2) Backs up the modern understanding of gender-equality, putting it into action
3) Helps us tap into different 'sides' of God and our relationship with 'him' that are useful at different times

In some cultures there are multiple gods that do have genders and because of this there are two separate words used to refer to them. The male gods are called 'gods' and the female gods are called 'goddesses'. Neither of these terms accurately represents the god of the Christians. But since the term 'it' would hardly be appropriate for God why not compromise by conjoining the two gendered terms?

Photo Credit: neglizt

The word 'Godde' is half way in between 'god' and 'goddess.' God may not be half-male half-female but it is certainly getting closer to the idea that God encompasses the qualities of both and neither should be favoured.

I've heard the argument that we should not change the spelling of 'God' because that is how it is spelled in the Bible. In response to that, 'God' is an English word. We have already changed the 'spelling' of the word in question by translating it into many different languages. Nothing sacred is being compromised by changing the English spelling. If we were petitioning to change the Hebrew spelling, that would be a different matter.

And what about all of the pronouns? That's a bit trickier. I think its good to alternate between male and female pronouns. Sometimes one gender feels more appropriate than the other at a certain time. Another option is to write both, for example... 's/he.'

Your thoughts?

[1]Sawyer, Debora F. The Blackwell companion to the Bible and culture. Edited by Sawyer, John F.A. Wiley-Blackwell, 2006. Pg. 473. Google Books.

[2] Kramarae, Cheris and Spender Dale. ‘Christianity: Feminist Chriostology.’ Routledge international encyclopedia of women: global women's issues and knowledge. Volume 1. PublisherRoutledge, 2000. Pg. 172 Google Books.

Works vs. Faith ~ James vs. Paul

2011-06-06T15:27:00.000-07:00

For centuries, James 2:14-26 has been an extremely controversial verse in Bible as it appears to set the teaching of James at odds with the teaching of Paul (Galatians 2:16 and Romans 3:28). In essence, James writes that if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds then his faith is dead. He says a man cannot be justified by faith alone. Paul on the other hand seems to defend the opposite. Paul says that men are justified by faith not by works. Men are saved by faith alone. This internal contradiction or inconsistence is problematic for those who believe the Bible to be a single infallible composition. How can two authors of the Bible be teaching opposite messages?

There have been a variety of interpretations that attempt to answer this question. Some scholars say that the two authors were in fact in disagreement but both of their positions are defended in the Bible because each side is applicable at different times a readers life. Sanders set James and Paul in such great opposition that it forces readers to choose one or the other. Another possible interpretation is that they agree deep down but on the surface they disagree. This can be explain by looking further into each author's intention and use of vocabulary. Some scholars say that the whole discussion and attempt to try and reconcile the views is fruitless because Paul is so adamant about his position he would never agree with James. A common interpretation is that works are the essentially the 'fruit' of the faith, which is the 'root.' Robert Rakestraw says that this last interpretation is simply not enough to alleviate the tension that is found between the two authors.

When we look at the isolated texts we can see that both authors use the same three terms: faith, works and justify. They both use Genesis 15:6 as scriptural support of their individual arguments. In Genesis 15:6 Abraham is declared righteous by God as a result of his willingness to sacrifice his son Isaac. In addition to this example James mentions Rahab's righteousness a second example from the Old Testament. Rahab, a Gentile prostitute, was declared righteous by God after she hid Israel's spies in her house. When we look at the texts in the wider context they are consistent with each author's general message. Paul speaks repeated of faith and how men are saved by faith alone and not by works. He emphasises that obeying the Jewish law is no longer the source of salvation and that it no longer needs to be followed as it was before. James' epistle teaches of the importance of showing your faith their your merciful and compassionate behaviour towards other humans. James says that without this compassion deeds one's faith is dead and cannot save them. Thus, we can see the dilemma. Paul says that we no longer need to do works because all that matters is our faith and James says that unless we do works our faith means nothing.

Scholars including Rakestraw, Bauckham, Moo and McKnight have attempted to resolve the dilemma by looking more closely at what each author meant by using certain terminology and by considering the context in which each author was writing. Although each of the scholars just mentioned has their own specific take on the discussion they share a general understanding that Paul and James actually did agree deep down. It was only on the surface that they appear to disagree. This surface disagreement arises because Paul and James are addresses very different audiences. In a sense they are speaking to opposite ends of a spectrum. Although they use the same words they each place a different meaning behind them. It is commonly assumed that James has a shallow understanding of faith and that Paul's understanding is much deeper and richer. Some say that James doesn't value faith as much as Paul does and that likewise Paul doesn't value works as much as James does. However, when considering their audience it becomes clear that they may in fact be seeing eye to eye and instead of fighting each other they are actually standing back to back, each fighting different 'enemies' but defending the same truth.

Miniver Cheevy

Paul worked with Gentiles and he saw that they were able to convert and be justified by God without having to follow the Jewish law and complete works such as circumcision in order to be justified. There was a forceful opposition to this believe however that came from a Jewish legalists who believe that obedience to the Jewish law was the only was to assure salvation. Jewish status, gained by birth, meant that many Jews just assumed they were guaranteed salvation provided that they carried out the Law. They did not appreciate the need for a deep faith that was a personal relationship with God.
James on the other hand was working with Christians who had perhaps heard Paul's message and been assured that as long as they had inner faith that was all that mattered. They believed they needn't do anything else. This resulted in many people calling themselves Christians but not acting in the compassionate way that Jesus had taught and they became indifferent to those in need. It has also been suggested that perhaps James was writing to a group of people who were not interested in complex theology like that seen in Paul's teachings but rather they needed practical guidance.

Thus, we can see that Paul was talking to a group of people who were so rigid on following the Law, believing it would save them, so he needed to emphasise the importance of faith. When Paul spoke of 'faith' he was talking of a deep personal that inspired an individual to live their life in obedience to God. When he spoke of 'works' he was referring to the legalistic works of the Jewish Law that people had to follow.
James was talking to a group of people who believed that believing certain things about God and saying they had faith was all they needed to be saved. When James said 'faith' he was referring to an intellectual acceptance of facts about God. When he said 'works' he meant merciful and compassionate deeds in obedience to God. This is the point where people accuse James of having a superficial understanding of faith compared to Paul. However, according to Rakestraw this is not at all the case. He claims that James had a very high appreciation for faith and he was aiming to elevate it, not downplay it. James understood faith in the same way that Paul did, as a personal reliance and trust in God and his promises. The faith that James was claiming to not be enough was the faith that was simply claimed or intellectual. James and Paul both believed that a true faith that is mature and deep would naturally produce good works. James explains that the works are included in this true faith and therefore are a reliable sign or symptom of it. If one does not have good works then the faith that they have is dead. 'Dead' does not been that it does not exist. Dead implies that something used to be alive but no longer is. Dead means something is useless and barren. Thus, one can proclaim a faith that is intellectual but because it will not produce good works it is not mature, it is not perfect, and it therefore is useless not only to other people but also for salvation.

Paul and James both mention Abraham. Paul claims that Abraham was declare justified by God before he was circumcised and before aqedah when he bound his son Isaac. This is Paul's proof that what Abraham did, did not determine whether or not he was righteous. James however says that it was the aqedah moment when Abraham was justified. Their disagreement on this point is not as great as it may appear. They are not disagreeing over whether is Abraham's faith or his works that justify him, their discussion is over when the justification occurs. Pauls says that the works that Abraham did before his conversion do not save him. It is at the moment of his conversion, the moment when he gains faith, that he is justified. He is moved from the sinful life into a Holy life. James would agree that the works before conversion do not count towards salvation. When James speaks of 'works' he is referring to the works that occur after conversion. It is these works that perfect the faith and makes a person righteous and justified. They appear to be disagreeing because they are using justified in two separate ways. Paul is referring to the instant of conversion. The person at that moment is now seen as justified before God. It is a reference to salvation and the end times. At the final judgement that person is declared justified because of that conversion moment when they confessed a life changing personal faith. James is speaking of a justified life that God can acknowledge while a person is still alive. It is a statement about the 'health' or 'maturity' of a person's faith. James includes his example of Rahab in addition to this mention of Abraham. Holloway suggests that by including her, a common prostitute, James is reaching out to the everyday person who may feel intimidated if asked to live up to Abraham's example.

Kenosha Bible Church

Scholars have tried to identify which author wrote first in order to determine if the letters are confronting one another. If Paul's letters were written first it seems likely that Paul may have read them and then felt the need to respond to counteract the perversions of Paul's message about faith that would follow. This seems likely because some of the verses in James don't seem to make much sense until they were looked at in relation to Pauline texts which illuminate them. If James was written first it is more likely that Paul was not responding to James but rather going off on his own reflective exploration that led him away from Jewish tradition and thus presented him as in opposition to James. Their shared language does not serve as evidence to their interaction either because such language was common in early Christian circles.

In conclusion, Paul and James appear to be disagreeing on the surface because they are addressing difference audiences but deep down they do agree on the significance of a rich personal faith that naturally includes good works. Neither author wishes to promote only faith or works. It is not a matter of faith or works but rather it is a question of faith with/without works. They both defend the significance of both. Paul was teaching people who needed faith to be emphasised and James' audience needed to be spurred on to let their faith mature into good works.

"The Parable of the Unjust Stewart" (Matthew 18:21-35) - a Social Scientific Exegesis

2011-06-06T03:00:00.000-07:00

Matthew 18:21-35 is one of the most straightforward parables. It can be divided into three main sections or scenes with the first verse functioning as an introduction and the final verse functioning as a conclusion. The first scene sets a standard of behaviour (the king displays mercy to his servant); the second scene parallels the first but the servant does not uphold the expected behaviour, which was established in the previous scene by the king. The third scene addresses the consequences to be carried out against the servant who failed to uphold these expectations. The parable has become a negative example story. The lesson is for the reader to not be like the unforgiving servant. Matthew has placed this parable in a chapter of his gospel that is emphasizing the importance of humility, forgiveness, and mercy. It seems like that the final verse is a later addition by the gospel’s author. With this verse, Matthew turns the king figure into God thus introducing the allegorical nature of the narrative to the audience. Parables are typically about everyday life scenarios and a story about a king does not represent the everyday life of the majority of the ancient audience. However, Bernard Brandon Scott explains that this is no reason to consider the parable an unrealistic fantasy but rather is seems to possess the character of a tale or fable.[1] In this paper we will focus on the relationship between the king and the servant. We will utilize several social models, provided by the social sciences, that can be applied to this parable in order to help shed light on this relationship and how the original audience may have interpreted it. We will also look very briefly at the Roman practice of ‘tax farming’ and also at 2 Samuel 12 as both offer comparisons of similar relationship.

The type of relationship that we see in this parable, between the king and the servant, appears to fit with the social model known as a patron-client relationship. Patronage is above all, a system of exchange either for goods or for services. This exchange takes place between individuals who are not equals. This inequality or difference in power is actually a strong element to this type of relationship. In 18:27 we read that the king displays pity for his servant. This is a significant indication of their patron-client relationship. “Pity does not erase power differences, but reinforces them, by providing emotional and moral valuation of patron-client relationships.”[2] The two parties had access to different and unequal resources and thus used their socio-economic status to provide these differing resources to one another. This system maintained and helped to perpetuate the severe socio-economic stratification of the ancient world. “[P]atronage relations provide a consistent ideological support for social inequality and dependency throughout the Mediterranean area.”[3] Patronage is dominated by the elites and is set up to preserve their privileged position. Patron-client relationships in the ancient Mediterranean were typically associated with a strong element of personal honour, obligation and loyalty. Although these relationships were voluntary, it was common for them to be binding and ideally of life-long endurance.

Typically, the exchange would work to the social benefit of the patron while providing he client, typically a peasant, with the opportunity to earn more than a subsistence living. Wealthier members of society, often playing the role of patron, had access to material goods, social connections and privileges that were impossible for the clients to obtain independently. Clients could offer a variety of services to their patron including the ability to perform tasks, offer loyalty in a fight or a funeral, gather information or even to spread rumours. However, what the client had first and foremost to offer a patron would be honour. The easier way for a client to give honour to a patron would be through public praise. In an honour-based society, i.e. a society in which honour is the greatest commodity, which the ancient Mediterranean certainly appears to have been, public praise would have significantly enhanced the reputation of the patron, thus increasing their honour.

In Matthew’s parable of the Unforgiving Servant the king’s mercy for the servant provides the servant with the opportunity to praise the king publicly for his great kindness and patience. The servant could have replicated the king’s behaviour thus declaring through his actions that the king’s methods were effective.[4] However, the servant instead chooses to contradict the king by using violence, something we will discuss in more depth below, instead of forgiveness. This would dishonour the king, as it not only undermines his method of extracting money and gaining loyalty but also exposes the disloyalty of his servant/client.

Though it is not clear in the parable if the king is Roman or if the servant is a tax collector the situation seems to resemble the Roman practice of ‘tax farming.’ In this practice, the government allowed tax collectors to pay the Roman taxes out of their own pockets and then turn to the public to extract as much money from them as possible to cover their investment and make a profit. This method was beneficial for the Roman government as it eliminated the expense of tax administration.[5] Consequently, these independent tax collectors that were hired instead often resorted to cruel and violent means of persuasion to extract money from citizens.[6] While the relationship between the king, representing the government, and the servant, representing the tax collector, is rather peaceful at first, the lack of mercy shown in 18:30 resembles the unforgiving nature of a ‘tax farmer’s’ methods when extracting money from civilians.

As mentioned previously, the social world in which this parable takes place operated under the assumption that honour was the most valuable commodity and therefore gaining honour should be the most important goal in one’s life. It is not surprising that as a result every social interaction within this society became an opportunity to gain more honour. Gaining honour was primarily achieved through what has been labeled by social scientists as the challenge and response model. The challenge and response model of social interaction can be viewed as a constant tug of war. Every social interaction had to be balanced out. A challenge could take many different forms being either positive or negative. It is perhaps surprising to a modern audience that a compliment was considered just as much a challenge to one’s honour as an insult. While an insult or threat required one to defend their honour, a compliment, favour or gift required one to reciprocate such kindness to prove their honour was equal or greater to their challenger. Essentially, challenge and response was a game of wits. Should an individual resort to violence they would be admitting their defeat.

Sugardoodle

This is relevant to our discussion of Matthew 18:21-35 as we see the king choosing to remain in this game of wits by showing mercy and thus maintaining his servant’s loyalty and debt while the unforgiving servant, having failed to ensure loyalty or payment admits his defeat by resorting to violence. Another element of challenge and response is that it takes place in the public eye because it is the public that has the power to apportion or strip away honour. In Matt. 18:30-31 we read that the second servant was thrown into jail and that the unforgiving servant was reported to the king by other servants back. Had his dishonourable behaviour remained unknown to the public the challenge and response model would not work with this narrative but as his dishonour is acknowledged publicly we can confirm that a challenge and response interaction did occurred and the servant would have lost honour. This has further repercussions when considering that members of households, including servants, were embedded in the honour of their patriarch. If the unforgiving servant was a member of the king’s household then the dishonour that he brings upon himself through his violence is then reflected onto the king’s own honour.

If we consider the theological interpretations that have been made from this parable the severity of dishonour increases. The king is commonly interpreted as God in this parable and thus God’s honour is disrespected and put in danger by his servants poor behaviour. The focus of this parable is often directed at forgiveness; how God’s limitless forgiveness should be practiced by his followers. At the same time, with an understanding of the social world behind the parable, it could be suggested that the parable is also cautioning its audience to take care in protecting their honour so as not to dishonour God, the patriarch in whom they are embedded.

The story of David and Ewe Lamb in 2 Samuel 12 resembles Matthew’s parable of the unforgiving servant in so far as it presents a patron-client relationship in which a client, David, dishonours a generous patron, God.

“Nathan is reminding David that God has given no one as many goods as him. No one has had a more generous patron…By taking Bathsheba in this way, David has scorned the generosity of his divine patron. He had not done what was expected of a client in his culture…David has proved himself a disloyal client and his scorned patron will now act to punish him.”[7]

The success of this story and Matthew’s parable of the unforgiving servant relies on their ability to form expectations in the minds of the audience. Expectations need to be set up so that when the unexpected happens the reader is aware that something significant has occurred. The shock in 2 Samuel 12 is firstly that the rich man takes the Ewe lamb and secondly that the judgment turns out to be directed at David. In Matthew 18, the shock is primarily that the servant fails to forgive. If the reader did not expect the servant to forgive there would be nothing shocking about his lack of forgiveness. A further shock could come to the reader who realizes they are the unforgiving servant to whom God has shown mercy. In that situation, the parable could function as an encouragement for Jesus and Matthew’s audience to be more forgiving.

Gutenberg.org

Matthew has Jesus using the parable as support for his answer to Peter’s question regarding how many times one ought to forgive. Though the parable is obviously relevant, seeing as it speaks of forgiveness, it is surprising that Matthew did not use a parable that demonstrated repeated forgiveness, considering that that was originally the message Jesus was aiming to get across to Peter. The parable has been critiqued for presenting God in a negative light. It certainly seems inconsistent that a God who teaches of unlimited forgiveness would punish someone so quickly for their failure to forgive. However, when we view God as patron to his people the message may seem more consistent. In patron-client relationship both parties must be satisfied with the exchange being made or else the relationship fails to function. If God, as patron, is expecting his people to display forgiveness in exchange for his great forgiveness of them, then a failure on their part to uphold this exchange threatens the success of this patron-client relationship. God’s desire to maintain this relationship explains the severity of the consequences for anyone who puts it in danger. Furthermore, hyperbole is common in parables and one could suggest that the severity of the servant’s punishment in the parable is exaggerated to work as a heightened warning to the people. The parable, based on reality but not necessarily being realistic itself can create an incentive for the audience to embrace the importance of forgiveness. Were this the case, then in reality God could practice limitless forgiveness and readers would aim to adopt a similar mentality weary of punishment though it may never come.

There are several indications throughout this parable that the king and the servant are engaged in a patron-client relationship. This is significant as it allows the parable to join the other biblical stories that portray God and Jesus in patron-client relationships with the people of Israel. Such a portrayal is relevant as represents a mentality that would have been familiar to human interactions in the biblical world. It is therefore not surprising that the stories that arose from that culture and their perception of God would contain and reflect elements of these common relationships. An understanding of the way in which these relationships functioned also sheds light on behaviour that we read about in this parable including the king’s pity and willingness to forgive as well as the servant’s decision to resort to violence and subsequent punishment. Whether the parable is hyperbolic in its portrayal of the consequences for failing to forgive or unrealistic in the expectations made of people to be limitlessly forgiving, it does send a very clear message regarding the importance of forgiveness.

Bibliography

Bringmann, Klaus. A History of the Roman Republic. Munich: Verlag C. H. Beck, 2002.

Die Gleichnisreden Jesu (Freiburg i.B.: Akademische Verlagsbuchhandlung von J.C.B. Mohr, vol. 1, 1888; vol. 2 1889), 2:305.

Durken, Daniel. New Collegeville Bible Commentary: New Testament. Order of Saint Benedict: Collegeville, Minn., 2009.

Esler, Philip Francis. 2 Samuel — David and the Ammonite War: A Narrative and Social-Scientific Interpretation of 2 Samuel 10-12. in Esler, Philip Francis, ed., Ancient Israel: the Old Testament in its Social Context. Augsburg Fortress, 2006. 191-207.

Freedman, David Noel, ed. Eerdman’s Dictionary of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman’s Publishing Co., 2000.

Gilmore, David. Honor and Shame and the Unity of the Mediterranean. American Anthropological Association, 1987.

Scott, Bernard Brandon. Here then the Parable: A Commentary on the Parables of Jesus. Augsburg Fortress, 1989.

Whiteford, Linda M. and Lenore Manderson, ed. Global Health Policy, Local Realities: The Fallacy of the Level Playing Field. Directions in Applied Anthropology. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishes, Inc., 2000.

Photo 1) http://www.access-jesus.com/what-is-stewardship.html

[1] Bernard Brandon Scott, Here then the Parable: A Commentary on the Parables of Jesus, (Augsburg Fortress, 1989), 273.

[2] Linda M. Whiteford and Lenore Manderson, ed., Global Health Policy, Local Realities: The Fallacy of the Level Playing Field, Directions in Applied Anthropology, (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishes, Inc., 2000), 185.

[3] David Gilmore, Honor and Shame and the Unity of the Mediterranean, (American Anthropological Association, 1987), 193.

[4] Daniel Durken, New Collegeville Bible Commentary: New Testament. Collegeville, Minn.: Order of Saint Benedict, 2009), 60.

[5] Klaus Bringmann, A History of the Roman Republic, (Munich: Verlag C. H. Beck, 2002), 161.

[6] David Noel Freedman, ed., Eerdman’s Dictionary of the Bible. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman’s Publishing Co., 2000), 1278.

[7] Philip Francis Esler, 2 Samuel — David and the Ammonite War: A Narrative and Social-Scientific Interpretation of 2 Samuel 10-12, in Philip Francis Esler, ed. Ancient Israel: the Old Testament in its Social Context. (Augsburg Fortress, 2006), 203.

About Me

2011-06-05T23:17:00.001-07:00

Hello! Welcome to BiBulletin Board!

I have just finished an MTheol at the University of St. Andrews. My degree was half Theology and half Biblical Studies. I focused my studies on women in the New Testament and Social Scientific Approaches to the New Testament. I also took modules in the Gospels of Matthew & John, Letters of Peter, James & Jude, Parables of Jesus, Biblical Hermeneutics, Biblical Greek, World Religions and Jesus and the Gospels. My dissertation was an exploration into the roles of Elizabeth, Mary and Anna in Luke's infancy narrative and their relationships with the men with whom they are paired.

My parents did not raise me in any religion but encouraged me to explore a variety of belief systems. When I was in high school I became a Christian and became very involved in my church. In my first year at university I was questioned as to why I believed what I believed. I was not able to explain why I believed certain doctrine and I realised much of it had been spoon fed to me. I had accepted it blindly because I trusted my Christian role models. The downfall of this trust was that I never took the opportunity to truly contemplate what I was believing and make up my own mind. By the end of my second year at university I could no longer call myself a Christian. It was very difficult to admit this to myself and harder to confess this to my Christian friends. I was afraid they would judge me and our relationship would change. I expected they would no longer see me as 'one of them.' In their eyes I would have been led astray rather than paving the path for myself. For the most part, my fears were not realised. I'm sure my Christian friends are concerned for my soul but they are still there for me, loving and supportive.

Since, I have looked into other religions and spiritual paths. I have become most interested in Taoism, Buddhism, Yogic philosophy and mysticism. My research into ancient Mediterranean culture has opened my eyes to the relativity of worldviews, making me question my own. As a result I have spun into a state of agnosticism. I no longer feel lost but instead content in the search; a spiritual adventure of sorts. I invite you to join me in my academic pursuit of understanding the Bible better and the spiritual pursuit of letting what we discover enlighten our lives.

xoxo
Chamonix