Joe O. Lewis
Sunday, October 18, 2015
Wednesday, April 15, 2015
Luke's Women
Mary, Mother of Jesus, Wife of Joseph
April 15, 2015
The first two chapters of Luke's Gospel are dominated by women. First, there is Elizabeth, the wife of Zechariah, a priest. Elizabeth and Zechariah had no children, but the angel Gabriel appeared to Zechariah while he was on duty inside the temple to tell him that his wife would have a son. The son to be born to them is none other than John whom we know later as John the Baptist. The second woman to dominate the early chapters of Luke's Gospel is, of course, Mary who becomes the mother of Jesus. The stories of these two women are intertwined by Mary's visit to Elizabeth-her "kinswoman" (1:36). We are given only one glimpse of Elizabeth and Mary together when upon Mary's arrival at Zechariah's house Elizabeth's baby "leaped in her womb," a signal that Mary is "blessed among women" and that her baby would become Elizabeth's "Lord" (1:45). Elizabeth's blessing of Mary brings forth a response from Mary in the form of a psalm praising God for doing "great things" for her. Mary's psalm is known to biblical scholars as the Magnificat, so named because of the first word in the Latin version of the psalm. Luke then returned to tell of the birth and naming of John and record Zechariah's psalm of praise to the Lord. The birth of Jesus comes in chapter 2 of Luke. Joseph is mentioned, but the central figures are Mary, Simeon and Anna and, of course, the Shepherds. The inspired Simeon pronounced an enigmatic prophecy to Mary (2:34) about her child and her own future. Joseph and Mary ""marveled at what was said about" their child, but it was Mary who "kept all these things, pondering them in her heart" (2:19).These first two chapters of Luke have become so much a part of our Christmas celebration that we may not think about Mary as a woman. In Luke's account, Mary is a very young woman--perhaps no more than twelve or thirteen years of age. In our time, women have become very sensitive to the issues of control of their bodies and freedom to determine their own lives. It is only natural that they would ask how it was for Mary and notice how Luke described her in his narrative. Presumably, Mary's family had arranged a marriage to Joseph, but this is not spelled out. Did Mary have any choice in her marriage partner? We don't know; but women such as Mary doubtless had much less voice in the choice of a mate than modern women. In the Gospel, Mary recites a psalm which sounds a lot like the psalm that Hannah--Samuel's mother--offered to God when she dedicated her son at the ancient temple in Shiloh. What does Mary's psalm tell us about this young woman and her intelligence? How does her response to the angel's appearance compare with that of Zechariah? Does she have a choice in being used of God to bear a son who will be in the line of David the great king? How does Luke picture her. These are just some of the questions that an interpreter sensitive to women's issues might address as this passage is studied.
Is Luke Friendly to Women?
"Are Luke's writings friendly or hostile to women? Can Luke be said to represent 'a vigorous feminism'? Is he the only New Testament writer who reflects... an equality that women are presupposed to have had in early Christian communities, so that the distance or even the contradiction between [practice and preaching] that characterizes [Paul's] epistles, is abolished in [Luke's] writings? Or does Luke represent a [male centeredness] which consciously is silent about women and makes them invisible?' Does he plead... for the subordination of women in an indirect and more subtle manner than the open admonitions in this regard of the authors of the New Testament epistles?" As we shall see, there is some of both these dimensions in Luke's Gospel and the book of Acts as Turid Seim has made clear in the title of her book, The Double Message. Luke preserves "strong traditions about women" and their positive roles, but he also preserves many of the "masculine preferences" apparent in the early church.
The prominence of women in the opening two chapters in the Gospel of Luke and the quotation from Joel at the beginning of Acts that "your sons and your daughters shall prophesy" suggest that Luke is indeed friendly to women. After this "promising start," however, one scholar concludes that there is a "lamentable reluctance to give women adequate voice." Thus, one's opinion of Luke's presentation of women in his two books depends a lot on a careful reading of what Luke has written as we shall see in dealing with Mary. Let's look at the text.
Mary’s Opportunity (Luke 1: 26-38)
One of the things that sets Luke's writings apart from others is his tendency to create pairs of scenes often using both a man and a woman as the central figures. This is not hard to see once it is pointed out to us, but it is not something a casual reader is likely to notice. When Luke described the coming of the angel Gabriel to Mary he organized the story almost exactly as he had done previously in the account of Gabriel coming to Zechariah. The angel appears, reassures both not to be afraid, announces the birth of a son, and describes in a psalm what the child will do. Zechariah and Mary both question the angel. "How shall I know?" says Zechariah; "How can this be?" says Mary. The answer to Mary is that the Holy Spirit will make it possible and as evidence, the angel cites the fact that Elizabeth has conceived "in her old age." Mary submits herself to the Lord's call and goes to Elizabeth's home, perhaps at least partly to confirm what the angel said.
In the Old Testament, it is normally men who are called by God to service and they often demur just as Zechariah did. Few women receive calls from God, but when they do they do not object as do the men. Their freedom to govern their lives is much more restricted than that of the men. The few biblical women God elects for a special son-bearing vocation happily accept this role as a blessing. "Against this pattern of women’s limited agency in the Bible, one figure stands out in relief: Mary of Nazareth, dramatically called through the archangel Gabriel to bear Jesus, “Son of the Most High” and Israel’s Messiah."
It is interesting that Luke seems to stress Mary's thoughtfulness and reasoned response to the angel; he suggests that Mary "considered in her mind" what the angelic visit might mean whereas Zechariah was just "troubled." "[Mary] reacts with robust emotional and intellectual engagement. No angel, even the imposing Gabriel, is going to pull one over on Mary."
Mary’s Pregnancy (Luke 1: 39-55)
In these verses we learn some about how Mary dealt with her pregnancy, but we learn a lot about her piety and her understanding of what was happening to her. Luke focuses entirely on Mary's reaction, whereas Matthew recorded Joseph's response to Mary's pregnancy. Joseph "resolved to divorce her quietly" (Matt 1:19) upon learning that she was pregnant but an angelic intervention told him the significance of the son she would have. Luke's parallel to Joseph's resolve is Mary's hasty (Luke 1:39) departure from Nazareth to spend three months with Elizabeth. "Though Luke doesn’t say this, it’s hard not to imagine Mary’s desire to leave Nazareth so she can avoid the awkward questions that will surely arise about her pregnancy. The Jerusalem audience logically surmised that Zechariah had seen a vision in the temple (1: 21), but the Nazareth community is unlikely to grant a similar experience to young Mary, certainly not as an explanation for a preposterous virginal conception! Implicitly, then, Mary’s hasty “heading for the hills” of Judea marks the Lukan counterpart to the Matthean Joseph’s decision to “put Mary away secretly” (Matt 1: 19 NKJV)."
There is no word here about the role of Mary's family in her decision. She took matters in her own hands though surely her journey of some forty miles would not have been made alone. Mary came to Elizabeth for acceptance and assurance--and from Luke's perspective--for confirmation that "with God nothing will be impossible" (1:37). And Elizabeth did not dissappoint. "Elizabeth thrice blesses Mary: first, for who she is (“ Blessed are you among women”); next, for who she bears (“ Blessed is the fruit of your womb”); and finally, for what she has done (“ Blessed is she who believed what was spoken to her by the Lord”) — a dazzling affirmation of her gender (woman), generativity (mother), and spirituality (believer)."
Both Matthew (by saying that Joseph decided to divorce Mary because she was pregnant) and Luke (by saying that Mary left Nazareth hastily after (?) she became pregnant) hint that Mary's pregnancy was viewed as scandalous by the family and the community. In Luke's account, Mary herself is incredulous when told she would bear a child: "How can this be..." (Luke 1:34). She was simply saying what most would say if told that a woman would have a child without having a human sexual experience. Thus it is only to be expected that women scholars who interpret the birth narratives would bring their own experiences of birthing to the story of Jesus. Scholars--women as well as men--have interpreted Mary's pregnancy in several different ways. Some assume that a man other than Joseph was the father of Jesus. Others have assumed that the virgin birth accounts are like the many accounts of Greek gods who cohabit with human women to produce sons. And, of course, there are many who accept the virgin birth accounts as the mysterious act of God in history as orthodox Christianity has always held.
Mary's famous response to Elizabeth's blessing is known as "The Magnificat" (Luke 1:47-55). The Magnificat is a psalm that has many points of contact with a similar song sung by Hannah as she dedicated the son of her old age to God at Shiloh (I Samuel 2:1-10). Luke may well have had sources that gave him the text of the psalm, but since there were no verbatim recordings of what Mary said, Luke surely played a role in shaping the psalm. Moreover, the psalm plays a big role in setting the theme of Luke's Gospel as the reversal of power in the coming kingdom of God. Mary praises God for looking upon her "low estate" and doing "great things" for her. From her own experience and reflection, Mary reaches a stunning theological conclusion: through the “Son of the Most High” she will bear, the Savior God will “lift up,” not merely “look upon,” all who are lowly like her and, indeed, topple the whole high/ low hierarchy. The new era of God’s “uplifting” reign is dawning with Mary arising as its first exemplar, prophet, and theologian. In full voice, there is no keeping Mary down now; the lowly slave girl has busted through the ceiling and opened the way for other lowly ones, female and male, to rise with her to positions of robust health and honor in God’s just and merciful realm."
Mary’s Maternity (Luke 2: 1-21)
"But as “the time comes” in Luke’s famous Christmas story “for her to deliver her child” (2: 6), Mary’s leading role appears to diminish precipitously as men dominate the narrative . The narrative begins with another journey; this one, however, Mary does not choose and she does not chart her own course. Instead she is forced to travel at the worst possible time in her pregnancy by dominant male authorities: Emperor Augustus and Governor Quirinius ... " but it is Mary not the men who generates all the action. "The forces that impelled her to Bethlehem at this time have unwittingly “fulfilled” God’s plan for the true Lord’s birth in the city of David (2: 11). God orchestrates the proceedings, but at the critical “time” Mary executes them." She gave birth; she wrapped him in cloths; and she laid him in a manger. "Mary’s Magnificat still reverberates loud and clear with accents on lifting the lowly and leveling hierarchies. Nomadic herdsmen, not aristocratic nabobs, first attend this king. And while the shepherds may take the lead in broadcasting the good news of God’s visitation (2: 17-18, 20), Mary takes precedence in delivering, nurturing, and displaying the Christ child they extol."
Conclusion
Luke's magnificent portrayal of Elizabeth and Mary in the opening chapters of his Gospel stands in stark contrast to the absence of Mary from the rest of Luke and all but the very beginnings of the book of Acts. But the tribute he pays to Mary by the way he portrays her, makes it difficult to argue that Luke's view of women was anemic. " The Lukan Mary is not reduced simply to a womb-container that carried and delivered God’s Son; and her identity, though inextricably bound up with Jesus’, is not totally subsumed by him. Once he is born, she becomes no inert, passive mother figure merely basking in Jesus’ glory. Mary’s blessedness, from Luke’s perspective, includes how she blesses Jesus — and thereby the world which God will save through Jesus — as much as how he blesses her. And she blesses Jesus and the world throughout Luke 1– 2 as a fully embodied agent of and partner with God in her own right, freely exercising her own thoughts, feelings, and actions in probing and practicing God’s will."
Luke's Women
Hungry Widow, Spicy Queen, and Salty Wife
April 8,2015
There are some things that everybody knows as the Geico commercials constantly remind us. One of those things that everybody knows is that the role of women in the modern world has occupied center stage since the 1960's. The advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men has been front and center now for a half century in America--much more if we go back to the women's suffrage movements of the early 1900's. Part of this movement has played out in the pews. Mainstream Protestant denominations including our own have seen women's rights to serve in the roles of pastor and bishop become a major issue.Women As Biblical Scholars
But did you know that one result of the attention to the role of women in the larger society has been in biblical studies. In the last half-century more and more women have felt and responded to a call to ministry that has led them to do advanced academic study in seminaries and universities. We have seen some of the fruits of that response on the part of women even in our own Baptist circles. In our city, Sarah Shelton, has become a widely respected pastor to the congregation of the Baptist Church of the Covenant. David Hull's wife, Jane, has begun a ministry as pastor of the Union Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in Watkinsville, Ga. And just a few days ago a news release announced that David and Jane's daughter, Emily Hull McGee, has been called as pastor of the First Baptist Church of Winston Salem, NC.
But wait--there is more. As women responded to a call to prepare for ministry over the past decades, some of them found their role not only in the pulpit but also in seminary and university classrooms as biblical scholars. It is this development in New Testament scholarship which has encouraged this series of studies on Luke's women. Over this past fifty years, there has been a general consensus among biblical scholars (who have been mostly men) that Luke's Gospel gives a larger place to women than any of the other Gospels. Mark tells us that women travelled with Jesus in Galilee (Mark 15:41), but Luke tells us who the women besides Mary Magdalene were who travelled with Jesus and the disciples in Galilee:
Soon afterward he went on through cities and villages, preaching and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God. And the twelve were with him, and also some women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Mag′dalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, and Jo-an′na, the wife of Chu′za, Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for them[ out of their means. (Luke 8:1-3)
In addition to the consensus that Luke exhibits a special interest in women along with his interest in the poor, there has been agreement among scholars (mostly men) that Luke's treatment of women is generally positive. In the Book of Acts Luke has made it very clear that women of wealth became Christians and played a significant role in the early Christian church. Several such women hosted meetings of Christians in their homes (Prisicilla, Acts 18, I Cor 16:19; Marks' Mother, Acts 12:12).
Into this world of male consensus about Luke's treatment of women the last few years have seen the emergence of studies by Lukan scholars who are women, and as we might expect they tend to see things that men might miss or, at the least, they see things from a different perspective than male scholars. One small example from the book of Acts may help us understand the kind of difference perspective can make. When Judas had to be replaced to keep the group of apostles at twelve, Luke recorded the event this way:
So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.” And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsab′bas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthi′as. (Acts 1:21-23)
That may sound perfectly normal and correct to us--particularly to us men--but let me share with you the insights of the Dean of the Faculty of Theology at the University of Oslo, Norway--a woman, Dr. Turid Seim.
" The Lukan criteria for an apostle are listed in Acts 1.21-2 when a twelfth apostle is to be elected to take the place of Judas (1.15-26}. It is presupposed that more than the eleven fulfill these criteria, which require personal experience of the history of Jesus from the early time in Galilee onwards until the separation at the ascension. In the course of the gospel, the presence of women is emphasised, and in the narratives about the cross and the tomb they represented the followers of Jesus from Galilee. In other words, they ought to be obvious candidates. But an initial demand of maleness already excludes them from this possibility: .. , the candidates must be men. The women from Galilee are ineligible; interest is concentrated on the Galilean men... . When women in Acts are excluded from becoming apostles or from being leaders in other ways, this is a consequence of Luke's restricted and special concept of apostleship and acceptance of the public sphere as a man's world. So the public act of witness has to be carried out by men. This is nowhere justified in theological terms, and women are never explicitly adjured to keep silent or to be subordinate. What is demonstrated is a structure imposing silence."
We don't know how the women among Jesus' disciples felt about the election of Matthias. Did they feel the sting of being qualified as witnesses but not allowed to testify, or did they simply accept their rejection as the way it should be? Obviously in both Testaments, patriarchal worlds are assumed. In our day of heightened awareness of discrimination and our sense of fairness it is only to be expected that women who study the New Testament as scholars call our attention to a passage like this. There is, however, one sentence in Dr. Seim's interpretation that needs to be addressed. It is her assertion that " this [circumstance] is a consequence of Luke's restricted and special concept of apostleship and acceptance of the public sphere as a man's world."
For most of us, the Bible has been viewed all our lives as "God's Word." We have assumed that the Bible was God's doing and that Luke's (or the other biblical writers) beliefs, intelligence and view of women did not play a role in the writing of a biblical book. When we give some thought to the matter, it should be fairly obvious that God produced four different Gospels at least partly because he used the special knowledge and skills of four different authors. In all likelihood each of the Gospels was produced in a different country with vastly different audiences. But when all this is said and factored in, it remains to be demonstrated that Luke's description of the election of Matthias was significantly colored by his "acceptance of the public sphere as a man's world." Whether Dr. Seim is correct or not, her assumption that Luke and other authors wrote in the light of their own circumstances and to their own communities under the inspiration of God is common to nearly all biblical scholars today and plays a role in the interpretations offered by these scholars.
A Salty Wife
In this series I want to look at some of the women in Luke's gospel in the light of interpretations made by women scholars--specifically Mary the mother of Jesus; Joanna, one of the women who supported Jesus financially, and the sisters, Martha and Mary. Tonight some time has been spent setting the stage so we will take only a quick look at one of three foreign women that Luke mentions very briefly. The three women are the widow of Zarephath (Luke 4:25-26)--the Hungry Widow, the Queen of Sheba (Luke 11:31)--the Spicy Queen, and Lot's Wife (Luke 17:32)--the Salty Wife. Each of these three women appears very briefly. Each is mentioned by Jesus in a context of judgment on his generation and one might wonder what can be learned about Luke's treatment of women when the comment comes from Jesus. The answer is that two of these comments about women in the sayings of Jesus are only recorded by Luke; they do not appear in the other Gospels. Apparently Luke thought them important. Since time is short, let's concentrate just on Lot's Wife who appears in one sentence, "Remember Lot's wife."
The title for this section, Salty Wife, obviously refers to Lot's wife who looked back to Sodom and became a pillar of salt (Genesis 19) and comes from a fairly new book by F. Scott Spencer, Salty Wives, Spirited Mothers, and Savvy Widows: Capable Women Of Purpose And Persistence In Luke’s Gospel (2012). Dr. Spencer is Professor of New Testament and Preaching at the Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond. He has helped me by surveying a wide range of interpretations by women scholars and, thus, introducing me to many scholars whose works I had not seen. Admittedly, Dr. Spencer is a male and, thus, somewhat suspect as a judge of women's scholarship and as a matter of full disclosure, he says his purpose in the book is “pull the pendulum back a tad from the feminist-critical pole toward the center.” The range of views is as wide among women scholars as it is among men. On the one hand are those who see the Gospel of Luke as "an extremely dangerous text, perhaps the most dangerous in the Bible.” On the other hand are women who think Luke "manages the extraordinary feat of preserving strong traditions about women and attributing a positive function to them" even though Luke reveals a strong "masculine preferences" in his treatment of the early church in Acts. What do women see about Lot's wife that men may be blind to.
Typical treatments of Lot's wife by male pastors make it easy to understand the need for a woman's insight. The first sermon that came up on my computer in a Google search for sermons on Lot's wife gives us this judgment on the Lot's wife:
"Why did the Master relate Mrs. Lot to our day? Jesus used her as a fearful warning. That woman became cold, careless, and disobedient. Finally the judgments of God fell upon her, and she became a pillar of salt on the plains of Sodom. ... Why did God deal with her so severely? Was it not the smallest offense of all just to move the head slightly? The Word of God has a name for that type of action: sin. She disobeyed the commandment of the Lord, and her judgment underlines the urgency of obedience. God means what He says. There is no excuse for sin, and God cannot overlook it."
By way of contrast, hear the softer voice of a woman describing this woman of Sodom:
While Lot, the conscience of a nation,
struggles with the Lord,
she struggles with the housework.
The City of Sin is where she raises the children.
...
It is easy for eyes that have always turned to heaven
not to look back;
those that have been -by necessity- drawn to earth
cannot forget that life is lived from day to day.
Good, to a God, and good in human terms
are two different things.
On the breast of the hill, she chooses to be human,
and turns, in farewell -
and never regrets the sacrifice.
The poet sees a woman whose heart is broken by the devastation that has engulfed everyone she knows and cares about. While Lot's family got the warning, Lot's wife's father, mother, brothers and sisters presumably did not. How could she not look back at the tragedy engulfing Sodom. "Such was the tragic fate of Lot’s wife: looking back on — and longing to reconnect with — her besieged family and friends, house and furnishings, food and clothing, she forfeits everything. Her womanly devotion to daily realities does her in."
It is interesting that Jesus' sermon does not stress the sexual evil rampant in Sodom (as the Genesis story does) but rather centers on the obsession with the routines of life that prevented the people of Sodom from hearing the word of warning given them: "Likewise as it was in the days of Lot—they ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built..." (Luke 17: 28). In other words, they were so consumed with being human they could not detect the in-break of God in their world. Lot's wife was no different. Everything she and her husband had bought, sold, planted and built was gone in the explosion of Sodom. How hard would it be not to look.
Women who deal with this sentence in Luke not only look upon Lot's wife with empathy, feeling the agony that would have overwhelmed her obedience, they also question the fitness of the husband to have escaped. Lot is pictured in Genesis as more concerned about his duty to protect the visitor in his home than to shelter his own family. While these priorities may have been supremely important in ancient Israel, they are clearly repugnant today. No one could defend such a father today. So "feminist writers and activists Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards size up the jarring juxtaposition of Lot and his wife in rather salty language, querying why "Lot’s wife was turned into a pillar of salt when her husband was busy offering up their virgin daughters to the marauders. (And why ...she didn’t have a name.)” The juxtaposition involved a man who could hand over daughters to a mob of men and leave some of his family behind without ever looking back on the one hand and a wife who loved home and family so much she could not bear to leave without looking back.
Conclusion
"...what we must “remember” about Lot’s wife is her deep attachment to embodied life, to everyday pursuits of eating/ drinking, buying/ selling, planting/ building that she cannot bear to lose. But on an evaluative level, Jesus regards such attachments as lethal impediments to productive discipleship and keen alertness to God’s rule. He audaciously summons any would-be disciples to “deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow [him]” — that is, leave their daily lives behind to attend fully to his urgent kingdom business. And he does not brook any excuses, even for seemingly worthy family duties, like burying dead fathers or bidding farewell to those at home (Luke 9: 57-61). One must shake the dust even from one’s hometown and get going. “No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit (euthetos) for the kingdom of God” (9: 62): such is the kingdom motto, and such is precisely what Lot’s backward-looking wife must be remembered as violating as a disqualified, unfit disciple. ...Such is the high cost of following God’s kingdom way (cf. 14: 25-33) — a price Lot’s wife was not willing to pay."
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Flawed Humans
Luke 18:1-8
January 28, 2015
Like any important piece of
literature, the Bible requires careful reading, some knowledge of the
historical context of a passage, and the assistance of a translator or scholar
who knows the original languages of the Bible, Greek and/or Hebrew. It is quite possible to give a biblical
passage a meaning it never had --either intentionally or unintentionally-- by
being just a little careless in our reading.
For example, I won't soon forget the spin that my good friend Virginia
Covington, the Librarian for many years at Georgetown College, put on one of
Paul's sentences. Now Virginia was
unmarried, a super fan of the Cincinnati Reds, and something of a Bible scholar though she was not
entirely sure that all of Paul's words were the word of God--especially those
about the place of women in the church.
Virginia had a running dialogue with the male sex because none of them
had claimed her as a mate. She let it be
known that when she died she wanted only women as pall bearers; if men would not take her out when she was
alive, they sure weren't going to do so when she died (and six women did the
honors at her funeral). Well Virginia
was fond of quoting part of one verse of Paul's first letter to the church at Thessalonica,
the thirteenth verse of the fourth chapter which reads:
But we would not
have you ignorant, brethren, concerning those who are
asleep, that you may not grieve as others do…..
Virginia's version of that verse was simply: "We would not have you ignorant
brethren!" She just removed a
troublesome comma and paused for effect.
Just superficial changes!
Superficial reading of several of Jesus' parables could
easily give us a very distorted and less than helpful view of God. The parable of The Friend at Midnight, read
hastily and superficially, might lead one to believe that Jesus said God is
reluctant to meet our needs when we have an emergency. In fact when read carefully and correctly it
is clear that Jesus said precisely the
opposite truth about God: God is
not like a person who is slow to help
and quick to say "No." The
parable under consideration in this session could easily be read superficially
to portray God as a hard-hearted, un-caring judge who will only help the
proverbial "squeaking wheel,"
the person who makes a nuisance of herself. Since this is completely out of character for
Jesus to suggest, we know that we need to read carefully lest we hear him
wrongly.
The Text
(Luke 18:1-8)
Luke places the parable of the
Unjust Judge after the description of Jesus' teaching about the suddenness of
the end time. Jesus stressed to the
disciples that just as in ancient ages like Noah's time, life will go on
normally until the sudden end comes.
Luke introduced the parable with the note that Jesus told it to stress
that the disciples should not "lose heart" if the time of the end
were delayed. After recording the
parable, Luke notes something that Jesus may have said to himself, "when
the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?" (Luke 18:8). Thus Luke seems to have understood the
parable to deal with the problem of unanswered prayer in times of uncertainty just
as the woman in the parable had to deal with numerous refusals of the judge to
hear her case. Here is the parable by
itself:
2 He said, “In a certain city there was a judge who
neither feared God nor regarded man; 3 and there was a widow in that city who kept
coming to him and saying, ‘Vindicate me against my adversary.’ 4 For a while he refused; but afterward he said to
himself, ‘Though I neither fear God nor regard man, 5 yet because this widow bothers me, I will
vindicate her, or she will wear me out by her continual coming.’” (Luke
18: 2-5)
Following the actual parable, Luke adds the
interpretation which Jesus gave to it:
6 And the Lord [Jesus] said, “Hear what the
unrighteous judge says. 7 And will not God vindicate his elect, who cry to
him day and night? Will he delay long over them? 8 I tell you, he will vindicate them speedily.
Nevertheless, when the Son of man comes, will he find faith on earth?” (Luke 18: 6-8)
Jesus' interpretation of the
parable for us identifies the judge as "unrighteous" or
"unjust." He does not equate
the judge with God, but suggests that if such a judge would respond after
repeated pleas from a widow for selfish, self-serving reasons, surely God would respond quickly. Jesus
seems to suggest that the widow plays the role of God's "elect" (chosen ones, Christians) who cry for help
constantly. At the very end of the
section a new element that does not seem to have a place in the parable is
introduced. Jesus questions whether the
"Son of man" will find faith on earth when he comes.
The parable seems fairly simple and
straightforward to the casual reader, so it is something of a surprise when a
learned scholar begins his study of the parable by saying, "I consider
this one of the more difficult parables ... The parable itself (vv. 2-5) is
brief, and without its explanation (vv. 6-8) there is little indication of its
intent."[1] Fortunately for us, Jesus' explanation of the
parable is recorded but even so, there are reasons to think the parable is hard
to understand.
The
Widow (vv.3,5)
Anyone who has read
the Old Testament can hardly forget that God commands us to care for "the
widow, the orphan and the sojourner."
Over and over again in the book of Deuteronomy we are reminded that the
weakest members of society must be cared for by the strongest. Indeed, this theme resonates through so much
of the Old Testament that it may prejudice us in favor of a widow in a court
case! Since widows often were left with
nothing when husbands and sons died before them and since there were so many of
them, we are programmed to feel deep sympathy for the widow in any story. But obviously, the circumstances of widows
vary. Those who were left with nothing
were indeed objects of society's pity.
But was the widow in this parable such a person?
In the last few decades women have
taken their rightful place among biblical scholars, and we have benefitted from
having their perspectives on our Bible.
One such scholar is Amy-Jill Levine who teaches at Vanderbilt. Here is her description of the widow in this
parable:
The parable gives no indication of
the widow's economic status. She may be poor and perhaps lacks money to bribe
the judge; on the other hand, she has
access to the court, she does not invoke poverty as a reason for her appeal,
she addresses the judge in the imperative, and she even manages a nice pun in
insisting that she be avenged ... not against an exploiter or a thief, but an
adversary, opponent or foe… . The
language is juridical, not personal. Our
widow sounds less like Ruth amid the alien corn and more like Leona Helmsley
fighting a hostile take-over bid.[2]
So, while
we are predisposed to think of a poor widow who is being evicted by her hard-heart-ed
landlord, the description of the widow in the parable itself is quite the
opposite. True, someone either has
already or is about to take something away from her, but she is not a person to
take such abuse quietly--she sues--repeatedly.
And while the judge in this case may be a comical character exaggerating
the situation, he says she is beating him up!
The word in the phrase "she will wear me out" literally means
"she'll beat me black and blue!"[3] This is no frail damsel in distress; this is
Lucy who delights in jerking the football away just as Charlie Brown is about
to kick it. With a woman like this, no
husband is needed to get her case heard.[4]
Many of us
have seen Charles Tyler Clark's legal ad that says most people who are truly
injured and can't work "give up too soon" in their appeals for
disability. Not this widow. She doesn't give up. She keeps coming. She would have made
Churchill proud. The judge says she is working him to death.
What
does she want? Does she ask for
vengeance or justice? Perhaps in the
ancient world these two words might have
been synonymous. Indeed, even
today many feel that injustice must be avenged--thus the violent outbursts on
our streets when people feel that justice has not been given. The word the widow uses actually means
"avenge," and it is translated this way in the American Standard
Version (ASV): "Avenge me of mine adversary." If justice is what the law prescribes, vengeance
is often what the heart desires. In the
Old Testament, vengeance is what God administers when he rescues his people
from the Egyptians (Exodus 7:4; 12:12), the Midianites (Numbers 31:2-3) and the
Philistines (Judges 15:7; 16:28).
Obviously, Jesus taught us to forgive and not seek vengeance. Clearly in this parable he is painting life
as it is and not as it ought to be.
The Judge (vv. 2, 4-5)
Sometimes, a
title on a story or an image associated with the story shapes and colors our
entire understanding of it. Thus in the
movie "Exodus" which has recently been released, the image of huge
walls of water crashing down on the Egyptians will make it hard for Bible
readers to ever see the biblical description of what happened:
So Moses stretched forth his hand over the sea,
and the sea returned to its wonted flow when the morning appeared; and the
Egyptians fled into it, and the Lord routed the Egyptians in the midst of the sea. (Exodus 14:27)
Thus by using the customary title for this parable, The
Unjust Judge, we may blind ourselves to the judge as he is presented. The parable presents the Judge as foolish but
impartial. The fear of God is the
beginning of wisdom in the Old Testament so by his own confession, the Judge is
not a wise man! But lacking wisdom does
not make him corrupt. His candle may not
have been the brightest, and he may not have
been the editor of the Law Review,
but his actions as far as they are described are not "unjust" (unless, as some have suggested, he refused
to hear the widow's case because she would not bribe him!). In fact, the second characteristic of the
Judge is that he did not "regard man." Romans 2:11 describes God as one who does not
respect persons (not the same word as "regard man," but much the same
meaning). God is impartial in judgment
and so, claims the Judge, is he. He
can't be bought off. But he is human!
And this widow who keeps bringing charges against her landlord--apparently a
trivial case that he shouldn't have to waste time on in his opinion--is telling
everyone who will listen that he won't try her case, and his reputation is
taking a beating in the court of public opinion. Ultimately the Judge hears her case (and she
wins). Apparently justice prevails after
all--but for the wrong reason. The Judge
only hears the case because it is more expedient to deal with it than to
continue to delay it. Obviously we would
all like our officials to operate from principle and not from pressure , but
parables show us the world as it really is.
Jesus'
Application (vv. 6-8)
So what did Jesus
want us to know or do when he told the story?
As he did in several instances, Jesus used an imperfect human (two of
them, really) to teach us what a perfect God will do when his people call upon
him. If an imperfect Judge will
ultimately do his job and render justice for a widow, how much more will a
perfect God, creator of the universe and master of it all, respond to those who
call? If a relatively powerless woman
can exert enough force to make a social system work for the people it serves,
how much more can the maker of heaven and earth affect the creation which he
has brought into being? Both characters
in the story cry out for us to compare God to their human characters. Both are flawed individuals. One creates public opinion that gives her
cause precedence over that of others.
One bows to public opinion at least on secondary issues, if not on
matters of principle. God, who is not a respecter of persons, hears
the cry of the widow and wields the power of the Judge "speedily."
The parable ends with a question,
"when the Son of man comes, will
he find faith on earth?” It isn't crystal clear that this saying was originally
attached to this parable, but we don't have it attached to a different context
in another Gospel, so we must assume that it belongs here. Remember that the parable per se is just verses 2-5. The introduction, "he
told them a parable, to the effect that they ought always to pray and not lose
heart," is Luke's comment and not the words of Jesus. Is the last question also from Luke or is it
from Jesus? If it is Luke's concluding
comment, it may well reflect the fact that some fifty years had passed since
Jesus' resurrection and the Son of Man had not returned as early Christians
assumed he would. Luke heard the parable
of the judge who put off a woman's case in the light of the delay in the second
coming and wondered if when the Master did come he would find faithful
servants.
Surely the passing of another 1900 plus years makes
Luke's concern even more critical. The parable
then reminds us that some flawed humans are still pressing their cases and
others are still trying to protect their reputations amidst all the competing
claims for their help. And we are
reminded once again that "speedily" is a human term and does not
necessarily mean the same thing to God that it does to us. We anchor our expectation of the ultimate
outcome in that term "elect."
It isn't that we are so special that God has chosen us over some others,
but that God is so special that "whosoever believes" can have eternal
life.
[1]
Klyne Snodgrass, Stories With Intent: A
Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 449.
[2]
Amy-Jill Levine,"This Woman Keeps Bothering
Me," in Finding A Woman's Place: Essays in Honor of Carolyn Osiek, edited
by David L. Balch, Jason T. Lamoreaux (Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2011), 130.
[3] The Greek dictionary defines the word to mean: " to beat black and blue, to smite so as to cause bruises and livid
spots like a boxer; one buffets his body, handles it roughly, disciplines by
hardships."
[4]
The so-called " 'importuning' widow of Luke
similarly shatters the stereotype of the poor, dependent,
weak woman, even as she epitomizes the strength, cleverness, and unclear,
indeed, problematic motives, of many of her
predecessors. No wonder that Luke, the
most conventional of the evangelists, domesticates this widow: for Luke, she
exemplifies the 'need to pray always and not to lose heart' (18:1) and stands
for those 'chosen ones' to whom G-d grants justice and who 'cry to him day and
night' ( 18:7). Luke's concluding image
is more 'woman on her knees,' than 'woman
with a fist...' " Levine, Op. cit., 124.
Are You Being Served?
Luke 12:35-38
January 21, 2015
Several of Jesus' parables involve serving people--servants--faithful and otherwise. For example, he told a parable about the normal relationship between a master and his servants that goes like this:
“Will any one of you, who has a servant plowing or keeping sheep, say to him when he has come in from the field, ‘Come at once and sit down at table’? Will he not rather say to him, ‘Prepare supper for me, and gird yourself and serve me, till I eat and drink; and afterward you shall eat and drink’? Does he thank the servant because he did what was commanded? So you also, when you have done all that is commanded you, say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty.’” (Luke 17:7-10)
Jesus told more than one story about servants waiting for their master to return. But the parable of "The Serving Master" (Luke 12:35-38) is different and demands an answer to the question, "Are You Being Served?"
The Parable
You are all aware, of course, that there are many translations of our Bible. Each translation is usually done by a group of scholars. A person might assume that the translations would all be much the same since they all start with the same Hebrew or Greek text, but you know that is not the case. Over the years new manuscripts--sometimes in languages we did not know about--are discovered and these manuscripts provide meanings for words that previous generations of scholars did not have. And sometimes, scholars learn things that enable them to translate words better. I've mentioned before a scholar who has spent his life in the Middle East and knows its customs in a way that most New Testament scholars don't. In his book, Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes, Kenneth E. Bailey has provided a translation of Luke's parable that sheds new light on it. I want to share Bailey's translation and his interpretation with you. Here is the way he translates it:
"Let your waist be girded and your lamps burning, and be like people who are expecting their master when he withdraws from the wedding banquet, so that when he comes and knocks, immediately they may open to him. Blessed are those slaves who coming, the master finds awake. Amen, I say to you, he will gird himself and cause them to recline [to eat], and come to them and serve them. If in the second or third watch, he comes and finds thus, blessed are those slaves."
I've underlined two words which Bailey translates differently than most other translators. As we go through his interpretation, you will see why he translates them as he does. If enough scholars believe he has made a good case for his translation, you may see this version in a later edition of the New International Version[2] or in some new version of the Bible. Here is the New Revised Standard Version translation which is typical of most versions:
“Be dressed for action and have your lamps lit; be like those who are waiting for their master to return from the wedding banquet, so that they may open the door for him as soon as he comes and knocks. Blessed are those slaves whom the master finds alert when he comes; truly I tell you, he will fasten his belt and have them sit down to eat, and he will come and serve them. If he comes during the middle of the night, or near dawn, and finds them so, blessed are those slaves."
Great stories like Jesus' parables have at least two facets to them. Of course, the content of the parable--what its message is--is the primary thing we notice, and for the average reader the content is enough. A long time ago, however, Marshal McLuhan taught us that the vehicle used for conveying something to us becomes part of the message; to use his expression, "the medium is the message."[3] After we try to understand the message of the parable with Dr. Bailey's help, we will look briefly at the medium Jesus used to convey his parable. Seeing how Jesus shaped the message will allow us to be inspired all over again by this jewel of a story.
Waist Girded and Lamps Burning
We know immediately that we are in a different world when Jesus mentions tying up our robes and preparing our lamps. To this day in the Middle East many men wear robes that reach to the top of the shoes; sometimes these are everyday white robes but for dress occasions the djellabas come in beautiful colors and fabrics. Western men would use a belt (or suspenders) to hold up their trousers, but working people in Jesus' time just used a piece of rope or cloth to hold up their long robes when they needed to work. The rope would be tied around the waist and the hem of the robe would be picked up and tucked behind the rope belt. Thus, in the parable Jesus begins by urging the disciples to get ready for work, to gird up their garments.
Likewise Jesus told his disciples to make sure their lamps were burning. We live in the age of electricity, but it was not long ago--barely beyond the lives of those of us here--that the world was dimly lit. Life slowed down drastically when the sun set. Nothing that required much light could be done in the evenings. In another instance Jesus told the disciples that no one would light a lamp and put in under something (Luke 11:33). Instead a lamp would be placed on a stand or in a niche in the wall. That little pot of oil with a wick sticking out was all the light they had. Dr. Bailey notes that "only those who have lived without electricity know how difficult it is to prepare and light a lamp after dark."[4] Thus Jesus urged his disciples to be sure their lamps were burning before dark so they could be used to wait for the master. Unless one had a fire going or a lamp already lit it would be very difficult to light the wick on a lamp at night. Obviously they could light lamps at night if they had to, perhaps by using a flint, but it would have been difficult. If being ready for the return of the master required a servant to have light ready for him, the servant could ill afford to wait until he heard the master at the door to try to light the lamp.
Expecting and Withdrawing
After urging his disciples to be ready for the tasks at hand, Jesus went on to say "be like people who are expecting their master when he withdraws from the wedding banquet, so that when he comes and knocks, immediately they may open to him." Just as there was no electricity in antiquity, so also instant communication was impossible. The master could not text the staff to let them know he was on the way. The servants just had to be ready whenever their master needed them. Doubtless in many households, servants who were not ready paid a physical price in punishment for not doing their duty. Normally, servants could anticipate the length of common kinds of celebrations but in this case, Dr. Bailey suggests that the master came home early from the wedding celebration. Instead of just "returning" (that is, at the expected time), Dr. Bailey suggests that the master "withdraws" from the party (that is, he left earlier than would have been expected). He bases this translation on the Syriac version which is used in the Middle East. "It is this literal reading that the Arabic and Syriac versions have usually chosen. I find this translation more authentic to the larger world of the New Testament images into which this parable must be placed."[5]
Dr. Bailey suggests that the servants were not just waiting; they were "expecting." "Waiting" is passive, like 'waiting for a bus.' But 'expecting...' projects a different mood. Expecting denotes excitement and a dynamism that the first word lacks."[6] The same word is used to describe the aged Simeon as "looking for" the kingdom (Luke 2:25); he was actively expecting the kingdom to come in his time. So Jesus has described the servants in this parable. They weren't just playing games and waiting--they were actively expecting the master and eager to have him return.
Seating and Serving
The heart of the parable comes in verse 37 when the expecting servants are re-united with their master: "Blessed are those slaves who coming, the master finds awake. Amen, I say to you, he will gird himself and cause them to recline [to eat], and come to them and serve them." Dr. Bailey notes that the master's action here "represents a stunning reversal of roles." The servants had been waiting so they could serve the master! Instead the master prepares himself for work just as Jesus told the disciples they should do--he girds himself--and proceeds to serve each one of the servants. We have a similar scene in John's Gospel (John 13:1-7) where Jesus "laid aside his garments, and girded himself with a towel" and proceeded to wash the feet of the disciples. He took upon himself the role of a servant and the disciples were stunned.
In the parable, Jesus declared that these expecting servants were "Blessed." That is exactly the same word used in the Beatitudes where Jesus said, "Blessed are the poor in spirit.…". "The meaning of this text is not: If these servants are alert and ready, their master will reward them with his blessing. Rather it says: Servants/slaves who have lamps lit, robes duly belted and are awake, eagerly expecting the arrival of the master, are already filled with the blessing of God and are a bless-ed presence in the household. The way they act is an expression of who they are, not an attempt to earn something they do not have."[7] And, of course, that is exactly the way we want our own lives to be. That's the message of the parable. Living life in faithful service makes life itself blessed. Indeed, the party will come to you.
The Medium of the Message
As encouraging and inspiring as the story is, we have not yet seen all its beauty. Like a diamond that has been perfectly cut, this tiny story has a symmetry about it that makes it sparkle. Dr. Bailey has helped us see its beauty by grouping things together:[8]
Verse 1
1. Let your waist be girded SERVANT (prepared)
2. and your lamps burning SERVANT (prepared)
Verse 2
3. and be like people who are expecting their master SERVANT (alert)
4. when he withdraws from the wedding banquet MASTER (comes)
5 so that when he comes and knocks MASTER (comes)
6. immediately they may open to him SERVANT (alert)
Verse 3
7. Bless-ed are those slaves SLAVES (blessed)
8. whom coming, the master finds awake MASTER (comes)
9. Amen, I say to you, he will gird himself
10. and cause them to recline [to eat] MASTER (serves)
11. and come to them and serve them
12. If (in the second or third watch),
he comes and finds them MASTER (comes)
13. blessed are those slaves SLAVES (blessed)
The parable has three verses and each verse builds on the one before it. In verse two a statement about the master is placed between two statements about the servants like a sandwich. Then in the third verse the key verse about the master serving the slaves is sandwiched in between the elements in verse 2. Dr. Bailey concludes: "the parable of the self-emptying master is composed of a three-stage sandwich such as I have yet to find elsewhere in all of Scripture. It is the creation of a very sophisticated Jewish poetical mind."[9] Indeed, it is.
Conclusion
The parable of the serving master, like most of Jesus' teachings, may well have delivered different messages to different ages. When Jesus taught his disciples using this parable and others like it--such as the parable of the wise and foolish virgins--the hearers may have linked it especially to their belief that the end time was coming very soon. In that context, Jesus taught them to be ready! By the time Luke included this parable in his Gospel about 85 A.D. the end time had not yet come and clearly early Christians were having to adjust their thinking about how long they were going to have to be living with the expectation of an end in their lifetime. In that context, Luke's first readers heard Jesus suggesting that servants never knew when the master would return but would be blessed if they were found ready when he did. Today we are nearly 2000 years removed from the original context of the parable, and few of us live with the same expectation of a second coming in the immediate future, the popularity of the "Left Behind" novels notwithstanding. We still affirm every Sunday that Jesus will return to judge "the living and the dead," but there is little anxiety attached to that expectation. For our context, hearers of the parable may well relate its message to the blessedness of faithful servants. "Blessed are the faithful" may well join the other beatitudes to describe today's Christians. And we know that the one we await is indeed not a terrible prosecutor, but a Lord who came to serve. We have been brought in from the highways and hedges to sit at the banquet which he will serve. Thanks be to God.
BACK TO TEXT 1. The main characters include: Mrs. Betty Slocombe, head of the ladies' department, Mr. Wilberforce Claybourne Humphries, a camp man who lives with his mother, Captain Stephen Peacock, the haughty floorwalker and Miss Shirley Brahms,, the attractive assistant to Mrs. Slocombe.
BACK TO TEXT 2. The NIV was originally published in the 1970s and has been updated three times in 1984, 1995 and 2011.
BACK TO TEXT 3. Marshall McLuhan, Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man (Originally published by Mentor in 1964; reissued in 1994 by MIT Press).
BACK TO TEXT 4. Kenneth E. Bailey, Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2008) 369
BACK TO TEXT 5. Bailey, Op.cit., 370.
BACK TO TEXT 6. Ibid.
BACK TO TEXT 7. Bailey, Op.cit., 372.
BACK TO TEXT 8. Bailey, Op.cit, 367 I have modified Dr. Bailey's outline just a bit but the arrangement is his.
BACK TO TEXT 9. Ibid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)