Posts Tagged ‘interpretation’

Persistence or trust?

October 15, 2022

Pentecost 19 – 2022
Luke 18:1-14
Marian Free

In the name of God Earth-maker, Pain-bearer, Life-giver. Amen.

Allow me to read the first parable again.

And he said a parable to them. Concerning their necessity always to pray and not to become discouraged, saying,
“Some judge was in some city; God was he not fearing, and people was he not respecting. And a widow was in that city. And she kept coming to him, saying, ‘Avenge/grant me justice against my adversary.’
“And not did he wish at that time. But after these things he said to himself, ‘if even God I do not fear no people do I respect, yet on account of the trouble this widow causes, I will avenge her, so that not into the end, coming, she will give me a black eye.’”
And said the Lord, “Hear what the unjust judge says. And will not God make vengeance to his elect, those who cry to him day and night, and will he be patient upon them? I say to you that he will avenge them swiftly. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, then will he find faith upon the earth?

Now I imagine that translation might have taken you aback. It is awkward because it is a literal translation, and it is confronting because it forces us to see the parable in a different light. It is however a more translation and as such helps to give us a clearer sense of the parable’s meaning.

Collectively, we have a tendency to be complacent, if not lazy, when it comes to matters of faith. For example, when it comes to the bible, if or when we read it, we presume to know and understand it. Very often, we see what we expect to see rather than approaching the text afresh and asking questions and exploring it more deeply to see what else it might reveal. Familiarity does not so much breed contempt as it encourages complacency. It is easy to assume that what we have been told – at Sunday School or in a sermon – remains true for all time. This is especially true of the parables. We know the parables so well, they. Have been explained to us so often, that we can sum them up in a single phrase. The prodigal son, the good Samaritan, the barn builder and the persistent widow all bring up images not only of the parable, but of the meaning of the parable.

It is comforting and reassuring to have at our disposal stories that encapsulate what it is to be a neighbour, that illustrate how much God loves us or show the foolishness of storing up one’s wealth. Every now and again though it doesn’t hurt to be challenged, to have our traditional interpretations thrown into question or to see a saying or a parable in a new light because nothing is set in stone no one alive today was present to hear Jesus teach and even our gospel writers are the second or third generation of followers.

Before our gospels were written in their current form, Jesus’ teachings were conveyed orally. Over time different leaders will have given them different emphases depending on the needs of their audiences. When the gospel writers finally gathered Jesus’ sayings into a form of biography, they made decisions about the order in which they would present Jesus’ teaching and life. In the process they also included their own editorial comments – creating a narrative and sometimes interpreting Jesus’ words for the readers. The story didn’t end there. During the course of history, the bible was translated – first into Latin and then into the common language of the people. Translation led to another layer of interpretation. No matter how dispassionate they tried to be, each translator came to the scripture with a pre-existing bias which imposed itself on the text.

Few of us are aware of such biases and of what we bring to the text.

The literal translation of today’s parable of the widow and the judge is a good illustration of the problem. Even though the word εδικεω (edikeo) means to avenge, our translators have chosen (for whatever reason) to translate it as justice. Vengeance is a strong and uncomfortable word, and it certainly doesn’t fit with our received learning that the widow has no agency, that she needs someone to take her side. Yet there is no suggestion in the parable that our widow is powerless OR that she is meek and vulnerable. Indeed, she is arguing her case before the judge, without anyone to support her. She wants revenge and she will get it by wearing the judge down. When the judge finally gives in, it is less because of the widow’s persistence and more because he is afraid that she will resort to violence if he doesn’t give her what she wants.

This is a much more likely scenario than the one we usually associate with this parable. Jesus’ parables are intended to shock us, to challenge our conventional way of thinking. If we domesticate them (have the widow seek justice not mercy) we take away their sting – the point that Jesus is making to force us to re-think the way we see the world. Luke’s addition to the parable does just that. The parable proper is the story of the widow and the judge (verses 2 through 5). By adding an introduction and conclusion, Luke uses Jesus’ parable for a specific different purpose. Luke’s introduction and conclusion – Jesus told them a parable about the need to: “pray always and do not lose heart” and concludes that God will give justice to those who: “cry to him day and night” suggest that he uses it to encourage Jesus’ followers to pray – even when the circumstances seem to mitigate against prayer. (Luke’s additions and the translators’ preference for justice rather than vengeance contribute to a picture of a widow who is vulnerable and praiseworthy.)

But, as Amy-Jill Levine points out – in this parable neither the judge, nor the widow are ‘moral exemplars’. The widow seeks vengeance and will not stop until she is satisfied, and the judge allows himself to be corrupted or at least compromised – by giving in to the widow, even though he presumably did not think she had just cause.

The point is precisely that God is not like the judge, and we are not to be like the widow. God does not need to be worn down by our consistent pressing and cannot be forced into acting against God’s nature. We are not to be like the widow – taking things into our own hands, battering God into submission, or trying to bend God to our will. God can be trusted and God will grant justice to God’s elect. Our task is not to persist, but to trust, to believe that it is in God’s nature to bring about justice and that God will hear the cries of the broken-hearted and oppressed.

“Vengeance is mine” says the Lord in Deuteronomy (32:35)
If there is vengeance to be taken, God will take it. So we can leave it to God.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Luke's gospel, Parables | Comments Off on Persistence or trust?

It’s not about words

November 9, 2019

Pentecost 22 – 2019

Luke 20:27-40

Marian Free

In the name of God whose ways are not our ways and whose thought are not our thoughts. Amen.

The current debates and schisms within the Anglican Church are disturbing and confronting. Just last month The Sydney Morning Herald reported that, “Anglican Archbishop of Sydney Glenn Davies has told Anglican supporters of same-sex marriage they should leave the church rather than “betray God’s word” in a scathing speech condemning progressive elements within the faith.”1 At the Synod in the Diocese of Melbourne a number of motions were passed – in particular a motion that expressed support with a break-away church: the Confessing Church of Aotearoa New Zealand – that sent shock waves through the church because they seem to indicate that that Diocese has put itself out of communion with Canterbury and therefore with Church as a whole.

For at least the past twenty years bishops have broken with accepted protocol by crossing Diocesan boundaries to take part in consecrations in churches that have split from the communion. Most recently Australian bishops travelled to New Zealand. The NZ bishops wrote a heart-felt response. “Here we acknowledge that members of our church are very concerned to see photographs which clearly identify that among the consecrating bishops at the ordination were bishops in communion with our church who have crossed boundaries without informing either the Archbishops of this church or the Bishop of Christchurch or the Bishop of Te Waipounamu. The disrespect for the normal protocols of the Anglican Communion and the lack of courtesy show to our church is disturbing.”

The secular press runs headlines such as “Crisis Point: The Anglican Church is riven by worse divisions than ever before”.

Clearly, the past year has not been a good one for the Anglican Church of Australia. In fact, it is possible to make the argument that the past two decades have not been good for the world-wide Anglican Communion as a whole. Ever since a decision was made to ordain women as deacons, priests and bishops, cracks have been appearing. These have become wider and deeper as Dioceses such as that in the United States have approved the blessing of same sex-marriages. Protocol that has kept the diverse church somewhat united has been blithely ignored and long traditions, such as the Lambeth Conference have been undermined.

At the heart of the problem is how we understand the bible. Many Anglicans believe in what they call “the plain truth of the bible” while others argue that the bible is open to interpretation and that we must examine it carefully to understand the original intention. To give one example, if the bible says in 1 Corinthians 14:34 that women must be silent in the church, the former group believe that this cannot be seen in any other way. On the other side of the debate are those who read in an earlier chapter that “when women pray and prophesy in church” (11:5) they must do so with their heads covered. The former group back up a more literal approach by pointing to other scriptures such as Colossians 3 (which appears to encourage women to be subject to their husbands), whereas the latter can see the presence of strong women in leadership in many places, particularly in the letter of Paul.

The problem of factionalism and differing interpretations lies behind today’s gospel. In the Judaism of the first century there were a number of factions as we can see from the NT. The Pharisees were a group of devoted laymen whose concern was with the law and in particular the oral tradition that had grown up concerning the observance of the law. Zealots were a group of enthusiasts who wanted to oust the Romans from their nation. At least one group of Jews (the Essenes) were so disillusioned with the state of affairs that they withdrew into the desert where they recorded scripture, underwent ritual cleansing and lived a communal life. The Sadducees were the power base in Jerusalem. They belonged to the upper class and probably included in their number the priests (who at that time were appointed by Rome and were not of the tribe of Levi).

At one time or another, all of these came into conflict with Jesus. Pharisees accused Jesus of breaking the law and the priests, scribes and Sadducees tried to expose Jesus’ ignorance and their greater wisdom by putting to him questions that they were sure he could not answer.

In today’s gospel it is the Sadducees who attempt to bring Jesus into disrepute by presenting him with a conundrum that they believe will trip him up. The question relates to an ancient practice, according to which if a man dies childless, his brother must marry his widow to ensure the bloodline is continued. As the passage make clear, the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection. Their line of attack was to try to show that the idea of the resurrection was ridiculous – if a woman has to marry seven times will she have seven husbands in the resurrection?! Jesus is not at all phased. He points out that it is they who are foolish. Heaven, he explains is not simply a continuation of our earthly existence, but is something entirely different – a place in which earthly standards, laws and ways of behaving simply do not apply.

In the end, it is not about words, or about who shouts the loudest, nor is it about who has the most detailed argument or the largest number of adherents. In the end, it is not about one interpretation of the bible or another. In the final analysis it is about the life that God offers to each and every one of us – a life that extends beyond our physical existence to a life that defies description, and which bears little or no resemblance to this present life. That life, as Jesus suggests is not bound or limited by our interpretation of scripture, by our earthly relationships and least of all by our ability to comprehend. It is a way of being that is beyond anything that we currently know and beyond anything that we can begin to imagine. It is a way of being that is determined by God alone and no amount of arguing about what the Bible does or does not say will make any difference in the world to come.

1 The Archbishop has since clarified his comments saying that his comments referred to Bishops of the church and not LGBTI people as a whole.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Luke's gospel | Comments Off on It’s not about words

Locking God out, letting God in

October 25, 2014

Pentecost 20
Matthew 22:34-46
Marian Free

In the name of God whose foolishness is wiser than our wisdom. Amen.

When I was young I, like many of my contemporaries, had an autograph book. We’d take the book to social occasions and ask people to sign it. If we were lucky they would not only sign the book but write a short rhyme or a riddle. I had completely forgotten about riddles. These days I only seem to come across them in fairy tales. For example, a King offers his daughter’s hand to the first person to solve a riddle or a princess will only marry the Prince who asks her a riddle that she cannot answer and so on.

In my autograph book were such riddles as:
“If your B empty, put :
if your B full, stop putting : ”
It was a play on both punctuation signs and letters and if you don’t remember it, you will need to see it written. I found this one on the Internet, but I would have had to become a member of the site to find the answer – so I’m relying on you to help me out. It goes: “What is the beginning of eternity, the end of time and the beginning of every ending?”

In today’s gospel Jesus poses something like a riddle. When he asks the Pharisees whose son the Messiah is they reply (as expected) David’s son. Jesus then challenges them using part of Psalm 110: “If David thus calls him (the Messiah) Lord, how can he be his Son?” The Pharisees are stumped. How can the Messiah (whom they expect to be the son of David) also be the son of God? It does not seem possible.

With the advantage of distance (and with the knowledge that Jesus is both God and human), we might realise that the question is really a matter of semantics. Jesus is using a portion of Psalm 110 to insinuate that David is calling the Messiah “Lord” (or God) and questioning whether David would call his own son God. If he does, then the Messiah must be both human and divine – something the Pharisees would find impossible to comprehend. As a result, they are unable to respond to Jesus’ question.

Jesus is playing with words. The word lord in English as well as in Greek can refer both to God and to someone in authority. This is quite different from the Hebrew in which Yahweh is the word that we translate as Lord. In Hebrew then, the relevant part of Psalm 110 reads, “Yahweh said to my lord.” This makes it clear that the second “lord” is a human being and therefore could reasonably refer to David’s son. In both Greek and English, the sentence reads, “The Lord said to my lord”. Jesus implies that this means that God (“the Lord”) is speaking to another divine being (“my Lord”) who by definition cannot possibly be the human David’s son. It was expected that someone of David’s line would again sit on the throne of Israel. That person would be a human being, a true descendant of David – not God. Jesus is using the Psalm as if the word lord in Greek means God in both places and is challenging the Pharisees to explain how the Messiah can be both a son of David AND a Son of God, both human and divine. Such an idea is completely novel to them and they have no answer.

Over the last few weeks we have observed Jesus in debate with different groups of church leaders. In turn, they have attempted to discredit Jesus by asking him questions that they expect will either confound him or expose him to ridicule or even risk. They have asked him no less than four questions designed to show him up – two general and two about the correct interpretation of scripture – the question of John the Baptist’s authority, the question about paying taxes to Caesar, the question about the resurrection and the question about the greatest commandment. On each occasion Jesus has proven himself more than adequate to the task, answering both wisely and cautiously. The church leaders have not been able to embarrass him or to catch him out – just the opposite. Their failure has given Jesus an opportunity to demonstrate that not only is he a good debater, but that his knowledge and understanding of scripture is at least comparable to that of the church leaders.

Now Jesus turns the tables on the Pharisees by asking a trick question of his own. The end result of this series of questions is that instead of Jesus’ being made to look foolish, it is the Pharisees’ inability to interpret scripture that exposes their lack of understanding. Jesus has proven himself more than their equal as an authoritative interpreter of scripture. They don’t dare continue their line of attack.

It is foolish to think that we can outsmart God, use scripture to our advantage, or twist the bible to make it say what we want it say. It is a waste of time to become obsessed with parts of scripture at the cost of the whole, to focus on individual details rather than seeing the full picture, to worry about little things rather than be captivated by complete message. The religious leaders of Jesus’ time had become fixated on one particular view of the world and of their faith and in so doing had closed themselves to other possibilities. They expected a Saviour, but they expected that Saviour to behave in a particular way and so were completely unprepared for a Saviour such as Jesus turned out to be. They thought that they were able to read and interpret scripture, but their reliance on their own interpretation meant that their minds were closed to God’s revelation in Jesus.

The Pharisees were not necessarily bad, but they were locked into a way of thinking that prevented them from seeing Jesus for who he was. Let us this not be our mistake. May we always remain open to God’s continuing revelation so that we can see and rejoice in the new things that God is doing in and around us. God forbid that we should ever believe that we know all that there is to know or worse still that we think we know just how and when God will act for that would be to close our minds to possibilities and to shut God out rather than to let God in.

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Matthew | Comments Off on Locking God out, letting God in