RSS

Category Archives: Uncategorized

Is Jesus Christ the Anti-Social Justice Warrior Social Justice Warrior?

Is Jesus Christ a bona fide, Progressive-approved, Social Justice Warrior (SJW)?

Or, to go to the opposite extreme, does Jesus, in Matthew 15:21-28 display abject prejudice and chauvinism — or worse! — to the Canaanite woman?

“Playing hard to get”? “Frankly my dear….”? What?

 

You decide.

Fascinated by this account and its message for us today, I have done a good deal of digging and invite you to examine the fruit of my – and others’! – labor.

To say the least, whatever one decides about Jesus’ actions in this story, He definitely appears to have not checked his privilege, nor has he been informed about the importance of “virtue signaling.”

That said, don’t think for a minute that Jesus can’t be a social justice warrior. This may well be an apt description of sorts!

False, as sjws — and everyone else — will face the True SJW, the Truth, Jesus Christ. “Let God be true and every man a liar.”

 

At the same time, He doesn’t submit to the world’s definitions of what that means. For instance, the world also has its own ideas about what constitutes “equality,” but God, like a few in classical antiquity, alludes to “equality under the law” — His law, of course. As regards His own demanding, punishing, rewarding, etc. He insists, quite firmly and repeatedly, that He doesn’t “play favorites” (see Acts 10:34-35, Rom. 2:9-11, I Pet. 1:17, Eph. 6:8-9, Col. 3:25).

So what is true “social justice”? Again, the point is that He makes the definition (added note: there is a Christ-less social justice which largely conforms to God’s law and may do some good ; and also a ”social justice” that does more harm than good!).

In fact, being that Jesus Christ is God in human flesh we can say that He fully embodies God’s justice, broadly understood. Therefore, we can learn a lot from him by examining the whole of His mission as revealed in the Bible.

Gnostic elitist Steven Pinker, picking a fight with the Almighty: As regards bioethics, the technological and moral imperative means that “dignity”, “sacredness”, and “social justice” must get out of the way…

 

So let’s start by looking very closely at — and reflecting hard on — this very difficult text. You might want to read Matthew 15:21-28 first.

1. How does the text indicate that the Lord answered the woman? The disciples?

Answer: The Lord first responds only with silence. Next, he says that He was sent only to the “lost sheep of Israel”. Finally, he seems to imply that the woman is a “little dog.” Why the hesitation and strong response from Jesus? MacLaren gives us a hint when he says that “The meaning of the whole is simply the necessary restriction of His personal activity to the chosen nation. It is not meant to wound nor to insult, though, no doubt, it is cast in a form which might have been offensive, and would have repelled a less determined or less sorrowful heart” (italics mine). Going along with this, MacLaren also asserts “the King of men is first the King of Israel”.

As Walter R. Roehrs and Martin Franzmann write:

“Jesus remains faithful to Israel even when Israel proves unfaithful to God by rejecting the Christ (cf. Ro 15:8). He upholds Israel’s prerogative over against the Gentiles ([15:] 24, 26). He oversteps the limitations of His mission only in response to faith. His help and healing is available ‘to everyone who has faith,’ whether Jew or Gentile (Ro 1:16). Such incidents as these point forward to the command to make disciples of all nations (28:19) and to the universal church” (Franzmann, 31, Con. Self-Study Commentary).

Christ, of course, only “oversteps the limitations” of His earthly mission. For, as can be seen in earlier passages in the book of Matthew, God’s light coming to the Gentiles for their salvation was always in view, in fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies hearkening of the Messianic Age to Come.[i]

The time for the full number of Gentiles to come in certainly was to come—because of the formal invitation (here we think of the Wedding Feast parable in Matthew 22:1-14)—but not yet.  Given what is known about Jewish proselytism from ancient sources[ii], France is much too strong when he says the Canaanite woman “refus[es] to accept the traditional Jewish exclusion of Gentiles from the grace of God” (590). Likewise, when he makes the inflammatory comment that this account shows that in the “new perspective of the Kingdom of Heaven” salvation is to be on the “basis of faith rather than [the Jewish] racial identity” (590). Nevertheless, for the time being, the woman, like Jewish proselytes, was indeed an exception to the rule. Not a rule to fully exclude Gentiles[iii]—for one thinks immediately of the book of Jonah, as well as Rahab and Ruth in Jesus’ genealogy!—but a rule to focus first on the “natural family” selected by God (see, e.g. Is 1:2, Ex. 4:22, Hos. 11:1). Even as, ultimately, faith alone granted real eternal life in God’s visible church both now and in the life to come.

On the one hand, any Jew may have rightly said “We are Abraham’s offspring,” but on the other hand, ultimately it is faith which proves more critical than matters of blood. “[T]he unreceptive Jews,” Epiphanus the Latin says, “were made into loathsome dogs out of children, as the Lord himself said in his Passion through the prophet: ‘Many dogs surround me; a company of evildoers encircle me.’” (Sionetti, 29) And with the Jewish rejection of Christ, the invitation to the Gentiles was formally extended. Even as Paul writes in Romans 15:8, “…I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the Jews on behalf of God’s truth, so that the promises made to the patriarchs might be confirmed,” those promises, of course, blessed the Gentiles as well – through Abraham’s Seed (ultimately singular in Christ).

For Jesus’ “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel” comment, there is disagreement to whom Jesus speaks. Nolland contends that Jesus speaks it to the woman (633). Gibbs says that he speaks to the disciples (786). Various other commentators say he may be speaking to crowds as well.

The Son of Man came to seek and save the lost (Jesus’ words to Zacchaeus)

 

2. What is the driving force of Jesus’ words in verse 24?

Answer: Gibbs says the genitive verb tense in verse 24, like in Matthew 10:6, is probably epexegetical: “the lost sheep that are the house of Israel” (787). Regarding his calling his own people “sheep,” Lenski states: “all his love and kindness toward his nation is revealed. He thus also denominates himself as their true Shepherd” (597). “House of Israel,” he goes on to say, is a “stereotyped title of high honor for the chosen nation” (597). In addition, Gibbs favorably quotes Davies and Allison in a footnote (2:557): “Quite simply, the verse makes it abundantly plain that the biblical doctrine of Israel’s election must be taken seriously” (787) (he also notes Romans 9:4-5 in this regard [786]). Also commenting on this phrase, Hillary of Poitiers writes “Not that salvation was not to be imparted also to the Gentiles, but the Lord had come to his own and among his own, awaiting the first fruits of faith from those people he took his roots from. The others subsequently had to be saved by the preaching of the Apostles” (28, Simonetti, italics mine). And what might passages like I Timothy 5:8, and Romans 9-11 (in particular, see, e.g. Romans 9:4a, 9:7b, 11:18b, 11: 24, 11:28-29) have to do with this? Here, we are reminded that God’s people were the Jewish nation, or ethnos[iv], and that such a concept cannot – and therefore should not – be separated from realities of heritage, ethnicity, and blood. There is a good reason the Apostle Paul speaks so strongly about his “kinsmen according to the flesh, (see Rom. 9:1-5)” and even pagan authors like Cicero and Epictetus can see that “Nature produces a special love of offspring,” and “Natural affection is a thing right according to Nature,” respectively (Lewis, 96, 99).[v] We might say this: God loves the world in this way, that He becomes one of us, biologically, first as regards the Jew, and then as regards the Gentile (i.e. the “nations,” the other members of humanity).

He called her a what?

 

3. What are some of the interpretations of “dogs” in verse 26?

Answer: The medieval commentator Theophylact bluntly says that “Christ speaks of her as a dog, because the Gentiles led an unclean life and were involved with the meat sacrificed to idols, while the Jews He speaks of as children” (133). MacLaren catches a wiff of the potential power of such words when he forthrightly states “From the lips accustomed to drop oil and wine into every wound, came words like swords, cold, unfeeling, keen-edged, fitted and meant to lacerate… His refusal was a real refusal, founded on the divine decree, which He was bound to obey.” Luther, intriguingly, suggests that in not directly calling the woman a dog, Jesus is “leaving it undecided whether she is a dog or not” (152). But, whatever the case indeed may be, what could potentially be behind this term? Beare says the phrase κυναρίοις, or “little dogs” is “[b]rutal,” a “violent rebuff,” and that “these words exhibit the worst kind of chauvinism” (342, Matthew, quoted in 599, Osborne). Osborne says the major debate is whether or not the diminutives had “lost their force by the first century”. He notes that in 15:34b the diminutive does retain its force (the “small fish”), so it might here as well (599). In any case, in the next verse, he says he agrees with Dufton, that “here the woman switches to the household pet” (since “the image switches to the master’s table”) (599-600). Lenski also sees a vital significance in the “pet dogs,” saying the Gentiles, like the scavenger dogs of “the Orient,” were “ownerless, unclean in every way, always to be avoided.” “Little pet dogs” on the other hand, have owners who keep them in the house and feed them. He says that this “does not refer to all the Gentiles in the world but only to such as lived among the Jews or came into contact with them and could thus in a way obtain some of their blessings” (598). Going along with this, Basser cites rabbinical sayings about dogs from Jesus’ time that are not negative, saying Matthew’s account shows “the genius of his ostensible simplicity, which is complex upon detailed examination” (399) (this also adds another layer of complexity to Luther’s contention that Jesus is “leaving it undecided whether she is a dog or not” [152]!) Hilary of Poitiers really diminishes and relativizes the scandal, saying that “next to Israel the pagans received the name dog!,” meaning only that they received less affection from Him (172). Schaeffer also decidedly does the same, and reads much into the text: “doubtless the tender tones of the Saviour’s voice, the winning expression of his countenance, and the softened Greek word for dogs…all combined, like the colors of the rainbow while dark clouds still spread their gloom over portions of the sky, to teach the woman still longer to hope and to believe” (372). Decidedly on the other hand, France simply notes that “[a] ‘little dog’ is no less unclean that a big one!” (594-595)[vi] Likewise for Gibbs, softening Jesus’ comments by highlighting the fact that Jesus uses the diminutive form of dog is “uncertain at best”. He notes that “Jesus states the salvation-historical primacy of Israel in extremely blunt terms” (see Ex 22:30, Deut 23:19, 1 Sam 24:15, 2 Sam 16:19, and Rev. 22:15) (783). There is no doubt that this is in some sense the case. Is there nevertheless room to posit, as Luther does, that he opens up the door for the woman to decide whether she is indeed a dog – or perhaps, given the information above, decide what kind of a dog she is?

Christ acts “backward” here… — 4th century commentator St. John Chrysostom

 

4. What are some ways that commentators have blunted the sharpness of Jesus’ words?

Answer: Chrysostom, noting that “the more the woman urged her petition, the more [Jesus] strengthened His denial,” bluntly states that Christ acts “backward” here (Aquinas). Modern liberal scholars, even including some more conservative ones (France, 590-591, 595), make the case that the woman helped Jesus to expand his boundaries or counter his prejudices about things like race and ethnicity. Case-Winters, for example, talks about how Jesus’ humanness is on display here, as he is “caught with His compassion down,” but that the woman “teaches Jesus about a wider divine embrace” (202). Some also suggest that Jesus here may have his tongue firmly in his cheek, be giving “a wink and a nod”, playing “hard to get”, etc. (see, e.g. France, 590-591)[vii]. Regarding early church (e.g. Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopuestia [Simonetti, 30]), medieval (e.g. Theophylact [p. 132], Thomas), and Reformation-era commentators (e.g. Luther, Calvin, Matthew Henry), it is common to read that Jesus does what He does in order to test or reveal the persevering faith of the woman. Against this flow, Lenski perhaps overstates his own case a bit when he says that because Jesus really was focused on his mission to Israel (“I was not commissioned save to the sheep that have been lost of Israel’s house”), we need to give up the idea, which is also “so offensive to moral feeling,” that Jesus “pretended to be hard and tortured the woman with uncertainty for the purpose of testing her faith in order then to praise her” (596, italics mine). Jerome says that Jesus, “unwilling to give his detractors an opportunity to accuse him,” does not want to contradict what he said to his disciples in 10:5: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans” (Simonetti, 29). More specifically, he adds that Jesus says He is sent first to Israel so that “where they would not receive the Gospel, the passing over to the Gentiles might have just cause” (Thomas). Although Gibbs says it is “useless to conjecture” why Jesus is at first silent (785)[viii], commenting on the phrase “it is not good” in verse 24, he nevertheless seems to suggest curiosity as a possible element later on: “Now Jesus wants to know this: does the Canaanite woman really know who he is, or are the things that have come out of her mouth (“have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David”) just words and no more?” (787). Jeannine K. Brown, commenting on Jesus’ remaining silent at first, has the following wisdom to share:

“Commentators and other readers are prone to rescue Jesus at this point by attributing altruistic intentions (e.g., he is testing the woman to draw out her faith). Yet unless we provide motives for the characters, the story reads as if Jesus expresses hesitation in granting healing to a Gentile (15:24, 26), as in 8:5-7 (see comments there [she says 8:7 should read: “Shall I [namely, me, a Jew] come and heal him?”]). The problem with importing such motives is that the text gives no particular clues for doing so. This fits the practices of ancient characterization, which tended to avoid providing the thoughts and motives of its characters” (179).

5. In what ways is the woman an “exception” to Jesus’ rule?

Answer: According to Lenski, “Jesus never hesitated to heal Gentiles as long as no wrong deductions could be drawn from these acts” (see Matthew 4:24 and 8:28) (596). Jesus granted this woman’s request, but no other teaching or healing took place in “this pagan land”. In general, Jesus did not do this because of “the divine plan of redemption” (597). Rather, it was critical that it be understood that the blessings of Jesus’ mission “be set before the Jews alone” (599). In like fashion, Anselm says “The bread is the Gospel, its miracles and other things which pertain to our salvation. It is not then meet that these should be taken from the children and given to the Gentiles, who are dogs, till the Jews refuse them.” (Gloss., ap. Anselm, in Thomas) In other words, the woman is an exception to the general rule. Nolland makes the same point: “[t]hough occasionally construed so, this is not a story of Jesus reaching out to the marginalized” (635).

A nuanced view of pre-Christian Jewish missionary activity.

 

6. In the book Not by Birth Alone: Conversion to Judaism, Rabbi Alexander M. Schindler argues that [even in Jesus’ day], “Jewish ‘chosenness’” is defined “not as exclusive but as exemplary; not as separatist but as representative; not as closed but as open; not as rejecting but as all-embracing and compassionate” (8) Is this compatible with the view of the Gentile mission presented in the book of Matthew? Why or why not?

Answer: Speaking of exceptions to the rule (see preceding question), Nolland also has a powerful summary worth quoting in full:

“The woman accepts that she has no claim to be put on a par with the Jewish people in benefiting from God’s present intervention for the sake of his people, but even the dog get scraps, and that is all she asks for. This is likely to seem very demeaning to present sensibilities, but not to Matthew and not to the Jewish tradition more broadly. In the biblicamaterials they saw Gentiles, when beneficiaries of God’s activity, as fringe beneficiaries (footnote: “E.g., Is. 2:2-4; 14:1-2; 45:14; 60:10-14; Je. 16:19; Mi 4:1-4; Zc 2:11; 8:0-23; 14:16-19. There is a wider vision in Is. 19:18-25; 49:6; 56:3-8, etc) Mt. 28:19 breaks through, not the sense of Jewish privilege, but the marginality of Gentile involvement. The existence of such Gentiles as this woman prepares the way, but despite the popularity of the view that this is a story about how Jesus changes his mind, the present episode can in no way be represented as a breakthrough. Jesus does not change his mind at all (vv. 24, 26 are in no way retracted, even by implication); what becomes clear to him is what is appropriate in the case of this particular woman” (635-636 ; For more comments regarding Nolland’s take, see my previous post on Matthew 15:21-28).

However, having pointed this out, we must go further. For we can gather that following Christ’s resurrection we should not necessarily talk about how the Gentiles are raised up — or, perhaps — how the Jews are brought down to their level. Rather, faith in Jesus Christ — who makes us all one — is now the consideration that challenges us, in some ways at least, to reflect critically on issues of earthly heritage, identity (including “self-determination”), privilege and status (the book of Philemon should challenge us in spades here).

Even as we are also always reminded, for example, of the fundamental responsibility to care for one’s relatives (I Tim. 5:8) and to “especially…do good to… the family of believers” (Gal. 6:10).

Take some time to read what Paul has to say in Colossians 3:1-17 about what the life of Christians should look like, particularly reflecting on verse 12: Here[, as the new man,] there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.”

Christians are now a “Third Race,” set apart from both [unbelieving] Jews and Greeks… – Aristides

There is clearly great profundity and mystery here! Positively, just what does this mean for our life together? In order for any of our families, churches or nations to joyfully “live and move and have their being” (see Acts 17) why should we think anyone else’s must “lose”? And, negatively, how should we respond to anemic — and even utopian — ideas of “social justice” clearly not in line with God’s will in Christ?

No doubt, these are questions with which Christians will need to seriously wrestle until Christ’s return.

FIN

 

(the full paper/Bible study I did on Matthew 15:21-28 can be downloaded here)

Images:

Dog pic by Kae Yen Wong, Some rights reserved

Endnotes:

[i] From the wise men visiting Jesus, to the Roman Centurion (“many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven”), to the healing of the Gentile sick and demoniacs (see 4:24 and 8:28, respectively) – it is clear that Jesus is the primary way God’s promise to Abraham — that his children would be a “blessing to the nations” (see 10:18, 24:14 and 28:19 as well) — was to be fulfilled (even as the Jews themselves reject the Kingdom – see 21:43). Just two chapters before in Matthew 12:19-21, we hear about the salvation He is bringing to the Gentiles.

Therefore, Frannzman goes on to say:

“Her faith is great, for she submits holy to God and assents wholly to His way (through Israel to the world, 27), sees that the table which God set for Israel is rich enough to supply all nations (27), and is willing to accept God’s grace on the lowest terms of beggary – she can pray from under the table” (31).

Augustine calls this woman a type, or figure of the church, and goes on to connect the events in this event with what Paul describes in Romans 11:

“….the apostle says that the wild shoot was grafted in because of humility. The woman manifested this humility, saying, ‘Yes, Lord, I am a dog. I desire crumbs.’ Jesus found favor also with the centurion, who had this humility” (Simonetti, 31) (note: here, of course, Augustine, like Luther in his earlier years, might give the impression that salvation is by humility).

[ii] See, e.g., Not by Birth Alone: Conversion to Judaism (ed. Homolka, 1997), particularly the essay by Rabbi Alexander M. Schindler, and Crossing Over Sea and Land, Michael Bird (2010). In his conclusion, Bird says “I do not doubt that virtually every Jewish group thought that being initiated into the commonwealth of Israel and living under the Torah was good and desirable for Gentiles, whether it was politically expedient was another matter” (151).

[iii] Epiphanius the Latin says that the woman, in responding to Jesus’ comments about dogs, is saying that “you came to the Jews and manifested yourself to them, and they didn’t want you to make exceptions” (ACC, 29). This seems uncharitable on Epiphanius’s part.

[iv] Biblically, earthly nations are inseparable from the concept of “ethnos,” from which we get “ethnicity”. In like fashion “genos”, from where we get “genes,” can be translated as offspring, family, race, nation, kind, or even sex. We see that these terms involve notions of blood and parentage, even if “ethnos” is more closely connected than “genos” with our notions of culture.

Christians are first and foremost citizens of heaven, not earth. In, but not of the world, their “dual ethnicity” means that they belong first to the kingdom of heaven, and are members of “God’s chosen ethnos” (I Peter 2:9). Though all are one “in Adam,” God has, post-fall, also ordained a diversity of nations (see Acts 17:26), from whom He will obtain worship (Rev. 7:9). Ultimately, the Church is a new Nation that re-unites, by faith in Christ, persons not just from this or that race, tribe, or nation, but from the entire human family – making one Nation, or more accurately, Kingdom.

[v] Generally speaking, the natural family offers or should offer provision and protection, an echo of eternal salvation. Human beings are certainly less inclined to abuse our own children, and, speaking governmentally of modern civil society, the unavoidable truth (which people nevertheless attempt to avoid) is that those who take the time to have children and to raise them well will end up subsidizing those who do not do these things.

[vi] “References to dogs in biblical literature are overwhelming negative, and when the term is used metaphorically for human beings it is abusive and derogatory… Keener’s survey of attitudes to dogs in Greco-Roman culture… confirms the negative implications of the term in those cultures too…” (595, France)

[vii] France:

“It is only when the periscope is read as a whole that it is properly understood, and the harsh racial language of the earlier part is put in its true context, not as independent propositions but as thrusts in a verbal fencing match” (591)

France goes on to argue that the rest of chapter 15 features Jesus ministering among the Gentiles, saying Jesus “puts into practice the message of [chapter 15’s] first half, the relaxation of the Jewish ‘purity’ culture which had hitherto kept Jew and Gentile apart” (591). Franzmann’s discussion of this story also notes the “fall[ing] aside” of the “cultic purity of the law” (130-131). Still, Gibbs says that “it is not possible to conclude from the information in Matthew [or Mark] where the feeding of the four thousand took place” (795-796).

[viii] Buttrick here waxes eloquent about silence: “In silence Jesus searches our hearts…in silence he searches his own heart….In silence he watches our world…In silence he forgives…In silence he despairs…With which silence does Jesus look on us?” (443)

 

Works cited or consulted

Albrecht, G. Jerome, and Michael J. Albrecht. Matthew. St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House, 2005.

Basser, Herbert W. The Gospel of Matthew and Judaic Traditions: A Relevance-Based Commentary. Boston: Brill, 2015.

Benson, Joseph. The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ: According to the Present Authorized Version… New York: Nelson & Phillips, 1884. Online: http://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/15-21.htm

Bird, Michael F. Crossing Over Sea and Land: Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second Temple Period. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, 2010.

Brown, Jeannine K. Matthew. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2015.

Buttrick, George Arthur (ed.) The Interpreter’s Bible: The Holy Scriptures in the King James and Revised Standard Versions with General Articles and Introduction, Exegesis, Exposition for Each Book of the Bible in Twelve Volumes. Vol. 7. New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1990.

Case-Winters, Anna. Matthew. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2015.

Franzmann, Martin H. Follow Me; Discipleship According to Saint Matthew. St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House, 1961.

Gibbs, Jeffrey A. Matthew 11:2-20:34. St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia Publishing House, 2010.

Hagner, Donald Alfred. Matthew 14-28. Vol. 33B. Dallas, Tex: Word Books, 1995.

Hauerwas, Stanley. Matthew. Grand Rapids MI: Brazos Press, 2015.

Hilary, and Daniel H. Williams. Commentary on Matthew. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2013.

Homolka, Walter, Walter Jacob, and Esther Seidel. Not by Birth Alone: Conversion to Judaism. Herndon, VA: Cassell, 1997.

McCarren, Paul J. A Simple Guide to Matthew. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2013.

Lenski, R. C. H. Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1961.

Lewis, C. S. The Abolition of Man. New York: Touchstone, 1996.

Luther, Martin. Luther’s Church Postil Gospels. Vol. 11. Minneapolis: Lutherans in All Lands Co, 1906.

MacLaren, A. Expositions of Holy Scripture. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1905. Online: http://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/15-21.htm

Nolland, John. The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Bletchley, Milton Keynes: Paternoster Press, 2008.

Osborne, Grant R., and Clinton E. Arnold. Matthew: Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2010.

Schaeffer, Charles F. (Jacobs, Henry Eyster, ed.) The Lutheran Commentary: A Plain Exposition of the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament. Part I. Matthew I.-XV. New York: Christian Literature, 1895.

Thomas, and John Henry Newman. Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels Collected Out of the Works of the Fathers: St. Matthew. Vol. 1. Southampton [England]: Saint Austin Press, 1997 (citations in paper from online: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/catena1.i.html).

Theophylactus, and Christopher Stade. The Explanation of the Holy Gospel According to Matthew. House Springs, Mo: Chrysostom Press, 1992.

Simonetti, Manlio, and Thomas C. Oden. Matthew 14-28. Vol. 1. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 2002.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on May 5, 2017 in Uncategorized

 

Why I Now Embrace the Two Kinds of Righteousness (a Review of Jordan Cooper’s Hands of Faith)

In his book Hands of Faith, Pastor Jordan Cooper makes a convincing case that the concept of the two kinds of righteousness is not only inherent in Lutheran theology (4, 11, 31, 70, 109), but that it is an important biblical concept with much to offer “the entire Christian world”. In sum, with this distinction antinomianism can be effectively countered while the centrality of justification is highlighted: faith, “mystical union” (“Christification”), and good works can all be put “within their proper contexts” (133).

Pastor Cooper appears to have thought rather deeply about the modern theological landscape – in confessional Lutheran circles and beyond – and put together an effective program to help believers find their bearings. Those familiar with his helpful podcasts and other work will find that Hands of Faith builds on two important previous books: The Righteousness of One, which offers a Lutheran answer to the “new perspective” on Paul (most well-known among evangelicals in N.T. Wright’s work), and Christification, which traces the theme of union with Christ and its connection with sanctification in the writings of Lutheran writers up through the present day.

With this more recent offering, I believe that Jordan Cooper shows himself to be not only one of the most insightful, loyal, and bridge-building confessional Lutheran theologians of our day – but also one of the Christian church’s most biblically faithful, theologically astute, and ecumenically-minded spokesmen. As he describes his own efforts “I continue to offer a proposal for a Lutheranism that is genuinely catholic and avoids reductionistic caricatures” (2).

Right from the beginning, the book gets off to a great start with a powerful introduction from Concordia Seminary St. Louis professor Joel Bierrmann. What sticks out is Bierrmann’s comment that “there are myriad expressions of God’s truth that are faithful to what has been given.” Even as he talks about how he and Cooper differ – something that is made clear in the book (see 34, 35; 127) – he also goes on to say this:

“[Both Cooper and myself] are willingly and freely constrained by a common confession and a peculiar heritage within the body of the church. More remarkably than that, we are even linked by our mutual appreciation for the two kinds of righteousness as a dynamic and effective means of expressing God’s truth in a contemporary context. This, it turns out, is not universally true of all who join us in our heritage and confession. Perhaps this text will help remedy what is to my mind, an unnecessary and somewhat reactionary repudiation of the two kinds of righteousness by some who are fellow heirs of Luther.” (x)

I think he is right. In fact, I know he is right. I can say that because it was only Pastor Cooper who was able to firmly convince me that my reaction to one version of the “two kinds of righteousness” was, in fact, an overreaction (see the series I did four years ago here and here). I recant!

Luther’s jarring thesis: “A Christian is an utterly free man, lord of all, subject to none. A Christian is an utterly dutiful man, servant of all, subject to all.” Justification and sanctification, in a nutshell.

Pastor Cooper has helped me to see that the desire explain the Christian life in terms of the “two kinds of righteousness” can be a very good and helpful thing – perhaps particularly for the times that we live in. I think that he was able to do this because he basically looks at the wisdom the Lutheran Confessions have to share on the topic and builds his case from there.

As the Lutheran Confessions say (FC SD III.24):

…in this life believers who have become righteous through faith in Christ have first of all the righteousness of faith that is reckoned to them and then thereafter the righteousness of the new obedience or good works that are begun in them. But these two kinds of righteousness dare not be mixed with each other or simultaneously introduced into the article on justification by faith before God. For because this righteousness that is begun in us – this renewal – is imperfect and impure in this life because of our flesh, a person cannot use it in any way to stand before God’s judgement throne. Instead, only the righteousness of the obedience, suffering, and death of Christ, which is reckoned to faith, can stand before God’s tribunal. Even following their renewal, when they are already producing many good works and living the best kind of life, human beings…are acceptable [to God]…only because of Christ’s obedience (78).

As Pastor Cooper puts it, because the Christian will not be free of his old man, or old Adam, in this life, “[o]nly Christ, not any level of sanctification, can serve as a ground of assurance” (79). The two kinds of righteousness has to do with “how man relates to God (passive righteousness) and fellow man (active righteousness)” (125). With the vertical reality that is the passive righteousness we are “remind[ed]…that [we] cannot work to merit God’s favor or love, but that righteousness is given freely.” With the largely horizontal reality of our active righteousness we see “that [we] are called to live holy lives in the world for the sake of others” (128).

The “two kinds of righteousness,” Pastor Cooper tells us, “is essentially another manner in which to discuss the differences between justification and sanctification” (97). No doubt revealing an inspiration for the book’s title, Cooper says that “[Classical Lutheran theologian] Johannes Brentz” says that faith has ‘two hands.’ One hand extends upward toward God and receives his gifts. The other reaches down into the world of fellow man and performs works of love” (90).

Gustaf Wingren, Pastor Cooper’s favorite “existentialist” Lutheran.

So, how is the book laid out? After initially “diagnosing the problem” (chapter title) of a “law-gospel” and “justification-only reductionism” (7) among some contemporary Lutherans, Pastor Cooper analyzes three previous books that have dealt with the two kinds of righteousness. The views in Gustaf Wingren’s Luther On Vocation, Charles Arand’s and Robert Kolb’s The Genius of Luther’s Theology, and Joel Biermann’s A Case for Character are deftly summarized, accompanied by both ample praise and critique that is at once sensible and gentle. After this, he guides us into the two kinds of righteousness in Martin Luther’s most important writings, in the Lutheran Confessions, in the seventeenth-nineteenth century Lutheran theologians, and finally, in the Scriptures (an important Appendix where he demonstrates, among other things, that the two kinds of righteousness is a “pre-fall” reality).

Throughout these chapters, Cooper is keen to make several points. In all of these, we become aware that the case that the “two kinds of righteousness” is a biblical concept able to practically guide us in our Christian life is a powerful one.

First of all, it highlights the crucial truths about justification and sanctification which can be clearly seen in Ephesians 2:8-10: we are justified by grace through faith for the good works God has laid out for us. In the light of the two kinds of righteousness, Paul’s letters, for example, are able to give us specific moral instruction while never failing to root such guidance in the passive and saving righteousness freely given to us by God in Christ (see, e.g., 146-150). While the Apostle is clear about his intention to reveal our sin to us in Romans 1-3, the imperatives in other letters are primarily to help guide Christians’ behavior in the world (even as this can certainly accuse us as well).

A diagram of the two kinds of righteousness (see here for more)

Second, and quite importantly, we learn that previous portrayals of the two kinds of righteousness have failed to note that the distinction amounts to imperfect shorthand (see 118): while even in the Bible sanctification can indeed be spoken of largely as a horizontal reality (see, e.g., Rom. 12-16, specifically 13:10, Gal. 5:14-26, and Eph. 4 and 5), there still is the aspect of the Christian’s piety before God, what Pastor Cooper calls “eucharistic sacrifice”: “If love toward God and upward piety are placed solely in the category of thanksgiving, then love toward God is always in response to passive righteousness” (19, italics mine). This goes hand-in-hand with Joel Biermann’s point that while unbelievers can also act in accordance with God’s will in the creation, a.k.a “civic” or “civil righteousness,” they do not do this with the proper motivation nor with the proper goals in mind (works done out of love for God and for the neighbor’s need, as opposed to works done for one’s “self-justification”). “The Holy Spirit works in a unique manner in the life of the regenerate person” (30, see 112 also).

Third, Lutherans who actually adhere to their confessional documents have never been antinomian (see 81 and 82), and in the older theologians the good works that take place within sanctification can be seen to seamlessly integrate with believers’ mystical union with Christ (108-109). The believer is justified in Christ, whereby, per Hoenecke, they are “so cemented to Christ that he and you are as one person” (109, see 51), and is then also sanctified by His indwelling, “wherein the believer is changed and renewed in God’s image”. It is from this indwelling, this second kind of union, from which both spontaneous good works and conscious efforts to do them must necessarily arise. “As there are two kinds of righteousness,” Pastor Cooper tells us, “so also there are two kinds of union corresponding to each” (51, see 104-110 as well).

And how does this distinction of the two kinds of righteousness relate to other theological topics Lutherans are known for highlighting? Two more points.

First, it is not a “better paradigm” than “law and gospel” (127) but has a different function. As Biermann says, echoing Kolb and Arand as well, “the two kinds of righteousness helps to clarify the role of good works and the law in the life of the Christian in a way in which the simple law-gospel paradigm cannot” (26). The law and gospel distinction, by which we are “remind[ed]… that Christians always fall short of God’s will and are saved solely by God’s grace,” does not have to do with how we relate to God and man, but is about how God speaks” (128).“ The two kinds of righteousness reminds us that “Christian obedience,” as important as it is, “can never function as the basis for Christian assurance” (129, italics Cooper’s).

Second – and this relates to Pastor Cooper’s work outside of this particular book (see here or the embedded video below) – the passive righteousness of the Christian, according to Martin Luther, basically correlates with what the Apostle Paul calls the “inner man,” and the active righteousness of the Christian corresponds with what he calls the “outer man,” meaning the body which binds us to creation (see 2 Cor 4:16). The body is the place of our sanctification, so to speak, by which we not only serve our fellow human beings, but also serve as co-creators of them and also find ourselves bound with the land, or earth. These, of course, brings us back to the original purpose, or vocation, of human beings in Genesis 1-2. Post-fall, this is inevitably going to relate to what Lutherans have traditionally called the “two kingdoms” as well.[i]

 

These are the kinds of things that Pastor Cooper unpacks throughout the course of Hands of Faith, always with much supporting evidence and argumentation. And the book’s content is not only clear and appropriately concise, but the tone of the analysis and arguments is pitch-perfect throughout. Of course I write for his blog and you would expect me to say this (and I got a free review copy as well!), but I would be genuinely surprised if the vast majority of professors at confessional Lutheran seminaries, for example, did not agree with my assessment after reading this latest offering from Pastor Cooper.

In this book, like his previous offerings, there is a deep concern not only for sound doctrinal theology, but historical theology as well. Again, Pastor Cooper is always eager to see the teachings of Luther and those who followed him in the context of the Christian church throughout history – not just by paying lip service to the past, but by actually making critical historical and logical connections, with the practical implications of that never being far behind.

Readers of Hands of Faith: a Historical and Theological study of the Two Kinds of Righteousness in Lutheran Thought will not be disappointed. Not only clarifying for Lutherans, it is an ecumenical book for our times that should have wide appeal among Christians.

FIN

 

 

[i] Regarding the doctrine of the “two kingdoms,” the idea is that the Gospel rules the “right hand” kingdom (where in time, the church announces justification coram Deo, or before God), while the law rules the “left hand” kingdom, or temporal and material realm. In the book, Cooper shares words from Luther’s Galatians commentary that are a bit jarring. In society, we should “let nothing be known about the Gospel, conscience, grace, the forgiveness of sins, heavenly righteousness, or Christ himself; but let there be knowledge only of Moses, of Law and its works” (56). Roughly, speaking, we might say that since the believer’s sanctification is meant to be coram mundo (before the world) reality, human beings cannot live without a civil righteousness in earthly kingdoms. We might diagram this as follows:

“The reason why seemingly contradictory statements are often made in the Bible about Christians is due to the Christians two-fold nature. The simple fact is that within each Christian two natures constantly oppose each other. “The flesh wars against the spirit and the spirit wars against the flesh” (Gal. 5:17). – Martin Luther

Here, the reviewer was reminded of the “Bethel Confession,” produced in by faithful Lutherans in the 1930s vs. the Nazis (see here). This document does not echo Luther by mentioning the law of Moses, but it certainly does so when it says that it is the role of the government, or nation, to bear the sword in order to punish the evildoer and enact justice. On the other hand, the realm of the church is to share God’s forgiveness in Christ through the means of grace, His Word, come to us in the Scriptures, and His sacraments (therefore, the Bethel Confession’s authors interestingly conclude “[we] reject the false doctrine of a ‘Christian state’ in every form”). It is perhaps worth noting there that Luther also talked about the “three estates”: the family, the church, and earthly government. Earthly government, he says, only became a necessity for human beings following the fall into sin.

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on April 21, 2017 in Uncategorized

 

The Mystery of Good Friday: Why is it Good that Jesus is Punished in Our Place?!

“Vicarious satisfaction”: Upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace…

Hundreds of years before Jesus lived, the prophet Isaiah said, in part (53rd chapter)

…But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
yet he opened not his mouth;
like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,
and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
so he opened not his mouth.

And in Romans 3:24-26, the Apostle Paul says this to us:

“Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.”

Scriptures like these are undoubtedly at the heart of the Christian faith.[i]

Commenting on the Romans passage, T.R. Halverson writes:

“…since justice is satisfied by Christ crucified for us, it would be unjust of God not to justify us. He would have to disregard the righteousness of Christ to refuse to justify us. Paul wants us to rest our assurance of salvation, in part, on the knowledge that God certainly would not be unjust. God is just – depend on it – and therefore, given that the righteousness of Christ is given to us, dependably, God justifies us. It was mercy that He gave his Only Begotten Son to die for us, but once the Son did die for us, it is also justice that God forgives us all our sins.”

I think this is an excellent insight and that we cannot escape this conclusion. After all, per Rom. 3:19-21, God’s Law is meant to accuse and condemn us, not just subjectively, but objectively (it is not the law that makes us objectively guilty, but it reveals our sin, which we may or may not have subjective guilt about). The fact of the matter is that nothing impure will finally enter the Kingdom of glory: we sinful men not only need Christ, but the whole of His righteous life—His just life—to stand before God. One is holy! One is worthy! See me, O Lord, in Him alone! This is all that we can claim, and He gladly gives us the right to claim it.[ii]

This is the confidence that we have from the day we call “Good Friday.”

Good Friday, though, provokes a lot of questions. Christians, understandably, want to dig deeply into what it means, and many “atonement theories” have resulted.[iii]

And Good Friday raises even more question among non-Christians as well, and really, who can blame them? More than once in my life, I have been asked “Why is it called ‘Good Friday’?”

After all, even those who do not trust in Jesus as their Savior often find the man to be, externally, an attractive and compelling figure (not all though — the famous atheist Christopher Hitchens, for instance, dug deeply and came to the opposite conclusion about Jesus’ teachings). In fact, many can’t help themselves from liking Him and so they are often perplexed that God would let Him die as He does.

To make this confusion people experience more concrete and to try and put us on a similar page, let us use our imagination a bit. Think of your ideal Hero and Leader. Am I right to think that your Leader has strength, courage, humility, and kindness that is known to the all? And now, let’s say that your ideal Leader is your King, and mine as well! We are fellow citizens in an earthly Kingdom we both love.

But then the following happens: another Good King determines that our Good King must die because of the full accumulation of our very real evils, evils we cannot deny.

Would that not, in any world, be a bad thing? I have to say “yes”. First of all, many would find this to be a scandalous thing for that other “Good King” to do: totally unjust! Second, even if we don’t question the justice of this there is a problem! If we ourselves were in fact spared precisely because of this act, how would this not simply compound our guilt and make us feel more horrible?

Furthermore, connecting this with real life, it is of course reasonable to say that every non-believer who lived in Jesus’ day was not ready to kill Christ or even approve of His death (even if  the sin that can’t not rebel against the Promised Messiah lurks in each one of us)! So what is going on with this “Good” Friday thing?

Here is how all of this shakes out for me, as I reflect on what the Bible says about all of the topics involved in this Atoning Sacrifice…

First, let us speak of justice. To be sure, God must be just.

That said, justice is not strictly mathematical, calculating this tit for that tat. And though going hand-in-hand with God’s wrath, it is also not some “pound-of-flesh revenge”, but rather an exacting of accountability.

Justice is also a help to the oppressed godly ones – a balancing of the scales weighed against them! Their vindication! Their protection! Their preservation! Defeat to those who rebel vs their God and His eternal will! To them, God’s righteous anger, born of His Father’s heart for His children, is Gospel. Come quickly Lord Jesus!

Furthermore, the law itself demands not only a justice born of such righteous anger, but mercy (Matthew 23:23) – even for one’s greatest enemies. Both justice and mercy must be done, for the law, being His good will, reflects God Himself, Love Himself (see Matthew 5:45, Acts 14).

Now, let’s go back to this day called Good Friday. This thing called the Atonement.

Why does the cross happen? It is because sin kills Him. Our sin kills Him. We, in our sin, blindly kill the One who loves us more than anyone! We kill our Perfect King and Master! Injustice abounds! Therefore, in this, we actually bring more sin – and punishment – on ourselves. Sin increases. The cup is filled to the brim with sin, as God’s wrath is satisfied in this truly unique way.

What do I mean? In effect, the following occurs: God “gives us over” to our evil (look at Romans 1) to the nth degree. Through us, the King who takes all the evil that we have to offer is executed according to God’s will. Nevertheless, He can rightly accuse us through His apostle “You did this!”[iv]

God gives us rebels over to our sin, allowing us to kill our good King, the new Adam and Head of the human race.

Bad news right? Or is it?

No, for mercy triumphs over judgement. When sin has so increased, grace increases all the more. He is “declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord!” To our surprise, He rises again, proving that we, the unjust, have now been justified (Rom 4:25)!

What has just happened?

In short, God, “being compassionate, effected propitiation for guilt, and did not destroy.” (Psalm 78:38).

We now can see the cross as good news! God using evil for good. God in human flesh overcoming our sin, death, and the devil! And we, in fact, were “the joy set before Him” for which reason Christ endured the cross (Hebrews 12:1-2).

In Christ, our sins are truly paid for, but in a truly unique way. Our Servant-King is crushed for our iniquities, killed in our place. God has put our sin and death penalty on Jesus, who willingly and gladly did so to bring us to Him! (I Pet. 3:18) Though he was innocent, He was treated like the guilty (see Psalm 22), becoming sin for us (2 Cor. 5:21)!

Proverbs 21:18 here takes on a new, stunning, meaning: “The wicked become a ransom for the righteous, and the unfaithful for the upright” (see also Isaiah 43:4).

Therefore, we now live by grace through faith in Christ.

We do not despair because as “new creations in Christ” (see 2 Cor 5) we realize that He — the Enduring Love — would not have us actually bear the guilt and punishment due to us for our sins against His law, even for our role in His unjust crucifixion. In fact, amazingly, we are forgiven because of crucifixion: the Lamb of God is, after all, “slain from the foundation of the world.”  For He is the Passover Lamb of God—our Scapegoat—who has drunk the cup of wrath – and come out alive!

The Father sees the Perfect One who absorbs all of our sin—again, who desired to do just this!—and says “Your sins have been paid for. It is finished.”

In sum, God is so good and strong and wise that He finds a way to clean our slate even for the crucifixion – by the crucifixion! We are justified (Rom 4:25)! We are healed (Isaiah 53)! Because of Christ’s completed work—cross and resurrection—we can now even say the cross is good news.

That even the cross, the horrible cross, is our forgiveness. Today is a Good Friday.

Amen!

FIN

 

 

[i] In Pastor Wil Weedon’s talk here (around 36, but at least start at 34 minutes in) he talks about atonement passages from the earlier church fathers that sync with Reformation-era concerns: John Chrysostom talking about the punishment we deserved, St. Cyril of Jersualem talking about how Jesus “staved the wrath of God”, and Palamas stating how a sacrifice was needed reconcile the Father on high with us… the human race.

[ii] Since the price has been paid and it is now finished, God, in a sense, obligates Himself to treat us not as our sin deserves but as one whose guilt has been atoned for.

[iii] Halverson mentions the many “atonement theories” in his piece: “moral influence or moral exemplar; Christus Victor, conquest, or the dramatic idea; several ransom ideas; several incarnational ideas; a new federal headship; mystical theory; recapitulation theory; satisfaction; penal substitution; and the kaleidoscopic theory.” I admit that I don’t know much about all of these theories of the atonement that he mentions. I simply have not thought about the topic this much.

[iv] So strictly speaking, it is not false to say something like “the raging fire of God’s wrath would burn itself out on the Messiah’s corpse,” but that language may not be the best way of speaking, as it hides what else is going on here.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on April 14, 2017 in Uncategorized

 

Seeking Faith Like an Infant and a Canaanite Woman

One of the most interesting stories in all of the Gospels is surely the account of Jesus and the Canaanite woman (I brought it up here a few weeks ago). Great is her faith! When I read this account, questions like the following comes to mind:

What does her response show us she believes about God and His love?

What can we learn from her faithful response?

Answers given by wise teachers, from the present and the past, provide rich insight.

Regarding the object, or specific content, of the woman’s faith, Jeffrey Gibbs says that “[s]he believes, both in Jesus’ mission to Israel’s lost sheep and in Jesus’ abundance, which also provides for the dogs who are under their master’s table” (787). Speaking of verses 26 and 27, where we read Jesus’ jarring phrase “It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs” and the woman’s amazing response, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table,” Hagner gives us some helpful background: “The Jews universally assumed that eschatological fulfillment belonged to Israel in an exclusive sense. Many also expected that the overflow of the abundant eschatological blessing of God would be made available to ‘righteous’ Gentiles (i.e., by keeping the Noachic laws [Gen 9:1-17])” (442). Epiphanus the Latin says: “The woman agreed, saying to the Savior, ‘Yes, Lord.’ That is to say, I know Lord, that the Gentile people are dogs in worshipping idols and barking at God” (Simonetti, 29). Chrysostom adds: “See her humility as well as her faith! For he had called the Jews ‘children,’ but she was not satisfied with this. She even called them ‘masters,’ so far was she from grieving at the praises of others” (Simonetti, 30). Osbourne aptly sums things up: “Her reply is brilliantly put. This amazing story is the only time anyone ‘beats’ Jesus in a debate” (600). Schaeffer sums up things saying her faith is a “happy combination of all the essential features of true faith,” including “clear views on Christ’s character, or a certain amount of religious knowledge (respecting His power, grace, etc.), entire, unquestioning and humble submission to the Lord’s will (thankful even for crumbs,” and a confident reliance in the face of discouragement as well” (373, italics his).

Again, the woman’s faith is amazing! And the more I reflect on this passage as a whole — including the unsettling things that Jesus says to the woman leading up to her brilliant response — more and more questions come to my mind…

  • Jesus was born a Jew, and so like Paul, these are, at a very biological and visceral level, His people (see Rom. 9:1-5 ; see also especially Rom. 9:4a, 9:7b, 11:18b, 11: 24, 11:28-29). What are the implications that this account has for us regarding the Christian’s responsibility, following his Lord, to his closest “natural relations”?
  • How is that to be understood in reference to his wider responsibilities as a neighbor, particularly to fellow members of the body of Christ? (see Gal. 6:10)
  • In addition, what is the relation of our faith – our understanding of who God is, what He has done, and what He intends to do – to our love for neighbors far and wide? Neighbors he definitely means to incorporate into His body and family – starting with our own natural relations (I Timothy 5:8), but extending all the way to our enemies as well?
  • The Canaanite woman, like a good mother would, cried out to Jesus on behalf of her daughter. For whom do we cry out to Him for His healing? Are we first like Paul (Rom. 9:1-3), even if our affections and concern are not so limited – extending ever more broadly?
  • Finally, how should the Christian seek to cultivate his or her own faith in Christ? That we might be like this woman?

If you are like me, such questions both condemn and yet call you to consider the greater depths of love to which God calls us. “Lord have mercy” indeed! “Increase our faith!”

And here, I think that Jeffrey Gibbs, in his commentary on Matthew, brings us back to where we need to be:

“How did she know? Who had taught this Canaanite about Israel’s Messiah? We simply do not know. Mathew’s hearers/readers do know, however, the ultimate answer to the question of how this woman came to know and believe. The Father revealed it to her. She is, like the Magi and centurion before her, an unlikely candidate for such faith. That, however, is the way of God, to hide things from the wise and understanding and to reveal them to babies (11:25-27).

Gibbs lays his finger on something of immense importance here: strong faith like this woman’s will never not be faith like a child. Therefore, when a Christian says something like “Faith is not interested in faith. How big it is, how little it is. How strong it is, how weak. Faith is not about itself. It’s about Christ,” there is a “yes” and “no” aspect about this, for paradox reigns. As adults who cannot be un-self-conscious infants, we know that we should want our faith in Christ to be stronger. It is not somehow a sin to want a stronger faith, for in addition to children, Jesus uses this woman (and the Centurion) as examples for the disciples who have “little faith” (see Matthew 14:31)!

Further, Martin Franzmann says about Jesus’ comment on “mustard seed” faith: “At the very moment he rebukes His disciples for their littleness of faith He removes their thoughts entirely from any consideration of the bigness of their believing.” “Jesus’ words on ‘great’ and ‘little’ faith,” Franzmann reminds us, “are also a delineation of faith as relatedness to its object,” (142-143, italics his) that is, Christ and His words. And to go along with this, we must begin to understand that knowing and understanding God better—not to mention clinging to Him more tenaciously—is to, somehow, become increasingly child-like, and hence, un-self-conscious.

Then, as Gibbs goes on to show, we will have even more to give to our neighbors:

Great was her faith. In what does that greatness of faith consist? Two things. She knew who Jesus is: “Lord” and “Son of David.” And she knew that Israel’s Messiah had come to give such an abundance that there would be something left over even for her. And so, by Jesus’ generosity, on account of her great faith, her daughter was healed from that very hour (788).

Try as they might to deny the obvious, earthly families and nations have limited material resources to help their neighbors. God, however, in addition to calling us to meet the material needs of our kin while being as generous as we are able to be (based on His provision), primarily calls us to trust that He has spiritual resources for His church that never run out, namely, His life-giving Word and Sacrament. Here, is where His – and subsequently our – greatest generosity takes shape.

Lord, give us the strong faith that understands you rightly…

Thus says the Lord: “Let not the wise man boast in his wisdom, let not the mighty man boast in his might, let not the rich man boast in his riches, 24but let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the Lord who practices steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth. For in these things I delight, declares the Lord.” (Jeremiah 9:23-24)

FIN

 

Works cited or consulted

Albrecht, G. Jerome, and Michael J. Albrecht. Matthew. St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House, 2005.

Basser, Herbert W. The Gospel of Matthew and Judaic Traditions: A Relevance-Based Commentary. Boston: Brill, 2015.

Benson, Joseph. The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ: According to the Present Authorized Version… New York: Nelson & Phillips, 1884. Online: http://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/15-21.htm

Bird, Michael F. Crossing Over Sea and Land: Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second Temple Period. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, 2010.

Brown, Jeannine K. Matthew. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2015.

Buttrick, George Arthur (ed.) The Interpreter’s Bible: The Holy Scriptures in the King James and Revised Standard Versions with General Articles and Introduction, Exegesis, Exposition for Each Book of the Bible in Twelve Volumes. Vol. 7. New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1990.

Case-Winters, Anna. Matthew. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2015.

Franzmann, Martin H. Follow Me; Discipleship According to Saint Matthew. St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House, 1961.

Gibbs, Jeffrey A. Matthew 11:2-20:34. St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia Publishing House, 2010.

Hagner, Donald Alfred. Matthew 14-28. Vol. 33B. Dallas, Tex: Word Books, 1995.

Hauerwas, Stanley. Matthew. Grand Rapids MI: Brazos Press, 2015.

Hilary, and Daniel H. Williams. Commentary on Matthew. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2013.

Homolka, Walter, Walter Jacob, and Esther Seidel. Not by Birth Alone: Conversion to Judaism. Herndon, VA: Cassell, 1997.

McCarren, Paul J. A Simple Guide to Matthew. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2013.

Lenski, R. C. H. Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1961.

Lewis, C. S. The Abolition of Man. New York: Touchstone, 1996.

Luther, Martin. Luther’s Church Postil Gospels. Vol. 11. Minneapolis: Lutherans in All Lands Co, 1906.

MacLaren, A. Expositions of Holy Scripture. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1905. Online: http://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/15-21.htm

Nolland, John. The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Bletchley, Milton Keynes: Paternoster Press, 2008.

Osborne, Grant R., and Clinton E. Arnold. Matthew: Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2010.

Schaeffer, Charles F. (Jacobs, Henry Eyster, ed.) The Lutheran Commentary: A Plain Exposition of the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament. Part I. Matthew I.-XV. New York: Christian Literature, 1895.

Thomas, and John Henry Newman. Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels Collected Out of the Works of the Fathers: St. Matthew. Vol. 1. Southampton [England]: Saint Austin Press, 1997 (citations in paper from online: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/catena1.i.html).

Theophylactus, and Christopher Stade. The Explanation of the Holy Gospel According to Matthew. House Springs, Mo: Chrysostom Press, 1992.

Simonetti, Manlio, and Thomas C. Oden. Matthew 14-28. Vol. 1. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 2002.

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on April 6, 2017 in Uncategorized

 

The Christian and Nationalism: Examining Bonhoeffer’s Anti-Nazi “Bethel Confession”

“Right-wing populist parties in European national parliaments (March 2016).” (see here) Support for far-right parties has increased across Europe since 1999, per British journalist Nafeez Ahmed…

God brings His Kingdom in Jesus Christ, so what is His attitude regarding earthly nations, or, “ethnos” (from where we get the word “ethnic”)?[i] Just what should the Christian think about a phenomenon that appears to be rapidly emerging once again: nationalism?

Christian commentator Al Mohler: idolatries of globalism…and nationalism…

This week, Albert Mohler devoted almost a whole show to stories related to the topic[ii], where he argued that in Europe there are “two forms of nationalism” – one healthy, concerned with matters of subsidiarity, and one unhealthy, “often reduced to a form of racism.” And when it comes to our own American context and concerns about movements on the increasingly “non-religious” political right (note Ross Douthat), look at what Pastor Todd Wilken tweeted out a little over a year ago:

At the time, I responded to Pastor Wilken’s tweet with some mild pushback, including the words “Just seems to me like all sense of proportion is lost with stuff like that” (he disagreed). A week later I followed up with a tweet (not only responding to Pastor Wilken!) that he also took issue with: “Anti-Trump postings & articles I see increasingly seem less measured/honest & more hysterical/overstated. Doesn’t serve #NeverTrump well.”

In any case, with the recent failure to pass the Republican’s health care bill, Dilbert creator and cultural guru Scott Adams contends that the media Narrative about Trump has now changed: he is not Hitler, but incompetent.

Incompetent?: “Trump hollowed out the GOP and he’s wearing it as a skin” — Scott Adams

Even if it is the case that we will now hear less of the Trump/Hitler comparison, it is, of course, still informative to think about nationalism – and the response of faithful German Christians to it as it occurred in their homeland in the 1930s.

First of all though, we should take a look at what the Bible has to say.

Paul says that God’s “purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two.” Is this not why the early Christian apologist Aristides said that Christians were now a “Third Race,” set apart from both [unbelieving] Jews and Greeks?[iii] (apologia 2). This is the core thing that we as Christians want to communicate: the newness that we all have in Christ.

Christians are now a “Third Race,” set apart from both [unbelieving] Jews and Greeks… – Aristides

That said, when it comes to politics in this world, there are other things we must keep in mind. Not long ago, I tweeted the following: “We will be infected with sin until Christ returns. We will be many nations until the One Kingdom of heaven.” When I wrote that I had in mind what is said by the Apostle Paul in Acts 17:26: “From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands,” as well as the harrowing words spoken by Jesus about the Last Days from, e.g. Matthew 24:7: “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom.”

And of course, even in heaven, we evidently will not lose the ethnic diversity that is a part and parcel of the traditional notion of nations (again, “ethnos”) – and which evidently emerged after the fall and the tower of Babel. For Revelation 7:9 gives us this amazing picture:

“After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands.”

Therefore, while uniting all persons in Christ, Christianity, counter the Left, also gives us a favorable picture of what we call ethnicity – a term that has both culture and family ties in mind. The fact that mothers have a natural inclination – and equipment – to nurture their young[iv], that we might speak of our “fatherland,” and that “Nature produces a special love of offspring” (Cicero) – these are all good things. The cultural Marxist Left, on the other hand, hates the natural family – and hence nations[v] – for the same reasons it hates marriage: these are living icons of the church.

Our marriages are living icons proclaiming Christ and His bride, the church…

I had in mind these kinds of things when I declared some months ago that I was, in a sense, embracing identity politics and labeling myself a “Liberal Christian Nationalist” (yes, I know that sounded frightening to some people).

….And our families, living icons of the Church: our common Father – Jesus’s to – protects us!

With this said though, I wondered how this view would stack up vis a vis the response of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the other Christians who penned the Bethel Confession penned in 1930s. As we take a look, keep in mind that it was written to help the church theologically counter Hitler’s efforts to appropriate the church for his own racial program (the Bethel Confession never gained wide acceptance and the Barman Declaration become the document of choice for most who resisted ; you can read more about the Bethel Confession in Lowell Green’s book Lutherans Against Hitler: the Untold Story)

According to the Bethel Confession:

  • Jesus is “a member of the Israelite nation from the family of David…. All nations and races, also the noblest ones, are also guilty of his death and daily become guilty of it anew, when they insult the Spirit of grace (Hebr. 10:29).”
  • “God chose Israel to be his people among all the nations of the earth. He did this only in the power of his word and for the sake of his mercy, by no means for the sake of some natural prerogative (Ex. 19:5-6; Deut. 7:7-11).”
  • “Struggle is not the basic principle of the original creation, and a fighting attitude is therefore not a commandment by God established by the original creation.”
  • Christians “must reject all attempts to place the natural phenomenon of race on the same level as the institutional orders that are grounded in a direct divine commandment to man.”
  • “God’s Holy Spirit alone works faith in man. He alone creates the fellowship of confessing rightly. The fellowship of such confessing is never coextensive with the boundaries of a certain ethnicity.”
  • “We oppose the teaching that it belongs to the essence of the church to be a national church [“Volkskirche”]. The church is free to be national church, so long as this form is a means to carry out its commission.”
  • The church can live even where there is no nation, for “where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst of them” [Matt. 18:20].[vi]

In a core passage, we read that the church rejects the view that “the church is the religious organization of one nation,” and that “it should give religious support to ethnicity; that the boundaries of the church and the nation should be identical (religious nationalism).” (italics in B.C.)

An alternate view: “[Religious] identity endures through change. Indeed… it only endures by change….
I think we should be masters of [all] our identities and not let them master us.” (listen here)

“God’s kingdom is not of this world,” Jesus informs us, and therefore two realms must be kept in mind.

The role of the government, of the fatherland, of the nation, on the one hand, is ultimately to bear the sword to punish the evildoer and enact justice. This is not the proper role of the church, and therefore, “[we] reject the false doctrine of a ‘Christian state’ in every form.”

On the other hand, the realm of the church is to share God’s forgiveness in Christ through the means of grace, His Word, come to us in the Scriptures, and His sacraments.

“Behold the man.” His Kingdom is not of this world.

A longer section goes into some great detail providing guidance as this regards the church vis a vis diverse ethnic groups and “nations” that are held together more by force than culture. There is much nuance here, and so I quote in full not to miss any of it:

Christ is sent as the Redeemer of the whole world. This is why he commissions the church to bring the gospel to all nations. As it carries out this commission, it enters into the forms and structures of the nations of their time. It can live among a multitude of nations as the one church regardless of political boundaries. It can be a national church within the boundaries of a realm regardless of ethnicity. It can be church within a certain ethnicity while transcending political boundaries. It can be church within a certain ethnicity without transcending political boundaries, but within the boundaries of this ethnicity. Its external form is not subject to duress, but is determined by the only rule, namely, “by all means to gain some” [1 Cor. 9:22]. This is why it becomes a Jew to the Jews, a Greek to the Greeks, a Chinese to the Chinese, a German to the Germans. The manner and extent of such entering into time can be determined only based on the commission of the church.  The proclamation of the church always remains the alien grain of seed that is planted in the ground. Where the content of a specific time becomes the content of the proclamation the gospel is betrayed, because it is no longer said to the time, but absorbed by it….

We reject the false doctrine that the church belongs to the nation, or that it is there for the nation. The church does not belong to the nation, but to Christ. He alone is its Lord. Only in intrepid obedience to him it truly serves the nation in which it lives. It is there for every member of the nation, to gain it for the congregation of Jesus (italics in actual document).

All, in all, after reading the Bethel Confession, I find myself saying “Amen!” and marveling at its confession of Christ and His Church. I come to the conclusion that it is indeed fully compatible with my thoughts about Christianity and nationalism.

Can you have America without Christian influence?

One more very interesting thing. Taking a turn that would be considered very politically incorrect this day, the Bethel Confession also says the following:

No cultural or political considerations can liberate the church from the duty to call Israel to repentance and to baptism. Just as little can the Gentile Christians separate themselves from the Christians out of the nation of Israel. Their fellowship in word and sacrament is the sign for the fact that the church of Jesus Christ is the heir of Abraham’s promise. This is why the church must resist every secularization of the mission to the Jews which views the reception into the Christian church only the sign of the reception of the Jews into Western civilization.[vii]

This brings me to my closing thoughts.

As best I can tell, the rise of Nazism, a race-based ideology, was more theological than anything else. Hitler’s desire was not only to destroy the Jews, but eventually, Christianity as well. In sum, those who the Bible says were God’s chosen people by grace were to be replaced by the race that Nature had chosen. Its winners.

Most all of us are rightly horrified by the thought (though listen to this). Now without losing any of that horror, listen to the popular novelist Andrew Klavan, who says the following about his own conversion from Judaism to Christianity:

The Holocaust was the crucifixion compulsively reenacted on a grand scale: an attempt to kill God’s people in order to extinguish the Light of the World that shows us who we are…There are some people who say that an evil as great as the Holocaust is proof there is no God. But I would say the opposite. The very fact that it is so great an evil, so great that it defies any materialist explanation, implies a spiritual and moral framework that requires God’s existence. More than that. The Holocaust was an evil that only makes sense if the Bible is true, if there is a God, if the Jews are his people, and if we would rather kill him and them than truly know him, and ourselves. (Chapter 12, emphasis his, The Great Good Thing)

Worth pondering? I think so.[viii] God cares deeply about all people, all nations – even if here we need eyes of faith to see. His love is why in Christ He unites Himself together with us, first as regards the Jews, and then as regards the Gentiles – and promises them that in Him, we are a part of the family that will never perish.

FIN

 

Images: Right wing parties in Europe ( Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license) ;  Al Mohler, James Thompson, Flickr, CC BY 2.0; Donald Trump Arizona, by Gage Skidmore from Peoria, CC BY-SA 2.0 ; Aristides public domain ; Kwame Anthony Appiah, by David Shankbone, CC BY-SA 3.0 ; Christian flag from Pixabay (free use).

Notes:

[i] As will be seen below the biblical idea of “nation” has more in common with the idea of “people” or “people group” than it does “country with borders” or modern “nation-state”. That said, during the era of Romanticism there was in Europe, starting in Germany (and here with strong anti-semitic overtones and undercurrents), a strong backlash against the universalistic project of the Enlightenment. It would no doubt also be a good idea to explore further just how the notion of “people” and “nation” we find in the bible may have shifted in meaning during the last few centuries.

[ii] Relatedly, he also spoke about the secularization of Europe, where Christianity is seen as an embarrassment, evidenced by efforts to expunge Christianity from the record of how Europe came to be.

[iii] Biblically, earthly nations are inseparable from the concept of “ethnos,” from which we get “ethnicity”. In like fashion “genos”, from where we get “genes,” can be translated as offspring, family, race, nation, kind, or even sex. We see that both of these terms involve notions of blood and parentage, even if “ethnos” is more closely connected than “genos” with our notions of culture.

Christians are first and foremost citizens of heaven, not earth. In, but not of the world, their “dual ethnicity” means that they belong first to the kingdom of heaven, and are members of “God’s chosen ethnos” (I Peter 2:9). Though all are one “in Adam,” God has, post-fall, also ordained a diversity of nations (see Acts 17:26), from whom He will obtain worship (Rev. 7:9). Ultimately, the Church is a new Nation that re-unites, by faith in Christ, persons not just from this or that race, tribe, or nation, but from the entire human family – making one Nation, or more accurately, Kingdom.

[iv] For more along these lines, see my satirical article here.

[v] Note that Karl Marx was in favor of free trade, largely because of the effects he said it would have on families and nations. Ideological forms of capitalism do not get a pass here either (see this from Chesterton). Steve Keen’s work, Debunking Economics, is worth noting here.

[vi] Also from the Bethel Confession: “We reject the false doctrine that the existence of the nation is presupposition for the existence of the church, or that the existence of the church is presupposition for the life of a nation….

A nation can live and have a grand history, even where there is no church. Nations live within the natural world and have incurred the law of death that reigns over all creation. This is why a nation as a whole cannot be redeemed, for redemption is always God’s act upon an individual. However, the church, grateful to God, always lays hold of the assistance offered to it in the ethnicity or other natural orders for the execution of its commission.”

[vii] I think what the Jewish conservative writer Ben Shapiro says here really does not evince the proper kind of nuance:

“For folks who don’t know what the alt-right is, it might be worthwhile to just sort of start at the beginning and talk about what the alt-right is—because there are a lot of these various definitions floating around, nearly all of which are wrong.

Basically, the alt-right is a group of thinkers who believe that Western civilization is inseparable from European ethnicity—which is racist, obviously. It’s people who believe that if Western civilization were to take in too many people of different colors and different ethnicities and different religions, then that would necessarily involve the interior collapse of Western civilization. As you may notice, this has nothing to do with the Constitution. It has nothing to do with the Declaration of Independence. It has nothing to do actually with Western civilization. The whole principle of Western civilization is that anybody can involve himself or herself in civilized values. That’s not what the alt-right believes—at least its leading thinkers, people like Richard Spencer and Jared Taylor and Vox Day. Those kind of folks will openly acknowledge that this is their thought process.”

I do not believe that the beliefs and moral values, influenced by Christianity, that many civilizations have are “inseparable from European ethnicity”. On the other hand, we do call Western civilization “western” for a reason (and some have argued that this simply became an appropriate way [code!] of talking about Christianity in recent years… whereas “Christendom” was the term that said much the same thing before that), and I do not think that the beliefs and values they possess—even though they are not necessarily tied with ethnicity—are easily transferable or guaranteed transferable in any sense (hence appropriate and measured concern about immigration issues). Finally, of course, I also think that ethnicity needs to be distinguished from ideas of biological race (see note 3 above).

[viii] Please note that in favorably quoting Klavan I am not saying that those who do not trust in Jesus Christ will be saved (nor do I believe he is saying this).

 

 
1 Comment

Posted by on March 31, 2017 in Uncategorized

 

Millstones, Judas Iscariot, and the Little Ones

“If anyone causes one of these little ones–those who believe in me–to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” — Matthew 18:6

As I hope you know, despite what you might hear from your Calvinist friends, Lutherans (and Luther) do not believe in double predestination. Even for Judas.

So, what should we think about Judas’ tragic demise? What lessons can we gather from it? The season of Lent is a good time to think about this. Years ago, I wrote this short piece, which I’m republishing at this time…

Thanks be to God that the Church is called to administer the His Word and Sacraments – and not millstones.  With relief, we leave that job to God, in the mystery of His Providence.  The Church does things like judge (like your dentist judges) – and sometimes even “hands members over to Satan” (!) – only so that they may be saved – to turn from their sin to Christ and His forgiveness, life, and salvation.  In fact, we are told that God desires all people to be saved (I Tim 2:4, II Peter 3:9, Romans 11:32).

But when it comes to this salvation, what about Judas, one of the 12 disciples – chosen by Christ Himself (see John 6:70,71)?

That this is such a common question should not surprise, given his very tragic and sad story…

Lutherans believe that God’s Word is “efficacious“, meaning He creates faith in the hearts of people when and where He pleases.  But, one may ask, if He really desires *all* people to be saved, why did God allow Judas, whom He chose, to damn himself?  Why did He not turn him again (presuming Judas at some point believed), as He did, for example, King David?  After all, one may argue, if I have no intention of acting to prevent a murderer from utterly deceiving, maiming and destroying the one I say I love – or if I have no intention of acting to save the one I say I love after they have destroyed themselves – when I am the only one who has the power to do so – what kind of lover would I be? (see I Cor. 13 here)

Really now, if Judas really was truly sorrowful and broken by his sins (“I have betrayed an innocent man!”) – as he certainly appeared to be – why did God allow those to whom he confessed to say “that’s your problem” (i.e. “its not our burden” – see Gal. 6:2)?  And if none of those who sat in “Moses’ seat” (Mathew 23) were willing to lift a finger to offer Judas any words of comfort, why did the Lord not save Judas like he did Paul – by perhaps at least sending an angel?

Ah, the mysteries of God, who yes, really does desire all men – even the one Jesus called “a devil” – to be saved.  In one sense, such questions: “Why are some saved and not others?”, cannot be answered.  We can say that God gets all the glory when someone is saved, and that a man gets all the blame when he is not – but that is about all we can say with certainty.  This is commonly called the “crux theologorum“, or the cross of the theologian.

But still, as ones who follow the One who said “Father forgive them….” must we not wonder about – and mourn for – this man, who God created in His image?  Why… why then did God not just turn Judas to Himself – creating faith in him where and when He pleased?  (like He restored Peter or converted Paul, the persecutor?)

I tread lightly here, but I suspect it is because God means for us to see Judas as a sign against spiritual apathy.  When we sin, it is God’s Spirit who turns us again, convicting us, breaking us, and leading us to Christ (see John 16).  We would not do this apart from Him.  And yet – we dare not presume on such kindness and grace… God may not renew.  While God’s redeeming grace is always free and unearned, there is indeed a “cutoff” point… we must all face our final judgment or the Final Judgment…  Therefore, we disciples must be wise about how we walk, so a loss of faith does not result – we walk in danger all the way.  Don’t say of sin “its something I want… yeah, I know its wrong, but…”.   Instead, always huddle close by the Shepherd!  Could Judas be a sign that God may indeed, at some point, give us over to the un-Life we, in our flesh, are prone to seek?

But do you say “Why?” again?  Consider this: when we seek un-Life, we become the odor of death, devoid of the Gospel and its power.  We rob God, rejecting His will for us and our neighbor.  “God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you”, Paul asserts, echoing the Old Testament.  Understandably, God desires that His people to point to Him.  He desires that we be hot or cold, not lukewarm.  “Why” again?  Perhaps for the sake of our neighbor?  He desires that they to be saved, for they, like us, are among “the whole world” for whom He died for, and is, in fact, already reconciled to.  As those who are either “hot” or “cold”, we can be seen as “clearly with Him” or “clearly against Him” – for the sake of the world.

Judas was not damned because God didn’t deeply care for him.  The Son of God wept over Jerusalem, and I believe He weeps for Judas – for He never desires the death – especially the eternal death – of the wicked.  God takes no pleasure in the millstones administered for the sake of the children, but perhaps, He simply does what He needs to do.

So perhaps, for the sake of the children, God administers not only millstones, but Judas’ fate as well.

In which case, better to have never been born indeed.  May this not be the case with us.  Lord have mercy.

FIN

 

Images: Millstone: “This work has been released into the public domain by its author, Cdogsimmons” ; Judas: Basilique-cathédrale Notre-Dame de l’Annonciation de Moulins; vitrail néogothique du XIXe siècle. La Cène. Détail: Judas.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on March 20, 2017 in Uncategorized

 

“This is Not a Story of Jesus Reaching Out to the Marginalized”

I’ve been looking closely at commentaries about the story of Jesus and the Canaanite in Matthew 15:21-28. This is an absolutely fascinating — and I think very important — story, from Matthew’s Gospel. To re-fresh your memory, here it is:

21 And Jesus went away from there and withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon. 22 And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and was crying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely oppressed by a demon.” 23 But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, “Send her away, for she is crying out after us.” 24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” 25 But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” 26 And he answered, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” 27 She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” 28 Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed instantly.[a]

I’m trying to do a rather exhaustive search of the commentaries on this passage. One very interesting take comes from Grant R. Osborne (Matthew, 2010), who points out 3 core themes found in this passage (on pp. 594, 595)

  • Persistent faith and humility
  • Place of Israel and Gentiles in salvation history
  • Jesus’ authority over creation

In addition, he notes that Matthew calling the woman a Canaanite and mentioning Tyre and Sidon is meant to “highlight the negative connotations behind the woman’s ethnic origins”. People would expect, Osborne contends, “the rejection of the repugnant unclean Gentile” (597), for she “represents everything reprehensible about Gentiles to Jews” (Osborne, 597-598). This makes me want to read more about what we know about the Jewish treatment not only of Gentiles in general, but also proselytes and “god-fearers”.

Even though Matthew does indeed set the stage this way (to some degree, at least), Nolland (Gospel of Matthew, 2005) points out that “[t]hough occasionally construed so, this is not a story of Jesus reaching out to the marginalized.”

His comments are certainly thought-provoking:

“As with all forms of particularism, the affirmation of Jewish privilege here sits uncomfortably with postmodern sensibilities (or even modern sensibilities!). The woman is not being treated with dignity. We would be deeply offended if a doctor refused to treat a child because the mother was of the wrong race or religion. The biblical tradition, however, while not without sensitivity to such concerns, is committed to a metanarrative that inevitably involves particularity. We do not have to face the full impact of particularity in this story because it has a happy ending. But the initial failure to answer in v. 23 implies that, had the action developed a little differently, there would not have been a happy ending. Important questions of theodicy surface here….

The woman accepts that she has no claim to be put on a par with the Jewish people in benefiting from God’s present intervention for the sake of his people, but even the dog get scraps, and that is all she asks for. This is likely to seem very demeaning to present sensibilities, but not to Matthew and not to the Jewish tradition more broadly. In the biblical materials they saw Gentiles, when beneficiaries of God’s activity, as fringe beneficiaries (footnote: “E.g., Is. 2:2-4; 14:1-2; 45:14; 60:10-14; Je. 16:19; Mi 4:1-4; Zc 2:11; 8:0-23; 14:16-19. There is a wider vision in Is. 19:18-25; 49:6; 56:3-8, etc) Mt. 28:19 breaks through, not the sense of Jewish privilege, but the marginality of Gentile involvement. The existence of such Gentiles as this woman prepares the way, but despite the popularity of the view that this is a story about how Jesus changes his mind, the present episode can in no way be represented as a breakthrough. Jesus does not change his mind at all (vv. 24, 26 are in no way retracted, even by implication); what becomes clear to him is what is appropriate in the case of this particular woman.”

In a footnote, he shares related thoughts:

“G. Jackson, ‘Have Mercy,’ maintains that Matthew’s account is informed by traditions of Gentile women becoming converts to Judaism as proselytes. Though there are some similarities, the case is not strong, and even if such traditions are being echoed, the image of dogs eating the crumbs suggests, contra Jackson, that, despite her very Jewish faith, the Canaanite woman becomes a beneficiary of Jesus’ ministry not as a freshly made Jewess, but as a Gentile (pp. 635-636).

Keep in mind, that at this point, to say this is to say that she was still, to some degree, on the outside. People who would have been ideal believers at this time in Israel’s history were persons like Jesus’ parents, who valued and followed the ceremonial practices of the Jews (circumcision, food laws, sacrifices, Sabbath), even as they also, like the “true Israelite” Nathaniel, recognized Jesus as the Messiah. While Jesus gave very clear hints that the Pharisees had wildly misunderstood the point of the Jewish ceremonial practices (particularly the Sabbath and the food laws), it is not until Acts 15 and Paul’s epistles where we see a more definitive understanding of these practices, that is, as their being shadows that were to fade and disappear (at least insofar as they were in some sense required of believers to perform) once the Messianic Age had been inaugurated.

God willing, more thoughts on this story in the future. Its making me think and pray a lot these days.

FIN

Image: http://thinktheology.co.uk/blog/article/did_jesus_lie_to_the_canaanite_woman

 
2 Comments

Posted by on March 11, 2017 in Uncategorized

 
 
Sense & Reference

libraries and philosophy

Reliable Source (This is a)

Overcoming "Fake News" and Beyond

The Jagged Word

"What the Hell is going on!"

ROUGH TYPE

Just another WordPress.com weblog

Meditationes Sacrae (et Profanae)

A blog concerning theology, faith, the humanities, and Interesting Things

Pyromaniacs

Just another WordPress.com weblog

Blog

Just another WordPress.com weblog

Proslogion

Just another WordPress.com weblog

Blog – AlbertMohler.com

Just another WordPress.com weblog

Worldview Everlasting

Jonathan Fisk exposits on all things Lutheran.

De Profundis Clamavi ad Te, Domine

Just another WordPress.com weblog

Mercy Journeys with Pastor Harrison

Just another WordPress.com weblog

Abide in My Word

Just another WordPress.com weblog

Blogia

The Blog of LOGIA: A Journal of Lutheran Theology

Gottesdienst Online

Just another WordPress.com weblog

GetReligion

Just another WordPress.com weblog

Todd's Blog

Just another WordPress.com weblog

theologia crucis

Just another WordPress.com weblog

The Boar's Head Tavern

Just another WordPress.com weblog

Glory to God for All Things

Orthodox Christianity, Culture and Religion, Making the Journey of Faith

Eclectic Orthodoxy

"I'm a blogger, dammit, not a theologian!"

Jonathan Last Online

Just another WordPress.com weblog

Steadfast Lutherans

An international fraternity of confessional Lutheran laymen and pastors, supporting proclamation of Christian doctrine in the new media.

www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/

Just another WordPress.com site

Reformation500

A forum for exploring the historical truths of Christianity reclaimed by the Reformers

Surburg's blog

Just another WordPress.com weblog

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics

Just another WordPress.com weblog

Weedon's Blog

Just another WordPress.com weblog

First Thoughts

A First Things Blog

Pastoral Meanderings

Just another WordPress.com weblog