Thomas Anslem Essay

CHAPTER I
THE NATURE OF THIS ESSAY

B. How is your essay on Anselm progressing?
R. Rather slowly, I must admit. Anselm is a man of great insight. As I read his work, I want to comment on his work itself, say, his ontological proof.
B. And your professor denied you the chance to attack and defend one of the great thoughts of Western Philosophical History? Scholastism’s equivalent of Zeno’s paradox?
R. Alas he did. Instead we have to address the “relationship of faith to theology according to Anselm.”

CHAPTER II
HOW ANSLEM RELATES TO HIS BROADER CONTEXT

B. I thought for survey History courses you had to place authors within their context.
R. In some ways, I do have to understand Anslem’s historical context. As a Scholastic theologian, he looks to scripture, tradition and fathers as authorities. His reverence for tradition is evident when he prefaces his essay with, “although the holy fathers have really said enough on the subject (101).”
B. I recall that Aquinas wrestled with the tension between the various voices in the tradition and scripture. Does Anselm also do this?
R. Both Aquinas and Anslem see contradictions as problematic, but not ultimate. For example, in the Proslogion, Anslem quotes Psalm 13, “The fool hath said in his heart ‘There is No God’ (73)” and then later comments that this same fool can be convinced of the self-evidence of God existence. In Why God Became Man, Anslem’s debating partner, Boso cites numerous scripture verses and then asserts, “Christ seems to have endured death more by force of obedience than by the free decision of his own will (111).” Anslem will then argue the contrary, namely, that Christ endured death voluntarily. In both cases, Anslem will offer another interpretation rather than refutation. Aquinas, it contrast, will more directly admit and address the contradictions in scripture. B. That is a pretty strong generalization for someone who has read as little as you.
R. Yeah, I would agree, especially to a professor who has studied in depth both authors.
B. That point notwithstanding, did not Aquinas appeal to the same Psalm 13 quote as a basis for why the existence of God is not self-evident?
R. Indeed. Both actually also cite Ecclesiasticus 3:22 as a warning against doing theology, but continue anyway, with joy in fact!

CHAPTER III
HOW FAITH PROCEEDS UNDERSTANDING AND NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND

B. So, the question you were asked it about the relationship of theology to faith.
R. You have changed the question. The wording here, I believe is important.
B. How so?
R. The relationship is “faith to theology.” In Anselm’s mind, faith comes first.
B. I thought that theology thought us what to believe and that the very reasonableness of our theology would inspire in us faith.
R. Anselm actually asserts in regards to his proofs that those who ask for his proofs “do not expect to come to faith through reason (101).”
B. He could have written that because the people he wrote for already had faith.
R. Consider though how he begins his preface to his ontological proof, “Make a little time for God, and rest for a while in him…speak now, O my whole heart, speak now to God: ‘ I seek thy face; thy face, Lord, do I desire (70).”
B. That sounds more like a prayer than an intro to a theological argument.
R. Exactly. While St. Francis found God in the birds, Anselm found God in doing theological reflection. Theological reflection began with awakening the heart of faith. Consider his declaration, “I desire in some measure to understand thy truth which my heart believes and loves (73).”
B. Clearly Anslem had a faith seeking understanding.

CHAPTER IV
WHETHER FAITH IS NECESSARY FOR THEOLOGY

B. That makes me wonder. Does Anslem believe that faith is necessary for theology?
R. Anselm says both, “unless I believe, I shall not understand” and later makes the claim that God “givest understanding to faith (73).”
B. That is fine, but understanding is something entirely different theology. Plenty of people who haven’t the least bit of faith can construct a thought about God, such as “God is omnipotent” and construct an argument, even quoting scripture.
R. Anselm does not aim to describe God for the sake of description or argument, rather he seeks understanding. As Boso says, “you should remember what happens when we talk over some question. You know how God often makes clear what was concealed before (102).” Theology does not come to God, but God comes to us through theology.
B. Fair enough. So Anselm maintains that if a person does not believe, even if he articulates theological statements, he does not understand them?
R. I would lean towards yes. As Anselm posits, “For no one who understands what God is can think that God does not exist, even though he says these words in his heart – perhaps without any meaning, perhaps with some quite extraneous meaning (75).” Therefore, if you really understood, you would believe. So if you are not believing, you must not be understanding. A theology that truly understands God requires faith.
B. So, in order to understand, one must first believe.

CHAPTER V
THE USEFULNESS OF THEOLOGY TO UNBELIEVERS

B. However, could understanding serve as a means to faith, as I suggested earlier?
R. Anselm was aware of academic disdain toward Christianity, even in his time. He writes, “the question at issue is habitually presented as an objection by unbelievers, who scoff at Christian simplicity as absurd (101).”
B. Wow. Christians encountered unbelievers then?
R. Yes, indeed. Anselm even quotes 1 Peter, that Christians should be “ready always to satisfy every one that asketh” them “a reason of that hope which is in them (101).”
B. Did Anslem think theology could address their concerns?
R. Definitely. He criticizes poor theology writing, “When we present unbelievers with these harmonies you speak of…they think that this belief of ours is a fiction.” He concludes that “the rational soundness of the truth – that is, the necessity which proves that it was fitting and possible for God to condescend to the things which we proclaim – must first be shown (105).”
B. So then, Anslem saw that even though good theology would not inspire faith, bad theology could prevent faith.

Leviticus and Homosexaulity

Leviticus 18:22 22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

Leviticus 20:13 13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.

These words seem about as black and white as it gets. My question: Is there anything in Leviticus 18 through 20 that militates against a continued literal interpretation and implementation of these two lines? As I examine the evidence, I believe these chapters present little evidence for a movement away from a stringent prohibition against homosexual sex. However, in obvious ways our society changes or ignores the laws in this section. How we apply “translate” these laws seems informed well-beyond the text in Leviticus. After pondering the issue, I think the Leviticus offers little insight into this issue on its own, but can only be used within .
The text’s language does not militate against a strict interpretation. On the contrary, the word “abomination” indicates that this action is a serious offense. The word abomination is only used twice in Leviticus and only three other times in the entire Pentateuch (note: My professor corrected me on this; the particular form of the word here is only used twice in Leviticus). The uniqueness of this word in this book points to the singular disgust the text has toward homosexual sex.
The placement of these verses within in their respective chapters does not provide a basis for a less strict interpretation. Chapter 20 adds punishments to the sins of chapter 18 and reorganizes them by their magnitude. Three things point toward such a reorganization. First, those sins punishable by death come before those that do not. Second, the first sins listed in chapter 20 relate directly to the Ten Commandments: idolatry (20.2-6), cursing mother and father (20.9), adultery (20.10). Finally, the types of incest listed move from most intimate and genetically linked family members (mother, v. 11) to distant relatives (brother’s wife, v. 21). Thus, homosexual sex’s position can be understood to reflect its relative “sinfulness.” Homosexual sex is included among the sins punishable by death and is considered worse than sleeping with your aunt, your sister, or an animal.
The placement of the laws after chapter 19 does not give grounds for reducing the seriousness of the prohibition in chapter 20. Chapter 19 lays out many guidelines in society that are clearly impossible to uphold. For example, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself (19.18)” and “with justice you shall judge your neighbor (19.15).” Thus, one could perhaps argue that chapter 20 should be viewed similarly, as a list of “good” but not necessary or even possible commands. However, chapter 20 serves a different purpose than chapter 19. Chapter 19 presents broad laws, almost principles, and ascribe punishments. Chapter 20 carefully delineates sexual boundaries and then lays out punishments. Chapter 20 is not helpful instruction, but crime and punishment.
Furthermore, the text suggests that these laws are not subject to the standard or even hope of external reasonableness. Deuteronomy offers that the law has an outside reasonableness: “for this will show your wisdom and discernment to the peoples, who, when they hear all these statutes, will say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and discerning people.’(4.6)” However, these chapters argue against such an understanding of themselves. They end with, “Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, for by all these practices the nations I am casting out before you have defiled themselves. (18.24) and “You shall not follow the practices of the nation that I am driving out before you. Because they did all these things, I abhorred them (20.23).” The text cries out against an appeal to objective, or external reasonableness, to evaluate these particular laws.
There seems nothing in the text that suggests it is permissible to move away from a strict interpretation of such a text. However, in obvious ways, we do not follow the laws in chapter 20 anymore. Depending on the law, we have altered the specifics of the sin, altered the punishment, and even discarded the sin entirely.
At least once we have altered the specifics of the law, but kept the underlying principle of the law. Chapter 20, verses 2 through 5, addresses worshipping Molech by offering child sacrifices. While no one talks about Molech anymore, Christians are still concerned with infanticide as well as idolatry. The culture changed and Christians implicitly updated the law to reflect their culture.
With most of the laws in chapter 20, we have kept the sin, but modified the punishment. No one any longer kills those who commit adultery. For both rational (pervasiveness of the sin, concerns about effectiveness and extent of governmental authority) and theological (woman at the well, e.g.) reasons this move has been made. We must realize this move has its genesis outside of the text.
Third, at least one of the laws we have disregarded entirely. We ignore the command concerning menstrual cycle. In Israel society, women in menstruation were considered unclean. No longer do we consider such behavior unclean. I would agree with Nelson that our society still has clean/unclean boxes, but what goes in those boxes is very different from Israeli society 400 BC. We implicitly acknowledge this as we ignore this command.
So, can we keep some sort of underlying concern in the homosexual prohibition (lust, perhaps) and change the specifics of the law? Can we keep the sin, but not the punishment (I think we do already.)? Can we ignore it altogether like the command to not have sex during menstruation? These questions demand more than the text in Leviticus 18 and 20 provides. At some level, I do think they require an understanding of the culture at the time. I think moreover, it comes down to an understanding of the role of sex in relationships since the sexual revolution and women’s rights. I think scripture can inform this, but I see very little help that Leviticus can provide. However, as we consider “translating” Leviticus 20.13 into modern culture, we cannot forget the seriousness of the offense. A strong argument must be made as to what the underlying concern was that offended God so greatly beyond simply two men having sex.

My call story, Prophetic style

In the seventh year of Ronald Reagan’s reign, the word of the Lord came out of my mouth, but it was echoes echoes echoes of my father’s words at the altar.
It is indeed right and salutary that at all times and in all places that we offer thanks and praise and join their unending hymn:
Holy! Holy! Holy!
I wanted to reach a people, but I had none. I was but a child.

In the fourth year of Bill Clinton’s reign, the word of the Lord came before my eyes, and it was good good good for me to hear.
I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth.
My life flashed before my eyes and I saw you, God, there at all points watching me, holding me and loving me. I wanted to reach a people, but I had none. I was but an outsider.

In the seventh year of Bill Clinton’s reign, the word of Lord came before my eyes, but it was beneath, beneath, beneath layers of anger at the destruction of the European Church.
But this time it was my own words:
Woe to you who proclaimed justice without God’s kingdom!
Woe to you who stopped feeding people the bread of life!
Woe to you who tore down the Scriptures!
Woe to you who stopped telling the story of good news!
I wanted to reach a people, but they were not my own. I was but a foreigner.

In the fifth year of George Bush’s reign, the word of the Lord came upon me, and it was stirring stirring stirring my heart, my mind and soul
Go home to your family and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and how he has had mercy on you.
I sang out to God:
I love to tell the story for those who know it best
And the Word of the Lord again came upon me
It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the survivors of Israel; I will give you as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.
I want to reach people, but not just family and friends. The ends of the earth means children, outsiders and foreigners, all of whom I have been and will be.
I asked God: What shall I say.
And the Word of the Lord again came upon me
Whatever is given you at that time, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit.

Mark 5,1-20: A Lesson in Cross-Cultural Story-Telling

For the first time in Mark’s Gospel, Jesus ventures into Gentile territory. He is immediately confronted by a man with unclean spirits, whom Jesus exorcises into unclean animals, pigs. Eric Wefald argues that such imagery allows Mark to proclaim to the Jewish reader that Jesus has begun his mission to the unclean people, the Gentiles. Given though that the author of Mark was likely Gentile, it seems more fitting that Mark would have in mind not only a Jewish, but also a Gentile audience. , Indeed, throughout his telling of the Demoniac story, Mark cleverly offers evidence to both Jews and Gentiles that Jesus is their savior. However, like all stories in Mark, the matter is left unsettled, urging the read to keep reading.
The Jewish reader would realize within the first two sentences that Jesus is no longer in “clean” territory. In the first sentence, Mark tells us that Jesus has crossed the Sea of Galilee into the land of the Gerasene. Although there is some debate about the exact location and town of this story, the NET Bible Commentary includes the helpful citation: “Irrespective of how one settles this issue, for the [second and] Third Evangelist the chief concern is that Jesus has crossed over into Gentile territory, ‘opposite Galilee’.” As soon as Jesus gets out of the boat, the reader learns a man is coming to Jesus from the tombs. Leviticus 21 makes it clear that dead bodies are unclean and that contact with them defiles the person who does so. Thus, anyone living around the tombs would be unclean, someone to avoid. Furthermore, the man has unclean, “avkaqa,rtwn,” spirits. This Greek word is the word used throughout Leviticus (72 times in LXX!) to describe things that are unclean. avkaqa,rtwn, even if translated “evil,” would have ceremonial and religious connotations for the Jewish reader.
The modern “Gentile” reader can easily miss the significance of the “unclean.” As Eric Wefald writes, “these Jewish ways of thinking are very concerned with who is within and who is outside the people of God, with distinctions between Jew and Gentile.” Pheme Perkins concurs, “Jewish ritual practice separates the world into categories of clean and unclean. When heard within that context, the elements of impurity in this story are piled one upon another: unclean spirit, dwelling among tombs, and a large herd of swine.” In terms of plot development, Mark prepares the Jewish reader for a battle of Jesus against the unclean.
As Mark develops this battle scene for his Jewish readers, he concurrently sets the stage for a battle that will interest his Gentile audience. Mark does this through his detailed commentary on the demoniac. His description evokes curiosity and fear, for the man howls and bruises himself, even breaking the chains they tried to place on him. To help create trepidation and discomfort in the reader, Mark uses the word “tombs” three times in four verses. The claim is even made: “No one had the strength to subdue him.” One need not be a Jew to be aghast. As Perkins comments, “The demons have stripped this man of every shred of humanity,” and even Gentile readers would realize this. While Mark has sets up a battle of purity for the Jewish audience, he also sets up one of power for the Gentile audience.
As the battle unfolds, Mark provides his Jewish audience with more evidence that Jesus is fighting in unclean territory. After a dialogue with the demons, self-identified as “Legion,” Jesus sends the roughly 2,000 into a swineherd. The swine proceed to drive themselves off a cliff. The significance of the “swine” is emphasized by Mark using the word four times. Pigs were unclean – even today practicing Jews do not eat pork! As Wefald comments, “since Jews neither near nor herd swine, this is a blatant signal to the reader that they are on the non-Jewish, eastern shore of the Sea.”
Mark’s use of the pigs may serve as more than a geographical reminder for his Jewish audience. Wefald argues that “Jews associated the category of ‘demons’ with gods of the unclean heathen Gentiles…the gods of the heathen are demons.” In his view, Jesus does not simply defeat the demons in the demoniac, but the gods of the Gentiles. Wefald concludes, “from a Jewish perspective, the incident in the country of the Gerasenes represents a triumph wrought by Yahweh, the God of Israel, for the Jewish people over the heathen.”
The “gods” of the unclean were not only demons, however, but also soldiers. Mark may also have political overtones to his connection of a legion with swine. As Perkins offers,
“The tenth legion, which used the boar as a symbol on its standard, had been stationed there since 6 CE...the local populace, faced with powers it could not resist, had a very different perception, regarding imperial power as oppressive.”

Furthermore, “Jewish sources as old as 1 Enoch 89:12 identify the boar with Esau, who became a symbol of Rome. The narrative thus reflects the connection between Roman imperialism and what Frantz Fanon called the 'colonization of the mind' of subjugated peoples.” Regardless of whether one takes a more spiritual or political interpretation, Mark’s connection of the swine and the legion strongly suggests that even if Jesus is in Gentile land, Jesus is on the side of the Jews, fighting against the unclean, the heathen.
Mark simultaneously provides his Gentile, “unclean” listeners, a compelling scene of Jesus’ power.
“Mark unfolds an intense battle scene. Although it lasts only a few verses in the text, the tense of the verbs indicate the severity of the battle. Jesus calls the demon out. Mark uses the imperfect, which indicates repeated or continuous action, evidently because these please are unsuccessful and therefore repeated.”

Although such repeated action might stress the weakness of Jesus, it also serves to highlight the severity of the battle. A full-strength legion had “6,000 infantry, 120 cavalry, and associated auxiliaries.” Jesus is facing an entire hoard by himself.
Jesus not only can battle the demons, but he has authority over them. He does not suggest or beg that they go into the swine, but rather, evpe,treyen auvtoi/j. BDAG offers the definition of evpitre,pw as “allow,” and Liddell and Scott even offer, among other translations, “command.” Moreover, Mark only uses this verb one other time, to describe Moses “allowing” a law to be written (10.4). Given Moses’ authority over the law, Mark’s use of this word shows he is ascribing a great deal of authority to Jesus in relation to the demons. Thus, even the non-Jewish person listening to this story would be struck by the power and authority of Jesus. Jesus here shows that he can heal the sick and fight the mighty of the Gentile world.
The story ends as dramatically as it began, with the healed man begging Jesus to accompany Jesus, and Jesus telling him to stay and proclaim what the Lord has done. This ending is highly unusual for Mark, where Jesus normally concludes his miracles with a command of silence. In addition, Jesus uses the verb, “khru,ssw,” which indicates more than simply “say” or “tell.” According to BDAG this denotes “the official activity of a herald.”
Both Perkins and Wefald interpret this “appointment” as signaling the inclusion of Gentiles in the ministry of Jesus. Perkins writes that “this episode has been expanded to provide Jesus with his first Gentile missionary.” Wefald concurs, arguing that “two distinct missions are emerging, the first prepared on Jewish territory by John the baptizer, whose actions are paralleled by the Gerasene demoniac on Gentile territory. Moreover, both authors conclude that healing of the Demoniac heals the rift between Jew and Gentile in Jesus’ ministry. Perkins concludes “the Sea, which might have been a barrier between the two ways of life, will hereafter be crossed repeatedly.” Wefald asserts this even more strongly, maintaining that in “Mk 5.1-20 the barrier of the Gentiles’ uncleanness has been removed.”
Such a conclusive interpretation, especially the claim, that the “Gentile’s uncleanness has been removed” removes from Mark the element of mystery. Mark’s narrative teems with suspense; indeed, even Mark’s ending in chapter 16 leaves the reader full of questions. Moreover, in the previous chapter, Jesus began teaching parables, telling the disciples, “to you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything comes in parables (4.11).” To conclude that any secrets have been fully disclosed by Mark 5 seems unnecessarily premature.
Indeed, Mark 5 leaves many questions unanswered. Why is it that the demoniac, when told to proclaim what “o` ku,rio,j” has done, tells people what Jesus has done? Will Jesus battle “real” legions, fulfilling Jewish dreams of a Jewish king? Will Jesus fight demons again, or was this victory final? Although Werner Kelber wrote about Mark 4, his claim that the “passage furnishes a good example of both unlocking and creating secrecy” certainly holds true for Mark 5 as well.
The genius of Mark, however, is that just has he presented Jesus as Savior to both Jewish and Gentile audiences, Mark leaves the question of ministry to the Gentiles unanswered. Both communities likely have the same question as Jesus gets in the boat: Will Jesus cross the Sea again?
In all likelihood, to the Jewish-Christian reader this whole trip is a disaster, an affirmation of his or her suspicions. Everything is unclean and the people reject Jesus. There is no teaching, no law-giving and no circumcision after conversion. The implied silence of the disciples likely reflects the best Jewish response at this point. One can almost imagine a sigh of relief from the disciples (and Jewish readers) when Jesus tells the Demoniac he cannot travel with them.
On the other hand, to the Gentile-Christian reader, the trip is probably both uplifting and frightening. Finally, Jesus is leaving his Jewish enclave and venturing into the “real” world. He defeats the powers of evil and gives healing. The people reject him, but Jesus still commands the message to be proclaimed. One can almost imagine a sigh of relief from the Gentile readers when Jesus tells the Demoniac he cannot travel with him, but must stay and proclaim the good news.
As Mark’s story progresses, the reader learns that Jesus does cross the sea again, and that Jesus’ ministry is for both Jews and Gentiles. However, Mark knows that even if Jesus is Savior for Jew and Gentile, his contemporary Jews and Gentiles have a “Sea” between them. His understanding of both groups allows him to weave together a narrative that simultaneously speaks to both audiences. The convincing portrayal of Jesus’ power and the awakened questions about Jesus’ Gentile ministry speak to Jews and Gentiles, thus showing Mark’s cross-cultural narrative ability.

Green, J.B. The Gospel of Luke. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdman’s, 1997.
Kelber, Werner H. “Narrative and disclosure: mechanisms of concealing, revealing, and reveiling.” Semeia 43 (1988), p 1-20.
Liddell H. G., R. Scott, and H. S. Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon, 9th ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.
Marcus, Joel. Mark 1-8. Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 2000.
NET Bible Commentary, Bible Works 6.
Nestle-Aland, 27th Edition, Bible Works 6.
NRSV, Bible Works 6.
Perkins, Pheme. The Gospel of Mark: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections. New Interpreter’s Bible VIII. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995.
Powell, Mark Allan. The Gospels. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998.
Robbins, Vernon K. Jesus the Teacher: A Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation of Mark. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.
Wefald, Eric K. “The Separate Gentile Mission in Mark: A Narrative Explanation of Markan Geography, the Two Feeding Accounts and Exorcisms.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 60 (1995), 1-16.

A comparion: Mark, Luke and Matthew

Stories: Jesus’ baptism, temptation, and healing of two women

I find the relationship between the three gospels quite striking. The fact that so much action, even specific language, is shared, provides strong evidence that the three authors obviously drew upon common sources beyond simply the oral tradition. However, the very similarity between the gospels allows the reader to discern more clearly the theological perspective and literary style of the three authors. In the scenes of Jesus’ baptism, temptation and healing of two women, each author’s choice of words as well as actions show clearly that each author has a different emphasis.

Mark’s language adds a certain rawness to his narrative. For example, in his baptismal account, Mark uses the word [schism] instead of a milder “open” that Luke and Matthew use. Furthermore, Mark uses the words [it happened, and, immediately] throughout his narrative and thus avoids giving as much background information. In his temptation story, Mark uses the word [desert/wilderness] twice, mentions wild animals (which neither Luke nor Mathew use) and then uses the word [expel] (again in contrast with Luke and Matthew) to describe the Spirit’s actions on Jesus. Lastly, Jesus even speaks in Aramaic in Mark, which in my opinion adds to the rawness.

Matthew’s language, I believe, more fully develops the ties of between Judaism and Jesus. In Matthew’s baptismal account, Jesus discusses with John that these actions must be done to fulfill “righteousness,” an important Jewish concept not addressed in the other authors’ version of the story. In his temptation account, Matthew adds the words “forty nights” to the forty days, which give this passage stronger resonance with the Exodus story. Matthew also has Jesus complete the Scripture verse, “but by every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord.” In Matthew’s account of the healings, Jesus does not call the bleeding woman my daughter, but simply calls her daughter. This small change from Mark and Luke allows Matthew to put distance between Jesus and this ritually unclean woman. Lastly, perhaps this is mostly conjecture, but I find it interesting that Matthew calls attention at the end of his healing story to the fact that the fame spread through out the land, as opposed to the people. I think this connection to a particular land would emphasize a Jewish, as opposed to Hellenist outlook of his Gospel.

Specific words of Luke in these stories reflect not only his perspective on Jesus, but also on the community of believers. Before Jesus is baptized, he is praying, something unique in Luke’s account. Furthermore, Luke is concerned with the [people] a word he uses in his baptismal account and healing stories (3.21, 8.47). In addition, Luke uses the word “holy” or “spirit” in all three accounts where Mark and Matthew do not (8.55, 3.22, 4.1). Lastly, Luke uniquely uses the words [save] and [heal](8.44, 8.50). I think if we rework these words, we see some key elements of the theology of Luke and Acts. Jesus is a Savior who brings healing. Jesus creates a people of God, empowered by the Holy Spirit, who constantly receive their strength from prayer.

The actions in Mark’s narrative portray a distant, but yet very human Jesus. Unlike Matthew, Jesus has no dialogue with John. Instead, he comes alone and is baptized without discussion. The healing stories in Mark begin with Jesus removed from the people, off in a boat. In Matthew and Luke, he is already walking among the people. However, this same distant, almost aloof figure, is not omniscient. In Mark’s account, Jesus has no idea who touched him and even after he looks around, he cannot see her. He is almost too aloof to even be aware of his surroundings. Ultimately, this distance, this being withdrawn and being alone makes Jesus vulnerable.

Matthew, one could almost argue, cleans up Mark to protect Jesus. As previously mentioned, Matthew includes the account of Jesus justifying his baptism, as if to address the argument, why would Jesus be baptized? In my mind, Matthew’s expansion of the temptation account testifies to Jesus strength. Jesus is able, in spite of his hunger, to argue with the devil. In the healing accounts, Matthew ignores Mark’s claim of Jesus ignorance. Instead, he immediately has Jesus offer the woman words of compassion. Furthermore, Matthew also has the story end with triumph and praise, without the imperative for silence found in Mark and Luke.

Luke’s narrative not only varies in his details regarding Jesus, but also his details regarding the other characters in the story. Although John is not mentioned in his Baptism account, John has already played a large role in the narrative. In his temptation account, the devil is given a voice beyond Mark, beyond Matthew and even beyond Scripture. Furthermore, Luke offers names in his healing account – Peter and Jarius. Moreover, the reader learns that Jarius only has one daughter. Even though Mark also details the hemorrhaging woman’s sufferings, it is important to note that Luke also mentions these. I think that Luke’s details create a more personal narrative, a strong contrast to the distance of Mark. Indeed, at the end of the healing narrative, Luke has the family first feed the child and then tells them to keep silent; Mark reverses the order. I think Luke’s order shows the child is Jesus’ first priority.

Mark, Luke and Matthew all share various elements of their stories. However, each author utilizes a different vocabulary and stresses various events in their stories. I shy away from making strong assertions about the overall tendencies of each author after such a short exercise. However, Mark seems rough, Luke seems personable, and Matthew seems neat and Jewish.

“Do Justice” Easily said, difficultly done!

Micah 6,8 is as good as it gets. However, after the prophet’s call to social justice fades into a mere echo, I am left wondering: How do we create a just society? Micah’s vision of a just society includes more than a simple condemnation of specific practices or even social classes. Micah calls for just relationships on many levels. While in a prophetic vision, these can come together beautifully, my brief time on the Indian Reservation this January helped me see how complex creating a just society truly is because brokenness exists at the various levels that Micah describes. (Connection to Joel?)
Micah condemns dishonest wealth. In chapter 6 he mentions people cheating and lying in the market place, “Can I tolerate wicked scales and a bag of dishonest weights? Your wealthy are full of violence; your inhabitants speak lies, with tongues of deceit in their mouths (6.11-12)” In chapter 3 Micah specifically attacks people using their religious positions to acquire money, “Its rulers give judgment for a bribe, its priests teach for a piece, its prophets give oracles for money? (3.11).” And in verse 2 he flat out attacks the greed of the powerful, “They covet fields, and seize them; house, and take them away; they oppress householder and house, people and their inheritance (2.2).”
That the Lakota people have been victim to all sorts of dishonesty is without question. However, the question is, how do we address this? The people that took the land away from the Indians have been dead for a century. Do we take the land away from the whites who now live there? Furthermore, the oppression can be seen as the lack of funding given to Indians or the oppression can be seen in the creation and perpetuation of a handout society. Both opinions were expressed by people on the reservation.
Micah also talks about justice in terms of relationships between individuals in society. Micah’s concern clearly extends beyond only poor or only social classes. For he writes, “For the son treats the father with contempt, the daughter rises up against her mother, the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; your enemies are members of your own household (7.6).”
On the Indian Reservation, there are enormous family structure problems. Many housing programs divided up old family units and neighborhoods are collections of formerly feuding clans. Divorce and alcohol abuse run rampant. While such problems arise from historical abuse, they have taken on a life beyond their historical genesis. Although only 19,000 people in the reservation, three border stores in Nebraska sell 11,000 cans of beer every day. Having a just society requires that individuals can take responsibility of themselves and care for those in their family.
Furthermore, Micah calls the people to a right relationship with God. For Micah, a society of equal idol worshippers is unacceptable. He writes, “And I will cut off your images and your pillars from among you, and you shall bow down no more to the work of your hands (5.13).” He also attacks their current religious practices that are not aimed at the LORD, “The seers shall be disgraced and the diviners put to shame (3.7).” (Seers?)
For the Indians, questions of just worship are also complex. For years, sun dances were prohibited. Now they can do them. However, many on the reservation are wary of Christianity as well as nativist religion. Many view the other as enemy. For their society, having a right relationship with their God is not possible unless people are willing take on the Gods of another people, the very thing that Micah rallies against. Yet, as Micah promises us in chapter 4, many peoples, not just the ones who believed in God before, will come to worship God.
Lastly, Micah talks about harmony between the nations. A just society is one that is in harmony with its neighbors. In the ELCA’s 3rd most cited verse: “They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more (M 4.3)” (Eph 2:6 used to be big, but its too exclusive.) Micah’s ultimate vision has peace.
For the Indians, serious questions remain. Do they live in peace with their neighbors who oppressed them. Or do they, as Joel commands, “Prepare war, stir up the warriors (3.10).”
As I walk away from Micah I am reaffirmed in my sense that justice is amazingly complex and includes many levels of society. Yet, reflecting on my time on the reservation leads me to conclude that such analysis leads to the same conclusion: Doing justice is difficult…