Right Texts, Wrong Meanings Blog: The Upside Down World of Jesus and Ours

Tags

challenges of Jesus, interpretation, Right Texts Wrong Meanings

This the introduction to a series of blogs about the making of my new book and the ideas behind why dealing with the topics within is important for our faith.

After publishing this book, Right Texts, Wrong Meanings, I began to travel to speak on this topic.  By the way, I am open to invitation to speak on this anywhere and any time.  You can access my speaking schedule and my information here.  In one particular seminar, I declared that Jesus quite often used the narrative of his society and turned it upside down in a disturbing way in order to make a sharp point. One questioner outright said that Jesus certainly did not do that.  I was referring to one parable where Jesus took what was normal and turned it upside down to show how different the kingdom was.  I asked further, “Why do you feel that?”  The questioner replied, “I just FEEL that Jesus’ presentation is very NORMAL.”  Here lies our problem.

IF Jesus was not speaking anything that was challenging to his faith community, why would they crucify him?  IF Jesus was the domesticated carpenter of our popular church culture, why would he be worth considering?  The fact is, we each create the Bible based on our assumptions, some of which are uninformed and unfound.  The fact is, like OUR Jesus, our Bible is also created in our own image.

I suggest that the Bible as a whole disturbs rather than delight. Sure, there are places that can cause you to laugh out loud if you understand Jesus’ culture.  Many of Jesus’ parables are outrageously funny.  Many of his points however, are greatly disturbing.  In reading this book on popular texts, many are greatly disturbed.  I’m glad.  Many are greatly disturbed because their comfortable little “Christian” world built on wrong assumptions, interpretations and worse yet, applications, have been completely deconstructed.  Remember this.  Just because a falsehood has been repeated a thousand times, it does not become truth.  I dare say that the shock people receive from reading this book and listening to my lectures is an indictment of our church culture and pulpit.  Our church culture is meant to create comfort.  Many of our pulpits are meant to induce euphoria.  Jesus did neither.  By lulling the slumbering church using unexamined Christian cliches, many preachers have failed miserably to challenge their church culture the way Jesus challenged the religious leaders of his day.  In fact, not many of us are creating enough of a ripple to make us worth crucifying or even persecuting.  And when we are making enough waves, we’re usually making the wrong waves.  What really is our church life meant to be?

Our lives are meant to meet challenges to our faith, our assumptions and our ethics.  Over the years, my faith has evolved, hopefully for the better. I’m greatly delighted that through my education and teaching in various post-grad academic institutions, I have been able to hold firm to what is good and to get rid of the extraneous and erroneous.  In the next series of blogs, I will examine the making of each chapter of my book and discuss what false assumptions and interpretations can hinder rather than help the Christian life. Stay tuned.

For ordering your copy of the book, feel free to look here.

An Open Letter to Mission-minded Christians: On “Using” Others for the Gospel

Tags

church plant, hong kong dock workers, mega church

This is an open letter to my evangelical mission-minded western friends (well, I too am an American citizen, Asian American) in the guise of a blog post.

According to the above caption in Chinese, Hong Kong has the great contrast of the rich being twenty six times richer than the poor. Twenty six!!  Not six, not twenty, but twenty six!

This week marks one of the biggest strikes in recent times on a labor dispute for the docks of Hong Kong.  As one of the most prosperous free port of the world (ranked number three behind Singapore and Shanghai), Hong Kong corporations have been raking in the bucks since day one.  Yet, the pay of the dock workers actually have decreased since 1997 handover to China.  In other words, the rich is getting much richer and the poor is getting much poorer.  The rich however is getting rich off the poor’s misfortune.  The daily working hours of these workers are so high (twelve to eighteen) that they’d be better off working for minimum wage in the US.  To make matters worse, Hong Kong, by and large is probably more expensive than ANY US city.

Do we have a gospel for these people?

One newly planted expat church from a US mega-church thinks it has the answer.  It conducts a seminar on why happiness is not enough but true joy in Christ is better.  Well, I suppose there’s nothing wrong with this topic.  In fact, as a Christian, I quite agree with the general proposition. In times like this, however, is this the best topic? It sounds to me more like a nicotine patch for a city full of chain smokers or a mirage in a desert full of thirsty people that religion is often accused of being by those who hate Christianity. Who can blame the haters?  The timing of this topic about joy couldn’t be worse.  No matter how many verses the speakers quote from, the message will never sound much like the gospel unless there is a true understanding of local conditions by spending quantity and quality time with the locals.  Now, I cannot blame this innocent faux pas or can I?  After all, why would a newly planted expat American church know anything about local conditions?  Before you nod your head, you must see something wrong with the question I just asked.  If not, think twice.  Here’s a little missiological lesson for my western friends.

Before you head into an area to do “mission” and make “converts” for God, please make sure you know what mission is and what local needs are instead of coming in with fancy topics and unfulfilled hype.  We certainly don’t see St. Paul coming into Athens speaking Christianese!  I know a lot of you who are a little more mission-minded will think that Hong Kong is perfect for being the gateway to reach China.  Yes, I know. I heard that message for years.  Once again, before you nod your missiological little head, think about what I just said.  Let me translate for you.  What that message really is saying are the following.  First, any westerner can “use” Hong Kong to get to China.  Second, the converts in China, as potentially large as they will become, are more important than local needs in Hong Kong.

Let me respond.  First, no one likes to be “used.”  In fact, western colonial powers have “used” Hong Kong in modern China until 1997.  The locals are not idiots.  They know when they’re being used. Some resist; others oblige, but no one is unaware. Someone will ask me the inevitable question when we talk about reaching Chinese with the gospel, “What is the biggest obstacle in mission?”  My answer? Based on real-world experience, most colonized people think that the gospel is a western religion (though it’s Jewish) used by colonial powers to exploit rather than edify.  Many missionary efforts still look like religious colonialism even to believers like myself.  Is this what the gospel is about?  Second, if we bypass local interests and go straight towards the target China, we are essentially saying that conversion is all about numbers.  Is that what the gospel is really about? Really?  If you say yes, please stop reading my blog and go read the Bible, the ENTIRE Bible, again.

Is there a gospel for the oppressed dock workers?  Not according to the recent missionary strategy I’ve seen.  These new church planters seem barely aware of the economic and political situation and if they are, they’re choosing to ignore it, all in the name of the gospel.  Planting yet one more English-speaking church in Hong Kong will only reach more English-speaking mostly very successful middle-upper class, often white elites.  Is there a gospel in that?  Not according to my Bible!  You may say, “Isn’t preaching any kind of gospel is better than none?  Isn’t getting more converts always great for the church?” To such questions, here are my retorting questions.  Are you sure you’re preaching the gospel? Are you sure you’re converting the true converts?

Before we think any unreached people group (and Hong Kong is not unreached at all) with our gospel, we should make sure we have a gospel to preach.  Otherwise, stay home!

Easter and Culture War: Identifying the Wrong Enemy?

Tags

criticism of the church, cutlure war

This week I introduce a blogger Justin Tse whose specialty is in the area of geography.  This blog reminds me why being a culture warrior is not always a great idea.

Please read his good blog and his article.  http://jkhtse.wordpress.com/2013/03/02/converge-magazine-subverting-the-culture-war-why-i-am-a-christian-in-the-secular-university-and-not-a-culture-warrior/

While interacting with Justin’s original rough draft, another angle occurred to me.  Before I talk about it, I totally agree with Justin’s formulation of the Great Commission, but more importantly, his article (please read it) builds a wider narrative from Matthew’s book narrative context.  Although Justin is a geographer by training, I wish every Bible major would do what he does with Matthew.  We have to stop focusing on the minutia of a few verses and put verses into wider narrative.

Why is the culture war a problem?  First, many evangelical Christians are mistaken that culture is the enemy.  Biblically speaking, culture is never the enemy.  Satan is.  So is death.  Many have mistaken culture for Satan and death.  Surely, some may guess that culture can express values that are Satanic, but do I dare to say that orthodox faith also does so?  This brings me to my second point.

Second, have we notice that Jesus’ primary enemies were the religious people?  While Jesus explicitly cast out demons quite often in the Gospels, his primary attackers were not demons.  They were the religious people.  I dare say that the enemy is not only external to the church.  Society should not be expected to behave like Christ or to buy into Christ’s values.  Rather, the real problem exists within the church also.  No Christian has ever declared war on the church but perhaps some ought to.

On this resurrection Sunday called Easter, what does the culture war have to do with what is external and internal to the church?  The death and resurrection of Jesus had changed some things, but some things would remain the same.  Having written a commentary in Chinese on Acts, I can guarantee that the same opposition Jesus experienced became the opposition to the church.  The societal culture would inevitably clash against the church.  The clear manifestation of Satan also occurred in Acts in the same way as in Luke’s Gospel.  Satan remained the enemy who actively opposed the work of the disciples.  Yet, we do not see the disciples actively opposing and fighting the society.  They could critique it in their dialogue by using language society understands (e.g. Acts 17), but never directly went against it.  Society and culture were never the enemy.

What then changed after Easter?  People changed.  Peter who denied Christ three times spoke up repeatedly for Christ in spite of persecution and grave threats to his life.  Even Paul had changed. He formerly persecuted Christians but now became Christ’s biggest spokesman.  The entire Acts narrative is an illustration of how Easter (and subsequent Pentecost) had changed the world through changing the community of faith.  People change.  As a result of this great change, society would see the changed community and see the power of Easter.  This change includes not just individual life changes but a continuous process of house-cleaning (e.g. Acts 5).

Why do some people think that the culture war is a good idea?  It is because they find it easier to point finger at the society.  Society is going to do what society is going to do.  Sometimes society does amazingly wonderful things. Sometimes not.  That’s the way things go.  It is easier to point finger at society, but with one finger pointing forward, there are always three fingers pointing back at ourselves.  Critique of the church is never easy or fun, but Easter demands a self-critical approach to life in faith community.

Right Texts Wrong Meanings Blog for Lent: After Palm Sunday, then what?

Tags

Go, Mark 11.20-26, throw yourself into the sea

The passage of Mark 11.20-26 is quite a puzzle.  I have covered it in my new book already, but I wish to use it as a meditation for Palm Sunday.  Shortly after Jesus entered into Jerusalem, he saw a fig tree and condemned it even though it was not the season for figs (11.13).  The poor fig tree!  This is one of those puzzling acts Jesus did that have no sure answers.  Thereafter, Jesus cleansed the temple (11.15-18).  Finally, the  next day, the disciples saw the dead tree and was astonished.

I wish to focus our attention this Palm Sunday on 11.22-24.  Jesus taught that they had to have faith in God (or “keeping on believing” or “keep on being faithful to God”).  The verse 11.23 is very strange in that Jesus used a hyperbole about a mountain, not just any mountain, but THIS mountain.  Jesus evidently was talking about the temple mount.  Jesus used the teaching not as a teaching about prayer but about the fig tree and the temple because the context was to answer Peter’s query about the dead cursed tree.

Jesus’ teaching was a prophetic pronouncement about the temple having lost its place, evident in his previous clearance of it.  Since the temple has lost its place as a house of prayer (11.17) and became a den of brigands, Jesus would build a faith community that prayed.  Yet, he did not build it immediately.  Why did the disciples need to remain faithful or have faith?

The reason Jesus taught about faith was not just about asking for anything including something outrageous as throwing a temple mount into the sea.  Jesus’ teaching about asking for anything only came after the building of meaningful relationships.  Evidently, the temple might have lost its relational function as well when the money and doves became means of financial transaction rather than relational building.

Thus the story here tells us that the faith community Jesus created would have enough faith to challenge its own in the way Jesus did, by saying that the mountain ought to be thrown into the sea.  On the more positive side though, it values relationships rather than transaction.  Such a community would not sit back comfortably and relax because after saying such pronouncement, Jesus was crucified. After Palm Sunday, crucifixion happens.  I wonder if the church community today characterizes Jesus’ spirit enough to warrant crucifixion.  This too deserves consideration.

The Fifth Week of Lent: Palm Sunday, the Way of the Lord

Tags

Mark 11.1-11, Palm Sunday

Palm Sunday is coming next week.  This blog prepares our hearts for the great occasion.

I will draw some reflections from my Mark commentary coming out in Chinese next year.  The story of Jesus moving towards Jerusalem comes to its climax.  This portion is long and occupies close to half of Mark’s Gospel.  The destination in Mark has always been Jerusalem.  Even as early as Mk. 1.5, Jerusalem appears.  Now Jesus came full circle.  Mark was concerned to put Jesus within certain vicinity to show the extensive ministry of Jesus.  Mark did so by including a place Jesus had never likely gone to, Bethphage, in Mk. 11.1. The narrative then was not merely about historical situation, but is about conflicting powers.

The symbolic significance of Jerusalem in this case stands out.  Jerusalem was where Israel’s kings resided.  Jesus entered it as the Lord.  The first thing Jesus did was to ask for His two disciples to get a colt from a village in Mk. 11.2.  If anyone was to ask, Jesus advised the disciples to say that “the lord” needed it.  The word for “lord” actually means “master.”

What did Jesus claim?  Most likely, He was not saying that He was just like any other master.  Otherwise, no one would give him a colt.  He must have had some reputation.  Thus, when He used the word “master,” it had kingly connotation.  Jesus’ audacity must have been outrageous because to say that He was the master or king offended not one but several fronts.  First, He could offend Herod Antipas who was king at the time over the Jews. Second, He could offend Caesar directly because He lived in the Roman Empire.  Third, He could offend the religious leaders because He certainly did not fit the image of the king.  Yet, contrary to normal expectations, the people let the disciples have the colt when the disciples claimed that the master needed the colt in Mk. 11.6.

The entry into Jerusalem on Passover had political overtone.  Jerusalem at this time was full of pilgrims.  Passover was a national holiday for the Jews.  It was through this festival that YHWH had established the nation of Israel.  It would be best to reestablish independence from the Romans at this time.  Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem would be just like any other peasant.  However, He was no mere Galilean peasant.  He was also no self-proclaimed leader only.  He was much accepted by the people, creating even greater danger for the Romans who were probably on alert for any subversive activity.

We must examine why people would even accept Jesus as king to begin with.  Besides general miracles, Jesus did things that the empire could not.  Mark recorded two feedings: feeding of the five thousand and of the four thousand.  These two events alone showed more than any other that Jesus deserved the kingly office.  Jesus was doing something Herod, Caesar or any other religious leader could not.  In some ways, He looked a bit like Moses in the wilderness feeding the motley crew of Israelites, only the religious leaders largely did not recognize the similarity.

The reaction of the crowd is overwhelming positive in Mk. 11.7-10.  Popular preachers like to say that the same crowd wanted to crucify Jesus just shortly after. I’m unsure if this is a fair interpretation of Mark.  The crowd of people in Mark is quite broad.  The opinions were varied (Mk. 8.27-28).  They had to be insane to believe Jesus to be the resurrected John the Baptist or Elijah one day and then wanted to kill Him the next.  We can only gather that the opinions and agenda of the crowd varied.  They only had probably one thing in common: they did not fully understand Jesus.

The reaction was overwhelming much like the way a king ought to be welcomed.  They shouted Ps. 118.25-26.  The Psalm is a long song talking about the trials and triumph of the Psalmist.  It also confessed faith in the God of Israel.  This happy Psalm was sung for many generations in Israel as a confession of faith.  More significant is the quotation they cited because it was a prayer to Israel’s God.  Whether the quote was part of a casual or intentional remarks, such shouts show that people recognized Jesus, rightly or wrongly, as God’s agent of change.  In such recognition, they prayed to Israel’s God for a hope of a ruler like David.

The next part is quite interesting because Jesus actually entered Jerusalem and went to the temple in Mk. 11.11 but since the day was late, He decided to go to nearby Bethany.  Mark wrote this in order to build up a climax.  Jesus was up to something.  Mark focused not only on the location but on the timing.  The time was already late.  Mark made that note in order to show that certain time was better than other times.  Better for what?  For the cross of course.

The traffic that led to Jerusalem would be one that triggered other events.  As a good Jew, Jesus went to Jerusalem many times, much more than this one time.  Thus this story is not about some one-time Jerusalem journey.  Instead, this story speaks of the most unique journey to Jerusalem among many journeys of Jesus.  This way of the Lord (i.e. Mk. 1.1-3) leads to Jerusalem.  The way of the Lord leads to the cross!

---

[1] Chapman, “Locating,” 33.

The Fourth Week of Lent: Reflecting on Mark’s Call to Discipleship

Tags

commitment, Mark 8.31-9.1

The passage of Mark 8.31-9.1 is a turning point of Mark.  It denotes Jesus’ rebuke against Peter followed by a call to discipleship.  Once more, Peter, after much insight, had put his foot in his mouth because he did not understand the implications of his insight.

I find Jesus’ rebuke of Peter fascinating in that Jesus didn’t only harshly call Peter “Satan” but also that Peter did not have in mind “the things of God.” What things was Jesus talking about?  Usually, preachers end there with some sentimental saying.  The opposition of the interest of Satan and the “things of God” seem to be more specific than our sentimental interpretation.

The call which follows in Mk. 8.34 has been preached so much that it has become cliché.  I believe the “things of God” Jesus referred to were the call to discipleship, to follow Jesus on the road to the cross.  In Mk. 8.34, Jesus gave three indispensible prerequisites to following Him using three commands: self-denial, take up cross, and follow.  The first two commands, denying of the self and taking up the cross, are Greek tense aorist imperatives, showing a sense of immediacy.  The final command is to “follow” in the Greek tense present imperative.  The last exhortation shows a continuous following process during Jesus’ time.

Popular preachers usually use this passage to rile up the emotions of the congregation in old-time revival meetings.  Our popular preaching is so much less than the real madness of Jesus’ proclamation.  We don’t often notice the circumstance Mark was describing; Jesus had not yet gone to the cross!  In the Greco-Roman world, the crucified were the political rebels.  According to Josephus (Vit. 420), many rebels were crucified for opposing the Romans.  The crucified were the rebels in the eyes of the empire.  To follow Jesus might land one in such hot water that the follower would appear to be the hated social deviant.  Thus, before carrying the cross, the disciples would have already been deemed socially marginal people who lived a life of lowliness and died a death of painful humiliation.

Now, back to Satan!  If the things of God has to do with being a Christ-centered rebel who would be socially marginalized, then the very opposite, being Satan’s channel would be to live the easy life of conformist.  This very conformity and comfort would prevent a disciple from fulfilling the real goal.  It would, in fact, prevent Jesus from fulfilling his real goal.  What does this have to do with us?

We have to take note that Mark was not addressing the society in general but addressing the faith community in particular.  Every Jew was born into Judaism in Jesus’ day.  There was no conversion.  In other words, Jesus’ call to the faith community was radical in this way.  Those who had the faith did not always live out the radical edge of that faith because of risks.  Those who did not live out that faith were essentially doing as badly as those who did Satan’s work.  Hardly any teacher in Jesus’ day could suggest such a radical call or rebuke.  In comparison, our faith today in the West looks more like a respectable garden party or a walk in the park than Jesus’ call.

The Third Week of Lent: The Paradox of Parody

Tags

exaltation of Jesus, king of the Jews, the cross

When I lead seminars, people often ask me why we need to read the Synoptics without immediately harmonizing the historical content.  Mark would be one place that illustrates the reason.  Each Gospel has its own uniqueness and must be read as such.  Unlike all the other Gospels, Mark withheld the description of Jesus as the king until His trial (e.g. Mk. 15.2).  This alone should raise interest.

NT scholar Joel Marcus has pointed this aspect out very well in his article written for Journal of Biblical Literature called “Crucifixion as Parodic Exaltation.”  This insight explains a lot about Mark, especially when the disciples did not recognize who Jesus was in many misunderstood passages.  Jesus’ true kingly position became most apparent when it was least humanly apparent.  How did a criminal get exalted on the cross?  Marcus suggests that he got exalted precisely because he had risen above his lot in life, thus making the cross a kind of social parody.  Whether Marcus is ultimately correct or not, there was something quite mocking about the whole usage of kingly vocabulary in the mockeries of the passion story.  None of this makes any human sense.  In creating this paradoxical parody of mockery, Mark was encouraging all his readers not to be stuck in their understanding about God.  By portraying Jesus as a brigand while simultaneously putting “king of the Jews” in various characters’ mouths, Mark demonstrated the alien strangeness of the cross.

Back in Mark’s day, the cross was a shame to the Christian faith. Yet, the social shame that it suffered became the empowerment for Jesus’ work.  If His followers wanted to be faithful, they too should not be stuck in the worldly value system and definitions.  We cannot explain all aspects of the faith using the world’s vocabulary and logic.  It does not mean we should not try, but Mark encouraged us to move above and beyond.  Was Jesus the king?  The answer depends on what you believe about Easter.  If the empty tomb of Easter shows resurrection, then Easter is God’s way of mocking His mockers.

Book Announcement: Right Texts, Wrong Meanings

Tags

hermeneutics

I’m happy to announce my new book, Right Texts, Wrong Meanings: Busting Myths from Popular New Testament Texts, by Wipf and Stock.  After writing twenty some odd books in Chinese, I’ve finally broken down and wrote something in English.  This book takes some of the popular NT texts and examine them for what they are.

Here’s a little test that won’t affect your grades unless you’re taking a class from me.  Did Jesus REALLY say not to judge or you will be judged?  Did Jesus really say to ALL those who were weary and burdened to find rest in him?  Did Matthew 18 really contain a promise about when two or three are gathered in Jesus’ name, he is among them?  Did Romans 8.28 really say that all things would work out?  Was “lukewarm” referring to the spiritual temperature of the church in Revelation 3.16?  If you answer with a resounding “Yes,” you need this book because you’ve just flunked the test.  The resounding “Yes” answer is an indicator that you’ve bought into what I call “pop Christian cliches” and there’re plenty of those floating around pews and pulpits alike.

I’ve been convicted to write this book after teaching preaching and the NT in academia for more than a decade and after preaching in all the continents for more than two decades.  The cliche-driven faith I see among evangelical is alarming.  All beliefs have consequences.  Some consequences are greater than others.  If someone has to be the bad guy, it might as well be me.

Originally, the subtitle of the book was “Lies Your Sunday School Teacher Taught You,” but my publisher did not like the “Sunday School” idea and some people thought it was too arrogant and controversial.  So, we bust myths instead.  The best way to read this book is to first guess what each passage actually means before reading. Don’t read for pet answers. Read for understanding of the thought process required to discern right from wrong meanings.

I shall blog about each chapter shortly after Lent but the blog of course will not be the content of the book.  Stay tuned and keep following my blog.  Instead, I’ll talk about the making of this book and the consequence of answering “Yes” to all the above questions.    The book also has small group discussion questions that are biblically-based, after every chapter.  If you or your small group wants to follow my blog to supplement your discussion, you’re also welcome to do so.  My study questions in the book will both stimulate your interpretive skills and your spiritual formation.  If you wish to purchase this book, feel free to take advantage of the web price right now.  It won’t hit Amazon until about a month or so.  This price will probably be better than Amazon’s.  Click here. As you can see the book is well-endorsed by the luminaries of the New Testament and preaching worlds.  I’m sure you will not be disappointed.

After blogging about the making of the book, I will probably start a series of myth-busting blogs of other cases of misinterpretation.  Some of these are by famous pastors and even theologians.  I’ll bring examples straight out of my reading as I write my other books.  Of course, I’m going to withhold the identity of the guilty, but you’d be surprised that the kind of crazy interpretation is more common than you think, not just in your local Bible studies but also among “famous” pastors etc.  I’ve already found a lot of examples, enough for at least several months.  You can also have your say and suggest more passages for me to discuss.  Stay tuned.

Why We Should Give Ben Affleck a Break: Marriage as “Work”?

Tags

ben affleck, commitment, love, marriage, oscar, wedding

I’m going to interrupt my Lent blogs to address something I saw last night that truly bothers me.

I’m no fan of the Oscar ceremonies.  To me, it’s always too long with too many speeches. Sure, I’m happy for those who win.  I understand the necessity of award ceremonies. I’m sure people felt the same when I won my book award in Hong Kong.  What caught my attention is Ben Affleck’s speech.  http://shine.yahoo.com/love-sex/ben-affleck-thanks-jennifer-garner-for-working-on-their-marriage-153803671.html

I’m no fan of Affleck.  I don’t have a particularly Affleck stance.  I neither hate him nor like him.  However, the jokes made after the joke Affleck made about marriage concerns me.  Affleck thanked Jennifer Garner for working on their marriage for a decade.  I thought it was sweet.  More importantly, I thought Affleck spoke truth.  Many made fun of the fact Affleck called marriage work. The same commentators miss the point because they just don’t get marriage.

In a society that values feelings over truth, one-night stand over sustained passion, warm fuzzy over commitment, and entitlement over labor, Affleck’s comment sure strikes us as odd. The very fact people thought his comment was laughable speaks more about their warped view on marriage than about Affleck’s speech or marriage.  I’ve read various statistics of how long an average marriage lasts in the US. Besides the usually quoted 50% divorce, the average marriage lasts about 8 years in the US.  Marriage has become a throwaway institution, much like recycled bottles.  The fact Affleck’s marriage outlasted the average might speak volumes about the word “work.”

There’re many reasons why marriages fail.  Some of the reasons are very legitimate.  Others are not.  In a society where everything is disposable, it is hard to see marriage as work, but if we ask all couples who have been married for a lifetime, they would all say that it’s hard work.  As Christians, we should not disparage the work aspect of marriage.

In Eph. 5.22-33, the author described the Christian marriage as a mystery between Christ and the church.  I don’t know how people feel about the gender roles here, and gender roles are not the only issue at work here.  Sure, the author said that the wife had to submit to the husband.  We often neglect that the husband had to love the wife like Christ loved the church and died for her.  Both genders have a lot of work cut out for them.  Who’s to say that love is all about feelings?  Commitment takes work.  Marriage is not always a bed of roses without thorns.  The society’s mockery of the hard work of marriage is the exact reason why marriages fail.

My wife and I have been married for more than two decades.  Commitment IS work.  William Shakespeare rightly wrote in his sonnet:

Love is not love

Which alters when it alteration finds,

Or bends with the remover to remove:

O no! It is an ever-fixed mark

That looks on tempests and is never shaken.

Love’s not Time’s fool, though rosy lips and cheeks

Within his bending sickle’s compass come;

Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,

But bears it out even to the edge of doom.

The Second Week of Lent: Mark 6.30-44 and 8.1-13 – No Mere Mediterranean Peasant

Tags

Mark 6.30-44, Mark 8.1-13

It has become in vogue for many NT scholars to read Jesus’ life in terms of historical “facts”.  Some see him as an ordinary peasant.  Others see him as part of a fringe group and so on.  I would say that “facts” are both selective and interpretive.  I’m going to select one fact to discuss in this blog: the number of people Jesus fed in Mark 6.30-44 and 8.1-13.  People usually cast some doubts as to how Jesus had been able to feed so many and so on.  I’m not going to dwell on the possibility, but want to focus on what Mark was trying to portray in his message about Jesus in terms of the historical “facts” we do know from someone like Josephus.

Let me say a few words more about the historical Jesus here in light of historical data of the area or any other city around that area.   This, of course, is common knowledge in those days, but not so much today.  We simply can’t read the number of people fed in terms of our modern football game or rock concerts because the area of Galilee (and possibly Decapolis per Mk. 7.31) was much less populate then.   Let us, for the moment, suppose that Mark was telling the truth based on historical facts about the two feedings.  Jesus had accomplished something that most leaders of his day did not.

Jesus was extraordinary just by the sheer number of people he attracted.  If the 5000 fed were men, and if entire families were there, the figure could easily double.  The same goes for the 4000 feeding.  According to research of the Galilean area, some big cities such as Sopphoris or Tiberias (both intentionally developed and urbanized by the Romans) numbered about ten thousand in population.[1]  We are unsure where Jesus was exactly when he did the feedings. We can assume that Jesus did it in the countryside.  In other words, people had to come out from different areas to listen to him and he ended up gathering an audience population of a sizeable Galilee city.  Jesus was no ordinary peasant.  No wonder he attracted the attention of the Pharisees and quite possibly the Romans.  Josephus’ account shows Josephus to be a powerful leader who could summon several thousand men to defend his cause, but this educated and powerful man, Josephus, was no match for Jesus.  Jesus did not get involved in Jewish or Roman politics, but stood outside of it while critiquing both.  No ordinary peasant could do that.

---

[1] Jonathan Reed, “Instability in Jesus’ Galilee,” JBL 129 (2010): 315.