The Unjust Judge and the Persistent Widow in Luke 18: A Conversation with Short Stories by Jesus

Tags

Amy Jill Levine, Short Stories by Jesus

We have now come to the story of the unjust judge and the persistent widow story in chapter eight of Levine’s Short Stories by Jesus. Levine quickly asserts that the traditional unsympathetic view towards judge and the persistent is wrong. She first objects to Luke’s domestication of the widow as someone who would be subservient and on her knees much like the stereotypical poor woman of Jesus’ day while Jesus’ parable gave the widow immense power. Jesus in fact empowered her so much that she was the antagonist against the judge who became her victim. The pugilistic imagery of her pestering the judge shows her powerful demand against the judge.

 

 

How then did Luke domesticate Jesus’ parable according to Levine? Luke did so by adding to the simple core of Luke 18.2-5. In other words, with the core of Luke 18.2-5 as originating from Jesus, Luke added the rest. Sure, if Luke 18.6ff was indeed Luke’s edition, she has a strong case that this story had turned Jesus’ social commentary into some other thing.

 

 

In Levine’s estimation, Luke probably didn’t have the right to add to what Jesus said. It’s hard to know whether Jesus actually didn’t say those words and that Luke had put “words in Jesus’ mouth” so to speak. Levine tells a story about a pestering and powerful widow. Surely, this was a possible story, but if Luke’s frame originated from Jesus, then Jesus told a story different from Levine’s. The fact is, if Jesus did talk in such apocalyptic terms, then the parable does make comparison between unjust judge and widow on the one hand and God and His children on the other. The way Luke framed the story is indeed important because such a story represents for Luke’s audience something else to the inaccessible historical Jesus.

 

 

What implications does this parable have for modern day believers? The modern believer prays. The parable moves beyond prayer to God’s character. When we demand things of God beyond just persistent prayer, we treat God as the unjust judge. When the Son of Man comes, will he find those believers trusting in a good God or will they trust in the other image of God.

Advertisements

The Making of Right Texts, Wrong Meanings: John 10.1-21 and the Good Shepherd

Tags

Good Shepherd, John 10.1-21, The Good Shepherd Discourse

I’m blogging about chapter 13 of my book.  The chapter talks about the good shepherd, but the puzzling part of the whole construct is that it does not start with the good shepherd.  In fact, John 10.1 starts off with the bad shepherd.  This is a strange way to start a discourse.  Many people would consider this discourse a parable, but the problem with such consideration is that there are a lot of allegorical elements in the discourse. Jesus clearly identifies himself as the gate and the shepherd.  The discourse has no story plot like a parable.  So, we have just identified one problem of this discourse.

Another problem this discourse has is the continuation of the same theme on a different occasion which John connected seamlessly to a different occasion, the Feast of Dedication in John 10.22.  Why is the Feast of Dedication, what we call Hanukkah, appear here other than giving us a timeframe for understanding when some of this was spoken.  John 10 is clearly on a different occasion than just the Feast of Dedication (cf. John 9.14).  The real problem is this.  When did the story begin? Did it begin at John 10.1 or before?  IF it begins before, what is the story addressing exactly?

One more problem challenges us in reading the Good Shepherd Discourse, in reading the Greek, we will find that wording of John 10.11, 15, 17, 18 parallel with 13.4, 12. This involves the wider scope of where this discourse fits with the entire Gospel.

How would we solve these issues?  First, we must look at what the immediate context addresses.  In fact, where the immediate context begins is important.  Second, we must look at the role of the discourse not only in the immediate context but also wider scope.  Then, we may consider what this discourse is really about.   We shall find out that it is much more than a model for the pastorate office.

As I always say, the texts are not at fault.  The interpreter is!

The Making of Right Texts, Wrong Meanings: Luke 21.1-4 and the Widow’s Coin

Tags

generosity of the widow, Giving, Luke 21.1-4, the widow's mite

I’m blogging about chapter 12 of my book today.  This ranks among the commonest abused passage of ALL TIME.

This passage is the favorite passage when preachers want to preach about giving to the church or the poor being generous (thus guilt-tripping us all into giving since we’re soooooo rich).  The popular interpretation goes something like this.  Jesus compared the poor widow’s giving to that of the rich.  Jesus commended her (so it seems) for her generosity because giving, after all, is about percentage.  See?  Have you not heard this before?  If you’re looking for a good guilt trip for your stingy congregation, I’ve just constructed your Sunday sermon for you.  The problem is, this is the WRONG interpretation.  If you think this is the right interpretation, you  need to think a lot harder.  If you wish to use this as your giving sermon, don’t!  Jesus could be saying the very opposite.  I believe Jesus’ message is really this: don’t give to a temple that is about to fall.  The poor widow did so generously and wastefully.

There are some presuppositions that lead to the erroneous traditional interpretation.  First, some presuppose that Jesus’ comments were complimentary when, in fact, Jesus was merely making an observation about the percentage of her giving without saying, “Go and do likewise, my disciples.”  Second, and this is a more insidious presupposition, some insist that one can isolate Luke 21.1-4 apart from what precedes and what follows.  We must notice that the disciples didn’t respond by saying, “Lord, teach us to give more.” Instead, they pointed out the temple building to which Jesus also referred in the previous passages.  If the disciples got a different response than what WE expect in our modern day interpretation, we should be quite alert to why they’re talking about the temple still.

What is the key to finding the answer?  This is the lesson for my readers.  You need to look at the context before and after in Luke in order to determine whether this is about giving.  There is exactly NOTHING in the context before and after about giving. Everything surrounding the story, IN THE SAME OCCASION, talks about the temple!  Why would Jesus all of a sudden teach about giving?  Thereafter, the teaching continues about the temple destruction.  This is why I insist that I’m correct to read this “giving” story in the light of the temple.  We can’t isolate the story because Jesus had not finished teaching and the entire content of his teaching is about the temple.

If you insist on preaching about giving with this passage, knock yourself out.  Just don’t say that your preaching is biblical.

As I always say, the texts are not at fault.  The interpreter is!

Book Announcement: Right Kingdom, Wrong Stories

Ever imagine the way Jesus could’ve told his parables in Matthew?  There’re more than one way to tell any parable or any cultural story in any culture because many possible scenarios could happen.  This is my new book on Matthew’s parables and their impact in their time and ours by looking at other ways Jesus could’ve told such stories. Due to the fact that almost every story has a hinge in its plot, we can attempt to locate the hinge or hinges and then retell the story in some other ways.  Interesting results will come.  By doing so, we can see clearer what Jesus meant to address even within his own cultural value.

In my usual manner, I will continue to interpret every parable within the greater context of the paragraph.  Quite often, this is the missing element.  People just do not read carefully enough when they do their Bible studies or even preaching before they start to spew what they think about the parable’s applicability or doctrine.  As a result, many run into a wall very quickly.

When writing this book, I have deliberately simplified it for the interested lay person as well as the busy pastor.  A colleague remarked that he would wish for me to deal in a bit more detail on each parable the way Klyne Snodgrass did with his book.  Trouble is 1) the book will become too thick and inundated with too many methodological details 2) a thick book may prove less accessible and more expensive to both the laity and the busy pastor.  After all, not many pastors can figure out the implication of Matthew’s parallel with the Gospel of Thomas saying.  If I went the way of Snodgrass whose work is still very excellent, I would not be able to demonstrate a simple method of reading parables.  To me, in this information age, MORE information equals to NO information.  At least, that’s what i’ve learned in preaching all over the world.  Another work that I wish I had the chance to consult is Amy-Jill Levine’s Jewish reading of Jesus’ parables that has yet to be published.  I will get myself a copy when it comes out.  I have deliberately tried to stay sensitive towards two issues that also concerns Levine when I wrote my book 1) not to oversimplify my reading into a singular “what the Jews believed in the first-century” metanarrative 2) not to be insensitive to possible anti-Semitic reading of Jesus’ sayings. I hope I have succeeded.

You may order it here or here.  Here’s what others are saying about the book:

Full of surprises, this book retells the parables of Matthew from all sides and in all manners, even backwards. Lay and professional readers are sure to rediscover something fresh here. Highly recommended.

Sze-kar Wan, Professor of New Testament, Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University

Here is Dr. Sam Tsang at his best: calling readers out of lazy interpretations of Jesus’ parables in the gospel of Matthew and into a reading filled with fresh insights. Right Kingdom, Wrong Stories reveals a Jesus who challenged the social convention of his day and continues to challenge us today with his ‘upside-down kingdom’ ethics. While incorporating the most current scholarship in the field, Sam Tsang has produced an arresting and provocative volume that pastors and lay leaders can ill-afford to ignore. Everything in this book, from Dr. Tsang’s literary analysis to sermon outlines and discussion questions, is designed to motivate the reader to think—really think—about Jesus’ deeper truths that are often buried beneath the veneer of religious superficiality. In an age of unprecedented evangelical and Pentecostal growth, Dr. Tsang invites Christian disciples to resist the temptation of worldly success by heeding Jesus’ countercultural parables.”

—Timothy Tseng, PhD,
Former Executive Director of the Institute for the Study of Asian American Christianity and Pastor of English Ministries at Canaan Taiwanese Christian Church (San Jose, CA)

I’m particularly thankful to both of these colleagues because of their Asian-American research in Bible and religion.

I have written this book through my Asian-American experience as well as my overseas Asian experience because those experiences are often closer to those of the first century society than our often individualistic all-American society.  These colleagues have been very supportive. So, I once again thank Sze-kar and Tim for taking the time out of their busy academic and pastoral schedule to write the recommendation.  I hope you order it and enjoy its content.  Feel free to contact me on my website here or my Facebook if you have any question or if I can serve your church or reading community in any way.

The Making of Right Texts, Wrong Meanings: Luke 6.20 and Poverty as the Ultimate Good

Tags

Luke 6.20

I now blog on chapter seven of my book.  When I first started reading the Bible seriously, Luke 6.20 bothered me.  At first, I tried to harmonize with Matthew 5.3 by saying that Luke really meant for the poverty to mean a kind of spiritual hunger.  After I studied the Bible for a while in a more critical way, I came to the conclusion that perhaps Matthew and Luke both drew from the same source and Matthew added to the source “in spirit,” making Luke’s invention more original than Matthew’s.  Still, even if Luke’s invention of this entire discourse was trying to play to his own ideological bend, how can being impoverished be a blessing?  In my book, I try to take Luke’s formulaic saying and lok at it from evidence from perspective both internal and external from the text.

Within the text and within the immediate context, one way to look at Luke 6.20 is to see how it fits.  The setting of the saying is from the selection of the Twelve who eventually went down to where Jesus was teaching and the entire saying was first addressed to the disciples (Luke 6.12-17, 19).  The saying itself, though addressing the disciples, was set against Luke 6.24-26.  Thus, the disciples who should be “blessed” were set against the “rich” of Luke 6.24.  In order to find the answer, we need to look at the overall plot of Luke in seeing how the poor were set against the rich.  After seeing that, we need to ask the question, “In what sense should this teaching impact the disciples’ view of material wealth?”  In answering this question, we should probably understand the Luke’s formation of this particular story and the meaning of “blessed are you who are poor.”

The external place we can look for answers should be in extra-biblical history.  The best source is probably Josephus.  When we read Jesus’ statement about material wealth, we often read our view of material wealth into our interpretation.  In that society, people viewed wealth to be one form of God’s blessing.  Within the area where Jesus ministered, the majority was very poor.  There was no middle class. The best way to gain wealth was to acquire land and have someone else farm it.  It would serve us well to see how acquisition of land took place by our reading of authors such as Josephus.  In such a society (somewhat unlike ours), poverty and wealth could have moral implication.

There is danger in reading Luke 6.20 straight.  Some might see that Jesus exclusively ministered to the poor, making our ministry to be entirely focused for the poor.  By doing so, we deny the universal scope of the kingdom.  Others may think that being poor and not working ahead is fine because we already are given God’s wealthy kingdom.  This also plays havoc into that stereotypical image of Protestants being uneducated lower class losers who only quote the Bible and know nothing else.  Interpretation has its own consequences.

As I always say, the texts are not at fault.  The interpreter is!

The Making of Right Texts, Wrong Meanings: Matthew 7.12 and the Golden Rule of Interpretation

Tags

judgmental attitude, Matthew 7.12, the Golden Rule

This marks the last blog for chapter 1 of my book.  “Thank goodness,” you say.

This blog is my conviction about the usage of the Golden Rule. This again, like Matthew 7.1, is one of the most quoted verses of the entire NT, without any exception.  If you take it literally as an ethical command, the world would be a better place, but life just doesn’t work like the rule.  Let me give some examples that may tickle you.

Let’s say I’m in a situation where my kid is getting bullied.  I teach him, “Do to others as you would have them to do to you.”  He acts kind towards the bully, creating even a bigger problem.  The bully bullies him even worse. What do I do?  Do I quote the verse to him?  Well, I actually teach him how to box, kick, grapple and deal with weapons (I’m only half kidding).

What about when I try to be nice to those people who wrong me at work, the same people who are after my promotion?  Guess what?  No matter how I treat them, they continue to be mean.  Yes, I’m speaking about the real world rather than the spiritual world where some of my spiritual giants friends dwell.

Many will say, “Well, God’s word said to do this.”  What if God’s word isn’t really saying that?  Would that rule apply to the Israelites?  I’m sure they would want the Canaanites not to fight back?  How about being nice to the Canaanites (at one point in Judges 1-2, they were nice to the Canaanites and paid dearly for their niceness)?  Obviously, the Israelites were not doing to others as they would have them reciprocate.  Has the Golden Rule lost its shine to you yet?  It’s lost its shine a long time ago in my Christian life.

This is where we need to ask a wider question, what does this Golden Rule to do with the surrounding ideas about prayer? OR are the surrounding ideas not really about prayer?  What about the relationship between the Golden Rule and the main issue? What is the main issue?  The fact is, there are many ways we can go with answering these questions, but the real solution does not lie in the literal application of the Golden Rule.  The obvious is never that obvious. That’s my “golden rule” of biblical interpretation.  If you want the real answer, (other than buying my book) you had better think about what the big idea is starting in Matthew 7.1 or you will never get the golden rule.

As I always say, the texts are not at fault.  The interpreter is!

The Making of Right Texts, Wrong Meanings: Matthew 7.7 and the False Promise of God

Tags

Matthew 7.7, the promise of God

I continue to blog on chapter 1 of my book because the passage is so rich with meaning.  Matthew 7.7 is quite popular as a teaching on prayer by Christ.  In fact, songs have been sung about it.  Theologies have been formed around it.

Here’s the deal, God wants you to have everything that makes you happy.  God wants to make you happy and rich.  Now, if you send money to me, I, the all-powerful intercessory prayer warrior, will intercede on your behalf so that God will open up the heaven’s treasure trove and pour down his blessings because we have a good God. Amen?  Well, if you said amen to that, please do send money. I’m half kidding.

The fact is, my above sermonic plot line is repeated in a less extreme form in seeing the verse as yet one more of God’s precious promise.  What if God does NOT keep his promise? I’m sure, if you’re honest with yourself, really really honest, you’ll say that God has failed his promise endlessly if these verses are the promise.  Some of you who are smarter would say, “But the verse which follows shows how God keeps his promise.”  Sure, it does!  The bigger question we need to ask is, why is the discussion about prayer and God’s “promise” lands in the major topic of not judging.

Well, some of you still smarter interpreters will say that Matthew 5-7 is just nothing but a collection of Jesus’ sayings clumped into one with no apparent logic.  What if there is logical connection, even if Matthew and not Jesus edited and put together the text? What if this is not a set of random sayings?  Hmmmm … I bet many will have no answer for that one.

The fact is, I think it’s a desperate grasp for straws when we say that large sections of the Bible have no logical order.  As one of my self-defense instructor used to say, “Don’t read your own limitations into the situation of others.”  Exactly!  What if we assume that the Bible is logically put together? What a thought, huh?  “You mean we can’t just quote random verses and call them promises?” you say.  Well, yeah!  Unless you’re ready to settle with a God who repeatedly breaks his “precious promise,” you’d better take the view of the Bible having its own contextual logic.  Otherwise, you have to take the alternate solution, “Maybe I just don’t have enough faith for this promise to happen.”  Hmmm … you have to make that call.

As I always say, the texts are not at fault.  The interpreter is!

To get to the meaning, remember always that this is part of a discussion about judging.  This is not God’s promise.

The Third Sunday of Lent: Reflecting on Mark’s Call to Discipleship

Tags

commitment, Mark 8.31-9.1, The Third Sunday of Lent

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.

Mark 10.35-52 – More information, more wisdom?

Tags

discipleship, Jesus' healing, Mark 10

Mark 10 is part of my work for my book on Mark. Have you ever noticed that people quote proof texts to prove their points?  In narrative, proof texts nearly cannot prove anything we want it to say.  We do however see some repeated key phrases within the same author’s writing worth noting.

In this installment, I will show how biblical authors can use unrelated accounts but using similar vocabulary to make a comparison in order to convey a message.  Of great interest is the pairing of the disciples’ request and the healing of Bartimaeus.  These two unrelated stories are interesting in that Mark used some of the same vocabulary to show that the Bartimaeus story did not just follow the disciples’ request sequentially but that there is a lesson to be learned here.  In this blog, I only wish to focus on one aspect: Jesus’ question.

I read an article that points to the same question being asked twice. This got me thinking.  Mk. 10.36 has Jesus asking the disciples “What do you want me to do for you?” after the disciples demanded Jesus to grant them their request as if they were in charge. In fact, the outcome of the story shows that they had more misunderstandings about Jesus, as Jesus did not grant them their request.

In the story of Bartimaeus, Jesus asked the same question in Mk. 10.51, “What do you want me to do for you?”  Jesus then granted healing to the blind man.  The results are the contrast in the two stories.  The blind man probably investigated about Jesus before he shouted for Jesus to help him.  What is the contrast?  Throughout Mark, the disciples were rebuked by Jesus because, quite often, their requests were unreasonably ignorant.  Yet, by now, they were approaching Jerusalem with Jesus.  They had followed Jesus all these three years.  The blind man did not.  Yet, Jesus granted the blind man his wishes.  Surely, Jesus taught the disciples more information, at least much more than the information the blind man gathered.  What is this contrast trying to teach us?  The question “What do you want me to do for you” is really not about what Jesus could do for His followers, at least not in Mark.  Mark took the question towards a different direction of revealing about the disciples’ understanding.  Mark seems to be saying that more information does not equal to understanding.  The result of the healing has the healed Bartimaeus following Jesus.  Even with incomplete information, he was able to follow Jesus, no less than the disciples.  Perhaps the formerly blind man was just lucky. Who knows, but the fact remains that Jesus granted his request.

The question “What do you want me to do for you?” does not try to solicit information as much as exposing people’s understanding or misunderstanding about God.  Disciples had all the information but lacked understanding.  The blind man had some information but luckily got the right understanding.  The lesson is clear.  You don’t need all the information to get it right some of the time.  Information does not always create wisdom or understanding.  Whether people have complete or partial information and understanding, they can still follow Jesus.  This is a fitting message for our information age.