Thanks,

Phil

(CNN) — Get a kick out of this: Researchers reported Wednesday finding the world’s oldest leather shoe in a cave in Armenia.

The 5,500-year-old one-piece shoe antedates Stonehenge by a millennium and precedes every loafer, mukluk, wader, clog, bootee, stiletto, wingtip, mule, Oxford and cross trainer anyone has ever seen, according to Ron Pinhasi, a lecturer in prehistoric archaeology at University College Cork in Ireland.

The effort that resulted in the find dates to 2005, when Pinhasi and his team of archaeologists first entered the cave about an hour south of the capital city of Yerevan, in Vayotz Dzor province on the border with Iran and Turkey, and decided it looked promising.

Two years later, Pinhasi returned, dug down about half a meter and “started discovering everything,” including rare, well-preserved organic material such as textiles, ropes and wooden stakes, leading them to redouble their efforts.

The next year, they excavated in a house that had been constructed inside the cave and found a pit covered with sheep or goat dung.

Below the dung, they found broken pottery and goat horns covering the shoe, said the authors, who published their findings in the online scientific journal PLoS ONE.

The right-footed, undecorated shoe — today it would be a size 5 — probably belonged to a woman, “but we cannot be certain; it could be a man with small feet,” Pinhasi said.

A leather thong is stitched through four sets of eyelets in the back and 15 sets in the top. The shoe was lightly worn. Some of the eyelets have been recut, but the sole shows little wear.

“We thought originally it could be a discard, but at the same time, it’s very strange, because we have only one shoe, and it’s in very good shape,” Pinhasi said. “It looks like it was more than likely deliberately placed in this way.”

If so, it would join a number of other items that appear to have been placed as offerings. At the back of the cave, the archaeologists found pots full of grain and three pots, each containing the skull of a child — their jaws removed.

“It’s pretty weird,” he said.

Two leather samples were taken: One was sent for carbon dating to the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit at the University of Oxford and the other to the University of California-Irvine Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Facility; a piece of the straw was sent to Oxford.

Age estimates were the same for all three.

Pinhasi said he had no idea how common it would have been at that time for people to wear shoes.

His is the second-oldest shoe find; a pair of 7,500-year-old sandals made of fiber was found in Missouri, he said.

But that doesn’t mean shoes were not commonly used. The fact that so little footwear from those days has been found could be explained by the fact that shoes don’t tend to age well. Had it not been for the conditions inside the cave, the shoe would probably have disintegrated long ago.

Though temperatures in the region range from sweltering in the summer to icy in winter, the interior of the limestone cave remains a dry, consistent 20 degrees Celsius (68 degrees F), key to the shoe’s survival, he said.

“What was exciting was that it is so complete and it looks so much like a modern shoe, with the eyelets and everything. Obviously, these people already knew how to make it.”

And there was a level of sophistication in the product that he did not expect. The cow leather appeared to have been split and cured with a vegetable oil, said Pinhasi, who favors size 10½ Birkenstocks. “They actually look a little bit like the shoe,” he said. “Not quite — a bit more sophisticated.”

The fact that the cave remained untouched for so many millennia is surprising. It can be seen from a heavily traveled road and is only about 300 yards from a fish restaurant, he said.

But government authorities are now posting a guard to keep away looters. “It’s turning [out] to be sort of the most important site in Armenia,” he said.

Though he wants to display the shoe in a museum in Armenia, he first wants to take it to Switzerland or Germany for preservation.

In the two years since the footwear was unearthed, the elements have taken a toll. “When it came out [of the ground], the leather was absolutely soft,” the Israeli archaeologist said. “Now, it’s hard as a rock.”

But legislation does not exist in Armenia that would allow him to remove a national treasure from the country, so he is waiting.

Meanwhile, the shoe sits in the Institute of Archeology at the National Academy of Sciences in Yereva.

On Friday, Pinhasi plans to return to the region, this time to dig in a cave near the one that held the shoe.

“We want to see if it’s unique,” he said.

Even if nearby caves turn out to hold no such treasure, the 41-year-old researcher has plenty of work ahead of him. “We must have excavated about 2 percent of it,” he said. “It could take decades” to finish the rest.

_______________________

I’m a year behind in watching “Lost.” I’m in the middle of last season’s DVDs in my time each morning on the exercise bike. So I did not watch the grand finale. But I’ve heard a lot of talk about it around the Fuller campus. And much of it is theological:   purgatory, salvation, good and evil, crucifixes and church sanctuaries. All of that is fine. I’ll probably have theological thoughts of my own when I catch up with everyone else.

“Lost” lends itself nicely to that kind of theological discussion—maybe even a little too nicely. But right now I’m more caught up in thinking about the series finale I did watch after faithfully viewing every episode for eight seaons: “24.”

The Jack Bauer saga was a great run. And there were at least some hints at theological themes at the end. The really evil guy, former president  Logan was trying to convince President Taylor, herself involved in a terrible coverup, that the only hope the two had of not having their evil deeds exposed was to do away with Jack Bauer. Hearing this speech, I pushed the pause button on the recording and got off my exercise bike to write down the relevant phrases. If Bauer lives, said Logan, he will not give up in his fight against the folks responsible for the coverup: “He will rise up out of the deepest hole in the ground” to make things right.

President Taylor eventually saw the error of her ways and public repented. What brought her to her moment of truth was a recorded message from Jack, in which he expressed the deep conviction that a truly “lasting peace” can come only with “trust” and “honesty.”

Not bad for a character widely criticized for having an end-justifies-the-means approach to fighting evil. Of course, Jack did not die in the end, so we don’t have to look for him to “rise up” again from some deep place in the earth.  And that’s a good thing. For one thing, it means that we may yet see Jack and Chloe again, this time in a full-length film.  More importantly, it would have been yet another wasted death. There was really no chance of a real “rising up” if Jack had died.  It’s already been done—and with a genuine guarantee of an ultimate “lasting peace.”



For reference, here are the NT passages that record this event (click on reference to follow to Scriptural text):

• Matt 14:13-21
• Mark 6:30-44
• Luke 9:10b-17
• John 6:1-15

Walking Through the Synoptics…

Both Matthew and Mark report that Jesus and his disciples withdrew in a boat to be by themselves in an anonymous place. It is interesting that both accounts use vivid language to describe Jesus and the disciples withdrawing to a place described as “lonely”. This withdrawing and lonely language contrasts the subsequent event of the crowds following. Luke, on the other hand, gives the specific location of Bethsaida as the place where they went. Could it be that Luke wants to identify the “lonely place” based on his historical based inquiry? This is certainly possible. Further, it also seems evident that Luke is much more descriptive in his Gospel with respect to dates and places, this being such an example. Additionally, John’s account simply describes the lake they presumably crossed, which is also interestingly mentioned first as the Sea of Galilee, and then, for the audience, identified as the Sea of Tiberias. Mentioning the lake under these two different names may be demonstrative of his audience, one which might have not been familiar with the name Galilee. Nonetheless, each author essentially makes the point that Jesus went away.

As noted above, all four gospels mention that after the ‘withdrawing’ event, crowds followed Jesus and the disciples. The word choice to make this point is interesting in all of the accounts. For example, Matthew recalls that the crowds “heard” and then followed, while Mark writes that they (e.g., the crowds) “saw” and ran ahead. Luke notes that the crowds “learned” and then followed, while John says that the multitude followed because they “saw the signs” that Jesus performed. Whatever the reason, each author found it reasonable to describe that the people followed Jesus as a result of who he was and what he was doing. This event in all four accounts is the precursor for one of the great miracles that Jesus would perform not only in the sight, hearing, or learning of the people, but actually for all of the people. As a side note, there is a good deal of additional information that John provides to his readers. He includes a section describing where Jesus is at the time of his seeing the multitudes, as well as noting the coming Passover celebration. Being on a “mountain” with his disciples, Jesus looks up and sees a multitude. John’s perspective indicates for the reader that Jesus is on a mountain, which is indicative of many OT allusions, and reminds his readers of Jesus’ association with the Passover. This is obviously significant because it’s a clear OT allusion, as is the fact that God fed Israel in the Exodus account.

Matthew and Mark are the only ones to note Jesus’ coming ashore. They are also the only ones to clearly indicate that he went into a boat. Moreover, these two accounts present for the reader what Jesus experienced after coming ashore, namely, seeing a “great throng”. Both authors set up Jesus’ compassionate response: “and he had compassion on them”. This tandem account indicates what will come of Jesus’ compassion, that is, the miracle of the feeding. However, Mark gives additional reasoning for Jesus’ compassion. He indicates that the people were like sheep without a shepherd, they were lost (see Matthew 9:36 for parallel). The result is that Jesus began to teach them many things (in addition to healing them as describe only in Matthew and Luke). What did Jesus teach them? Mark doesn’t say, but Luke includes that he taught them of the “kingdom of God.” Interestingly, John doesn’t record any part of these accounts from the synoptic tradition. A reason for this may be that, according to John’s context, Jesus starts to address his disciple Philip about the crowd. In John’s view, Jesus’ interaction with the crowd is turned toward his disciples.

Matthew and Mark both identify that the “lonely place” where Jesus, the disciples, and the crowds are present is now a place that is getting dark. The day has turned to night and the disciples are concerned with the welfare of the crowd. The synoptic accounts (John doesn’t come in until Jesus’ question to Philip) all note that the disciples ask Jesus to “send” the crowd away to get something to eat (Luke includes lodging). It seems that the authors all point out that the disciples are concerned with the crowd, but they fail to take into account that Jesus is the shepherd of these people, he is responsible for them. In light of this, Jesus admonishes his disciples and tells them to feed the people.

At this point, Mark gives additional information that Matthew and Luke do not. Mark indicates that the disciples ask the rhetorical question: “should we go buy two hundred denarii worth of bread…?” (John’s account also mentions this: Philip says that “Two hundred denarii” wouldn’t even be enough to buy the bread. Luke’s account also alludes to this rhetorical question in v. 13 about buying food.) It seems that the question is meant to show that it is practically impossible to feed all the people. Jesus, however, asks his own question: how much bread do you have? Matthew and Luke come back into the picture at this point, but it is interesting to note John’s take on all of this. In John, Jesus’ question to Philip, i.e., how are we to buy bread for all these people? is indicative of his omniscience. John says that Jesus already knew what he was going to do! Evidently John is pointing out that Jesus is aware and able to accomplish what is to come. Furthermore, this puts Jesus in the role of a divine teacher for his disciples as well. Simply put, he’s testing them.

The synoptic accounts are fairly similar in their rendition of the disciples’ response to Jesus’ question. They all include “they said” for example. What’s particularly interesting, however, is Luke and John’s text. Luke chooses to echo Mark v. 37 about the cost of food for all the people. Moreover, Luke is also the first to point out how many people this “crowd” is composed of: 5000 men. Alternatively, John’s account is more focused on the particular disciples. For example, Andrew is the one who gives the answer about the bread and fish, but he follows his answer with a skeptical response; “what are they among so many?” Thus, in this section, Luke chooses to place the question and the number of people strategically before the feeding, while John chooses to focus on the dialogue between particular disciples of Jesus.

The next section includes a consensus between all of the evangelists that Jesus ordered the people to sit down. Matthew and Mark imply that Jesus directly ordered the crowds whereas Luke and John report that Jesus, through his disciples, made the people sit down in groups upon the grass (Luke doesn’t mention grass, however. John inserts the 5,000 here). Perhaps the authors here are indicating that Jesus’ strategy is clear and orderly, that is, the miracle is to be performed not in frenzy, but in a reverent fashion. The next lines indicate a very strong consensus between the synoptic accounts. Clearly the synoptic accounts are drawing from some standard feature of this miracle story that was well known. Perhaps it is an allusion to the last supper language in 26:26 where Jesus blessed, broke, and gave the bread to his disciples. Basically, the only dissimilarity between the gospels is that of John, who only gives short summary of the blessing and distribution. It is, however, interesting that John mentions that they ate “as much as they wanted.” This statement clarifies that this is indeed a miracle; it’s an ‘all you can eat buffet’ as it were. At the end of the miracle account, Matthew and Mark both report on the amount of people whom were there, five thousand men (Matthew is the only evangelist to report “besides woman and children”).

John’s account includes an additional declaration. The people knew that Jesus was special, so much so that they were going to make him king by force. John tells that because of this, Jesus withdrew again. It is possible that John includes this information due to the explicit nature of his gospel. Nevertheless, we move on to the next section.

Notes: The Gospel of Matthew 14:13-21

The content of this pericope is strategically placed between the larger context of Herod’s execution of John the Baptist and Jesus’ walking on the water. When reading the pericope, one notices several features from 14:1-12 that add tremendous weight and are directly connected to the miracle account. For example, the scene is set up by Herod hearing about Jesus’ powers (v. 2b). Instead of focusing on Jesus, however, Herod recalls his execution of John the Baptist. Regarding the Baptist, it is interesting that the author emphasizes Herod’s fear of the crowd due to the fact that they regarded him as a prophet. In 13:57, Jesus, being rejected in his own land, said that “Prophets are not without honor except in their own country and in their own house.” Nonetheless, the atrocious execution of the Baptist is told to Jesus by John’s disciples. As a result, we enter into our pericope on a very sad note (contrast this with the subsequent miracle of the four thousand in ch.15).

It’s clear that the author extends the grief of the execution and its emphasis into the miracle account. It seems difficult to imagine Jesus’ grief and sadness upon hearing about John’s death. In response to the death, we are told that Jesus “withdrew to a deserted place by himself.” The author, here, emphasizes Jesus’ great love of John, for his reaction is a very somber one (recall John’s in ch. 3). With that, the crowds are introduced back into the story (13:13b). Perhaps the author’s reference to the crowds is related to the earlier crowds spoken of in 14:5, the ones that regarded John as a prophet. Moreover, there may be a reference here to crowds spoken of further back in 9:36 (e.g., “When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd.) If this is the case, then just as Jesus is grief stricken as a result of hearing about John’s death, then the crowds too are just as distressed. Thus, when Jesus saw these very crowds and their anguish, “he had compassion for them and healed their sick.” (v. 14b) The story is quite comforting at this point due to Jesus’ role as a compassionate and caring figure for the ones whom regarded John as a prophet (again, recall 13:57). Even though originally Jesus left to be by himself, he’s not about to allow the crowds to be by themselves. Clearly without the preceding context of John’s execution by Herod, the placement of our pericope doesn’t have the weight or substance that the author intends it to have.

The context proceeding the pericope is the event of Jesus’ walking on the water. Before the water event, however, and directly after the feeding of the five thousand, Jesus instructed his disciples to go in the boat and he dismissed the crowds. At this point, Jesus, like in v. 13, goes to a place on the mountain to pray (v. 23). The author’s emphasis on Jesus going up on a mountain is reminiscent of Moses (e.g., Exodus 19 and 24), and in light of the prophet language interwoven through this episode, this reference to the mountain is particularly interesting. What’s also noteworthy is that twice before this pericope Jesus is described as being on a mountain in the context of a crowd (5:1; 8:1). This time, however, Jesus is alone and praying. The scene that follows is similar to Jesus’ compassion for the people. Before Jesus performed a miracle for all the people in the presence of and through his disciples, but this time he performs a miracle to the effect that his disciples worship him. Thus, it seems also that the subsequent context of the mountain and water event are a further accentuation of the person of Jesus. This also seems to indicate that the pericope’s inclusion between these contexts serves multiple functions for the reader. On the one hand, it is concerned with the death of John and Jesus’ compassion for the crowds in light of this tragic event. On the other, it is a miracle account that precedes a much more intense and personal miracle for the benefit of the disciples, one that is also illustrative of his divinity (e.g., 14:27).

In closing, we have seen that the contextual placement of 14:13-21 by the evangelist is intended to serve multiple functions for the reader. Additionally, within this context, there are various emphases such as compassion and mourning for the death of a friend, compassion and comfort for a mourning crowd, allusions to a great prophet on a mountain, and unambiguous miracles performed by the person of Jesus. The intent and aim of these emphases within the pericope and its surrounding context by the author portray Jesus in a very vivid manner. They highlight his humanity as well as his divinity.

Theological Summary of Matthew 14:13-21

The theology of this pericope presents the person of Jesus as a compassionate leader who both loves and will provide for people in need. The need of the people, however, is not just for bread alone, but is for compassion and love. The people in this account needed comfort and in Jesus’ providing for them, one presumes that they received more than just a meal. Moreover, in being compassionate toward the crowd, Jesus is also similar to the OT concept of Yahweh providing for his people in the wilderness. Yet in this account the grace and provision of Jesus is amplified compared to the OT. When the disciples want the crowd to leave, Jesus, in his compassion, freely provides for them.

As for how this account could be used in preaching or teaching, I believe that the Matthean version needs to be read in light of its surrounding context. As mentioned above, the weight and substance of the account hinges on the execution of John the Baptist. Thus, for a contemporary person to understand this pericope, in the context of preaching or teaching, they must be aware of its placement in the author’s account. It might be helpful to highlight the ministry of John the Baptist as well. Additionally, one must always remember that Jesus was not just handing out free meals and making the people feel good just in a temporal sense (though this can’t be discounted). He is more than a miracle-maker in terms of feeding thousands of people; he is the Christ, the Son of God. The latter context makes this rather clear (e.g., 14:27 εγω ειμι “I AM”).

Notes: The Gospel of Mark 6:32-44

Mark places this pericope in the middle of a larger context which is quite interesting. The preceding milieu has to do with the rejection of Jesus in his own village (6:1-5), Jesus sending out his disciples with authority and power (6:7-13), and also Herod hearing and speculating about Jesus and the things done in his name (6:14-29). The result of these events gives way to inquiries regarding just who he is. Herod, for example, was concerned with the person of John the Baptist and his execution when contemplating the person of Jesus. One of Mark’s emphases in this context seems to draw attention to the death of John, and to draw further attention to the person of Jesus. Furthermore, what’s interesting is that in v. 30 the apostles’ report to Jesus about their deeds and actions has no reference to the death of John. It is important to note that there is no reference about Jesus being distraught about John’s death in this context. (This is different than the Matthean account.) Mark’s emphasis in this context is hard to decipher as a result. Is it that he just moves on to the feeding pericope without considering the execution of John, or is it that he is concerned with the actions of the disciples being sent and reporting back to Jesus?

The placement of the pericope in relation to the preceding context seems to draw attention to defining the power and authority of Jesus. For example, earlier when Jesus sent his disciples out, they were told to bring neither food nor money (v. 8). In the pericope at hand, there is an emphasis on the disciples’ perspective about not having any food (well, only five loaves…) for the crowd and specifically not possessing any money to buy food for the people. Again, Jesus simply asks a question of how much food they have, and then miraculously provides for all. (This is somewhat similar to Elisha’s feeding in 2 Kings 4:42-44.) Nonetheless, the proceeding context, I believe, is very important for understanding the magnitude of this pericope.

After the feeding of the people, Jesus sends his disciples across the lake. What is rather interesting is Mark’s emphasis of the mysterious nature of Jesus (recall earlier guesses of just who he is vv. 14-15). The emphases regarding his divine nature are obvious, however. When the storm hits the lake, Jesus makes the “I AM” declaration in addition to calming the winds. Mark then provides for his reader a very revealing statement after this account, namely, “…they did not understand about the loaves…” What exactly does this statement refer to? Perhaps it is a further accentuation of his power and authority in light of the miracle feeding. If he can feed five thousand with a little bit of food, and he can compare himself to Yahweh as well as calm the winds, then the result is that he is likely divine. Mark’s pointers are therefore very influential for his readers.

In conclusion, it seems that Mark’s account has less to do with John the Baptist’s execution (in contrast to Matthew’s account), and more to do with the authority and unfolding of whom Jesus is in his divinity. He sends out his disciples with power and authority, but when questioned about not having food or money by these same disciples, he feeds five thousand with his power and authority. The scene’s climax takes place on the lake with the disciples “terrified” and “utterly astounded, for they did not understand about the loaves…” Mark’s context and emphases are rather clear. This person named Jesus is neither John come back from the dead nor Elisha; instead, he is the “I AM.” For the reader, there is no doubt that Jesus is proclaimed to be God almighty.

Theological Summary of Mark 6:32-44

Not surprisingly, the theology of this pericope is principally tied to the larger context. Although the pericope is representative of Jesus having compassion on the people because they are “like sheep without a shepherd,” it is also telling about the nature of Jesus himself. He feeds the people because he has compassion on them, but he also teaches them many things. Unlike the people whom rejected him earlier, these five thousand receive his blessings. The real unfolding of his person, however, seems to be revealed in the latter context of his calming the winds (which one can’t help but think of the Genesis account where the spirit/wind is hovering over the waters), and the “I AM” statement (recall Exodus).

Teaching or preaching from this pericope has to take into account the previously mentioned contexts. For example, the account is extremely similar to that of Matthew’s, but when placed in Mark’s larger context, which is also somewhat similar to Matthew’s, we can see different emphases by the author. A clear example of one of these emphases is Mark’s divergence from focusing so much on John the Baptist in the feeding account. Furthermore, I think there are quite a few allusions to the OT throughout the pericope that are necessary for supplementary insight. For example, there’s the mountain reference, prophet references, Elijah, Elisha, “I AM”, calming of the winds, power, authority, etc. These are examples that demonstrate the richness and complexity of the pericope and its surrounding context. Thus, all of these topics have to be taken into account when preaching or teaching on this pericope.

Notes: The Gospel of Luke 9:10b-17

The larger context into which Luke places the feeding miracle is chiastic. For example, Jesus’ sending of the twelve with power and authority is followed by Herod pondering who this Jesus is. The speculations consisted of John the Baptist returned, Elijah, or perhaps one of the ancient prophets. The episode after the miracle puts Jesus in the context of asking his disciples a similar question of who he is. Again, the crowds ponder the question, like Herod, and answer with John the Baptist, Elijah, or one of the prophets. Thus, Luke places the miracle in a context that begs the question: Who is Jesus? As this question was profoundly important to the first century audience, it is also equally important for us today (actually yesterday, today, and tomorrow).

In Luke’s account, the placement of the pericope influences the way it’s read in the sense that it’s right in the middle of the bigger question of Jesus as messiah. The climax is clearly in the latter context of Peter’s confession (v. 20). This doesn’t mean that the pericope can’t be read and analyzed by itself, but it does imply a building up of the bigger messianic question by Luke. This Jesus, the one who can feed five thousand, is the messiah. Perhaps this is Luke’s larger emphasis. From the larger context it’s evident that Jesus is obviously special and everyone around him is wondering, but it’s in Peter’s confession that the suspense is revealed.

Furthermore, the situation with the crowd in v. 11 is emphasized differently by Luke compared to that of Matthew and Mark. Luke, for example, says that Jesus welcomed the crowds instead of having compassion on them. The word for welcome in Luke (αποδεξαμενος) is wholly different than compassion (εσπλαγχνισθη) in the other synoptic accounts. That being said, Jesus’ welcoming of the people is akin to his welcoming answers to the question of who people say he is (v. 18). This further accentuates Luke’s description of Jesus after welcoming the crowd, and then speaking to them of the “kingdom of God and healing them.” These are probably illusions to Isaiah 61.

In sum then: it seems that Luke is emphatic about his placement of the miracle account. It comes (1) after Jesus’ sending of his disciples with authority and power, as well as the ensuing question of his theological role, and (2) before the important messianic question that he asks his disciples. The answer that Luke emphasizes of course is that Jesus is the Messiah.

Theological Summary of Luke 9:10b-17

The principle theological point of this pericope within its larger context has to do with Jesus as “The Messiah of God.” This is clear from the references to John the Baptist, Elijah, and one of the prophets before the pericope and following it. Clearly the crowds perceive that Jesus is “from” God in some special way, but it is only with Peter’s confession that we realize that Jesus is the Messiah. Here there is unequivocally something to be said for special revelation. It is also significant to note that shortly after the confession, Luke includes the transfiguration account. Thus, the feeding miracle is strategically placed by the author to begin a theological inquiry into the person of Jesus. This is the beginning of Luke’s Christology as it pertains to the divinity of Christ.

Some suggestions for how this pericope could be used in preaching or teaching are to draw on Luke’s emphasis of Jesus’ theological significance for the story. A decent way to go about this might be to study and contrast the characters of John the Baptist, Elijah, and some of the prophets with the way in which all the evangelist’s portray the person of Jesus. Secondly, it might be helpful to call attention to the fact that Luke emphasizes Jesus’ teaching on the kingdom of God and his healing of the people.

Notes: The Gospel of John 6:1-15

The larger context into which John places the feeding miracle is a fascinating one that contains a good deal of rich and complex theology. The context preceding the pericope involves Jesus in a heated theological discourse of which he rebukes some Jews over Sabbath observance. Using this as a springboard, Jesus speaks a great deal about his Father and references John the Baptist as a witness to himself and the person of Moses. John decides to place the pericope at hand directly after this episode.

The author chooses to follow this pericope with the walking on the water event. However, the feeding metaphor is emphasized by the evangelist all the way from the literal feeding of the five thousand to Jesus speaking about his own flesh and blood for consumption. Clearly the placement of this pericope is essential for John’s overall theological emphasis of Jesus being the bread of life.

One of the especially important features in John’s account is the fact that Jesus is described as already being aware that the multitude coming toward him will need food to eat. He is also described as already knowing what he will do when he tests Philip with the question. This important element of the story fits very nicely into the way Jesus is speaking before and after the miracle event. Jesus is very bold and clear in his proclamation and the author is drawing attention to this. In fact, Jesus’ feeding miracle is so awesome in the sight (and stomach) of all the people, that he perceives that they would make him king by force, which is a unique addition to the feeding story in all of the gospels. There is no ambiguity here, Jesus is regarded as “…the prophet who is to come into the world!”

The following episode (6:22-34) portrays some type of super natural “teleport” (what else can it be referred to?) of which the previous crowd, i.e., the ones who were fed, are now looking for Jesus. His rebuke is clear in that he accuses them of just wanting to fill their stomachs with bread. It is interesting that Jesus moves from the literal feeding of the people to the metaphor of himself being the bread of life that people need to eat (e.g., 6:35, 41, 48, 51). The emphasis John is making is dependent on our original pericope of the five thousand.

In conclusion, John’s account of the miracle seems to be the most theologically explicit. The miracle is really a type of springboard for which Jesus declares that he is the living bread. In this sense, John uses the miracle as a basis to amplify its theological significance. This analogical method is one of the main emphases that John uses and is therefore crucial for directing the reader of his gospel. Just as Moses was there when the people received food, this Jesus is now bringing the bread of life for the people, the true food from heaven itself (vv. 31-34). It is unmistakable that the way John intends his theological perspective to be read is dependent on his placement of the feeding miracle before Jesus’ declaration about being the bread of life.

Theological Summary of John 6:1-15

John’s account of the miracle and its surrounding context is extremely rich in Christological content. The theology of the section finds its apex in Jesus declaring that the ones who eat his body and drink his blood have eternal life (vv. 52-59). Eternal life is the culmination of the bread analogy. For this reason, the feeding miracle really finds its true meaning within the subsequent context and should be read in relation to it.

This section could be used in teaching and preaching to really dig into the nature of Christ as well as the purpose that the incarnation serves. Although there is so much theology in this section, much can be drawn out about Jesus’ mission and what certain persons wanted to impose on his mission (e.g., vv. 14-15). It would probably be helpful when teaching about this particular account of scripture to emphasize Jesus’ authoritative perspective regarding his mission. Perhaps reading the feeding miracle and then analyzing Jesus’ later discourse with the crowd he admonishes (vv. 26-35) would be insightful for both the physical bread he provided, and the eternal bread which requires belief in him whom God has sent (v. 29).



“You should no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind, having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God.”

Ephesians 4:17-18

The lusts of the human heart—prejudicing it in favor of sinful practices to which those lusts tend, and in which they delight—stir up carnal reason and cause persons, with all the subtlety of which they are capable, to invent pleas and arguments to justify such practices. When people are very strongly inclined and tempted to any wicked practice, and conscience troubles them about it, they will rack their brains to find out arguments to stop the mouth of conscience and make themselves believe that they may lawfully proceed in that practice.

]]> http://philliphigley.com/2010/05/16/do-not-dull-your-conscience/feed/ 0 http://philliphigley.com/2010/05/10/an-atypical-puritan-jonathan-edwards-and-his-aesthetic-analogy-of-love-part-2/ http://philliphigley.com/2010/05/10/an-atypical-puritan-jonathan-edwards-and-his-aesthetic-analogy-of-love-part-2/#comments Tue, 11 May 2010 00:26:19 +0000 philhigley http://philliphigley.com/?p=1576 The Importance of a Historical Perspective

Historical perspective is especially important in substantiating Jonathan Edwards’ concept of the love between the sexes as a way to think of Christ’s love toward the soul. Since it has been claimed and evidenced that Sarah is indeed the illustration of Edwards’ conception of the soul, there should also be contextual evidence that supports this postulation. This evidence will be found in two places: first, looking at the documents (i.e., miscellanies nos. 108, 189 and the letter to Sarah) time of composition and, second, personal eyewitness testimony of Jonathan and Sarah’s relationship.

The principal evidence that supports Edwards’ conception of human and divine love in relation to Sarah has to do with the time of composition between the early miscellanies’ and his letter to Sarah. As noted, the letter to Sarah was composed very early on in the courting process between the two. The general date of assumed composition of the letter to her was sometime in 1723, and this would have meant that she was only thirteen years old while Edwards was twenty.[1] This is very important for understanding the nature of Edwards’ conception of love because although he was intellectually gifted at this time, he was still only a twenty year old that would have viewed Sarah not just in a spiritual manner, but also in a physical one as well.[2] Reading the letter to Sarah and the miscellanies’ within this context reveals a very real and human component within Edwards thought. Thus, one must question strict perspectives like Claghorn’s when he says: “…the importance of [Jonathan’s] relationship to Sarah was always its spiritual nature.”[3] If this relationship was always spiritual in nature, then why does Edwards use such physical—even racy language in all of the documents in question? Thus it seems that in addition to the spiritual nature of Sarah, Jonathan also saw great physical beauty in her as well.

Like the letter to Sarah, the early miscellanies’ were also written within the same time frame. In fact, there is good evidence that miscellanies’ nos. 189 and 198 were written in 1724, only one year after the letter to Sarah.[4] Perhaps this is why Smith, Stout and Minkema say that Jonathan’s “relationship with [Sarah] is essential for our understanding of the beauty and almost sexual intimacy that he used to characterize the saint’s relationship to Christ.”[5]

In the spring of 1725, only two years after the Edwards’ wrote miscellanies’ nos. 108, 189, 198 and the letter to Sarah, they were engaged.[6] With this time frame in perspective, there is little doubt that Edwards was smitten with deep spiritual and physical love for Sarah. He not only penned intensely romantic and aesthetic theological perspectives on the nature of love between the sexes, but one can be sure that since he was deeply indebted in his devotion and love of Christ, he must have seen Sarah as a real and not just imagined holy and beautiful soul. Marsden says it well, “…the light of [Jonathan’s] earthly love for Sarah Pierpont shone ever more luminously” during this time.[7]

The second historical perspective consists of eyewitness testimony of Jonathan and Sarah’s relationship. The eyewitness accounts are from Whitefield, John Walley, and Joseph Emerson. All three accounts are more limited because they are not found in the early relationship of Edwards and Sarah, but later. Nevertheless, they are still demonstrative of Jonathan and Sarah’s deep love for one another; and in particular, they supplements Edwards’ earlier comments on the nature of Sarah’s holy and beautiful soul.

If Edwards’ letter to Sarah was symbolic, says Minkema, “it was also extremely personal.”[8] This is because when one looks to the historical nature of Sarah and Jonathan’s relationship, there is no getting around the fact that they were thirty-one years married, had eleven children, and suffered a litany of hardships.[9] In all of this, however, Whitefield, Walley, and Emerson bear personal witness to the remarkable love and relationship they shared.[10]

In his personal journal, Whitefield remarks on Jonathan and Sarah’s relationship: “A sweeter couple I have not seen….[Sarah] is adorned with a meek and quiet spirit; she talked solidly of the things of God, and seemed to be such a helpmeet” for Jonathan.[11] Apparently, Whitefield’s exposure to Sarah renewed his faith and prayers that God would also send him a godly woman. Similarly, Walley writes, “…I think I love Mr. Edwards & his Wife, because I see so much of [the] Image of God in them.”[12] Lastly, Emerson says that Jonathan and Sarah were “the most agreeable Family [he] was ever acquainted with. [M]uch of the Presence of God there.”[13]

One can take these eyewitness accounts of Jonathan and Sarah’s relationship in a couple of ways. First, one may run into the problem of an unrealistic and mythical perspective of their relationship. For example, “…romantics have occasionally used the little historical knowledge we have about Sarah Pierpont to create largely fictitious narrative of the Edwards’ domestic lives.”[14] However, the eyewitness accounts specifically regarding Sarah do, in fact, tell of her disposition of sweetness and devotion to God. Assuming that there is some degree of truth in these accounts, especially Whitefield’s, the traits pertaining to Sarah are undoubtedly similar to the overall point of her being the representation of a holy and beautiful soul which Christ loves. If this is the case, and the accounts above do correspond to the reality of Jonathan and Sarah’s relationship, then there is historical warrant for recognizing them as a legitimate source of testimony.

Conclusion

Jonathan Edwards conceived that the love between the sexes was a good way to think of the love that Christ has toward a holy and beautiful soul. This holy and beautiful soul was, for Edwards, his beloved Sarah. In light of miscellanies’ nos. 108, 189 and the Apostrophe to Sarah Pierpont, the main conclusion that this study contributes to the ongoing legacy of Edwards’ thought is that Sarah was the young Jonathan’s spiritual example of a holy and beautiful soul. He not only portrayed his loving affections for her in a uniquely Puritan way, but he also looked to her as his example of purity which ultimately points to the loving person of Christ. One would do well to remember this distinction that Edwards held for Sarah while at the same not idealizing their relationship.

[2] Philip Gura briefly speaks about Sarah’s physical beauty, he says: “An extant portrait shows her to be an attractive woman…” Gura, Edwards: America’s Evangelical, 43.

[3] Ibid., 746.

[4] Smith, Stout, and Minkema, Edwards Reader, xxxiii.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Regarding the age of Sarah Pierpont, Marsden states that “Sarah would be considerably younger than the average New England bride, but such an early engagement was within the bounds of propriety.” Marsden, Jonathan Edwards, 105.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Kenneth P. Minkema, “Personal Writings,” in The Cambridge Companion to Jonathan Edwards, ed. Stephen J. Stein (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 47.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Edwin S. Gaustad and Mark A. Noll, eds. A Documentary History of Religion in America to 1877. 3^rd edition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 162.

[12] Minkema, “Personal Writings,” 48.

[13] Ibid.

[14] As an example of this fictitious and idealized perspective, Claghorn references: Elisabeth D. Dodds’ Marriage to a Difficult Man: The “Uncommon Union” of Jonathan and Sarah Edwards (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1971). Claghorn, Letters and Personal Writings, WJE, Vol. 16, 746.

Expressions of Puritan Love

Outward Puritan expressions of love in 18^th century New England between wives and husbands, or between persons betrothed, are not particularly known for their romantic qualities. In fact, Puritan love was by no means romantic; but rather, this love and its affections were rational.[2] Within this so-called rational love were Puritan theological perspectives that shaped the ways in which affections were to be understood and expressed.

In contrast to this perspective, however, Jonathan Edwards seems to interpret this Puritan prudery of love as a false dichotomy.[3] He rejects the idea that persons should not love each other inordinately,[4] but that in this love, persons can actually apprehend God’s love more profoundly. “We see,” Edwards says, “how great love the human nature is capable of, not only to God but fellow creatures. How greatly we are inclined to the other sex! Nor doth an exalted and fervent love to God hinder this, but only refines and purifies it.”[5] For Edwards, the idea that one should express hesitant love towards the other sex for the purpose of loving God is to miss the point.

Edwards’ rationale for asserting this refined perspective on love is accomplished by bridging the gap of love between the sexes and comparing it to Christ’s love of a holy and beautiful soul:

Christ has [a] human nature as well as we, and has an inclination to love those that partake of the human [nature] as well as we. That inclination which in us is turned to the other sex, in him is turned to the church, which is his spouse…Therefore when we feel love to anyone of the other sex, ’tis a good way to think of the love of Christ to [a] holy and beautiful soul.[6]

Here, it can be seen that Edwards is departing from the Puritan norm of limiting ones affections for one another and directing them to God. Edwards instead zealously exults this love and its affections by turning to Christ’s love as an example for how persons ought to love each other.

A Holy and Beautiful Soul

When Edwards says in miscellany No. 189, “…when we feel love to anyone of the other sex, ’tis a good way to think of the love of Christ to [a] holy and beautiful soul,” who is he referring too? Further, can we know what Edwards’ definition of a holy and beautiful soul is? The answer to both of these questions can be found in Edwards’ affectionate portrayal of Sarah Pierpont in a romantic apostrophe he wrote to her.[7]

In 1723 the twenty year old Edwards wrote the even younger Sarah a unique piece of poetry, often called the Apostrophe to Sarah Pierpont, in which he describes what a holy and beautiful soul is.[8] But before turning to the letter, it is important to remember at this point that the affectionate love that Edwards exhibits to Sarah is unique within his Puritan context. Two Puritan examples that illustrate a serious contrast to Edwards’ highly romantic language make this point. First, consider the following Puritan perspective written to the Reverend Samuel Whiting:

Church doctors are my witnesses, that here

Affections always kept their proper sphere,

Without those wilder eccentricities,

Which spot the fairest fields of men most wise.[9]

This passage is representative of the Puritan mindset of subjugating romantic affections, and the wild eccentricities that often follow, to the realm of reason. Puritan piety also plays a role in this limiting of loving affections. The idea that too much love and affection for one another could detract from ones love of God was a dilemma within Puritanism. As Puritan historian Edmund Morgan notes, “…ministers hastened to warn husbands and wives that their love for each other required moderation.”[10] Within this moderation was the theological idea that if a person was to celebrate love between the sexes too greatly, it “much benumbs and dims the light of Spirit.”[11] Thus, the Puritan hermeneutic of love was to use discretion for demonstrating affections toward one another.

Secondly, this rationalistic love is also illustrated by the historical courting account between Michael Wigglesworth and his marriage proposal to a certain Mrs. Avery. The proposal is interestingly devoid of loving and passionate language, but rather consists of a cogent and well thought out list of “ten reasons why she should marry him and answering two objections which she had raised to the match.”[12] Yet with both of these accounts one should not presume that passionate and romantic expressions did not exist in Puritan society, but only that the acceptable approach for expressing such emotions was not normative in Puritan prose.

Edwards’ expressions of loving affections are wholly different from the Puritan examples above. His concept of Christ’s love toward a holy and beautiful soul is a romantically aesthetic example of his unique theology. Edwards describes this holy and beautiful soul subsisting in the person of Sarah. His love for Sarah in the letter is, in actuality, a celebration not only of her piety but also of the ideal soul. Although lengthy, the following example from the letter is necessary to apprehend Edwards’ portrayal of Sarah and her spiritual qualities:

…[S]he hardly cares for anything, except to meditate on him—that she expects after a while to be received up where he is, to be raised out of the world and caught up into heaven; being assured that he loves her too well to let her remain at a distance from him always. There she is to dwell with him, and to be ravished with his love, favor and delight, forever. Therefore, if you present all the world before her, with the richest of its treasures, she disregards it and cares not for it, and is unmindful of any pain or affliction. She has a strange sweetness in her mind, and sweetness of temper, uncommon purity in her affections; is most just and praiseworthy in all her actions; and you would give her all the world, lest she should offend this great Being. She is of a wonderful sweetness, calmness and universal benevolence of mind; especially after those times in which this great God has manifested himself to her mind. She will sometimes go about, singing sweetly, from place to [place]; and seems to be always full of joy and pleasure; and no one knows for what.[13]

Here it can be seen that Edwards’ affections for Sarah are expressive of his conception of a beautiful and holy soul as described back in miscellany No. 189. Thus, his significant use of vivid and romantic language such as “ravishing love” and “universal benevolence” reach far beyond the bounds of Puritanism. In fact, the common saying that “Good Puritans controlled their affections even in love letters”[14] seems antithetical to what Edwards is communicating.

There are, however, those who dismiss romantic and idealized perspectives on the nature of the relationship between Edwards and Sarah.[15] For example, Edwardsean scholar George Claghorn accurately says that, “When Edwards penned his meditation, the young minister was contemplating not Sarah Pierpont’s appearance but her religious dedication and way of life” and that “Popular writers have used the piece to create a romantic, idealized picture of the relationship between Jonathan and Sarah…”[16] Claghorn’s commentary, here, should be taken seriously. Admittedly, it could be easy to romanticize Jonathan and Sarah’s relationship to mythical proportions. But would it also be reasonable to ignore that Edwards is actually writing a passionately charged and romantic piece that intimately involves Sarah and was given to her? Furthermore, is Edwards’ language in his letter, in fact, distinctive in his Puritan context, as compared with the other Puritan examples above? Historian and Edwards’ biographer George Marsden seems to think so, he wrote:

Whatever his underlying emotions, he expressed them as pure platonic Christian love. Sarah was his Beatrice. Indeed, Edwards lived in a world of spiritual realties that was in some respects closer to the medieval Dante’s than to our own. Sarah was the perfectly embodied ideal of all that he aspired to be, the pure spiritual being…In any case, Jonathan was sure that in Sarah he had found a kindred spirit.[17]

Marsden’s analysis also seems to be accurate, but more importantly there is supplementary evidence to suggest that Sarah is the representation of the holy and beautiful soul that Edwards’ describes in miscellany No. 189.

In miscellany No. 108, titled, “Excellency of Christ”, Edwards interestingly says in the first lines: “When we behold a beautiful body, a lovely proportion, a beautiful harmony of features of face, delightful airs of countenance and voice, and sweet motion and gesture, we are charmed with it; not under the notion of a corporeal, but a mental beauty.”[18] Here one must be very inquisitive and wonder where, or who, Edwards is drawing this analogy upon. Later in the miscellany when he compares the love and excellencies of Christ to such mental beauty, the issue of the human soul is again referenced: “…when we behold the beauty of [humanity’s] body in its perfection,…we see far the most proper image of the beauty of Christ, when we see beauty in the human soul.”[19] There can be little doubt[20] that the beginning of the miscellany, like that of miscellany No. 189, is referring to Sarah Pierpont.

[2] Edmund S. Morgan, The Puritan Family: Religion and Domestic Relations in Seventeenth-Century New England, rev. ed. (New York: Harper & Row, 1966), 52.

[3] John E. Smith, Harry S. Stout, and Kenneth P. Minkema, eds. A Jonathan Edwards Reader (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), editors’ introduction, xxxiii.

[4] Morgan gives an example: “let this caution be minded, that they dont [sic] love inordinately, because death will soon part them.” Morgan, Puritan Family, 49.

[5] Thomas A. Shafer, ed. The “Miscellanies,” a-500, Vol. 13. The Works of Jonathan Edwards, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994), 332.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Philip F. Gura, Jonathan Edwards: America’s Evangelical (New York: Hill and Wang, 2005), 43-44.

[8] Perry Miller, Jonathan Edwards (New York: W. Sloane Associates, 1949), 201.

[9] Morgan, Puritan Family, 53.

[10] Quote from Benjamin Wadsworth’s, Well-Ordered Family. Ibid., 48.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] George S. Claghorn, ed. Letters and Personal Writings, Vol. 16. The Works of Jonathan Edwards, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998), introduction to “on Sarah Pierpont,” 789-90.

[14] Morgan, Puritan Family, 50.

[15] Claghorn, Letters and Personal Writings, WJE, Vol. 16, 745.

[16] Ibid., 745-746.

[17] George M. Marsden, Jonathan Edwards: A Life (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), 94.

[18]Schafer, The “Miscellanies” Nos. a-500, WJE, Vol. 13, 278.

[19] Ibid., 280.

[20] Mardsen agrees with this assessment of miscellany No. 108. He says, “It begins with what must be a contemplation on Sarah, but which, as all else in nature, points to ‘the excellencies of Christ.’” Mardsen, Jonathan Edwards, 99.

They Sing A New Song

Revelation 14:3

And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.

In order to men’s being able to sing this new song, ’tis requisite that they should be able to know the song. They must know what is to be sung. They must have the knowledge of those things that are the subject matter of the song. The song is spiritual, and the things that are the subject matter of it are spiritual and divine: the glorious perfections and excellencies of God, especially in that new and most excellent manifestation of them that is made in the works of the new creation by Jesus Christ; the glory of God as it shines in the face of Christ; the glory of God’s power and wisdom and holiness, justice and faithfulness, as manifested by him; and especially the infinite and glorious riches of divine grace and love in a Redeemer, appearing in the incarnation, life, death and resurrection of Christ, and in the appointed way of salvation by Christ, by faith in him; and also as appearing in the application of redemption, the glory of God and Christ as appearing in the conversion of the soul and in carrying on the work of grace unto glory.

And so the new song that is sung by the redeemed from the earth is more excellent than anything that preceded. It is the most excellent song that ever is sung by any of the children of men. One word or note of this new song, as sung by a sincere heart, is worth more in God’s account than all the praises of all the formal professors of religion from the beginning of the world to the end of it.

Knowing this song is only possible through Jesus Christ. It is the fruit of the redemption or purchase of Jesus Christ. Christ purchases for a certain number that knowledge of the glorious excellency of God and Christ, and of the infinite riches of his grace appearing in the way of salvation. That excellent heavenly light that shines into the soul, and gives it a view and understanding of those excellent things, is a blessing purchased at the price of Christ’s precious blood. And so that ability, that harmony of the soul and melody of the heart, consisting in holy love and joy and delight in God and Christ, is a precious benefit that is the fruit of the same purchase. This heavenly melody is dear; it costs Christ’s precious blood.

I will conclude with three things that may be of direction to those that are desirous of learning this new song:

1. ’Tis Christ that must teach this song. You can learn of it no other way.
2. The way for you to learn this new song, is first to mourn with a broken heart for sin.
3. In order to learn the new song, you must hear the melody of the voice of Christ in the gospel. He teaches it by causing the soul to hear the melody of his own voice in the gospel.

And so we end. ’Tis Christ that speaks to us in the gospel. Many hear his words, but they perceive no sweetness in them. They perceive no pleasantness in his voice, in the doctrines and invitations and promises of the gospel. But to the godly, Christ’s mouth is found to be most sweet. You must perceive the sweetness of the voice. And this must draw your heart, and put it into tune, and fill it with love and joy, which is the excellent harmony and heavenly melody of the soul.

——————————————-

HANS KÜNG

Fri, Apr 16, 2010

Pope Benedict has made worse just about everything that is wrong with the Roman Catholic Church and is directly responsible for engineering the global cover-up of child rape perpetrated by priests, according to this open letter to all Catholic bishops

VENERABLE BISHOPS,

Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, and I were the youngest theologians at the Second Vatican Council from 1962 to 1965. Now we are the oldest and the only ones still fully active. I have always understood my theological work as a service to the Roman Catholic Church. For this reason, on the occasion of the fifth anniversary of the election of Pope Benedict XVI, I am making this appeal to you in an open letter. In doing so, I am motivated by my profound concern for our church, which now finds itself in the worst credibility crisis since the Reformation. Please excuse the form of an open letter; unfortunately, I have no other way of reaching you.

I deeply appreciated that the pope invited me, his outspoken critic, to meet for a friendly, four-hour-long conversation shortly after he took office. This awakened in me the hope that my former colleague at Tubingen University might find his way to promote an ongoing renewal of the church and an ecumenical rapprochement in the spirit of the Second Vatican Council.

Unfortunately, my hopes and those of so many engaged Catholic men and women have not been fulfilled. And in my subsequent correspondence with the pope, I have pointed this out to him many times. Without a doubt, he conscientiously performs his everyday duties as pope, and he has given us three helpful encyclicals on faith, hope and charity. But when it comes to facing the major challenges of our times, his pontificate has increasingly passed up more opportunities than it has taken:

Missed is the opportunity for rapprochement with the Protestant churches: Instead, they have been denied the status of churches in the proper sense of the term and, for that reason, their ministries are not recognized and intercommunion is not possible.

Missed is the opportunity for the long-term reconciliation with the Jews: Instead the pope has reintroduced into the liturgy a preconciliar prayer for the enlightenment of the Jews, he has taken notoriously anti-Semitic and schismatic bishops back into communion with the church, and he is actively promoting the beatification of Pope Pius XII, who has been accused of not offering sufficient protections to Jews in Nazi Germany.

The fact is, Benedict sees in Judaism only the historic root of Christianity; he does not take it seriously as an ongoing religious community offering its own path to salvation. The recent comparison of the current criticism faced by the pope with anti-Semitic hate campaigns – made by Rev Raniero Cantalamessa during an official Good Friday service at the Vatican – has stirred up a storm of indignation among Jews around the world.

Missed is the opportunity for a dialogue with Muslims in an atmosphere of mutual trust: Instead, in his ill-advised but symptomatic 2006 Regensburg lecture, Benedict caricatured Islam as a religion of violence and inhumanity and thus evoked enduring Muslim mistrust.

Missed is the opportunity for reconciliation with the colonised indigenous peoples of Latin America: Instead, the pope asserted in all seriousness that they had been “longing” for the religion of their European conquerors.

Missed is the opportunity to help the people of Africa by allowing the use of birth control to fight overpopulation and condoms to fight the spread of HIV.

Missed is the opportunity to make peace with modern science by clearly affirming the theory of evolution and accepting stem-cell research.

Missed is the opportunity to make the spirit of the Second Vatican Council the compass for the whole Catholic Church, including the Vatican itself, and thus to promote the needed reforms in the church.

This last point, respected bishops, is the most serious of all. Time and again, this pope has added qualifications to the conciliar texts and interpreted them against the spirit of the council fathers. Time and again, he has taken an express stand against the Ecumenical Council, which according to canon law represents the highest authority in the Catholic Church:

He has taken the bishops of the traditionalist Pius X Society back into the church without any preconditions – bishops who were illegally consecrated outside the Catholic Church and who reject central points of the Second Vatican Council (including liturgical reform, freedom of religion and the rapprochement with Judaism).

He promotes the medieval Tridentine Mass by all possible means and occasionally celebrates the Eucharist in Latin with his back to the congregation.

He refuses to put into effect the rapprochement with the Anglican Church, which was laid out in official ecumenical documents by the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission, and has attempted instead to lure married Anglican clergy into the Roman Catholic Church by freeing them from the very rule of celibacy that has forced tens of thousands of Roman Catholic priests out of office.

He has actively reinforced the anti-conciliar forces in the church by appointing reactionary officials to key offices in the Curia (including the secretariat of state, and positions in the liturgical commission) while appointing reactionary bishops around the world.

Pope Benedict XVI seems to be increasingly cut off from the vast majority of church members who pay less and less heed to Rome and, at best, identify themselves only with their local parish and bishop.

I know that many of you are pained by this situation. In his anti-conciliar policy, the pope receives the full support of the Roman Curia. The Curia does its best to stifle criticism in the episcopate and in the church as a whole and to discredit critics with all the means at its disposal. With a return to pomp and spectacle catching the attention of the media, the reactionary forces in Rome have attempted to present us with a strong church fronted by an absolutistic “Vicar of Christ” who combines the church’s legislative, executive and judicial powers in his hands alone. But Benedict’s policy of restoration has failed. All of his spectacular appearances, demonstrative journeys and public statements have failed to influence the opinions of most Catholics on controversial issues. This is especially true regarding matters of sexual morality. Even the papal youth meetings, attended above all by conservative-charismatic groups, have failed to hold back the steady drain of those leaving the church or to attract more vocations to the priesthood.

You in particular, as bishops, have reason for deep sorrow: Tens of thousands of priests have resigned their office since the Second Vatican Council, for the most part because of the celibacy rule. Vocations to the priesthood, but also to religious orders, sisterhoods and lay brotherhoods are down – not just quantitatively but qualitatively. Resignation and frustration are spreading rapidly among both the clergy and the active laity. Many feel that they have been left in the lurch with their personal needs, and many are in deep distress over the state of the church. In many of your dioceses, it is the same story: increasingly empty churches, empty seminaries and empty rectories. In many countries, due to the lack of priests, more and more parishes are being merged, often against the will of their members, into ever larger “pastoral units,” in which the few surviving pastors are completely overtaxed. This is church reform in pretense rather than fact!

And now, on top of these many crises comes a scandal crying out to heaven – the revelation of the clerical abuse of thousands of children and adolescents, first in the United States, then in Ireland and now in Germany and other countries. And to make matters worse, the handling of these cases has given rise to an unprecedented leadership crisis and a collapse of trust in church leadership.

There is no denying the fact that the worldwide system of covering up cases of sexual crimes committed by clerics was engineered by the Roman Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Cardinal Ratzinger (1981-2005). During the reign of Pope John Paul II, that congregation had already taken charge of all such cases under oath of strictest silence. Ratzinger himself, on May 18th, 2001, sent a solemn document to all the bishops dealing with severe crimes ( “epistula de delictis gravioribus” ), in which cases of abuse were sealed under the “secretum pontificium” , the violation of which could entail grave ecclesiastical penalties. With good reason, therefore, many people have expected a personal mea culpa on the part of the former prefect and current pope. Instead, the pope passed up the opportunity afforded by Holy Week: On Easter Sunday, he had his innocence proclaimed “urbi et orbi” by the dean of the College of Cardinals.

The consequences of all these scandals for the reputation of the Catholic Church are disastrous. Important church leaders have already admitted this. Numerous innocent and committed pastors and educators are suffering under the stigma of suspicion now blanketing the church. You, reverend bishops, must face up to the question: What will happen to our church and to your diocese in the future? It is not my intention to sketch out a new program of church reform. That I have done often enough both before and after the council. Instead, I want only to lay before you six proposals that I am convinced are supported by millions of Catholics who have no voice in the current situation.

1. Do not keep silent: By keeping silent in the face of so many serious grievances, you taint yourselves with guilt. When you feel that certain laws, directives and measures are counterproductive, you should say this in public. Send Rome not professions of your devotion, but rather calls for reform!

2. Set about reform: Too many in the church and in the episcopate complain about Rome, but do nothing themselves. When people no longer attend church in a diocese, when the ministry bears little fruit, when the public is kept in ignorance about the needs of the world, when ecumenical co-operation is reduced to a minimum, then the blame cannot simply be shoved off on Rome. Whether bishop, priest, layman or laywoman – everyone can do something for the renewal of the church within his own sphere of influence, be it large or small. Many of the great achievements that have occurred in the individual parishes and in the church at large owe their origin to the initiative of an individual or a small group. As bishops, you should support such initiatives and, especially given the present situation, you should respond to the just complaints of the faithful.

3. Act in a collegial way: After heated debate and against the persistent opposition of the Curia, the Second Vatican Council decreed the collegiality of the pope and the bishops. It did so in the sense of the Acts of the Apostles, in which Peter did not act alone without the college of the apostles. In the post-conciliar era, however, the pope and the Curia have ignored this decree. Just two years after the council, Pope Paul VI issued his encyclical defending the controversial celibacy law without the slightest consultation of the bishops. Since then, papal politics and the papal magisterium have continued to act in the old, uncollegial fashion. Even in liturgical matters, the pope rules as an autocrat over and against the bishops. He is happy to surround himself with them as long as they are nothing more than stage extras with neither voices nor voting rights. This is why, venerable bishops, you should not act for yourselves alone, but rather in the community of the other bishops, of the priests and of the men and women who make up the church.

4. Unconditional obedience is owed to God alone: Although at your episcopal consecration you had to take an oath of unconditional obedience to the pope, you know that unconditional obedience can never be paid to any human authority; it is due to God alone. For this reason, you should not feel impeded by your oath to speak the truth about the current crisis facing the church, your diocese and your country. Your model should be the apostle Paul, who dared to oppose Peter “to his face since he was manifestly in the wrong”! ( Galatians 2:11 ). Pressuring the Roman authorities in the spirit of Christian fraternity can be permissible and even necessary when they fail to live up to the spirit of the Gospel and its mission. The use of the vernacular in the liturgy, the changes in the regulations governing mixed marriages, the affirmation of tolerance, democracy and human rights, the opening up of an ecumenical approach, and the many other reforms of Vatican II were only achieved because of tenacious pressure from below.

5. Work for regional solutions: The Vatican has frequently turned a deaf ear to the well-founded demands of the episcopate, the priests and the laity. This is all the more reason for seeking wise regional solutions. As you are well aware, the rule of celibacy, which was inherited from the Middle Ages, represents a particularly delicate problem. In the context of today’s clerical abuse scandal, the practice has been increasingly called into question. Against the expressed will of Rome, a change would appear hardly possible; yet this is no reason for passive resignation. When a priest, after mature consideration, wishes to marry, there is no reason why he must automatically resign his office when his bishop and his parish choose to stand behind him. Individual episcopal conferences could take the lead with regional solutions. It would be better, however, to seek a solution for the whole church, therefore:

6. Call for a council: Just as the achievement of liturgical reform, religious freedom, ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue required an ecumenical council, so now a council is needed to solve the dramatically escalating problems calling for reform. In the century before the Reformation, the Council of Constance decreed that councils should be held every five years. Yet the Roman Curia successfully managed to circumvent this ruling. There is no question that the Curia, fearing a limitation of its power, would do everything in its power to prevent a council coming together in the present situation. Thus it is up to you to push through the calling of a council or at least a representative assembly of bishops.

With the church in deep crisis, this is my appeal to you, venerable bishops: Put to use the episcopal authority that was reaffirmed by the Second Vatican Council. In this urgent situation, the eyes of the world turn to you. Innumerable people have lost their trust in the Catholic Church. Only by openly and honestly reckoning with these problems and resolutely carrying out needed reforms can their trust be regained. With all due respect, I beg you to do your part – together with your fellow bishops as far as possible, but also alone if necessary – in apostolic “fearlessness” ( Acts 4:29, 31 ). Give your faithful signs of hope and encouragement and give our church a perspective for the future.

With warm greetings in the community of the Christian faith,

Yours, Hans Küng – (New York Times Syndicate) © Hans Küng

© 2010 The Irish Times

They came to the other side of the sea, to the country of the Gerasenes. ²And when Jesus had stepped out of the boat, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit. ³He lived among the tombs. And no one could bind him anymore, not even with a chain, ⁴for he had often been bound with shackles and chains, but he wrenched the chains apart, and he broke the shackles in pieces. No one had the strength to subdue him. ⁵Night and day among the tombs and on the mountains he was always crying out and bruising himself with stones.

⁶And when he saw Jesus from afar, he ran and fell down before him. ⁷And crying out with a loud voice, he said, “What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me.”

⁸For he was saying to him, “Come out of the man, you unclean spirit!” ⁹And Jesus asked him, “What is your name?” He replied, “My name is Legion, for we are many.” ¹⁰And he begged him earnestly not to send them out of the country.

¹¹Now a great herd of pigs was feeding there on the hillside, ¹²and they begged him, saying, “Send us to the pigs; let us enter them.” ¹³So he gave them permission. And the unclean spirits came out, and entered the pigs, and the herd, numbering about two thousand, rushed down the steep bank into the sea and were drowned in the sea.

¹⁴The herdsmen fled and told it in the city and in the country. And people came to see what it was that had happened. ¹⁵And they came to Jesus and saw the demon-possessed man, the one who had had the legion, sitting there, clothed and in his right mind, and they were afraid. ¹⁶And those who had seen it described to them what had happened to the demon-possessed man and to the pigs. ¹⁷And they began to beg Jesus to depart from their region.

¹⁸As he was getting into the boat, the man who had been possessed with demons begged him that he might be with him. ¹⁹And he did not permit him but said to him, “Go home to your friends and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and how he has had mercy on you.” ²⁰And he went away and began to proclaim in the Decapolis how much Jesus had done for him, and everyone marveled.

Intro:

Within the text of Mark 5 we have one of the most graphic and interesting exorcism stories in the NT. This story has more elaboration than any other tale prior to the passion narrative, which may suggest that it had particular importance for Mark’s largely Gentile/Roman audience. It has been called the second inaugural exorcism by various scholars due in part to the close similarities of language to the exorcism tale in Mark 1. Yet one of these exorcisms takes place on sacred soil in a sacred place (i.e., the synagogue), the other in an unclean land in an unclean place. This suggests that Mark saw this story as particularly revealing of the identity of Jesus. It is not clear if we are to see this story as the immediate sequel to the storm incident, but in any case Jesus and the disciples go across the Sea of Galilee to a region called the Decapolis (literally ‘ten cities’). Most of the population in this area was non-Jewish. Evidence of this is obvious from the heard of pigs. No practicing Jew would have had such a heard, nor for that matter would they have been found residing in a graveyard. Just as Jesus has had confrontations with his own people, he is about to have an encounter with a gentile population.

Exegesis:

In the preceding passage (4.35-41) Jesus had demonstrated his power over the forces of nature by calming the winds and the waves; in this passage he demonstrates his power over the forces of evil by casting out demons from a possessed man. The two stories seem to connect to one another by virtue of Jesus’ power and authority as it is being communicated by Mark. Both stories reveal, in essence, that Jesus is truly divine.

Verse 2 seems to indicate that as soon as Jesus stepped out of the boat, he was immediately confronted by the possessed man, but v. 6 provides a little clarification of this. The man actually saw Jesus from a distance and came running to him. We are told that the possessed man lived in the tombs. Often in Palestine people were buried in natural caves or in tombs cut out of the limestone. These provided excellent shelter for anyone desiring to live in them. It was a natural place for a possessed man to dwell because of the popular belief in ancient culture that tombs were the favorite haunts of demons. This demon possessed man had likely been driven from ordinary society into the tombs. Mark explains in the story that many efforts had been made to control the man, but they were all without success. One scholar says that vv. 3-5 “give a vivid picture of a manic stage of a manic depressive psychosis.” This is true, but Mark is communicating something much more profound. This man has been relegated to a psychotic, animalistic, self-destructive, and enraged state. The man was unequivocally out of control and therefore out of society. What is society supposed to do with such a person?

We are told that the possessed man, in direct response to seeing Jesus, “fell down before him.” The reason the man fell down before Jesus is not because of worship, but out of homage because the demon recognizes that he is confronted with one greatly superior to him. James 2.19 says “…even the demons believe and shudder!”

Upon falling before Jesus, the demon cries out: “What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me.” This cry was a way of saying in a hostile way, “What do we have in common?” or “mind your own business.” The demon recognizes that he is in the presence of one who threatens his very existence. Like earlier in Mark, the demon addresses Jesus by using his personal name. The demon also uses the title “Son of the Most High God,” a title that implies that the demons recognizes Jesus’ deity. The demon, however, uses the title, not to express his belief in the Lordship of Jesus, but in the hope of controlling him (again see Mark 1.24). The demon fears that he will be damned to eternal punishment right there on the spot.

But it is quite interesting to note here that the demon pleads not to be tormented by Jesus’ presence or eternal judgment. This is the demon(s) rather than the man speaking, but they ironically are the ones torturing the poor man. Equally ironic is the fact that they are adjuring Jesus by the name of the one who is Jesus’ Father, as if that could give them power over Jesus! The demons appear to fear that Jesus will torture or destroy them, and to be sure, that is his long-range goal—to destroy the works of the devil. It is also obvious to mention again that the demons would see it as torment simply be in the presence of Jesus.

At v. 9 the demons are asked to name themselves, but it is hard to know what to make of the reply. Clearly Luke believed in the concept of a person being possessed by multiple demons (Lk 8.2). And at first glance, the demons response: “My name is Legion, for we are many” is a curious response. In an exorcism ritual, naming is a crucial part of trying to gain control of the demon, and it is possible to see this response as an attempt to avoid giving Jesus the power of the personal name over these spirits. A legion in Roman military terms was 6,000 soldiers, but it is doubtful a specific number is meant (though notice that the about 2,000 pigs are said to be destroyed). The military metaphor could imply that many demons were involved in the possession like a military force, taking captive the man’s spirit and being.

Verse 10 is very interesting because both the singular and plural occur in the text: “He begged…not to send them…” This is likely Mark’s way of indicating that the demons are speaking through the lips of the demoniac. What they request is that they not be sent “out of the country.” In Luke 8.31 the request by the demons is that they not be sent into the Abyss (Rev 20.1-3), the place of confinement before judgment. What this demonstrates is that the demons are afraid for their very existence in the face and presence of Jesus.

The presence of a large herd of swine (v. 11) in the Decapolis is not surprising. This region, on the eastern shore of Galilee, was largely Gentile. Mark’s account shows that what caused the stampede of the pigs was the entrance of the demons into them. This is crucial for the contemporary readers of Mark’s Gospel: The demons were/are bent on destroying. Not having been able to destroy the man, they destroyed the pigs. Demons are emissaries of Satan, the Destroyer. But why did Jesus, having exorcised the demons, allow them to enter the pigs, an act that ultimately resulted in the destruction of the entire herd? A tentative answer is that Jesus wanted to give tangible evidence to the man and to the people that the demons had actually left him and that their purpose had been to destroy him even as they destroyed the pigs.

A particularly relevant point in our culture’s reading of this text is that some people have gotten upset with this story because it involves the destruction of animals, but here is a matter of priorities. The Bible is emphatic that a human life is seen as more important than a heard of pigs, even though the Gentiles who came afterward to see Jesus seem more concerned with the lost pigs than the restored man. Humanity is made in the image of God, not animals. The early church fathers Jerome and Chrysostom dealt with this issue and stressed that it was for the greater good of eliciting faith and attesting God’s power that the pigs were slain. Jerome stresses that no one would have believed so many demons came out of the man unless a similarly large number of swine had been afflicted thereafter (Life of Saint Hilarion 32). The pig herders were the ones who spread the tale in the towns and villages of what Jesus did (v. 14).

Also notice that the man for whom nobody had been able to do anything, not even chain him down so he would not hurt himself, is now said to be clothed, sitting, and sane—things no one who had known him expected to see him do or be again. Once more Jesus’ miracle working causes a great fear to come on the people—fear of the awesome supernatural power Jesus must have in order to do what he did to the demons and the pigs, a power even greater than a legion! There is a rather sad point and counter point between the Gentiles who want Jesus to go and the restored man who wanted to go with Jesus. Instead Jesus tells him to return to his village and resume a normal life, except that in addition he is to be a witness. Jesus’ answer shows how impossible it is to have a stereotyped definition of discipleship. One person is taken away from home and family (1.16-20), another is sent back to them contrary of his own wishes. There can be little doubt that the man did indeed wish to be a disciple, not only because of what follows in v. 20 but also because the description of his longing to be “with Jesus” is a deliberate echo in the Greek of the earlier description of what would be true of Jesus’ inner circle.

Lastly, in v. 20 we hear of the obedient response of this man. He went and preached in the Ten Cities about what Jesus had done for him, and all were amazed. Again notice that amazement and fear do not equal full or true faith in Jesus. Jesus would have been perceived in this region, and perhaps by parts of Mark’s own audience, as another Hellenistic wonder-worker that wowed the people like a Simon Magus or an Apollonius of Tyana. But the ability to impress a crowd and the ability to call out and make disciples are not one and the same.

—————

Notes from:

The Oxford Bible Commentary, Edited by Barton and Muddiman, 2001.

The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol 8, Edited by Gaebelein, 1984.

The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, Witherington III, 2001.