Every language has its own possibilities and limitations. What we can
say in one language we cannot say so easily in another. We have to interpret
what a person says according to the language that person speaks. This applies
also to Jesus. In this chapter we will explore the far reaching implications of
this important truth.
No one familiar with today's world can have missed the phenomenon of 'fundamentalism'. There are fundamentalist Muslims and fundamentalist Christians. What does the term mean? In a nutshell, fundamentalists are convinced that a particular religion should be rigidly maintained in the shape of its original foundation. The original expressions of doctrine, reli- gious practice and moral code are considered immutable. Fundamentalism denies the legitimacy of change. Things have to remain always the same.
Fundamentalist Muslims, for example, will not accept the equality of women. Women have to wear a veil in public, are subject to their husbands, can be divorced easily, must share a harem with other wives. In fundamentalist views their position can never change because it has been fixed once for all in verses of the inspired book, the Koran, and in tradition, the hadîth. As things were at the time of Mohammed, they have to be for ever because this is 'the will of Allah'.
Christian fundamentalists take a similar stance; the only difference being that now it is the Bible and Christian tradition that reveal the immutable will of God. Sociologists maintain that the roots of today's fundamentalism have less to do with one's religion than with social and psychological needs: the fear of change, escape into authoritarian structures, a refusal to face up to complex new challenges. But the religious angle remains a factor. Fundamentalist Christians believe they are the only ones who are faithful to the original Gospel.
Fidelity to Jesus' words
I find there is a lot of confusion about this even among more balanced believers. Somehow they feel uneasy about the changes introduced by their Church community, such as the reforms sanctioned for the Catholic Church by Vatican II. Changes are looked upon as a climb down, a compromise with 'the world', a lowering of standards. Some Catholics frantically cling to their Latin Mass or to communion on the tongue; or feel a married clergy would betray the 'sanctity' of the priesthood. The misconceptions on which such feelings rest range from mere ignorance to absurd illusions.
I remember one old religious sister in Holland who told me she would never receive communion on the hand because Jesus himself gave it to his apostles on the tongue! She had picked up this misinformation from a leaflet which stated that this is how St.Brigitte of Sweden, in a vision, had seen Jesus distribute communion at the Last Supper. I saw a copy of the leaflet. In a drawing it showed Jesus, vested in a chasuble and holding a modern chalice, distributing consecrated hosts to the apostles who devoutly knelt before him, holding out their tongues. The historical truth is, of course, that Jesus never wore a chasuble, nor owned a chalice, nor used white round hosts, nor gave communion on the tongue. The example may seem farfetched, but experience shows that even relatively well educated people may retain some rather simplistic ideas of how Jesus revealed the Father to us.
Faithfulness is of the essence. We have to remain faithful to Jesus' original vision, to what he revealed to us about God, to his principles, to the community of believers which he began. But this faithfulness itself requires openness to change. Jesus never intended to leave a ready-made product; he sowed a seed that would need to grow. Or, to put it in its biblical context, he spoke words that needed refinement and interpretation. If we, Catholics, want to be faithful to Jesus we have to listen to the new dynamic interpretation given to his words by the Church in the Second Vatican Council. And, guided by the Council, we ourselves should interpret Jesus' words dynamically in new ways responding to our own situation.
Fundamentalists are almost without exception literalists. They think that the whole meaning of Christianity is contained in verses of the New Testament that define everything word for word. They believe that Jesus, and his apostles, said everything that could be said, once and for all. The Gospel is closed. Just read it word for word and you know what is in it and what not. They forget that Jesus spoke a human language which, of necessity, was time-bound and limited. Moreover, he never wanted to speak a closed message; he spoke a living word.
Exploring language
Jesus spoke and thought in Aramaic. But if his words are also spoken to us, as we Christians believe, they need to be given a fresh and wider interpretation. We live in a world of new realities and new thoughts. What Jesus said can only affect us if our own thought and our own situation is taken into account.
Handing on the text of Scripture has always been part
of Christian tradition.
This fragment, from the Codex Sinaiticus (4th
century AD) shows how the Greek text was transmitted at the time.
All
letters were in square capitals. There were no spaces between the words,
neither were there punctuation marks.
The text speaks of the rite of
atonement (Leviticus 16).
Let us start with some simple examples of linguistic disparity with which we may already be familiar. In Aramaic, people would often use the expression 'to be called something' when they meant 'to be something'. They might say: 'I am called a British citizen', where we would say: 'I am a British citizen.' All of us will recognise these phrases from the Gospel:
* They will be called children of God. (1)
* He will be called the least in heaven. (2)
* My house shall be called a house of prayer. (3)
* He shall be called Son of the Most High. (4)
* I am not worthy to be called your son. (5)
Not only does the expression sound awkward in today's English, it could even be understood wrongly. In our way of speaking, the fact that something is called this or that, does not mean it is that reality. And yet, that is what it means in Aramaic. God did not want his Temple to be called a house of prayer. He wanted it to be a house of prayer.
Or consider the way Aramaic uses nouns. Often a noun appears where we would use an adjective. In stead of speaking of 'a filthy dog', Jesus' contemporaries would say 'a dog of filth’. A 'beautiful ring' is expressed as 'a ring of beauty', 'a strong soldier' as 'a soldier of strength'. The Aramaic term 'the God of mercy' means in our language 'the merciful God'.
Compare these phrases from the Gospel:
* commandments of men = human commandments;(6)
* the steward of iniquity = the dishonest steward; (7)
* the mammon of iniquity = evil money; (8)
* the Spirit of truth = the truthful Spirit; (9)
* the wisdom of the just = saintly wisdom; (10)
* people of pleasure = people with whom God is pleased; (11)
* words of grace = gracious words. (12)
Every language has its own list of linking-up words. In Aramaic the expression 'son of . . . .' can indicate a man with any type of relationship. The plural'sons of . . . .'includes women. Practically each case has to be examined on its own merit.
* a son of peace = a peaceful man; (13)
* sons of
thunder = impetuous people; (14)
* the sons of this world =
worldly people; (15)
* the son of perdition = the man who risks
damnations; (16)
* the sons of the evil one = devilish, wicked
people; (17)
* sons of the bride chamber = wedding guests; (18)
*
sons of the resurrection = people who have been raised. (19)
It is clear from these examples that a literal translation is not necessarily the best translation. In fact, in quite a number of cases literalists miss the real meaning of what Jesus wanted to say.lt is not what the words sound like in English that matters, but what they conveyed in Aramaic. And that brings us to the question of thought.
This fragment (from the Codex Chisianus, 1000AD?) illustrates how the writing of Greek had changed over the centuries.
The letters are now rounded (cursive). Upper and lower case are distinct. Words are spaced and punctuation marks have been introduced.
The text records Daniel 12,11-12 which announces the 'disastrous abomination' that will be erected in the Temple.
Jesus quotes this text in the Gospel (Mark 13,14).
We do not just speak in our language. We think in it. Our language defines our concepts and to a great extent limits them. This is of great importance in our studying of Jesus' words. It implies that sometimes we have to refine the expressions used in the Gospel to come to a balanced understanding.
Aramaic, like its sister language Hebrew, could not easily express degrees, such as more or less. It could say a man was tall or short. It did not possess a comparative case (taller/shorter) or a superlative case (the tallest/shortest). To say 'John is the tallest in his group', Aramaic came no further than saying: 'John is tall among his group'. That is why 'Blessed are you among women' should be translated by us as: 'You are the most blessed of women'. (20) 'Mary has chosen the good part' means 'Mary has chosen the better part'.
This lack of nuance can be seen clearly in the handling of the term hate. Jesus, we are told by Luke, spoke these uncompromising words:
'If anyone does not hate his father, mother, wife, children, brothers and sisters, he cannot be my disciple.(22)
Hating here means 'loving less'.
The Greek version of Matthew rightly translates:
'Who loves father and mother more than me is not worthy of me'. (23)
However, it is useful to reflect on the fact that Jesus did use the expression 'hating'. When he left his own family and kinsfolk in Nazareth, as we saw in chapter three, he must have experienced this as a need of 'hating' them for the sake of his Father. Was the tribe of Levi not praised in the Old Testament for turning against their own relatives for God's sake?
He says of his father and mother,
'I have not seen them'.
His brothers he does not know,
nor does he acknowledge his children.(24)
The point is that in Jesus' thinking there was a sharp divide between for and against.
'Who is not for me is against me'. (25)
This tendency, which is so typically Aramaic, also shows itself in expressions such as:
* I want mercy not sacrifice. (26)
* It is harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle!(27)
* If your right eye makes you sin, rip it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one member than to have your whole body thrown into hell! (28)
Such statements are deliberate exaggerations to express a principle strongly. Although they sound like absolutes, they are not meant to be. Jesus knew full well they would need refinement, both in expression and application. Without presumption we can say that many things that are stated in the Gospel needed to be re-stated by later generations of Christians with more 'nuance' in the light of further reflection and experience.
This may sound scandalous to some people because they may not have realised that this is implied in incarnation. If Jesus was truly human in everything except sin, (29) he was limited too in the range of what he could think and what he could say. Jesus proclaimed principles which he presented as absolutes. It is up to us, today's Church, to refine these within the context of our own lives.
Take the example of divorce. With characteristic forthrightness Jesus denounced it, on principle.
* Human beings must not separate what God has joined together!(30)
* A man who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery.
And a woman who divorces her husband and marries another man commits adultery. (31)
In Jesus' time animal skins were used to keep water, but also wine.
If wine was still fermenting, it stretched the skin. Jesus bases a small parable on this fact.
'People do not put new wine into old skins.
If they do, the skins burst, the wine leaks out and the skins are ruined.
No, they put new wine into fresh skins to preserve both' (Matthew 9,17).
For Jesus this illustrated that his actions should not be judged by Old Testament norms.
Would he not agree wholeheartedly that the same applies to every succeeding generation that finds itself in new circumstances?
If we take this literally, as some Christians have done, divorce would never be allowed.
However, already in apostolic times the Church formulated refinements and exceptions. The community for which Matthew's Gospel was written accepted unfaithfulness as a reason for divorce. (32) Paul decided that converts could divorce if their non-Christian partner demanded this. (33) Throughout the centuries the Church has dissolved marriages for pastoral reasons: when the partners had not consummated their marriage, when one of them wanted to enter a monastery, or when a polygamous man became a Christian. (34) All such cases Jesus did not foresee and could not foresee.
At the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD the Arians refused to accept the new creed which had been drawn up. They objected to the fact that God the Son is called consubstantial (= 'of the same divine nature') as the Father. This word, they said, could not be found in the Gospels. Therefore, it had no validity. By insisting on its use the Church acknowledged a crucial principle, namely that our faith can be and should be expressed in new theological terms relevant to our own time. (35)
? Many things that Jesus said or did needed to be refined in further theological discussion. Jesus brought people together in a new community. He himself never used the term 'Church' for this community. The term 'church', ekklêsia, was a vital refinement and development in the thinking of the Greek-speaking converts in Syria and Asia Minor. (36) The same applies to many other terms such as 'elder', 'bishop', 'deacon' and 'priest'; they do not go back to Jesus but to the Early Christian communities. (37)
The ordination of women has become an important issue for many Christian Churches. Obviously, the question has arisen in our own time because of our own contemporary context: awareness of women's rights, the shortage of male ministers in some countries and pastoral opportunities for women priests. Many arguments have been brought forward, for and against. One of them, which I consider totally invalid, is the contention that Christ deliberately excluded women from the ministry. This momentous decision, attributed to Christ, is not based on any firm Gospel evidence, but on the circumstance that we find no women among the twelve apostles Jesus chose. The argument simply overlooks the fact that Jesus acted within the culture of the time, and at that time religious leadership was exercised by men. (38) How could it ever mean a ban on women's participation in the ministry decreed by Christ for all generations to come?
Or consider the word sacrament. It is a Latin term introduced by theologians such as St.Augustine and St.Ambrose. For them it designated any religious rite. Augustine, for example, considered the blessing of a house and the foot washing on Maunday Thursday to be 'sacraments'. Only in the Middle Ages did the term acquire the exact theological precision with which we employ it today. Baptism, imposition of hands, forgiveness of sins, the Eucharistic meal: we find them in the Gospels in embryo, as a seed. The later pastoral practice of the Church and the theological thinking that goes with it, are further developments which were not and could not be foreseen by Jesus.
There is nothing degrading in such a statement. It is not as if by it we were to deny Jesus' pre-eminence or tarnish his glory as 'the exact likeness of God's being' (39). Nothing of the sort.
Jesus limited himself deliberately to what he could think and say from within his own Aramaic experience. By doing so he truly showed himself one of us. And he entrusted to his apostles and all future generations of Christians the task of developing and refining the truths and principles he had enunciated. He did not make us servants, but successors. 'You will do greater a things than I have done, because I am going to the Father'. (40) accomplish this task, Jesus left us his own Spirit who would lead us 'to the fullness of the Truth'. (41)
The limitation of Jesus' thinking also extended to social issues. I do not doubt for a moment that Jesus, who sided with the poor as we will see in future chapters, strongly believed in the fundamental equality of all human beings. That equality was one of the pillars of God's kingdom. But he did not and could not foresee all the implications as we do today.
Slavery, for example, was a reality in Jesus' days. Jesus accepted it as such. He refers to it in his parables; as when he says we should be like good slaves who faithfully care for their master's property until he returns. (42)The fidelity of a good slave impressed Jesus.
If one of you has a slave who is ploughing or minding sheep, will you say to him when he returns from the field: 'Come and have your meal immediately?'
Would he not more likely say: 'Get my supper ready. Make yourself tidy and wait on me while I eat and drink; after that you yourself can have your meal'? Must he be grateful to his slave for doing as he was told?
The same applies to you: when you have done all you have been told to, say, 'We're only slaves; we've done i no more than our duty'. (43)
It is crystal clear from Jesus' way of talking that he had not drawn the radical conclusion that slavery should be abolished. He stayed within the thinking of his own Aramaic society. Concepts like 'equality for all', basic human rights, eradicating discrimination, did not exist in his vocabulary. All this in spite of the fact, as I will show later, that he had initiated the process that would lead to such radical notions.
Jesus' acceptance of slavery misled some Church leaders and theologians as late as in 1866 to declare that slavery is allowed by God. (44) What they forgot is that Jesus himself could not and would not draw all the conclusions and implications contained in his vision.
Jesus could not and did not foresee all the implications his principles would have for eradicating racial discrimination, for supporting the United Nations, for preserving our ecology, for a just economic order, for sound relations between employers and employees, and a thousand other developments that will help to make our earth habitable for all. Jesus never thought of these things; but given his principles we know he would support them if he could think and speak in today's language.
Figs, together with olives, grapes and wheat, formed the main source of wealth for farmers in Galilee.
We are not surprised that figs figure in many of Jesus' images (read Mark 11,12- 25; Luke 13,6 - 9).
The fig tree also provided one of Jesus' images concerning 'the signs of the times'.
'Take the fig tree as a parable. When its twigs grow supple and leaves bud forth, you know summer is near' (Matthew 24,32).
Every generation of Christians should read the signs of its own time.
The same applies to 'democracy' in the Church. Although the Church is not a democracy in the sense that authority derives from God and not from the people, decision-making processes in the Church can follow a democratic pattern, in line with our present-day world. In fact, this is what has now been strongly promoted by the reforms of Vatican II. It can be seen in new procedures for electing the Pope, and bishops; in co-responsibility at international, diocesan and parish levels; in financial accountability; in the new role attributed to lay people in almost every activity of the Church. The seeds for this lie in the Gospel, its realisation is a task of Jesus' followers today.
Paradoxically, by speaking a limited language, Jesus gave his universal message an almost unlimited scope. The working out of what he said is our job, a job for each and every Christian; and of all of us together in the Church. It is an inspiring challenge that should fill us with awe and courage.
1. Jesus demanded a complete acceptance of his message. He stated:
'Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away' Matthew 24,35
Does this not mean his teaching has to be taken literally as 'the last word' on every question?
2. What are the full implications of this parable?
'The kingdom of heaven is like a woman who takes some yeast and mixes it with forty kilograms of flour until the whole batch of dough rises.' Matthew 13,33; see also Matthew 13,31-32 3.
Vatican II states unequivocally:
'Every type of discrimination, whether social or cultural, whether based on sex, race, colour, social status, language or religion, is to be overcome and eradicated as contrary to God's will ....
People should spare no effort to banish every trace of slavery, whether social or political . . .
The Church in the Modern World, no 2
Do Jesus' words fall short of this ideal? How to reconcile a statement such as:
'No slave is greater than his master.' Matthew 10,24.
| 1. Matthew 5,9. | 2. Matthew 5,19. | 3. Matthew 21,13. | 4. Luke 1,32. | 5. Luke 15,19. |
6. Matthew 15,9: They teach commandments of men'.
7. Luke 16,8: 'The master praised the steward of iniquity'.
8. Luke 16,9: 'Use the mammon of iniquity to make you friends'.
9. John 14,17: ‘The Father will give you the Spirit of truth’.
10. Luke 1,17: 'He will turn the disobedient back to the wisdom of the just'.
11. Luke 2,14: 'Glory to God on high and on earth peace to people of pleasure'.
12.. Luke 4,22: 'They were amazed at the words of grace that came from his lips'.
13. Luke 10,6:'If a son of peace lives there, your peace will rest on him'.
14. Mark 3,17: ‘James the son of Zebedee and James' brother John to whom he gave the name Boanerges, that is Sons of Thunder’.
15. Luke 16.8: 'The sons of this world are more astute with their own people than are the sons of light'.
16. John 17,12: 'I have lost no one except the son of perdition'.
17. Matthew 13,38: 'The good seed are the sons of the Kingdom, the weeds are the sons of the evil one'.
18. Matthew 9,15: 'The sons of the bride chamber cannot mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them'.
19. Luke 2,36: 'They can no longer die, for they are like angels and sons of God, being sons of the resurrection'.
| 20. Luke 1,42. | 21. Luke 10,42. | 22. Luke 14,26. | 23. Matthew 10,37. |
24. Deuteronomy 33,9; cf. Exodus 32,25-29.
25. Matthew 12,30; see also Luke 9,40.
| 26. Matthew 9,13. | 27. Mark 10,25. | 28. Matthew 5,29. | 29. Hebrews 4,15. |
| 30. Mark 10,9. | 31. Mark 10,11-12. | 32. Matthew 5,32; 19,9. | 33. 1 Corinthians 7,15. |
34. J.WIJNGAARDS, 'Do Jesus' words on divorce (Lk 16,18) admit of no exception?', Jeevadhara 30 (1975) pp. 399 - 411.
35. A classic about this is Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine by Cardinal John Henry NEWMAN; re-published by Penguin in 1974, ed. J.M.CAMERON.
36. Read more about this in the WALKING ON WATER book Gospel and Community. The word 'church' in Matthew 18,17 is an addition by the evangelist.
37. E.SCHILLEBEECKX, Ministry, and a case for change, London 1981. The author offers a historical analysis of how the ministries developed and draws conclusions as to the reforms in ministry the present-day Church could and should make.
38. J.WIJNGAARDS, Did Christ rule out women priests?, McCrimmon's, Great Wakering 1986.
39. Hebrews 1,3.
40. John 14,12.
41. John 14,17; 14,25-26; 16,12-15. This is more fully worked out in J.WIJNGAARDS, Inheriting the Master's Cloak, Ave Maria Press, Notre Dame 1976, pp. 151 - 157; The Gospel of John and his Letters, Michael Glazier, Wilmington 1986, pp. 222 - 233.
42. Luke 12,42-48.
43. Luke 17,7-10.
44. The Holy Office declared in 1866: 'Slavery itself, considered as
such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine
law, and there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to
by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons .... It is not
contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought,
exchanged or given.'
Read: J.F.MAXWELL, 'The Development of Catholic
Doctrine concerning Slavery', World Jurist 11 (1969-70) pp.147-192; 291-
324.