What is it about eating together? In my church, I know three couples that eat together every Sunday noon. For many of us, having someone over to eat in our home, or to eat out with is at the heart of our social life. At the university where I used to teach, students that ate together in the cafeteria every day built strong and rich bonds. One of the most popular events in churches, at least in the American South, is “dinner on the ground.” At other places they regularly set aside time for a potluck dinner, an “eating meeting,” and not infrequent banquets.
In the “olden days,” (and I lived in them) most families ate their meals together unless someone had to take their lunch. One by one these family meals dropped away, breakfast being the first. Now, it is common for there to be no meal with the entire family present. Does this reflect the breakdown of family life, or is one of the causes?
What is it about eating together that builds and intensifies relationships? Is there more to food than physical nourishment? If so, what is it? I’ll leave that for someone else to answer. I am interested just now in how much of Jesus’ ministry involved some sort of eating situation.
________________
In my copy of The New English Bible New Testament, on page two of the Gospel according to Mark, Simon’s mother-in-law “waited on them.” I assume this implies serving some food.
Two pages later, they are complaining that Jesus’ disciples are not fasting, and that, on the Sabbath, they plucked grain to eat. Jesus justifies them by referring to David and his men eating consecrated loaves.
On the next page, Jesus’ day is so crowded that he has no time to eat.
Not for seven more pages is eating mentioned. Then, Jesus is feeding five thousand people.
On the next page they complain that his disciples “eat their food with defiled hands.”
On the next page, Jesus “declared all foods clean.” Later on the page, Jesus and a Phoenician woman argue over “the children’s bread.”
On the next page, Jesus feeds four thousand people. Later, the disciples talked about having only one loaf of bread on board the boat.
Again, seven pages go by before eating is mentioned. Then, he curses a fig tree and says, “May no one ever again eat fruit from you.”
Four pages later, Jesus is sitting at table in the house of Simon the leper. I would guess that “at table” involved eating, although not necessarily. On this same page, his disciples ask him about preparation for the Passover supper.
On the next page Jesus speaks of his impending betrayal by one who is eating with him, and during supper, he took bread and wine and spoke to them of a new covenant, his body to be broken and his blood shed for many.
In this edition of Mark there are thirty-four pages. Eating is mentioned or alluded to on at least ten, almost one-third, of the pages. The gospel of Mark is not about food nor is it about eating. I know that is true, not only of Mark, but with the other three gospel stories. They are about the good news of the Kingdom of God.
On the other hand, maybe they are about eating. Maybe they point toward a Kingdom Feast. The New Covenant is established during mealtime. After the resurrection of Jesus, two walked with him to a place called Emmaus, but not until “he broke the bread, and offered it to them,” were “their eyes opened” such that they now could “recognize him.”
Thomas is not the only doubter. Read in the Synoptic Gospel accounts of the disciples’ response when they are told that Jesus has been raised from death. In Luke’s story, they do not come to fully believe and accept his resurrection, until he ate with them some fish they had cooked.
In what he calls “the third time that Jesus appeared to his disciples after his resurrection from the dead,”John adds to the story. On this occasion, after a great fishing experience, when they had landed ashore, Jesus gave them bread and fish for breakfast. After breakfast, he has a quite personal conversation with Simon Peter and twice tells him: “feed my sheep.”
Once, when Jesus saw people pushing to get the best seats, he told them of the proper seating arrangement at a wedding feast. Then he told them who to invite when they gave a lunch or dinner party.
---------------------------
It is possible that all this mention of food and all these eating occasions are merely incidental and irrelevant, amd/or, as with some of them, they are to be understood symbolically, not literally.
This much is true:
A substantial number of significant things occurred as Jesus was eating with others. Did the writers have any reason to mention eating if it had nothing to do with the points they were making? The possibility remains that sharing food together is somehow a part of the points being made.
When the prodigal son comes home and confesses, his father calls for a feast to celebrate the family reconciliation.
The New Covenant, the New Testament, is established at a Passover meal, and is established in terms of food and drink.
We come to know that, among other descriptive titles, Jesus is The Bread of Life. He is the only source of Christian nourishment, the only one who can quench the human thirst for meaning and hope. This makes it clear how Simon Peter is to feed Jesus’ “flock.”
When Jesus spoke of the disciple’s place in his Father’s kingdom, he said, “you shall eat and drink at my table and sit on thrones as judges of the twelve tribes of Israel.”
_______________________
What does this all mean? What does it tell us about the nature of God? Often when Jesus told his stories, he neither interpreted or explained them. He left it open for the hearers to figure it out. He trusted their ability to get the point that God had for them.
Is there any point to all of this? Figure it out and see what you think.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Monday, September 17, 2007
Jesus Is God's Parable
Jesus, Parable of God
Parables commonly are understood as “earthly stories with heavenly meaning.” Ordinarily we associate parables with religion or morality. Official dictionary definitions see the parable as a story, usually simple and short, told to make a religious or moral point, occasionally to make some other kind of point. The root meaning derives from the idea of comparing one thing to another in order to gain a better understanding of that which is being compared.
A story, usually short. What does this mean? How long might a story be and still serve as a parable? How do we distinguish a short story, from a “short story” written to make a point, especially if that point is religious or moral? Good question. As a type of literature, the short story has never been given a clear definition.
A simple story. Perhaps, but the meaning of a parabolic story may be multilayered, difficult to understand, and sometimes mystifying–anything but simple. The meaning, at least, of a parable is sometimes complex.
Clearly, or so it seems to me, when we try to grab the word, “parable,” by its ears and try to shake out a precise meaning, it is unlikely that we will succeed. Therefore I feel free to call the Jesus story, “The Parable of God.”
_________________
Without question, the Jesus story is a short story. Most of us know that Jesus commonly spoke in parables, was a storyteller. Short, often crisp, always to the point, and usually open-ended. If his stories had a heavenly meaning, more often than not, he left it to the listener to figure that meaning out for himself.
The history of the efforts to explain what Jesus meant is long, and unsatisfying. For centuries these stories were subject to an array of subjective interpretations. At times, wild imagination ruled. At other times inspired imagination caught fire and these stories burned brightly.
The 20th Century saw the emergence of a rule, supposedly objective, that was to settle the meaning of Jesus’ parables. Between Joachim Jeremias and C. H. Dodd, we learned that Jesus told these stories to make a point, to make a single point. All we have to do is “get the point,” and we will understand what Jesus was after.
For several decades many of us were schooled to this rule. It sounded good. We believed it and tried to read the parables with this in mind. But. But we found ourselves in trouble when we read more than one book that interpreted specific parables by this rule.
The first book would sound good, but the second book, seeing only one point, saw a differing point from the first. Reading a dozen books on the parables, books written by highly respected authors, sometimes led to a dozen diverse explanations of “the single point.” Which one point was the one point?
Jeremias’ and Dodds’ idea makes a point that should be considered seriously, but is it just possible that they might have missed the point? I will leave it at that for now . Which is what Jesus usually did.
____________
The parables of Jesus are not the point of this blog. The note to listen for is the underlying bass tone--mostly an undertone–that says: “Jesus is the parable of God.”
The Jesus story is a short story. In the Bible, we hear the story told in four different voices: a revenuer, a young man who was slow coming around, an M.D., and a professional fisherman. Each “voice” frames for us a short story. Depending on the format of your Bible, the revenuer’s story is only 25-30 pages long; that of the young man–who finally did come around–runs a short 15-20 pages; the M.D. gives us 30-40 pages; and the fisherman takes 20-30 pages.
These numbers are only approximations. If we were to publish the four together (separate from the Bible), the story would still be relatively short: 90-120 pages or so. The length of a novella.
Actually, within this number of pages, we see a structure that is common in literature: a story told by four different voices from their perspective as characters in the story. Matthew, the revenuer, was one of twelve that Jesus picked as one of his trainees. Mark, the young man, many of us think, was a minor, in fact, anonymous character (maybe later I’ll tell why we think so). Luke, the M.D., was not involved in the story, but as perhaps the earliest researcher of the facts he is a helpful outside, but well-informed voice. John, the pro fisherman, was another of the twelve–one of the earliest–that Jesus chose to be a members of his select group of trainees.
_____________
All I’ve done so far is to review and, I hope, clarify the definition of parables, and raise question about their interpretation. Secondly, I have made a case for the Jesus story as a short–but not simple–story. Last, I’ve indicated that I intend to ground this blog in an understanding of the Jesus story as The Parable of God; the story of Jesus is an earthly (Middle-Eastern Palestine) story with a heavenly meaning.
I myself will be interested in seeing what grows out of this ground. We might consider Jesus from the perspective of The Jesus Seminar, Charles Stanley, Hans Kung, Brian McLaren, Rudolf Bultmann, someone else, or none of the above. Wherever we come from, by looking at the story of Jesus we should come to know God better than we do now.
__________
If this is your first time to log on to one of my blogs (and if you are interested), I have others at:
http://aintsobad.typepad.com/ikant/ where I write philosophy for Rick Davis’ blog; and several more can be found at the bottom of the page: http://www.blogger.com/profile/08339539145393176843
Parables commonly are understood as “earthly stories with heavenly meaning.” Ordinarily we associate parables with religion or morality. Official dictionary definitions see the parable as a story, usually simple and short, told to make a religious or moral point, occasionally to make some other kind of point. The root meaning derives from the idea of comparing one thing to another in order to gain a better understanding of that which is being compared.
A story, usually short. What does this mean? How long might a story be and still serve as a parable? How do we distinguish a short story, from a “short story” written to make a point, especially if that point is religious or moral? Good question. As a type of literature, the short story has never been given a clear definition.
A simple story. Perhaps, but the meaning of a parabolic story may be multilayered, difficult to understand, and sometimes mystifying–anything but simple. The meaning, at least, of a parable is sometimes complex.
Clearly, or so it seems to me, when we try to grab the word, “parable,” by its ears and try to shake out a precise meaning, it is unlikely that we will succeed. Therefore I feel free to call the Jesus story, “The Parable of God.”
_________________
Without question, the Jesus story is a short story. Most of us know that Jesus commonly spoke in parables, was a storyteller. Short, often crisp, always to the point, and usually open-ended. If his stories had a heavenly meaning, more often than not, he left it to the listener to figure that meaning out for himself.
The history of the efforts to explain what Jesus meant is long, and unsatisfying. For centuries these stories were subject to an array of subjective interpretations. At times, wild imagination ruled. At other times inspired imagination caught fire and these stories burned brightly.
The 20th Century saw the emergence of a rule, supposedly objective, that was to settle the meaning of Jesus’ parables. Between Joachim Jeremias and C. H. Dodd, we learned that Jesus told these stories to make a point, to make a single point. All we have to do is “get the point,” and we will understand what Jesus was after.
For several decades many of us were schooled to this rule. It sounded good. We believed it and tried to read the parables with this in mind. But. But we found ourselves in trouble when we read more than one book that interpreted specific parables by this rule.
The first book would sound good, but the second book, seeing only one point, saw a differing point from the first. Reading a dozen books on the parables, books written by highly respected authors, sometimes led to a dozen diverse explanations of “the single point.” Which one point was the one point?
Jeremias’ and Dodds’ idea makes a point that should be considered seriously, but is it just possible that they might have missed the point? I will leave it at that for now . Which is what Jesus usually did.
____________
The parables of Jesus are not the point of this blog. The note to listen for is the underlying bass tone--mostly an undertone–that says: “Jesus is the parable of God.”
The Jesus story is a short story. In the Bible, we hear the story told in four different voices: a revenuer, a young man who was slow coming around, an M.D., and a professional fisherman. Each “voice” frames for us a short story. Depending on the format of your Bible, the revenuer’s story is only 25-30 pages long; that of the young man–who finally did come around–runs a short 15-20 pages; the M.D. gives us 30-40 pages; and the fisherman takes 20-30 pages.
These numbers are only approximations. If we were to publish the four together (separate from the Bible), the story would still be relatively short: 90-120 pages or so. The length of a novella.
Actually, within this number of pages, we see a structure that is common in literature: a story told by four different voices from their perspective as characters in the story. Matthew, the revenuer, was one of twelve that Jesus picked as one of his trainees. Mark, the young man, many of us think, was a minor, in fact, anonymous character (maybe later I’ll tell why we think so). Luke, the M.D., was not involved in the story, but as perhaps the earliest researcher of the facts he is a helpful outside, but well-informed voice. John, the pro fisherman, was another of the twelve–one of the earliest–that Jesus chose to be a members of his select group of trainees.
_____________
All I’ve done so far is to review and, I hope, clarify the definition of parables, and raise question about their interpretation. Secondly, I have made a case for the Jesus story as a short–but not simple–story. Last, I’ve indicated that I intend to ground this blog in an understanding of the Jesus story as The Parable of God; the story of Jesus is an earthly (Middle-Eastern Palestine) story with a heavenly meaning.
I myself will be interested in seeing what grows out of this ground. We might consider Jesus from the perspective of The Jesus Seminar, Charles Stanley, Hans Kung, Brian McLaren, Rudolf Bultmann, someone else, or none of the above. Wherever we come from, by looking at the story of Jesus we should come to know God better than we do now.
__________
If this is your first time to log on to one of my blogs (and if you are interested), I have others at:
http://aintsobad.typepad.com/ikant/ where I write philosophy for Rick Davis’ blog; and several more can be found at the bottom of the page: http://www.blogger.com/profile/08339539145393176843
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
