Preaching
in Jewish cities and villages and addressing crowds, the Lord speaks in the
language intelligible for these crowds, that is, in the language of people
around him. At the same time, we see in the Gospel, especially in the Gospel of
St. John, the following affirmations: These words you hear are not my own; they
belong to the Father who sent me (Jn. 14:24); I do nothing on my own but speak
just what the Father has taught me (Jn. 8:28); My teaching is not my own. It
comes from him who sent me (Jn. 7:16), or The words I have spoken to you are
spirit and they are life (Jn. 6:63). The Lord proclaims absolutely new and
strange things which exceed by far not only human customs and habits but also
human reason. His words often provoke anger as they are hard to grasp. He
addresses Jews, saying, you have no room for my word, and they are divided
again (Jn. 10:19) and many of them would say: He was raving mad. Not only the
Pharisees but also many of his disciples, on hearing it (the sermon at
Capernaum) said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" (Jn.
6:60). And as John reports, from this time many of his disciples turned back
and no longer followed him (Jn. 6:66). His words amazed the crowd as he taught
not as their teachers of the law (Mt. 7:29). No one ever spoke the way this man
does (Jn. 7:46). And even the closest twelve disciples are bewildered. Let us
remember the parable about a camel for whom it is easier to go through the eye
of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. When the disciples
heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be
saved?" (Mt. 19:25).
So, the
Lord preaches in the language of people around him but often remains
unintelligible. Explaining the reason for it, he says to the Jews: You are from
below; I am from above (Jn. 8:23).
The
gospel’s word inspired from above is a call to utter perfection which exceeds
any measure and rule, going beyond the law. If forgiveness is to be given, it
should be given not three times as the Pharisees taught (Yoma 86 Bar) nor seven
times as St. Peter believes (whose measure apparently exceeds that of the
Pharisees) but seventy-seven times, that is, endless times (Mt. 18:21-22). One
should donate not one fifth of the value of a ram (cf. Lev. 5:15-16) nor half
of one’s possessions, as Zacchaeus, who found Christ, offers (Lk. 19:8) but
sell everything and distribute the money to the poor. One should love not only
one’s close relatives and friends but extend one’s love to all people including
one’s enemies. (But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who
persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun
to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the
unrighteous (Mt. 5:44-45)). Love in the Saviour’s preaching becomes an
authoritarian directive: your neighbour is any one whom you approach with love
and care (see the Parable of the Good Samaritan). In the Gospel we hear a call
to utter perfection: Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect
(Mt. 5:48) but this perfection is unattainable for the man in his fallen state
since it demands a spiritual renewal through communion with God and
strengthening through the power of the Holy Spirit, for with man this is impossible,
but with God all things are possible (Mt. 19:26). This is the answer that the
Lord gives to his bewildered disciples.
There is
another very important aspect of the gospel’s word: the gospel’s teaching is
not an abstract sum of knowledge but the way of finding a new life in the
Kingdom of Heaven. This Kingdom is already revealed in power through the
knowledge of God in communion with the Son. (If you really knew me, you would
know my Father as well (Jn. 14:7); anyone who has seen me has seen the Father
(Jn. 14:9)). Any parable or instruction of the Saviour has an element of not
only theological revelation but also guidance for action. In other words, they
are inseparable from moral, ascetic and volitional decisions and pose a person
before the problem of choice. Very often the Lord concludes his instructions
with words: He who has ears let him hear. His call points out that he does not
set forth his teaching in a ready and completed form but rather urges his
listeners to think, to seek and to come to self-determination. But the way to
the comprehension of the divine word which comes from the above, from the
Father, lies through the understanding of the commonly accepted human words,
images and idioms in which it is embodied, that is, through the understanding
of the language of the gospel’s preaching.
What is
this language then? The gospel’s preaching is not set forth in a language of
fixed terms. It does not have a strict system and precise definitions which are
found in later theology. The language of the gospel’s theology is different in
that it is figurative and its instructions are given in the form of vivid
comparisons, metaphors and parables often striking in their paradoxality, for
instance, Whoever tries to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his
life will preserve it (Lk. 17:33). Many images are borrowed directly from the
everyday life of Palestinian peasants, fishermen and craftsmen, which makes the
Saviour’s preaching more open and intelligible for listeners. The language of
the gospel’s theology is based on the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament. The
good knowledge of these texts characteristic of the people whom the Saviour
addresses enables him not only to cite them but also to borrow from them
certain images and expressions and to build more complex allusions and
connotations, developing these images even further. (see for instance the
parable about ‘evil workers in a vineyard’ in Mt. 21:22-24 and Is. 5).
Therefore, an adequate understanding of the gospel’s theology is impossible without
a good knowledge of the Old Testament.
Besides,
a study of inter-testament literature, which was very popular in its time, as
the existence of a great number of its translations into other languages show,
as well as the Middle East folklore, non-biblical idiomatics, sayings by
various authoritative teachers, aphorisms, etc. has shown that the Lord, in
creating the image-bearing harmony of this instructions and parables, often
addressed this living manifold linguistic material as well.
I would
like to speak in detail about it. There are examples pointing to a striking
coincidence between the Gospel’s words and expressions we find in rabbinical
sources.
Mt. 6:34
Each day has enough trouble of its own.
Bracho 9б
There is enough trouble of its own for every
hour
Мt. 7:5
You hypocrite, first take the plank out of
your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your
brother's eye.
Baba Bathra 15б
He says to him: take out a chip stuck in our
teath. And he answers to this: first take out the log that sticks out of your
eye.
Mk. 2:27
The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the
Sabbath.
Yoma 856
The Sabbath is given to you, not you to the
Sabbath
Mt. 9:17
Neither do men pour new wine into old
wineskins
Abot 4, 20
It happens that a new vessel can be full of
an old wine, but it also happens that even young cannot be found in an old.
For the
proponents of the historical development of Christianity, such examples serve
as a pretext for denying uniqueness to the gospel’s teaching. Identifying the
figurative and ideological aspects of an expression, they overlook that the
Lord, using popular comparisons, idioms, clichés, etc., often puts into them a
new meaning consonant with the spirit of his preaching.
In the
Bikkurim tractate, there is a story about a dispute between Rabbi Joshua ben
Hananiah and Athenian sages. It is of a pronounced folkloric nature. The
Athenian sages, for instance, break a jug before Joshua and ask him to sew it
together. To this Joshua responds by spilling a handful of sand and asking them
to spin it into yarn. The Athenian sages then ask him to build a castle in the
air, and he tells them to bring bricks. Among other things, the Athenian sages
asked Joshua: What is to be used to salt the salt that has lost its saltiness?
The answer offered by Joshua is this: the afterbirth (placenta) of a she-mule.
The meaning is that a she-mule as a cross between a mare and an ass is barren.
The sages ask: Can’t a she-mule have afterbirth? The rabbi answers: Can’t salt
lose its saltness? This story makes us recall the words of the Saviour:
Mt. 5:13
You are the salt of the earth. But if the
salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good
for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men.
Bikkurim 8
How can the salt that has lost its saltiness
be made salty again? We say to them: by the afterbirth of a she-mule. Hasn’t a
she-mule an afterbirth? And is not salt salty?
Clearly,
one and the same phrase: If salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty?
serves completely different purposes and, coming from the Saviour, turns from a
witty folk puzzle into an assertion of the lofty mission and responsibility
with which the Lord entrusts his disciples.
Another
example in which the Saviour in his edification refers to an already known
sayings is found in the Gospel of Matthews 7:12. This passage makes us recall a
story about one of the most prominent religious teachers of the turn of the
era, Rabbi Hillel. There are several surviving stories about a heathen who
wished to convert to Judaism. He came first to Rabbi Shammai but, dissatisfied
with his visit, decided to approach Rabbi Hillel as a more flexible and less
rigoristic man. One of these stories is as follows:
Shabbat
30а
Another
man came to Shammai and said, I will become a Jew if you can teach me the
entire Torah in the time that you can stand on one foot. Again, Shammai, drove
him off in anger. Going to Hillel, he made the same offer. What is hateful to
you, do not do to others, said Hillel. That is the whole Torah.
It is not
difficult to see that the Gospel’s words: So in everything, do to others what
you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets, on
one hand, presuppose a knowledge of Hillel’s saying and appear to be a direct
reference to it but they develop it and give them a different, gospel’s, measure,
on the other. While Hillel’s instruction is called only to keep one from evil
and to prevent one from showing disrespect for others, the Saviour’s words
express something much greater – a call to love and care of one’s neighbours.
The most
interesting examples however are those in which the Lord, alluding to
expressions well known to his listeners, does not merely reconstruct them or
give them a new meaning but inverts them in a very unexpected and paradoxical
way, thus revealing new relations going beyond habitual human wisdom.
I will
try to illustrate this idea using the following three examples.
Among the
Qumran discoveries are fragments of the original Hebrew (Testament of Naphtali)
and Aramaic (Testament of Levi) text of the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs
dating back to the 2nd century B.C. The full text of this apocryphal writing
has survived in Greek but it is also known in its Syrian, Latin, Ethiopian and
Slavonic version. This excellent literary work was certainly known to the
Saviour’s contemporaries, which accounts for a whole number of its lexical
coincidences with the New Testament literature.
Here is a
vivid example:
Testament of Joseph 11, 1, 5-6
I was tormented by hunger but the Lord
himself fed me up. I was lonely, and God comforted me, I was sick, and the Lord
visited me, I was in prison, and God had mercy on me.
Mt. 25:35-37
I was hungry and you gave me something to
eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you
invited me in, needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked
after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me
This
example has been repeatedly cited as a testimony to the literary dependence and
‘close relations which existed between Jewish pre-Christian apocryphal and the
New Testament literature’ (И.Д. Амусин Кумранская община. М., 1983). But we
will go beyond a mere statement of apparent verbal coincidences. Joseph’s words
in the apocrypha, so moving and full of gratitude to his Lord, belong to a
quite understandable and ‘natural’ plane: a righteous man is suffering and the
Lord does not abandon him but supports and helps him. On the other hand,
people’s reaction to the Gospel’s words is amazement. For all the outward
similarity of the expressions, there is a glaring contrast as in the Gospel’s
parable it is not God but a man who visits his Lord and gives him food, water
and clothes. But can a man really take care of God: Lord, when did we see you
hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? – This is a
puzzle not only for gospel’s sinners but also righteous men: whatever you did
for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.
This is
how a simple ‘old’ theme gives rise to an unexpected and paradoxical ‘new’ gospel’s
instruction – an instruction so important that the response to it determines
ultimately one’s way either to eternal punishment or to eternal life (Mt.
25:46), as will see below.
Let us
take another example from the tractate Pirkei Avot’s (The Saying of the
Fathers). This tractate is of special interest for us since it contains brief
sayings which characterize the worldview of the oldest Rabbinic authorities
beginning from Simeon the Righteous (3d century B.C) to the beginning of
compiling Mishnah (c. 200 A.D.). The first four chapters contain the authors’
instructions given by 60 teachers. Before they were committed to paper, they
were discussed and handed down by word of mouth, and in this sense they
represent a very rich material picturing the ideological atmosphere at the turn
of the era. Most of the sayings in the next, fifth, chapter are anonymous. Some
of them can be viewed as a sort of school folklore or a set of popular
aphorisms born in the walls of a beth misrash. But these are also worldly truths
and axioms expressing the original insights of rabbinic ethical and didactical
wisdom.
Among
them is this lecture (5:10): all people are divided into four types. The first
type would say: mine is mine, yours is yours – these, according to the Pirkei
Avot tractate are מידה בינונית, neutral
people. The second type says: mine is yours and yours is yours. They are צדיק, pious
people. The third ones say: mine is mine and yours is mine. These are רשע , wicked people. And finally, the fourth ones
will say: mine is years and yours is mine. These are עם הארץ, people
of the land.
The
expression ‘people of the land’, am ha-aretz, was originally used by the
Pharisees to denote those who did not belong to their party but later acquired
a negative connotation meaning ‘unlearned and stupid people ignorant of Torah’.
In this
connection we can recall the Gospel of John 17:10 in which the Lord, addressing
his Father, says literally this: All I have is yours, and all you have is mine.
It reflects utter mutual openness and endless commitment to each other –
relations of perfect love between Father and Son, which do not fit the
Pharisaic ethical and legal wisdom, as for the Pharisees ‘mine is yours and
yours is mine’ is a commoner’s stupidity while for the Son of God it is an
expression of the utmost wisdom and love.
Another
example. We find the following affirmation in the Sotah tractate (8b):
Sotah 8b
In the measure with which a man measures it
is meted out to him.
This
affirmation needs the following explanatory comment: Samson followed his eyes’
inclination and had his eyes put out… Absalom took pride in this hair and was
hanged by his hair; etc. In other words, the punishment and retribution are
unavoidable according to the principle ‘an eye for an eye, a tooth for a
tooth’. But coming from the Saviour, the same expression acquires a directly
opposite meaning, expressing a call to mercy and refusal to judge:
Mt. 7:2
For in the same way you judge others, you
will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
Here is
the final example in which only one word is changed. In the rabbinical
literature, a crowd is always denoted by the world רבים
translated as ‘many’. But it also means ‘great’. Probably, in combining these
two meanings, ‘many’ as denoting a certain group of people and ‘great’ as
denoting one’s special righteousness and learning, the Qumranites used the word
רבים as one
of the ways to name themselves. In this connection, it is very characteristic
that in the Gospel the Lord, addressing the crown around him, used not the
Greek πολλοι for the Hebrew רבים – ‘many’ and ‘big ones’
but its opposite μικροι meaning ‘little ones’, which is הקטנים האלה in
Hebrew. As far as I know, this usage is not found in the Mishnah literature and
may express an exclusive peculiarity of the Saviour’s language.
Mt. 18:6
But if anyone causes one of these little ones
who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone
hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea
Tos. Sanhedrin 13, 5
Whoever committed a sin and tempted many into
sin shall have the gates of Gehenna closed after him and shall be committed to
it for ages of ages.
Pirkei Avot 5:18
Whoever tempted many into sin shall not be
permitted to repent..
For all
the common topic expressed in the affirmation that whoever causes others to sin
deserves death, it is impossible to overlook that in one case it is an abstract
affirmation about many and addressed to many but in the other it is personal
concern for each of ‘the little ones who believe in me’, that is, who put their
trust in the Lord.
If we
have to deal with ‘the little ones’, it means that each of them needs special
care, like a child. One of many is not worthy of abandoning the ninety-nine.
But it is only one of the little ones, namely, the one whose angel in heaven
always sees the face of my Father in heaven (Mt. 18:10), can be likened to a
lost sheep for whose sake the shepherd leaves the whole flock, And if he finds
it, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not
wander off (Mt. 18:13).
Among the
Mishnah parables we will also find one in which a shepherd will take more care
of a stray goatling which joins the flock than his lost sheep.
A
goatling grew in the desert and he went astray and joined a flock. The shepherd
began giving him food and drink and came to love him most of all his flock. He
is asked: Do you really love this goatling more than your flock? He says to
them: I worked so much to take my flock out in the morning and to take them in
in the evening until they grew up, but this one who grew in deserts himself
came to join my flock. How can I not love him?
I have
simplified this parable, of course. Clearly, the point here is not a proselyte
newcomer. Still it is impossible to overlook the contrast: the parable about a
lost sheep is an image of selfless, searching and saving love, while in the
parable about a goatling who just joined the flock without any efforts on the
shepherd’s part, love does not go beyond ordinary relations motivated by
profit.
By Archpriest Leonid Grilikhes
Source: http://www.bogoslov.ru/en/text/1246430.html
CONVERSATION