Using the Methodist Lectionary yesterday, I read Luke 17:5-10 from the NRSV for College Wesleyan's "Liturgical Service":
The apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith!”
The Lord replied, “If you had faith the size of a mustard seed, you could say to this mulberry tree, ‘Be uprooted and planted in the sea,’ and it would obey you.
“Who among you would say to your slave who has just come in from plowing or tending sheep in the field, ‘Come here at once and take your place at the table’? Would you not rather say to him, ‘Prepare supper for me, put on your apron and serve me while I eat and drink; later you may eat and drink’? Do you thank the slave for doing what was commanded? So you also, when you have done all that you were ordered to do, say, ‘We are worthless slaves; we have done only what we ought to have done!’”
This is both a puzzling and startling passage for me. It is puzzling in seeing the connection between the second paragraph and the disciple's question. The first answer makes sense. The disciples ask Jesus to increase their faith and Jesus tells them what the power of increased faith (as trust in God) can do.
But how does the second paragraph, almost a parable, increase the disciples' faith. Of course no doubt many sermons could be preached and probably have been. The gap this juxtaposition is exactly the stuff of spectacular sermons where the Spirit works through the wisdom of the speaker to create some "aha" moment of truth.
For instance, might Jesus be addressing the wrong motives in asking for more faith and Jesus basically tells them they are slaves who need to obey rather than be seeking the glory you get when you can work the miraculous? Or maybe the nuance of faith Jesus addresses here is faithfulness, in which case the sense of servanthood would make sense. Jesus would be telling them how to be good and faithful servants.
I don't find either of these really satisfying. There probably are some really good explanations out there. I wonder if this is simply the problem we occasionally encounter of free floating Jesus' sayings that have been incorporated into the gospel as somewhat random places.
But what really startled me this morning was not the sequence of the narrative, but the teaching of 17:7-10. Can't you just imagine Christian slave owners in the 1700's and 1800's using this passage?! See, I can hear them, Jesus assumes the absolute mastery of a master over slave.
This is not my disposition. I feel guilty if others are serving me. What Jesus assumes, "Duh, everyone would do this," is not at all what I would do. If someone had been working all day for me in the field and I had been inside enjoying myself, I would have wanted them to "take a load off" and be rewarded.
I don't think this attitude will stand anymore between humans. I don't think we can be Christ-like in our day and have such an attitude toward our neighbor. However, we do have a master to which this passage seems a wake-up call--God.
In comparison to God, we remain "worthless servants" even today. In the household of God, He does remain the center of attention, the One who deserves to be served no matter how hard we have been working for Him. He is the reality of which we are only the image. We have no value apart from Him.
If we truly understand this concept, then we will "keep faith" with God on a whole new level.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
In intermediate Hermeneutics, we have to sign up and present two chapters of Thiselton's "New Horizons" text. I thought you would be happy to know that I jumped on the chance to present the chapter dealing with the hermeneutics of Paul and Hebrews.
This one's for you...
which means I need your help :)
They categorize that book as intermediate hermeneutics?!
I skimmed the section on Hebrews. Some of my reflections are 1) for a discussion meant to project the author from an anonymous text, he draws a lot on secondary interpreters, each with particular and sometimes idiosyncratic angles, 2) there is much to be debated about even some of the most basic reconstructions of the author's intent as Thiselton projects it from the text. The most recent whammy, I think, is the suggestion that Hebrews (contrary to Jewett and most) is meant to console believers at the loss of the temple rather than a polemic against reliance on their Jewish past. Such a small change in perspective drastically changes our read of the author's intention and the audience's situation. It highlights how tenuous our interpretations of a text like this are!
Thanks for the help! I'll definitely look into the recent findings on Hebrews interpretation. That should help me form a thesis about Thiselton's chapter. Dr. Moritz says there is hardly anything in the "intermediate" level of understanding out there. He has suggested we use Tate's book along with it, but he thinks that it is underdeveloped for intermediate. Maybe you could write something...I'll help! :)
Can you further explain point #1? Are you saying that because Hebrews is authored anonymously, we have to rely on secondary sources (interpreters), and the sources Thiselton uses are aligned on their own agendas?
Post a Comment