>
Let me say something positive first. I am a fan of everyone having the Bible in their own language and in their own hand. I am a proud Protestant. I would not want to live in an era where everyone did not have access to the Bible in their language. I like this aspect of the world and era that I live in.
We read the Bible. Not reading the Bible is not our problem. Sometimes preachers get on people for not reading their Bibles enough. I disagree. I think that people are generally reading the Bible enough. That is not our problem. (I know these are generalities – just go with me for a second)
- The first is that we don’t know enough about the first century.
- The second is that we don’t know enough about the genres that the books of Scripture are written in.
It is difficult for me to express how important this issue is in our contemporary situation.
It would be overstating it to say that we don’t know how to read the Bible.
It would be understating it to say that we just need to read it more. One might even go as far as to say that if we are reading it wrong, then reading that way more will just create more of a problem!
This is what I want to address over the next 4 weeks with this conversation.
I will start with a story that illustrates both the points (about the 1st Century and about the genres).
The story of Jesus and ‘Legion’ (you can go read this is Mark 5 and Luke 8)
Here are three readings of that story: modern-Literal, Political, and Post-Colonial
In the modern-Literal reading, Jesus goes over to this region called the Decapolis which is primarily inhabited by gentiles. He finds this guy chained up because he is being tormented by a large number of demons and had become a danger to himself and to the town folk. Jesus comes over – the only time he was ever in that area on that side of the sea – and he casts out the demons. But the demons make a deal with Jesus and so he casts them into a herd of pigs – which immediately run down the hill into the sea and drown. The townspeople are not happy with Jesus for wrecking their economic livelihood and agricultural income. They ask Jesus to leave. The guy – now freed from his torment – asks to come with Jesus and Jesus tells him to go back into town and testify.
It is not said if he wanted to leave because a) he was mad at the people for chaining him out there or b) the people would be mad at the guy for what happened to the pigs.
This is a straight forward reading and when one does not know much about the first century … it is probably the reading that you would go with. The story is about demons, pigs, and people. And that is about all. The application is that Jesus loves this one guy more than a bunch of livestock and is concerned with the well–being of a single person more than the livelihood of an entire town.
In a political reading, the lens of first century politics gives the story a different look. Jesus goes into a Roman occupied territory (think about the name Decapolis). He encounters a man tormented by a foreign occupier with a Roman name (Legion is a military term) and frees this man who is bound by casting out the alien presence into pigs – which are unclean to the Hebrew mind. It is also notable that a pig had been sacrificed in the Jerusalem Temple in the time between the Hebrew (older) Testament and the beginning of our newer (christian) Testament.
The story that we get Hanukkah from is found in the Maccabean revolt. This uprising was ultimately set off by the sacrifice of a pig (called the abomination of desolation) in the Temple.
But in our story, what to do with the pigs drowning is water? I have heard two good explanations.The first revolves around the Egyptian army drowning in the Exodus and so drawing of the imagery of Jesus (as a Moses character) liberating his people out of captivity. The second has to do with Shamanism (both ancient and modern) which puts extracted bad things (tumors, spirits, venom, etc.) into water to neutralize them.
Either way – knowing about the Political landscape of the 1st Century makes it possible to say maybe demons aren’t demons and pigs aren’t pigs in this sense.
Of course the obvious thing is to say “Well, can’t it be both?” that Jesus really did cast out the demons but that the way Luke told the story allows them to be not JUST demons. This way, pigs are pigs but they are not just pigs. Demons, likewise, are real demons who are really cast out … but they are not just demons – there is another implication to them.
Here is my point though! You can not have the possibility of pigs not being pigs or pigs being more than pigs unless you know something about the politics of the 1st century! Otherwise pigs are only pigs and nothing more. In that case, we may be missing more than half the message of Jesus or at the message as it was portrayed by the Gospel writer.
Added Bonus:
After I had already written this post, I heard another take on this passage. At Big Tent Christianity last week, Anthony Smith (the Postmodern Negro) and Tripp Fuller (of Homebrewed Christianity) had a dialogue about post-colonial Pentecostalism and race.
In this lens the reading of this passage takes on a very different look. The story becomes a model or a type of parable that is recreated over and over again.
The man is in chains (slavery) and the free culture keeps him outside. Jesus finds him and Jesus frees him. This exposes the disgraceful treatment of this man by those who are free. The liberation comes at great price (the pigs) and collateral damage (the economy). The man wants to flee and go with Jesus but Jesus asks him to stay and testify to those that who had bound him – to be an uncomfortable presence for them and to not simply be an “out of sight – out of mind” part of their past .
A post-colonial reading talks of liberation, of exposing the shameful treatment of ‘the other’, and of speaking truth to power. This is a powerful reading that places Jesus squarely in our midst again and allows the Gospel to speak with real power to our real situations.
It is important to note that post-colonial readings are not merely allegories or metaphors – they are read as real events that really impact our real world… but they are not simply literalistic one-dimensional readings like the our first model (modern-literal).
There are many more interpretations that merit to be in the conversation – I simply wanted to introduce these three in order to say that A) what was happening in the first century matters to how we read the newer Testament B) what genre a text is written in matters to how we read it.
The post-colonial reading introduces a third:
C) that the world we live in is both a lens and a light through which we read and view the text. That is called interpretation and that is our focus for next week.
February 16, 2011 at 5:55 pm
>I've encountered an interesting backlash when talking about Jesus as a subversive figure. I've been told, "don't be too political, don't read too much into it." So, I really appreciate this post. My frustration lately lies in the fact that a lot of people around me feel that social justice is just a political issue, rather than a personal or church issue. So…thanks! 🙂
February 16, 2011 at 6:58 pm
>Jimmy, I've bumped into the same thing. Sometimes it's even worse…people have no problem with a political Jesus…as long as it lines up with the politics they already have. If the reading might challenge them, that's when they don't want to have political understandings.
February 16, 2011 at 10:35 pm
>Let me just throw out a wild idea. What if… just what if Jesus was primarily political. Or if you don’t like “primarily” the how about even “significantly” political? Then a century or two later, the Imperial powers play down his message and influence by breaking them into categories like “spiritual” and “political” that Jesus as a Jewish person would not have had?It would benefit the Imperial power a great deal to have Christians NOT be radical, counter-cultural or prophetic. It is much better if they are obedient, passive, understanding, and (best of all) focused on the world to come. It was better for Rome. It was better for the Europe of Christendom. and it is better for America when it is acting with unilateral power or cutting parts of the budget that expose the most vulnerable of it’s citizens while increasing the military budget. IF I am right (and that is a big if) then even passages like Galatians 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female.” is a political stance. If you knew about Roman civilization and the VERY present ‘household codes’ (called pater familias) then statements like Paul’s in Gal 3:28 are radically political.but we don’t know about the pater familias so… it becomes ‘spiritual’ – but even so can we at least say that is Spiritual WITH political implications? at minimum
February 17, 2011 at 4:35 pm
>I thought of a good way to introduce a political reading ;)We are looking for a 3rd way. So instead of my saying ‘the story of Legion’ is NOT about what it appears to be – and you insisting that it is ONLY what it appears to be… I am willing to say that , in the story, the demons are MORE than demons and you can say that they may not be ONLY demons.
February 18, 2011 at 2:48 am
>Thanks, Bo. I appreciate all three readings. I am coming to believe that as human beings are so incredibly diverse, although our political, social, individual problems are universal, that we need the freedom to read scripture in the way that is the most empowering, the most liberating, the most freeing. 🙂
February 18, 2011 at 12:41 pm
>Holly! great to hear from you.I, of course, agree with what your saying – for I see that AS the message OF Scripture from the Exodus to the Revelation and everywhere between. (everywhere might be overdoing it but … it is prevalent)Now – it would be good to admit ,as a point of contrast, those who are more concerned with CONSERVing the old ways of reading certain texts, would disagree. One of the reason I am OK with this is because the more we know about the 1st century, the more empowered we will be to read those texts in the 21st century. That is my positive way to say it! here is the negative. The reality is that some of the most popular readings of the past 300 years in N. America have been in complete absence of knowledge about the 1st century. They are ahististorical readings and they are somewhere between damaging and devastating – depending on who is doing the reading and who it is aimed at.
February 21, 2011 at 3:53 pm
>I live in Montana. So forgive me for taking a minute to wipe the tears from my keyboard as I realize that somebody out there is having a sane conversation about the nature of Scripture.It is amazing how thinking the world is no larger than your immediate community can produce fear of change. It's almost like not going to the doctor because if you don't know you have cancer it can't hurt you.I have a million things to say in this conversation as to the nature of Scripture. However, at this point I would simply ask one question. Have any of you come across a church history resource that traces the development of our orthodoxy from the perspective of the relationship between politics/government and faith/church?Everything I read assumes the legitimacy of orthodoxy and then prensents material to protect it.
February 22, 2011 at 3:28 am
>mtdan – went to my friend who knows about such things. I have a short list of good resources for us and will put that up as soon as I can take a break from my homework!This was an AMAZING question and as soon as I saw it I thought to myself " Hey, wait… that is a really good point." I asked my buddy and he had the same reaction (except he had studied it before) – apparently it is a REAL issue and I didn't even know it ;)and THAT is why we do this in conversation! -Bo
February 22, 2011 at 8:48 pm
>James Dunn. books like Jesus Rememberedhttp://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Remembered-Christianity-Making-James/dp/0802839312/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1298407461&sr=8-7John P. Meyers. books like Marginal Jew and othershttp://www.amazon.com/Marginal-Jew-Rethinking-Historical-Reference/dp/0300140967/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1298407509&sr=1-1a book called “To each his own meaning” that is a dialogue about such things from MANY perspectives.http://www.amazon.com/Each-Its-Own-Meaning-Introduction/dp/0664257844/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1298407548&sr=1-1Dale Alison “the Apocalyptic Jesus – the debate” he also has some stuff on I-tuneshttp://www.amazon.com/Apocalyptic-Jesus-Dale-C-Allison/dp/0944344895/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1298407577&sr=1-8