Remember that story when Jesus was criticized because his disciples were not following the same religious practice--fasting--like many others? Jesus replied with that expression: new wine and new wineskin. (See Mk2/18-22). Remember too the story about the day--the Sabbath day--when Jesus and his disciples were walking in the wheat-fields? The disciples started eating grain heads. They were heavily criticized for not doing what the religious practices required. (See Mk2/23-28).
In the account of Mark we see that Jesus and his disciples were constantly spied on. They were doing things that were quite ordinary. But the Pharisees sought something wrong in the ordinary things that the disciples were doing. It was time to find reasons to accuse Jesus. In the gospel account of Mark Jesus was, at this point of the story, well-known among the people. Crowds followed him. His teaching was so simple and quite "relaxed" (compared to the traditional teachings.) Jesus announced God's forgiveness and he was close to the "little ones"--the publicans, the ill, the prostitutes. He was too “cool”, so to speak. But the Pharisees did not want the “cool” and “relaxed” type. The Pharisees were, to coin a term I once learned, “constipated”.
The disciples of Jesus were equally cool. Hence the accusation: Jesus and his disciples were not religiously constipated enough. "“Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the sabbath?” (Mk2/24). For the Pharisees, to live religiously meant following the practices and observing prohibitions. In other words they were so focused on what one should not do. For them religiosity meant strict observance of rules norms, precepts required by the Law and ancient tradition.
It may be interesting to note that in the account of Mark, all this polemic against Jesus starts right at the very early chapters. If we try to understand this strategy of Mark, we might say that Mark was raising a question, namely: "What does God want from us, how does God want us to relate with God?" Does God want us to relate with a dictator or with a partner in the covenant?
In the Old Testament we read, for example, texts about laws. But the authors always insisted that the institution of laws were meant for life and liberation from slavery and injustice. Hence the God offering the laws was a God of life and liberation. When the Laws were instituted as the people of Israel entered Canaan the aim was that they will live a social life of justice and fraternity. They were not to repeat what was being done in Egypt during their days of slavery.
In the laws was the stipulation that God and the people of Israel agreed on a covenant--a partnership. God and people were partners. In fact, from the very start of Genesis we read that for God the human was created as God's image and likeness, not as slaves.
Over time there emerged a rather strict observance of laws to the point of being fixated by the letters of the laws. The accusers of Jesus were precisely stuck in that mentality. Hence to bow before God was to be like a slave in front of a fearful master.
Jesus wanted to make it clear. The God he introduced was a different type, a God who was a partner of the covenant. God was a Father, Abba. Jesus did not deny the role of the Law. But he understood the Law as facilitating fraternity and justice. God was not a despot; God was a God of tenderness and pity.
Was it not that the mission of Jesus was to "promote" the Kingdom wherein the love of God reigned? The desire of God was not exactly the strict literal observance of laws. The desire of God was to make the human stand up and pull out from things that prohibit the fullness of life. God did not seek to crush the human and have the human nailed to the cross and then have the Son serve as substitute. God's desire was to help the human make the effort to be fully and truly human.
I love the word, "bloom". God wants us to bloom in life. To bloom, we place ourselves in front of God as Our Father and partner in the Covenant. To bloom, we stand in full confidence that God is Abba and we are God's children.
This, I think, is so central in the account of Mark. I am reminded constantly of what Claude Geffre wrote. Christianity is not exactly a religion. Oh, do not get me wrong. It is also a religion, but a "religion of the Gospel". Christianity is not a religion, period. it is not a religion obsessed with ceremonies and rituals and all sorts of practices and observances. Oh, these too are found in Christianity, as in other religions. But the central focus is not on these but on Jesus who points to the Father. Christianity is gospel based wherein we take the responsibility of being partners in the Covenant. The Gospel is not proclaimed to promote the constipation of people. It is about life and the fullness of life. Voila, my thoughts this morning.
In the account of Mark we see that Jesus and his disciples were constantly spied on. They were doing things that were quite ordinary. But the Pharisees sought something wrong in the ordinary things that the disciples were doing. It was time to find reasons to accuse Jesus. In the gospel account of Mark Jesus was, at this point of the story, well-known among the people. Crowds followed him. His teaching was so simple and quite "relaxed" (compared to the traditional teachings.) Jesus announced God's forgiveness and he was close to the "little ones"--the publicans, the ill, the prostitutes. He was too “cool”, so to speak. But the Pharisees did not want the “cool” and “relaxed” type. The Pharisees were, to coin a term I once learned, “constipated”.
The disciples of Jesus were equally cool. Hence the accusation: Jesus and his disciples were not religiously constipated enough. "“Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the sabbath?” (Mk2/24). For the Pharisees, to live religiously meant following the practices and observing prohibitions. In other words they were so focused on what one should not do. For them religiosity meant strict observance of rules norms, precepts required by the Law and ancient tradition.
It may be interesting to note that in the account of Mark, all this polemic against Jesus starts right at the very early chapters. If we try to understand this strategy of Mark, we might say that Mark was raising a question, namely: "What does God want from us, how does God want us to relate with God?" Does God want us to relate with a dictator or with a partner in the covenant?
In the Old Testament we read, for example, texts about laws. But the authors always insisted that the institution of laws were meant for life and liberation from slavery and injustice. Hence the God offering the laws was a God of life and liberation. When the Laws were instituted as the people of Israel entered Canaan the aim was that they will live a social life of justice and fraternity. They were not to repeat what was being done in Egypt during their days of slavery.
In the laws was the stipulation that God and the people of Israel agreed on a covenant--a partnership. God and people were partners. In fact, from the very start of Genesis we read that for God the human was created as God's image and likeness, not as slaves.
Over time there emerged a rather strict observance of laws to the point of being fixated by the letters of the laws. The accusers of Jesus were precisely stuck in that mentality. Hence to bow before God was to be like a slave in front of a fearful master.
Jesus wanted to make it clear. The God he introduced was a different type, a God who was a partner of the covenant. God was a Father, Abba. Jesus did not deny the role of the Law. But he understood the Law as facilitating fraternity and justice. God was not a despot; God was a God of tenderness and pity.
Was it not that the mission of Jesus was to "promote" the Kingdom wherein the love of God reigned? The desire of God was not exactly the strict literal observance of laws. The desire of God was to make the human stand up and pull out from things that prohibit the fullness of life. God did not seek to crush the human and have the human nailed to the cross and then have the Son serve as substitute. God's desire was to help the human make the effort to be fully and truly human.
I love the word, "bloom". God wants us to bloom in life. To bloom, we place ourselves in front of God as Our Father and partner in the Covenant. To bloom, we stand in full confidence that God is Abba and we are God's children.
This, I think, is so central in the account of Mark. I am reminded constantly of what Claude Geffre wrote. Christianity is not exactly a religion. Oh, do not get me wrong. It is also a religion, but a "religion of the Gospel". Christianity is not a religion, period. it is not a religion obsessed with ceremonies and rituals and all sorts of practices and observances. Oh, these too are found in Christianity, as in other religions. But the central focus is not on these but on Jesus who points to the Father. Christianity is gospel based wherein we take the responsibility of being partners in the Covenant. The Gospel is not proclaimed to promote the constipation of people. It is about life and the fullness of life. Voila, my thoughts this morning.
No comments:
Post a Comment