Entering into Holy Week with the Good Samaritan

At this point in my spring course on the parables of Jesus we have just explored the parable of the Good Samaritan. This is always a rewarding and challenging week as we consider the parable in its original context and also its implications for today: What does having mercy mean today? Who is my neighbor? Who are the wounded on the side of the road today? Will I allow myself to see them, really see them, and respond?

This week in the class also marks an interesting moment where we encounter a concept which is new to most students: anti-Judaism. Students know about anti-Semitism, but anti-Judaism is a new one for most. In an article I published last year I included a short section discussing anti-Judaism and the parable of the Good Samaritan. Here is a paragraph from it:

The fact that the characters who pass by on the other side of the road and do not show mercy are Jewish religious leaders has given rise to anti-Jewish readings of the parable. In this context anti-Judaism takes shape in an interpretation which, intentionally or unintentionally, promotes Christianity as superior and Judaism as inferior. (Note: It is useful here to consider the distinction between anti-Judaism, which denigrates Jewish religion, and anti-Semitism, a racist ideology. For a good overview of anti-Jewish interpretation of the parables, see Amy-Jill Levine, Short Stories by Jesus: The Enigmatic Parables of a Controversial Rabbi [New York: HarperOne, 2014], 23-25.)

A standard anti-Jewish view of this parable assumes that Judaism is legalistic and heartless and that the priest and the Levite choose to observe Jewish law rather than help a fellow human being. By contrast, such a view claims that Christianity focuses on love and compassion and this parable shows that Jesus came to introduce a message of compassion which is, if not foreign to Jewish thought, at least only minimally present in it. One flaw in this line of interpretation is that Jesus was not introducing a new teaching but rather drawing attention to what Judaism already taught: the obligation to have compassion on one’s neighbor and someone in need (cf. Lev. 19:18). The Hebrew Scriptures are rich with teaching about God’s concern for the poor, the widow, the orphan, the alien, and of the obligation of God’s people to care for them. Jesus, as a Jew speaking to Jews, was not denouncing Judaism with his parables, but reminding listeners of truths they already knew. In light of its history of interpretation, this parable presents an opportunity for all of us to begin to grapple with anti-Judaism and become aware of the subtle ways in which anti-Judaism has influenced biblical interpretation. (Gordley, "Parables and the Principle of Mercy," Journal of Catholic Higher Education 39 [2020]: 15-36)

Consideration of this matter is particularly important in the 2020’s when anti-Semitism is—sadly—on the rise. Addressing anti-Semitism derived from the New Testament is not a minor issue. It is 2021 current headline news:

From Forbes: "Hate Crimes Against Jewish Students Are At An All-Time High." 

And in Iowa: "Iowans reported four anti-Semitic incidents in 2020, three of them involving public vandalism. Most recently, on the first day of Hanukkah in December, someone used red spray paint to scrawl the New Testament biblical citation “John 8:44” at an entrance of Davenport's Temple Emanuel." (From the DesMoines Register)

And of course we all witnessed the anti-Semitic symbols on display on January 6 at the insurrection and attack on our nation’s Capitol.

In the article of mine that I quoted from above, I also add this:

From anti-Jewish biblical interpretation to destructive action is not a big step. Biblical scholar Dominic Crossan observes, 'The trajectory of human violence escalates almost inevitably from the ideological through the rhetorical to the physical' (Power of Parable, 247). Interpreting the parables in anti-Jewish or other ways that dehumanize, whether intentionally or unintentionally, is a first step on this trajectory of human violence. It is incumbent on anyone who wishes to interpret the parables of Jesus to be mindful of this reality. It is now documented that the shooter at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh justified his actions through the misinterpretation of the New Testament. See Aamer Madhani et al., “Pittsburgh Synagogue Rampage Spotlights Rising Anti-Semitism in America,” USA Today, October 28, 2018.

As Christians enter into Holy Week, we need to recognize that anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism are a real part of Christian history—a part that must be faced honestly and confronted.

It is important that we consider the vast differences between the historical and cultural context of the first century and the cultural context of the present day, and what this means for the language we use when speaking about the Bible. For example, when the gospel writers or the Apostle Paul speak of “the Jews” they are not speaking of an entire grouping of people throughout history but specific Jews who rejected what became the Christian perspective. Further, Jesus and Paul themselves were both Jewish, and so it is important to emphasize that disputes with “the Jews” were originally internal disputes over understanding the meaning of the kingdom of God in a Jewish context.

As we reflect on the crucifixion this week we might take occasion to reflect on how the Bible actually emphasizes that the crucifixion is ultimately understood by Christians to have been for all humanity. It was not only the Jewish religious leaders who played a role (notably, not “the Jews” as a whole). Consider that according to the New Testament, this was God’s doing (it was God who “gave his one and only son”, according to John 3:16), Jesus himself had a key role (he predicted his death and went willingly toward it, Mark 10:45; John 18:11), and his followers (who abandoned him), and certainly the Roman rulers who were the only ones with the authority to put Jesus to death. And if Jesus came into the world to save sinners, isn’t everyone responsible then in a way, according to Christian teaching (1 Tim 1:15)? Sadly, as the Christian message was embraced in a Roman context, the tradition developed in such a way as to minimize the Roman role while placing blame on the Jews as a whole. This unfortunate development has been mirrored throughout history with disastrous results for the Jewish people and Christian mistreatment of them.

And with this, we have come a long way from our Good Samaritan. Nevertheless, the parable is a call to us again to have eyes and hearts open to those in need—our neighbors—and to be willing to respond with compassion. And it is important to recognize that this call comes to us from Jesus, from the heart of Judaism, from the heart of God.

SOME RESOURCES FOR FURTHER READING:

For an overview of anti-Semitism, see this short video produced by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

See article, "The Crucifixion of Jesus and the Jews," for a brief, scholarly treatment for non-specialists that helps clarify the historical reality about the crucifixion and the way the tradition developed to minimize Roman responsibility and blame the Jews: 

A very helpful and concise overview of the larger issue by a leading New Testament scholar is found here: “Is the New Testament Anti-Jewish?” by Amy-Jill Levine. 

The Cross in the Earliest Christian Hymns (part 2)

Note: This is a follow-up to last week's entry on the cross in the hymn in Philippians 2.

As we progress in this Holy Week to remember the crucifixion of Jesus on Good Friday, another early Christian hymn tells us a little more about what the cross meant to the early Christian worshipers. One of the earliest hymns preserved in the New Testament is found in Colossians 1:15-20. It is probably not quite as early as the Philippian hymn and has a very different feel and style than that hymn. The Colossian hymn was written in a Greek rhetorical style while the Philippian hymn reflects more of a Jewish psalm style. And rather than a chronological narrative with a reversal at the focal point of the cross, the Colossian hymn describes Christ over two stanzas using honorific titles and descriptors:

Stanza 1

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;

16 for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible,

whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers—

all things have been created through him and for him.

17 He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

18 He is the head of the body, the church.

Stanza 2

He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead,

so that he might come to have first place in everything.

19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,

20 and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things,

whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace

through the blood of his cross.

As is fairly clear, the first stanza describes the supremacy of Christ in the realm of creation, while the second describes the supremacy of Christ in redemption. And it is in the work of redemption that the cross is mentioned, at the end of the second stanza. It is “through the blood of his cross” the following two things came about:

• The reconciling of all things to God, and,
• The making of peace.

There is a lot that could be said about those two accomplishments. One thing that is often overlooked is that these two accomplishments—reconciliation and peace making—were two primary claims made about the Roman emperor in the first century. If you recall your world history course, the Pax Romana (the Roman peace) was the term given to the peace that Rome brought about in the Mediterranean world. This was after an extended period of war and strife. Caesar Augustus claimed to have brought peace to the empire and reconciliation between warring factions. Of course, this was a peace brought about through military might and enforced through the subjugation of peoples and the execution of enemies. But it was “peace” nonetheless and something that the emperor claimed as his special accomplishment as a divinely appointed ruler of the world.

And here in this early Christian hymn, these same accomplishments of reconciliation and peace-making are attributed to Jesus. But for him it is not through military might but, as in Philippians, by means of the cross, the brutal symbol of Roman power.

The hymn does not explain how the blood of his cross makes peace. But the basic idea is that because of the cross, the parties that were at odds can be reconciled.

Stepping back to compare Philippians 2 and Colossians 1, it is clear that both hymns mention the cross. And in both cases a fuller appreciation of the Roman historical and cultural context enables us to grasp the significance of the cross a little more fully.

The Philippian hymn mentioned the cross as the turning point- the low point of Christ’s humiliation and the reason for the exaltation. But in the Philippian hymn there is a surprising absence: there is no mention of benefits accruing to humanity from the cross; no mention of salvation, forgiveness of sins, or redemption.

The Colossian hymn is different in this way. The cross is explicitly identified as the means through which God brings about peace and the reconciliation of all things. Paul applies this to the Colossians in vv. 21-22 and tells them “And you who were once estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his fleshly body through death.”  Somehow, the cross is the means of reconciliation with God. And it is also another way that the supremacy of Christ is demonstrated. Because he was crucified and put to death, he can now be called not only the “firstborn over all creation” (stanza 1) but also the “firstborn from among the dead” (stanza 2). As the hymn says “so that in all things he might have the supremacy.”

If the Philippian hymn reminds us of the humility of Christ and of divine reversal, the Colossian hymn reminds us of the supremacy of Christ in creation and redemption. The cross is thus, again, not a triumph for the Romans but another indicator of the superiority of Jesus, the means by which he turns his enemies into his friends.

Given the importance of the cross in these two early Christian hymns, one might ask what role the cross plays in the other great early Christian hymn found in the New Testament: the hymnic prologue which opens up John’s Gospel. The answer is surprising.

The Cross in the Earliest Christian Hymns

The singing of psalms and hymns is a a practice which goes back to the very earliest Christian communities. Growing out of the model of Jewish worship and influenced as well by the practices of hymn-writing in the Greco-Roman world, Christians in the first century wrote hymns in honor of Jesus and recited them in their worship gatherings. As we approach Holy Week and consider the passion and crucifixion of Jesus, I wondered what the earliest hymns had to say about the cross of Christ. Did they mention it and, if so, in what way?

Source: MercyFoundation.com.au

Though it is not possible to reconstruct one standard set of specific words and rituals of early Christian worship for the first and second centuries, the New Testament does provide us some very interesting material to work with. The earliest texts that can be called “hymns” are found embedded in the New Testament: Phil 2:6-11, Col 1:15-20, and John 1:1-17. Each of these passages reflect the features of ancient hymnody. Even though we don’t know exactly how they were used in worship, they certainly give us a glimpse into what praise of Jesus included. And they each refer to the crucifixion either directly or indirectly as we will see.

 

Reading Phil 2:6-11 with an eye for the crucifixion it is clear that the cross is mentioned at a pivotal place in the hymn: the precise center. In this way the cross marks not only the center of the hymn but also the turning point. Prior to the mention of the cross, the hymn describes the downward trajectory of the subject, Jesus. After the mention of the cross, the hymn describes an incredible upward trajectory of exaltation.

Who, existing in the form of God,

did not consider equality with God a thing to be seized,

but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave,

being born in human likeness.

And being found in appearance as a human, he humbled himself,

becoming obedient unto death—

even death on a cross.

Therefore God highly exalted him,

and gave him the name that is above every name,

that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow

in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

And every tongue confess

that Jesus Christ is Lord

to the glory of God the Father. (Phil 2:6–11)

What is remarkable in the first century context was that a hymn of praise would celebrate something so horrible and shameful as the crucifixion. By including this in the hymn, the hymn-writer is making a claim about Jesus which goes entirely against the then-current cultural values. Rather than celebrating Jesus’s power or authority or leadership or eloquence, and brushing over any cause for embarrassment, the hymn actually highlights his humility, obedience, and self-sacrifice to the point of death. And in this way, the death of Jesus is remembered as a definition characteristic of Jesus’s life of obedience to God. It is also then offered as a model for believers.

One additional factor stands out. In a context in which Rome was the dominant political force in the world and in which that force was exercised by threat of death to those who opposed its rule, the cross was a symbol of Rome’s domination. In that very same context, it is remarkable that a Christian hymn writer would use that same symbol to demonstrate the supremacy of Christ. New Testament scholar Stephen Fowl explains it this way: “If Christ’s life was freely offered up to God in obedience, then although Rome can take the life, Rome cannot make Christ its victim. Ironically, they become unwitting agents in God’s economy of salvation” (Philippians [2005], 99).

 

And in this light we can really appreciate the way in which the cross represents a reversal: a reversal of values (the values of humility and obedience are exalted over self-seeking), a reversal of power (the seemingly unstoppable Roman empire exercising its brutal force is unknowingly furthering God’s plan), and a reversal that reveals the man Jesus as somehow the divine lord, receiving the homage of all creatures.

 

With the cross in the Philippian hymn as a starting point, it will be interesting to see what the emphasis is in the Colossian hymn and in John’s hymnic prologue. Comparing the three may give us some deep insights into the importance of the cross to the earliest Christians, those for whom the crucifixion was an event in the recent past. I'll turn to the Colossian hymn in my next post.