Who is My Neighbor?
The Letter Against the
Hebrews:
Proper 26, Year B
Ruth 1:1-18; Deuteronomy 6:1-9; Psalm 146;
Psalm 119:1-8; Hebrews 9:11-14; Mark 12:28-34
The preponderant theme for Proper 26 would seem to be Love and Loyalty
to God and to Tribe. Surely the pairing of Deuteronomy 6:4-5 with
Mark 12:29-31 is not accidental. Both Moses and Jesus repeat the Shema,
which Jews are instructed to pray twice daily. Mark’s Jesus goes
one step further, reminding the scholar who has challenged him of the
second most important commandment, which comes from Leviticus 19:18:
“you shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Ruth insists on
accompanying her mother-in-law Naomi to a strange land, to accept the
God of Israel as her own. Psalm 119 claims that those who walk in
the law of the Lord are happy. Nothing surprising or particularly
challenging here. The rule for surviving in a primordial strange
land without Moses is the same as surviving in the 1st Century diaspora
without the Temple, and surviving the 21st Century among godless
liberals: Love the Lord, and Love your neighbor.
An old joke from the annals of feminist theology: Mary Daly,
Harvey Cox, and Billy Graham arrive at the Pearly Gates. St.
Peter informs them that in order to get in they each have to answer a
question. He points to Harvey Cox: “You first. Who started
the Protestant Reformation?” Cox says, “Martin Luther,” and the
pearly gates swing open and he walks through. Billy Graham is
next. “Who led the Hebrew people out of Egypt?” “Moses,”
says Graham. The pearly gates swing open and he walks
through. Meanwhile, Mary Daly has been getting more and more
suspicious of these questions. St. Peter turns to her, but before
he can ask his question she says, “Wait a minute. Women always
have to work the hardest, jump through the most hoops, and answer the
hardest questions. I know you’re going to try to trip me
up. It’s not fair.” “Not to worry,” says Peter, “How do you
spell ‘Melchizedek’?”
The author of the letter titled “Hebrews” continues his argument that
Jesus the Christ became the “High Priest of the Order of
Melchizedek.” Inquiring minds might wonder why the writer became
so enamored of this metaphor, based on two obscure, esoteric,
mysterious references in Genesis 14 and Psalm 110:4. His
conclusion is that only through Jesus – the High Priest forever,
according to the order of Melchizedek – do mortals have “direct access”
to God ( Harold W. Attridge, Harper
Collins Study Bible [Hebrews Introduction]). It is hardly
“direct access.” According to this letter, the Christ is the
mediator between humanity
and God.
Further, the author of Hebrews argues, because of his sacrificial death
and resurrection, “Jesus has now obtained a more excellent ministry
[than Moses], and to that degree he is the mediator of a better
covenant, which has been enacted through better promises. For if
that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no need
to look for a second one” (Hebrews 8:6-8).
Apparently “loving your neighbor as yourself” does not count as
Covenant for this writer. He then quotes Jeremiah 31:31-34 to
show that “God finds fault with [priests who offer gifts according to
the law].” For a counter to this proof-texting, see blog.03.29.09.
Next, in 9:1-10, the writer describes the
duties of the Jewish High Priests. They are only allowed into the
holy of holies (the “second tent”) once a year to make sacrifices for
the sins of the people. “By this the Holy Spirit indicates that
the way into the sanctuary has not yet been disclosed as long as the
first tent is still standing. This is a symbol of the present
time, during which gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect
the conscience of the worshiper . . . until the time comes to set
things right.”
Now, in Proper 26, the Elves would have us take up the argument in
9:11-14. The writer asks, “[I]f the blood of goats and bulls . .
. sanctifies those who have been defiled so that their flesh is
purified, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the
eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our
conscience from dead works to worship the living God!” Professor
Attridge’s note says it all: “The disdainful tone imitates prophetic
criticism of the sacrificial system . . .” In other words, here
is a perfect example of the teaching of disdain for the Jewish
religion. “Traditional Christian exegesis ignores the fact that
according to Jewish teaching,’the gates of repentance are always open’
. . . In Judaism there has always been a free intercourse between God
and humankind without the need of mediation between the two. It
is Christianity that posits an intermediary, mediator or advocate
between God and humankind in the person of Jesus Christ.” Walter
Ziffer, The Teaching of Disdain,
1990, p. 249.
Traditional Christian preachers may well fall into the anti-Semitic
trap set and sprung by those who cherry-pick what appears to be
Christian orthodoxy for the faithful to consider for their ultimate
salvation. The Letter to the Hebrews may have historical interest
to Biblical Scholars tracking the development of Christian
thought. It does not belong in a lectionary of readings purported
to be common to both Orthodox and Reformed Christianity, read without
explanation to Biblically illiterate listeners. This letter
amounts to a polemic against the ancient Hebrews. It cannot be
redeemed by plucking what appear to be the “politically correct” verses
from the context of the author’s anti-Jewish diatribe. The
implication of 9:11-14 is diametrically opposed to the teachings of
Mark’s Jesus, not to mention Psalm 146: “Happy are those whose
help is the God of Jacob . . . who executes justice for the oppressed;
who gives food to the hungry. . . . sets the prisoners free. . . opens
the eyes of the blind . . . .” The last time I checked,
this has been God’s part of the Covenant from the beginning. What
“better promise” than this could be offered? What “better
Covenant” could humanity enter into?
Unfortunately the Revised Common
Lectionary requires two more weeks of this.
In a 21st Century world that can be destroyed by its human inhabitants
“five different ways, and we’re only up to ‘e’” – atomically, biologically, chemically
demographically, ecologically – too many Christians
continue to tragically and lethally miss the point. Christian
leaders would rather argue over whether GLBT clergy deserve priestly
authority (of the order of Melchizedek?). Christian “church
goers” would rather deny human rights (voting, education, housing,
health care, marriage) to people they can’t bring themselves to
recognize as their neighbors. Christians would rather count their
money as shareholders in mining operations that pollute streams, the
Chesapeake Bay, and local groundwater, and blast the tops of mountains
into rubble.
Who or What is God in the 21st Century? The Universe? The
biosphere? Who or what is our Neighbor? Endangered
species? The stranger in our strange land?
The Elves skip the radical stuff in Mark (12:1-12; 12:17; 12:24-27),
leaving it for other contexts in Matthew and Luke. Why should
context matter? The parable and the sayings are the same in all
three gospels. (For a discussion of the parable of the leased
vineyard [Matthew 21:33-39], see
blog.10.05.08.) But in
Mark’s Gospel, the early Christian allegory about the leased vineyard,
which describes what happened to Jesus, is followed by the aphorism
about what belongs to the Emperor. Then an exasperated
Jesus responds to the sophomoric challenge about who is married
to whom in the resurrection, giving Mark one more chance to ridicule
the religious authorities (unconvinced members of Mark’s synagogue?)
for missing the point: God is not the god of the dead, only of
the living. The establishment of the Kingdom of God is not about
the resuscitation of a corpse. It’s about overturning the Empire
here and now. Then in the debate with the friendly scholar that
follows, Mark’s Jesus finally finds someone who understands. That
one, says Mark’s Jesus, is not far from the kingdom of God.
BLOG ARCHIVE