|
Brent L. Top, Bruce A. Van Orden, Lord of the Gospels: The 1990 Sperry Symposium on the New Testament, 56-66. Chapter Five The Surprise Factors in the Teachings of Jesus Kenneth W. Godfrey, Director, Logan Institute of Religion Since the beginning of time people have enjoyed a good story, and Jesus was the master storyteller. His stories, often told as parables, differed markedly from the allegorical stories of the rabbis of his day, even "as the fresh air of the fields differs from the dust of the study." 1 The majority of Rabbinic parables reinforced traditional Jewish values. Jesus, however, often subverted meaningless or harmful traditions while teaching the higher law of his gospel at the same time. Indeed, many of his parables challenge the social norms even of our day. Bad servants are rewarded, and good servants seem to be punished. His heroes are sometimes unsavory characters—an unjust judge, neighbors who do not want to be neighborly, a man who pockets someone else's treasure by purchasing his fields, a steward who cheats his master, a sinful woman, and other socially unacceptable characters. In addition, many of the Christ's parables demonstrate behavior that is unusual in its cultural setting but which is unarguably better, leaving the audience wondering why most people do not perform just that way. Several others feature themes that conflict with daily life, challenging the natural reason of the hearer. 2 Jesus did not tell stories merely to entertain or shock his audience. Each parable had a purpose. Some atypical features were used to arouse attention and stimulate thought. Some details surprisingly contradict commonly held beliefs, and still others appear in the stories strictly for their literary value. One scholar concluded that the Master's atypical approach to many subjects "cleverly led the listeners along by degrees," until they clearly understood that God's way of looking at people is different from that of man. 3 The surprise factor in the teachings of Christ has often been overlooked or disregarded by scholars, perhaps because his teachings are so familiar to the twentieth-century worldPN57,,,R,I0]If we were to place ourselves in a Palestinian audience at the meridian of time, however, perhaps we would gasp in astonishment at many of his stories. The parables of Jesus contain unusual, or shocking elements when examined in their oriental or peasant setting. Moreover, the Savior used exaggeration and hyperbole to heighten their effect and to raise "the issue set in mundane terms to ultimate seriousness." 4 He wanted to teach his followers as well as his detractors that many of their social and religious norms were short-sighted and offensive to God. By using atypical parables to illustrate his teachings, Christ showed a more excellent way. The Parables of the Lost Sheep, the Lost Coin, and the Prodigal Son If we assume, as do many Biblical scholars 5 that the parables of the lost sheep, the missing piece of silver, and the prodigal son were intended for the Pharisees, then we can conclude that they begin with a shock to pharisaic sensitivities. In the oriental world the social status assigned to a particular profession was a very serious matter. Even today, a camel driver, for example, is very careful not to be known as a fisherman, and if he is seen fishing, he will quickly point out to the visitor that he is a camel driver, not a fisherman. Shepherds, though glorified in allegories, were despised socially. Herding sheep was clearly considered an unclean occupation. One authority believed shepherds were despised because their flocks grazed on private property. Furthermore, Joachim Jeremias tells us that shepherds were also known for their dishonesty and thievery. 6 Thus, even though the metaphor of sheep and shepherds as symbols of Israel and her leaders, including God, were well known from Old Testament and intertestamental times, the average Jew generally despised shepherds. 7 And, though it is difficult to see how rabbis managed to revere the Shepherd of the Old Testament and despise the one who herded the neighbor's sheep, that nevertheless was the case. 8 Knowing full well this pharisaic attitude toward shepherds, Jesus began the parable of the lost sheep by asking, "What man of you having an hundred sheep . . . " (Luke 15:4; emphasis added). If the Master had wanted to defer to pharisaic feelings, "he would have had to begin the parable something like this: 'Which man of you owning an hundred sheep, if he heard that the hired shepherd had lost one, would he not summon the shepherd and demand that the sheep be found under threat of fine?' " 9 Any man who believed shepherds were unclean would naturally be offended to be addressed as one. According to the Lucan text, Jesus further insulted his audience by deliberately blaming the shepherd for the loss of the sheep. Thus, Jesus forced the Pharisees to see themselves as being responsible for having lost the wandering sheep. Another anomaly in this parable is often overlooked because of its sentimental appeal. The extravagance of joy over finding one lost sheep contrasts sharply with the apparent lack of concern over the ninety-nine. The shepherd's joy seems an overreaction. After all, he took the risk of leaving the flock in the wilderness while he searched for the one missing sheep and then celebrated with his neighbors over one percent of his flock. As Bible scholar C. G. Montefiore pointed out, surely this action introduced a new kind of shepherd. A communal celebration over a lost sheep would have been extraordinary among Palestinian shepherds and may emphasize the nonliteral referent of the parable. It is, however, the climactic center and a detail not always brought out in analysis of the narrative. 10 Immediately following the parable of the lost sheep is the parable of the lost coin, in which a woman was the central figure. Once again the Savior challenged pharisaic and scribal attitudes toward less favored groups of people in society. Thus, when understood in its cultural setting, elements of this parable were also calculated to be disturbing to the Pharisees. Additional surprises awaited Jesus' audience as he then expounded what is perhaps the greatest of all parables. The parable of the prodigal son is loaded with elements atypical of first-century Palestine. The goodness of the father stood out—especially considering the disgraceful conduct of the son. But today's reader is ready to accept such behavior because he knows the father really represents God. To Jesus' audience, however, the conduct of the father was hardly a matter of course. A first-century Jewish son would not have dared ask his father for his share of his inheritance while the father was still alive and in good health. And the typical father would hardly have capitulated so quickly. 11 The son's request was equivalent to wishing his father's death, for there was no law or custom among either the Jews or the Arabs that entitled a son to share the father's wealth while the father was still alive. 12 The son's insulting request was magnified by the father's apparent good health. No historical document ever recorded any father having divided his inheritance under pressure from a son, especially a younger son. 13 In fact, aside from this parable, scholars have been unable to find in all Middle Eastern literature, from ancient times to the present, a case of any son, older or younger, asking his inheritance from a father who was still in good health. 14 The prodigal's request was even more surprising because he not only requested his inheritance but also the right to dispose of it as he pleased. In view of ancient literature and customs, Jesus obviously intended to illustrate a profound break in the relationship between the father and the son. The son was truly lost. 15 In light of the implications of the request, it is even more remarkable that the father agreed. Had Jesus been telling a typical Middle Eastern story, the father would have exploded and disciplined the son because of the cruel nature of his demand. Instead, he acquiesed to the son's request. Bible scholar, Kenneth Bailey, thoughtfully remarked that it is "difficult to imagine a more dramatic illustration of the quality of love, which grants freedom even to reject the lover, than that given in this opening scene." 16 In fact, Bailey goes on to quote the scholar Derrett who wrote "that no father would have granted such a request without making a tacit but certain reservation in his own favor. . . . If the father does grant this request, he is jeopardizing his own 'living.' " 17 Perhaps Jesus meant to imply that fathers should treat their sons with greater love and compassion. His notion of familial love was much broader and far more moving than that expected in Palestine. Jesus' Jewish audience must have been especially amazed and attentive as they then learned that the young son squandered his inheritance and was reduced to taking a job as a pig herder. His pride completely broken, the prodigal son resolved to return home. Then comes another surprise. If the story reflected true oriental customs, a crowd would have gathered around the returning prodigal and subjected him to mocking, taunting songs, and perhaps even physical abuse. The father, however, in a series of dramatic actions, protected the boy from the hostility of the village and restored him to fellowship within the community. For instance, the father ran down the road to greet his lost child. Yet "an Oriental nobleman with flowing robes never runs anywhere." 18 To do so is humiliating. Great men are not seen running in public. Such an action of itself would have drawn a crowd. But instead of experiencing the ruthless hostility he deserved and anticipated, the son was overwhelmed with an unexpected, visible demonstration of love and forgiveness. The father's actions spoke eloquently as he kissed his son again and again. 19 By such an unusual and unmerited response, Jesus adeptly illustrated God's amazing patience and love for even his ungrateful children. The Parable of the Two Debtors Jesus, known for his wisdom and intellectual prowess, was invited to eat with a group of learned Pharisees. Naturally, the Pharisees expected a discussion of theological or spiritual matters. They could not have anticipated the dramatic surprises that awaited. 20 Upon arriving, Jesus met with an insult. Simon, in a serious breach of courtesy, failed to provide water for guests, or at least Jesus, to wash their feet. This failure implied that the visitor was of inferior rank. Furthermore, Simon gave Jesus no kiss—a marked sign of contempt, or at least a further claim on Simon's part to a much higher social position. 21 The other guests must have noticed these intentional snubs and waited expectantly for the Master's response. Perhaps he would say something about not being welcome and withdraw. Instead, to everyone's surprise, he ignored the obvious insults. Preparing to eat, the guests stretched out their feet behind them away from the food. Then a woman, a known sinner, quietly entered, bathed Jesus' feet with her tears, and wiped them with her hair. By custom, a peasant woman let down her hair only in the presence of her husband. The Talmud indicates that a husband could divorce his wife for letting down her hair in the presence of another man. 22 In addition, the words to touch in biblical language sometimes depicted sexual intercourse. Clearly, such usage is not intended here, but Simon employed the word in this context to imply that this close contact was very improper and if Jesus were a prophet, he would know and refuse such attention, especially from a woman. 23 Furthermore, because she was a sinner, Christ would have been considered defiled by her touch. Knowing full well that the woman's expressions of love were judged unrighteously by Simon and his friends, Jesus began another parable, which would be disconcerting for the host and his guests. "Simon," the Master began, "I have something to say to you." This phrase, used everywhere in Palestine, was the introduction to a blunt speech the listener probably did not want to hear. 24 Jesus then related the parable of the two debtors, illustrating that love is the natural response to unmerited forgiveness. Moreover, Jesus praised the sinful woman while condemning Simon's thoughtless behavior. Not only was praising a woman in male company considered inappropriate but in the Middle East the visitor was expected, almost required, to say again and again that he was undeserving of the courtesies extended. In the final blow, Jesus turned to the woman, his voice taking on a tone of gentleness as he expressed gratitude to the daring woman in desperate need of a kind word. It was a stunning rebuke to Simon and a confirmation of the inherent worth of women. 25 But most astonishing of all, Christ then forgave her sins, thus assuming an authority his audience did not believe any mortal possessed. The gospel of love once again transcended the tyranny of tradition. The Parable of the Good Samaritan Along with the parable of the prodigal son, the parable of the good Samaritan is generally thought to be the greatest story in all literature. This story, too, when understood in its cultural context has several surprises that emphasize the radical doctrines of Christ. A man who went down from Jericho was beaten, robbed, stripped naked, and left "next to death." A man thus wounded could not be identified by either his speech or the manner of his dress. A priest, the first to pass by, could not have been certain whether the man was a gentile and hence, unclean, or a Jew. But even if the man were a Jew, he might be dead, and mere contact with him would defile the priest. If a priest defiled himself he could not collect, distribute, or eat the tithes, and thus his family and servants would suffer. So, rather than risk defilement, he passed by on the other side of the road and continued his journey. The Levite who came next at least approached the victim. Though not bound by the stricter regulations the priest was governed by, a Levite could only eat the "wave offering" and wear his phylacteries when in a state of ritual purity. Contact with a corpse was at the top of the list of sources of defilement. Thus the Levite could render aid, and if the man were dead or died while he cared for him, the repercussions for the Levite would not be quite so serious as for the priest. Perhaps because he belonged to a lower social class than the priest and might well have had no way of taking the man to safety and because he also may have feared that the robbers still lurked around, the Levite, too, chose to continue on his way. After hearing about the priest and the Levite, the audience prob- ably expected the next character to be a Jewish layman. "Not only is priest-Levite-layman a natural sequence," but these same three classes of people officiated at the temple. "Even as delegations of priests and Levites went up to Jerusalem" and returned after two weeks of service, so "also the delegation of Israel went up to serve them." Thus Jesus' listeners probably expected this logical sequence of travelers on the road. But to their surprise, Jesus announced that the third man to come along the road was a hated Samaritan. In the Jewish mind, Samaritans were classed with the Philistines and Edomites. "He that eats the bread of the Samaritans," the Mishna declares, "is like to one that eats the flesh of swine." Jesus could more easily have told a story about a noble Jew helping a hated Samaritan and found ready acceptance by the audience. By giving the hero's role to the Samaritan, however, Jesus confronted a deep hatred in his listeners and "painfully exposes it." 26 The Greek word for "compassion" that the Master used to convey the feelings of the Samaritan has its roots in the word for innards, which is a very strong statement in both Greek and Semitic imagery. The Samaritan had a deep, gut-level reaction to the wounded man. The Samaritan was not a gentile. He was bound by the same Torah that taught that a neighbor was a countryman and kinsman; however, the Samaritan was traveling in Judea, which made it even less likely for him than for the priest and the Levite that the anonymous wounded man could be considered a neighbor. "In spite of this, he is the one who acts." 27 The Samaritan would also have been aware that if the wounded man regained consciousness, he would probably insult him for his kindness because "oil and wine are forbidden objects if they emanate from a Samaritan." 28 So, not only had the oil and wine come from an unclean person but the tithe on them had not been paid. The wounded man would incur an obligation to pay the tithing. The Samaritan, too, ran the "grave risk" of having the family of the wounded man seek him out to take vengeance upon him. Still, fully aware of the risks and having far more to lose than the priest or the Levite, he took the man to town. Kenneth Bailey suggests this cultural equivalent in America: A Plains Indian in 1875 walks into Dodge City with a scalped cowboy on his horse, checks into a room over the local saloon, and spends the night caring for the injured man. "Any Indian so brave would be fortunate to get out of the city alive even if he had saved the cowboy's life." 29 "The courage of the Samaritan," Bailey informs us, "is demonstrated first when he stops in the desert (for the thieves are still in the area). But his real bravery is seen in this final act of compassion at the inn." The real point is not his courage, however, but rather the price he was willing to pay to complete his act of compassion. 30 Finally, according to Bible scholar Charlesworth, it is almost impossible to overstress the sheer magnitude of the social crisis caused "by Jesus's rejection of the Jewish, especially Essene, rules of purification. The Parable of the Good Samaritan, perhaps, best symbolizes Jesus's exhortation that one should be willing to be defiled in the attempt to help another, even those of questionable beliefs and ancestry." 31 B. B. Scott writes that this "parable can be summarized as follows: To Enter the Kingdom one must get in the ditch and be served by one's mortal enemy." 32 Once again Christ exposed the fallacy of adhering to a seemingly sacred and time-honored tradition at the expense of the higher law of love. The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard The parable of the workers in the vineyard seems incongruous to audiences everywhere. It began with an ordinary scene. The owner of a vineyard hired day laborers early in the morning. One denaris was the wage agreed upon. The scene was repeated at the third hour when the owner saw idle men in the agora (the marketplace where people waited to be hired). He hired them with the promise of a fair wage. Nothing unusual so far. Similar action was taken at the sixth and the ninth hours. At the eleventh hour yet other unemployed men were idling away their time. So the humanitarian owner hired them, also. It seems rather reasonable to employ workers at midday for half a day. Hiring at the ninth and the eleventh hours, however, appears purely gratuitous and unbusinesslike. Those hired later, especially at the eleventh hour, seem to have been employed on the basis of their plight, not upon their usefulness. Rudolf Bultmann argues that the contract between the first and the last groups had to be mitigated by the intermediate stages or the story would sound improbable. 33 The surprise in this story, the part that seems incredible, is that no matter when they were hired, all the workers were given the same wage. "The employer is not merely unusual, he is unique." Jesus "deliberately and cleverly led the listeners along by degrees until they understood that if God's generosity was to be represented by a man, such a man would be different from any men ever encountered." 34 Christ seems to be teaching us that it may not be as important when we come to him as it is that we come to him at all. Those who truly have a change of heart late in life or even in the next life and who come into the Church and become disciples of the Master receive the same celestial reward as those who experience an earlier conversion. Here Jesus used a very simple story with a very unlikely ending to teach an extraordinary message. The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector A group of men came to listen to the Lord. Luke described them as "certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others" (Luke 18:9). Accordingly, Jesus told them a parable about a righteous Pharisee and a despised tax collector. The Pharisee in the parable went up to attend the morning or the afternoon atonement sacrifice. In a grand gesture of religious superiority, he stood apart from the other worshippers. Some authorities believe he was praying aloud, in a sense preaching to the less fortunate around him. After all, they had few chances to look at a truly righteous man, as he was, and he "graciously" offered them a few words of judgment along with some instructions in righteousness. 35 Other scholars contend that the list of characteristics selected by the "righteous" Pharisee were intended to apply to the tax collector standing nearby. 36 Then Jesus spoke of the the tax collector's simple but fervent prayer. The image of the tax collector in the mind of the Pharisee sharply contrasts with the reality of the broken, humble man who stood some distance away from the assembled worshippers. The repentant man did not stand aloof but afar off, for he felt he was not worthy to mingle with God's people before the altar. As he came to voice his petition, he, like the woman in Simon's home, broke into dramatic and unexpected behavior. He beat upon his chest, crying, "God be merciful to me a sinner" (Luke 18:13). This action was surprising to those listening to Jesus because the accepted posture for prayer was hands crossed over the chest and eyes cast down. An even more remarkable feature of this gesture was that it was characteristic of women, not men. Interestingly, in all of biblical literature we find this gesture mentioned only in this story and at the cross (Luke 23:48). Perhaps he was beating his heart as the source of all his evil thoughts or as a spontaneous expression of his personal pain. In any case, Christ's description of the tax collector's humble behavior seems designed to expose the pompous, self-righteous actions of the Pharisee. Such a gesture clearly illustrated the depth of the tax collector's remorse. 37 The parable concludes dramatically as Christ declared, "I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted" (Luke 18:14). The Parable of the Unjust Steward The parable of the unjust steward is often described as the "most puzzling of all the stories of Jesus." The scholar Charles C. Tarry writes: "This [parable] brings before us a new Jesus, one who seems inclined to compromise with evil. He approves of a program of canny self-interest, recommending to His disciples a standard of life which is generally recognized as inferior. . . . This is not the worst of it. He bases the teaching of the story of a shrewd scoundrel who feathered his own nest at the expense of the man who trusted him; and then appears to say to his disciples, Let this be your model." 38 This parable was addressed to disciples as well as Pharisees. Upon hearing that the steward in the story was condemned and fired, they would have expected a classic debate in which the steward loudly and insultingly protested his innocence. The steward could have used many standard ploys to defend himself and blame everybody else, including the master himself. But to the surprise of the listeners, the steward remained silent. His only reaction was a soliloquy delivered on the way to get the accounts. His silence was supremely significant in the oriental context because it affirmed at least four things: First, I [the steward] am guilty. Second, the master knows the truth; he knows I am guilty. Third, the master expects obedience; disobedience brings judgment. And fourth, I cannot get my job back. Thus, the steward resolves now to protect his future. 39 The steward had, at this point in the story, realized something else about his master that was significant. He was fired but not jailed. In fact, he was not even scolded. The master was unusually merciful toward him. 40 While commentaries by western scholars worry about how Jesus could use a dishonest man as an example, the oriental peasant at the bottom of the economic ladder finds such a parable pure delight. The typical storyteller in the Orient relates a series of stories about the clever fellow who triumphs over the "Mr. Big" of his community. To the eastern mind the surprising feature of this parable is that the steward is criticized as unrighteous and called a son of darkness. An oriental story teller would not feel any compulsion to add such a corrective. Thus, the western reader is surprised at the use of a dishonest man as a hero whereas the eastern reader is surprised that such a hero is criticized. Though Christ goes on to explain the righteous application of such unrighteous behavior, this parable is an outstanding example of one of his unique and effective literary techniques—the use of unsavory characters as heroes. 41 The Parable of the Great Banquet The parable of the great banquet contains at least two remarkable details. A king prepared a banquet for a large number of guests, but oddly, all of the guests refuse to attend. It was very strange for everyone to refuse such an invitation. Perhaps this was exaggeration to emphasize a point. In any case, the parable assumed that the fault was the guests', not the host's. The second surprise was the issuing of a general invitation throughout the city for those in the streets to come and fill the empty banquet hall. The people who assembled would not have been the kind of guests a great man usually invites to dine with him. In a more typical story about a banquet, a few of the invited guests might send their regrets and the host would then invite others of a similar social status to take their places. But here the Savior again employs hyperbole to show that the kingdom will bring about a "total reversal." The invited are absent, and the uninvited are present. 42 Conclusion Jesus, the master teacher, used unlikely characters, unusual and socially unacceptable behavior, and unexpected endings in many of his parables. He used these devices to engage his audience and to reveal the uniqueness of his message. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, for example, by using a downtrodden hero who possesses uncommon altruism, Christ taught a radically better style of conduct in human relations. Other parables reveal a God whose mercy is extraordinary, unlike that of any person Christ's audience would have known. Still other parables prod those comfortable in their own righteousness while comforting and providing hope for those who believe they are unworthy of any place in the kingdom of God. Christ taught his audiences by using the element of surprise to stimulate thought and leave his listeners pondering his message. He taught them that the requirements of living the gospel far exceeded traditional ethical thought and behavior. God's mercy, they came to realize, far surpassed their own. Understanding the atypical features of the Master's message enables modern Latter-day Saints to more fully grasp the profundity of his gospel. As a result we are even more challenged to elevate our own conduct, love our enemies, forgive those who trespass against us, and seek to redeem the lost, regardless of risk or personal cost. Footnotes 4. Paul Ricoueur, "Bible Hermeneutics," Semeta 4 (1975): 109, 112-18. 6. Joachim Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1963), p. 133. 8. Bailey, Poet and Peasant, p. 147. 11. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, p. 176. 12. Bailey, Poet and Peasant, pp. 162-64. 20. Bailey, Through Peasant Eyes, p. 4. 31. James H. Charlesworth, Jesus within Judaism (London: Doubleday, 1988), p. 74. 32. B. B. Scott, Jesus, Symbol-Maker for the Kingdom (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), pp. 45-46. 33. Huffman, "Atypical Features in the Parables of Jesus," p. 209. 35. Bailey, Through Peasant Eyes, p. 149. 38. Charles C. Tarry, Our Translated Gospels (New York: Harper, 1936), p. 59. 39. Bailey, Poet and Peasant, pp. 97-98. 42. Huffman, "Atypical Features in the Parables of Jesus," p. 214.
© 2004 Deseret Book.
|