Vintage Theologians

I just ran into this wine Aquinas out of the Napa Valley and was lucky enough to be able to secure a case for cheap. I'm pretty sure this is the perfect wine for seminarians and theologians everywhere. Their website says of the wine that: "Aquinas Napa Valley is named for St. Thomas Aquinas {a·kwine·es}, a revolutionary scholar in the 13th century who used the laws of science to support his belief in the existence of the almighty. The same way St. Thomas intersected two, often opposing schools of thought, we hope to bring together two, separate schools of wine, Napa Valley appellation and everyday affordability."

Cheers!

Priest and King

I'm currently reading part 1 of Crispin Fletcher-Louis 2 part JSHJ article entitled "Jesus As The High Priestly Messiah". In it he explores some aspects of 2nd temple political aspirations and specifically how the priestly class played into those aspirations. Fletcher-Louis then lays out five available options for Jesus in relationship to these political and priestly aspirations.

1 Jesus looked to the return of the golden age of the Hasmonean rule where a new high priest would function also as a monarch. He himself would not have qualified for this position being a layman.

2 A second possibility is that Jesus believed the nation should be headed by a priest with no royal responsibilities and no king at his side. I’m not entirely sure how this is distinct from the monarchy option first presented. Fletcher-Louis doesn’t spend much time elaborating on what he means by the priest having “no royal responsibilities”, but he is explicit that this would not involve having a separate king at the Priests side. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence that Jesus ever entertained this possibility.

3 A 3rd option was that Jesus believed that the nation should be ruled by a king along side of, but subordinate to a high priest. If this is the case then Jesus would have looked to another to be the new royal high priest. That might be an early possibly for Jesus as he paired up with John the Baptist early on. If this was the case though, and the evidence is sparse, Jesus changed his mind after John was imprisoned or possibly even before. (Fletcher-Louis notes Mk 2.18-20 as evidence for this) This is important as Fletcher-Louis puts because it “indicates that Jesus consciously rejected one of the ‘messianic’ options open to him—diarchy” (171)

4 Jesus believed him self to be the royal messiah (Son of God), and there would be no need for a royal priesthood. Fletcher-Louis notes this is a common Christian reading of the Gospels and is thoroughly apolitical. Fletcher-Louis rejects this view because it would have made Jesus thoroughly unintelligible to the disciples, crowds, and authorities. Fletcher remarks that there “just wasn’t the widespread expectation for the royal messiah that this scenario assumes. The Sources agree that a high priesthood is to figure somewhere in the nation’s polity.” (172) Fletcher-Louis backs this statement up with a number of footnotes scattered throughout the article for those wishing to follow up.

5 The last option Fletcher-Louis presents is that Jesus believed he was “Israel’s royal messiah, and as such, he was also her true eschatological high priest.” (172) Fletcher-Louis emphasizes the point that this also wasn’t a widespread view, and there’s evidence that it was rejected by at least some. Josephus for example, is clear that torah prohibits it. Fletcher-Louis cites Genesis 1-3 and Psalm 110 as text from which Jesus could have drew from for this position. The later with its mention of Melchizedek is obviously more explicit in making this connection than the former, but there is evidence of both ideas floating all over the New Testament. Earlier in the article Fletcher-Louis had discussed the relationship between the high priest and Gen 1-3. The high priest was the new Adam, wearing Adam’s lost garments, and doing what Adam failed to do in the temple-as-restored Eden. There is a host of footnotes Fletcher-Louis provides for the last 3 points and Fletcher-Louis is careful to point out that it was the office that these items applied to and not the private individuals who occupied the office at various times. All of this has tantalizing implications for the new Adam language in Paul and the high priestly language of Hebrews. Sadly Fletcher-Louis doesn’t pursue the details of the Adamic description and its priestly and royal characteristics and instead leaves them hanging choosing to rather focus on Psalm 110.

On top of Genesis 1-3 and Psalm 110, I believe there is one other pertinent passage that Jesus could and did draw upon for his combination of the kingly and priestly offices. In Mark 2.23 – 28 (note the proximity to earlier mentioned Mk 2.18-20) Lk 6.1-11 Mt 12.1-14 Jesus, when questioned about his unlawful action on Sabbath responds by pointing out that David, when his companions were hungry entered into the house of god and took the consecrated bread, which was lawful only for the priests to eat. Here Jesus’ response points in much the same direction as Psalm 110 and Genesis. Jesus presents David as one who transcends the Priestly and Kingly offices. I see that as I look ahead to the 2nd part of Louis-Fletchers article he address this passage. I’ll end here and see if Louis-Fletcher adds anything to this discussion. He doesn’t seem to include it as a passage from which Jesus may have drawn from for his priestly-king self understanding, but in light of part two that conclusion may be premature. Perhaps he’ll take the passage in a different direction.

The Gay Samaritan?

Stanely Hauerwas impresses me more and more as I read bit and pieces of his writing. Often I'm not sure if I'm laughing more from what seems to be an utterly ridiculous statement, or being challenged more to rethink some of my paradigms in light of Hauerwas brilliant wit. Usually it's a combination of both. Hauerwas' title for an article "Why Gays (as a Group) Are Morally Superior to Christians (as a Group)" is one of those bits of his writing that at first made me roll my eyes chuckle and wonder what Dr. Hauerwas is possibly up to. The focus of the article from what I grasp is that military service is immoral and contrary to the Christian vocation to be the light of the world, and that by being excluded gays are more righteous that Christians who participate in the military. There's of course an absurdity about this claim, gays don't choose to be excluded from service and, if I understand the basic point of the article from the summaries I've read, this absurdity invites Hauerwas' punch line question, why aren't Christians then doing more to be excluded from service in the military. Shouldn't Christians by their very nature as radically radical (see my last post) be excluded from service in the military?

What struck me the most about this title was the way that it preyed upon tightly held assumptions, at least tightly held within most of the moderate wing and almost all of the right wing of the church to deliver a rhetorical kick to the teeth. The shear absurdity of suggesting that gays (as a group might mind you) might be more righteous than Christians (as a group) who support or are involved in the military is likely to bring a number from far right to their feet with lynch ropes in hand and cries of blasphemy. After thinking about this for a bit though I'm convinced that Hauerwas isn't as ingenious as I first thought when I got his punch line, rather he is merely imitating one of his teachers. Think about how absurd it must have been for Jesus to suggest that a Samaritan might be more righteous then the priest and Levite who kept torah. (Or did they?)

Radically Radical?

There has been much talk in the post 9/11 world about radicalism, both Christian and Islamic radicalism. These discussion are much needed and very welcome. They have the potential to burst open some of the ways in which modernity and post-modernity have put up a destructive wall between religion and politics. In some ways these talks are new, but in other ways the reality of these dialogues aren't new. Radicalism was in a number of way a regular part of life in the 1st century world of Jerusalem. In this context and in today context Jesus can be heard calling people to be radically radical. Tom Wright has captured this idea well with his term "doubly revolutionary". Jesus was calling his follower to be revolutionaries in a revolutionary way, by turning the other cheek, and going the extra mile, not rendering evil for evil. It's within this context that Jesus' statement about giving to Caesar what it is Caesar's and giving to God what is God's should be heard. With Jesus' somewhat cryptic answer he both avoids the trap that the Pharisees and Herodians throw before him and casts the question back on them. Where does your allegiance lie and what does it look like in practice to live that out? These are pressing questions for today, what does life as a Christian look like? What's an appropriate rendering to God and Caesar in today’s political climate? Can a Christian be a part of the military and participate in an unjust war? Or is participation excluded by Jesus' call to be radically radical?