Being a sucker for books, I recently purchased a volume from CBD that was too cheap to pass up on the Gospel of Mark. I thought, if nothing else, it might give me some fodder for the present preaching series. I had low expectations, having heard of neither the book nor its author. Being published by Fortress, the book did not promise to deliver dispensational fundamentalism, to say the least. The book is entitled Preaching Mark, and is by Bonnie Bowman Thurston. Dr. Thurston was, at the time of writing, (according to the back cover) the William F. Orr Professor of NT at Pittsburgh Seminary. According to that Seminary's website, it is affiliated with the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), one of the more liberal wings of Presbyterianism, and the Orr Professorship is now occupied by Edith Humphrey. Pittsburgh Seminary has an interesting history, having had among its faculty in its history the likes of A. A. Hodge, B. B. Warfield (both in the early years when it was operating as Western Seminary), and later John Gerstner, and producing notable alumni R. C. Sproul (whom I heard recently claim that he attended one of the most liberal seminaries in the country, referring I suppose to Pittsburgh) and Mr. Rogers. Thurston is apparently now a special adjunct professor for the Emmanuel School of Religion.
I should say up front that in my first use of the book, I found some helpful information on Mark 7:24-30, though nothing that could not as well be found in other volumes. However, I nearly choked upon reading her treatment of Jesus' statement in Mark 7:27: "And He was saying to her, 'Let the children be satisfied first, for it is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs."
Thurston writes:
"The response of Jesus in v27 is disturbing and, in spite of many ingenious attempts to soften it, remains so. ... We see here, unvarnished, the contempt of the first-century Jew for the non-Jew and apparently utter disregard for the feelings of a distraught mother. ... I have read many interpretations of this exchange. I think it presents an honest, if unsettling, picture of Jesus. He is weary. ... Who could blame him for responding sharply? Jesus was, after all, human. Mark's is no Docetic Jesus. What makes him "Lordly" in my view is his recognition of the wisdom and faith-filled-ness of the woman's response. ... I agree with Sharon Ringe that this text is at core a remembered incident in his life when Jesus 'was caught with his compassion down.' And yet in response to the one who comes to him in faith, in the engagement with her, he is freed to heal, to move beyond what, on the surface of it, seems to be racism. In my view, the Syrophoenician woman teaches Jesus a valuable lesson. The narrative ends with both ennobled."
Let me admit where I agree with Thurston in this treatment. First, yes, there was great contempt for Gentiles in the minds of most Jews in the first century. Second, yes, at first reading, and isolated from its various layers of context, this quotation from Jesus is "disturbing" and "unsettling," as well as "sharp." As Sinclair Ferguson writes in Let's Study Mark, "Jesus' response has often been a puzzle to students of Scripture." Third, yes, Jesus was fully human, contrary to the Docetic heresy. Fourth, yes, there is no denying that the faith exhibited by the woman was in some way effectual in securing the desired result of healing and restoration for her little daughter.
Now I must say where I disagree with Thurston, and where I believe she is not only incorrect, but dangerously so. She very plainly accuses Jesus of racism, contempt (based on nationalistic prejudice), and responding in the flesh. Therefore, it seems that the Jesus presented in Thurston's treatment of this passage is peccable, that is capable of sinning, and more than capable, culpable -- He has in fact sinned if Thurston is correct. However, she presents a false dichotomy of the human (and therefore peccable) Jesus and the Docetic Jesus (who never actually took upon Himself a human nature, but only appeared to be human, not even leaving footprints in the sand when he walked). The omitted option is the biblical Jesus who was both fully human and fully divine, the two natures miraculously (and mysteriously) joined together in the hypostatic union. If Thurston believes in the hypostatic union of the two natures in Christ, she has a strange way of showing it. She presents a Jesus who is capable and in fact guilty of sin, and one who is need of being taught and corrected by the Syrophoenician woman. It seems that in effort to present the humanity of Jesus, she has discarded His deity altogether. His "Lordliness" is not an ontological reality inherent to His divine nature, according to the view of Jesus Thurston presents here, but rather is something demonstrated or evoked as he stands corrected from this seemingly wiser and more sovereign woman. This flies dangerously in the face of the Christ of Scripture and orthodox Christian belief.
Traditionally, and dare I say "correctly," the difficult statement of Jesus is understood best as a "testing" of the nature of this woman's faith. That is to say, was her faith rightly focused on Christ as the all-powerful Lord who was sovereign over the demonic realm and could deliver her little daughter, or was she like so many others who viewed Him only as a means to their ends -- a sideshow magician and snake-oil salesman? His statement drew a response from the woman that demonstrated to Jesus and to all present the mature faith of someone who had rightly considered His person, His saving mission, and His limitless power, and who was casting herself at His sovereign mercy. That is a far different perspective, indeed a far different Jesus, from the one Thurston presents to us in her volume.
Consider as a corrective these words from James Edwards' excellent commentary on Mark in the Pillar series (Eerdmans): "Certain feminist interpretations of Mark 7:24-30 see Jesus as a villain and the Syrophoenician woman as a heroine, often implying that the word of salvation comes from outside Christ or in contrast to him .... While it is true that the woman wrests a blessing from Jesus that he might not otherwise have given, it is not true that the blessing derives from a source other than Jesus. The blessing comes from within the parable spoken by Jesus, and the exorcism results from his authoritative word. That the woman responds to Jesus from 'within' the parable he speaks indicates that she fully affirms the conditions implied in the parable, i.e., that Jesus has brought salvation to Israel, from whose abundance Gentiles may also partake."
I should say up front that in my first use of the book, I found some helpful information on Mark 7:24-30, though nothing that could not as well be found in other volumes. However, I nearly choked upon reading her treatment of Jesus' statement in Mark 7:27: "And He was saying to her, 'Let the children be satisfied first, for it is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs."
Thurston writes:
"The response of Jesus in v27 is disturbing and, in spite of many ingenious attempts to soften it, remains so. ... We see here, unvarnished, the contempt of the first-century Jew for the non-Jew and apparently utter disregard for the feelings of a distraught mother. ... I have read many interpretations of this exchange. I think it presents an honest, if unsettling, picture of Jesus. He is weary. ... Who could blame him for responding sharply? Jesus was, after all, human. Mark's is no Docetic Jesus. What makes him "Lordly" in my view is his recognition of the wisdom and faith-filled-ness of the woman's response. ... I agree with Sharon Ringe that this text is at core a remembered incident in his life when Jesus 'was caught with his compassion down.' And yet in response to the one who comes to him in faith, in the engagement with her, he is freed to heal, to move beyond what, on the surface of it, seems to be racism. In my view, the Syrophoenician woman teaches Jesus a valuable lesson. The narrative ends with both ennobled."
Let me admit where I agree with Thurston in this treatment. First, yes, there was great contempt for Gentiles in the minds of most Jews in the first century. Second, yes, at first reading, and isolated from its various layers of context, this quotation from Jesus is "disturbing" and "unsettling," as well as "sharp." As Sinclair Ferguson writes in Let's Study Mark, "Jesus' response has often been a puzzle to students of Scripture." Third, yes, Jesus was fully human, contrary to the Docetic heresy. Fourth, yes, there is no denying that the faith exhibited by the woman was in some way effectual in securing the desired result of healing and restoration for her little daughter.
Now I must say where I disagree with Thurston, and where I believe she is not only incorrect, but dangerously so. She very plainly accuses Jesus of racism, contempt (based on nationalistic prejudice), and responding in the flesh. Therefore, it seems that the Jesus presented in Thurston's treatment of this passage is peccable, that is capable of sinning, and more than capable, culpable -- He has in fact sinned if Thurston is correct. However, she presents a false dichotomy of the human (and therefore peccable) Jesus and the Docetic Jesus (who never actually took upon Himself a human nature, but only appeared to be human, not even leaving footprints in the sand when he walked). The omitted option is the biblical Jesus who was both fully human and fully divine, the two natures miraculously (and mysteriously) joined together in the hypostatic union. If Thurston believes in the hypostatic union of the two natures in Christ, she has a strange way of showing it. She presents a Jesus who is capable and in fact guilty of sin, and one who is need of being taught and corrected by the Syrophoenician woman. It seems that in effort to present the humanity of Jesus, she has discarded His deity altogether. His "Lordliness" is not an ontological reality inherent to His divine nature, according to the view of Jesus Thurston presents here, but rather is something demonstrated or evoked as he stands corrected from this seemingly wiser and more sovereign woman. This flies dangerously in the face of the Christ of Scripture and orthodox Christian belief.
Traditionally, and dare I say "correctly," the difficult statement of Jesus is understood best as a "testing" of the nature of this woman's faith. That is to say, was her faith rightly focused on Christ as the all-powerful Lord who was sovereign over the demonic realm and could deliver her little daughter, or was she like so many others who viewed Him only as a means to their ends -- a sideshow magician and snake-oil salesman? His statement drew a response from the woman that demonstrated to Jesus and to all present the mature faith of someone who had rightly considered His person, His saving mission, and His limitless power, and who was casting herself at His sovereign mercy. That is a far different perspective, indeed a far different Jesus, from the one Thurston presents to us in her volume.
Consider as a corrective these words from James Edwards' excellent commentary on Mark in the Pillar series (Eerdmans): "Certain feminist interpretations of Mark 7:24-30 see Jesus as a villain and the Syrophoenician woman as a heroine, often implying that the word of salvation comes from outside Christ or in contrast to him .... While it is true that the woman wrests a blessing from Jesus that he might not otherwise have given, it is not true that the blessing derives from a source other than Jesus. The blessing comes from within the parable spoken by Jesus, and the exorcism results from his authoritative word. That the woman responds to Jesus from 'within' the parable he speaks indicates that she fully affirms the conditions implied in the parable, i.e., that Jesus has brought salvation to Israel, from whose abundance Gentiles may also partake."
No comments:
Post a Comment