The Disciplined Use of Words

Joachim Jeremias, the great New Testament theologian of the kingdom of God,  points out that the disciplined use of words is one of the practical ways of "belonging to the reign of God" in everyday life.

In Matthew 5, Jesus strongly condemns the sins of the tongue - extending to the smallest detail and intent. He warns against unfriendly words, words that fail to show hospitality, words that raise suspicion, words that condemn a brother, and even words of "harmless slander" that can ultimately have a hurtful end.

He reserved his strongest statements for his condemnation of oath-taking.

Again, you have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, 'You shall not swear falsely, but carry out the vows you have made to the Lord.' But I say to you, Do not swear at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let your word be 'Yes, Yes' or 'No, No'; anything more than this comes from the evil one.  (Matthew 5:33-37 NRSV)

These sayings of Jesus focus not only on oath-taking in legal proceedings (courtrooms and contracts), but to a more general constant and consistent attitude of truth-telling which manifests itself in the everyday life of his followers. Participants in the kingdom of God should have such reputations as truth-tellers that no one should expect or demand any act of heroic assertion of their truthfulness.

When one's "Yes" means "Yes" and "No" means "No", there is no need to swear one's honesty by heaven or earth. Oaths - exaggerated protestations of one's truthfulness - are only required of those who are expected to lie.  Those living under God's rule need make no such affirmations.

Jeremias concludes, "God is the God of truth, and therefore truth is a characteristic of his reign."

Evangelical Christians and Anti-Catholicism

I am startled when my evangelical Christian friends continue to show a strong anti-Roman Catholic bias. To continue to define Catholicism by the abuses of the late medieval period means that we are all still fighting the battles of the sixteenth century. Honestly, you would think someone was selling indulgences on the street corners of every major American city given the vehemence of the anti-Catholic rhetoric.

Roman Catholicism - like Christianity in general - is a historic faith; it grows, matures, and changes with time. As much as any of us might strive to mirror biblical religion, no Christian church has perfectly reflected the "New Testament pattern" since the first century. And while it is true that the Roman Catholics across Europe "struck back" at the rebellious Protestants in a "war of words" after the 16th century Protestant Reformation - that sometimes escalated in to real, extended wars across Europe - it is equally true that Roman Catholics "heard" the Protestant criticisms, rid themselves of offending abuses, and modified their language/understanding of grace and justification. This is clearly seen at the Council of Trent (1545-73).

It would be very enlightening for my evangelical Protestant brethren to actually READ the Catechism of the Catholic Church on "Grace and Justification." BEFORE YOU DISAGREE WITH IT, IT JUST MAKES SENSE TO READ IT. Click here to download the section of the Catechism on "Grace and Justification."

-------------------------------

Yes, there is some vocabulary here that gives my Protestant heart a pause - words like "merit" and "cooperation" make me uneasy. But these words of the Catechism are consistently cast in terms of divine initiative and providence that allays my Protestant fears. Look at these quotes:

"Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion."

"With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator."

"The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man's free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man's merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit."

"Our merits are God's gifts."

The entire section of the Catechism on "Grace and Justification" is replete with the language of divine initiative in justification and empowerment in sanctification. (Admittedly, there are differences from many Protestants about when the work of justification is complete in the life of the Christian, but this in no way undermines the language of divine initiative in the Catechism.) As a Protestant, I might not choose the vocabulary used in this document, but I do not disagree with its overall "grace through faith" message.

To download a complete copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd Edition), click here.

-------------------------------

The real issues that divide some 21st-century evangelical Protestant Christians from Roman Catholics are these:

Sacramentalism - Catholics believe - on a strong biblical basis - that God has ordain certain ceremonies such that the grace of God is communicated to those humans who correctly participate in them. Simply put, the sacraments are "means of grace" - formal, structured ways in which the grace of God comes to human beings. While Protestants may differ on the nature and number of the sacraments and how they should be performed, to see these ceremonies as acts of "works righteousness" in which Roman Catholics seek to justify themselves through human action is to miss the point entirely. The anti-sacramentalism of the Protestant "free churches" and other groups influenced by the free church tradition is an intra-family disagreement and not a reason to disallow Catholic Christian commitment.

Issues of Human Will - The language of "cooperation" with God in sanctification is particularly troublesome to Protestants - especially to those who deny any semblance of human free will. For those Protestants who affirm the "total depravity" of human will (the total corruption, or even destruction, of the image of God in sinful humans), by definition, any talk of human wills doing anything of themselves is impossible. But the Catholic Catechism - along with many other Protestants who do not share this understanding of the human will, the Orthodox churches, the "forgotten" churches of the east, and all of the church fathers before Augustine - understands that the human will - corrupted, but not destroyed - comes to serve God by "the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit' - that is, through prevenient grace (that comes before any human decision or action) by which God justifies and sanctifies humans. From this view, divine initiative empowers the human will to do what it could not do of itself - to love God and His ways and to move toward a life of holiness.

-------------------------------

The sixteenth century is over and all its theological battles with it. It is time to stop fighting battles that have long since been settled. In an age of post-modern secularity where Christians are now a minority voice and where western social and cultural norms have been "cut free" from their Judeo-Christian roots, it is imperative to UNITE not further divide Christians.

But honestly, my evangelical Christian friends, if you truly believe that Roman Catholics "do not preach the Christian gospel" - if you believe that there are some Catholics that are Christians only in spite of their Catholic faith - then I fear, in the words of the apostle, that you have not correctly "discerned the Lord's body."

Did Paul forbid women to teach?

1 Timothy 2:11-15 is by far the most controversial in the New Testament with respect to the role of women in the church. In the first place, there are significant translation difficulties.

• How should one translate the term gyne (either “woman” or “wife”).
• How should one translate the expression hesychia manthaneto? Does it mean she is to “learn in silence” (i.e., don’t speak out publicly, so KJV) or she is to “learn quietly” (i.e., she is not to disrupt worship, so NASB)?
• To whom or what is she to be in “full submission” (pase hypotage)? The object of this submission is unstated. Does Paul mean she is to be in submission to the church, in submission to men generally, or in submission to her husband?
• How should one render the phrase ouk epitrepo? If one translates it absolutely, “I do not permit”, it indicates habitual practice (so NIV). If one translates it periphrastically, “I am not permitting”, it indicates a temporary restriction for the present time, e.g., “I am not [i.e., at this time] giving permission for a woman to teach…” (so JB).
• What is the meaning of the infinitive authentein, a rare word that appears only here in the New Testament? It certainly is not the usual Greek word that Paul uses to describe authority. Does it mean “to have authority over”, implying a prohibition of female leadership altogether (so NASB)? Does it mean “to dominate”, implying an abuse of leadership power by women who are already leaders (so Berkeley Version)?
   
  In addition to translation issues, there are significant interpretive issues, particularly in the latter part of the passage.
• Why does Paul say Adam was created first? Does he intend this as a statement about rank (i.e., Adam was superior to Eve) or a statement correcting a popular Ephesian myth (i.e., a myth advocating that the woman was the first created being)?
• Is Paul’s statement that the woman was deceived intended as a derogation toward all women (i.e., women are not to be trusted) or the refutation of an Ephesian myth (i.e., a myth advocating that the woman was the source of all wisdom)?
• How is the woman “saved” through child bearing? The grammar is complex, for literally it reads, “She shall be saved….if they remain in faith…” Who is the “she” and who are the “they”?
   
  The most restrictive approach to this passage (sometimes labeled “hard patriarchalism”) sees it as a categorical prohibition. Here, women are to be silent in a congregational setting. They can listen, but they cannot say anything. They must be in total submission to men. Under no circumstance may they teach men. They can have no leadership role in the church, at least if such a role would require them to be directive to men, for they were divinely created to be in submission to men. To do otherwise would usurp the woman’s God-ordained role to be under male authority. The order of creation is hierarchical. Adam was created first; therefore, males are superior. Eve, not Adam, was deceived in Eden. Women are by disposition inclined to be fooled, and therefore, they are more apt to be tricked into transgression.
   
  A less restrictive approach (sometimes labeled “soft patriarchalism”) reads the passage as allowing women to learn quietly so long as they do not disrupt the worship service. They should be in submission to their husbands, and they cannot be a teacher of men, though they may teach other women and also young children. They cannot serve as overseers or elders, since such a role would be a usurpation of the God-ordained pattern that men are to be the primary leaders in the church, but they can serve in lesser roles (e.g., administrative, supportive, secretarial, etc.). The creation sets the hierarchical order. Men were created first; therefore, men should be the primary leaders. Eve was the first to fall into disobedience; therefore, women should not be the primary leaders. However, women may serve in subordinate roles in the church so long as they serve under the jurisdiction of a male leader. They may speak publicly, so long as they do so in submission to their husbands or fathers or male congregational leaders.
   
  An egalitarian approach reads the passage as a temporary restriction upon women in the Ephesian church due to the rise of a matriarchal heresy with roots in Ephesian paganism and the beginnings of Gnosticism.  This position emphasizes the cultural context of Ephesus (1 Ti. 1:3), a Roman city with an extensive history in mother goddess worship and whose patron deity, Artemis, was famous throughout the Roman world. When Gnostic ideas began to infiltrate Ephesus via Judaism, the notion of feminine mediators was advanced so that men could only learn the esoteric knowledge of the Gnostics from women, several of whom are known by name. To be sure, what we known of Asian Gnosticism comes from documents somewhat later than the writing of the pastoral letters (2^nd century AD), but at the same, many scholars have suggested that incipient Gnosticism (i.e., an early developing form of Gnostic thought) probably underlies not only the Pastoral Letters, but also Paul’s Colossian letter and perhaps the letters of John. The female was perceived to be the primal source of spiritual knowledge, an idea present in Ephesian myths but transferred over into formative Gnostic teachings. Such mysticism held that Eve pre-existed before Adam, and in fact, was responsible for infusing him with life. Sophia Zoe (= Wisdom-Life), an alias for Eve, created Adam before the fleshly Eve was removed from his side. She breathed life into him, and she is the one who holds the power of enlightenment. Adam was ignorant of the true state of affairs, tricked into believing that he was created first. His enlightenment—the Gnostic secret knowledge that his source of life was the feminine-divine—could only be revealed by the woman, and the Gnostics’ claim was that they held the key to this enlightenment.
   
  If the foregoing culture of Ephesus lies behind Paul’s statements in 1 Timothy, which I think it probably does, then the reading of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 takes on quite a different cast. Certainly, there could hardly be a more pointed disagreement between St. Paul and the Gnostic mythologies:
   
  GNOSTIC LITERATURE                   ST. PAUL
  The Hypostasis of the Archons, 2.89    1 Timothy 2:13
  The spirit-filled woman came to him        For Adam was formed first, then
  and spoke with him, saying, “Arise,         Eve.
  Adam.” And when he saw her, he said,
  “You are the one who has given me
  life.”
  On the Origin of the World, 2.5.116      1 Timothy 2:14
  But let us not tell Adam because he is        And Adam was not the one
  not from among us, but let us bring a         deceived; it was the woman
  sleep upon him, and let us teach him          who was deceived and became
  in his sleep as if she [Eve] came into          a sinner.
  being from his rib…
   
  That some sort of feminine aggression was prominent among Ephesus’ false teachers seems apparent, for Paul rebukes the ostentatious dress of such women who flaunted themselves in public worship (1 Ti. 2:9-10). He calls to silence any women leaders who were given to malicious talk (1 Ti. 3:11; 5:13) and rebukes those spreading “godless myths and old wives’ tales” (1 Ti. 4:7). Near the end of the letter, he warns against “godless chatter” and “opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge” (1 Ti. 6:20-21). His language about “what is falsely called knowledge” is an admirable description of what we know of Gnostic thought a few decades later. How far developed Gnostic ideas were at this early stage is difficult to ascertain, but the similarities are striking. In any case, Paul was blunt: such female-perpetrated heresies already had induced some to turn away from the true gospel of Jesus Christ to follow Satan (1 Ti. 5:17).
   

If this is the context, then Paul’s restrictions in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 are to be read in their local setting. He is not issuing universal demands that women never speak in church, never occupy positions of leadership, or never are allowed to teach. Rather, he is emphatically shutting down a virulent heresy in Ephesus, demonstrating by his citations from the Book of Genesis how distorted was this false teaching. The feminists were wrong: Adam, not Eve, was created first. Eve, not Adam, was deceived by the snake.

Rock of Ages - Controversy in a Hymn

One of my favorite hymns of the church is "Rock of Ages" - a powerful statement of a sinner's total reliance upon God for salvation. Every line, every stanza speaks of the sinner's self-awareness of his guilt before God and his sense of total incapability to redeem himself. Likewise, every word points beyond the sinner's deeply-felt inability to God's free, but costly, provision of salvation.

    Rock of Ages, cleft for me,
    Let me hide myself in Thee;
    Let the water and the blood,
    From Thy wounded side which flowed,
    Be of sin the double cure;
    Save from wrath and make me pure.

Augustus M. Toplady (1740-1778), the author of this hymn, was a devoted Calvinist, convinced of the total depravity of man and the singular action of a sovereign God in providing human salvation. His outspoken Calvinist views often put him at odds with his contemporaries, the Wesley brothers - John Wesley, the itinerant preacher and founder of the Methodist faith, and Charles Wesley, a staunch supporter of his brother's ministry and one of the best known song writers in all Christian history. This disagreement led to public debate and lasting hard feelings between Toplady and the Wesleys. This dispute mirrors the debate that lingers even today between Calvinists and Wesleyans.

-------------------------------

But here is something I find quite interesting. One couplet in Toplady's song - "Be of sin the double cure, save from wrath and make me pure" - is a thoroughly Wesleyan sentiment. John Wesley - and his Methodist followers - stressed both the centrality of prevenient grace - grace that comes before anything else - in turning sinful man toward God and the absolute necessity of the sanctification process - the growth toward true righteousness and holiness - in the life of the Christian after this conversion experience.

This powerful song seems to accomplish what years of discussion and debate - both friendly and otherwise - never could. It brings together the strongest affirmations of both Calvinism and Wesleyanism in one place.

Sometimes, a song accomplishes things that nothing else can do.

Calvinism - A Quick Overview

I was recently asked to describe the main tenets of Calvinism. I referred the questioner to the following materials that I used as a hand-out when teaching a "Religion in American Life" course at a Florida college.

While I am not a Calvinist by persuasion, I think the following presentation is a fair and reliable description of the main themes of Calvinist thought and practice. This presentation does not seek to persuade, promote, or attack these ideas for which I maintain the greatest respect.

NOTE: These materials are a synopsis I developed from a longer piece in A History of Philosophy in America (Flower and Murphey) and a lengthy quote from the major professor of my doctoral program. I make no claim of originality for any of these materials.

 -----------------------------

John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion is perhaps the most significant literary expression of the sixteenth century Swiss Reformation. This work - and Calvin's teachings in general - gave birth to many later religious movements, among them Puritanism, Presbyterianism, and Congregationalism.

For Calvin, God is above all the locus of power. He is the Almighty, the creator, the master of the universe. His sovereignty is unconditioned, His power is infinite, and His will is arbitrary and unconstrained by any outside force. He is constrained only by his own nature. It is God who completely determines all events - although lesser forces may appear to be causative agents, in fact, ultimate causality resides in God alone. He is omniscient - with absolute foreknowledge - and He is transcendent - so that human knowledge can never adequately depict him. Calvin's God is therefore always mysterious and inscrutable. His ways, the biblical writer tells us, are "past finding out." The vast distance between God and man - a fact rooted in both divine and human nature - is further compounded, Calvin tells us, by the fallen state of humanity.

Calvin argues that since God is all powerful and since he determines all to be, it is true that He, and He alone, decrees, elects, or predestines those who receive eternal salvation and those who receive eternal damnation. This divine choice is eternal and irrevocable: no human act, however noble or depraved, can affect it in the slightest.

Calvin further argues that those elected to salvation receive the grace of God as a free gift - unmerited and undeserved. Moreover, this grace is irresistible: God effectively redeems those he chooses and the chosen are merely passive recipients of this grace.

Upon receiving God's salvation, the elect must be cleansed of their moral depravity, that is, their "fallen" nature. But man, powerless before moral evil, is incapable of such a change and it is therefore God again who fuels the process of sanctification - the movement toward true holiness in the life and behavior of the elect. When the grace of God is given to man, the object of his affections is changed from himself to God, so that thereafter he loves God above all else and seeks to fully obey God's will. Calvin depicts receiving grace as falling in love with God. Again it is God who acts to sanctify; the human will remains passive.

One would think that such a position would weaken moral vigor - would deprive humans of moral challenge and strength. Such a doctrine might appear to offer an excuse for sin and a flight into ethical irresponsibility. But in fact, Calvin's doctrine proved to have just the opposite effect - individuals and communities were energized toward moral life. For Calvin, the state of the will was the crucial sign of grace. The sinner is a willful sinner - he loves his sinful ways and win not leave them. To be regenerate - to have receive grace - is to have a regenerated will, to be able to strive for the good (by God's empowering alone) and to turn away from sin. It is not by striving that one acquires grace; rather the fact that one can strive to do good is a sign that grace has been given.

But there was always a question mark about one's state of grace. Since sanctification is incomplete in this life and since all human wills are drawn toward evil, each moral failure, each breach of God's commandments however small, might well indicate that grace was never given at all. The state of the soul must be inferred from the signs of moral life. This doctrine of visibility means that there are external, moral signs by which a man can attain some assurance - though never complete certainty - of his election. Accordingly, the would-be Christian must constantly scrutinize his life and behavior. Since there is always some doubt, it is necessary to prove one's self daily. Thus, far from weakening moral vitality, Calvin's doctrine drove his followers to a ceaseless struggle to attain an unattainable goal and made every failure to reach the goal a fresh motive for renewed effort. (Sociologist Max Weber has pointed out that many of Calvin's early followers belonged to the rising business class in Europe and that their "work ethic" and thrift undoubtedly accelerated the pace of the expanding capitalist development.)

 Leo Sandon, Professor Emeritus of Religion of Florida State University, points out that in Calvinism "the primary ethical focus is on the public good (commonweal) to which purely private interests are subordinated. Calvinism characteristically evidences a positive attitude toward the political order, favoring firm, stable, representative governance, but providing for revolutionary action in the extreme case in which rulers may require obedience to policy which is contrary to the clear will of God. The insistence that both governors and people are under God's rule leads Calvinists to a normative understanding that governance is to be by laws, not persons. Economically, the Calvinist bias is toward productive work, frugality, modest life style, and disciplined savings and reinvestment. Calvinism has tended to stress the subordination of the erotic dimension of human life to the rational dimension."

 In summary, we can say that for Calvin, human freedom was always overshadowed by divine sovereignty. Humans were free only to live out their election. The possibility of rebellion against this divine choice meant the denial of God's full power. For Calvin, such a conclusion is unthinkable.

Thomas Oden - Patriarch of Paleo-Orthodoxy

"Thomas Oden is a Methodist, ecumenist, evangelical, and patristics scholar who was dissuaded from liberal modernism by a Jewish conservative, becoming himself a theological paleo-orthodox and devoting the last half of his life to the reaffirmation of Christian orthodoxy rooted in the early church fathers." So begins the recent review of Oden's A Change of Heart: A Personal and Theological Memoir (2014) in the pages of the Weekly Standard. Click here to read this excellent review.

Paleo-orthodoxy is a loose term to used to describe the trend among a range of scholars - Oden chief among them - to root theological thought in the broad consensus of belief expressed by creeds and councils during the first six centuries of Christian history rather than in medieval Catholicism, the Protestant revolt of the 1600s, or the Enlightenment thought that came to define the experience of modernity. Of paleo-orthodoxy, one writer states, "It is in many respects a reaction against Protestantism's '400-year memory'. Proponents of paleo-orthodoxy aim to widen the Protestant collective memory to include all 20 centuries of church history."

In his Classic Christianity, Oden - retired Professor of Theology and Ethics at Drew University - describes his commitment to the "Christianity of consensus" - that which was believed "everywhere, always, and by all."

My basic purpose is to set forth an ordered view of the faith of the Christian community upon which there has generally been substantial agreement between the traditions of East and West, including Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox. My intent is not to present the views of a particular branch of modern Christian teaching, such as Roman Catholic or Reformed, but to listen single-mindedly for the voice of that deeper consensus that has been gratefully celebrated as received teaching by believers of vastly different cultural settings, whether African or Asian, Eastern or Western, sixth or sixteenth century.

My intention may be simply put: I hope to set forth what is most commonly stated in the central Christian tradition concerning God. This effort is therefore ecumenical in a larger sense than is usually assumed in the modern ecumenical movement. It proposes to follow that ancient ecumenical consensus of Christian teaching of God as seen in earliest creedal summaries of Irenaeus, c. AD 190; Tertullian, c. 200; Hippolytus, c. 215; Council of Caesarea, 325; Council of Nicaea, 325; Marcellus, 340; Cyril of Jerusalem, 350; Council of Constantinople, 381; Rufinus, 404; Council of Chalcedon, 451. These confessions still embrace and empower not only centrist Protestants and traditional Roman Catholics and Orthodox but also great numbers of evangelicals, liberals, and charismatics.

Hence I am seeking to set forth key constructive arguments of two millennia of ecumenical Christian thinking - that God is, who God is, and what that means for us today. I seek an internally consistent statement of classical Christian thinking about God so as to provide a reliable foundation for baptism, the life of prayer, scripture studies, and for the living of Christian life.

Other Christian scholars identified with paleo-orthodoxy include the late Richard John Neuhaus, Alan Padgett, J. I. Packer, Wolfhart Pannenberg, Carl Braaten, Stanley Grenz, Bradley Nassif, and Thomas Howard. Special attention should be paid the the Ancient-Future series by the late Robert Webber.

--------------------

Of the writings by and in honor of Thomas Oden, these are the essential works:

The Rebirth of Orthodoxy: Signs of New Life in Christianity (HarperOne, 2002)

Classic Christianity: A Systematic Theology (HarperOne, 2009)

After Modernity . . . What? (Zondervan, 1992)

Ancient & Postmodern Christianity: Paleo-Orthodoxy in the 21st Century - Essays In Honor of Thomas C. Oden (IVP, 2002)

A Question Asked and Answered

Now when the Pharisees and some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem gathered around him,  they noticed that some of his disciples were eating with defiled hands, that is, without washing them. (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they thoroughly wash their hands, thus observing the tradition of the elders;  and they do not eat anything from the market unless they wash it; and there are also many other traditions that they observe, the washing of cups, pots, and bronze kettles.)  So the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, "Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?" (Mark 7:1-5 NRSV)

As he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, "Look, Teacher, what large stones and what large buildings!" Then Jesus asked him, "Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down." When he was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked him privately, "Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign that all these things are about to be accomplished?" (Mark 13:1-4 NRSV)

Both of these passages introduce a lengthy dialogue/discourse by Jesus to address the question asked. The dialogue is a very common form used by Gospel writers to gather and express the memory of the sayings of Jesus on a specific topic.

"Dialogue" may be too strong of a word here, inferring an on-going verbal exchange - a back-and-forth communication between teacher and students - as clearly seen between Socrates and his pupils in Plato's  "Dialogues."

Regarding "Dialogue Gospels," Helmut Koester in his Ancient Christian Gospels writes

"Questions and answers in the dialogue are usually quite brief, some units comprising only one question by one of the . . .disciples (sometimes by 'all' the disciples) and an answer from the Lord in the form of a saying. . . . A traditional saying may constitute the final answer; but sayings are also used in the formulation of the disciple's question, while the answer given by the Lord is actually a secondary interpretation posed by the understanding of the saying that was quoted at the beginning of such a dialogue unit."

The most common structure of the Gospel "dialogues" is very simple. (1) Jesus says or does something not completely understood by his audience. (2) In response, the audience - either collectively or through the voice of one of its members - questions or comments about the meaning of the word or action of Jesus. (3) In turn, Jesus offers an explanation of his words or actions. Sometimes this response goes into great detail (as in Mark 7 and 13) and sometimes it consists only of a single explanatory - even dismissive - statement.

In John's Gospel, we witness a number of full-blown dialogues with give-and-take interactions between Jesus and his audience. Both types of dialogues can be seen in the later non-canonical Gospels. The simple "question-answer" form is found throughout the Gospel of Thomas, while more participatory dialogues are found in the Dialogue of the Savior and the Apocryphon of James.

--------------------------------

So much for the history lesson. What does this have to do with the way we interpret these passages today?

Here is a modest proposal for interpreting Gospel dialogues. TAKE THE QUESTION SERIOUSLY. The answers Jesus gave were not given in a vacuum. His answers address the specific questions asked and, therefore, should be interpreted accordingly.

Look at the passages I quoted above.

Commentators have gone to great lengths to see Mark 7 as the rejection of the Torah (the Mosaic law) by Jesus and all subsequent Christians. But the Pharisees' question was not about Torah observance - a commitment that they shared with Jesus and his disciples.  Rather the question is about obeying the "traditions of the fathers" - the "oral Torah" that collected the interpretations and expansions of the Mosaic law by Jewish teachers down through the years. To read the passage to say that Jesus attacked Torah observance is to miss the point altogether. The answer that Jesus gave directly related to the question asked.

Similarly, there is a world of silly end time speculation that arises from modern interpretations of Mark 13 (and its parallel passages in Matthew 24-25 and Luke 17 and 21). The question Jesus is addressing in Mark 13 regards his prediction of the destruction of the Jewish temple (which took place in AD 70). The small group of disciples asked about the timing of this destruction ("when will this be") and the events leading up to this disaster ("and what will be the sign that all these things are about to be accomplished"). To project the answers given by Jesus to these very specific questions on the distant future or even on modern times fails to realize the correspondence between the questions asked and the answers given. Hearing his answer as a direct response to the question regarding the temple's destruction (AD 70) is the only way to make sense of his concluding remark.

Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place. (Mark 13:30)

In both Mark 7 and Mark 13, a question is asked and answered. Our guide to interpret the dialogues of Jesus should be to pay attention to the question he is asked and to understand his answer in the context of the question.