Food in the Bible: Matthew 12:9-14

Matthew 12:9-14 He left that place and entered their synagogue; a man was there with a withered hand, and they asked him, ‘Is it lawful to cure on the sabbath?’ so that they might accuse him. He said to them, ‘Suppose one of you has only one sheep and it falls into a pit on the sabbath; will you not lay hold of it and lift it out? How much more valuable is a human being than a sheep! So it is lawful to do good on the sabbath.’ Then he said to the man, ‘Stretch out your hand.’ He stretched it out, and it was restored, as sound as the other. But the Pharisees went out and conspired against him, how to destroy him.

Here again, as in the previous passage, Jesus is not doing away with Sabbath, but instead challenging our understanding of Sabbath. Personally I bristle at the statement Jesus makes, “How much more valuable is a human being than a sheep! ” That is so anthropocentric! Isn’t this part of what has brought us to this place? We think that we are the pinnacle of creation and that somehow makes exempt from the laws of nature. We don’t have to deal with the repercussions of the way we treat the earth because somehow we’re more important than sheep and animals.
Well, as always, it would serve us well to read the Bible in context. The original hearers would certainly not have read (or heard) that into the text. They were agrarian people who depended on the land. Jesus in fact points out that saving an animal on the Sabbath trumps the rules about resting precisely because the Sabbath is about life, not rules. So, this passage might actually be highlighting the dependence of human beings on creation. It’s our modern mind that reads such a technocratic elitist idea into the text.
Perhaps Jesus’ words about the value of human beings is also to point out the inhumane way in which people treated other people, the sick, the lame, the blind, etc. Jesus restores humanity to the man with the withered hand by rightly relating people to each other and to the Sabbath. Remember that the Sabbath commands are about economics and ecology, our relationship to the earth and to each other. In other words, Jesus says, “You would break Sabbath in order to be rightly related to that which you depend on for sustenance. Recognize that you depend equally on being rightly related to your fellow human being. This is the meaning of Sabbath.”

Food in the Bible: Matthew 12:1-8

Matthew 12:1-8 At that time Jesus went through the cornfields on the sabbath; his disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. When the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, ‘Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the sabbath.’ He said to them, ‘Have you not read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him or his companions to eat, but only for the priests. Or have you not read in the law that on the sabbath the priests in the temple break the sabbath and yet are guiltless? I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. But if you had known what this means, “I desire mercy and not sacrifice”, you would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of Man is lord of the sabbath.’

Sabbath has been a pretty regular part of the conversation here about Food in the Bible. How do we read this passage in light of extending the sabbath to include the Sabbatical year (Deut 15) and Jubilee (Lev 25)? Or in light of the Sabbath being about remembering our place within the creation story?

I’ve read this passage in the past as another exchange between Jesus and the Pharisees (which it is) in which Jesus triumphs over those legalists showing them who’s boss. The sabbath is primarily about taking a day off and following the rules and Jesus is breaking the rules in order to show them how stupid their rules are. But this is not quite what’s happening is it?

Jesus is not getting rid of the sabbath. He’s reclaiming and redeeming it for its rightful purpose. He uses two examples from the Hebrew scripture (the only Bible around at the time) to show them that had missed the point of the sabbath. In fact, the disciples plucking heads of grain is reminiscent of the sabbatical command to allow the poor and wild animals to glean from the fields.

Jesus’ example of David taking the bread of the Presence when he was hungry reminds me of the way we treat the elements of communion. Denominations have different versions of the same thing. Basically the “bread” and “wine” are considered “holy” and off limits except during the particular ritual of the Eucharist. In some churches the bread and wine have to be finished off, poured down a particular drain or disposed of properly because of their sanctity.

In light of Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 11 about divisions at the agape meal and his warning about taking communion unworthily which follows, he seems to imply that taking Eucharist unworthily means not sharing your food with the hungry. If that is the case then every time the elements (especially if it’s a loaf of real bread) are disposed of or gorged on by someone in order to fulfill the letter of some traditional ritual, we may be partaking unworthily of the Lord’s Supper. (further discussion will be shelved until we get to 1 Corinthians sometime in 2050).

Finally, Jesus reorients the understanding of sabbath by putting the commandments in light of God’s desire for “mercy and not sacrifice.” This is a helpful guiding principle for following Jesus and interpreting the Bible. If mercy is not the driving force and guiding principle then we will end up with empty legalism and broken relationships. Jesus identifies himself as “lord of the sabbath,” meaning not only over the particular command to rest on the sabbath day, but also over the command to let fields rest, to free slaves and return land, in essence over the equality and justice of the created order as God intended.

A Prayer to Our Father

A Prayer to Our Father is written by an African-American Pastor and a Jewish Hebrew Scholar about the prayer that Jesus’ taught his disciples and followers to pray. It’s written as a sort of DaVinci Code mystery suspense thriller. Unfortunately, it also tries to be a scholarly analysis of ancient texts, Hebrew and Greek grammar, a tale of overcoming prejudice and religious difference and a popular theology/devotional book. This is too much weight for a less than 200-page book to bear. It’s not all bad, it just lacks focus and thus never succeeds on any of the levels it tries to reach readers.

As a thriller it is pretty lame. There are a couple points at which the author(s) try to build suspense, but the reveal is as disappointing as the lack of real tension. There are no earth-shattering revelations here about The Lord’s Prayer. There are some interesting thoughts and ideas, but not much proof or evidence. I was left wondering what the mystery was and when the real suspense would start.

As a scholarly book it fails miserably. At one point the Hebrew scholar argues that Hebrew was the first language spoken by humanity because it was what everyone spoke in Genesis 1-11. That would not pass muster in an undergrad logic class, much less the realm of biblical scholarship. The arguments for where Jesus taught the Lord’s prayer build and build as if the true location will be revealed without doubt. None of the arguments are conclusive and the final analysis speculative. I did find it interesting that there is a long tradition of some of our New Testament books, particularly the Gospel of Matthew, originally being written in Hebrew. I do think that the kind of work these two men were attempting to do is important. I value the roots of the New Testament that run deeply into the Old, but not at the expense of good scholarship and reasoned argumentation.

On another level, the book tried to show how Jews and Christians can come together to study the Bible without trying to convert each other. I think that’s great. There should be more of that. I also thought we were a little beyond Jews and Christians studying the Bible together. I’d like to read the Bible with Muslims. Heck, we’d all benefit from reading the Bible with some homeless people, maybe a prostitute. It’s not that I don’t believe anti-semitism exists. It certainly does. It’s that we sometimes ignore other prejudices and people, because of our collective guilty conscience concerning the way we treated and allowed others to treat Jewish people through Christian history.

Finally, I will say that this book could be consider successful as a popular devotional book. Scrap the scholarly stuff and the air of proving something that has hitherto remained a mystery and you have some nice meditations on the Lord’s Prayer. The thing that bothered me most about the last half of the book, which breaks down the Lord’s prayer, is that it always interpreted the prayer “spiritually.” It was not the earthy prayer that I know and love. Perhaps this is where my review connects with my blog.

The Jewish scholar claims to come from a school that interprets scripture using the most plain meaning that a peasant Jew would have grasped from hearing the words read aloud. Yet he chooses to spiritualize parts of the prayer that have a plain meaning. Not that scripture can’t hold multiple meanings and interpretations, just that his method was inconsistent. For example, the authors over spiritualize the meaning of “give us this day our daily bread” to mean primarily something spiritual about how the spirit is more important than the flesh. This flies in the face of my understanding of Hebrew thought being very grounded in an every day earthly existence. (They didn’t believe in an afterlife for crying out loud!)

I gave the book away to a friend of mine who is a “Messianic Christian” because I knew she would enjoy it and hopefully get something out of it. However, I can’t recommend the book to anyone else. You’re better off just reading your Bible… or the newspaper, preferably both.

Food in the Bible: Matthew 11:18-19

Matthew 11:18-19 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, “He has a demon”; 19the Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, “Look, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax-collectors and sinners!” Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds.

Sometimes you just can’t win. This passage says, “You’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t.” We are a culture of people-pleasers, but the truth is you can’t please everyone. Both John and Jesus were fulfilling their purpose and identity. We are also a culture that claims to value diversity in theory, but has difficulty putting it into practice. (That could be said of everyone I guess.) In the church we are often concerned with trying to fit everyone into a particular mold or model of what it means to be Christian, to follow Jesus, to be the church, how to vote, how to raise your kids or how to shop. Many denominations were created in some sense to limit diversity. A group (re)discovered some truth or doctrine and latched on to it as the answer, the one Truth. It seems in every case that this results in throwing some baby (or babies) out with the bath water.

With foodies it is often the same. PETA and others preach the gospel of vegetarianism. There is only one true way to eat and reform the corrupt food system. It seems, however, that meat-eaters will likely play a large role in reforming the meat industry. The industry cares more about the consumers buying their product than those abstaining. The gospel of vegetarianism is helpful in pointing out some of the fundamental problems with the amount of meat we consume and the way that our meat is produced. But like the gnostic gospels it is a myopic vision of the life God intends for us.

Paul seems to consistently uphold unity in diversity as the model for the Body of Christ. Some will be called to abstain from eating certain foods and sometimes eating all together. Some will remind us that God loves a party and invites the gluttons and drunkards into the wedding feast. If we are to be a whole people working toward a whole food system we must refrain from the myopic vision that so often traps us into dualistic ways of thinking. We must listen in love to even our enemies.

Food in the Bible: Matthew 10:28-31

Matthew 10:28-31 Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. 29Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground unperceived by your Father. 30And even the hairs of your head are all counted. 31So do not be afraid; you are of more value than many sparrows.

This verse bothers me. Is Jesus proclaiming a hierarchy within creation? Everything I believe rebels against the idea that we are the pinnacle of creation. That kind of thinking leads to the devastation of our environment we have seen over the years. It leads us to believe we somehow exist separate from and above the rest of the natural world. We know through science and simple observation that this is not the case. We are intimately connected to the earth as the source of our sustenance and life. So, what do I do with “you are of more value than many sparrows”?

For starters let’s consider the context (always a good idea). The Gospel writer is writing to people who live under Roman occupation and face threats of persecution and oppression. Many are probably subsistence farmers and illiterate peasants. They face real threats of being bodily harm. Otherwise the admonition not to be concerned with those who can kill the body would hold no real weight. So the emphasis on the spiritual aspects of their life that Roman soldiers cannot touch is a comfort. It should also be pointed out that Jesus says the one who can destroy both soul and body should be feared. In many ways our current food system separates us from the land in a way that is both physically and spiritually deadening.

Jesus asks, “Are not two sparrows sold for a penny?” This points out the devaluation of life and animals that were used for ritual sacrifices. Yet even the animals and plants that we turn into commodities, are intimately cared for by God.

That pesky final phrase still troubles me. However, in the context of persecution and oppression it should not be read as a statement of hierarchical ordering within creation. Instead it should be read as it was intended, as a comfort to the afflicted and encouragement to persevere in God’s love as God’s beloved. We don’t have to devalue sparrows or the rest fo creation to affirm God’s love for us.