Stopover 15

    A Summit With Old Friends

    (Conflict in Jesus’ Practice)

    Conflict

    Trouble on First Workday and Beyond. What do you say of a man, who on his first day of work is headed for trouble? He walks into the prayer-and-study house, the synagogue. He gives a talk. How unlike our gurus, theologians, canonists—people say. Such wisdom! Such authority! Waves of astonishment and delight surge through his hearers. Unorthdox, fresh, original. Different from their scholars. He invites trouble, this potentially dangerous person, and overnight his fame begins to spread throughout the area! (Mk 1:21-28)

    Early next morning, while it is still very dark, he gets up and goes out to a deserted place, and there he prays. But, soon after that, after people find him, he is at it again giving his talks all over that territory (Mk 1:36-38).

    A little later, he is healing a leper. Watch how he goes about it. Only priests may bless a leper. Jesus is a layman. Lepers – according to the ritual regulations laid down by the theologians – are ritually impure and no one may touch them. Jesus touches the leper. The narrator suggests that in contrast to the religious personnel, Jesus in this situation is ‘moved with compassion.’ Finally, Jesus sends the leper to bring an offering to the priests. But for what purpose? In compliance with the Mosaic regulations? No! Rather, as a ‘testimony against them.’ As a protest against the pastoral style of the priests! (Mk 1:40-45). 72 The leper, despite Jesus’ injunction not to tell anyone, announces his cure to everyone so that people pour in from all quarters to this Jesus, a growing threat to the establishment. He can no longer go into towns openly, but has to stay in the outskirts.

    Eventually he gets home. He finds a paralytic. He forgives his sins. He heals him. But the watchful scribes are present. They level an accusation at Jesus: Blasphemy! Yet Jesus continues to excite amazement and admiration: ‘We have never seen anything like this!’

    Shortly thereafter, we find him having lunch with tax collectors and sinners. The pharisees object. Jesus clarifies: ‘Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I have come to call not the righteous but sinners.’ 73

    The next thing we know, he is being interrogated about, of course, fasting. ‘Why do the disciples of John the Baptist and of the pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?’ Jesus takes this occasion to register a critical comment on their tradition: Your bankrupt tradition is beyond redemption. No one, he says, uses an unused piece of cloth to patch an old cloak. No one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise, the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost, and so are the skins; but one puts new wine into fresh wineskins. Their tradition is not good enough to be recycled!

    No sooner is this confrontation about eating over than we find him in a debate about his disciples plucking corn. This time the issue is the sabbath. Jesus’ disciples are doing what the law forbids. But Jesus poses a question: what do you do when people are hungry and want to eat? Remember David (1 Sam 21:1-6)? He broke into the temple and ate the sacred bread reserved for priests, and gave it to his hungry companions. From the lips of Jesus then falls an axiom which expresses his view on life, law, tradition: ‘The sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the sabbath.’

    To Save Life. The cycle of conflictive events ends with a final confrontation. I will let the evangelist himself tell the story.

    Again he entered the synagogue, and a man was there who had a withered hand. They watched him to see whether he would cure him on the sabbath, so that they might accuse him. And he said to the man who had the withered hand, ‘Come forward.’ Then he said to them, ‘Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the sabbath, to save life or to kill?’ But they were silent. He looked around at them with anger; he was grieved at their hardness of heart and said to the man, ‘Stretch out your hand.’ He stretched it out, and his hand was restored. The pharisees went out and immediately conspired with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him. (Mk 3:1-6) To save life or to kill – are our choices really limited to that? So Jesus seems to say. If we do not promote life, we destroy it.74 Jesus held this axiom with passion. He was angered and grieved at its opposite, hardness of heart. A rare display of emotions. To save life (psyche), not souls – that’s what it is all about, Jesus would say.

    To save life – could very well be the inscription on Jesus’ tombstone.

    An ominous statement ends this cycle: the religious leaders conspire with the political leaders. They plot his destruction!

    Conflictive Practice. We have followed Jesus through a couple of days of his life, as chronicled by Mark. If anything, that experience will have taught us that we cannot stereotype Jesus. He is indeed the ‘meek and humble’ Jesus. But that is not all there is to him. His passion for the Kingdom and its life-blessings drew him into conflict with the authorities and power structures of his time.

    At this stage in our journey, we focus on Jesus’ conflictive practice. Of this we generally know little, except for his practice of calling the pharisees ‘hypocrites.’ Yet, without this conflictive practice, his death would be unintelligible. In fact, without it, even his life would lack intelligibility.

    Our hosts for this stopover will be all the people who have taken us in thus far. We have met them successively from the fisherfolk of Stopover 2 to the human rights lawyers of Stopover 14. We are having a summit with them. We are discussing with them a matter which was real for Jesus and is a real possibility for a serious follower of Jesus, conflict. They will take turns leading and moderating the various discussions.

    Jesus and the Pharisees and Scribes

    (Moderators: Human Rights Lawyers, People’s Organizations)

    Here we get acquainted with the actors of the drama.

    Pharisees and Scribes. Pharisees, in the time of Jesus, were an association of ‘middle class’ Jews, of strict religious observance regarding, for example, the sabbath, ritual purity, tithing. Their zeal was aimed at influencing the Jewish people towards the observance of the Law of Moses or the Mosaic Torah.

    There is a certain historical core in the conflicts reported in the gospels. But in the interest of historical accuracy and in fairness to the pharisees and scribes, we note (1) that in their origins, 200 years earlier, the pharisees were a courageous and ‘prophetic’ group, protesting the corruption of priests and kings; (2) that our gospel records, as they stand, are colored by an antagonistic spirit of a time later than Jesus; (3) that not all of the pharisees and scribes were ‘bad’; and that a good number had a view of things similar to that of Jesus and vice versa. Compared to sadducees, whom we shall meet shortly, pharisees were liberal, progressive and populist. They had contact with the common populace.

    Scribes were the scholars or intellectuals, experts in the Torah. They produced oral interpretations, commentaries, rules and regulations for contemporary life, based on their understanding of the Torah. They thus provided the system of values and meanings, ideology if you will, which governed Jewish life. They were also known as the rabbis.

    Pharisees and scribes together exercised authority, power and leadership in religious and civil matters.

    Herodians were people associated with the governor of Galilee, Herod Antipas: relatives, political cronies, members of Herod’s court, friends and hangers-on.

    Issues. Our signposts above have described typical collision-events between these people and Jesus. They also contain the typical matters of contention between Jesus and his opponents, such as putting primacy on the human being and human life over against the accepted tradition and law.

    In addition, the following critical remarks of Jesus are recorded in Matthew’s gospel. They might contain more of Matthew’s bias against the pharisees and scribes than the original Jesus confrontation, but they serve to convey the intensity of the conflict. Imagine that you are a missionary to whom Jesus addresses these charges: ‘You shut the doors of the Kingdom of heaven to yourselves and to people who want to enter. You go to foreign missions to make converts, and when they convert, you make them doubly a child of hell as you. You are the children of those who murdered the prophets.’ We are familiar with Jesus’ censure—reported not only by Matthew but also by Luke—for the pharisees’ neglect of social justice.

    Woe to you, scribes and pharisees, hypocrites! For you lock people out of the kingdom of heaven. For you do not go in yourselves, and when others are going in, you stop them. (Mt 23:13)

    Woe to you, scribes and pharisees, hypocrites! For you cross sea and land to make a single convert, and you make the new convert twice as much a child of hell as yourselves. (Mt 23:15)

    Woe to you, scribes and pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous, and you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ Thus you testify against yourselves that you are descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your ancestors. You snakes, you brood of vipers! How can you escape being sentenced to hell? (Mt 23:29-33)

    Woe to you, scribes and pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practiced without neglecting the others. (Mt 23:23; Lk 11:42)

         Jesus and the Chief Priests, Elders, Scribes
    (Moderators: Women and Nature-Carers, Protesters Against War Weapon Production, Sorsogon Folk)

    We now make the acquaintance of other prominent personages in the conflictive life of Jesus:

    Chief Priests, Elders, Scribes. The elders were the heads of families, particularly prominent and influential families. They probably numbered among the economic, political, and social aristocracy of Palestine. Their economic base would have been land and/or large-scale commerce.

    Chief priests were the elite priests. They resided in Jerusalem, the capital city. The first among them was the high priest. Differentiate them from the simple poor priests who lived and worked in the countryside. 75

    Ever since the Persian colonial period, 500 years earlier, when instead of kings, high priests, under various imperial powers, became the heads-of-state, the high priestly class enjoyed supreme social, political and economic power. The main sources of their wealth were land, commerce, and the profitable temple income from tithes, donations, temple banking and business enterprises. In the time of Jesus, the high priest shared supreme political power with the Herodian kings and the Roman procurator. The high priest was the head of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish supreme council, the highest political body in Palestine for domestic national affairs.

    Scribes were the intellectual elite, experts in their religious tradition. We have already met them. When associated with the chief priest and elders, the designation refers principally to the sophisticated urban scholars, specialists in the Torah.

    Aristocracy. These three groups—the chief priests, scribes and elders—constituted the aristocracy of Palestine: economic, political, cultural, intellectual, and religious. Moreover, from these groups were drawn the members of the Sanhedrin, their supreme council which wielded the highest political authority, though subject to Rome of course. Religio-political leadership was in the hands of these people.

    Jesus and the Religio-Political Leadership. What did Jesus have to say to the religio-political leadership? Was Jesus in sharp conflict with the religio-political authorities of his time? Listen to a message addressed by Jesus to them: Yahweh entrusted you with the care of the Israelite people whom he loved very much. From time to time, Yahweh sent prophets to check. You had nothing to show. Instead, you tortured and murdered the prophets. And now he sends his son, thinking you would respect him. But no, you will conspire to kill and will actually kill him.

    What will Yahweh then do? (What do you think, dear reader, Jesus’ verdict will be?) God will come and destroy them! No light indictment! That is the gist of Jesus’ message. He tells it more graphically and forcefully through his favorite medium, the parable:

    Then he began to speak to them (the chief priests and scribes and the elders of Mk 11:27) in parables. "A man planted a vineyard, put a fence around it, dug a pit for the wine press, and built a watchtower; then he leased it to tenants and went to another country. When the season came, he sent a slave to the tenants to collect from them his share of the produce of the vineyard. But they seized him, and beat him, and sent him away empty-handed. And again he sent another slave to them; this one they beat over the head and insulted. Then he sent another, and that one they killed. And so it was with many others; some they beat, and others they killed. He had still one other, a beloved son. Finally he sent him to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ But those tenants said to one another, ‘This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’ So they seized him, killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard. What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the tenants and give the vineyard to others." (Mk 12:1-10) God Will Destroy You. The chief priests, elders and scribes, whom Jesus was addressing in the vineyard-parable, held the religio-political leadership and social power in Jesus’ time. They were murderers of the prophets. They were worthless leaders of God’s people. God would destroy them! Strong words—little expected from a stereotype wimpy Jesus.

    Jesus and the Temple

    (Moderators: PCP II Participants, Barrio Fiesta Folk, Mother and Child)

    Jesus did not spare the temple. His assault was double barreled – in word and in action.

    The Temple in Jesus’ Time. What was the temple? Of course, it was a religious institution. It was the principal one, because there was only one temple for the whole nation. It was only in the temple that sacrifices were offered. It was situated in the capital city of Jerusalem. The synagogues in the countryside were places for study and prayer only.

    In a society where there was no sharp distinction between the religious and political spheres, the temple served, like the modern flag, as a principal national symbol. It also had political associations. The Sanhedrin met within the temple complex. Those in charge of the temple were the chief priests, leading political figures.

    It was also a principal economic institution. Revenues flowed freely here, what with the sale of sacrificial animals, fees and taxes, donations, money-exchange.

    It was also, of course, the special domain of the priestly aristocracy.

    The temple, therefore, was the major religio-cultural, political and economic institution.

    Then they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling and those who were buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves; and he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple. He was teaching and saying, "Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a den of robbers." And when the chief priests and the scribes heard it, they kept looking for a way to kill him … (Mk 11:15-19) Focus of Jesus’ Action against the Temple. Clearly Jesus’ complaint was about all the goings-on that restyled a place of prayer into a place of commerce. Looking closely, however, notice that he singles out segments which are related to the poor: money changing and the sale of doves. Money-changing was especially hard on the poor. Doves were the offerings of the poor. Jesus gave special attention to these. The temple, which was supposed to serve the poor, has become a den of thieves!

    Jesus’ Verbal Attack on the Temple. Jesus also pronounced some threatening words against the temple.

    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.’ (Mk 13:1-2) Imagine threatening the cathedral today with utter destruction. Jesus’ threat was consequential enough to constitute one of the charges against him during his trial. "We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’ ’’ (Mk 14:58) This was the taunt leveled at him on the cross. Those who passed by derided him, shaking their heads, and saying, ‘Aha! You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days save yourself, and come down from the cross!’ (Mk 15:29-30) This oft-repeated mention of Jesus’ verbal attack makes it one of the few historical facts about Jesus. It did much to pave the way to the cross.

    Jesus and Rome

    Was Jesus anti-Roman? There is not enough evidence about Jesus’ stance towards Rome. His oft-quoted ‘Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s’ is not necessarily an endorsement of Rome. The statement could mean: Give to Caesar what belongs to him. But nothing belongs to him. Everything belongs to Yahweh in this nation…. What is clear is his repudiation of imperial values (Mk 10:42-45). There is enough data, not about Jesus’ attitude towards Rome, but about Rome’s attitude towards Jesus. From the point of view of the Romans, he probably was regarded as a rebel. At a time when certain Jews led rebellious movements against Rome and were regarded as Jewish kings, Jesus was given the title ‘King of the Jews’ (Mk 15:2-3; Lk 23:38). Jesus was executed by crucifixion, a capital punishment meted out to rebels against Rome. He was crucified between, and therefore associated with, two ‘thieves,’ or better, ‘bandits.’ The excessively oppressive imperial regime produced social bandits among the peasantry. Social bandits—many of whom were considered ‘Robin Hoods’ by the peasantry—were a regular feature of the Roman times. Barabbas may have been a social bandit.

    Underlying Dynamics

    (Moderators: Fisherfolk, Fruit and Vegetable Growers, Indigenous People)

    We now attempt to understand an underlying pattern or dynamic in Jesus’ conflictive activity.

    It’s been sometime since we have adjusted our eye-glasses. Perhaps this is a good time.

    The Elite and the Common People

      The Palestine of Jesus’ time was a Palestine of the economic, political, cultural elite, on the one hand, and of the impoverished and voiceless common people, on the other.
    The Elite and Their Economic, Political, Cultural Power
      The main sources of wealth were land and commerce.

      Access to political power was through political office, family lineage, wars of conquests, social connections and manipulation, economic standing.

      Moreover, social privilege was determined by blood: Jew or non-Jew, noble or common, pure or impure.

      The dominant culture was largely shaped by people who were recognized to have the authority to interpret traditions, customs, values and meanings based on the Torah; these were principally the scribes, but also the pharisees and priests.

      In the pages of the gospels we meet the economic elite. They go by the names elders and chief priests.

      We meet the socio-political elite. These are the chief priests, elders and scribes. Many of these were members of the highest Jewish authoritative body in Palestine, the Sanhedrin, though subject to the Roman empire.

      We meet people who wielded religio-cultural authority and power. We recognize them as the scribes and pharisees, and also the priests. They produced the system of values and meanings (religio-cultural ideology). They prescribed the rules and regulations about the Sabbath, purification, tithing and many other matters.76

       

    Religio-Cultural Ideology: Anti-Poor
      The following is important for our study of Jesus. It would appear that in New Testament times, this religio-cultural ideology was anti-poor and anti-outcast. Its net message to the poor and outcast would be: ‘You do not know the Torah. You do not obey the Torah. You do not observe the purification laws. You do not follow the tradition. You are adulterers, murderers, thieves. You are sinners. You are the accursed masses’ (cf. Jn 7:49). It taught the poor and the outcasts to despise themselves and to accept the prevailing system of the institution as good and willed by Yahweh, when in fact it had lost the life-giving spirit of the ancient law. It, at least tacitly, blessed the domination of the elite and its power, privilege and authority. It was an oppressive ideology.

      These—elders, priests, scribes, pharisees—constituted the privileged economic, socio-political, cultural, religious elite of Palestine.

       

    The Common People and Their Two-Fold Domination
      On the other hand, we have the poor and outcast sector. The common folk suffered under a two-fold domination:

      (1) Roman imperial domination through:

        a. Political occupation either by direct rule of the Roman procurators or by indirect rule through Herod the Great and his sons.

        b. Military occupation. The Roman garrison in Jerusalem was adjacent to the temple. The Roman procurator’s residence and fort in coastal Caesarea were just some hundred kilometers from Jerusalem.

        Roman armies raided villages and massacred people suspected of rebellion against Rome.

        c. Tribute. Tribute to the imperial powers (Assyria, Persia, Greece, Rome) had been for a long time a part of the life of the Palestinian peasantry. In Roman times, non-payment of tribute and taxes was considered rebellion.

        d. Cultural colonialism. This type of domination did not seep as much into the common folk as into the elite who took on Graeco-Roman political and cultural forms, language and education.

      (2) Domination by the local Jewish elite through:
        a. Elite control of land and big commerce.

        b. Elite control of political power.

        The prime holders of power were kings like Herod as well as the high priestly class, heads of aristocratic families, and scribes, many of whom belonged to the Sanhedrin.

        c. Religio-cultural domination by the scribes, pharisees, and priests.

      In the gospel pages, we meet the poor under several guises. We meet:
        – the multitudes, many of whom were the poor of the land.

        – the sick, many of whom must have been the malnourished poor.

        – the ‘poor of the land,’ the ‘am ha aretz.

        – ‘sinners,’ most of whom were the poor who were too uneducated to know the Torah and the rabbinic prescriptions, and did not practice them. Frequently in the gospels, then, when you meet the word ‘sinners,’ you may understand ‘the poor’ or ‘the unschooled poor.’

      We meet the tax collectors: they were despised by the elite as marginals and outcasts because of their shady profession and their connection with Rome.

      [Therefore the phrase ‘tax collectors and sinners’ practically means ‘the outcasts and the poor.’]

    Pattern in Jesus’ Behavior with the Privileged and the Under-Privileged. From the social profile we have just sketched, it is clear that we can speak of two groups in Jesus’ time:

    Let us now discern a pattern in Jesus’ relationship with the privileged group and the under-privileged group. What was his typical attitude, behavior, valuation of each of them? Does Jesus offer counter-practice, that is, an alternative way of acting and being? Does Jesus have a counter value-system or a counter-ideology, that is another set of values?

    Sample 1:

    ‘We [Jesus and his disciples] played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we [John the Baptist and his disciples] wailed, and you did not mourn.’

    For John came neither eating nor drinking [John the Baptist observed the Pharisaic rules on fasting], and they say, ‘He has a demon’; the Son of Man [Jesus] came eating and drinking [Jesus did not observe the Pharisaic rules on fasting; counter-practice], and they [the privileged elite] say, ‘Look, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners [the outcasts and the poor]!’ (Mt 11:16-19)

         Comment: This episode tells us a few things about Jesus’ relationship with the privileged group and the under-privileged group.

    Towards the under-privileged: Jesus was reputed to be their friend, a member of their gang (barkada).

    Towards the privileged: 1. Jesus did not follow their practice of fasting; he offered a counter-practice. 2. Jesus and the privileged were not on very friendly terms (Jesus played music to which they did not dance). 3. The privileged were critical of Jesus’ association with the poor and outcasts.

    Sample 2:

    Then he told this parable: "A man [Yahweh] had a fig tree [the Jewish nation, the temple and specially the leadership] planted in his vineyard; and he came looking for fruit on it and found none. So he said to the gardener, ‘See here! For three years I have come looking for fruit on this fig tree, and still I find none. Cut it down! Why should it be wasting the soil?’ He replied, ‘Sir, let it alone for one more year, until I dig around it and put manure on it. If it bears fruit next year, well and good; but if not, you can cut it down.’ " (Lk 13:6-9) Comment: Here we find Jesus’ opinion or judgment of the nation and its leadership. The nation, particularly, the privileged group, was like a barren fruit tree that bore no fruit and deserved to be cut down. The vinedresser petitions a reprieve.

    Sample 3:

    "What do you think? A man had two sons; he went to the first [the `am ha `aretz, tax collectors, sinners who do not know nor practice the rabbinic prescriptions of the Torah] and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ He answered, ‘I will not’; but later he changed his mind and went. The father went to the second [the privileged elite who know the Torah] and said the same; and he answered, ‘I go, sir’; but he did not go. Which of the two did the will of his father?" They said, "The first." Jesus said to them, "Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes [the outcasts and the poor] are going into the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you in the way of righteousness and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him; and even after you saw it, you did not change your minds and believe him." (Mt 21:28-32) Comment: The first son is the under-privileged group. He initially said ‘no’ to God’s order but later actually performed it. The second son is the privileged group. He said he would, but did not. The privileged group gets a negative valuation; the under-privileged group, a positive one.

    Sample 4:

    He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and regarded others with contempt: "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a pharisee [one of the privileged elite] and the other a tax collector [the outcast]. The pharisee, standing by himself, was praying thus, ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people: thieves, rogues, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give a tenth of all my income.’ But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even look up to heaven, but was beating his breast and saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner! [conditioned by the system so to pray].’ I tell you, this man went down to his home justified rather than the other; for all who exalt themselves will be humbled, but all who humble themselves will be exalted." (Lk 18:9-14) Comment: What mark did Jesus give to the privileged group? To the under-privileged group? Positive for the under-privileged group. Negative for the privileged group. This parable is more than just a moral lesson on humility. It is also Jesus’ social commentary and appraisal of groups in his society.

    Sample 5:

    One sabbath he was going through the grainfields; and as they made their way his disciples began to pluck heads of grain [counter-practice]. The pharisees [producers of value-system] said to him, ‘Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the sabbath?’ [counter-practice] And he said to them, ‘Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need of food? He entered the house of God, when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and he gave some to his companions.’ Then he said to them, ‘The sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the sabbath [counter value-system]; so the Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath.’ (Mk 2:23-28) Comment: Note Jesus’ principles and actions in relation to the privileged group. Jesus provides a counter-practice and a counter value-system against the privileged group. Human need has a claim worthier than religious prohibitions. The day of rest was made for people and not the reverse.

    Sample 6:

    ‘Watch out, and beware of the yeast of the pharisees and sadducees.’ Then they understood that he had not told them to beware of the yeast of bread, but of the teaching of the pharisees and sadducees [the value-system of elite]. (Mt 16:6-12) Comment: Jesus was critical of the religio-cultural ideology of the privileged group.

    Sample 7:

    Now when the pharisees and some of the scribes [the makers of the value system] 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.) [This is the value-system or ideology that is particularly discriminating against the unlettered poor.]

    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?" [counter-practice] He said to them, "Isaiah prophesied rightly about you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching human precepts as doctrines.’ You abandon the commandment of God and hold to human tradition." [critique of the religio-cultural ideology] …

    Then he called the crowd again and said to them, "Listen to me, all of you, and understand: there is nothing outside a person that by going in can defile, but the things that come out are what defile [counter ideology]….

    "Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile, since it enters, not the heart but the stomach, and goes out into the sewer?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.) And he said, "It is what comes out of a person that defiles. For it is from within, from the human heart, that evil intentions come: fornication, theft, murder, adultery, avarice, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, folly. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person." [counter value-system] (Mk 7:1-23)

         Comment: Jesus’ critique is not only directed against the privileged group, but also indirectly favors the under-privileged group. The elite’s value-system which he is critiquing in word and deed is discriminatory against the poor.

    Sample 8:

    ‘Woe to you, scribes and pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cummin [the practice and value-system of the privileged elite], and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith [counter value-system benefiting the poor and oppressed]. It is these you ought to have practiced without neglecting the others. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel!’ (Mt 23:23-24) Comment: It is obvious that the privileged group is being criticized. It also shows that the remark is favorable to the under-privileged group, because for Jesus the weightier things in religion are those that favor the under-privileged group, namely, mishpat-checed-´emet. (Also Lk 10:29-37)

    Sample 9:

    And as he sat at dinner in the house, many tax collectors and sinners came and were sitting with him and his disciples [counter-practice]. When the pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, ‘Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?’ But when he heard this, he said, ‘Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy [checed], not sacrifice.’ For I have come to call not the righteous but sinners.’ [vs. the value-system of the privileged elite] (Mt 9:10-13; also 12:1-8) Comment: Much of this is obvious. But note that here Jesus enunciates an important principle which is favorable to the poor and oppressed. Jesus would rather have checed than worship. Here Jesus is quoting the God of Hosea 6:6. Recall that checed is one of the quadruplets, tsedaqah-mishpat-checed-´emet, meaning social justice for the poor. (Also Lk 15:1-32)

    Sample 10:

    ‘There was a rich man [the privileged elite] who was dressed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, [belonging to the under-privileged] who longed to satisfy his hunger with what fell from the rich man’s table; even the dogs would come and lick his sores. The poor man died and was carried away by the angels to be with Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried. In Hades, where he was being tormented, he looked up and saw Abraham far away with Lazarus by his side.’ (Lk 16:19ff) Comment: Positive for the under-privileged group. Negative for the privileged group. (Also Lk 12:16-21; 14:16-24; Mt 6:24; 25-34. Both Matthew passages refer to the value-system of the privileged elite).

    Sample 11:

    Now the chief priests and the whole council [the sanhedrin] were looking for testimony against Jesus to put him to death; but they found none. (Mk 14:55)

    The chief priests and the scribes [the privileged elite] were looking for a way to arrest Jesus by stealth and kill him; for they said, ‘Not during the festival, or there may be a riot among the people [the `am ha `aretz] (Mk 14:1-2).’ See Mk 3:9; 20; 4:1; Mt 7:28; 9:8; 13:2, etc.

         Comment: At the time just before Jesus was killed, which these passages describe, we see who Jesus’ friends were and who his enemies were. The privileged group, his enemies, wanted to arrest Jesus but feared Jesus’ friends, the multitude (the under-privileged group).

    Conclusion: Did you discover a consistent pattern, an underlying dynamic, in Jesus’ practice? In other words, what was Jesus’ general attitude/behavior towards the privileged elite, be it regarding their wealth, political power or their value-system? And what was it towards the poor and the outcast?

    No Antiseptic Jesus

    (New heading)

    The Immune Jesus. Our average understanding – outcome of our average religious and theological instruction – sees Jesus taking the pharisees to task for their hypocrisy. But this is as far as it goes. For the rest, Jesus is portrayed one-sidedly as the meek and humble Jesus (which, of course he was), a good and personal friend and brother … and, because he is God, immune to human struggle.

    Without Conflict, There Is No Jesus-Story To Tell. And yet, we cannot understand his life and death properly without understanding it as a conflictive one. Without conflict, there is no Jesus-story to tell. His Kingdom-practice included the strong (counter)positions he took with regard to the sabbath (Mk 3:1-6), purification laws (Mk 7:1-23), justice (Mt 23:23), poverty-riches (Lk 6:24; Mt 6:24), and especially the temple (Mk 13:1-2; 12:1-12).

    Jesus Did Not Die in Bed! Our summit with old friends ends with this reflection: Jesus did not die in bed! Most of us will. Why was his death different from that of most of us? Is it because his life was different from that of most of us? People would normally not be killed for wanting to save souls. But people could want to kill you for proclaiming an alternative world. Such were Purificacion Pedro, Bill Begg, Rey Robles, Joe Tangente, Edgar Jopson, Lorena Barros, Evelio Javier, Tullio Favali, Godofredo Alingal, Emman Lacaba, Rudy Romano, Asuncion Martinez, Satur Neri, Rodrigo Mordeno, Bobby de la Paz, Cecilia Natolin and many others, forgotten by me and unknown to many, known only to their family and close friends and to God. Among these were people who called the alternative world by names other than ‘Kingdom of God.’ No matter. Those among them who, in their tryst with martyrdom were inspired by Jesus, would pointedly recall Jesus’ words: ‘A disciple is not above the teacher, nor a slave above the master; it is enough for the disciple to be like the teacher, and the slave like the master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household!’ (Mt 10:24-25)

    Stamina. That is what the Jesus of this stopover needed. He must have had it. Was it because he was in touch?

    Be Still and Know …