Title: “Whose Got the Power?”
Scripture: Deut 18:15-20, Mark 1:21-28
1/29/06 Fourth Sunday after Epiphany, Yr. B
Rev. Joy R. Haertig
Today's scripture readings bring up issues of knowledge, power and authority, in particular who has the knowledge, power and authority to teach God's ways to the people.
In Deuteronomy we find a transition taking place when the people are aware that Moses will not be with them much longer and they are concerned about having another prophet that can be the bridge between God and the people as he was.
One commentator described Moses with this anachronistic image - Moses had a red phone on his desk with a direct line to God. The people believed this, even though they didn't always like what Moses told them they still wanted to make sure there would be someone else with that “red phone”. They did not want God talking directly to them! “We can't stand the heat”, they told Moses.
In the Gospel of Mark we find Jesus in the temple teaching and healing- the place where the Priests, Pharisees, and the scribes (which could be understood as religious attorneys) have the knowledge, power and authority to teach God's ways to the people.
In today's reading it says that Jesus is teaching as if he has authority - even more authority than a scribe has.
This is confusing to the men that have gathered around to listen.
They thought that only the Priests and the Pharisees had red phones on their desks.
And then of course Jesus does an even more remarkable thing. He confronts an unclean spirit that has taken residence inside of a man. He rebukes the unclean spirit and demands that it come out of him. With much crying and convulsing - the unclean spirit leaves.
The people are even more confused now, for they had never seen anyone do this before. It was believed that only God had this kind of authority, so who was this man Jesus? Could he have the knowledge, power and authority to not only teach the ways of God but do the actions of God?
Whose got the power? They wonder. It turns their worldview upside down.
I did some studying this week in a wonderful commentary that I borrowed from Pastor Ron entitled Reading Mark, engaging the Gospel by David Rhoads, a Professor of New Testament at Lutheran School of Theology in Chicago.
I am using much of his research in what I want to share with you to help us understand more about power and authority lay in Jesus' world. It can be interesting to focus in on the context in which scripture was originally created.
In the first century, the Jewish nation was a Temple state under the imperialistic domination of the Roman Empire. For Jews living there, religious, political and economic life centered around the Temple in Jerusalem.
This Temple was a huge complex that dominated the city. The Temple housed more than two thousand priests at a time! Along with Pharisees and scribes! (Imagine the bureacracy!)
During religious festivals the Temple teemed with thousands of Jews from all over the known world.
The Jewish people believed that God dwelt on earth in the inner sanctuary of the Temple and proper worship would guarantee the prosperity of the nation, the productivity of the land and the security of the nation from foreign domination.
It was believed that Jerusalem was God's holy city and the land was God's holy land.
Israel was a theocracy, a form of government in which God is considered to be the origin and head of state. Within the nation, the high priests had the task of governing the nation within Roman parameters and providing proper worship in the Temple.
The Pharisees and scribes were experts in the interpretation of the Law or Torah, the five books of Moses. As the people of God, the Jews believed that they were set apart to be holy, dedicated to God in their worship and faithfully following God's laws as they were guided by the Pharisees and scribes.
Holiness was a core value for the Jews; therefore the Law of Israel was a very detailed account about how to be holy and pure.
This clarity created order out of a very chaotic world.
It created a clear sense of identity as God's holy people, clearly separating them from the Gentiles, Pagans, and any others that did not and “should” not fit in this order.
It organized Jewish life and it served them well for a long time as they faced being absorbed by dominant cultures time and again. It helped them maintain their beliefs while they also saw themselves as models of purity for other nations.
Apparently it would vary among different sects of Jews how these holiness laws were followed and held up. For some, it was only when they were going to the Temple - for others it was a daily part of their lives.
But ALL sects agreed that it was essential for the Temple to be kept holy.
Only High Priests in a state of purity could enter the Temple court to offer sacrifices, and they offered there only animals classified as pure and without blemish.
All Israelites were to be in a state of purity when they came to worship in the Temple. Otherwise they would defile the Temple. In turn, it was believed that God might destroy the unclean person who came into God's presence in the Temple.
This is to say then that the presence of a man with an “unclean spirit” in the Temple itself would have been an obvious offense against the holiness code.
And his presence was a threat to his own life - God might destroy him.
The job of the Pharisees would have been to get him out of there immediately, and restore in some ritual fashion, the cleanliness of the Temple itself. And any Israelite that was nearby must not touch him or be defiled himself.
Keeping all of this in mind helps us understand why Jesus' act of speaking to the man was in itself shocking, and healing him was literally inconceivable. Jesus broke the holiness law.
The Pharisees would see the man as unclean and defiling the Temple. His presence in the Temple was a way of defiling God.
Jesus saw the man as an opportunity for God's healing spirit to work.
The religious leaders of Jesus' day were dedicated to upholding the laws of purity but by contrast, Jesus, also a Jew, knowing full well what those laws were, Jesus questions and challenges them, time and again.
Who is right?
Who has the knowledge, power and authority to interpret and teach God's ways?
Was/Is God concerned with purity and holiness? What does that really mean?
Who has the red phone?
David Rhoads quotes another researcher in his book by the name of Jonathan Smith who believes these arguments reflect two polar-opposite worldviews.
These worldviews still pit leaders, nations and groups, one against another. As I describe these worldviews from Jesus' day, consider where we find them today, even in our own country.
The dominant worldview creates “God-given” purity laws and boundaries to guard against that which would defile or break down the cohesiveness of that particular worldview.
The first worldview is what Smith calls “the affirmation of one's place” in a limited and hierarchical world where everyone has their given place in God's HOLY order. There was a hierarchy of holiness within their own society.
For example, holiness was not just about following the holiness laws but being whole. Human beings were to conform to a certain classification in a wholistic way. For instance if a human body was handicapped in some way they were considered less than whole and were then marginalized.
The other worldview crosses boundaries and risks defilement to embrace what has been separated from God by mankind.
It is about liberation, redefining boundaries or even erasing oppressive ones.
Example of this with Jesus abound, he healed on the Sabbath, pardoned sinners, talked to a tax collector, drove out unclean spirits, and healed a woman with a flow of blood after she touched him.
Keeping with the theme of knowledge, power and authority then -
the leaders in the first worldview are the one's that keep order, which maintain the God-given order for life. They've got the power.
in Jesus' worldview the leaders are the one's that recognize oppressive boundaries and find ways to cross them or recreate them in order to bring the reign of God to all people. They've got the power.
Both worldviews are concerned with morals and values and being in relationship with God. That's what they have in common even though each worldview does not believe that to be true.
Smith calls these “two basic existential options open to human beings”. He resists giving a higher value to one stance over the other. He writes:
“Order can be creative or oppressive. The transgression of order can be creative or destructive.”
We know so much more about the world today than what was known in the first century, yet we still seem to fight the same battles. We can insert a whole variety of different groups into these worldviews today.
My prayer is that we might find a third way, a third worldview that blends the benefits of the two. Teilhard de Chardin suggests that a house needs both ventilation and insulation. That is a good image for the third way, ventilation and insulation. (Or perhaps another metaphor would be roots and wings)
When we consider who has the knowledge, power and authority to teach us about God and how to live with our neighbors, perhaps we need to consider looking for those wise enough to help us build a third way in our own hearts and to live it into reality.