Text study
ICCJ-conference, Monday June 30, 2003.

Readings:
Mark 12, 28-34
Acts 10, 1-2, 34-35.

Although I have only got ten minutes, I will present not just a bit of exegesis, but I will also try to put (especially for myself) some tough questions.
The main question is: Why are the texts, on which I am invited to reflect as the Christian dialogue-partner, chosen from the New Testament? This question means that I want to do – as we theologians  call it – some hermeneutics. I wish to make things more complicated. I believe hermeneutics is one of the most important issues – or perhaps the most important one – in bilateral and trilateral  dialogue.

So, first I look behind the scene of the ICCJ and the organization of this conference. I hope I will not be misunderstood, if I put some hard, and perhaps uncomfortable questions:

  1. Why, I repeat, does the Christian partner in this session have only some texts from the NT to reflect upon? Is this part of the Christian Bible regarded as the most holy and central one? Why are no texts taken from the OT, which is also – for as long or even longer - part of  ‘Christian’ tradition like the NT?
  2. And why exactly these texts? The texts of the Jewish partner are probably selected to prove that these Tenach-texts demonstrate a very universalistic outlook, and that Judaism is therefore not so particularistic, as many people might think. And no doubt  the NT-texts are there to prove, that Jesus was completely Jewish, and that the apostle Peter did respect God-fearing Gentiles, like Cornelius. He is depicted in Acts 10 as ‘a devout man, who feared God with al his household’. My question is: Is that news for us in this conference? I do not think so. Have we not reached a stage in dialogue, where we know by now the common ground and are able to face our differences? Should we go on to search diligently, strategically aiming at harmonizing our traditions or should we learn to respect our differences?
  3. Should we not take into account that there is no objective and fully scientific text-study possible (Gadamer, Ricoeur), certainly not between committed adherents to a specific religion? Everybody has his/her own context, horizon, preferences and hidden agenda’s. The dialogue becomes only serious and interesting, when we try to bring all these elements into the discussion.
  4. Should we not, much more than is usually done, take into account the Wirkungsgeschichte (influence in history) of these texts and especially the way in which our traditions explained these texts? Because for most of  the committed members of a certain religion the tradition is decisive, in which a text is authoritatively explained?  

But now to the texts themselves.
Sort. Too short. Only a few remarks, in points:

Concerning Mark 12, 28-34:

  1. It is not news here, I hope, that Jesus is a Jew? That also the gospel of Mark (in ch. 12, 28-34) tells that the Shema is most central to Jesus’ Jewish identity? And that he quotes from Lev 19, when he stresses: ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself’? So far, so clear. 
  2. It is less clear, where the combination of the two central commandments is derived from. Many scholars argue that it has a Hellenistic-Jewish background, perhaps most comparable with sayings of Philo.
  3. This so-called Great Commandment had a tremendous impact on Christian theology and tradition. Two quotes only: John Calvin: ‘God asks from us here love in stead of adoration, while He wants to tell us, that He likes our service only out of free love’ (Institutes II, 214). Karl Barth: ‘In der Liebe zu Gott ist der Mensch nicht allein gelassen, denn Liebe zum Nächsten gibt es nur in der Liebe zu Gott’(KD, I/2, 423-429).
  4. Our short Scripture reading leads to the next part, where a discussion is described on Jesus’ Messiah-ship as the Son of David. So, we should not try to use our text in Mark for any Jewish-Christian harmonization.

 

Concerning Acts 10: 1-2, 34-35:

  1. Cornelius, the Roman centurio in Caesarea, was probably a God-fearer, close to the synagogue, a fundraiser for Jewish projects, well-accepted in the Jewish community. There was probably not organized and direct Jewish missionary activity in the first century.
  2. The message of Acts 10 is clear for a Christian readership: Gentiles have to be equally welcomed like Jews into the new Jesus-communities , because the Holy Spirit Himself had made no distinction, when His power was poured out over ‘all flesh’, Jews and Gentiles alike.
  3. The beginning of Peter’s sermon before Cornelius is a very friendly ‘open door’: ‘Truly, I perceive that God shows no partiality, but in every nation one, who fears Him and does what is right, is acceptable to Him’. That is universal openness, not empty tolerance.
  4. But in the next sentence of the sermon the particularity is already there: ‘The word which God sent to Israel, preaching the good news of peace of Jesus Christ (He is the Lord of all)’. So, you see, it makes a lot of difference, where you start and where you break off a reading from Holy Scripture, both in a church service and in a ICCJ-conference.

Conclusion: We have to try to find in our traditions the right balance between universality and particularity.

Simon Schoon