I want to pick up on yesterday's post, with a small diversion into a piece of exegesis we looked at during a recent meeting of the Christian Praxis Group.
The text is Mark 12:27-34. This is the story of the scribe who asks 'which is the first commandment of all?' (v28) Verse 27 picks up at the end of the previous story where Jesus tells the Sadducees, 'you are quite wrong'.
The next approach in verse 28 is from a scribe, someone of a lower status than the Sadducees, who acted as an interpreter of scripture, someone with knowledge. They were not all teachers and not all teachers were scribes.
This is the last conflict before the Passion where Jesus makes the radical assertion that love of God and love of neighbour are one thing. The clue to this is in verse 31, where Jesus says 'there is nothing greater than these two commandments'. I have already argued that this is not a hierarchy of love: God then neighbour then self. From the perspective of God there is no distinction between self and neighbour; after all I am my neighbour's neighbour and God cares for me through them as God cares for them through me. This goes further and asserts that love for God and neighbour are one and the same.
The scribe replies that Jesus has spoken the truth (v32) and then in verse 34 Jesus sees the scribe has responded intelligently (Greek: nounechos). This word can be translated in other ways such as intelligently, with nous or gumption, thoughtfully, wisely or mindfully. Jesus verdict is that he is not far from the Kingdom of heaven. To be contrasted with his last exchange with the Sadducees (verse 27).
So, this scribe was a good man, but not good enough. He sees the importance of both commandments but does not see they are in fact the same. His love for God is intellectual; the idea is the enemy of the deed. The expectation is to think clearly but to be on the side of the people.
The danger for any intellectual is they objectify relationships in the name of rationality; in the name of being right. It is a subtle distinction but love of truth is not the same as love of people. This is the distinction Kim is attempting between boundary overcoming and apocalyptic communities. The challenge is not to abandon truth but to place truth at the service of those who are in most need of it.
This video comes at the question from another direction entirely. It is also very funny. Take note of the remarks about improvisation near the start. (NB I can't shrink it or get rid of the duplicate - so enjoy it twice!)
Comments