FINDINGS II
Proper
23- B - October 11, 2009
Mark 10: 17-31
(Amos 5:
6-7, 10-15; Psalm 90: 12-17; Hebrews 4: 12-16
 By Harry T. Cook
10/05/09
RUBRIC
Almost inevitably in literature that emanates from any kind
of messianic movement or whose interpreters are wont to trace its authority to
an unseen (or even seen) deity the reader will generally find radical,
all-or-nothing mandates. One such occurs in the reading from Mark for next
Sunday in which Jesus is depicted as telling one who asked him what the
here-and-now cost of gaining eternal life in the then-and-there would be. The
answer? Beyond observing the mitzvoth by solemn obedience was the matter of
divesting oneself of possessions and giving the proceeds to the poor.
The inquirer, it is said, "went away grieving" because his
lot in life was rich in "many possessions." What made him sad? The work
involved in closing up his domestic shop and walking away with only the clothes
on his back? Or the very prospect of being without the comfort or his
possessions?
Lest there be anything pertinent left without ample clarification,
Mark makes Jesus go on to say that one can more easily shove the end of a
ship's hawser (κάμιλος) or a camel (κάμηλως) through the eye of a needle than
to usher a rich person into the kingdom of God. Let it be understood that the
eyes of first century C.E. needles were generally broader and longer than those
we see in our grandmothers' etuis. Yet, the figure holds its fascination.
"Kingdom of God" is an opaque image. In the 21st century, we
scorn kings and kingdoms, preferring democrats and democracies. It may help to
know that the Greek New Testament word (βασιλεία) commonly translated "kingdom"
can also mean "domain" or "rule." I prefer the term "rule." As to "God," what
can anyone say? The gospel of Matthew, for different reasons than I would use
it, uses the term "kingdom (or rule) of heaven."
For rational 21st century people, "heaven" means neither a spatial or nor a temporal
entity but a quality of life in the here-and-now that can be achieved through self-regulated
human behavior.
Taken in that fashion, it is the unlikelihood of a rich
person placing himself under "the rule of heaven" that is being talked about.
The "rule of heaven," i.e., a social and civil society in which there is
serious redistributive economic justice (yes, I'm talking about a form of
socialism) is always and loudly objected to by those with the most to be
redistributed.
WORKSHOP
How to appreciate the phenomenon of wealth? How to
distinguish wealth from sufficiency, and sufficiency from want? These are
questions that are raised, albeit not directly in this Marcan text. It seems clear
that the natural constituency of a person who spoke as Jesus was given to speak
came from the ranks of those who, in a word image coined by J.D. Crossan,
straddled the line between poverty and destitution* and were probably, most of
them, what we would call today "day laborers." If that is true, then the only
way to understand Jesus' warning against the grasping of wealth is to see it as
yet another challenge of the establishment. One inference is that the natural
pre-occupation with the maintenance and conservation of wealth in whatever form
insulates one from the reality of those who are poor.
The question is the inheritance of eternal life -- the Greek
at this place seems to suggest the dimensions of depth and breadth rather than
length. The term "inherit" in the Greek suggests further that the eternal life
the man sought is really his by right. So the question was, "Is there anything
I need to do beyond keeping the commandments to claim my inheritance?"
The impossible retort to that -- and a back-handed insult to
Torah (repository of the commandments) -- is, "Yes. One more thing. Sell all
you own and distribute the proceeds to the poor." That is reminiscent of
"giving up your coat as well as your cloak" (Matthew 5:40) -- That "one more
thing" could not have been received by an overhearing establishment as anything
other than an in-your-face challenge of its values and aspirations -- just as
President Obama's vision of health care for all is seen by the entrenched
interests as tantamount to larceny. In the text, it was the man's wealth that
was directly in the path his fulfilling as
opposed to obeying the commandments.
That's what Mark's Jesus was talking about.
It is bad enough that the man, shocked by his rude lesson,
goes away sorrowful because he owned so much, but Jesus is made by Mark to add
a midrash further critical of possessions. V. 23b says, pronouncement-like,
"How hard it will be for those who have wealth to find a place in the rule of
heaven" (my translation.). "How hard it will be" is a difficult Greek word δυσκόλως).
It means something like "difficult to satisfy." Could it be that what is meant
is that "the rule of heaven" isn't rich enough for those who are already rich?
The idea that many who are now "first" will later be "last"
is messianic in nature, as in "In that great day to come when we settle the hash
of the rich, they'll be poor, and you who are now poor will have their wealth."
That reminds one of the beatitude "Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the rule
of heaven" (Matthew 5:3). Or even the Magnificat: "He hath put down the mighty
from their seat, and hath exalted the humble and meek. He hath filled the
hungry with good things, and the rich he hath sent empty away" (Luke 1: 52-53).
The Marcan text is backed up nicely by the others readings
appointed in the RCL to accompany it: "How great is your transgression you who
push aside the needy in the gate" (Amos) and from Hebrews with its reminder
that such words as one reads in scripture are "sharper than any two-
edged sword" (Hebrews).
* Crossan,
J.D., Who Is Jesus? p. 51.
HOMILETIC COMMENTARY
"Go sell what you own and give the money to the poor; then,
come, follow me." Is that what one must do to be a true Christian? But Jesus
was by all evidence a Jew. If everyone who heard that admonition took it to
heart, more people than not would be poor. Does that make sense? This cannot be
a mandate for universal divestiture.*
In my own case, besides the house I own (actually the bank
owns it until some time in the next Ice Age when my mortgage is paid off), I
don't own much that would bring any significant amount if I did or could sell
it. When I moved out of my church study after 21 years, I needed to find a home
for a few hundred books I could not fit into my new study upstairs in our house.
I couldn't even give them away. And who would buy my clothing? I took some of
it recently to a social service center where I volunteer, and I notice much of
it is still there. So I can't even give my clothing away, much less sell it.
I don't know anything I own that would bring much at sale
and thus make much of a dent in anyone's poverty. Yet I think, except by the
most brittle biblio-idolatrists, it is widely agreed upon that the practice of both
Judaism and Christianity has got to entail some significant attention to the
needs of other people.
I have mentioned the social service agency at which I am
privileged to serve as a volunteer counselor. After working with persons to
determine actual and immediate need, I give out food, clothing, bus tickets,
prescription vouchers and a lot of advice about a lot of things. I come home exhausted
each week from my day there, wondering where it will all end. I know that if I
sold everything I own and turned over the money to the poor, all I'm worth
wouldn't make much of a difference, nor for very long, to any of the ones we
serve there. And I am by no means poor.
That realization has helped me to see that a total,
from-the-bottom-up revolution is absolutely necessary in this and most
countries. That so much wealth is held so closely by so relatively few cannot
possibly be the way things should be. That the possessions of a hundred
families like my own would not, sold even at fire sale prices, make a dime's
worth of difference to a week's worth of clients at my social service center
means that there is something terribly wrong.
Mark said the man asked Jesus what he had to do to insure
his own eternal life. The answer was, in so many words, let go of this one.
Maybe the two words "let go" are the key to the whole puzzle. As one wise old
parish priest once said, "Why do you suppose people suffer to be uncomfortable
in the backside by sitting on their wallets?"
*
Mann, C.S., Mark Anchor
Bible Series 27, p. 401.
| |
