NOT MY DAUGHTERS: JOSEPH SMITH, POLYGAMY AND POLYANDRY

I went on a mission not knowing hardly anything about Joseph Smith's plural wives. I can admit that fact knowing that most LDS missionaries are in the same boat. I knew that polygamy was practiced among early LDS church members, but I didn't understand why it was practiced, if Joseph Smith (JS) practiced it, how many wives JS had, and if he had any offspring from his multiple wives. Again, I know my ignorance is not rare among LDS missionaries, which is why I don't mind sharing it. So when I was first asked if JS practiced polygamy I didn't know what to say to myself or to other people. It was an issue I hoped people would not bring up. "If they do bring it up, just tell them polygamy was practiced for economic stability on behalf of the widows." That's what I was told, so that's what I said.

I can't blame anyone for my ignorance, but polygamy is a taboo topic in LDS Church meetings. If we talk about polygamy, say in Sunday School, it is glossed over, typically ending with the conclusion stated above - economic reasons. I really don't feel like I missed some huge lesson in seminary about the ins and outs of polygamy (LDS seminary = early morning bible study during high school). I went to Sunday School. And what seminary teacher is taught and given materials to approach the topic of LDS early practice of polygamy in detail? None to my knowledge.

I was lucky to serve my mission in Chile. I say I was lucky because I think more people in the States are aware of early Mormon polygamy practices than the general populous in Chile, so I could avoid the topic. It was easy to avoid since it wasn't part of the discussions I was told to teach. I never ran into someone that wanted more of an explanation than the economic statement made above. I didn't start learning more about LDS polygamy until I returned from my mission and started fielding questions from classmates in college. Kind of embarrasing, really, to come home from a mission but know practically nothing about a practice that plays such a big role in LDS Church history and JS's theology.

So I explored.

In reading some materials I quickly learned that JS married multiple women, not for economic support, but for obedience to God's command. I had a conceptualization of JS that did not include the feature of polygamy, but suddenly, the realization that JS did practice polygamy causes one's mental image of JS to either remain vacant of this historical reality (self-deception) or allow this new knowledge to shape one's mental picture of JS.

JS had multiple wives. He practiced polygamy.

I'm okay with that.
I think most Mormons are.
JS had some 30 wives.
That's cool.
No problem.

A few years pass by and I learn that not only did JS have multiple wives:

1.  JS married teenagers. He married a girl, Nancy Winchester, for example, who was either fourteen or fifteen years old when married to JS. There were others: Helen Mar Kimball (14), Fanny Alger (16), Flora Ann Woodworth (16). There are other young women that JS married that I would consider underage.
2. JS married women that were married to other men still alive. Let that sink in: JS married the wives of men that were still alive. This is called polyandry. This is a new word I had to allow into my vocabulary. But it's not like learning a new word for the joy of learning, this is about learning a new word because your hero is practicing the act of marrying a woman who is already married. They never told me that in seminary.
3. JS married a woman (married) and her daughter (also married). In 1842 JS married Sylvia Sessions Lyon. Later that year JS married Patty Bartlett Sessions. Patty is the mother of Sylvia.

So what do I do with this information? This isn't just a man marrying consenting, unmarried and cognitively mature women. This is a man sealing himself to young girls, women - some still married to another man - and sealing himself to a daughter and her mother. This isn't economic security for poor and starving widows. What is this?

What if it was okay back in the 19th century for men to marry young women as young as 14/15 yrs. old? Social scientists estimate that the average age of marriage for women in 1840 was 21-22 years of age. Marrying a 14 year old is an outlier. Not normal. Not okay.

I really don't think I need to ask the question if polyandry was okay.

So here I am wondering what to do with a prophet that at one point in my life was possibly connected to polygamy, but is now married to single women, some women still married and some teenagers. This is kind of a punch in the face. What? My JS married a 14yr old?

JS had multiple wives. He practiced polygamy. He practiced polyandry. He married teenagers.

I'm okay with that?
I think most Mormons are?
JS had some 30 wives?
That's cool?
No problem?

You know what? I'm not okay with this. I'm not okay with anyone who wants to marry, seal or commit any marriage-like ceremony with a 14 year old. Not O.K. I've got daughters and I don't care if you're a prophet, president of the United States or whatever high and mighty title you claim, no one is touching my girls, or any other teenager for that matter and claiming them as sealed/married. In fact, I'm going to teach my girls to kick anyone's ass if they try something like this. I'd apologize for the crued language but maybe it can wake some of us up from the idea that a prophet has special permission from God to do these things. He doesn't. No one does. This is wrong.

And I'm not okay with any man marrying another man's wife. I really don't feel like I need to say much on this point. It's standard now and it was standard then. Married = off limits. I would like to think that most people, especially a prophet, can respect that.

Issue #1: What do I do with JS? Do I continue to hold him up as a prophet of God, able to communicate with the divine, when in fact this divine communication brought about, what I consider, a revolting practice (Again, not just polygamy, but polyandry and marrying teenagers)? Maybe I can turn a blind eye to this reality and look upon the edited history taught to me at Sunday School as all I need. But my brain just can't filter out what actually happened so that I can shape history the way I want it. This happened and it is wrong.

Issue #2: Why wasn't I told? Why wasn't this taught to me before going out on a mission? Shouldn't missionaries teaching people about the restoration and the prophetic calling of JS be made aware of a major piece of his teachings and practices? Shouldn't the people converting to Mormonism also be made aware of this significant feature of the prophet of the restoration? This seems like deception, in my opinion.

Yeah, I know I am a bit emotional about this, but I really feel deceived. Not telling the whole truth is the same as lying, in my opinion. And I highly doubt you would allow your 14yr old daughter to marry a grown man. At least, I hope you wouldn't. We would call such a man a perve, pedophile, etc. Why do we make an exception for JS?

I haven't done any research to find out if there is any evidence to suggest that JS had sexual relations or children with the additional women with whom he married. I don't know if I can handle that right now.

Search Ponder Pray Repeat





 














        

PARABLES OF ACTION: NOTES FROM CROSSAN'S IN PARABLES (Chapter Four)

Parables of Action

• The tendency in the tradition of parable interpretation is to look down upon the allegorizing of parables (i.e. Augustine's treatment of the Good Samaritan), but there is a general acceptance of moralizing the parables (i.e J. Jeremias).

Parables and Ethics

• There was a profound clash between Jesus and the Pharisees, but later Christian hostility has distorted the actual nature of this confrontation. The Pharisees are erroneously described as hypocrites (you must do what we won't) or uncaring legalists. In fact, the Pharisees were great moral teachers and guides, "But there precisely lay the problem which Jesus and Paul saw so clearly."

"When Christianity is no longer aware of what Jesus and Paul were fighting against in Pharisaic Judaism, it can hardly be conscious of a similar presence within itself. The debate did not concern good law as over against bad law or even internal and sincere law as over against external and hypocritical law. The challenge of Jesus and of Paul was this: obedience does not lead to God, but God leads one to obedience. The question is not God or law, covenant or commandment, faith or works, but, granting both, in which direction does the arrow fly from one to the other? It must be emphasized that this is not a debate between Judaism and Christianity but a conflict within them both, and a conflict ever ancient and ever new. So, according to Jesus and Paul, it was the gift of God's presence that made a good life possible, not a good life that made the reward of God's presence inevitable."

"The righteousness of God does not presuppose our obedience; it creates it." - Earnst Kasemann.

• The parables of Jesus seek to draw us into the Kingdom of God and to act by the gift received therein.
• Ethics seeks to form a logic mode of acting out the best possible way of Being. But parables subvert ethics. Parables leave us wondering what to do. They are not a clear program or list of instructions. We enter the Holy of Holies to find it empty.

The parables overthrow ethics, just as Matt. 5:39 overthrows the typical response to violence: "if any one strikes you on the right cheek turn to him the other also." "It intends us to experience how the logic of ethics is undermined by the mystery of God and that, if one can but accept it, is the most crucial moral experience of all.... Can we walk and act in utter serenity and in utter insecurity, in total concern and in total incertitude?"

The Action Parables: The Parable of the Treasure (Serves as a paradigmatic parable for Crossan; Matt. 13:44)

1. The Advent - The Finding of the Treasure
2. The Reversal - He Goes (altering his original plan)
3. The Action - The purchase of the field

• Gos of Thom 98:31-99:3: 1) No mention of the buyer selling everything he had to purchase the field. The treasure was found after he purchased the field and was found after plowing the field (It takes hard work for one to find their true Gnostic self); 2) It tells us what the buyer did with the treasure after he found it, "to lend money to whomever he wished."

"Jesus' parables challenge one to life and action within the Kingdom but they leave that life and that action as absolute in its call as it is unspecified in its detail."

Situations Depicted in Parables of Action

1. The Decision is Made - Friend at Midnight (Luke 11:5-8); The Unjust Judge (Luke 18:2-5)
2. The Decision is Not Made - Rich Fool (Luke 12:16-20; Gos. Thom. 92:3-10); The Man Who Lack a Wedding Garment (Matt. 22:11-14). The Bridesmaids depicts both #1 and #2 (Matt. 25:1-13).

The Servant Parables (Crossan discusses nine servant parables and groups them. This grouping is important for his conclusion, so I provide one example of each group).

Group A: The Parable of the Talents

      Matt. 25:14-30

• Matt. 25:16-18 does not appear in Luke, suggesting this portion came to Matthew through his source and supports originality. This passage functions as a way to draw listeners immediately into the world of the parable.
• Matt. 25:30 is not original because of its "allegorical character, explicit eschatological application, and Matthean vocabulary." The original ending is most likely in Matt. 25:28 because it functions to recall Matt. 25:20.

      Luke 19:12-27

• Note the common phrases between Matt. 18:24-29 and Luke 19:20-26.
• Luke 19:27 can be omitted since it is a part of the Throne Claimant and originally has nothing to do with the Parable of the Talents.
• Luke 19:24 matches Matt. 25:28 supporting this as the original ending of the parable.

"The main story is quiet clear as is its use of the standard folkloric threesome. Two servants are rewarded for their work and a third is punished for his prudent if useless inactivity."

Group B: The Vineyard Workers

      Matt. 20:1-13

• There is a consensus that 20:16 is the original ending. "So the last will be first, and the first last," is not original being a repeated phrase from 19:30, and 19:30 coming from Mark 10:31. Most scholars accept 1:1-15 as the basic original story. Crossan argues that the ending of this parable is the rhetorical question of vs. 13.

"The owner does not pay the first the least and the last the most. In that story the hearer would have to wonder at the clear 'injustice' of such an action. Jesus must create a story which is quite possible and which does not raise irrelevant moral considerations. It is reversal of expectation which is central: 'they thought' in 20:10."

"What comes across most forcibly within our present purpose is that this parable shatters utterly the normalcy of Group A and brings to a climax the drive of Group B and the Servant Parables."

Structure and Oral Tradition

People who live in a writing culture, the phrase 'ipsissma verba' means exactly that, 'the very words.' In contrast, in a culture that operates on a more oral tradition, 'ipsissma verba' addresses more of the structure of a story, and less the exact repetition of words. Thus, Jesus probably shared his teachings on multiple occasions, staying true to a general structure and not exact verbage. It is more accurate to speak of tradition than original parable.

Crossan agrees to a point, but states, "In so far as we can legitimately generalize from the case of the servant parables, then, it would seem that the parabolic creativity of Jesus consisted in variations of structure within the same theme and in variations of content within the same structure but not in variations of detail within the same content."

Interpretation of the Structure

While parables alone function as a way to present the Kingdom, Crossan argues that the very structure of the Servant Parables does the same. "Here it is not a short proverb or even a long parable which is in question. It is an entire parabolic theme which is developed in one set of parables (Group A) and then reversed and overthrown in another (Group B)." The block of parables of Group A set up the latter reversal performed by Group B.

"Like a wise and prudent servant calculating what he must do in the critical reckoning to which his master summons him, one must be ready and willing to respond in life and action to the eschatological advent of God. But, unfortunately, the eschatological advent of God will always be precisely that for which wise and prudent readiness is impossible because it shatters also our wisdom and our prudence."

Search Ponder Pray Repeat

PARABLES OF REVERSAL: NOTES FROM CROSSAN'S IN PARABLES (Chapter Three)

The Good Samaritan (GS; Luke 10:30-37)

"The example of the despised half-breed was intended to teach him that no human being was beyond the range of charity. The law of love called him to be ready at any time to give his life for another's need." - J. Jeremias

"The story certainly leaves no doubt that what really matters is to act as the Samaritan did ... in the same simplicity ... governed completely by the need of the man who confronts us." - E. Linnemann

"The parable is not a pleasant tale about the Traveller Who Did His Good Deed: it is a damning indictment of social, racial, and religious superiority." - G.V. Jones

(1) The Meaning for Luke:

• Scholarly consensus has the GS as an 'example parable' (sets a good example for the audience). This is based on the parable's overture of Lk. 10:25-29 and the admonition in vs. 37, "'Go, and do likewise.'"
• Crossan's Thesis: The present context of the GS in 10:25-29 and 10:37 is not original and cannot be used in interpreting the meaning of the parable.
• Evidence of Thesis (summary): 1) The presence of the context but not the parable in Mark; 2) the divergent uses of the term 'neighbor' in context and parable in Luke.
• Four Units to the GS:

1. The Question Concerning Eternal Life (10:25-28): The question concerning eternal life is similar to the question of the greatest commandment in Mark 12:28-31 and Matt. 23:34-40, indicating that a citation of Deut 6:5 and Lev. 19:18 (the two great commandments) was present in both Q and Mark. Matthew conflates Q and Mark, while Luke prefers Q over Mark (compare synoptic passages already cited).   
2. The Question Regarding One's Neighbor (10:29): In 10:25-28 the neighbor is still the one who receive the help; the recipient, not the helper. "And who is my neighbor?" 10:29 does not exist in Mark or Matthew. "Mark does not know this second question and Matthew does not accept it from Q."   
3. The Parable of the GS (10:30-35): Logical inconsistency between the meaning of 'neighbor' in 10:27,29 and in 10:36. The parable is pulled in two directions. In 27,29 the neighbor is the recipient of the helper (the man on the roadside). In 36 the neighbor is the helper who provides assistant to the recipient (the samaritan). Indicates inauthenticity of the dialogue between Jesus and the questioner. Crossan proposes that 10:25-28(29) and 10:30-36(37) were two seperate units combined by Luke because of their common theme of 'neighbor'. The disharmony of these two units is a remnant of their once separateness.     
4. The Conclusion with Question and Final Admonition (10:36-37): The question of 10:36 serves as an excellent rhetorical question to end the parable. "the change from this unanswered rhetorical question in 10:36 to the question-and-answer format in 10:36-37a is an obvious change as soon as the questioner became identified as an individual lawyer or scribe. This would argue that the original ending was 10:36." The final answer of 10:37 serves as a nice ending to the question of the lawyer in 10:25.

• Summary: "This is not an authentic dialogue between a lawyer and Jesus in 10:30-37; neither is it two original controversy dialogues in 10:25-28 and 10:29-37 word-linked by 'neighbor.'" The single controversy of 10:25-28 has been expanded to include the parable of 10:30-37. The parable of the GS was originally independent of its present context.   

(2) The Meaning for Jesus:

• What does GS mean without the surrounding context? What if it's just 10:30-36?
• First climax comes in the reaction of the priest and Levite/saw/passed by on the other side, juxtaposed with the Samaritan/saw/had compassion. The Second climax is in the final rhetorical question, "Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor ...?"
• At the second climax the details of the Samaritan's actions come into importance. "When the hearer is confronted with the rhetorical question in 10:36 he might negate the entire process by simply denying that any Samaritan would so act. So, before the question can be put, the hearer must see, feel, and hear the goodness of the Samaritan for himself."  
• The Importance of 'Samaritan': "Most importantly, if he [Jesus] wanted to inculcate love of one's enemies, it would have been radical enough to have a Jewish person stop and assist a wounded Samaritan. But when the story is read as one told by the Jewish Jesus to a Jewish audience, and presumably in a Jerusalem setting, this original historical context demands that the 'Samaritan' be intended and heard as the socio-religious outcast which he was... The whole thrust of the story demands that one say what cannot be said, what is a contradiction in terms: Good + Samaritan... But when good (clerics) and bad (Samaritan) become, respectively, bad and good, a world is being challenged and we are faced with polar reversal" (emphasis mine).
• From Parable to Example: "The literal point confronted the hearers with the necessity of saying the impossible and having their world turned upside down and radically questioned in its presuppositions. The metaphorical point is that just so does the Kingdom of God break abruptly into human consciousness and demand the overturn of prior values, closed options, set judgments, and established conclusions... The hearer struggling with the contradictory dualism of Good/Samaritan is actually experiencing in and through this the inbreaking of the Kingdom."

Search Ponder Pray Repeat

MAWWAGE. MAWWAGE IS WHAT BWINGS US TOGETHAW TODAY

Mawwage. Mawwage is what bwings us togethaw today.... Have you the wing? - The Princess Bride

My wife and I watch a show on PBS called Downton Abbey. It’s a drama wherein the main characters live through a major event in history - WWI. Mary, the damsel in distress, is caught between two worlds. There is the old world - represented by her grandmother - where aristocratic women marry for heritage, power and position. Then there is the emerging world - represented by the younger sister and her undetermined relationship with the chauffeur - where social lines once dark and bold are now permeable and faded. The possibility of marrying for love regardless of social class presents itself into the old world while in the lower class marriage for duty emerges suddenly (Daisy the kitchen maid fulfilling the dying wish of William). Mary is caught in the change, trying to understand the balance between personal emotion and social responsibility in her world where everything is changing, including marriage.

Yes, the story is fictional, but it provides an entertaining example about one of the central qualities to the institution of marriage – it changes. Marriage is not a concrete form of relationship that has served only one purpose or comes in one package throughout the history of humanity. Marriage is subject to change and is moldable to have meaning and purpose for a variety of contexts. In one world people marry for power and position. In another, people marry for love. In another, people marry to have children. Thus, we should ever be mindful of the shifting plate on which marriage rests (Note: This does not scratch the surface of the diversity of marriage relationships that have existed in the world. For example, matriarchal societies. Also, the tribes of Israel emerge not from one man and one woman(Gen. 35:22-26), and polygamy in the early LDS Church).

Is there a constant? Is there a variable in marriage that is the same no matter what the context? Does this constant define the purpose of marriage?

Is Procreation the Constant?

Does the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth serve as the divine instruction to access the very ethos of marriage? Well, it is for many couples, but not all couples can procreate. I want to be sensitive to those that may have lived through this experience. I can only imagine the struggle of being denied children by uncontrollable factors. So if a couple cannot have children, does the marriage dissolve? Does the couple separate, accepting that the central tenet of marriage (procreation) is unachievable? Of course not (I hope not). The relationship is not determined by the ability to procreate. The love is based on something deeper than the ability to have children. In fact, the situation brings many couples closer. A stronger connection forms wherein love is clearly not determined by the ability to procreate. If the only reason you are with someone is because they can produce babies or because they have active sperm, that’s a pretty shallow relationship. That’s like telling your wife she’s nothing more than a baby maker, or telling your husband he’s a sperm bank. Human relationships are more personal than that. It doesn’t seem like procreation is the constant variable in marriage. If it were, then God is setting up many couples to never access it, and I don’t think God would set people up for failure (1 Nephi 3:7).

I’m not arguing that procreation is no longer important as a reason for marriage, or that God is ambivalent to this function in the marriage relationship. There is a valid expectation for a couple to have children. But I simply want to stress that procreation is not possible for all people, and thus serves as a possibility in many marriage relationships, but is not the constant. God gives marriage as something special for all of humanity, and in this special relationship there is meaning, companionship, and love. Children may or may not be part of the marriage. Either way, the marriage is to go on, uniting two people in a bond deeper than procreative ability.   

What is the constant variable in marriage if it’s not procreation? What is at the core of marriage that makes it an important part of life and existence? I turn to a sampling of scriptures that I hope will be helpful in answering these questions.

Genesis 2:18-25

While it’s true that Adam chose Eve, it’s also true that Adam chose Eve, meaning that he had options. In verse 18 God declares that it’s not good for man to be alone, and therefore God makes a helper. Verse 19 begins with “So ...” demonstrating that the proceeding versus are connected with this intent of God to create a helper for Adam. So does God create Eve? Eventually. First, he makes a bunch of animals, allowing Adam to name them, look at them, even judge them as possible helpers, “but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner.” (Note: ‘helper’ does not mean someone to make babies. Adam is looking for companionship. One can have companionship without making babies). At this point God pulls a rib from Adam and makes Eve. Adam chooses Eve as his helper: “This is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called Woman, for out of Man this one was taken.” And this helps explain why men and women come together in the bonds of what we call matrimony (vss. 24-25). The point I would like to make is that Adam got to participate in this process of choosing his helper. God supplies Adam freedom to choose and options to choose from. I would like to stress also that the idea of helper does not automatically mean, ‘baby maker.’ The underlining concern is for Adam to have companionship - to not be alone in this world.

Hosea

Hosea is commanded by God to marry a prostitute (How’d you like the prophet gettin’ that revelation?). Well it functions as an analogy to describe the relationship of Israel and God. No, God’s not the prostitute. Israel has been ‘sleeping’ with idols, being unfaithful to its ‘husband’, God. But this is the part that strikes me. God remains faithful to Israel: “On that day, says the Lord, you [Israel] will call me, ‘My husband,’ and no longer will you call me, ‘My Baal’...; and I will make you lie down in safety. And I will take you for my wife forever; I will take you for my wife in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love, and in mercy. I will take you for my wife in faithfulness; and you shall know the Lord” (2:16-20). So in this relationship, God is not focused on Isreal’s ability to reproduce. What upsets God is Israel’s unfaithfulness. God will take the unfaithful Israel and make her his wife in righteousness, justice, steadfast love, mercy, and faithfulness (Ezekiel 16 conveys a similar message).

Hebrews 13:4-7

In this passage I find a similar theme of faithfulness in marriage and as a quality of God.

“Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral. Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, ‘Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you.’ So we say with confidence, ‘The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid. What can human beings do to me?’ Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith.”

What I gather from this sampling of scriptures (not exhaustive, I know) are three things: 1) Marriage is not about choosing a sexual partner alone. It is about companionship; finding a helper in this difficult world; 2) God creates, endowing his creation with freedom to choose; 3) God is concerned with the faithfulness of his people and utilizes marriage as an appropriate metaphor to illustrate this neglected quality. God wants faithfulness both in our relationships with each other and with God.

Homosexuals and the Law of Chastity

According to the law of chastity (as I understand it), heterosexual people are not to engage in sexual activity until after marriage. Sexual activities are restricted to the monogamous relationship formed in and after the marriage ceremony. Homosexuals are held to the same standard. They too can only marry a person of the opposite sex and engage in sexual activities with that one person after the marriage ceremony. If a heterosexual or homosexual person cannot marry, they are to remain celibate for life. So if a homosexual finds the love of their life in someone of the same sex, too bad. Either remain celibate for life or marry as the heterosexual does.

Let’s reverse the roles. What if the law of chastity only allowed for sexual activity after marriage of exclusively homosexual couples? Heterosexual people are either to remain celibate or marry someone of the same gender in order to enter into a valid marriage covenant. If this scenario were true, I would break the law. I am a proud woman-lover and to deny that fact would be to deny my very biology, the very thing God made me to be. In this hypothetical I would be the one waving the rainbow flag, demanding for equality and the right to marry the woman I love. Straight pride!

When I reverse the roles and put myself in the shoes of homosexuals, I completely see the double standard that exists today: Heterosexual couples can marry for love, but homosexuals can’t. Why would God not want me, or anyone for that matter, to choose a companion in the freedom divinely bestowed on humanity since the Garden of Eden? If marriage was exclusively centered on procreation, then I could maybe see the ban placed on homosexual marriage. But then we would need to remain consistent and either not allow marriage between people that cannot procreate or dissolve the marriage when a couple discovers they cannot have children of their own. I'm not willing to do either. The love between two heterosexual people is real, even if they cannot have children. I would never destroy that. Likewise, I would never want to come between the love of two homosexual people just because they cannot have children of their own. Their love is just as real as the love I have for my wife.      

Conclusion

We are living in an interesting time of change. It is much like Downton Abbey, where dark bold lines are now permeable. At one point in our culture, interracial marriage was impossible, and now, thank God, most of us can see past skin color. So what else will cross the line? It seems gender is no longer a limiting factor that restricts the formation of deep meaningful and long lasting relationships. No longer does the color of skin stop the budding of love between two people, and we now wonder if marriage is possible for homosexuals.

Marriage is a covenantal relationship between two people and God; a relationship based on love, respect, mercy, forgiveness, and faithfulness. It is a relationship where God is steadfast and faithful in binding the couple together, walking with them in their lives as partners. Each person in the marriage personifies the love and faithfulness of God as best as humanly possible in service and honor to the other. We make God’s love and faithfulness palpable. Faithfulness, the quality of marriage that many heterosexual couples struggle to uphold, is the constant of marriage. Faithfulness defines the marriage relationship. Without it, the marriage crumbles. With it, the love is made real and manifest. Marriage through the ages has changed in so many ways, but there is the constant expectation in its many forms of faithfulness.

Forgive one another.
Respect one another.
Love one another.
Grow together.
Be faithful.

Will Mary embrace her love for Matthew?

Search Ponder Pray Repeat

PARABLES OF ADVENT: CROSSAN'S IN PARABLES (Chapter Two)

Parables of Advent: Parables functioning to describe the coming of the Kingdom of God.

1. Discovery and Joy: The Parable of the Hidden Treasure (Matt. 13:44); The Lost Sheep (Matt. 18:12-13; Luke 15:4-6; Gos. Thom. 98:22-27); The Lost Coin (Luke 15:8-9). "These parables imagine what we must find even if it is true that it is a finding of that by which we were already and always found."
2. Hiddenness and Mystery: The Parable of the Fig Tree (Mark 13:28; Matt. 24:32; Luke 21:29-30); The Leaven (Matt:13:33; Luke 13:20-21; Gos. Thom. 97:3-6). One cannot see the leaven (hidden) "but the swelling of the bread makes it evident to all that it was there."
3. Gift and Surprise: Parable of the Sower (Mark 4:3-8; Matt. 13:3-8; Luke 8:5-8; Gos. Thom. 82:3-13).

The Parable of the Sower (Matt. 13:3-8; Luke 8:5-8; Mark 4:3-8; Gos. Thom. 82:3-13)

• Note the singular 'seed' in vss. 4,5,7, and the plural 'seeds' in vs. 8.
• Best to translate this distinction as "some ... other ... other ... the others (=the rest)."
• The contrast of singular and plural is underlined by the phrase 'it yielded no grain,' reflecting back on the seed amongst the thorns as well as the wasted seed in 4:3-7. This is in comparison to the fruit yeilding  seed in 4:8. "There is even a third formal feature of contrast in that three degrees of loss lead to three degrees of gain. All of this means that there is not an even emphasis on four situations (path, rocks, thorns, good ground), but a formal balance and contrast between three situations of waste and failure and three situations of gain and success."
• "The major problem will be to determine if the Markan text shows any signs of expansion over a pre-Markan earlier version."

Five Elements in the Sower

1. The Opening (4:3)
2. The Path (4:4)
3. The Rocks (4:5-6): Longest section, triple repetition of the lack of ground, two conflicting images are presented. In 4:6 the seed does not survive the scorching of the sun, but in 4:5,6b, the image is of a seed that grows and then withers.
4. The Thorns (4:7)
5. The Good Ground (4:8)

Reactions of Matthew and Luke

• Matt. 13:5-6 - Matthew accepts Mark's version of the parable.
• Matt. 13:4,5,7,8 - Provides a consistent plurality of seeds with 'others seeds.'
• Luke 8:6 - Luke makes revisions. Luke replaces the redundancy of the lack of soil with, "because it had no moisture." He has the seed fall on the rock, removing the need of the sun to scortch it. Crossan argues that Luke 'prunes' Mark's version back to a pre-Markan version. The insertion of the sun in 4:6 is evidenced by the redactor's use of "since it had no ..." as a frame for the insertion.  
• Luke 8:5,6,7,8 - Provides a consistent singularity of seeds with 'some.' 
• The second expansion in Mark 4:8 'growing and increasing' is omitted in both Matt. 13:8 and Luke 8:8.

The Interpretation

1. "The insertion of the sun in 4:6a with the attendant litarary dislocutions in 4:5-6 can be explained as an effect of the interpretation's presence within the situation of the Markan community The one who inserted the sudden arrival of the scorching sun in 4:6a wished to underline most forcibly what the advent of 'tribulation or persecution.'" In comparison with Luke 8:6,13 wherein the sun is removed and only 'time of temptation' is mentioned, the imagery changes; "temptation withers, persecution scorches."
2. Differences in Markan text with Gos. Thom. 82:3-13: 1) No mention of the sun; 2) No mention of growth and increase as in Mark 4:8; 3) Gos. Thom does not have the twofold contrast of wasted seed and the frutiful seed, but retains the fourfold division of singularity and plurality of 'seed' as in Mark; 4) In Mark, the yield of the harvest (30,60,100) and in Gos. Thom. (60, 120). Mark's yielding of the fruit is more original being more poetic, providing a closural effect with a round 100, instead of the 120 in Gos. of Thom.
3. The original version of the Parable of the Sower is best reflected in the pre-Markan text, that is, in Mark 4:3-8 without the insertions in 4:5-6 and 4:8. It contrasts three degrees of waste (path, rocks, thorns) with three degrees of fruitfulness (30,60,100). What does this parable mean for Jesus?

Conclusion

"We tend to think of sowing and harvesting, or of seed and shrub, in terms of organic growth and normal biological development. The biblical mind knew also about growth and development but, more importantly, it took very seriously the God who gave them both as gift."

For example, 1 Cor. 15:35-44, wherein Paul utilizes the sowing image to express the mystery of continuity, "and also a paradox of discontinuity between the body one has here on earth and the body one will have in heaven." The change Paul describes is not done through normal growth processes, but through a miracle of God.

Likewise the Sower juxtaposes two states: 1) Three instances of sowing losses; 2) Three instances of harvest gain. "[T]he diptych of juxtaposition does not wish to emphasize growth but miracle, not organic and biological development but the gift-like nature, the graciousness and the surprise of the ordinary, the advent of bountiful harvest despite the losses of sowing, the large shade despite the small seed [in reference to the Mustard Seed]. It is like this that the Kingdom is in advent. It is surprise and it is gift."

"It is one thing to communicate to others conclusions and admonitions based on one own's profound spiritual experience. It was this that Pharisaic theology did so admirably at the time of Jesus. It is quite another thing to try and communicate that experience itself, or, better, to assist people to find their own ultimate encounter. This is what Jesus' parables seek to do: to help others into their own experience of the Kingdom and to draw from that experience their own way of life."

Search Ponder Pray Repeat