Interpretation: Jacob-wrestling God

When I was doing my undergrad work, I had a fellow student in one of my religion classes who was a purported Biblical literalist (purported because, in my opinion, no one truly reads the Bible literally, we pick and choose what texts we want to use literally and which we don't - but that's a topic for another day). He struggled through much of the semester because the instructor was not a literalist. Additionally, he struggled with the fact that she was female and an ordained minister (see 1 Timothy 2:11-15 for his dilemma). I began a discussion with him, that was extracurricular to class, regarding the role of women and the probable interpretive influences on some of the language, as we looked specifically at Romans 16:1 where Phoebe is declared to be a 'diakonon' (in Greek) in the church. The KJV (and the NIV still) translates this as servant or slave, where in other places when used for males it is translated "minister." Now the word is, at times, translated servant or servants, but when used as an adjective for a man, it is translated minister. So why, when used as an adjective for a woman, is it translated "servant"? My point for him, was that this was an interpretive choice. Someone chose how to interpret this word "diakonon" which has multiple interpretations into English, including, yes, servant, but also deacon, minister, and administrator. Why is Phoebe a servant, while Paul and Apollos in 1 Corinthians are ministers when described with the same word? It is an interpretive overlay based on the bias of the interpreters.

In his recent blog, my e-friend Christian Piatt, writes about the blow back being created by the new bible translation called "The Voice" because the interpreters have chosen not to use the word, 'Christ' but instead to translate the Greek word as "the Anointed One" - a perfectly acceptable interpretation of the Greek text. This is an interpretive choice made by the person or persons who are creating the translation; the word in Greek, Christos, can be interpreted as Christ or Messiah, or as Anointed One.

Several years ago, the newest translation receiving attention was "The Message." It was from Eugene Peterson, a minister for many years, as well as a linguist and a seminary instructor. I am a big fan of Peterson's books, of which there are many, and I am constantly impressed by the depth of his faith, the strength of the Spirit's Presence in his life and writing, and by his ability to tease out the meaning and context of so much of the original biblical texts. One of the criticisms from some, as I recall, was his use of the phrase, "Jacob-wrestling God." It is a phrase the speaks to me and it is a reference to Genesis 32 where Jacob wrestles with a "man" who turns out to be the angel of the Lord. Jacob actually wrestles a blessing from the Lord and because he does he receives a new name: "Israel - one who strives with God." So while the term is not one that we see in most mainstream translations there is something to the idea that the God of Israel is Jacob-wrestling God. Additionally it speaks to me in the metaphorical sense that we, too, at times wrestle with God. It is an interpretive overlay that is a choice made by the translator(s).

I remind people in Bible studies and in sermons on a regular basis that we are reading translations and therefore interpretations. The translators made choices and often the choices grew from their own biases. This is not a bad thing, but is simply the way it is. Marcus Borg suggests in the book he co-authored with N.T. Wright, "The Meaning of Jesus," that all of us have a lens that we look through. We cannot remove the lens, we simply need to recognize it is there. Piatt suggests in his blog that the King James Bible translators "had a specific human agenda" and that is true. It does not make the translation invalid, but we need to recognize that it exists. I agree with Piatt's conclusion that even if we read it in the original texts (assuming the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic are the original texts - many scholars suggest that Matthew, Mark, and Luke used a common source that they dub "Q" - indicating the possibility that there are texts we do not have), we would still be interpreters, by virtue of the fact that we speak English (mostly) and have been raised in a culture that is completely foreign to what their cultures were like.

I again quote Piatt's conclusive thoughts, that for "some, these agendas folks brought (and bring)...are problematic and should be eliminated.... For me, the agendas are, in many ways as important as the word's on the page." I agree. We need, like Jacob, to wrestle with the Divine presence. We need to reject the notion that every answer has already been revealed and laid out in perfect order. The value of the journey lies in the journey and not in the arrival at the destination. Like Jacob, I believe that we receive the blessing when we have to wrestle with God - when we have to wrestle with the text and not just accept a literal reading of an interpreted text.

When we wrestle with the text, we also wrestle with our own agendas that we bring to the text as well. Like Borg, I believe that all of us have a lens we look through and it is important to understand what that lens is - not to simply deny its existence. When we read other translations and interpretations, it can give us opportunity not just to wrestle with God, but to wrestle with our preconceived notions of the text, of God, and of what we understand ourselves to be as followers of the Way. It is my belief that God is big enough to endure our questions, to withstand our challenges, and to wrestle with us as we strive to find our place in the world and in the body of Christ and to understand our relationships to one another and to the Divine.

Like Israel, we should welcome a Jacob -wrestling God and wrestle as well.

Super Tuesday and Ash Wednesday

As I listen to media reports and political analysts hype the importance of Super Tuesday amid growing commentary around issues of faith, I am alarmed not only by some of the comments made by candidates, but also by comments made by their constituents and supporters. As a historian and a history instructor, I believe the founding fathers were determined that in this country the state should not be the church and vice-versa. So I am wary when a candidate begins to suggest that there should be no separation between church and state. I think that at best there should be an uneasy alliance of church and state with a constant tension between the two. The notion that any government not headed by Jesus himself can be a government that represents Jesus or his Kingdom (the church) is a misguided notion at best.

Walter Brueggeman writes that the resurrection of Jesus "is the ultimate act of prophetic energizing in which a new history is initiated. It is a new history open to all but peculiarly received by the marginal victims of the old older" (The Prophetic Imagination).

I am forced to reflect: what if the repetitive nature of history isn't so much our failure to learn from it as Santayana suggests, but our unwillingness to embrace a new history initiated in Jesus? What if the repetitive nature of history is really an ongoing struggle between the politics of power and the way of love, between a world driven by force and might and that of the cross that calls us to honor the other? In other words, the history initiated by in Jesus is the history of a new nation that has no boundaries and is a globally spanning, barrier destroying Kingdom of God. It is this clash of the kingdoms of the world who rule by power and the Kingdom of God founded in sacrificial love that is the historic narrative of good vs. evil.

If we embrace this thought and ponder it to its ultimate conclusion we should find ourselves rethinking the idea that we can institute some kind of faith narrative or religious subtext via politics. Inevitably the politicians that claim we can legislate Christian faith in some way are substituting the kingdom of the world for the very Kingdom of God that they are claiming to represent. There is only one way to embrace the Kingdom of our Lord - by a voluntary confession of faith and a baptism into a changed life that lives the Jesus truth, in the Jesus way, following the Jesus life (Eugene Peterson).

Beware those who suggest that the power of Caesar or the politics of Constantine are the path to instituting the Kingdom of God in Jesus Christ. In reality they are both the same path and neither of them leads to the cross or the Christ it represents. They are the wrong path. The Kingdom of God in this world can only be instituted through Jesus acting in each of us to transform us both individually and collectively.

Should we have no concern then for the faith values or morality of those we elect? On the contrary, especially for President, our leaders should reflect the values we want as a nation, but when we insist that a particular viewpoint or theology or faith tradition is necessary or that the government can become the church, we are on dangerous ground, both from the standpoint of civil liberty as well as freedom of religious expression.

In her recent blog post, Rachel Held Evans, writing regarding the outrage and support of Rush Limbaugh, writes "No longer defined by its original ethos—spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ—evangelicalism has been reduced to little more than a voting block, and I get the idea from many of my evangelical friends that so long as a person shares their political convictions, it matters not how they live their life or speak about other people; a person is on the Christian “team” as long as he votes for conservative candidates come election day."

The Kingdom of God that has come in Jesus Christ is a border-less kingdom that welcomes all people. It can never be a voting block, or a political party. There is no government that can represent Jesus, or by extension the church which is his body, that He himself does not head. So if you are voting on Super Tuesday, remember your convictions and your politics. Reflect on who you think the best candidate is, but I encourage us to remember that there must always be tension between church and state. The journey that begins on Ash Wednesday does not lead us to Super Tuesday but to a cross and an empty tomb - the Kingdom of God in Jesus.