I have learned from Jane, when reading the gospels, to read against the grain. To read against the grain is to try to forget previous interpretations, to look from the margins, to see with new eyes, to catch a fresh glimpse of an old story. I tried to read against the grain the story Jesus told of the separation of the sheep and the goats.
Jesus was a master communicator and talks to the people of his day in popular ways. One such way was the language of apocalyptic and in the story Jesus uses the popular image of the Son of Man. Better translations are the Human One or the Child of Humanity. In Hebrew the phrase is “ben adam.” It originally was a phrase simply meaning human, but in the apocalyptic genre following Daniel (mid-second century BCE) is became a title of the messianic figure who would end history as we know it and bring in a reign of goodness and peace. Jesus uses this popular story-telling to paint a picture in apocalyptic terms. It would connect very well with his hearers.
Apocalyptic is a strange and wonderful genre. It is at once terrifying and hopeful. It developed in a context of great repression, by a subjugated people who needed to hope for the future. It deals with the justice of God and human suffering. It sees the present world as an awful place beyond redemption where the people of God, the minority, find no respite from oppression and terror. What hope could there possibly be? Enter apocalyptic. It tells of a coming world of justice where the oppressed will be freed. This new world will be brought about by a messianic figure who will terrify the terrifiers and show kindness to the oppressed. Apocalyptic is told in Technicolor—it is vivid, imaginative, gruesome, violent and very frightening. For those who suffered it was a hopeful imagery. In later Christian tradition we have equated Jesus with the Child of Humanity. It is very difficult for us to read the phrase without thinking that it represents Jesus. I do not think that necessary follows. Did Jesus see himself as the Child of Humanity? I think it can be argued that he is merely using the then popular genre of apocalyptic to make a point. I do not think we can derive doctrines of heaven and hell from a popular story. It is story telling, not metaphysics.
Jesus uses the story to make a point to his hearers. By using the familiar phrase the Child of Humanity, his hearers hear the code of apocalyptic. He is speaking of the end of the things we know and the beginning of the new things. His story has the imagery of the apocalypse: the Child of Humanity, the judgment throne, the gathering of all the peoples of the world, the judgment pronouncement by the messianic figure, eternal punishment for the ungodly, eternal life for the godly. All is made right, and justice prevails. It is a familiar story to his hearers. It is comfort for the oppressed. It is terrifying for the oppressors.
But, Jesus gives it a twist. In the usual apocalyptical visions the world as we know it is beyond redemption, fit only to be destroyed, consumed by fire. There is nothing for it but to wait out the horrors and long for the Messianic One. Yet, Jesus says that something does count. It is not simply a time to wait. What counts is feeding the hungry, providing water for the thirsty, welcoming strangers, clothing the naked, caring for the sick and visiting those in prison. At the end of the day that is what counts. In those activates is blessedness. In apocalyptic language, that is what separates the sheep from the goats. In our modern parlance, we would say what counts is social justice.
Let me paraphrase the message of the story. “You are all concerned about issues of justice. You think that justice will come at the end of all things. You wait for a messianic figure to make the bad go away and to bring in something better. But look around you. Look at the hungry, the thirsty, the homeless, the sick, and the imprisoned. You nourish them, you clothe them, you welcome them, you care for them, and you visit them. That is what counts at the end of the day.”
In other words, to take the story as a literal tale of the end of the world is to miss the point. The point is not the end but what we do in the present. What counts now? How shall we live now?
+Ab. Andy
Jesus was a master communicator and talks to the people of his day in popular ways. One such way was the language of apocalyptic and in the story Jesus uses the popular image of the Son of Man. Better translations are the Human One or the Child of Humanity. In Hebrew the phrase is “ben adam.” It originally was a phrase simply meaning human, but in the apocalyptic genre following Daniel (mid-second century BCE) is became a title of the messianic figure who would end history as we know it and bring in a reign of goodness and peace. Jesus uses this popular story-telling to paint a picture in apocalyptic terms. It would connect very well with his hearers.
Apocalyptic is a strange and wonderful genre. It is at once terrifying and hopeful. It developed in a context of great repression, by a subjugated people who needed to hope for the future. It deals with the justice of God and human suffering. It sees the present world as an awful place beyond redemption where the people of God, the minority, find no respite from oppression and terror. What hope could there possibly be? Enter apocalyptic. It tells of a coming world of justice where the oppressed will be freed. This new world will be brought about by a messianic figure who will terrify the terrifiers and show kindness to the oppressed. Apocalyptic is told in Technicolor—it is vivid, imaginative, gruesome, violent and very frightening. For those who suffered it was a hopeful imagery. In later Christian tradition we have equated Jesus with the Child of Humanity. It is very difficult for us to read the phrase without thinking that it represents Jesus. I do not think that necessary follows. Did Jesus see himself as the Child of Humanity? I think it can be argued that he is merely using the then popular genre of apocalyptic to make a point. I do not think we can derive doctrines of heaven and hell from a popular story. It is story telling, not metaphysics.
Jesus uses the story to make a point to his hearers. By using the familiar phrase the Child of Humanity, his hearers hear the code of apocalyptic. He is speaking of the end of the things we know and the beginning of the new things. His story has the imagery of the apocalypse: the Child of Humanity, the judgment throne, the gathering of all the peoples of the world, the judgment pronouncement by the messianic figure, eternal punishment for the ungodly, eternal life for the godly. All is made right, and justice prevails. It is a familiar story to his hearers. It is comfort for the oppressed. It is terrifying for the oppressors.
But, Jesus gives it a twist. In the usual apocalyptical visions the world as we know it is beyond redemption, fit only to be destroyed, consumed by fire. There is nothing for it but to wait out the horrors and long for the Messianic One. Yet, Jesus says that something does count. It is not simply a time to wait. What counts is feeding the hungry, providing water for the thirsty, welcoming strangers, clothing the naked, caring for the sick and visiting those in prison. At the end of the day that is what counts. In those activates is blessedness. In apocalyptic language, that is what separates the sheep from the goats. In our modern parlance, we would say what counts is social justice.
Let me paraphrase the message of the story. “You are all concerned about issues of justice. You think that justice will come at the end of all things. You wait for a messianic figure to make the bad go away and to bring in something better. But look around you. Look at the hungry, the thirsty, the homeless, the sick, and the imprisoned. You nourish them, you clothe them, you welcome them, you care for them, and you visit them. That is what counts at the end of the day.”
In other words, to take the story as a literal tale of the end of the world is to miss the point. The point is not the end but what we do in the present. What counts now? How shall we live now?
+Ab. Andy