The correct links for Moral Injury links referred to yesterday should be:
So Jesus gave them this warning. “Take care,” he said,“beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod.”
yeast is good in the short run
breads rise well
but don’t travel well
for journeying choose hardtack
yeast is for the settled
it is a sign of privilege
Wonder Bread® was a status symbol
if we can be sold yeast
what can’t tempt us
see how the priests parade
always at the front of the line
their cut of your tithe
comes off the top
be on guard
To be in the presence of “yeast”, the living cause of bread spoilage, is in the words of Marie Joseph Lagrange, to be in the presence of “a principle of moral corruption that contaminates all it touches”. (Bratcher253)
However you want to define the particular expressions of spoilage exemplified by the Pharisees or Herod or Scribes or Crowd or any other player in Mark’s script, it is exactly that which is present in the Twelve, then, and you and me, now.
If Lagrange were writing today he may talk about “moral injury” that happens to one when what they know to be true is overcome by some other power that causes them to deny that depth understanding in their decision-making. This is the underlying cause of hypocrisy. This is deeper than any mask we wear at the moment. It is what allows us to accept injury of another with “indifference”. This is what breaks our ability to trust, to suspend our disbelief.
Presumably the loaf that was a constituent part of Jesus’ boat was unleavened. It is this always presence that can be contrasted with any justification juggling we do to excuse our indifference. A popular excuse is that of calling on the oppressed to wait for a more opportune time, to tell one more personal story in the face of systemic oppression, while they are daily dying, physically dying. Remember your loaf; be glad; choose “non-indifference”.
Now the disciples had forgotten to take any bread with them, one loaf being all that they had in the boat.
carry provisions at your own risk
even the little you have
will be asked of you
therefore feign forgetfulness
here is an amazing gap
that taught can be mislearned
so who gets the blame
teacher or student
or is judgment counter-productive
in a day of hyper-individualism
we blame teachers
and remove their resources
as an incentive to do better
there is not much that is crazier
apparently the real problem
is with mother-packed lunches
no bread is Mom’s fault
if that doesn’t hold there is always
a bad field-trip list of items to bring
students and later followers
look to a wonder-worker
to come through for all
when push comes to pull
and stomachs are growling
Having forgotten to bring any bread there is the abundance of grace that still, forgotten from a previous time, has bread available. In comparison to 5 loaves for 5,000 or 7 loaves for 4,000, one loaf for 13 is a pretty-good ratio.
Bratcher252 translates this literally as “and except for one loaf they didn’t have (anything) with them in the boat.”
In The Christian Century (October 13, 2017 issue on “Fall Books”) Heather King reported on a formative book for her—He Leadeth Me by Fr. Walter Ciszek, SJ. King appreciates the following sentence describing secretly celebrating the Eucharist with fellow prisoner during his 15-year Siberian captivity: “These men would actually fast all day long and do exhausting physical labor without a bite to eat since dinner the evening before, just to be able to receive the Holy Eucharist—that was how much the Sacrament meant to them in this otherwise God-forsaken place.”
This loaf is for the Twelve what the multiple loaves were to the gathered crowds this side and the other side of then current, and still applicable, boundaries separating one from another over various forms of power—religious, military, social, etc. To have a forgotten “loaf” return to memory is to never be without anything. It is helpful to remember collectively as well as individually.
It has been a couple of busy weeks here with out-of-town events: Presenting on “Community and Covenant”, Celebrating an award by a friend, Attending a Westar seminar. Also assisting on a major paper for a Colloquy on “Missio Dei” (I’m agin it), reading in “Putting God Second: Saving Religion from Itself” by Donniel Hartman (recommend it), and the usual surprises found in life.
Right now it looks like a restart of comments here will begin on October 16. That will give me time to cache a few comments so next busy times (already known at the end of October/beginning of November) can co-exist with these stanzas and comments on Mark. This is fair warning that there may be another hiatus that comes along unannounced.
Thank you for your comments, corrections, and questions along the way—they will make a difference when these beginning thoughts are more strictly edited after the end of Chapter 16.
Blessings on whatever busyness you have been experiencing.
After 298 postings I have no more in the queue. This means taking a brief hiatus to bank some more. In theory, when restarting, you will again receive the postings on a daily basis.
I am aware of the irony of the last posting ending with “Leaving” and “Abandoning”. It is not my intent to do either with this little conceit of mine. Nonetheless, a pause is in order after having too many irons in too many fires and a seasonal lull in energy.
If you are interested in your own study of Mark, here are three resources that have triggered the most additional thoughts per page in me.
The Gospel According to Mark, Marie Noonan Sabin, part of the New Collegeville Bible Commentary
Reopening the Word: Reading Mark as Theology in the Context of Early Judaism, Marie Noonan Sabin (priced for academia, get a used copy)
Provoking the Gospel of Mark: A Storyteller’s Commentary, Richard W. Swanson (don’t forget to watch the included DVD)
Thank you for reading along to this point and making comments on this blog and directly to me — wwhite (at) wesleyspace.net. In anticipation of picking this up on another shore….
So he left them to themselves, and, getting into the boat again, went away to the opposite shore.
home is continually left behind
for its constraints are only revealed
in a clear-eyed look at its assumptions
available from another shore
home is not having to be taken in
home is carried nautilus-like
in expanding rooms marking
each journey stage
room by room shore by shore
test by test feast by feast
we extend our hatchling’s beginning
into tomorrow’s generations
There are many ways to leave. Is this an impatient or indignant parting? Is it more an abandoning of them, knocking the dust off Jesus’ feet. It has the feel of a more definite dismissal and his talk about little dogs with Justa. Leaving leaves no room for rebuttal.
It would be instructive to add to the markers of euthys (BANG) and palin (again), the variants of ἀφίημι (aphiēmi, send forth or go away).
…the verb is used in Mark with three main meanings: (1) ‘let’, ‘allow’, ‘permit’: 1:34, 5:19,37, 7:12,27, 10:14, 11:6,16 15:36; (2) ‘forgive’, ‘remit’, ‘pardon’: 2:5,7,9,10, 3:28, 4:12, 1:25; (3) ‘leave’: 12:19,20,22, 13:2 (‘leave alone’ 14:6); with the sense of ‘go away from’, ‘abandon’, forsake’: 1:18,20,31, 4:36, 7:8, 8:13, 10:28,29, 12:12, 13:34, 14:50; with the sense of ‘let loose’: 15:37.
To go to the other side of the lake is to not only put physical distance between Jesus and his Pharisee testers, but religious and cultural distance as well.
We can almost hear the Pharisees mutter to one another, “Let him go to the Gentiles, it takes one to know one.” “Running away won’t do him any good for we will still be here if he dares show his face again.” “His avoiding the doing of a sign proves he has no connection with Heaven.” “He’s a nobody, a dog.”
Though a storm is not mentioned we can see Jesus storming off (or do you see him simply and departing above the fray?), slamming a proverbial door behind him.
All in all, the ambiguity of “Leaving” is probably the place to leave things. Still, raising an “Abandoning” option is important.
Sighing deeply, Jesus said, “Why does this generation ask for a sign? I tell you, no sign will be given it.”
with sighs too deep for words
required proof disappoints
meaning models continually fail
when carried beyond their time
trying to capture a gift event
wears out soul and spirit
both ancient and yesterday’s truth
meets today’s gang aft aglee
and cannot hold its virtue
without its very betrayal
an escalation of signs
tears at our common space
each one saying more
and signifying less
I have sighed impatiently at myself for having been ineffective in representing the blessing I have received.
I have sighed impatiently at others for holding so tightly to a smaller blessing when a larger one is at hand.
How do you read Jesus’ impatience here?
Your choice will affect how the rest of Mark will be read, particularly the apocalypticism of Chapter 13.
There are some who would look at the little word τίς (tis, probably an interrogative pronoun) and jump to the biggie of “why” while a scattered few would settle for a more pragmatic “what” or “how”.
J.B. Philips’ translation has impatience turned to exasperation, “What makes this generation want a sign? I can tell you this, they will certainly not be given one!” An implication is that they wouldn’t recognize it even if it came gift-wrapped, with their name on it.
Matthew Black’s preference for “how” brings a head-scratch musing about how we keep hanging on that is later echoed in James Russell Lowell’s hymn, Once to Every Man and Nation—
New occasions [signs] teach new duties,
Time makes ancient good uncouth;
They must upward still and onward,
Who would keep abreast of truth.
There are sufficient signs from our checkered past and our indeterminate present; there are ever new signs from a potent(ial) future, to keep us active in moving them from sign to presence. This fullness of signs is wearying and testing without a retreat that reminds—the prospering of evil is an insufficient sign to bring resignation.
Here the Pharisees came out, and began to argue with Jesus, asking him for some sign from the heavens, to test him.
every jot and tittle needs defending
there is no place however unknown
outside constant vigilance
for contagion can start anywhere
enter stage left prodigal partyers
from stage right decibel enforcers
no venue is to small
for ubiquitous Purell®
in its over use
stronger impurities are bred
short-term holy protection
requires hair-trigger reactions
such hyper-alertness to boundaries
insists on fragile nuclear options
involving heavenly authority
expected to be tempted to death
Isn’t this a test we have of everyone we meet—What sign of “heaven” do you bring? Those who make our heart go pitter-pat or our mind perk up and pay attention are the folks we ask particularly about that which is beyond us.
This σημεῖον (sēmeion, sign, meaningful character of an event or object) has come down to us more familiarly as semantics or semiology.
The widest view of this approach to meaning is described by Umberto Eco—“semiotics is concerned with everything that can be taken as a sign”. Those not acquainted with semiotics might start with the freebie, Semiotics for Beginners by Daniel Chandler [http://visual-memory.co.uk/daniel/Documents/S4B/sem0a.html].
To be in the presence of a different perspective is a blessing. It is not so much a temptation to leave where you are as to give opportunity to test to see if we can hold steady without causing moral injury to ourselves or another by doing so. This brings testing to even a looked-forward-to opportunity. In such a test we reveal to ourselves and others whatever integrity between word and deed we still hold. There is no end to testing and so learning to appreciate it is of paramount importance. When we grow weary of a test, we have grown weary of wrestling meaning from signs all around.
It is not outrageous to ask for another way to see what has been before us so strongly that we have flattened its small-t truth into big-T Truth based on too small a sample. If you are claiming, demonstrating, or having power attributed to you, those who are challenged by such literally need to either disappear you or bring a test.
It is better to be tested than disappeared. Now both can grow.
Immediately afterward, getting into the boat with his disciples, Jesus went to the district of Dalmanutha.
and away we go
to a place once known
but lost o’er time
we can almost hear
4,000 echoes still asking
who was that masked man
in its anonymous state
we might imagine all places
filled with post-feast leftovers
enough for seven sea crossings
bringing all shores together
mingling solids liquids and gases
out of excess seed plantings
continue 3 days to 33 years
night dreams to lived change
Not only is it unknown, in and of itself, there is also no way to connect it with Matthew’s report of a feeding 4,000 and Jesus’ subsequent journey to Magadon or Magdala or Magdalon.
LaVerdiere211, raises the possibility of Dalmanutha being “a popular corruption of Tiberiadaamathous, a combination of Tiberias, the Roman city built as the capital of Galilee, and Am(m)a thous, the ancient town that was replaced by Tiberias.”
In the face of what is not known, what is known is that lives, hearts and minds will continue to be challenged/expanded and there will be an openness to those on the edge. Rhoads, in Anderson/173, puts it well, “The narrative explicitly rejects guarding boundaries by excluding people.”
What is harder to fathom in this rushed story of the Jeopardy of Jesus, an ancestor of the perils of Paul/Pauline, is why there is not a parallel danger on the sea. Surely there is still another revelation of Jesus that could have been brought into the story line to heighten the tension after another wonder-full recounting of feeding 4,000 with seven loaves and a few “little” fishes that mimic the “little” dogs who gather crumbs.
As it stands we have to await what danger is to be found on another shore rather than at sea.
This transition passage can give us pause to consider our own journey and where we are with the ancient Irish song, “I know where I’m going and I know who’s going with me” [https:// youtu.be/toTxKrVlCdM]. May you be steady as you go into every good wilderness and return retreat-ready for what is next.
There were about four thousand people. Then Jesus dismissed them.
Nachmanides knows his sevens
scattered through a natural world
connected by creation days
basic food groups transform to energy
food brings soul to body
we are filled lucky
whether four or four thousand
we are scattered by four winds
to the four corners of home
with calm persistence
we speak within our experience
tempered by a big dose of mercy
with a tattooed Kabbalist number
with no attributed authority
we are on a road again
estranged from unity’s one
tempted by 6-6-5 6-6-6 6-6-7
we are at home in a wilderness
Almost every translation has Jesus sending the people away, dismissing them.
There is an old translation from Wycliffe that reads: “And they that ate, were as four thousand of men; and he let them go [and he left them].”
There is a new translation by Swanson: “They were about four thousand. He left them.”
This little choice comes from the phrase ἀπολύω αὐτός (apolyō, released, set at liberty; autos, himself or he).
In some sense it doesn’t make too much difference whether the action is to return folks to their own recognizance or to claim the liberty to move on. Either way leads to another abrupt transition to a boat on the sea.
We are also faced with a question of transition that translators handle differently. Does 9b conclude the feeding story or does it make a nice fit with his entering a boat that summarily leaves?
In the previous feeding episode, Jesus “made” the Twelve get into the boat and go ahead while he dismissed the crowd and went off alone to pray. Our tendency is to look for consistency by setting up a pattern that we force everything else to fit into. It can be asked whether two outliers are simply wrong or their take helps us slow down to reflect on the difference and how that shows up in our own life; how we make transitions.
One choice is whether or not it is necessary to say “Goodbye” to a current situation before being able to say “Hello” to a next opportunity. Can we move ahead without a resolution of an event?