Intentionally becoming the “neighbour” in order to defy the capitalism and the colonialist hermeneutics rooted in the memories of the Gospels[i]
Paulo Ueti[ii]
Abstract
The reception of Leviticus 19:18 in the Jesus movement is challenged, and in some ways could be jeopardised, by the ideo-theological struggles that occurred during the process of canonization of the Second Testament. The imperial (and currently, the capitalist) eyes and hands managing memory choices, writings, and interpretations can prevent us from understanding the most important question, following Jesus’ path, which is not ‘Who is my neighbour?’ but ‘To whom do I intentionally place myself in relationship as neighbour?’ I would like to use some biblical texts and hermeneutical examples to picture the political intentionality of some interpretations and images of Jesus and his movement in order to address the conversation on the current power of religious discourses supporting xenophobia and exclusivity of belonging. Also, I would like to tackle the image of Jesus (as differently portrayed — as a dispute — in the NT) regarding his messianic identity: messiah — man, powerful, alone who is solving/saving all and fix everything — or collective, communitarian, allied, in need of collaboration?
Resumo
A recepção de Levítico 19:18 no movimento de Jesus é desafiada e de algumas maneiras pode ser ameaçada pelas lutas ideo-teológicas que ocorreram durante o processo de canonização do Segundo Testamento. Os olhos e mãos imperiais (e atualmente os capitalistas) que manipularam as escolhas das memórias, os escritos e as interpretações podem impedir que nós entendamos a questão mais importante, no seguimento de Jesus, que não é ‘Quem é meu próximo?’ mas ‘De quem eu intencionalmente me coloco ao lado numa relação como próximo?’. O artigo utilizará textos bíblicos e imagens de Jesus e do seu movimento para conversar sobre o atual poder dos discursos religiosos que apoiam a xenofobia e a pertença exclusiva. Dialogará também sobre a imagem de Jesus (de uma maneira diferente — uma imagem que é disputada no Segundo Testamento) sobre a sua identidade messiânica como messias individual: homem, poderoso, que sozinho é quem salva e resolve tudo — ou messias coletivo/comunitário, aliado e que precisa de colaboração
The weak and the poor wait for the Messiah, the one who, by bringing God’s Kingdom, redeems the body of the men who moan. To make vibrate the melody that emerges from their bodies, the nostalgia of his love and the weakness of his power is to proclaim the hope that, somehow can’t be explained, a Messiah will come. Messiah: the power of love in a person, blessed are all those who wait. (Alves 2005, 54)
16This is the proof of love, that he laid down his life for us, and we too ought to lay down our lives for our brothers. 17If anyone is well-off in worldly possessions and sees his brother in need but closes his heart to him, how can the love of God be remaining in him? 18Children, our love must be not just words or mere talk, but something active and genuine. (1João 3:16–18)
Introduction
Looking at what we generally experiment in the world, unfortunately it is necessary to say that Christianism has, in great part, failed. Jesus, the Christ, for the people who follow him, was betrayed and part of the religion that emerged after his Easter now experiences a profound ethical crisis.
“In Latin America and in the Caribbean, growth opportunities are very much linked to the place where you are born and to the identity, which includes gender, ethnic group, race, religion and sexual orientation. The income inequality is only one aspect of the situation, since there are huge differences in the access to employment or to markets to sell the production. Women suffer, in disproportionate ways, the effects of poverty, marginalization, climate changes, discrimination and violence.” (Richmond, et al. 2017, 9)
Even though certain improvements were verified within the last few years, income inequality, wealth, access to goods and resources are still alarming and remain profoundly rooted in the most diverse segments of the societies where we live. For instance, hunger has increased all over the world for the third consecutive year, stimulated by conflicts and by the climate change, according to the United Nations (UN). Hunger seems to be increasing at almost the entire Africa and South America, with 821 million people — one out of every nine — experiencing hunger in 2017, according to the report The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2018. (FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO 2018)
The violence against the so-called minorities has grown and became institutionalised. The hate speech became daily talk and shapes behaviours in all layers of society. Many Christian churches have joined this movement and produce violent theologies to support the exclusion practices and to support systems of privileges. I write and make theology from a country, in 2018, who has elected a president aligned and supportive to the military dictatorship, who has threatened to eliminate and exile his political enemies in case he was elected, publicly sexist, homophobic and racist. What kind of God are these so-called Christians believing in? What Jesus do they preach? Which parts of the Bible are they picking to spread such violent discourses? The question raised actually is not about the texts but about the interpretation and use of them to validate these discourses and behaviours and influence society in that direction.
Tough times that require persistence, solidarity, revisiting theology and a lot of popular education work. In Brazil, there is a campaign that reads: “no one let go of anyone’s hand”.
To choose theologies, to pick texts and choose freeing and emancipatory interpretations are challenges of the current moment in many places of the world. This reality calls Christian people to revisit their faith, tradition, way of making theology and lens from which we read the sacred scriptures in order to become more “salt and light” and transformational agents (a parable of the Kingdom) than “stumbling stones” and “Satan”, part of the problem. The question about “who is your neighbour”, asked by Jesus in the Good Samaritan Parable (Lk 10:25–37) to the master of the Law unfolds into new dimensions, becoming the question “To whom am I intentionally become the neighbour?” as a requirement of the faith in Jesus.
It is the mission of God, carried out by the Church, to bring unity, fight for justice and reconciliation: “Paul says that God’s plan is to bring healing and unity to the whole creation in and through Christ. The mission of God is to redeem the whole of creation, broken by sin and evil, into the new creation, populated by the redeemed from every culture, through the cross and resurrection of Christ. I think that is what Paul meant by ‘the whole counsel of God’ (Acts 20:27).” (Wright 2015, 6). It is our duty to read and interpret the Bible and do theology to:
- To proclaim the good news of the Kingdom
- To teach, baptise and nurture new believers
- To respond to human need by loving service
- To seek to transform unjust structures of society, seek reconciliation and struggle for peace
- To strive to safeguard the integrityof creation and to sustain the life of the earth.
This article aims to tackle possible embodiment of the colonial/imperial theologies into the “word of God” throughout the New Testament canon. And it also searches for discordant voices and “movement of the Spirit” expressed as resistance, resilience and disputes among the written texts, authors and receivers of them.
The Jesus Movement: love encourages transgression and defiance
The Jesus’ movement was one of the answers given, in the first century of CE, by a portion of people to the oppression scenario justified by a certain religious discourse aligned with the empire and extreme inequality of that time. “The historical research allows us to state that ‘Jesus was one of those Jews who have started, during the first half of the first century, to proclaim the arrival of God’s Kingdom in a very special way, rich in consequences’” (Stegemann and Schottoff 1978, 10). He was the most successful (there were other attempts as well) starter of a movement that gathered poor Jews, which possibilities of existence and odds of survival were very little. “By announcing the arrival of the Kingdom of God to them, Jesus also was, from the start, symbol of hope of the poor.” (Higuet 2009, 9)And this movement spread out throughout the whole empire inspiring other people to join it.
According to the theological texts (Canon) that have come to us and historical testimonials from other sources, the discontent of the masses with the Roman empire, the conflicts with this system in the different levels of society and the secular desire for freedom were seeds for the emerging of this movement. Jesus, presented as the charismatic leader and of prophetic nature, has gathered a lot of people from different origins and sectors of society around his ideas, prophecies and political agenda. He, as many other people, was also unhappy with the directions that the interpretation of his religion (and Hebrew Bible) had taken. From a command and discourses of hospitality, care, love, freedom and equality, to a discourse and a legal institution comfortable with the empire’s system of privileges, self-centred and forgetful of some of the most important traditions such as the prophecy and wisdom.
“Jesus presents himself as someone who reacts against the established religious order [this action has direct impact in the politics and in the economy of the Empire]. He got away, in fact, from the charismatic Judaism, and gets dressed in the prophet mantle, proclaims a message (even subversive at times) that disturbs the religious authorities of his time, performs miracles, heals the diseased and announces the imminent arrival of God’s Kingdom. He is “a prophet powerful in action and speech before God and the whole people”, will say the disciples of Emmaus (Luke 24:19).” (Bonneau 2003, 12–13)
As the charismatic leader he was, Jesus, in the very beginning of his public life, intentionally aligned himself to the prophetic tradition. According to the Gospels, his first move in his public life was to meet his cousin John, the Baptist. Of course, not before experiencing some attempts to draw him into the colonial way of the empire (see the temptations narratives of the gospels). But, (as the figure of Jesus is one in dispute by the canon process) the narratives of his connection with John the Baptist and his baptism (desire of diving deeply into this path) show the place from where Jesus and his movement will speak and act. This is, in my opinion, particularly relevant in the dispute of the images of Jesus, which serve as basis for the churches that will emerge later on and for the development of the Christian spirituality and the theologies/christologies over the centuries. It is fundamental to state what king of divinity we are faithful to.
That is why, in my opinion, it is important to emphasise “the presentation of Jesus as a prophet, the Elijah and even Moses, or as Suffering Servant that invites people who follow him to speak, act and live against the unjust structures established at any society. Max Weber has defined the prophet as a charismatic individual who emerges against the religious structure in place, with the goal of eventually causing changes or to start a new and different identity, gathering in it the sympathizers of his new ideology.” (Bonneau 2003, 9). This perspective clashes with the desire to have a King Messiah, like David, who will defeat Rome and will take its place in ruling the known world.
“Starting with his practice, and according to his prophetic tradition, it is possible to identify Jesus of Nazareth as the profile of the “suffering servant” of Isaiah 52:13–53:12. According to Joachim Jeremias (Jeremias 2006, 158), the texts herein listed suggest a relative approximation of Jesus of Nazareth with the Ebed Iahwehof Isaiah: Mat 8:17 (Isa 53:4); 12:18–21 (Isa 42:1–4); Lk 22:37 (Isa 53:12); Jn 12:38 (Isa 53:1); Acts 8:32s (Isa 53:7s); Rom 15:21 (Isa 52:15); along with other indirect inferences. (Izidoro 2008, 31). “Is 53 is responsible for a great role in the primitive Christian preaching and in the literature of the martyrs. Jesus is characterised as a patient servant of God, as a service model (Mk 10:45); of detachment (Phil 2:5–11); of voluntary suffering and of innocence (1Pt 2:21–25); of humility (1Clem 16:1–17).” (Jeremias 2006, 171)
Here I am focusing on this Jesus’ prophetic tradition, who works hard until the end to keep his religion faithful to the precepts in the Torah of the protection to the poor, in the liberation of oppressed people, in the care with the environment and in the attempt of establishing a solidary economy in the path of the promised land.
The smell that exhales from the Canon — the prophecy
I agree with many other scholars that the Bible is itself a site of struggle, representing both liberating and dominating discourses/theologies. There are many voices, representing different ideo-theologies, echoing from the texts. And sometimes the voices of the marginalised within the text are so compromised by layers of dominating discourse that the Bible can only be an instrumentalist resource, not a substantive resource.
When we read the set of texts of the Biblical Canon, we notice that the spirit of Torah and of the Prophets is very present advocating for protecting the people who are facing a situation of oppression, because they are unfavoured in the system and are experiencing some type of need that makes them less humans. The poor, the strangers, the orphans, the widows and women are among the categories that should be protected the most. A fast read through the Bible and we can find many relevant texts:
Love the refugee as yourself: “If you have resident aliens in your country, you will not molest them. You will treat resident aliens as though they were native-born and love them as yourself — for you yourselves were once aliens in Egypt. I am Yahweh your God.” Lev 19:33–34. God loves the stranger who lives among you: “He it is who sees justice done for the orphan and the widow, who loves the stranger and gives him food and clothing. Love the stranger then, for you were once strangers in Egypt.” Deuteronomy 10:18–19. Invite de stranger to come in:For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you made me welcome, lacking clothes and you clothed me, sick and you visited me, in prison and you came to see me.”. Matthew 25:35–36. We were all baptised in only one Spirit:“For as with the human body which is a unity although it has many parts — all the parts of the body, though many, still making up one single body — so it is with Christ. We were baptised into one body in a single Spirit, Jews as well as Greeks, slaves as well as free men, and we were all given the same Spirit to drink. And indeed, the body consists not of one member but of many.” 1 Corinthians 12:12–14.Love your neighbour as yourself:“… since the whole of the Law is summarised in the one commandment: You must love your neighbour as yourself.”. Galatians 5:14.Have mercy of your neighbour:“But the man was anxious to justify himself and said to Jesus, ‘And who is my neighbour?’ In answer Jesus said, ‘A man was once on his way down from Jerusalem to Jericho and fell into the hands of bandits; they stripped him, beat him and then made off, leaving him half dead. Now a priest happened to be travelling down the same road, but when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. In the same way a Levite who came to the place saw him, and passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan traveller who came on him was moved with compassion when he saw him. He went up to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them. He then lifted him onto his own mount and took him to an inn and looked after him. Next day, he took out two denarii and handed them to the innkeeper and said, “Look after him, and on my way back I will make good any extra expense you have.” Which of these three, do you think, proved himself a neighbour to the man who fell into the bandits’ hands?’ He replied, ‘The one who showed pity towards him.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Go, and do the same yourself.’”. Luke 10:29–37. The true religion: “Pure, unspoilt religion, in the eyes of God our Father, is this: coming to the help of orphans and widows in their hardships, and keeping oneself uncontaminated by the world…” James 1:27
Certainly, this small list of texts about hospitality, love to the neighbour and solidarity have remained in the memory of the Christian communities to this day as a motivating force to continue persisting in making the world a more equal, fair and harmonious place. It is remarkable the reasons the apostle Paul gives to the community in Corinthians on why “many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep” (1Cor 11:30). It is because there is no solidarity, there no “leave no one behind”, due “for when you meet together, it is not the Lord’s Supper that you eat; for when the eating begins, each one of you has his own supper first, and there is one going hungry while another is getting drunk” (1Cor 11:20–21). And if this is true, that can mean this prophetic spirit and theology were fading or being coopeted by “other ways of living”.
The spirituality is constitutive and expressive of the experience of God and of the daily attempt of setting up our life with Jesus’ life, inspiration of our mission that translates into the diakoniaand transforming work (development, pastoral). Unfortunately, at our religious families and at the ordinary semantic field of the churches and institutional theologies, we can, without much effort, find large and profound pits between what Jesus is and has done and many current religious speeches.
These pits have already started to be built and noticed even in the first centuries of the CE, during the disputes about who Jesus is and what is the nature and shape of the Church in the Canon formation. We just need a superficial reading of the canonical text we have, which we call New Testament/Second Testament, to verify the transformation process that took place in the theological speech, with direct consequences for the church cons[ins]titution, during the first 150 years of Christianity[iii].
The “commandment” of Torah to “love your neighbour as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18),becomes one of the ethical pillars of the Christian life for the Christian communities,because “…love is strong as death, passion as relentless as Sheol. The flash of it is a flash of fire, a divine flame.” Song of Solomon 8:6
Love is strong! God is expressed as Love. Love in the biblical tradition is not categorised or expressed as a feeling, as an abstraction. It is an eccentric force (energy) that moves from the inside out of ourselves, towards the other, “the neighbour”. And when we live in love, proximity is not a matter that is primarily topographic, of distance, it’s not who is naturally or geographically “near”; proximity becomes intentional, relational, because “I decide” to get near to somebody (or somewhere) in a particular place or situation. Love, which is a practice, an action, is a content, a method, a shape and destination for people who are baptised (immersed) and committed to the values of God’s Kingdom. Love opens up, transforms (converts). God’s commandment to “love the neighbour like yourself” changes perspectives about other people and about us. Love is incompatible with the neoliberal and capitalist ideology that currently guides relationships at all levels. Compassion, fruit of love, is irreconcilable with the individualistic and meritocratic ideologies, and retributive theology that sustain relationships and situations where privilege and exclusivity are registered trademarks. After all, Christianism is supposed to be a religion, not a club.
Our calling to baptise in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, all corners of the earth, reminds us of the responsibility of realising that we are co-laborators of the divine work. Even God does not do things by himself, he asks and expects contribution. And, just like God, we must BE love, SPEAK words that heal and connect/include, and ACT according to that. That’s why, God incarnated in Jesus to make this announcement, to express his continuous commitment as someone in love who doesn’t leave and take risks to protect the loved ones. Jesus is this “parable” and the invitation. To love the neighbour is to necessarily move in his or her direction and meet with him or her. (Mark 1:31.41; Luke 7:36–50; 10:25–37 for instance). This is the indicator so that we can find the level of fidelity to the Christian Gospel and Baptism. And the neighbour includes the enemy as well. (Matthew 5:44; Luke 6:27–35).
The canonical texts that were brought to us took a long time to take the shape as we know it. This organisation is the result of many debates, disputes, choices, compilations of an impressive diversity of perspectives. A glance at the texts in their “format”, through its chronology, shows a diversity of views, disputes and conflicts about Jesus’ figure, about ethics, moral, church organisation presence of women and the coexistence between Jews and non-Jews in the communities. The theme (and the call to act) of welcoming, of loving the other, of the hospitality, remains strong and expressive, especially in the Gospels, in the First Letter of Peter, and in the authentic Pauline Letters.
Certainly, the organisation of Jesus’ movement into autonomous churches all over the Empire was a structuring phenomenon for the organisation of the Canon, therefore directing the way the communities should understand the figure of Jesus, as a revelation of God and the emerging of the Church as its sacrament (cf. Matthew 18:20; 1Cor 12; Rom 12:3–8). It is evident that the emergence and development of a hierarchy were important to organise community life and ensure fidelity to the Gospel. Unfortunately, it seems that this role became conflicting with the heart of Jesus project and turned out becoming corrupted and, in the end, Jesus church became similar to the Roman Empire.
“For Fiorenza, the early Jesus movement was not a pristine, unambiguous golden age of a discipleship of equals, but from its beginnings, throughout history and still now, the discipleship of equals is involved in a struggle within the church between ‘those who understand Christian identity as radically inclusive and egalitarian and those who advocate kyriarchal domination and submission’ (that is, domination and submission on the grounds not only of gender but also of class, race and other factors).” (Thompson, Public Theology and the politics of interpretation: a feminsit reading 2015)
Most of the writings of the New Testament were written in the First Century of the Common Era (CE), starting with the first letters from Paul, written since the years 50 CE till II Peter, which many people consider to be the latest book of the New Testament, probably redacted during the years 120 CE. The controversies that appeared at churches reappear, in its major part, during the following two hundred years. These controversies were linked to Jesus nature, that’s why the biblical Christology is very important in the understanding of the Canon of the New Testament, as well as the nature and organisation of the church, considering the natural need of its structuring and hierarchisation.
I would like to suggest taking a look on these blocks:
Some scholars suggest this chronology for the canonical texts of the New/Second Testament. I would like to go over some texts of these blocks to identify the internal conflicts in the communities between the following of Jesus (1stand 2ndgeneration), the following of the doctrine of the apostles (3rdgeneration) and how Jesus image (as he is presented), the way the church becomes institutionalised and adapted to the imperial model and how the search for the right doctrine became a stumbling stone for “loving the neighbour like yourself” in this path.
The first writings of the canon of the New Testament point out, with a few exceptions, to the path of communion, welcoming, care towards the ones who need the most, and tolerance as a path (method) to the faith in Jesus. Paul insists, at his authentic writings, to keep the faith, keep the agreement between one another, to remain as one, to make people grow in faith, to ensure that the Lord’s Supper be of sharing and welcoming, defying inequality (1Cor), to take care of the needy (Gal 2), to recognise the salvation that comes from God free of charge (Gal and Phil), acknowledge the equal place of women regarding men, challenging slavery system (Filemon). Those are also encouraging texts, guidance and invitation for the civil and religious disobedience of that time, just like it is today.
Mark, the evangelist, for instance, intervenes in the moment when the Christianism institutionalisation process starts to become fiercely implemented. His Gospel testimonies not only the charismatic situation that precedes it, but also the difficulties and the tensions that these changes cause in the inside of the communities, the authority conflicts that are related and the dramatic consequences that give presage to the beginning of the structuring of the churches. Thus, in the second part of the gospel narrative, Mark, just like Jesus did, communicates his message with authority, with the goal of preventing the ferocious fight for power, unleashed by the institutionalization of his community. If observed and followed, this message will provide important changes to the conventions and to the social operation: radical engagement (Mk 8:31–38); the priority given to the poor (Mk 10:17–31), to the small ones (Mk 9:42–50; 10:13–16); love’s ethical primacy (Mk 12:28–34); appreciation of the service and of the welcoming instead of domination (Mk 9:33–37; 10:35–45); opening to the nations (Mk 13:10; 15:39). (Bonneau 2003, 117–118)
The context of the roman patriarchal and slaver empire was challenged by the Jesus movement and by the first churches, but unfortunately it also influenced and domesticated many religious speeches, canonical texts, the Jesus image and the interpretation of these texts.
Going over some letters from Paul (I am here thinking about the years between 50 and 70, when Paul’s authentic letters were organised) we notice that Jesus image is linked to his crucifixion. According to the introduction of the 1 Letter to the Corinthians 1–4, Jesus is the crucified one who had radically assumed his path of contestation and of love to the neighbour, who chose a spot next to the least favoured people, excluded from the society and from religion, working to maximize and organise the potential for the transformation that all oppressed and excluded people wait for. Paul feels driven to announce the Gospel, because he received a calling for that. He uses the “language of the cross” to exercise his ministry, causing scandal and madness among his own (see 1Cor 1:17–31), going on the opposite direction of the culture and of the predominant languages of his society and religion: it is from the weakness and the madness that the Gospel is announced and has validity. At this “place” [of weakness and madness] everybody gathers and are equal. The letter to the Galatians retains one of the most antique memories of the Christian tradition, breaking all the established taboos and instigating great inspiration for a movement of civil disobedience and challenge of the norm when affirming that everyone is equal before Christ (Gal 3:26–28).
In Mark’s gospel, Jesus still is similar to Paul’s image, the suffering servant crucified man. Jesus is always walking amongst the people and working for restoration of their dignity and faith. In Mark, Jesus’ ministry results in constant conflicts with his family, his fellow members of Jewish religion and civil authorities as well as his own followers (Mk 1:14–8:26). Later on, when Luke’s Gospel is added to the canon, we have a voice that disagrees with Paul, when he promptly presents Jesus (Lk 2:41–50), still a child about to have his Bar Mitzvá, among the doctors of the Law and perfectly adapted and engaged to the “language” of the Pharisees and the doctors of the Law of his time, as we verify when Jesus argues with the doctors of the Law at the temple. At Matthew’s gospel, Jesus is presented as a new Moses that leads his people in a civil riot to conquer another land where a new kingdom will emerge and as the perfect teacher of the Law. The Matthew’s Gospel “relive” the Book of Law (5 Books of Moses or Pentateuch) through the 5 Sermons of Jesus: Mt 5–7; Mt 10; Mt 13; Mt 18; Mt 24–25).
It is also interesting to notice the way the tortured and crucified Jesus behaves in the Synoptic Gospels, when compared to John’s Gospel. In the synoptic gospels, he is alone, disappointed with God and desperate. In the cross, he screams, according to Matthew and Mark, the Psalm 22:2 (hbr): “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me” (Mk 15:34; Mt 27:46) and according to Luke, the Psalm 31:6 (hbr): “… to your hands I commit my spirit…”In John’s Gospel, Jesus is not alone (women who accompanied him stood by the cross, according Jn 19:25–27), he seems to own the situation, he has a long talk with his future butcher , warns him that if he has any power it is because it was given to him from “up above” and finally, in the cross, he doesn’t scream, he only assumes the consequences of his choices and “surrenders the spirit”, another allusion to Psalm 31:6.
The four intra-canonical gospels are not a complete collection, and neither a random selection of the available texts. They were deliberately chosen in a process in which other gospels were rejected, not only due to a content issue, but also of form. The retention, development and creation of the material about Jesus are found on sources that are both intra-canonical and extra-canonical. The discrepancies between the diverse narratives and versions are not only due to the lack of memories or the differences of emphasis, but also the conscious theology interpretations regarding Jesus. (Crossan 1994, 29–30)
When we read the letter to the Corinthians (1Co 12) and Matthew (Mt 18:20), Jesus expresses himself in the united Church. He is in the centre, he is the Church just like all Christians are. In the letters of Paul to the Ephesians and Colossians, the narrative (and image) changes. Jesus takes a different spot in the minds of the communities. He is now the head of the church and the Christians compose the rest of the body (Col 1:15–20; Ep 1:15–23). This ecclesiological change, which is a consequence of the way Jesus is presented or understood, has an impact in the way with which the relationships are established and of the way with which the churches/Christian people relate amongst one another and to the world.
This image of Jesus once again suffers a great change when we move on from Paul’s image to the book of Revelations. Jesus, despite of being presented in the image of a lamb, the description expresses complete power: he is the Alpha and the Omega, the All Mighty (Rev. 1:8), he is the one responsible for the destiny of the world.
This image (and the dispute of this image — symbol) of the Messiah plays an important role in the development process of the churches and of its behaviour in the world. To know which one the God/Jesus of Faith is, is very important and shaper of the spirituality. The commandment of “love the neighbour as yourself”, derived from the Leviticus, radically implies in establishing relations (to take the initiative to move towards) with “the other”. These relations must be relations that express dignity, public health, justice, safety, feeling of belonging and future. The writings of the New Testament, specially the Gospels, are struggling in relation to this image and this reference. There is a group, and it seems that it is Jesus who is inspired by the Suffering Servant, in the Go’el– redeemer, maintained in the tradition by the Deuteron-Isaiah (Isa 40–55). But the disciples of Jesus are waiting for a new David, King, Powerful (Isa 1–39) who will take the power over Rome and free people from oppression. These disciples don’t want to change the world, they want to be in a position of power, that’s why an image of King and of a new Monarchy fits within their expectations in relation to Jesus. It seems like this is the conflict, for instance, of the Emmaus disciples along the road. They expect a new David, but the Suffering Servant is the one who arrives. Two theologies and images in dispute in the mentality of the churches of the first centuries, and certainly to this day.
The disciples close to Jesus did not get away from the domain of the imperial ideo-theologies. To make them understand the greater commandment was no easy task. I believe they only understood after Jesus’ Passover. In the gospels, when people go to Jesus to listen to him and the meal time arrives, the answers of the disciples are characterised by the individualistic and economic logic of the system. There was no empathy, no solidarity at all. “When evening came, the disciples went to him and said, ‘This is a lonely place, and time has slipped by; so send the people away, and they can go to the villages to buy themselves some food.” (Mt 14:15). When Jesus decides to share his destiny in the cross, the disciples want to drive him away of the path (Mk 8:32), they wanted to know who was the one who “was the greatest” (Mk 9:33–37) and look for a better place in the glory with Jesus (Mk 10:35–40). When little children try to approach Jesus, the disciples reprehend them (Mk 10:13–16), among other cases of non-understanding and non-commitment with Jesus’ path.
The Churches — a place of embracing and care or an extend Imperial space?
The initial Pauline proposal of an egalitarian, ministerial and laic church (evkklhsi,a), a living signal of the agape/charity and maximum expression of the faith in Lord Christ, became, slowly, replaced by an hierarchical, authoritarian and priesthood church. This slow and gradual process has culminated in the concentration of power on the hands of few men, considered to be sacred, excluding from it the most part of laic people and all the women.” (Gallazzi 2002, 10–11)
It is necessary to underline that since the first writings such as Paul’s authentic Letters (organised around the years 60 CE), and the rest, such as Timothy Letters (a few scholars have placed this letter to the end of the Century I), a few excerpts of Ephesians (around the years 80–90 CE), the ethos of the church, its ecclesiology and pastoral practice has changed, pulling away of the dreams and initial projects of Jesus movement to get settled as perfect trappings of the Roman Empire.
The church was ministerial, and sexism, racism, ethnocentrism and slavery were no longer compatible with the new life in Christ. “…for all of you are the children of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus, since every one of you that has been baptised has been clothed in Christ. here can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither slave nor freeman, there can be neither male nor female — for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal 3:26–28). But that began to change over the course of a few years. The church got hierarchised and the “access” to Jesus, to the bread table, began to be questioned, probably by the leadership. The case of the Syrian Phoenician woman is a good example of this debate during the period of the churches that produced the gospels (Mat 15:21–28; Mk 7:24–30). The First Letter of Peter fights hard to help Christians of his time to survive the tribulations resulting from their faith option. One of its biggest themes is the need to welcome immigrants, strangers, residents and pilgrims who do not have full citizenship or who don’t have a place to stay.
“The women have a long tradition of participation in Jesus movement. Jesus principles and the Christian community, centred at the house (oikia), offered the same opportunities for women and for men. The domestic communities had in their leadership a significant group of women. They welcome, organise and lead churches at their houses. Nymph has received a community at her house, in Laodicea (CoI 4,15). Priscilla and Aquila directed and welcomed communities at their houses in Rome, Ephesus, and, probably, Corinth (Rm 16,3; 1Cor 16,9; At 18,1–2). Apphia was community leader alongside of Philemon and Archippus (Pm 2). Mary, mother of John Mark, congregated a woman at her house, in Jerusalem (Acts 12,12). Lidia, who gathered with other woman at the synagogue, offered her house so that the Christian missionaries could be safe. Her house probably became the centre of the Christian mission in Philippi (Acts 16,15).” (Stroher 2000, 37–41)
But, at the end, we have in the canon, obviously not without internal disputes, the sacralisation of the empire model to the inside of the churches — their structures and governance. Women no longer have the same status that men had, they don’t have a spot at the ministry, it is already allowed for Christian people to own slaves, the model of the roman family is reproduced at the church families as well as in at the church structures. (1Timothy)
Hermeneutic Exercise
As the time passes by and with the community institutionalisation process, the ideal of loving the neighbour, welcoming people that need the most care, and to face the empire and its ideologies became increasingly difficult, and there was a need of more talks about that at the churches. That’s why so many texts that keep insisting in the expression of God’s love, so that no one forgets that “Anyone who says, ‘I love God’ and hates his brother, is a liar, since whoever does not love the brother whom he can see cannot love God whom he has not seen. Indeed, this is the commandment we have received from him, that whoever loves God, must also love his brother”. (1Jn 4:20–21)
When there’s a need to greatly insist in a topic or a behaviour it is because it is not in the daily agenda and neither is part of the daily norm in which we live. It seems like at the evangelic texts there is an explicit and insistent pedagogical process so that the love to the neighbour becomes something effectively ontological in the community.
I suggest this exercise with a Matthew text to recognise that sometimes the empire and its ideo-theologies of privilege and exclusion take control over the perspectives and speeches. The text of Mt 18:15–20 is surrounded of other texts that put together the frame so that it fits more adequately (Mat 18:1–10; 11–14 e 21–35: texts about who is lost and about forgiveness as a fundamental pillar of the community life and of the society life.)
Matthew begins the sermon (Ecclesiological Sermon: Mt 18), stating that the disciples are still concerned with the hierarchy of powers. They don’t seem to be interested in changing the system in place, of oppression (it is good to recall the disappointment reported in the text of Lk 24:13–35 — of the Emmaus couple). They are interested in switching places in the musical chairs game of how is in the “power that controls and oppresses”, to take the power so that they can occupy this place and stop being oppressed. That’s why they are asking: who is the greatest at the Kingdom of Heavens (this concern of the disciples, highly in dissonance with Jesus concerns, is very well stated in many others evangelical narratives). And the example that Jesus gives at first is the one of the child, of the little ones. One must be like a child, one can’t scandalize the children (provide bad example, make them get out of the path — orthopraxis). Jesus, at the same gospel, had already praised God for having revealed things of the Kingdom to the little ones (Mat 11:25). The Kingdom of God is “like a child”: audacious, sometimes inconvenient, disturbs the order established by the grown-ups, is open and curious to learn, wandering, crosses lines, kind of disobedient, that one who needs, who is needy of relationships, brave and who exercises power ever since the day they are born into the world. To be in the path of the Kingdom implies in disobeying the established order, just like children do: “Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is — his good, pleasing and perfect will.” (Rm 12:2)
Then it comes the talk about the lost sheep (Mt 18:11–14). And the bombastic declaration (sort of article of faith, that disturbs the defenders of the “pure race of Lord’s chosen ones”) of verse 11: came to save/heal/take care (σῶσαι) of the one who got lost. The person who has a privileged spot for the community mission, I think, it is the one who is “lost”, who is problematic, who doesn’t fit in the hegemony model of the institution or of who is in the coordination (perhaps because the community was overly fixed so that there was no space left for accommodation of the context changes or of self-critic).
The lower frame is also, obviously, very important. It is about always forgiving, 70 times 7, the infinite number, of unconditionality. It seems like there is a literary, theological, ecclesiological and spiritual insistence of the forgiveness exercise. Always keeping in mind that forgiveness is greatly related with the person who forgives, more than with who should be forgiven. The forgiveness exercise is actually not about the other person, about “who has sinned”, it is an exercise of the who considers having authority to condemn or judge (normally in order to condemn). Unfortunately, in the communities and in the relationships (not always egalitarian in relation to the exercise of power) the role of who calls “serious talks” or “judgments” is the role of the accusers (the Devil, διάβολος; the Satan, Σατανᾶ, הַשָּׂטָ֖ן), almost never of the defender and helper (Paraclitus, Παράκλητον, the Holy Spirit). Something to think about.
The church then is a place of the people who seek to find God, and an important requirement is to find themselves and the other people with whom they chose to live alongside with. A new family type and arrangement. Nothing traditional, by the way. The verse 18 herein identifies that the church (ekklesia– united community in the name of Jesus) has the power of turning on and off. It is a “kyriarcal” model (rooted into male and domination power) and follower the “way” with which the empires survive.
Still, with this acknowledged critique, it is necessary to realise that it is about the power of CHOOSING to bind or loose. Unfortunately, regarding this biblical text, the “regular” interpretations that you can find around (including from biblical scholars and pastoralists “of the liberation”) is still used to emphasise the power of losing, excluding, legislating about who “is good enough” or “fits” the community life. This [community life] is influenced from the theology and political project of the “chosen race” (and here a certain Jewish tradition had great importance and was transported to the Christian world). It is healthy to perform the exercise of reading this text within the fundamental political agenda that God gave us, in which, in Christ we are collaborators, to bring people together, to remain connected despite of the difference, divergence and conflict.
Continuing the dialogue about the referred text. Is the text about the one who sins or about the church leadership knowing how to deal with the sinner?
If someone from the community commits sin, certain measures should be taken. The text is a calling to the methodological, transparent and persistent (resilient) exercise of dealing (and to learn how to deal) with people who have “sinned” within a community of grace. It seems not clear if the “sinner” here is a regular member of the community or the leadership. It is only possible to overcome the sin daily with help, when we are connected one with the other, when we realize we have common needs and need to help one another. The community is this place. The community is a place of “getting fixed”. It should be about healing and connecting not punishing or excluding. It is not a tribunal, where the leaders are judges and executioners, and neither an exclusive club of people who keep flattering themselves or flattering God all the time. And imagining God not as incarnated into humanity as a commoner and friend but portraying (always an expression of desire to be reality) as King, almighty, someone to fear.
The community must be the place of mercy, hope, of welcoming, and of tolerance and forgiveness 70 X 7 times. The majority of our communities aren’t. Many are places of fear or trade. The ideology and practice of meritocracy is very much rooted. They only reproduce the oppressing and meritocratic system we live in our modern societies.
Jesus is insisting with a community that still needs to “get washed up” from the ideas and practices of the empire. It needs to learn, first, to “go after” and deal with the sin and with the sinners. The audience of that “sermon” are the churches’ leaders. To speak privately, and then with a witness, in the end, to take the person to the community centre shouldn’t be interpreted as taking the person to be judged by the church (or to be disciplined — the common word used), so that this person gets exposed and only acknowledge that her/him is the sinner. The process here affects all involved, it is for everybody to be able to talk about what is happening. And, if it still doesn’t work, Jesus’ advice is of treating this person brought to the centre of the community as “gentile and tax collector”.
But what does it mean to treat someone as “gentile and tax collector”? The “normal” interpretations are that back in Jesus days and in the hegemonic culture in which he lived (in terms of legal and social norms) it would be of not getting near, of excluding from your circle. But, actually the command coming from Jesus is different. It does not take a a lot of effort to realise that Jesus treated gentiles and tax collectors with kindness, with care. He didn’t leave them behind and didn’t discriminate this group of people.
Matthew 18 is a powerful memory for the community that listens with attention. There is a conflict that required kindness and care. There is an imperial ideology, capitalist nowadays, that needs to be challenged and replaced. The text/memory works to guide, direct and establish methods and contents (or even better, to remind about what has been forgotten).
To read this text in our contexts of hate and extremisms, intolerances and xenophobia, to retain this memory that insists in the immense capacity of forgiving, of going over of what has happened to us and what have we put other people through, revolutionises the way we govern our life and of how the churches and institutions should exercise their governance. It is comforting and a balsam that result in the increase of our resilience, fortitude and longevity, in public unit and eccentricity, that disturbs and challenges groups and totalising and homogenous ideo-theologies.
In addition, I’d like to go back to a known text to have a dialogue about “the stranger”, the “other”, the availability or unavailability of welcoming and the insistence in taking sides, in conquering his space and right and make this movement a methodological guidelines for other people to do the same, and here the “other people” appears to me as those who insist in keeping a society of privileges and want a religion that justifies that. Again, if this memory is around here, is because this practice was compromised in the core of the community.
We take the story of a Syrian Phoenician woman. Here I lean over Mark’s version (Mk 7:24–40), which is shorter and more direct. Matthew’s version (Mt 15:21–280, which came after, includes interesting aspects of critique to the apostles, it is worth to compare them.
I’d like to point out that I am here reading this text that emerges organised during the second half of the I century, reflecting mostly a memory with educational goals, then the fact itself. This woman, who has no name, heard there was a man around her surrounding who was powerful in words and actions (a thaumaturge) was in the surroundings and decided to look for him in order to help her little daughter who was possessed by an impure spirit. No one knows well what she suffered with. To be with an “impure sprit” may mean to be in a disease situation or to be prevented from (in the perspective of the Judaic law — Leviticus) of participating in the social life, but what was the most serious was the prevention of participating in the religious life. Anyways, in our text we have a mother that is looking for the cure for her daughter.
Normally, when this text is read, we are used to call this woman as stranger. It depends on the point of view and from which geography this text is told or read. Due to the fact that the author had mentioned this detail, it seems like it is relevant in this literary and narrative context. She is Syrian Phoenician, of Greek culture. But what is interesting is that, from the text and geographical standpoint, Jesus is the stranger one there. The entire scene takes place out of Jesus country. He is the one who is out of his country and inserted in a region of another dominant culture. In this politics of traditional reading it seems like we always look at the text from the eyes and feet of Jesus, the Jew (he was not exactly “Jew”, but Galilean). Even if the literary arrangement doesn’t cause that. That’s why we still call this woman as “the stranger”.
The redactors’ interest of highlighting these two women — the daughter and the mother — both with no names, is expressed. The scene is presented as an encounter, not very friendly at first, between two people that normally wouldn’t exchange looks, and neither establish a dialogue. There is a debate, apparently between unequal characters, but when we analyse the speech delivered there, we notice a debate where both are at the same level of conversation in terms of techniques and content. The woman is not entirely “submissive”. This attempt of relating Jesus to David must have had great contribution so that the Canon’s organization process was carried out with more serenity.
The conversation unfolds because of the expectation of that woman about that man, of the daughter’s disease and the boldness of this woman in interrupting Jesus’ desire of staying in secret. She started expressing some words of confrontation to the man who doesn’t want to pay attention to her request and her need. In Matthew’s text she even “shout” (Mt 15:22). Picture the embarrassing scene of a woman shouting to someone who, on purpose, wants to stay anonym. Jesus, when confronted, has to express his position, derived from his cultural tradition, of what he learned as a child and of the way he was forged during his life in terms of relationships, religion, faith and militancy.
This is the picture of the community that kept the memory of this story. To welcome, take care and serve the need of the foreigner (the “other”) was in dispute. Here there are different people from different cultures, encounters between unequal people, impure/needy spirt, bread/breadcrumbs, over/under the table. They seem like two people talking about diverse and unrelated subjects. The woman, of Greek education, with her need (cure of her daughter, exorcising the demon, to have her daughter back, to get help, to sign up in the linguistics universe of Jesus). Jesus, within his cultural intransigence (ethnocentric and intolerant) and an excluding and exclusivist posture in relation to the bread and the table. In Matthew’s gospel, we have the disciples asking Jesus to “dismiss” her soon (which may mean “help” or “kick her out without helping her”) but that, anyhow, we have intermediates who are disturbed with this relationship with different people. At Matthew’s community, it seems like she “shouldn’t have the right” of accessing the table/Jesus. The fundamental matter developed with efficiency by the woman (she is an excellent user of the rhetorical technique, and: who has access to Jesus? Who can reach the bread? The table belongs to whom? Are only the sons of Israel, or of the club of Jesus and the disciples, the ones “who are prepared for that”? Both texts indicate that this was the thinking and the word (action) of Jesus. The woman didn’t accept this “norm”. Any work of development and liberation require defy the social norms. She didn’t like to live in the world of ordinary people, where it happened. She transgressed the homogeneous and dominating language of the Judaic culture, tradition and religion, and made this man change his opinion, which led him to change his attitude. She produced knowledge, established the basis of a new epistemological possibility “through the mouths of children, or of babes in arms, you make him [Yahweh’s name] a fortress…” Psalm 8:2
It also seems interesting that this text and this talk are found, in terms of literary context, inside the gospel narrative, between two other texts that mention bread (in Mk 6:30–44 and Mk 8:1–10 and in Mt 14:13–21 and Mt 15:32–39). It seems the story of the Syrian Phoenician woman, who was arguing with Jesus about who may access the bread or obtain the healing, has resulted in the need of retelling the first story of the bread multiplication with another ending, to affirm that everyone has access to Jesus. And it is good to remember here that having “access” to Jesus means having access to the community, to a new political and ideo-theological project and space that goes on the opposite direction (see Carlos Mesters) of what was established back then, as well as today.
Mk 6
Mk 8
First bread multiplication
Mk 7
Second bread multiplication
Our conflicting story about how is able to access Jesus/bread/breadcrumbs
EVERYBODY HAS ACCESS TO JESUS/TABLE/COMMUNION/COMMUNITY/DIALOGUE
“There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither slave nor freeman, there can be neither male nor female — for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Galatians 3:28
We need to “unlearn”. “No, God chose those who by human standards are fools to shame the wise; he chose those who by human standards are weak to shame the strong, those who by human standards are common and contemptible — indeed those who count for nothing — to reduce to nothing all those that do count for something,” (1Cor 1:27–28). Jesus unlearned something in order to learn and learn a lot more. Encounters between different cultures cause this result when we are truly opened and willing to move towards that direction, of detachment of our truths, traditions, certainties and direct our attention to an absolutely fundamental attitude of our spirituality of freedom: to hear and obey the God who gives us life and came to us at a plural and diverse world.
The woman doesn’t get disheartened with the problem in being helped. She is the victim, but she isn’t passive. She has rights and this conscience gives her strength (dynamo) to move on (to face). Even with her condition of “little dog” (which she doesn’t deny), she affirms with her posture that this isn’t a problem or an “issue” that may prevent her from entirely participating in the communion.
These pericopes may relate to others regarding the debate about helping someone who needs unconditional help and the conflicts that this norm causes internally at the community. To go to the encounter is always a challenge to be overcome. In this point of the development of the churches, there is a need in staying faithful to the spirit of the Torah and take the initiative in relation to protecting and taking care of the other, the stranger, the orphan and the widow so that there are no inequalities and as a testimonial of a privilege-based society.
Another narrative that is relevant and directly related to the general topic of our talk is“love your neighbour like yourself” found Luke’s Gospel about the Good Samaritan calling (Luke 10:30–36).
“With this parable, Jesus doesn’t directly reply to the question of the scribe — “who is my neighbour” — but replaces the question in the sense of showing how someone becomes the neighbour. And the answer is found in the practice of solidarity. The human solidarity breaks the religious, cultural and social barriers. What seems to be a problem of that community, just like nowadays. And the Samaritan who has little or no knowledge of the Torah, who really fulfils God’s will and not the scribe, the priest and the Leviticus, both closed within their legal and religious system.” (Negri 2007, 62)
The debate about how to follow the law is clearly explicit here and the challenge for the doctor of the Law is certainly directed to the leaders of the Churches, from the 80’s and forward.
The author of the Gospel insists (and resists) with the community to follow the example of the Samaritan (a classical conflict between the charisma and the institution) and offer a pedagogy, a method — a path to follow the Law in Jesus, not without criticizing the official religion leaders beforehand, the ones who are occupying spots of power (priests and Leviticus):
The Samaritan is passing by:
- approaches and sees
- feels compassion — he moves (compassion is not a feeling actually)
- takes care of the injuries
- puts him on the back of his animal — sharing resources
- takes him to a hostel — accompany
- takes care of him
- pours oil and wine
- pays the bill
- promises to come back
The image presented in this text is a message for those who had never entered the Christian community. It is a calling to make what this Samaritan did, to feel what he felt and share the resources he shared. Of course, “we have in other writings of the NT, texts that make the fraternal love the master teaching from Jesus, for instance Rm 13:9; Gal 5:14 and Jam 2:8 (who calls him “golden” law).” (Konings 1996, 47). The fruit that he should produce is the fraternal love: this is Jesus “commandment” at the time of his departure (Jn 15:17–18). The true religion is visiting the orphans, the widow in their tribulations and stay free from the world corruption (Jam 1:27).
To keep reflecting
The act of reading does not imply solely in an act of decoding signals, but it is a relational act that changes everything when it begins. Reading is also a political action: it influences reality, it creates reality, it changes the perspective from where we see and speak about the reality. Reading is also a hermeneutic action. Therefore, it is an act that will always be in dispute and conflict. Reading is also a revealing act of who we/you are, what type of person we/you are and what is our/your agenda in the world.
When we decide to read, therefore, to interpret, to do hermeneutics, we ended up in a relationship with a broader universe, plural and complex, and not simply with a unique fact or reality. It is also important to highlight that we never get to the text or to the reality innocently and neutrals. Let’s not be naïve. These qualities do not exist among us when it comes to getting related to the tissues which we are a part of (life, speech and written text). We always have our perspective and understanding about what we experiment, see or read (here, I call that as “real”). Every point of view is the view of the point, and never the point itself.
“Theology does not come from nowhere or from some neutral position but is already situated in socio-political contexts which are implicated in structures and strategies of domination or of emancipation. Theology also belongs to rhetorical contexts implicated in the struggle over meaning. Both socio-political contexts or rhetorical contexts have implications for people’s struggles for identity and voice as well as their power to participate in the public domain, where issues are discussed and struggled over “in public”. Theology is always already implicated in multiple discourses and struggles. One aspect of that implication is that “what you see depends on where you stand”, that is, theology is done from particular perspectives and should not pretend to be otherwise. Theology produces knowledge which is implicated, situated and perspectival.” (Thompson, Public theology and politics of interpretation: a feminist reading 2015)
In times of extreme xenophobia, growing individualism, consumerism (of things, people and nature), objectification of human beings (trafficking and modern slavery), violence and indifference, there is an urgency of taking a stand and CHOSE to read, translate and interpret the biblical texts in favour of dignity, equality and liberation is our daily life. The dispute of narratives, found in the canonical texts as well as in current process of use and misuse of sacred texts, shapes discourses, behaviours and political agenda.
The invitation is to refocus on the methodon how to read the bible in the age of capital, to forge ways to have the courage to make choices, because they will have ethical and moral implications. The reading done of sacred texts (and of context) will support and justify which kind of societal project? “Will theology in the end support the (kyriarcal) status quo, or lend itself to emancipatory knowledge and practices?” (Thompson, Public theology and politics of interpretation: a feminist reading 2015)And, it is imperative to fit the purpose with the method
Bibliography
Alves, Rubem. 2005. Variações sobre a vida e a morte ou O Feitiço erótico-herético da teologia.São Paulo, SP: Loyola.
Bonneau, Guy. 2003. Profetismo e instituição no cristianismo primitivo.São Paulo, SP: Edições Paulinas.
Crossan, John Dominic. 1994. “O Jesus histórico: a vida de um camponês judeu do Mediterrâneo.” 29–30.
FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO. 2018. 2018. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2018. Building climate resilience for food security and nutrition.Rome: FAO.
Gallazzi, Sandro. 2002. “Da autoridade para a hierarquia.” RIBLA — A Canonização do Escritos Apostólicos, 10–11.
Higuet, Etienne A. 2009. “A sociologia do movimento de Jesus e a figura de Cristo no Novo Testamento.” Revista Caminhando, 9–14.
Izidoro, José Luiz. 2008. “A tradição do servo sofredor de Isaías 52:13–53:12 em Jesus de Nazaré.” Estudos Bíblicos n. 99. Jesus e as tradições de Israel, 31.
Jeremias, Joachim. 2006. Estudos no Novo Testamento.São Paulo, SP: Academia Cristã Ltda.
Konings, Johan. 1996. “Amar a Deus e/ou amar ao Próximo?” A Lei. Revista Estudos Bíblicos n.51, 44.
Negri, José Luiz. 2007. “A solidariedade humano-cristã como manifestação da graça.” Estudos Bíblicos. N. 94. Graça, vocação e missão(Editora Vozes) 94: 62.
Richmond, Sophie, Gaby Drinkwater, Luisa Fulcher, e Caroline McCarthy. 2017. “O Escândalo da Desigualdade 2: As múltiplas faces da desigualdade na América Latina e Caribe.” Internacional, Christian Aid, Inglaterra, 69.
Stegemann, Wolfgang, e Luise Schottoff. 1978. Jesus von Nazareth, Hoffnung der Armen.Stuttgart.
Stroher, Marga. 2000. “Entre a afirmação da igualdade e o dever da submissão. Relações de igualdade e poder patriarcais em conflito nas primeiras comunidades cristãs.” Revista Estudos Biblicos 67, 37–41.
Thompson, Heather. 2015. “Public theology and politics of interpretation: a feminist reading.” Em Public Theology and the challenge of feminism, por VVAA. Anita Morro; Stephen Burns.
Thompson, Heather. 2015. “Public Theology and the politics of interpretation: a feminsit reading.” In Public Theology and the challenge of feminist, by Ed. Anita Monro and Stephen Burns. New York: Routledge.
Tomita, Maria Luiza. 1991. “A autoridade das Mulheres na evangelização primitiva.” Estudos Bíblicos 31, 48.
Weber, Max. 1971. Économie et sociéte I.Paris: Plon.
Wright, Chris. 2015. Five Marks of MIssion: making God’s mission ours.London, UK: im:press — Micah Global.
[i]This article was presented during the Annual Meeting of SBL-Society of Biblical Literature USA, November 2018, in Denver, Colorado, USA. I am thankful for the contribution the Theological Education Committee of the Episcopal Anglican Church of Brazil made for this endeavour. I also thank the Anglican Alliance for its contribution as well.
[ii]Paulo Ueti, biblical scholar, working for the Anglican Alliance for the Development, Relief and Advocacy (Global Office of Anglican Communion UK), professor of biblical hermeneutics at the Asian Theologian Academy of the Anglican Communion, member of the Ecumenical Centre of Biblical Studies — CEBI Brazil, founding member of the Brazilian Association of Biblical Research — ABIB and SBL-Society for Biblical Literature USA. Contact: pauloueti@gmail.com
[iii]To further study: A canonização dos Escritos Apostólicos Ribla 42/43. Petrópolis, RJ: Vozes, 2002.