The Question of the More Radical Way of Life
Is a disciple’s existence the more radical way of life? Here again we need to be careful.13 The ethos of discipleship is certainly a radical one. Is there anything harder and more ruthless than to be called by Jesus to discipleship, to answer him that first one must bury one’s father—perhaps recently dead, perhaps lying on his deathbed, perhaps old and ill—and be told, “Let the dead bury their own dead; but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God” (Luke 9:60)? And yet the ethos of the Sermon on the Mount, which is not just for the disciples but for everyone in the eschatological people of God, is just as radical, because it demands that one abandon not only evil deeds but every hurtful word directed at a brother or sister in faith (Matt 5:22). It demands regarding someone else’s marriage (and of course one’s own) as so holy that one may not even look with desire at another’s spouse (Matt 5:27-28). It demands that married couples no longer divorce but remain faithful until death (Matt 5:31-32). It commands that there be no twisting and manipulation of language any more but only absolute clarity (Matt 5:37) and that one give to anyone who asks for anything (Matt 5:42).
For a man’s lustful glance at someone else’s wife to be equated with the act of adultery is just as drastic as the demand that disciples leave their families. Jesus demands of the one group an absolute and unbreakable fidelity to their spouses (Matt 5:31-32) and of the others absolute and unbreakable fidelity to their task of proclamation (Luke 9:62). This means that Jesus regards the concrete way of life, whether marriage or discipleship for preaching, as sacred. Both ways of life are only possible in their radical form in light of the brilliance and fascination that emanate from the reign of God. But above all, neither way of life exists in isolation and independent of the other. The disciples, as they travel, are sustained by the aid of the families that open their houses to them in the evening, and the families live from and within the new family that began in the circle of disciples.
Two-Level Ethos?
Thus there is no two-level ethos, one of perfection for the apostles and disciples and a less perfect one for the rest of the people of God. We must admit, certainly, that there is one text in the gospels that seems to presume such a two-level ethos: the story of the rich man who came to Jesus with the question of how he could “inherit eternal life” (Mark 10:17-22). Jesus points him to the Ten Commandments. The man responds: “I have kept all these since my youth.” Jesus looks at him, embraces him, and says, “’You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.’ When he heard this, he was shocked and went away grieving, for he had many possessions” (Mark 10:21-22).
Matthew has reworked the Markan text. The phrase “you lack one thing” has been rewritten to “if you wish to be perfect” (Matt 19:21). The gospel story of the rich young man has had an extraordinary influence throughout the history of the church: again and again it has given men and women the strength to abandon their bourgeois existence and begin an alternative life of discipleship in community. The history of the founding of many religious orders began with this text. The Matthean phrase, “if you wish to be perfect,” however, has also given rise to the idea that there have to be two orders of life in the church: that of the perfect, who live the life of discipleship, and that of the less-than-perfect, to whom only the Ten Commandments and the love commandment apply.
But that kind of two-level ethos does not do justice to the text. Neither Mark nor Matthew is formulating norms for the people of God here. The story is about a concrete case. Jesus says “sell what you own” to a particular person who has come to him searching and dissatisfied. Jesus’ demand is addressed to him personally. It is a call to discipleship. Obviously, in the minds of the evangelists this text is also transparent for the later church: there will be many callings to follow, to discipleship, to radical abandonment of possessions. But these calls will also always be specific callings for individuals and not a law for everyone.
This becomes still clearer if we consider the closing words of Matthew’s interpretation. Behind the word “perfect” stands the Hebrew adjective t
And “wholeness” or “integrity” of the self is again not a privilege of disciples alone. The poor widow who puts in two copper coins, in contrast to the rich who give only part of their excess to the temple, gives away everything she has. She gives “what is hers” entirely (Mark 12:41-44).
This “wholeness” is different for everyone. For one it can mean abandoning everything. For others it can mean remaining at home and making one’s house available to Jesus’ messengers. Perhaps for a third it can even mean only giving a cup of fresh water to the disciples as they pass by. Everyone who lives her or his specific calling “entirely” lives “perfectly.”
The more closely we read the gospels, the clearer it constantly appears that the various ways of life under the reign of God do not arise out of accidental circumstances but are essential to the Gospel. They spring not only from the practical-functional point of view that Jesus could not possibly have traveled through Israel with thousands of followers, and they did not derive solely from the fact that only a relative few in Israel became his disciples. We have to look deeper. Ultimately, the variety of callings is a precondition for the freedom of every individual within the people of God.
Every individual has her or his own history, with an individual ability or inability to see, an individual freedom or lack of freedom. This individual history corresponds to the calling of each person. Only those who see are called. And no one is called to something that is completely outside his or her sphere of possibilities. Not everyone can be called to everything, but the various callings can work together to form the whole of the people of God.
The division of the church into perfect and less-than-perfect, into better and normal, into radical ethos and less radical ethos, ignores the unity of the people of God and the organization of all its members toward the same goal.
Chapter 7
Jesus’ Parables
It is impossible to talk about Jesus without mentioning his language—not whether he spoke Aramaic, and also Hebrew or Greek. That question can be quickly answered: in Galilee, that is, where Jesus grew up, people spoke a West-Aramaic dialect. It was no different in Jerusalem, apart from a somewhat different accent. Aramaic was the common language, and it was also Jesus’ everyday language. The gospel tradition gives us only a few of the Aramaic words Jesus used: for example, ’abba’ = my father (Mark 14:36), gehinnam = hell (Mark 9:43), ’elohi = my God (Mark 15:34), ’ippetach = open! (Mark 7:34), kepa’ = rock (John 1:42), qorban = sacrificial offering (Mark 7:11), mamona’ = property (Matt 6:24), pasḥa’ = Passover (Mark 14:1), rabbuni = my lord (Mark 10:51), reqa’ = fool (Matt 5:22), telita’ qum = little girl, get up! (Mark 5:41).