†

Rearching Theology,

Celebrating Diversity

¤

A collection of articles by Wal Anderson

From Web Archives

Subversive Elements In The Genealogy In Matthew

1. Is it significant that the role of women is important in the first section of the genealogy, is absent from the second section and finally appears again in naming Mary? Is the intent to signal something about Mary, herself, or her son?

2. If Jechoniah = Jehoiakin (2 Kgs 24:6), then only Jehoahaz (2 Kgs 23:31-34) and Jehoiakim (2Kgs 23:35-24:7) are omitted. Are these kings implied in the reference to "Jechoniah and his brothers"? (See 2 Kgs 24:6; 1 Chr. 3:16; and Luke 3:23-38).

3. Matthew has clearly corrupted the genealogy after the reign of Josiah. It seems to tumble into an inconsequential (or meaningless) roll call.

4. The use of the phrase, and his brothers, found in vv. 2 and 11, seems to link Judah and Jechoniah.

5. Tamar was a Canaanite woman, wife of Judah's son, Er, and the woman with whom Onan "spilled his seed upon the ground." The story of Tamar (Gen. 38:6-30) and Judah, involves victimisation, breaking of the Levirate marriage customs, trickery and the unusual birth story of Perez and his twin, Zerah. The story points to the Canaanite origins of the line of Judah, and hence of Jesus.

6. Linking Jechoniah (or Jehoiakin) and his brothers, to the Exile recalls that it was from among the people of Judah that exiles were sent to Babylon. Jesus' lineage comes by way of the restoration from Babylon. There were concerns for ethnic purity during the restoration period and following it. Is that concern relevant here?

7. Salathiel may be another form of the name Shealtiel. I Chr 3:16-19 traces Zerubbabel's descent through Pediah and not Shealtiel\Salathiel, in contradiction of Ezra 3:2.

8. Lk 3:27 gives Zerubbabel's descent through Shealtiel (which means I asked of God). In listing Shealtiel as Zerubbabel's father, Matthew and Luke follow Ezra 3:2 and not 1 Chr. 3:16-19.

9. The persons mentioned from Abiud to Jacob are otherwise unknown in Scripture.

10. It is not stated that Joseph is the father of Jesus. He is named as Mary's husband, only. This naming is similar to the naming of Solomon's mother, Bathsheba, as 'the wife of Uriah'.

11. The three sections of the genealogy can be seen as the rise to David, the fall into Exile and the rise to the Messiah.

12. The apparent contrivance of the genealogy into three sets of fourteen generations (almost), is a play upon the sum of the numerical value in the letters of David's name. However, there is not a strict application of this structure. In the last set there are only thirteen generations. Assuming Matthew can count, does he subvert his own numerological scheme?

Other Matthean subversives include:

1. The role of the Magi (Matt. 2:1-12) as Gentile bearers of faith and witnesses to Christ and 'kingdom'. They are not "kings" but may be "eunuchs" or "queens"!

2. The centurion and his "son" or slave, Gk: pais (Matt. 8:5-13). Is this centurion another Gentile "eunuch from birth"?

3. The Canaanite woman and her daughter (Matt. 15:21-28). Is she a Gentile whore, like Rahab, bearing significant witness to the reign of God, or a lesbian concerned for her "daughter", and therefore a female parallel to the centurion of Matt. 8:5-13?

4. The "eunuchs from birth" of Matt. 19:10-12. Who are these people? Do modern "gay" folks fit this description?

5. The centurion and guards at the crucifixion (Matt. 27:54; the extreme "outsiders" have an insight beyond that of the self-considered insiders)

6. Simon of Cyrene- another Gentile enlisted to help Jesus. (Mat. 27:32)

7. The faithful women at the crucifixion (Matt. 27:56; no male disciples are mentioned; have they fled? Only women and "outsiders" witnessed the crucifixion which was itself at a place outside the city.)

Trying To Put This All Together

It can be sustained that the role of subversive Gentiles in Matthew 1:1-16, is a deliberate construct of the Evangelist. His purposes for doing so appears to be multifaceted, introducing themes that are woven into the Gospel narrative. Seven of these purposes appear to be:-

1. to set a subversive tone for what is to follow, in the Gospel..

2. to point to significant women in the faith-history of Israel.

3. to break down barriers of resistance to Gentile inclusion into the Christian community, by pointing up Jewish history and the involvement of Gentiles within it, at key points of survival, e.g. Tamar, Rahab, exile and restoration.

4. to counter or subvert the concerns of some Jews for purity of race, culture and religion. The five women mentioned all produce male heirs in an irregular way.

5. to point to a Gentile mission or the possibility of Gentile inclusivity within the kingdom of God. The first four women mentioned, are foreigners, outsiders. See Matt. 8:5-13; 15:21-28; 27:54; 28:16-20.

6. to counter questions regarding Jesus' own origins as Mary's son. Does the genealogy strive to make the point that just as the line of Judah has dubious stock, it still gives rise to David, God's Anointed. And, just as the House of David declines into Exile and confusion, God still brings forth Jesus, God's Anointed. This is by way of another woman, who, like Tamar, Rahab and Ruth, rises from adversity to significance. Jesus, himself, rises from the adversity of arrest and death to resurrection and glory.

7. to point up a picture of hope and triumph over adversity (Roman occupation) for all Israel. Jewish readers or hearers of the genealogy would surely notice the discrepancies. Is the genealogy, then, an encoded message of hope or a challenge?

Interpreting the Genealogy in Matthew.

In the above notes, the significant pressure points concern the definition of what it meant to be Jewish. Being born a Jew or converting to Judaism set rules that preceded or were contemporaneous with Christian beginnings. The norm was to be Jewish by birth, the offspring of a free, Jewish woman, (mKidd 3.12), with the father's lineage deciding status as priest, Levite or Israelite. (Schiffman, ibid. p.118-9.) MKidd 3.16 made it clear that children born to a Jewish woman and a non-Jewish man or a slave, were Jewish, albeit of low rank, as mamzer, for whom prohibitions on marriage applied. Thus problems of legal status arose when marriages or other unions produced children from Gentile women such that non-Jewish wives and their children were areas of concern. Exodus 34:15 prohibited such marriages, as did Deut. 7:1-4; Josh. 23:7, 12ff., and Deuteronomy 23:4-7 imposed restrictions upon which nations were excluded and how many generations (with Jewish fathers) had to pass before descendants of children born to specific, gentile mothers were recognised as Israelites. These concerns existed long before the Tannaim applied regulations.

The legal role of Gentiles, in Matthew's genealogy is a lesson in point here. The four matriarchs, Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Bathsheba are all classed as Gentile women, whose sons, Perez, Boaz, Obed and Solomon, respectfully, are not true Jews, if the understanding in the tannaitic ruling is imposed. (Robert Gundry, Matthew. p.15. Bathsheba was of Jewish birth, as the daughter of Ammiel. Her status as a Gentile results from her marriage to Uriah the Hittite. All four women are thus Gentile.) The presence of Gentile women, in the genealogy, in contrast to the usual inclusion of the matriarchs, Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel and Leah, points to the role of Gentile women in Jewish history. When read with the catch phrases, "Judah and his brothers" (Matt.1:2c), and "Jechoniah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon" (Matt.1:11b), it is feasible that Matthew is reminding the Jews that judgement and mercy is associated with these names. This raises consideration for just inclusion of women in Christian life, through the openness of mercy and justice, in following the example of Jesus and asking the question, "Who are my brothers and sisters?"

The adulteries of Tamar and Bathsheba implicate the men involved, Judah and David, representing the people and the royal line. Fault and God's judgement lay with Judah and David. Yet God shows faithfulness through the children of Tamar and Bathsheba. Similarly, Rahab and Ruth are examples of exemplary proselytes. Rahab in particular was extolled for her assistance and hospitality to the Israelites, despite her being a prostitute. Thus the genealogy contains a parenetic device that foreshadows the place of Gentiles and women in the church, that challenged controversy over lineage and the participation of Gentile women. (Gundry, ibid. pp.14-15.) The use of genealogy, parenetically, reflects the importance of genealogy to Judaism, which had assumed increasing importance in Israel, following the Exile. The in-gathering of Gentile converts to Christianity exacerbated the situation.

Hebrews 11:30-31 also extols Rahab for her faith:

"By faith the walls of Jericho fell after they had been encircled for seven days. By faith Rahab the prostitute did not perish with those who were disobedient, because she had received the spies in peace."

Rahab is shown among the significant people of Jewish history and the naming of her speaks for the possibility of faith among other Gentiles and outcasts. Her presence is significant from the point of view of tensions over Gentile women and the loss of ethic and cultic identity. In this way the roll call of Israelite faithful, in Hebrews, corresponds to the genealogy in Matthew. It names origins as well as giving examples of demarcation or departure points of faith and experience.

Questions of religious and ethnic identity thus became pressure points forcing separation. It is debatable as to whether Judaism was an actively proselytising religion in the early first century. (Schiffman, ibid. p. 122) Matthew points to new possibilities of Gentile involvement. The stories of the Magi, the healing of the centurion's son, the Canaanite woman with a sick daughter, and the guards and centurion at the crucifixion, all recognise and accept Jesus. In this, Matthew, presents a challenge to participation by outsiders, but remains soberly rabbinic. (W. D. Davies, "The Jewish Sources of Matthew's Messianism." In Charlesworth, (ed.) The Messiah: Developments in Early Judaism and Christianity. (Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 1992.) p.511.) The texts that stress universalism can be understood as raising the consciousness of Matthew's Jewish-Christian community regarding the manner of approach to outsiders, even as he preserves ethnic particularity. (Ibid.) Perhaps in this, Matthew is speaking for his own community, that is seen as "deviant" and isolated from the larger Jewish community by the leaders. It is a minority, reforming voice, speaking against power brokers, in his concern for the "lost sheep of the house of Israel". For the sake of the "sheep" attention must be given to those outside the fold.

In Matthew 15:21-28, the image of Canaanite women stands over and against the "lost sheep of the house of Israel", holding in tension the pressure between embracing Gentiles and women and accepting the relational consequences. (Elaine, Wainwright, Towards a Feminist Critical Reading of the Gospel of Matthew. p.225.) M.Nid. 4.1 held Gentile women to be "menstruants from the cradle". Thus, relational values of ritual purity are raised along side questions of inclusivity of the Gospel. For example, Rahab provides an image of outsiders being helpful to patriarchal society, that needs to be overcome. Andrew Overman sees in the Matthean community a "nascent formative Judaism", (Overman, ibid. p. 42. ) beginning the process of building new identity and re-affirming traditional roots.

Like Isaiah 56, the image is of the nations gathering to Israel. In Matthew, faith and movement towards Jesus, in recognition of Jesus' status and authority as Lord, are identified as points of contact from which the possibility of reform may follow. This reform clearly speaks for the inclusion of women and gentiles. As the significant Gentiles in the narrative are shown as becoming neither disciples nor further followers of Jesus, beyond their one encounter, Matthew leaves the possibility of Gentile inclusivity within the rule of God as an open challenge to discipleship. To accept Gentiles as an integral part of the reign of God, leads to questions of overcoming the inner stumbling blocks of the community, itself. In this way, the genealogy and stories that deal with outsiders, served to instruct Matthew's community and Israel, perhaps attempting to shame them to greater faith and into doing Jesus' will (Mt 7:21-23).

"In relation to Jesus (and to the Matthean group) it seems clear that he sees himself and his group as part of Israel and that he hopes to attract members of the larger Jewish community to his form of Judaism, just as Jesus did." (Saldarini, ibid. p.197)

With respect to conversion to Judaism, the requirements of the Halakah were no different than those throughout out the Second Temple period, which were: acceptance of Torah, circumcision for males, immersion and sacrificial offering. (Saldarini, Ibid. p.122.) It is in crossing boundaries and in inviting possible challenges to the above rules of conversion, that Matthew's Gospel reflects the seeds of schism. Being born a Jew or converting to Judaism set rules that preceded or were developed contemporaneously with Christian beginnings. Thus Matthew contains subversive elements that cross prevailing barriers of race, history and religion to define a new significance for Jesus.

An application of this parenetic example to our own time applies pressure to those points of exclusion that some Christians apply toward others. It raises the question whether modern marks of distinction, such as those based on sexuality, are appropriate barriers to inclusivity and participation. Are homosexual persons excluded from participation and are they to "convert" to being something other than themselves? The evangelical principle within Matthew is one of acceptance. The "good news" is that outsiders are included and that those who assume to be "insiders" may be the excluded ones in so far as they do not exibit the inclusivity that is of Christ Jesus and the Gospel. Matthew's Gospel presents a subversive Christ as the One who accepts outsiders as insiders, without marks of distinction and an expectation for them to be other than themselves.

A Pushy Woman and Other Outcasts

an exegesis of Matthew 15:21-28

After locating the story in Tyre and Sidon, which narratively signals Jesus' entry into Gentile territory,(1) the woman approaches Jesus. She is identified as "Canaanite," a people and religion to be avoided by the Israelites (eg. Gen 24:3; Ex 23:23; Deut 20:17), which suggests that the boundary that separates Jews and Canaanites is at issue here.(2) The literary associates, gunè, Chananaía, and daimonídsetai, reinforce the separation from Jesus, the woman being unclean on three counts, as a woman, as a Canaanite and by association with a daemon. The woman's very manner, in shouting, suggests that she may be possessed, too. From this extremely disadvantaged position, she makes a petition on her own behalf, "Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is tormented by a demon."

Jesus ignores her. Of this action, Elaine Wainwright comments:

"The opening phrase of v. 23 ... is one of the most radical 'boundary-stressing' phrases in any miracle story within the gospels and it magnifies for hearers of the story their sensitivity to the opposition that the supplicant must overcome."(3)

Immediately she is given a second rebuff by the disciples. Interestingly, the disciples recommend sending the woman away but their very words, "Send her away, for she keeps shouting after us", forms a second petition on her behalf! In the action and words of the disciples we may see the vacillating actions or experiences of Matthew's own community. Are women and Gentiles to be rejected or involved out of compassion? As Matthew follows the double rebuff with Jesus' words regarding "the lost sheep of the house of Israel," the woman and her plight is contrasted with that of "the lost sheep of the house of Israel." By looking closely at the woman, we may uncover more regarding "the lost sheep of the house of Israel" and their concerns.

The woman is alone. She is outside of the home, which is a significant Matthean redaction of the Markan text. A lone woman, boldly confronting a man in the street, suggests that the woman may be "suspect." Her behaviour is typical of prostitutes, a female group that also crosses the boundaries of male-female relationships and approaches a social position a little more equal to that of men.(4) In this she is an extreme example of those who may seek to enter the community of faith, if the attention of that community is directed from within its own household boundaries to the open fields of the public domain. The woman's petitioning of Jesus is a sign of seeking to share the blessings and promises of the kingdom. She represents both the potential for the entry of outsiders into the kingdom and the risks involved.(5)

The woman's address to Jesus, "Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is tormented by a demon," carries a significant liturgical connotation, with clear references to Jewish traditions and to Scripture.(6) She has also taken the initiative, crossing power boundaries and demonstrating the power of crossing those boundaries, for Jesus eventually answers her. In this way the issues of women's power and participation are raised, as significant issues for Matthew's community.

From verse 25 to 27, the theme of separation is maintained. The woman adopts a submissive, dog-like role and "kneels" before Jesus,(7) repeating her liturgical cry, "Lord, help me." Jesus replies with a distancing wise remark, "It is not fair to take the children's bread and throw it to the little dogs." The women's quick rejoinder picks up the nuances of the bread, as crumbs that fall(8) from the masters' table, and so persists in including herself in the eschatological banquet (or the Lord's Supper). In so doing she associates herself with signs of being included in the kingdom.

Matthew's account of Jesus' response is immediate. He pronounces, "Woman, great is your faith! Let it be done to you as you wish." Her faith gains her wish. However, the story has a very powerful impact, for not only has this outcast woman got her wish but she has successfully crossed the barriers of gender identity and engaged a dominant male in a theological exchange and matched him. She even managed to associate herself with the eschatological ingathering of the faithful ones. In so doing she has reversed the distance under law that marked her worthy of being ignored at the beginning of her approach to Jesus. All of this was won by persistent faith.

With the story of the Canaanite woman, Matthew's concern goes beyond validating his community's mission among Gentiles, to include a legitimation of women's roles in liturgy, theological reflection and leadership. The Canaanite woman's story tells of a lone woman crossing the barriers of gender, race, ethnicity, religion and social status, to approach, confront and engage Jesus in an attempt to enter into the blessings that she perceives as being available to her. In this, she becomes the paradigmatic mother of all outsiders, who seek a place within the mercy of the kingdom of God.

It is significant that this story of Gentile faith in Jesus is not the only incident that presents such an example.(9) Significant bearers of faith are shown in the faith of the women in the genealogy of Jesus (Matt. 1:1-16), in the witness of the Magi (Matt. 2:1-12), in the faith of the Centurion on behalf of his youing slave (8:5-13) and in the faith of the guards at the crucifixion (Matt.27:54). Together with the stories of healing other ritually, unclean "outsiders," such as the leper (Mt. 8:2-3) and Peter's mother-in-law (Mt. 8:14-17), the texts can be understood as raising the consciousness of Matthew's Jewish-Christian community regarding the manner of approach to outsiders. In presenting Jesus as a model of how to deal with rank outsiders, Matthew paves the way for addressing four, hermeneutical issues that seem to be present in his community. These relate to what is means to be "insiders" or of the kingdom of God.

The first question, raises the issue of universality or openness of the kingdom's blessings and promises to all people, regardless of ethnic, religious, gender and social division. Essentially this is a concern for Gentiles and their eventual participation within the religious life of the community. In this, Matthew recognises the significance of relational questions that are raised for Jewish Christians, in embracing Gentiles within the reign of God. Matthew identifies faith and movement towards Jesus, and recognition of Jesus' status and authority as Lord, as points of contact from which the possibility of inclusion may follow. As none of the examplars of Gentile faith are shown as becoming disciples or further followers of Jesus, beyond their one encounter, Matthew leaves the possibility of Gentile inclusivity within the rule of God as an open challenge to discipleship. To accept Gentiles as an integral part of the reign of God, leads to questions of overcoming the inner stumbling blocks of the community, itself.

This leads us to the second, hermeneutical question. Matthew15:21-28 focuses issues regarding the relational place of "outsiders who may become insiders" within the role of women in the religious life of the community within which the gospel took shape.(10) Traditional boundaries are crossed with such audacity, that the story confronts the patriarchal structures contained within the gospel and its community of origin.(11) Issues of women acting alone, outside of the family structures and without a male agent, are raised. Also, issues of women in liturgical leadership and of women in critical dialogue with men are raised.

The third question relates to interpreting the role of household or family within the inclusive vision of the rule of God that the gospel proposes.(12) The status of women, children, slaves anmd prostitutes is raised in relation to traditional Jewish notions of the patriarchal family. These stories signal that there are familial relationships, other than those of Jewish tradition, within which there are liberating expressions of love, mercy and faith that are life-giving and creative.

Fourthly, Matthew presents extreme views of Gentiles and women, to focus the most severe prejudices of the Jewish Christians (and Jews in general) regarding questions of inclusivity. Mercy, compassion and faith become the standards for radical inclusivity of Gentiles and women, which cross the boundaries of purity codes and Jewish, nomistic concerns. In this way, the texts served to instruct Matthew's own community, perhaps also attempting to shame them to greater faith and into doing Jesus' will (Mt 7:21-23).

This study uncovers radical texts of liberation for marginalised persons of faith, today, who may be excluded from participation by nomistic concerns of the religious people of our day. It shows faith and radical approach to Jesus as marks of inclusivity. It offers a vision of inclusivity for those who wrestle with what it means to be gay and Christian, or woman and Christian (or both). It shows how they also can cross boundaries and create new visions of inclusivity within the rule of God. In this they confront dominant and oppressive structures and cry for freedom, applying Matthew's stories as part of their inclusive hermeneutic. In this they also stand as inheritors of the questioning tradition that is contained in the early voice of Jewish Christianity, as, together they ask, "Who are my brothers and sisters?"

Two Daughters of Israel: A Power Reversal

exegeting Jesus' praxis

Biblical exegesis and liberation theology can be combined to recover images of Jesus that are instructive in enabling gay and lesbian folk to claim their place in the rule of God. Such gay/lesbian readings of Scripture uncover aspects of biblical interpretations that inform Christ centred attitudes to sexuality and human relationships that are beyond the dominant, sexual norms. At the same time, they act as critiques of dominant norms, especially where adherence to what is normative is also oppressive or unjust.

In Mark 5:21-34 we find an example of this. The Evangelist presents two stories in an instructive "sandwich". The central story, of the woman with a haemorrhage, is imbedded in the story of Jairus' daughter. This story of two Jewish women, one mature and the other a young maiden, shows how Jesus' ministry gives priority to the poor and the outcasts. Each story is meant to interpret the other. Its focus on women and menstruation is significant, as the law relating to blood flow (Leviticus 15:19-30) effectively kept women out of cultic religious life and isolated them within their families.

The praxis of Jesus in these stories, speaks for the radical inclusivity of women and subverts Levitical practice. It places compassion and faith above concerns for Law and ritual purity. In the context of the early church, of the Evangelist's time, it provides instruction for Jewish concerns of Law and purity in the face of participation of the women in the life of the church. In our time, it points to the role of faith and not law in determining who is counted "in" and who is outside the realm of God. In fact, it shows that the very ones who assume to be "inside" are the last to be included. It is a story of subversion and of inclusivity, that upsets the norms of religious acceptance.

The Synoptic traditions show women as key figures in the ministry of Jesus and in the early life of the church. Women are always in service, in the background in many cases. They are significant witnesses to the faith, at the crucifixion and on Easter Day, for example. Paul also shows several women as key players in the life of the church. The participation of women was a major issue for early, Jewish Christians, as was the question of inclusivity of Gentiles. Levitical law effectively ostracised women from family and religious life for eight days after any bleeding episode. There was no similar concern among Gentiles.

As the early, Jewish Christians had to face questions of Law, relating to diet, circumcision, inclusivity and cultic practice, the Evangelist is pointing up the priority of faith. It is this concern that makes these stories relevant to a gay liberation understanding of Jesus Christ. In these two stories, the faith of Jairus and the woman represent two ends of the social scale. Jairus, as head of his household and as leader in his synagogue, speaks on his daughter's behalf and on behalf of his social group or community. He acts and speaks from a position of power and privilege. The woman is nameless and she is alone. Jairus stands out in the crowd, as a leader, the woman is hidden and unknown in the crowd. She is truly an unprivileged outcast, who acts and speaks from a position of powerlessness.

Looking a little more closely to the story, we find Jairus, the leader in the synagogue, approaching Jesus and exhorting him to heal his dying daughter. Jairus' manner is two dimensional. He honours Jesus, or flatters him, by falling at his feet. Yet he also lays a clear expectation upon Jesus to carry through an expected process. He says, "Come, lay your hands on her, so that she may be made well, and live." Jairus is clearly acting out of an assumed position of power, as a man accustomed to control. Jesus says nothing and goes with Jairus and we are left expecting that the process will be carried out as requested.

Jesus' simple resolve, to go with Jairus, quickly gets crowded out, literally. In an unexpected turn of events a woman enters the scene. She is anonymous in the crowd. We are told a great deal about her condition. She has had a haemorrhage for twelve years, has spent all her money on physicians and her health is worsening. She reaches out to touch Jesus, believing that touching his clothes will make her well. She is acting out of faith.

It is important to understand this woman's position, here. Having a haemorrhage for twelve years would have isolated her from her family and the religious life (see Lev. 15:19-30). Any person she touched would be made to share her unclean state. She was an outsider among the insiders! She was ritually unclean as well as unwell. In a Jewish audience, this story would have raised questions about Jesus' own purity, through contact with the woman (Lam. 4:14-15). That is why many key words in the story carry the nuance of touch and loss of virtue. When a devout Jewish audience heard this story, they would have been scandalised. Immediate concern would have been raised over purity issues, honour and social status. However, at the very moment the woman makes contact with Jesus, these dynamics are reversed. Her body is healed. Her body is the centre of our focus. This is the opposite of what would be expected, as Jesus should have contracted her impurity through contact with her. In fact, in Mk 5:30, we are told that the power (or virtue) has been transferred to her. This is in direct opposition to expectations under Jewish Law (Lev. 15:19-30), that held a man thus touched by a menstruating or haemorrhaging woman, to be defiled. Here Mark signals a social reversal of great magnitude. The woman is the one who has virtue or power, and this is given to her by her faith. In this way, key elements of Levitical Law are scandalised, subverted by a new definition of virtue by faith.

The word translated as "power" in the NRSV, from the Greek, "duvnami", can also be translated as "virtue", as in the King James Version. We are not dealing with some mystical energy or power leaving Jesus, like discharging an electrical charge via a human lightning rod. The concern is for Jesus' loss of ritual purity or virtue. Jesus knows that he has been touched. The focus is on the poor woman and the scandal that she has caused in touching Jesus.

In response, the woman falls on her face in front of Jesus. In this action she is showing him honour, the same honour that Jairus showed at the beginning of the story. Here we see a second reversal of status. She stands before Jesus as the equal to Jairus the synagogue leader. Jesus calls her "daughter", thus recognising her status in the family of Israel. In fact, her faith is shown as being greater than even that of Jesus' own disciples (Mk 4:40). Her faith, her stubborn initiative and her courage to reach out, have all brought her a reversal of social status and of virtue. She alone is spoken of as having told the truth. She is the one with virtue, and that has been won by faith.

News that Jairus' daughter was dead comes at the very moment Jesus speaks to the woman. We read in Mark 5:34-35, that the two utterances, about the two 'daughters', coincide.

Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace, and be healed of your disease.

While he was still speaking, some people came from the leader's house to say, "Your daughter is dead. Why trouble the teacher any further?

When read or heard from a Jewish point of view, the reversal is complete. The outsider is now greeted as a living daughter and the daughter of the insider is dead. Now, Jesus exhorts Jairus to believe. This exhortation is another important reversal in the story, for Jairus began his approach with an exhortation of Jesus. Now Jesus exhorts him to believe. Jesus stands instructing a leader of the synagogue to learn about faith from the example of this one outcast woman. Israel has been subverted and even bettered.

When Jesus describes Jairus' daughter as being asleep, Mark introduces a motif of sleep that he later uses as a symbol of lack of faith (see Mk 13:36 and 14:32ff.). Jesus throws out the scoffers and disbelievers. He takes ritual defilement upon himself, by taking the dead child's hand. He raises the girl back to life, in view of her parents and his inner circle of disciples. He demonstratively seeks to awaken faith, for both his disciples and the family of Jairus. Yet, incredibly, they are overcome with amazement. The faith of the woman still stands as a lone, truthful witness to faith. Jesus tells them to feed the girl and instructs them to say nothing to anyone. When Mark ends his Gospel, as the women leave the empty tomb after hearing the news of resurrection (Mk 16:8a), we meet this same pattern of themes, of awakening, of resurrection, of being overcome with amazement, and of saying nothing to anyone.

If there is still a doubt about how we are to interpret this story, Mark's aside, that the girl is twelve years old (Mark 5:42b), of the age of puberty, points up the interpretive contrasts. The girl has lived well for twelve years in the affluence of Jairus' household. She was raised with privilege and status. The woman had haemorrhaged for twelve years and had lost all her wealth. Her status was as an outcast, cut-off by the very religious precepts that Jairus represents. Twelve is the symbol of the twelve tribes of Israel, the privileged Ones of God, God's Chosen People. These daughters, within the family of Israel, represent both ends of the social scale, the rich and the poor. They also represent the insiders and the outsiders. Where there was life, there comes death, and where there is death, comes awakened life. The outsiders become the bearers of faith, overturning the expectations of the privileged ones who saw themselves as insiders.

What began as a healing sought for the daughter of the synagogue, from a position of privilege and social correctness, was subverted by the cause of the lone woman. Jesus turned aside from the privileged ones to restore the outcast to true "daughterhood". Then, and only then, could the daughter of the synagogue be restored. The privileged had to learn from the poor, what it means to have faith.

In Mark 10:31, 43, we learn that the last will be first and the least will be greatest in the realm of God. Mark's Jesus shows a priority for the poor and the outcast that represents a reversal of expectation and subverts the assumptions of the privileged ones. In this, Jesus is shown by Mark to be in the tradition of the prophets. Like Elisha, who raised the dead son of a woman of Shunen (2 Kgs 4:8-37), and then fed the multitudes by multiplying loaves of bread during a severe famine (2 Kgs 4:38-44), Jesus commands the people to feed the girl. Later in Mark's narrative, Jesus will feed the crowds in the wilderness (Mk 6:35ff.). For the moment, our lesson is that those of privilege will benefit from learning of faith, as seen in that of the outcasts. Like Jairus' daughter, the insiders stand on the verge of death until the outcasts have been included in the new life of the realm of God.

Who are today's people of privilege? Things have not changed much, for we still see some religious people of our day claiming privilege for themselves and making others into poor outcasts. Gay and lesbian Christians know what it is like to be counted among today's outcasts. They stand isolated by religious customs of law and privilege. They are those that are made poor and dispossessed by adherence to Levitical law. They, too, like the woman with the haemorrhage, may subvert established comfort zones. However, they hold the hermeneutic privilege that will awaken the sleepers from the sleep of death that follows a lack of faith. Those who hear their voice and comprehend their christic praxis, will disregard marks of distinction such as skin colour, gender, sexuality and social status, and bring new life to those outside the dominant norms.

This text in Mark 5, has become one of the significant texts for liberation among Christian women, the poor, the lonely, the sick and the dispossessed. It is read as a text of liberation in Central America. Among gay and lesbian Christians it is a key pointer to inclusivity. It can also speak to religious people of inclusivity and justice. It reminds them that truth is not the preserve of custom, Levitical law and social status, but of faith, even the faith of the despised and the outcast Ones.

In Mark's story of disparity between two daughters of Israel, the call is to overturn the religious structures that create "insiders" and "outsiders". It calls for the people of privilege, virtue and power to remove the barriers that enable them to participate while preventing others from doing the same. Unjust structures enable some people to have access to food, housing, education and privilege, while others go without. Unjust structures keep some people in positions of power while others are denied access to the very same privileges.

The case of gay and lesbian Christian participation is one case in point. Today, they dare to claim dignity and worth and reach out with their faith in Jesus Christ. Levitical Law is used to bar their full participation. The church needs to go beyond the Levitical Law and re-orient towards faithful healing of the outcasts and of the people of privilege. We need to capture the vision of radical inclusivity that inspired the Evangelist, Mark. Our guide is Jesus and the courage of faith shown by a nameless and powerless woman. We may need to overturn a few social taboos to achieve inclusivity. The comfort zones of some people may be subverted, as others are permitted to share their brokenness with God, to speak of their pain, to tell their truth and to participate in the healing of all God's people of faith.

Church members will need courage to allow this woman to become their sister, along with others like her among the despised and dispossessed. The call is to move beyond the arkhonic, beyond the patriarchal power of privilege that rules over others, to remove the barriers and restore life to those whom our church has cast aside. For when we do, the awakening spirit is with the outcasts and its truth will awaken all.

Jesus: A Defacto Eunuch

The Jewish legal codes of the Torah were often interpreted as excluding many groups or classes of people. Among these were men who engaged in same sex acts and eunuchs. Yet the New Testament shows the ministry of Jesus and the mission of the early church reaching out to outcast people. The movement went beyond the accepted norms of society and embraced those on the margins of society such as sinners, lepers, women, children, adulterous women, heretics, foreigners, Samaritans, tax collectors and slaves.

The message of grace is seen in the work of Jesus, who expresses the heart of the biblical tradition as love for God and for one's neighbour(1) . This is Jesus' own way, Jesus' halakah, the way of discerning the heart of the law.(2) It is the key principle behind Jesus' own praxis.

'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbour as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. Matthew 22:37-40

The radical love for one's neighbour is also shown in the Gospel traditions that show Israel and Jesus doing God's work among outcasts(3) and foreigners.(4) The notion of "neighbour" is a broad, relational term of compassion. It is consistent with the biblical traditions that showed concern for widows and orphans and commanded the Jewish people to feed strangers, for they were also once strangers in Egypt.(5) The Jewish people trace their ethnic, cultural and religious origins to men and women who were once sojourners and foreigners in a strange land.(6) Caring for the foreigner, for widows and orphans and for outcasts is consistent with the biblical injunctions to do justice and to love mercy.(7)

In Deuteronomy 23:1-2, two sexual minorities, eunuchs and those of illegitimate birth, are defined as being excluded from the assembly of the Lord. Regarding the exclusion of eunuchs, similar laws are found in Leviticus 21:17-21; 22:22-24, where sexual blemishes are seen as an indication of impurity and marks the person unacceptable to God. Eunuchs were cut off, Heb. 'karath',(8) from benefits of cult and family life. In this regard they were like childless widows and stand outside the usual patterns of procreation and the blessings of prosperity that came from that.(9) Childless homosexual people stand in the same situation. They are seen a being cursed by God.

The Hebrew word for eunuch, 'saris' (plural, 'sarisim'), appears seventeen times in the Hebrew books of the bible. It is usually taken to refer to castrati; however, its usage refers to a wide class of persons. It included castrated men, court officials, shamans, sages and wise men. Generally, as a class, "eunuchs" serve as subversive elements in the palaces of Israel's enemies. The role of Ebed-melech, the Cushite eunuch who acts to rescue Jeremiah from the cistern (Jer.38:7-13) is such an example. In the NRSV commentary on Jeremiah 38:7, we are told that not all eunuchs were "physical",(10) thus the NRSV commentators apparently know of more than one type of eunuch. However, they do not give any further information. What other types of "eunuch" were there in biblical times? Interestingly, Matthew 19:12 speaks of three classes of eunuch, where it is written,

for there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can. Matthew 19:12

Nancy Wilson uncovers the ambiguity or diversity implicit in the term "eunuch" and recognises that homosexual men are covered by the term.(11) Tom Horner says that some "eunuchs" may have been gay men.(12) An interesting quote from Hippolytus, that sounds very much like Paul's list of outcasts in 1 Corinthians 6:9, reads:

A prostitute, a profligate, a eunuch or anyone else who does things of which it is a shame to speak, let them be rejected.(13)

Like Matthew 19:12, it suggests that the class of eunuchs is a broad one. I am cautious about equating such references to homosexual men. Such interpretations may be examples of reading modern understandings of sexuality back into the biblical texts. What is certain is that in some cases the eunuchs are to be understood as a class of men who are socially emasculated, cut-off from normal social life and activity. For example, Isaiah understands eunuchs to be barren, without off-spring and therefore "cut-off" from society and a generative future in the land. They are a people under a curse.

Yet, in Isaiah 56:4-6, we see a reversal of this situation, in that eunuchs and foreigners are given God's blessing. The curse implicit in the Levitical and Deuteronomic codes, is overturned, in that the excluded ones are counted among the included ones. In fact, Isaiah 56:4-6 contains a new, conditional covenant, in which God will give a three-fold blessing of inclusivity ("in my house and within my walls"), of power or place(14) , and of prosperity and honour ("an everlasting name that will not be cut off"). Significantly, there are no curses, as in other covenant expressions. The conditions of the covenant blessings are also three-fold, "to the eunuchs who keep my sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant" (Isa. 56:4). Thus, while "cut-off" from eternal life through bearing of children, it is through their faith and obedience that eunuchs are given an honourable, everlasting name that is better than progeny.

The same blessings are also extended to foreigners (Isa. 56:6), who are included under seven conditions, namely to "join themselves to the LORD, to minister to him, to love the name of the LORD, and to be his servants, all who keep the Sabbath, and do not profane it, and hold fast my (God's) covenant (Isa. 56:6). Thus Isaiah 56:4-6 contains ten conditions, in parallel to the decalogue. However, even those requirements are removed in Acts 8:27-39, so that all that remains is faith and practice of "the Way" of Jesus Christ.

The Ethiopian Queen of the Desert

Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch: Two Role Models for Inclusivity

Acts 8:27-39 contains the story of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch. This man was both a foreigner and a eunuch. His encounter with Philip ends with his baptism. Close reading of the story contains some instructive insights. The eunuch is an extraordinary fellow of quite exotic connections. He is the court official to Queen Candace, of Ethiopia. He is a believer, for we are told that he went to Jerusalem to worship. While that would be against Levitical and Deuteronomic law, Luke makes it clear that he is a believer. What sort of believer was he? If we follow Josephus (Ant. 4:29-91) and strict application of the Law, he could not have been a Jewish proselyte.(1) Perhaps he was a Christian believer, for we find that this royal eunuch is reading a passage from the prophet Isaiah (from Isaiah 53:7-8), regarding the "suffering servant") when Philip meets up with him. This text is identified closely with Jesus, and states:

He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. By a perversion of justice he was taken away. Who could have imagined his future? For he was cut off from the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people. Isaiah 53:7-8

Philip questions the eunuch's understanding of what he is reading. In this, Philip applies a test of orthodoxy, "Do you understand what you are reading?" In reply, he gets an orthodox answer, "How can I, unless someone guides me?"

Philip at this point is acting like a faithful servant of Christ, under the direction of the Holy Spirit. In this, Philip is a Christian role model. He hears the words of Scripture, he goes to the reader and joins him. His actions are an example of obedient discipleship, in hearing, going and joining. He acts with inclusivity, and finds mutual acceptance before the Word that is held by this unlikely person.

The eunuch offers Philip the hospitality of his chariot and the two men discuss the Scripture. There is a double irony about this eunuch, for he has power, as a royal official, yet he is powerless in the sexual, procreative sense. He is also reading about one who is powerless before a greater power, taken like a sheep to the slaughter, or like a lamb to be shorn before his life is cut off. The one in the text from Isaiah is like a eunuch, "his life taken away from the earth", cut off, without generation. He has no off-spring, no continuing name in the land. The suffering servant appears like a eunuch. There is a functional similarity between them, if not a physical likeness. Certainly there is, in this person in Isaiah, a figure with whom the eunuch can identify.(2)

The eunuch questions Philip as to the identity of this enigmatic figure in Isaiah. He asks, "About whom, may I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?" (Acts 8:34) In reply, Philip uses the text to preach about the good news of Jesus, whom we understand as being something like a eunuch, cut off in His prime and His life taken away from the earth, for Jesus was, presumably, without heirs. He was a functional eunuch, yet His life, crucifixion and resurrection redefine for the early, emerging Christians the way in which one achieves eternal life. It is no longer an eternal life that is achieved through the bearing of children but through one's personal identification with the risen Christ. This understanding is very similar to that found in Isaiah 56:4-6, which is a text close to the one the Ethiopian eunuch was reading when Philip approached him! It is the very text (Isaiah 53:7-8) that deals with the fate of the Suffering Servant, whom Christians identify with Jesus, the Messiah.

When the eunuch asks Philip if there is any barrier to him being baptised, he is testing the good news. Is it really inclusive? Is he counted among the people for whom the Unknown One was cut off from the land of the living? Can a eunuch be baptised? For the term "cut-off" is a reference to the curse that was placed on anyone who was exiled, executed by capital punishment, or did not reproduce.(3) It recalls the prohibitions such as those in Deuteronomy 23:1-2 and Leviticus 21:17-21; 22:22-24. He is asking about the possibility of his own inclusion within the community of Christ. He was counted as an outcast on two accounts under Jewish law, both as a Gentile and as a eunuch. No wonder he is suspicious! However, the eunuch seems to answer his own question? He takes the initiative in the story. He commands the charioteer to stop the chariot, and both Philip and the eunuch enter the water. Philip does not answer the eunuch's questions with words but with actions. He baptises him.

In this story, the Eunuch is a role model for gay and lesbian Christians and other marginalised persons who, in identifying with Jesus, ask, "Am I included too?" Like the Eunuch, their faith has already answered the question for them. They may follow his example, take the initiative and press the point of inclusivity through faith and identity with Jesus Christ. Radical inclusivity is demonstrated in the story in two ways. When both the eunuch and Philip enter the water and Philip baptises him, entering the water becomes a symbol of inclusivity and the act of baptism affirms it. The eunuch and Philip act as though both have made the same point of recognition. That is, that Isaiah speaks of people like the eunuch and that, in unity with Christ Jesus, all people of faith are included in the reign of God in the manner of the prophet's vision. Nancy Wilson interprets this story in the following words:

The nameless eunuch, the patron saint of Ethiopian Christians, a black gay man, becomes the first African Christian, and the most clear and complete fulfilment of the prophecy of Isaiah 56, that God's house would become a house of prayer for all people (4)

There is another significant aspect to this story from Acts. In verse 36 we have the description of Philip and the eunuch "going along the road." They were journeying together and we now understand that journeying to be a journey into the way of Christ. Philip was encountering the eunuch as a fellow traveller in the faith. The story shows us the spirit in which we ought to study our Bibles by the roadside. Both philip and the eunuch learn from the words of the prophet of Isaiah 53, that Jesus is like this eunuch and that the way of Christ is inclusive. This is an evangelical word of hope for homosexual Christians who, like the eunuch, seek to journey on the way with Christ. The eunuch continues "on his way" (v. 39), as Philip is snatched away by the Spirit. So all people of faith can journey confidently on their way in Christ.

In the way of Christ Jesus there are no marks of distinction. All people of faith are included in the "way". Those marks of distinction that are considered curses from God and cause people to be "cut-off" are removed or overcome. In fact, Jesus Himself bears those marks of distinction, as we remember on hearing the words from Isaiah 53: 7-8.

He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. By a perversion of justice he was taken away. Who could have imagined his future? For he was cut off from the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people. Isaiah 53:7-8

The great grace of the "Way" is shown as being greater than the covenant grace of Isaiah 56, for it is without conditions. Philip was silent before the faith of the eunuch because there was nothing more to say but to act in faith. Nothing prevented the eunuch from being baptised so that he could go on his way rejoicing. From interpretation came commitment of faith, from which came the act of baptism. This is an indication of the working of the halakah of Jesus, the Way of reflection leading to praxis, so that reflection, faith and action are caught up in the one act of christic praxis. In this case it is a praxis of inclusivity.

Interpreting the New Testament, with a gay lesbian, liberative hermeneutic, shows sexual minorities included in the reign of God. Conditions of the old covenant laws no longer apply. They are not part of the Way of Christ. Jesus stands in solidarity with eunuchs and other outcasts. He became as one of them on the Cross, bearing the curse of ostracism, cut-off from ordinary patterns of family and procreation, with no future in the land. He was made as a "eunuch". He was stricken for the transgressions of his people so that they may have life. However, His life, crucifixion and resurrection redefine for us the way in which one achieves eternal life. It is no longer an eternal life that is achieved through the bearing of children but through one's personal identification with Christ.

Jesus in our time stands in solidarity with those deemed to have impaired sexual status and are treated like the "eunuchs" and outcasts of old. He stands with gay and lesbian Christians who are denied full participation and status within the church. They hear the Ethiopian eunuch's cry, "Look, here is water!" It is the water of hope, the water of inclusivity, given for us all in the Way of Jesus Christ. Baptism reminds us all that it is grace which unites us as one people of God in Christ. It is only in humility that we find grace to overcome patriarchy, dissent, division, or attempts to dominate others.(5)

References For "A Pushy Woman and Other Outcasts":

1. Wainwright, Towards a Feminist Critical Reading of the Gospel according to Matthew, p.223; cf. Theissen, The Gospel in Context, pp. 66-67, where it is pointed out that Jews lived in the rural areas outside of the cities and Jesus was probably visiting Jews, and Saldarini, Matthew's Christian-Jewish Community, p.72, where it is stated that the territory is perhaps Jewish. Nevertheless, the narrative sense of Gentile territory or of a frontier or boundary relationship to Galilee is of importance here. It is Jesus who first crosses boundaries.

2. Saldarini, op. cit. p.73.

3. Wainwright, op. cit. p.230. The only other similar phrase relates to Jesus' silence before Pilate (Mt. 27:14; Mk 15:5).

4. Ibid. p.225.

5. Ibid.

6. Ibid.p. 226-227

7. The Greek word, prosekúnei carries the meaning of dog-like submission.

8. Is this a reference to manna from heaven, and a feeding in the wilderness? See Exodus 16:31-32

9. Saldarini, op. cit. p.72, interestingly, Saldarini lists only two stories as such accounts of Gentile faith, overlooking the faith of the women in the genealogy (Matt. 1:1-16), of the Magi (Matt. 2:1-12) and of the guards at the crucifixion (Matt.27:54).

10. Wainwright, op. cit. p. 217.

11. Ibid. p. 251.

12. Ibid. p. 355.

* Boswell, John, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. (University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1980)

* Gundry, Robert H., Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution. 2nd Edition. (Eerdmanns, Grand Rapids. 1994.)

* Kloppenborg, John S., Q Parallels. (Polebridge Press, Sonoma, 1988)

* Saldarini, Anthony J., Matthew's Christian-Jewish Community. (University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1994).

* Theissen, Gerd, The Gospels in Context: Social and Political History in the Synoptic Tradition. (Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 1991).

* Wainwright, Elaine Mary, Towards a Feminist Critical Reading of the Gospel according to Matthew. (Walter de Gruyter Publisher, Berlin and New York, 1991)

References for Jesus: A Defacto Eunuch:

1. Lev. 19:18; Mk 12:31; Mt. 5:43; Rom. 13:9-10; Gal. 5:14; Ja. 2:8

2. Vicky Balabanski, "That we may not lose the way: Bible Studies of the 8th Assembly of the Uniting Church in Australia, Perth, July 1997. (UTC Publications, Parramatta, 1997.) p. 11.

3. See Mk 7:24-30; Lk. 81-3, 8:40-48; Jn 4:7-42; and also Ps.147:2; Isa. 11:12, 16:3-4, & 56:8.

4. Mt. 8:5-13; Jn 4.

5. Ex. 22:21; Deut. 10:18-19.

6. Gen. 25:20; Deut. 26:5.

7. Lev. 19:33-34; Mic. 6:8; Mt. 23:23.

8. sv Heb. karath 'cut-off', Strong's Greek and Hebrew Lexicon, Logos Bible Study Software, (Logos Research Systems, Oak Harbour, WA, 1993.), which also gives the meaning as 'covenanted', meaning 'to cut-off a covenant', thus the Isaiah 56 usage relates to covenanting as well as to the nuances of castration and being 'cut-off' from the land, family, and social life.

9. Nancy Wilson, Our Tribe: Queer Folks, God, Jesus, and the Bible. (Harper-Collins, New York, 1995.) p. 123.

10. NRSV footnote, 38:1-13, p.1020.

11. Nancy Wilson, Our Tribe. pp.120 - 132. Wilson quotes a French source, B. Botte, "A Propos de la tradition apostolique," Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 33 (1966) p. 37, note 7, who quotes Hippolytus as including homosexual men under the term 'eunuch". See Nancy Wilson, Ibid. p.290, note 6.

12. Tom Horner, Jonathan Loved David: Homosexuality in Biblical Times. (Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1978.) pp. 101 and 124.

13. Nancy Wilson, Op. cit., p.290, note 6, where she quotes G. J. Cumming, Hippolytus: A Text for Students, (Grove Books, Bramcote, Nottingham, U.K., 1987).

14. In Isa. 56:5, the word rendered as "monument" in the NRSV is in Hebrew, 'yd', which can also be translated as 'hand', 'power', or 'place' and is a euphemism for 'penis'.

References for the Ethiopian Queen of the Desert

1. Nancy Wilson, Our Tribe: Queer Folks, God, Jesus, and the Bible. (Harper-Collins, New York, 1995.) p.130.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid. p. 131.

5. Simon Moglia, "Grace", in Warren Talbot, ed., Uniting in Prayer, p.18.