A Girardian Perspective on Kingship
1. René Girard; on Girard and kingship, The Girard Reader (p. ix) cites pp. 104-10 of Violence and the Sacred; ch. 3 of The Scapegoat; and pp. 51-57 of Things Hidden. There is also a good discussion of it on pp. 269-72 of the Reader itself, an explanation of his thesis: that primitive kingship began as the king basically being a sacrificial victim with an extended sentence. On page 107 of Violence and the Sacred, for example, Girard writes, “The king reigns only by virtue of his future death; he is no more and no less than a victim awaiting sacrifice, a condemned man about to be executed.”
2. Gil Bailie, Violence Unveiled, pp. 123ff. Link here to his section "The Victim with an Extended Sentence," including some wonderful examples from Elias Canetti's Crowds and Power. An incredible piece from the latter on African Sacral Kingship is:
Sometimes the length of [the new king's] reign is fixed from the start: the kings of Jukun . . . originally ruled for seven years. Among the Bambara the newly elected king traditionally determined the length of his own reign. “A strip of cotton was put round his neck and two men pulled the ends in opposite directions whilst he himself took out of a calabash as many pebbles as he could grasp in his hand. These indicated the number of years he would reign, on the expiration of which he would be strangled.”One of Bailie's other favorite references when it comes to kingship is this description of the guillotine gone wild following the beheading of King Louis XIV of France. It is from H. G. Wells, The Outline of History (Garden City, N.Y: Garden City Books, 1961), 2:725:
The Revolutionary Tribunal went to work, and a steady slaughtering began .... The invention of the guillotine was opportune to this mood. The queen was guillotined, and most of Robespierre’s antagonists were guillotined; atheists who argued that there was no Supreme Being were guillotined; Danton was guillotined because he thought there was too much guillotine; day by day, week by week, this infernal new machine chopped off heads and more heads and more. The reign of Robespierre lived, it seemed, on blood, and needed more and more, as an opium-taker needs more and more opium.3. For more on the sacrifice of kings as the founding event for democracy, see Robert Hamerton-Kelly's "The King and the Crowd: Divine Right and Popular Sovereignty in the French Revolution" (Contagion, Spring 1996, pp. 67-84). If the American Revolution seems a more civilized affair than the French one, consider that in America the king's army was sacrificed as a substitute for the king to give birth to democracy. Was the madness of the guillotine worse than the slaughter of many innocent British soldiers in substitution for the king?
4. James G. Williams, "King as Servant, Sacrifice as Service: Gospel Transformations," in Violence Renounced, pp. 178-199.
Reflections and Questions
1. A general reflection on "Christ the King" Sunday: We don't often think in terms of kings or kingdoms anymore. The PC way of talking about it is to talk about a "Reign of Christ." But I'm not sure that catches it, either. In this democratic, capitalist age we don't talk about either kingdoms or reigns. Even "nation" is becoming less of an issue. What is it that we talk about the most these days when it comes to social constructs? Isn't it "culture"? Everything these days is about "culture," isn't it? So how about the "Culture of Christ" Sunday?
And then Girard's cultural anthropology, which is both generative and evangelical, promises tremendous insight. The generative aspect is quite unique. I'm weary, frankly, of going to seminar after seminar in which there is so much talk about culture that amounts to little more than a cataloguing of characteristics. I am not aware of any other theories about culture that actually suggests how culture is generated, how it comes into being. That kind of depth of understanding about culture has been sorely and ironically lacking in this culture of ours which talks ad nauseam about culture.
And Girard's cultural anthropology is evangelical in that he puts the Cross of Christ exactly at the center of what reveals to us the generation of culture as founded in murder -- which is exactly what this Sunday can be about. In the cross of Christ we see both the revelation of how we found our culture and how God founds the divine culture offered to us in Christ. The latter is founded in Christ's giving himself up to the murder which founds our culture, at the same time that he forgives us for it. That's grace!
I would love to attend, or lead, a continuing education seminar sponsored in the church that actually used this evangelical resource to understand culture.
2. How different are these two categories of culture, human and divine? Perhaps a pertinent example is the ongoing crisis against terrorism. Our human culture can conceive of no other option than to meet a violent force with another violent force. We make peace by threatening violence. We truly can't imagine another option for the President, can we? How could we possibly found the affairs of State on something like the Cross? What would that look like? We can't even imagine it. But God could. And God has, in fact, founded a new culture, a new reign, on the opposite of murder and vengeance, i.e., on "suffering violence" (Matt. 11:12) and forgiveness.
Ezek. 34:11-16, 20-24
1. James G. Williams, The Bible, Violence & the Sacred. Ch. 5, "Kings and Prophets," gives some good background on a Girardian reading of kingship from the perspective of the Hebrew prophets, which is what this text is about.
2. James Alison prepared several presentations to deliver
in San Francisco October 1999. The one entitled "The
Good Shepherd" uses an interplay of the Ezekiel 34 text with
the John 10 text. It's an wonderfully concise expression of
theology informed by the Girardian anthropology. One of the other
two papers, "Moving On," performs a wholistic Girardian reading on
the Book of Ezekiel in the section entitled, "Jewish Hints." It
became chapter 5, "Moving on: the exilic transformation of anger
into love," of Faith Beyond
3. James Alison, On
Being Liked, pp. 118ff., in chapter 8, "The
importance of being indifferent"; originally a talk given in
Berkeley in 2002, "Ecclesiology
and Indifference: Challenges for Gay and Lesbian Ministry"
(found on the James
Alison website). Here is a small taste of what Alison is up
to in this essay:
I put it to you that what Ezekiel was doing was working through a fascination until he was able to achieve a certain sort of indifference. I want to be clear here about how I am using the word indifference. There is a way of using the word indifference which suggests a somewhat petulant gesture of disregard: 'You leave me cold,' said with a flick of the wrist. Indifference can suggest haughtiness, being 'above' something. But I would like to ask you to consider it in a much stricter sense, one with which some of you may be familiar from St Ignatius’ Spiritual Exercises. This is the sense in which something ceases to push any of your buttons either positively or negatively. You are neither repelled by something, nor attracted to it, it is just there, and whether it stays or goes is something which doesn’t matter. And the reason this is so is because your heart is pointing somewhere else, and whatever happens or doesn’t happen to this thing, you will in any case have your centre of gravity pulling you in quite a different direction, one which is in no way reactive, but creative of something else. (pp. 120-21)
1. Walter Wink, Naming the Powers, pp. 60-64.
1 Cor. 15:20-26, 28
1. James Alison, Raising Abel, pp. 190-91. In concluding his eschatology with the image of wedding banquet of the Lamb, Alison cites 1 Cor 15:28 in the context of speaking of a "loving interpenetration of bride and groom":
But there is more: the banquet is not only a banquet, but it is a wedding banquet, and the guests also constitute the bride. That is, the rejoicing is not only that of guests, but of one being married, and here is where the image of heaven is, without any shame, marital. The wedding which is celebrated includes the completely loving interpenetration of bride and groom, in a relationship which makes of them one thing, a relation of infinitely creative fecundity, freed, of course, from all the tensions, rivalries and complications which surround and diminish our experience and living-out of things erotic. Paul points this out when he explains marriage in Ephesians 5, comparing the conjugal relationship to that between Christ and the Church, but please notice that he doesn't start from the conjugal relationship in order to explain heaven, but it is the heavenly relationship, that of heavenly self-giving and interpenetration in love, which is his starting point so as to understand the earthly reality of marriage. It seems to me that this image is also to nourish our hope-fired imaginations: it is the story of the ugly duckling, of Cinderella, made, much to her surprise, capable and worthy of a relationship of loving exchange with her swan, her prince, quite beyond her expectations. When Paul says that, at the end, everything will be subdued to Christ, who will be submitted to God, "so that God may be all in all" (1 Cor. 15:28), it is to be understood within this interpenetrative vision. Since we are formed from within entirely by the Other who has called us into existence, since "the other is consubstantial with the consciousness of the 'self'" (J-M Oughourlian "Un mime nommé désir" Paris: Grasset 1982 p 58), at the end we will be entirely possessed by the God who possesses pacifically in an interchange that is ever more fecund and creative. We will be married participants, all our desires fulfilled, in that effervescent creative vitality.2. Walter Wink, Naming the Powers, pp. 50-55.
1. V. 31, hyios tou anthrōpou, "Son of Man." Much has
been written on this phrase, since it is Jesus's primary
self-designation in the Synoptic Gospels -- 30 times in Matthew,
14 in Mark, 25 in Luke. But it is even prominent in John -- where
Jesus uses other self-designations, most notably the "I am"
sayings -- appearing 13 times in the 'rogue' Gospel, too.
Background: "Son of Man" appears in Ezekiel a number of times as
a translation of ben Adam (translated as "Son of Man" in
the KJV but simply as "Mortal" in the NRSV), primarily as God's
way of addressing the prophet when delivering significant visions
(such as the 'dry bones' vision in Ez. 37). Scholars largely agree
today that the significance of "Son of Man" in the Gospels comes
from Daniel 7:13, the appearance in a vision of a kebar enash
in the Aramaic, a human one, in contrast to the four beasts that
have preceded it. Here "Son of Man" has a representative
connotation. The beasts represent oppressive human orders --
empires. The Son of Man represents how human beings are truly
meant to live, a kingdom according to the original design of the
Creator, the Ancient One. Daniel 7 is the quintessential biblical
vision of oppressive human reigns giving way to a truly human way
As I watched in the night visions, I saw one like a human being coming with the clouds of heaven. And he came to the Ancient One and was presented before him. To him was given dominion and glory and kingship, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away, and his kingship is one that shall never be destroyed. (Dan. 7:13-14)In First Century Palestine the Book of Daniel held a place among Jews that can be compared to the place of the Book of Revelation today for many Christians -- even, perhaps, the troubling aspects of often misinterpreting it as a triumphalistic hope in a divine violence to conquer one's enemies. It epitomized their hope of a reign of peace. Increasingly, scholars are coming to see that this fits well with Jesus's basic message of the coming of the kingdom of God. In designating himself as the "Son of Man," Jesus was expressing confidence that he represented the coming of God's way to reign in the world, a way that is truly human, a way that God the Creator designed for us from the beginning.
Jesus said to him, "You have said so. But I tell you, From now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven." (Matt. 26:64)"From now on," ap' arti, is an emphatic way to say, "right now," "immediately at this moment." So the use of the future tense with it, "you will see," conveys continuing action that begins immediately and continues on into the future. In short, the future is beginning now. And what will they see? Precisely the vision of Daniel 7 coming true: a truly human reign of peace coming from God, pictured in the present tense as seated next to God, coming on clouds.
Listen carefully to what Jesus told Caiaphas. After Jesus acknowledged that he was indeed Israel’s Messiah, he added that he was also the mysterious Son of Man and that Caiaphas would from now on see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of God and coming in the clouds of heaven. The phrase from now on should make it quite clear that Jesus was not primarily talking about his Second Coming. Jesus was not referencing something that would take place way off in the future but something that was coming to pass in the present moment, something contemporary with Caiaphas. Recognizing this is a big deal — a game changer! Unfortunately, we have been so conditioned to hear all of Jesus’s “when the Son of Man comes” language as a reference to a far distant “second coming” that we fail to realize that most of the time Jesus was talking about the reign of God he was establishing there and then. (p. 158)And after laying the background of Daniel 7 and quoting it, he writes:
Daniel’s dream was that the Son of Man ascended up into the clouds of heaven and was given dominion over the nations. It was this vision that shaped both the apocalyptic expectations of first-century Jews and informed Jesus’s understanding of his identity and vocation. Jesus saw himself as the Son of Man who would receive dominion over the nations and liberate the world from the tyranny of military empires. But he would not attain this dominion through violence for that would make him just another beast! (This was the essence of the third wilderness temptation: to bow down to Satan in order to receive dominion over the nations. It was the temptation to become the latest Pharaoh, the latest Caesar, the latest beast.) No, Jesus would not be a violent beast; he would be the glorious Son of Man.
When Jesus was on trial before Caiaphas, he claimed to be that Son of Man. Jesus told Caiaphas that from now on, Caiaphas would see the Son of Man installed as King over the nations, coming before God the Father in the clouds of heaven and given an everlasting dominion. Jesus claimed to be that King. This is why Caiaphas tore his robes and cried, “Blasphemy!”
Jesus was condemned to death by both Caiaphas and Pilate for the same reason — he claimed to be a king. Not a “spiritual king” over a “spiritual kingdom” but a real king over a political kingdom — but a very different kind of political kingdom. It is a kingdom that you have to be born again to even perceive, as Jesus told Nicodemus. And as Jesus told Pilate, his kingdom would not come from the world system of empires. The kingdom of the Son of Man would not be based upon the coercive power of the beasts but upon the cosuffering love of a new humanity formed around Messiah. (pp. 160-61)
If you are interested in more research on "Son of Man," I have
been most interested in, and found most helpful, N.T. Wright's
reading of the Gospels in this regard. He has been very consistent
over his career to reinterpret the trend set by Schweizer and
Bultmann to read the Jesus (Schweitzer) or the early church
(Bultmann) as expecting an imminent return of Christ, or Second
Coming. No, says Wright, Jesus's apocalyptic element is looking
ahead to the significance of the cross and resurrection as
vindicating his prophetic ministry. Jesus wasn't wrong about a
Second Coming. On the contrary, he was right about the
consequences for his people if they didn't heed the significance
of his first coming -- namely, he was right about the Roman-Jewish
War of 66-70 C.E. and the utter destruction of Jerusalem at its
climax. It's the kind of judgment anticipated in Matthew 25:31-46.
Nations that don't follow God's path to peace in King Jesus end in
So Wright is also consistent in his reading "Son of Man" passages
and their connection to Daniel. You will find this way of reading
already in his first "big book" The
of God (1992); see especially ch. 10 on "The Hope of
Israel, and specifically pp. 291-97, a section on Son of Man and
Daniel 7. And the consistent message is carried right on through
his more recent book on the Gospels How
God Became King: The Forgotten Story of the Gospels
(2012), perhaps my favorite book of his; see especially pp. 190-96
for a section on Daniel 7. In many ways, Zahnd's reading of this
passage has confirmed for me in a stunning fashion Wright's
reading of the Gospels as God becoming King.
This way of understanding the "Son of Man" is also a central
Girardian theme as elaborated in one of the books that spurred me
to start this website, James Alison's Raising Abel: The Recovery of
the Eschatological Imagination. Alison portrays Jesus's
transformation of the apocalyptic thinking, where the hope is in
God's ultimate sacred violence, to an eschatological thinking,
where the nonviolent God is rescuing us human beings from our own
violence. Relevant passages on the "Son of Man" in Raising
Abel can be found on pages 86-87, 102-3, 111, as a prelude
to the remainder of the book beginning in chapter 6, "The
Apocalyptic Imagination and the Delayed Parousia," in which he
directly engages the theme in modern scholarship (from Schweitzer
and Bultmann) of the delayed Second Coming. Here is the core of
Alison's position (where this passage is also cited):
The question then, is this: when Jesus talked of his coming and of the end, was he simply enclosed within the apocalyptic imagination? That is, did he accept the dualities proper to the apocalyptic imagination as part of what he was preaching and announcing? It will come as no surprise to you if I say that, as I see it, he was not. It seems to me that what we have with Jesus is precisely and deliberately the subversion from within of the apocalyptic imagination. What I have called the eschatological imagination is nothing other than the subversion from within of the apocalyptic imagination. That is, Jesus used the language and the imagery which he found around him to say something rather different. There are various ways of glimpsing this in the Gospel, for example in the contrast which is made between the preaching of John the Baptist, which does indeed fit within the apocalyptic imagination, and that of Jesus. Maybe we can see this better if we draw up to it in an indirect way: that is, Jesus' attitude with respect to the social and the cosmic dualities would already be a good indication of his attitude with respect to the temporal duality.
It is evident that Jesus did not simply accept the social duality of his time, the division between good and evil, pure and impure, Jews and non-Jews. In fact, his practice and his teaching add up to a powerful subversion of this duality. Neither did he accept the cosmic duality, as can be seen in his announcing the coming about now of the Kingdom of God, and, for example, in his teaching his disciples to ask, in their prayer to God:
Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.His practice of, and teaching about, celibacy lived now for the kingdom of God -- for the children of the resurrection neither marry nor are given in marriage -- would be another indication of the same thing. So that it would be very surprising if, breaking as he did with the apocalyptic scheme in these areas, we must imagine that his teaching concerning the temporal duality and the coming of the end remained perfectly within the duality which we have seen, leaving it intact.
There is then a good prima facie reason for thinking that the subversion of the apocalyptic imagination by what I have called Jesus' eschatological imagination is something proper to Jesus rather than something invented by a disconcerted early community in the face of the indefinite postponement of the Day. This prima facie evidence deepens somewhat when we discover that at the root of the subversion which Jesus was making of these dualities, the criterion of the victim is to be found. Jesus offers a prophetic criterion in terms of ethical demands that are capable of being carried out as the basis of his subversion of these dualities: the social duality is redefined in terms of the victim, so that the victim is the criterion for if one is a sheep or a goat (Matt. 25), or if one is a neighbor (Luke 10); it is victims and those who live precariously who are to be at the centre of the new victim people, to whom belongs the kingdom of God which is arriving (Matt. 5-6). No one can be surprised that this insistence, more in the line of the prophetic imagination than the apocalyptic, comes also to be subversive of the cosmic and temporal dualities. It is thus that the forgiving victim, the crucified and risen one, comes to be, himself, the presence of the kingdom in the here and now. (pp. 125-26)
2. V. 32, ethnē, nations, or Gentiles. There is
considerable conversation in the modern commentaries about how to
read ethnē in this instance. Many actually favor reading
it as "Gentiles," arguing that Matthew most often uses it in that
sense. In this context, then, judging "Gentiles" would be be
precisely the us-them thinking that this site stands against. It
would be Jesus, or the early church, saying that the ultimate
judgment is against those others who persecute us.
This reading, in my opinion, would be a prime example of an
occasion where historical criticism utterly fails us. The reading
I'm suggesting here, especially from Brian Zahnd, depends on
reading ethnē as "nations." This passage is about how to
read history as a rise and fall of nations based on the criterion
of caring for the poor, the sick, the immigrant, and the prisoner.
(Without going into a detailed analysis here, I have looked up all
the instances of ethnē in Matthew and don't agree with the
conclusion of many commentators who say that he favors
3. V. 32, "as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats."
This image from Jesus seems to come from the Good Shepherd
metaphors that were arguably part of his repertoire (used in
Synoptic passages such as Matt. 9:36, 18:12-13, 26:31; and
preeminently in John 10). It is featured in the First Reading
assigned for this day, Ezekiel 34. But I'd like to suggest another
reference that makes sense with the rest of the passage: Daniel 7.
There, the nations or empires are represented by beastly animals,
non-humans, who are contrasted with the "Son of Man" as a
representative of a kingdom that is truly human. Rather than
choosing a beast in Matt. 25:31-46, Jesus uses the shepherd and
sheep background as a way to, in James Alison's language
above, to subvert the apocalyptic language. Jesus de-escalates the
inflammatory imagery of beastly animals to that of goats separated
4. V. 34, apo katabolēs kosmou, "from the foundation of the world." "Then the king will say to those at his right hand, 'Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." "Since the foundation of the world"-- apo katabolēs kosmou in the Greek -- appears in only one other place in Matthew: in 13:35, which is the verse Girard quotes for the title of his magnum opus, "things hidden since the foundation of the world."
There are five other instances of the phrase "since the foundation of the world" in the NT. Interestingly, Luke uses the phrase in another prominent Girardian passage, his version of the "Woes to the Pharisees" (Luke 11). It is a passage that precisely names that which has been hidden, namely, sacred violence, collective murder that is sanctioned by the community.
47 Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets whom your ancestors killed. 48 So you are witnesses and approve of the deeds of your ancestors; for they killed them, and you build their tombs. 49 Therefore also the Wisdom of God said, 'I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute,' 50 so that this generation may be charged with the blood of all the prophets shed since the foundation of the world, 51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, it will be charged against this generation."The final four occurrences are as follows (two in Hebrews and two in Revelation):
NRS Hebrews 4:3 For we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said, "As in my anger I swore, 'They shall not enter my rest,'" though his works were finished at the foundation of the world.Heb. 4:3 seems the most obscure to me, but the others each have their own point of interest. Heb. 9:26 speaks about Christ not suffering over and over again since the foundation of the world but having "appeared once for all at the end of the age to remove sin by the sacrifice of himself." This would seem to support Girard's thesis that the Christ event is both alike and different from every other victimization since the foundation of the world. It also strikes the theme of Christ's having transformed sacrifice by making it of himself rather than someone else.He lets his own blood be spilled instead of spilling another's. In Matthew's terms, the kingdom of heaven chooses to suffer violence rather than inflict it (11:12).
NRS Hebrews 9:26 for then he would have had to suffer again and again since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to remove sin by the sacrifice of himself.
NRS Revelation 13:8 and all the inhabitants of the earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slaughtered. (KJV Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.)
NRS Revelation 17:8 The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to ascend from the bottomless pit and go to destruction. And the inhabitants of the earth, whose names have not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, will be amazed when they see the beast, because it was and is not and is to come.
The two Revelation texts raise the issue about the notion of the
Lamb slain since the foundation of the world. The NRSV has chosen
in 13:8 to make "since the foundation of the world" modify the
writing in the Book of Life, not the Lamb slain, making it
consistent with 17:8. But the word order in the original Greek is
not consistent between the two verses. In 17:8 "since the
foundation of the world" follows "the Book of Life," while in 13:8
it does immediately follow the words for "Lamb slain." In fact,
13:8 ends with the words in the Greek for "Lamb slain
since the foundation of the world." So that's how the King James
translates it. With the Girardian anthropology this option for
translation is quite meaningful. It expresses Jesus in solidarity
with all the victims of collective violence since the evolution of
5. V. 40, "members of my family" (NRSV), "my brothers" (most
other translations). The issues here are similar to those in
Exegetical Note #2 above. Many commentators see adelphos mou
as pointing to members of the early Christian community, turning
this passage into an us-them reading that I believe the Gospel as
a whole to be subverting. Rather, the Gospel is about the new way
of being human in which all people are brothers and sisters in
6. Vs. 41, 46, aiōnios, "eternal," or "age," "eon,"
"period of time." Influenced again by N.T. Wright's work
on the translation of this word, I would translate the three
occurrences of this word as: "time of fire," "time of punishment,"
and "life in God's new age" (Wright's most frequent translation of
"eternal life"). At issue here is reading this passage as a
Platonist Greek (which is the way of reading throughout much of
Christian history) or as a Jew. The centerpiece of Plato's
worldview is the eternal 'heavenly' realm of ideas that we are
destined for when freed from our bodies through death, a realm
outside space, time, and matter. It is a worldview extremely
foreign to the worldview of a Creation-centered Jew steeped in the
prophetic tradition of interpreting history. Plato's view of
eternity ultimately takes one outside history. The Hebrew prophets
remained firmly rooted in history, where one may speak in terms of
long periods of time as "ages" or "eons," but never in the sense
of the Platonic "eternity."
Can one legitimately translate the New Testament aiōnios
as "eternal"? Yes, in terms of its setting in the language
connected to the Greek worldview. But if one strives to be more
faithful to the Jewish way of thinking of Jesus and the Apostles,
then aiōnios is more accurately translated with the sense
of its English derivative, "eon" -- a period of time in
history, an "age" or "era."
Wright believes, for example, that the phrase zoe aionios
("eternal life") is a rendering of the Aramaic for “age to come,”
ha-olam ha-ba. Here is Wright's best explanation of
translating the Greek phrase zoe aionias in How
God Became King: The Forgotten Story of the Gospels:
“God so loved the world,” reads the famous text in the King James Version of John 3:16, “that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life.” There we are, think average Christian readers. This is the biblical promise of a timeless heavenly bliss.
But it isn’t. In the many places where the phrase zoe aionios appears in the gospels, and in Paul’s letters for that matter, it refers to one aspect of an ancient Jewish belief about how time was divided up. In this viewpoint, there were two “aions” (we sometimes use the word “eon” in that sense): the “Present age,” ha-olam hazeh in Hebrew, and the “age to come,” ha-olam ha-ba. The “age to come,” many ancient Jews believed, would arrive one day to bring God’s justice, peace, and healing to the world as it groaned and toiled within the “present age.” You can see Paul, for instance, referring to this idea in Galatians 1:4, where he speaks of Jesus giving himself for our sins “to rescue us from the present evil age.” In other words, Jesus has inaugurated, ushered in, the "age to come.” But there is no sense that this “age to come” is “eternal” in the sense of being outside space, time, and matter. Far from it. The ancient Jews were creational monotheists. For them, God’s great future purpose was not to rescue people out of the world, but to rescue the world itself, people included, from its present state of corruption and decay. (pp. 44-45)
My rendering in this passage, then, seeks to be in-step with a
Jewish way of thinking descended from the Hebrew prophets. It is
about a judgment of nations in history. There are
consequences to behaving as empires have done throughout human
history. They fall, they fail, usually in a conflagration of their
own ways of violence. As such, these times of fall are a "time of
fire," a "time of punishment." Not brought on directly by God. But
the consequences of how God has created the world. These times are
the consequences of us not living as we are created to live. How
are we created to live? To live as a harmonious family by making
sure we take care of the least among us, the most vulnerable. To
not live in this way is to fail our own humanity. This incredible
passage from Jesus which concludes his teaching in Matthew's
Gospel portrays our true human community as sheep and our failed
human community as goats. And it's not something stamped in an
eternity of essences, but something worked out in the ebb and flow
of history. When we form community according ways founded in
sacred violence, we suffer times of tasting our own medicine, the
fire of sacred violence. With the advent of the true king in
history, there is now the promise that we are entering into zoe
aionios, ha-olam ha-ba, life in God's new age.
1. Brian Zahnd, A
Farewell to Mars: An Evangelical Pastor's Journey
Toward the Biblical Gospel of Peace (a book with a
significant Girardian influence), Chapter 7, "Clouds, Christ, and
Kingdom Come," offers a reading of this passage that has rocked my
world. Building on the exegetical concepts behind "Son of Man" (above), Zahnd takes seriously the "judgment
of nations" more poignantly than any other commentator on this
passage that I've ever come across. Here is the core of Zahnd's
sizzling reading of this passage:
As Christians we confess that Jesus has ascended to the right hand of the throne of God in the heavens. This was a theme the apostles emphasized repeatedly. But what is Jesus doing at the right hand of God? Twiddling his thumbs? Biding his time? Idly waiting? No. He is ruling and judging the nations. Of course this is a mystery; I don’t pretend that I am able to explain it all, but there is a sense in which the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ has inaugurated a new justice in the earth, and nations that run headlong against the righteousness of God eventually fall into fiery judgment . . . now! Whether it’s Imperial Rome or Nazi Germany, nations cannot forever oppose the righteousness of God without falling into a fiery hell “prepared for the devil and his angels.” The American colonies and nation practiced, for over two centuries, the most brutal form of slavery the world has ever known — until it was thrown into the hell of a civil war that claimed the lives of three quarters of a million people.Zahnd's reading speaks critically of the traditional reading from his own evangelical background, but that reading is familiar in outline to the Mainline readings, too, where the emphasis has been on how Christians are to live on their way to judgment in the afterlife -- merciful judgment based on "justification by grace through faith." This reading does an end-run around the familiar reading. It is about God's criteria, revealed through King Jesus, of judging nations in history. What is revealed in the Christ event are the rules to being truly human all along. The way in which we human beings have evolved has led into the sinful way that climaxes in the power of beastly empires which rule with sacred violence, a way that always leads to devastation of lands and peoples -- a fiery judgment, if you will. In King Jesus we finally see what it takes to be truly human: ways of ordering ourselves which focus on caring for those usually considered the least in the human family -- the poor, the sick, the immigrant, the prisoner. I highly recommend reading Zahnd's Chapter 7 of A Farewell to Mars before preaching this text.
Yes, I believe in a personal judgment.... But I don’t think this is what Jesus was particularly talking about in his parable of the sheep and goats. Jesus spoke of nations judged, not individuals. And the criterion for judgment has nothing to do with “receiving Jesus as Savior” but with the treatment of the underclass with whom Jesus claimed a particular solidarity.
When the Son of Man judges the nations, he divides them into sheep and goats. Interestingly, this division is not based on praying a sinner’s prayer or getting saved or saying one is a Christian, but on the treatment of certain people. If you want to say this parable is not really about the judgment of nations but about the judgment of individuals, you are left with the problem that the criterion for judgment has nothing to do with “getting saved” or “receiving Jesus as your personal Savior.” In other words, you are going to have a really hard time getting Jesus’s parable of the sheep and goats to line up with a four-spiritual-laws view of personal salvation. It seems clear that the easiest way to make sense of this parable is to view it as the establishment of the new criterion for judgment for the nations that begins with the coming of the Son of Man — the thing that Jesus told Caiaphas he would see “from now on.”
So how does Jesus judge or evaluate nations? What criteria does he use? When we evaluate nations, we tend to do so on the basis of wealth and power — Gross Domestic Product, standard of living, strength of the economy, strength of the military. But this is not the criterion Jesus uses to judge the nations as he sits upon his glorious throne. Jesus judges nations on how well they care for four kinds of people:
The Poor. “I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink . . . I was naked and you gave me clothing.”
The Sick. “I was sick and you took care of me.”
The Immigrant. “I was a stranger and you welcomed me.”
The Prisoner. “I was in prison and you visited me.” (Matt. 25:35-36) (pp. 163-65)
2. René Girard, The Scapegoat, p. 202-3. Girard quotes the passage in its entirety to make two basic points within the context of discussing "History and the Paraclete":
3. James Williams, The Bible, Violence & the Sacred. This 'parable' is the featured text in Williams' discussion of the Gospel of Matthew, p. 194-99. Williams portrays Matthew as bringing together two major roles of Jesus: the Teacher of Wisdom and the Apocalyptic Judge. These roles are combined in a startling manner in Matthew 25:31-46 in an apocalyptic picture of the Day of Judgment which climaxes Jesus' teachings in Matthew. And it is all "centered in the revelation of the innocent victim," which is about to be further revealed in the Passion.
4. James Alison, Raising Abel, p. 126 & 157. These are the same passages we have looked at in recent weeks with the parables of Matthew 25. He has a very nice summary:
So, with Matthew, apocalyptic language and all, we see that his three final parables have to do strictly with how to live in the time of Abel: first, being alert means preparing yourself patiently for the duration; secondly, the patient construction of the kingdom means having your imagination fixed on the abundant generosity of the One Who empowers and gives growth; and thirdly, what is demanded is a non-scandalized living out which is flexible enough to be able to recognize those whom the world is throwing out, and then a stretching out of the hand so as to create with them the kingdom of heaven. All of this is a making explicit of the eschatological imagination through the subversion from within of the apocalyptic imagination. (p. 158)5. James Alison, Knowing Jesus, makes the connection between the Beatitudes (see comments on the Gospel of All Saints A) and the final parable in Matthew:
The key feature of blessedness is that it involves living a deliberately chosen and cultivated sort of life which is not involved in the power and violence of the world, and which because of this fact, makes the ones living it immensely vulnerable to being turned into victims. That is the center of the ethic as taught by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. If we then turn to the end of Jesus' last discourse before his passion [Matt. 25:31-46] -- the mirror image of this, the first of his discourses -- we find the same intelligence at work. In the famous passage of the last judgement, the judgement is defined not in terms of belonging to this or that group, or believing this or that dogma. The judgement is presented in terms of the human relationships towards victims. Those who hunger, thirst, are naked, sick, or imprisoned. Those who have understood, whether or not they know anything about Jesus, are those who have seen their way out of the self-deception of the world which is blind to its victims, and have reached out to help them. Again, the intelligence of the victim [link to webpage on Alison's use of this phrase "the intelligence of the victim"]: it is the crucified and risen victim who is the judge of the world, and the world is judged in the light of its relationship to the crucified and risen victim.6. Brian McLaren, We Make the Road By Walking, ch. 8, "Rivalry or Reconciliation?", and ch. 24, "Jesus and Hell." In Ch. 8, McLaren cites this passage to read as background to a conversation of the Genesis stories of sibling rivalries -- Esau and Jacob, Joseph and his brothers. In Chapter 24, this passage is also listed as background for an excellent teaching about hell. It goes well with the view of this passage here that it is not about individuals being condemned to hell as a place of eternal torture. Rather, it is about judgment of nations, the consequences of not caring for the least in Jesus's family -- those consequences being a failure of those nations in history that leads to an age of fiery self-inflicted violence. McLaren writes,
Jesus used fire-and-brimstone language in another way, as well. He used it to warn his countrymen about the catastrophe of following their current road — a wide and smooth highway leading to another violent uprising against the Romans. Violence won’t produce peace, he warned; it will produce only more violence. If his countrymen persisted in their current path, Jesus warned, the Romans would get revenge on them by taking their greatest pride — the Temple — and reducing it to ashes and rubble. The Babylonians had done it once, and the Romans could do it again. That was why he advocated a different path — a “rough and narrow path” of nonviolent social change instead of the familiar broad highway of hate and violence.7. Frederick Niedner, "The Searching Judge (excerpt)," from Proclaiming a Cruciform Eschaton, a small booklet published for the 1998 Institute of Liturgical Studies at Valparaiso University, pages 5-8. Niedner begins with the observation that "Son of Man" in the Hebrew is ben adam, so a literal understanding of Adam's son would be Cain or Abel. He makes use of an extending of the story of Cain and Abel by Elie Wiesel -- an extension that bears some resemblance to the one Alison proposes in Raising Abel, that Abel returns to forgive his brother, not to get vengeance. From the Wiesel extension of the Cain and Abel story, Niedner proposes an extension of the story in Matthew 25:31-46, in which the sheep, who have attended to the outcasts throughout their earthly lives, now plead on behalf of the goats about to cast out in the heavenly judgment. Link here for a sermon based on Niedner's themes, "The Searching Judge."
Belief in the afterlife, it turned out provided a benefit for those who wanted to recruit people for violent revolution. They would promise heaven to those who died as martyrs in a holy war. That connection between death in battle and reward in heaven helps explain why the Pharisees joined with the Zealots and became leaders in a rebellion against the Roman empire in AD 67. Their grand scheme succeeded for a time, but three years later, the Romans marched in and crushed the rebellion. Jerusalem was devastated. The temple was reduced to ash and rubble.
After that failed revolution, the Pharisees charted a nonviolent path of teaching and community building. They paved the way for the development of Rabbinic Judaism, which undergirds the various traditions of Judaism today. Their story demonstrates that neither groups nor individuals should ever be stereotyped or considered incapable of learning, growth, and change.
That’s the real purpose of Jesus’ fire-and-brimstone language. Its purpose was not to predict the destruction of the universe or to make absolute for all eternity the insider-outsider categories of us and them. Its purpose was to wake up complacent people, to warn them of the danger of their current path, and to challenge them to change — using the strongest language and imagery available. As in the ancient story of Jonah, God’s intent was not to destroy but to save. Neither a great big fish nor a great big fire gets the last word, but rather God’s great big love and grace. (pp. 113-14)
Reflections and Questions
1. In 2014 my reading of this passage has undergone a
transformation from Brian Zahnd's A
Farewell to Mars (more above).
Preaching this reading began with an experience from the previous
weekend: our congregation's youth participating in the ELCA's
Famine 2014, "Act
2 Day 4 Tomorrow," a 30-hour fasting to raise awareness and
funds for ELCA
World Hunger. One of the suggested activities is to play a
modified version of Monopoly, in which the players/teams
start with unequal monies and properties. From this, we might see
that our usual approach of Charity is to be generous within the
rules of the game; and Matt. 25:31-46 is often cited as a basis
for individuals to embrace charity. Justice, on the other hand, is
to seek with others to change the rules of the game to be more
fair and equitable; Zahnd's reading enables us to truly this
passage in that sense. Jesus in Matthew 25:31-46 is revealing to
us, as he is about to inaugurate the reign of the "Son of Man,"
the rules that God has intended from the beginning. To repeat what
I said above: What is revealed in the Christ event are the rules
to being truly human all along. The way in which we human beings
have evolved has led into the sinful way that climaxes in the
power of beastly empires which rule with sacred violence, a way
that always leads to devastation of lands and peoples -- a fiery
judgment, if you will. In King Jesus we finally see what it takes
to be truly human: ways of ordering ourselves which focus on
caring for those usually considered the least in the human family
-- the poor, the sick, the immigrant, the prisoner.
This line of approach to preaching the passage first led to my December column for
our parish newsletter.
2. In 2004 I read an excellent book on the Book of Revelation and the dangerous interpretations of "dispensationalism," such as in the Left Behind series. The book is Barbara Rossing's The Rapture Exposed. One of the insights from this book that will stick with me forever is the understanding of Hebrew prophecy that she puts forth with a comparison to Charles Dickens' well-known story "A Christmas Carol." The three ghosts show Scrooge the past that led him to his present and, most importantly, his possible future given the trajectory of his behavior. We know from the ending of the story that Scrooge changes his future through repentance. The third ghost didn't show him a 'prophecy' that locked him into a certain fate. Likewise, the purpose of showing him his likely future was not to cement Scrooge into fatalism but to prompt him into exactly what he did, repent and change his ways, so that a new future could be written. I find this to be a wonderful teaching tool for understanding Hebrew prophecy along similar lines. God sent the prophets not to lock us into a certain fate but to lovingly invite us to repent.
Many of Jesus' parables have a component of such prophecy. This parable is a prophecy lovingly offered for repentance. It's purpose is not to give us an accurate picture of actual events as they will unfold on Judgment Day but rather to clue us in on the measure for judgment for the purpose of winning our repentance.
2. In 2005 I am using multimedia for my sermon that will feature a song by Brian Sirchio called "I See You" about an encounter he had in Haiti with a young street girl. He is conflicted inside about giving her money right on the spot. He knows that 32,000 children starve to death each day. Giving this one child food for today won't solve that problem, even for her. This is how the song ends:
And as I drove away I made a promiseWith the allusion to Matthew 25:31-46 in the chorus, seeing Christ in this hungry child, Sirchio does what I think this parable hopes for us to do: live in the promise of a different world such that this world begins to change. It is a loving plea for repentance not only for the sakes of the 32,000 children who starve to death each day but also for the sakes of us goats who might find ourselves in a future world cut-off from the God of Life in Jesus Christ.
Little girl, I never will forget your face
And I'll do what's mine to do to change the world for kids like you
And when I hear 32,000, I'll remember you and say...
I see you. I see you.
Hey little girl, I won't pretend that you're not there
I see you. I see you.
Little girl Christ, I see you.
3. The Niedner essay points to an inconsistency in this parable: the sheep have attended to the outcasts of this earthly life, and then in the heavenly judgment the Son of Man designates eternal, heavenly outcasts. Is it up to the sheep to now attend to those outcasts? This isn't the judgment of the cross in which the Son of Man lets himself be made an outcast so that those who judge him judge themselves.
4. Does it make a difference that this parable is spoken to the disciples only? Is it given to them to encourage their taking the side of the outcasts? What is the purpose of this parable in light of the preceding parable? I believe it is the kind of prophecy outlined above, a call to repentance. The question remains, however: why does Jesus still use judgment as a means to repentance when forgiveness becomes his main vehicle toward repentance?
Return to Year A Index
Return to "Girardian Reflections on the Lectionary" Home Page
Link to "The Text This Week" -- the Most Comprehensive Lectionary Site on the Internet