Jesus and “Family Values”
Posted: 21 October 2009 12:38 PM   [ Ignore ]  
Newbie
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  33
Joined  2007-10-14

[SIZE=“1”]An excerpt from Bart D. Ehrman’s The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, Fourth Edition:[/SIZE]

One of the hardest things for modern people who are interested in Jesus to realize is that he lived in a completely different culture from ours, with a foreign set of cultural values and norms—so much so that people commonly claim that he did not (or rather could not) have meant what he said. Nowhere is this more clear than in the area known today as “family values.”

Since the modern sense of family values seems to be so good and wholesome, it is only natural for people to assume that Jesus too must have taught them. But did he? It is striking that in our earliest traditions Jesus does not seem to place a high priority on the family. Consider the words preserved in Q: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters and even his own life, he is not able to be my disciple” (Luke 14:26; Matt 10:37). A person must hate his or her family? The same word is used, strikingly, in the saying independently preserved in the Gospel of Thomas: “The one who does not hate his father and mother will not be worthy to be my disciple” (Gosp. Thom. 55). If we understand “hate” here to mean something like “despise in comparison to” or “have nothing to do with,” then the saying makes sense. Parents, siblings, spouses, and even one’s own children were to be of no importance in comparison with the coming kingdom.

This may help explain Jesus’ reaction to his own family. For there are clear signs not only that Jesus’ family rejected his message during his public ministry, but that he in turn spurned them publicly (independently attested in Mark 3:31–34 and Gosp. Thom. 99).

And Jesus clearly saw the familial rifts that would be created when someone became committed to his message of the coming kingdom:


[SIZE=“1”]You think that I have come to bring peace on earth; not peace, I tell you, but division. For from now on there will be five people in one house, divided among themselves: three against two and two against three; a father will be divided against his son and a son against his father, a mother against her daughter and a daughter against her mother; a mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law (Luke 12:51–53; Matt 10:34–46; independently attested in Gosp. Thom. 16).[/SIZE]


And family tensions would be heightened immediately before the end of the age, when “a brother will betray his brother to death, and a father his child, and children will rise up against their parents and kill them” (Mark 13:12).

These “anti-family” traditions are too widely attested in our sources to be ignored (they are found in Mark, Q, and Thomas, for example), and suggest that Jesus did not support what we today might think of as family values. But why not? Could it be that Jesus was not ultimately interested in establishing a good society and doing what was necessary to maintain it? Remember: for him the end was coming soon, and the present social order was being called radically into question. What mattered were not strong family ties and the social institutions of this world. What mattered was the new thing that was coming, the future kingdom. And it was impossible to promote this teaching while trying to retain the present social structure. That would be like trying to put a new wine into old wineskins or trying to sew a new piece of cloth to an old garment. As any wine-master or seamstress could tell you, it just won’t work. The wineskins would burst and the garment would tear. New wine and new cloth require new wineskins and new garments. The old is passing away and the new is almost here (Mark 2:18–22; Gosp. Thom. 47).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 October 2009 04:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  277
Joined  2008-02-10

I think that Jesus was probably abused by his family.  Child abuse was pretty common in those days.  See the book History of childhood by Phillip Aries.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 October 2009 07:07 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1835
Joined  2006-03-26

Interesting. I laugh every time I hear of one of those “family values” conferences. True, the bible does not condone gay marriage anywhere in the bible, but here’s a great summation of family values by “America’s best Christian” Betty Bowers.

A Bible Based Marriage

 Signature 

Bill Maher’s New Rule About Religious Tests for Office

Sam explains the difference between the belief in Elvis and belief in Jesus

Support the Separation of Church & State!
Freedom From Religion Foundation

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 October 2009 12:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  14
Joined  2009-04-20

Family values don’t mean shit to me.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2009 09:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1891
Joined  2007-12-19
queefsr4quitters - 21 October 2009 04:38 PM

Consider the words preserved in Q: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters and even his own life, he is not able to be my disciple” (Luke 14:26; Matt 10:37). A person must hate his or her family? The same word is used, strikingly, in the saying independently preserved in the Gospel of Thomas: “The one who does not hate his father and mother will not be worthy to be my disciple” (Gosp. Thom. 55). If we understand “hate” here to mean something like “despise in comparison to” or “have nothing to do with,” then the saying makes sense. Parents, siblings, spouses, and even one’s own children were to be of no importance in comparison with the coming kingdom.

Since the authors of the NT were basically updating the religion of the OT, they had the basis to create Jesus as the Messiah as foretold in the OT, and a rich source of reference material with which to make the necessary ties of continuity. They no doubt realized the importance of proscribing the degree to which one must believe in the existence of god and commitment to that in order for the whole concept to work. These passages may simply represent a restating of the example of Abraham’s willingness and readiness to kill his only son as to the required degree and testament of unbridled faith in god, but told in a different way. The love and bond with family would presumably be the strongest in man’s social construct, therefore the bond with Jesus should supercede that, as with the story of Abraham. The love of and commitment to Jesus should be greater than that relished on the family. The cited passages refer to being his disciple or follower, not to the coming kingdom. So, how much should you believe and worship God/Jesus? Enough to kill your child if god commands it, and such that the love of family would constitute hate of your family in comparison to the love you should bestow on Jesus. That’s one/my take on it, anyhow.

 Signature 

“This is it. You are it.”


- Jos. Campbell

Profile
 
 
   
 
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed