Mark, A Meal, A Leper & The Kingdom Of God (part 1)

Now while Jesus was in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper, reclining at the table, a woman came with an alabaster jar of costly aromatic oil from pure nard.  After breaking open the jar, she poured it on his head. – Mark 14:3  (NET)

Jesus is at a meal table.  Though there is not an explicit mention of a meal taking place, based on what is presented in the text it is appropriate to infer that a meal is taking place.  Mark writes that Jesus was “reclining at the table” (14:3b).  This is a clear indication that Jesus is participating in yet another meal, as it informs the reader that Jesus is utilizing a dining couch rather than an upright chair, and that He has most likely assumed the traditional posture of laying on the couch, propped up on one elbow, with His head near the table and His feet at the end of the couch away from the table.  Because this presents a much better picture of Jesus’ posture, it is then possible to form a more complete picture of what took place at this table. 

It is said that there was a woman “with an alabaster jar of costly aromatic oil from pure nard.  After breaking open the jar, she poured it on His head” (14:3c).  The text indicates that the woman did not stop with Jesus’ head, but might very well have poured out the perfume over the whole of His body, because Jesus, when some present scoffed at what was perceived to be a waste of a costly item that could have been sold, with the money given to the poor, responded by saying, “She has done a good service for Me… She did what she could.  She anointed My body before burial” (14:6b,8). 

There is an interesting dynamic that is at play here, having to do with the context in which Mark sets this event.  Though there is an intervening chapter of prophetic apocalyptic speech (pulling back the veil) by Jesus (Mark 13), the previous event that is recorded by Mark is that of Jesus observing the crowds making their offerings at the Temple.  While observing this activity, Jesus sees a poor widow who “came and put in two small copper coins” (12:42b), saying “I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the offering box than all the others… she, out of her poverty, put in what she had to live on, everything she had” (12:43b,44b). 

Following that, Jesus goes on to tell His disciples that the very Temple to which this widow gave the last of what she had “will be torn down” (13:2b).  It would be difficult for the disciples not to draw the conclusion that the offering made by this poor widow, sacrificing all that she had for that which was going to be destroyed, was itself quite a waste.  From there, in terms of the presentation of events, Mark moves directly to the meal at which Jesus is present, and to the breaking open of the alabaster jar for the purpose of anointing His body, with the indignant insistence that this was nothing but a waste.  However, Mark is making a point related to the fact that Jesus saw Himself as the true Temple of God that would stand eternally, so that nothing offered to it could possibly be considered a waste (unlike the widow’s tragic offering). 

Speaking In Tongues (part 17)

Paul continues on to write “Now you are Christ’s body, and each of you is a member of it” (1 Corinthians 12:27).  It must be asked: could there be any greater honor or source of honor?  To that Paul adds “And God has placed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, gifts of healing, helps, gifts of leadership, different kinds of tongues” (12:28).  Again, one must be careful not to hear Paul creating spiritual hierarchies, as that would seem to run counter to the movement of the entire letter in which Paul seeks to devalue and destroy the accepted honor constructs that have no place in the church.  One must keep in mind Paul’s insistence on the equal importance of all members when reading “Not all are apostles, are they?  Not all are prophets, are they?  Not all are teachers, are they?  Not all perform miracles, do they?  Not all have gifts of healing, do they?  Not all speak in tongues, do they?  Not all interpret, do they?” (12:29-30) 

Though it will be the case that not every member exhibits these types of spiritual gifts, that does not mean that they are not equally valuable or that their spiritual gifts are not equally honorable, so these categories should not be employed to create authoritarian hierarchies in the church.  In fact, Paul, after what seems like an elevation of these particular “offices,” appears to engage his hearers in a transition away from a mode of thinking that elevates these offices and their associated gifts, and goes on express that there are greater gifts that are perhaps deserving of even more honor when he writes “But you should be eager for the greater gifts.  And now I will show you a way that is beyond comparison” (12:31).  

Wading then into chapter thirteen, the reader must be aware that Paul is beginning to deploy his full rhetorical arsenal with great skill.  While he is most certainly elevating love as that which is to be the controlling ethic for the body of the Christ, he is also stripping other activities of the honor that has been over-ascribed to them. 

When he writes “If I speak in the tongues of mean and of angels, but I do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal” (13:1), he is not passing judgment on the activity of glossolalia.  For Paul, this particular action, acknowledged by him as some type of evidence of the work of the Spirit of the Creator God, is a common and accepted religious practice dating back hundreds of years.  However, it does seem to be problematic for this church in some way, and owing to that, he is engaging in rhetorical speech directed to those in the church that are vaunting themselves as being superior to others, or who are allowing themselves to be viewed as being superior to others, simply because they engage in the common practice of ecstatic speech and also accept the honor that would naturally come their way as a result.  Paul acknowledges their activity but he also indicates that it is not being performed in the right spirit, which is that of love---the greater gift and way that is beyond comparison. 

Paul does not pick on speaking in tongues, but goes on to treat other perceived spiritual gifts in the same way, writing “And if I have prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith so that I can remove mountains,” which appears to be a nod towards the Jesus tradition and His statements about faith, “but do not have love, I am nothing” (13:2).  This “nothing” makes for quite the contrasting statement, as if somebody prophesied, excelled in the revelation of mysteries, demonstrated knowledge, and had a commendable faith, they would enjoy the adulation of others, with a commensurate increase in their honor status. 

However, if a self-sacrificial, other-preferring, serving, equalizing love was not the basis for all of these things---if these things were motivated by love of glory and pursuit of honor, then it was all meaningless.  In fact, if such was the case, then all of these things, when practiced within the Jesus community, actually stood apart from honor and was instead a source of shame.  With the sheer number of attributions, it is reasonable to presume that Paul may have had one particular individual in mind with the statement of verse two.    

Speaking In Tongues (part 8)

Given the high value placed on public opinion, one can understand the high value placed on the use of rhetoric in the ancient world, as skilled speakers could do much to shape consensus, dragging public opinion concerning that which should be understood to be truly honorable in the direction desired by those that wished to either gain in status or cement their positions.  It is the importance of the orator in this regard, as not only would the orator have his own honor while also being employed in ways that would gain honor for others, that stands in the background and informs Paul’s words about eloquence and wisdom and status and identification with certain individuals in his first letter to Corinth. 

Eloquence, which was associated with wisdom, was also associated with honor.  A highly effective public speaker would be viewed with much honor and could be employed to achieve the same for others by either “singing their praises” or shaping the consciousness of the community in such a way that they found themselves wishing to bestow honor in accordance with the actions of the one being so praised.  One cannot pass this by without acknowledging Paul’s focus on eloquent speech, understanding its function within the culture.  An observer must also acknowledge that glossolalia is a speech act as well.  This particular type of speech act, which was intimately associated with the gods, when performed publicly, was yet another means by which honor would be accrued. 

Paying attention to the value of the orator, it is worth perusing a papyrus fragment dating from 110 A.D., roughly fifty years beyond the time of the writing of Paul’s letter.  That fragment reads “Pay to Licinius the rhetor,” rhetor being a specific type of orator (short for rhetorician---one specifically skilled in the art of rhetoric, which was a foundational component of the education system of the day and a valued tool for the shaping of opinion well employed by Paul), “the amount due him for the speeches in which Aurelius… was honored… in the gymnasium in the Great Serapeion, four hundred drachmas of silver.”  According to the first century Roman historian by the name of Tacitus, the amount of money that was paid to Licinius exceeded the wages paid to a Roman soldier for a year’s worth of service.  This serves to demonstrate the high value that was then placed on this skill.  

Accordingly, as there was much money to be made, especially because the skill was put to use in connection with the pursuit of honor (or the conferring of shame---it served a dual role), training in such speech and writing was central to the education provided in the institutions of the day.  Indeed, the mastery of rhetorical speech was a potentially lucrative enterprise, serving to assist in the accrual of both wealth and public honor. 

Again, the gaining of position in society, and by extension within the institutions and associations of that society whatever those may be, is connected to public speech acts.  Those that were more charismatic, outgoing, engaging, and comfortable with public speech were able to serve themselves quite well.  Because of this, rhetorical speech was prized almost universally in the ancient world.  Romans, Greeks, and Jews, rich and poor alike, slaves and free, men and women, all enjoyed listening to the presentation of an eloquent speech riddled with lofty rhetoric.  In this way, the people in Corinth and in the church in Corinth were no different (and there is nothing wrong with that).

Speaking In Tongues (part 2)

The very first recorded cases of that which can be termed as glossolalia, or ecstatic speech attributed to the activity of the gods upon a believer, goes as far back as 1100 B.C.  On that occasion, it was a worshiper of the Egyptian God Amun that was said to have attracted attention to himself through making sounds in a strange, ecstatic tongue.  He reported himself to have been possessed by the god.  Seven hundred years later, the famous Greek philosopher Plato demonstrated that he was quite well acquainted with the phenomenon of speaking in tongues, as he made reference to several families who habitually practiced ecstatic speech, with prayers and utterings offered as they were supposedly possessed by the spirit of their gods. 

Plato would also go on to point out that these practices had even been said to have brought physical healing to those who engaged in them.  Accordingly, and because they had no reason to presume otherwise, Plato and those contemporary with him casually and confidently asserted that these occurrences were in fact caused by some type of divine inspiration.  It was his suggestion that the god simply took possession of the mind during this state, inspiring the individual so possessed with utterances that he could neither understand nor interpret. 

In the century prior to the coming of the Christ, the poet Virgil, speaking of the Sybilline priestess that lived on the island of Delos, described her activity of speaking in ecstatic tongues.  This was explained by her being in some type of mysterious union with the god Apollo.  This union was reported to have happened while she meditated in a haunted cave, amidst what was described as the eerie sounds of the wind as it played strange music through the narrow crevices of the rocks. 

Several of the mystery religions that inhabited the Greco-Roman world in which the church first developed also recorded the phenomenon of speaking in tongues.  These include the Persian cult of Mithra, the Egypt-based cult of Osiris, and the Dionysian, Eulusinian, and Orphic cults of Macedonia, Thrace, and Greece.  Lucian of Samosata, a reliable historian of the ancient world that lived in the second century, to whom the church owes a debt because of his records concerning the meal practices of the Greco-Roman world, described an example of glossolalia in one of his written works.  In it, the ecstatic utterance was performed by somebody described as a roaming believer in the Syrian goddess that went by the name of “June” (the month is named after her). 

Focusing on Corinth, the prevalence of cults that spoke in tongues, especially in what is the wider geographic area by which the city of Corinth was bounded, informs an observer that there would be a high degree of familiarity with the practice within the city.  This becomes especially poignant if one was to consider the geographical and cultural position in which Corinth was situated at the time of Christ, and a short time later, of Paul. 

Speaking In Tongues (part 1)

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but I do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. – 1 Corinthians 13:1  (NET)             

Whenever the topic of “speaking in tongues” is considered, a common misconception, together with a failure in basic knowledge of the subject, is advanced.  That common misconception is that “speaking in tongues” or “glossolalia” somehow began with Christians at Pentecost.  Whether one is “for” or “against” the idea of speaking in tongues, which is generally considered to be an ecstatic form of speech that is unintelligible to both the speaker and any hearers as it does not bear resemblance to any known languages, it is impossible to engage in a discussion without first considering the fact that records of the practice of speaking in tongues predates Christianity by several hundred years.  Yes, records of its historical practice in a way that is akin to the way in which it is practiced by millions of Christians around the world today, can be found centuries prior to the advent of the church and in complete isolation from the influence of the Creator God’s covenant people. 

The Apostle Paul, in his first letter to the congregation of Corinth, deals extensively with the issue of spiritual gifts, with that of speaking in tongues receiving what appears to be an inordinate amount of focus and attention.  This particular spiritual gifting appears to be of grave concern to the Apostle, and one can only have any hopes for understanding the reasons for Paul’s dealing with the subject in the context of the body of people that stood in representation of the kingdom of God, if one also understand a bit of the history of the action itself, its place in the culture, what it signified to the performer and to an audience, how it was received, how it functioned in a community, and in what the action of speaking in tongues would result. 

So yes, as one gazes through the pages of recorded history, one finds that there have been many occasions where people have spoken in what has been referred to as ecstatic language.  The records indicate that this is no different, in practice and in appearance, than what is to be seen in the contemporary (and historical) Christian practice of speaking in tongues (ecstatic language).  Shortly, this study shall also make clear that the given reasons for the speech have remained unchanged, and that the practice has merely been adapted to the new situation. 

Most of the accounts of ecstatic speech predate Pentecost (though it will be necessary to provide a helpful delineation between what is recounted in the second chapter of Acts and the activity that is being addressed in Paul’s letter to the Corinthian church) and were of decidedly non-Christian origin.  This fact should give pause to Christians that decry, and perhaps quite rightly, the fusion of pagan holidays into Christianity, rejecting the celebration of Easter and its associated traditions or Christmas and its associated traditions because of their questionable origins, while uncritically embracing pre-Christian (pagan) acts such as speaking in tongues that have also been carried over into the church. 

As the simple facts of the matter will eventually serve to demonstrate, Christians cannot say with any degree of confidence, that every occurrence of glossolalia (again, this is not necessarily what is seen in the second chapter of Acts) must be an expression of the will of the Creator God.  Many, of course, subscribe to this view, though it is historically untenable and does not withstand an even moderate degree of scrutiny.