Srebenica mourns new- found victims of Christian killers

This blog provides a meditation on the Episcopal daily readings along with a headline from world news

1 Samuel 20:1-23

20David fled from Naioth in Ramah. He came before Jonathan and said, ‘What have I done? What is my guilt? And what is my sin against your father that he is trying to take my life?’ 2He said to him, ‘Perish the thought! You shall not die. My father does nothing either great or small without disclosing it to me; and why should my father hide this from me? Never!’ 3But David also swore, ‘Your father knows well that you like me; and he thinks, “Do not let Jonathan know this, or he will be grieved.” But truly, as the Lord lives and as you yourself live, there is but a step between me and death.’ 4Then Jonathan said to David, ‘Whatever you say, I will do for you.’ 5David said to Jonathan, ‘Tomorrow is the new moon, and I should not fail to sit with the king at the meal; but let me go, so that I may hide in the field until the third evening. 6If your father misses me at all, then say, “David earnestly asked leave of me to run to Bethlehem his city; for there is a yearly sacrifice there for all the family.” 7If he says, “Good!” it will be well with your servant; but if he is angry, then know that evil has been determined by him. 8Therefore deal kindly with your servant, for you have brought your servant into a sacred covenant with you. But if there is guilt in me, kill me yourself; why should you bring me to your father?’ 9Jonathan said, ‘Far be it from you! If I knew that it was decided by my father that evil should come upon you, would I not tell you?’ 10Then David said to Jonathan, ‘Who will tell me if your father answers you harshly?’ 11Jonathan replied to David, ‘Come, let us go out into the field.’ So they both went out into the field.

12 Jonathan said to David, ‘By the Lord, the God of Israel! When I have sounded out my father, about this time tomorrow, or on the third day, if he is well disposed towards David, shall I not then send and disclose it to you? 13But if my father intends to do you harm, the Lord do so to Jonathan, and more also, if I do not disclose it to you, and send you away, so that you may go in safety. May the Lord be with you, as he has been with my father. 14If I am still alive, show me the faithful love of the Lord; but if I die, 15never cut off your faithful love from my house, even if the Lord were to cut off every one of the enemies of David from the face of the earth.’ 16Thus Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, ‘May the Lord seek out the enemies of David.’ 17Jonathan made David swear again by his love for him; for he loved him as he loved his own life.

The storyteller remains focused on David’s rise to power at the expense of Saul and his descendents, of which Jonathan is one. The love between the two men has no trace of self-interest in Jonathan’s case, but is certainly to David’s advantage. Because of their friendship, Jonathan not only does not oppose David he even takes his side. The reader would like perhaps to believe that this doesn’t matter to David but the sober artistry of the author leaves the suspicion that in this as in other matters, David plays his good cards well. Jonathan, perhaps anticipating his own death, gets David to promise protection for his family – which David keeps by specifically sparing Jonathan’s son, but getting rid of the rest of the family. (see 2 Samuel).

Those who want to find a male homosexual relationship in the Bible have focused on David and Solomon. Most of what they’ve said seems tendentious to me, not least the attempt to make “the going out to the field” into a sexual assignation. The wording in fact suggests a deliberate reminiscence of Cain and Abel. There is no doubt that the relationship is passionate, and recognised by David in his lament, “Your love for me was wonderful, passing the love of women,” but turning it into a sexual relationship mistakes its nature and the nature of the story.

The covenant between Jonathan and “the house of David” adds to the evidence that David is not a treacherous usurper. Perish the thought! But the reader may wonder (is invited to wonder?) why the author feels the need to give so much reassurance on this point.

Mark 2:13-22

13 Jesus went out again beside the lake; the whole crowd gathered around him, and he taught them. 14As he was walking along, he saw Levi son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, ‘Follow me.’ And he got up and followed him.

15 And as he sat at dinner in Levi’s house, many tax-collectors and sinners were also sitting with Jesus and his disciples—for there were many who followed him. 16When the scribes of the Pharisees saw that he was eating with sinners and tax-collectors, they said to his disciples, ‘Why does he eat with tax-collectors and sinners?’ 17When Jesus heard this, he said to them, ‘Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I have come to call not the righteous but sinners.’

18 Now John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting; and people came and said to him, ‘Why do John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?’ 19Jesus said to them, ‘The wedding-guests cannot fast while the bridegroom is with them, can they? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. 20The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast on that day.

21 ‘No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old cloak; otherwise, the patch pulls away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear is made. 22And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise, the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost, and so are the skins; but one puts new wine into fresh wineskins.’

Tax-collectors were despised as collaborators with the occupying power; “sinners” were all who for whatever reason made no attempt to keep the Torah practices favoured by the Pharisees, many of which were matters of ritual rather than morality. The implication is that Jesus was found in the company of a semi-criminal underclass, which included serious thugs like tax-collectors as well as reasonably honest street traders and the like. Those who make a fetish of Jesus’ relationship with the poor ought to reflect that quite a number of these people were offensively rich through oppressing the poor. Yes, the story of Zacchaeus shows what Jesus could do with such people but he changes their lives through his scandalous friendship.

Just as scandalous was his neglect of simple religious duties like fasting. He replies to criticism by suggesting that he may be the “bridegroom of Israel” the Messiah. His presence justifies rejoicing. Jesus’ words about the bridegroom being taken away are appropriate enough for the wedding metaphor but not for the expected Messiah.

The metaphor of the new wine continues the description of Jesus’ ministry in festive language. “New wineskins for new wine” scandalously suggests a fundamental change in religious belief and practice.

Mark wants the reader to see that the joy of Jesus’ ministry is closely associated with its power to scandalise the pious. Even today, that can be unhealthy..