Abstract
“We are not accustomed to attending to the Gospel story in its full account, let alone looking at the four versions in their distinctiveness. But it is here that we find the Gospel writers’ sense of what the conflict is about and how they believe it could be resolved” (x). Robert Beck reads the four Gospels as distinctive narratives from the perspective of the social sciences, archaeology, and historical records as responses to social conflict in the world when each was written. There are four Gospels because each was written to address a specific social situation. They are “counter narratives” (23) to challenge social presumptions about conflict resolution. In contrast to just war theory or pacifism, B. affirms Gandhi’s view “as combining active resistance with nonviolence” (12). Thus, he rejects Reinhold Niebuhr’s claim that resistance is itself a form of coercion. There is a chapter on each Gospel that divides into four parts: “a proposal for the evangelist’s project, as situated in the crisis of the times; a description of the story’s narrative conflict as told by the evangelist; the resolution of conflict as presented in this particular Gospel; plus a final assessment in terms of nonviolence theory” (27). I will offer some comments on each chapter.
“Mark’s carefully constructed narrative of Jesus takes the form of a nonviolent resistance campaign. Jesus is presented as a people’s messiah, sprung from the peasant villages of Galilee” (74). Jesus in Mark’s project and story confronts the violence and devastation of village life through his preaching, teaching, and healing. The conflict resolution includes three stages: nonviolent confrontation, a repressive response, and a deliberate act of non-retaliation, which in Mark occurs at Jesus’ arrest. Two issues could nuance this development. As in the other evangelists, the beginning is a highly theological scene that anticipates the whole story, that is Jesus accepts his death and resurrection symbolically at the baptism and confronts the power of evil in the desert. Second, the messianic secret is not the same as the miracle secret. When Jesus performs a healing it is broadcast everywhere but when he commands silence about who he is (e.g. at 8:30) nothing more is said because his identity is intertwined with his destiny as revealed in the cross.
Whereas Mark is writing most likely around the time of the Jewish–Roman war of 66–70, Matthew is writing in response to a developing rabbinic Judaism as succeeding the scribes and Pharisees. Matthew’s task is “retrieving the authentic identity of Israel” (86) with Jesus as the Son of David who brings the exile to an end. Jesus’ role is affirmed in the linear genealogy that demonstrates continuity and legitimacy and in the frequent citations of the servant songs. Thus, Matthew insists on “the royal heritage of Jesus” (93), the “banished prince” who comes in the spirit of the prophet of exile who refuses to retaliate. One problem is how this refusal squares with the violent endings in the parables. B. proposes that retribution, in contrast to vengeance, is “a concern for justice” (115). Perhaps a better interpretation for our times would be that God’s justice is his mercy (Walter Kasper).
This brings us to Luke–Acts which emphasizes divine mercy and is a clarion call to repentance. In contrast to Ezra, Luke follows Third Isaiah as opening a path to the Gentiles who participate in, not replace, the gifts and promises given to Israel. While the Holy Spirit is mentioned, much more emphasis could be placed on the Spirit as the central driving force from beginning to end. Resistance is located in a reversal of values that leads to a new way of life. Finally, John’s project is the story of the Word made flesh while the narrative is the story of Jesus of Nazareth. A logic of violence and a logic of love (René Girard) is the interpretive key to the story: the cross as an instrument of control is no longer effective. Jesus’ return to the Father in the power of love finally reconciles heaven and earth (John 3:16–21, 31–36; 12:44–50).
B. has offered a very fine analysis of the four Gospels with a focus on nonviolent conflict resolution. I have offered only a few comments on a much richer text that deserves to be read in full. In the concluding remarks, B. suggests that the woman caught in the act of adultery (John 8:1–11) is a paradigm of nonviolent action. I agree but have to ask where is the man (Deut 22:22)? Jesus is challenging the hypocrisy of his opponents as he often did.