"Niewiastę dzielną kto znajdzie?" (Prz 31,10). Rola kobiet w biblijnej historii zbawienia (red. A. Kubiś - K. Napora) (Analecta Biblica Lublinensia 14; Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL 2016) 287-312., 2016
[The Poor Widow –
a Symbol of Israel, a Model of Discipleship, an Icon of Christ]
The interpreta... more [The Poor Widow –
a Symbol of Israel, a Model of Discipleship, an Icon of Christ]
The interpretation of the poor widow's offering of her last penny and Jesus' comment on it, found in Mark 12:41-44 and Luke 21:1-4, has become in recent decades a debated point. Against the background of a unanimous and traditional interpretation, in which the figure of the widow is praised by Jesus as an exemplary model of generosity and true piety, some modern commentators advance a reading of this episode as a tragic and painful example of an exploited woman. The widow's act becomes nothing but a misguided expression of false piety, inspired and encouraged by the religious leaders, and consequently Jesus' comment ought to be read as a lament. To no surprise, other recent commentators have chosen a via media, suggesting a deliberate ambiguity in reading widow's act and Jesus' comment on it. The article demonstrates that the only valid interpretation is the positive one, which sees the widow as a symbol of Israel, a model of discipleship, and an icon of Christ.
Uploads
Books by Adam Kubiś
Articles by Adam Kubiś
The main objective of this article was the search for the most plausible reason(s) for including this episode within the Lukan Passion Narrative. Jesus always plays an active, dynamic role elsewhere in the Lukan Passion Narrative, but in the Herod pericope there is a striking contrast as Jesus remains passive. Jesus likewise usually dominates the Passion scenes, yet even when that domination is not by means of his words and deeds, as is the case in this episode, he remains in control through his silence. It seems that the main stress of the whole narrative lies on Jesus’ innocence. Under that overriding theme, the passage is seen to have at least a four-fold purpose: historical (Jesus was guiltless despite being placed on trial); christological (the true identity of Jesus’ person and mission is disclosed by Jesus’ behavior and its effect, i.e. reconciliation); pedagogical (Jesus is a model for later Christians to imitate, and Herod is an anti-model by his lack of faith); and apologetic (Jesus, and consequently Christians, are innocent of the charges brought against them by both Rome and the Jews).
group points out the major exegetical problems presented by the text, and contemporary attempts to resolve them.
The main objective of this article was the search for the most plausible reason(s) for including this episode within the Lukan Passion Narrative. Jesus always plays an active, dynamic role elsewhere in the Lukan Passion Narrative, but in the Herod pericope there is a striking contrast as Jesus remains passive. Jesus likewise usually dominates the Passion scenes, yet even when that domination is not by means of his words and deeds, as is the case in this episode, he remains in control through his silence. It seems that the main stress of the whole narrative lies on Jesus’ innocence. Under that overriding theme, the passage is seen to have at least a four-fold purpose: historical (Jesus was guiltless despite being placed on trial); christological (the true identity of Jesus’ person and mission is disclosed by Jesus’ behavior and its effect, i.e. reconciliation); pedagogical (Jesus is a model for later Christians to imitate, and Herod is an anti-model by his lack of faith); and apologetic (Jesus, and consequently Christians, are innocent of the charges brought against them by both Rome and the Jews).
group points out the major exegetical problems presented by the text, and contemporary attempts to resolve them.
The article surveys recent scholarship on the use of creation imagery in the Gospel of John, with the aim of presenting rather exhaustive register of possible references. Both the obvious and the less clear-cut allusions to Gen 1–3 are discussed, the main focus being to accumulate and assess evidence (for or against) all the apparent references to creation imagery. Included in this examination are several unconvincing and even far-fetched proposals advanced by some modern scholars, in order to give the fullest possible picture of current discourse on these issues. After discussing the creation theme in the Prologue (1:1-18), the article explores the presence of creation imagery in the Book of Signs (1:19–12:50) and the Book of Glory (13:1–21:25).
The article opens with a discussion of the originality of the adverb εἰκῇ (“without cause”) in Mt 5:22a, and the question of whether Jesus prohibits all anger or only unjustified anger. The main body of the article, however, examines to what degree Jesus’ teaching on homicidal anger should be viewed as innovative or even radical. This analysis is accomplished by looking at a wide range of intertextual connections between the Matthean idea of homicidal anger, as expressed in Mt 5:21-22, and various Old Testament and extra-biblical ancient Jewish texts. Jesus’ teaching does not in fact differ appreciably from biblical teaching on the issue, especially that found in wisdom literature. Peri-testamental and rabbinic literature likewise contain a number of more or less exact parallels to Mt 5:21-22. Taken together, these all help us establish the correct meaning of Mt 5:21-22. Nevertheless, there is an undeniable originality in the sharp and legalistic overtone of the Matthean formulation, specifically the idea of anger as a cause of murder. Moreover, the targumic reading of Gen 9:6 helps clarify the semantic field of κρίσις in Mt 5:22, which should be understood as divine punishment of any anger.
The scope of the present study is the analysis of the Markan pericope about the healing of the woman with the flow of blood (5:25-34) and the rising of Jairus’ daughter (5:21-24.35-43), from a symbolic perspective. The main methodological premise of this work is the conviction that the literary sense of this pericope is in fact imbued with symbolism, and consequently the principal thesis of this work consists in interpreting both women as symbols of Israel. The study begins with the presentation of various definitions of symbol which function within biblical exegesis. Subsequently, in order to lend credence to the symbolic analysis of this Markan pericope, the presence of a symbolic dimension in other Markan texts is demonstrated. The study presents also the methodological premises of symbolic analysis, as well as two possible examples of symbolism found in our pericope. The final two parts of the study concentrate on the exegetical explanation of the pericope: first, without taking into consideration the symbolical dimension and, second, an interpretation taking the symbolic perspective into full account. The juxtaposition of these two possible readings of the pericope, non-symbolic versus symbolic, is aimed at demonstrating the undeniable value of the latter, which the scholarship has all too often relegated to oblivion.
a Symbol of Israel, a Model of Discipleship, an Icon of Christ]
The interpretation of the poor widow's offering of her last penny and Jesus' comment on it, found in Mark 12:41-44 and Luke 21:1-4, has become in recent decades a debated point. Against the background of a unanimous and traditional interpretation, in which the figure of the widow is praised by Jesus as an exemplary model of generosity and true piety, some modern commentators advance a reading of this episode as a tragic and painful example of an exploited woman. The widow's act becomes nothing but a misguided expression of false piety, inspired and encouraged by the religious leaders, and consequently Jesus' comment ought to be read as a lament. To no surprise, other recent commentators have chosen a via media, suggesting a deliberate ambiguity in reading widow's act and Jesus' comment on it. The article demonstrates that the only valid interpretation is the positive one, which sees the widow as a symbol of Israel, a model of discipleship, and an icon of Christ.
The article attempts to discover the meaning behind – and the rationale for – the joy experienced by John the Baptist in John 3:29, called there “the friend of the bridegroom”. John’s narration links this joy, which has already been fulfilled (as John himself professes), with the voice of bridegroom, who is identified as Jesus. Previous analysis of ancient Jewish wedding customs has yielded several possible explanations of the friend's joy, however the present article seeks to focus on the reasons for this joy rooted specifically in his hearing the bridegroom’s voice. At the same time, our lack of full, precise knowledge of these wedding customs prevents us from drawing from them a single, compelling explanation. The article thus attempts to expand the discussion of this Johannine crux interpretum by reference to OT. It is proposed that the Evangelist can be seen alluding here either to Jeremiah’s prophecy or to the Song of Songs. Finally, the article seeks the reason for John the Baptist’s joy within the very theological context of the Fourth Gospel. The semantic analysis of the lexeme “voice” (fone) in the Gospel produces the understanding that the true disciple of Jesus listens to Jesus’ “voice” and as a result experiences eschatological joy. Thus the Evangelist depicts John the Baptist, through his rejoicing, as a perfect disciple of Jesus.
Among thirteen female characters appearing in the Gospel of Mark, four of them – the woman with an issue of blood, the Syrophoenecian woman, the poor widow, and the anointing woman – all exhibit exemplary qualities of faith and discipleship. Introduced by a brief overview of the narrative function of two other groups of female characters, namely the secondary figures (e.g. Peter’s mother-in-law) and women disciples (cf. 15:40-41; 16:1-6), the main part of the study provides a systematic analysis of the motif of faith as reflected in the deeds and words of these four emblematic figures. The analysis pays particular attention to immediate literary contexts of the four episodes, showing how each of the stories is integrated into a larger narrative and also woven into the overall framework of the Markan composition.
The terminology of faith (pistis, pisteuo) in 1 John refers in one way or another to the problem of an orthodox Christology. 1 John appears to be a polemical writing, which aims at countering the ethical and Christological claims of the secessionist who at some point left the Johannine community. The present work leaves aside the attempts of previous exegetes to identify the secessionist with various ancient heterodox groups known from extra-biblical sources (e.g. Ebionites, Docetists, Gnostics etc.). Instead, the reading of the Johannine letters reveals that three main Christological claims – namely that Jesus is God, Jesus is Christ, and Jesus has come in the flesh – might be approached from pneumatological and anthropological angles. The secessionist believed that the role of Jesus was limited to announcing the outpouring of the Spirit, and that believers, having received the Spirit, possessed a status not much different from that of Jesus himself.
The Johannine phrase "you will know the truth and the truth will set you free" (Jn 8:32) is one of the best known epigrams to be mined from the biblical text. Regrettably, its frequent use in a multitude of sermons, talks and printed media demonstrates that the usual, everyday application of this saying in fact has no basis in the Johannine context within which it was originally written. Instead, its common use today is rooted in a modern, essentially philosophical, perception of the two key concepts: truth and freedom. This inquiry into the Johannine context of the quote demonstrates that (1) the truth denotes the revelation of God, whose fullness is expressed in the incarnation of the Son, Jesus Christ, the “Truth”; and (2) freedom can be understood both negatively (freedom from) and positively (freedom to). According to the first meaning, it is liberation from the diabolic bondage of sin (meant as unbelief) and death, while the latter sense refers to entering into mystical communion with the triune God, finding its ultimate expression in the notion of eternal life. Jesus, presenting himself as a bestower of freedom (8:32.36), sets himself in the place of God, a Liberator par excellence, and attributes to himself the prerogatives of the Torah. In fact, for Jesus’ contemporaries, exemplified in his dialogue with the figure of the Jews (8:31), the offspring of Abraham (8:33), the pre-existing Torah was believed to have the effect of setting man free."