Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Presented to
Biola University
In Partial Fulfillment
Doctor of Ministry
by
Jeff Kennedy
February 2011
2
1
Joe Hellerman, When the Church was a Family: Recapturing Jesus’ Vision for Authentic Christian
Community (Nashville: B&H, 2009).
3
2
Hellerman, When the Church, 2-5.
3
Hellerman, When the Church, 15. The author argues persuasively that the modern preoccupation for
“God’s will for my life” would not have been a question that preoccupied ancient people. This is precisely why this
subject is altogether absent from the writings of the New Testament (perhaps with the exception of Rom 12:1-2.
However even in this classic passage on God’s will, Paul clarifies with the phrase, “I say to all of you…”).
4
Hellerman, When the Church, 16-20. Hellerman cites the examples of Josephus preferring to be killed in
place of his Jewish countrymen and modern Korean culture, among others. Many other examples are cited.
5
Hellerman, When the Church, 35. The author concedes that romantic love transcends cultural barriers, but
also demonstrates that romance as the primary driver of the choice of a spouse was a secondary concern at best.
However, it must be noted that what “was” is not necessarily what “ought” to be.
4
Mediterranean world, the sibling bond was the closest possible relationship.6
Hellerman notes that the “brother and sister” concept dominates the relational language
of Jesus and Paul.7 Though it is tempting to import our weak-group notions of sibling
relationships into these New Testament passages, Hellerman skillfully redirects the modern
reader to consider ancient categories.
First, membership in ancient strong-group families was determined by the “common
patriline – a bloodline traced from generation to generation solely through the male offspring.”8
This means that the typical male would regard the “members” of his immediate family as his
father (paterfamilias), his brothers and sisters (consanguine relationships), and his offspring.
But, this membership would not include his mother nor his wife.9 Hellerman offers many
examples of sibling loyalty:
1. The loyalty of Herod to his sister Salome, over his wife Merriame;
2. Octavia’s commitment to her brother Octavian, over her husband Mark Antony;
3. Lusius Casesar’s sister laying down her life for her brother;
4. Augustus pardoning Jewish protestors of King Archelaus, but killing Archelaus’
kinsmen who participated in the revolt;
5. Lastly, Jesus encourages Peter that no one who has abandoned “home, mother or
father, brothers or sisters, or fields” will be denied compensation for his sake (Mk 10:28-
30).”10
In many of the above cases, the love and passion between married people could be strong. But
when the marriage relationship came into conflict with the sibling loyalty of the patrilinial
kinship group, it took a subordinate role to the brother-sister bond.11 At times, conflict between a
female and her husband’s siblings would potentiate a break in the marriage bond (to put it
6
Hellerman, When the Church, 36.
7
Hellerman, When the Church, 36-37. Hellerman refers to this elsewhere as the “Patrilinial Kinship Group”
(PKG). See Hellerman, The Ancient Church as Family (Minneapolis: Fortress Pres), 31.
9
Hellerman, When the Church, 38-48. The marital relationship is not even mentioned by Jesus due to its
comparatively insignificant status to that of the sibling relationship. Hellerman cites many other examples e.g. Azize
and Mustafa, the Old Testament and Intertestamental Literature to name a few.
11
Hellerman, When the Church, 42. The author notes that married partners in the ancient world most
certainly did experience romance, relational satisfaction, and a psychological bond. But this experience was an
aftereffect of the primary purpose for marriage, which was to promote status, produce offspring, and preserve
property to the next generation. 38.
5
mildly). The implication of this kind of solidarity was that sibling disloyalty was a socially
abhorrent act in the ancient world, while divorce was common (with ancient divorce rates
rivaling our own).12
Here are My Mother and Brothers
Hellerman then draws direct lines from this social reality to the formation of Jesus’ new
community. According to the author, it is clear that Jesus adopted the patrilineal structure in the
formation of his new group. The family of faith would be the new surrogate family for his
followers, and membership would be based on doing the will of His Father (Mk 3:33-35).
Next, the author takes on the difficult family language of Jesus. The Master states that
his “mother, brother and sisters” are those who do the will of his Father. Jesus also tells his
devotees that unless they “hate” their patrilineal family (yes, even their own life) for his sake,
they cannot be his disciples. Also, he tells a would-be-follower to abandon his kinship group at
the time of greatest need (the burial of his father). In all of these situations, the Master is directly
addressing the issue of strong-group family loyalty. On the surface, it appears that Jesus is
advocating antipathy towards ones natural family for the sake of the Master.
Though we have tended to soften the force of Jesus’ sayings to simply mean “prioritize
the Kingdom,” this is not quite what Jesus had in mind. Hellerman states, “For Jesus to organize
his followers as a strong-group family presented a potentially intractable dilemma.”13 The
scandal of these sayings to the strong-group oriented person can hardly be overstated. Jesus is
teaching that membership in his new “brotherhood” is to always take precedence over their blood
family loyalty. Any allegiance that stands between the brothers and the Master would be
intolerable. Likewise, a rift between siblings in the Messiah’s surrogate family would be equally
unacceptable. Jesus predicted that his Gospel would be a “sword” that would divide Jewish
family commitments.14 When faced with a competing loyalty (ones bloodline) they were to
always choose the Messiah’s surrogate family. The surrogate brotherhood was now the locus of
their existential identity. More shocking is the assertion that the only legitimate role the natural
family held is within the context of the surrogate family. That is, a believer does not have two
families, but one. This is how Hellerman makes sense of the positive family statements vis-à-vis
12
Hellerman, When the Church, 48-51.
13
14
Hellerman, When the Church, 75.
6
15
Hellerman, When the Church, 75. Hellerman points out that “hate” neither means “love less” or “disdain”
and instead means “abandon ones allegiance.” See also James Dunn, Jesus Remembered (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2003) 548-556. Dunn notes that the singular focus of Jesus’ call to discipleship and “leaving all” had no parallel
among other discipleship groups during the 2nd temple period, nor in the rabbinic literature. Jesus’ call was an
uncompromising commitment to a new eschatological family to be sure. But, Dunn goes on to warn against seeing
an unwarranted antithesis between the faith family and ones blood family, particularly in light of the many positive
statements regarding the family of origin in the Jesus sayings, 594-599.
16
Hellerman, When the Church, 78.
7
18
Hellerman, When the Church, 97-98.
19
Hellerman, When the Church, 116-119. Hellerman offers many great quotations from the pagan opponents
of Christianity and Christian pastors, showing that the church was an unstoppable surrogate family
8
environments in order to transition people into accountable relationships. We also offer free
marital and spiritual formation mentoring, a benevolence ministry to outsiders, and a single
moms ministry to name a few.
However, I got the impression (indirect as it was) that no matter how much we work at
promoting the social values of “belonging,” “affective and material solidarity,” and “strong-
group loyalty” at Eastpoint, we will always be scratching the surface of community as it was
experienced in the first and second century church. On that note…
As the Pastor of Discipleship and Small Groups, I am totally committed to the value of
discipleship training in relational environments in our church. But if I were somehow
transported back to Paul and Jesus’ social world, I’m not sure that I could adjust. What I read in
When the Church was a Family is just too cultic for me. Not because I’m not committed to
family life (and not because they were weird). It’s because I was born and raised in the cult of
American individualism. Independence is the deep bias of my American soul. Recapturing the
collectivist, strong-group family values of first century Christianity seems like an uphill battle
from the outset. The deck may be irreversibly stacked against us.
The surrogate family experience of first-century believers seems like an artifact of a past
world. A world I do not live in, and a world that is truly alien to my weak-group, individualistic
culture. All this means that we must customize our approach and leverage our cultural
distinctives to advance the Kingdom. We cannot magically recreate the patrilineal structure of
the first century world.20 Any such effort would be a superficial parody that merely mimics the
pillars of a strong-group culture. Instead, we should focus on transferable principles that engage
church members in genuine, family oriented community (as much as possible).
Sometimes this will involve a fair amount of restructuring how we do church. But,
sometimes it may also include embedding these values in an existing social framework. The
danger here is that we adopt one of two extremes: (1) failing to challenge our isolated world with
New Testament values of community and (2) unintentionally potentiating greater isolation of
believers as they withdraw into the perceived “purity” of the house church structure.
But, Hellerman effectively draws attention to the critical practices and principles of the
surrogate family that are non-negotiable. The practices of belonging, affective and material
solidarity, and strong-group loyalty should still characterize twenty-first century church life.
20
I do concede that this is not what Hellerman advocates, especially in light of all that he states in the
opening chapters regarding this.
9
Finally, Hellerman asserted that the abandonment of the father’s trade to join a new
surrogate family would likely have been the “ultimate in betrayal for a descent group society.”21
Because it was the son’s responsibility to uphold the honor of the parilineal line, then
abandoning the family trade to join a traveling Jewish cleric would have been anathema in that
world. The point is well taken.22 However, we must ask whether this generalization would have
applied in Jesus’ case. Others have noted that there was no shortage of rabbis or messiah’s to
follow in that world.23 Because of this unusually high messianic expectancy, and perhaps due to
the qualitatively superior nature of Jesus’ miracles, joining his messianic movement/family
would have been viewed as a privilege, possibly softening the blow of Jesus’ radical demands on
would-be talmidhim. Likewise, if the disciples understood Jesus to be the Davidic Messiah, then
they would have perceived him to be an up-and-coming “King.” The social priority of the
patrilineal family could have been superceded by the socio-political realities of messianic fervor
in rural Galilee.
If Jesus were just another wandering charismatic sage, then the expectation to abandon
the kinship group to join his surrogate family would have been shocking indeed. But if we take
the testimony of the Gospel authors at face value, then surely Jesus represented a genuine
singularity in the Second Temple era. His demands of discipleship are in some ways like, and in
many ways unlike his rabbinic competitors. But the distinctive demand to abandon ones family
may have been easier to take for young men who believed that Jesus was a King of an inevitable
Kingdom; an everlasting Kingdom ushered in by an anointed one who would restore their ethnic
fortunes and take up Israel’s national cause.
Works Cited
Dunn, James D.G. Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, Vol. 1. Grand Rapids:
21
Hellerman, When the Church, 68.
22
Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 548-599.Again, James Dunn seeks to harmonize the positive and negative
language of Jesus by showing that the negative sayings were rhetorical flourishes intended to jar the casual disciple,
acquainting him with the realities of life in Jesus’ “academy.” A discipleship characterized by lacking a place to rest
and none of the cushy “perks” associated with being an honored master, e.g. being greeted in the markets as “rabbi”
and the honor of the best seats in the synagogue etc.
23
Michael Wilkins, Following the Master: A Biblical Theology of Discipleship (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1992), 90-91. Dr. Wilkins points out that the term mathetes (disciple) is the more dominant term, occurring some
229 times overall. There seems to be good evidence that the master-disciple relationship was possibly a rival social
construct to that of the family in the ancient world.
10
Eerdmans, 2003.
Hellerman, Joseph. When the Church was a Family: Recapturing Jesus’ Vision for Authentic
Community. Nashville: B. & H. Publishing Group, 2009.
Wilkins, Michael. Following the Master: A Biblical Theology of Discipleship. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1992.