Without protection in the heat of life Bringing biblical chesed into practice

Without protection in the heat of life:

Bringing biblical chesed into practice

Sjef van Tilborg MSC

Scientist live a protected life. Many realities shield them from the chaos, the restlessness, the heat of the day. They generally have a well paid job which enables them to live in a quiet neighbourhood. Their work place offers them the chance to meet people with whom they share interests and a similar cultural background. The interests of society influence their work in various ways but because of a strong sense of community they react generally in much the same way: because there is less state intervention it is necessary to search for projects which can find a market and management needs to be organised in a more efficient and, therefore, hierarchical way; stronger competition forces to apply more stringent selection procedures in the appointment of professors as well as in the recruitment of students. Who knows the language best will have the most influence and will determine the face of the organisation.

What would happen if someone cannot live with that and decides to live in a more or less alternative setting? For some time now I have been a member of the so-called chesed community, a group of people which tries to live out the biblical concept of chesed, a commitment which involves for me a cohabitation with marginalized young people, in a neighbourhood of low social status, which, however, has its own charm.

A passage from an ongoing report

April 11

Danny and Liz have been ousted from their house and arrive at our doorstep. They ask whether they can live again in our house for a while. Chantal and Maryke who live with us plead for them. It is a situation they could find themselves in and then it is important that there is a safe haven where they can find refuge. They are willing to adjust. We have a meeting because a number of things must be settled: cooking, cleaning, washing etc. There is a need to buy new closets and chairs and rooms need to be vacated. It is a whirlwind of activity.

Chantal wants that Maryke breaks the contact with her mother because she does not accept that they have a relation. Maryke listens but does not give the impression that she will do something with this demand. Her mother does not accept it yet, but she will eventually.

April 12

Maryke's therapist believes that it is not good for Maryke to break all contact with her mother. It is better for both of them to maintain some contact, however minimal. Maryke has the problem that she wants to do something with her mother: she would like for her mother to accept her own mistakes. When I tell Maryke that she is too young to take responsibility for her mother and that it will be time enough when her mother is old and an invalid, her reaction is that she hopes that her mother will have changed when that time comes. Quite possibly her mother will reach the ripe old age of 108 and she herself would then be 90 and she hopes that by that time she will not still be worrying about her mother: maybe she herself will by then need nursing care.

Milian calls from prison. He feels miserable. He watched a TV program about child sexual abuse. He cannot think of anything now but about the time that the school director used him for experiments. The university had a research project to determine whether intelligent people needed more time to reach climax than less intelligent people. The director had volunteered for the project and had asked Milian to test this with him. Would things have been different for him if this had not happened? It was something you did not discuss with the warders in the prison.

April 14

Maryke's mother comes to visit to discuss the conflict between her and the two girls. It is a heated discussion. Maryke wants her mother to go in therapy and everyone is so insistent that her mother agrees; she will go to the doctor next Monday. Maryke demands that she may be present at that meeting so that she can prevent her mother from talking herself out of all problems.

Danny finds it difficult to keep busy. He wants me to go out with him in the evening to play billiards or a game of cards. I am not about to do that but in fact he often gets what he wants.

The chesed community

The members of the community commit themselves for a year to live out biblical chesed. A monthly meeting, attention for daily reflection, a commitment to live soberly support and strengthen the choice to do this. It is a small community where people deal with life seriously. It is not an easy task they have set themselves: to make chesed visible in your own life and surroundings. There are so may different situations and so many personal histories. How can one make sure that ideological dangers are kept at a distance? It is important to let chesed happen to you, also in and through yourself: 'a man of chesed benefits himself, but a cruel man hurts himself' (Prov. 11,17).

I live with two other members of the community in a large house which makes it possible for us to practice hospitality to 'crisis-young-people' as they call themselves. They bring into the house the heat of the harsh life and their way of dealing with it; they are not well prepared, sometimes very defenceless but always with a fantastic urge to live: without protection in the heat of life. On our side we experience a loss of privacy and the ongoing question what it means to 'be successful in life': what does that mean for young prostitutes, for psychiatric patients, for criminals. It has become clear to us that our 'clients' come from that sort of life.

Some notes of the history of the research in the meaning of chesed

A real report about this research belongs somewhere else. Chesed is an important concept in the bible. Quantitatively seen it is one of the most important words: it appears 245. times. It is linked with other religiously important concepts: covenant, compassion, fidelity, peace, benevolence, kindness, love and also with concepts like justice, peace, command and prescription. Every author who studies the concept will try to respect the multiformity and pliability of the concept which often results in a mass of thoughts which seems to make clear that one has not got hold of the concept. There seems to be a surplus of meaning which is not easily translatable in modern languages or cultures.

Different from what we usually find in secondary literature I can only indicate how the knowledge of the concept builds cumulatively as one receives it: a description of what I myself, strictly selecting, have learned and added while reading.

I want to start with Nelson Glück's study, a dissertation written in 1927, re-edited in 1961 and translated into English in 1967^{^[1]}: chesed is always used in the context of covenant: the covenant between man and woman, between friends, between a host and his guests, between king and subjects, between God and Israel, between God and people. Glück seems to say from time to time that chesed and covenant are synonymous. According to him there is always a question of some kind of covenant (a pact, a longer running agreement, an obligation) where the word chesed is used; where a covenant is entered into chesed is implied as condition for the maintenance of the covenant. It is a clear position which made a real impression on the research. It is not without result that Glück was under the influence of I. Elbogen, the great Jewish scientist for whom the covenant of God and Israel was a living reality of faith.

It is no surprise that there was a reaction against the onesidedness. Independently of each other two dissertations were written which began this reaction: F. Asensio at the Istituto Biblico (1947, published in 1949)^{^[2]} and H.J. Stoebe in Münster (1950)^{^[3]}.

Asensio's study which probably because it was written in Spanish did not have the influence which one would expect considering its scientific level, resisted the absolute identification of chesed and covenant as in Glück as well as the implication of this which makes 'doing chesed ' into an obligation; and also his identification of and with emet. Even if the expression we'emet is used as a standard expression the nuances in meaning of the two words remain: the chesed is the favour which is given and the emet offers the promise of permanence to the one favoured and his right to call on the already given chesed also in the future.

Stoebe too shows that an act of chesed is more than just a legal obligation. Chesed points beyond obligation. The word is in a special way linked with 'compassion' and 'goodness'. An act of chesed is a free act: it is magnanimity, a human readiness to deny self in order to be present to the other(s). Who 'does chesed' binds self to another's life but -as Stoebe says- there is always a form of mutuality. One may expect something also from the other.

'Doing chesed' creates a special relationship. Katherine D. Sakenfeld in her dissertation (1978)^{^[4]} describes this relationship more precisely. According to her it will never be a fully mutual relationship. Chesed is always about two parties where one is up while the other is down. In human relationships this 'up' and 'down' can sometimes change, but the unequal quality of the relationship will always be there. The superior party possesses a certain power and is thus free to 'do chesed' or not. The obligation comes into being because the inferior party can appeal to the permanence of the relationship and. because in a given situation the superior party is the only one which can answer the need of the inferior party. Chesed and loyalty really belong together.

In a subsequent study in 1985^{^[5]} she qualifies this position by discussing the chronology of a number of texts about the covenant. In the Sinai covenant the relationship between God and Israel is constantly at stake. When Israel sins God's reaction is not a priori clear. God's chesed is an act of constant freedom. It would be possible that he drops his people. In the covenant with David on the other hand the permanence of support is guaranteed by God even though there might be a danger that justice may suffer. After the exile the two theologoumena are completely revised. In Deutero-Jesaja the promise of God's fidelity is posed without any kingly ideology. In the priestly codex there is further reflection on the relation between Israel's sin and God's freely given promise of fidelity. Hosea's texts are somewhat outside of this. They treat God's desire, a God who looks forward to Israel's chesed which will last longer than the passing of a dew drop.

The most recent contribution is G.R. Clark's dissertation (1993)^{^[6]}. It is a statistical study of the semantic field of the word chesed. Most interesting is the fact that what many exegetes thought for a long time finds a basis here or can be rejected. The parameters of the semantic field of the word are determined by the concepts loyalty^{^[7]}, kindness, compassion, graciousness (relatively new), and (statistically with distance) to love. The first two (loyalty and kindness) are components of the concept chesed although in a varied way; the last two (graciousness and to love) are implied aspects of the concept., If I interpret Clark correctly the word compassion has a kind of position in between. It resembles chesed but it is never, as with loyalty and kindness fully synonymous with it. It does not hold for God's chesed. For God compassion is an essential component of his chesed. In his conclusion Clark says: "The chesed act may be described as a beneficent action performed in the context of a deep and enduring commitment between two persons or parties, by one who is able to render assistance to the needy party who in the circumstances is unable to help him- or herself".

Studies of the LXX^{^[8]} relativise Clark's position somewhat. The character of compassion receives diachronically ever more attention. Symptomatic of this is the fact that the Hebrew word chesed is often translated as 'eleos'^{^[9]}. From this one must conclude that for the LXX-translators chesed and compassion are almost always synonymous as is clear also from the targums and from the later use of compassion-words in Jewish and Christian writings. That is to say that in the course of the reception of the word chesed compassion becomes the all inclusive term which colours also the aspects of fidelity and kindness. Obviously this poses a real problem exegetically: is it possible to determine the meaning of a text historically? How should the reception of a text be evaluated? Is that different when it happens during the time of the formation of the canon or when it happens later? Is not every translation an interpretation and is that not true also for the translations in modern languages which up to now have translated chesed almost unanimously with words which express 'kindness' at the cost of the concepts fidelity and compassion?

The path of the bodhisattva

In the beginning of our era the doctrine of the bodhisattva develops in the Buddhist tradition: he is the person who out of compassion with all living beings renounces for himself the attainment of enlightenment until all beings will be saved: the ideal of the bodhisattva as the compassionate saviour of everything that is alive. In "The Path of the Bodhisattva" written in the seventh century by Santiveda this is expressed in the following way:

"I would like to be a remedy for the sick, be their doctor and helper until there is no longer sickness.

I would like to extinguish the burning pain of hunger and thirst with rains of food and drink. I would like to be food and drink myself in times of famine at the end of a world-era.

I want to be a protector for those who are unprotected, a leader for those who are on a journey, a ship, dam, or bridge for those who want to reach the other side; a lamp for those who need light, a bed for those who need rest, and a slave for all who are in need of one.

The elements earth, water, fire, and wind are in various ways at the service of innumerable beings who populate the endless universe.

In the same way I want to be in many various ways the life-substance for all beings who exist in the universe until all are liberated from pain".^{^[10]}

Fidelity and compassion

Many exegetes do not see chesed as emotion or an attitude: it is something which must be done, an act which is to the advantage of the one to whom it is directed. That is the aspect of kindness which colours every act of chesed and which takes on a different form in the different circumstances of life: what is good for one in these particular circumstances? Most characteristic of the act of chesed is the fidelity with which it is done and the compassion from which it originates. Chesed is possible only in a relationship of longer standing in which there is trust between the parties, in which they can appeal one to the other, which will not become careless because security is offered. Furthermore chesed is only possible because the parties via the compassion of one towards the other know that they find themselves in the same reality. The pain of one becomes an experienced pain for the other, the need of one is experienced also as need by the other. Compassion makes one open and prevents that one closes oneself to the misery of the other. The shield of self protection burns away in the heat of the other's presence who then appears, in his/her injuries, smallness, impotence as we people are. Fidelity and compassion belong together because fidelity without compassion is harsh and inhuman because then the other is no longer seen in his/her need. Compassion without fidelity is untrustworthy because it is too incidental and does not offer human security.

In our own life-situation we have agreed that we will always take in only one guest because that makes it possible to pay attention to the person. The guests are seldom totally alone; they have relations with other people which they bring into the house and often the relatives still play an important role: mothers, grand-mothers, brothers or sisters, sometimes the father. We do need space also for those who have lived with us in the past and who, sometimes more sometimes less intensely, appeal to us for some support. The agreement to accept only one guest is thus fairly flexible but that is only an expression of what we tell our guests: never say never because you cannot make it stick. I never want any more contact with my father, I never want to see my mother again, I will never call anyone on the phone again etc. They need to create for themselves the freedom to be able to change their mind.

It is not easy to describe what we offer 'more' than other guest-families because we see everything in the context of a religious ideology. Maybe there is no 'more' and maybe we only explicate in words what other people simply do. It is not a real point of discussion for us. The 'more' offers us anyway a moment of rest and a norm against which we can evaluate our attitude: is what we do good for the other? are we not influenced too much by self-interest and self-protection so that we can no longer see the real need of the other? where are our own limits and how do we deal with them so that we can remain available? are we truly faithful to what we implicitly promised so that the other will maintain the feeling of security? what does this demand in further commitments?

It is clear that there is a real difference with professional help. We do not say this because we would not think professional help to be necessary, that is does not function well, or falls short of expectations. We always try to work together with the help-circuit as well as we can manage. Without it the misery of people would be totally incalculable. But if we compare ourselves with the professional help organizations we find that we have a great deal of freedom: we need not to set up a definite plan for helping, we do not set ourselves goals which we must meet, we do not ask for approval. We simply see how things work out and are present in all the ups and downs. To be there also when things go totally wrong: with drugs, prostitution, criminal behavior, serious illness, little knowledge of the past or any hope for the future, no plans, no goal, time and again trying to come back to fidelity and compassion in ongoing discussions, sharings, setbacks, surprises.

Eleos in the New Testament

The pronounced attention given to chesed in the bible showed me that, via the Greek word eleos, it plays a much more important role in the theology of the various authors of the New Testament than can be surmised from the literature. Individual texts from the New Testament obviously did get attention. There one finds a lot of data scattered around, but in the exegesis of the New Testament there is no history of research which can be compared to that of the Old Testament. That is why R. van Staden's dissertation on compassion in Luke (1991) is almost an oddity.^{^[11]}He embeds Luke's speaking about compassion very extensively in a literary-sociological and narrative framework; this is then applied to Lc. 14, 1-24. P. van Staden is specifically in discussion with Moxnes' ideas^{^[12]}who posits that Luke wants to build an egalitarian community in which the patron-client relationship is eliminated. Van Staden believes that he can show that Luke's text is not directed to a 'general reciprocity among equals ... Compassion (in Luke) refers to an ideology of inclusiveness, which includes all marginalized people, irrespective of whether they were poor, sick, deformed, outsiders in terms of ethnic classification, even rich ... On the basis of the value of compassion, the asymmetrical relationship between patron and client has to be changed into a relationship of compassionate caring of the elite for the non-elite. The author's main strategy for accomplishing this, is to have the main character in his narrative, Jesus, proclaiming and demonstrating this value in his life's story, thereby giving sanction to it." (p. 231-233). Considered everything this discussion looks like a repetition of the discussion between Stoebe and Sakenfeld about the mutual relationship of the parties between whom chesed is done.

It is clear that the function of eleos in the New Testament is a rather empty field with many desiderata. It is not possible in this article to fill this with any claim to be exhaustive. To show how broad the spectrum is I want to point to three texts without giving an extensive exegesis, texts which place God's eleos in the forefront in a special way.

· Jn. 1,17: 'for the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ'. Notwithstanding changes in meaning the terms 'grace and truth' refer to the Old Testament expression chesed we 'emet.^{^[13]} According to the vision of the author of the prologue the incarnation of the Word of God is a result of God's fidelity to his covenant with Israel. God made his will (his law) known through Moses; 'grace and truth' has come into existence through Jesus: in Him God proved that he is faithful to his covenant in the most far-reaching way and God became part of Israel in order to show that fidelity in his own being.

· Acts 13,32-37: In the closing moments of Paul's discourse in Antioch of Pisidia -which strongly resembles Peter's discourse on Pentecost day- Jesus' resurrection is proposed as a result of God's fidelity to his own word. God said to David: 'Thou wilt not let thy Holy One see corruption'.^{^[14]}This cannot refer to David because he has seen corruption (death) and, therefore, it must refer to Jesus whom God took away from death by the resurrection. Now the words of the prophet have been fulfilled: 'I will give you (pl.) the holy and sure blessings of David'.^{^[15]} God spoke these words to David but they referred to Jesus. In Him -by resurrecting him from the dead- God has made clear that he is true to his word; that he is faithful to what he says. Jesus' resurrection proves God's eleos: it is so great that He is faithful even beyond death.

· Rom. 9, 20-24: 'in order to make known the riches of his glory for the vessels of mercy(επι σκεúη ελεouς)'. That God's eleos plays an important role in Paul's theology, especially in Rom. 9-11 is well known. Paul struggled with the concept of God's fidelity to his covenant with Israel. God could not be unfaithful to this covenant. How was it possible that the Jews, his co-religionists, could not see that this covenant had reached its zenith? Would they be banned forever? And how could it be that so many non-Jews accepted Jesus? Would they take the place of Israel and did they not deserve God's wrath because of their transgressions? In comparing God with a potter Paul shows that God does not want to be an untrustworthy master. He is the maker of all and he has the right to act as he pleases. He could ruin everything but in his eleos he does not do that. All people are the work of his hands and he has predestined all to partake of his glory, Jews as well as pagans, in a different order and for different reasons, but truly and fully: all people are saved through God's compassion.

God's eleos is linked according to John with the incarnation, according to Luke with Jesus' resurrection, according to Paul with the salvation of all people. However short and incomplete this note is, I hope to have made clear that the concept eleos for the authors of the New Testament has been a source of real inspiration.

Scientific research into the meaning of texts

How much influence does my way of life exert on scientific research? The need to communicate with the members of the academic guild demands a similar discourse. Obviously, this is subject to change as the scientific theories fluctuate, but in principle it should not deviate -within certain parameters- from what is valid in academicis. The products of scientific work must be argumentative, innovative, and relevant in relation to the ongoing discourse within the scientific world. The way to do scientific work is also more or less determined: there are national traditions which must be respected and which, if one keeps to them, are indeed respected. The bonus for this is the elevation of the quotation indices and the elevation on the ladder of appreciation among colleagues. If one does not stick to the code one will not be heard. One's personal life-style does not make any difference.

Exegesis as reflection on the way that people read the bible cannot be equated with the method. The field of research of exegesis is enormous and demands choices as to content. Those are conscious choices and -I think- largely unconsciously influenced by one's life-style in the same way that one's life influences the way of reading and sometimes the interpretation of texts. The question cui bono -as developed by Ernst Bloch in his study Das Prinzip Hoffnung- is never far from my mind: who are the people who benefit from what I want to discuss? The net cannot be wide enough for me. As it is good for people in a down-position to get some support, so it is good for people in an up-position as they can be seduced to do some good. It befits me to encourage the 'plaisir du lire' (here of the bible). No one benefits from an exegesis which prevents people from opening the bible. I am aware that I am some kind of a promotor of special interests. Exegetically this encompasses the bible itself as well as the reader of the bible. If my long association with people who find themselves in difficult circumstances has taught me something it is the fact that it demands lots of patience and understanding of the individual. We are all caught up in so many interests that it is difficult for anyone to find the real interest and this remains often invisible for a long time, and once it is found it takes time to make it priority number one again. And yet, I suppose that the bible has something meaningful to say about that priority and certainly a concept like chesed does as it becomes visible in the relationship between people and in people's relationship to God.

That I have been given the opportunity to be actively involved in the search for and the finding of such a pearl is for me a true grace and I know that many of my colleagues think the same.

A fragment from an ongoing report

August 24:

I was not really planning to go to Liz' birthday party. But I think again and decide to go. Liz and Danny live independently again and sometimes we think that they are the only ones among our young people who are doing well. When I arrive I find that Liz is alone. There was no party. The evening before she went with Danny who wanted to go fishing with a friend. Danny had seen a scooter and they had put it in the truck but someone had seen them and had called the police. 5 police cars had blocked their way and they had been taken to the station. It was past midnight when Liz finally got home and Danny was still in a cell at the police station. She had had a terrible night: the police had acted as if she was an accomplice. What could she have done? She did not want to cry but the tears came anyway.

August 25:

Danny comes to our house straight from the police station. He wanted to wash up first and put on clean clothes before he went home: and he wanted to eat something because he had not been able to eat for two days. The theft of scooters has been going on for a couple of years. The police know of three but in fact there are many more. There is a force in him which he cannot resist and when he sees a scooter he must have it. It is good that he got caught because it would have become ever worse. Now he may stop: his mother will be upset.

Liz is called to bring some clothes and things. It is difficult to imagine to be free again and to be able to simply walk around. One cannot imagine what that means if one has never been put in prison.

August 27:

William comes to tell us that the doctor told him to take a HIV test; he is losing weight and it could be positive. I hear a kind of triumph in his voice. He wants to be sero-positive because everyone would be nice to him. He has been working for an escort service for some time. He carries a bleeper quite visibly because he can be called at any time and one cannot expect him to use prophylactics.

Robby lives with him and is supposed to take care of the household but he tries to evade that as much as he can. He is Abi's friend: Abi is living with us at the moment. He too is here often and is allowed to stay the weekend and then he brings his rat. Abi has one too. When they are together they have fun together.

August 28:

Maryke's mother comes to get some money. Maryke is still formally living with us and she pays her contribution via giro which her mother than picks up in cash. In fact Maryke is being taken care of by her mother at home: she is in a terminal phase of a non-hodgkin cancer of the lymph nodes and the bladder. She is not doing well and can hardly walk anymore. Her friendship with Chantal broke down because of her illness.

Abi has not shown up today. She sometimes has nightmares which keep bothering her all through the day. She must have had some terrible experiences in her young life and no one in the house knows how to react. It creates a tension which is not really manageable.

August 29: