WORKING DRAFT: Please do not cite without permission of the author

Jesper Svartik
Lund University, Sweden
jesper.svartvik@teol.lu.se

“Those Who Passed by Derided Him”:
Scornful Laughter as a Moral Criterion1

Adobe Acrobat Version

It is in the first scene in the third act that we find the most famous paragraph in William Shakespeare’s play The Merchant of Venice:

I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, heal’d by the same means warm’d and cool’d by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh?

The purpose of this monologue is to prove that Shylock as a Jew has the same right to revenge as Christians. This is obvious as we continue reading the play: “If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that.” Shylock—and behind him, Shakespeare—argue that laughter unites people, even if they belong to different faith communities. But laughter is a two-edged sword. Whereas it sometimes draws people closer to each other—it is an imagined community of people discovering that they have something in common—, it also plays a devastating role when the purpose is to embarrass, ridicule and mock adversaries.2 Using Hjalmar Sundén’s role theory, this paper examines the role of scornful laughter in religious polemics.3 It will concentrate on one single NT text: Gal. 4.21-5.1, in which Paul presents a picture of the relationship between Ishmael and Isaac, the two sons which were born to Abraham by Hagar, his slave-girl, and Sarah, his wife respectively. Since times immemorial Jews have considered themselves to be descendents of Isaac. However, most interpreters believe that Paul here reverses their roles. 

Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the other woman corresponds to the Jerusalem above; she is free, and she is our mother. […] So then, friends, we are children, not of the slave but of the free woman (Gal. 4.25f., 31).

If so, the implication would be that “the present city of Jerusalem” (Greek. hê nyn Ierousalêm) after Christ, has lost all the promises that Paul himself describes in Rom. 9.4 as given to that people: they have had “the right of sons, the glory, the covenants, the Law, the worship and the promises; they have the fathers, and from them comes Christ as man.” Could it really be his intention to claim in Gal. 4 that the Jewish people post Christ have lost all this? If the answer is “yes,” when did that happen? When exactly did they become slaves? Mount Sinai has most certainly always been situated “in Arabia”. As far as we know, there was no continental shift, neither at the birth of Jesus, nor at his death, nor resurrection.4 In short, how can Paul invert the texts from the Book of Genesis so fundamentally? How should this, his theological turn-around, this castling (to use a term familiar to chess players), be understood? 

There is an entire sea full of questions to be posed: to what does “the present city of Jerusalem” refer? How can he imply that the covenant on Mount Sinai leads to slavery because “Sinai is a mountain in Arabia”? What does it mean that Mount Sinai “corresponds to” (systoichei) the present city of Jerusalem? Where in the texts in Genesis does it say that Ishmael “persecuted” (ediôken) Isaac (see Gal. 4.29)? There are even more questions which could be raised, but these will suffice as an illustration of the fact that this text is far from easy to interpret. 

In order not to lose the overview completely, it may be a good idea to remind ourselves of some basic facts: (a) Paul introduces this passage in verse 21 by referring to “what the Law says”. Thus it seems unlikely that he would here fundamentally contest the obvious meaning, the peshat, of the biblical texts. If he did, his argument would not carry much weight.  (b) The Greek verb, systoichein, is uncommon and its meaning is far from obvious. Lloyd Gaston has pointed out that “[n]o one really knows what the verb means, and the only place where it occurs in ancient literature throws little light on Gal. 4.25.”5 Thus we cannot take it for granted that we know exactly what is being compared to what. (c) Paul’s purpose is to find a biblical text which illustrates what slavery and freedom, respectively, mean. (d) As always, Paul considers himself to be “the Apostle of the Gentiles” (Rom. 11.13, Gal. 2.8). His primary purpose is to speak on behalf of those Gentile Christians, and not to speak against any other group—although there is evidence that he would not hesitate to do so, should the need arise.

The most probable answer is that Paul is here searching for a biblical text which could illustrate the fact that those who were slaves in the past (i.e., those who were not the descendents of Isaac, and therefore born outside the covenant) and who have now become grafted into the covenant and have become its heirs, should most certainly not act in ways that would make them slaves again. That this is his purpose is made clear by the introductory question (“Do you not hear what the Law says?”, 4.21) as well as by the verse that ends the passage (“We are not the children of a slave-woman, but of a free woman”, 4.31). The tone and tenor in the Epistle to the Galatians indicates that there were major tensions between various groups. Paul believes that he himself and the Christians, who followed him, were being persecuted because of their convictions. He therefore looked for a biblical text which would illustrate how close slavery and freedom are to one another, and how siblings in the faith sometimes attack one another—and, and this may be the most important point of all, how this persecution served to confirm his view that divine election is accompanied by suffering; and anyone who wants to live a life following Christ must also expect persecution.6 The people he chooses in the Bible are Isaac and Ishmael, Sarah and Hagar. It is important to remember that not everything in the texts about the lives of these four persons is relevant. He therefore chooses one aspect, namely that which “corresponds” (systoichei) to the point, which he intends to highlight, namely that freedom and slavery are intimately related.

The suffering of the righteous person is thus at the centre. However, in what sense can Isaac be said to be persecuted by Ishmael? The only verse on which he could build his reasoning is Gen. 21:9: the Masoretic text says that it was Sarah who saw that Hagar’s son “laughed” (Hebrew: metsacheq); the Septuagint says that he “was playing with Isaac” (Greek: paizonta meta Isaak).7 It is this observation that is the foundation for her demand that Abraham should send Hagar and Ishmael away: “[d]rive away that slave-woman and her son!” (Gen. 21.10). This is the verse which Paul quotes, and it is therefore reasonable to assume that the previous verse is also important. Paul thus implies that it would not have been mere innocent play which caused this laughter. The fact that the Hebrew form of piel is used could indicate that it refers to scornful laughter.8 Genesis Rabbah 53.11 proposes a number of interpretations: Ishmael is accused of rape, idolatry and the shedding of blood! The most relevant is perhaps the statement by Rabbi Azariah, uttered in the name of Rabbi Levi: on one occasion, when Isaac and Ishmael were out in a field, Ishmael shot at his brother—and then he laughed and said that it was only a joke. “Like a maniac who shoots deadly firebrands and arrows, so is one who deceives a neighbor and says, ‘I am only joking!’” (Prov. 26.18f.). The information that this took place in a field is an obvious reference to Cain and Abel, who were out in the field when the younger brother was murdered by his elder brother.9 This passage in Gen.R. thus shows that Ishmael’s “laugh” is interpreted as a euphemism for a real threat to Isaac’s well-being. Paul chose this text because the suffering of Isaac reminded him of that which he himself had to suffer. The main thought is thus that Paul and his Christian followers “correspond” to Isaac.

As a consequence, his opponents became identified with Hagar and Ishmael. It is important to remember that this is a corollary of his identification of himself with Isaac. Anyone who suffers because of his faith can be identified with Isaac. Whoever pours scorn upon an Isaac can be identified with Ishmael. The question is whether there is yet another aspect which contributed to the peculiar turn-around that has made “the present city of  Jerusalem” into Ishmaelites: A Jew is someone who has Jewish parents, whereas a Gentile-Christian is someone who, by faith in Jesus, has been grafted into the covenant. In Gal. 4 Ishmael is described as “born according to the natural order,” while Isaac was “born according to the promise.” This could imply that Paul here assumes that Gentile-Christians have been granted into participation in the covenant, not “according to the order of nature” like the Jews, but through their faith in Christ. 

Verse 25 can, however, not reasonably be the starting-point for his argument, but only an attempt to provide evidence to sustain this theological castling. The Greek text behind the translation “Mount Sinai is a mountain in Arabia” has been preserved in a number of variant readings. The first possibility is that the text originally read to gar Zina oros estin en tê[i] Arabia[i] (“because Mount Sinai is a mountain [situated] in Arabia). According to other text witnesses it should be to de Hagar Zina oros estin en tê[i] Arabia[i] or to Hagar Zina oros estin en tê[i] Arabia[i]. The difference between the first and the latter two is gar (“because”) and Hagar (i.e., the name of Ishmael’s mother). The first variant is thus fairly clear. He makes use of a geographical criterion: Mount Sinai is situated in Arabia. According to the two latter variant readings, he makes use of a linguistic argument: Hagar means Mount Sinai in the Arabic language. This is not a reference to the person named Hagar since the word is preceded by the definite article in the neuter (to). Scholars of exegesis have spent much effort on seeking to explain this. It has been pointed out that a certain Christoph Harant Freiherr von Polschitz noted already in 1598 during a journey to Mount Sinai that “Den Berg Synai nennen die Arabische und Mauritanische Heyden [sic!] Agar oder Thur: Weissenberg.”10 The Arabic word hadjar means “stone,” but according to Gaston it would be “[a] rather bizarre concept that Paul is using a pun on an Arabic word to convince the Galatians that Hagar ought to be connected with Sinai.”11 But is it less “bizarre” to turn the descendents of Isaac into Ishmaelites because “Mount Sinai is a mountain [situated] in Arabia”?

(a) The first conclusion is thus that it is neither the geographical nor the linguistic argument which provides the starting-point for Paul’s theological castling. In this paper it is suggested that it is the fact that Isaac had to suffer because of what his older brother did to him: Ishmael persecuted (ediôken) Isaac. Anyone who is being persecuted because of his or her religious convictions is like Isaac. And anyone who persecutes an Isaac-figure is like Ishmael. It is enlightening to analyse the role the verb diôkein plays in this epistle. It occurs five times (1.13, 23; 4.29; 5.11 and 6.12).12 He opens his epistle by describing how he previously persecuted God’s ekklêsia (1.13), and that this rumour “persecuted” him also when he described himself as the apostle to the Gentiles: “The one who was formerly persecuting us is now proclaiming the faith that he once tried to destroy” (1.23, emphases added). In 5.11 he describes himself as being persecuted because he no longer preaches circumcision, and in 6.12 he encourages his followers to accept persecutions, since he himself, who used to persecute, is now being persecuted. In Hjalmar Sundén’s terms, it is a matter of role-taking and role-adopting; Paul identifies himself with Isaac—and regards himself previously to have acted as Ishmael. One recognizes Isaac by the fact that he is being persecuted; Ishmael is the one who persecutes an Isaac figure.13 A consequence of this line of thought is that Christians who, throughout the history of the church, have persecuted other religious groups have thereby lost their opportunity to identify with Isaac. 

(b) A second conclusion is that this text can hardly be called an allegory, since it does not consist of a completely carried out comparison between two entities. It is true that Paul uses the verb allêgorein in 4.24, but in terms of literary genre it would seem more suitable to consider this text as a parable. Nor should the verb systoichein be allowed to mislead the interpreter. As already mentioned, we do not actually know what that word means in this context. The noun stoichos means a pillar. It has therefore been assumed that Paul here draws a picture of two different groups: slavery/Hagar/the present city of Jerusalem and freedom/Sarah/the Jerusalem that is above, respectively. It must however be strongly questioned whether it really is this systematic division which drives Paul. He claims instead that “[y]ou, brothers, are the children of the promise, just like Isaac” and he states that the point of comparison is that both Isaac and the receivers of this letter were being persecuted. It is thus because the socio-political situation as the Sachhalfte (the current circumstances in Galatia) and the Bildhalfte (Gen. 21) “correspond” (systoichei) to one another that this comparison can be made. In other words, Paul claims that the righteous person must expect to be persecuted because of his or her convictions. Divine election does not necessarily bring success. Quite the contrary! The adversities that the Christian followers of Paul have to face do in fact affirm that they—like Isaac—are the children of the promise. “I suffer, therefore I am right!”

(c) Finally, Paul’s focus is on the individual person: if an individual Christian seeks to avoid suffering by adapting to the demands of the surrounding world (in this case to circumcision) he will not remain faithful to God’s call. Suffering should therefore not be avoided. To seek to avoid suffering will again make the Christian like a slave. The Christian should rather persevere steadfastly in spite of the sufferings he or she may have to endure. It is thus of importance to note that Paul does not actually argue from the basis of various groupings. He certainly affirms in 4.24 that “these two women are two covenants” but that should hardly be understood as a reference to “the old [Jewish] covenant” and “the new [Christian] covenant,” respectively, since the parable assumes that they are contemporary and that there is a choice between them. This is a parable about being contemporary since Sarah and Hagar, Isaac and Ishmael lived at the same time, as contemporaries with one another. Thus it is not about two different stages in a Heilsgeschichte. And it is obviously not a matter of one covenant having been superseded by another. Paul’s parable is also about the opportunity to make a choice since in Gal. 5.1, he encourages his readers not to let anyone lay the yoke of slavery on them again. Thus this cannot be an allegory about—to use anachronistic terms—“Judaism” and “Christianity” since the Gentile-Christian readers of his letter had previously been slaves: “Do not let anyone put the yoke of slavery on you again” (mê palin, italics added). How could it refer to “Judaism” if these Gentile-Christians had never before been Jews? Rather, this is Paul encouraging them to remain Gentile-Christians by not, in any sense whatsoever, returning to that state of alienation in which they lived before they became Christians. In other words, Paul has interiorised the biblical persons, Sarah and Hagar, Isaac and Ishmael. Another way to express that the Gentile-Christians should accept their freedom, to which Christ has called them, is to tell them to drive away “the slave-woman and her son” from their lives. He argues that his readers in Galatia are at a crossroad: he urges them to identify themselves with the patriarch Isaac, who was ridiculed according to the Masoretic Text, was bullied according to the Septuagint, and was persecuted according to midrash in Genesis Rabbah. Paul himself had previously been as Ishmael, one who persecutes God’s ekklêsia.

Not before long, new students of the Bible are introduced to the Deuteronomistic understanding of history as a system of rewards and punishment. However, this theology, in its strictest sense, is—rightfully—questioned for a number of reasons: (a) the idea is relativised, problematized and questioned already within the covers of the Bible, the book of Job being the premier example. (b) Everyone with experience of spiritual guidance knows that this theology lays heavy burdens on the shoulders of lonely and fragile people. (c)  A third reason is that the handbook teaching of the Deuteronomistic understanding of history tends to draw our attention away from an influential idea which could be described as an inverted Deuteronomism. The creed of this understanding is: “I suffer, therefore I am right,” “I am persecuted, therefore God is on my side,” “the surrounding scorns me, therefore I am happy,” “I cry, therefore I laugh,” “they mock me, therefore I will one day mock them.” In other words, it is the other person’s scornful laughter which legitimizes my theology. After all, did not Paul write in 1 Cor. 4.9 that Christians are made a theatron (“we have become a spectacle to the world”)? (d) Fourthly and finally, when in this paper Hjalmar Sundén’s role theory was applied to Gal. 4.21-5.1, it was seen that this castling of the casting, i.e., of the dramatis personae in this parable, could and should be understood as motivated by Paul’s intense identification with the persecuted Isaac.

The title of this paper is “Those Who Passed by Derided Him”: Scornful Laughter as a Moral Criterion. Whereas the motif of lachrymose has been carefully explored in both Jewish and Christian traditions, what has been suggested here is that a careful study of the role of laughter in the Bible and in the interpretation of the biblical texts furthers our understanding of the history of yester years and the challenges of the morrow.

Return to Homepage

Send messages to webmaster: psybibs@worldnet.att.net
Site designed by
Last updated November 1, 2007