Did Jesus laugh? Was he funny?
For some time, I have been intrigued by the question of whether Jesus was funny. In his educational activity, did he tell what we might telephone call jokes, and did his listeners find themselves laughing when they listened to him?
At that place are manyprima facie reasons why we might suppose Jesus was funny. If Jesus was fully man—indeed, the perfect embodiment of humanity—and so we might wait him to be funny since this is a authentication of humanity. In his 1971 bookA Rumour of Angels, sociologist Peter Berger argued that humour was one of the vii signs of transcendence in human life. And this accords with our ain experience—that we often find people who are funny are the well-nigh live, and that at that place are times when a adept express joy can restore our sense of humanity.
And if Jesus is the embodiment of the divine, that might as well lead us to await him to exist funny. It has been said that playfulness is the hallmark of intelligence, so we might expect the ultimate intelligence behind the universe to exist ultimately playful. We get a glimpse of this in Task 38–41, where God's account of creation does focus on God's ability equally creator—but also on God's playfulness in the strangeness and diverseness in the creation.
And in that location are some direct clues about Jesus' joyfulness, and and so we might infer his laughter. The most obvious is in Luke 10.21:
At that time Jesus, total of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and globe, because you have subconscious these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Begetter, for this was your skillful pleasance."
If someone is full of joy, looks to heaven, and talks of praise, it is quite hard not to imagine this person laughing. Another stiff clue comes in the accusation by his opponents (recorded in Luke 7.34 and Matt xi.19) that Jesus was 'a glutton and a wine drinker'. He was clearly thought to be a political party beast, and it is hard to imagine this without some laughter being involved.
Despite all this, I think it is fair to say that Jesus is not oftentimes described equally laughing—there is no equivalent 'Jesus laughed' to the Johannine 'Jesus wept' (John 11.35). And Christian preaching and theology has generally resisted C S Lewis' dictum that 'joy is the serious business of heaven'.
So tin we observe sense of humor in Jesus' educational activity? Tin nosotros identify information technology with confidence, and how might it bear on our preaching and teaching? Agreement sense of humour across cultural boundaries is notoriously difficult. A couple of years ago, we went on a curt trip to Morocco, and we discovered that Moroccans have quite a distinctive, teasing humor. Having had luncheon at a local buffet one twenty-four hours, I went up to the owner to enquire if I could pay, to which he replied 'Yes, if you desire to!' The teasing humour of our commuter on a trip to the desert did non go downwards well with a Dutch family we were travelling with, who interpreted his joking comments equally rude insults! If information technology is hard for humor to travel from 1 modern culture to another, how much harder must it exist to translate sense of humor from the ancient world?
In an earlier discussion on this subject, Colin Edwards makes this observation:
Humour is one of the hardest concepts to understand in crossing cultures. The gap from 0AD Palestinian Civilisation to today is a lot bigger than the gap between German language and English. I lived for 17 years in Bangladesh and saw 3 main types of humour: slapstick; people interim out of social position (e.g. a doc dressing as a sweeper and sweeping the floor); and the Jester figure (e.g. funny dress, funny voice etc.). Verbal humour and word play was much less a part of the culture. The use of sense of humor in public speaking is also a lot less.
I heard many captivating Muslim preachers, and they rarely used what we would call humor. They happily denounce others and make the opposition look silly, and therefore objects of humour. Jesus did that regularly (due east.k. "Allow he who is without sin, through the first stone" and "show me a coin". This last one was in the temple, where a coin with a head on it was considered an idol.).
One of the near extensive explorations of humour in the Bible (actually mostly focussing on the New Attestation and the teaching of Jesus) isThe Prostitute in the Family Tree by Douglas Adams (not the same equally the author ofHitchhiker's Guide to the Milky way—every bit he himself comments in the Amazon reviews!). Adams begins past looking at the sense of humour in Bible stories, and describes them every bit 'grandparent stories' rather than 'parent stories'. Parents want their children to behave, and then oft tell serious stories with a moral indicate. Only grandparents tin afford to exist much more than honest, and as a issue sense of humor and irony sally more commonly—and that is the usual arroyo of Bible stories. Christian readers often try and impose a serious morality on stories which resist such readings. As an instance, Adams considers the genealogy in Matthew'south gospel, with the ironic presence of Rahab the prostitute, who gives the book its title. Hie notes the comedy in the contrast between the (expected) good characters listed and the (probably unexpected) bad ones—and offers an interactive, dramatic retelling in lodge to enable congregations to engage with the dissimilarity, which is certain to pb to lots of laughter.
Adams explores different aspects of the humour of Jesus' parables in three chapters, earlier looking at the absurdity and humour in some of Jesus' miracles, and sense of humor in Paul'southward letters. His examples illustrate some of the challenges in looking for sense of humor, only also the potential in both the gospels and Paul's messages.
The nigh obvious demand is knowing something of the historical and social context. Early, Adams explores the so-called parable of the prodigal son in Luke 15. Nearly of us volition have realised the cultural significance of the younger son beingness reduced to looking after unclean pigs, and nosotros might be aware of the expectation that, on his return, he would prostrate himself before his father, who would customarily have remained at a distance. Just did we realise that the expectation would have been for the elder son to act equally reconciler—a job that he signally fails in? Adams likewise demonstrates the need for a careful reading of the text itself: did we observe that the younger son quickly drops his program to be a retainer when he sees the welcome that he receives?
Adams as well notes the surprise of many of Jesus' economical parables, which draw on seemingly unethical practices to illustrate the kingdom of God. Should a good Jew be happy with speculating and investing the coin entrusted to him in the parable of the talents? What is virtuous nigh the cunning steward who writes off the debts owed to his master in order to curry favour with those from whom he will afterward seek employment?
Just these demands too illustrate how precarious it is looking for humour in another culture. Adams sees both insight and incongruity in Jesus' parable of the kingdom equally a mustard seed (Luke 13.19, Matt 13.31). The mustard plant grows chop-chop—but it also dies quickly, being an annual, and is something of a contrast to the prototype of a cedar of Lebanon, a much more common illustration in the Former Testament of what God is doing. Is Jesus actually wanting to talk of the kingdom as something transient that doesn't concluding? Or exercise nosotros demand to focus on the main point of the parable as Jesus tells information technology—that the kingdom starts with modest things, and grows surprisingly apace and organically when we might non expect it?
The utilise of cultural insights can too be precarious. Adams discusses the parable of the neighbor who has a dark-time company in Luke 11—which I recently preached on. Here Adams disagrees with the cultural insights of Kenneth Bailey, and he sees both the timing of the demand at midnight, and the quantity of the demand (three loaves rather than the one that is needed for one invitee) as existence cool. I think it is more persuasive to see this as something entirely expected in a culture where people traveled in the evening, rather than in the day, and where hospitality was a prized value. What is more amusing is the comparing of God with a grumpy neighbor, reluctant to aid, whom we are agonizing from slumber with our abiding, untimely requests!
Adams omits reference to what I retrieve is perhaps the greatest failure of humour by biblical commentators—in relation to Jesus' comment in Matthew 19:23-26, Mark 10:24-27, and Luke 18:24-27 that 'it is easier for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven than a camel to go through the eye of a needle'. Cyril of Alexandria suggested that the word translated 'camel' should be read as 'rope' (kamilos instead ofkamelos), and mediaeval commentators speculated that in that location was a small gate in the wall of the city called 'The eye of the needle' through which camelscould pass, if only they knelt. Both attempts avert the absurd humour of Jesus image, which was captured rather well by J John: 'You couldn't get a camel through the middle of a needle if you passed information technology through a liquidiser!'
Adams does include i fascinating observation almost humour in Paul's letters, where he sees 1 Cor 11.34–35 every bit a Jewish objection to Paul'due south education, which he and so ridicules in the verses that follow—some 20 years before Lucy Peppiatt Crawley argued that same on other grounds.
I wonder if what Adams is doing is less highlighting the sense of humour in Jesus teaching and rather highlighting the underlying paradox, applesauce and surprise in his teaching nearly the kingdom of God. Nigh humour depends on leading us down a particular line of thought—only to surprise us with something quite unlike at the end of it. And this is substantially the truth of the practiced news of God's honey. When we look at God's good intention in creation, when nosotros consider all the ways God has provided for and blessed u.s.a., and nosotros then see what nosotros take done with the earth and the way nosotros have mistreated and dehumanised our swain creatures, we tin can see where this story should probably stop. But the good news of God'southward costly redemption comes equally a surprise ending—even an absurd one which we could not reasonably expect. What Adams does is alert u.s.a. to this absurdity throughout the New Testament, and encourage us to make the most of it.
If Jesus did indeed express mirth, use sense of humor, and make his listeners express mirth even as he challenged them, shouldn't we do the same?
The picture to a higher place is by Deb Minnard, and you can order a print of information technology online. A previous discussion of this subject was posted in 2018.
If you enjoyed this, exercise share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Similar my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you have valued this post, you can make a single or repeat donation through PayPal:
Comments policy: Adept comments that appoint with the content of the post, and share in respectful debate, tin can add real value. Seek first to understand, then to exist understood. Brand the most charitable construal of the views of others and seek to larn from their perspectives. Don't view argue as a conflict to win; address the argument rather than tackling the person.
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/did-jesus-laugh-was-he-funny/
0 Response to "Did Jesus laugh? Was he funny?"
Post a Comment