08 May 2008
78 Stafford What's up with "env'ous Jews"?
See what a living stone
has become the cornerstone;
this was the Lord’s doing,
and it is amazing in our eyes”?’
The builders did refuse,
Yet God hath built His Church thereon,
In spite of env'ous Jews.
The tune is by Daniel Reed and so, as one would expect, is great. But even those of us who glide easily over all kinds of strange theology may chafe at these words.
This is an Isaac Watts text. It is, of course, one verse of a larger hymn. In this case, it's part of one of Watts' treatments of Psalm 118. He wrote many, many metrical paraphrases of psalms. For Psalm 118 he wrote multiple paraphrases in different meters, each of portions of the psalm. The words we are considering jump off from verse 22. That verse is part of three different paraphases, in C.M, S.M, and L.M. (See this link for the complete texts: http://www.cgmusic.com/workshop/watts/psalm_118.htm ) This is from the Short Meter version of vss 22-27.
The Psalms are wonderfully direct and unafraid of naming the truth of how we feel, even when it isn't pretty or correct. Nonetheless, there is nothing in this psalm about "envious Jews." That comes from reading back into the psalm the context in which it is read in the Christian scriptures. I'm finding five citations: Matthew 21.42, Mark 12.10, Luke 20.17, Acts 4.11, 1Peter 2.7.
e.g. Mark 12.10-11:
Have you not read this scripture:
“The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone;
this was the Lord’s doing,
and it is amazing in our eyes”?’
The Gospel citations all give us Jesus using this psalm verse to cap a parable of dishonest tenants. Each of them explicitly links the religious authorities of the day (i.e. people like me today ;>) ) with rejecting Jesus, who is understood as the corner stone chosen and set in place by God. The adjective "envious" in Watts' text may be a reference to the tenants in the parable, who are presumably envious of the actual owner. The Acts passage has Peter citing this psalm verse and explicitly saying to the religious authorities they are the ones who have rejected Jesus.
In 1 Peter the passage is being addressed to the Christian community, and is used to talk about those who believe and those who don't believe. It also gives us the term "living stone" for Jesus in 2.4:
Come to him, a living stone, though rejected by mortals yet chosen and precious in God’s sight
So, now we understand better the source. Undeniably, Jesus was often at odds with the religious authorities of his day. That's why they would collaborate with the Roman occupiers to have him killed. But he was not at odds with "the Jews." Let's all remember that Jesus and all of the first disciples and apostles were, in fact, good Jews. Watts is, unfortunately, heir to a long tradition of lumping together all Jews with those few powerful and/or purity-fanatical Jewish leaders of Jesus day.
All that said, how do folk feel about singing these words today? Is it any different from singing other words that express beliefs different from your own? Please comment (I'll try to check this before next week to moderate comments in a timely manner.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
To me it's very different. When I sing words that voice Christian theology in which I don't believe, I focus on the spirit of devotion behind the words and allow that spirit to come through the words and thus through me. The energy behind "envious Jews" is not devotional but hateful, and I am unable to sing that line.
Stafford reflects badly on our book and on our community of singers. The tune itself, however, is a good one. I know some people have other words that they use for the offending line. The local group might consider officially adopting some alternate words, so that when the tune is called the leader could be asked if he/she wishes to use the alternate version that we sing here.
This verse has been the source of heated discussion on the Fasola discussions list--the only discussion, in fact, that I've ever seen get ugly. Some consider the verse outright racist--others defend it as only referring to a few particular people in Jesus' day. For my part, even if the latter is technically correct, the words are so inflammatory today that they are the only words in the book that I (a nonbeliever!) will not sing.
There are fewer than 50 tunes in the book I have not sung. Until Saturday, this was one of them, and those words are the reason. For me, they spoil a great tune. I reverted to singing the shapes instead of the words, and made it through ok.
I want not concur on it. I regard as warm-hearted post. Expressly the appellation attracted me to be familiar with the whole story.
Post a Comment