Cultural context:
Apples and Oranges and 'verse-itis"..
See also:
- our discussion (bottom of this post)on EPIC Times..is EPIC apple and/or orange?
- Apples, Oranges, and Mennonite Brethren: Set Theory" "
- he "modern" and "Gutenberg" world (RRWI=Rational, Representative. Word-Based, Individual)
- -the "postmodern' and "Google" world (EPIC=Experiential, Participatory, Image-Driven)
In what ways do you see Starbucks as living out an EPIC ethic?
Read some excerpts and summaries of his book, see this and this.
Now note Van DerLaan's slideshow on Greek vs. Hebrew culture here and here.
Audio here
Finally, remember our conversations about bounded sets and centered sets.
Could these three grids collate? See this article (scroll to part C), for example, on sets and Greek/Hebrew.
RRWI/Gutenberg EPIC/Google
Greek Hebrew
Bounded Set Centered Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
a provocative threefold question
Which would you choose:
- 1)Drink wine mixed with rubber, alum, and garden crocuses?
- '2) Eat Persian onions and yell out'Kum, Kum, Kum !'?
- 3) Carry around the ashes of an ostrich egg in a cloth?
You can read more about the intriguing reasons WHY at this link..
..but you'll remember an amazing "historical world" lesson:
These were the main options/remedies that would be given in that culture the bleeding woman we meet in Matthew 9..
And if you look at how the story is obviously INTERCALATED in three gospel accounts with another story (the young girl, daughter of Jairus, a synagogue ruler..
you'll be able to do some quick comparing/contrasting the two stories,
and note that we are to get the "Literary world" message that Jesus is indiscriminate and inclusive in who he heals:
Older (a woman suffering for 12 years and younger ( a 12 year old girl),
poorer and richer...
what other comparisons/contrasts do you find?
This is evidence for how meaningful the historical world context can be,
This is especially true in parables..
-----------------
Which is the greater sin?
(Just pick one, and don't add options-- On Thursday, I will post an interesting article about this choice) Feel free to explain your choice in the comments..
Which is the greater sin?
To tell a lie?
| ||
To lose your temper?
|
Be sure to check out the final vote (Lie-18, Temper-12 ....interesting!),comments and answers..and add yours at tiny.cc/greatersin
Yes, I know the "real" right answer is "neither" or "both".. a "fuzzy set" and a
"Marker Trick," as Rob Bell would have it in the video below:
I also agree that it might depend on context.
But I was curious to see what answers would emerge, and which would win, among the wide spectrum of facebook friends. And I sure got some great, and hugely helpful comments. Thank you.
I also wanted to, after the contest was closed, feature as a follow-up, an excerpt from the book I stole the question from: Duane Elmer's "Cross-cultural conflict: building relationships for effective ministry." But it turns out the excerpt I wanted was not online, at least in a format I could paste in here . It is readable on Google Books, so I would recommend clicking here to read pp. 11-17.
OR if you are really brave, you can watch/listen to me reading that same section here. I was too lazy to type it all up. You'll hear the question addressed from a cross-cultural perspective.
Enjoy!
Elemer's story starts like this:
It was Sunday morning in the sleepy town of Amanzimtoti in South Africa's picturesque Indian Ocean coast. The heat was very intense. A light ocean breeze offered some relief, but I hardly noticed. I was scheduled to preach at a local church and was aferaid of arriving late. My directions to the church wrere not too clear. I never knew quite what to expect when I visited a church for the first time. Sometimes church services woiuld be held in a garage, sometimes under a flamboyant tree spreading under a high umbrella of shade, sometimes in a town hall, sometimes in a tent attached to a residence. The people of rural South Africa possessed boundless ingenuity for creating worship spaces.
It being Sunday, the stores were all closed. And since the extreme heat was .
...continued on Google Books, click here to read the rest, pp 11-17..or watch below to allow me to read it for you
Having used a similar world map from a Charles Kraft book when I teach on culture and worldview (I wish I could teach this stuff like Darrell Whiteman), I was glad to find this map on kingPin68's blog:
More versions here.
Blinders
------
Laodicea:
WWJP Why Would Jesus Puke?: let's be hot AND cold, as Jesus wants
Why WOULD Jesus puke, anyway?
(related, see "the call to go into ministry is a lot like throwing up")??
So many are baffled by why Jesus would seemingly rather have us be 'cold' than lukewarm..
makes for some bizarre and forced sermons.
This one on Revelation 3:
14 “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write:
These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation. 15 I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! 16 So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. 17 You
say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But
you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and
naked. 18 I
counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become
rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful
nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see.
19 Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest and repent. 20 Here
I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens
the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.
21 To
the one who is victorious, I will give the right to sit with me on my
throne, just as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his throne. 22 Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”
Yet ANOTHER misunsderstood and eisegeted scripture (see: "Don't forget the assembling together.."
and I am in sin if I "avoid the appearance of evil" and "of course Christians will be left behind")... Verse-itis is deadly!
We just assume "cold water" obviously = bad, and "hot water" obviously = good." You can google a thousand sermons with that point. It's just too tempting to preach!
But they are likely well-meaning adventures in missing the meaning and point.
As usual, much of the answer is catching the historical context.
Maybe all along Jesus wanted us to be hot AND cold.
Two of the masters here are Craig Keener (who is behind the invaluable Bible Background Commentary on the NT ):
- Link: Craig KeenerThe one sphere of life in which Laodiceans could not pretend to be self-sufficient was their water supply! Laodicea had to pipe in its water from elsewhere, and by the time it arrived it was full of sediment; Laodicea actually acquired a bad reputation for its water supply. Jesus comments on the temperature of the water: they were lukewarm, neither cold nor hot. This does not mean, as some have suggested, that hot water was good but cold water was bad; Jesus would not want the Laodiceans “good or bad,” but only good.Cold water was preferred for drinking, and hot water for bathing (also sometimes drunk at banquets), but the natural lukewarmness of local water (in contrast with the hot water available at nearby Hierapolis or cold water of nearby mountains) was undoubtedly a standard complaint of local residents, most of whom had an otherwise comfortable lifestyle. Jesus is saying: “Were you hot (i.e., for bathing) or cold (i.e., for drinking), you would be useful; but as it is, you are simply disgusting. I feel toward you the way you feel toward your water supply–you make me sick.”
and Ray Van DerLaan, audio here, or read below (from tonight's video Faith Lessons, Volume 5: Early Church, Episode 5 : Hot or Cold, not online; order here:
Laodicea
During
the first century, the city of Laodicea was the richest and most
powerful of the three cities. Located in the Lycus River Valley on the
main trade route between the Mediterranean region and Persia, Laodicea
was known for its soft black wool that was appreciated throughout the
Roman world; its healing eye salve; and its banking. In fact, an ancient
writer recorded that the city of approximately 120,000 people refused
an emperor?s offer to rebuild following an earthquake. The Laodiceans
apparently told the emperor that they were rich and didn?t need his
money.
Despite its prosperity, however, Laodicea had a serious problem. Its water, unlike the healing hot springs of Hierapolis or the fresh, cold mountain water of Colosse, was lukewarm and full of minerals. It tasted so bad that it made people sick.
Despite its prosperity, however, Laodicea had a serious problem. Its water, unlike the healing hot springs of Hierapolis or the fresh, cold mountain water of Colosse, was lukewarm and full of minerals. It tasted so bad that it made people sick.
Changing the World by Being Hot and Cold
In
light of the water for which the cities of Hierapolis, Colosse and
Laodicea were known, the apostle John might have been saying, ?If you
were hot, like the springs of Hierapolis, you?d bring healing,
restoration, and comfort to people who suffer. If you were cold, like
the water in Colosse, you?d refresh and encourage people who are
hurting. Instead, you are lukewarm. You don't do anyone any good and you
make me sick-just like your own water. So he challenged Christians
today to be hot and cold in our daily lives.. to bring people the
healing, caring, encouraging touch of Jesus
-Link: Ray Van DerLaan--
a helpful video by James-Michael Smith from his The Bible For the Rest of Us DVD series
INTRODUCTION TO Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes by E. Randolph Richards and Brandon J. O'Brien HERE:
-------------
Follow up Gates of Hell/The Day Metallica Came to Church..What do you think as soon as you see this headline?:
Jesus Asks Church To Host Anti-Christian Concert
NOW..watch the video below, and do you feel differently?
--
MATTHEW 21:
Intercalation (Sandwiching); a literary technique in which one story/narrative is inserted into the middle of another story/narrative. Example. The temple tantrum is inserted in the middle of the fig tree episode in Mark 11.
double paste: Often, two Scriptures/texts are combined into a new one. Ex. : Jesus says “My house shall be a house of prayer (for all nations) in Matt 21/Mark 11 but you have made it a den of thieves.” The first clause (before the comma) is from Isaiah 56:6-8, and the second is from Jeremiah 7:11
hemistiche/ellipsis: when the last section of a well-known phrase is omitted foremphasis: Matthew says "My house shall be a house of prayer......," intentionally
leaving out
the "...for all nations" clause.
--
Three Acted parables on nationalism:
---
Palm Sunday:
---
Palm Sunday:
--
we watched the "Lamb of God" video and discussed how it was actually a nationalistic misunderstanding. If Jesus showed up personally in your church Sunday, would you wave the American flag at him, and ask him to run for president? 
Post your answer in the comments section below...at bottom of this posta)Van Der Laan:
Palm Sunday
The Passover
For the Jewish people, Passover was more than a religious observance. It was the time of year when they celebrated liberation from Egyptian bondage.
During Jesus' time, they also used this opportunity to express their longing for political freedom from Rome. Jews who claimed to be "messiahs" had so often caused riots during Passover that the Romans brought extra troops into Jerusalem during the Passover season. The Roman soldiers did not hesitate to shed blood to keep the peace.
Jesus on his way to Jerusalem
On the Sunday before Passover, Jesus came out of the wilderness on the eastern side of the Mount of Olives (just as the prophecy said the Messiah would come).
People spread cloaks and branches on the road before him. Then the disciples "began, joyfully, to praise God in loud voices for all the miracles they had seen" (Luke 19:37). The crowd began shouting, "Hosanna," a slogan of the ultra-nationalistic Zealots, which meant, "Please save us! Give us freedom! We're sick of these Romans!"
The Palm Branches
The people also waved palm branches, a symbol that had once been placed on Jewish coins when the Jewish nation was free. Thus the palm branches were not a symbol of peace and love, as Christians usually assume; they were a symbol of Jewish nationalism, an expression of the people's desire for political freedom.
Jesus as the Passover Lamb
Yet Jesus came to the people as the Lamb of God. Jesus, the sinless Messiah who would die on humankind's behalf, appeared on the very day that people chose their spotless Passover lambs!
It's almost as if God said to the world, "Here's my Lamb. Will you chose him?" But instead of turning to Jesus as the Lamb of God, the crowds misunderstood his proclamation that he was the Messiah. They wanted him to be their political-military deliverer.
Jesus Wept
In response, Jesus wept. The tears Jesus shed as the people cried out their political "Hosannas" were tears of grief for the hearts of his people.
Jesus foresaw the terrible devastation of Jerusalem that would result because the people did not recognize him as God's Messiah. The people were looking for a messiah who offered political deliverance and a political kingdom.
However they would have nothing to do with the Messiah who offered forgiveness and deliverance from sin. In his grief over their distorted beliefs, Jesus wept out loud. LINK
b)FPU prof Tim Geddert:
Palm Sunday is a day of pomp and pageantry. Many church sanctuaries are decorated with palm fronds. I’ve even been in a church that literally sent a donkey down the aisle with a Jesus-figure on it. We cheer with the crowds—shout our hosannas—praising God exuberantly as Jesus the king enters the royal city.
But if Matthew, the gospel writer, attended one of our Palm Sunday services, I fear he would respond in dismay, “Don’t you get it?” We call Jesus’ ride into Jerusalem “The Triumphal Entry,” and just like the Jerusalem crowds, we fail to notice that Jesus is holding back tears.
Jesus did not intend for this to be a victory march into Jerusalem, a political rally to muster popular support or a publicity stunt for some worthy project. Jesus was staging a protest—a protest against the empire-building ways of the world.
LINK: full article :Parade Or Protest March
c)From Table Dallas:
Eugene Cho wrote a blog post back in 2009 about the irony of Palm Sunday:-Link
The image of Palm Sunday is one of the greatest ironies. Jesus Christ – the Lord of Lords, King of Kings, the Morning Star, the Savior of all Humanity, and we can list descriptives after descriptives – rides into a procession of “Hosanna, Hosanna…Hosanna in the Highest” - on a donkey – aka - an ass.He goes on to say it’s like his friend Shane Claiborne once said, “that a modern equivalent of such an incredulous image is of the most powerful person in our modern world, the United States President, riding into a procession…on a unicycle.”
================
Temple Tantrum:
I
have actually heard people say they fear holding a bake sale anywhere
on church property…they think a divine lightning bolt might drop.
Some
go as far as to question the propriety of youth group fundraisers
(even in the lobby), or flinch at setting up a table anywhere in a
church building (especially the “sanctuary”) where a visiting speaker
or singer sells books or CDs. “I don’t want to get zapped!”
All trace their well-meaning concerns to the “obvious” Scripture:
"Remember when Jesus cast out the moneychangers and dovesellers?"
It is astounding how rare it is to hear someone comment on the classic "temple tantrum" Scripture without turning it into a mere moralism:
"Remember when Jesus cast out the moneychangers and dovesellers?"
It is astounding how rare it is to hear someone comment on the classic "temple tantrum" Scripture without turning it into a mere moralism:
"Better not sell stuff in church!”
Any serious study of the passage concludes that the most obvious reason Jesus was angry was not commercialism, but:
racism.
I heard that head-scratching.
The tables the Lord was intent on overturning were those of prejudice.
I heard that “Huh?”
A brief study of the passage…in context…will reorient us:
Again,
most contemporary Americans assume that Jesus’ anger was due to his
being upset about the buying and selling. But note that Jesus didn't
say "Quit buying and selling!” His outburst was, "My house shall be a
house of prayer for all nations"
(Mark 11:17, emphasis mine). He was not merely saying what he felt,
but directly quoting Isaiah (56:6-8), whose context is clearly not
about commercialism, but adamantly about letting foreigners and
outcasts have a place in the “house of prayer for all nations”;
for all nations, not just the Jewish nation. Christ was likely upset
not that moneychangers were doing business, but that they were making
it their business to do so disruptfully and disrespectfully in the
"outer court;” in the “Court of the Gentiles” (“Gentiles” means “all
other nations but Jews”). This was 
the
only place where "foreigners" could have a “pew” to attend the
international prayer meeting that was temple worship. Merchants were
making the temple "a den of thieves" not (just) by overcharging for
doves and money, but by (more insidiously) robbing precious people of
“all nations” a place to pray, and the God-given right to "access
access" to God.
Money-changing and doveselling were not inherently the problem. In fact they were required; t proper currency and “worship materials” were part of the procedure and protocol. It’s true that the merchants may have been overcharging and noisy, but it is where and how they are doing so that incites Jesus to righteous anger.
The problem is never tables. It’s what must be tabled:
marginalization of people of a different tribe or tongue who are only wanting to worship with the rest of us.
In
the biblical era, it went without saying that when someone quoted a
Scripture, they were assuming and importing the context. So we often
miss that Jesus is quoting a Scripture in his temple encounter, let
alone which Scripture and context. Everyone back then immediately got
the reference: “Oh, I get it, he’s preaching Isaiah, he must really
love foreigners!”:
“Foreigners who bind themselves to the Lord…all who hold fast to my covenant-these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations.” (Isaiah 56:6-8, emphases mine)
Gary Molander, faithful Fresnan and cofounder of Floodgate Productions, has articulated it succinctly:
“The classic interpretation suggests that people were buying and selling stuff in God’s house, and that’s not okay. So for churches that have a coffee bar, Jesus might toss the latte machine out the window.
I wonder if something else is going on here, and I wonder if the Old Testament passage Jesus quotes informs our understanding?…Here’s the point:
Those who are considered marginalized and not worthy of love, but who love God and are pursuing Him, are not out. They’re in..
Those who are considered nationally unclean, but who love God and are pursuing Him, are not out. They’re in.
God’s heart is for Christ’s Church to become a light to the world, not an exclusive club. And when well-meaning people block that invitation, God gets really, really ticked.”
(Gary Molander, http://www.garymo.com/2010/03/who-cant-attend-your-church/)
Still reeling? Hang on, one more test:
How
often have you heard the Scripture about “speak to the mountain and
it will be gone” invoked , with the “obvious” meaning being “the
mountain of your circumstances” or “the mountain of obstacles”? Sounds
good, and that will preach. But again, a quick glance at the
context of that saying of Jesus reveals nary a mention of metaphorical
obstacles. In fact, we find it (Mark 11:21-22) directly after the
“temple tantrum.” And consider where Jesus and the disciples are:
still near the temple, and still stunned by the “object lesson” Jesus
had just given there about prejudice. And know that everyone back
then knew what most today don’t: that one way to talk about the temple
was to call it “the mountain” (Isaiah 2:1, for example: “the mountain
of the Lord’s temple”) .
Which is why most scholars would agree with Joel Green and John Carroll:
“Indeed, read in its immediate context, Jesus’ subsequent instruction to the disciples, ‘Truly I tell you, if you say to this mountain..’ can refer only to the mountain on which the temple is built!... For him, the time of the temple is no more.” (“The Death of Jesus in Early Christianity,” p. 32, emphasis mine).
In
Jesus’ time, the temple system of worship had become far too embedded
with prejudice. So Jesus suggests that his followers actually pray
such a system, such a mountain, be gone.
Soon it literally was.
In our day, the temple is us: the church.
And the church-temple is called to pray a moving, mountain-moving, prayer:
“What keeps us from being a house of prayer for all nations?”
Or as Gary Molander summarizes:
“Who can’t attend your church?”
----------------------------------------------------
---------------
---------------------------------------------------------
"the money changers were in the Gentile courts of the temple..Jesus' action opened up the plaza so that Gentiles could pray." -Kraybill, Upside Down Kingdom, p. 151.
-----
--
For All the Nations: By Ray VanDer Laan:
Through the prophet Isaiah, God spoke of the Temple as ?a house of prayer for all the nations? (Isa. 56:7). The Temple represented his presence among his people, and he wanted all believers to have access to him.Even during the Old Testament era, God spoke specifically about allowing non-Jewish people to his Temple: ?And foreigners who bind themselves to the Lord ? these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer? (Isa. 56:7).
Unfortunately, the Temple authorities of Jesus? day forgot God?s desire for all people to worship freely at the Temple. Moneychangers had settled into the Gentile court, along with those who sold sacrificial animals and other religious merchandise. Their activities probably disrupted the Gentiles trying to worship there.
When Jesus entered the Temple area, he cleared the court of these moneychangers and vendors. Today, we often attribute his anger to the fact that they turned the temple area into a business enterprise. But Jesus was probably angry for another reason as well.
As he drove out the vendors, Jesus quoted the passage from Isaiah, ?Is it not written: ?My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations??? The vendors had been inconsiderate of Gentile believers. Their willingness to disrupt Gentile worship and prayers reflected a callous attitude of indifference toward the spiritual needs of Gentiles.
Through his anger and actions, Jesus reminded everyone nearby that God cared for Jew and Gentile alike. He showed his followers that God?s Temple was to be a holy place of prayer and worship for all believers. - Van Der Laan
---
More on Jesus' temple tantrum as against the racist religious system, and not all about "don't sell stuff in church.":
By intercalating the story of the cursing of the fig tree within that of Jesus' obstruction of the normal activity of the temple, Mark interprets Jesus' action in the temple not merely as its cleansing but its cursing. For him, the time of the temple is no more, for it has lost its fecundity. Indeed , read in its immediate context, Jesus' subsequent instruction to the disciples, "Truly I tell you, if you say to this mountain, 'Be taken up and thrown into the sea'" can refer only to the mountain on which the temple is built!
What is Jesus' concern with the temple? Why does he regard it as extraneous to God's purpose?
Hints may be found in the mixed citation of Mark 11:17, part of which derives from Isaiah 56:7, the other from 11:7. Intended as a house of prayer for all the nations, the temple has been transformed by the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem into a den of brigands. That is, the temple has been perverted in favor of both socioreligious aims (the exclusion of Gentiles as potential recipients of divine reconciliation) and politico-economic purposes (legitimizing and
consolidating the power of the chief priests, whose teaching might be realized even in the plundering of even a poor widow's livelihood-cf 12:41-44)....
...In 12:10-11, Jesus uses temple imagery from Psalm 118 to refer to his own rejection and vindication, and in the process, documents his expectation of a new temple, inclusive of 'others' (12:9, Gentiles?) This is the community of his disciples.
-John T, Carroll and Joel B. Green, "The Death of Jesus in Early Christianity," p. 32-33
--
 |
| Some revolutionaries from all nations overlooking the Temple Mount, on our 2004 trip |
"...God has chosen the people of Israel to dwell among the nations so that all nations can enter the covenant with God. But the temple Jesus now enters now functions in quite a different way, supporting a separatist cause, cutting Israelites off from their neighbors. Furthermore, the spirit encouraged within the temple is one of violence and destruction: it had become a 'den of revolutionaries' (Mark 11:17, authors' translation). Israel has turned its election into separatist privilege....a new temple, Jesus' resurrection life in the renewed people of God, can become the light for the nations that God intends." (The Drama of Scripture, p, 176)
In the footnote to the above the authors clarify:
"The Greek word here is Iestes and most likely refers to revolutionaries who sought to overthrow Rome with violence, see also on Mk 14:48, 15:27, John 18;40, see NT Wright, "Jesus and The Victory of God, 419-20--
----------------------------------------
Excerpts from a good Andreana Reale article in which she sheds light on Palm Sunday and the Temple Tantrum:
,, Jesus’ entrance into Jerusalem actually echoes a custom that would have been familiar to people living in the Greco-Roman world, when the gospels were written.
Simon Maccabeus was a Jewish general who was part of the Maccabean Revolt that occurred two centuries before Christ, which liberated the Jewish people from Greek rule. Maccabeus entered Jerusalem with praise and palm leaves—making a beeline to the Temple to have it ritually cleansed from all the idol worship that was taking place. With the Jewish people now bearing the brunt of yet another foreign ruler (this time the Romans), Jesus’ parade into Jerusalem—complete with praise and palm leaves—was a strong claim that He was the leader who would liberate the people.
Except that in this case, Jesus isn’t riding a military horse, but a humble donkey. How triumphant is Jesus’ “triumphant entry”—on a donkey He doesn’t own, surrounded by peasants from the countryside, approaching a bunch of Jews who want to kill Him?
And so He enters the Temple. In the Greco-Roman world, the classic “triumphant entry” was usually followed by some sort of ritual—making a sacrifice at the Temple, for example, as was the legendary case of Alexander the Great. Jesus’ “ritual” was to attempt to drive out those making a profit in the Temple.
The chaotic commerce taking place—entrepreneurs selling birds and animals as well as wine, oil and salt for use in Temple sacrifices—epitomized much more than general disrespect. It also symbolised a whole system that was founded on oppression and injustice.
In Matthew, Mark and John, for example, Jesus chose specifically to overturn the tables of the pigeon sellers, since these were the staple commodities that marginalised people like women and lepers used to be made ritually clean by the system. Perhaps it was this system that Jesus was referring to when He accused the people of making the Temple “a den of robbers” (Mt 21.13; Mk 11.17; Lk 19.46).
Andreana Reale
--
--
see also:
Van Der Laan on Court of the Gentiles here
temple tantrum/ which curtain was torn?
The Cleansing of the Temple
As a follow-up to previous posts about the temple tantrum of Jesus as targeting racism more than commercialism (see this, and these, if it's a new concept, and if you always though it was about "Don't sell stuff in church!" I find Bartholomew and Goheen's analysis intriguing. They read it as racism/prejudice/nationalism/"separatism" AND a "spirit of violence".
Some revolutionaries from all nations overlooking the Temple Mount, on our 2004 trip
--
Hey, maybe Jesus- concern WAS commercialism after all:
is racism + violence=commercialism?
Also...this called to mind Erwin McManus in "The Barbarian Way":
"God always revolts against religions he starts"That's a shock value statement, of course.
So it can't be "truly" true.
But it speaks the truth in part; and is partly true.
But two questions:
- Didn't the fact that the temple was not completely separatist/sectarian even in the "Old" Testament (one of the passages Jesus quotes ..to counter racism..in the tantrum is Isaiah 56:6-8) help? Was the religion/temple of God in Judaism inherently racist, even if God-ordained? Weren't the dovesellers/moneychangers the violators, not temple Judaism itself?
- If we picture God "revolting" we might ironically envision him as a but too "violent.
Jesus comes off violently peaceful (not violently peaceful in the temple..
\---
Temple Warning Inscription:
The Jewish Temple in Jerusalem was surrounded by a fence (balustrade) that was about 5 ft. [1.5 m.] high. On this fence were mounted inscriptions in Latin and Greek forbidding Gentiles from entering the temple area proper.One complete inscription was found in Jerusalem and is now on display on the second floor of the “Archaeological Museum” in Istanbul.
The Greek text has been translated: “Foreigners must not enter inside the balustrade or into the forecourt around the sanctuary. Whoever is caught will have himself to blame for his ensuing death.” Compare the accusation against Paul found in Acts 21:28 and Paul’s comments in Ephesians 2:14—“the dividing wall.”
Translation from Elwell, Walter A., and Yarbrough, Robert W., eds. Readings from the First–Century World: Primary Sources for New Testament Study. Encountering Biblical Studies, general editor and New Testament editor Walter A. Elwell. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998, p. 83. Click Here
link
two temple cleansings
there was a temple cleansing (Ananias and Sapphira) just after the opening of the peopled temple"
-Leonard Sweet and Frank Viola, "Jesus: A Theography," pp, 205-208. Excerpted in online article form here . In a footnote in the book, the thought is attributed to James Spruill.
\----
Fig Tree:
s to the significance of this passage and what it means, the answer to that is again found in the chronological setting and in understanding how a fig tree is often used symbolically to represent Israel in the Scriptures. First of all, chronologically, Jesus had just arrived at Jerusalem amid great fanfare and great expectations, but then proceeds to cleanse the Temple and curse the barren fig tree. Both had significance as to the spiritual condition of Israel. With His cleansing of the Temple and His criticism of the worship that was going on there (Matthew 21:13; Mark 11:17), Jesus was effectively denouncing Israel’s worship of God. With the cursing of the fig tree, He was symbolically denouncing Israel as a nation and, in a sense, even denouncing unfruitful “Christians” (that is, people who profess to be Christian but have no evidence of a relationship with Christ).
The presence of a fruitful fig tree was considered to be a symbol of blessing and prosperity for the nation of Israel. Likewise, the absence or death of a fig tree would symbolize judgment and rejection. Symbolically, the fig tree represented the spiritual deadness of Israel, who while very religious outwardly with all the sacrifices and ceremonies, were spiritually barren because of their sins. By cleansing the Temple and cursing the fig tree, causing it to whither and die, Jesus was pronouncing His coming judgment of Israel and demonstrating His power to carry it out. It also teaches the principle that religious profession and observance are not enough to guarantee salvation, unless there is the fruit of genuine salvation evidenced in the life of the person. James would later echo this truth when he wrote that “faith without works is dead” (James 2:26). The lesson of the fig tree is that we should bear spiritual fruit (Galatians 5:22-23), not just give an appearance of religiosity. God judges fruitlessness, and expects that those who have a relationship with Him will “bear much fruit” (John 15:5-8). -LINK
--
"If anyone says to this mountain, 'Go throw yourself into the sea, and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done.' (Mark 11:23). If you want to be charismatic about it, you can pretend this refers to the mountain of your circumstances--but that is taking the passage out of context. Jesus was not referring to the mountain of circumstances. When he referred to 'this mountain,' I believe (based in part on Zech 4:6-9) that he was looking at the Temple Mount, and indicating that "the mountain on which the temple sits is going to be removed, referring to its destruction by the Romans..
Much of what Jesus said was intended to clue people in to the fact that the religious system of the day would be overthrown, but we miss much if it because we Americanize it, making it say what we want it to say, We turn the parables into fables or moral stories instead of living prophecies that pertain as much to us as to the audience that first heard them."
-Steve Gray, "When The KIngdom Comes," p.31
----------------------------------------------
“Indeed, read in its immediate context, Jesus’ subsequent instruction to the disciples, ‘Truly I tell you, if you say to this mountain..’ can refer only to the mountain on which the temple is built!... For him, the time of the temple is no more.”
--
Great piece, from "A is for Abductive," pp 303-305...below (click to enlarge, then click again)."If anyone says to this mountain, 'Go throw yourself into the sea, and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done.' (Mark 11:23). If you want to be charismatic about it, you can pretend this refers to the mountain of your circumstances--but that is taking the passage out of context. Jesus was not referring to the mountain of circumstances. When he referred to 'this mountain,' I believe (based in part on Zech 4:6-9) that he was looking at the Temple Mount, and indicating that "the mountain on which the temple sits is going to be removed, referring to its destruction by the Romans..
Much of what Jesus said was intended to clue people in to the fact that the religious system of the day would be overthrown, but we miss much if it because we Americanize it, making it say what we want it to say, We turn the parables into fables or moral stories instead of living prophecies that pertain as much to us as to the audience that first heard them."
-Steve Gray, "When The KIngdom Comes," p.31
----------------------------------------------
“Indeed, read in its immediate context, Jesus’ subsequent instruction to the disciples, ‘Truly I tell you, if you say to this mountain..’ can refer only to the mountain on which the temple is built!... For him, the time of the temple is no more.”
------------
"The word about the mountain being cast into the sea.....spoken in Jerusalem, would naturally refer to the Temple mount. The saying is not simply a miscellaneous comment on how prayer and faith can do such things as curse fig trees. It is a very specific word of judgement: the Temple mountain is, figuratively speaking, to be taken up and cast into the sea."
-N,T. Wright, "Jesus and the Victory of God," p. 422
-----
From the Kraybill Upside Down book, helpful pages on the temple tantrum:
140, 150-152, 202, 275 note 15
-----
-----
From the Kraybill Upside Down book, helpful pages on the temple tantrum:
140, 150-152, 202, 275 note 15
-----
Related: centered sets with moving center
--
--------
This all raises issues: re: how do believers relate to the dominant "secular" culture/empire:
How about subversion?
A true "Three Worlds" exploration of a famous text "Revelation" by Rob Bell:
Bell and Golden:
A
tragic example of what happens when Christians miss the central message
of the Scriptures is the way in which Revelation, the last book of the
Bible, is taught and understood in American culture. Revelation is a
letter from a pastor named John to his congregation. To understand how
significant the letter is, it helps to understand its first-century
historical backdrop.
First, the emperor:
The Caesars, who ruled the Roman Empire, sow themselves as gods on
earth, sent to bring about peace and prosperity. Throughout the first
century, the Caesars had taken their divinity more and more seriously,
demanding more and more overt displays of worship and acknowledgment
from their subjects. Many of them demanded that their subjects worship
them as the Son of God, the divine one ruling the earth with the favor
of the god. One Caesar had a choir that followed him wherever he went,
singing, “You are worthy, our Lord and our God, to receive honor and
glory and power.”
Second, economics:
The Caesars understood that at the heart of the empire is economics. If
you want to truly control people, you need to control their money. So
if you went to the market to buy or sell goods, you first needed to
give an offering acknowledging Caesar as Lord and that you were an
obedient subject of his kingdom. If you didn’t, you couldn’t take part
in the economy, which meant you wouldn’t make any money and you’d
eventually starve. It is believed that a system was developed to
identify who had made the offering to Caesar and who hadn’t and this
system involved some sort of mark you received to acknowledge your
confession of Caesar as Lord and your ability to take part in the
market.
Third, peace: The
Roman army would march into a new land or region, one they had not
conquered and announce they were taking over. They would demand that the
citizens of that land confess Caesar as Lord. If they refused, they
could be killed, often crucified, as a public demonstration of what
happens when you defy Caesar. This had a way of bringing people in line
with the Roman way.
Fourth, exile:
The Caesar in power at the time of John’s writing understood just what a
challenge the church of Jesus was to his rule. These Christians
believed that someone else, someone not him, was the true Son of God and
that he alone deserved their worship and acknowledgment of divine
status. Caesar believed that the way to get rid of this threat was to
send the pastor into exile so that he couldn’t lead his people.
Revelation
is a letter written from John, the pastor, to his church during his
time of exile. He writes in a subversive literary style called
apocalyptic. It uses a vast array of symbols and images and stylized
language to convey profound truths about how the world works. John
refers to a beast, which is his word for the corrupt, destructive system
of violence and evil that is pervasive in our world. He writes of a
dragon, the one who does the work of the beast on earth. And then he
talks about a mark of the beast.
We can assume John’s audience knew what the mark was – how you bought and sold in the market.
The mark was a symbol of your participation in the military-economic
complex of the Roman Empire. The mark represented an all-encompassing
system aligned against people doing the right thing. The mark spoke to
all of the ways humans misuse power to accumulate and stockpile while
others suffer and starve.
The mark was anti-kingdom, and John says don’t do it. Don’t take the mark. Don’t take part in the animating spirit of empire: Resist – Rebel – Protest.
Revelation is a bold, courageous, politically subversive attack on
corrosive empire and its power to oppress people. The people who read
this letter would have been confronted with a fundamental question: Who
is Lord – Jesus or Caesar? Whose way is the way – the way of violence or
the way of peace – the way of domination or the way of compassion – the
way of building towers to the heavens or the way of sharing our bread
with our neighbor - the way of greed and economic exploitation or the
way of generosity and solidarity?
Who is your Lord?
Imagine how dangerous it would be if there were
Christians who skipped over the first-century meaning of John’s letter
and focused only on whatever it might be saying about future events,
years and years away. There is always the chance that in missing the point,
they may in the process be participating in and supporting and funding
the various kinds of systems that the letter warns against participating
in, supporting, and funding.
That would be tragic.
That wouldn’t be what Jesus had in mind.
That would be anti-Jesus.
That would be anti-Christ.
Were the people in John’s church reading his letter for the first time, with Roman soldiers right outside their door, thinking, “This is going to be really helpful for people two thousand years from now who don’t want to get left behind”?
It’s a letter written to a real group of people, in a real place, at a
real time, enduring excruciatingly difficult times. Christians were
being killed by the empire because they would not participate.
John comforts them, challenges them, warns them, teaches them, inspires them – don’t take the mark of the beast.
-Rob Bell and Don Golden, "Jesus Came to Save Christians," pp 131-134 .. emphases are mine
--
of course Christians will be left behind
no one
reading the famous "one will be taken; the other left behind" 'rapture' passage..
(in context; and without everything you've ever heard that it said influencing what you hear)
will read it as Christians being taken/raptured.
It is the most obvious interpretation in the world that in this Scripture:
the Christians are left behind.
!
Try it out! Follow the flow and logic; read text and context prayerfully and carefully.
There's a reason this passage was not spun this way in the early church (B.L.H.-"Before LaHaye")
the flood came and swept them all away, so too will be the coming of the Son of Man. Then two will be in the field; one will be taken and one will be left. Two women will be grinding meal together; one will be taken and one will be left. Keep awake therefore, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming.
And Rossing:
Only by combining this passage together with First Thessalonians can a dispensationalist begin to piece together their notion of 'left behind'...But here's the problem with their use of this passage in Matthew: Dispensationalists make the leap of assuming that the person 'taken' in this passage is a born-again Christian who is taken up to heaven, while the person 'left' is an unbeliever who is left behind for judgement. This is a huge leap, since Jesus himself never specifies whether Christians should desire to be taken or left! In the overall context of Matthew's Gospel, the verbs 'taken' and 'left' (Greek paralambano and apheimi) can be either positive or negative.
In the verses immediately preceding this passage, Jesus says that his coming will be like the flood at the time of Noah, when people were 'swept away' in judgement. If being 'taken' is analogous to being 'swept away' in a flood, then it is not a positive fate. That is the argument of New Testament scholar and Anglican bishop N.T. Wright:
'It should be noted that being in this context means being taken in judgement.
There is no hint here of a , a sudden event that would remove individuals from terra firma...It is, rather, a matter of secret police coming in the night, or of enemies sweeping through a village or city and seizing all they can.'
(NT Wright, Jesus and The Victory of God, p. 366
If Wright is correct, this means that 'left behind,' is actually the desired fate of Christians, whereas being 'taken' would mean being carried off by forces of judgement like a death squad. For people living under Roman occupation, being taken away in such a way by secret police would probably be a constant fear....McGuire suggests that the 'Left Behind' books have it 'entirely backward.'. McGuire, like Wright, points out that when analyzed in the overall context of the gospel, the word 'taken' means being taken away in judgement, as in the story of Jesus' being 'taken' prisoner by soldiers in Matt 27:27. 'Taken' is not an image for salvation"
(Rossing, pp 178-179)
‘But about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son,nor the Son');"; but only the Father. For as the days of Noah were, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark, and they knew nothing until the flood came and swept them all away, so too will be the coming of the Son of Man. Then two will be in the field; one will be taken and one will be left. Two women will be grinding meal together; one will be taken and one will be left. Keep awake therefore, for you do not know on what day at what hour');your Lord is coming. But understand this: if the owner of the house had known in what part of the night the thief was coming, he would have stayed awake and would not have let his house be broken into. Therefore you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an unexpected hour. '
-Matt. 24
--
No comments:
Post a Comment