Monday, June 29, 2015

Prodigal Son painting

Click this video to see a crazy art museum guide (:
 

  Re-read the parable of the Prodigal Son, and then take a good long look at DaVinci's painting (below) based on the parable.  Look for the main
characters, emotions, themes etc.

Then read about it at this  link ,
  Read this:
 An Excerpt from The Return of the Prodigal Son: A Story of Homecoming by Henri J. M. Nouwen
How might any of this help you with your signature paper?  especially case study #4?





Tuesday, June 23, 2015

"Into the Desert to be Tested"

Post your paragraph review/summary of "Into the Desert to be Tested video in the comments section below.  Remember, if you don't have one of the accounts listed to sign in, sign in as "Anonymous," but be sure to give your initials or name in your post, so you get credit!

Case study: Would Jesus live in a gated community?

I really hope some of you choose to write your signature paper on this case study question.

Four short links to read (which would count for sources for your paper):

Thursday, June 11, 2015

Three Worlds videos:"Faith Lessons"

Here are "Faith Lesssons" videos by Ray Van DerLaan.
His website is here
Mote: must be logged into Moodle to watch most videos


--
"In the Shadow of Herod" (Filmed on top of Herodian/Mattew 2:1  Birth of Jesus,King Jesus vs Hing Herod,  Subversion of Empire).  Epsiode 1 from Vol 3 of Faith Lessons: The Life and Ministry of the Messiah" 


"Wet Feet" (Jesus' Baptism/Jordan)


"The Rabbi at Gamla"   (Jesus as Teacher/Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots, Mighty Deeds) 
Epsiode 5 from Vol 3 of Faith Lessons: The Life and Ministry of the Messiah" 


"Misguided Faith" (misunderstanding Jesus/Crusades)   Episode 7 from Vol 3 of Faith Lessons: The Life and Ministry of the Messiah"


"The Red Sea - The Lord Reigns" (Crossing Red Sea and Dance Party on the Beach/The Kingdom Begins)  Episode  5 from Vol  8 of Faith Lessons: God Heard Their Cry



"Into the Desert to Be Tested" (puts the temptations of Jesus in OT perspective)  Episode 3 of Faith Lessons Vol 11:"The Path to The Cross'

"Gates of Hell" (Matt 18/Build My Church) Episode 3 of Faith Lessons Vol 4: The Death and Resurrection of the Messiah 

"Lamb of God" (Triumphal Entry and Nationalistic Misunderstandings of Jesus)  Episode 6 of Faith Lessons Vol 4: The Death and Resurrection of the Messiah

"Roll Away the Stone" (Death of Jesus/Passover and Communion) Episode 7 of Faith Lessons Vol 4: The Death and Resurrection of the Messiah


Note: the publisher currently has the first episode of each volume online . (maddeningly, they are not titled).  Click here
So that includes:
  1.  Standing at the Crossroads
  2.  Innocent Blood (Meggido)
  3. In the Shadow of Herod (Herodian)
  4. When Storms Come (Galilee)
  5. Everything to Lose, Nothing to Gain (Casearea Philippi )
  6.   When the Rabbi Says 'Come" (Bet Shan)  better audio version here
  7. Run!  The Passion of Elijah  
  8. How Big is Our God?  (Egypt/Pharoah)
  9. The Lord Who Heals You (Marah and Elam)
  10. Build Me a Sanctuary (Tabernacle)
  11. The Way of the Essenes
  12. Join the Journey (Walking With God in the Desert)

geneaolgy and birth of Jesus notes by FPU faculty

Notes by FPU faculty Roberts/Camp

Two of the four NT gospels (Matthew & Luke) contain narratives about Jesus' birth. 

A

Matthew 1:18 - 2:12
Mary and Joseph engaged
Mary pregnant
Angel appears to Joseph and explains
Fulfillment of prophecy: virgin, Emmanuel
Joseph marries Mary
Jesus born in Bethlehem
Magi come from east asking, “Where is child born king of Jews? We come to pay homage.”
Herod freaks, asks about Messiah, told to be born in Bethlehem (quotes Mic. 5:2)
Herod asks magi when star appeared to them, says go find him so I can pay homage
Magi follow star to where child was, are overjoyed
Magi enter house and see child with Mary
Magi kneel, pay homage, give gifts
Magi warned in dream about Herod. They return home by another way
(No real story of the birth, no shepherds and angels, no stable or manger, no # of magi)
Who is Matthew declaring Jesus to be? Emphasis? Type of people involved?

          Luke 2:8-20
Shepherds in field watching flocks
Angel appears, glory shines, shepherds terrified
Angel speaks: no fear, good news, savior Messiah Lord born. sign--wrapped in cloth, manger
Multitude of heavenly host praising God: glory to God, on earth peace
Angels leave
Shepherds: let’s go to Bethlehem and see this thing Lord has revealed to us
Shepherds go with haste, find Mary, Joseph, baby in manger.
Shepherds make known what was told them about child; “all” (?) who hear it are amazed
Mary treasures the words of the shepherds, ponders them
Shepherds return, glorifying God for all they heard and seen
(No magi, no animals, so stable named, no date)
Who is Luke declaring Jesus to be? Emphasis? Type of people involved?

What do we make of two very different presentations of Jesus’ birth? Two main concerns/issues:

1.  Nature of the gospels
Birth narratives give us two different perspectives on Jesus’ birth, varying considerably in emphasis and even in the people and events they describe. This is true throughout the four Gospels--no two are identical. The Gospels give us four different perspectives on Jesus’ life, four portraits of person and work of Jesus. Some use the example of four witnesses to accident or four men and elephant (leg=tree, trunk=snake, tail=rope, side=wall). The Gospel writers give us different perspectives on the person of Jesus; no one person can know everything there is to know about another person, especially about Jesus it seems.

2.  Distinctives in birth narratives/genealogies

The differences are also due to another factor, that of the purpose of the Gospel writers. For example, the birth narrative in Matthew includes the magi, Joseph’s experience of dreams and visions, and Jesus’ kingly, messianic credentials are emphasized. In contrast, the birth narrative in Luke includes shepherds, Mary’s experience of dreams and visions, and Jesus as savior and bringer of peace. The different perspective of each is tied to different emphasis of each. Matthew concerned to show Jesus as fulfillment of OT Scripture prophecy (structure of 5 quotes), expectations of Messiah. Focus is on Joseph receiving dreams and his reaction to the divine intervention in Mary’s life (1. 18f, 2.13, 2.19f). Joseph as devout Jewish man who is led by dreams to do God’s will. Matt is concerned with showing Jesus’ credentials as Messiah in the line of David. He does this through giving Jesus’ genealogy. (Overhead of Matthew’s genealogy first, note emphasis on David, character of ancient genealogies, 3 groups of 14 as way of structuring Israelite history, interesting inclusion of 5 women [controversial, unexpected people God uses], change in grammar with Mary and Joseph. 

Luke The genealogy is actually another place where we see very clearly the different emphases of the Gospel writers. Note “the son, so it was thought.” Note the numbers are different 77 vs. Matt’s 42, just a running list, reverse order not Abram to Jesus but Jesus to Adam, still through David is important, but back to Adam first man and calls him son of God. Jesus as universal savior. Comes at different place in gospel—after baptism (this is my son) and before temptation (if you are the son). Luke seems to emphasize Jesus as savior, and the prominence of lowly, regular people. Luke’s gospel focuses on liberation for the poor and oppressed and Jesus as the light to the Gentiles (vs. Jewish messiah). Luke is part of Luke/Acts, which shows mission to the Gentiles. The prominence of lowly people like shepherds and women is part of this Universalizing. Luke focuses on Mary’s dreams and visions and her response--not Joseph as righteous Jewish man but women as figures of faith in Luke—Mary (vs. Joseph), Elizabeth (vs. Zechariah), Anna (vs. Simeon).



Tuesday, June 9, 2015

your church ads

We have been doing this create a church ad for several years; all the Bible teachers use it.
When we do it in physical class, students work in groups and design their ads on the board.

Several patterns usually happen: the largest majority of church names have the words "unity" or "unified,: etc.

Here are some ads from a Visalia FPU class (click or right click pics to enlarge)






 If you are on facebook, click this link to see more  church ads one class made :

                 Church plants 11-10 (click)



BUT here are two very very telling results.

1)I always ask the students to look at all the ads.  I then hold up a Saturday newspaper from the town I am teaching in, and open to the page with church ads.  I say, "This ALWAYS happens.  Not once in this class, or in any class in all my years of this class has anyone ever thought to include in their ad the one thing that is in 99 to 100 percent of the church ads."

Students are stumped.

The answer is: The name of the pastor or priest.

Amazing: Why is that?  Why does our culture so emphasize the pastor that their name is always in the ad, and often their picture?

How many times would you guess the word "pastor" shows up in the Bible?
An important concept, right?
The answer is ZERO.
It IS there in the plural--"pastorS" ,,but only once and in passing.

Click these two  sentencs, to open up links with some  short commentary on this.

quiz: how many times is 'pastor' mentioned in the NT?



Watch this:
2)Not once has a class church  been designed where the ad says they meet in a traditional church building...they are in parks, in homes, in shopping malls, on FPT campus.
In the Bible, there is no such thing as a church building.  Church never means building in the Bible.
As you read in Philemon, the church that meets in your house." etc

Whats up with this?  What do you think?

--]
HMMMMM
Post your feelings/responses to these two observations in the comments section below this post.
If you don't have one of the accounts to sign in, simply click "Post as anonymous"...but be sure to include your first name or initials in your comments, so you get credit

temple tantrum

This  page assumes you have read the "TEMPLE TANTRUM for all nations" article and forum.
This is follow-up
--


SIGN:  INTERTEXTUALITY/HYPERLINKING:

This means one text quotes another text.  When both texts are biblical, this is often called cross-referencing.  When we get into today's theme, we;ll see intertexting between The Ten Commandments (OT) and The Sermon on the Mount (NT)
One of Chris Harrison's projects is called "Visualizing the Bible":


"Christoph Römhild sent me his interesting biblical cross-references data set. This lead to the first of three visualizations. Intrigued by the complexity of the Bible, I derived a new data set by parsing the King James Bible and extracting people and places. One of the resulting visualizations is a biblical social network. The other visualization shows how people and places are distributed throughout the text."  Chris Harrison-

But why should I tell you when I can show you?:


"The bar graph that runs along the bottom represents all of the chapters in the Bible. Books alternate in color between white and light gray. The length of each bar denotes the number of verses in the chapter. Each of the 63,779 cross references found in the Bible is depicted by a single arc - the color corresponds to the distance between the two chapters, creating a rainbow-like effect." .More info about this chart, and charts of the Bible as a social network  here.


NOTE: Sometimes the text "intertexted" to is from another text or genre.





-INTERCALATION/SANDWICHING
-DOUBLE PASTE
-HEMISTICHE



INTERCALATION is a "sandwiching" technique. where a story/theme is told/repeated at the beginning and ened of a section, suggesting that if a different story appears in between, it too is related thematically.  We looked at  this outline of Mark 11:

CURSING OF FIG FREE
CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE
CURSING OF THE FIG TREE


We discussed how the cursing of the fig tree was Jesus' commentary of nationalism/racism/prejudice, because fig trees are often a symbol of national Israel.  That the fig  tree cursing story is "cut in  two" by the inserting/"intercalating" of the temple cleansing, suggested that Jesus action in the temple was also commentary on prejuidice...which become more obvious when we realize the moneychangers and dovesellers are set up in the "court of the Gentiles," which kept the temple from being a "house of prayer FOR ALL NATIONS (GENTILES).

This theme becomes even more clear when we note that Jesus  statement was a quote from Isaiah 56:68, and the context there (of course) is against prejudice in the temple.


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, 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.



==

 class discussion on Matthew 21 (

Three Acted Parables about Nationalism)

especially focusing on the temple tantrum..


Note, the chapter started with "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 post





a)Van Der Laan:

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   __LINK to full article


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:
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.”
          -Link 


-






--

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

---


--
Excerpts from a good Andreana Reale article in which she sheds light on Palm Sunday and theTemple 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



--


So Jesus is intertexting and ddouble pasting two Scriptures  and making a new one.
But he leaves out the most important part "FOR ALL NATIONS"...which means he is hemistiching and making that phrase even more significant by it's absence,
-----



"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 religous 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 naturallly 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 





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


FIG TREE: FOLLOW SCRIPTURES WHERE IT IS A SYMBOL OF NATIONIAL ISRAEL/jERUSALEM/GOD'S BOUNDED SET:
=

  



NT Wright on the temple:
Jesus as New Temple:


Three thought experiments.
  • -Think if I offered you a drivers license, claiming  i had authority to issue it
  • -Think if someone destroyed all bank records and evidence of any debt you have owe
  • -Think  what would happen if you pointed at something, hoping your dog would look at it.
Now watch this short  and important video above  for explanations.  IF VIDEO DOESN'T PLAY 
BELOW, just click this to watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1rTG9MMWN4




N.T. Wright, "The Challenge of Jesus": 



Jesus’ clash with the Pharisees came about not because he was an antinomian or because he believed in justification by faith while they believed in justification by works but because his kingdom-agenda for Israel demanded that Israel leave off her frantic and paranoid self-defense, reinforced as it now was by the ancestral codes, and embrace instead the vocation to be the light of the world, the salt of the earth. I therefore propose that the clash between Jesus and his Jewish contemporaries, especially the Pharisees, must be seen in terms of alternative political agendas generated by alternative eschatological beliefs and expectations. (58)

His attitude to the Temple was not "this institution needs reforming," nor "the wrong people are running this place," nor yet "piety can function elsewhere too." His deepest belief regarding the temple was eschatological: the time had come for God to judge the entire institution. It had come to symbolize the injustice that characterized the society on the inside and on the outside, the rejection of the vocation to be the light of the world, the city set on a hill that would draw to itself all the peoples of the world. (64)

…Jesus acted and spoke as if he was in some sense called to do and be what the Temple was and did. His offer of forgiveness, with no prior condition of Temple-worship or sacrifice, was the equivalent of someone in our world offering as a private individual to issue someone else a passport or a driver’s license. He was undercutting the official system and claiming by implication to be establishing a new one in its place. (65)  NT WRIGHT

See: 

Jesus and the Temple Destruction: Did Jesus say he would destroy the temple?

---

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


-- 

  •  

 Temple Warning Inscription:

The Jewish Temple in Jerusalem was surrounded by a fence (balustrade) with a sign (soreq)  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.  IF VIDEO BELOW  DOESN'T PLAY. CLICK THIS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge7i60GuNRg
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
Temple Warning Inscription

  click this if video doesn't play: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXQozTxQSiE


--------
 TEMPLE TANTRUM
If video below doesn't play, click or paste this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlOxlSOr3_M


You'll also remember this video. "You're not supposed to be having fun in church; you're supposed to be praying and reading your Bibles!!":  CLICK THIS IF VIDEO DOESN"T PLAY: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-iKHn0UM_M


A

So Jesus is intertexting and ddouble pasting two Scriptues 
 and making a new one.
But he leaves out the most important part "FOR ALL NATIONS"...which means he is hemistiching and making that phrase even more significant by it's absence,

b)As a follow-up to 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".

Does the former always lead to the latter?:


"...God has chosen the people of Israel to dwell among the nations so that all  nations can enter teh 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 temle 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 ansd most likely refers to revolutionaries who sought to obverthrow 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
--

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.





-------