The Kingdom (p 16, Kraybill)
Devotions from David Letterman
Coffee shop prank
These were to remind us of how shocking, subversive, surprising Jesus' temple tantrum was.
class discussion on Matthew 21 (Mark 11)
Three Acted Parables about Nationalism)especially focusing on the temple tantrum..
Note, the chapter started with "Palm Sunday":
we'll watch (next moodle)the "Lamb of God" video and discuss 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?
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:-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.”
Article By Dave Wainscott
“Temple Tantrums For All Nations"
Salt Fresno Magazine, Jan 2011:
|Some revolutionaries from all nations overlooking the Temple Mount, on our 2004 trip|
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:
"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:
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?” -Dave Wainscott, Salt Fresno Magazine
the money changers were in the Gentile courts of the temple..Jesus' action opened up the plazaso 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
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
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.
SOREQintertexting and double pasting two Scriptures and making a new one.
hemistiching and making that phrase even more significant by it's absence,
--St vladimir from my Fresno class ate an orange like an apple:
Apples and Oranges and Culture
- the "modern" and "Gutenberg" world (RRWI=Rational, Representative. Word-Based, Individual)
- -the "postmodern' and "Google" world (EPIC=Experiential, Participatory, Image-Driven)
the church can learn a lot about our current EPIC (Experiential, Participatory, Image-Driven, Connectivity) culture.
In what ways do you see Starbucks as living out an EPIC ethic?
Now note Van DerLaan's slideshow on Greek vs. Hebrew culture here and here.
Finally, remember our conversations about bounded sets and centered sets.
Could these three grids collate?
Bounded Set Centered Set
n we apply some "Three Worlds" theory to Matthew 18 and the topic of "Who is great?":
Page 22 of Syllabus,Matthew 18 Outline:
1 Question #1: Who is Greatest?
2-17 Responses (each are counter proposals)
2-10 Response #1: Children
2-4 Counter Proposal: Accept children
5-9 Threat: If cause scandal
10 Show of force: Angels protect
12-14 Response #2: Sheep
12-14 Counter Proposal: Search for the 1 of 100 who is lost
15-17 Response #3: Brother who sins (counter proposal)
15a Hypothetical situation: If sin
15-17 Answer: Attempt to get brother to be reconciled
17b If fail: Put him out and start over
18-20 Statement: What you bind or loose
21-22 Question #2: How far do we go in forgiveness?
23-35 Response #1: Parable of the forgiving king/unforgiving servant
"Historical World" of this passage: A
What did you learn about a millstone from tonight's video clip?:
How did we conenct Sqeaky Shoes to Matt 18?
here on facebook) I show it in classes on Matthew 18.. Oscar-worthy performances by Keltic Ken and Vincent J. Vera...and they even let me appear in a cameo (as myself-sort of)..Director?camera genius: Alex Ramirez.. Enjoy:
Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus,
and Timothy our brother,
To Philemon our dear friend and fellow worker
also to Apphia our sister and
Archippus our fellow soldier
—and to the church
that meets in your home:
3 Grace and peace
to you (plural)
from God our Father
and the Lord Jesus Christ.4 I always thank my God as I remember you in my prayers,
5 because I hear about your
love and faith
towards Lord Jesus and all the saints
6 I pray that your partnership with us in the faith may be effective
in deepening your understanding of every good thing we share for the sake of Christ.
7 Your love has given me great joy
because you, brother, have refreshed the hearts of the saints.
although in Christ I could be bold, and order you to do what you ought to do,
9 yet I prefer to appeal to you on the basis of love.
It is as none other than Paul— an old man (elder)
and now also a prisoner of Christ Jesus—
10 that I appeal to you for my son--
who became my son while I was in chains.
11 Formerly he was useless to you,
but now he has become useful both to you and to me.
12 I am sending him
—who is my very heart
—back to you.
13 I would have liked to keep him with me
he could take
in helping me
while I am in chains for the gospel.
14 But I did not want to do anything without your consent,
so that any favor you do would not seem forced
but would be voluntary.
15 Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while
was that you might have him back forever—
16 no longer as a slave,
but more than a slave,
as a dear brother.
He is that to me,
but even more so to you,
both in the flesh
and in the Lord.
if you consider me a partner,
as you would welcome me.
18 If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything,
charge it to me.
19 I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand:
I will pay it back!
(not to mention that you owe me your very self)
20 I do wish, brother, that I may have some benefit or usefulness from you in the Lord;
refresh my heart in Christ.
21 Confident of your obedience,
I write to you,
knowing that you will do even more than I ask.
22 And one thing more:
Prepare a guest room for me,
because I hope to be restored to you (plural)
in answer to your (plural) prayers.
my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus,
sends you greetings.
24 And so do Mark,
my fellow workers.25 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your (plural) spirit.
t When looking at "alternative" readings of Philemon, it is amazing how few even deal with the reality that the most obvious way to read vv 15-16-- "a dearly loved brother, both in the flesh and in the Lord" --as
both a literal and spiritual brother.
Tim Gombis is so right:
My main contention in these posts is that commentators must take Paul’s reference to Philemon and Onesimus as adelphoi en sarki with greater seriousness. It is highly unlikely that Paul regards the two as sharing in a common humanity. It is far more likely that they are actual brothers. This may demand a re-consideration of the scenario that eventuates in Paul’s letter, even though any modification to the consensus view need not be as dramatic as the view advanced by Callahan. link
Even N.T. Wright, who specializes in Philemon; even making it the key to his new magnum opus on Paul,
acknowledges the "literal brother" interpretation, but does not even consider it or discuss it (in 1700 pages) other than to say:
"one writer [Callahan] has even suggested that Philemon and Onesimus were not master and slave, but actual brothers who have fallen out, but, this too, has not found support." (p. 8)
Just because Callahan may have gone too far, must we throw interpretations out with bathwater?
Is Wright (surely!) aware that they could be master/slave and literal brothers, as Gombid develops (here) and suggests "this is the most natural reading." Wright's work is indeed brilliant and seminal, but perhaps Moo has a point about him being too sure of his interpretations...to the degree that, though he is the nicest guy, he can seem dismissive:
I won’t list other instances, but Paul and the Faithfulness of Godcontains too many of these kinds of rhetorically effective but exaggerated or overly generalized claims. A related problem is Wright’s tendency to set himself against the world—and then wonder why the world is so blind as to fail to see what he sees. A key thread, for instance, is Wright’s insistence that the basic story Paul’s working with has to do with God’s fulfillment of his covenant promises to Abraham—a vital focus that “almost all exegetes miss” and that has been “screened out from the official traditions of the church from at least the time of the great creeds” (494). This problem is sometimes compounded by a caricature of the tradition with which he disagrees Moo, full review
Don't get me wrong, I'm still getting the T-shirt...just saying (:
Another post from Gombis:
Several years ago I was teaching Bible study methods to undergrads and we were doing an exercise with the text of Paul’s letter to Philemon. A student raised his hand and noted that according to the text it appeared that Onesimus was the brother of Philemon.
This sounded outrageous and obviously wrong, so I asked how he could possibly have arrived at that notion. He directed my attention to vv. 15-16. We were looking at the NASB:
For perhaps he was for this reason separated from you for a while, that you would have him back forever, no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother, especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.
I hadn’t studied this letter all that closely previously, so I assumed that Paul’s indication that they were brothers “both in the flesh and in the Lord” must mean something else. Other translations make this very assumption:
Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever—no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord (NIV).
Maybe this is the reason that Onesimus was separated from you for a while so that you might have him back forever— 16 no longer as a slave but more than a slave—that is, as a dearly loved brother. He is especially a dearly loved brother to me. How much more can he become a brother to you, personally and spiritually in the Lord (CEB)!
I told him that I’d need to look at that a bit more closely and get back to him at a later point (one of those unfortunate classroom moments when you don’t have a ready answer–ugh!).
As I dipped into commentaries over the subsequent weeks and months, I was increasingly disappointed by how commentators treated Paul’s expression. The NIV’s and CEB’s renderings represent how nearly every major commentary I’ve looked at handles Paul’s expression...link
I have had similar experiences in college classes. Often in a class of fifteen, where most are reading the text for the first time, I ask "How many of you assumed Onesimus was a slave?" Often, no hands go up.
I need to ask : "How many of you assumed Onesimus was a Philemon's literal brother?"
Interesting that a far more popular (in the sense of "speaking to laypeople" and not in the academic journal world) writer than Wright, assumes the literal brother view, without even acknowledging the "traditional" view (emphases mine):
Philemon is a marvelous example of the strongest force in the universe to affect control over someone -- grace. It takes up one of the most difficult problems we ever encounter, that of resolving quarrels between family members. We can ignore something a stranger does to hurt us, but it is very hard to forgive a member of our own family or someone close to us.---------------------------------
The key to this little letter is in the 16th verse. Paul says to Philemon that he is sending back Onesimus:
...no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother, especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord. (Philemon 1:16 RSV)
The background of this story is very interesting. This letter was written when the Apostle Paul was a prisoner in the city of Rome for the first time. It was sent to Philemon, a friend Paul had won to Christ, who lived in Colossae. Evidently Philemon had a young brother whose name was Onesimus.
Some way or another, we do not know how, Onesimus got into trouble -- maybe he was a gambling man -- and became the slave of his own brother, Philemon. In those days, if a man got into trouble, he could get somebody to redeem him by selling himself to that person as a slave. Perhaps Onesimus got into debt, and went to his brother, Philemon, and said, "Philemon, would you mind going to bat here for me? I'm in trouble and I need some money."
Philemon would say, "Well, Onesimus, what can you give me for security?"
Onesimus would say, "I haven't got a thing but myself, but I'll become your slave if you'll pay off this debt." Now that may or may not have been how it occurred, but the picture we get from this little letter is that Philemon is the brother of Onesimus, and his slave as well. -Ray Stedman, link
So glad Tim Gombis (fantastic writer) posted this series on Philemon. Most folks have never even heard the interpretation that Philemon and Onesimus are literal bothers, even though "this is the most natural reading" (Gonbis):
CLICK TITLES TO READ:
- Philemon &; Onesimus: The Consensus-
- Questioning the Consensus, Pt. 1
- Questioning the Consensus, Pt. 2
- Questioning the Consensus, Pt. 3
- Philemon & Onesimus: Brothers in the Flesh
After asking (not answering yet) our four quick questions (fill in the answers immediately with your very first gut instinct):
- 1)"In England, they drive on the ___________ side of the road"
- 2)"Boy, you can sure tell that_______________ is at work in the secular world nowadays! All you have to do is look around!"
- 3)"Israel is on the continent of __________."
- 4)How many of you are in a cross-cultural marriage? ____
-- ULTURE CULTURE
We'll suggest Jesus (in his historical world) was
1)CULTURAL:"Culture/matrix is with you...even when you go to church"
"All divine revelation
is culturally mediated."
-Leonard Sweet, "Aqua Church 2.0," p.. 67...context
"All divine revelation
is culturally mediated."
-Leonard Sweet, "Aqua Church 2.0," p.. 67...context
"Gaithers on Crack":
What is culture?
What isn’t culture?
Paul Hiebert explains that culture is the “learned patterns of behavior, ideas and products characteristic of a [group of people]."
Culture is "a way of thinking, feeling and acting by one or more people."
How many of you raised your hands for being in a cross-cultural marriage (Hopefully, all married people...I didn't say 'cross-racial')
How many of you raised your hands for being in a cross-cultural marriage? (Hopefully, all married people...I didn't say 'cross-racial')
BUT before we go any further:
Those four questions from the top of the page/evening?
Click here (or review the "Gaithers on Crack" video above) to see my suggested "right answers." to the first two
questions , and the first 24 seconds of the video below for answer to the 3rd:
Did you get it right?
Discuss how your answers to the 4 questions get you thinking about cross-cultural sensitivity and ethnocentrism..
We'll just introduce this, and pick it up next time..
see John 5:19, 30, Philippians 2:5-11....also Acts 10:38
So the last will be first,
and the first will be last:
How counter-cultural is that?
|map credit kingPin68|
How do you define culture?
So many possible definitions:
- Dallas Elder:" Culture is the heritage and identity of a people group which is manifested in their shared language, customs, behavioral patterns, values, beliefs and ideas; and which distinctively define the people group. "
- Paul Hiebert: “learned patterns of behavior, ideas and products characteristic of a [group of people]."
- Simone Weil: "What is culture? The formation of attention."
- Other definitions here
- Interesting the definition of culture within a hospital
"a way of thinking, feeling, valuing and acting by one or more people."
We'll work at defining that as we go along tonight.
Cam you "feel it...when you go to work; when you go to your church"?
Is it "all around you...the world that has been pulled over your eyes?":
Topic: Living in Many Communities: Prophecy and Wisdom
Hauer & Young ch 6: “Covenant Advocates: The Prophets of Ancient Israel (The Latter Prophets)” (entire)
Hauer & Young ch 8: “The Way of Wisdom: Proverbs, Job, Ecclesiastes (The Writings II)” (entire)
Proverbs 10 – 15
Job 1-5, 38-42
Hauer & Young ch 14 “Galatians: ‘The Gospel which was Preached by Me’” (pp. 296-297 only)
Finish Radical Loving Care: Part Two (all chapters)
1) Radical Loving Care Study Questions:
Part One: ch 1, “Opening Challenge,” pg. 193
Part One, ch 4, “Sacred Encounters, Sacred Work,” p. 194
Part One, ch 9, “The Not-So-Surprising Outcomes of the Healing Hospital,” p. 195
Part Two, ch 4, “The Sacred Encounter in Practice,” p. 197)***
2) Hauer & Young ch 6 Questions for Discussion and Reflection (p. 145): answer #1a-c
***NOTE: Instead of the questions for Radical Loving Care, you can do a 1-3 page summary or review or response.
Convince me you've read the whole book