Interviews with the Amish school shooter's mother below:
Excerpted from Amish Grace: How Forgiveness Transcended
Tragedy (paperback version), interview with Terri Roberts, mother of
Nickel Mines assailant Charles Carl Roberts IV:
Where were you when you learned of the tragedy?
October 2, 2006 was a beautiful day. My
friend and I were eating lunch on the patio at work as we did every
day. We heard sirens, helicopters. Even when I’m driving down the
street and I hear a siren, I always offer a short prayer: “Whoever’s
involved in this, Lord, just be with them, bring healing,” which I did
that day. We finished our lunches, walked back into the office, and the
phone was ringing. It was my husband, “I need you to come down to
Charlie’s house right away.”
As I drove there, I turned on the radio
and heard there’d been a shooting at the Nickel Mines School. I knew
that my son parked his truck down near there. “Wow,” I thought, “don’t
tell me Charlie was around when this was happening and tried to help
with the rescue or something and got shot!” I arrived to learn that not
only was my son not living anymore, but he was the perpetrator of the
crime. This couldn’t be! This was not the man that we knew, the
wonderful dad, the wonderful husband. Our lives were shattered in a way
that no one can prepare for. There’s nothing that could have prepared
me for it, except God knew that it was going to happen, and as best as
could be, He walked us through this. We take our sorrows, and we ask
God to restore our joy.
How did the Amish community respond to your family?
On the day that it happened, Henry, our
Amish neighbor up on the hill, whom I call an “angel in black,” came to
our house. My husband provided transportation for the Amish when they
needed to travel by car, and he was just devastated. All day long, my
husband couldn’t lift his head. He kept taking a towel and wiping it
over his head–he just kept wiping the tears away and couldn’t lift his
head up at all. And then Henry came, and he was the first sign of
healing for my husband. He put his hand on my husband’s shoulder, just
stood there and comforted and consoled him for an hour. Henry said,
“Roberts, we love you,” and just kept affirming and assuring him. The
acceptance we have received from the Amish community is beyond any
words. To be able to have a community of people that have been hurt so
much by what our son did and yet to have them respond to us the way that
they have has been an incredible journey.
How do you think about your son since the tragedy?
A piece of advice from a counselor was so
helpful to me. And I think anyone going through a tragedy or a hard
time can use some aspect of this. The counselor asked me, “How old was
your son?” I said, “He was thirty-three years old.” And she said, “From
what I’m hearing from you, he was a wonderful son.” I said, “Yes, he
was an absolutely wonderful son. We never knew that our son was
suffering. We never knew that he was angry after losing his first
child; I never knew that he was angry with God.” Then the counselor
said, “What happened that day was a tiny slice of your son’s life. When
your mind goes there, take it back to the thirty-three years of
wonderful memories that you have.”
That has been such a help to me, such a
consolation to me, and that is what I do. When my mind goes to the
events at the school, I don’t ever stop it from going there. I can
never ignore what happened. It will never go away because it was so
devastating and lives are still being lived in hurt, sorrow, and
suffering. But it’s helpful when I remember that day and still shed
tears, to then go back to the other years of my son’s life and flood it
with wonderful memories because that’s what we had! He wasn’t perfect,
but he was a wonderful son. And I just want to encourage anybody that’s
going through a trial or a struggle to do that–to use that longer
perspective because it’s been so helpful to me.
Have you been able to forgive your son?
Unforgiveness leads to self-pain, and I
believe the Bible commands us to forgive. There was no doubt in my mind
that I would forgive Charlie. However, the anguish I experienced was
not easy to deal with. Comprehending what he had done took days and
weeks to absorb. However, I knew that his actions came from
unforgiveness. And seeing what others experience without forgiving–I
knew this was not an option for me. He was my son, so full of love but
blinded to the love of our heavenly Father. I cannot comprehend how
this happened and we did not see it. Yes, I forgave my son.
We also didn't discuss the
SADDUCEES question for Test 3
In Matthew 3:10-12 , is "baptism with fire" a positive or negative experience? Explain how a study of the passage and other intertexts, led to your conclusion. Find a potential chiasm in the Scripture, and note how that informs your answer,
Reads this:
Baptism of Fire
Many people earnestly seek for the baptism of fire as part of the salvation process. They read the statement of John the baptist who said Jesus would come and baptize with fire and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:11). They trust that this baptism of fire is synonymous with the reception of the Holy Spirit mentioned by Jesus and by Peter on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2:38.()() I think they are terribly mistaken.
Here’s the entire passage:
I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
Stopping here we might think that being baptized by fire is a good thing and much to be desired. But we cannot stop. As with
all Bible study we must consider the full context of the passage.
In Matthew 3, “fire” is mentioned three times. We find it in Matthew 3:10, Matthew 3:11 and Matthew 3:12. In verses 10 and 12 the reference is undeniably to judgment or punishment. Verse 11, which is the key verse for our particular interest, is not so clear. At least not until you look at the other two verses.
Does it make sense that the middle occurrence of the word means something good when the other two immediately surrounding verses mean something else.
Jesus will judge his people (2 Timothy 4:1) and some will be cast into a lake of fire (Revelation 21:8; c.f. Revelation 20:10). There is far too much linkage between fire and judgment for this passage to mean something desirable.
LINK
One more:
With fire - This expression has been variously understood. Some have supposed
that John refers to the afflictions and persecutions with which men would be
tried under the Gospel; others, that the word "fire" means judgment or wrath.
According to this latter interpretation, the meaning is that he would baptize a
portion of mankind - those who were willing to be his followers - with the Holy
Spirit, but the rest of mankind - the wicked - with fire; that is, with judgment
and wrath. Fire is a symbol of vengeance. See Isaiah 5:24; Isaiah 61:2; Isaiah 66:24. If this is the
meaning, as seems to be probable, then John says that the ministry of the
Messiah would be far more powerful than his was. It would be more searching and
testing; and they who were not suited to abide the test would be cast into
eternal fire LINK
Also
t his
Chiasm??:
But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
8 Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance, 9 and do not think to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. 10 And even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. 12 His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”
--
But John tried to deter him, saying,
“I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”
I baptize with water for repentance
He will baptize with Holy Spirit and fire
A-water/fire
Brepentance/baptize
“I need to be baptized by you, and
do you come to me?"
I
A baptism of water
B Person of John
B Person of Jesus
A' baptism of Spirit and fire
LINK, pp 58-59
Winnowing fork A
Threshing floor B
wheat into barn B
chaff into fire A
-------
MORE ON The two at-onement theories everyone will need to be familiar with:
Christus Victor and Penal Substitution.
t
Years ago,
Robert Short wrote "
The Gospel According to Peanuts" and "
The Parables of Peanuts."
A lot of theological reflection in the books, actually.
(Click the titles for previews).
Here are two of my favorite Peanuts cartoons reflected on, I often use the first in classes after someone has answered a question completely and profoundly. I use the second to talk about theories of the atonement (although with technology shift since the cartoon was released, there will be young people who don't fully get the reference).
Click cartoons to enlarge
See this helpful video
Remember, the Matrix 3 was an example of CV.
And how about this:
Where else does a
"Christus Victor": show up in literature/film?
C.S. Lewis, "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe"
:
\
See:
The "Party" theories. continued from last time"
LP=LEFT HANDED POWER:
The Holy Shift: From Right-Handed Power to Left-Handed Power
Robert Farrar Capon (In
"Kingdom, grace, judgment: paradox, outrage, and vindication in the parables")
sees the Feeding of 500 as a huge shift in the gospel, both as a literary division
...and in Jesus' thinking...
away from "right handed" power to :left handed"
FIRST, A TEST FOR LEFT-HANDEDNESS:
GET TOGETHER WITH A GROUP OF FRIENDS AND HAVE A GO AT THE FOLLOWING EXERCISES. REMEMBER THAT EACH TASK MUST BE CARRIED OUT INSTANTLY AND WITHOUT THINKING ABOUT IT.
- Imagine the centre of your back is itching. Which hand do you scratch it with?
- Interlock your fingers. Which thumb is uppermost?
- Imagine you are applauding. Start clapping your hands. Which hand is uppermost?
- Wink at and imaginary friend straight in front of you. Which eye does the winking?
- Put your hands behind your back, one holding the other. Which hand is doing the holding?
- Someone in front of you is shouting but you cannot hear the words. Cup your ear to hear better. Which ear do you cup?
- Count to three on your fingers, using the forefinger of the other hand. Which forefinger do you use?
- Tilt your head to one shoulder. Which shoulder does it touch?
- Fixate a small distant object with your eyes and point directly at it with your forefinger. Now close one eye. Now change eyes. Which eye was open when the fingertip remained in line with the small object? (when the other eye, the non-dominant one, is open and the dominant eye is closed, the finger will appear to move to one side of the object.)
- Fold your arms. Which forearm is uppermost?
(LINK)
CAPON...ON JESUS LEFT-HANDEDNESS..WHAT DOES HE MEAN?
IN THE FEEDING OF THE 5,000, JESUS' RELUCTANCE ABOUT SIGNS BECOMES MANIFEST (P. 14)...IT IS PIVOTAL (OAGE 21, 22)
AFTER 5000 ARE FED, THE CROWDS ATTEMPT TO GET JESUS/TEMPT JESUS TO OPERATE IN RIGHT-HANDED POWER (28)...THIS IS A MAJOR SHIFT IN HIS THINKING TOWARD MOVING ONLY IN LEFT-HANDED POWER (55)
NOTE: JOHN'S GOSPEL DOES NOT MENTION JESUS' THREE TESTATIONS...THUS THIS WHOLE "RIGHT-HANDED" TESTATION IS HIS TTP VERSION OF THEM
“BUT JESUS WILL SAVE THE WORLD BY DYING FOR IT – UNDERGOING GHASTLY, UNIMAGINABLE SUFFERING. HE WILL NOT BE A CHARISMATIC, CONVINCING POLITICAL LEADER. HE WILL NOT BE AN INCOMPARABLE WARRIOR. HE WILL NOT RULE BY WINNING, BUT WILL WIN BY LOSING. HE WILL BE, TO THE CONTRARY, THE EERIE EXAMPLE OF WHAT ISAIAH HAD SEEN IN THE SUFFERING SERVANT CENTURIES BEFORE (ISAIAH 53:2-3)” (H. KING OEHMIG, SYNTHESIS 4/6/03).
"UNFORTUNATELY (RIGHT-HAND POWER) HAS A WHOPPING LIMITATION. IF YOU TAKE THE VIEW THAT ONE OF THE CHIEF OBJECTS IN LIFE IS TO REMAIN IN LOVING RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER PEOPLE, STRAIGHT-LINE POWER BECOMES USELESS. OH, ADMITTEDLY, YOU CAN SNATCH YOUR BABY BOY AWAY FROM THE EDGE OF A CLIFF AND NOT HAVE A BROKEN RELATIONSHIP ON YOUR HANDS. BUT JUST TRY INTERFERING WITH HIS PLANS FOR THE SEASON WHEN HE IS TWENTY, AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS, ESPECIALLY IF HIS CHOSEN PLANS PLAY HAVOC WITH YOUR OWN. SUPPOSE HE MAKES UNAUTHORIZED USE OF YOUR CAR, AND YOU USE A LITTLE STRAIGHT-LINE VERBAL POWER TO SCARE HIM OUT OF DOING IT AGAIN. WELL AND GOOD. BUT SUPPOSE FURTHER THAT HE DOES IT AGAIN ANYWAY—AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN. WHAT DO YOU DO NEXT IF YOU ARE COMMITTED TO STRAIGHT-LINE POWER? YOU RAISE YOUR VOICE A LITTLE MORE NASTILY EACH TIME TILL YOU CAN’T SHOUT ANY LOUDER. AND THEN YOU BEAT HIM (IF YOU ARE STRONGER THAN HE IS) UNTIL YOU CAN’T BEAT ANY HARDER. THEN YOU CHAIN HIM TO A RADIATOR TILL… BUT YOU SEE THE POINT. AT SOME VERY EARLY CRUX IN THAT DIFFICULT, PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP, THE WHOLE THING WILL BE DESTROYED UNLESS YOU—WHO ON ANY REASONABLE VIEW, SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO USE STRAIGHT-LINE POWER—SIMPLY REFUSE TO USE IT; UNLESS, IN OTHER WORDS, YOU DECIDE THAT INSTEAD OF DISHING OUT JUSTIFIABLE PAIN AND PUNISHMENT, YOU ARE WILLING, QUITE FOOLISHLY, TO TAKE A BEATING YOURSELF.” (CAPON, PAGE 18-19)
“EVERY ONE OF US WOULD RATHER CHOSE THE RIGHT-HANDED LOGICALITIES OF THEOLOGY OVER THE LEFT-HANDED MYSTERY OF FAITH. ANY DAY OF THE WEEK—AND TWICE ON SUNDAYS, OFTEN ENOUGH—WE WILL LABOR WITH MIGHT AND MAIN TO TAKE THE ONLY THING THAT CAN SAVE ANYONE AND REDUCE IT TO A SET OF THEOLOGICAL CLUB RULES DESIGNED TO EXCLUDE ALMOST EVERY ONE.”
THE MESSIAH WAS NOT GOING TO SAVE THE WORLD BY MIRACULOUS, BAND-AID INTERVENTIONS: A STORM CALMED HERE, A CROWD FED THERE, A MOTHER-IN-LAW CURED BACK DOWN THE ROAD. RATHER IT WAS GOING TO BE SAVED BY MEANS OF A DEEPER, DARKER, LEFT-HANDED MYSTERY, AT THE CENTER OF WHICH LAY HIS OWN DEATH.
"THE MESSIAH WAS NOT GOING TO SAVE THE WORLD BY MIRACULOUS, BAND-AID INTERVENTIONS"-CAPON
THERE ARE TWO KINDS OF POWER IN THE WORLD. ROBERT CAPON CALL THEM RIGHT AND LEFT HANDED POWER. CAPON CAREFULLY SHOWS IN HIS BOOK, THE PARABLES OF THE KINGDOM, THAT JESUS TALKED IN PARABLES SO THAT OUR RIGHT BRAINS COULD GRASP WHAT OUR LEFT-BRAINS CAN NEVER. HE SAYS THAT THE GOSPEL IS A GOSPEL OF LEFT-HANDED POWER, THE POWER OF WEAKNESS, SUBMITTING, AND OBEDIENCE. HE SAYS THAT GOD USED RIGHT-HANDED POWER IN THE OLDEN DAYS, WHEN WE WERE STILL YOUNG IN OUR DEVELOPMENT, BUT THAT SINCE THE INCARNATION, GOD PRETTY MUCH STICKS TO THE NON-INTERVENTIVE APPROACH. ACCORDING TO CAPON THE WHOLE THING TURNED AT THE FEEDING OF THE MULTITUDE. JESUS HAD BEEN DOING MIRACULOUS SIGNS OUT OF COMPASSION, BUT THEN HE REALIZED THAT HE WAS IN DANGER OF BEING MISUNDERSTOOD AS A PROVIDER OF RIGHT-HANDED POWER. WHEN PETER SUGGESTS THAT HE UNDERSTANDS WHO JESUS IS, MEANING THAT HE WANTS HIM TO BE THE PROVIDER AND PROTECTOR EXTRAORDINAIRE, JESUS SAYS, "GET OUT OF MY FACE, YOU SATAN." IT IS WHEN WE THINK WE UNDERSTAND WHAT GOD IS UP TO, ESPECIALLY WHEN THIS KNOWLEDGE IS LINKED TO RIGHT-HANDED POWER THAT WE ARE IN THE MOST DANGER. LINK
READ THE WHOLE SECTION OF CAPON HERE.
"Kingdom, grace, judgment:
paradox, outrage, and vindication in the parables.
"
At least read the preface, and part one below on righthanded and lefthanded power:
--
HS
TT
MI
SE
FP
OA
HS=HEALING SHAME
TT=TEMPLE TANTRUM
MI=MORAL INFLUENCE
SE=SUBVERSION OF EMPIRE
FP=FULFILLMENT OF PROPHECY
OA=OCCASIONAL ATHEIST
----
HS=HEALING SHAME
says I've
done something wrong; shame says there
is something
wrong with me.
Guilt says I've
made a mistake; shame says
I
am a mistake.
Guilt says what
did was not good; shame
says I
am no good."
Bradshaw (1988).
--
From Mark
Baker, FPU:
A
Japanese pastor asked Norman Kraus, a Mennonite missionary, “Why did Jesus have
to die?” The pastor immediately clarified that he knew the answer – that Jesus
had to die to pay the penalty for sins that God required – but that he did not
find that explanation satisfying. Kraus pondered the question over the course of
several months. He concluded that the traditional penal satisfaction explanation
of the atonement was intelligible in a guilt-based society such as ours, which
understood wrongs as an infraction against a legal or moral code. This guilt
could be remedied through punishment that would relieve guilt. However, that
same explanation would feel foreign and unintelligible in a shame-based society
like Japan where both the wrong committed and the remedy are understood and felt
in more relational ways. The wrongdoer is ridiculed or removed and hence feels
alienation and shame, not guilt. When Kraus set aside the penal satisfaction
model and read with new eyes, he found rich biblical material, including
specific references to shame, that allowed him to proclaim to the Japanese how
the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ provides freedom from the burden of
shame and restores their relationship with God. By opening up to more than one
Biblical explanation to the atonement, we can talk of Jesus bearing our shame
and healing our alienation, in an ultimate sense, through the cross and
resurrection. This has great evangelistic potential and pastoral significance
not only in “shame based” cultures, but also in North America where people can
be burdened by both guilt and shame. FPU
link
-
Hebrews
(12:2)… “Jesus endured the cross,
despised it’s shame for the….joy set
before him!”
Jesus
Christ prayed, at least implied, the whole gamut of emotionton in Psalm
22.
So
can we.
The
account of Jesus’ dying words in John actually could be made to infer that Jesus
did in fact pray aloud the entire Psalm…or at least the first and last line… to
give context and contour, no matter how real...and really troubling...the
fulness of what he was experiencing.
Jesus,
as John tellingly tells us, cried out the famous words…the “My God, My God, Why
have you forsaken me?” line “in a loud voice.” Then it is relayed that someone
offered him a sponge with wine vinegar. (Matthew, not John, notes that Jesus had
said “I thirst.) Then a fascinating, intriguing fact that only John highlights:
“And then, after receiving the drink, he cried out again in a loud
voice”
(emphasis
mine). This second crying out has puzzled Bible readers for years: What did he
say? Was it anything audible? Was it the “eighth saying from they cross”, just
one that never got transcribed?
There
is actually a chance that we know exactly what he cried out that second
time.
With
the help of John.
The
mentioning of the wine vinegar sponge being lifted to Jesus is immediately
followed…not in Matthew, but only in John… not by Jesus offering up a generic
loud cry. Jon alone tells us exactly what Jesus said. I’m reading it now; watch
this: “The wine was lifted to his lips. When he had received the drink, Jesus
said…..
‘It...
is…. finished.’
With
that , he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.”
So
according to John’s journal, the literal last words of Jesus were not a helpless
“My God, Why…” but a hearty “It is finished.”
Three
words which are strikingly similar to the literal last words of Psalm
22.
Look
at them. One version even translates the last line of Psalm 22; “It is
finished”
Many
scholars recognize the similarity in the structure of the Hebrew (of Psalm
22)
This
last line is usually rendered something like in the NIV “He (God) has done
it.”
Jesus’s
cry on the cross, “It is finished” doesn’t specifically mention God having done
or finished something; so we often assume it means “It is finished…I, Jesus,
have finished the saving act of dying on the cross.” That of course, is true and
key. But in the Greek language grammar, it may well be what we call a ”divine
passive”…a sentence that doesn’t specifically mention God, but implies it. Like
we might say “Someone is watching out for you.” Or “I was touched.” So it may be
“It is finished; God has done it.”
The
last line of Psalm 22 may have been the last line of Jesus on Friday.
He
may have forced himself, as he was dying, to say and pray aloud, the whole
thing.
Did
you ever wonder why Jesus said “I thirst” right in the middle of dying? Maybe he
was right in the middle of a long Psalm, but he knew he had to get it all
said.
For
our sake.
Again,
whether or not Jesus literally prayed the first line only, the first and closing
line (a common framing technique in Bible days, a framing device, an
“inclusio”), or the entire psalm, the message is the same salty one:
“I
feel this whole psalm. My guts are literally being wrenched. I wonder why God is
doing this to me. But I am sensing it will work out; that God is finishing
something.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I
believe Corrie Ten Boom was right and right on:
Jesus
died naked.
Even
the (very conservative)Dallas Theological commentaries assume this, so this is
not just some "liberal" agenda:
"That Jesus died naked was part of the shame which He bore for our sins. " -link
Which
means this picture
(found
on a blog with
no credit)
is
likely wrong(Jesus looks too white).
...and largely
right (What Jesus is wearing).
I
answered a question about this a few years ago, I would write it a bit
differently know, but here it is:
First of
all, it is probable that (again, contrary to nearly all artwork and movies),
Jesus hung on the cross absolutely naked. This was a typical way of crucifixion,
to increase the shame factor. Romans might occasionally add a loincloth type of
garment as a token concession and nod to Jewish sensitivity; but not very often,
it would seem. Of course, once we get past the emotive and cultural shock of
imagining Jesus naked, we realize that if He indeed die naked, the symbolism is
profound and prophetic: In Scripture, Jesus is called the "Second Adam". As
such, it would make sense that He died "naked and unashamed." We are also told
that "cursed is he who dies on a tree." The nakedness was a sign and enfolding
of shame and token of curse. And the wonderful story of Corrie ten Boom and
family, told in the book and movie "The Hiding Place," relates. One of the
turning points of her ability to endure the Ravensbruck concentration camp,
particularly the shame of walking naked past the male guards, was her conviction
that Jesus too was shamed and stripped naked before guards. "Finally, it dawned
on me," she preached once," that this (shaming through nakedness) happened to
Jesus too..., and Jesus is my example, and now it is happening to me, then I am
simply doing what Jesus did." She concluded, "I know that Jesus gave me that
thought and it gave me peace. It gave me comfort and I could bear the shame and
cruel treatment." ( continued )
Stephen
Seamands, in "Wounds That Heal," (much of it a free read here)
stirs me to wonder if shaming is always perpetrated in two
stages:
1)forced/involuntary/public
nakedness (literal or emotional) nakedness of soul may be even
worse)
2)the
promise of continued shaming beyond death (by dishonoring our name after we are
gone, or sending us to hell in the afterlife ).
Seamands
quotes the most important theologian you have never heard of,Frank
Lake, and
that section reminds how vital it might be to doggedly defend the doctrine (that
most evangelicals seem to think is unspeakable, even though very
conservative Dallas
Seminary professors claim it is necessary,
let alone Martin Hengel in his classic book "Crucifixion)"that
Jesus died completely naked...especially that he might completely identify with,
incarnate; convert and subvert our shame, particularly of sexual abuse or
memories:
Crucifixions were purposely carried out in
public..Executioners heightened the shame by turning the gruesome personal
ordeal into grisly public entertainment.. In most paintings, films and artistic depictions, the
crucified figure of Jesus is partially covered with a loincloth. But in the
ancient world, the victim was always crucified naked. The shameful exposure
often continued after death since it was common for the victim to be denied
burial.. Hengel explains, ...'What it
meant for man in antiquity to be refused burial, and the dishonor that went with
it, can hardly be appreciated by modern man.' ...Frank Lake expresses the truth powerfully in
describing Christ's experience of shame in nakedness: 'He hangs on the Cross naked. Both the innocent who
were not loved and the guilty who have spurned love are ashamed. Both have
something to hide. Clothing is the symbol of hiding what we are ashamed to
reveal. In His own innocence He is identified with the innocent in
nakedness...He was so deprived of His natural clothing of transfigured beauty
and glory that men, seeing Him thus, shrank away from Him. The whole world will
see this King appearing in all beauty and glory, because He allowed both..to be
utterly taken away.' -Seamands, pp
49-50
That
he may have been naked is as about as important as what kind of nails were used
to nail him there. Copper? Bronze? Iron? Who cares?! Was the crown of thorns
made of Briar thorns or Thistle? Who cares?
Did Jesus die? Who cares?
(Bear with me).
Did Jesus lay down his life willingly and by his own
power, and then take it back up again just as willingly and just as
powerfully? THAT is the point.
Don't get distracted by images of
genetalia! [sic] And let's face it; as
soon as you hear someone say "Jesus died naked on a cross", that's the first
thing that pops into your carnal, fleshly, sinful mind. As soon as you hear it,
you are IMMEDIATELY distracted.
That man who is telling you that may not know
that he's being used as a servant of Satan; but he is.
-link
Of
course, I feel for this position, and am aware that the naked Jesus doctrine
could be terribly abused...But I fear that ironically, it may be crucial to
recover/uncover.
It
may not be a "required doctrine,"....but..
Anyway..
Several
pages later, Seamands, in a
discussion
on the practical relevance of the Trinity (Note:see his entire wonderful book on
this important topic):
'My
God, My God, why have you forsaken me?' On the cross, Christ gave expression not
only to his own sorrow and disappointment, and ours, but also to God's...At the
foot of the cross, our mournful cries of lament are always
welcome...
...This cry is the only place in the gospels where Jesus
didn't address God with the personal, intimate, 'My Father,'...
..On the
cross, the bonds of trust between the Father and the Son seem to disintegrate.
As theologian Jurgen Moltmann says, 
'The love that binds the one to the other is
transformed into a dividing curse.'....Yet at the cross, the Father and the Son
are never more united, never more bound together. They are one in their
surrender, one in their self-giving. The Father surrenders the Son...The Son, in
turn, surrenders himself...So {they} are united even in their separation, held
together by their oneness of will and purpose
-Seamands,
67-68
More
on the dynamics of God forsaking God here, and
more on the trinitarian
centrality of
all this by clicking the "trinity" label below this post.
Finally,
Seamands helps me grasp that Jesus died not only for our shame, but our
rage
(rage,
of course, is often enacted as a reaction to shame). Rage, ironically, is what
literally killed Jesus (and shamed him into nakedness):
Christ became the innocent, willing victim of their
rage. But not only their [those at the cross] rage -ours too. Frank Lake is
right: 'We attended the Crucifixion in our crowds, turned on our
Healer..' -Seamands,
69
Which
of course, course, leads to Jesus healing us precisely when we deserve it least and need it
most.
Naked
and (un)ashamed
TEMPLE TANTRUM
see Temple Tantrum and Godforsken God 11/6 [pst
We have looked at a book-wide inclusio for Matthew. Might there be one in teh
other gospels.
Hmmm,..Mark, for example (see below).See what you can
find in Luke or John..
 |
| INCLUSIO: MARK 1:10, MARK 9:7, MARK
15;38 |
A
"Getting ripped" inclusio In
Mark:
We
have seen the thematic "with you" inclusio in Matthew. Here's one for Mark.
Makes you wonder what we might find in Luke and John.
THE HEAVENLY VEIL TORN:
MARK'S COSMIC "INCLUSIO"
by David Ulansey [Originally published in
Journal of Biblical Literature 110:1 (Spring 1991) pp.
123-25]:
In the past few years, several different
scholars have argued that there was a connection in the mind of the author of
the Gospel of Mark between the tearing of the heavens at the baptism of
Jesus (Mk 1:10) and the tearing of the temple veilat the death of Jesus
(Mk 15:38). [1] The purpose of the present article will be to call attention to
a piece of evidence which none of these scholars mentions, but which provides
dramatic confirmation of the hypothesis that the tearing of the heavens and the
tearing of the temple veil were linked in Mark's imagination.
[2]
To begin with, we should note that the two
occurrences of the motif of tearing in Mark do not occur at random points in the
narrative, but on the contrary are located at two pivotal moments in the story--
moments which, moreover, provide an ideal counterpoint for each other: namely,
the precise beginning (the baptism) and theprecise end (the death)
of the
earthly career of Jesus. This significant placement
of the two instances of the motif of tearing suggests that we are dealing here
with a symbolic "inclusio": that is, the narrative device common in biblical
texts in which a detail is repeated at the beginning and the end of a narrative
unit in order to "bracket off" the unit and give it a sense of closure and
structural integrity.
Indeed, in his 1987 article, "The Rending of
the Veil: A Markan Pentecost," S. Motyer points out that there is actually a
whole cluster of motifs which occur in Mark at both the baptism (1:9-11) and at
the death of Jesus (15:36-39). In addition to the fact that at both of these
moments something is torn, Motyer notes that: (1) at both moments a
voice is heard declaring Jesus to be the Son of God (at the baptism
it is the voice of God, while at the death it is the voice of the centurion);
(2) at both moments something is said to descend (at the baptism it is
the spirit-dove, while at the death it is the tear in the temple veil, which
Mark explicitly describes as moving downward), (3) at both moments the figure
of Elijah is symbolically present (at the baptism Elijah is present in
the form of John the Baptist, while at Jesus' death the onlookers think that
Jesus is calling out to Elijah); (4) the spirit (pneuma) which
descends on Jesus at his baptism is recalled at his death by Mark's repeated use
of the verb ekpneo (expire), a cognate of pneuma.
[3]
According to Motyer, the repetition by Mark of
this cluster of motifs at both the baptism and the death of Jesus constitutes a
symbolic inclusio which brackets the entire gospel, linking together the precise
beginning and the precise end of the earthly career of Jesus. Seen in this
context, the presence at both moments of the motif of something
being torn is unlikely to be coincidental. However, at this point an
important question arises: if there was indeed a connection for Mark between the
tearing of the heavens and the tearing of the temple veil, which veil was it
that he had in mind? For the fact is, of course, that there were two famous
veils associated with the Jerusalem temple.
It has been debated for centuries which veil
it was that Mark was referring to: was it the outer veil, which hung in front of
the doors at the entrance to the temple, or the inner veil which separated the
Holy of Holies from the rest of the temple? [4] Many interpreters have assumed
that it was the inner veil, and have understood the tearing of the veil to have
been Mark's way of symbolizing the idea that the death of Jesus destroyed the
barrier which separated God from humanity. Recently, however, favor seems to
have shifted to the view that it was the outer veil, the strongest argument for
which is that Mark seems to have intended the awestruck response of the
centurion to the manner of Jesus' death (Mk 15:39) to have been inspired by his
seeing the miraculous event of the tearing of the veil, but he could only have
seen this event if it was the outer veil that tore, since the inner veil
was hidden from view inside the temple. [5]
In his 1987 article "The Death of Jesus in
Mark and the Miracle from the Cross," Howard Jackson argues that the question of
which veil it was that Mark was referring to can be easily answered if we
acknowledge that there was a link in Mark's imagination between the tearing of
the heavens at the baptism of Jesus and the tearing of the temple veil at his
death. For, says Jackson, if there was a parallel in Mark's mind between the
tearing of the heavens and the tearing of the temple veil, then Mark must also
have intended there to be a parallel between Jesus at the baptism and
the centurion at the crucifixion: just as Jesus witnessed the
tearing of the heavens, so the centurion witnessed the tearing of the
temple veil. But, as we have already noted, the centurion could only have
witnessed the tearing of the veil if it was the outer veil, since the
inner veil was hidden from view. Thus it must have been the outer veil that Mark
had in mind. [6]
Jackson's argument is suggestive although
certainly not conclusive. However, there exists a piece of evidence which
Jackson does not mention in his discussion which, I believe, provides decisive
proof that Mark had in mind the outer veil of the temple, and which also
provides rather spectacular confirmation of the existence in Mark's imagination
of a link between the tearing of the heavens and the tearing of the temple
veil.
The evidence to which I refer consists of a
passage in Josephus's Jewish War in which he describes the outer veil of
the Jerusalem temple as it had appeared since the time of Herod. According to
Josephus, this outer veil was a gigantic curtain 80 feet high. It was, he says,
a
Babylonian tapestry, with embroidery of blue
and fine linen, of scarlet also and purple, wrought with marvelous skill.
Nor was this mixture of materials without its mystic
meaning: it typified the universe....
Then Josephus tells us what was pictured on
this curtain:
Portrayed on this tapestry was a panorama
of the entire heavens.... [7] [emphasis mine]
In other words, the
outer veil of the Jerusalem temple was actually one huge image of the starry
sky! Thus, upon encountering Mark's statement that "the veil of the temple was
torn in two from top to bottom," any of his readers who had ever seen the temple
or heard it described would instantly have seen in their mind's eye an image
of the
heavens being torn, and would
immediately have been reminded of Mark's earlier description of the heavens
being torn at the baptism. This can hardly be coincidence: the symbolic parallel
is so striking that Mark must have consciously intended
it.
We may therefore
conclude (1) that Mark did indeed have in mind the outer veil, and (2) that
Mark did indeed imagine a link between the tearing of the heavens and the
tearing of the temple veil-- since we can now see that in fact in both cases the
heavens were torn-- and that he intentionally inserted the motif of the "tearing
of the heavenly veil" at both the precise beginning and at the precise end of
the earthly career of Jesus, in order to create a powerful and intriguing
symbolic inclusio.
------------------------------------------------
Temple and Soreq:
 |
| Actual sign found from soreq. It suggests that any Gentile passing this point may not live to tell about it |
In Ephesians 2;14, there is a good chance, by 'dividing wall,' Paul is referencing the dividing wall in the temple, the "soreq" or "balustrade.":
Soreq/Temple Courts (Ray Vander Laan)
The Soreq
The Soreq was a five-foot-tall stone wall that surrounded the inner courts of the consecrated temple area and was designed to keep Gentiles and other "unacceptable" people out of the inner courts. Gentiles could not pass the Soreq on pain of death.
Other Walls and Divisions in the Temple
In addition to the Soreq, there were a number of other walls and divisions within the temple. The Court of the Women was an area outside the temple building, which was as close as women were allowed to the temple.
There was also a chamber for the Nazarites because they had been set apart for service to God; a chamber of the Lepers, who had to be separate because they were unclean; a chamber of the Israelites who were separated because they were God's people; and lastly, a chamber of the Priests who were separated by their calling to represent the people.
Paul
Paul was accused of bringing a Gentile into the inner court, past the Soreq. (See Acts 21:27-35.) Paul denied this charge. But later, in Eph. 2:14, Paul wrote that the "dividing wall of hostility" had been destroyed. Paul was possibly referring to all dividing walls, which the Soreq symbolized, that had to come down between Jew and Gentile. Since Jesus' death, the Gentiles would be allowed to experience the blessings the Jews always had.
Application
These walls include the walls of pride, economic status, race, social status, and bitterness that we face today. As Christians, we must be aware of the walls and try to break them down; we can do this by reaching out to other people, getting to know people of different races, volunteering, and helping people in need.
--
