-
The Church You Know: If you missed Monday class, be sure
1) to ask someone about the special "mission"
(alternative to three quizzes) we started today.
2)Do the church planting project on your own, as there will be questions on this on the final exam.
--
A previous class:
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 |
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
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:
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.Portrayed on this tapestry was a panorama of the entire heavens.... [7] [emphasis mine]
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.
------------------------------------------------
--
--STARTING CHURCHES
Design an ad for a new church. The ad should include:
-Name of church
-Vision or mission or purpose statement
-When and where it will meet
-A logo, illustration, picture, or symbol
-Anything else important to include
The catch: Don't just design the church however you think one should look like; but use only the information in the following scriptures to guide you:
- Matthew 10;7-8
- Matthew 28;16-20
- Acts 2: 42-47
- Acts 4:32-37
- 1 Corinthians 12:27-31
- 1 Corinthians 14:26-32
- Ephesians 4:1-13
--
Review: Healing Signs/Miracles/Deeds Deliverance Temptation to Power
---
For each of the Isaiah Servant Songs listed below, read the passage carefully and then describe
in detail and at length the characteristics, actions, attitudes, task(s) and role of the Servant in
the text.
PHARISEES:Isaiah 42:1-4
SADS: Isaiah 49:1-6
ESSENES Isaiah 50:4-11
ZEALOTS Isaiah 52:13 – 53:12
Notes from Camp/Roberts:
--Isaiah 42: bringing justice, the servant is going to bring justice but it will be done differently, not drawing attention to self, and with great care for even the weakest, and with dedication
Bring
justice quietly, caring for weakest element, and with ultimate dedication
Isaiah
49: servant wielded by God, sword hidden in God’s hand, arrow hidden in quiver.
Servant says I am nothing, I have failed, my hope is in God not myself. Because
of being used by and trusting in God, God says I have set you up to bring Israel
Isaiah
50: teacher who is teachable, also focused despite abuse and attempts to
distract him or dishonor him. Challenge to follow the servant who walks in
darkness = relying on God, those who don’t trust this one but trust themselves
by lighting own light will fail (so rely on God for ‘light’). Teachable one who
trusts God and those who trust the teachable teacher also lead appropriately.
Isaiah
52-53: Contrast of expected and unexpected servant. Ultimately the servant/
king who offers his life for his people vs. taking their life, reversal of 1
Sam 8.
--Views
[edit]Jewish interpretation
The traditional Jewish interpretation is that the Servant is a metaphor for the Jewish people,[2] an opinion shared by many contemporary scholars.[3] According to Duhm, the servant was some otherwise unknown individual, and the songs' author was a disciple. Various interpretations[citation needed] have followed: Zerubbabel, Jehoiachin, Moses, Cyrus the Great. Duhm proposed in his commentary that the songs were added by a poet with leprosy. Sigmund Mowinckel suggested that the songs referred to Isaiah himself but later abandoned that interpretation.
[edit]Christian interpretation
Christians traditionally see the servant as Jesus Christ.[3] Another Christian interpretation combines aspects of the traditional Christian and the Jewish interpretation. This position sees the servant as an example of 'corporate personality', where an individual can represent a group, and vice-versa. Thus, in this case, the servant corresponds to Israel, yet at the same time corresponds to an individual (that is, the Messiah) who represents Israel.[4]
[edit]The Songs
[edit]The first song
The first poem has God speaking of His selection of the Servant who will bring justice to earth. Here the Servant is described as God's agent of justice, a king* that brings justice in both royal and prophetic roles, yet justice is established neither by proclamation nor by force. He does not ecstatically announce salvation in the marketplace as prophets were bound to do but instead moves quietly and confidently to establish right religion. Isaiah 42:1-4
[edit]The second song
The second poem, written from the Servant's point of view, is an account of his pre-natal calling by God to lead both Israel and the nations. The Servant is now portrayed as the prophet of the Lord equipped and called to restore the nation to God. Yet, anticipating the fourth song, he is without success. Taken with the picture of the Servant in the first song, his success will come not by political or military action, but by becoming a light to the Gentiles. Ultimately his victory is in God's hands. Isaiah 49:1-6.
[edit]The third song
The third poem has a darker yet more confident tone than the others. Although the song gives a first-person description of how the Servant was beaten and abused, here the Servant is described both as teacher and learner who follows the path God places him on without pulling back. Echoing the first song's "a bruised reed he will not break," he sustains the weary with a word. His vindication is left in God's hands. Isaiah 50:4-9
[edit]The fourth song
Main article: Isaiah 53
The fourth of the "servant songs" begins at Isaiah 52:13, continuing through 53:12 where it continues the discussion of the suffering servant. There is no clear identification for the "servant" within this song, but if the reader pays close attention to the authors word choice, one can deduce that the song could refer to either an individual or a group. Those that argue the "servant" to be an individual, have "proposed many candidates from Israel's past."[5] The song declares that the "servant" intercedes for others, bearing their punishments and afflictions. In the end, he is rewarded with an exalted position. On the other hand it is argued that the "servant" represents a group of people, more specifically the nation of Israel, and they feel that they have paid their dues and continue to suffer on behalf of others (Isaiah 53:7,11-12). Also, through the authors choice of words, we, our, and they, one could also argue that the "servant" was a group*. Isaiah 53:1-11 Early on the evaluation of the Servant by the "we" is negative: "we" esteemed him not, many were appalled by him, nothing in him was attractive to "us". But at the Servant's death the attitude of the "we" changes after verse 4 where the servant bears "our" iniquities, "our" sickness, by the servant's wounds "we" are healed. Posthumously, then, the Servant is vindicated by God. Because of its references to the vicarious sufferings of the servant, many Christians believe this song to be among the Messianic prophecies of Jesus. Isaiah 52:13-53:12 and within the "Jewish tradition the servant was sometimes identified as a messianic figure of the future."[5]
TWO INTERESTING "CONTEMPORARY WORLD" CHURCHES:
Wetsboro Baptist and XXXChurch/Strip Church:
--- On the final, there will be a question, "How do you feel. and how do you feel like reacting/responding the six video clips we showed related to Westboro Baptist Church (The "God Hates Fags" Church) The first clip is directly below, and in it a church leader suggests the Amish girls (from the school shooting we are reading about in "Amish Grace") deserved to die:
#1:
#2:
#3 and #4:..How one ministry responded:
There will be a question on the final: How did you feel after watching the video of the killer's mother, and reading the interview with her in your "Amish Grace" book?
Respond in a paragraph:
--
XXX CHURCH/STRIP CHURCH
-- On Wed, we took a trip to the Gates of Hell. What do you remember about the video?
Summary::Gates of Hell
City of Pagans
Caesarea Philippi, which stood in a lush area near the foot of Mount Hermon, was a city dominated by immoral activities and pagan worship.
Caesarea
Philippi stood only twenty-five miles from the religious communities of
Galilee. But the city's religious practices were vastly different from
those of the nearby Jewish towns.In Old Testament times, the northeastern area of Israel became a center for Baal worship. In the nearby city of Dan, Israelite king Jeroboam built the high place that angered God and eventually led the Israelites to worship false gods. Eventually, worship of the baals was replaced with worship of Greek fertility gods.
Caesarea Philippi, which stood in a lush area near the foot of Mount Hermon, became the religious center for worship of the Greek god, Pan. The Greeks named the city Panias in his honor.
Years later, when Romans conquered the territory, Herod Philip rebuilt the city and named it after himself. But Caesarea Philippi continued to focus on worship of Greek gods. In the cliff that stood above the city, local people built shrines and temples to Pan.
Interestingly, Jesus chose to deliver a sort of "graduation speech" to his disciples at Caesarea Philippi. In that pagan setting, he encouraged his disciples to build a church that would overcome the worst evils.
The Gates of Hell
To the pagan mind, the cave at Caesarea Philippi created a gate to the underworld, where fertility gods lived during the winter. They committed detestable acts to worship these false gods.Caesarea Philippi's location was especially unique because it stood at the base of a cliff where spring water flowed. At one time, the water ran directly from the mouth of a cave set in the bottom of the cliff.
The pagans of Jesus' day commonly believed that their fertility gods lived in the underworld during the winter and returned to earth each spring. They saw water as a symbol of the underworld and thought that their gods traveled to and from that world through caves.
To the pagan mind, then, the cave and spring water at Caesarea Philippi created a gate to the underworld. They believed that their city was literally at the gates of the underworld—the gates of hell. In order to entice the return of their god, Pan, each year, the people of Caesarea Philippi engaged in horrible deeds, including prostitution and sexual interaction between humans and goats.
When Jesus brought his disciples to the area, they must have been shocked. Caesarea Philippi was like a red-light district in their world and devout Jews would have avoided any contact with the despicable acts committed there.
It was a city of people eagerly knocking on the doors of hell.
Jesus' Challenge
Jesus presented a clear challenge with his words at Caesarea Philippi: He didn't want his followers hiding from evil: He wanted them to storm the gates of hell.
Standing
near the pagan temples of Caesarea Philippi, Jesus asked his disciples
"Who do you say that I am?" Peter boldly replied, "You are the Son of
the living God." The disciples were probably stirred by the contrast
between Jesus, the true and living God, and the false hopes of the
pagans who trusted in "dead" gods.Jesus continued, "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it" (see Matt. 16:13-20).
Though Christian traditions debate the theological meaning of those words, it seems clear that Jesus? words also had symbolic meaning. His church would be built on the "rock" of Caesarea Philippi—a rock literally filled with niches for pagan idols, where ungodly values dominated.
Gates were defensive structures in the ancient world. By saying that the gates of hell would not overcome, Jesus suggested that those gates were going to be attacked.
Standing as they were at a literal "Gate of Hades," the disciples may have been overwhelmed by Jesus' challenge. They had studied under their rabbi for several years, and now he was commissioning them to a huge task: to attack evil, and to build the church on the very places that were most filled with moral corruption.
Jesus presented a clear challenge with his words at Caesarea Philippi: He didn't want his followers hiding from evil: He wanted them to storm the gates of hell.
Not Ashamed
Jesus' followers cannot successfully confront evil when we are embarrassed about our faith.
After
Jesus spoke to his disciples about storming the gates of hell, he also
gave them another word of caution: "If anyone is ashamed of me and my
words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his glory"
(Luke 9:26).Jesus knew that his followers would face ridicule and anger as they tried to confront evil. And his words came as a sharp challenge: no matter how fierce the resistance, his followers should never hide their faith in God.
Jesus taught with passion, even when bystanders may have thought him a fool. And at Caesarea Philippi, he challenged everyone within hearing: "What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very soul?" (v. 25).
In a city filled with false idols, Jesus asked his followers to commit to the one true God. While false gods promised prosperity and happiness, they would ultimately fail to deliver. Jesus didn't promise an easy life, but he delivered on the promise of salvation;the only kind of prosperity that really matters.
Today, Christians must heed the words of our Rabbi, especially when we are tempted to hide our faith because of embarrassment or fear. Our world is filled with those who have "gained the world" but lost their souls. If we hide our faith, they may never find the salvation they need.
On the offense
As we listen to Jesus' challenge today, we as Christians should ask ourselves the important question: When it comes to the battle against evil, are we on defense or offense?
In a culture that embraces diversity, it is offensive to suggest that there are certain truths that apply to everyone. Pointing out sin isn't popular and many Christians are labeled as "intolerant" for refusing to accept certain behaviors and ideas.
Unfortunately, many people have embraced a distorted Christianity that tries to be "politically correct." They don't want to offend anyone, so they accept sin rather than confronting it. Ultimately, their words of "love" ring empty because they accept sins that ruin people's lives.
Other Christians just try to avoid sinful culture altogether. They have been taught to go on the defense—to hide in their churches, schools, and homes and to shut the door on the evil influences of culture.
But Jesus challenged his followers to be on the offense—to proclaim the truth without shame.
Our schools and churches should become staging areas rather than fortresses; places that equip God's people to confront a sinful world instead of hiding from it. Jesus knows that the pagan world will resist, but he challenges us to go there anyway, and to build his church in those very places that are most morally decayed.
As we listen to Jesus' challenge today, we as Christians should ask ourselves the important question: Are we on defense or offense? :LINK
also:
Podium
The reconstructed platform, or podium, near the cave at Caesarea
Philippi was originally the base of a temple either to the Roman emperor
Augustus or to Pan (or possibly both). The entrance to the Grotto (or
cave) of Pan is seen to the left of the Podium.
Niches in the cliff face originally held statues of Pan and other gods. The largest arched niche is next to the cave, from which a spring flowed.
Niches in the cliff face originally held statues of Pan and other gods. The largest arched niche is next to the cave, from which a spring flowed.
The temple next to the cave opened into the cave itself. The opening
was probably used for religious ceremonies involving water. The temple
may even have covered the entrance to the cave, with the water running
beneath the temple floor.
An open-air shrine to Pan was located to the right of the steps to the
platform. Another temple was to the right of that shrine, though it has
not yet been identified. Some evidence exists that it was a temple to
Nemesis, a Phonecian fertility goddess.
The presence of massive temples against this cliff and the fresh water
gushing from the cave provide powerful images, as a backdrop to Peter's
confession that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the living God, and to
Jesus' promise to build his church on the rock so that even the gates of
hell will not overcome it (Matt. 16:13-19). Link
No comments:
Post a Comment