NOTE: since we had a power outtage and they evacuated the school at 7pm, we didn't get to all this material. I will post here when i get news of what they want us to do for the lost class hours.

See homework help section at bottom of this post. Potluck info for next week there, too.

--

Spitting Evangelist:

--

------------

1) Watch the "Gaithers on Crack" video below, and read this
article.

--

Remember our definitions of:

Text?
Sign?

How would you define 'culture'?

CULTURE=
a way of

thinking
feeling
valuing and
acting

by one or more persons
-----------------------------------------------------------------

As we began a week in which we pause to retrieve the "Old" Testament backstory (uh, 'front-story')
to the "New" Testament Gospel of Matthew, we introduced the topics of
CULTURE and KINGDOM.

We often take "culture" for granted, as it is simply the way we (one or more person) thinks and feels.
(Note: we didn't say "race"...and we are defining "culture" broadly. So, all marriages are cross-cultural, even if both persons are of the same race, as everyone thinks/feels differently, and has different "cultural" preferences.
It's "all around us...even when we go to church," just as Morpheus said to Neo about 'the matrix':

Because of this, we are often blinded to our culture and how we "see through it." Do fish even know they are in water?
It's easy to assume our cultural identity or preference is the "best" or "right" way (as in a bounded set that everyone should be in)....or the way everyone else sees/interprets things.

"We don't see things as they are,
we see things as we are."
-Anaïs Nin

"Gaithers on Crack: a conversation on cultural preferences":

So, re: culture, and the central question of our class,
Who is Jesus is Matthew?:

He is:

a) someone who is cultural:
he was a member of a culture ( Was Jesus bicultural in any way?
How did you respond to the suggestion that Jesus was Asian? What other 'cultures' was he part of?).
Consider: "All divine revelation is culturally mediated." (Leonard Sweet, "Aqua Church 2.0," p.. 67...context).

b)someone who often was, and whose message often was, counter-cultural. ('the first shall be last," etc.... see The Upside Down Kingdom textbook)

c)someone whose ministry and message were cross-cultural (not just to Jews, etc).

----
CULTURE and KINGDOM.

We often take "culture" for granted, as it is simply the way we (one or more person) thinks and feels.
(Note: we didn't say "race"...and we are defining "culture" broadly. So, all marriages are cross-cultural, even if both persons are of the same race, as everyone thinks/feels differently, and has different "cultural" preferences.
It's "all around us...even when we go to church," just as Morpheus said to Neo about 'the matrix':

we watched the "Lamb of God" video and discussed how it was actually a nationalistic misunderstanding. If Jesus showed up personally in your church Sunday, would you wave the American flag at him, and ask him to run for president?

Post your answer in the comments section below...at bottom of this post

a)Van Der Laan:

Jesus on his way to Jerusalem
On the Sunday before Passover, Jesus came out of the wilderness on the eastern side of the Mount of Olives (just as the prophecy said the Messiah would come).
People spread cloaks and branches on the road before him. Then the disciples ?began, joyfully, to praise God in loud voices for all the miracles they had seen? (Luke 19:37). The crowd began shouting, ?Hosanna,? a slogan of the ultra-nationalistic Zealots, which meant, ?Please save us! Give us freedom! We?re sick of these Romans!?
The Palm Branches
The people also waved palm branches, a symbol that had once been placed on Jewish coins when the Jewish nation was free. Thus the palm branches were not a symbol of peace and love, as Christians usually assume; they were a symbol of Jewish nationalism, an expression of the people?s desire for political freedom __LINK to full article

b)FPU prof Tim Geddert:

Palm Sunday is a day of pomp and pageantry. Many church sanctuaries are decorated with palm fronds. I’ve even been in a church that literally sent a donkey down the aisle with a Jesus-figure on it. We cheer with the crowds—shout our hosannas—praising God exuberantly as Jesus the king enters the royal city.
But if Matthew, the gospel writer, attended one of our Palm Sunday services, I fear he would respond in dismay, “Don’t you get it?” We call Jesus’ ride into Jerusalem “The Triumphal Entry,” and just like the Jerusalem crowds, we fail to notice that Jesus is holding back tears.
Jesus did not intend for this to be a victory march into Jerusalem, a political rally to muster popular support or a publicity stunt for some worthy project. Jesus was staging a protest—a protest against the empire-building ways of the world.
LINK: full article :Parade Or Protest March

c)From Table Dallas:

Eugene Cho wrote a blog post back in 2009 about the irony of Palm Sunday:

The image of Palm Sunday is one of the greatest ironies. Jesus Christ – the Lord of Lords, King of Kings, the Morning Star, the Savior of all Humanity, and we can list descriptives after descriptives – rides into a procession of “Hosanna, Hosanna…Hosanna in the Highest” - on a donkey – aka - an ass.
He goes on to say it’s like his friend Shane Claiborne once said, “that a modern equivalent of such an incredulous image is of the most powerful person in our modern world, the United States President, riding into a procession…on a unicycle.”

-Link
================

Temple Tantrum:

"Temple Tantrums For All Nations”

by Dave Wainscott, Salt Fresno Magazine, Jan 2011

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:

racism.

I heard that head-scratching.

The tables the Lord was intent on overturning were those of prejudice.

I heard that “Huh?”

A brief study of the passage…in context…will reorient us:

Again, most contemporary Americans assume that Jesus’ anger was due to his being upset about the buying and selling. But note that Jesus didn't say "Quit buying and selling!” His outburst was, "My house shall be a house of prayer for all nations" (Mark 11:17, emphasis mine). He was not merely saying what he felt, but directly quoting Isaiah (56:6-8), whose context is clearly not about commercialism, but adamantly about letting foreigners and outcasts have a place in the “house of prayer for all nations”; for all nations, not just the Jewish nation. Christ was likely upset not that moneychangers were doing business, but that they were making it their business to do so disruptfully and disrespectfully in the "outer court;” in the “Court of the Gentiles” (“Gentiles” means “all other nations but Jews”). This was

the only place where "foreigners" could have a “pew” to attend the international prayer meeting that was temple worship. Merchants were making the temple "a den of thieves" not (just) by overcharging for doves and money, but by (more insidiously) robbing precious people of “all nations” a place to pray, and the God-given right to "access access" to God.

Money-changing and doveselling were not inherently the problem. In fact they were required; t proper currency and “worship materials” were part of the procedure and protocol. It’s true that the merchants may have been overcharging and noisy, but it is where and how they are doing so that incites Jesus to righteous anger.

The problem is never tables. It’s what must be tabled:

marginalization of people of a different tribe or tongue who are only wanting to worship with the rest of us.

In the biblical era, it went without saying that when someone quoted a Scripture, they were assuming and importing the context. So we often miss that Jesus is quoting a Scripture in his temple encounter, let alone which Scripture and context. Everyone back then immediately got the reference: “Oh, I get it, he’s preaching Isaiah, he must really love foreigners!”:

“Foreigners who bind themselves to the Lord…all who hold fast to my covenant-these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations.” (Isaiah 56:6-8, emphases mine)

Gary Molander, faithful Fresnan and cofounder of Floodgate Productions, has articulated it succinctly:

“The classic interpretation suggests that people were buying and selling stuff in God’s house, and that’s not okay. So for churches that have a coffee bar, Jesus might toss the latte machine out the window.

I wonder if something else is going on here, and I wonder if the Old Testament passage Jesus quotes informs our understanding?…Here’s the point:

Those who are considered marginalized and not worthy of love, but who love God and are pursuing Him, are not out. They’re in..

Those who are considered nationally unclean, but who love God and are pursuing Him, are not out. They’re in.

God’s heart is for Christ’s Church to become a light to the world, not an exclusive club. And when well-meaning people block that invitation, God gets really, really ticked.”

(Gary Molander, http://www.garymo.com/2010/03/who-cant-attend-your-church/)

Still reeling? Hang on, one more test:

How often have you heard the Scripture about “speak to the mountain and it will be gone” invoked , with the “obvious” meaning being “the mountain of your circumstances” or “the mountain of obstacles”? Sounds good, and that will preach. But again, a quick glance at the context of that saying of Jesus reveals nary a mention of metaphorical obstacles. In fact, we find it (Mark 11:21-22) directly after the “temple tantrum.” And consider where Jesus and the disciples are: still near the temple, and still stunned by the “object lesson” Jesus had just given there about prejudice. And know that everyone back then knew what most today don’t: that one way to talk about the temple was to call it “the mountain” (Isaiah 2:1, for example: “the mountain of the Lord’s temple”) .

Which is why most scholars would agree with Joel Green and John Carroll:

“Indeed, read in its immediate context, Jesus’ subsequent instruction to the disciples, ‘Truly I tell you, if you say to this mountain..’ can refer only to the mountain on which the temple is built!... For him, the time of the temple is no more.” (“The Death of Jesus in Early Christianity,” p. 32, emphasis mine).

In Jesus’ time, the temple system of worship had become far too embedded with prejudice. So Jesus suggests that his followers actually pray such a system, such a mountain, be gone.

Soon it literally was.

In our day, the temple is us: the church.

And the church-temple is called to pray a moving, mountain-moving, prayer:

“What keeps us from being a house of prayer for all nations?”

Or as Gary Molander summarizes:

“Who can’t attend your church?”

----------------------------------------------------
---------------
---------------------------------------------------------

"the money changers were in the Gentile courts of the temple..Jesus' action opened up the plaza so that Gentiles could pray." -Kraybill, Upside Down Kingdom, p. 151.
-----

--

For All the Nations: By Ray VanDer Laan:

Through the prophet Isaiah, God spoke of the Temple as ?a house of prayer for all the nations? (Isa. 56:7). The Temple represented his presence among his people, and he wanted all believers to have access to him.
Even during the Old Testament era, God spoke specifically about allowing non-Jewish people to his Temple: ?And foreigners who bind themselves to the Lord ? these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer? (Isa. 56:7).
Unfortunately, the Temple authorities of Jesus? day forgot God?s desire for all people to worship freely at the Temple. Moneychangers had settled into the Gentile court, along with those who sold sacrificial animals and other religious merchandise. Their activities probably disrupted the Gentiles trying to worship there.
When Jesus entered the Temple area, he cleared the court of these moneychangers and vendors. Today, we often attribute his anger to the fact that they turned the temple area into a business enterprise. But Jesus was probably angry for another reason as well.
As he drove out the vendors, Jesus quoted the passage from Isaiah, ?Is it not written: ?My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations??? The vendors had been inconsiderate of Gentile believers. Their willingness to disrupt Gentile worship and prayers reflected a callous attitude of indifference toward the spiritual needs of Gentiles.
Through his anger and actions, Jesus reminded everyone nearby that God cared for Jew and Gentile alike. He showed his followers that God?s Temple was to be a holy place of prayer and worship for all believers. - Van Der Laan

---

More on Jesus' temple tantrum as against the racist religious system, and not all about "don't sell stuff in church.":

By intercalating the story of the cursing of the fig tree within that of Jesus' obstruction of the normal activity of the temple, Mark interprets Jesus' action in the temple not merely as its cleansing but its cursing. For him, the time of the temple is no more, for it has lost its fecundity. Indeed , read in its immediate context, Jesus' subsequent instruction to the disciples, "Truly I tell you, if you say to this mountain, 'Be taken up and thrown into the sea'" can refer only to the mountain on which the temple is built!

What is Jesus' concern with the temple? Why does he regard it as extraneous to God's purpose?
Hints may be found in the mixed citation of Mark 11:17, part of which derives from Isaiah 56:7, the other from 11:7. Intended as a house of prayer for all the nations, the temple has been transformed by the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem into a den of brigands. That is, the temple has been perverted in favor of both socioreligious aims (the exclusion of Gentiles as potential recipients of divine reconciliation) and politico-economic purposes (legitimizing and
consolidating the power of the chief priests, whose teaching might be realized even in the plundering of even a poor widow's livelihood-cf 12:41-44)....

...In 12:10-11, Jesus uses temple imagery from Psalm 118 to refer to his own rejection and vindication, and in the process, documents his expectation of a new temple, inclusive of 'others' (12:9, Gentiles?) This is the community of his disciples.
-John T, Carroll and Joel B. Green, "The Death of Jesus in Early Christianity," p. 32-33

Some revolutionaries from all nations overlooking the Temple Mount, on our 2004 trip

As a follow-up to previous posts about the temple tantrum of Jesus as targeting racism more than commercialism (see this, and these, if it's a new concept, and if you always though it was about "Don't sell stuff in church!" I find Bartholomew and Goheen's analysis intriguing. They read it as racism/prejudice/nationalism/"separatism" AND a "spirit of violence".

Does the former always lead to the latter?:

"...God has chosen the people of Israel to dwell among the nations so that all nations can enter the covenant with God. But the temple Jesus now enters now functions in quite a different way, supporting a separatist cause, cutting Israelites off from their neighbors. Furthermore, the spirit encouraged within the temple is one of violence and destruction: it had become a 'den of revolutionaries' (Mark 11:17, authors' translation). Israel has turned its election into separatist privilege....a new temple, Jesus' resurrection life in the renewed people of God, can become the light for the nations that God intends." (The Drama of Scripture, p, 176)

In the footnote to the above the authors clarify:

"The Greek word here is Iestes and most likely refers to revolutionaries who sought to overthrow Rome with violence, see also on Mk 14:48, 15:27, John 18;40, see NT Wright, "Jesus and The Victory of God, 419-20

----------------------------------------
Excerpts from a good Andreana Reale article in which she sheds light on Palm Sunday and the Temple Tantrum:

,, Jesus’ entrance into Jerusalem actually echoes a custom that would have been familiar to people living in the Greco-Roman world, when the gospels were written.

Simon Maccabeus was a Jewish general who was part of the Maccabean Revolt that occurred two centuries before Christ, which liberated the Jewish people from Greek rule. Maccabeus entered Jerusalem with praise and palm leaves—making a beeline to the Temple to have it ritually cleansed from all the idol worship that was taking place. With the Jewish people now bearing the brunt of yet another foreign ruler (this time the Romans), Jesus’ parade into Jerusalem—complete with praise and palm leaves—was a strong claim that He was the leader who would liberate the people.
Except that in this case, Jesus isn’t riding a military horse, but a humble donkey. How triumphant is Jesus’ “triumphant entry”—on a donkey He doesn’t own, surrounded by peasants from the countryside, approaching a bunch of Jews who want to kill Him?
And so He enters the Temple. In the Greco-Roman world, the classic “triumphant entry” was usually followed by some sort of ritual—making a sacrifice at the Temple, for example, as was the legendary case of Alexander the Great. Jesus’ “ritual” was to attempt to drive out those making a profit in the Temple.
The chaotic commerce taking place—entrepreneurs selling birds and animals as well as wine, oil and salt for use in Temple sacrifices—epitomized much more than general disrespect. It also symbolised a whole system that was founded on oppression and injustice.
In Matthew, Mark and John, for example, Jesus chose specifically to overturn the tables of the pigeon sellers, since these were the staple commodities that marginalised people like women and lepers used to be made ritually clean by the system. Perhaps it was this system that Jesus was referring to when He accused the people of making the Temple “a den of robbers” (Mt 21.13; Mk 11.17; Lk 19.46).
Andreana Reale

--

--

see also:

Van Der Laan on Court of the Gentiles here
temple tantrum/ which curtain was torn?

The Cleansing of the Temple

--

Hey, maybe Jesus- concern WAS commercialism after all:
is racism + violence=commercialism?

Also...this called to mind Erwin McManus in "The Barbarian Way":

"God always revolts against religions he starts"
That's a shock value statement, of course.
So it can't be "truly" true.
But it speaks the truth in part; and is partly true.

But two questions:

Didn't the fact that the temple was not completely separatist/sectarian even in the "Old" Testament (one of the passages Jesus quotes ..to counter racism..in the tantrum is Isaiah 56:6-8) help? Was the religion/temple of God in Judaism inherently racist, even if God-ordained? Weren't the dovesellers/moneychangers the violators, not temple Judaism itself?

If we picture God "revolting" we might ironically envision him as a but too "violent.

Jesus comes off violently peaceful (not violently peaceful in the temple..

--

Jesus as New Temple:

Three thought experiments.

-Think if I offered you a drivers license, claiming i had authority to issue it
-Think if someone destroyed all bank records and evidence of any debt you have owe
-Think what would happen if you pointed at something, hoping your dog would look at it.

Now watch this short and important video for explanations:

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

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

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

See for more

\---

Temple Warning Inscription:

The Jewish Temple in Jerusalem was surrounded by a fence (balustrade) that was about 5 ft. [1.5 m.] high. On this fence were mounted inscriptions in Latin and Greek forbidding Gentiles from entering the temple area proper.
One complete inscription was found in Jerusalem and is now on display on the second floor of the “Archaeological Museum” in Istanbul.
The Greek text has been translated: “Foreigners must not enter inside the balustrade or into the forecourt around the sanctuary. Whoever is caught will have himself to blame for his ensuing death.” Compare the accusation against Paul found in Acts 21:28 and Paul’s comments in Ephesians 2:14—“the dividing wall.”
Translation from Elwell, Walter A., and Yarbrough, Robert W., eds. Readings from the First–Century World: Primary Sources for New Testament Study. Encountering Biblical Studies, general editor and New Testament editor Walter A. Elwell. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998, p. 83. Click Here

link

\----

Fig Tree:

s to the significance of this passage and what it means, the answer to that is again found in the chronological setting and in understanding how a fig tree is often used symbolically to represent Israel in the Scriptures. First of all, chronologically, Jesus had just arrived at Jerusalem amid great fanfare and great expectations, but then proceeds to cleanse the Temple and curse the barren fig tree. Both had significance as to the spiritual condition of Israel. With His cleansing of the Temple and His criticism of the worship that was going on there (Matthew 21:13; Mark 11:17), Jesus was effectively denouncing Israel’s worship of God. With the cursing of the fig tree, He was symbolically denouncing Israel as a nation and, in a sense, even denouncing unfruitful “Christians” (that is, people who profess to be Christian but have no evidence of a relationship with Christ).

The presence of a fruitful fig tree was considered to be a symbol of blessing and prosperity for the nation of Israel. Likewise, the absence or death of a fig tree would symbolize judgment and rejection. Symbolically, the fig tree represented the spiritual deadness of Israel, who while very religious outwardly with all the sacrifices and ceremonies, were spiritually barren because of their sins. By cleansing the Temple and cursing the fig tree, causing it to whither and die, Jesus was pronouncing His coming judgment of Israel and demonstrating His power to carry it out. It also teaches the principle that religious profession and observance are not enough to guarantee salvation, unless there is the fruit of genuine salvation evidenced in the life of the person. James would later echo this truth when he wrote that “faith without works is dead” (James 2:26). The lesson of the fig tree is that we should bear spiritual fruit (Galatians 5:22-23), not just give an appearance of religiosity. God judges fruitlessness, and expects that those who have a relationship with Him will “bear much fruit” (John 15:5-8). -LINK

--
"If anyone says to this mountain, 'Go throw yourself into the sea, and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done.' (Mark 11:23). If you want to be charismatic about it, you can pretend this refers to the mountain of your circumstances--but that is taking the passage out of context. Jesus was not referring to the mountain of circumstances. When he referred to 'this mountain,' I believe (based in part on Zech 4:6-9) that he was looking at the Temple Mount, and indicating that "the mountain on which the temple sits is going to be removed, referring to its destruction by the Romans..
Much of what Jesus said was intended to clue people in to the fact that the religious system of the day would be overthrown, but we miss much if it because we Americanize it, making it say what we want it to say, We turn the parables into fables or moral stories instead of living prophecies that pertain as much to us as to the audience that first heard them."
-Steve Gray, "When The KIngdom Comes," p.31
----------------------------------------------
“Indeed, read in its immediate context, Jesus’ subsequent instruction to the disciples, ‘Truly I tell you, if you say to this mountain..’ can refer only to the mountain on which the temple is built!... For him, the time of the temple is no more.”

-Joel Green and John Carroll, "The Death of Jesus in Early Christianity,” p. 32, emphasis mine).

------------

"The word about the mountain being cast into the sea.....spoken in Jerusalem, would naturally refer to the Temple mount. The saying is not simply a miscellaneous comment on how prayer and faith can do such things as curse fig trees. It is a very specific word of judgement: the Temple mountain is, figuratively speaking, to be taken up and cast into the sea."

-N,T. Wright, "Jesus and the Victory of God," p. 422

--
--------------------------------------

Rob Bell. "The Gods Aren't Angry":

--

Theories of atonement cont.

Ken asks people at Manchester North shopping center:
What is Good Friday? Why is it good?

What is atonement?

At-one-ment: How does Jesus' death and resurrection make us ":at one" with God?

We watched the section from 1:20:27 to 1:28:54 ("God screaming alongside us":

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HEALING SHAME cont.

"Guilt 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).

--------------------------------------

Rob Bell. "The Gods Aren't Angry": <br /></div> Here below is a <a href="http://brianzahnd.com/">Brian Zahnd</a> video: <i>The Gospel in Chairs</i>.<br /> (It's based on<span style="font-size: x-large;"><a href="http://davewainscott.blogspot.com/2011/08/gospel-in-chairs-orthodox-view-of.html"> this </a>video by an Orthodox priest, </span>and reflected on<a href="http://kingdomgrace.wordpress.com/2012/06/02/where-did-we-leave-off/"> here </a>by Linda (Kingdom Grace):<br /> <br /> <iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Wnj52gaauBs" width="420" ="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="115" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/MWzzRfMZO5o" width="360">

--

Theories of atonement cont.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

subverted empire:

The early Christian church, living as an

alternative

counter-cultural

Upside Down Kingdom

community and communitas (within the Matrix/ Roman Empire; in but not of it)
had to decide how to respond to the empire/emperors.
Here below are two "literary/historical world" examples of one of their key responses:

Subvert/satirize it.
(How do you compare this response to culture/government/empire
to those of the Pharisees,Sadducces, Zealots and Romans

a)The Crucifixion/Resurrection accounts in the gospels:
Especially in Mark, the "Literary world" styling and "Historical world" background ofJesus' crucifixion scene seems set up to satirize empire, and encourage subversion. Here is a summary below from Shane Claiborne's book, "Jesus For President":

Coronation and Procession (8 steps):

1. Caesar: The Praetorian guard (six thousand soldiers) gathered in the Praetorium. The would-be Caesar was brought into the middle of the gathering.

1. Jesus: Jesus was brought to the Praetorium in Jerusalem. And the whole company of soldiers (at least two hundred) gathered there.

-----------------

2. Caesar: A purple robe was placed on the candidate. They were also given an olive-leaf wreath made of gold and a sceptre for the authority of Rome.

2. Jesus: Soldiers brought Jesus a wreath (of thorns), a sceptre (an old stick), and a purple robe.

-------------------

3. Caesar: Caesar was loudly acclaimed as triumphant by the Praetorian Guard.

3. Jesus: Sarcastically, the soldiers acclaimed, mocked, and paid homage to Jesus.

----------------

4. Caesar: A procession through the streets began. Caesar walked with a sacrificial bull and a slave with an axe to kill the bull behind him.

4. Jesus: The procession began. But instead of a bull the would-be king and god became the sacrifice and Simon of Cyrene was to carry the cross.

----------------

5. Caesar: The procession moved to the highest hill in Rome, the Capitolene hill (‘head hill’).

5. Jesus: Jesus was led up to Golgotha (in Aramaic ‘head hill’).

----------------

6. Caesar: The candidate stood before the temple altar and was offered a bowl of wine mixed with myrrh, which he was to refuse. The wine was then poured onto the bull and the bull was then killed.

6. Jesus: He was offered wine, and he refused. Right after, it is written, “And they crucified him.”

----------------

7. Caesar: The Caesar-to-be gathered his second in command on his right hand and his third on his left.

7. Jesus: Next came the account of those being crucified on his right and left.

----------------

8. Caesar: The crowd acclaimed the inaugurated emperor. And for the divine seal of approval, the gods would send signs, such as a flock of doves or a solar eclipse.

8. Jesus: He was again acclaimed (mocked) and a divine sign confirmed God’s presence (the temple curtain ripped in two). Finally, the Roman guard, who undoubtedly pledged allegiance to Caesar, the other ‘Son of God’, was converted and acclaimed this man as the Son of God.

----------------------

This extraordinary symbolism would have been unmistakable to the first readers of the Gospel. The crown of thorns, the purple robe, the royal staff; the whole section leading up to the crucifixion reads like the coronation of Jesus! At the apex of this passage is the Roman Centurion’s exclamation that “Surely this man was the Son of God!” He saw how Jesus died and became the first evangelist. His realisation tears apart his whole view of the world and reveals the fallacy of earthly empire and the nature of the true King.

Mark is trying to show us where our allegiance should lie. At the foot of the cross, when even those that Jesus loved must have been bewildered (only failed Messiahs hung on crosses), a Roman Centurion proclaimed that Jesus was the Son of God! The journey to the cross was the final coronation of the Son of God, the rightful King, who in the cross defeated sin and death.
-Link: Shapevine

BONUS:

Here's a Ray VanDer Laan article that Shane Claiborne drew from in the coronation article above..

Here is a podcast interview Keltic Ken and I did with Shane Claiborne.

--

------

When Jesus died, he:

died naked (but not in Christian art and movies) to subvert shame

I am not here to offend anyone unnecessarily.
But 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 as we mentionedh 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

More posts on Jesus dying naked? See:.
"The Last Temptation of Movie Boycotters,"

That some well-meaning folks suggest we should never mention his nakedness,
that doing so is so wrong as to be satanic...
that we should fear thinking about genitalia,
is represented here:

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, leads to Jesus healing us precisely when we deserve it least and need it most.
Naked and (un)ashamed.

"The Gods Aren't Angry" video:
If you take notes on these questions. it should help:

1)Summary, review,.or what hit you?
2)Say something about Abraham and altars
3)What is the "culmination of the ages" and the
"reconciliation of all ages"
4)What is the speaker's view of the atonement?
5)Talk about "shame" (listen for the word., or ideas that express it)
6)Talk about repentance
7)What does the speaker suggest is the role of a ritual?
8) Say something about Jesus and the temple
9)"Jesus saves the goats and the chickens"
10))Which of the many stories he told about people (in the second half of the video, starting with the two girls who cut themselves) did you appreciate most or relate to, and why

HOMEWORK HELP

-Check your email for Turnit login for your Kraybill paper

-It's our last class next week (unless they find a way to make up the lost one), so POTLUCk.

Pharisees and sadducees: bring main dish

Essenes and Zealots: dessert or side dish.

-Homework as per syllabus

-One Revision to MOODLE homework: (Never mind, i already adjusted it, took one assignemnt off, so you can focus on the Poverty movie. BTW, this would be good to imclude in your sign
BUT if you want to substitute the Moodlle movie and forum for these two videos (click HERE), you may (just bring two paragraphs of notes to class) THIS WOULD BE A GREAT CHOICE IF YOU ARE CHOOSING THE 'FORGIVENESS" SIGNATURE PAPER.

-Hint: There is a part to the Kraybill paper that many forget, and i have to take off points if you miss.

If you are read the instructions, you'll catch it.

Note: They make us grade the signature paper strictly. See the syllabus directions (no contractions, use of "you" etc) and the detailed grading rubric at the top of the class blog

Bib 314 fresno spring 13

Pages

Tuesday, October 9, 2018

baptism notes from FPU faculty Greg Camp and Laura Roberts:

Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Week 6: The Gods Aren't Angry

Monday, April 22, 2013

Week 5: Matt 21-25

For All the Nations: By Ray VanDer Laan:

Van Der Laan on Court of the Gentiles here

temple tantrum/ which curtain was torn?

The Cleansing of the Temple

Temple Warning Inscription:

\----

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

died naked (but not in Christian art and movies) to subvert shame

About Me