Devotions by Dina

.who also recently posted this; which really dovetails with our Kraybill book:

Stone or Bread?
In Matthew 7:9, Jesus talks about how if a child asks her father for bread, he wouldn't give her a stone. I was pondering "stone" verses "bread" and past significance of a stone. The Law was written on stone tablets. Stone can speak to the law, rules, information, and knowledge. But bread is nourishing, it sustains life, and Jesus is the Bread of Life. As we seek Jesus, when we ask to know Him more and be closer to Him, He's not going to give us rules and guidelines, information and knowledge -- things which aren't life-giving. He's going to give us Himself.

-------
Three Worlds Presentations

Review/Housekeeping

Class summary so far
Moodle highlights
Signs
Service Project/Church Visit plans

Case study rubric and draft
Quiz prep
Parties
Culture
Kraybill: Judas the Hammer, Herod the Great, Simon the Star

--

Tonight's Topic: Jesus as Teacher/Parables

Jesus as Rabbi/Party Responses
Only Teacher?
The Five Teachings (Recurrence) of the New Moses
TPH
Parables
Presentations

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

As anyone who has lived in another country knows:

signs are significant
gestures differences are huge
hand signals are signally handy

The catch is what does a gesture or hand motion mean/sign-ify in the nation you are in.

Using the wrong one could get you stared at, laughed at, married, though to be a Gaither on crack, arrested.....or worse.

The internet/facebook is full of popularized memes/videos portraying the differences.

Here are two classic examples from better-trusted sources.

1)Going Dutch in Beijing: How to Behave Properly When Far Away from Home

By Mark McCrum,scroll to pages 12-22 HERE

2)The chapter on gestures from

Do's and Taboos Around the World by Roger E. Axtell:

Two memes from the Fresno Pacific Memes
Facebook page:

-------

Literary World "Signs"

This below will be the quiz for week 4, NOT the one in syllabus

Chiasm
Recurrence
Anomaly
Inclusio(n)
Generalization/Particularization
Double Paste
Units/Divisions
Intertextuality/Hyperlinking
Venn it
Drop-Down Box
Remix/Revisitation
Irony

1)Chiasm: reverse parallelism structure; ring structure, AB B' A' pattern. Ex. in Matthew: The first shall be last and the last shall be first," The Golden Rule

2)Recurrence (called "epistrophe" when it occurs at the end of a text): a word or phrase is repeated for emphasis; encourages thre reader to connect the dots thematically. Pay attention to symbolic numbers. Ex. The five teaching blocks of Matthew. See H and Y. p. 269

3)Anomaly: a break in pattern of recurrences (see c); one (or more, as long as it's s clear minority) items are different. Ex. Jesus geneology includes five sexually suspect women

4)Inclusio/Inclusion: a word or phrase is repeated at the beginning and end (and often in the middle) of a unit or book: bookends; implies everything in between the bookends is commentary on the theme/phrase of the bookend. Ex: The "with you"s of Matt 1:23 and 28:20

5)Generalization/Particularization: x. In Matthew 3, God says Jesus is the Son (general statement) ; in chapter 4, he is tempted in three specific ways (particularization) re: what kind of son he will to compare//contrast related texts through a Venn diagram. Ex. The Matt. and Luke birth/Christmas narratives; the two accounts of the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20 and Ex. 34)

6)Double Paste: Two texts are "pasted" together (cut and paste) and create a new text. Ex. Matt. 21:13=Isaiah 56:6-8 + Jeremiah 7:11

7)Units/Divisions the natural "literary world" way (vs. chapters and verses, see q) of organizing/outlining/charting a book or text. Ex. Matt. 4:17 and 16:21

8)Intertextuality/Hyperlinking: one text quotes another text Jesus says "My God, why have you firsaken me?" in Matt 27:46, referencing Psalm 22:1. See Chris Harrisson's rainbow in "Visualizing the Bible"

9)Venn it! It can be helpful o compare//contrast related texts through a Venn diagram. Ex. The Matt. and Luke birth/Christmas narratives; the two acccounts of the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20 and Ex. 34)

10)Drop-down box: Phrases that are near-synonymous, and help interpret each other.
Ex. Matt 4 temptations: "If" or "since,"; Kingdom of Heaven (Matt) and Kingdom of God (other gospels); Be perfect (Matt 5:48) and Be merciful (Luke 6:36)

11)Remix/revisitation: Especially in terms of the three temptations of Jesus in Matthew 4; throughout his life, he re-encounters newer variations on the same core temptation. See notes on Week 2 and Kraybill page 34

12)Irony! the use of words or ideas to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning See Hauer and Young pp

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

Here is a 5fold strRECURRENCE in Matthew:

"Jesus is the new Moses."

Matthew could have said that, or even said that five times..but instead he embedded thematically five times in the literary structure/fabric of his book;

It is no accident that 5 times Matthew offers an almost identical sentence to close off his five teaching blocks..

"When Jesus had finished saying these things, he moved on..."

..shows up in

7:28

11:1

13:53

19:1

26:1

diagram credit

See page 269 of your Hauer/Young textbook (the three paragraphs underneath the "Higher Righteousness" section) for more on this..

There is huge signicance of fiveteaching blocks in Matthew, how they are identified, and what they likely symbolize.

Why 5?

JJewish people reading Matthew would say
"Oh, I get it. Matthew is trying to tell us (5 times, no less( that Jesus is the New Moses (or the fulfillment of Moses)!"
Why? The answer has to to with the obvious intentionality of the5 "teaching blocks" in Matthew..Five being a hugely significant number for Jews...it's the number of books in the Torah, AKA the Five Books of Moses, AKA The Pentateuch "(Five Books in One.") . Moses=5ness.

More "New Moses" symbolism in Matthew:

Jesus as the new Moses in Matthew

Jesus as New Moses,

BTW: Note an inclusio in that the first and last teachings happen on a mountain..hmmmm

>>SEE HAUER AND YOUNG, p, 246, first two paragraphs

>>See your class Bible, page 1746, section called "Literary Form"

---\------------------------------------

Faith Lessons by Ray Vander Laan: The Rabbi (with a Blue Parakeet note appended)

Posted on December 17, 2008 by Jay Guin

The lesson begins at Gamla, a Jewish settlement founded after the return of the Jews from Babylon. The community is on the side of a hill, so steep that one family’s roof is another man’s floor. The opposite side of the hill was a steep cliff.

The residents of Gamla were Zealots, who urgently wanted to overthrow Rome. Jesus prophesied how the revolt would go –

(Luke 19:41-44) As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it 42 and said, “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace–but now it is hidden from your eyes. 43 The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. 44 They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.”

In 66 AD the Jewish revolt began. 30,000 Roman soldiers surrounded Gamla. 10,000 Jews crowded into city for protection. When the Romans breached the wall, many of the Jews panicked, and more than 5,000 ran up the hill, only to fall to their deaths down the opposite side of the hill.

The Gamla synagogue

The archaeologists have found the oldest synagogue found so far in Gamla, dating back to the time of Jesus. The synagogue was more of a community center than a church. People came to study, to gather for meetings of different sorts, and to worship.

Jesus taught as a rabbi in synagogues throughout Galilee.

(Luke 4:14-16) Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about him spread through the whole countryside. 15 He taught in their synagogues, and everyone praised him. 16 He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up to read.

The synagogue had a mikvah, a bath, by which those entering the synagogue received symbolic of cleansing (full immersion was generally required).

The synagogue had a closet for storing the Torahscroll. The person teaching that week would sit in a seat — the Moses seat — and read Torah, the words of Moses.

Any adult male could sit in the seat and read theTorah, followed by a portion of the prophets. The readings followed a prescribed order, to assure that the entire Torah was read over a period of time.

The reader often made comments on the scroll, and so the community got to hear nearly all adult males speak about God’s word over time, rather than hearing only from a professional pastor.

(Luke 4:17-21) The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written: 18 “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, 19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” 20 Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him, 21 and he began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”

Jesus read Isaiah 61:1-2 and stated that this passage, the passage scheduled for that week, referred to him.

Tassels

Jesus, being a rabbi, wore tassels on a cloth. As Vander Laan explains,

As a Jewish rabbi, Jesus probably wore tassels on the corners of his garment. The Jewish practice of wearing these tassels developed from God’s command in Numbers 15: “You are to make tassels on the corners of your garments so you will remember all the commands of the LORD” (v. 38-39).

Later in Jewish history, the tassels were incorporated into the Jewish prayer shawl, called the tallit, which is worn by many Jews today. On each corner of the prayer shawl are long tassels, or tzitzit, knotted five times to remind Jews of the five books of Moses. The four spaces between these knots represent the letters of God’s name, YHWH. And the knots along the prayer shawl edges use exactly 613 knotted strings, representing the 613 laws of the Torah.

Ezekiel prophesied that the Messiah would come with healing in his “wings.” But the Hebrew word for “wings” could also be used to identify the tassels that Jewish men wore on the corners of their robe. Based on this prophecy, the Jews expected the Messiah to have healing in his tassels.

During his ministry, one woman demonstrated her faith in Jesus by seeking healing in his tassels. Matthew 9 tells us that a sick woman, whose disease had probably left her untouched for twelve years, thought to herself, “If I only touch his cloak, I will be healed” (v. 21).

When she touched the Messiah’s tassels, the woman was healed. And Jesus commended her for her faith.

Faith lesson

Jesus’ method was to love people who were hurting, rather than to use impersonal methods, such as our media. He could have done many different things to get the word out about the good news, and the one method he chose was to do acts of compassion for many of the most unloved people.

For teachers

What methods have churches normally used to make converts and spread the gospel?

[invite neighbors to church, send missionaries, distribute tracts, TV and newspaper ads, invite the community to events]

What methods did Jesus use?

[preached gospel, acts of compassion, sent out missionaries who were to preach gospel and do acts of compassion

(Mat 4:23) Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people.

(Mat 9:35-36) Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing every disease and sickness. 36 When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd.]

Why do you suppose it is that, historically, the church hasn’t used acts of compassion as a means of evangelism?

[Reformation emphasis on doctrinal correctness, division of church into denominations largely over doctrinal disputes, all led to didactic gospel, that is, a gospel all about getting the doctrines right as a requirement to be saved. Thus, good news was largely about correct doctrine and correct practice: worship and church organization, going all the way back to Calvin.]

Other than Jesus’ example, where else in the scripture do we see passages that associate acts of compassion with evangelism?

[(Mat 5:13-16) "You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men. 14 "You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.

(Eph 2:10) For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

(Eph 4:11-15) It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12 to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. 14 Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. 15 Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ.

(1 Pet 2:12) Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us.

"Speaking the truth in love" in Eph 4:15 refers to evangelism. "Truth" in the New Testament is normally the truth about Jesus, the gospel. "Speak the truth" is preaching the gospel. It's not publishing bulletins that argue over nuances of doctrine.

(Col 1:5) the faith and love that spring from the hope that is stored up for you in heaven and that you have already heard about in the word of truth, the gospel

Paul's point in Ephesians is that God sent Jesus to die for our salvation, so that we'd do good works that would build the church up in unity and bring others to the church.]

How does the world perceive the church?

[Hypocrites, judgmental]

How would this perception change if we lived lives of compassion, as Jesus did?

How would our relationships with other churches/denominations change if we all saw works of compassion as central to God’s mission to which we are called?

[When people get busy helping others, their priorities change. Rather than focusing on every nuance of doctrine, they become concerned with helping people. We become more willing to cooperate when we see the desperate need for cooperation. We are less willing to damn others when we work side by side with them and see the Spirit and God's love alive within them.

Works of compassion make us people of compassion who see the world through more Jesus-like eyes -- and everything changes.]

Additional note

A common theme here is: why did they miss it? Why did the Zealots miss the Messiah and rebel against Rome and God’s plan for Israel? Why do Christians miss God’s desire for us to be salt and light by serving those around us with works of compassion?

I think in both cases the answer is ultimately the same. Both groups find the wrong story in the Bible. The Zealots believed that God’s ultimate goal was an independent Jewish state. Christians often think God’s ultimate goal is to give us a means to escape hell through faith. Neither thought is foreign to scripture, but both thoughts miss the ultimate point. It’s all about the Story as explained in the posts on Hermeneutics and Blue Parakeets.

The ultimate goal is bring all nations into covenant community with God forever — returning to us Eden, where we enjoy oneness with each other and with God. And we can’t be people who enjoy oneness unless we are open to oneness — and that means loving other people just as we love ourselves — and that means doing works of compassion, not because it’s commanded but because that’s just kind of people we are. And we become that kind of people by walking in harmony with the Spirit — that is, in close communion with God living in us. -LINK

-Tallit and Temple: two signs as potential idols

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

Kings and King-potentials: Judah the Hammer,Simon the Star, Herod the Great, .

One can't help but find, in Matthew, and in Kraybill, ch 2 the "common history" of two pivotal events in the history of Israel.

Both ended with homecoming "parties"

Event Date Location Deliverer Result

)Exodus 1000s BC Egypt 400 years Moses Passover Feast/Dance Party on the Beach

) Exile 500s BC Babylon 70 years Cyrus : Feast of Purim/4 Parties

)Temple defiled 165 BC Jerusalem Judah Hammer Feast of Haunnukah/Ptrep for Jesus Temple tantrum

From N,T. Wright's "Simply Jesus"

Wright is always helpful on the temple episode.

In this new book, he blew me away with the prequels to the tantrum:

Ever heard of Simon the Star and Judah the Hammer?

They were the forerunners here .

See excerpt bellow, or this video below).

Wright:

For many centuries mapmakers put Jerusalem at the middle of the earth. That corresponds to what most Jews in the first century believed about the city, and particularly about the Temple. It was the heart of everything, the holiest spot on earth. It was the focal point of the holy land. Its decoration symbolized the larger creation, the world we read about in Genesis 1. It wasn’t, as sacred buildings have been in some other traditions, a retreat from the world. It was a bridgehead into the world. It was the sign that the creator God was claiming the whole world, claiming it back for himself, establishing his domain in the middle of it.

It was, in particular, the place where God himself had promised to come and live. This was where God’s glory, his tabernacling presence, his Shekinah, had come to rest. That’s what the Bible had said, and some fortunate, though frightened, individuals had glimpsed it and lived to tell the tale. But God lived, by definition, in heaven. Nobody, however, supposed that God lived most of the time in heaven, a long way away, and then, as though for an occasional holiday or royal visitation, went to live in the Temple in Jerusalem instead.

Somehow, in a way most modern people find extraordinary to the point of being almost unbelievable, the Temple was not only the center of the world. It was the place where heaven and earth met. This isn’t, then, just a way of saying, “Well, the Jews were very attached to their land and their capital city.” It was the vital expression of a worldview in which “heaven” and “earth” are not far apart, as most people today assume, but actually overlap and interlock.

And Jesus, had been going about saying that this God, Israel’s God, was right now becoming king, was taking charge, was establishing his long-awaited saving and healing rule on earth as in heaven. Heaven and earth were being joined up — but no longer in the Temple in Jerusalem. The joining place was visible where the healings were taking place, where the party was going on (remember the angels celebrating in heaven and people joining in on earth?), where forgiveness was happening. In other words, the joining place, the overlapping circle, was taking place where Jesus was and in what he was doing. Jesus was, as it were, a walking Temple. A living, breathing place-where-Israel’s-God-was-living.

As many people will see at once, this is the very heart of what later theologians would call the doctrine of the incarnation. But it looks quite different from how many people imagine that doctrine to work. Judaism already had a massive “incarnational” symbol, the Temple. Jesus was behaving as if he were the Temple, in person.

He was talking about Israel’s God taking charge. And he was doing things that put that God-in-chargeness into practice. It all starts to make sense. In particular, it answers the old criticism that “Jesus talked about God, but the church talked about Jesus” — as though Jesus would have been shocked to have his pure, God-centered message corrupted in that way. This sneer fails to take account of the fact that, yes, Jesus talked about God, but he talked about God precisely in order to explain the things that he himself was doing.

So we shouldn’t be surprised at Jesus’ action in the Temple. The Temple had, as it were, been a great signpost pointing forward to another reality that had lain unnoticed for generations, like the vital clue in a detective story that is only recognized as such in the final chapter. Remember the promise to David — that God would build him a “house,” a family, founded on the son of David who would be the son of God? David had wanted to build a house for God, and God had replied that he would build David a “house.” David’s coming son is the ultimate reality; the Temple in Jerusalem is the advance signpost to that reality. Now that the reality is here, the signpost isn’t needed anymore.
But it isn’t just that the signpost had become redundant with the arrival of the reality. The Temple, as many other first-century Jews recognized, was in the wrong hands and had come to symbolize the wrong things. It was, for a start, a place that for many Jews stank of commercial oppression. This is an additional rather obvious overtone of Jesus’ action in driving out the money changers and the traders. But it gets worse. The Temple was the center of the banking system. It was where the records of debts were kept; the first thing the rebels did when they took over the Temple in the great revolt was to burn those records. That tells you quite a lot about how people saw the Temple. I had a letter today from the tax man, politely asking me for my annual contribution to government finances. If I don’t answer it, the next one won’t be so polite.

Now imagine letters and records building up, detailing all the debts of ordinary people in Jerusalem, while the chief priests, who ran the system, lived in their fine mansions in the nice part of town and went about in their smart clothes. If you were an ordinary, hardworking resident of Jerusalem or the surrounding area, what would you think of the building that was supposed to be God’s house, but that stored the records of your debts, while the rich rulers who performed the religious rituals marched by with their noses in the air on their way to put on their splendid vestments and chant their elaborate prayers? Yes, that’s exactly how many people saw the Temple.

It gets worse again. The Temple had come to symbolize the nationalist movement that had led many Jews to revolt against pagan oppression in the past and would lead them to do so once more. As we see graphically throughout the history of Israel, and not least in the first century, the Temple was the sign that Israel’s God, the world’s creator, was with his people and would defend them against all confers. Battle and Temple had gone together for a thousand years, from David himself through to Judah the Hammer to Simon the Star.

And Jesus had come as the Prince of Peace. “If only you’d known,” he sobbed out through his tears, “on this day — even you! — what peace meant. But now it’s hidden, and you can’t see it.” Enemies will come, he said. “They won’t leave one single stone on another, because you didn’t know the moment when God was visiting you” (Luke 19:42-44).

Israel’s God was coming back at last, and they couldn’t see it. Why not? Because they were looking in entirely the wrong direction. The Temple, and the city of which the Temple was the focal point, had come to symbolize violent national revolution. Instead of being the light of the world, the city on the hill that should let its light shine out to the nations, it was determined to keep the light for itself. The Temple was not just redundant; not just a place of economic oppression. It had become a symbol of Israel’s violent ambition, a sign that Israel’s ancient vocation had been turned inside out. In Luke’s gospel, the scene of Jesus arriving in Jerusalem balances the scene near the start in which Jesus goes to Nazareth and risks his neck by declaring God’s blessing on the pagan nations. Then it was the synagogue; now it’s the Temple.

It also balances the scene even earlier, when the twelve-year-old Jesus stays back in Jerusalem, to his parents’ alarm, at the end of a Passover celebration — and is finally discovered sitting in the Temple with the teachers, listening to them, quizzing them in turn, and explaining that he had to be getting involved with his father’s work (Luke 2:49). Now here he is, back again, involved up to the neck in his father’s work, astonishing the Jerusalem authorities for a different reason. This is the climax of his father’s work, and that work is now focused on Jesus himself, not the Temple.

If Jesus is acting out a vision — astonishing, risky, and one might say crazy — in which he is behaving as if he is the Temple, redefining sacred space around himself, something equally strange and risky is taking place in the realm of time.

Wriight also, as did the folks I quoted in an earlier post, connected all major events in Jesus' timeline as revisitations of the original three wilderness temptations:

And the dark powers that put Jesus on the cross continued to the last with their mocking questions:
"Save yourself, if you're God's son! Come down from the cross!," echoing the same voice in the desert, "If you really are Gods son, tell these stones to become bread/" -Simply Jesus, chapter 10

Note: This would be (per Kraybill, and "economic" temptation ...remember bread=economic///). Hmmm...maybe this is "commercialism" revisited after all)

So how was the temple tantrum, and Jesus' choice to engage it, passing a test and resisting a core temptation/one of the three paradigmatic temptations?

Wright presses the key point of the temple cleansing:

We don't, perhaps, always realize that any such action was staking an implicitly royal claim: it was kings, real or aspiring, who had authority over the temple.. It was Israel's kings, or would-be kings who planned it..built it...cleansed it (Judah the Hammer)...rebuilt it...and hoped to rebuiild it once more (Simon the Star).....so what was its "meaning"? For a start, it was an emphatically royal action, a claim to be Israel's true King...but a king as a man of peace..no longer a military battle of 'us" against them"...the action would have been seen within a web of prophetic allusion and symbolism...meaning that the Temple was under God's judgement. -Simply Jesus, chapter 10

Jesus is King...but what kind of king will he be?

This was the shape of the temptations:

"Since you are the Son, what kind of Son will you be?"

One who refuses to turn stones into bread, but One who fearless predicts turning the temple to toast.

One who refuses to jump from the temple to prove himself, but One who is unafraid to jump into the temple's marketplace and bring its services to a halt.

One who refuses to rule by rod all the nations of the world, but One who in violently peaceful prophetic act opens the house of prayer for all nations to all nations.

2)Sadducees :

"If anyone says to this mountain, 'Go throw yourself into the sea, and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done.' (Mark 11:23). If you want to be charismatic about it, you can pretend this refers to the mountain of your circumstances--but that is taking the passage out of context. Jesus was not referring to the mountain of circumstances. When he referred to 'this mountain,' I believe (based in part on Zech 4:6-9) that he was looking at the Temple Mount, and indicating that "the mountain on which the temple sits is going to be removed, referring to its destruction by the Romans..

Much of what Jesus said was intended to clue people in to the fact that the religous system of the day would be overthrown, but we miss much if it because we Americanize it, making it say what we want it to say, We turn the parables into fables or moral stories instead of living prophecies that pertain as much to us as to the audience that first heard them."

-Steve Gray, "When The KIngdom Comes," p..31

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

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

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

“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.” ― C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

Bono picks this up:

Assayas: The Son of God who takes away the sins of the world. I wish I could believe in that.

Bono: But I love the idea of the Sacrificial Lamb. I love the idea that God says: Look, you cretins, there are certain results to the way we are, to selfishness, and there's a mortality as part of your very sinful nature, and, let's face it, you're not living a very good life, are you? There are consequences to actions. The point of the death of Christ is that Christ took on the sins of the world, so that what we put out did not come back to us, and that our sinful nature does not reap the obvious death. That's the point. It should keep us humbled . It's not our own good works that get us through the gates of heaven.

Assayas: That's a great idea, no denying it. Such great hope is wonderful, even though it's close to lunacy, in my view. Christ has his rank among the world's great thinkers. But Son of God, isn't that farfetched?

Bono: No, it's not farfetched to me. Look, the secular response to the Christ story always goes like this: he was a great prophet, obviously a very interesting guy, had a lot to say along the lines of other great prophets, be they Elijah, Muhammad, Buddha, or Confucius. But actually Christ doesn't allow you that. He doesn't let you off that hook. Christ says: No. I'm not saying I'm a teacher, don't call me teacher. I'm not saying I'm a prophet. I'm saying: "I'm the Messiah." I'm saying: "I am God incarnate." And people say: No, no, please, just be a prophet. A prophet, we can take. You're a bit eccentric. We've had John the Baptist eating locusts and wild honey, we can handle that. But don't mention the "M" word! Because, you know, we're gonna have to crucify you. And he goes: No, no. I know you're expecting me to come back with an army, and set you free from these creeps, but actually I am the Messiah. At this point, everyone starts staring at their shoes, and says: Oh, my God, he's gonna keep saying this. So what you're left with is: either Christ was who He said He was the Messiah or a complete nutcase. I mean, we're talking nutcase on the level of Charles Manson. This man was like some of the people we've been talking about earlier. This man was strapping himself to a bomb, and had "King of the Jews" on his head, and, as they were putting him up on the Cross, was going: OK, martyrdom, here we go. Bring on the pain! I can take it. I'm not joking here. The idea that the entire course of civilization for over half of the globe could have its fate changed and turned upside-down by a nutcase, for me, that's farfetched

Bono: If only we could be a bit more like Him, the world would be transformed. When I look at the Cross of Christ, what I see up there is all my s--- and everybody else's. So I ask myself a question a lot of people have asked: Who is this man? And was He who He said He was, or was He just a religious nut? And there it is, and that's the question. And no one can talk you into it or out of it. -- Link, similar answer here on audio, 13:58 mark here

TPH

Twice, Matthew makes almost identical statements, which might lead us to draw aninclusio around them:

And he went throughout all Galilee,
teaching      in their synagogues and
preaching   the gospel of the kingdom and
healing             every disease and every affliction among the people.
(Matt. 4:23)

AND

And Jesus went through all the towns and villages,
teaching            in their synagogues,
preaching          the good news of the kingdom and
healing              every disease and sickness.
(Matt 9:35)
Maybe Jesus only did three things in this section.
Q>Who is Jesus in Matthew?
              A>The one who teaches, preaches and heals.

Notice 11:1 says he went around "teaching and preaching," but :healing is not included. It seems we are to place special emphasis on healing in the division from 4:23-9:35.

Question:

-why healings highlighted in this section? (stay tuned..think about possible answers

-Is this a hemistiche?

-Since this threefold ministry is so intentionally signaled, might it not mean that in other places in Matthew

that when one or two of the three is mentioned, the third is implied, hidden somewhere, or conspicuous by its absence?

How about 11:1?:

How about 15: 29-30:

Jesus left there and went along the Sea of Galilee. Then he

went up on a mountainside and sat down (implies teaching ).

Great crowds came to him (so now you expect to see him teaching, but he is healing instead...or is healing a firm of teaching here?)

bringing the lame, the blind, the crippled, the mute and many others, and laid them at his feet; and he healed them.

For some helpful commentary on the "literary world" implications of Jesus' three activities...

teaching
preaching
healing

.....click to read these sections of David Bauer's commentary.

--------

One writer comments:

These three activities were his chief occupations in public ministry. Think of what Jesus did:
He was teaching in their synagogues. What was a synagogue service like? We have some insight in two New Testament passages: Luke 4:16-21, where Jesus began to teach about his own ministry. We also have Acts 13:15ff, where Paul used the invitation to speak as an opportunity to preach the gospel based upon the history of Israel. In the service, a reading from the Law and the Prophets, which followed prayers, would be followed by a distinguished Rabbi, either resident or visiting, being invited to teach concerning a point of the Law or the Prophets. He would read a text and explain and apply it. This is what Jesus evidently did. And the traditions of the synagogue required that the teacher be attractive in his appearance and presentation, as well as intelligent and godly. Interestingly enough, such a teacher did not have to be ordained. And his message was to be tactful and not too personal. That Jesus taught often in the synagogues of the land, tells us that he was a welcome teacher and respected. No wonder he was referred to as "Rabbi."
The text tells us that he also was actively preaching the Gospel/good news of the Kingdom. You are of course aware that the word, gospel, means good news. And the substance of the gospel is given in verse 22, to wit that the Kingdom of Heaven was near. It is referred to elsewhere as the gospel of peace (Rom 10:15), the gospel of Jesus Christ (2 Cor 9:13), and its message was simply that the Kingdom of Heaven had come. To the Jews this would be good news, as it would mean that the Lord was announcing the reign of Messiah (Isa 9:6,7) and peace between Himself and Israel (Isa 52:7). God had come to rule and thus to show his love and concern for his people. And that is the essence of the gospel.
We want to be careful not to distinguish too closely between teaching and preaching, though, because he did both at the same time, cf. the next three chapters. Teaching would emphasize a systematic presentation of the truth. Preaching or proclamation would emphasize declaration of the truth, as opposed to giving a systematic presentation of it. In his teaching he gave the details of what the Kingdom of Heaven is like.
Finally, and this is what usually catches our attention most in this passage, hehealed the sick. The text says, he healed (literally) all chronic diseases and all occasional sicknesses among the people. The word, all, would place him in different category from other healers that were also going about the land. Perhaps the word would best be translated as the NIV does, every, because not all in the nation were healed. These other healers did not heal every case. They had their successes and their failures, but Jesus healed every diseasehe came into contact with, with no failures. The question needs to be asked, though, why? ..
Notice how these three ministries are tied together. What ties them together is the Kingdom of Heaven. The public teaching of Jesus focused upon the grace of God in coming to rule over his people and show his love and concern for them as their King. The healings were a tangible, easy to understand demonstration of the truth and power of the Kingdom. Jesus did not simply heal for the sake of making people feel better or improve their quality of life. Rather, those who were healed had an obligation to worship and serve the Lord, even to repent-cf. John 5:1-14. That is why, when Jesus preached he proclaimed the message that he did, Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is near. This is an important point, one that is missed by some in the healing movement in Pentecostal Church circles. We are mistaken if we separate healing from the gospel's message and focus on it or any other miraculous part of the gospel instead of on the Kingdom of God. -Link

PARABLES:

Remember the "Teenage Affluenza" video that we watched, for which you used

terms like:

subversive
satirical
spoof
sarcastic
ironic
inductive
interactive
intuitive
earthy
earthly
juxtaposing
convicting
comedic
abductive
pointed
prophetic
sneaky
back door
non sequitur
cheesy
you're not sure whether you're supposed to laugh
feel uncomfortable laughing at funny parts near the end
tweaking
nonlinear
risky
"over the top"
maddening
convicting
offensive (to some)
shocking

in describing? These are all great sub-definitions of a parable.

Do you remember how this video of Ignatius that we watched today

is a parable?

It is sneaky, subversive.... on purpose......and a parable.

Partly because it is inductive, subversive, a "loud fart," and has one primary point. What is it?

12 POINTS ABOUT PARABLES:

(

1.Story or word-picture about the KINGDOM.

2. a comparison or contrast between two things that have "nothing in common," and asking what they have in common.

literal meaning of Greek word "parable": Taking two things that have nothing in common and asking "What do they have in common?" A creative comparison told in story form. Thus the point is often "hidden" or "unobvious" at first..

A parable is a succinct story, or word-picture/picture in words.. in prose orverse, that illustrates a lesson. It is a type of analogy.^[1].

..The word "parable" comes from the Greek παραβολή (parabolē), meaning "comparison, illustration, analogy",^[3] ...often comparaing two items that seem incongrous, disparate, and have nothing to do with each other... Christian parables have recently been studied as extended metaphors,^[5] ..
Unlike the situation with a simile, a parable's parallel meaning is unspoken and implicit, though not ordinarily secret...The New Testament parables are thought by scholars such as John P. Meier to have been inspired bymashalim, a form of

3) "a .loud fart in the salon of spirituality."

This is a quote from Eugene Peterson helps us get how offensive Jesus' parables were to religious folk:

"gnostics delight in secrecy. They are prototypical insiders. They think that access to the eternal is by password and that they know the password. They love insider talk and esoteric lore. They elaborate complex myths that account for the descent of our spiritual selves into this messy world of materiality, and then map the complicated return route. They are fond of diagrams and the enlightened teachers who explain them. Their sensitive spirits are grieved by having to live surrounded by common people with their sexual leers and stupid banana-peel jokes and vulgar groveling in the pigsty of animal appetite. Gnostics who go to church involuntarily pinch their noses on entering the pew, nervously apprehensive that an insensitive usher will seat a greasy sinner next to them. They are however enabled to endure by the considerable compensation of being ‘in the know’ (gnostic means ‘the one who knows’). It is a good feeling to know that you are a cut above the common herd, superior to almost everyone you meet on the street or sit beside in church.
It is inevitable that gnostics will boycott the creation theater and avoid its language as much as possible, for metaphor is an affront to their gossamer immaterialities and inner-ring whispers, a loud fart in the salon of spirituality.” (Answering God, 75-76)

4) stories that sizzle:

Kraybill, from your Upside Down Kingdom textbook:

"the parables sizzle into the minds of the religious heavyweights:

your attitude is the opposite of God's" p. 158

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

5. The  one primary point
                                     of a parable
is
                              a parable has
      one primary point"
(Note that is a chiasm!).

Parables may have allegorical components, but are not usually allegories. Press and push for the ONE PRIMARY POINT>

6. Having said that..they are also a multiplex, multifaceted matrix...and can be entered (not exited) anywhere

7. Parables often have a God (or Jesus) figure, but watch out, it might be a surprising, subversive, "unobvious" character

8. Though they are not allegories, they may have have allegorical components..but with sign-ificant (note the word "sign" in significant. Remember why this is important? )shift in who represents who

9)Stein offers these three possible reasons Jesus teaches in parables:

1. To conceal his teaching from those “outside”

2. To illustrate and reveal his message to his followers

3. To disarm his listeners—they force a response somehow, leave you wrestling, are provocative

10.IRONY! :

"As a feature of language, irony is a sentiment

whose intended meaning is the opposite of its literal meaning,

As a quality of life, irony is a discrepancy

between an expected outcome and a real outcome.' (Handbook of Literary Terms by Kennedy, Gioia, Bauerlein)

'Jesus' irony is marked by subtle insight and paradox, leading to comic self-discovery." (Viola & Sweet , "

Jesus: A Theography"

, p203) ....read more

Socratic irony:


	a means by which the pretended ignorance of a skilfull questioner leads the person answering to expose his own ignorance dramatic irony irony that is inherent in speeches or a situation of a drama and is understood by the audience but notgrasped by the characters in the play

11.Look for open-ended endings (Does the older brother in The Prodigal Son ever repent? etc) and cliffhangers that force you to participate in the story, consider alternate endings, and respond yourself.

12. LOL. Since the last point was "open-ended endings," for this 12th, and endng post, I'll leave it opened ended...................

GOOD SAMARITAN:

-See p, 161-167 of Upside Down book to get the "historical world" of Samaritans

-Who is the surprising Jesus figure in this story? Of course, the Samaritan is one, but the surprising one is that guy left for dead (as Jesus was).

We so often miss ( see "Parables and Misundertaking")

the point and punch of parables..

Good article in the new Biblical Archaeology by Amy-Jill Levine (emphasis mine):

In the parable, the priest and Levite signal not a concern for ritual purity; rather, in good storytelling fashion, these first two figures anticipate the third: the hero. Jews in the first century (and today) typically are either priests or Levites or Israelites. Thus the expected third figure, the hero, would be an Israelite. The parable shocks us when the third figure is not an Israelite, but a Samaritan.

But numerous interpreters, missing the full import of the shock, describe the Samaritan as the outcast. This approach, while prompting compelling sermons, is the fourth anachronism. Samaritans were not outcasts at the time of Jesus; they were enemies.

In the chapter before the parable (Luke 9:51–56) Luke depicts Samaritans as refusing Jesus hospitality; the apostles James and John suggest retaliation: “Lord, do you want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?” (Luke 9:54). John 4:9 states, “Jews do not share things in common with Samaritans.” The Jewish historian Josephus reports that during the governorship of Cumanus, Samaritans killed “a great many” Galilean pilgrims traveling to Jerusalem (Antiquities 20.118–136). The first-century Jewish person hearing this parable might well think: There is no such thing as a “good Samaritan.” But unless that acknowledgment is made, and help from the Samaritan is accepted, the person in the ditch will die.

The parable offers another vision, a vision of life rather than death. It evokes 2 Chronicles 28, which recounts how the prophet Oded convinced the Samaritans to aid their Judean captives. It insists that enemies can prove to be neighbors, that compassion has no boundaries, and that judging people on the basis of their religion or ethnicity will leave us dying in a ditch. link

Levine: Good Samaritan parable teaches compassion for the enemy

And this video version:

Amy-Jill Levine: Dangers on the Road to Jericho from Chautauqua Institution on FORA.tv

----

See a great, hilarious section by Capon:\

The defining character – the one to whom the other three respond by being non-neighbour or neighbour – is the man who fell among thieves. The actual Christ-figure in the story, therefore, is yet another loser, yet another down-and-outer who, by just lying there in his lostness and proximity to death, is in fact the closest thing to Jesus in the parable.

That runs counter, of course, to the better part of two thousand years’ worth of interpretation, but I shall insist on it. This parable, like so many of Jesus’ most telling ones, has been egregiously misnamed. It is not primarily about the Samaritan but about the man on the ground. This means, incidentally, that Good Samaritan Hospitals have been likewise misnamed. It is the suffering, dying patients in such institutions who look most like Jesus in his redeeming work, not the doctors with their authoritarian stethoscopes around their necks. Accordingly, it would have been much less misleading to have named them Man-Who-Fell-Among-Thieves Hospitals...{as if the doctors would stand for that} (p. 210ff, Kingdom, grace, judgment: paradox, outrage, and vindication in the parables of Jesus)

CLASS EXERCISE:

For the first fifteen minutes read, as a group, the parable assigned to you. Discuss it, use some "three worlds theory" to decide what you think the main point is. Consider the literary context: what comes before/after the parable, etc. Take into consideration any info from the "historical world" you may be aware of; you might want to peek at what the Bible Background Commentary has to say about yout parable (linked below, and one is in class to be shared).

Write down the maim point in a sentence, in a form that only describes the point, not any details of the story.

Pharisees
The Lost Sheep, Matthew 18:12-14, see whole chapter for context here
(see pages in the BBC here)

Sadducees
The Good Samaritan Luke 10:25-37, see whole chapter for context here
(see pages 217-218 in the BBC here)

Essenes

The Friend at Midnight, Luke 11:1-13, see whole chapter for context here
(see page 218-220 in the BBC here)

Zealots
The Prodigal Son ,Luke 15: 11:32, see whole chapter for context here
(see page 232-233 in the BBC here)

For the last fifteen minutes

P and S discuss and prepare to act out (in NO MORE THAN 3 MINUTES) a modern-day version of the same parable: use "contemporary world" equivalents of the story/characters etc. What if Jesus came today, how would he tell the same parable in our context and culture?

E and Z
discuss and prepare to act out (in NO MORE THAN 3 MINUTES) a modern-day e parable: a modern-day situation. There is difference between simply changing a few elements to set the same story in modern terms, and using a completely different story to communicate the same message. The point of this activity is the latter.]..a different story and storyline altogether, but same point., Do not use the same characters or storyline.

Remember this:

Substitute the assignment below (we'll discuss in class, and add more to the post then) for

ALL the homework on syllabus and Moodle (i will adjust Moodle asap)

Wright an 2-4 page draft of your signature assignment. You can pick any case study, you will not be bound to use the same one in the final assignment.
Focus on following syllabus, integrating course material, and mechanics/typos
Compare notes and ideas on Moodle.
Post yours by Tues July 9. Comment on the posts of at least two other students by our class on July 11

-PS Remember quiz is moved to Week 5

BIb 314 Main Campus June -July 13

Pages

Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Week 3: Signs/ Jesus as Teacher: Rabbi, More Than Teacher,New Moses, New Temple/TPH/Parabler