Two memes from the Fresno Pacific Memes
Facebook page:

-------------
Extra credit anybody?
If you were in class today, you knowe exactyly what this picture means.
If not, ask sonebody. The contest is on!

You'll remember that everything oin chapters 19-25 is related to "The Presence of the Future."

Jesus uses apocalyptic language. What is apocalypyic literature, and how might it compare to dystopian literature?

See:

"Hunger Ganes" links: Dystopian Peacefully Violent Allegory of Men and Christian Love

See:

The Dystopian Timeline to The Hunger Games [INFOGRAPHIC
Dystopia
YA Highway: Dystopian And The Apocalypse: What's the difference?
Christianbook.com: Utopia and Dystopia in Prophetic Literature

Interesting point:
The other important element is that of ‘Best and Worst Worlds’, of what we in science fiction criticism call ‘dystopias’ and ‘utopias’ – the perfect society and the perfectly awful society. Examples of dystopias in science fiction which are well known include Brave New World, The Handmaid’s Tale, Nineteen-Eighty-Four. Utopias tend to be rather duller and therefore a lot less popular, but there’s a strong strain in science fiction of trying to invent perfect societies and work out how they could work.
And the Bible read as a whole is a journey, a tour from a prehistoric utopia in the Garden of Eden to a posthistoric utopia in Revelation’s New Jerusalem. And it takes in numerous dystopias along the way: Babel again; Sodom and Gomorrah again; and the various captivities of Israel, and the persecutions of the children of Israel in Egypt, in Babylon and, in the New Testament, in Jerusalem under the Roman Empire.

But these are often contrasted with the promise of a future utopia: the promised land to which Moses is leading the children of Israel, and the various visions of Heaven. And there’s a lot of utopianism in the Bible. We were singing yesterday in the communion service about the concept of the jubilee¹¹, and that seems very utopian: it’s not only an attempt to establish a just society in the present, it’s an attempt to plan for the future, to prevent that society becoming unjust. And this is something that you often find in utopian literature, that there’s this sort of social planning ahead. The most sustained dystopia in the Bible is the mundane world as ruled by the ‘Beast’, as seen in Revelation. It has many of the classic characteristics of a dystopia: two particularly, in that the majority who don’t accept the Beast are oppressed by the minority who worship the Beast, and are made to worship the Beast; and the idea of the regimented society, the fact that everyone needs to be given this number that they wear on their hand or their forehead, that marks them out as servants of the Beast. And of course Revelation is often read by extremists as a dystopian portrayal of the present-day world – although extremists have been reading it that way for centuries, so I wouldn’t place too much weight on it.
But it also presents a contrasting utopia in New Jerusalem, which like many of the utopias of science fiction is located in future history – you have to go through the dystopia to get there, which is also true in some texts of science fiction, but you in the end reach the perfect society.
Utopias and dystopias tell us about the best and worst of human nature – not least because they need to be imagined, or at least described, by human beings. And for this reason they’re helpful for understanding the problem of evil, and questions of sin and salvation. LINK

(As previously announced..For the quiz Fri, write a paragraph on the text assigned to your party
Then on the final, everyone anwers for each party, but gives a more detailed answer for the Pharisee text (#1).

Today's class will give the answers.
Read on!

1)Pharisees: ch 21 Temple Tantrum: Why was Jesus angry?
2)Sadducees : What did Jesus mean by Matthew 21: 21-22? Be sure to comment on what he meant by "fig tree" and "this mountain'?
3)Essenes: 24:36-51: Who is "taken" and who is 'left" here? ..(In this Scripture, not comparing with others)?
4)Zealots: 25: 31-46 Who are "my brothers and sisters""?
--
1)PHARISEES:

Some amazing students of mine from last year (you may recognize them) made this video about Jesus' "temple tantrum,".. the idea was recreating .what the equivalent would look like on our day. As you can see, they had holy fun.

You'll also remember this video. "You're not supposed to be having fun in church; you're supposed to be praying and reading your Bibles!!":

A whole cluster of meanings help us grasp the huge shadow of the temple encounter in Matthew 21. Here are four..

Not necessarily in order of importance. For the Final Exam: You decide! Is one central?

1)It was not primarily about commercialism/selling stuff in church, but far more fundamentally about racism/prejuiduce.

2)It suggested that Jesus is the New Temple.

3)It calls to mind previous temple cleansings led by the likes Judah the Hammer and Simon the Star, and the Jewish desire for freedom.

4)If portrays Jesus as King, but a very different one than expected. One that was revisited with the testations yet again, and passed the test by subverting expectations and empire.
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?"

-More one each below:

1) Racism as core issue, not commercialism:

a)Article By Dave Wainscott
“Temple Tantrums For All Nations"
Salt Fresno Magazine, Jan 2011:

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

I have actually heard people say they fear holding a bake sale anywhere on church property…they think a divine lightning bolt might drop.

Some go as far as to question the propriety of youth group fundraisers (even in the lobby), or flinch at setting up a table anywhere in a church building (especially the “sanctuary”) where a visiting speaker or singer sells books or CDs. “I don’t want to get zapped!”

All trace their well-meaning concerns to the “obvious” Scripture:

"Remember when Jesus cast out the moneychangers and dovesellers?"

It is astounding how rare it is to hear someone comment on the classic "temple tantrum" Scripture without turning it into a mere moralism:

"Better not sell stuff in church!”

Any serious study of the passage concludes that the most obvious reason Jesus was angry was not commercialism, but:

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?” -Dave Wainscott, Salt Fresno Magazine
--

So Jesus is intertexting and ddouble pasting two Scriptues and making a new one.
But he leaves out the most important part "FOR ALL NATIONS"...which means he is hemistiching and making that phrase even more significant by it's absence,

b)As a follow-up to 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 teh 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 temle 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 ansd most likely refers to revolutionaries who sought to obverthrow 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

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..

c)You'll want to read "temple tantrum/ which curtain was torn?"
for more help on this theme. Remember the "Getting Ripped" inclusio discussion we had last Friday.
This article explains how it relates.
-----------------

2) 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

#3 and 4 :Kings and King-potentials: Judah the Hammer,Simon the Star, Herod the Great, Simon Bar-Giora... and Jesus. Temple tantrum as kingship test and testation:

One can't help but find, in Matthew, 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

of course Christians will be left behind

Preface (sigh); Don't hear what I'm not saying. I am not necessarily saying there is no "rapture," etc. I am just saying read this one particular scripture in context. No hate email necessary.

It astounds people when I tell them that

no one

reading the famous "one will be taken; the other left behind" 'rapture' passage..

(in context; and without everything you've ever heard that it said influencing what you hear)

will read it as Christians being taken/raptured.

It is the most obvious interpretation in the world that in this Scripture:

the Christians are left behind.

!

Try it out! Follow the flow and logic; read text and context prayerfully and carefully.

There's a reason this passage was not spun this way in the early church (B.L.H.-"Before LaHaye")

the flood came and swept them all away, so too will be the coming of the Son of Man. Then two will be in the field; one will be taken and one will be left. Two women will be grinding meal together; one will be taken and one will be left. Keep awake therefore, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming.

And Rossing:

Only by combining this passage together with First Thessalonians can a dispensationalist begin to piece together their notion of 'left behind'...But here's the problem with their use of this passage in Matthew: Dispensationalists make the leap of assuming that the person 'taken' in this passage is a born-again Christian who is taken up to heaven, while the person 'left' is an unbeliever who is left behind for judgement. This is a huge leap, since Jesus himself never specifies whether Christians should desire to be taken or left! In the overall context of Matthew's Gospel, the verbs 'taken' and 'left' (Greek paralambano and apheimi) can be either positive or negative.

In the verses immediately preceding this passage, Jesus says that his coming will be like the flood at the time of Noah, when people were 'swept away' in judgement. If being 'taken' is analogous to being 'swept away' in a flood, then it is not a positive fate. That is the argument of New Testament scholar and Anglican bishop N.T. Wright:

'It should be noted that being in this context means being taken in judgement.
There is no hint here of a , a sudden event that would remove individuals from terra firma...It is, rather, a matter of secret police coming in the night, or of enemies sweeping through a village or city and seizing all they can.'
(NT Wright, Jesus and The Victory of God, p. 366

If Wright is correct, this means that 'left behind,' is actually the desired fate of Christians, whereas being 'taken' would mean being carried off by forces of judgement like a death squad. For people living under Roman occupation, being taken away in such a way by secret police would probably be a constant fear....McGuire suggests that the 'Left Behind' books have it 'entirely backward.'. McGuire, like Wright, points out that when analyzed in the overall context of the gospel, the word 'taken' means being taken away in judgement, as in the story of Jesus' being 'taken' prisoner by soldiers in Matt 27:27. 'Taken' is not an image for salvation"

(Rossing, pp 178-179)

‘But about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son,nor the Son');"; but only the Father. For as the days of Noah were, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark, and they knew nothing until the flood came and swept them all away, so too will be the coming of the Son of Man. Then two will be in the field; one will be taken and one will be left. Two women will be grinding meal together; one will be taken and one will be left. Keep awake therefore, for you do not know on what day at what hour');your Lord is coming. But understand this: if the owner of the house had known in what part of the night the thief was coming, he would have stayed awake and would not have let his house be broken into. Therefore you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an unexpected hour. '
-Matt. 24

4)zealots

read/view some interpretations below

1)

The Least of These My Brethren by Mitchell Lewis

2)Colbert:

especially from 6:08:

Who are 'the least of these'? by Andrew Perriman

4)For the least of My Brethren" by The Saunders

..---
Other possible resources:

--Note: How does Jesus?Matthew use the term "brother" or "My brothers."
Find out here:

Matthew 12:48
He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?”
Matthew 12:47-49 (in Context) Matthew 12 (Whole Chapter)
Matthew 12:49
Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers.
Matthew 12:48-50 (in Context) Matthew 12 (Whole Chapter)
Matthew 19:29
And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.
Matthew 19:28-30 (in Context) Matthew 19 (Whole Chapter)

How is the phrased used in the Book of Hebrews?:

Hebrews 2:11
Both the one who makes people holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters.
Hebrews 2:10-12 (in Context) Hebrews 2 (Whole Chapter)
Hebrews 2:12
He says, “I will declare your name to my brothers and sisters; in the assembly I will sing your praises.”
Hebrews 2:11-13 (in Context) Hebrews 2 (Whole Chapter)

--Does he mean "brothers" or "brothers and sisters"? Click

-Hmmm, you could make the case he means "Jews" or "disciples."
But if so, does that mean we should give special preference to helping believers (vs. non-believers)?

Are they Jesus' brothers and sisters because he has a special heart for the "least" and unfortunate..or are they brothers and sisters because they believe??

BIB 100 (FR02-12/USP): Jesus and The Christian Community

Pages

Saturday, March 24, 2012

3/26: "Hunger Games" and Apocalyptic/Dystopian Questions for Four Parties: Matt 19-25

"Hunger Ganes" links: Dystopian Peacefully Violent Allegory of Men and Christian Love

See:

The Dystopian Timeline to The Hunger Games [INFOGRAPHIC

Dystopia

YA Highway: Dystopian And The Apocalypse: What's the difference?

Christianbook.com: Utopia and Dystopia in Prophetic Literature

Interesting point:

A whole cluster of meanings help us grasp the huge shadow of the temple encounter in Matthew 21. Here are four..

-More one each below:

#3 and 4 :Kings and King-potentials: Judah the Hammer,Simon the Star, Herod the Great, Simon Bar-Giora... and Jesus. Temple tantrum as kingship test and testation:

of course Christians will be left behind

The Least of These My Brethren by Mitchell Lewis

Who are 'the least of these'? by Andrew Perriman

The mystery of the kingdom:

studies in Matthew

No comments:

Post a Comment