Jesus would be gathered first to the true fathers, then, once enthroned, He would gather the true sons.

In English, the word manger is archaic, preserved for us by the Christmas tradition. In French, the word is still in use, being the infinitive “to eat.” As with every detail in the Scriptures, the fact that the One who would give Himself to us in the elements of a meal was placed in a food trough invites contemplation.

This post has been slain and resurrected for inclusion in my 2015 book of essays, Inquietude.

You must be logged in to see the rest of this post.

Join now for a year for $15!

And he was teaching them and saying to them, “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a den of robbers.” (Mark 11:17)

The same word is used of the men crucified alongside Jesus in Mark 15:27.

And with him they crucified two robbers, one on his right and one on his left.

Is this merely coincidental, or is there something deeper going on? Is there a link between the “white collar” Temple crimes and the “blue collar” criminals?

The word itself derives from booty or plunder, so the connotation is theft from the vulnerable.

The link between the Temple and the thieves at the crucifixion is implicit (not explicit in the text as such) but obvious once we take sacred architecture into account, which is a foreign idea to moderns, but nonetheless a consistent type as far as the Bible is concerned.

The original theft occurred in the Garden of Eden, in the first Sanctuary. It was theft from God, with consequences outside the Garden, that is, in the Land then in the World. The Temple itself replicated these three domains: the Most Holy (Garden), the Holy Place (the Land/Israel) and the Gentile Courts (the Nations/World).

Because the Herodian High Priesthood had usurped the authority of God’s commandments, the outflow corrupted the sacrifices and then Israel’s Covenant witness to the nations. The imaging of Yahweh to the nations by His people (as a kind of corporate “Adam”) was inaccurate, corrupt.

We can see this reflected in the structure of the Ten Commandments, which echo the events of Genesis 1-3. Adam stole from God, and God asked Adam for a legal confession of what he had done, that He might show mercy. Theft and legal witness are consecutive commands, followed by commands concerning “house and contents,” or Israel as a shelter, a “Booth” for the Gentiles. (Remember also the true testimony of Jesus and the false witnesses brought against Him by the priesthood.)

The same architecture is inherent in the crucifixion, where the two robbers are “blessing and cursing,” two Covenant witnesses. Christ is the High Priest and these two men take the roles of  Cain and Abel, sons of thieves (and also of the two goats on the Day of Atonement [1]). The one who humbles himself “unto death” in a priestly fashion is the one who will be exalted in the kingdom. The other, who exalts himself as a usurping “king” against the Son of God is the one who will be humbled and receive nothing. So once again we have theft and legal witness tied together.

Finally, “plunder” is a Covenant concept which is also both positive and negative. Obedience to God’s Laws brings a “multiplication” of the heart of those under Covenant. Obedience brings plunder from God’s hand. Disobedience brings plagues from God’s hand. Plunder and plagues were tied together as “swarms” in Egypt (with Israel herself as a kind of “swarm” which plundered the Egyptians). We see it again in the “multiplication” of the victory of the Ark of the Covenant in Philistia, where the gold they sent with the Ark (as plunder) was actually fashioned in the shape of plagues, (bubonic?) tumors and rats.

The theme of vulnerability in all cases is “bridal,” that is, those who are under the priestly representation (of Adam, or Israel), whose offspring, as the future, are at stake in Adam’s mediation on her behalf before God. In Eden, this was Eve, the great “multiplier,” the mother of all. In Israel, it was the tribes under the mediation of a faithful High Priest. In the world, it was all nations under the ministry and witness of Israel as a corporate Adam, “cut” and bloodied to bring the kings of the nations — and their riches — in willing submission to God.

The flipside of “Adamic” theft is “Christian” generosity. What goes on in the World and the Land (from petty crime right up to theft by the state) is a result of what goes on in the Sanctuary. Cultus inevitably informs culture.

Let the thief no longer steal, (Garden) but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, (Land) so that he may have something to share with anyone in need (World). (Ephesians 4:28)

___________________________________________
[1] See Remember Me.
ART: Bible images created using Google Earth.

Mark follows a convention found throughout all the Bible’s texts, based upon the Creation Week and the Levitical Feasts (Leviticus 23). The gospel has a number of “Covenant-shaped” cycles, and the entire book is itself “Covenant-shaped.” This final cycle is left incomplete if the gospel ends at 16:8 (see below). The question is, does this “clockwork” internal textual evidence outweigh the shabby history of the manuscripts?

You must be logged in to see the rest of this post.

Join now for a year for $15!

 

I see that the Gospel reading in the lectionary this week is Mark 12: 38-44. I’m preaching through the 10 commandments, so I won’t be commenting on this passage on Sunday. But I would like to give a different perspective on this passage than what is normally heard.

It should be carefully noted that the 2 synoptic Gospels that include the account of the destitute widow dropping her little gift into the offering box at the temple have it sandwiched between 1) Jesus’ warning about the scribes “who devour widows’ houses,” and 2) his indignant prophesy that Israel’s temple/house will be destroyed (Mark 12:38–13:2; Luke 20:45–21:9).  These three blocks of texts are inexorably connected.

• A warning against the scribes devouring widows’ houses
• A poor widow giving all she has at the temple/house offering box
• Jesus condemning the temple/house of Israel to destruction

The widow is often used by preachers as an illustration of exemplary giving. She gives all that she has. Isn’t that wonderful? Really? Would I as a pastor accept everything a poor widow had if I knew she was putting that much into the offering plate? No way. Think about it. Apparently this widow’s poverty was known. And Jesus is not happy that the leaders of Israel are permitting this—more than that—encouraging it. He’s pretty angry.

This story of the widow’s offering is not intended to be read as a object lesson about sacrificial giving. It’s not really about the exemplary piety of this widow. She is so faithful that she gives sacrificially and generously. There’s some truth to this, of course. She is only following the advice of her pastors. The problem is that the advice of her pastors is monstrously wicked and she apparently doesn’t know any better.

This story is an indictment of the leadership of Israel—this is how they “devour widows’ houses.” They have created a system that preys on the weak and helpless. That makes them believe they are being faithful and godly when they give much more than they need to or can afford to give. They have taught the poor to give everything they have to the temple building fund, which is contrary to the intention of the temple and the treasury system in Israel. And all to line their own pockets. Jesus is not first of all praising the widow’s action. We are being told this story so that we can know why the temple treasury system is going to be demolished and destroyed – because instead of providing for widows and the poor, it sucks up their wealth and leaves them utterly destitute. This is why the temple must be torn down, not one stone left upon another.

Jordan writes:

From ancient times it has been known that Matthew wrote first (despite all the nonsense of liberals during the last century). Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy, in his out-of-print book The Fruit of Lips, presents some compelling arguments to show that each of the gospel writers was adding to the previous writer, and in fact that each gospel picks up where the preceding one left off in terms of theme.

Matthew presents Christ as Ox/Moses. His book is full of speeches, for the ear is central. Jesus is law-giver. God is the Father and the God of heaven, and “kingdom of heaven” is Matthew’s term (pointing back to the symbolism of the Tabernacle).

Mark presents Jesus as a man of action. Mark presents Jesus as Lion/David, performing great works, swiftly going here and there, for the hand is central. In Mark, Jesus always does things “immediately.” Mark is shorter than Matthew not because Mark wrote first (what a silly argument!), but because Mark does not provide the great sermons. The field of action is the land.

Luke presents Jesus as the Eagle/Prophet, interacting with gentiles and women much more than the other two. In Luke, Jesus is always on the move, and half of his book is taken up with the Travel Narrative to Jerusalem, for the foot is central. The Spirit receives the great emphasis in Luke and Acts. The field of action is the world.

Finally, John presents Jesus as Man, the Image of God. The phrase “son of man” used in the other gospels points to Jesus as second Adamic priest, king, and prophet. The phrase “son of God” used in John points to Jesus as the image of God, true humanity as well as true God. John’s Jesus tours the sanctuary, which represents heaven. Thus, John puts us in the Throneland.

James B. Jordan, The Production of the New Testament Canon: A Revisionist Suggestion.

Now, Fruit of Lips is back in print.

John the evangelist was asked in his dotage why his sermon was so short that he would only say, “Children, keep each other at heart.” He gave the famous answer, “For two reasons: it is enough and the Lord has said so.”

The four gospels suffice since every one of the four claims made by Ichthys has become “lips” in one man’s dramatic change of mind. The Lord has made these four claims, no more. And he has said so. Let us read the Gospels once more: Do they give evidence of actual dependence beyond the “material” used? Yes, they do. They beget each other.

Every Gospel begins exactly at the point to which the previous Gospel has progressed on its tortuous path. The last word of the one sets the tune and is the overture for the next. The “last word” is not meant in a literal or pedantic sense; by it, we understand the last step of thought, reached in the dramatic progress.

If this is so, then the Gospels continue each other, each beginning to think and to speak where the previous evangelist had ended, and turning his final word into an opening of a new drama. Matthew’s last word is that Jesus has become the Son of God, in the sense of the Trinity. Mark begins: The Son of God (not “the Son of David,” as Matthew). Mark ends with the “Mission of the ministers of the word.” Fittingly, the missionary Luke begins with “the ministers of the word.” Luke, furthermore, ends Acts with a long statement: That the Jews have ears and do not hear and have eyes but do not see, but “the Gentiles shall hear.”

Majestically, John breaks in at exactly this last word of Acts: “Indeed, the darkness has not seen the light, the world has not seen it, but his own have beheld his glory, and we have seen him.” Also, Luke ends with the power of the Gospel; John begins with the World’s Power.

This is not an accident, this connection of ends and beginnings. Laboriously every Gospel works itself up to its climax. Easily the mantle of the Gospel writer then falls on the man who is prepared best to take over at this very point.

A detailed chart follows, but you will have to purchase the book for that: Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy, Fruit of Lips.

Creation – Sabbath – Ark – Light

Now when the Sabbath was past,
…..Mary of Magdala,
……….Mary [the mother] of James [deriv. Jacob],
……………and Salome [shalom – peace]
……….bought spices,
…..that they might come
and anoint Him.

Division – Exodus – Veil – Firmament

And very early on the first day of the week,
…..they came to the tomb when the sun had risen.
……….And they said among themselves,

…………….“Who (Sabbath)
………………..will roll away (Passover)
…………………….for us (Firstfruits)
…………………………the stone (Pentecost)
…………………….from the door (Trumpets)
………………..of the tomb?” (Atonement)
……………[No Booths]

……….But having looked up,
…..they saw that the stone had been rolled away—
for it was very large.

Ascension – Firstfruits – A Command with a Promise

And entering the tomb, (CREATION)
…..they saw a young man (DIVISION/Hierarchy)
……….clothed in a long white robe (ASCENSION/Aaron)
……….sitting on the right side; (ASCENSION/Melchizedek)
……………and they were alarmed. (TESTING)

……….(MATURITY – RESURRECTION)
……….But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. (Sabbath)
……………You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. (Passover)
………………..He is risen! He is not here. (Firstfruits)
…………………….See the place where they laid Him. (Pentecost)

………………..(Trumpets – Witness)
………………..But go,
…………………….tell His disciples—
…………………………and Peter—
…………………….that He is going before you
………………..into Galilee;

……………there you will see Him, (Atonement)
……….as He said to you.” (Booths)

…..(Conquest)
…..So they went out quickly
……….and fled from the tomb,
……………for they trembled and were amazed.
……….And they said nothing to anyone,
…..for they were afraid.

(No Booths, No Rest)

Testing – Pentecost – The Bridal Spirit

Now when He rose early on the first day of the week,
…..He appeared first to Mary Magdalene,
…..out of whom He had cast seven demons.
……….She went and told those who had been with Him,
……………as they mourned and wept
……….And when they heard that He was alive
……….and had been seen by her,
…..they did not believe.
(No Rest)

Maturity – Trumpets – Two Witnesses

After these things,
…..to two of them as they walked
……….He appeared in another form
……………going into the country.
……….And they went and told it to the rest,
…..but they did not believe them either.
(No Rest)

Conquest – Atonement – Baptism

High Priestly approach #1 -
Bull’s Blood for the Priesthood:
the Testimony of Jesus
Later as they reclined at the table; (Sabbath)
…..He appeared to the eleven (Passover/Hierarchy)
……….and He rebuked their unbelief (Firstfruits)
……….and hardness of heart,
……………because the ones having seen Him (Pentecost)
……….arisen from the dead (Trumpets)
…..they did not believe. (Oath/Sanctions)
(No Rest)

High Priestly approach #2 -
Goat’s Blood for the People:
the Apostolic Witness
And He said to them,
…..“Go into all the world
…..…..and preach the gospel to all the creation.
……….…..He who believes and is baptized will be saved; (Life)
……….…..but he who does not believe will be condemned. (Death)
……….And these signs will follow those who believe:
……….In My name they will cast out demons; (World)
……….they will speak with new tongues; (Land)
……….they will take up serpents; (Garden)
…..and if they drink anything deadly,
…..it will by no means hurt them; (Covenant cup)
they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

Glorification – Booths – Succession

So then, after the Lord had spoken to them,
…..He was received up into heaven,
……….and sat down at the right hand of God.
……………And they went out and preached everywhere,
……….the Lord working with them
…..and confirming the word through the accompanying signs.
Amen.

Well, there you have it. If you want to dispute this process, I’m confident enough in it now to rebuke your unbelief and tell you bluntly that you don’t know what you’re talking about.  ; )

If none of this “architecture” makes sense, I recommend you read Bible Matrix I and II.

From a recent facebook post by Rick Capezza (reproduced with his permission):

I’m trying to figure out the structure of the miracles of the two daughters in Mark. I looked in a half dozen commentaries for structures, but found nothing. I have yet to try a hierarchical structure, but I took a quick shot at a chiasm using Eric [Pyle]‘s KAYAK tool. [1]

I don’t ever do this, and I don’t think the chiastic structure works all that well. But since y’all are structure pros, I thought I’d see what you all have come up with. My structure doesn’t highlight some of the key aspects of the text (physicians/Jesus, life/death, faith, table fellowship, touch) and no one else I’ve seen has developed any chiasm (or any structure) on the passage, so I am inclined to say that the structure isn’t there. But again I could just be sorely missing the divisions.The current center makes little sense to me, but I got pretty stuck in the middle 5 verses. I’d love some feedback and/or some alternative structures.

The Two Daughters
Mark 5:21-42

Some comments from me (FWIW):

It’s Jesus with His burning Lampstand eyes who is bang smack in the middle, watching over Israel. Rick commented that this explains the repeated use of the word “daughter.” Jesus is looking for the true bride amongst a harlotrous nation. In the blood, there are shades of Ezekiel 16.

The flow of the structure is bloody, too. The passage begins with Jairus’ daughter, but salvation has to come first to the Jew.

Concerning the Jew, the structure works from the silent, bloody Tabernacle of Moses (death) to the singing, Jew-Gentile Tabernacle of David (i.e. the woman only speaks after she is healed).

I reckon both halves follow the matrix, plus the entire passage does as well (the atonement of the Jew brings life to the Gentile world). A line-by-line analysis would also be interesting.

With the Lampstand at the centre, the Tabernacle structure has the disciples unknowingly playing the “Herodian” accusers, putting Jesus on the Altar. He takes their curses and only gives blessing (sort of like Balaam!).

The “ascension” [nearbringing] of the Firstfruits Lamb causes the flow of Israel’s blood to stop. As Elisha, he heals the miscarriages of the Herodian Jericho. But then, he must also set the bears on the children of the other woman, Jezebel.

But Rick’s chiasm shows the mirrored events in detail. It’s amazing how all this is going on at once. Beautiful.

_________________________________
[1] Yes, you guessed right: Xiasm software!

A. T. Ross’ review of Peter Leithart’s recent book, The Four: A Survey of the Gospels. From www.goodreads.com

A wonderful follow-up book to Leithart’s A House For My Name, this one focusing on the gospels. I hope he plans to do a third to complete the set, focusing on a survey of the entire the New Testament as the completion of God’s house.

That said, this book was a great study on the gospels, focusing on the complementary aspects of them, showing the continuity and richness of the theology contained in them. With deft and able skills, Leithart deflects the common assumptions about Jesus. His section on Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount was particularly interesting. His chapter on Luke’s gospel was especially good, showing how Luke and Acts are both structured identically, revealing that, for Luke, the story of Christ as head (Gospel of Luke) becomes the story of Christ the whole body, the Church (the Acts of the Apostles).

One of the best and most important sections in the book is Leithart’s discussion of the Q document, the supposed intermediate gospel relied upon by Matthew and Luke. Most scholars, on the basis of the phantom Q document, argue that Mark was written first, then Matthew and Luke, who copied from Mark and Q. The only problem is that there is no such document as Q, and as Leithart points out, the Q gospel is made up mostly of the prejudices of the scholars who imagined it. As an alternative theory, Leithart shows how the theology of the Gospels answer the questions of the last. So Matthew’s gospel raises questions that Mark answers, and Luke answers the questions of Mark, and John completes the picture. Thus, he shows that supposing a missing Q document is completely unnecessary, and actually destroys the theological continuity of the four as they stand. Bold, and refreshing. Highly recommended, especially by such a noted ecumenical scholar.

or The First Shall Be Last

Yesterday’s post concerning Jesus’ message to John had some discussion about lepers becoming New Covenant priests. Those who were condemned to live outside were made clean and invited in. Of course, there is Jesus’ own condemnation of those who watched harlots and tax collectors enter the kingdom but defiantly stood outside themselves.

Right up until the end of the Jewish war, the Jewish leadership got their clean and unclean, their inside and outside, more and more wrong. The gospel turned their world upside down–or, in fact, rightside up. 

John Barach observes how Mark applies this to Jesus’ own family using literary structure:

Who’s Standing Outside?

Mark 3:20-35 is one of Mark’s typical sandwiches, in which a story starts, gets interrupted by a second story which relates to it in some way, and then finally comes to its conclusion. Here, we are told that, having heard about Jesus’ behavior, some of “His own people” come to seize him, saying, “He is out of his mind” (3:20-21). Then we have the second story, Jesus’ confrontation with the scribes from Jerusalem who claim that he casts out demons by the ruler of the demons (3:22-30). Finally, we return to the first story, when Jesus’ brothers and mother come and send for Jesus and when Jesus identifies those who are doing God’s will by sitting around him as his brother and sister and mother (3:31-35).

That structure is obvious even in an English translation. But a look at the Greek reveals an interesting play on words. At the beginning, when Jesus’ “own people” say that he is “out of his mind” (3:21), the word used literally (or, rather, etymologically) means “standing outside.” (Perhaps that’s roughly equivalent to our English expression “beside himself.”) But at the end of the story, Jesus’ brothers and mother come, and “standing outside” they call him (3:31; cf. 3:32, which stresses that they are “outside”).

So Jesus’ “own people” think Jesus is the one “standing outside” (= crazy).  But Jesus’ family members turn out to be the ones literally “standing outside,” while Jesus identifies those who are *sitting inside* as his true family, those who, in obedience to God’s will, are “sitting around him” (3:32, 34).  To be his true family — his true mother and brothers — his natural mother and brothers ought to come inside instead of calling him out.

But in a sandwich story, the middle story also relates to the story that frames it.  And so here it is not just the frame story that involves standing (and sitting).  In 3:24-25, Jesus says that a divided kingdom or a divided household cannot “stand.” And in 3:26, he speaks of “the satan” as “standing up” against himself.

The reference to the divided household that doesn’t “stand” might resonate with the frame story: Jesus’ natural household won’t stand if his mother and brothers are divided against Jesus. If they continue to “stand outside” instead of “sitting around him,” then their household won’t stay standing. That makes sense to me.

What about the reference to Satan’s “standing up” (a term for both resurrection and insurrection) against himself (3:26)? I’m not sure how—or if—it relates, though it does provide one more verbal echo in this passage. For that matter, Mark’s Gospel is full of references to “standing”: in every healing, people “stand up,” until at the end the same terms are used for Jesus’ resurrection.

But the repetition of the word “stand” and especially of words having to do with “standing outside” sets up a whole set of questions: Who is really “standing outside”? If Jesus’ family thinks Jesus is “standing outside” in the sense of being insane, then their household won’t “stand.” And if you think Jesus is “standing outside” in that sense, then you end up “standing outside” yourself, here literally but, as Jesus’ words make clear, also in a deeper sense. The family is sitting inside, sitting around Jesus and with Jesus. That’s God’s will, Jesus says. You’d have to be insane to be “standing outside.”

 

“Try your own selves, whether ye are in the faith; prove your own selves.
Or know ye not as to your own selves, that Jesus Christ is in you?
unless indeed ye be reprobate.”  2 Corinthians 13:5 [ASV]

.

Sabbath – Jesus defiantly heals a man on the Sabbath under the accusing eyes of the Pharisees. It is a conflict between the brittle light of the law and the perfect light of lawful love.

Passover – The Pharisees “go out” and plot with the Herodians to destroy Him. But Jesus withdraws with His disciples to the sea. 

Firstfruits – Jesus ascends a mountain and calls those He wants. He appoints the twelve to preach.

Pentecost – (Wilderness/Rulers) Jesus is accused of being the “Lord of the Flies.”

Trumpets – He calls them to Himself and speaks of the fall of a divided house or family, entering the strong man’s house and plundering his vessels.

Atonement – All sins will be forgiven, except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, Whom the Pharisees had called “unclean” [1]

Tabernacles – Those who do the will of God are Jesus’ true family.

_____________________________________________
[1]  ie. they got their goats mixed up right up until AD70. For more on this see under subhead “The Word is ‘Yes’” in A White Stone – 3.

Pic: The Scapegoat by M.C. Escher.