Who on earth is Theophilus?
Luke 1:3 So it seemed good to me as well, because I have followed all things carefully from the beginning, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 1:4 so that you may know for certain the things you were taught.
Acts 1:1 I wrote the former account, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach
There are some who speculate that Theophilus is just a generic reference to anyone who is a 'God lover' (the meaning of 'theophilus'). I don't think that's the case though. First, there is no reason to suppose that the proper name is anything other than an actual person. Second, Theophilus is refered to by 'most excellent', which seems to me to indicate that he's a man of high honor; a man of high social status. This would certainly not categorize all believers, some of whom had no social status. Also, Theophilus can appearantly read, which wouldn't be true for just any 'god lover' at the time, but certainly would be true of someone of higher social status. It seems to me that Theophilus is indeed a person rather than some abstract category.
For those who think Theophilus is a person, many think he's a Gentile. I tend to think Theophilus is a Jew, possibly a heavily influenced Hellenistic Jew, but a Jew none-the-less. I think this because Luke coats his writings with heavy quotations and allusions to the Hebrew Bible and paints Jesus as the fulfillment of the plan of God laid out in the Hebrew Bible. Had Luke been writing to a Gentile convert, I imagine his efforts would have been more along the lines of Paul's speech on Mars Hill, which had no allusions, quotes, or anything from the Hebrew Bible at all. Or maybe it would have been more like Paul's instructions to Thessalonia, which also had virtually no quotes or allusions to the Old Testament.
Some might object and say that Theophilus is a Greek name, not a Jewish one, so Theophilus was probably Gentile. I don't think this is a good objection though. Jews at the time very often either had Greek names or they carried two names, one Greek one Jewish. In fact, the name Theophilus is attested by Josephus (Ant 17.4.2, 20.9.7) as a Jewish name which was held by a high priest. There are also other well attested Greek names held by Jews (ie, Jason, Matthias, etc..).
There some who think that Luke was writing to the Theophilus who was the high priest. This seems to me to be speculative at best. I do think Theophilus was probably a Jew, maybe a very Hellenized one, but I'm not sure anything much further beyond that can be said about him.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Peter van Inwagen (John Cardinal O'Hara Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame) explains the paradox of free will:
http://www.closertotruth.com/video/What-is-Free-Will-Peter-van-Inwagen-/1090
http://www.closertotruth.com/video/What-is-Free-Will-Peter-van-Inwagen-/1090
The Book of Revelation: Audience
I don't think it's hard at all to recognize that the Book of Revelation is written TO and FOR people who were living in the first century. The text itself tells us as much:
1:1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants
1:4 From John, to the seven churches that are in the province of Asia:
1:9 I, John, your brother and the one who shares with you in the persecution, kingdom
1:11 saying: “Write in a book what you see and send it to the seven churches – to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea.”
1:20 The mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand and the seven golden lampstands is this: The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.
It should be clear by this point in the text that John personally KNOWS and IDENTIFIES with his audience and they know him. He proceeds to write to those 7 churches. He is not writing letters to churches thousands of years down the road, or to 7 imaginary chuches that are really metaphors for something else. He is writing to people in the first century.
Just as John opens his book identifying his audience as fellow servants in the chuches, so he also closes his book with words regarding his fellow servants in the churches:
22:6 Then the angel said to me, “These words are reliable and true. The Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must happen soon.”
22:16 “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches.
This should inform us that his entire book is primarily written to and for churches in the first century. He even goes so far as to name 7 specific ones. These people knew John and he knew them. It's logical to say that it follows that the message in the book is going to be relevant to his intended audience.
How often this sort of thing is forgotten when people read the book of Revelation and assume that it speaks directly to us and our time.
1:1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants
1:4 From John, to the seven churches that are in the province of Asia:
1:9 I, John, your brother and the one who shares with you in the persecution, kingdom
1:11 saying: “Write in a book what you see and send it to the seven churches – to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea.”
1:20 The mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand and the seven golden lampstands is this: The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.
It should be clear by this point in the text that John personally KNOWS and IDENTIFIES with his audience and they know him. He proceeds to write to those 7 churches. He is not writing letters to churches thousands of years down the road, or to 7 imaginary chuches that are really metaphors for something else. He is writing to people in the first century.
Just as John opens his book identifying his audience as fellow servants in the chuches, so he also closes his book with words regarding his fellow servants in the churches:
22:6 Then the angel said to me, “These words are reliable and true. The Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must happen soon.”
22:16 “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches.
This should inform us that his entire book is primarily written to and for churches in the first century. He even goes so far as to name 7 specific ones. These people knew John and he knew them. It's logical to say that it follows that the message in the book is going to be relevant to his intended audience.
How often this sort of thing is forgotten when people read the book of Revelation and assume that it speaks directly to us and our time.
Divergent Genealogies: the Centuries Old Question
Why do the genealogies of Matthew and Luke differ so much? I have come to conclude that I don't know why. Of the answers that I've seen, I see none really more plausible than any other.
There is a typical response which says that Matthew follows Joseph's line while Luke follows Mary's line. Maybe so.
There is the Zelophehad explanation which says that Mary's father either only had one child (Mary) or that Mary was the oldest of just daughters (or perhaps a brother died at a young age). According to the Zelophehad Law (Num 27), the inheritance of the father would be passed to the eldest daughter in this case. Since Joseph was married to Mary and is the head of his household, Joseph is adopted as the 'firstborn' of Mary's father and so Joseph and Mary are entitled to the inheritance of Mary's father. Maybe so.
There is Africanus' Levirate marriage explanation (Deut 25) where the differences are due to Levirate marriages in Joseph's family (right around Joseph's father and Zerubbabel). Maybe so.
Some people throw up their hands and declare that one or both accounts are just totally fabricated. I'm not sure why this conclusion would be warranted. Plus, in first century Judea, what good is a totally fabricated genealogy?
Some just say Matthew and Luke came across or had access to divergent traditions. Matthew and Luke both received their separate traditions and that's the end of the story. Doesn't this just beg the question though as to WHY they are different. It seems obvious that both have different source material and the question is why or what accounts for the difference?
In any case, I don't know which explanation or combination to accept. I could conjure up one on my own that would be no less likely that any of the above but no better than the above either. Maybe Matthew had access to a private genealogy kept by Jesus' family and Luke had access to public archived genealogies in the Temple. Josephus tells us there existed a public archive (Life 1, Against Apion 1.7) for genealogies. Eusebius tells us families kept private genealogies that they would use to supplement the genealogies in the book of Chronicles (History 1.7.14). Matthew's genealogy follows the Chronicles very closely which might make me think his list is from Jesus' family and supplements the Chronicles list. Luke then would have accessed the public archives, perhaps through one of the priests who became a believer (Acts 6:7). Maybe the differences between the private family list and the public archives list was due to any combination of Zelophehad laws and Levirate marriages.
Well, genealogies are by nature very messy things. I have access to databases and internet technology and still have a messy time tracing family roots. I can imagine how much more difficult it would be keeping things nice and neat through troubled Israelite history. I'm content not knowing why exactly the genealogies of Jesus are so different. I'm content with accepting the message they drive home: Jesus is son of David, son of God, a man of high honor, and I catch Matthew's clever play with numbers to point out that Jesus is the son of David.
There is a typical response which says that Matthew follows Joseph's line while Luke follows Mary's line. Maybe so.
There is the Zelophehad explanation which says that Mary's father either only had one child (Mary) or that Mary was the oldest of just daughters (or perhaps a brother died at a young age). According to the Zelophehad Law (Num 27), the inheritance of the father would be passed to the eldest daughter in this case. Since Joseph was married to Mary and is the head of his household, Joseph is adopted as the 'firstborn' of Mary's father and so Joseph and Mary are entitled to the inheritance of Mary's father. Maybe so.
There is Africanus' Levirate marriage explanation (Deut 25) where the differences are due to Levirate marriages in Joseph's family (right around Joseph's father and Zerubbabel). Maybe so.
Some people throw up their hands and declare that one or both accounts are just totally fabricated. I'm not sure why this conclusion would be warranted. Plus, in first century Judea, what good is a totally fabricated genealogy?
Some just say Matthew and Luke came across or had access to divergent traditions. Matthew and Luke both received their separate traditions and that's the end of the story. Doesn't this just beg the question though as to WHY they are different. It seems obvious that both have different source material and the question is why or what accounts for the difference?
In any case, I don't know which explanation or combination to accept. I could conjure up one on my own that would be no less likely that any of the above but no better than the above either. Maybe Matthew had access to a private genealogy kept by Jesus' family and Luke had access to public archived genealogies in the Temple. Josephus tells us there existed a public archive (Life 1, Against Apion 1.7) for genealogies. Eusebius tells us families kept private genealogies that they would use to supplement the genealogies in the book of Chronicles (History 1.7.14). Matthew's genealogy follows the Chronicles very closely which might make me think his list is from Jesus' family and supplements the Chronicles list. Luke then would have accessed the public archives, perhaps through one of the priests who became a believer (Acts 6:7). Maybe the differences between the private family list and the public archives list was due to any combination of Zelophehad laws and Levirate marriages.
Well, genealogies are by nature very messy things. I have access to databases and internet technology and still have a messy time tracing family roots. I can imagine how much more difficult it would be keeping things nice and neat through troubled Israelite history. I'm content not knowing why exactly the genealogies of Jesus are so different. I'm content with accepting the message they drive home: Jesus is son of David, son of God, a man of high honor, and I catch Matthew's clever play with numbers to point out that Jesus is the son of David.
Seven Year Tribulation: Protestant Purgatory?
I think that the 7 year tribulation period posited by many Pre-millennial protestats is the equivalent of what I will call "Protestant Purgatory". Here we have a scenario where we have believers who are rescued from the Tribulation by virture of the fact that they have simply believed in Jesus and received God's grace. But those believers that come to believe during the Trib. are NOT rescued during the Trib. And why not? Well, for no other reason than timing. Their timing was off and so they are punished or 'purified' through an intense trial/tribulation, EVEN THOUGH THEY BELIEVE, while others are afforded divine protection and escape BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE. Isn't this strikingly similiar to a concept of Purgatory? We have some believers who are given preferential treatment due to their belief while others are not, even though their belief is the same. The reason for the difference is that some acted faster than others. I hate to use a cliche, but it's really a judgment based on actions/works and not a judgment rendered due solely to anyone's faith. The judgment rendered is not actually based on their belief (since fairness would say they get the same verdict), but rather it's based on their timing. I think it's a form of Purgatory as Trib-believers are purified for flaws in their faith (lack of promptness), while those of us without that flaw get to skip the intense purifying. And this is only one problem I see with it.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
A Few Trinitarian Thoughts
I think we often take for granted that when we, as Christians, refer to ‘God’, we don’t have a just generic concept in mind. I think we may take it for granted when speaking to people that when we both, both us and the other person, say “God” we are generally referring to the same type of Being. But this is certainly not the case. Not only do we refer to a different God by what He has done in the course of history (the God who raised Jesus from the dead, for example), but we are altogether referring to a totally different concept of His Essence. When we say ‘God’, we are talking about the Triune God; a God who is not only personal, but Tri-personal; a God who is not only one in some sense, but also three in some sense. And not only do we say that He is tri-personal, but that he is NECESSARILY tri-personal; it couldn‘t be the case that He be different. I also think that the Triune God of the Universe is probably only fully revealed by His activity in and through Jesus. It makes little sense, from my point of view, to talk about the One God that exists without talking about the nature of the God who exists. Since His nature is necessarily Triune, it makes no sense at all to talk about God without talking about Jesus since that's the only way that God is fully revealed to us.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Mark's Sandwiches 1.4
Here is another one of Mark’s Sandwiches - the tearing of the Temple veil at the crucifixion [1]. This one is particularly interesting as it also challenges a few traditional interpretations. Traditionally, many people understand the tearing of the Temple veil to be indicative of the tearing of the barrier between God and man. That is, many people assume that it was the inner veil of the Temple, the veil that led into the Holy of Holies, that was torn. But if we see another one of Mark’s sandwiches here, we’ll see that it was not the inner veil of the Temple, but the outer veil that was torn, and we will also see how to understand this.
The sandwich itself is formed by two, at first glance, seemingly unconnected events: Jesus’ baptism and the crucifixion. But what appears to be unconnected at first is connected by a series of common elements and themes that happen both at the baptism and the crucifixion in Mark. The sandwich itself encloses Mark’s entire gospel by the two crucial events in Jesus’ life. Here are the relevant passages:
(1) At both times something descends. At the baptism it’s the spirit descending while at the crucifixion it’s the veil that is torn from “top to bottom” in a downward motion.
(2) At both times the Spirit is mentioned. At the baptism the “Spirit” descends while at the crucifixion Jesus gives up the “Spirit”, a fact which is demonstrated by Mark’s twice repetition of Jesus “breathing” (a Greek cognate of the word for Spirit: “pneuma”) his last.
(3) At both times there is the presence of Elijah. At the baptism it’s John the Baptist who is “Elijah” (Mark 9:11-13), while at the crucifixion the people believe that Jesus is calling for Elijah, and they want to see if Elijah will come save him.
(4) At both moments something is “split open”. At the baptism the heavens are torn, while at the crucifixion the veil is torn. To make this more interesting, we astonishingly learn in the description of the Temple equipment from the Jewish historian Josephus that the outer veil of the Temple was a “typified the universe” and was a “panorama of the entire heavens“ (Jewish War 5.5.4). So at the baptism and the crucifixion it’s not merely that something is “tearing open”, but in BOTH cases it’s the heavens that are tearing open. I don’t think the coincidence of the relation between the tearing of the heavens at the baptism and the veil to the outer court’s being symbolic of the heavens can be ignored as a mere coincidence. I think it’s clear that Mark intends us to understand the veil that is torn to be the outer veil, not the inner one. Noteworthy here too is that if the sequence in the events of the crucifixion are followed, the centurion makes his declaration of Jesus’ Sonship once he feels the earthquake and sees the veil torn. Of course, had the veil been to the Holy of Holies, the centurion could not have seen it torn in two and so he would not have been shocked into making his declaration.
(6) At both times Jesus is declared to be the Son of God. At the baptism it’s the voice from heaven that declares Jesus to be the Son, while at the crucifixion it’s the Roman Centurion that declares Jesus to be the Son. Interestingly, this is also Mark’s self proclaimed point of his own writing (Mark 1:1). He wants to tell us the gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God.
Mark’s creative genius also takes themes of Jewish apocalyptic imagery (the heavens tearing) and works them in such a manner to signify Jesus’ importance in the revelation of God’s plan. Jewish apocalyptic work is generally meant to be a ‘pulling back of the curtain’, a revelation of the hidden plan of God [2]. Mark takes this idea and shows how God’s hidden plan if finally revealed in the crucifixion of the Son of God.
Mark’s frame, the sandwich, around his entire work is done on purpose to point out to us that the entire story Mark has just told should be understood as just how it was that God revealed his age old plan in the revelation of Jesus Christ the Son of God. He does this by framing his entire gospel around the two biggest events in Jesus’ life: baptism and crucifixion.
[1] Cf: “The Heavenly Veil Torn: Mark’s Cosmic Inclusio”. David Ulansey. Journal of Biblical Literature 110:1 (Spring 1991) pp. 123-25
[2] For more on Jewish apocalyptic writings see “The Open Heaven” by Christopher Rowland.
The sandwich itself is formed by two, at first glance, seemingly unconnected events: Jesus’ baptism and the crucifixion. But what appears to be unconnected at first is connected by a series of common elements and themes that happen both at the baptism and the crucifixion in Mark. The sandwich itself encloses Mark’s entire gospel by the two crucial events in Jesus’ life. Here are the relevant passages:
Here are the common elements that you see in the baptism and the crucifixion:
Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God………..1:9 Now in those days Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan River. 1:10 And just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens splitting apart and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 1:11 And a voice came from heaven: “You are my one dear Son; in you I take great delight.” 1:12 The Spirit immediately drove him into the wilderness. 1:13 He was in the wilderness forty days, enduring temptations from Satan. He was with wild animals, and angels were ministering to his needs.15:33 Now when it was noon, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon. 15:34 Around three o’clock Jesus cried out with a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” 15:35 When some of the bystanders heard it they said, “Listen, he is calling for Elijah!” 15:36 Then someone ran, filled a sponge with sour wine,put it on a stick, and gave it to him to drink, saying, “Leave him alone! Let’s see if Elijah will come to take him down!” 15:37 But Jesus cried out with a loud voice and breathed his last. 15:38 And the temple curtain was torn in two, from top to bottom. 15:39 Now when the centurion, who stood in front of him, saw how he died, he said, “Truly this man was God’s Son!”
(1) At both times something descends. At the baptism it’s the spirit descending while at the crucifixion it’s the veil that is torn from “top to bottom” in a downward motion.
(2) At both times the Spirit is mentioned. At the baptism the “Spirit” descends while at the crucifixion Jesus gives up the “Spirit”, a fact which is demonstrated by Mark’s twice repetition of Jesus “breathing” (a Greek cognate of the word for Spirit: “pneuma”) his last.
(3) At both times there is the presence of Elijah. At the baptism it’s John the Baptist who is “Elijah” (Mark 9:11-13), while at the crucifixion the people believe that Jesus is calling for Elijah, and they want to see if Elijah will come save him.
(4) At both moments something is “split open”. At the baptism the heavens are torn, while at the crucifixion the veil is torn. To make this more interesting, we astonishingly learn in the description of the Temple equipment from the Jewish historian Josephus that the outer veil of the Temple was a “typified the universe” and was a “panorama of the entire heavens“ (Jewish War 5.5.4). So at the baptism and the crucifixion it’s not merely that something is “tearing open”, but in BOTH cases it’s the heavens that are tearing open. I don’t think the coincidence of the relation between the tearing of the heavens at the baptism and the veil to the outer court’s being symbolic of the heavens can be ignored as a mere coincidence. I think it’s clear that Mark intends us to understand the veil that is torn to be the outer veil, not the inner one. Noteworthy here too is that if the sequence in the events of the crucifixion are followed, the centurion makes his declaration of Jesus’ Sonship once he feels the earthquake and sees the veil torn. Of course, had the veil been to the Holy of Holies, the centurion could not have seen it torn in two and so he would not have been shocked into making his declaration.
(6) At both times Jesus is declared to be the Son of God. At the baptism it’s the voice from heaven that declares Jesus to be the Son, while at the crucifixion it’s the Roman Centurion that declares Jesus to be the Son. Interestingly, this is also Mark’s self proclaimed point of his own writing (Mark 1:1). He wants to tell us the gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God.
Mark’s creative genius also takes themes of Jewish apocalyptic imagery (the heavens tearing) and works them in such a manner to signify Jesus’ importance in the revelation of God’s plan. Jewish apocalyptic work is generally meant to be a ‘pulling back of the curtain’, a revelation of the hidden plan of God [2]. Mark takes this idea and shows how God’s hidden plan if finally revealed in the crucifixion of the Son of God.
Mark’s frame, the sandwich, around his entire work is done on purpose to point out to us that the entire story Mark has just told should be understood as just how it was that God revealed his age old plan in the revelation of Jesus Christ the Son of God. He does this by framing his entire gospel around the two biggest events in Jesus’ life: baptism and crucifixion.
[1] Cf: “The Heavenly Veil Torn: Mark’s Cosmic Inclusio”. David Ulansey. Journal of Biblical Literature 110:1 (Spring 1991) pp. 123-25
[2] For more on Jewish apocalyptic writings see “The Open Heaven” by Christopher Rowland.
Friday, July 16, 2010
An Argument in Favor of the Soul?
I was considering an argument for the existence of the soul, initially put forward by Descartes and recently updated by people such as Alvin Plantinga (cf: “The Nature of Necessity”). It’s deceptively simple, yet very effective.
First, I will quickly define what I will call Leibniz’s Law (also called the Indiscernibility of Identicals) . For any 2 objects, let’s call them X and Y, if X and Y are identical, then everything that is true about X will be true about Y and everything that is true about Y will be true about X. For example, if we have 2 objects - Jimmie and the guy typing this paragraph - Jimmie’ and ‘the guy typing this paragraph’ are identical if and only if everything that’s true about one will also be true about the other.
Now take 2 objects - me (or my mind) and a material object (be it my brain or my body) - and let’s label them M (for either me or my mind) and B (for brain or body). Now consider the following:
(L) Leibniz’ Law
(1) It is logically possible that M exist without B
(2) B cannot exist without B.
(3) Therefore, M is not identical to B.
What this shows is that given Leibniz’s Law, there is at least one thing that is true about me that is not true about B. That one thing being “possibly existing apart from B”. Since there is one thing true of M that isn’t true of B, the 2 objects are not identical. So, I (or my mind) is not identical to a material object.
The truth of this hands on Leibniz’s Law or theorem (1). By saying that it’s logically possible for M to exist apart from B, I simply mean that it doesn’t break any logical laws and I don’t see how it’s impossible. Given those 2 things, I must concede that it’s possible that M exist without B. To deny the conclusion, it seems either it must be shown that it’s logically impossible for M to exist without B or that Leibniz’s Law is in fact false. I wouldn’t know how to begin to show the impossibility of M existing without B, and for the purposes of this post I‘m taking Leibniz‘s Law for granted.
Another version of this sort of argument is as follows:
(1) I have first person private access to my mind
(2) I do not have first person private access to my brain.
(3) Therefore, by Leibniz’s Law, my mind and my brain are not identical.
Just think about it.
First, I will quickly define what I will call Leibniz’s Law (also called the Indiscernibility of Identicals) . For any 2 objects, let’s call them X and Y, if X and Y are identical, then everything that is true about X will be true about Y and everything that is true about Y will be true about X. For example, if we have 2 objects - Jimmie and the guy typing this paragraph - Jimmie’ and ‘the guy typing this paragraph’ are identical if and only if everything that’s true about one will also be true about the other.
Now take 2 objects - me (or my mind) and a material object (be it my brain or my body) - and let’s label them M (for either me or my mind) and B (for brain or body). Now consider the following:
(L) Leibniz’ Law
(1) It is logically possible that M exist without B
(2) B cannot exist without B.
(3) Therefore, M is not identical to B.
What this shows is that given Leibniz’s Law, there is at least one thing that is true about me that is not true about B. That one thing being “possibly existing apart from B”. Since there is one thing true of M that isn’t true of B, the 2 objects are not identical. So, I (or my mind) is not identical to a material object.
The truth of this hands on Leibniz’s Law or theorem (1). By saying that it’s logically possible for M to exist apart from B, I simply mean that it doesn’t break any logical laws and I don’t see how it’s impossible. Given those 2 things, I must concede that it’s possible that M exist without B. To deny the conclusion, it seems either it must be shown that it’s logically impossible for M to exist without B or that Leibniz’s Law is in fact false. I wouldn’t know how to begin to show the impossibility of M existing without B, and for the purposes of this post I‘m taking Leibniz‘s Law for granted.
Another version of this sort of argument is as follows:
(1) I have first person private access to my mind
(2) I do not have first person private access to my brain.
(3) Therefore, by Leibniz’s Law, my mind and my brain are not identical.
Just think about it.
Mark's Sandwiches 1.3
There is one of Mark’s Sandwichs that I think people often interpret wrongly. Here I am talking about Mark 11:12-25:
The fig tree should be understood to symbolically represent Israel,. In the OT, the fig tree either directly represents Israel [1] or it is used to represent God’s favor or disfavor to Israel; if Israel was doing right, the fig trees blossomed [2] if Israel was in the wrong the fig trees were dying [3].
The Temple incident mutually interprets the fig tree cursing. When Jesus comes up to the fig tree it was producing no fruit, though he seemed to think it should have been. If understood to represent Israel, the fig tree producing no fruit represents Israel not living up to her calling. Jesus then curses the fig tree and we roll right into the Temple incident. The Temple incident, if mutually interpreted with the fig tree story, is a symbolic act of judgment on Israel [4]. Jesus’ actions in the Temple are very comparable to other symbolic actions done by the Prophets like Jeremiah, Hosea, and Ezekiel where the Prophet symbolically acts out their message (often in very vivid ways). The crashing of the Temple tables is symbolic of the much larger “crashing” that would eventually come in the form of Roman weapons and the Temple’s actual destruction.
This understanding also helps make sense of what would otherwise be very cryptic words that follow in verses 22-25. Jesus’ actions seem to be troubling for the disciples who comment on the withered fig tree (vs. 20). Jesus responds by going on about how if one has faith they can say to “this mountain” to be thrown into the sea. “This mountain” that can be thrown into the sea should be understood to be the Temple Mount whose destruction was just prophesied by the fig tree and Temple incidents. Jesus then goes on to talk about the disciples ability to forgive the sins of others. It’s important for Jesus to talk about this at this point since the place where forgiveness of sins took place (aka: the Temple with a sacrifice) just had it’s destruction prophesied. The disciples were concerned not just about the destruction that was coming, but the implication it carried about the forgiveness of sin and man’s ability to come into the presence of God.
Here we have another one of Mark’s Sandwiches which yields interesting results. Jesus directly prophecies against the Temple and predicts it’s fall, and he does so by use of symbolic actions in the Temple and with the fig tree.
[1] Jer 24:5; Hos 9:10
[2] 1 Kings 4:25; Hos 9:10; Joe 2:22; Mic 4:4; Zech 3:10),
[3] Jer 5:17, 8:13; Joe 1:7; Am 4:9; Hag 2:19; Hos 2:12
[4] “The Last Week”, Borg & Crossan, pp 34-53.
“The Gospel of Mark”, Witherington, pp 311-318.
“Jesus Remembered”, Christianity in the Making vol. I, Dunn, pp 769-770.
“Jesus and the Victory of God”, Wright, pp 333-336.
“Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament”, Beale & Carson, pp 208-212.
“Jewish New Testament Commentary”, Stern, pp 95-96.
Here we have the “turning of the tables” in the Temple. But the turning of the tables here in Mark actually splits another story into two halves forcing that story to sandwich the Temple incident. This passage is admittedly more difficult to interpret mainly due to what many people believe about the Temple incident. Many believe that the Temple incident is Jesus cleansing the Temple of the corrupt money changers who infest the Temple courts. But, if we see the Mark’s Sandwich here we see that the Temple incident mutually interprets the cursing of the fig tree story. It seems to be the case that the Temple incident isn’t a mere running out of some money changers, but rather it’s a more serious symbolic act of judgment on Israel.
11:12 Now the next day, as they went out from Bethany, he was hungry. 11:13 After noticing in the distance a fig tree with leaves, he went to see if he could find any fruit on it. When he came to it he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. 11:14 He said to it, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard it.
11:15 Then they came to Jerusalem. Jesus entered the temple area and began to drive out those who were selling and buying in the temple courts. He turned over the tables of the money changers and the chairs of those selling doves, 11:16 and he would not permit anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. 11:17 Then he began to teach them and said, “Is it not written: ‘My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations’? But you have turned it into a den of robbers!” 11:18 The chief priests and the experts in the law heard it and they considered how they could assassinate him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed by his teaching. 11:19 When evening came, Jesus and his disciples went out of the city.
11:20 In the morning as they passed by, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. 11:21 Peter remembered and said to him, “Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered.” 11:22 Jesus said to them, “Have faith in God. 11:23 I tell you the truth, if someone says to this mountain, ‘Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. 11:24 For this reason I tell you, whatever you pray and ask for, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. 11:25 Whenever you stand praying, if you have anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven will also forgive you your sins.”
The fig tree should be understood to symbolically represent Israel,. In the OT, the fig tree either directly represents Israel [1] or it is used to represent God’s favor or disfavor to Israel; if Israel was doing right, the fig trees blossomed [2] if Israel was in the wrong the fig trees were dying [3].
The Temple incident mutually interprets the fig tree cursing. When Jesus comes up to the fig tree it was producing no fruit, though he seemed to think it should have been. If understood to represent Israel, the fig tree producing no fruit represents Israel not living up to her calling. Jesus then curses the fig tree and we roll right into the Temple incident. The Temple incident, if mutually interpreted with the fig tree story, is a symbolic act of judgment on Israel [4]. Jesus’ actions in the Temple are very comparable to other symbolic actions done by the Prophets like Jeremiah, Hosea, and Ezekiel where the Prophet symbolically acts out their message (often in very vivid ways). The crashing of the Temple tables is symbolic of the much larger “crashing” that would eventually come in the form of Roman weapons and the Temple’s actual destruction.
This understanding also helps make sense of what would otherwise be very cryptic words that follow in verses 22-25. Jesus’ actions seem to be troubling for the disciples who comment on the withered fig tree (vs. 20). Jesus responds by going on about how if one has faith they can say to “this mountain” to be thrown into the sea. “This mountain” that can be thrown into the sea should be understood to be the Temple Mount whose destruction was just prophesied by the fig tree and Temple incidents. Jesus then goes on to talk about the disciples ability to forgive the sins of others. It’s important for Jesus to talk about this at this point since the place where forgiveness of sins took place (aka: the Temple with a sacrifice) just had it’s destruction prophesied. The disciples were concerned not just about the destruction that was coming, but the implication it carried about the forgiveness of sin and man’s ability to come into the presence of God.
Here we have another one of Mark’s Sandwiches which yields interesting results. Jesus directly prophecies against the Temple and predicts it’s fall, and he does so by use of symbolic actions in the Temple and with the fig tree.
[1] Jer 24:5; Hos 9:10
[2] 1 Kings 4:25; Hos 9:10; Joe 2:22; Mic 4:4; Zech 3:10),
[3] Jer 5:17, 8:13; Joe 1:7; Am 4:9; Hag 2:19; Hos 2:12
[4] “The Last Week”, Borg & Crossan, pp 34-53.
“The Gospel of Mark”, Witherington, pp 311-318.
“Jesus Remembered”, Christianity in the Making vol. I, Dunn, pp 769-770.
“Jesus and the Victory of God”, Wright, pp 333-336.
“Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament”, Beale & Carson, pp 208-212.
“Jewish New Testament Commentary”, Stern, pp 95-96.
Mark's Sandwiches 1.2
Here is an interesting example of one of Mark's sandwiches. Here the story of Jesus' being rejected by his family has been split into 2 by the story of rejection by some of the Jewish leaders:
The two stories mutually interpret each other. Both groups of people, the experts of the law and Jesus' family, want to divert Jesus from his mission. The experts in the law try to publically brand him as an outcast to stop him; his family wants to restrain him. The experts of the law try to say that he is demon possessed; his family thinks he is crazy. Both groups have rejected his mission and so Jesus has parted ways with them as well. For those who would try to stop him or associate him with demons, be they the experts in the law or his closest kin, they are committing the equivalent of blasphemy and doing the work of satan.
As a side note here, and very strangely, Jesus' own mother is grouped in with the rest of his family that seeks to restrain him.
Mark 3:20 Now Jesus went home, and a crowd gathered so that they were not able to eat. 3:21 When his family heard this they went out to restrain him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.”
3:22 The experts in the law who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Beelzebul,” and, “By the ruler of demons he casts out demons.” 3:23 So he called them and spoke to them in parables: “How can Satan cast out Satan? 3:24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom will not be able to stand. 3:25 If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. 3:26 And if Satan rises against himself and is divided, he is not able to stand and his end has come. 3:27 But no one is able to enter a strong man’s house and steal his property unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can thoroughly plunder his house. 3:28 I tell you the truth, people will be forgiven for all sins, even all the blasphemies they utter. 3:29 But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, but is guilty of an eternal sin” 3:30 (because they said, “He has an unclean spirit”).
3:31 Then Jesus’ mother and his brothers came. Standing outside, they sent word to him, to summon him. 3:32 A crowd was sitting around him and they said to him, “Look, your mother and your brothers are outside looking for you.” 3:33 He answered them and said, “Who are my mother and my brothers?” 3:34 And looking at those who were sitting around him in a circle, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! 3:35 For whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother.”
The two stories mutually interpret each other. Both groups of people, the experts of the law and Jesus' family, want to divert Jesus from his mission. The experts in the law try to publically brand him as an outcast to stop him; his family wants to restrain him. The experts of the law try to say that he is demon possessed; his family thinks he is crazy. Both groups have rejected his mission and so Jesus has parted ways with them as well. For those who would try to stop him or associate him with demons, be they the experts in the law or his closest kin, they are committing the equivalent of blasphemy and doing the work of satan.
As a side note here, and very strangely, Jesus' own mother is grouped in with the rest of his family that seeks to restrain him.
Mark's Sandwiches 1.1
Here is a simple example of one of Mark's sandwiches:
Here the story of the physical act of healing the paralyptic man is split
into 2 by the discussion of Jesus' authority to forgive sins. The healing
and the forgiveness of sins are tied together here and mutually interpret each
other. The act of healing is the proof that Jesus has the authority to
forgive sins.
Mark 2:1 Now after some days, when he returned to Capernaum, the news spread that he was at home. 2:2 So many gathered that there was no longer any room, not even by the door, and he preached the word to them. 2:3 Some people came bringing to him a paralytic, carried by four of them. 2:4 When they were not able to bring him in because of the crowd, they removed the roof above Jesus. Then, after tearing it out, they lowered the stretcher the paralytic was lying on.
2:5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” 2:6 Now some of the experts in the law were sitting there, turning these things over in their minds: 2:7 “Why does this man speak this way? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” 2:8 Now immediately, when Jesus realized in his spirit that they were contemplating such thoughts, he said to them, “Why are you thinking such things in your hearts? 2:9 Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Stand up, take your stretcher, and walk’?
2:10 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins,” – he said to the paralytic – 2:11 “I tell you, stand up, take your stretcher, and go home.” 2:12 And immediately the man stood up, took his stretcher, and went out in front of them all. They were all amazed and glorified God, saying, “We have never seen anything like this!”
Here the story of the physical act of healing the paralyptic man is split
into 2 by the discussion of Jesus' authority to forgive sins. The healing
and the forgiveness of sins are tied together here and mutually interpret each
other. The act of healing is the proof that Jesus has the authority to
forgive sins.
Mark's Sandwiches 1.0
The gospel writers seem to use a literary technique sometimes called an "inclusio" or a "sandwich". This is a device where you have 2 sections of text with common elements and themes that 'bracket off' and mutually interpret another section of text. Or it may be that there is a story that is split into two with another story sandwiched in between it. The story in the middle mutually interprets the surrounding story.
This techinque is often overlooked by most people. I think this is due to our (Protestants in general) tendency to read the New Testament either as a sort of textbook that follows a linear historical sequence of events or our tendency to read the text in a piecemeal fashion where we read a couple of verses at a time and don't consider Mark as a whole. I think it's important to realize that the gospel writers aren't trying to write a textbook or a dissertation for a PhD in history. It shouldn't surprise us if they write a little creatively so they don't bore their readers to tears, not to mention that trying to make the gospel writers write as we assume they should might just be anachronistic on our part.
I was trying to think of a modern day example of this literary technique. Perhaps a good example would be a "flashback" moment in a movie. A character in the movie is faced with some situation, and in the middle of the narrative the character has a flashback to some previous experience that relates to his present situation. After this flashback, the movie viewer is rushed foward in time and the narrative resumes where it left off. This is a simple "inclusio" where the story that has been split in half by the flashback is used to mutually interpret the flashback itself.
The gospel writers use similiar techniques, and Mark seems to use it heavily.
This techinque is often overlooked by most people. I think this is due to our (Protestants in general) tendency to read the New Testament either as a sort of textbook that follows a linear historical sequence of events or our tendency to read the text in a piecemeal fashion where we read a couple of verses at a time and don't consider Mark as a whole. I think it's important to realize that the gospel writers aren't trying to write a textbook or a dissertation for a PhD in history. It shouldn't surprise us if they write a little creatively so they don't bore their readers to tears, not to mention that trying to make the gospel writers write as we assume they should might just be anachronistic on our part.
I was trying to think of a modern day example of this literary technique. Perhaps a good example would be a "flashback" moment in a movie. A character in the movie is faced with some situation, and in the middle of the narrative the character has a flashback to some previous experience that relates to his present situation. After this flashback, the movie viewer is rushed foward in time and the narrative resumes where it left off. This is a simple "inclusio" where the story that has been split in half by the flashback is used to mutually interpret the flashback itself.
The gospel writers use similiar techniques, and Mark seems to use it heavily.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)