Wednesday, November 6, 2013

week 1: Texts, Signs, Sets and Worlds/Matt 1-2: geneaology-birth narratives/Signs quiz




 I took this class....and passed it.  Even though I only had this typewriter.






The two questions of the class are:
the  

"Who is Jesus (in Matthew?"

and

"What is Church?"




Who is Jesus? and who is he NOT?: 

===

Thanks to Mike Furches, and his wonderful "Faith and Film" seminar, for the tip.

Watch South Park's "Do The Handicapped Go to Hell?" episode.
It raise great questions about "set theory" and the two questions of the class: 







--
 syllabus is posted at top of this site:
Remember:
  •   Pick your case study as soon as possible, and start taking notes on how readings and class topics speak to it,.
  •  Be sure to follow instructions about what kind of church to visit. 
        - Week 5 quiz  replaced with a mix and match of the  signs 
  • The section on Matthew in your H and Y book, pp 264-269 will help a lot with the class.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------



--






In Paraguay, I met the Julio of the toothless grin who broke my heart, and taught me how to pray.




He (photo, on left) had latched on to me, as I spoke Spanish to him...and was a big
kid myself .





"What are you building here?," he asked.




"A church."




"What's a church?"




"A place where people can worship Jesus."


Of course, I know now...well, knew then (but didn't take time for theological distinctions) that is ddecidedly the wrong answer: church as a place, edifice complex, etc...)





I gulped. I was guessing, dreading/hoping what his next question would be. 


It's one thing to hear that billions around the world have never even heard of Jesus, but I had just met my first.




Yep, he said it:




"Who's Jesus?"




Those are the two questions!

 Who is Jesus NOT:




And we use  a
"Three Worlds"  approach to reading the text of Matthew.....and any text..
---



We became familiar/reacquainted with the "Three Worlds"  concept which comes from your Hauer/Young Textbook, see especially chapters two and three, and see class notes.
Here  below is how one student summarized the worlds (she has more detail here)


Literary World--The literary world of the Bible is simply the text itself, apart from anything outside the text.  We mean the world (or, better, worlds) created by the text; the words on the page, by the stories, songs, letters and the myriad other types of literature that make up the Bible.  All good literature (and the Bible is, among other things, good literature) creates in readers' minds magnificent, mysterious, and often moving worlds that take on a reality of their own, whether or not they represent anything real outside the pages (Hauer and Young ch 2).






Historical World--The historical world of the Bible isthe world "behind the text" or "outside the text".  It is the context in which the Bible came to be written, translated, and interpreted over time, until the present.  In studying the historical world of the Bible, we look for evidence outside the text that helps us answer questions such as, who wrote this text, when was it written, to whom was it written, and why was it written.  We also probe the text itself for evidence that links it to historical times, places, situations, and persons (Hauer and Young 2)..



Contemporary World--The contemporary world is the "world in front of the text" or the "world of the reader."  In one sense, there are as many contemporary worlds of the Bible as there are readers, for each of us brings our own particular concerns and questions to the text.  They inevitably shape our reading experience.  We are all interested in answering the questions of whether the Bible in general, or particular texts, have any relevance to our personal lives (Hauer and Young  ch3).
-Brolin 

------------------------ 

  TEXTS. 
a TEXT is technically ":any message  in any medium, designed to communicate anything"
so obviously the Bible counts as a TEXT message.







Texts need contexts.
I'll have you  text me (cell phone) random text messages during class to illustrate that texts need contexts. 
Because several of the classes I teach have to do with how to read and interpret texts (particularly biblical texts) , contexts, and intertextuality...I actually encourage students to send me text messages in class.

They often look at me as if I am kidding, even afraid I will confiscate their phone if they do.

..

 How about this text message..cn u intreprt it?:

GODISNOWHERE:  is it GOD IS NOWHERE  or GOD IS NOW HERE?

How you read the text changes as much as everything.


How you read the text changes as much as everything.

Spaces matter.


Like this:

Professor Ernest Brennecke of Columbia is credited with inventing a sentence that can be made to have eight different meanings by placing ONE WORD in all possible positions in the sentence: 
"I hit him in the eye yesterday."



The word is "ONLY".

The Message:

1.ONLY I hit him in the eye yesterday. (No one else did.)
2.I ONLY hit him in the eye yesterday. (Did not slap him.)
3.I hit ONLY him in the eye yesterday. (I did not hit others.)
4.I hit him ONLY in the eye yesterday. (I did not hit outside the eye.)
5.I hit him in ONLY the eye yesterday. (Not other organs.)
6.I hit him in the ONLY eye yesterday. (He doesn't have another eye..)
7.I hit him in the eye ONLY yesterday. (Not today.)
8.I hit him in the eye yesterday ONLY. (Did not wait for today.)
                              -link 

 Like this 'text message' from Jesus:
I SAY TO YOU TODAY, "YOU WILL BE WITH ME IN PARADISE.'
or is it,
I SAY TO YOU, " TODAY YOU WILL BE WITH ME IN PARADISE."

The original manuscripts of the Bible not only run all letters, all caps, together, but include no punctuation.

Punctuation matters.

Everything is  context.
Context is everything.

Remember the "butt cheeks" story?  Or is it ,"but cheeks."

Great job Texting me in class.



What's a text? :
ANY MESSAGE, IN ANY MEDIUM, DESIGNED TO COMMUNICATE ANYTHING

What's a sign ?

ANY MESSAGE, IN ANY MEDIUM, DESIGNED TO COMMUNICATE ANYTHING 
ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE  

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

Sets


 



See: 














The pope acted in a very centered-set way today:

Francis kisses a man plagued with boils

Francis’ humanity shone through once again as he kissed a man’s disfigured face during the course of today’s General Audience in St. Peter’s Square.  More pictures  here




















  • FUZZY SET:
    We introduced the third (and final) "set" of "set theory:


    -When does a mountain begin?
    -Is it about predestination or free will?
    -When  did Peter become a believer?

    These can be debated...as the border can be fuzzy...Thus :
    "Fuzzy sets"

    Here below is some help on Fuzzy Sets. These readings will help:

    • ------------------



    Matrix?  What do you remember that links you to the Jesus story?
    Here are selected scenes , (9 videos will play in sequence (if not, click here)
    ------------
    Subversion of Empire

    The Herodian:

    We moved into the "Christmas" story in chapter 2 (noting how it compared and contrasted with modern mangewr scenes and Christmas cards), and we watched the Ray VanDer  Laan"In the Shadow of Herod" video below as a classic example of how a verse that at first seems so matter of fact,  comes alive when we grasp the historical and literary world. (remember that for each VanDer Laan video we watch, there will be a  question on the midterm about the main point of the video as it related to the Three World (in this case, we learn about Herod, and we see that he is a very different kind of king than Jesus,
    and we learn it by the literary world of Matt. 2:1a, and the historical world image of the Herodian fortress, in whose shadow is baby Jesus).  REWATCH IT BELOW..








    VanDer Laan writes:

    THE MASTER BUILDER
    There was another side to Herod. His visionary building programs, his ingenious development of trade with the rest of the world, and his advancement of the interests of his nation are legendary. Many of his building projects were designed to strengthen the loyalty of his subjects, a goal he never achieved. Most seem to have been built to strengthen his relationship with Rome and to establish himself as the greatest king the Jews had ever had. Herod built on a magnificent and grandiose scale. His building projects included:

    The Herodion: This mountain fortress overlooked the town of Bethlehem. Standing on a high hill, the upper fortress was round and more than 200 feet in diameter. Originally, it was seven stories high, with an eastern tower that stood more than 40 feet higher. Packed dirt covered the first four stories, giving the upper fortress a cone shape. Inside were a peristyle garden, reception hall, Roman baths, and countless apartments. The lower palace included an enormous pool, a colonnaded garden, a 600-foot-long terrace, and a building more than 400 feet long. The Herodion was the third-largest palace in the ancient world....

    ....The visitor cannot help being impressed with Herod's vision and ingenuity. However, all that remain are spectacular ruins, because Herod lived for Herod. By contrast, another builder, a humble carpenter born in Bethlehem, used a different material than did Herod (Matt. 16:18; 1 Peter 2:4-8). Jesus' buildings continue to grow because He built for the glory of God. Like David (1 Sam. 17:46), Elijah (1 Kings 18:36), and Hezekiah (Isa. 37:20), He lived so that the world may know that Yahweh, the God of Israel, is truly God. His construction projects will last forever because He built for the glory of God the Father.  -link
                                                 
    More Vander Laan articles on the Herodian and Herod vs. Jesus as King:

    CHRISTMAS VERSION


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



    ---


    Chiasm(definition) and inclusio (definition), once you are attuned to seeing them in Scripture (and most ancient literature) it seems they are everywhere.

    Sometimes they are.
    Who can argue that "the first shall belast/
    the last shall be first" is a chiasm?
    A-B-B-A, X pattern.

     (and this one, because it's in Matthew (20:16), will be important
    for our class.
    But often the chiasm is wide enough to spotlight and intended embedded theme in between the endpoints.

    And to really help us get what the Spirit is saying...structurally.


    People remember how to perform a piece of music by using musical notations on scale. A similar solution to the problem of remembering how to perform a piece of dance has been solved with the use of Labonotation. In antiquity, it seems most written documents were intended to be read aloud, hence to be performed. The purpose of writing wasto facilitate remembering how the document went when one read it aloud. But how did one make paragraphs or mark off units in a document read aloud? It seems that the main way to mark off a unit was to use repetition of words and/or phrases at the beginning and end of a unit, either alone (as in Matt 5:3, 10,"...for theirs is teh kingdom of heaven) or in parallel bracketing fashion (as John 1:18). The Greeks called such parallel brackets a chiasm, after one half of the letter "chi" (our 'X"), thus ">."-Social Science Commentary on the Gospel of John, p. 295, emphasis mine.. a free read online here. 

    Chiasm Examples:

    From the ridiculous:

    • "I am stuck on Band Aid..
    • "Never let a kiss fool you..
    To the sublime:
    • "Ask not what your country can do for you..
    • "God is good all the time.."
    • "When the going gets tough.."
    • It's not the size of the dog in the fight..


    Bible:
     "You do unto others as ..."
    "Do not judge or.."
    "Whoever exalts himself will be humbled.."
    "The  first shall be last..."
    "In the days of King Herod, King Jesus was bor





      here are some links to these literary devices we talked about:
    Inclusio
    Ever notice Matthew starts with "His name will be called Emmanuel, which means 'God with us.'
    And ends...very last sentence...with "I will be with you."?

    No accident.
    And neither is the midpoint and message of the gospel: "I will be with you" (18:20).
    In Jesus, God is with us.
    Jesus is the With-Us God.


    -----









     We then looked at Matthew 1 and 2:

    GENEALOGY
    We began looking at the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew 1, noting
    -that since "genealogy" is literally "genesis" ("beginning"), there is an inclusio from the first sentence of Matthew to the very last sentence ("till the end of the age"). Point:  Who is Jesus in Mathew?
    He is the Beginng and End.

    We also noticed that strikingly, against Jewish tradition, women were mentioned in the genealogy.
    Not only that, but most were controversial and GENTILES (outside the bounded set of Judaism.
    We noted yet another inclusio from beginning of the gospel (Gentiles highlighted in the genealogy in cghapter 1 and end of gospel ( "Go and make disciples of all nations [literally "Gentiles"] 28:18-20

    • not just women, 
    • but 5 (hmm, remember that number)  women,
    • and 5 women who had a "shady reputation".

    That's no accident; we decided that  one way to answer "Who is Jesus in  Matthew?" is
    "One who includes all types, even outcasts, in his family,:  Very centered set, and we are only in Chapter 1.  (:
    Please be familiar with this crucial point, by re-reading Hauer and Young, p, 270, 2nd full paragraph




    a chart revealing the "skipped" names from an article( link)

     "Matthew arranged the geneology to reflect the significance of the Hebrew gematria of King David's name which was the number 14 [D = 4, V= 6, D= 4; Hebrew was written only in consonants] and the significance of number symbolism in his division of the 42 generations from Abraham to David to Jesus the Messiah.  Matthew's manipulation of the genealogy is reflected in the fact that he dropped the names of the 3 Judahite kings in Jesus' line: Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim and Zedekiah [see 2 Chronicles 36:1-13], doubled the use of the name of both King David in verse 6 and King Jechoniah in verses 11 and 12 in the beginning of his 2 and 3 sets, and added the name of Tamar's other son Zerah (not in the line of descent) to make his list reflect the symbolism he desired in the total number of names/ males, and to produce 3 sets of 14 generations for a total of 42 generations from Abraham to Jesus of Nazareth.

    Set #1
      1. Abrahamfathered    Isaac
      2. Isaacfathered    Jacob
      3. Jacobfathered    Judah
      4. Judahfathered    Perez



    		additional names of Zerah and Tamar (woman #1)
      5. Perezfathered    Hezron
      6. Hezronfathered    Ram
      7. Ramfathered    Amminadab
      8. Amminadabfathered    Nahshon
      9. Nahshonfathered    Salmon
      10. Salmonfathered    Boaz



    		Rahab (woman #2)
      11. Boazfathered    Obed



    		Ruth (woman #3)
      12. Obedfathered    Jesse
      13. Jessefathered

      14. David


    There are 14 generations
             There are   3 names of gentile women
    Set #2
          Davidfathered    SolomonUriah's wife
    (note: David's name is repeated)
      1. Solomonfathered    Rehoboam
      2. Rehoboamfathered    Abijah
      3. Abijahfathered    Asa
      4. Asafathered    Jehoshaphat
      5. Jehoshaphatfathered    Joram
      6. Joramfathered    Uzziah(3 missing kings)
      7. Uzziahfathered    Jotham
      8. Jothamfathered    Ahaz
      9. Ahazfathered    Hezekiah
      10. Hezekiahfathered    Manasseh
      11. Manassehfathered    Amon
      12. Amonfathered    Josiah
      13. Josiahfathered    [see #14]
      14.Jechoniah

    		[deportation of Judah to Babylon]
                There are 14 generations (no repeats)
                There are 29 names of males total if you include Uriah
                There is      1 female mentioned 
    Set #3 (after the deportation to Babylon; notice no restoration is mentioned)
    1.JechoniahfatheredShealtiel
    2.ShealtielfatheredZerubbabel
    3. ZerubbabelfatheredAbiud
    4. AbiudfatheredEliakim
    5. EliakimfatheredAzor
    6. AzorfatheredZadok
    7. ZadokfatheredAchim
    8. AchimfatheredEliud
    9. EliudfatheredEleazar
    10. EleazarfatheredMatthan
    11. MatthanfatheredJacob
    12. JacobfatheredJoseph
    13. Josephhusband ofMary(the 5th woman) mother of
    14. Jesus the Christ

    		(bringing true restoration to Israel)

    --
    Since "genealogy" is literally "genesis" ("beginning"), there is an inclusio from the first sentence of Matthew to the very last sentence ("till the end of the age"). Point:  Who is Jesus in Mathew?
    He is the Beginning and End.

    We also noticed that strikingly, against Jewish tradition, women were mentioned in the geneology.
    Not only that, but most were controversial and GENTILES (outside the bounded set of Judaism.

    We noted yet another inclusio from beginning of the gospel (Gentiles highlighted in the geneology in chapter 1 and end of gospel ( "Go and make disciples of all nations[literally "Gentiles"] 28:18-20).

    By the way, how many controversial Gentile women show up here?

    5...hmm. Must be no accident


    Who is Jesus in Mathew?

    The One who is not ashamed to include  four triple outcasts:  gentile/women/people with a shady reputation in his family tree.  The fifth woman was Mary, who fit all three categories except "Gentile".  All women have a) a ":sexually suspect" reputation
    and were surprisingly and sovereignly used of God.

    Note this:

    • It is also organized into three tesseradecads (sets of fourteen).  Hmm,  3? 14? No accident.  (Note: Luke's version: Luke contains three blocks of 21 names and one block of 14 names)
    • David is prominent here.  And his name in Hebrew adds up to 14.. Hmmm  consonants DVD = 14  ( See article on Isopsephy..
      graffiti in Pompeii dating frotm around 79 AD  reads Φιλω ης αριθμος ϕμε, "I love her whose number is 545."  666 is clearly the name/number of Nero Caeser, the Roman Emperor






    ------------------------------------
     Birth

    Remember our manger scene test.

    How many of you could win  big money on this bet on what the text message of the Bible really says:

    • It nowhere says there were three.
    • It no where says they were wise
    • It nowhere says they were men.

    And we know for a fact they weren't at the manger.

    But the real shocker:





    We know for a fact they were not Jews.  Uh, oh, RED FLAGs.
    Hhhhmmm..and we are only in chapter 1!

    Notes from faculty Camp/Roberts:


    compare the birth narratives and genealogies in Matthew and Luke to each other and to the way the Christmas story is often presented today.//should gain an understanding of the different emphases in the two birth narratives and should recognize that this points to larger hermeneutical issues. Each of the gospels is answering the question “Who is Jesus” in a unique way, given the author, audience, and purpose.

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

    Two of the four NT gospels (Matthew & Luke) contain narratives about Jesus birth...Ffrst explore the text and make their drawing (see below). Then move to discussion of their findings and draw from the notes below.

    Activity Matthew 1:18 - 2:12, half to Luke 2:8-20.
    1.    Discuss and list significant events in the order in which they occur in this passage.
    2.    Try to determine the writer’s emphasis by identifying:
    a.       Who is Matthew or Luke declaring Jesus to be?
    b.       What kind of people are present or involved?
    c.       What is missing when compared with how we usually tell the Christmas story? Be prepared to give feedback to the larger group.
    d.       On the newsprint provided, draw a scene from the story, being careful not to include anything in the drawing that is not expressly mentioned in your story.


    Put order of events on paper, note differences in the two accounts, make comparisons... explain  drawing, and the choices involved.

    Matthew 1:18 - 2:12
    Mary and Joseph engaged
    Mary pregnant
    Angel appears to Joseph and explains
    Fulfillment of prophecy: virgin, Emmanuel
    Joseph marries Mary
    Jesus born in Bethlehem
    Magi come from east asking, “Where is child born king of Jews? We come to pay homage.”
    Herod freaks, asks about Messiah, told to be born in Bethlehem (quotes Mic.5:2)
    Herod asks magi when star appeared to them, says go find him so I can pay homage
    Magi follow star to where child was, are overjoyed
    Magi enter house and see child with Mary
    Magi kneel, pay homage, give gifts
    Magi warned in dream about Herod. They return home by another way
    (No real story of the birth, no shepherds and angels, no stable or manger, no # of magi)
    Who is Matthew declaring Jesus to be? Emphasis? Type of people involved?

              Luke 2:8-20
    Shepherds in field watching flocks
    Angel appears, glory shines, shepherds terrified
    Angel speaks: no fear, good news, savior Messiah Lord born. sign--wrapped in cloth, manger
    Multitude of heavenly host praising God: glory to God, on earth peace
    Angels leave
    Shepherds: let’s go to Bethlehem and see this thing Lord has revealed to us
    Shepherds go with haste, find Mary, Joseph, baby in manger.
    Shepherds make known what was told them about child; “all” (?) who hear it are amazed
    Mary treasures the words of the shepherds, ponders them
    Shepherds return, glorifying God for all they heard and seen
    (No magi, no animals, so stable named, no date)
    Who is Luke declaring Jesus to be? Emphasis? Type of people involved?

    What do we make of two very different presentations of Jesus’ birth? Two main concerns/issues:

    1.  Nature of the gospels
    Birth narratives give us two different perspectives on Jesus’ birth, varying considerably in emphasis and even in the people and events they describe. This is true throughout the four Gospels--no two are identical. The Gospels give us four different perspectives on Jesus’ life, four portraits of person and work of Jesus. Some use the example of four witnesses to accident or four men and elephant (leg=tree, trunk=snake, tail=rope, side=wall). The Gospel writers give us different perspectives on the person of Jesus; no one person can know everything there is to know about another person, especially about Jesus it seems.

    2.  Distinctives in birth narratives/genealogies

    The differences are also due to another factor, that of the purpose of the Gospel writers. For example, the birth narrative in Matthew includes the magi, Joseph’s experience of dreams and visions, and Jesus’ kingly, messianic credentials are emphasized. In contrast, the birth narrative in Luke includes shepherds, Mary’s experience of dreams and visions, and Jesus as savior and bringer of peace. The different perspective of each is tied to different emphasis of each. Matthewconcerned to show Jesus as fulfillment of OT Scripture prophecy (structure of 5 quotes), expectations of Messiah. Focus is on Joseph receiving dreams and his reaction to the divine intervention in Mary’s life (1. 18f, 2.13, 2.19f). Joseph as devout Jewish man who is led by dreams to do God’s will. Matt is concerned with showing Jesus’ credentials as Messiah in the line of David. He does this through giving Jesus’ genealogy.  Matthew’s genealogy first, note emphasis on David, character of ancient genealogies, 3 groups of 14 as way of structuring Israelite history, interesting inclusion of 5 women [controversial, unexpected people God uses], change in grammar with Mary and Joseph.

    Luke The genealogy is actually another place where we see very clearly the different emphases of the Gospel writers. (Overhead with Luke’s genealogy revealed.) Note “the son, so it was thought.” Note the numbers are different 77 vs. Matt’s 42, just a running list, reverse order not Abram to Jesus but Jesus to Adam, still through David is important, but back to Adam first man and calls him son of God. Jesus as universal savior. Comes at different place in gospel—after baptism (this is my son) and before temptation (if you are the son). Luke seems to emphasize Jesus as savior, and the prominence of lowly, regular people. Luke’s gospel focuses on liberation for the poor and oppressed and Jesus as the light to the Gentiles (vs. Jewish messiah). Luke is part of Luke/Acts, which shows mission to the Gentiles. The prominence of lowly people like shepherds and women is part of this Universalizing. Luke focuses on Mary’s dreams and visions and her response--not Joseph as righteous Jewish man but women as figures of faith in Luke—Mary (vs. Joseph), Elizabeth (vs. Zechariah), Anna (vs. Simeon).












    FPU prof Tim Geddert:

    Do You Hear What I Hear?

    by Tim Geddert

    Take a closer look at Luke 2 and find new meaning to old traditions


    Traditions become important at Christmas. We sing traditional Christmas songs. We enjoy family traditions we have inherited from our childhood or developed in our own families. And we retell the old, old Christmas story that never changes. We read the story, perhaps recite it or act it out as in my family.

    We relive with Mary and Joseph the long, grueling trip to Bethlehem that was just a bit much for a nine-month-pregnant woman and led to a short labor and delivery on the night of their arrival in Bethlehem.
    We respond with astonishment once more that the arriving king is not born in a palace, not even in a house or a hotel room, but in a barn. His first bed is a feeding trough!
    We hear the angels’ message, run with the shepherds to see, ponder with Mary. In short, we relive the old story that never changes.
    We try to make the traditions come alive, and we supplement them with traditions of our own. Traditions about trees and gifts and guests and Christmas dinners and lots of things that are designed to make Christmas special but often make it a dizzying cycle of busy activity and stressed nerves. Perhaps the time has come to make some changes. And I don’t mean only in the trimmings we’ve added. What if we reimagined the Christmas story itself!
    I don’t mean that we should invent a new story. I mean that we should take the Bible very seriously but fill in the gaps differently than we are accustomed to doing. Have you never noticed how much of the Christmas story we actually make up with our own imaginations?
    • How many wise men are there? Who knows? The Bible doesn’t tell us…so we make it three. You know, standardize it so we can create the right number of figures for the Christmas display.
    • Which animals are there in the stable? Who knows? The Bible doesn’t tell us…so we make it an ox and an ass. You know, “Ox and ass before him bow, and he is in the manger now.” Oh yes, the little shepherd boy was carrying a lamb, wasn’t he?
    • We use great imagination on the evil innkeeper. He’s the bad guy in the story. Whole Sunday school plays center on his opportunism (taking advantage of market conditions to quadruple his rates), his callous blindness (not recognizing the coming of the Lord of Glory), his hard-heartedness (not even finding room for an expecting couple) and his economic chauvinism. Poor carpenters just don’t cut it; you have to be a Roman census official or a respected Jewish leader to find a room in his hotel on this busy night.
    And so on and so on. We use our imaginations to round out the bare details that Luke and Matthew supply. In fact, when we use our imaginations, we often imagine things that we know did not happen. The Bible says the shepherds came to a manger and the wise men came to a house. But it fits better under the tree if we just put them all together. Even though most people are convinced that the wise men came considerably later, we just put that star right up there and let it shine on the manger scene on the very first Christmas night.
    And having created our images of Bethlehem, we let the story challenge us—challenge us to be as peaceful and calm as the shepherds on the hillside, as filled with worship and praise as the angels, as generous as the wise men, as contemplative as Mary and as obedient as Joseph.
    It’s a beautiful story, this one we’ve filled in for ourselves. Well, beautiful except for that old innkeeper. But we need him as our scapegoat. After all, the larger than life “good guys” in the story leave us with an impossible ideal. One thing comforts us: At least we aren’t as bad as the innkeeper.
    Start with the innkeeper
    I want to suggest a way of reimagining what happened. I begin with the question: “How did the innkeeper get into our story?” The New Testament doesn’t mention an innkeeper.
    Well, we get the idea of the innkeeper from the mention of the inn. “No room in the inn” must mean that some innkeeper didn’t make room. But the story in Luke doesn’t actually refer to an inn either—not in the original language at least. When Luke says, “There was no room in the inn,” he used a word that could mean “inn,” but almost never does. It almost always means “guestroom,” as the TNIV now translates the word.
    The word used is kataluma, a word used exactly three times in the Bible. It is used once in Luke 2 and twice more to refer to the room in which Jesus had the Last Supper with his disciples. But they didn’t go to an inn. Luke clearly describes the location as a “large upper room” (Luke 22:1; cf. Mark 14:14). It is a large guestroom built, as was common for Jewish families, on the top of a normal house.
    So kataluma normally means “guestroom on top of a house.” Moreover, when Luke wants to speak of an inn, he uses a different term, pandocheion. This is the term used in the parable of the good Samaritan. The injured man is taken to an inn (a pandocheion)—not a guestroom in a house. And Jesus’ parable even refers to an innkeeper, a pandocheus. It means the TNIV version correctly interprets what Luke wrote: “She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them.” Baby Jesus was laid in a manger because other guests already occupied the guest room on top of the house!
    No stable either!
    Perhaps you are saying, “Inn, guest room—who cares? Why does it matter whether Joseph and Mary had to go to the barn because the inn was full, or because the guest room was full? It comes out the same, doesn’t it?” Well, here is where everything gets interesting. More disappears from the story than just the inn—and of course with it, the evil innkeeper. There is no stable either.
    Check your Bibles. Do they mention a stable? Nope.
    “But,” we protest, “there must have been a stable. There was a manger and a manger means a stable.” Not necessarily.
    Evidence from elsewhere in Scripture shows that a typical first-century Palestinian manger was not to be found in a stable, i.e. a separate building made just for animals. It is found in the living room of the family’s large, one-room split-level house. The typical Palestinian peasant’s house was one large room under a flat roof. It was built with two floor levels, an upper level where the family lived, ate and slept and a lower level where the animals normally spent the night. And then, of course, there might be a guest room on the roof.
    So where is the manger? In the most logical place in such a house: built into the floor of the living area, right next to the lower level where the animals are kept. Animals can stand in their lower level and eat hay from the manger built into the floor of the higher level.
    A typical manger was in the living room of a house. So the stable disappears along with the innkeeper and his inn.
    So then Luke 2 does not say, “They had to go to a barn because the innkeeper was too hard-hearted to make a room available for the holy couple.” Rather it says, “They were taken right into the living room, because the guest room was already full.”
    The story is not about a full hotel, an evil innkeeper and the cold, dark barn. It is about a typical Palestinian house—one that makes room for the holy couple, even though the guest room is already occupied by other friends or relatives crowding into Bethlehem for the census.
    Gains and losses
    If this way of reading the text is correct, what do we gain, and what do we lose?
    Well, this way of reading the story actually saves us a lot of trouble. It makes more sense of what we read in the Bible.
    We don’t have to imagine that Jesus was born on the very night that Mary and Joseph arrived in Bethlehem. The way Luke tells the story, it sounds rather as though Mary spent the last weeks or months of her pregnancy there. We don’t have to wonder how Mary, who has relatives in the hill-country of Judea, and Joseph, who is a native son of the village, can’t find a single family (let alone one of their many relatives) who will take them in for the night, or for a week, or perhaps for the last months of Mary’s pregnancy. We’ve had to imagine Mary and Joseph arriving the night of Jesus’ birth in order to explain why they couldn’t find a decent place to sleep.
    Best of all, we don’t have to invent a new house that the family moves to after Jesus’ birth, but before the wise men arrive. After all, if the shepherds came to a manger and the wise men to a house, we imagine Mary, Joseph and Jesus must have moved in the meantime. But with this new reading, they’re in the same house all the time!
    And this means the wise men and the shepherds might actually have gathered together to worship Jesus—rich and poor, Jew and Gentile worshiping the one born to be King. And we can even imagine that the star leading the wise men to the place Jesus lay shone over the house not months later, but on that first Christmas night.
    And so, instead of reimaging the story in such a way that we have to throw away all our manger scenes, we actually find a story that makes appropriate even those parts that we thought didn’t quite represent what actually happened. We lose nothing. There is still a manger and there are animals, and we can argue there was even a stable, though it was part of the house.
    Oh yes, we lose the evil innkeeper—our scapegoat. But then, maybe we can find better motivations for enjoying a meaningful Christmas than staying a couple steps ahead of that old scrooge. Yes, we lose the innkeeper. But we gain a wonderful picture of what it really means for Jesus to come down from heaven to join humanity—a picture of God coming down to identify with common folks like you and me, coming down right where we are, being born in a normal home like all the other babies in Bethlehem. There were probably any number of babies enjoying the soft hay of mangers in the living rooms of other crowded homes in Bethlehem that year.
    The story never changes
    So what does all this say about our Christmas celebrating? I referred to the reliving of the old Christmas story that never changes. Well, its essence never changes, but a little creative imagination might change some of the ways we think about it.
    This reading of Luke 2 suggests a whole new internal motivation and spiritual resource for celebrating a meaningful Christmas. It challenges us to open our own living rooms for Jesus, making room for him not in the barn, not in the inn, but in our living rooms, right where the family lives, where the pets roam, where we work and sleep and play and eat—even when our homes are packed full of guests. If a home in Bethlehem can make room for Jesus in the hustle and bustle of census time, surely we can do it in the hustle and bustle of the Christmas season.
    This year I don’t want to imagine Jesus lying out in a barn while we prepare our Christmas celebrations and go through the activities of the season. And I don’t want to limit the worship part of Christmas to a few reverent trips out to that stable—you know, once or twice during church services and maybe Christmas Eve or Christmas morning before we open gifts.
    Rather, I want to imagine Jesus living in our house as we celebrate. I want to imagine him joining me in the kitchen as I prepare part of our family meal. I want to imagine him present—not out there in the barn. After all, they called him Emmanuel, God with us—with us ot only on Christmas Eve and Christmas morning but through all the hustle and bustle of the season.
    This article is adapted from a chapter in Double Take, published by Kindred Press and MB Biblical Seminary in 2007.

    Remember..context: atmosphere, tone, emotion and volume need con-text:
    You don't need to do the "Wonders and Mighty Deeds" worksheet for Week 2, we'll do it in class.
    Note: the quiz on week 4 will be replaced with the signs quiz...see top of page

    Note: If you don't have the Upside Down book, it is readable online   here.
    Or a slightly older edition (different page numbers)  here 
    Posted by at

    No comments:

    Post a Comment

    Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)