Archeology Update

"Gog and Magog Uncovered"
Bible Archeologists Today
November, 2008 feature article
http://www.biblearcheologiststodayyesterdayandforever.org/

A major archeological discovery has been located in the tiny country of ChmlgTksv, located somewhere between modern day Iran and Greece. Cartographers say that it is hard to locate ChmlgTksv because it is the one country in the world that is not physically tied to any particular place (except, perhaps, Kurdistan), since its people are essentially nomadic and carry their possessions and wares upon their mules and move around whenever they get the urge to do so but never change their maps or their mailing address. This discovery was made in a small cave that one of the mules was carrying, the contents of which have been amazingly preserved by what appears to be an admixture of salt, carried airborne from the Dead Sea; ashes carried airborne from the eruption of Mount Vesupius; and small traces of goat dung carried airborne whenever goat-herder boys get bored and start playing the national sport of ChmlgTksv called "Harrph," which literally is translated, "throw goat dung at each other."

When researchers discovered the cave, they found it filled with what appears to have been items from an 8th century BC garage sale. "I mean, there was stuff there that didn't even work," said professor Tungsten Narrorpor of Cairo State University, "and they still were asking nine shekels for it! No wonder none of this stuff sold." Most of the items have been similarly deemed 'ancient near east worthless junk' by an international team of observers, adding that they could not definitively rule out the archeologists' traditional standby that all of it might have religious significance. "If so," said lead archeologist Cassandra Bishoper of Oxford Community College, "their gods and goddesses were pretty cheap and ugly, represented primarily by veneer and formica."

Among the items, however, was a surprise discovery that has the archeology world buzzing with excitement. Archeologist Ohmad bin Tekel of Fourth Sunni Mosque in Al-Katomu described it as a "total accident, but enormous find." It seems that one of the items- perhaps an 8th century BCE wedding present- was still in its gift box, and therein lay the most valuable find. "Whoever wrapped the present seemed to want to make it look larger than it was," according to professor Bishoper, "so they stuffed the box with lots of olde newspapers. And the olde newspapers were quite interesting."

[Editor's note: Subsequent to this comment, a dispute has arisen among the archeological community over the correct spelling of 'olde'. It seems that none of the archeologists outside of Great Britain sees the point in the final, silent 'e', but the Brits were so insistent that they threatened to make a fire with the newspapers until everyone agreed to keep the stupid 'e'.]

Most of the newspaper's contents were predictable ancient near east stuff: Weather reports, the goat and mule market reports, and an economist dismissing concerns about the harvesting of trees in the thick forests blanketing what is now the Sahara Desert. One column, however, seemed to be a community gossip page, which bore information that might help to solve one of the longest ongoing riddles of biblical history- the identification of Gog and Magog.

For years, biblical scholars in the Hebrew Bible, New Testament, and Qu'ranic traditions have been puzzled over the identity of Gog and Magog. In the book of Genesis, Magog seems to be a son of Japeth, grandson of Noah. In Ezekiel, Gog seems to be a prince of the land of Magog. In the book of Revelation, Gog and Magog are called 'nations from the four corners of the earth,' and seem to figure promiently into a major battle against heavenly forces. In the Qu'ran, Gog and Magog are a threatening people who are walled up in order to protect other peoples nearby.

Religious traditions have had difficulty identifying who, or perhaps even where, Gog and Magog were. Their names, however, have been fodder for quite a few speculations and are usually invoked to name one's enemies whom one would like to see doomed. In some Jewish traditions, Gog is the fallen angel in protection of the nation Magog. The 4th century Christian bishop Ambrose identified Gog with the Goths, but this association was disputed by Jerome, who argued that Goths were the Geats of Thrace, but that too was disputed by others. "Basically any nation with an attitude or a "G" in their name was associated with Gog, while any of their friends could be associated with Magog," said professor Narrorpor. Modern eschatologists have argued that the proximity of the name 'Iran' to 'Iraq' and the similarity of the names 'Gog' to 'Magog' could not be a coincidence.

The newspaper stuffing, however, seems to finally have unlocked the identification of Gog and Magog. In what appears to be a local community gossip column, the following news was reported:

"Gog Family Reunion Considered A Success"

by Miss Myrtle, 'The Eyes and Ears of the Middle East'

4th moon, under the reign of Ghalac the Just

The Gog family recently celebrated grandfather Gogs 147th birthday at the Wadi Shemoth Park. It was well-attended with plenty of tendrils and bread for everyone to eat. Since grandfather Gog has been a tee-totaler following his unfortunate mule accident, most of the festivities were located downstream a bit, where eldest son Magog was quite liberal in offering 'wine' and olive oil to everyone who joined the party. Women, of course, are not allowed in public amongst the people of ChmlgTksv (pronounced Chm-lg-Tks-v), so Miss Myrtle is relying on her brother Hamed for most of the information on this event. Hamed, however, seemed to be quite the recipient of Magog's beneficence, if you know what I mean, so I cannot vouch for the accuracy of this report.

Gog and Magog were joined by a number of their long-distance family members, MightGog and DidGog from the lower basin region of ChmlgTksv, as well as Woulda/Coulda/ShouldaGogged, from the far western quarter of Phrygia. Most astonishing was the presence of that good for nothing slouch of a Gog, Problywon’tnevergitaroundtoGoggin’. “How in the world he ever dragged hisself out here to be a part of anything is beyond me,” remarked Willgog, a local cousin, "Heck, I think he just accidentally wandered by and shimmied over to Magog's still and started acting like he meant to show up all along." Aside from that controversy and a small scuffle that broke out resulting in only a dozen or so deaths, most of the participants agreed with cute little OughttoGog who said, "And a good time was had by all."*

All of the archeologists agreed that this artice was the first indisputable evidence that Gog and MaGog were actual persons, however uncouth and low brow. Professor bin Tekel went as far to say, "If there were only more people like Miss Myrtle and less people like Ezekiel writing in antiquity, then we might actually understand some of their references a bit more." Unfortunately professor bin Tekel was immediately stoned after making this comment, since it appears to dis the prophet Ezekiel. Archeologists, however, being an intellectual group, cannot manage the real large stones that are required for an effective stoning, so professor bin Tekel is reported to be recuperating well in a local clinic.

*Editor's Note: Some conjectures in the translation of Miss Myrtle's article have been made necessary because it appears that salt, ash, and goat dung can only go so far in preserving cheap newsprint, leaving the newspaper with gaping holes. The comic page, however, was entirely preserved. It seems that Rex Morgan, M.D. had gotten caught up in a murder investigation that continues today in that serial comic; Marmaduke was just as rowdy and uncontrollable then as he is now; and readers were still protesting the absence of a strip called "Calvin and Hobbes," which had been discontinued four centuries prior.

Intertextuality Review Continues: "Looking Back"

An intertextual view of the Scriptures puts more emphasis on later writers looking back and appropriating earlier writers, than early writers looking forward and 'prophesying' what later writers would say. Here is my attempt to graph this out for you, comparing a homotextual "Left Behind Theology" understanding of Daniel and Jesus' words in Mark, Matthew, and Luke to an intertextual understanding of the same.

Just to set the tone for you:
Daniel is a young Hebrew, who is taken into captivity as part of the exile when the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzer overthrew Jerusalem in the 6th century BCE. Daniel has some compadres named Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, who were also taken into exile. They were recognized immediately as possessing uncommon wisdom and put into service in the king's palace, where they resisted eating foods that were in violation of their Hebrew faith. Daniel, particularly, distinguished himself with the ability to interpret dreams. (In some ways, this makes Daniel like a new 'Joseph,' who also was a slave in the service of the Empire's Pharoah who resisted temptation and was able to interpret dreams.) In Bablylon, the palace master gave the exiled Hebrews new Babylonian names: Daniel became Belteshazzar, Hananiah became Shadrach, Mishael became Meshach, and Azariah became Abednego. (A curious thing is that Daniel is almost always called by his Hebrew name in the stories, while Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego are called mostly by their Babylonian names. I don't know why, but their most memorable names were given by the makers of Veggie Tales, who dubbed them 'Rack, Shack, and Bennie.')

Most biblical scholars date the book of Daniel as the latest book in the Hebrew Bible, from the 2nd century BCE. Many Jewish Bibles actually place it as their last book, whereas Christian Bibles place it in between the Major prophets and Minor prophets. Therefore, most biblical scholars make a distinction between the the person Daniel and the Daniel of the book. That is an especially important distinction in the latter chapters, when Daniel's voice appears in 1st person language ("I saw...") It is important to remember that someone is attributing words from the 2nd century BCE to Daniel who lived 400 years earlier. I signify this difference as the 'historical Daniel' and the 'literary Daniel.'

The dating of the book of Daniel is significant, because it was during the 2nd century BCE that another empire overtook Jerusalem, desecrated the temple, enslaved many of the best and brightest, forced the Jews to eat foods that were in violation of their faith, and tried to enforce pagan religion on them. It was horrendous, but during this time someone or a group or a community produced this book of Daniel, about a hero who was probably well-remembered in oral stories, and whose integrity and faith were exemplary for Jews under fire.

So, here are two scenarios for reading Daniel.

Left Behind Theology says: The historical Daniel predicted in the 6th century BCE that Antiochus Epiphanes would arise 400 years later and desecrate the temple. At the same time, he also predicted that 200 years later Jesus would come and that Jesus would come again one day after that. The image is that Daniel sees ahead, sees aheader, and sees aheadest from the 6th century BCE. In explicit homotexual fashion, the working definition of prophecy here is strictly predictive prophecy, and Jesus would prophesy the same thing in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

Daniel (6BCE) >>>>>Temple destroyed (2BCE) >>>>>>Jesus (CE)>>>>>>2nd Coming (?BCE)

Intertextuality views this differently: The historical Daniel is remembered by a person, group, or community during the awful events of the 2nd century BCE. The book of Daniel recalls both Daniel's heroic faith and attributes to Daniel visions that encourage the people of the 2nd century BCE to trust in God's steadfast love and to remain faithful during their own perilous time. The book of Daniel also represents some new developments that were arising in the 2nd century BCE. Noteworthy among those developments was the rise of the belief in the afterlife, as the place where virtue would be rewarded and vice punished, since it was increasingly clear that those rewards and punishments were not guaranteed to occur during one's lifetime. There was also a rising expectation of a final scenario when good would ultimately conquer evil, which was often cast in terms of military and cosmic imagery. (That kind of symbolic and hyperbolic language is more familiar to people of the east than the west, where literalism is assumed. For example, when Saddam Hussein forecast the "mother of all battles" against the US, it provided plenty of rhetorical fodder for late-night comedians, but most analysts understood immediately that it was a desperate attempt to rally other nations to Iraq's aid and that Saddam's army- even his vaunted Republican Guard- was not able to compete with the US Army. The point was not that Saddam was literally predicting victory. He was trying to gain support and establish resolve.) Through the symbolic language, the community was urging faith in God, even during trying times.

An intertextual reading of these words does not work in a linear fashion, but more of a circular one- better yet, a spiral one. I can't figure out how to make that appear graphically, but here are the important parts:

-The faithful community in trying time of 2BCE looks back at Daniel's faithfulness in trying times of 6BCE, who was reminiscent of Joseph during trying times under Pharaoh (from 'a long time ago'BCE).
-Mark, in trying times of 66-70CE looks back at the book of Daniel and appropriates much of that language as how Jesus calls us to be faithful when the temple is destroyed (again)
-Matthew, several years after the temple's destruction, recasts Jesus' words in terms of living with constant awareness of Christ's presence among us through the hungry, the naked, the imprisoned, etc. (See last week's blogs; Matthew's scenario ends with the parable of the sheep and goats in 25:31-46.)
-Luke, also several years after the temple's destruction, recasts that destruction and Jesus' words in terms of his understanding of the 'times of the Gentiles' that must be fulfilled (chapter 21). The book of Acts makes it unclear whether the times of the Gentiles is made known through Romes destructive acts or through the 'gentilization' of the church.

In intertextuality, the focus is not that Daniel, way back when, saw clearly into the future. It is, rather, that the book of Daniel spoke truth to power, as did Jesus, as did Mark, as did Matthew, as did Luke, each with great respect for the language and imagery of their predecessors, but also each faithfully interpreting that language and imagery for their own situation. So, there is repetition, but that repetition is not rote; it is not the same thing being said over again; it is a faithful reinterpretation for one's own time. That is how 'prophecy' works when we serve a God who is not confined to the past, but who is faithful to every generation. Prophecy speaks truth to power, relying on the wisdom of the past in order to be faithful in the present.

Intertextuality Review: When Prophets Prophesy Prophecy

Okay, which of these two do you think is a prophet?

Madam Trelawney of Harry Potter fame?

Sure, Ron rightly calls her an "old fraud," but

on two occasions she does get it right. She

slips into a prophetic frenzy and accidentally

predicts something accurately about the future.

Is that what a prophet does?

Or the Fool in a Shakespeare play?

The fool's job is to dance and sing and otherwise

entertain the King, but most importantly it is to

tell the truth, not matter how uncomfortable it is.

The problem is that telling the truth to a King

could spell trouble. As King Lear once put it,

"Fool, remember the gallows!"

So, which of these two is a prophet, biblically speaking? Without a doubt the answer is #2, the fool, who risks his neck in order to say what is true. That is one of the biggest bamboozles of Left Behind Theology (LBT), the idea that a prophet is this kind of magical soothsayer, who looks into a crystal ball, or tea leaves, or mind-melds, or something slightly more religious and says, "Eureka, I can see the future!" In Daniel's case, he could see the future with both eyes, one on the events of the 2nd century BCE and the other on events that still haven't happened, although most of the New Testament writers thought for sure they would have happened long before anyone invented a convection oven. In Jesus' case, he too predicted the same thing Daniel did, and even added more graphic detail that changes slightly from gospel to gospel. But, of course, in John's gospel Jesus rarely predicts anything. Hmm...

Anyway, there is prediction and then there's PREDICTION, and the Grandaddy of all predictive prophets is, without question, John the Revelator on the island of Patmos. LBT advocates love this guy like a deer loves a salt block. His symbolic language is sufficiently vague that anyone with an imagination can read his text and say, "This means that, that means this, and oh, by all means, those mean these!" And yet the language is graphic enough that it could make a kid addicted to video games a little squeamish. That quality of John's text is what makes it such a thrill for those who salivate over the possibility of an all-out, absolutely global war. Rivers of blood, running through the streets, as high as the horses' shoulders- how cool is that? And to think, you can hoard those weapons, fire that red button, and kill those unrighteous $&^!*ers, all in the name of God! Show me a skin-headed teenager that wouldn't want a piece of that action!

However, the whole tenor of this "prophecy" changes if we begin with a different notion of what, exactly, prophecy is. If prophecy is predictive forecasting and really good prophecy is outrageous predictive forecasting, then: Okay, let's write a series of graphic novels and play "Guess the Anti-Christ" with every new politician that comes along. When I was a sophmore in college, my grandmother gave me a book that was written by a very earnest preacher, who claimed to have prayed over every page as he wrote it, asking God to reveal to him if there was any error in his claims, and promising that he would have trashed the entire manuscript if even one word of it were not God's truth. The rest of the book was a detailed argument of how Henry Kissinger is the anti-Christ. Every single word, straight from the mind of God? I believe it, don't you? I'm sure history will show that Hank's favorite pick-up line was, "Vell, hello zere gorgeous. How vould you like to spend ze evening vis the vorld's most evil human being? Yes?"

But wait, you say, didn't someone remove Henry Kissinger from the moth balls in order to advise Sarah Palin? Well, yes, but I don't talk politics here, so we'll move on.

My point is that an honest look at how prophets prophesy prophecies in the Hebrew Bible does not show a group of Sybill Trelawneys, making frenzied predictions of the future and then coming back to their senses and saying, "Phew. What just happened?" There is one kind of weirdish story in I Samuel 10 that shows Saul- just anointed to be King,by Samuel, and just receiving a 'new heart' from God- coming across a band of prophets and suddenly prophesying alongside of them for a while. Apparently Saul had that proclivity, because there was a rather well-known proverb that said, "Is Saul also among the prophets?" (which parents would use as a criticism of their uppity children before someone invented the more useful line, "Don't you draw that attitide with me Mr. Smartypants!") Later in the story (I Samuel 19), when his heart had gone sour and when Saul was trying to kill young David, he ran across a group of prophets again and, once again, started prophesying. This time he seemed to lose his clothes in the process. Nothing is said, however, about what Saul 'prophesied.' It certainly was not the case that his prophetic frenzy produced a prediction of which nation would be the next to smite the People of Israel, or whether the Messiah would be born in a stable, or whether Gog or Magog wins the mother of all battles, or even who would eventually kill Voldemort. He just prophesied and after a while he stopped and went about his business. I told you it was weird.

The more typical activity of a Hebrew Bible prophet was to tell the truth, not the future. That's what a prophet does, s/he tells the truth. Most importantly, the prophet was called to supress her or his own spin on things and to speak God's truth, thus the signature phrase of prophets, "Thus says the Lord!" That is what makes being a prophet such a risky job. First, there were kings and even priests who wanted nothing more than for prophets to shut up and go away. In fact, they wanted the truth to shut up and go away, but they often settled for throwing a prophet into a pit instead. Then, there was the risk of a prophet prophesying wrongly, which was punishable by death. To prophesy wrongly was a violation of the third commandment, "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain!" The general consensus was, if you are going to pronounce something with the prefix "Thus says the Lord," you had better be speaking on behalf of the Lord and not just saying your own opinions loudly.

I think that is still advisable, don't you? And, let me tell you, I feel that advisability quite strongly every Sunday when I stand up to preach. That is why I feel that I need to be as honest about studying the Scriptures as I can be, so that I'm not just taking my opinion, or some LBT Bible commentor's opinion, or even public opinion, and just baptizing it with enough holy water to make it appear to be "the Word of the Lord."

The prophet's job is not to predict future events. It is to tell the truth, to open oneself up to speaking honestly when prefacing one's comments with "Thus says that Lord." Tomorrow, we'll see how taking a prophet seriously does not mean ascribing to her the gift of foresight; it means that we ascribe to her the gift of wisdom in our hindsight. I may not have said that too well, so I'll need to give it some thought before tomorrow. Meanwhile, please don't hesitate to respond.

Intertextuality Review

I've been trying to make the case for the last few weeks that Left Behind Theology misreads the Scriptures. I call their way of interpreting the Scripture 'homotextuality,' because it refuses to see difference and insists that all of the Scriptures say essentially the same thing. My study Bible, for instance, will note that Daniel 7-12 addresses the awful event when Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated the temple. But, then it says that Daniel was giving a 'double prophecy,' predicting Antiochus Epiphanes as well as of what would happen when Jesus returns.



It's not my place to read Daniel's mind. And it seems to much more pious and faithful to say, "Here we see God planning all of history ahead of time by giving Daniel insight into the great mysteries of the universe..." than to say, "Daniel was addressing the events of his day...." Homotextuals will tell you that folks like me simply don't believe that God is able to give prophets the power of predictive prophecy, so we try to 'explain away' prophecies like Daniel's by placing the Scriptures within their historical context and by assuming that differences between Matthew, Mark, Luke and John point to differences in their theology.



I know these arguments, because I heard them for years, reinforced by singing, "God said it; I believe it; that settles it for me!" in church camp. The whole notion is that 'faithfulness' means believing exactly what the Bible says, despite anything else.



In truth, the argument is that 'faithfulness' means believing exactly what someone tells you the Bible says, despite anything else. It is not Daniel that says "I'm talking about both Antiochus Epiphanes and what Jesus will say one day down the road"; it is someone else who is telling us that Daniel is doing that. However, for someone who was raised singing, "God said it; I believe it; that settles it for me!" it almost feels like you're being unfaithful simply to ask, "Who says Daniel is talking about what Jesus will say?"



I think that whole argument is pernicious and deceitful. It is perpetuated by well-intended and good people, but the argument itself is unbiblical and invites us to worship God will all of our heart, but not with all of our mind.



The worst part is this: People who were raised like me operate under a fear that if one part of this homotextual way of looking at the Bible proves wrong, then the whole house of cards will come crumbling down. That's why something like evolution causes such a crisis of faith for so many 'Bible-believing' people. That's why anyone questioning biblical fundamentalism is not possibly a Christian trying to understand the Scriptures, but a liar from the pits of hell, trying to destroy the faith and assume that humans know more than God. And that is why the humans who wrote the Scriptures were more magical than you or I could ever be, because none of us would look at a person we actually know and assume that she or he was ever truly 'infallible' when they say things. Would you? Do you know anyone, any real person, whom you would say speaks the absolute truth from God, with no human opinion mixed in at all? Really? But that is exactly what homotextual readings of the Bible expect us to say about the folks who wrote the Scriptures. They were a different breed of humans and God worked through humans differently back then, but now God doesn't do that any more and people are all just a little untrustworthy at best. Isn't that odd?



I suggest that we follow my friend Gayle's advice and strive to take the Scriptures seriously, without taking them literally. Or, more pointedly, we should refuse to take them literally in order that we can take them seriously.



This week, we're going to continue to talk about how it is that we read the Scriptures. Scholars refer to this as 'hermeneutics,' a word that is rooted on the name Hermes, who was the messenger of the gods in mythology. Hermeneutics, then, is how we read messages, like the written texts of the Scriptures.



I've promoted this blog among many of my friends. Some of you come from a more conservative background, others from a more liberal one. I invite any of you to comment on what I am saying, so that we can learn from one another. Thanks.

And Now, a Word from our Sponsor

Do you remember the prophecy, "There will be Ralph and rumors of Ralph"? Well, here is a bit of wit that was found in yesterday's e-zine called RUMORS, by Ralph Milton. I shared them with some friends yesterday over dinner and got some great reactions. I'll post some pics for you.

* The roundest knight at King Arthur's round table was Sir Cumference.

He acquired his size from too much pi.

* I thought I saw an eye doctor on an Alaskan island, but it turned out to be

an optical Aleutian.

* She was only a whiskey maker, but he loved her still.

* The butcher backed into the meat grinder and got a little behind in his work.

* No matter how much you push the envelope, it'll still be stationery.

* A dog gave birth to puppies near the road and was cited for littering.

* Two hats were hanging on a hat rack in the hallway.

One hat said to the other, 'You stay here, I'll go on a head.'

* A sign on the lawn at a drug rehab center said: 'Keep off the Grass.'

* A chicken crossing the road is poultry in motion.

* The short fortune-teller who escaped from prison was a small medium at large.

* The man who survived mustard gas and pepper spray is now a seasoned veteran.

* A backward poet writes inverse.

* In democracy it's your vote that counts. In feudalism it's your count that votes.

* Don't join dangerous cults: Practice safe sects!

Thank you for listening. Tomorrow, back to the show!

Ralph Milton's RUMORS is a free Internet e-zine for Christians with a sense of humor. To Subscribe: Send an e-mail to: rumors-subscribe@joinhands.com and don't put anything else in the e-mail.

A Little More Luke

Phew, I slept in yesterday. All that work of nailing up jello in my last post really wore me out.

Fortunately, being worn out meant that I had an extremely busy day (somehow those two entities never cease to coincide); and having an extremely busy day meant I was in the car a lot; and being in the car a lot meant that I was listening to the radio a lot (always talk, by the way, never music; it's my oddity); and listening to the radio a lot meant that I heard Teri Gross' show called "Fresh Air"; and, listening to "Fresh Air" meant that I heard Teri Gross interview Tim LaHaye, the primary author of the best-selling series of books called the "Left Behind" series. So, if you follow the trail, it shows definitively that 'nailing jello to a wall' is directly related (by six degrees of separation) to listening to Tim LaHaye. There is something radically significant about that which I can't quite wrap my mind around yet.

At any rate, Tim LaHaye's first words were, "Well, the Bible is very clear about where we are on God's timeline..." then he went on to say that the next great event is the rapture, which will be followed by seven years of tribulation, which is God's wrath being poured out. I'm telling you this so you'll see why, even though I was worn out from nailing that jello to the wall, I knew that I had to get back to this blog, because TIM LAHAYE IS WRONG!!!!!!!! But, rather than letting his presence on the radio and the unmerited certainty of this voice drive us to distraction, let's just keep plugging faithfully along, shall we?

We're looking at Luke's 21st chapter and noticing the differences between what he says and what Mark says in his 13th chapter. And, following the insights of a majority of serious biblical scholars (i.e. not Tim LaHaye), we are assuming that Mark wrote his chapter around the time of the siege and destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, while Luke wrote his chapter anywhere from 10 to 20 years later.

Today, we'll look at a couple of places where Mark and Luke vary, in order to see what Luke is saying uniquely about this apocalyptic of Jesus. Remember, most Left Behind Theologians (like the aforementioned Mr. LaHaye) pretend that this discourse is a) Jesus talking about the rapture which is, now, 2,000 years later; and b) precisely the same, 'timeline-wise', in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Neither of those pretensions is true. The second pretension, in fact, is that very 'homotexuality' that I think is ruining the church. (Is it considered 'outing' if you show that someone else is a homotextual? I never thought 'outing' was very nice, so I'll stop with the personal references here.)

Mark 13:14-15 says, "But when you see the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be (let the reader understand), then those in Judea must flee to the mountains; someone on the housetop must not go down or enter the house to take anything away...." We recall (and if we don't, we can search this blog backwards a few weeks to do so) that Mark's phrase "desolating sacrilege" is taken directly from Daniel 7-12, which was probably written at the time that Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated the temple (2nd century BCE). The parenthetical phrase "let the reader understand" is hard to translate because it is almost as if Mark the narrator jumps right into the middle of a quote from Jesus to say, 'Hey!' while winking and nodding. My personal take is that Mark is using this phrase about a Greek empire from two centuries past to refer to the awful destruction of the temple that the current Roman empire is wreaking in his present. It simply might not have been possible to criticize the Roman empire directly during this time. At any rate, let's see what Luke does with the reference to the desolating sacrilege and the literary wink and nod:

Luke 21:20-21 says, "When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then those in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those inside the city must leave it, and those out in the country must not enter it..." Hmm, the "desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be" has become "Jerusalem surrounded by armies ... its desolation has come near." Why the difference?

Luke clearly has more than the destruction of the temple in mind as he is recounting this discourse. First, he is more mindful of the destruction of Jerusalem and the diaspora that follows it. Second, Luke has a broad view of history, where the destruction of Jerusalem is the beginning of what he calls "the times of the Gentiles." And last, at the risk of perpetuating some wrong-headed ideas, it does appear to me that Luke sees the destruction of Jerusalem as an act of God's vengeance. I suppose it could be a vengeance based on the Jews' rejection of Jesus, but Luke is not so clear on that point and so we shouldn't act like that is clearly the case.

Here is what Luke says, immediately following the quote above. There is one line in this quote that is found in Mark's words also. See if you can identify it. Other than that, however, everything in this quote is unique to Luke:

Luke 21:22 "for these are days of vengeance, as a fulfilment of all that is written. Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing infants in those days! For there will be great distress on the earth and wrath against this people; they will fall by the edge of the sword and be taken away as captives among all nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled."

Did you guess which line Luke holds in common with Mark? It is the line "Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing infants in those days!" That is quite a "woe," don't you think? It signifies tragedy. It's not like a woman who is pregnant can suddenly say, "Oh this is a bad situation, I'll wait and be pregnant later" like a guy who is just starting to build a boat might. Or a mother of a needy infant can't suddenly decide that the infant should hold off on nursing for a couple of years until this trouble ends. No, the pregnant woman and nursing mother are those for whom the need to flee, right now, is simply not possible. That's the classic description of a tragedy, isn't it? It's horrible, and the very thing that she counts as her joy is the same thing that makes her unable to escape it. Luke did well to retain that line from Mark because it speaks very powerfully to the kind of trapped feeling that people often experience in catastrophes.

Other than that line, however, everything in the quote above is unique to Luke. Here is what I see:
- Luke is writing about Jerusalem and not the temple per se. It may be that, by the time Luke is writing, Judaism has moved beyond being temple-centered and is more and more identified with synagogues that are being built up throughout the Roman empire. If that is the case, the destruction of the temple would still be significant (that is the issue that starts this discourse), but not as critical to the survival of Judaism itself as it might be in Mark's gospel.
- Luke sees the destruction of Jerusalem as a fulfillment of scriptural vengeance...
- ... against "this people," namely Jews.
- The "times of the Gentiles" is also a fulfillment of sorts. Jesus does not say that these times fulfill anything that is written, only that the times of the Gentiles "will be fulfilled." Is this Luke's way of talking about the Roman empire? Perhaps he is seeing that empire as something that will also come to an end eventually. Or, perhaps he is seeing Rome's destruction of Jerusalem as part of God's salvific activity, much like Isaiah c.45 speaks of Cyrus the Persian King as "God's anointed." Bear in mind that Luke also writes the book of Acts, in which the gospel is brought to the Gentiles and the church takes on an increasingly Gentile make-up. So, or Luke to speak of the "times of the Gentiles" is not unusual.

Well, for someone who is worn out from nailing jello to the wall, I've said a whole lot this morning. Now, I'm going to leave off until Monday. Stay tuned, or, better yet, read it for yourself and chime in!

Luke and the Kingdom of God

Today we're going to look at just one small difference between Mark's 13th chapter and Luke's 21st chapter, as a way of looking at the nature of Luke's gospel as a whole. If you haven't been reading this blog all along, first of all 'shame on you' and second here's where I'm coming from.

- Mark writes the difficult 'apocalyptic' message of his 13th chapter during the time that Jerusalem is under siege, ending with the temple being utterly destroyed.

- Luke (this is true for Matthew also) is writing anywhere from 10-20 years later. So, for Luke, the destruction of the temple is a done deed and any expectation of 'the Son of Man coming in the clouds' at that particular junction in history is gone.

- Scholars call this 'the delay of the parousia' and many New Testament texts seem to be dealing with that fact.

- Luke's 21st chapter is a repetition of what Mark says in his 13th chapter, but with some differences.

My conclusion is that whatever differences we see between Mark's 13th chaper and Luke's 21st chapter are reflective of Luke's theology, his inspired message, his way of telling Christ's story. And 'intertextuality' is my way of trying to respect Luke's unique voice, in opposition to the 'homotextuality' of Left Behind Theology that pretends that each of these books and every reference to the 'end times' say virtually the same thing or, at least, fit onto one big meta-narrative timeline that lurks in the shadows behind all of these separate texts.

Today, we're going to look at one particular difference between Luke and Mark, which we'll use as a window into Luke's larger message. We'll begin by comparing a verse that follows their words regarding how the fig tree is a sign of summer and how Jesus' disciples ought to be just as savvy at reading the signs of the times as they are at reading the signs of changing seasons.

Mark 13:29 says "So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates." The 'he' in this verse is implied. In the orginal Greek, there is no pronoun, but the verb 'is' is in the 3rd person singular, so the implied antecedent is 'the Son of Man.'

Luke 21:31 says, "So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that the kingdom of God is near." Ah! Luke does not rely on the implied 'he', but quite explicitly names this moment of expectation as an expectation of the Kingdom (or 'reign') of God. Hmm... What to make of that small change?

[First of all, please understand that I'm not one of those 'gotcha!' people who thinks every little difference means the whole Bible is hooie. I think that's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard, to be honest, and I think what they are struggling mightily to disprove is not the Bible or any truth found in the Bible, but the 'verbal, plenary inspiration' view that we talked about earlier. Second, I think the whole 'verbal, plenary inspiration' view is equally wrong-headed and prevents us from appreciating the rich texture of the Scriptures, especially when we have a clear difference between Luke and Mark that is an opportunity to understand, not a problem to be defended. I ascribe to neither homotextuality nor homotextualphobia.]

So, this slight difference raises the question of how it is that Luke understands "the kingdom of God." So, let's put it as a game quiz.

Luke sees "the kingdom of God" as

a. A present reality.

b. A future reality.

c. A near reality.

d. A little bit of all of the above.

Hmm... how to answer a question like this? Word study! Yes, that is one way. A word study of this phrase reveals that Mark uses the phrase quite a bit, Matthew prefers 'Kingdom of heaven,' although I would argue that it means the same thing, and Luke uses the phrase a LOT. Luke also says a few really interesting things about the Kingdom of God. Like telling the disciples that some of them would not taste death before they saw the Kingdom of God (9:27). I've heard rumors that most of those disciples are, in fact, dead. Or, when Jesus tells the disciples to go out and proclaim that the Kingdom of God has come near (10:9 and 11). Or when Jesus says, "But if I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you" (11:20).

Yes, doing a simple word study- or, in this case, a phrase study- shows that (d) would be a strong answer above, but more importantly it shows that the 'right' answer would depend on the situation and context of each use.

Another way of learning from Luke's small change of the implied 'he' to 'the kingdom of God' would be to consider what Luke seems to understand as the change that Jesus is bringing into the world. When we pray, using the Lord's Prayer, "May your name be hallowed; may your kingdom come; may your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven" what does Luke think we are asking for?

I'm not a Luke scholar per se, but I think immediately to the birth narrative of Jesus, that is unique to Luke. (That is key: The story we read every Christmas is unique to Luke among the 4 gospels. Matthew also has a birth narrative, but tells it differently. So, this is where we really start to see Luke's uniqueness come through, which may help explain some of the other, small changes that Luke might make when telling a story he has in common with Mark and Matthew.) When Mary (young woman, virgin, pregnant) goes to visit her cousin Elizabeth (old woman, post-menopausal, pregnant), Mary says something that we've come to call 'the Magnificat' (after the Latin word for 'magnifies'.) Mary says that the child in her womb will bring about some big changes- bringing down the high places, lifting up the lowly, filling the poor with good things and sending the rich away empty. When, later, we read in Luke's 21st chapter that when the catastrophes taking place are harbingers that "the kingdom of God is near," then we ought to be thinking that this radical transformation of the social order that Mary envisioned is still a promising reality.

Likewise, the same kind of vision is operative when Jesus preaches his first sermon in Luke, 4:16-20, which is another story that is unique to Luke. That's where Jesus reads from Isaiah 61, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me..." and after reading and rolling up the scroll and sitting down says, "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing." Yowzah! That scripture happened to say that Jesus would bring good news to the poor, sight to the blind, release to captives, and so forth- the same kind of transformation that Mary saw coming.

So, if we avoid the homotextual approach to these end-time discourses in Mark 13 and Luke 21, allowing instead for each of them to have their own integrity and voice, it opens Luke up for us to hear in a profound way.

I don't know how you can construct a timeline of 'the' second coming, when Mark, Matthew, and Luke seem to understand it differently.

- Mark has Jesus appearing at the end of the catastrophe of the temple's destruction. Perhaps Mark saw this 'coming' as a symbol of hope-- like when the previous temple was destroyed 200 years before that and the symbol of 'the Son of Man coming in the clouds' sustained the people-- rather than a literal ending of the Roman empire and beginning of all things new.

- Matthew sets this event within one long discourse that ends with the story of the sheep and goats. (You'll have to read last week's posts to see what I think about that!)

- Luke speaks of the Kingdom of God as a 'here', a 'not quite here but almost', and a 'coming' reality.

Trying to put of these texts on an "End of Time Timeline" is like nailing jello to a wall. It can be done, I suppose, but how stupid is that? A Timeline is simply the wrong way to approach the Kingdom of God. In fact, I think it is more revealing of us and our tendency to want to control, than it is of God's intentions.

So ... I need to go and paint the basement. We'll talk more tomorrow. I may use one day to walk you through the process of "responding" to these posts, since that seems to be a great mystery for many of you. Ah well.

Mark and Luke: Intertextuality Again

I suppose that for a good time you can call 225-3994, like the note on the bathroom wall at that gas station on Highway 151 that saved my bladder says, but here's a better suggestion. For a good time, try holding Mark's 13th chapter side by side with Matthew's 24th chapter (remembering that Matthew's story is not done until chapter 25); or hold Mark's 13th chapter side by side with Luke's 21st chapter; or hold Matthew 24 (not forgetting chapter 25) and Luke 21 side by side. Heck, we could make a whole week's worth of fun out of this. I'll bet you can't do that by calling 225-3994!

The point of these exercises would be to see how these three inspired writers deal with the apocalyptic discourse that was first recorded in Mark 13 during the time of the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, and then revised accordingly by Matthew and Luke some years after that devastating event. For some of you, who have only tuned into this fascinating blog recently, I have been trying to make a distinction between the way that Left Behind Theology reads texts like these and a more promising way of reading them. I call the method of Left Behind Theology 'homotextuality,' because it is a forced way of reading biblical texts as if they all say the same thing, merely needing a sophisticated insider to piece them all together on a timeline. In place of reading the Scriptures this way, I encourage you to read the relationship between texts as an intertextual relationship, where later writers quite deliberately receive words and meanings from previous texts, but also transform those words and meanings by re-telling their stories.

I would argue that when Mark 13 uses the language of Daniel 7-12, Mark is deliberately reaching back to a text that was written during a horrific incident of the temple's desecration as a way of telling the story and interpreting the destruction of the temple in his day. Likewise, when Matthew is using Mark's story as a primary source, but writing his gospel 10 to 20 years later, he uses Mark's story of the destruction of the temple, but alters it to fit his own situation, for which the destruction of the temple is a past event and not a present reality. And the same can be said for Luke's 21st chapter. Out of great regard for Mark's story (as I said yesterday), Luke maintains a lot of Mark's 13th chapter. But, out of a need to interpret these events for his own day (like Matthew, Luke is writing perhaps 10 to 20 years later than Mark), Luke will alter certain things, leave out some things, and add some things. Homotextuality would feel the need to reconcile these differences with some clever argumentation. Intertextuality sees these differences as opportunities to understand what Luke was specifically inspired to say, without trying to squish him into the same box of conformity where Mark is.

(Irrelevant point of interest: I have a friend who googled 'homotextuality' one day and my blog came up! But, it was down the list a bit, fourth or fifth in the order. In the process, he discovered that I did not, in fact, invent that word. Darn! It appears in the subtitle of a book by Rudi C. Bleys called Images of Ambiente: Homotextuality and Latin (O/A) American Art, 1810-Today. Any title that long, with a colon, and a parenthetical inclusion- the o/a show both the male and female suffix to Latin- has to be a dissertation, don't you think? At any rate, the word 'homotextuality' was also associated with Andre Gide, long before I started blogging. Double darn! Gide and Bleys' use of 'homotextuality' is different from mine. I am using it literally: Homo = same; textuality = regarding written texts. Bleys' uses it as a shortcut for texts about homosexuality, which is clever, but I still think I ought to get the rights to it, since I'm using it more literally. I could sue for damages, but I'll settle for being the first reference under the word 'homotextuality' in Google. You can help the cause by googling the word over and over and making it appear that I'm a lot more important than I really am! Or, for a good time, you can call 225-3994. Tell them Andre Gide sent you.)

An intertextual reading of Mark 13 and Luke 21 would give both Mark and Luke their own integrity, without trying to morph one of them into the other. And a side by side reading of them shows some significant differences. For example, after both of them record Jesus as saying that wars between nations will come, Mark says, "but the end is still to come." Luke, writing well after the temple's destruction and knowing that the end did not come during that catastrophe as many thought it would, says instead, "but the end will not follow immediately." It is different. Some Bible critics (in the worst sense of the word) would point to that and say, "See, the Bible has contradictions!" That's the kind of criticism that homotextualists are trying to avoid by insisting that all texts are really saying the same thing. But, both the critics and the defenders are off base here. What we ought to do is to look at this difference and say, "Mark is saying one thing with this story and Luke is saying another. Each is inspired and each had something important to say to their community in their time." And, we could add, that you and I can learn a lot by what Mark and Luke say, as well as by acknowledging their differences and learning from them. That's how intertextuality works.

Tomorrow (and perhaps on Thursday), we'll look at four other places where Mark and Luke tell this story differently. For now, I just encourage you to forget 225-3994 and treat yourself to a good time by holding Mark 13 and Luke 21 side by side for a while, respecting their words, honoring their differences, and listening for how God speaks to us today through them.

Cheers.

What Luke Has to Say

So far we've looked at Mark 13, where Jesus says that the temple will be destroyed, awful events will take place, families will be divided, people should head for the hills (as opposed to joining the ill-fated revolt against Rome), and that after all of these events they will see "the Son of Man coming in the clouds." That language is an explicit reference to Daniel, more specifically to the second half of Daniel, which seems to have been written around 200 years before the Gospel of Mark was written. Both Daniel 7-12 and Mark 13 were written during times when the temple was being destroyed by the prevailing empires of their day.

Following the opinions of most scholars, it seems that Matthew was written 10-20 years after Mark, with Mark as one of his resources. Luke also seems to have been written around the time that Matthew was, and Luke also seems to have Mark as one of his resources. In my opinion, Luke and Matthew had very high regard for Mark's gospel, using it as a reliable resource and following Mark's outline almost exactly (over 90% of Mark's content is included in Matthew and Luke). That is significant, because there were plenty of other resources out there-- both oral and written-- that Matthew and Luke seem to dismiss or ignore or consider downright stupid.

So, here's the deal with Mark's "little apocalypse," that 13th chapter where Jesus is answering the question of when the temple will be destroyed and what are the signs of the end of the age.

Matthew adopts and adapts Mark's 13th chapter in Matthew 24. As we saw last week, Matthew changes some of Mark's tenses, since the destruction of the temple is a done deal by the time Matthew is writing. And, Matthew makes his 24th chapter part of a longer discourse that concludes with chapter 25, and specifically with the story of the judgment of the sheep and goats. The material in Matthew 25 is unique to Matthew, for the most part. He does not get it from Mark or share it with Luke.

This week, we'll look at how Luke takes up the catastrophic events of Mark 13 and see how it fits within his overall scheme of things, as well as how he differs from Mark and Matthew in telling this part of the story.

Today, I want to ask you about your understanding of 'biblical inspiration.' This is a different topic than 'biblical authority,' but a related topic to be sure. How do you understand the phrase, "The Bible is inspired"? The word 'inspired' comes from a greek work that is found in II Timothy 3:16, which reads, "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness." The greek word is an interesting merger of 'God' (theos) and 'spirit' (pneuma), which can also be 'breath' or 'wind.' A literal rendering might be "All scripture is God-breathed..." But, this letter to Timothy does not explain exactly what it means to say that scriptures are 'God-breathed'.

- Are the Scriptures dictated word for word by God?
This is a very popular understanding, sometimes called the 'verbal plenary inspiration' view. But, it has problems. We'll see one in a minute.

- Are the Scriptures the product of inspired people?
I am more comfortable with this language, recognizing that the people writing the texts that we call Scripture were not just writing on their own accord, but were attempting to represent the truth that had captured their hearts and were meaningful for them. I think Paul's letters tack this direction, when he qualifies certain things as 'this is me talking, not the Lord' and other things as 'this is what I saw in my vision from the Lord.' It is also more like the kind of voice the prophets used, when they would say "Thus says the Lord..." in order to show that they were trying to speak, not their own opinion, but something more substantial and meaningful. The struggle there, of course, is to honor the 3rd Commandment and not to take God's name in vain when speaking that way.

Luke is a very interesting writer, because he is more evident in his self-awareness as a gospel writer than Mark or Matthew. (John has this kind of self-awareness also. It shows up at the very end of his gospel.) Consider Luke's opening statements in Luke 1:1-4 and my observations:

Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.

- Luke recognizes that he is a secondary source at best and more likely a tertiary source. He is not an eye-witness. He has not necessarily even spoken to eye-witnesses. Rather, he is reading texts that were written by people who were informed by eye-witnesses.

- Luke investigates many texts and decides to write an orderly account of "the events that have been fulfilled among us." He does not say, "God told me to write these words..." or anything like that. He does not go into a kind of mindless frenzy, where his hand starts writing and he can't stop it, or his mind starts hearing and he can't tune it out. Nope. He investigates carefully and tries to set the record straight. That means that he was quite deliberate in this process.

- Luke is writing to Theophilus, which might be a real person or a type, because the name literally means "Lover/friend (philos) of God (theos)." This may be an open letter to ... YOU!

- Theophilus has already heard this story; Luke is wanting to "write an orderly account." Luke does not say, "Some of those other writers are whack!", but that is an open possibility.

- Luke's self-aware appraisal of other writings, and his extensive use of Mark, makes me think that he found Mark's gospel to be the most reliable text out there. He had other sources that he finds reliable as well (scholars call one of them "Q". They will tell you that "Q" simply is shorthand for the word "quelle" in German, which means 'source.' I think it is really because all of the cool people in James Bond and Men in Black movies are named after a single letter.)

What are we to make of all of this? Well, to start, Luke is NOT a biblical fundamentalist. He does NOT ascribe to a 'verbal, plenary view of biblical inspiration.' If you want to think that way, go ahead, but remember, Luke is looking at you funny and he sure hopes you aren't pretending that he does!

More importantly, it helps us as we look at how Luke includes the apocalyptic stuff from Mark 13 into his gospel. It comes in Luke 21 and we'll give it a go tomorrow... Lord willin' and the creek don't rise.

Starting with the Ending

Okay, the results are in and the verdict is clear! I invited you, on Wednesday, to let me know whether you'd like to move on to Luke or stay and roll around in Matthew for a little longer. I even gave out my email address! And what an effective survey; I think everyone who reads this blog must have responded. Both of you! (By the way, thanks Mom and Dad. You're the greatest!)

Incidentally, Joe the Plummer did not vote, but Joe Six-pack alleges that his absentee ballot is "in the mail." (That excuse doesn't really work any more with email, but he doesn't know that.)

At any rate, the people have spoken and they say that we should stay with Matthew just a bit longer. So, here's the recap:
- Mark writes c.13 of his gospel around the time of the destruction of the temple.
- C.13 is Mark's "little apocalypse" which, technically, means 'little revelation,' but in many people's minds means, "Lots of scary stuff that reminds me of the book of Revelation, so I don't like to read it!" However, it is, as you might expect, a popular chapter among the Left Behind crowd.
- Matthew includes much of Mark's 13th chapter in his 24th chapter.
- However, Matthew is writing way after the destruction of the temple, so he uses slightly different language to signify that he interprets Jesus talking about future catastrophes.
- One thing Matthew and his community are dealing with is the fact that Jesus didn't come back when the temple was destroyed, as many of them expected. Hmm...
- I had a friend in college who was convinced that Jesus would come back when Israel and Egypt signed the Camp David accords. Jesus didn't come back then, either. Darn!

Put all that together, except maybe that last irrelevant part about my friend in college, and you can see that Matthew is using Mark's apocalyptic language, but not in the same way that Mark used it. In fact, Matthew is facing a fairly familiar problem for the early church which scholars call the delay of the 'parousia,' and you and I call 'the fact that Jesus didn't return soon, like they expected.'

I think the fact that Jesus did not return immediately (like 34 CE), or even a few years after immediately (50ish CE), or even during an awful religious/human catastrophe such as when the temple was destroyed (70 CE), was one of the most vexing problem that the early church faced. In time, though, they had to move on and consider things like, "the apostles are dying, who will replace them?" Or, "All of our language presumes that adults are turning to Jesus as our Christ. How do we describe children who have been born into this way of believing?" And so forth.

Then, once the church starts to arrange and comport itself with regard to the fact that Jesus has not returned immediately, the other challenge is: "How do we keep ourselves 'alert' and 'expecting' the second coming, while planning our future?"

Do you see the challenge? Planning for the second and third generation leads inevitably to what we call with disdain- institutionalism, bureaucracy, tradition, and so forth. It is not intentional, it just happens whenever a movement has been around long enough and tries to sustain itself. What gets lost in that development is the edge of the original expectation.

I'm wondering if this the the point at which preachers' veins started poking out of their necks a little bit when they spoke about the second coming. If people have ceased living with the original urgency, it feels like you have to preach up that urgency a little more.

Whether early church preachers had big neck veins or not, you understand that the fact that Jesus didn't return immediately was a challenge. Then, the longer Jesus didn't return and the more the church arranged its life, language, and expectations about the future around dealing with that delay, the more challenging it became to remember things like Jesus' admonition to 'watch and be ready.'

What Matthew's last story- the story of the sheep and goats in Matthew 25:31-46- suggests, is that all of the 'watch' language of chapters 24-25 is not "watch for the big show, the one time final event!" but, rather, "watch for how Christ returns in the guise of the naked, the hungry, the thirsty," and so forth. THAT'S the effect that this final story in this one big, long discourse has on the earlier stories. It re-focuses them away from 'the final catastrophe' to 'every instance of catastrophe.' It re-focuses the reference to "the days of Noah" as a time when people ignored God's judgment to "and how are you treating Christ now, as you ignore the hungry, the imprisoned," etc.

IF we read Matthew's chapters 24 and 25 backwards, through the concluding story of Matthew 25:31-46, then everything changes. What we need is not another big-haired television preacher barking on and on about how a presidential candidate is the anti-Christ, or another book about how Iran is Gog, Iraq is Magog, and Bokslaviana Trianjinadab is the beast. "SAVE IT, PEOPLE!" says Matthew, "IF YOU AREN'T GIVING YOUR FULL ATTENTION TO THE POOR- WHICH ARE YOUR FIG TREES- OR THE NEGLECTED PRISONERS- WHICH IS YOUR SUN LOSING ITS LIGHT- THEN YOU ARE MISSING CHRIST'S RETURN."

That's what happens when we take Matthew seriously. All of the 'end time' urgency becomes 'our time' urgency. That's where Christ's return is found. Don't you think?

Matthew and One Big, Long Discourse

So, what does it mean for Matthew, that the one big, long discourse of chapters 24-25 ends with the a judgment story- or, more correctly, with this particular judgment story, familiarly known as the story of the sheep and goats? My reading is that the entire discourse is fulfilled in this story, found in Matthew 25:31-46.

‘When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. Then the king will say to those at his right hand, “Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.” Then the righteous will answer him, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?” And the king will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.” Then he will say to those at his left hand, “You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.” Then they also will answer, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?” Then he will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.” And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.’

What's odd about this story, especially as the culmination of an 'end-time discourse'?

- There is no emphasis on grace alone, faith alone, or anything else that Protestants typically insist on.
- There is no emphasis on the mediating role of the church, or anything else that Roman Catholics typically insist on.
- There is no emphasis on professing any particular faith in Jesus at all.
- There is not emphasis on having an advantage for knowing the 'signs of the end times' better than anyone else.
- There are, however, sheep and goats, destined for eternal bliss or eternal torment, not a general salvation that universalists typically insist on.
- What distinguishes sheep from goats is how they treat 'the least of these.'
- 'The least of these' refers to the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger, the naked, the sick and the imprisoned. If that is not an exhaustive list, it is a well-rounded one to signify people in need of the resources that the sheep shared, but the goats did not.
- The sheep and the goats are equally surprised that what they did or did not do to 'the least of these' was done to Christ. There is no insider knowledge among the righteous here. There is only whether or not one fed, gave a drink, etc.

Isn't this a disturbing story? Honestly, whose category does it fit? Even folks who generally hold to a 'works righteousness' approach to salvation grit their teeth because of the ignorance of both the sheep and the goats.

Remember, this is the culmination of one big, long discourse that was prompted by the questions of when the temple would be destroyed, what would be the signs of its coming, and of the end of the age. So, here's my proposal:

If you want to know when Christ will return, look down, not up. Look down at the downtrodden, serve them, and you will meet the Christ. If you want to know the signs of the coming of Christ, look at hunger, the lack of potable water, the maldistribution of essential goods, the causes of overpopulated prisons, the lack of health care for everyone, and the tragedies around indigent care for the sick, the disabled, or the elderly. Those who insist that we work out modern-day identifications of Gog and Magog will gag and may gag at the thought of it, but they are simply missing the point: Matthew is fine with ignorance. Jesus not only insists that "about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father" (24:36), but the references to remembering Noah, and how 'one will be taken, the other left' are used to demonstrate how rampant ignorance and 'unexpectation' are. Now, in this final story, it turns out that ignorance is spread out equally among the good and the bad, the saved and the damned, the sheep and the goats.

All of the emphases on understanding the fig tree's way of indicating the season, of not falling for this or that false messiah, of being vigilant and ready, of weathering the wars and rumors of wars, of external persecutions for one's faith, of internal strife among families and disputes within the church, ALL OF THESE EMPHASES CULMINATE IN A STORY WHERE SERVING THE POOR IN IGNORANCE IS THE TICKET TO SALVATION.

Dang! That seems to take the wind out of the sails of almost every Left Behind Theology book ever written doesn't it? Who would have thought that a soup kitchen was a better expression of eschatalogical readiness than reading Tim LaHaye's fiction, or listening to yet another ranting end-time radio preacher?

I guess the right response to the bumper sticker that says, "In case of rapture, this vehicle will be driverless" should be, "Good, then we can give it to someone in need." I don't know where the driver thinks he'll be, but Matthew is fairly sure that if you want to meet Christ, it happens on the ground and not in the air.

I'm going on and on, but that is because Matthew throws everyone a curve with his one big, long discourse about the signs of the times and the end of the age culminating with the story of the sheep and goats. And if THIS is where the earlier parts of that one big, long discourse were heading, it might make us go back and revisit all of the parts of that one big, long discourse and see them differently.

We might do that tomorrow, or we might move on to Luke. Since it's election season, let's put it ot a vote. Do you want to see how this ending changes the earlier parts of this one big, long discourse? Or, do you wnat to move on to Luke? Cast your vote at hpcpastor@man.com by 8:00pm central time tonight!

Matthew and Mark: Intertextuality ... again

So, yesterday we took a small part of Matthew 24 and showed how most of it is adopted directly from Mark 13, word for word. There were a few small changes, however, some deletions and some additions, which- I infer- indicate the difference in the situation that Mark was facing (65-70 CE, siege and destruction of the temple) and the situation that Matthew was facing (80-85 CE, diaspora of Jews and Jewish Christians).

More importantly is the difference in how Mark and Matthew use the pronouncements in Mark 13 and Matthew 24. Remember, these are the chapters that seem to figure prominently into Left Behind Theology, putting words of woe and future catastrophe into Jesus' mouth. But, as we've already seen, Mark seems to be addressing his own situation, the catastrophe of the temple's destruction (again), which explains why he relied to much on the book of Daniel, also concerned about the destruction of the earlier temples.

The best resource that I know of regarding what Mark is up to in chapters 11-16 is The Last Week, by Marcus Borg and Jon Dominic Crossan. There are many good books on Mark out there, but this one seems to capture the flow of those latter chapters of Mark so well, noting that Mark deliberately follows each day of Jesus' last week prior to the crucifixion. The 13th chapter needs to be read in that context to take Mark's gospel seriously.

Although Matthew uses much of Mark 13 in his 24th chapter, he takes Jesus' words in an entirely different direction. For Matthew, chapters 24-25 make one big, long discourse. The 'frames' of this one big, long discourse are 24:3 and 26:1: "When [Jesus] was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying 'Tell us, when will this be and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?'" That's the beginning of this one big, long discourse. The end is 26:1, "When Jesus had finished saying all these thing...." EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN MATTHEW 24:3 AND 26:1 IS ONE BIG, LONG DISCOURSE. (Please repeat that after me!)

"So what?" you may be asking. Good question! Here's what happens in between Matthew 24:3 and 26:1, which- by the way- is one big, long discourse.

- Matthew takes Mark's words from Mark 13 and includes them (again, I think this reflects Matthew's opinion that of all the writings out there about Jesus, this is the primary and most reliable one!)
- Matthew adds more to Mark's words. The parable of the faithful and unfaithful slaves is not in Mark, but Matthew adds it in 24:45-51. (Luke has this parable in his gospel, but not as part of this final discourse. It comes much earlier in Luke.)
- In addition, Matthew concludes this one big, long discourse with some completely unique material that is found nowhere in Mark or Luke (or John). Matthew 25 is comprised of 3 stories: The parable of the 10 bridesmaids (vv.1-13) The parable of the talents (vv.14-30) and the judgment scene of the sheep and goats (vv.31-46).
- The key for understanding what Matthew is saying, which is different from Mark because the immediate crisis that Mark was facing is passed, is to see how Matthew adopts Mark's text and uses it differently.

So, here's my take: Since Matthew 24-25 is one big, long discourse, we should read it as one big, long discourse. It moves. It goes from a starting point to a concluding point. The starting point is that the temple will be destroyed and the discourse is a response to the question of the sign of this event and the end of the age. The ending point is the judgment story of the sheep and the goats. That story is the end point, the conclusion, the destination the whole point of this one big, long discourse.

LEFT BEHIND THEOLOGIANS BEWARE: You are not going to like what Matthew is up to here. If the story of the judgment- as Matthew describes it!- is the point of this one big, long discourse, then the whole idea that the rapture may come at any moment and that we have to be savvy to the signs and to figure out precisely what God is up to at every moment is simply bull manure. (I would put it a little more candidly, but there are some ridiculously savant 3 year olds that follow this blog closely.)

So, tomorrow we will look at the story of the judgment, Matthew 25:31-46, which is the conclusion, the whole point, of this one big, long discourse about the end of the age in Matthew's gospel. Please join the 3 year old savants and me for the fun!

Mark and Matthew: Intertextuality Continues

So, last week we looked at how the historical Daniel (whose story is in Daniel chapters 1-6) was remembered in the 2nd century BCE (through the visions in Daniel chapters 7-12), as the people of Israel faced a national calamity similar to what Daniel faced. Then, 200 years later, Mark employed some of the language from Daniel 7-12 as he told the story of Jesus at the temple; Mark was addressing the calamity of his day, when the temple was destroyed once again. I'll see if I can graph it for you:

6th century BCE: Babylon destroys temple; Daniels is faithful; Daniel chapters 1-6 tell the story.
2nd century BCE: Greece destroys temple; Daniel is remembered; Daniel chapters 7-12 interpret the events.
65-70 CE: Rome destroys temple; Daniel's memory is remembered; Mark 13 interprets the event.

(Please bear in mind that I blog off the top of my head, so if my dates are a little off, just let me know and we'll roll with it. But, let's not miss the point by quibbling over details unless they are critical.)

Most biblical scholars date Mark's gospel around 65-70 CE, during the time of the Jewish rebellion, the Roman response, the siege of Jerusalem, and finally the destruction of the temple. The 'intertextuality' here is Mark's use of Daniel's language. First, there is the explicit use of the phrase "desolating sacrilege" to refer, in Daniel, to the event when Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated the temple and, in Mark, to the destruction of the temple by the Romans. Second, there is Mark's messianic use of "the Son of Man coming in the clouds" to describe the redemption that will follow the calamities.

Most biblical scholars also believe that Matthew was written at least a decade after Mark. Of course there are differences of opinion here. Many conservative scholars want to deny influence of one gospel on another at all, because that seems to mess with their understanding of 'inspiration' as something like divine dictation. But, even among scholars who do not operate out of that kind of defensiveness, there is some question about whether Matthew was written before Mark, or the other way around. The majority, however, date Mark as being earlier than Matthew. I'm in that camp also, but I am only a minor thinker in this affair.

If we accept the most common dating of Matthew- say, 85 CE or so- then the destruction of Jerusalem is a done deal by the time Matthew is writing. So, we go into Matthew wondering how the conversations and pronouncements of Mark 13 look in a gospel that is written later. Here are some observations, first about Matthew in general and then about Matthew's adoption and adaptation of Mark 13.

1. Matthew, for the most part, follows the outline of Mark's gospel. So does Luke, by the way.
2. There are parts of Matthew that he shares in common with Luke that are not in Mark. (Biblical scholars call this "Q" as a source that Matthew and Luke have in common in addition to Mark as their primary source.)
3. There are parts of Matthew that are unique to Matthew. Biblical scholars generally refer to these sections as 'M'. That shows that biblical scholars, on the whole, are not very creative.
4. I read Matthew's (and Luke's) inclusion of so much of Mark's gospel into his own as a sign of having great regard for Mark's gospel. Remember, there were many different 'gospels' popping up all over the place over the first few centuries of the Christian church, so for Matthew to say that this particular gospel merits adoption is saying something!

5.Pertaining to Mark's 13th chapter, after the ordeal with the temple is past: Matthew takes some of Mark's language and changes it. Below is Matthew 24:15-22. In red are the things that Matthew adds to Mark's version; in green are the things that Matthew deletes from Mark's version.

‘So when you see the desolating sacrilege standing where it ought not to be in the holy place, as was spoken of by the prophet Daniel (let the reader understand), then those in Judea must flee to the mountains; someone on the housetop must not go down to take what is in the house; someone in the field must not turn back to get a coat. Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing infants in those days! Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath. For at that time there will be great suffering, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be. And if those days had not been cut short, no one would be saved; but for the sake of the elect he has cut short those days those days will be cut short.

Observation:
- Matthew makes sure that the reader knows that the 'desolating sacrilege' is a reference to Daniel. Perhaps that is what Matthew thought Mark meant by the parenthetical phrase 'let the reader understand.' My guess- and who am I compared to Matthew?- is that Mark was using the phrase 'let the reader understand' as a way of pointing from Daniel to the current situation at the temple; whereas Matthew uses it to point to Daniel as the origin of the language. I do not think Matthew has the destruction of the temple in view like Mark did.
- Matthew adds 'or on a Sabbath' as the worst time for having to flee. It might be that Matthew is writing to a more Jewish Christian audience and Mark to more Gentile Christians.
- Matthew does not adopts Mark's past tense to say that 'those days' have already been cut short. I think this is because Mark is looking at the destruction of Jerusalem, while Matthew is looking at some event that still lies in the future.

Tomorrow, we'll look at where Matthew eventually takes this text. If you want to read ahead, look at Matthew chapters 24 and 25 then compare that to Mark 13 and what follows. We'll pick it up there.

Daniel and Mark: Recurring Tragedies; Renewing Hope

If you go to Jerusalem today, you can visit 'the wailing wall,' which is about all that is left of the temple that Herod the Great built. It was one of the architectural wonders of the world in its day, built by the authority and power of Rome. It was also destroyed by the authority and power of Rome, which- if you ask me- is indicative of how empirical power works. All things are created as legitimations of power and therefore all things are liable to destruction as legitimations of power- religion included.

If you go to the Roman forum today, you can see the Arch of Titus, a commemoration of Rome's victory over the Jewish revolt of 66-70 CE. Inscribed there is a picture of defeated Jewish captives and someone carrying the seven-branched candlestick of the temple into Rome. For Rome, perhaps, this was just another stamping out of an upstart rebellion in a remote part of its empire. For Jews, it was a tragedy, just like the tragedy of 200 years earlier when the Greek army defeated them. And, of course, for those Jews (and Jewish Christians) who saw the establishment of Jerusalem and the temple as signals of God's covenant, even the hope of the world that one day the temple would indeed be the 'house of prayer for all nations,' this was more than simply a military defeat.

Most New Testament scholars today accept that Mark was the first written gospel, dated from somewhere around this time of the rebellion-siege-destruction of Jerusalem; so, anywhere from 65-70 CE. Likewise, the theory goes, Matthew and Luke each had access to Mark as one of their primary sources when writing their own gospel. Luke, for instance, begins his gospel with an inscription that openly declares his process of trying to wade through the various accounts of Jesus' life, including the oral stories that preceded the written texts, in order to get the story as accurate and orderly as possible. I expect that Luke had a copy of Mark in hand and, there are places where Luke and Matthew seem to be talking back and forth to one another, but I cannot discern who might be answering whom in that one. Compare, for example, Matthew's sermon on the mount (cc. 5-7) with Luke's sermon on the plain (6:17-49). These texts are uncanny in their similarities and differences to the point where one seems to be 'correcting' the other.

If we take intertextuality seriously, we can look at a story in Mark, consider its purpose for Mark's gospel and in Mark's time; then look at how Matthew and Luke might tell the same story a bit differently. The similarities would be very important; the differences would be very important. So, I'm going to take a fleeting look at Mark 13, what is sometimes called "Mark's Little Apocalypse," and then compare it to Matthew 24-25 and Luke 21. Today, we start with Mark 13.

Mark 13 is where Jesus predicts the destruction of the temple. The disciples respond with the question, "when will this be and what will be the sign that all these things are about to be accomplished?" The Question that leads into the scary scenario of nation rising against nation, etc., is the question of when the temple will be destroyed and what signs will accompany that event. I'm not making this up- they're at the temple and Jesus says it's going to be destroyed and the disciples ask when and what signs can they expect. THAT'S what the scary scenario is about in Mark 13. And, if Mark is writing anywhere between 65-70 CE, that's THE burning question for anyone who puts stock in Jerusalem and the temple as loci of God's blessings.

Jesus' response is varied. There will be persecution, wars and rumors of war. There will be a zillion false messiahs rising up and calling people to follow them. Families will turn on one another. The desolating sacrilege will be set up where it ought not to be (a reference to the past, when Antiochus Epiphanes did his ugly deed in the temple 200 years prior; as well as a coded reference to what the Romans were doing in Mark's time). More false Messiah's screaming "I am he, look at me!" A quote from Zephaniah that puts the catastrophe into cosmic terms (dark sun, shaking powers of heaven). And, then, a quote from Daniel, "They they will see 'the Son of Man coming in the clouds' with great power and glory. Then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the winds of heaven."

Okay, that's a lot. Let's unpack it a bit:

1. The question is about the destruction of the temple. The answer is about the destruction of the temple.
- The destruction of the temple happened in 70 CE. If you don't believe me, go see the wailing wall. It was utterly destroyed and the events in Mark 13 are not in the future.
-It is not legitimate for us to leap all of this text forward to some day in the future that has nothing to do with the destruction of the temple. Left Behind Theologians: Stop it.

2. Mark is writing to his people at his time, while telling this story of Jesus talking to his disciples at his time.
- I don't know what implications this has for anyone's definition of 'biblical inspiration' or 'biblical authority.' But, I am not willing to sacrifice taking this text at face value in order to preserve someone's view of the Bible. Here are a couple of idiosyncrasies from the text itself that demonstrate Mark's intentional use of this text for addressing his own time.
- First, there is the change of voice. As I showed yesterday, Mark changes his voice from narrator to commentor, from Jesus talking to the disciples to Mark talking to his readers in 13:14, which the NRSV translates as the parenthetical phrase "(let the reader understand)".
- Then, there is the curious change of tenses. As you go through this chapter, it is future tense, future tense, future tense, "Many will..." "When you hear..." "they will..." "when you see..." and then, suddenly, HEY!! In 13:20 "And if the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would be saved; but for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he has cut short those days."
Where in the world did these past and present tenses come from? 'Had not'? 'Has'? If Jesus is talking to his disciples about events that will happen 40 years or so down the road, shouldn't his language be 'will not' and 'will'? This is another indication that Mark is addressing his people and his time and their tragedy with Jesus' words. That is, by the way, exactly the pattern that whoever wrote chapters 7-12 of Daniel followed, when they addressed their people and their tragedy using 'Daniel's' words. It is not lying; it is not deceptive; it is a way of honoring the truth-telling of Daniel and of Jesus to take their way of speaking, their vision of hope, and to address it to one's own time and crisis.
- So, the question might arise: Did Jesus actually say these words that Mark has re-oriented to address his time, place, tragedy, and hope? And I can't answer that question. The "Jesus Seminar" might say 'No!' just like a biblical fundamentalist might say 'Yes!' but this is one of those moments when 'I don't know!' is probably the most honest answer we have going. And here is the deal: What we are encountering is a different way of recounting story. Gospel writing is honorific story-telling, not literal history-telling. Our penchant for literalism is such a new development in the large history of writing that our biggest error is to assume that ancient writers (writing Daniel 7-12 or Mark) give one fig about what we call 'history.'

3. What Mark has Jesus ultimately saying is, "have hope and endure to the end," or something to that effect. And in what can one hope when the holy city and temple are being bombarded? Hope in the same thing Daniel said to hope in: 'The Son of Man coming in the clouds.' Do we know exactly what that looks like? Nope. Did the Son of Man come in the clouds during Daniel's tragedy? Nope. Did the Son of Man come in the clouds during the temple's destruction or shortly thereafter? Nope. Is this a 'prophetic time line' that only the really smart insiders of Left Behind Theology can figure out for us? Nope. Is anyone really reading this blog? Nope.

4. So, here's the hard question. Were Daniel/Jesus/Mark wrong? Again: Nope. Not in their minds, because they were not giving literal prophecy any more than they were giving literal history. They were saying, "Have hope; God is not finished, even when the temple is desecrated or destroyed." The phrase "Son of Man coming in the clouds" is a hope-filled phrase that points to God bringing hope out of despair. The title 'Son of Man' is both the thoroughly human one, who will suffer and die, as well as the symbol of hope, who will conquer death and bring salvation. So, just when it seems like all is lost, God will save. That's the message of hope that Mark communicated to a forlorn people wondering what is up as Jerusalem and the temple are besieged.

On Monday: What does Matthew have to say about this?