Friday, May 10, 2013

as the sign of highest personal respect, call me by my first name

"In one stroke, Jesus erases titles (Matt. 23:8-10). Tagging each other with titles has noplace in the upside-down kingdom where everyone stands on equal ground" (226).
"Titles are foreign to the body of Christ. Terms like Doctor and Reverend perpetuate status differences unbefitting the spirit of Christ." Titles pay tribute to position, degree and status rather than to personhood. Members of flat kingdoms call each other, as the sign of highest personal respect, by our first names" (239, emphasis mine)
"We call each other by our first name, for we have one Master and one Lord, Jesus Christ" (256).

We mote how even "The Apostle Paul" never called himself that. Usually, "Paul, an apostle." And usually followed by "a servant/prisoner of Christ:..
How did he ID himself in Philemon?

See also:

quiz: how many times is 'pastor' mentioned in the NT?

--
Follow-up on the commandments. Colbert:

Get More: Comedy Central,Funny Videos,Funny TV Shows

CHIASMs: they can grow larger, and the recurrence can be more general, thematic.

And getting over VERSE-ITIS helps a lot in seeing chiasm in the big sweep. This is Genesis 6:

Or the tower of Babel in Genesis 11:

link

And we're only in the FIRST book of the Bible (:

Sometimes chiasms are are so large that they almost become a genre..or encompass an entire book.

In fact, they can become as large as life, See
James B. Jordan, “Chiasm and Life” in Biblical Theology Basics:

“Very much of human life is ‘there and back again,’ or chiastic. This is how God has designed human beings to live in the world. It is so obvious that we don’t notice it. But it is everywhere. This shape of human life arises ultimately from the give and take of the three Persons of God, as the Father sends the Spirit to the Son and the Son sends the Spirit back to the Father. We can see that literary chiasm is not a mere curiosity, a mere poetic device to structure the text. It arises from the very life of God, and is played out in the structure of the lives of the images of God in many ways and at many levels. It is because human beings live and move so often chiastically, that poets often find themselves drawn to chiastic writing. God creates chiasms out of His inner life, and so do the images of God.

Biblical chiasms are perfect. That is, they are perfectly matched to the human chiasms they address and transform. As we become more and more sensitive to Biblical chiasms, we will become more and more sensitive to one aspect of the true nature of human life under God. We will be transformed from bad human chiasms into good human chiasms. In this way, becoming sensitive to chiasm can be of practical transformative value to human life, though in deep ways that probably cannot be explained or preached very well.

One further thought. We saw in our previous essay that chiasms often have a double climax, one in the middle and the greatest at the end. The food we bought at market is put away in the cupboard and refrigerator when we get back home. Moving forward to a final climax is what all literature does, whether it has a middle climax or not. (Shakespeare’s five-act plays always move to a climax in the third and in the fifth acts.) This is just another way that human life matches literary production, in the Bible as well as in uninspired human literature. Becoming familiar with the shape and flow of Biblical texts will have a transforming effect on human life.”

James B. Jordan, “Chiasm and Life” in Biblical Theology Basics.

-link, Michael Bull’s blog: Theology you can eat and drink

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

Mike Rinaldi, a Visalian, and filmmaker (and Fresno Pacific grad) told this story at the first "Gathering to Bless Christians in the Arts":
Blake Snyder, the screenwriter behind the classicSave The Cat" book became a Christian not long before he died.

Often at this point in such a story, folks ask "Who led him to Christ?"

Go ahead and ask.

The answer is:

Chiasm.

It happened in large part because Mike, not even knowing if such a well-known and busy writer would respond to his email, asked him if he had heard about chiasm.

Turns out Snyder was fascinated with it all, and Mike was able to point out chiastic structure and shape in scriptwriting....and one thing led to another...and then in Scripture.

All roads, and all chiasms, lead to the Center and Source.

Mike, of course, learned chiasm in THIS CLASS.

Think about how you made your choices abut where to stand tonight during the exercise pictured below.

We will follow up on this. How did you feel being forced to pick a bounded set either/or), without opting fo a fuzzy set (Both/and) or centered (headed towards one option)?

Set theory

See:

Bounded or Centered Set?

Church B.S. or C.S.?

Looking for a way in

FUZZY SET:

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

-When does a mountain begin?

-Is it about predestination or free will?

-Faith or science?

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

aka "the marker trick" aka "Yep!":

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

new nets: bounded sets, fuzzy sets, or centered-sets?

Rock or Reef:..scroll to page 6-9
The Attractional Church
Changing Worldview (scroll to pages 9-12)

----

PHILEMON
When looking at "alternative" readings of Philemon, it is amazing how few even deal with the reality that the most obvious way to read vv 15-16-- "a dearly loved brother, both in the flesh and in the Lord" --as
both a literal and spiritual brother.

Tim Gombis is so right:

My main contention in these posts is that commentators must take Paul’s reference to Philemon and Onesimus as adelphoi en sarki with greater seriousness. It is highly unlikely that Paul regards the two as sharing in a common humanity. It is far more likely that they are actual brothers. This may demand a re-consideration of the scenario that eventuates in Paul’s letter, even though any modification to the consensus view need not be as dramatic as the view advanced by Callahan. link

Even N.T. Wright, who specializes in Philemon; even making it the key to his new magnum opus on Paul,
acknowledges the "literal brother" interpretation, but does not even consider it or discuss it (in 1700 pages) other than to say:

"one writer [Callahan] has even suggested that Philemon and Onesimus were not master and slave, but actual brothers who have fallen out, but, this too, has not found support." (p. 8)

Just because Callahan may have gone too far, must we throw interpretations out with bathwater?
Is Wright (surely!) aware that they could be master/slave and literal brothers, as Gombis develops (here) and suggests "this is the most natural reading." Wright's work is indeed brilliant and seminal, but perhaps Moo has a point about him being too sure of his interpretations...to the degree that, though he is the nicest guy, he can seem dismissive:

I won’t list other instances, but Paul and the Faithfulness of Godcontains too many of these kinds of rhetorically effective but exaggerated or overly generalized claims. A related problem is Wright’s tendency to set himself against the world—and then wonder why the world is so blind as to fail to see what he sees. A key thread, for instance, is Wright’s insistence that the basic story Paul’s working with has to do with God’s fulfillment of his covenant promises to Abraham—a vital focus that “almost all exegetes miss” and that has been “screened out from the official traditions of the church from at least the time of the great creeds” (494). This problem is sometimes compounded by a caricature of the tradition with which he disagrees Moo, full review

Don't get me wrong, I'm still getting the T-shirt...just saying (:

Another post from Gombis:

Several years ago I was teaching Bible study methods to undergrads and we were doing an exercise with the text of Paul’s letter to Philemon. A student raised his hand and noted that according to the text it appeared that Onesimus was the brother of Philemon.

This sounded outrageous and obviously wrong, so I asked how he could possibly have arrived at that notion. He directed my attention to vv. 15-16. We were looking at the NASB:

For perhaps he was for this reason separated from you for a while, that you would have him back forever, no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother, especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.

I hadn’t studied this letter all that closely previously, so I assumed that Paul’s indication that they were brothers “both in the flesh and in the Lord” must mean something else. Other translations make this very assumption:

Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever—no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord (NIV).
Maybe this is the reason that Onesimus was separated from you for a while so that you might have him back forever— ¹⁶no longer as a slave but more than a slave—that is, as a dearly loved brother. He is especially a dearly loved brother to me. How much more can he become a brother to you, personally and spiritually in the Lord (CEB)!

I told him that I’d need to look at that a bit more closely and get back to him at a later point (one of those unfortunate classroom moments when you don’t have a ready answer–ugh!).

As I dipped into commentaries over the subsequent weeks and months, I was increasingly disappointed by how commentators treated Paul’s expression. The NIV’s and CEB’s renderings represent how nearly every major commentary I’ve looked at handles Paul’s expression...link

I have had similar experiences in college classes. Often in a class of fifteen, where most are reading the text for the first time, I ask "How many of you assumed Onesimus was a slave?" Often, no hands go up.
I need to ask : "How many of you assumed Onesimus was a Philemon's literal brother?"

Interesting that a far more popular (in the sense of "speaking to laypeople" and not in the academic journal world) writer than Wright, assumes the literal brother view, without even acknowledging the "traditional" view (emphases mine):

Philemon is a marvelous example of the strongest force in the universe to affect control over someone -- grace. It takes up one of the most difficult problems we ever encounter, that of resolving quarrels between family members. We can ignore something a stranger does to hurt us, but it is very hard to forgive a member of our own family or someone close to us.
The key to this little letter is in the 16th verse. Paul says to Philemon that he is sending back Onesimus:

...no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother, especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord. (Philemon 1:16 RSV)

The background of this story is very interesting. This letter was written when the Apostle Paul was a prisoner in the city of Rome for the first time. It was sent to Philemon, a friend Paul had won to Christ, who lived in Colossae. Evidently Philemon had a young brother whose name was Onesimus.
Some way or another, we do not know how, Onesimus got into trouble -- maybe he was a gambling man -- and became the slave of his own brother, Philemon. In those days, if a man got into trouble, he could get somebody to redeem him by selling himself to that person as a slave. Perhaps Onesimus got into debt, and went to his brother, Philemon, and said, "Philemon, would you mind going to bat here for me? I'm in trouble and I need some money."
Philemon would say, "Well, Onesimus, what can you give me for security?"
Onesimus would say, "I haven't got a thing but myself, but I'll become your slave if you'll pay off this debt." Now that may or may not have been how it occurred, but the picture we get from this little letter is that Philemon is the brother of Onesimus, and his slave as well. -Ray Stedman, link

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

So glad Tim Gombis (fantastic writer) posted this series on Philemon. Most folks have never even heard the interpretation that Philemon and Onesimus are literal bothers, even though "this is the most natural reading" (Gonbis):

CLICK TITLES TO READ:

Philemon &; Onesimus: The Consensus -

Questioning the Consensus, Pt. 1

Questioning the Consensus, Pt. 2

Questioning the Consensus, Pt. 3

Philemon & Onesimus: Brothers in the Flesh

--

Inclusio: a literary world technique.
Something is repeated at beginning and end of a text or book to give you a clue as to main theme.

a literary device in which a word, phrase, or idea is included at the beginning and ened of a text (and sometimes in the middle). Example: the "with you"s of Matthew 1:23 , 18:20 and 28:20

Len Sweet is on to something, suggesting a Bible-wide inclusio. How wide and big can these things get? Wouldn't this cue us and clue us in to the heart message of the whole Book?
Check it out!

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.

Inclusio with chiasm, baby.

You knew God was with us in Christ.. But now you see it as you look at Matthew structurally..
--

Jesus is the new Moses."

BTW: Note an inclusio in that the first and last teachings happen on a mountain..hmmmm

SERMON ON THE MOUNT, Mathew chapter 5

Remember:

Who was the sermon addressed to?
Why did he teach on a MOUNTAIN?
Why did Jesus sit down to teach?

When we read the "beatitudes," the first section of the Sermon on the Mount: -- do you catch any inclusio? (Note the first and last beatitudes (only) of chapter 5 end

with a promise of the kingdom of heaven, implying that the other promises in between "being filled," "inherit the earth," "be comforted" all have to do with Kingdom

--and if Jesus is a NEW MOSES of sorts, then we should look at

SERMON ON THE MOUNT:
Discussion on how Jesus was interpreting/reinterpreting the law of Moses/Torah(Matt 5:17-48).
Some would suggest that he is using the rabbi's technique of "Building a fence around the TORAH."

For example, if you are tempted to overeat, one strategy would be to build a literal fence around the refrigerator...or the equivalent: don't keep snacks around.

See:

What does building a fence around the Torah mean?

Some wonder of this is what Jesus is doing here. See:
Jesus' Antitheses - Could they be his attempt to build a fence around the Torah?

One can see how this could turn to legalism...and when do you stop building fences? See:

A Fence Around the Law

Greg Camp and Laura Roberts write:

In each of the five examples, Jesus begins by citing an existing commandment. His following statement may be translated as either "And I say to you... " or as "But I say to you ...” The first option shows Jesus' comments to be in keeping with the commandments, therefore his words will be an expansion or commentary on the law. This is good, standard rabbinic technique. He is offering his authoritative interpretation, or amplification, to God's torah, as rabbis would do after reading the torah aloud in the synagogue. The second translation puts Jesus in tension with the law, or at least with the contemporary interpretations that were being offered. Jesus is being established as an authoritative teacher who stands in the same rabbinic tradition of other rabbis, but is being portrayed as qualitatively superior to their legal reasoning.

After citing a law Jesus then proceeds to amplify, or "build a hedge" around the law. This was a common practice of commenting on how to put a law into practice or on how to take steps to avoid breaking the law. The idea was that if you built a safe wall of auxiliary laws around the central law, then you would have ample warning before you ever came close to breaking the central law. A modern example might be that if you were trying to diet you would need to exercise more and eat less. In order to make sure that that happened you might dispose of all fats and sweets in the house so as not to be tempted. Additionally, you might begin to carry other types of snacks or drink with you so as to have a substitute if temptation came around, and so forth. In the first example of not killing, Jesus builds a hedge that involves not being angry and not using certain types of language about others. One of the difficulties is that it becomes very difficult not to break his hedges. This might drive his hearers to believe that he is a hyper-Pharisee. Some interpreters have wanted to argue that Jesus does this in order to drive us to grace—except grace is never mentioned in this context. This is a wrong-headed approach to get out of the clear message that Jesus is proclaiming: you must have a transformed life. By building his hedges, Jesus is really getting to the heart of what the law was about. In the first example, the intent is not just to get people not to kill each other (though that is a good thing to avoid), rather it is there to promote a different attitude about how to live together. Taken together, the 10 Words (Commandments) and the other laws which follow in Exodus-Numbers paint a picture of a people who will look out for one another rather than just avoiding doing injury to one another. This becomes clear in Jesus’ solution at the end of the first example. The solution is not to throw yourself on grace or to become paralyzed by fear, but to seek right relations with the other person. There seems to be an implicit acknowledgment that problems will arise. The solution is to seek the best for the other person and for the relationship. This is the heart of the law. The problem with the law is that it can only keep you from sin, but it cannot make you do good. The rabbi Hillel said “what is hateful to you, do not do to others.” In 7:12, Jesus provides his own interpretation “In everything do to others as you would have them do to you.” He changes the saying from refraining from sin, to actively doing good. The thesis statement in 5:20 is “unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” This then is how to exceed, or go beyond the law. In each of the five examples, the way to exceed the law is to make the relationship right.

Instead of drawing a new line in the sand that you are not supposed to cross before you are considered guilty, Jesus, confirms that the center is "love your neighbor" and then just draws an arrow (vector) and tells you to go do it. There is never a point at which you are able to finally fulfill the commandment to love. You can never say that you have loved enough. In the gospel of Matthew, the supreme example of this is Jesus' own life and death. His obedience and love knew no boundaries. --by Greg Camp and Laura Roberts

Ted Grimsrud, in your "God's Healing Strategy" book suggests:

"A better way [as opposed to legalistically legislating morality] to approach [the commandments] would be to ask first, 'What does this commandment teach us about God?'...Hence, the point of the commandments is not establishing absolute, impersonal, even coercive rules which must never be violated. The point rather is that a loving God desires ongoing relationships of care and respect....Paul's interpretation of the Law in Romans 13 makes clear the deepest meaning of the law not as rule-following, but as being open to God's love and finding ways to express that love towards others: 'The commandments..are summed up in this word, Love your neighbor as yourself.'" (pp. 33-34)

One can see how this could turn to legalism...and when do you stop building fences? See:
A Fence Around the Law

----
on the 6 antitheses of the Sermon on The Mount, remember my Paraguay stories?