Friday, October 28, 2016

Philemon help

(Note additional help on week 6 post) --

Philemon help?

Here is (from syllabus) the instructions on the Philemon paper. Read carefully, then read below for extra help. Remember, no research is required, but it would help:





Due: one week from last class session, midnight, via Turnitin.com


TASK


The summary paper for Biblical Perspectives is to be a 5-7 page paper that addresses the meaning of the New Testament book of Philemon. Using the skills developed in the course, develop a paper that combines an understanding of the historical, literary and contemporary worlds.


PURPOSE


The paper is meant to demonstrate the student’s own analysis and ability to work with a biblical text and as such need not to utilize other resources as in a traditional research paper.


FORM
Thesis:           The paper should include a clear thesis statement in the form of “the book of Philemon is about…”
Body:            The body of the paper should demonstrate a recognizable structure that articulates why the thesis is viable. The body of the paper may take the form of a verse by verse analysis, follow the categories of historical/literary/contemporary worlds, or use any thematic analysis that is most useful.
Conclusion:    The conclusion should restate the thesis and the support in summary fashion. The conclusion is also a place for reflection on the implications of Philemon for your life and work.
Symbol:         Throughout this course we have been using one guiding symbol for each night, corresponding to the theme of the evening.  Based on your study of the book of Philemon, develop your own symbol that you feel adequately conveys the message of the book and explain it in a paragraph.
GRADING


Grading is based upon how well the thesis is stated and supported, by the clarity of the structure, by the depth of thought and by the quality of mechanics (spelling, grammar).
----------------------------------
Don't forget your symbol...many do.
Here is some help on how to draw a diagram in WORD.

Here's a video on how to do it in Microsoft PAINT.
.


PHILEMON HELP? It would help to start collecting notes for your final paper on Philemon as soon as possible, as in a sense the whole class is preparing you to apply your "Three Worlds" skills to it.  I would start by reading it over (click here to read it a a few different translations) and listening to it a few times (audio below) and then going through the questions on pages 26 and 28 of your student guide (even though we will walk through those pages in class on Week 5),



Take a look at the "HOW TO STUDY A TEXT VIA THREE WORLDS" tab on our website, and consider using it as the lens for studying and writing your paper

Come up with a working written definition of what the book seems to be about.  Then you might want to branch out and watch some of the videos and commentaries linked below, remembering that they may not all get it "right," and you will see some things that the "experts" don't.  The commentaries will be helpful in understanding "historical world" background.  Pay careful attention to the instructions on the syllabus.  You do not have to cite any sources, but if you do, be sure you attribute them in your paper.
--



>>>N.T. Wright's  sermon (video excerpt and complete audio  here) will be helpful, as are his comments about the letter here, and his study questions on pages 55-57 here). 
Here below is his complete Tyndale commentary on Philemon:










 



Here's a "word cloud" representation of word frequency in Philemon.  What do you notice?:

Philemon Word Cloud
Philemon  Word Cloud

(all New Testament word clouds here)



What's Philemon about?:



--
Three readings of the letter:



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





  • If, for your paper, you want to consider chiasm in Philemon, after searching out any such structures yourselves (which you are getting good at!)     consider:





 

 

>>Here is a simple and helpful online commentary on Philemon

>>Here is an excellent one from IVP

>>several advanced online ARTICLES AND COMMENTARIES








The first three pages below are from "The Bible Background Commentary"(very helpful) and the last page is the text and study notes from "The NIV Study Bible."  They both cover some good historical and literary world background, which you may quote in your paper (not required), and which may help you decide the theme of the book.  


 Click a page to enlarge and read.  Once you have a page open, you can click to magnify it.







-------------------
Kurt Willems, an FPU seminary student, has posted a helpful 5 part series on Philemon (text links below, audio here):

  1. Philemon: Forgiveness that Leads to Reconciliation, part one
  2. Philemon: Forgiveness that Leads to Reconciliation, part 2 (Business / Partnership Metaphors
  3. Philemon: Forgiveness that Leads to Reconciliation, part 3 (A Slave, a Master, and Forgiveness)
  4. Philemon: Forgiveness that Leads to Reconciliation, part 4 (Radical Reconciliation)
  5. Philemon: Forgiveness that Leads to Reconciliation, part 5 (New Possibilites!)


James Dennison:


Perhaps we should approach Philemon by first analyzing its structure. You will observe that the first three verses include the names of five persons: Paul, Timothy, Philemon, Apphia, Archippus. You will further observe that the last three verses (vv. 23-25) conclude with the names of five persons: Epaphras, Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, Luke. Now observe also that the pattern of verses 1-3 is five names plus the phrase "the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ." This is precisely mirrored in verses 23-25: five names plus the phrase "the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ." The greeting or salutation of the epistle ends with the Lord Jesus Christ. The closing or conclusion of the epistle ends with the Lord Jesus Christ. A perfectly balanced inclusio structurally envelops the tender plea of the apostle on behalf of Onesimus. Paul, Timothy, Philemon, Apphia, Archippus—members of the church; Epaphras, Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, Luke—members of the church. Within the church, something new is occurring!  LINK


Alternative views:

a)He might be a slave, but not a runaway.  He simply was asking Paul for help in being an advocate.  This view solves several problems with the traditional view, and this article  is helpful on Paul's style of persuasion/theme of the letter.  by Brian  Dodd: click here




  b)"This is not about a runaway slave at alll.  Paul and Onesimus are literal brothers.":






There are several problems with the interpretation that Onesimus is a runaway fugitive slave.  There are other examples of letters written in the period that Paul was writing that implore slaves to return to their masters and that implore masters to receive their slaves back graciously.  Paul’s letter to Philemon does not follow the same pattern.
In addition, the epistle itself never says that Onesimus is a runaway or a thief, this is simply a presumption.  Finally, the entire argument that Onesimus is a slave is based on verse 15 and 16 where Paul uses the greek word doulos to describe Onesimus.  Certainly the word can be interpreted as slave, however, the word is used many other times in scripture and does not always mean that the one called doulos is a literal slave.  Sometimes doulos refers to a son or a wife, not a slave.  That one word is not a definitive identification of Onesimus.
What if Callahan’s interpretation is correct?  Onesimus not just a Christian, he is actually a blood brother to Philemon.  This interpretation means that the book of Philemon is about reconciliation in families rather than an admonition for the slave to remain obedient and the master to treat the slave fairly.  LINK: Philemon...Slave Master?


..and then we encounter these verses which have caused many varied interpretations.  Verses 15-16.  Callahan translates them as, “For on this account he has left for the moment, so that you might have him back forever, no longer as though he were a slave, but, more than a slave, as a beloved brother very much so to me, but now much more so to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.”[1]
First, there is a grammatical question about how to translate this phrase which many have rendered “no longer as a slave.”  Callahan dissects the greek and he argues that the phrase is more accurately translated, “no longer as though he were a slave.”  Even with Callahan’s translation, the question remains:  Why did Paul choose to use the word slave if Onesimus wasn’t a slave?
The word used is doulos and according to Callahan’s research, it “was a term of both honor and opprobrium in the early Christian lexicon.”[2]
It was thought to be an honor to be called a doulos tou theou or a slave of God.  In fact, Paul calls himself a slave of Christ in several of his letters including Romans, Philippians, and Titus, as do other authors of the epistles of James and 2 Peter.
It is also true that the term slave signified subjugation, powerlessness, and dishonor, one who does not have liberty or agency on one’s own.
Callahan argues that Paul is using the term doulos to capture both dimensions of the human condition and is perhaps even making a connection with the Christ hymn in Philippians 2 where he quotes an ancient hymn that exalts the Christ who humbles himself to be nothing, powerless, and empty of the divine dimension, like a slave to the human condition.
Callahan argues that Paul is simply calling Onesimus a slave in the same way that he describes himself as a slave.  Onesimus is also a doulos tou theou, a slave of God.
If this is the case, then Paul uses language that indicates Onesimus and Philemon are related, in fact that they are brothers in the flesh.  Reconciliation and love between brothers was a special concern for several ancient writers and philosophers.  One Roman philosopher named Plutarch writes of the importance of repairing a breach between brothers, even if it comes through a mutual friend...

-LINK: Philemon...Brother?

NOTE also: metaphorical terminology by Paul re: slavery in Galatians 4:7:
"So you are no longer a slave, but God’s child; and since you are his child, God has made you also an heir"... actually a verse quite similar to Philemon 16 (first clause the same, second clause family language)
"no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother."
OR MAYBE THE TWO ARE LITERAL BROTHERS AND ONESIMUS IS A SLAVE

See:

Philemon and Onesimus as (half) bothers AND slave/master


 c)Allegory:

Philemon, an allegory?

Consider the following passage (Philemon 8-18) with these analogies in mind:

  • Paul (the advocate) : Jesus
  • Onesmus (the guilty slave) : us (sinners)
  • Philemon (the slave owner) : God the Father

Martin Luther:  "Even as Christ did for us with God the Father, thus also St. Paul does for Onesimus with Philemon"
Accordingly, though I (Paul) am bold enough in Christ to command you (Philemon) to do what is required, yet for love's sake I prefer to appeal to you—I, Paul, an old man and now a prisoner also for Christ Jesus— I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I became in my imprisonment. (Formerly he was useless to you, but now he is indeed useful to you and to me.) I am sending him back to you, sending my very heart. I would have been glad to keep him with me, in order that he might serve me on your behalf during my imprisonment for the gospel, but I preferred to do nothing without your consent in order that your goodness might not be by compulsion but of your own free will. For this perhaps is why he was parted from you for a while, that you might have him back forever, 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.
So if you consider me your partner, receive him as you would receive me. If he has wronged you at all, or owes you anything, charge that to my account. I, Paul, write this with my own hand: I will repay it—to say nothing of your owing me even your own self.   LINK: Philemon, an allegory?
Posted by at No comments:

Esther Help

Remember to use the  Esther questions from syllabus as the backbone of your  Esther paper..

Here are (from syllabus) the instructions on the Philemon paper. Read carefully, then read below for extra help. Remember, no research is required, but it would help:
Biblical Perspectives Signature Assignment (final paper)
Due: 3 days after last night of BIB 451. Submit to instructor electronically through Turnitin.com

TASK
The signature assignment (final paper) for Biblical Perspectives is a 5-7 page paper that addresses the meaning of a biblical text. Using the skills gained in the course, develop a paper that combines an understanding of the historical, literary and contemporary worlds of the text.
The text for this assignment is the Old Testament book of Esther. Your paper should address the meaning of the book of Esther related to a biblical understanding of leadership developed throughout your course reading, Bible passage reading and class discussions.

PURPOSE
The paper is meant to demonstrate the student’s own analysis and ability to work with a biblical text and as such need not utilize other resources as in a traditional research paper.

FORM
Thesis:           The paper should include a clear thesis statement in the form of “the book of Esther is about…”
Body:            The body of the paper should demonstrate a recognizable structure that articulates why the thesis is viable. The body of the paper may take the form of a section by section analysis, follow the categories of historical/literary/contemporary worlds, or use any thematic analysis that is most useful.
Conclusion:    The conclusion should restate the thesis and the support in summary fashion. The conclusion is also a place for reflection on the implications of Esther for leadership, occupation or personal life.
Symbol/Sign:         Throughout this course we have been using one guiding symbol for each night, corresponding to the theme of the evening.  Based on your study of the book of Esther, develop your own symbol that you feel adequately conveys the message of the book and explain it in a paragraph.

GRADING
Grading is based upon how well the thesis is stated and supported, by the clarity of the structure, by the depth of thought and by the quality of mechanics (spelling, grammar).
All papers must be submitted to turnitin.com 
--------------------------

Don't forget your symbol...many do.
Here is some help on how to draw a diagram in WORD.

Here's a video on how to do it in Microsoft PAINT.
.
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More  ESTHER help below..





Esther


Author and Date


Although we do not know who wrote the book of Esther, from internal evidence it is possible to make some inferences about the author and the date of composition. It is clear that the author was a Jew, both from his emphasis on the origin of a Jewish festival and from the Jewish nationalism that permeates the story. The author’s knowledge of Persian customs, the setting of the story in the city of Susa and the absence of any reference to conditions or circumstances in the land of Judah suggest that he was a resident of a Persian city. The earliest date for the book would be shortly after the events narrated, i.e., c. 460 b.c. (before Ezra’s return to Jerusalem; see note on 8:12). Internal evidence also suggests that the festival of Purim had been observed for some time prior to the actual writing of the book (9:19) and that Xerxes had already died (see 10:2 and note). Several scholars have dated the book later than 330 b.c.; the absence of Greek words and the style of the author’s Hebrew dialect, however, suggest that the book must have been written before the Persian empire fell to Greece in 331.


Purpose, Themes and Literary Features


The author’s central purpose was to record the institution of the annual festival of Purim and to keep alive for later generations the memory of the great deliverance of the Jewish people during the reign of Xerxes. The book accounts for both the initiation of that observance and the obligation for its perpetual commemoration (see 3:7; 9:26–32; see also chart, pp. 234–235).

Throughout much of the story the author calls to mind the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Amalekites (see notes on 2:5; 3:1–6; 9:5–10), a conflict that began during the exodus (Ex 17:8–16; Dt 25:17–19) and continued through Israel’s history (1Sa 15; 1Ch 4:43; and, of course, Esther). As the first to attack Israel after their deliverance from Egypt, the Amalekites were viewed—and the author of Esther views them—as the epitome of all the powers of the world arrayed against God’s people (see Nu 24:20; 1Sa 15:2–3; 28:18). Now that Israel has been released from captivity, Haman’s edict is the final major effort in the OT period to destroy them.

Closely associated with the conflict with the Amalekites is the rest that is promised to the people of God (see Dt 25:19). With Haman’s defeat the Jews enjoy rest from their enemies (9:16,22).

The author also draws upon the remnant motif that recurs throughout the Bible (natural disasters, disease, warfare or other calamities threaten God’s people; those who survive constitute a remnant). Events in the Persian city of Susa threatened the continuity of God’s purposes in redemptive history. The future existence of God’s chosen people, and ultimately the appearance of the Redeemer-Messiah, were jeopardized by Haman’s edict to destroy the Jews. The author of Esther patterned much of his material on the events of the Joseph story (see notes on 2:3–4,9,21–23; 3:4; 4:14; 6:1,8,14; 8:6), in which the remnant motif is also central to the narrative (see Ge 45:7 and note).

Feasting is another prominent theme in Esther, as shown in the outline below. Banquets provide the setting for important plot developments. There are ten banquets: (1) 1:3–4, (2) 1:5–8, (3) 1:9, (4) 2:18, (5) 3:15, (6) 5:5–6, (7) 7:1–10, (8) 8:17, (9) 9:17, (10) 9:18. The three pairs of banquets that mark the beginning, middle and end of the story are particularly prominent: the two banquets given by Xerxes, the two prepared by Esther and the double celebration of Purim.

Recording duplications appears to be one of the favorite compositional techniques of the writer. In addition to the three groups of banquets that come in pairs there are two lists of the king’s servants (1:10,14), two reports that Esther concealed her identity (2:10,20), two gatherings of women (2:8,19), two fasts (4:3,16), two consultations of Haman with his wife and friends (5:14; 6:13), two unscheduled appearances of Esther before the king (5:2; 8:3), two investitures for Mordecai (6:10–11; 8:15), two coverings of Haman’s face (6:12; 7:8), two royal edicts (3:12–15; 8:1–14), two references to the subsiding of the king’s anger (2:1; 7:10), two references to the irrevocability of the Persian laws (1:19; 8:8), two days for the Jews to take vengeance (9:5–12,13–15) and two letters instituting the commemoration of Purim (9:20–28,29–32).

An outstanding feature of this book—one that has given rise to considerable discussion—is the complete absence of any explicit reference to God, worship, prayer, or sacrifice. This “secularity” has produced many detractors who have judged the book to be of little religious value. However, it appears that the author has deliberately refrained from mentioning God or any religious activity as a literary device to heighten the fact that it is God who controls and directs all the seemingly insignificant coincidences (see, e.g., note on 6:1) that make up the plot and issue in deliverance for the Jews. God’s sovereign rule is assumed at every point (see note on 4:12–16), an assumption made all the more effective by the total absence of reference to him. It becomes clear to the careful reader that Israel’s Great King exercises his providential and sovereign control over all the vicissitudes of his beleagured covenant people.


Outline


  • The Feasts of Xerxes (1:1—2:18)
    • Vashti Deposed (ch. 1)
    • Esther Made Queen (2:1–18)
  • The Feasts of Esther (2:19—7:10)
    • Mordecai Uncovers a Plot (2:19–23)
    • Haman’s Plot (ch. 3)
    • Mordecai Persuades Esther to Help (ch. 4)
    • Esther’s Request to the King: Her First Banquet (5:1–8)
    • A Sleepless Night (5:9—6:14)
    • Haman Hanged: Esther’s Second Banquet (ch. 7)
  • The Feasts of Purim (chs. 8–10)
    • The King’s Edict in Behalf of the Jews (ch. 8)
    • The Institution of Purim (ch. 9)
    • The Promotion of Mordecai (ch. 10)
© Zondervan. From the Zondervan NIV Study Bible. Used with Permission LINK


Resources:

 


Here is the entire movie on Esther: "One Night With the King."  Trailer and entire movie here
>
Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, October 27, 2016

Left Behind

 Note: if videos below don't play, click video title at far left. or paste video title into YouTube

 

of course Christians will be left behind

Preface (sigh); Don't hear what I'm not saying. I am not necessarily saying there is no "rapture," etc. I am just saying read this one particular scripture in context. No hate email necessary.


It astounds people when I tell them that

no one 

reading the famous "one will be taken; the other left behind" 'rapture' passage..

(in context; and without everything you've ever heard that it said influencing what you hear)

will read it as Christians being taken/raptured.

It is the most obvious interpretation in the world that in this Scripture:

the Christians are left behind.

!

Try it out! Follow the flow and logic; read text and context prayerfully and carefully.

There's a reason this passage was not spun this way in the early church (B.L.H.-"Before LaHaye")


the flood came and swept them all away, so too will be the coming of the Son of Man. Then two will be in the field; one will be taken and one will be left. Two women will be grinding meal together; one will be taken and one will be left. Keep awake therefore, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming.

And Rossing:


Only by combining this passage together with First Thessalonians can a dispensationalist begin to piece together their notion of 'left behind'...But here's the problem with their use of this passage in Matthew: Dispensationalists make the leap of assuming that the person 'taken' in this passage is a born-again Christian who is taken up to heaven, while the person 'left' is an unbeliever who is left behind for judgement. This is a huge leap, since Jesus himself never specifies whether Christians should desire to be taken or left! In the overall context of Matthew's Gospel, the verbs 'taken' and 'left' (Greek paralambano and apheimi) can be either positive or negative.

In the verses immediately preceding this passage, Jesus says that his coming will be like the flood at the time of Noah, when people were 'swept away' in judgement. If being 'taken' is analogous to being 'swept away' in a flood, then it is not a positive fate. That is the argument of New Testament scholar and Anglican bishop N.T. Wright:

'It should be noted that being in this context means being taken in judgement.
There is no hint here of a , a sudden event that would remove individuals from terra firma...It is, rather, a matter of secret police coming in the night, or of enemies sweeping through a village or city and seizing all they can.'
(NT Wright, Jesus and The Victory of God, p. 366

If Wright is correct, this means that 'left behind,' is actually the desired fate of Christians, whereas being 'taken' would mean being carried off by forces of judgement like a death squad. For people living under Roman occupation, being taken away in such a way by secret police would probably be a constant fear....McGuire suggests that the 'Left Behind' books have it 'entirely backward.'. McGuire, like Wright, points out that when analyzed in the overall context of the gospel, the word 'taken' means being taken away in judgement, as in the story of Jesus' being 'taken' prisoner by soldiers in Matt 27:27. 'Taken' is not an image for salvation"

(Rossing, pp 178-179)




‘But about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son,nor the Son');";but only the Father. For as the days of Noah were, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark, and they knew nothing until the flood came and swept them all away, so too will be the coming of the Son of Man. Then two will be in the field; one will be taken and one will be left. Two women will be grinding meal together; one will be taken and one will be left. Keep awake therefore, for you do not know on what day at what hour');your Lord is coming. But understand this: if the owner of the house had known in what part of the night the thief was coming, he would have stayed awake and would not have let his house be broken into. Therefore you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an unexpected hour. '
-Matt. 24
-----------------

Jesus' surprising answer to "Where did all of these people go?": More on leaving behind Left Behind

of course Christians will be left behind

Preface (sigh); Don't hear what I'm not saying. I am not
- See more at: http://davewainscott.blogspot.com/2009/05/of-course-christians-will-be-left.html#sthash.5DxrH5Co.dpuf

of course Christians will be left behind

Preface (sigh); Don't hear what I'm not saying. I am not
- See more at: http://davewainscott.blogspot.com/2009/05/of-course-christians-will-be-left.html#sthash.5DxrH5Co.dpuf

of course Christians will be left behind

Preface (sigh); Don't hear what I'm not saying. I am not
- See more at: http://davewainscott.blogspot.com/2009/05/of-course-christians-will-be-left.html#sthash.5DxrH5Co.dpuf
As a followup to the post, "Of course, Christians will be left behind," which looks at  Matthew 24 "left behind" passage with  NT Wright and Barbar Rossig..




of course Christians will be left behind NT Wright and  Barbara Rossing..

Here's Benjamin Corey, who builds the case from Luke:



Jesus Says Those “Left Behind” Are The Lucky Ones (the most ironic thing the movie won’t tell you) byBenjamin Corey:

left
In the lead up to the release of the remake of Left Behind hitting theaters in a few weeks, I wanted to take a moment to tell you about the most ironic thing the Left Behind movie (or rapture believers) won’t tell you about getting “left behind.”

The basic premise of the theology is this: the world is going to get progressively worse as “the end” draws near. Before the worst period of time in world history (a seven year period called the “tribulation,” though there’s no verse in the Bible that discusses a seven year tribulation) believers in Jesus are suddenly snatched away during the second coming of Christ (which rapture believers argue is done in secret and without explanation, instead of the public second coming described in scripture).
The entire premise of the theology and the Left Behind movie is based on a passage from Matthew that you’ll see in the official Left Behind image included to your left. The passage states:

“Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken and the other left”.

And this is where we get the term “left behind”… Jesus said “one shall be taken and the other left.”
Pretty simple, no? It appears from this passage that Jesus is describing an event where some people actually do “get taken” and the others are “left behind.” It must be a rapture then.


Or maybe not.

As I have explained before, the chapter of Matthew 24 is a chapter where Jesus describes the events that will lead up to the destruction of the temple which occurred in AD 70. That’s not so much my scholarly opinion as it is what Jesus plainly states in the first few verses of Matthew 24; it is a context pretty difficult to explain away since Jesus says “this temple will be destroyed” and his disciples ask, “please, tell us when this will happen.” The rest of the discourse is Jesus prophesying the events that will lead up to the temple’s destruction, which we know historically unfolded as Jesus had predicted. (As I have alluded to in What Jesus Talked About When He Talked About Hell andDon’t Worry The Tribulation Is In The Past, if one does not understand the significance of the destruction of the temple to ancient Judaism, one will have a very hard time understanding what Jesus talks about when he talks about “the end.”)

Anyhow, during the end of this discourse in Matthew we hit the “rapture” verse: “one will be taken and one will be left.” Surely, this part must be about the future, and Jesus MUST be describing a rapture. Since that’s what my childhood pastor taught me, it’s probably a good idea to stick with that.
Just one problem: Matthew 24 isn’t the only place where Jesus talks about “some being taken and some being left behind.” Jesus also discusses this in Luke 17 when he says:
 “I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. 35 Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.”
Building a compelling case for the rapture yet? Not quite. Check this out: Jesus’ disciples in the Luke version of the discourse must have been interested in this left behind stuff, because they ask a critical followup question. However, they actually seem more concerned with those who were “taken” than those who were “left behind” and ask Jesus for a little more information on this whole getting taken away stuff.

“Where, Lord?” is the question of the disciples. Where did all of these people go??

If this were a passage about the “rapture” as depicted in the Left Behind movie, one would expect Jesus to answer something to the point of “they were taken to be with me to wait out the tribulation.” But, that’s not what Jesus says. Instead, Jesus gives them a blunt answer about those who were “taken”: “just look for the vultures, and you’ll find their bodies.” (v37)

That’s right. The ones who were “taken” were killed. Not exactly the blessed rapture.

The Roman occupation was brutal, and when they finally sacked the city and destroyed the temple in AD70, things got impressively bloody. To be “taken” as Jesus prophesied, was to be killed by the invading army. This is precisely why, in this passage and the Matthew version, Jesus gives all sorts of other advice that makes no sense if this is a verse about the rapture. Jesus warns that when this moment comes one should flee quickly– to not even go back into their house to gather their belongings– and laments that it will be an especially difficult event for pregnant and nursing mothers. He even goes on to warn them that if they respond to the army with resistance (the very thing thatcauses the mess in the lead-up to AD70), they’ll just get killed (“whoever seeks to save his life will lose it”). Jesus, it seems, wants his disciples to get it: when the Roman army comes, flee quickly or else you might not be left behind!

Surely, Jesus is not talking about a rapture. He’s not warning people to avoid missing the rapture because they went home to get their possessions… he’s talking about fleeing an advancing army and not doing anything stupid that will get them killed (v 30-34).

Very practical advice for his original audience and would have come in handy for those who wanted to avoid being “raptured” (slaughtered) by the Roman army.

And so my friends, this is the most ironic thing the Left Behind movie won’t tell you: in the original “left behind” story Jesus tells in the Gospels, the ones who are “left behind” are actually the lucky ones.
So the next time folks tell you that they don’t want to be “left behind,” you might want to tell them to be careful what they wish for.  -Benjamin Corey, link


of course Christians will be left behind

Preface (sigh); Don't hear what I'm not saying. I am not
- See more at: http://davewainscott.blogspot.com/2009/05/of-course-christians-will-be-left.html#sthash.5DxrH5Co.dpuf


--
Adam Maarschalk adds some evidence from sources in 1700s and 1800s:

In our study of Matthew 24:36-51, I also proposed that Jesus said it would be better to be “left behind” than to be “taken,” and noted that 2-3 centuries ago this was taught by John Gill (1746-1763) and Albert Barnes (1834). Benjamin Corey does an excellent job showing the revealing connection between what Jesus says in Luke 17 and what He says in the more frequently quoted Matthew 24:40. His article also comes at a good time, less than two weeks before the remake of the Left Behind movie hits the theaters on October 3rd. Hopefully the theology in this film will soon be left behind by many followers of Christ.  link
 0 Google +0  0  
--

 "This is going to be  helpful for people 2000 years from now who don’t want to get left behind”
 
I love and hate teaching Revelation.
Maybe it's because I have pretty much figured out what/who 666 and mark of the beast is (:
(keep reading, it was never meant to be a secret.).

I fear Douglas Wilson may be prophetic (and apocalyptic, in the truest sense of the term) in his comment about 'hitting a bull on the ass with a banjo".

So I am so glad Wellspring church had already posted what I have pasted below:
the helpful Rob Bell/Don Golden section on Revelation from "Jesus Came to Save Christians."
I have taken the liberty of highlighting a few sections..

Just the kind of stuff that is basic Christianity, but hardly ever heard or taught in our country.
Whatsup with us? Not enough violence in Revelation, so we have to sex it up?

This section could be read in tandem with the famous/infamous sermon on Revelation by Rob Bell at Willow Creek, finally unbanned and on video here.

Other helpful posts would include:
---
Bell and Golden:

A tragic example of what happens when Christians miss the central message of the Scriptures is the way in which Revelation, the last book of the Bible, is taught and understood in American culture. Revelation is a letter from a pastor named John to his congregation. To understand how significant the letter is, it helps to understand its first-century historical backdrop.

First, the emperor: The Caesars, who ruled the Roman Empire, sow themselves as gods on earth, sent to bring about peace and prosperity. Throughout the first century, the Caesars had taken their divinity more and more seriously, demanding more and more overt displays of worship and acknowledgment from their subjects. Many of them demanded that their subjects worship them as the Son of God, the divine one ruling the earth with the favor of the god. One Caesar had a choir that followed him wherever he went, singing, “You are worthy, our Lord and our God, to receive honor and glory and power.”

Second, economics: The Caesars understood that at the heart of the empire is economics. If you want to truly control people, you need to control their money. So if you went to the market to buy or sell goods, you first needed to give an offering acknowledging Caesar as Lord and that you were an obedient subject of his kingdom. If you didn’t, you couldn’t take part in the economy, which meant you wouldn’t make any money and you’d eventually starve. It is believed that a system was developed to identify who had made the offering to Caesar and who hadn’t and this system involved some sort of mark you received to acknowledge your confession of Caesar as Lord and your ability to take part in the market.

Third, peace: The Roman army would march into a new land or region, one they had not conquered and announce they were taking over. They would demand that the citizens of that land confess Caesar as Lord. If they refused, they could be killed, often crucified, as a public demonstration of what happens when you defy Caesar. This had a way of bringing people in line with the Roman way.

Fourth, exile: The Caesar in power at the time of John’s writing understood just what a challenge the church of Jesus was to his rule. These Christians believed that someone else, someone not him, was the true Son of God and that he alone deserved their worship and acknowledgment of divine status. Caesar believed that the way to get rid of this threat was to send the pastor into exile so that he couldn’t lead his people.

Revelation is a letter written from John, the pastor, to his church during his time of exile. He writes in a subversive literary style called apocalyptic. It uses a vast array of symbols and images and stylized language to convey profound truths about how the world works. John refers to a beast, which is his word for the corrupt, destructive system of violence and evil that is pervasive in our world. He writes of a dragon, the one who does the work of the beast on earth. And then he talks about a mark of the beast.

We can assume John’s audience knew what the mark was – how you bought and sold in the market. The mark was a symbol of your participation in the military-economic complex of the Roman Empire. The mark represented an all-encompassing system aligned against people doing the right thing. The mark spoke to all of the ways humans misuse power to accumulate and stockpile while others suffer and starve.

The mark was anti-kingdom, and John says don’t do it. Don’t take the mark. Don’t take part in the animating spirit of empire: Resist – Rebel – Protest.

Revelation is a bold, courageous, politically subversive attack on corrosive empire and its power to oppress people. The people who read this letter would have been confronted with a fundamental question: Who is Lord – Jesus or Caesar? Whose way is the way – the way of violence or the way of peace – the way of domination or the way of compassion – the way of building towers to the heavens or the way of sharing our bread with our neighbor - the way of greed and economic exploitation or the way of generosity and solidarity?

Who is your Lord?

Imagine how dangerous it would be if there were Christians who skipped over the first-century meaning of John’s letter and focused only on whatever it might be saying about future events, years and years away. There is always the chance that in missing the point, they may in the process be participating in and supporting and funding the various kinds of systems that the letter warns against participating in, supporting, and funding.

That would be tragic.

That wouldn’t be what Jesus had in mind.

That would be anti-Jesus.

That would be anti-Christ.

Were the people in John’s church reading his letter for the first time, with Roman soldiers right outside their door, thinking, “This is going to be really helpful for people two thousand years from now who don’t want to get left behind”?

It’s a letter written to a real group of people, in a real place, at a real time, enduring excruciatingly difficult times. Christians were being killed by the empire because they would not participate.

John comforts them, challenges them, warns them, teaches them, inspires them – don’t take the mark of the beast.
-Rob Bell and Don Golden, "Jesus Came to Save Christians," pp 131-134 .. emphases are mine--
 --

Here is how another class answered the question

Videos: 
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)