Theology Worksheet #2

3.03.09
Theology Worksheet #2
Second choice: John 9: 1-41

Worksheet #2: Structural Analysis in John’s gospel

In this worksheet, you will analyze the structure of a passage of John’s gospel. You need to perform the various operations that you performed on an OT book last term, to wit: 1) Determine or explain the boundaries of the text; 2) break down the text into its component sections; 3) explain the formal or narrative arrangement of the parts; and 4) explain the purpose or effect of the structure.

First off, thank you for letting us do John: he is my favorite Scriptural author, and my favorite Biblical character (though Phineas and Jehu are not too far behind).


John 9:1-41: I chose this section as nine is the world’s most interesting number, and this section is encapsulated within a really spiffy inclusio:

A: 9:1: Falsely declared sinful because of blindness,
A’: 9:41: Justly declared sinful because of sight.

A quick bit of background: chapters 1-12 of John contain what are commonly seen as his “seven signs,” seven great miracles that John gives (as proof of Christ’s divinity), and this is the sixth of these signs. Also, this is toward the end of John’s section on bread and light: John can be viewed as an entrance into the temple, so the first five chapters deal with water (the ceremonial washing: water into wine, woman at the well, born of water and blood, etc), the second five deal with bread and light (the showbread and Menorah: burning and shining lamp, the feeding of the five-thousand, bread of heaven, bread of life, I am the light of the world, giving light to the blind man), and so on.

There are references (which I will deal with in greater depth later) to creation (a new creation with clay), anointing (with clay, which is interesting in itself), baptism (washing in the pool), discipleship (the Pharisees’ interrogation and his response), and, very interestingly, an elusive Christ that brings to mind your comments in lecture regarding Him being the one “born of the Spirit,” of whom we cannot tell where He is from or where He is going. This theme in particular is capitalized upon in this chapter: “Where is he?” “I do not know.” “He is not from God;” “We do not know where he is from,” “You do not know where he is from,” etc. This cannot be accidental.

A quick throwaway: the clay theme may have something to do with this being the sixth of the seven signs: six is generally viewed as the number of man (made on the sixth day, six days he may work, slavery lasted six years for a Hebrew slave, six cities of refuge for the accidental slaying of a man, etc), and man is made from the dust of the ground. Personally, I would be hesitant to venture much further out on the skinny branches of two man-made hermeneutical tools, but it may bear more fruit upon later study. I found nothing all that apparent save a definite focus upon man’s relationship with man.

Also this section is chiastic: I have made it rougher than it has to be for space considerations (especially points E and E’, which could justifiably be E-R), but it is easily expanded once the basic outline is grasped. Since it is rough, there are a great number of points worth studying that may not even be mentioned, and I am open to many slight changes within this overall chiastic frame. All chapter references are chapter 9 and are omitted, and I have changed the phrasing to make the parallels more obvious.

• A: 1: Jesus and His disciples: he’s blind; is he a sinner? No.
o B: 4-5: Day and night, I am the light of the world…
• C: 6-12: sent, who is he? Receives sight.
• D: 13-16: brought to the Pharisees, not from God, can’t be a sinner.
o E: 17-21: Prophet, blind—sight, parents interrogated, born blind, he is of age, etc.
• F: 22: “they feared the Jews, for the Jews had agreed already that if anyone confessed that he was the Christ, he would be put out of the synagogue.”
o E’: 23-29: Disciples of Moses (prophet), blind—see, son interrogated, blind, he is of age, etc.
• D’: 30-34: cast out by the Pharisees, must be from God, God doesn’t hear sinners.
• C’: 35-38: cast out, who is he? You have seen Him.
o B’: 39-40: Seeing and blind, I am the judgment of the world…
• A’: 41: Jesus and the “disciples of Moses:” Are we sinners? You’ve sight; yes.

The overall theme is that of the blind, “sinless” false Israel accusing Christ, the absentee defendant, while the seeing, “sinful” true Israel acts as His advocate. The parents appear to be two cowardly witnesses that, nevertheless, validate the testimony of the true Israel, who is then cast out when he successfully defends the One that sent him out, and sends him out again.

The central point (F) accents an aspect of this trial: two mindsets of the Jewish world. First, there are the captive Jews that fear their captors rather than the Liberator, and out of fear of being cast out of Israel reject Israel for the “synagogue of Satan.” Second, there are their captors, who greatly fear the Liberator and decide to excommunicate anyone that accepts Him (a rather weak threat to anyone that had accepted him, but quite terrible to anyone that was on the fence).


Two verbs in this verse interest me, so far as time is concerned. The Greek συντίθεμαι (had agreed already) is in the pluperfect tense, which is quite rare, and is like a perfect past tense: the meaning is “had once and for all agreed,” and puts one in mind of a covenant. The verb ὁμολογέω(confessed) is in the aorist, and therefore pays no heed to time: past, present, future, it doesn’t matter: the aorist includes them all. The action of this sentence then feels along the lines of “the Jews had irrevocably agreed that if anyone ever confessed Jesus as the Christ, he would be excommunicated.” No big difference is impressed upon the sentence, save perhaps a bit more force.

Another interesting tidbit is how Jesus healed this man. The man was blind from birth, and had apparently done a good deal of work to find a cure (“Since the world began it has been unheard of that anyone opened the eyes of one who was born blind…”), and being blind from birth was apparently viewed in no favorable light (“Who sinned, this man or his parents…” and “You were steeped in sin in your mother’s womb…”). It is not too much of a stretch to say that this hopeless beggar didn’t suffer from an excess of popularity, and I don’t think I’d be wearing white socks with my exegetical suit were I to posit that he’d been spit on plenty of times. It is of course just like God to take shame and turn it into glory, into an anointing. This may be completely off base, and there is no Scriptural leg to stand on, but I like the interpretation, and will probably keep it around.


Back to solid ground: this is a recreation story, and that without question. Jesus molds clay, anoints a blind man with it, and has him baptized. He emerges from his baptism as a new man. There is division in the “opening” of the man’s eyes, and there is separation in his excommunication from the synagogue. What God had divided, He filled: in this case, with Himself (verse 37). His separation also speaks to John’s ever-present message of light and darkness, which is obviously a pervasive theme in this story.

There are two ways to interpret John’s light vs. dark message: either good verse evil or the New Covenant being rejected by the so-called adherents to the Old. Arguments are made for both, and I think that there are times when both are equally valid. However, his message in John appears to be the latter: “and the darkness comprehended it not…” “He was sent to bear witness to that light…” etc. If this is the case, and it seems to be, then this recreation is yet again a symbol of the new creation being rejected and cast out by the old: the created light (blind man) shines (speaks truth) into the darkness (the truly blind Pharisees), but the darkness comprehended it not, and men loved darkness rather than light.


The verb anoint is a very peculiar choice of word. The translation is good, but why did John use that word? Why is the blind man “anointed” with mud? And why are we told this twice? It is obviously important, but what is important about it?

Several explanations present themselves. First, this is the Sabbath, and John, intentionally or no, sanctifies Christ’s “work” on the Sabbath.

Second, the man was about to be brought before the synagogue, and he hadn’t given any thought to what he would say. So, the image is given that Paul later refers to.

But most likely it is because Jesus says that He is doing the work of His Father just before He anoints the man’s eyes. So this can easily be taken to represent his actions on a larger scale: “The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord is upon me for He has anointed me…” Jesus was going around opening the eyes of the Spiritually blind, and especially in John’s eyes.

We have also seen that the work of the Spirit is portrayed differently in John than in the synoptic Gospels, and this is fitting with that theme. The anointing is what opens the man’s eyes; it is what prepares him to face the Pharisees alone, and it is what enabled him to recognize and worship Christ.

The theme of clay is also interesting, but as I have alluded to it several times already, I will only give it a brief overview here. I believe that it mostly refers to the creation theme: “He formed him out of the dust of the ground…” but it also references the curse. So, the curse is taken and placed upon the blind eyes of the man, and is done so as an anointing? Or the anointing is mixed with the curse? It is unclear, and I don’t think it matters much: the main point that can be drawn is the washing, the cleansing from the curse that is accomplished by baptism, and even this really is a bit of a stretch in my opinion.


One of the most interesting features of this chapter is the absence of Christ from it when He is so central to it. He appears at the beginning and at the end, but is nowhere to be found between his bookending cameos. He is the central figure: He is the one that is on trial (“Give glory to God we know this man is a sinner…”), and it would certainly have removed the pressure from the formerly blind man had He shown up. But He didn’t. He didn’t even wait to be thanked: the blind man first sees Him when Jesus seeks Him out.

First off, I’d just like to comment that this is about as flawless an analogy of conversion as can be made. Blind from birth, anointed and healed by the Spirit of a God we know of but don’t know, baptized into Him, violently and unpleasantly divorced from our idolatry, and then we begin to see Christ as the Son of God as He seeks us.

I think that Christ is absent from the story for one main reason (though I am sure there are others): so we can get a picture of what it is like to serve an absent Master. We are the people that put up that obscene footprints poem on our walls and think nice thoughts about gentle Jesus. We have no concept of the God that spoke to Jeremiah, asking him how he was going to manage to keep up with horses if men wore him out. We have some pagan notion in our minds that God is primarily concerned with out comfort and happiness, when we have nothing of that in Scripture or in life. This is the God that we serve: He does not come when called; He is not a tame Lion. We are to serve Him faithfully anyway.

Someone's in a Spot of Trouble

Today our constant freshman/faculty vs. upperclassmen competition reveals itself in the basketball court. So, someone (and I honestly have no idea who) affixed the name of our illustrious president to the following email. Repercussions will be interesting.



Students and Faculty:

Over the last week or two several issues have been brought to my attention regarding the upcoming basketball exhibition. Several students have voiced various concerns, and I would like to specifically address these questions in the context of the robust paideia and ultimate educational vision of New Saint Andrews College.

Many of you are probably aware of the first issue that I need to address. Nate Douglas has requested that the traditional ‘dark and white’ shirts for the basketball game be replaced with a new paradigm more in line with NSA’s values. Mr. Douglas asked that ‘shirts and skins’ be the new distinguishing factor. After discussion with interested parents and NSA’s BOD (board of directors), I decided to partially grant his request, and allow the upperclassmen to partially unclothe themselves for the game only. Standard dress code is still required for classes and game attendees (c.f. Student Handbook pgs. 207-449, which does not contain any specific rules).

This satisfied Mr. Douglas. However, more concerns have arisen since my initial decision. Micah Shryer, who recently acquired a weight bench via the church email, has complained about the discrimination against the lowerclassmen, and has asked for the new dress standards to be applied both ways. Although he initially did not plan to play in the game, he has since asked to join, giving as his reason, and I quote, “I may not be good at basketball, but I am good at shirts and skins.” Numerous freshmen have echoed his concerns.

The final decision I have reached is that there may be 5 total shirtless players on the court at one time, for both teams. Also, only certain players will be given this privilege. If you have a vested interest in any specific player, please email me your vote.

Concerns have also been raised by anxious female patrons of the College. Without detailing the reasons for their anxiety, the following list of Ineligible “Skins” Players has been compiled:

1. Jason Helsel ("long" shorts, please--thigh exposure is still prohibited)

2. Brian Kohl (full-length pants required in this instance)

3. Daniel Alders.

4. Mr. Schwandt and Mr. Griffith (the college does not support Ancient Olympic-style costume)


Finally, after certain problems with last year’s half time entertainment, this year the faculty have decided to sponsor a speed reading competition--Ms.Gwen Burrow versus Ben Saunders. As always, comprehension will not be a factor. The prestigious “semper current, numquam comprehendunt” award will be given to the winner.

Go Paideia!!

Sincerely,

President Dr. Roy Atwood

Dandelion Fire Review

I just finished it. I cannot presume to praise this book. I will read it another hundred times in my life, and my sons will know Hylfing second only to Middle Earth and Narnia. Magnificent.

Advice: refresh yourself on the last few chapters of 100 Cupboards before plunging in, and when plunging, pay attention. There are things I will be pulling out of this book for years: the christening? Nearly unparalleled. N. D. Wilson refers to Tolkein as incomparable, and I agree. But the day may well come when Nate is second only to Lewis in those that have aspired to create worlds that may approach Middle Earth.

Free Credenda

Yes, the caterpillar no longer charges. Credenda is now being sent out free of charge (rather irresponsibly) to anyone that asks. So, here is a snippet from N. D. Wilson in the latest issue, which is on why Shakespeare isn't Shakespeare.

Blessings.


Breaking Teeth
N.D. Wilson

I see my grandfather walking between shoveled mounds of snow, moving slowly beneath the load of life. He is a block away from where I stand at an office window, and still I can see his lips moving, unable to swallow back the hymns and prayers within him. This is my ancestor, father to my father, an old jug, cracked and spilling warmth along his path.

Wipe two decades off my age. Put me in pajamas and place me at another window, a window in my grandparents’ aging, sagging, cracking, yellow house. It is New Year’s Eve, my parents’ anniversary. Outside the world is cold, and the night has most likely passed its middle, easing into the first dark moments of a young year. But in the winter, midnight darkness takes a different flavor. Deep, white, shimmering swarms of crystals are mounded on the hills and piled perfectly on every tree branch. I stand, shivering, looking out the window at a pearl-world beaming beneath the face of a moon as bright as it is silent. A forest of thick icicles stretches down past the side windows, bending and muddying the moonlight.

My grandparents are long asleep, but my two sisters watch me, bundled in their sleeping bags beside popping embers in the living room fireplace, protected from the sparks by a tired, wire screen.

My grandfather is like his house. Once strong and young, now his beams and timbers sag beneath the weight of long use, heavier even than the piles of snow on his roof and the fanged ice stretching down from the gutters. The Nebraska farm boy rowed for Navy. He served well in Korea. He turned a sharp mind and a bulldog jaw to a lifetime of chasing souls. Though many of his victims now carry on his work, he will not stop until his roof collapses beneath the winter.

At the window, back in my youth, I shiver again. My skin rises up in mountain ranges, but I savor the cold. This cold, this bite, and the draft I can feel ghosting through the old glass panes are all preparing me for the beautiful sleeve of warmth that is my sleeping bag. The fire pops, tempting me, but still I stand, staring at the creeping cold, marveling at the icicles. In this house, they are the winter’s front lines—a Berlin Wall raised up (or down) between hibernating life and the killing cold. This house is like its occupants. It has never held its heat selfishly. Heat is its gift to the world, and the icicles form in retaliation. Yearly, on this one winter night, when our parents leave, my grandfather stokes a fire, blocks it with a screen and throws our bags on the floor beside it. Sometimes he tips the couches onto their faces and shoves them together as a fort. Always, we are allowed to burn inappropriate things in the fire—trash mostly—and the strange dancing colors entertain while we lie on the floor, whispering.

The moon peers through tree branches, and the knobbed icicleshafts snare its light. These are icicles that threaten to reach the ground, winter fangs gnawing at the house, straining the eaves. I move to the door and slip thin feet into oversized boots. I will not need a coat. I am cold already. My older sister sits up. The door opens and the winter lunges in, snapping cold at my shins and arms and face, rolling invisibly across the floor to the sleeping bags. I am outside, the door is closed, and my skin is the color of moonlight. I cannot shiver. My joints are hardening. Lunging off the sidewalk, I hurry toward the corner of the house, toward the greatest of the ice teeth. Snow avalanches into my boots. Needles of air, thorns of cold dig into me as I grab at the biggest icicle. A third comes away in my hands. The rest drops to the ice carnage in the drift below. Picking up a chunk, I hurl it at the remaining row of gaping teeth. A jaw breaks. Fangs tumble. Turning, quaking, I run back to the house, back to the heat. Flippancy toward winter, petty sneers and disrespect for the cold were important for us in those days. Cold could not be our master.

My children have a name for my Grandmother. She is Chi-Chi-Pa. They named her for the Japanese song she sings, a relic of her missionary days, a time when she could walk without struggling, and pain was not such a part of her existence. She smiles and laughs when my children steal her walker, when Spring borrows a prop from Winter. As far back as I have memory, she has had her own funeral hymns chosen. She has love and warmth and joy, but she can’t help but anticipate the end. She is eager for the ice to fall away from her joints, for her eyes to burn bright. She has labored long. She has sons and a daughter who love and honor her. She has seen the rich harvest of fifteen grandchildren, and already thirteen great-grandchildren. She is happy, but she is eager.

When the final collapse comes, when the ice triumphs, she at least will have no truck with grief. Let the Winter come. It is the only path to Spring. The house is battered with cold, but inside there is a warmth that cannot and will not die. Both of my sisters are up, talking, whispering to me and laughing quietly as I shut the door and kick off my boots, as the icicle shard drips in my hands. Inset into the old fireplace, there is a strange little stove with open iron doors and a smooth iron cap. The dripping icicle goes onto the cap, and we three huddle to watch. The winter fang spins and sizzles and twists in pain while it shrinks, leaving a dark, fast-vanishing trail. We watch until not a trace remains, until the winter’s bite has taken invisibly to the air. Then, triumphant, we shovel ourselves back into bags and stare at the fire, sure that we will not sleep before the embers do, unafraid of the winter, lulled into comfort by the warmth, lulled into sleep by its whispers.

One for Brooke

The sea cucumber, when harassed, will turn away from its inimicus, blast its intestines out of it's nether regions to entangle or distract aforementioned unfriendly, and will then proceed to grow them back at its leisure.

Should Have Known

I'm still catching up on all my reading, and am on schedule. I'm also on page 226 of Dandelion Fire. As it's a zero sum game, I'm not sleeping much. The book is dizzying.

Dandelion Fire

It is less than ten minutes till Dandelion Fire is released, and I pick up my pre-ordered copies tomorrow. Yet, I won't be able to read the book for about two or three weeks. It will be the forbidden fruit, sitting on my shelf, calling my name in the night. I will wake up standing in the living room in my boxers, removing a copy from its dust jacket. I will dream about Henry, and hold long debates over who his father actually is. I will put all Harry Potter fans to shame, as the object of my obsession will have a third dimension to his character. Now I'm really starting to wonder if I'll be able to wait.

On the other hand, I have no idea how long before the Chestnut King comes out (which happens to be finished, and sitting less than three miles from my house, and less than two from my school... Juvenile Hall isn't that bad, is it?), and the sooner I finish Dandelion Fire, the longer I have to wait for that. C'est la vie.

Anyway, should you be from Humboldt, and want a signed 1st edition, leave me a comment and I'll get one for you. It goes without saying that the Moody's and Ashbach's have one on the way.

Blessings,
Jesse Broussard

Masquerade

We Muscovites just had our Masquerade, and it was epic. About a lot of people were there, but the ratio of guys to girls was almost even, so we didn't have the usual horde of girls off to the side, though there were a few. The grand march was exhausting: fifteen minutes or so of sprinting, whirling, being the end of the whip that's cracked, sprinting between two lines of people not more than a foot away, and they're sprinting the opposite way. I haven't yet heard of any injuries save a stomped foot, but wow. We reformed people can dance, and that right crazily. We've got pictures of people being tossed a full three feet in the air, and I would love to see a video of the Postie's Jig: it was insane. The Spanish Waltz was great fun, but I'm actually starting to get the hang of the faster ones, and am starting to like them just as much. All in all, it was a great four hours of real dancing, and I cannot wait for the next one.

Theology Worksheet (CL)

This is the first of our worksheets in theology. Due to my incredible skills in "never putting off till tomorrow what can be avoided entirely," I was up till four writing this, when it was due at seven thirty. Yet, I got a Cum Laude (second highest possible grade), so I am resolved on two points (so if the first break, the other will hold, but if both break, my britches fall down). First, if you can't tie a knot, tie a lot: I just kept talking and hitting the questions from every conceivable angle, and some of my points were apparently good. Second: I make more sense when my brain stops trying to edit what I'm saying.

Here you are. Reader beware.

J. Broussard
Theology Worksheet #1
Assignment #2: Mt. 26-27
Due: 2.12.09

I. 1. What is the source of the quotation in Matthew 26:31?2. What is the passage referring to in its original context? 3. How is that context relevant to Matthew’s gospel? 4. How does it fit into Matthew’s over-all story line?

II. 2. What is the source of the quotation in Matthew 27:9-10? What did the passage refer to in its original context? How does it fit into this context in Matthew’s gospel? How does it fit into the overall storyline of Matthew’s gospel?

III. 3. What is the source for the quotation in Matthew 27:43, 46? What do these passages refer to in their original contexts? How is Matthew using them?


I. 1. The source for Matthew 26:31 is Zechariah 13:7. 2. The original context is rather surprising. It is the last burden given to Zechariah, and therefore the last theme of his book, and is in a series of blessings that will take place “in that day”: God will remove all idols, there will be no false prophets or unclean spirits, God will provide cleansing for the uncleanness of Jerusalem and the house of David, etc. The surprising things are these: first, the previous list is not quite accurate: there will be no prophet, false prophet is never specified, and second, it is the Lord that does the striking of the shepherd.

In the first case, the prophet is assumed to be false: he “speaks lies” and does not put on a rough garment “to deceive,” he shall deny that he is a prophet and claim rather to be a “husbandman,” for, “for man taught me to keep cattle from my youth.”

The use of “husbandman” here is very interesting: in its seven occurrences in Scripture, it is (aside from this use) a farming term (Gen. 9:20, Jer. 51:23, Amos 5:16, John 15:1, 2 Timothy 2:6, James 5:7). In fact, one of the uses actually puts the husbandmen and the one raising cattle side by side: Jer. 51:23: “I will also break in pieces with thee the shepherd and his flock; and with thee will I break in pieces the husbandman and his yoke of oxen; and with thee will I break in pieces captains and rulers.” There is then one indefinite use of husbandman found in Amos, where he is called on to mourn, but what makes him a husbandman is not mentioned. So, the only case that we have of someone being a husbandman because he tends cattle instead of a vineyard or a field is right here.

The people of God are both equated to being a vineyard and sheep, so the reference is not essential, but it is very surprising that the meaning of a word is changed or re-interpreted in this one verse alone out of Scripture. Later in this passage, the shepherd is mentioned, so why is the person here a husbandman because he tends cattle, and later a shepherd because he tends sheep? Sheep are a subset of cattle, but it would be hard to argue that a shepherd is a subset of husbandman when every other case of husbandman is farming. Cain would have been a husbandman, Abel a farmer. To be honest, I have no idea why the terms and vocations appear to be switched here. It wouldn’t just be a slip of the tongue on the part of the prophet (that would be comparable to claiming to be a carpenter because you were taught from your youth how to milk cows), and it does seem to have some importance or relevance that is utterly beyond my grasp.

But continuing on the lack of prophets: they are driven out right alongside false spirits (verse 2); they are killed by their own parents (verse 3); they are ashamed to be prophets (verse 4), and will attempt to avoid the “charge” as if it were a crime rather than an honor.

Also, the prophet appears to be a foreshadowing of Christ due to the wounding of the hands in verse five, which is very odd indeed: portraying Christ as a false prophet as well as the fountain in which the sins of Jerusalem and the people of David have their sins removed within four verses of each other? The former would be odd enough.

The second oddity was the fact that it is God that does the striking. The verse marks the segue from the blessings to the destruction of all but a remnant, in this case one third (in a passage about the death of a member of the Trinity that’s not too surprising) as opposed to Isaiah’s tenth, which will be tried by fire as if it were silver or gold, and the remnant will eventually return.

The passage has the shepherd being struck so that the sheep will be scattered in a way reminiscent of binding the strongman before plundering his house: God wants to turn His hand against the little ones, so He first strikes the (His) shepherd and scatters the sheep. This is not necessary from the structure, but it is implied. The strangeness of two members of the Trinity working at what appear to be opposite goals is very stark and very unusual: a far cry from “if you have seen me you have seen the Father” is this “Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man [that is] my fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones.” However, with the end in mind, this does appear to be consistent: God protects Israel both in the letter and in the Spirit of the law.


3. So the overall context of the passage quoted is that of the judgment upon Israel and the removal of her protection (the shepherd) so that the sheep might be scattered. Ironically enough, this passage (which is so apt to the coming state of Israel just a few decades after this time) is quoted in application to Christ and the disciples.

Matthew is telling the story of the transfer of the Kingdom of God from Israel to Christ and all who would follow Him: Israel is changing into a New Israel. Depending on exactly when you place that change, this passage could have several meanings. For example, if that transfer has not yet taken place, then the reference is limited to the disciples running off at this precise moment (as the simplest reading gives, which is no less accurate for being simple), or to Israel being the nation that God raises up against…. Well, against Israel. Israel strikes her own Shepherd, and let the scattering begin. But if the transfer has already taken place, then the Shepherd is struck and the New Israel scatters and then returns after the resurrection. Or, from a bird’s eye view historically, we simply see the death, burial and resurrection of Christ leading into the sheep scattering to all nations and making new sheep in all nations, but I generally like to avoid fitting verses into my theology with a sledgehammer, so I’ll stick with the first and second views both being accurate, and the third view being true, but not defensible from this passage alone.

A very interesting point that merits further study would be looking at Israel as the shepherd of the New Israel, though there are obvious and massive limitations to this application, the first and foremost being that of the shepherd trying to kill the sheep for a century or two. But I think that there is still merit to be found in it.

4. Within the overall story line, this falls very near the end. The shepherd being struck is the first of two tremendous crescendos, the second of which lasts from the resurrection to the ascension and adds a twist that was unforeseeable to those within that chapter of the story.


II.1. The allusion is to Jeremiah 18:1-4 19:1-3 but more distinctly to Zechariah 11:12,13. Despite the fact that the text does quote Jeremiah as the source, I will be primarily using Zechariah, as I believe that his reference is the one that is intended, though the similarity between the two texts is great enough that the difference will end up being, in many respects, negligible.
Also, I believe that Zechariah may well have been familiar with Jeremiah’s account of buying the field (Jer. 18-19), and I think that he would have linked his prophecy with that of Jeremiah in his own mind, especially by the language of the siege. There are not all that many places that condemn people to cannibalism, so if Zechariah was at all familiar with Scripture, I think it very probable that he would have had Jeremiah in mind.


2. The original context was Zechariah playing the part of a shepherd and receiving his payment. The chapter is quite complex (he both feeds and is paid by “the poor of the flock”) and seems that it would lend itself to various interpretations, but I believe this to be the most straightforward of them.

Zechariah begins tending to a flock of sheep, and then declares that he will cease to feed them: “ I will not feed you: that that dieth, let it die; and that that is to be cut off, let it be cut off; and let the rest eat every one the flesh of another.” Obviously sheep do not eat each other, so the analogy is very apparent, and appears to refer to one siege or another, but a particularly violent one in which a city is reduced to cannibalism.

He then breaks covenant (Beauty), and states that “it was broken in that day: and so the poor of the flock that waited upon me knew that it [was] the word of the LORD.” There appears to have been an event that vindicated him in his prophetic utterance, but what it was is not made clear. He then requests that if his employers see fit, that they pay him, but if they do not, don’t. They pay him thirty pieces of silver that he in turn “casts to the potter.”

He then declares that the brotherhood between Israel and Judah is broken, and the Lord declares that “I will raise up a shepherd in the land, [which] shall not visit those that be cut off, neither shall seek the young one, nor heal that that is broken, nor feed that that standeth still: but he shall eat the flesh of the fat, and tear their claws in pieces.” After this declaration, God condemns the “idol shepherd that leaveth the flock,” stating that the sword will be upon his arm an his right eye, that his arm shall be dried up (withered) and his eye utterly darkened (so he will lose his strength and sight).

3. This context is really quite horrifying, and its horror is only accented by its accuracy. It is quoted just before Matthew’s account of the trial of Christ, which culminates in the sickening “His blood be on us and our children.” As Christ is being led away to Pontius Pilate, Matthew finishes the story of Judas returning the money to the faithless shepherd (chief priests) that had condemned the flock. The apathy of each account reflects the other: Zechariah’s “that that dieth, let it die” chillingly echoed by the priests’ “What is that to us? See thou to that.” Then the faithless shepherds buy the potter’s field (to bury strangers in), completely oblivious in their calm and reasoned folly (more Hellenistic than anything they fought against) to the connections between themselves and Zechariah’s shepherd, and missing out entirely on the dual accounts of Zechariah and Jeremiah acting as two witnesses that testify against them to their death.

Each account is fulfilled, and the siege followed soon after. The father’s words “on us and our children” condemned their sons to eat each other as the dying ox of the Old Covenant strained to pull the weight of the cart it was never meant to pull—the shade trying to pull the flesh; man straining to accomplish what the God-Man had just completed.

4. In the overall story, it is the middle: the end of the beginning and the beginning of the end. In Matthew, it is again toward the end: it is the reason for the judgment that falls on Israel in the next generation. The final betrayal of Christ effectively ends the story of Israel: they are no longer those that prevail with God, but those that have nailed God to a tree. They are Israel in nothing but name, and in their desperation to grasp their birthright, they lose it irrevocably.

The account of the chief priests is probably the clearest sign of where exactly Israel was on their path to utter depravity. The priests, having just managed to set in motion the death of God, debate what to do with their unexpected refund. It was, after all, the price of blood, they say, so it isn’t lawful to be used on the temple. This while the One that sat on the mercy seat is being led out to hang on a tree overlooking their temple, their golden god. He came unto His own, and His own received Him not. How much longer could such a people be allowed to endure? For Matthew, who makes this story so understated and horrifying, this seems to be one of the final blows against Israel, as the vast majority of the rest of the story is told from the perspective of the Romans or the disciples; the Jews never enter it in any significant way again. They have obviated themselves, and Matthew moves on to tell us the remainder of Christ’s life, death, burial, resurrection and ascension, as well as to pass on the final instructions that He left us with.

III. 1. These are both taken from Psalm 22, though recited in reverse order.

2-3. In the original context, they are quotations from a Psalm of absolute despair, of the kind that would get someone institutionalized today. It is full of pleas and complaints, of asking where God is, and why He isn’t saving His servant. It is, oddly enough, one of the Psalms in which David doesn’t proclaim his innocence, though he does call upon the earth to praise the Lord, as well as promising to do so himself.

The imagery was, for David, symbolic: his bones were not literally out of joint, nor his hands pierced, though he felt as if they were, and with great cause. We don’t know who played the part of the bulls of bashan or the dogs in the case of David, but with Christ, it was the Jews and Romans. This would be particularly detestable for the Jews, as the dogs are unclean, as are the lions, and, according to most myths, unicorns would be as well.

However, the particularly astonishing part is the fact that this Psalm was actually quoted: “He trusted in God, let God save him, if He will have him.” It seems that this would have been quoted by the Jews (as the Romans didn’t much care for “God” in the singular), and as the quote is verbatim. It still is odd—it would be like someone volunteering to play the part of the Japanese for the “Battle” of Nagasaki: how is that going to turn out okay? Why would a Jew be quoting from the part of a villain in the Psalms? Of course, the quotes are probably not as clean-cut as when Matthew delivers them to us, and I’m sure that we do the same thing on a fairly regular basis.

For Matthew, these verses serve to further vindicate Christ and condemn the Jews. He places Christ in the middle of a Psalm that was written about Him, and all the Jews would have noticed this placement. As they viewed Christ to be a blasphemer, this would be particularly unforgivable to them, as well as being typecast as dogs. The problem to them would be how accurate it had been: crucifixion being described so perfectly by one who had never seen it, as well as the quotations, the casting of lots for the clothing, the gall to drink and, of course, the resurrection on the third day, which is a particularly aggravating detail.

Matthew seems particularly conscious of the need to vindicate Christ in these chapters: he is the only one of the gospel writers that mentions all of the miracles that accompanied the death of Christ, as well as the conversion of the centurion. It could be that, as Matthew was the first to write his gospel, and was writing to Jews, that he was more conscious of the stigma associated with the death of a blasphemer, and went out of his way to show that Christ was vindicated by the miracles and signs. This would explain why he extends the verse “And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared to many.” I have already demonstrated a few instances of Matthew’s being concerned with the number of witnesses, and he here seems to be doing the same. John, I believe, takes something from this in his first epistle: “That which our eyes have seen and our hands handled…”

Beyond this, Matthew would of course be still somewhat amazed, and his recitation of events bears similarity to the type of narrative that a person will give when in shock. We all too often have difficulty speaking to someone that doesn’t believe in miracles, and this after two thousand years of testimony to back us up; how much more he, when he was writing of events that were this staggering, this earth-shaking, and no one else had written of them?

William of Malmesbury

If you like history, William of Malmesbury's Chronicle of the Kings of England is a must. Compact and lucid prose highlight the history of the English Kings (including the ever-elusive Alfred the Great) in a winsome and enjoyable way.

Sawyer Speaks

5 Prescient Animals Less Well Known than Groundhog Punxsutawney Phil
January 29, 2009 by sawyerspeaks
Prescient – adjective. Prophetic, predictive, visionary; psychic, clairvoyant.

5. Common Goldfish. By floating on its side, predicts whether you know how to care for a common goldfish.

4. Wiley E. Coyote. Able to predict precisely when Road Runner will pass by on highway. Unable to do anything about it.

3. Blue Whale. Accurately predicts winning Powerball numbers. Known to beach itself trying to get to 7-11 in pursuit of ticket.

2. Whack-a-Moyle. Habitat: kosher carnival arcades. Appearance in text predicts that SawyerSpeaks is about to receive e-mails about insensitivity.

1. Hippo Craticoaf. This is simply a hippo that has disguised itself in a physician’s lab coat in order to graze free salad bars at medical conventions. Able to predict when next tray of shrimp will arrive from hotel kitchen.

Wright

“Wherever St. Paul went, there was a riot. Wherever I go, they serve tea.” –N.T. Wright

Hmm...

You Are a Question Mark

You seek knowledge and insight in every form possible. You love learning. And while you know a lot, you don't act like a know it all. You're open to learning you're wrong. You ask a lot of questions, collect a lot of data, and always dig deep to find out more. You're naturally curious and inquisitive. You jump to ask a question when the opportunity arises. Your friends see you as interesting, insightful, and thought provoking. (But they're not always up for the intense inquisitions that you love!) You excel in: Higher education You get along best with: The Comma

What Punctuation Mark Are You?

Dandelion Fire Review

They have reviewed Dandelion Fire. As they aren't currently embroiled in a debate about my pastor's supposed heresies, them reviewing the book makes me think that they might have read it. To read it means that they must have gotten a copy of it. If this is the case, I'm going to boycott Random House. Starting the 28th.

100 Cupboards Review

Thanks to the Muggles.

The Whimsy of Wodehouse

http://www.credenda.org/issues/11-4verbatim.php

Volume 11, Issue 4: Verbatim

Quotations on Plum

Plum and Clever Chappies

But anyone who considers a Wodehouse inferior and thinks that he may never read anything other than Marlowe, Goethe, or Vestdijk does not know how to distinguish. The distinction between good and bad does not lie between what is heavier and more serious and what is lighter, but runs right through the genres. There are good and bad books which must be regarded as high literature, and there are also good and bad books which are devoted to the lighter muse.

H.R. Rookmaker


Stilton, who was now a pretty vermilion, came partially out of the ether, uttering odd, strangled noises like a man with no roof to his mouth trying to recite ‘Gunga Din’.

Jeeves and the Feudal Spirit


She gave a sort of despairing gesture, like a vicar’s daughter who has discovered Erastianism in the village.

Laughing Gas


The Modern Library asked its board of advisors to pick the hundred greatest English-language novels of the twentieth century. We define the assignment differently. P. G. Wodehouse wrote 96 novels; what are the other 4?

National Review


“In the inspired words of Pliny the Younger—”

Bill held up a hand. “Right ho, Jeeves.”

“Very good, m’lord.”

“I’m not interested in Pliny the Younger.”

“No m’lord.”

“As far as I’m concerned, you may take Pliny the Younger and put him where the monkey put the nuts.”

The Return of Jeeves


...giving it her opinion that against a woman with a brain like that, Ginger hadn’t the meager chance of a toupee in a high wind.

Jeeves and the Tie that Binds


To inhabit the same world as Mr. Wodehouse is a high privilege; to inhabit the same volume, even as a doorkeeper, is perilous.

Ogden Nash


“Well there it is,” I said, and went into the silence. And as he, too, seemed disinclined for chit-chat, we stood for some moments like a couple of Trappist monks who have run into each other by chance at the dog races.

Jeeves and the Feudal Spirit


In repose, it has a sort of meditative expression, as if she were a pure white soul thinking beautiful thoughts, and, when animated, so dashed animated that it boosts the morale to just look at her. Her eyes are a kind of browny-hazel and her hair rather along the same lines. The general effect is of an angel who eats a lot of yeast.

The Mating Season


The lunches of fifty-seven years had caused his chest to slip down into the mezzanine floor.

Chester Forgets Himself


He trusted neither of them as far as he could spit, and he was a poor spitter, lacking both distance and control.

Money in the Bank


Golf . . . is the infallible test. The man who can go into a patch of rough alone, with the knowledge that only God is watching him, and play the ball where it lies, is the man who will serve you faithfully and well.

The Clicking of Cuthbert


The Right Hon. was a tubby little chap who looked as if he had been poured into his clothes and forgotten to say ‘when!’

Very Good, Jeeves


I don’t think I have ever seen a Silver Band so nonplussed. It was as though a bevy of expectant wolves had overtaken a sleigh and found no Russian peasant on board.

Uncle Dynamite


For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? Nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man.

Deuteronomy 3:11


Back to top
Back to Table of Contents



Copyright © 2007 Credenda/Agenda. All rights reserved.

So Many Types of People...

There are only 3 types of people in the world: those who can count, and those who can't.

There are only 10 types of people in the world: those who know binary, and those who don't.

There are only 2 types of people in the world: those who put people in little categories, and those who don't.

Thanks Skip

Here are 16 error messages seen on the computer screens in Japan, where some are written in Haiku. Aren't these better than 'your computer has performed an illegal operation.?'

You step in the stream, but the water has moved on. This page is not here.

The Web site you seek cannot be located, but countless more exist.

Chaos reigns within. Reflect, repent, and reboot. Order shall return.

Program aborting: close all that you have worked on. You ask too much.

Windows NT crashed. I am the Blue Screen of Death. No one hears your screams.

Yesterday it worked. Today it is not working. Windows is like that.

Your file was so big. It might be very useful. But now it is gone.

Stay the patient course. Of little worth is your ire. The network is down.

A crash reduces your expensive computer to a simple stone.

Three things are certain: Death, taxes and lost data. Guess which has occurred.

Out of memory. We wish to hold the whole sky. But we never will.

Having been erased, the document you are seeking must now be retyped.,

Serious error. All shortcuts have disappeared.

Screen. Mond. Both are blank.

Touche

"I myself have been tested, and am entirely NIV-negative."
--Doug Wilson, Blog and Mablog

Magnificent Greek Site

There is a website that contains the Greek text of the Bible and explains what each word means when you place your cursor over it. It is http://www.zhubert.com/node, or you can click on my title.

Blessings.