Today: discussion of four views of Jesus' death/theologies of the atonement, we spent the least amount of time on the first, the traditional view, which he pick up next class.
- Penal substitution
- Christus Victor
- "Marry Me"
- "Occasional Atheist"
- "Temple Tantrum for all Nations"
We watched Ray Van Der Laan, "Roll Away the Stone" for the "Marry Me" story.
Summary
here
See
COFFEE, NOT JESUS
for the "Occasional Atheist Story". And note that when Jesus died, he quoted (Intertexted) Psalm 22,,,which reads in the Message Bible like a depressed man's journal:
1-2 God, God...my God! Why did you dump me
miles from nowhere?
Doubled up with pain, I call to God
all the day long. No answer. Nothing.
I keep at it all night, tossing and turning.
3-5 And you! Are you indifferent, above it all,
leaning back on the cushions of Israel's praise?
We know you were there for our parents:
they cried for your help and you gave it;
they trusted and lived a good life.
6-8 And here I am, a nothing—an earthworm,
something to step on, to squash.
Everyone pokes fun at me;
they make faces at me, they shake their heads:
"Let's see how God handles this one;
since God likes him so much, let him help him!"
9-11 And to think you were midwife at my birth,
setting me at my mother's breasts!
When I left the womb you cradled me;
since the moment of birth you've been my God.
Then you moved far away
and trouble moved in next door.
I need a neighbor.
12-13 Herds of bulls come at me,
the raging bulls stampede,
Horns lowered, nostrils flaring,
like a herd of buffalo on the move.
14-15 I'm a bucket kicked over and spilled,
every joint in my body has been pulled apart.
My heart is a blob
of melted wax in my gut.
I'm dry as a bone,
my tongue black and swollen.
They have laid me out for burial
in the dirt.
16-18 Now packs of wild dogs come at me;
thugs gang up on me.
They pin me down hand and foot,
and lock me in a cage—a bag
Of bones in a cage, stared at
by every passerby.
They take my wallet and the shirt off my back,
and then throw dice for my clothes.
19-21 You,
God—don't put off my rescue!
Hurry and help me!
Don't let them cut my throat;
don't let those mongrels devour me.
If you don't show up soon,
I'm done for—gored by the bulls,
meat for the lions.
22-24 Here's the story I'll tell my friends when they come to worship,
and punctuate it with Hallelujahs:
Shout Hallelujah, you God-worshipers;
give glory, you sons of Jacob;
adore him, you daughters of Israel.
He has never let you down,
never looked the other way
when you were being kicked around.
He has never wandered off to do his own thing;
he has been right there, listening.
25-26 Here in this great gathering for worship
I have discovered this praise-life.
And I'll do what I promised right here
in front of the God-worshipers.
Down-and-outers sit at
God's table
and eat their fill.
Everyone on the hunt for God
is here, praising him.
"Live it up, from head to toe.
Don't ever quit!"
27-28 From the four corners of the earth
people are coming to their senses,
are running back to
God.
Long-lost families
are falling on their faces before him.
God has taken charge;
from now on he has the last word.
29 All the power-mongers are before him
—worshiping!
All the poor and powerless, too
—worshiping!
Along with those who never got it together
—worshiping!
30-31 Our children and their children
will get in on this
As the word is passed along
from parent to child.
Babies not yet conceived
will hear the good news—
that God does what he says.
--
Note this last line could well be translated "
It is finished" Recognize that?
...
There was a church that was not very liturgically oriented; in fact they were decidedly “low-church.” So the pastor wanted to teach his flock a bit of the richness of the liturgy tradition. He figured he’d start them out with a “win-win” that would be easy; the classic responsive that begins with the leader saying:
“The Lord be with you.”
You know the response:
“And also with you.”
And the pastor thought he’d have the congregation practice the responsive for several weeks, and then officially inaugurate it on Easter; a high attendance Sunday with lots of guests.
So every week they walked through it:
“Now when I say, ‘The Lord be with you,’ remember that you say And also with you.’” Let’s practice…”
They practiced. They were primed. Pumped. Throughout the countdown weeks of Lent, they became quite prepared.
Then came the big Sunday; Easter in all its glory. Lots of guests; an air of expectancy in the room; especially among the well-trained saints knowing they were about ready to show off what they had been practicing.
So the pastor stepped up to the pulpit with a knowing smile. But he noticed that something was wrong with the microphone. So before he realized it, he said aloud just that:
“There is something wrong with this microphone.”
Well, the congregation was so primed and practiced that they immediately shot back, before they realized it, with one loud and clear voice:
“And also with you!”
There’s nothing wrong with my microphone today!
But we can’t help but feel there’s something deeply wrong with us when we are forced to admit what we have been told is unthinkable, impossible, heretical and horrible:
The Lord is not with us.
Or so it feels if we are daring enough to be honest.
I might even contend that until a Christian has said; meant; felt; prayed that unspeakable thought that must be spoken..… they may not even be a full follower of Jesus…
The One who was and is God.
The One who modeled for us how to live, how to pray, how to feel…
The One who dared enough to be honest.
The One who said, and I quote:
“God, God . . . my God!
Why did you dump me miles from nowhere?
Doubled up with pain, I call to God all the day long.
No answer.
Nothing.”
!
Did you know that’s what the Almighty Jesus Christ said, felt, prayed on the cross?
No answer.
Nothing!
It gets worse.
Be sure you catch the condemning; the accusatory, angry, agnostic tone and tenor. The next two words must by necessity be read with all that volume and venom. If fact, the Bible specifically mentions that Jesus prayed this “in a loud cry.”
He prays on:
“And You!!
Are You indifferent, above it all, leaning back on the cushions of Israel's praise?
We know You were there for our parents!
They cried for Your help and You gave it; they trusted and lived a good life.
And here I am, a nothing--an earthworm, something to step on, to squash.
Everyone pokes fun at me; they make faces at me, they shake their heads:
‘Let's see how GOD handles this one; since God likes him so much, let him help him!’
And to think You were midwife at my birth, setting me at my mother's breasts!
When I left the womb You cradled me; since the moment of birth You've been my God.
Then You moved far away and trouble moved in next-door. I need a neighbor. “
This graphic and earthy (and astoundingly accurate) rendering of Jesus’ prayer from The Message translation is stunning, shattering; and yet not as devastating as the original language portrayed it. Somehow the whole scene changes, and is dialed down; is in effect censored; through standard translations such as the NIV:
PS 22:3 Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One;
you are the praise of Israel.
PS 22:4 In you our fathers put their trust;
they trusted and you delivered them.
PS 22:5 They cried to you and were saved;
in you they trusted and were not disappointed.
PS 22:6 But I am a worm and not a man,
scorned by men and despised by the people.
PS 22:7 All who see me mock me;
they hurl insults, shaking their heads:
PS 22:8 "He trusts in the LORD;
let the LORD rescue him.
Let him deliver him,
since he delights in him."
PS 22:9 Yet you brought me out of the womb;
you made me trust in you
even at my mother's breast.
PS 22:10 From birth I was cast upon you;
from my mother's womb you have been my God.
PS 22:11 Do not be far from me,
for trouble is near
and there is no one to help.”
I know.
That sounds devasating…and dangerous… enough.
But “In You” has lost all of its darkness, its near-atheism, its anger. It has been prematurely resolved into a peaceful surrender. The whole tone of voice has been twisted into trust.
Way too soon.
Let Jesus be ticked. Let him accuse God.
Let him curse. Let him yell at God that he has abandoned him miles from nowhere.
Otherwise I am sunk.
As are you.
I must fully embrace, pass through, pray through ..and feel through that Scripture; thos Psal,…uncut…before I can…in a way that is not cliche, contrived, and.indeed denial…find a mature and wrestled-through-the-crucible confidence in God’s sovereignty.
We quote Romans 8:28 too tritely and too soon.
We quote Psalm 23, and post it on on our refrigerator doors, slap it on our bumperstickers; without its context and it’s immediate predecessor in the Psalter.
We cannot have Psalm 23 without this Psalm we have been quoting:
The devastating, glorious Psalm 22.
The one that starts not with a resolute “The Lord is my shepherd,”
But with a ruddy “Yahweh has dumped me.”
----
“I’ve got nothing left to give,” the professor said.
Several years ago some other pastors and I had responsibility for a pastors retreat. We decided to bring in a deep, profound, distinguished man of God; a professor renowned in the field of spiritual formation.
We were busy pastors, some of us bordering on burnout; we badly needed retreat…and training in the meat spiritual formation .
So there was indeed a huge hunger and holy hush in the room, when after weeks of waiting, the respected PhD, whom we were thrilled had said “yes” to flying out the 3,000 miles from his seminary to enlighten our relatively small but serious group, opened his mouth that first night.
Bibles and notebooks in hand , we leaned forward to receive what the master would say; what gleanings the guru had studied and prayed hard to impart.
His opening line broke the silence, the mood, and all the “rules” of grad-school-level spiritual formation 701:
“I have nothing to give.”
“Excuse me?,” I am sure we all collectively thought.
He continued, oblivious to our headscratching; indeed not even acknowledging the question marks hanging over us.
“I almost didn’t come. I almost cancelled, but I figured this retreat was booked, and I had better keep my commitment.
You see, the other day, I woke up to my wife saying ‘I’m leaving you.’
And she did.
I was so distraught that all I could do was immediately, and in a daze, drive the thousand miles to my best friend’s house.
When his wife answered the door, she could only manage: ‘How did you know?’
‘Know what?, I asked.
‘He just killed himself!’
I could only jump shellshocked into my car, drive all those miles back home..
..To find my house had been struck by lightning and burned to the ground.”
The question marks over our heads were gone.
He matter-of-factly concluded:
“So all I could do is keep my commitment and make this retreat where you want me to teach you spiritual formation. I’m sorry if I’ve made the wrong choice in coming; if I’m wasting your valuable time and money. I am here to teach spiritual formation, and maybe I can do that…
The only problem is I’m not sure I have anything left to give.”
That was the most profound lesson and lecture in spiritual formation that I have ever received.
As you can tell, I remember every word of that opening lecture.
----------------
“God, God, my God! Why?...
No answer. Nothing.”
Jesus prayed that.
“And You, God…Traitor!”
“I’ve got nothing left, and it’s Your fault.”
“To think You were there at my birth!!” Jesus cried out.
“I need a neighbor.”
My God, My God, Why oh Why have you forsaken me?
One translation is daring enough: “Where the hell are You, God?”
I mentioned that all this seemingly blasphemous prayer was a prayer Jesus actually prayed.
Indeed he did.
On the cross, of all places. Jesus owned, recited, and prayed Psalm 22.
Incarnated it incredibly.
You don’t remember Him praying such a long prayer? You only remember the “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” part; the opening salvo?
Your memory serves well. But I am probably preaching to the choir to remind you (Note: here I turned to the choir, and laughed that I was now literally preaching to the choir) that in biblical days, when a Jew quoted the first portion or line of a Scripture, it implied she or he was quoting and implying the whole passage.
The opening verse stood for the rest.
But they had no atomized verses; they visualized only sections; memorized only passages.
There were no “memory verses.”
So much so that to quote one part of the passage implied an acceptance and implication of the theme and flow and content…. and emotion….of the entire thing.
In a way, this is not much different than if I were to say as a rhetorical device in this sermon, “For God so loved the world…” you would understand I would mean imply all of what we have memorized as “John 3:16.” You would fill in the blank. But how many know John 3:15 and John 3:17 from memory?
That’s what I thought.
“Our Father who art in heaven….” I know you know, and can finish. that prayer without a cheat sheet.
“The Lord is my shepherd….” I know you know the rest of that as well as you know the answer to “The Lord bewith you…”
“And also with you!”
So the reason we three preachers are “also with you” today , and are preaching through Psalm 22 sequentially, is to help us all remember or realize that there is no doubt that what Jesus the Jew was doing on the cross as he recited what we now call Psalm 22, verse 1. He was praying…uncensored…the entire glorious, gory, gutsy, God-forsaken Psalm.
True, only the first line is mentioned as having passed his lips in the gospel accounts;
But there is no question that he was saying not just “I am the Messiah, and I am fulfilling this ancient Scripture,” but…“I am praying, I am feeling, this whole rugged, ruthless Psalm. Psalm 22 uncut.
Everyone around the cross who was versed in Scripture knew what he was quoting, and thus suggesting: the entire emotive Psalm was his liturgically-correct prayer that day; agnostism, angst and all.
Whether or not he literally verbalized aloud from the Place of a Skull every “verse” of that psalm (which is possible, perhaps probable, as we will see), or just was able to utter
and sputter the blunt first line.. .it’s microcosm and thesis statement…. the effect;and affect; is the same.
Jesus Christ, Lord of the Universe felt …
Abandoned, betrayed, used.
Agnostic. Angry.
Hear this explosive good news..ws: You are allowed to feel that way…on Good Friday, or any day it fits.
...The account of Jesus’ dying words in John actually could be made to infer that Jesus did in fact pray aloud the entire Psalm…or at least the first and last line… to give context and contour, no matter how real...and really troubling...the fulness of what he was experiencing.
Jesus, as John tellingly tells us, cried out the famous words…the “My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me?” line “in a loud voice.” Then it is relayed that someone offered him a sponge with wine vinegar. (Matthew, not John, notes that Jesus had said “I thirst.) Then a fascinating, intriguing fact that only John highlights: “And then, after receiving the drink, he cried out again in a loud voice”
(emphasis mine). This second crying out has puzzled Bible readers for years: What did he say? Was it anything audible? Was it the “eighth saying from they cross”, just one that never got transcribed?
There is actually a chance that we know exactly what he cried out that second time.
With the help of John.
The mentioning of the wine vinegar sponge being lifted to Jesus is immediately followed…not in Matthew, but only in John… not by Jesus offering up a generic loud cry. Jon alone tells us exactly what Jesus said. I’m reading it now; watch this: “The wine was lifted to his lips. When he had received the drink, Jesus said…..
‘It... is…. finished.’
With that , he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.”
So according to John’s journal, the literal last words of Jesus were not a helpless “My God, Why…” but a hearty “It is finished.”
Three words which are strikingly similar to the literal last words of Psalm 22.
Look at them. One version even translates the last line of Psalm 22; “It is finished”
Many scholars recognize the similarity in the structure of the Hebrew (of Psalm 22)
This last line is usually rendered something like in the NIV “He (God) has done it.”
Jesus’s cry on the cross, “It is finished” doesn’t specifically mention God having done or finished something; so we often assume it means “It is finished…I, Jesus, have finished the saving act of dying on the cross.” That of course, is true and key. But in the Greek language grammar, it may well be what we call a ”divine passive”…a sentence that doesn’t specifically mention God, but implies it. Like we might say “Someone is watching out for you.” Or “I was touched.” So it may be “It is finished; God has done it.”
The last line of Psalm 22 may have been the last line of Jesus on Friday.
He may have forced himself, as he was dying, to say and pray aloud, the whole thing.
Did you ever wonder why Jesus said “I thirst” right in the middle of dying? Maybe he was right in the middle of a long Psalm, but he knew he had to get it all said.
For our sake.
Again, whether or not Jesus literally prayed the first line only, the first and closing line (a common framing technique in Bible days, a framing device, an “inclusio”), or the entire psalm, the message is the same salty one:
“I feel this whole psalm. My guts are literally being wrenched. I wonder why God is doing this to me. But I am sensing it will work out; that God is finishing something.”
Theopoedia: Theories of Atonment (
click)
---
Wiki:
---
--
-Matrix Revolutions...ending:
Click here to watch all 4 parts at once..
OR
Part 1 (click here)
(Check the cross over Neo's head at 1:26 at that click)
-----------------------
Part 2: is embedded below..
Check the crosses at 2:00 amd 2:56
What Scripture at 3:15?
--
part 3Here
part 4:
...........
-------
see also:
- "Christus Vicror" atonement (see p, 148 of "Teaching the Bible through popular culture and the arts"
- by Mark Roncace, Patrick Gray)
--
Christus Victor (Christ the Victor) is a view of the atonement taken from the title of Gustaf Aulén’s groundbreaking book, first published in 1931, where he drew attention back to the early church’s Ransom theory. In Christus Victor, the atonement is viewed as divine conflict and victory over the hostile powers that hold humanity in subjection. Aulén argues that the classic Ransom theory is not so much a rational systematic theory as it is a drama, a passion story of God triumphing over the powers and liberating humanity from the bondage of sin. As Gustav Aulén writes, “the work of Christ is first and foremost a victory over the powers which hold mankind in bondage: sin, death, and the devil.”[1]
The Ransom Theory was predominant in the early church and for the first thousand years of church history and supported by all Greek Church Fathers from Irenaeus to John of Damascus. To mention only the most important names Origen, Athanasius, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, and John Chrysostom. The Christus Victor view was also dominant among the Latin Fathers of the Patristic period including Ambrose, Augustine, Leo the Great, and Gregory the Great.
A major shift occurred when Anselm of Canterbury published his Cur Deos Homo around 1097 AD which marks the point where the predominate understanding of the atonement shifted from the ransom theory to the Satisfaction Doctrine in the Roman Catholic Church and subsequently the Protestant Church. The Eastern Orthodox Church still holds to the Ransom or Christus Victor view. This is built upon the understanding of the atonement put forward by Irenaeus, called “recapitulation”.[2]
As the term Christus Victor indicates, the idea of “ransom” should not be seen in terms (as Anselm did) of a business transaction, but more of a rescue or liberation of humanity from the slavery of sin. Unlike the Satisfaction or Penal-substitution views of the atonement rooted in the idea of Christ paying the penalty of sin to satisfy the demands of justice, the Christus Victor view is rooted in the incarnation and how Christ entered into human misery and wickedness and thus redeemed it. Irenaeus called this “Recapitulation” (re-creation). As it is often expressed: “Jesus became what we are so that we could become what he is”. LINK
--
Where else does a "Christus Victor": show up in literature/film?
C.S. Lewis, "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" :
Atonement Series: Ransom / Christus Victor
The Ransom Theory
The ransom theory is the oldest atonement theory. It is sometimes called the classical theory or the bargain theory. It was developed and articulated by early church fathers such as
Irenaeus,
Origen, and
Augustine. The ransom theory holds that when Adam and Eve sinned, they placed themselves under the dominion of Satan. To free humanity, Jesus gave himself as payment to Satan. Satan agreed to the deal, and put Jesus to death in place of humanity. Yet since Jesus was without sin, Satan overstepped his bounds. Jesus rose from the dead, liberated humanity, and conquered Satan and his kingdom.
In explaining the Ransom Theory,
Pope Gregory the Great wrote:
matching deceit with deceit, Christ frees man by tricking the devil into overstepping his authority. Christ becomes a “fishhook”: his humanity is the bait, his divinity the hook, and Leviathan [Satan] is snared. Because the devil is proud, he cannot understand Christ’s humility and so believes he tempts and kills a mere man. But in inflicting a sinless man with death, the devil loses his rights over man from his “excess of presumption,” Christ conquers the devil’s kingdom of sin, liberating captives from the devil’s tyranny. Order is reinstated when man returns to serve God, his true master.” (1)
Christus Victor (Christ the Victor)
The Christus victor theory is closely tied to the ransom theory. It was articulated by Swedish theologian
Gustaf Aulen. Aulen argued that payment to Satan is not the focus of the classical theory. Rather, the focus is on Jesus liberating humanity from the power of death and sin.
Adherants
The Eastern Orthodox church holds to the ransom view. Many in the Western church find it helpful, but most do not accept it as a stand alone view.
Criticisms of the Ransom Theory:
- Not enough focus on God
- makes God a debtor to Satan.
- Tricking Satan seems to imply deceit on God's part.
Verses Used to Advocate the Ransom Theory:
- For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. 1 Timothy 2:56
- You were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body. 1 Corinthians 6:20
- For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many -Mark 10:45
- For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. -Colossians 1:13-14
Examples in music and literature:
- The Champion (Carman) - Jesus defeats Satan in a cosmic battle represented by a boxing match.
(1) Quoted from
The Story of Christian Theology, by Roger Olson, page 323
LINK
---
Penal Substitution or Christus Victor, Clinton Arnold:
Penal Substitution or Christus Victor (on theories of the atonement) from
:redux on
Vimeo.
---
N. T. Wright, Atonement Theories:
See also:
Penal Substitution vs. Christus Victorhttp://therebelgod.com/cross_intro.shtml
--
related:
Temple Tantrum view:
remember that the temple tantrum wasn't against commercialism as much as against racism
(see
11/8). Now study the "RIP" inclusio in Mark's gospel, noting which veil was ripped.
See
"temple tantrum/ which curtain was torn?"
Then consider an additional view:
"Behind the second curtain was a room called the Holy of Holies"
-Hebrews 9:3
We all know "the curtain of the temple was torn in two as Jesus died."
And most assume it was the curtain separating the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies, meaning Jesus provides direct access to God.
Good and true that he does that, and it is the proper "evangelical answer"..
but what if the temple torn in two was not the second curtain (or second curtain only),
but the first..
what would the 
implications be?
The first curtain separated the outer court from the Holy Place; the second curtain, Scripture speaks of dividing the Holy Place and Holy of Holies..
So Jesus here would be dying not only to give us direct access to God, but to provide "direct access to direct access" to the foreigner/outcast/leper/prostitute....the folks who normally couldn't step beyond the outer court into the Holy 
Place, let alone the inner place, the Holy of Holies.
Why don't most evangelicals know there was a first curtain? And recognize that we may have re-built it in our time..
Most think Jesus's "temple tantrum" was due to his being ticked off about folks selling stuff in church. But he didn't say "Quit selling stuff in church" , but "My house shall be a house of prayer for all nations," quoting Is 56:6-8, whose context is all about letting foreigners and outcasts have a place..hmmm. He was likely upset that not that Dovesellers and money changers were doing business selling and changing , but that they were doing so in the "outer court," the only place where "foreigners" could have a pew at "attend church." They were making the temple area "a den of thieves" not (just) by overcharging for Doves and money, but by robbing folks..'all nations'... of a place to pray..and to "access access" to God.
I am glad at least a few pastors( here and here and here) are brave enough admit to their congregations that there were two curtains, and that this "alternative view" might be correct.
Consider and stretch re: the curtain issue below by way of three excerpts below...
perhaps the 3rd article jacks things up by building the case from the very shape of Scripture. Cheers!
>Note:See also Howard M. Jackson's "The Death of Jesus in Mark and the Miracle from the Cross," NTS 33, 1987)
>R.C. Sproul also comments:
"It actually does not matter much which curtain was torn, for the tearing of either one can incorporate the meaning of the tearing of the other."
THREE ARTICLES:
1)from http://www.geocities.com/gmmaurer/yeshua.html:
Many people teach that the curtain that was torn in the Temple was the curtain that separated the Holy of Holies from the Holy Place. Did you know that there were two curtains in the Sanctuary?
Hebrews 9:3 “Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place,” And Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance has this to say about the second “curtain” (the Greek word used here is “katapetasma”) in the Sanctuary: katapetasma { kat-ap-et’-as-mah} “The name given to the two curtains in the temple at Jerusalem, one of them at the 
entrance to the temple separated the Holy Place from the outer court, the other veiled the Holy of Holies from the Holy Place.”
There were two curtains in the Sanctuary. I don’t think that
the curtain that separated the Holy of Holies from the Holy Place was the
curtain torn in two [Matthew 27:50-51]. Rabbi Sha’ul (the apostle Paul) reminds
us that Messiah (Yeshua) is not divided or torn in two [1Corinthians 1:13]. All
of this would mean that God is calling all believers (male and female) in the
New Covenant to become ministering priests before Him -
-G.M. Maurer
2)Jesus is crucified. When he dies, the temple curtain is torn in two, from top to
bottom, the sky darkens, an earthquake shakes the earth. As anyone might
remember who saw the Jazz Singer with Neil Diamond, a Jewish father might tear
his clothes when his son dies... so, in effect, God tears the veil when his
beloved son dies. There were two curtains associated with the Temple. One was a
huge tapestry that hung outside with an image of the night sky woven into it.
The other was the veil that hung inside the temple that separated the Holy of
Holies from the rest of the temple... which temple curtain tore? I thought David
Ulansey's analysis was interesting, found here.
(Note, the analysis is copied below as
quote #3)
-Dan McAfee, link
3)THE HEAVENLY VEIL TORN: MARK'S COSMIC "INCLUSIO"
by David Ulansey [Originally published in Journal of Biblical Literature 110:1 (Spring 1991) pp. 123-25]:
In the past few years, several different scholars have argued that there was a connection in the mind of the author of the Gospel of Mark between the tearing of the heavens at the baptism of Jesus (Mk 1:10) and the tearing of the temple veil at the death of Jesus (Mk 15:38). [1] The purpose of the present article will be to call attention to a piece of evidence which none of these scholars mentions, but which provides dramatic confirmation of the hypothesis that the tearing of the heavens and the tearing of the temple veil were linked in Mark's imagination. [2]
To begin with, we should note that the two occurrences of the motif of tearing in Mark do not occur at random points in the narrative, but on the contrary are located at two pivotal moments in the story-- moments which, moreover, provide an ideal counterpoint for each other: namely, the precise beginning (the baptism) and the precise end (the death) of the earthly career of Jesus. This significant placement of the two instances of the motif of tearing suggests that we are dealing here with a symbolic "inclusio": that is, the narrative device common in biblical texts in which a detail is repeated at the beginning and the end of a narrative unit in order to "bracket off" the unit and give it a sense of closure and structural integrity.
Indeed, in his 1987 article, "The Rending of the Veil: A Markan Pentecost," S. Motyer points out that there is actually a whole cluster of motifs which occur in Mark at both the baptism (1:9-11) and at the death of Jesus (15:36-39). In addition to the fact that at both of these moments something is torn, Motyer notes that: (1) at both moments a voice is heard declaring Jesus to be the Son of God (at the baptism it is the voice of God, while at the death it is the voice of the centurion); (2) at both moments something is said to descend (at the baptism it is the spirit-dove, while at the death it is the tear in the temple veil, which Mark explicitly describes as moving downward), (3) at both moments the figure of Elijah is symbolically present (at the baptism Elijah is present in the form of John the Baptist, while at Jesus' death the onlookers think that Jesus is calling out to Elijah); (4) the spirit (pneuma) which descends on Jesus at his baptism is recalled at his death by Mark's repeated use of the verb ekpneo (expire), a cognate of pneuma. [3]
According to Motyer, the repetition by Mark of this cluster of motifs at both the baptism and the death of Jesus constitutes a symbolic inclusio which brackets the entire gospel, linking together the precise beginning and the precise end of the earthly career of Jesus. Seen in this context, the presence at both moments of the motif of something being torn is unlikely to be coincidental. However, at this point an important question arises: if there was indeed a connection for Mark between the tearing of the heavens and the tearing of the temple veil, which veil was it that he had in mind? For the fact is, of course, that there were two famous veils associated with the Jerusalem temple.
It has been debated for centuries which veil it was that Mark was referring to: was it the outer veil, which hung in front of the doors at the entrance to the temple, or the inner veil which separated the Holy of Holies from the rest of the temple? [4] Many interpreters have assumed that it was the inner veil, and have understood the tearing of the veil to have been Mark's way of symbolizing the idea that the death of Jesus destroyed the barrier which separated God from humanity. Recently, however, favor seems to have shifted to the view that it was the outer veil, the strongest argument for which is that Mark seems to have intended the awestruck response of the centurion to the manner of Jesus' death (Mk 15:39) to have been inspired by his seeing the miraculous event of the tearing of the veil, but he could only have seen this event if it was the outer veil that tore, since the inner veil was hidden from view inside the temple. [5]
In his 1987 article "The Death of Jesus in Mark and the Miracle from the Cross," Howard Jackson argues that the question of which veil it was that Mark was referring to can be easily answered if we acknowledge that there was a link in Mark's imagination between the tearing of the heavens at the baptism of Jesus and the tearing of the temple veil at his death. For, says Jackson, if there was a parallel in Mark's mind between the tearing of the heavens and the tearing of the temple veil, then Mark must also have intended there to be a parallel between Jesus at the baptism and the centurion at the crucifixion: just as Jesus witnessed the tearing of the heavens, so the centurion witnessed the tearing of the temple veil. But, as we have already noted, the centurion could only have witnessed the tearing of the veil if it was the outer veil, since the inner veil was hidden from view. Thus it must have been the outer veil that Mark had in mind. [6]
Jackson's argument is suggestive although certainly not conclusive. However, there exists a piece of evidence which Jackson does not mention in his discussion which, I believe, provides decisive proof that Mark had in mind the outer veil of the temple, and which also provides rather spectacular confirmation of the existence in Mark's imagination of a link between the tearing of the heavens and the tearing of the temple veil.
The evidence to which I refer consists of a passage in Josephus's Jewish War in which he describes the outer veil of the Jerusalem temple as it had appeared since the time of Herod. According to Josephus, this outer veil was a gigantic curtain 80 feet high. It was, he says, a
Babylonian tapestry, with embroidery of blue and fine linen, of scarlet also and purple, wrought with marvelous skill.
Nor was this mixture of materials without its mystic meaning: it typified the universe....
Then Josephus tells us what was pictured on this curtain:
Portrayed on this tapestry was a panorama of the entire heavens.... [7] [emphasis mine]
In other words, the outer veil of the Jerusalem temple was actually one huge image of the starry sky! Thus, upon encountering Mark's statement that "the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom," any of his readers who had ever seen the temple or heard it described would instantly have seen in their mind's eye an image of the heavens being torn, and would immediately have been reminded of Mark's earlier description of the heavens being torn at the baptism. This can hardly be coincidence: the symbolic parallel is so striking that Mark must have consciously intended it.
We may therefore conclude (1) that Mark did indeed have in mind the outer veil, and (2) that Mark did indeed imagine a link between the tearing of the heavens and the tearing of the temple veil-- since we can now see that in fact in both cases the heavens were torn-- and that he intentionally inserted the motif of the "tearing of the heavenly veil" at both the precise beginning and at the precise end of the earthly career of Jesus, in order to create a powerful and intriguing symbolic inclusio.
We discussed Matt 28:16-20, noting sppecially that "Make disciples of all NATIONS...or could be translated, GENTILES"..
Resources on the Atonement
Books
Recovering the Scandal of the Cross: Atonement in New Testament and Contemporary Contexts
Proclaiming the Scandal of the Cross: Contemporary Images of Atonement
How Does the Cross and Resurrection Provide Salvation?
“
Recovering the Scandal of the Cross,” the book I co-authored with Joel Green, contends that if the New Testament writers use diverse images to proclaim the saving significance of the cross, then we should too!
A short article that uses real-life examples to show the value of using a variety of atonement explanations
Viewing penal satisfaction theory as the one correct explanation of the atonement has made it difficult for many to see the diversity of images in the New Testament. It also impedes our ability to develop alternative contemporary images. I have written an article that points out some of the problems with using the image of penal substitution as the foundational explanation of the atonement, and offers an alternative foundational narrative of the atonement:
Two Foundational Stories of the Cross: How They Affect Evangelism
How do we help people embrace a wider understanding of the cross and resurrection? In addition to offering in-depth biblical and theological explanations like those in “
Recovering the Scandal of the Cross,” and sharing well developed contemporary images like those in “
Proclaiming the Scandal of the Cross,” I have found it helpful to briefly list a variety of ways that Jesus' life, death and resurrection provide salvation.
A List of Biblical Images of How the Cross Saves
Ten Ways the Cross Saves: Brief Explanations
A List of Fourteen Things that Jesus' Death Accomplishes, as Seen in New Testament Texts
Shame and the Atonement
Many people have expressed appreciation for the discussion of shame and the cross in chapter six of “
Recovering the Scandal of the Cross.” Therefore, in “
Proclaiming the Scandal of the Cross” I intentionally sought some examples of people proclaiming liberation from shame through the cross (chapters 12-15 in the book). In addition to those resources Mako Nagasawa has some helpful presentations on this topic.
Penal Substitution: Why it Doesn’t Work with Asian Americans
Beyond ‘Near’ and 'Far’: Jesus Overcomes Shame and Alienation
Images of Atonement
The book, “
Proclaiming the Scandal of the Cross” explores the need for contextualized atonement theology, offering creative examples of how the cross can be proclaimed today in culturally relevant and transformative ways. As I develop or encounter other contextualized images of atonement I will add them to this site.
“
Jesus and Harry Potter: Disarming the Powers,” Laura Neufeld, December, 2010
“
The Office,” Dan Whitmarsh, April 2010
"
Lifehouse Everything Drama
“
The Pit,” Dan Whitmarsh, April 2009
“
Liberated from Darkness and Lies to Light and Truth: The Matrix as Metaphor of the Cross,” Michael VandenEnden, March 2009
“
The Kingdom of the Lion,” Danny Gray, December 2008
“
Aunt Lizzie’s Wedding: A Parable of Love,” Paulette Lovelace, June 2007
“
Blood Breaks the Barriers,” Daniel A. Bunker, April 2007
“
Freedom From the Cycle of Retaliation,” Scott Carolon, April 2007
“
Down a Slippery Slope,” Paulette Lovelace, April 2007
“
The Black Quilt,” Eliberto Mendoza, April 2007
“
Saving Significance of the Cross in a Honduran Barrio,” Mark D. Baker, Mission Focus Annual Review 14 (2006) 59-81.
--
See:
