After months of study and preparation, our 301 Class finally launched last evening! We have 82 registered students, and we had a few non-registered visitors last evening as well. I appreciate the great response, and am really looking forward to our continued conversations. The purpose of this Blog is just that, to CONTINUE the discussion and conversation. I'd like to present an example I came across while studying for a class I'm taking on the Gospels through Reformed Theological Seminary here in Orlando. This week we are studying through Mark, and in the chapter dedicated to Mark in the class textbook there is a segment dealing with Jesus' driving out the money-changers out of the Temple courts. In Jesus' time in Jerusalem, all male Jews had to pay a temple tax. There were three kinds of currencies used in Palestine at that time: Roman (imperial money), Greek (provincial money) and Tyrian (local money). Both Roman and Greek currencies bore images of emporers which Jews found idolatrous, so Caiaphas set up a "bank" in the temple to exchange the "unclean" money for "clean" local currency--at a surcharge, of course! They were also selling ritually pure items and animals for sacrifices. On top of that, they had converted the Court of the Gentiles into a thoroughfare for people to pass from one part of the city to another with their merchandise. No wonder Jesus was infuriated! He said:
"Is it not written: 'My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations'? But you have made it a 'den of robbers. (Mark 11:17)'"
Okay, so here's the point I'd like to discuss which illustrates a principle we learned last night: The textbook presents some questions in a section called
To think about.
- "What can contemporary houses of worship learn from this?"
- "What theological deductions can be drawn from the fact that Jesus felt competent to challenge the authority of the temple?" (Encountering the New Testament, Elwell & Yarbrough p. 93)
When we start
applying what we take from narratives like this, we can draw all sorts of conflicting conclusions. is it wrong to sell things in church buildings? Is a church building, or "house of worship" really a parallel to the temple? How should we deal with people who abuse the worship of God?, and so on. The various ways in which people "bind" commands, examples and inferences from scripture have proven to be quite divisive in Christianity.
How does this add to last night's discussion? Let me know what you think!
I posted my comment to the wrong "blog"--not too bright but it's comment #4 on the first one. Sorry, I'll get the hang of it.
ReplyDeleteContemporary houses of worship are the heart, mind and soul of the worshipper and the collection of worshippers. The original plan of God had been for a tabernacle, or tent, made to exact specifications and moveable from location to location. King David then wanted to build a spectacular temple to worship The Lord God, and God allowed it to be built by David’s son. He told David that he had never asked for a spectacular dwelling built by human hands, but did accept. God always wanted the heart, mind and soul of each worshipper – that has never changed from the Garden of Eden to now. When Jesus saw the mockery and disrespect of the profiteers who were taking advantage of sincere desire of those who wanted to worship correctly, he acted decisively. They were violating the Greatest Commandment and the Second Greatest Commandment upon which all the Law had been based. They were also dishonoring God to the pagan world.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the application to the contemporary houses of worship would be found in the same type violations: Those in leadership and great influence who take advantage of sincere worshippers by twisting the scriptures to elevate self or forward personal agendas in any way, shape or form. Worship is all about our Lord and Savior, The Lord God. It is within the heart, mind and soul of the individual and the collection of worshippers.
As to Jesus’ feeling of competency, he knew exactly who he was – and who he had always been. He also lived his life entirely to please the Father – never to gain anything from mankind. We might do well to follow his example.
Hope I understood the question.
In reference to how it applies to the discussion from Wednesday, the passage from Mark mentioned above has some serious implications if taken literally. A literal interpretation would have us believe that it is sinful/wrong to use a house of worship to make commercial gains. This would mean that all the T-shirt, book, CD, DVD, and jewelry stands that we see at things like CYFs, SonQuest, and other conferences would be technically sinful. But, since exegesis is only the primary goal of Biblical interpretation, we need to look past the literal interpretation of the text. Especially because the literal interpretation that I have made above is not the same literal meaning that someone else would find in the text.
ReplyDeleteI think, like what Loretta said before me, this scripture really applies to leaders taking advantage of worshippers and not the selling of goods in the temple. This story illustrates the necessity for us to be open and honest among ourselves and with others, just as God expects us to be open and honest with him.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate all of your comments! I think the point we are all "getting" is that in the realm of application, we have to be careful not to force the text to say something it was not intended to say. New Testament churches did not begin to construct "houses of worship" until well after the apostolic period. Loretta is right on when she says that the "house" for worship under the New Covenant is (a) the believer and (b) the body of believers. Therefore, any direct correlation between the Jerusalem temple and the church is merely symbolic at best. There are MANY examples of how modern students of Scripture have "forced" applications of texts to mean what they are not intended to mean. From this same text, we mentioned Sunday that some people use Jesus' turning the tables and driving out the money changers as a justification for violence and angry outbursts. Can you think of other examples of "forcing texts"?????
ReplyDeleteWell, the obvious one would be our Wednesday night subject. Cary also plans to teach on another one – Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 – sing and make melody in your heart. There are also the binding of only “authorized” names for the church, worship service and communion service can only be done on Sunday, everything must be done decently and in order (meaning once you walk into the auditorium you must be quiet and reverent-no greeting, laughing, hugging!), and, a multitude of other misapplications and assumptions. One that I personally believe is as bad as it gets is the twisting of I Cor. 5 – the man who was living with his father’s wife. This is used to justify “withdrawing fellowship” from individuals for a variety of reasons but restoration does not seem to be one of them. This actually means not allowing a person to worship with the group unless they meet the groups’ arbitrarily imposed standard. It is more often used as one congregation withdrawing fellowship from another congregation, which is an even great stretch of the imagination. Of course, all of this is to glorify God and keep his body pure, and, is defending the gospel. Wonder what love’s got to do with it – or unity, for that matter.
ReplyDeleteI've thought about this for a long time now, in light of multi-level marketing companies like AMWAY, Mellaleuca, Market America,etc. who set up PROFITABLE accounts in a hierarchical way. I've thought about churches can occupy a spot then the members occupy spots below. So when members use products (soap, package goods, even services, etc.) then churches would get commission cut which goes into general funds. Missionaries can gather support by recruiting people to be under them.
ReplyDeleteThe one who intro that to the church would be in a profiting position, as well as those who are above him/her. To me, that is not consistent with a "blameless" characteristic that elder/deacon/leaders of the church should be striving for.
Think for a moment, that the Catholic church as powerful of an entity as they were in the 18th-early 20th century (imposing structures as you enter a city or town), that if they had started to set up "profit centers" and engage in the buying and selling of goods as a middleman (imagine if the Catholics owns the servicing arm of all hotels in the Orlando area and then the hotels, and all the cities in the world, owning transportation infrastructure), that they would be a powerful entity to this day far stronger than many corporations. They may even be able to bail-out our US financial system. But they didn't, and they didn't lose focus.
If churches were to go that route, there eventually has to be "business managers" to oversee those operations. Then such jobs becomes powerful position in the church because they control the flow of huge amount of money. My argument is that somewhere along the line, churches would lose focus on Jesus. That is a huge price to pay because of contribution money.
Note that I am refering to "profitable" business operations. Selling (actually reselling) T-shirts, books, CD, DVD, at costs or less, is hardly a "profit center". You just make it easier for people to buy the same thing.
The trouble with the money changers in the temple is that it was an effort-consuming Profit center, which cause both the Providers and the Users to lose focus on God (ie. you go to the temple to buy goods).