+- Rogue-Nation Discussion Board (https://rogue-nation.com/mybb)
+-- Forum: Spirits and the Spiritual (https://rogue-nation.com/mybb/forumdisplay.php?fid=81)
+--- Forum: Religions and Matters of Faith (https://rogue-nation.com/mybb/forumdisplay.php?fid=84)
+--- Thread: Let us make three tabernacles (/showthread.php?tid=1923)
Let us make three tabernacles - DISRAELI - 03-23-2024
“And Peter said to Jesus, ‘Lord, it is well that we are here; if you wish, I will make three booths here, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah” (Matthew ch17 v4).
I was reminded of this episode recently by a wrong-headed interpretation of it found in Toynbee’s “Study of History”. I like Toynbee. I am carefully reading through this work for the fourth time. But his enthusiasm for his case sometimes moves him to build it upon inaccurate details, and this is one of them.
He is offering examples of Violent and Gentle reactions to the disintegrations of civilisations. He counts Peter initially as an example of the violent tendency, partly because of the ear-cutting incident at Gethsemane, and partly because of the declaration just quoted. He claims that Peter took the appearance of Elijah and Moses as the signal for a war of liberation, “proposing to build on the spot the nucleus of a camp of the kind that the Theudases and Judases of Galilee were wont to establish in the wilderness during the brief interval of grace before the Roman authorities received intelligence of their activities and sent out a flying column of troops to disperse them” (Volume V, p393, if you want to look it up).
Commentaries don’t always do better. One found on my bookshelves, ignoring the wording of the remark, suggests that Peter wanted to build shelters for the three disciples, being the ones who would need shelter, so that they could stay on the mountain longer. Most commentators discover an allusion to the annual Feast of Tabernacles, often called “Feast of Booths” in modern times. The RSV translation implies the same assumption.
But I suggest that Peter was not thinking of the annual feast at all, but of the original Tabernacle, the one established by Moses in order to meet with God. The word used by Peter (SKENE) is the same word used in Hebrews ch9 for the original Tabernacle.
I think he was remembering that the Tabernacle had been erected originally so that Moses could speak with God. Seeing Jesus, Moses and Elijah together, it occurred to him, in his understandably muddled state of mind, that they might need one each. Hence the proposal.
RE: Let us make three tabernacles - Ninurta - 03-23-2024
Just for clarification to make sure I understand correctly, are you saying that Peter proposed 3 separate tabernacles so that the principals could commune with God individually rather than collectively - i.e. with separate, individual Tabernacles rather than a single Tabernacle?
If that is the case, then does this passage have implications for the individual's relationship with God in the post-Temple era, in the New Covenant?
It's my belief that "wars of liberation", in a spiritual sense, are fought within rather than externally. The individual's "liberation" is to be found in their relationship with God rather than in their relationship with a government. I believe that a number of people in that day - not necessarily Peter, but quite a few Jews - were looking after a secular solution to a spiritual problem, just as they are today. They sought - and still seek in some cases - to mix religion with politics, which to my way of thinking would have predictable, and potentially disastrous, results.
.
RE: Let us make three tabernacles - DISRAELI - 03-23-2024
(03-23-2024, 07:51 PM)Ninurta Wrote: Just for clarification to make sure I understand correctly, are you saying that Peter proposed 3 separate tabernacles so that the principals could commune with God individually rather than collectively - i.e. with separate, individual Tabernacles rather than a single Tabernacle?Mark's gospel adds "For he did not know what to say", and Luke's version is "not knowing what he said". In other words, the sight
If that is the case, then does this passage have implications for the individual's relationship with God in the post-Temple era, in the New Covenant?
It's my belief that "wars of liberation", in a spiritual sense, are fought within rather than externally. The individual's "liberation" is to be found in their relationship with God rather than in their relationship with a government. I believe that a number of people in that day - not necessarily Peter, but quite a few Jews - were looking after a secular solution to a spiritual problem, just as they are today. They sought - and still seek in some cases - to mix religion with politics, which to my way of thinking would have predictable, and potentially disastrous, results.
.
created such awe and confusion in his mind that he just blurted out the first thing that came into his head. Obviously Jesus did not accept the offer or make any direct reply to it. It wasn't something to be taken seriously as a proposal.