Mark part twenty four

We are at Mark 13:33. Jesus has just given the disciples a description of what signs to look for when the destruction of the temple is imminent. He tells them to be on their guard and watch out, because the coming events might take them by surprise.

We are now in chapter 14. It is two days before the passover and the feast of unleavened bread. The chief priests and teachers of the law want to arrest Jesus and kill him, but they don't want to cause a riot during passover. Jesus is again in Bethany, his home base for the time he has been visiting Jerusalem. He was eating at the home of a man named Simon the leper when a woman pours an alabaster jar of expensive perfume (made of pure nard) on his head.

The woman was rebuked for wasting what could have been sold for money to give to the poor. The text does not say who rebuked her. Jesus told them to leave the woman alone because they would always have the poor, they wouldn't always have him. She was preparing his body for burial. Then he predicts that wherever the gospel is preached, what this woman did will be remembered. That is very interesting. Paul preached the gospel fervently and never spoke about her, as far as we know. In fact this writing may be the first time she was ever mentioned in relation to the gospel. The fact that it is included in this book may be the very reason anyone "remembered" it at all.

Next we see Judas betray Jesus to the chief priests for a promise of money. He was just waiting for an opportunity to hand him over. Notice it does not say how much money. Also, the last supper hasn't even happened yet.

We move on to the first day of the feast of unleavened bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb. We are not told what day of the week this was. It could have been any day that fell on the 14th day of the month of Nisan.  Also, remember that a Jewish day began at dusk one day and ended at dusk the next.  So, since the day in the text would be the 14th day of the month of Nisan. At dusk, which was the 15th day, the passover would begin. The Jewish calendar was based on the moon, so Passover would have fallen on the night of the full moon, no matter what day of the week. That night of the full moon is when the spirit sent out by god killed all the first born of the Egyptians, in the book of Exodus.

Jesus sends two disciples into Jerusalem to make preparations for the passover in a large upper room of a house that has already been prearranged for the purpose. They did that. (Part of the preparation for passover was supposed to be killing and roasting a lamb.) In the evening Jesus and the twelve arrive at the house. It is now passover. Notice that Jesus has not been killed  on the day that the passover lamb is killed. Mark does not equate him with the passover sacrifice. Not only that, Jesus is eating the passover meal with his disciples, which traditionally included roast lamb which must be completely eaten before the next morning. This is not mentioned in the text because it would have been obvious to anyone who knew the ritual.  In christian communion rituals, that are said to have been established at this moment in time, it is never mentioned that it is almost certain the meal contained more than bread and wine.

In verse 17, Jesus and the twelve are eating and Jesus announces that one of them will betray him. They are all concerned and each asks if he will be the one. Jesus tells them it will be one of those who  dips bread into the bowl with him. What bowl? Jesus is probably referring to the main dish on the table. Each person would have been using their bread as a spoon or scoop to eat with, out of a communal bowl. Jesus pronounces a curse on his betrayer but does not name him.

Mark part twenty three

We are at Mark 13:5. Jesus is going to give a speech about the signs that will happen when the temple is about to be destroyed. It is probably a retroactive prophecy. Here are the various signs:
1. People who are not Jesus claiming to be Jesus or the messiah/christ.
2. Wars and rumors of wars.
3. Earthquakes and famines.
4. Flogging of the disciples of Jesus. (That's who Jesus is talking to, and he says "you." It would be wrong to say this applies to future christians in general.)
5. Arrests of disciples of Jesus after they preach the gospel to all nations and their appearance before governors and kings.
6. Betrayal by family members.
7. Hatred of the disciples because of Jesus. (Again, he says "you.")

When they see the  "abomination that causes desolation standing where it does not belong" they must escape Jerusalem, not stopping for anything. (There is no consensus as to what abomination of desolation means.) It will be a time of great distress and not safe for the weak. However, that turmoil will not last long, "for the sake of the elect." Here, the elect could be Jews, who traditionally considered themselves Yahweh's elect, or Jesus's disciples. It is not clear here specifically who the elect are. However, if this was written after Paul wrote and preached, it may be referring to Paul's teaching in Romans chapter 11. There, the elect are a "remnant chosen by grace," not Jews, but gentiles.

The disciples are to be aware of the possibility of false christs and false prophets who will try to perform signs and miracles to deceive them. After the distress (the 70CE fall of Jerusalem?), "the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken." Jesus is quoting a passage from Isaiah 13:10. Its context is a supposed prophecy against Babylon, which in the symbolism of the New Testament book of Revelation, is equated with Rome. However, Mark seems to be equating it with Jerusalem/Israel. If one was living in Rome at the time, it might also be an apt description of the 79CE eruption of Vesuvius. That would make the original date of Mark even later.

The earliest Biblical symbolism of sun, moon and stars, is in Genesis, where Joseph dreams about the sun, moon, and stars bowing down to him. The sun and moon represented his parents. The stars represented his brothers. The sun= Jacob= Israel= the Jewish nation. The sun is also a universal symbol for a king or divine ruler. The moon represents his consort. The stars/constellations/heavenly bodies are the divine children. Notice that there are twelve zodiac constellations and twelve tribes of Israel. There are also twelve disciples. This may not be a coincidence. All of this is my speculation.

In verse 26, the author makes Jesus say that at "that time men will see the son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory." This never happened, unless we are missing a record of it. The son of man is supposed to send his angels to gather his elect. Either this is metaphor for something like apostles teaching to the gentiles or it is meant to be literal. In that case, it didn't happen.

Jesus goes on to say that the above signs will let the disciples know when the destruction of the temple will occur. Then he says "this generation will not pass away until all this things have happened." That seems quite straightforward to me. That generation has passed away, so these things must have already happened right?  Jesus continues on to say neither the angels nor the son know the exact time of these coming events, only the father (god). Clearly then, Jesus is not god.

Mark part twenty two

We are at mark 12:26. Jesus is speaking to the Sadducees who do not believe in resurrection. He gives them his reasoning as to why they are wrong: God told Moses, "I am the god of Abraham, the god of Isaac, and the god of Jacob." Since Jesus's god is the god of the living, those people must be alive. If they are alive they must have been resurrected. Ta da! Logic. Unless, somebody made the whole thing up. Oops.

Next we have a teacher of the law watching and listening in on the argument. He asks Jesus which is the most important commandment of all. Jesus's reply is a Jewish ritual saying called the shema: "Hear o Israel, the lord our god, the lord is one (not three, not three in one). Love the lord your god with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength." The second greatest command is "love your neighbor as yourself." In Mark no one asks, "Who is my neighbor?" There also no story of the good Samaritan.

In verse thirty-five, Jesus is back in the temple courts teaching. He questions the teaching that the messiah/christ is the son of David. Jesus quotes Psalm 110, which was assumed to be the holy spirit speaking through David, about this messiah: The lord said to my lord: sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet." If the person being spoken about is David's lord, Jesus asks, how can he be David's son? Good question. Apparently no one had an answer. This is interesting because Jesus seems to be implying that the messiah would not necessarily be the son of David, a phrase meaning a descendant of David. Yet, both Matthew and Luke attempt to establish Jesus's lineage from David. No other New Testament writer does. Matthew uses the phrase many more times than any other book.

In verses 38-40, Jesus insults the teachers of the law as being self important and hypocritical. In verses 41- 43, he draws the disciples'  attention to a poor widow who put all the money she had to live on into the temple offering. He praises her for giving out of her poverty, and contrasts her with those who gave a lot out of their wealth. While it is true that the widow's offering was far more sacrificial, I would say it was a shame and a waste. Gods do not need money at any time. Poor widows do. She probably went home and died from starvation. It was also a shame and a waste for the rich to be donating pots of money to a god who didn't need it, when there were poor people like the widow who had barely enough to survive. Why didn't Jesus see the woman in need and have pity on her? What kind of god would make giving up your livelihood a good thing?

We are now in chapter 13. Jesus and the disciples are leaving the temple and one exclaims at the magnificent stone construction. Jesus replies that all those stones will be thrown down. This appears to be a prophecy of the destruction of the temple. The temple was destroyed in 70CE. This makes it clear in my mind that the book of Mark must have written after that, more than 40 years after the events depicted, and even after Paul's preaching to the gentiles. Mark has put the words of already fulfilled prophecy in the mouth of Jesus.

They were sitting on the sitting on the Mount of Olives when Peter,James, John, and Andrew privately asked Jesus when the previously mentioned event (the destruction of the temple) would happen and what would signal the  coming of that event. Then Jesus gives a long prophetic speech, which makes it even more clear that Mark was written after 70CE. This prophecy of the fall of Jerusalem is often taken out of context and used by christians to describe the last days. We will explore the speech next time.

This and that.

If you've been coming here for a while, you know that I am an ex church of christ, in-the-closet atheist, who still attends because of family concerns. I've discussed the decline in churches of christ before. Yesterday, I came across an article about the decline that I found interesting, here. The author attributes the rapid downfall to the church's doctrine on women's roles in the church. However, I think it is more complex than that and it includes all the issues that are currently part of the political divide in the US.

You've probably noticed my blog is fairly anonymous at the moment. This is to maintain equilibrium in many of my relationships which would be spoiled by my atheism becoming public. I care for quite a few people who do not understand how one could become an atheist. Because of that I also have a reduced level of communication between myself and my readers. I have no ads because I would have to shed some anonymity and I don't need the money, yet. I know it makes me less visible on search engines, but I'm okay with that for now.

Comments are open, subject to moderation. I have not actually published any yet though, and don't receive comments very often. A good 75% of all comments I have received are obviously spam. Some that are not obvious are suspect. The few that seem genuine have merely been of the kind that that say, "I have subscribed" or "I like your content." None have specifically addressed the content at all. All have been anonymous, which is fine.

I get fairly steady light traffic here, about 7-10 views a day, from all over the world, most from the US. You, dear reader, can help increase my circulation by just sharing this site with anyone you think might be interested, privately or on social media. No obligation.

This blog probably benefits me more than anyone else. It was started to help me deconstruct the bible and my former indoctrination into christianity. I was already in the habit of regular bible study, but since my point of view has shifted dramatically, I find my studies far more interesting. I am so flattered to think that a few others may be interested in my thoughts on bible subjects.

As always, I gravitate toward a "plain reading" of the text, because the church tradition I was a part of  taught that the bible did not need interpreting by any kind of intermediary. Each member should be able to "rightly divide the word of truth" for himself. (Emphasis on him.) Females were  generally subject to the interpretation given by males in authority. I realize there are other ways to deal with the text, but I'm not interested in them. I actually agree with the notion that each person should be able to discover the truth of the scriptures for herself or himself, especially if the bible is truly the words of a deity who wishes all to be saved.

Till next time.

Mark part twenty-one

We are now at Mark chapter twelve. Jesus is speaking to the religious authorities in the temple. He tells a parable about a man who planted a vineyard, rented it out, and then went away on a journey. This man obviously represents god. The tenants represent the Israelites. When harvest time comes, the man sends servants to collect some of the produce. (It was common for tenant farmers to have to give a percentage of their crop to the landowner, just as the Israelites had been commanded to tithe.) As we have seen in other parts of the bible the servants represent the  prophets of yahweh. The servants in the parable were treated very badly by the farmers, even killed like John the Baptist. Eventually, the landowner sent his beloved son (aka Jesus), thinking they would respect him. Of course they did not, they killed him and threw him out of the vineyard.

Remember, Mark was written at least a couple of decades after the death of Jesus. So, the author already knows what has happened, if in fact Jesus did exist. Mark also very well could be putting words in Jesus's mouth as a literary tool, foreshadowing what was to come in the story. This book is written very much like a work of fiction. We go from one tall tale to the next, with very little sense of time.

Next Mark has Jesus saying that the owner of the metaphoric vineyard will come back, kill the tenants, and give the vineyard to others. If this is a literary foreshadowing of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, then this book was written after 70 CE. I assume it would be a retroactive prophecy, because I do not accept the existence of true foreknowledge. Then Jesus quotes Psalm 118:22-24 to the religious authorities. It says "The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone (or cornerstone)." It appears that Jesus believes the passage is referring to himself being rejected but becoming foundational in some way.

The religious leaders assumed Jesus's parable referred to them. The text says they wanted to have him arrested but were afraid of the crowd. Later (How much later?), they sent some Pharisees and Herodians to try to trap Jesus into saying something which would condemn himself. They asked him if they should pay taxes to Caesar. If he said no, they could sic the Romans on him. If he said yes, the Jewish people might take offense and he would lose his following. Jesus was too clever for them. He asked them to give him a Roman coin and tell him whose picture was on it. They said Caesar's. Jesus then replied, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to god what is god's."

Next, came the Sadducees, who did not believe in a resurrection of the dead. They were justified in that non-belief, in my opinion, considering the Hebrew scriptures say next to nothing about resurrection. We know Jesus must believe in a resurrection. He has said the son of man will rise again after he is killed. The Sadducees reminded Jesus of the Old Testament teaching that if a woman became a widow and had no children, her husband's brother must marry her and produce an heir for his dead brother. They then tell a story of a widow who ended up marrying seven consecutive brothers without producing an heir for any of them. Then the woman died. The question asked of Jesus was, "At the resurrection, whose wife will she be?"

Jesus told them they were in error because they did not know the scriptures. "When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven." However, this concept is not even found in the canon of Old testament scriptures. A similar idea can  be found in 1 Corinthians 15, leading to the possibility that Mark wrote his book after Paul had spread this teaching about resurrected bodies.

A very interesting note: My study bible ignores the fact that the idea of the woman with seven husbands most likely came from the book of Tobit.

Mark part twenty

We are at Mark 11:18. We are told that after Jesus upset the temple businesses, the chief priests and the teachers of the law began to look for a way to kill him "because they feared him." I find this patently ridiculous. They have all the power and privilege. They could have arrested him for what he did, or at least have thrown him out. I would guess that he was more of an annoyance than a fear. If they did fear him, maybe it was because they thought him mentally unstable. Besides that, Jesus has not spent any time in the Jerusalem area, until now, in the book of Mark. He cannot have been that well known. Not only that, the failed triumphal entry and the following days' events may be proof that he was totally unfamiliar with the temple and its practices.

At evening, the disciples went out of the city, unmolested by the authorities. As they were walking along the next morning, they saw the fig tree Jesus had cursed and it was "withered from the roots." Let me tell you about fig trees. I have one in my back yard. At the  time Jesus and his disciples were walking along, it was supposedly early spring, before passover. In early spring, fig plants are beginning to leaf out. They don't produce ripe fruit til the end of summer, which is why the plant had no fruit and Jesus "cursed" it. Early spring can be an unstable weather period. Hard frosts might still occur. If a hard frost happens after a fig has leafed out, it will die back. However, the great thing about figs is the  roots do stay alive. The plant will start growing back as soon as the temperatures get warm again. The person who wrote this book obviously did not know this about figs, or it didn't occur to him to question the legend.

In the story, Peter makes a big deal about the fig tree withering after Jesus cursed it. Jesus uses this event to tell the disciples to have faith that "whatever you  ask for in prayer, if you believe that you have received it....it will be yours."  He says that anyone who does not doubt in his heart, but believes what he says, could even tell a mountain to throw itself into the sea and it would be done. That is pretty specific. The fact that it's never been done must mean there has never been someone with enough faith. This also lays the blame for unanswered prayers squarely at the feet of the one who prayed. You didn't get what you prayed for? Tsk, tsk.

The disciples are heading back into Jerusalem. Bethany must have been their home base. This is the third day they went into the city from Bethany. The first was the "triumphal" entry that fell flat. The second was the fracas in the temple. Now, on the third day, Jesus is back at the temple. The chief priests, teachers of the law, and elders ask Jesus "By what authority are you doing these things?" What things is Jesus doing now to get that question? Why didn't they confront him the day before? Jesus then says if they answer his question, he will answer theirs. And they take that impertinence from him, a nobody? Are these men or mice?

Then Jesus asks them if John's baptism was from men or god, a trick question which makes the leaders look bad no matter how they answer, because everyone thought John was a prophet, except them. Frankly, John the baptist was probably more well known than Jesus. In fact, his life is better attested to in Josephus's writings than Jesus is anywhere outside the bible. This whole gospel of Mark seems to hang on the existence of John, and Jesus's revelation of the holy spirit while being baptized by him. No John, no Jesus. John is dead, so he cannot testify to Jesus's veracity, plus Jesus's ministry did not begin till after John's death, according to the book of Mark.

Now that Jesus's authority is being questioned, he deflects attention to the question of John's authority. The leaders won't answer his question, so Jesus says he won't answer theirs. Now we also do not know from where he gets his authority. More mystery.

Mark part nineteen

We are at Mark 10:41. The other ten disciples have heard about James' and John's request to be Jesus's top men. They were miffed. Jesus again tells them that unlike the governing gentile authorities of the day (Romans),  whoever wants to be great among them must be a servant. "Whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. 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." I feel it is important here to mention that son of man literally means a human being, not a divine being. Plus, even though that is capitalized in the NIV, (meant to Indicate reverence to god) it was not done so in the ancient Greek.

Let's talk about ransom. That's what you pay a kidnapper to get back your child, right? Or a foreign villain to get back your VIP. Or an abductor to get back your beloved. Or a ruler to set his captives free. You pay so the person you value doesn't get harmed or dead, right?  So who is the bad guy that's being paid off here? Who are the many who have been captured and are being threatened? Oh my. Did Jesus think his death would free the Israelites from the power of Rome?

The last location given for Jesus and the disciples was "on the way to Jerusalem." Now they have come to Jericho. There, Jesus heals a blind man named Bartimaeus, who then follows Jesus. They next came to Bethany and the Mount of Olives. Jesus sent two of his disciples to fetch a young never ridden colt tied up at the entrance to the village. If this happened, it is likely that this was prearranged. The disciples were to tell anyone who questioned them that "the lord needs it and will send it back shortly." Lord is capitalized in my NIV bible, but remember, it would not have been in the ancient Greek. Also, though "lord" is often used to refer Yahweh, it is also used to refer to a master, ruler, or slave owner.

The colt was found and brought to Jesus and he got on it. On the way into Jerusalem, people spread their cloaks on the road, as well as branches cut in the fields. What kind of branches grow in fields? Maybe its stalks from some kind of grain. It certainly doesn't sound like palm branches. People walked in front of Jesus and behind him shouting, "Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the lord! Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David! In this way, he travelled to the temple. When he got there, he looked around, but it was already late, so he went back to Bethany with the disciples.

Wait. What?!! That's a very anti-climactic end to his triumphal ride.  Jesus rode into Jerusalem accompanied by people shouting, but when he gets there, nothing happens! It's late so there probably is no crowd to witness his grand entrance and the people he wants to impress have probably gone home to dinner. So, he turns around and goes back??? This doesn't sound like any Jesus story I've heard before. Where are the witnesses to this non-event? Again, it seems that Mark is subtlely explaining why no one seems to have known about it.

The next day, they left Bethany again, apparently on foot. Jesus was hungry and spied a fig tree without fruit, because it was out of season for figs. So, he cursed the fig tree. He must have been "hangry."  When he gets to the temple area, Jesus begins driving out those who were buying and selling, and exchanging currency. He turned over the tables of the business people and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. These businesses were a convenience to the worshipper and the business of the temple. They  provided a way for travellers to  purchase animals for the required sacrifices, so they didn't have to cart animals long distances.

The text says Jesus used this as a teaching moment, reciting Isaiah 5:7, "My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations."  He adds that instead it has been made a den of robbers. Earlier, in Isaiah 56:6, Yahweh talks talks about foreigner's burnt offerings and sacrifices being accepted. How can they make burnt offerings without animals? How can they get animals without buying them?
How can they buy them with local money, if they don't exchange the money they brought with them?
There probably were inflated prices and graft, but hey, isn't this a kind of example of supply and demand economics?

Mark part eighteen

We are at Mark 10:10, still in the divorce passage. Back at the house, the disciples ask Jesus to clarify his position on divorce. He says, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery." I just got this thought: what if all the in private explanations were not in the original story. What if they were added later by someone who wanted to provide more details to supplement anything Jesus said that was cryptic or unclear. There is no way to know but it would make sense. This part of the passage is used by christians to say that god is not only against divorce, but remarriage as well. According to my bible's commentary, the whole passage may have been a reference to the marriage of Herod Antipas and Herodias. Remember, John the baptist was beheaded for expressing his opinion on their divorce/remarriage situation.

Next, people are bringing children to Jesus to touch, presumably because they believed he had magic powers. The disciples tried to stop it, but Jesus told them to let the children come. Again, he says "the kingdom of god belongs to such as these....anyone who will not receive the kingdom of god like a little child will never enter it." He blessed them, which means he said magical words that have no power but probably sounded good.

As Jesus was travelling, a rich young man ran up to Jesus fell on his knees, called Jesus "good teacher", and asked how to inherit eternal life. Then Jesus told the man not to call him good because only god is good. This is fascinating. Isn't Jesus supposed to be god in the flesh? Is Jesus actually saying he himself was not good? Is he a separate being from god? If Jesus was not good, then he couldn't have been a perfect sacrifice, could he?

Jesus tells the young man he needs to keep the commandments. The young man already does that. Then Jesus told him to sell everything he had and give to the poor, then follow him (I'm guessing that meant literally follow him around like the disciples.) The young man was sad, he didn't want eternal life bad enough to give up his earthly security. Jesus astonished the disciples by telling them it was practically impossible for the rich to enter the kingdom of god, which was probably against everything they had grown up believing. They wondered who could be saved if the rich couldn't. Jesus then tells them all things are possible with god.

Peter reminds Jesus that the disciples left everything to follow Jesus. (They have become itinerant religious beggars. What became of their families and their homes?)Jesus tells them that everyone who has left home and family for the gospel will receive a hundred times what they left, plus persecutions,(oh goody) "and in the age to come, eternal life." Their poor neglected families. Shame on Jesus. Funny thing, in the relatives-to-leave list, wives are not included. I guess that would be kind of odd since he just got through saying what God has joined, let not man separate. Didn't god also join families together? Why is Jesus separating them? But, someone says, it must be a figurative leaving, not literal. Oh, yeah? Read it again.

Jesus and the disciples are now on their way to Jerusalem. Jesus tells them, "The son of man will be betrayed to the chief priests and teachers of the law. They will hand him over to the gentiles who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later, he will rise." Jesus has a plan.

Next James and John, the sons of Zebedee ask Jesus a favor. They want to sit on his right and left hand in his glory. So, after being told multiple times that the least and last will be first and greatest, they are still jockeying for position. They want to be Jesus's top men. Jesus tells them they don't know what they are asking. "Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?" He has just told them what will happen to "the son of man" maybe they don't understand that he was talking about himself. They think they can take on whatever comes his way.
Jesus tells them they will,(a prophecy?) but he can't give James and John the positions they want. Those spots have been prepared for others. Who?