2 Peter part two

We are at 2 Peter 1:12. The author says he will always remind the reader of the stuff they already know. That seems rather pointless doesn't it? He thinks it is right to keep doing this as long as he is alive, because Jesus has made it clear to him that he hasn't got much time left. But no fear, he will find a way to be responsible for helping them remember, even after he shuffles off this mortal coil. This guy has issues.

He goes on to say that he and his cronies didn't make stuff up when they told about "the power and coming of our lord Jesus Christ." They were "eyewitnesses of his majesty" because they were with Jesus on a sacred mountain when a voice from god said, "This is my beloved son, with him I am well pleased." Well, well, well. This is the story of the transfiguration of Jesus in the presence of Peter, James and John. It is found in Mark 9, Matthew 17, and Luke 9. Mark says god's words are "This is my son, whom I love. listen to him." In Luke it is "This is my son, whom I have chosen. listen to him." In Matthew it is "This is my son, whom I love, with him I am well pleased. Listen to him." Notice that 2 Peter appears to be quoting from the book of Matthew. In all of the instances, god supposedly also commanded those present to listen to Jesus, but the author of 2 Peter did not include those words of god. Will he ever tell us any of the things Jesus is supposed to have said?

The author goes on to say that the readers would also do well to pay attention to the words of the prophets. (What about the words of Jesus?) However, they need to understand that no prophecy of scripture ever came about by the prophets own interpretation. That's funny. He's acknowledging that prophets got the meanings of their prophecies wrong. He says that's because the prophecies didn't come from the will of man, but from god, through the holy spirit. Excuses excuses. So, how in the world can anyone know what the prophecies actually meant, or if they came true, if even the prophets got it wrong?

We are now in chapter two.The author says, "There were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign lord who bought them (AKA Jesus)." Okay. Let us recognize that both liars and truth tellers will say that the people disagreeing with them are wrong. These people "spreading heresies" could actually be the truth tellers, but of course the author begs to differ. He says people will follow the heretic's shameful ways and bring the truth into disrepute. They will also exploit the reader with made up stories. Is this projection? I'm pretty sure the story of the transfiguration is made up. The author says the story tellers will get the destruction awaiting them. When we point our finger, three fingers are pointing back at us.

The author goes on to say that after all, "God did not spare the angels when they sinned but sent them to hell, putting them in gloomy dungeons to be held for judgement" He also did not spare the people who were drowned in the flood. Nor did he spare the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, which were burnt to ashes, "an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly." These are all proof that sinners will get what is coming to them. A note about the angels who sinned and got sent to hell: there isn't actually any Old Testament scriptures that say this. Also the word "hell" here is translated from the Greek word Tartarus, which is a deep pit located below Hades, the land of the dead. This isn't the "lake of fire" hell that Christianity is fond of.

Till next time.

Edited to add: the bit about angels in prison and  the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah very closely echoes terminology found in Jude 6.

1 Peter part eight

We are now at chapter five, the last chapter. The first section directly addresses the elders among the readers. The word for elder here is Presbyterous, which denotes a mature or older man. The author says he is also an elder and a witness of Christ's sufferings. Is that a literal witness or a metaphorical one?

The elders are told to be shepherds and overseers of god's flock under their care, not because they must, but because they are willing, as god wants them to be. In other words, they must. They are not to be greedy for money or lord it over those entrusted to them, but be examples to the flock. Boy, some older men in the church today have missed this verse. Those who do this will receive a crown of glory that will never fade away, after they are dead. Again, what the heck is glory? And who wants an eternal crown as a prize? What Is it good for?

Next, the author addresses young men. They are to be submissive to the older men. All of them are to "clothe themselves with humility toward one another." They do this because of Proverbs 3:34 which, according to the author, says "God opposes the proud and gives grace to the humble." However, my old testament says, "He mocks proud mockers but gives grace to the humble." The new Testament version leaves out the connection between pride and mockery, probably because he would prefer to relate it to disobedience. Of course he also relates it all back to submission to god. They are also to cast all their anxiety on god "because he cares for them." And what good does that do?

The readers are also told to "be self controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour." And what proof is there of this? None. It is meant to provoke fear in the hearts of the readers. They are told to resist the devil by standing firm in the faith, of course. Why? Because their brothers throughout the world are also suffering. This is like telling a child to eat all his food because children are starving in Africa. But it's okay, because after they suffer for a little while (their whole life) Christ will restore himself to them and make them firm and steadfast. Big whoop.

The letter ends with the author saying he had Silas's help writing this letter. How do we know if Silas wrote what he was supposed to? The author trusted him, but why should we? Silas is associated with Paul in much of the book of Acts. The author may have included the name as a nod to that, as an attempt at proof of authenticity.

There is also a reference to "she who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, which in general Christianese is thought to mean the church in Rome, where Peter was possibly writing from. They and "My son Mark" greet the readers with a kiss of love. Christian tradition associates Mark, the supposed author of the book of Mark with Peter, and it is believed this is the same Mark. All this is without any evidence.

Mark wrap up

Well, we have finally finished the book of Mark. Let's recap what we have learned. Mark is probably the first of the four gospel accounts. It was written by an unknown author sometime in the first century, probably between 50 and 80 CE. There are some "prophecies" that indicate it may have been written after the fall of Jerusalem.

The book is conspicuously lacking many events and details of Jesus's life that are included in other gospel accounts. There is no account of Jesus's supposedly divine origins or events in his childhood. Jesus's earthly father is not mentioned. There is no turning water into wine, no Samaritan woman at the well, no woman caught in adultery, no story of nets miraculously full of fish, no raising of Lazarus,  no story of the good Samaritan, no story of Judas's fate, and no doubting Thomas.

In this account, Jesus deliberately reduces the publicity of his ministry by telling people and demons to be quiet or refrain from mentioning any miracles he has done. He does miracles in deserts, on the other side of the Jordan, among gentiles, in private rooms, and out in the countryside, rarely does he act publicly in cities or areas more populated with Jews. Many of his miracles don't seem to have much of a miraculous quality.

Many of Jesus's teachings are given in private to the twelve disciples alone. Many of the things he says and does are not witnessed by the disciples or anyone else, yet somehow they appear in the account. The author writes in the omniscient point of view, when it is almost impossible for one person to know all the events and dialog included in the book of Mark. Even Jesus receiving the holy spirit at his baptism was witnessed by him alone.

Last of all, the original account ends cryptically with a message from an unknown person to two women who tell no one. Some future person clearly did not like that ending, so they embellished it with claims about supposed commands that Jesus gave the disciples when he appeared to them after being resurrected.

This book does not claim to be inspired or the word of god.

Mark part thirty

Today we finish Mark with verses 16:9-19. These verses are not in the oldest available manuscripts, which leads many scholars to conclude they were added later by someone who is not the author. The last passage had concluded with the two Marys being told by a young man dressed in white that Jesus had risen and he would meet the disciples in Galilee. The women did not tell anyone because they were afraid. Now, in verse nine, we are told that Mary Magdalene was the first person to see Jesus after he rose. According to the text, Jesus had driven seven (magic number) demons out of her. The demon story does not occur in Mark, but it is found in Luke 8:2, leading me to the conclusion that this passage was added after the circulation of Luke's gospel.

We've just been told the women said nothing to anyone, but now we are being told Mary Magdalene went and told those who had been with Jesus earlier, presumably his entourage of disciples and women followers. Would you believe the word of someone who was thought to have had seven demons? The text says they didn't believe her either. However, Jesus appears in a different form (so how did they know it was Jesus?) to two more people (who were they?) as they were walking along a country road. No other witnesses. They weren't believed either, naturally.

Later, Jesus appears to the eleven (minus Judas) while they were eating. The text does not say where they were. He rebukes them for not believing the tales the others told. Shouldn't he have praised them for not having blind faith in something so unlikely? Shouldn't he have known ahead of time those people would not be believed? At this time he gives them what has been called "the Great Commission." He tells the disciples (not anyone else, not you and I) "Go out into all the world and preach the good news (What good news? He doesn't say.) to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

Just like that, Jesus ruins the lives of countless unbelievers throughout the centuries, even those who led exemplary lives. Is this the exact point in history at which all unbelievers are eternally condemned? It doesn't seem quite fair to all the people who died after this moment  yet never heard this "good news." Or is this condemnation only for those who hear the message and don't believe it. Wouldn't they have been better off never hearing it at all? The churches of Christ use this passage as one of there references for the doctrine of the necessity of believers baptism for salvation.

Jesus is not done talking. He also tells the disciples that signs will accompany those who believe. They will drive out demons, speak in tongues, handle snakes, drink poison with no ill effects, and heal the sick by laying on of hands. Was the person who wrote this trying to kill off crazy Christians?

When he was done talking, he was taken up to heaven and sat at the right hand of god. How do they know that? Then the disciples went out and preached. Stuff happened just the way Jesus said it would. Amen.

We are done! Next time we will do a wrap up of what we learned in the book of Mark.

Mark part twenty nine

We are at Mark 15:38 Jesus has just breathed his last. He did not ask god to forgive his executioners and those crucified with him were not told they would be with him in paradise. His side was not pierced. He said nothing but a lament. Then, according to the text, the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. This would not have been seen by anyone unless they were at the temple, and certainly not by anyone at the execution. It is also not recorded in extrabiblical history.

A centurion who heard Jesus's lament and saw him die said, "surely this man was the son of god." I don't see how he came to that conclusion. Some women watched the crucifixion from a distance. One was Mary Magdalene, who is first mentioned here. Another was Mary the mother of James, Joses, and Salome. These women were part of a group of women who had followed Jesus to Jerusalem from Galilee. They had been "taking care of his needs." This probably means they cooked and washed for him, because for some reason he couldn't do it for himself. (It couldn't be because he was sexist and thought that was women's work, could it?) The text does not say Jesus's mother or any of the twelve disciples was there.

In verse 42 we are told it was preparation day, the day before the Sabbath, Friday. Either Passover fell on a Friday that year or something about the timeline in Mark is off. It is still Passover if we follow the text. Evening is coming. The Sabbath begins at dusk. Joseph of Arimathea went to Pilate and asked for Jesus's body. Pilate confirmed with the centurion that Jesus was already dead and then gave the body to Joseph. The body was wrapped in linen and put in a tomb. A stone was rolled in front of it. The text does not say the tomb belonged to Joseph of Arimathea. The two Marys previously mentioned saw where the body was laid.

We are now in chapter 16. The Sabbath is over. It is just after sunrise on the first day of the week, Sunday. Jesus has been dead approximately 39 hours, less than two full days, if you count hours. If you count the names of the days he has been dead, I guess it makes three: part of Friday, all of  Saturday, and part of Sunday. But that seems like cheating to me.

The two Marys are going to the tomb to anoint the body with spices. They aren't sure who will roll the stone away from the entrance to the tomb. When they got there, the stone was already rolled away. A young man dressed in white was sitting inside the tomb. The ladies were alarmed but the young man told them not to be. He said Jesus had risen. They were to go tell Peter and the disciples that Jesus was going ahead of them to Galilee and they would see him there.

The women were naturally frightened and confused. They ran away from the tomb and told no one what had happened!  So, how does the author know anything about it? This is where the story ends in the earliest manuscripts, suggesting that perhaps Jesus was never actually seen alive again.

Mark 16:9-16 appear to have been added to the text at a later date, making its events highly unlikely. We will cover that passage next time.

Mark part 28

First, I want to apologize to regular readers for being a little late with content. I've been having my kitchen remodelled and it's been hard to find time to dedicate to the blog.

We are at Mark 15:21. Jesus has been condemned to crucifixion. He has been mocked and abused by Roman soldiers for claiming he was king of the Jews, which he appears to actually believe. Now the soldiers are leading him outside to be crucified. We are told that Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus, (as if we should know who they are), was forced to carry Jesus's cross. Alexander is never mentioned again in the NT. A Rufus is mentioned only once, in Romans 16:13.

Jesus was taken to a place called Golgotha, or the place of the skull. No one actually knows the original location of this spot. I think that is rather odd. Wouldn't it have been of great significance to the early christians? There, the soldiers offered Jesus wine mixed with myrrh, but he didn't take it. This concoction may have been offered as an analgesic. Remember, Jesus had said he would not drink wine again till he drank it in the kingdom of god. Perhaps that is why the author says he refused it.

Jesus was then crucified and the soldiers cast lots to see who would get his clothing. This is supposed to have happened at "the third hour" of the day. (There is the number three again.) By the Jewish tradition of time reckoning, the third hour was half way between dawn and noon, 9 O'clock-ish. There  was a written notice of the charge against Jesus that read "the king of the Jews." Two robbers were crucified on either side of him. (Three people in a row.) Jesus was mocked and insulted by people who said that he had claimed  he would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days. Back in Mark 14:58, the text says this was a false testimony. Jesus didn't actually make that claim about the temple. But the text of Mark does have him claiming to be killed and rising again after three days.

The people mocking him dared Jesus to come down from the cross and save himself. He saved others (referring to the supposed miraculous events and healings?) but he couldn't save himself. Some messiah, some king of Israel, he couldn't even save himself. They have a point. Not only that, I just realized that Jesus performed NO miracles in Jerusalem. Zip. Nada. The other people being crucified also heaped insults on Jesus. Ouch.

At the sixth hour (three hours from the initial crucifixion and also high noon) darkness came over the whole land and lasted til the ninth hour, three hours later. What was this darkness? Who knows. It can't have been an eclipse. A lunar eclipse can take a few hours to complete but doesn't happen in the day time. A solar eclipse only lasts about seven minutes. Plus there is absolutely no extrabiblical historic record of such a three hour darkness occurring around that time. That is something someone would have definitely noticed.

At the ninth hour, Jesus had been on the cross about six hours. He cried out in Aramaic, "My god, my god, why have you forsaken me?" Would he say this if he was god? How can he forsake himself? In the language that Jesus spoke, apparently he was mistakenly thought to have been calling out to Elijah. A man offered Jesus a drink from a sponge filled with wine vinegar, then told the people watching to see if Elijah would come down to take him.Surely he was being facetious. (Did the wine vinegar count as wine? Did Jesus drink it?)

With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.

Mark part twenty seven

We are at Mark 14:66. Jesus has been condemned to death by the leaders of the Jews, for blasphemy. While Jesus's "trial" is going on, Peter is hanging around in the courtyard. A servant girl sees him and recognizes him as a follower of Jesus. Peter told her he didn't know what she was talking about and moved to another spot. The girl saw him again and told the other people standing around her suspicions. Peter denied it again. Later, some more people standing around could somehow tell he was a Galilean and again suggested he must be one of Jesus's followers. A third time, Peter swore he did not know Jesus. (There's that number three again) Immediately the rooster crowed a second time. (We were never told when the first crow was.) That reminded Peter of Jesus's prophecy about these very events. He began to weep.

We are now at chapter 15. All this stuff has been happening in the night, on Passover, if the story is happening in real linear time and not skipping days.. Nobody has had any sleep, as far as I can tell. Very early in the morning, still Passover, all the Jewish leaders decide to hand Jesus over to Pontius Pilate. Pilate asks Jesus if he is the king of the Jews. Jesus says yes he is. Why would Pilate ask Jesus that? Could it be that the messiah was supposed to be a Jewish king? Why does Jesus say yes?

 It should be noted that there was no  "king of the Jews" at that time. After Herod the great died in 4BCE, the kingdom was split among his three sons, who were called tetrarchs. The tetrarch of Judea, Archelaeus, was ousted by the Romans in 6CE and Judea became a province of Rome with an appointed governor. Pilate was governor of Judea from 26-36 CE. I imagine Jesus's claim would have either angered or amused him. Pilate tells Jesus to answer the many charges against himself, but he does not reply.

The text tells us it was the custom to release a prisoner at the request of the people, during the feast (passover). A crowd had gathered to make this request. Pilate asked if they wanted Jesus (the king of the Jews) released to them, but the chief priests influenced the crowd to release a man named Barabbas. Barabbas had been in prison with some insurrectionists who had committed murder in an uprising. We do not know which uprising this was, because there were many. Some were caused by the actions of Pontius Pilate himself, who set up Roman standards on the temple grounds and used temple money, naturally angering many Jews. It should also be noted that Barabbas means "son of the father." He could have been another contender for the son of god title.

The crowd asked for Barabbas to be released and shouted for Jesus to be crucified, in spite of Pilate's weak attempt to figure out why they wanted him dead. So Pilate had Jesus beaten (surely not necessary)  and handed him over to be crucified. The soldiers took Jesus to the praetorium, gave him a purple robe, and a crown of thorns. They mocked him, pretending he was a king, struck him on the head with a staff, and spit on him. Then they took off the robe, put his clothes back on and led him out to be crucified. So, how does the narrator know this? It was not done in public. Only the soldiers who participated would have known about it. This is another case of omniscient narrator. The same could be said of Jesus's passover night trial by the Sanhedrin. Where did the author of Mark get his information?

Notice that the crowd Pilate spoke to also rejected Jesus three times. In spite of what I have heard preached many times, there is no reason to believe the same people who sang his praises when he rode in to town on a donkey are the same people who yelled, "crucify him!"

Mark part twenty six

We are now in Mark 14:39. Jesus has gone off to pray twice; and he has gone back to rebuke Peter, James, and John, twice, for sleeping while they waited for him. Now he does the same sequence a third time.I have been impressed by the number of times three has cropped up in this story. We have three disciples dozing while waiting for Jesus. Three times Jesus prays. Three times he goes back to the three disciples to rebuke them. What are the odds more threes will occur in this story?

The third time Jesus rebukes the three, he also announces his betrayer is coming. So, somewhere in between the twelve arriving at the garden and this moment, Judas must have left. Judas now appears with what can be described as a mob, sent by the chief priests, teachers of the law, and the elders. (Three authority figures) These people  are not said to be Roman soldiers. Remember, this is the night of Passover, a religious holy day. This should not have been happening. Back in 14:2, the chief priests said they didn't want to arrest Jesus during the Feast  for fear of a riot. The feast of unleavened bread lasted a whole week. In the context of the story, it appears to be only the second day of the feast, Jewish time.

Judas had arranged a signal to show the armed crowd who to capture. He went to Jesus, called him rabbi, and gave him a kiss. He was immediately arrested. Someone standing nearby cut off the ear of the chief priest's servant with a sword. The text does not name that person. It also does not say Jesus stuck the ear back on and miraculously healed it. Jesus verbally protests the necessity of the arrest, but says "the scripture must be fulfilled." Everyone deserted Jesus and ran away. Jesus was only with three other people at the time, unless all the other disciples decided to come see what the commotion was.

Next, an odd incident is included in the story, telling us that a young man, basically only dressed in his underwear or night clothes, tried to run off but was grabbed by the flimsy garment. He escaped by leaving the garment behind, in other words, buck naked. Since this seems such a non-sequitur, many bible readers through the ages have decided the purpose for including this story must be because the young man was the author, AKA Mark. There is no actual reason to believe this other than speculation.

They crowd took Jesus to the Jewish authority figures who had gathered, on Passover night. Peter followed them at a distance, to the high priest's courtyard, and sat with the guards (not said to be Roman) by the fire. The whole Sanhedrin was there, on Passover night. They had a religious trial, in the middle of the night. Unbelievable. They needed two or more witnesses who could agree and give evidence to any religious crimes Jesus had supposedly committed that would justify putting him to death. They didn't get what they needed. Some testified that Jesus said he "would destroy this manmade temple and in three days build another, not made by man." However, no two testimonies agreeed. (Many Christians believe the Temple referred to was a metaphor for Jesus's body.) Jesus refused to answer the charges against himself, instead remaining silent.

Then the high priest asked Jesus if he was the christ, the son of the blessed one. Jesus replied, "I am." In the old testament "I am" is what god calls himself, this would mean Jesus was making himself Equal to god. If that wasn't enough, he goes on to imply that he will sit at the right hand of god and appear with him in the clouds when he comes. This was clearly blasphemy, punishable by death. Jesus was condemned to die, spat upon, blindfolded, and beaten.

Mark part twenty five

We are at Mark 14:22. The twelve disciples are eating the Passover meal. Jesus has said one of them will betray him. He also takes some bread, breaks it, and tells them, "Take it; this is my body." He equates his body with the bread they are eating, not the lamb. He also does not say his body will be broken.

Next he takes the cup, gives thanks and they pass it around. He says this is his "blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many." "Blood of the covenant" is a reference back to Exodus 24 where Moses sprinkles the blood of sacrificed bulls on the people and calls it the blood of the covenant. Frankly, it seems to me that such a statement would appear blasphemous or rude to other Jews, almost as though Jesus is mocking Moses.  The text implies they are drinking wine (fruit of the vine), because Jesus says he won't ever drink it again until he drinks it in the kingdom of god. (There is wine in the kingdom of god?) Jesus does not tell the disciples to repeat this ceremony in remembrance of him.

A note about the churches of christ: some extremely fundamentalist churches use this as one of their justifications for using only one cup to drink out of during communion service, which is also often called "the lord's supper," but is not actually a supper at all. They also insist that fruit of the vine refers to grape juice and not wine. Though where they would have gotten grape juice in early spring is a mystery. Strangely enough, their "supper" consists of a tiny piece of cracker and a swallow of grape juice. No lamb or other food to dip their unleavened bread into.

Next they sing a hymn and go out to the Mount of Olives, which is between Jerusalem and Bethany. It is still Passover night. There should be a full moon. Jesus predicts his disciples will abandon him, but "after he has risen" (from death or sleep?) he will go to Galilee ahead of them. Peter proclaims he will not fall away from Jesus. Jesus claims he will, that very night. Before the rooster crows twice, Peter will disown Jesus three times. Peter and the others insist they would die with Jesus before they would disown him.

Jesus and his disciples are in Gethsemane, which is located at the base of the Mount of Olives. As the name suggests, there was an olive grove. Jesus was there to pray. Was Gethsemane considered a sacred grove? If it wasn't then, it appears to be now. As far as we know from the text of Mark, all twelve disciples are present. Mark has not told us Judas left. Jesus tells most of them to sit in one place, then takes Peter, James, and John to another part of Gethsemane. He expresses That he is overwhelmed with sorrow and asks the three to remain in one spot while he moves on even further.

Then Jesus prays prostrate on the ground. He calls god his father, tells him that everything is possible for him, then asks god to "take this cup from me." Which seems to mean he knows what is about to happen and is not enthusiastic about going through with it. This and the preceding pronouncements by Jesus would actually make a lot of sense if he had engineered his own martyrdom. Having second thoughts is very human of him. Very few healthy people want to die. He seems to sincerely believe that god could stop it if he wanted to and declares his submission to the will of the father. Jesus is obviously not the same being as the father.

Next Jesus goes back to where he left Peter, James, and John, and rebukes them for falling asleep and not keeping watch. Keeping watch for what? Was Jesus expecting something to happen? If he planned it that way, of course! He left them again with an admonition to keep watch and pray. He repeated his previous prayer, then went back to the three. They were asleep again. Can you blame them? It's night time, they've had a full day, just eaten a meal, drunk wine, and walked to Gethsemane. They are sitting in an olive grove. It's probably very quiet, except for the rhythmic sounds of spring frogs and insects. Jesus is off by himself doing who knows what while they snooze.  According to the way the story is written, the narrator is omniscient, but there are no actual witnesses
to Jesus's words and actions.

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.

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?

Mark part seventeen

We are at Mark 9:38. John tells Jesus that the disciples saw someone casting out demon's in Jesus's name and they told that person to stop. Remember Jesus's name was the same as Joshua of the old Testament. He surely wasn't the only person in first century Israel with that name either. Could people have been trying to cast out demons in the name of Joshua without realizing there was a specific living person with that name who might claim a monopoly on exorcisms? Jesus told John not to stop the people who were doing that, because if they could do a miracle in Jesus's name, they had to be on his side. "Whoever is not against us is for us." Tell that to all the "true christians" who think that just being for Jesus is not enough.

The next part is weird. Jesus starts talking about children again, giving a curse to anyone who would cause one to sin. That last dialog with John had to have been inserted later. Next, Jesus talks about body parts that cause one to sin, saying it would be better to remove the offending body part than to end up in hell. Expendable parts include eyes, hands, and feet. It's a good thing most versions of christianity never took this seriously. Then there is a bit about salt losing its saltiness, which makes no sense.

We are now at chapter ten. The disciples are on the move again, into the region of Judea across the Jordan. Across the Jordan from what? The last place the text said they were was Capernaum. Look at this map and see if verse 10:1 makes sense.

Jesus attracts crowds of people, including pharisees. They ask him if it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife. Jesus asks, "What did Moses say?" (Notice it was not "What did god say?") Apparently the law of Moses said a man could write a certificate of divorce and send his wife away, if..."he finds something indecent about her." What was considered indecent is not specified. Also, a woman did not have the same privilege of divorcing her husband and sending him away. In fact, a woman who was on her second marriage was "defiled," but not the man. (Deut. 24:1-4)

Now Jesus qualifies the law of Moses. He says the only reason Moses let the people divorce was because their hearts were hard, which generally means they were stubborn. So divorce was let slide, even though it hurt women's social/economic/religious standing. But picking up sticks on the Sabbath was punishable by death, even though it hurt no one.  Then Jesus says, "At the beginning of creation god made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one. Therefore what god has joined together, let man not separate." This teaching of Jesus's was directly addressing men and divorce. He is telling the men they can't just get rid of their wives whenever they want. Yet many christian groups have a percentage of divorced members that is not far off that of the general population. In spite of Jesus's admonition, Christians have been getting divorced for centuries. Thankfully, today's christian  women have just as much right as a man to divorce.

This passage of Jesus's is also used to define marriage in today's fundamentalist circles as one woman and one man. The polygamy of the patriarchs is never addressed in the new testament. Does that mean god has no problem with a man having many wives? Can a man be "one flesh" with more than one woman? The Deuteronomy passage makes it clear that a woman having more than one husband makes her defiled, but the only reason she would have had more than one husband is if her first husband divorced her. So, technically, it's not her fault, right?

We won't address the creation of men and women here. You all do know that the creation story of Adam and Eve is a myth, right? Male and female creatures existed long before humankind evolved. They had sexual union to procreate, yet they did not have a social institution called marriage and life went on. Marriage was invented by humans.

Mark chapter sixteen

We are at Mark 9:28. It has been implied that Jesus has just healed a boy from a demon (seizures), but all I see is him helping the kid up after a fit is over. Later, the disciples ask Jesus why they couldn't drive out the demon. He replied that that kind only came out through prayer. Huh? Jesus didn't pray the spirit out, He commanded it. Are demons discriminating as to how they are exorcised?

Jesus and the disciples went on the move. Jesus was again trying to be incognito, supposedly because he was training his disciples. If you ask me, he may have been avoiding people who would know that the people he "healed" had relapsed. I'm having a bit of respect for the author of this book. If it had stayed the only gospel account available, Jesus wouldn't measure up to his current reputation. Told in a spare way, with comparatively few embellishments, and a publicity avoiding Jesus, I can see in this story the unwillingness of the author to completely commit to the notion that Jesus was supernatural. If there was a Jesus of Nazareth, I imagine Mark, as the earliest, has the account that is closest to the reality.

In verse 31 Jesus predicts that the son of man (presumably a reference to himself) will be betrayed and killed and rise after three days. The disciples were afraid to ask him what that meant. Later, they were in a house in Capernaeum, maybe Peter's? Jesus asked the disciples what they had been arguing about on the road. They had been jockeying for hierarchical position in the group. Jesus told them "If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all." This is good psychology on Jesus's part. Now they will be trying to outdo each other in acts of service.

Jesus had a little child stand in front of the disciples, and holding the child close, said "whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one who sent me." Wow. What a lesson for today. Christians take note! Children had no authority or power, they often were the household servants, which I think was the point. He was eliminating cultural hierarchy with this statement, telling the disciples that they weren't any greater than a child. If he wasn't a charlatan, I could like this version of Jesus.

Matthew's (18:1-5) version of the story does not include the concept of service or becoming servants. Instead he focuses on humility, which is more abstract. The disciples are told to be humble like children to be the greatest in the kingdom. (Mark's version does not mention the kingdom at all. It was a more earthly discussion.)  The thing about humility is you don't actually have to do anything to be commended for it. It's a negative virtue, all you have to do is refrain from overtly saying or acting like you are better than anyone. You don't necessarily have to actively serve them. Plus, this conversation doesn't eliminate earthly cultural hierarchy. Matthew tries to make up for it by having Jesus put a curse on anyone who would harm a child. We all know how well curses work.

Mark and Matthew have this story happening in a house in Capernaeum, but in Luke there is very little context. Luke has Jesus read the disciple's minds instead of them telling him what they were thinking. Luke 9:46-48 has no discourse on humility or servitude or the kingdom. He just tells them to welcome that child in his name. "For he who is the least among you all--he is the greatest." The way it reads, Jesus could be telling them  that particular child was the greatest among them. In Luke's version Jesus also does not tell the disciples to be like a child/children in any way. I like the Mark version best.

This was fascinating to me because, in all my years as a christian, I never caught that this dialog happened in a private home and not out among the multitudes.

Mark part fifteen

We are now at Mark 9:2. The text tells us that six days (Luke 9:28 says eight days) after Jesus predicted his own death, Jesus, Peter, James, and John, went up a high mountain, in an unspecified location. They were all alone. There were no other witnesses. Jesus was "transfigured" before the others. His clothes became dazzling white, whiter than the whitest white. (Maybe Jesus put a lantern in his robe.) They also saw Moses and Elijah talking with Jesus. How did they know what Moses and Elijah looked like?

Peter, being frightened, said the first thing that came into his head. He thought it might be a good idea to set up three altars, one each for Jesus, Moses, and Elijah. Then a cloud surrounded them and obscured their vision. They heard a voice in the cloud say, "This is my son whom I love, listen to him!" The presumption is that this was the voice of god. If you were on a foggy mountainside and heard a voice speaking from the fog, would that necessarily mean it was a god speaking? It very well could have been Jesus himself, for that matter, if it happened.

After the voice, Peter, James, and John,  couldn't see Elijah and Moses any more. They all went back down the mountain and Jesus told the other three not to tell anyone what they had seen until after the son of man (presumably referring to himself) had risen from the dead. The rising from the dead thing puzzled them. Plus, there Jesus goes being secretive again. He's also hedging his bets. If he never rose from the dead, these disciples would never tell the story, maybe.

The three disciples asked why the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first. First in relation to what? And why did the teachers of the law say that? It Is from Malachi 4:5-6,  " See I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the lord comes. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers ; or else I will come and strike the land with a curse." Jesus then tells the three that Elijah has already come and they (who?) have already done to him everything they wished, just as it was written. Elijah is assumed to be a metaphor for John the baptist, though it doesn't actually say that. Plus, there never was anything written concerning how this "Elijah" would be treated.

My study bible has an interesting note suggesting that John the baptist's life  mirrored Elijah's in that he dealt with a weak king (Ahab/ Herod Antipas) and his wicked Queen (Jezebel/ Herodias). However, John the baptist was imprisoned and beheaded. Elijah rode a chariot of fire up to heaven in a whirlwind.

Now, in verse 14, they are back with the other disciples who were arguing with the teachers of the law. Jesus wanted to know the nature of the argument. A man in the crowd said his son was possessed by a spirit which made him mute and gave him seizures. The disciples hadn't been able to drive out the spirit. (Maybe because it wasn't a spirit?) This news made Jesus exclaim that he was frustrated with that "unbelieving generation." I wonder what he would think of this generation.

The child was brought to Jesus and when "the spirit" saw him, it threw the boy on the ground in a fit. The father informed Jesus that the spirit had been in his son for quite a while and had tried to kill him by throwing him in the fire or in water. Poor kid. If he existed, it is probable that he had a neurological condition like epilepsy. Jesus tells the father, who wants his son cured that every thing is possible for him who believes. (Spoiler:no it's not.) The father says something heart-wrenching, "I do believe, help me overcome my unbelief." To me this shows the father had serious doubts and was trying to overcome them by sheer willpower.

Jesus commanded the evil spirit to come out of the boy and it left with a shriek and violent convulsion. In other words, the boy shrieked and convulsed. Then he lay as still as a corpse and people thought he was dead. (He either passed out or the seizure passed and he was exhausted.) Then Jesus pulled him up to stand. The text never actually  says the child was fully cured or able to speak.
Helping someone up after a seizure does not amount to a cure.

Mark part fourteen

We are now at Mark 8:14. After Jesus has told the Pharisees that he won't give them a sign from heaven, he and the disciples get in the ever present boat and cross the lake again. The disciples forgot about bringing food and had only one loaf of bread. To which Jesus says, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and that of Herod." Since we have just encountered Pharisees looking for a sign, I'm assuming Jesus is chiding them for not trusting him to provide for them, which he sees as the influence of the Pharisees. This is further born out in his discussion of the feeding of the five thousand and the four thousand,  after which he says, "Do you still not understand?" It seems that the disciples had not seen those events as miraculous, and they were there.

Next they were in Bethsaida. Jesus healed a blind man with his spit, but for some reason it took two tries. Not only that, Jesus took the man out of the village to heal him, and after he was healed, he told him not to go back to the village. Doesn't that sound odd? Years later, if anyone asked the people of Bethsaida if Jesus had healed anyone there, they would say no. Then a follower could say that's because it happened outside the village.

Next Jesus and the disciples went to the villages "around" Caesarea Philippi. (No specifics to pin anything down.) On the way there, Jesus went fishing, metaphorically speaking. He asked the disciples what people thought of him. They replied that some people thought he was (the resurrected) John the Baptist. Others thought he was Elijah or one of the other old testament prophets. Then Jesus asked the disciples who they thought he was. Peter said he was the Christ. Note that this does not mean Peter thought Jesus was a literal son of god, but rather the "anointed one" or ruler/leader/messiah that the Jews had come to expect from their interpretation of their scriptures. Of course, Jesus warned his disciples not to tell anyone about him. Makes you wonder how the author was able to find any sources for this book. Plus, Jesus didn't actually tell Peter that he was correct.

Next, Jesus told the disciples that "the son of man" must suffer many things, be rejected by all the important Jews, be killed, and rise again after three days. Presumably he was referring to himself. Peter thought so and  took Jesus aside to rebuke him for saying those things. Jesus then Said, "Get behind me, Satan." Which is not a very nice thing to say to someone who is concerned for your welfare.

Then Jesus tells everyone around him that if they want to follow him, they have to deny themselves and take up their cross. This would have made no sense to people who had no idea what a cross would eventually mean to christians, unless they understood it as a call to willing martyrdom. Then Jesus says, "Whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it." This seems to be a clear call for voluntary martyrdom. Not only that, it elevates those who choose that path, which is sick. What is this gospel Jesus wants people to die for? So far, the book of Mark (1:14,15) has only told us that the gospel/good news is the message that the kingdom of god is near. That's it.

After encouraging people to die for him and his message, Jesus asks the crowd, "What good is it for a man to gain the whole world , yet forfeit his soul?" The implication is that if a person is on team Jesus, team die-for-the-gospel, they get to keep their soul forever. If they are not, sure they might have a long, happy life, full of good things. But when it's all over, bam!, bye bye soul. And this is supposed to be a reason to give up everything for Jesus. The crowd is also told that if anyone is ashamed of him and his words (He's looking at you, Peter), then the son of man will be ashamed of that person "when he comes in his father's glory with the holy angels." I find it hard to believe that anyone in that day and age could get away with saying something like that in public and not get stoned.

Last, Jesus says that some of those standing there would not taste death before they see the kingdom of god come. Well. They are all dead now, so what is the kingdom of god? Is it the one we read about in Revelation, the one up in the sky that comes down and settles on earth? That hasn't happened yet. It can't be it, can it? The churches of Christ say that the earthly church (true christians) is the kingdom that Jesus was talking about. However, it seems to me that this is a reference to that time when Jesus is supposed  to come back in his father's glory. That kingdom was what was supposed to be near. In that case, Jesus was a liar or a lunatic.