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 thirteen

We are now at Mark 7:24. Have you noticed that in Mark, each event seems to happen immediately after the last, in quick succession. There is no real sense of how much time has actually passed since Jesus started preaching. There is also quite a bit of vagueness as to specifically where Jesus was. We get regions and vicinities, as in this next passage. Jesus is said to have left "that place" (what place?) and to have gone to the vicinity of Tyre. Keep in mind that Tyre is not Jewish territory. Jesus was the outsider there. We are told he tried to keep his presence there a secret, but we are not told why. Also wouldn't he have known that wasn't going to work?

While Jesus was in the vicinity of Tyre, a Greek Syro-Phoenician woman (a native of that area) came to Jesus to beg him to drive a demon out of her daughter. Here is another Gentile with a demon. Now comes an extraordinary dialog. Jesus tells the woman, "First let the children eat all they want, For it is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to the dogs." This is quite shocking because the clear implication is that the "children of Israel" are more precious to god and deserving of healing than this woman's daughter and her people. He is calling them dogs, a clear insult. This is a definite example of prejudice, and by Jesus. Unbelievably, the woman replies, "Yes Lord, but even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs." Jesus is impressed with the woman's sassy answer and heals her daughter long distance. So, the only thing Jesus did in Tyre was heal a little girl that he never saw, of a demon that she probably didn't have, while trying to remain incognito? And how did the author of Mark come to know this story? How could anyone have known if it was true?

Then Jesus left that area and into the region of the Decapolis, Gentile territory again. There he heals a  deaf and mute man. First he takes the man away from the crowd. Why? Wouldn't these miracles be more believable the more people saw them? Jesus put his fingers into the man's ears, then spit, then touched the man's tongue. Ewww. Jesus then looked up to heaven, heaved a big sigh, and said, "Be opened!" Very dramatic. Of course the man began to hear and speak again or we wouldn't have the story. Jesus commanded the people present not to tell anyone, which of course was futile, as he should have known. They spread the news about how wonderful Jesus was. Again, from where did the author of Mark get this story? And how could anyone know if it was true?

We get to chapter eight and another vague time reference, "During those days, another large crowd gathered."  We are not told anything about the location, except that it is remote, again. Again, the people needed to be fed. Again, the disciples ask about how to feed them. Again, Jesus asks how many loaves the disciples have. Last time they had five loaves and two fish. 5+2=7. Seven is a magic number. This time there are seven loaves and a few small fish. This time there were seven baskets of leftovers. Four thousand males were present.(100x40, 40 being another magic number) Again, females don't count. Again, what was done with the leftovers, which were presumably edible?

Afterward Jesus and his disciples got in the boat (Wait! What boat?) and headed to "the region" of Dalmanutha. Funny, There is no reason to believe Dalmanutha ever existed. Here is one man's take on the subject. (Link) The pharisees just happened to appear there to question Jesus. Those Pharisees got around. However, they don't seem to have been around in the places Jesus is supposed to have performed miracles. They asked Jesus for a sign from heaven. Jesus blew them off with a non-insult insult. "Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign? I tell you the truth, no sign will be given it." (Get out of here, I'm not going to show you my gun.) The Pharisees were skeptics, good for them.

After that brief encounter the disciples amd Jesus all pile back in the boat and cross the lake again.

Mark part twelve

I've been think about the feeding of the five thousand, and all the leftovers. Why didn't Jesus let the people keep the left over food? Wouldn't it have been kinder and more practical? What use did he have for twelve basketfuls of scraps? What did the disciples do with those twelve baskets of food, take them on the boat? Throw them away? The only reason I can think of for the twelve baskets is so that the story could be magnified to make it seem a spectacular miracle, and to include the magic number twelve. It may symbolically represent god's care for the needs of the twelve tribes. In reality, it could be that all the people present (not likely to have been 5,000)  just shared the food they had brought with them. Jesus needn't have performed any miracle at all. In fact the text doesn't actually say that he did.

On to the end of Mark chapter six, where we are told that Jesus's fame spread so that people all over the region brought their sick to wherever he was. Everyone who touched him was healed. And yet, no  person living at that time wrote about him.

In chapter seven, some Pharisees from Jerusalem see some of Jesus's disciples eating food without first ritually washing their hands, according to Jewish tradition. This was a symbolic cleansing of an abstract notion of "impurity" not a precursor of concrete germ theory as some modern christians may claim. This passage may have been written as a natural segue to Jesus  being touched by so many people,  many of whom were almost certainly ritually unclean. Those with certain illnesses, menstruating women, and even non Jews, were automatically unclean.  The pharisees questioned Jesus as to why his followers were not living according to tradition.

Jesus replied to the pharisees with a quote from Isaiah 29:13, which accuses people of just paying god lip service and worshipping god with man made rules. This was meant to burn. Then Jesus mentions a command given by Moses (Ironically, if he ever existed, Moses was just a man.) that the pharisees do not observe. This command is to honor one's father and mother. Presumably part of that honoring would be to take financial care of them in their old age. Yet the Pharisees have allowed/encouraged people to give whatever money they would have used to support their parents to god. (Who doesn't need money. Where does the money go?) That is indeed a lousy thing to do. Much worse than not washing hands before eating.

Jesus used this as a teaching tool, and probably as an added embarrassment for the Pharisees. He told the crowd hanging around that "Nothing outside a man can make him unclean by going into him. Rather it is what comes out of a man that makes him unclean." This can be taken symbolically or literally, as we shall see. In the literal sense, it clearly shows that Jesus had no knowledge of bacteria and viruses. Jesus implies that in the literal sense things come out of the body, like blood, pus, vomit, semen, urine, and feces, were unclean, not things that went into the body from the outside, like food and drink. However, there is also a metaphorical sense. To emphasize this, Jesus says food goes into a persons stomach and then out of his body. It doesn't go into his heart. (The author of Mark says this means Jesus declared all foods clean. That is clearly his personal interpretation.)

The disciples didn't get what Jesus was trying to say, so Jesus had to spell it out for them privately, after first calling them "dull." It's the heart that matters, according to Jesus. We are not talking about the actual organ of the heart, but that something we might call the soul, the conscience, our essence, the seat of our emotions, or some other abstract concept which denotes our personality or psyche. Jesus says," what comes out of a man makes him unclean. For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, envy, slander, arrogance, and folly. All these evils cone from inside and make a man unclean." Jesus is not talking about bodily fluids and literal uncleanness, but spiritual uncleanness. He's taking uncleanness to another level, a level which makes it even more difficult to know if one is "clean" or not.

Mark part four

We are in the second half of Mark chapter two. Jesus now has five disciples, Simon, Andrew, James, John, and Levi. Levi is a tax collector. In verse 15, we find Jesus at Levi's house eating with many tax collectors and "sinners." Three times sinners are mentioned in this passage and all three times the word is put in quotation marks with no explanation for that. My study bible also says that these sinners were "notoriously evil people" like adulterers and robbers. It is also unclear how that conclusion was arrived at.

The pharisees apparently saw Jesus eating with these social outcasts and criticized it. How did they see that? Was everyone eating outside? Were the Pharisees looking in the windows? Jesus's defense against the pharisees charges was that he was not there to call the righteous, but the sinners.

Next, we are told that John's disciples and the pharisees were fasting, which probably made them cranky. The story doesn't say the occasion of the fast, but it was presumably religious. People wanted to know why Jesus and his disciples were not fasting. Jesus uses a metaphor to say they don't need to fast because he is with them, when he is gone then they will fast. He's special. Then Jesus makes another metaphor about old wine skins and new wine skins, which, to me, makes no sense at all in this context.

The next story takes place on a sabbath. Jesus and his disciples are walking through grain fields and the disciples begin picking heads of grain, presumably to eat. The pharisees, who must have been walking with them, tattle to Jesus, saying what the disciples are doing is unlawful on the sabbath. Jesus then gives an example of David breaking the mosaic law when he was hungry. He says "the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath." Yeah, right. That is why god gave a death penalty for breaking the Sabbath. The story of David breaking the law and getting away with it only proves that no one was willing to kill him for that transgression, if it actually happened. In fact, throughout history, Jews have been reluctant to carry out all the various death penalties mentioned in the law of Moses.

Chapter three tell us that "another time he went into the synagogue and a man with a shriveled hand was there." Jesus was watched carefully to see if he would heal the man on the sabbath. Of course, Jesus bucked convention and healed the man's hand with a great deal of show. Apparently these healings did not impress the pharisees, because they began to plot Jesus's death. I wonder how the pharisees would have told this story. Did they think Jesus was a charlatan? Or were they actually so mean hearted as to prefer Jesus's death over his miraculous healings?

In chapter 3, verses 7-12, Jesus is being followed by crowds of people from all over the region, because of the healings. Demon possessed people are falling down before him and calling him the son of god, but he is adamant that they should not tell anyone.  It does not say he exorcised all those demons. If he did, why would he have to tell them to shut up? Because of all the crowds, Jesus had a boat ready to take him away, at the sea of Galilee.

In verse 13, Jesus decides to take a few select people with him up on a mountainside. There he selects his twelve apostles. We've only read of five up to now. The twelve are Simon, who we are told Jesus names Peter, which means "pebble." Does this say something about Peter's personality? There are also James and John, who Jesus calls "the sons of thunder." Then we have, Andrew, Philip, Thomas, Matthew, another James, Thaddeus, another Simon, and Judas Iscariot, who is said to have betrayed Jesus. There is a little foreshadowing there.

More to come.

Resurrection part three

We are still in the books of Acts. In chapter 23, Paul is in Jerusalem and  has been taken into custody by some Roman soldiers because some Jews are supposed to have caused a riot in objection to Paul's presence in the temple. The Roman commander doesn't understand why there is such animosity towards Paul. (He's been preaching about Jesus.) So, the commander takes Paul to the Sanhedrin, the Jewish ruling body. Paul plays off the fact that there are both Pharisees and Sadducees in the Sanhedrin. Pharisees believe in a resurrection, Sadducees do not. Paul shouts out that he is a Pharisee and is on trial because of his belief in a resurrection. Of course that is part of the truth, but not the whole truth. The Pharisees and Sadducees present get into a violent argument. Paul has to be removed from there by the commander.

In Acts chapter 24, Paul has been brought before the governor. The high priest of the Jews has charged him with being a troublemaker, inciting riots, being a ringleader of "the Nazarene sect," and trying to desecrate the temple. Paul denies any wrong doing and says he was in compliance with the religious laws and no one can prove otherwise.  He admits to being a member of the sect called "the way" and again says that it he has hope of a resurrection of the righteous and the wicked. It is concerning the resurrection of the dead that he was there. Paul had been teaching about the resurrection of Jesus.

We move on to the book of Romans, which was written before the book of Acts. Paul is telling the Romans about baptism and metaphorically comparing it to burial. Just as Jesus was buried and was raised again, believers are united with Jesus in the burial of baptism, so they are also united with him in his resurrection. After they are raised out of the waters of baptism, their "bodies of sin" are gone and they may live new lives. There is a definite blurring of the lines between reality and metaphor in this teaching of Paul's. Nothing actually happens to a person when they are baptized, besides getting wet. In spite of what Paul says, a baptized person still dies and still "sins." Any difference is all in their heads.

In 1 Corinthians chapter 15, starting in verse12, Paul again speaks of resurrection. Apparently, some Corinthians may have been teaching that there was no resurrection of the dead. Paul says,"if there is no resurrection, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." Ain't that the truth. Also that would make the preachers liars. Yep. And all those who died in Christ are lost. No, just dead.

Paul goes on to say that Christ HAS been raised from the dead. He is the first fruits of those who have "fallen asleep" or dies. Paul is claiming here that Christ was the first to be resurrected. He obviously hasn't read Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. Probably because he wrote all his material before those books were written. He also obviously never heard of the times Jesus resurrected people from the dead, or the dead that rose right after Jesus died. Paul says that "in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive."

According to Paul, Christ was first and when he comes back those who belong to him will rise. Then comes the interesting part, which is a bit different from what Revelation 20 says: "Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to god the father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death." Paul goes on to say this destruction Jesus is doing obviously doesn't include destroying god. After all this stuff happens, the son will be be made subject to god so that god may be all in all. I don't understand why god needs Jesus to do all that, or anything else.Can't he just speak stuff into happening?

More to come.

The sermon on the mount, part four

The next section of the sermon on the mount is Matthew 5:17-20. Here, Jesus says he did not come to abolish the law or the prophets, but to fulfill them. "Until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the law until everything is accomplished." There are many disagreements in christendom as to what that means. Heaven and earth have not disappeared. Does that mean the law of moses is still in effect? Some would say yes. However, others would say Jesus accomplished everything/fulfilled the law when he died on the cross. Now there is a new law, the law of the heart. The old law is dead. What do you think is the true meaning of this passage?

Jesus goes on to say that anyone who breaks the commandments, or teaches someone else to break them, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. (But do they still get to be part of the kingdom?) "Whoever teaches and practices the commandments will be called great in the kingdom of heaven...I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the pharisees and teachers of the law, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven." (That answered my question.) It seems clear to me that Jesus wanted people to obey the law of Moses. Was that teaching just for those people there on the mountainside, or for everyone, for all time?

What about those pharisees and teachers of the law? My study bible says that they were excessively legalistic, following the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law. Frankly, I question the existance of a spirit of the law. It is not evident in the Old Testament. The phrase "spirit of the law" does not exist in the whole bible. Plus, isn't it even more legalistic for Jesus to insist that his followers become more righteous than even the Pharisees are? How is it less legalistic? He says you won't get into the kingdom of heaven otherwise! I wonder what those faith vs. works people think of this passage.

Luke slightly echoes this in 16:16-17, which is not part of the comparable sermon. It says, "The law and the prophets were proclaimed until John (the baptist). Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of god is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. (??? What does that mean? How can someone force their way into the kingdom?) It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the law." This statement comes after Jesus has berated some pharisees, telling them, "You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of men, but god knows your hearts." Again, he has raised the standard. It is not enough to do right, you must think right as well.

As far as I can tell, this is not in Mark or John.

James chapter 4 Part 1

After reading chapter 4:

*There must have been fights and quarrels happening among the Jews in the diaspora, because James feels the need to address them. He says they happen when people don't get what they want.but that is their own fault, says James. First, they didn't ask God. Second, if they did ask god, it was with the wrong motive-- personal pleasure. Isn't most of what we want for our personal pleasure? Maybe that's why the number of unanswered prayers far outnumbers the answered ones? Surely it can't mean there is no actual God who is listening with invisible and immaterial ears?

*Next James rebukes the readers for trying to be friends of the world (adulterous people, a term used for those unfaithful to the religion, adulteresses in the literal greek translation) which would make them an enemy of God. This echoes the sentiment in James 1:27 that they need to keep themselves from being polluted by the world.

*Verse 5 is strange. It says, "Or do you think scripture says without reason that the spirit he caused to live in us envies intensely?" (NIV) A foot note has two other possible wordings for that sentence. Plus, there doesn't appear to be an old or New Testament scripture that actually says that. In the different versions there doesn't appear to be a consensus as to who is doing the yearning, our spirit or God. If it is God, he is longing jealously for our spirit. If it is our spirit, it longs jealously but who knows for what.

*But it's all okay if the readers are humble and not proud. Then comes ten commands: 1. Submit to God. 2. Resist the devil. 4.Come near to God. 5. Wash your hands. 6. Purify your hearts 7. Grieve, mourn and wail. 8. Change your laughter to mourning and your joy to gloom. (Cheerful lot, eh?)  9. Humble yourselves before the lord. 10. Do not slander a brother (fellow Jew).

*The last few verses expand the theme of slander and speak about those who would judge their brothers ( other jews). They are told only God has the right to be lawgiver and judge, so they need to back off. I'm guessing that was also a problem or James would not have mentioned it.

I am more than ever convinced that this book was written by a Pharisee. Read a Jewish description of Pharisees and their teachings. Jesus is only mentioned twice, and  is not even necessary, except to try to establish this letter as christian. The teachings of the first century Pharisees are fully compatible with the teachings of James.

James 2 part 2

Before we continue, we need to acknowledge that the first followers of Jesus were clearly Jews and probably did not intend to leave Judaism and create a distinct religion. Nowhere in the stories of Jesus's life does he seem to expect them to do that.  The teachings ascribed to Jesus were actually not that different from those that history outside the New Testament  ascribes to the pharisees, even though the gospel accounts and modern christianity would have you believe otherwise. The Pharisees were not literalists and believed in a liberal interpretation of scripture using oral tradition. They believed in resurrection and an afterlife. They were populists not elitists. This man James strikes me as possibly being a Pharisee who lived after the destruction of Jerusalem.

*Moving on. The next section, beginning in verse 14 contrasts faith and deeds. Again James addresses "my brothers, " fellow Jews. James asks,"what good is it if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds?" This is a question which has plagued christians since the reformation.  James says faith not accompanied by action is dead. How do you prove you have faith if you don't do anything to show it. Intellectual and verbal assent that there is one God means nothing, even the demons acknowledge that. The phrase "one God" (NIV) is a reference to the Shema, a Jewish mantra that says " the lord our God is one." In fact other english translations of verse James 2:19 say "God is one." This is problematic for trinitarians who say that God is three in one.

*Verses 20-24 give the example of Abraham as evidence that faith and deeds go together. Abraham showed true faith by offering his son Isaac on the altar (Genesis 15). That is what real faith does. It makes people willing to do crazy things that they otherwise would not have done. We see it happening in the world today. We also hear people say that they would kill their own children if God asked them to, as proof of the sincerity of their faith. A close relative of mine said this to me. True faith is scary stuff.

*James says this proves a person is justified by what he does, not by faith alone. Then he gives another example, Rahab the prostitute who helped the Hebrew spies in Jericho.(Joshua 2). She was considered righteous for what she did, in spite of her occupation. "As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead." I'm guessing Rahab would have been dead if she hadn't helped the spies. Is an active faith the same thing as self preservation? What if I do all the deeds without faith, can I get by? Who will know? No one that's who. People think you are a wonderful christian if you do all the good stuff and keep your mouth shut about what you really believe. Ask me how I know.