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 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.

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 nine

We are at Mark 5:35. Jesus had been on his way to heal Jairus's daughter but got sidetracked by the woman who had supposedly been bleeding for twelve years. Now someone runs up and tells Jairus his daughter is dead. Jesus tells him to not be afraid, just believe. Only Peter, James and John were allowed to accompany Jesus to Jairus's home. When they got there, the mourners were in full cry. Jesus told them they needn't make so much noise, the child was only sleeping. They laughed at him.

Jesus took only the father, mother, and his three disciples, into the child's room. He grabbed the child by the hand and told her to get  up, and she did. Then "he gave strict orders not to let anyone know about this." Which was probably the best way to get the news spread. On the other hand, it's an excuse, when someone says they never heard this story from Jairus, or anyone else. Then a christian could say, of course not, jesus swore him to secrecy. My study bible claims it is because Jesus didn't want  to "precipitate a crisis" before his ministry was complete. That is assumed. It is not actually in the text.

By the way, just like the woman in the previous story bled for twelve years, this little girl was twelve years old. Do you think that was a coincidence? I don't. Twelve is one of the Bible's magic numbers.

We are now in chapter six. Jesus goes to his hometown with his disciples. He teaches in the synagogue on the sabbath, amazing his neighbors with his wisdom and miracles. Jesus is a carpenter. He worked with his hands, which would most likely mean he had no formal religious training. The people knew his mother Mary, his sisters, and his brothers James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon. His father is not mentioned. It seems that Jesus came from a large family.

Let's talk about Jesus's family. It may have no significance, but I find the names of his family members interesting. If you look at the original text, his  mother has the same basic name as Moses's sister, Miriam. His brother James is actually Jacob, the name of the founding father of Israel. This is thought to be the James mentioned in Paul's letters and the one that wrote the book of James. His brother Joseph has the name of one of Jacob's sons, as does Judas (Judah) and Simon (Simeon). Jesus himself is actually named Joshua, the name of the man who led the Israelites in the conquest of Canaan, also the name of a mystical high priest in the book of Zechariah. Another coincidence? Maybe. One thing the bible is good at is reusing names, or using names with specific meanings to the context. It may also just reflect the cultural popularity of those names.

Anyway, the text says Jesus's neighbors were offended by him. To which Jesus makes that famous statement, "Only in his hometown...is a prophet without honor." We are told Jesus was not able to work many miracles there, just heal a few sick people, because of the people's lack of faith. (He's got a built in holy spirit meter.)  Can you blame them? What would you think if the local plumber in your town, whom you had known since he was a child, suddenly stopped working and became an itinerant preacher and faith healer? Do you realize that since he is no longer being productive, he must get his food/lodging/clothing from somewhere? That's where you come in. People are expected to physically support "men of god." Nice work if you can get it. Jesus couldn't get it there. You would think he wasn't god in the flesh, or something.

Another interesting thing, even though we are studying Mark as a stand alone book: In the book of Luke, and only the book of Luke, at the age of twelve (there is that number again), Jesus was amazing people in the temple with his wisdom. Yet, in Mark's story, we see no sign that Jesus ever gave his neighbors previous reason to believe he was special.

More to come.

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.

Mark part three

We are still in chapter one at verse 35. In this book, we don't know how long after Jesus was baptized that he started preaching, or how old he was, but it was after John was put in prison. The last few events have been depicted as happening in rapid succession. The appearance in the synagogue, the healings at Simon's  house, and now we are told that "early in the morning, while it was still dark" Jesus got up, left the house, and went out to pray alone. His other companions went to find him because everyone was looking for him. He wanted to leave that place and travel around to teach  and drive out demons.

In chapter two, a man with leprosy begged to be healed. Jesus healed him then told him not to tell anyone but to go to the priest and make the required sacrifices. Naturally the man told everyone and Jesus was mobbed by people, even though he tried to hide. "A few days later" Jesus went back to Capernaum. I'm assuming he stayed at Simon's house again. The house he was in was also mobbed by people, so that there was no room for any more. A hole was dug in the roof (probably made of mud and straw) so a paralyzed man could be lowered in to Jesus. Jesus was impressed by his faith and told the man his sins were forgiven. Some teachers of the law were thinking to themselves that this was blasphemy because only god could forgive sins. If course Jesus knew what they were thinking and asked them which was easier, to tell a paralyzed man  his sins were forgiven or to tell him to get up and walk.

Then he tells the man to get up and walk, and he did, in full view of everyone. They were amazed and praised god, saying, "we have never seen anything like this!" Well, now, that must have been a true miracle, right? Let me ask you some questions. Has anyone ever been fooled by fake faith healers? Has anyone ever exaggerated faith healing claims?  Has anyone ever manufactured faith healing experiences? If your answer is yes, what makes you think there couldn't have been fake faith healers in the first century? How do you know this account is accurate? How do you even know it actually happened? And if it did, how do you know whether or not the "paralyzed" man was faking his condition? The author of the book of Mark is telling a story about Jesus, he does not claim to have seen any of this. He either got it second or third hand, or it was an urban legend,  or someone told him a tall tale, or he is telling a tall tale himself. There are many possibilities more likely than that a paralyzed man was instantly healed by faith.

 Mark tells us that this event happened so that "you may know the son of man has the authority to forgive sins." It is assumed that the "son of man" refers to Jesus himself. This may be a reference to Daniel 7:13-14, where Daniel has a vision of a person who looked like a "son of man"  This person was given authority by god and was worshipped by all nations and given an everlasting kingdom. The phrase son of man literally means a human male. It is also important to remember that the book of Daniel was not written by Daniel and is most likely a work of fiction. Did Jesus know that?

In Chapter 2:13, at some undetermined future time, Jesus was again beside the lake (the sea of Galilee) teaching large crowds of people. As he walked along, he saw Levi (later known as Matthew) sitting in a tax collectors booth. (There were tax collector booths by the lake? ) My study bible says this may have been like a toll booth on a main road. Jesus told Levi to follow him and he did. Disciple #5.

More to come.