v31
The NIV has, 'then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived,' - so they've translated 'Kai' as then- I wonder if you can do that... instead of 'and' (know it can mean also – and just some sort of joining word- use of a conjunction seems much bigger in Greek- and they keep starting sentences with them- bad english). Arrived is erketai- came.
This is fascinating. Jesus is in the middle of something else- and the word comes in (how much does he know about their motives?) and he takes the intrusion and makes a telling point that cuts across the strongest bonds most/many humans experience- or perhaps loyalties would be a better word. The people in the circle must have only had a vague idea of what he was going on about. “For whoever does the will of God, this one is my brother and mother.
How did he say it? And how did the situation end? Did he leave his family waiting? Was this the last thing he said to the crowd as he went to see them? (I don't think he would have immediately- the import of what he was saying – was that those before him were 'closer' family- or at least on the way there if they put what he was saying into practice). Did his family wait outside- and when the crowd eventually dispersed- after the family had got more and more frustrated – did he come out- was there a scene? From the small snippets we get- can conjecture a growing wedge- In John- the sarcastic comments to Jesus by brothers before going down to the festival (I would assume this was after this incident- and perhaps this incident had contributed to their tone...)
The sword thing Jesus talks about happens in his own family- with at first it seems everyone against him. But then we have turnarounds- and amazingly strong followers- people that thought their brother was God- and never sought to 'take him in hand' again.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
My blasphemous praxis- 3:22-30
Vs22
It's a pretty weighty accusation to bring against someone- He is possessed by Satan- by the prince of Demons he is driving out demons.- It is, as Jesus points out, also ridiculous. There's a word for that- is it disingenous? where you say something- which you know not to be true- but say it anyway- with the effect of trying to mislead people- using your position to do it. Perhaps this is the crux of the matter when Jesus says- 'whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin'- Of all the strong things he says in discourse with the pharisees- this is perhaps the strongest- the application is wider than just these men (and may not be the case for these men perhaps), but what the catalyst is for such a comment is the Beelzebub assertion. (Beelzeboul in Greek- so why on earth change it to beelzebub? they're both weird in English)
To enjoy an eternal relationship with the Father, God must be acknowledged for who he is- even if this knowledge is very partial- there also needs to be an appropriate response- If you say God is a servant of Satan- you have totally misrepresented reality- will never get it right- but far more seriously have probably done something diabolical- because somewhere there – there is that duplicity or whatever the word is I'm looking for- I shall purposely misrepresent you – though I actually know this is not the case. There is, I imagine all sorts of subtleties here- but in the end all that do not acknowledge Jesus as Lord will be in this position- even those who have never heard of him per se- I'm sure they have slightly different parameters in one sense- but then probably not so different- (whoever has- more will be expected of him...) A whole lot of mysteries of Judgement, which thankfully I don't have to fully know about. But perhaps the important thing (apart from a reminder of the reality that many (most?) humans currently living on the planet, shall commit that eternal sin- that Jesus would love this not to be the case- and would like to send me- (as the Father sent him) to save as many as possible from this fate- ((my figures don't look very good at the moment)), is that my praxis can head down this way- I don't say Jesus is who he isn't in essence- just live as though he's not who I say he is. Too often, I'm sure, I disobey the Spirit- and perhaps that is not as far removed from blasphemy as what I might think on a first reading.
It's a pretty weighty accusation to bring against someone- He is possessed by Satan- by the prince of Demons he is driving out demons.- It is, as Jesus points out, also ridiculous. There's a word for that- is it disingenous? where you say something- which you know not to be true- but say it anyway- with the effect of trying to mislead people- using your position to do it. Perhaps this is the crux of the matter when Jesus says- 'whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin'- Of all the strong things he says in discourse with the pharisees- this is perhaps the strongest- the application is wider than just these men (and may not be the case for these men perhaps), but what the catalyst is for such a comment is the Beelzebub assertion. (Beelzeboul in Greek- so why on earth change it to beelzebub? they're both weird in English)
To enjoy an eternal relationship with the Father, God must be acknowledged for who he is- even if this knowledge is very partial- there also needs to be an appropriate response- If you say God is a servant of Satan- you have totally misrepresented reality- will never get it right- but far more seriously have probably done something diabolical- because somewhere there – there is that duplicity or whatever the word is I'm looking for- I shall purposely misrepresent you – though I actually know this is not the case. There is, I imagine all sorts of subtleties here- but in the end all that do not acknowledge Jesus as Lord will be in this position- even those who have never heard of him per se- I'm sure they have slightly different parameters in one sense- but then probably not so different- (whoever has- more will be expected of him...) A whole lot of mysteries of Judgement, which thankfully I don't have to fully know about. But perhaps the important thing (apart from a reminder of the reality that many (most?) humans currently living on the planet, shall commit that eternal sin- that Jesus would love this not to be the case- and would like to send me- (as the Father sent him) to save as many as possible from this fate- ((my figures don't look very good at the moment)), is that my praxis can head down this way- I don't say Jesus is who he isn't in essence- just live as though he's not who I say he is. Too often, I'm sure, I disobey the Spirit- and perhaps that is not as far removed from blasphemy as what I might think on a first reading.
He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy
Apparently the word order in verse 22 suggest there was opposition between popular opinion and that of the scribes (Zerwick & G). The family (those coming from him- can't be that, so – those close to him – family – apparently they know that meaning from later papyri). Have an interesting reaction. Are they at Capernaum at the moment? Are they hearing all the stories filtering through to Nazareth? Is this a 'he's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy moment?
They didn't even have time to eat- and the crowds come- what was it that motivated the family- genuine concern? annoyance? Jesus must have been working at the family business for at least 15 years in Nazareth- Perhaps with Joseph for all of that time if we take Barnett's point about John 6 something- Perhaps as the chief Carpenter with other sons involved if Joseph had died earlier. I imagine Jesus was diligent- that the business was in good standing – and even if Joseph was still alive, I imagine by the time Jesus was 30 it was more like a partnership. -That it would have been a joy to work there – the family may have been proud of it- proud to be associated with it- proud of the big brother- who knows, but if it was something like that – and Jesus one day just leaves to go off and what... Why's he throwing his life away? He's got a good job- he seemed happy- we were all happy- its so good having him around. I wonder what the Catholics do with this- Mary knows Jesus is destined for greatness- yet here she is thinking she knows better- “He is out of his mind.”
I suppose we are in Capernaum- did Jesus family happen to be there at the same time? were they coming to see him?
At least half his life he would have spent as a Carpenter- probably even more associated with the business- doing increasingly more there as he grew up. I think that's massively significant- though I'm not sure if I'm sure of exactly why. Did he heal anyone in this time? Did he teach anyone? - have bible studies in the back of the workshop? - it doesn't particular appear so- but then all of these things are conjecture or arguments from silences.
So one day he hands over the business to the next son and heads down to where John is baptising people? And embarks on a very different line- a teacher whose listeners had never heard of teaching with such authority (in a land full of teaching). And he's healing people – and casting out demons- and hinting at a few things- that he is the messiah- that he is the son of God- that he is God.
Pretty under the radar- its the demons who are the first to recognise him.
Those 15 years or so- what was going on for you?
They didn't even have time to eat- and the crowds come- what was it that motivated the family- genuine concern? annoyance? Jesus must have been working at the family business for at least 15 years in Nazareth- Perhaps with Joseph for all of that time if we take Barnett's point about John 6 something- Perhaps as the chief Carpenter with other sons involved if Joseph had died earlier. I imagine Jesus was diligent- that the business was in good standing – and even if Joseph was still alive, I imagine by the time Jesus was 30 it was more like a partnership. -That it would have been a joy to work there – the family may have been proud of it- proud to be associated with it- proud of the big brother- who knows, but if it was something like that – and Jesus one day just leaves to go off and what... Why's he throwing his life away? He's got a good job- he seemed happy- we were all happy- its so good having him around. I wonder what the Catholics do with this- Mary knows Jesus is destined for greatness- yet here she is thinking she knows better- “He is out of his mind.”
I suppose we are in Capernaum- did Jesus family happen to be there at the same time? were they coming to see him?
At least half his life he would have spent as a Carpenter- probably even more associated with the business- doing increasingly more there as he grew up. I think that's massively significant- though I'm not sure if I'm sure of exactly why. Did he heal anyone in this time? Did he teach anyone? - have bible studies in the back of the workshop? - it doesn't particular appear so- but then all of these things are conjecture or arguments from silences.
So one day he hands over the business to the next son and heads down to where John is baptising people? And embarks on a very different line- a teacher whose listeners had never heard of teaching with such authority (in a land full of teaching). And he's healing people – and casting out demons- and hinting at a few things- that he is the messiah- that he is the son of God- that he is God.
Pretty under the radar- its the demons who are the first to recognise him.
Those 15 years or so- what was going on for you?
Jono Davey Robbo Macca Snodgrass Roughshod
Place/lay on / impose epethairken – the word used to describe Jesus giving of names to Peter and the sons of thunder. - not bad names he gives- the rock and sons of thunder- what does it say about Jesus? I'm sure they were like badges of honour for these men- good names for men- something to aspire to- probably more than just a nickname- somehow Jesus has seen something of what they might become.
Twelve- 3:13-19
Calls those who he wanted up to the hills with him- how exactly did this work- I presume he told them before he went up- they still would have all been by the lake after the crowds had gone. Where the numbers following him and travelling with him getting to large? Was this a pragmatic thing forced by circumstances- and Jesus picks 12 because that's about the right number and happens to fit in with the tribes- or was this part of a long thought through plan? Perhaps the first reason that is given shows the necessity clearest- “so that they might be with him”- then sent to proclaim and have authority to drive out demons.
Somehow that is still just as much a necessity (in a different sense to the last usage). I have to be “with him”. Different to the disciples in that there is no physical person to go about with- but through both the written 'word' of the scripture and the Holy Spirit residing within- have to follow in his footsteps closely- seek to know and emulate- seek out his thinking on matters- and apply it.
Just reading a bit from Hybels book Who are you when no-ones looking about the need for discipline- The disciples had little choice about being with him- after being chosen and accepting this- they were living closely (though the withness between them varied- and some were priveleged to be get a fuller window into this 'withness' – Peter, James and John getting to see the transfiguration)- but we have to make time for it- like Jesus did with the Father- early mornings off to deserted places- I only do what I see the Father doing- to come out with statements like that- means a lot of time seeking to know him and his purposes- and becoming adept at tuning into the Spirit.
Somehow that is still just as much a necessity (in a different sense to the last usage). I have to be “with him”. Different to the disciples in that there is no physical person to go about with- but through both the written 'word' of the scripture and the Holy Spirit residing within- have to follow in his footsteps closely- seek to know and emulate- seek out his thinking on matters- and apply it.
Just reading a bit from Hybels book Who are you when no-ones looking about the need for discipline- The disciples had little choice about being with him- after being chosen and accepting this- they were living closely (though the withness between them varied- and some were priveleged to be get a fuller window into this 'withness' – Peter, James and John getting to see the transfiguration)- but we have to make time for it- like Jesus did with the Father- early mornings off to deserted places- I only do what I see the Father doing- to come out with statements like that- means a lot of time seeking to know him and his purposes- and becoming adept at tuning into the Spirit.
Favourite camping spots- 3:7-12
Jesus withdraws/ retires/ takes refuge , to the sea (lake). - It's been pretty hectic, and Jesus takes the disciples to a quieter and scenic place- like what we do. I wonder if they had their favourite spots? Was there the equivalent of a family picnic in Palestine? Or a few days camping?
But he/ they are thwarted – a polu plairthos – a great multitude from galilee and then as well from all over- Judea, Jerusalem, from around the Jordan, and around Tyre and Sidon, follow them there. All the last groups, Mark says, because they heard everything that he was doing.
I don't think I would have handled it the same way as Jesus- even if I didn't have the heart to send people away (which I might have), I would have interacted with the crowd begrudgingly- I appreciate solitude/ rest after periods of busyness.
And he said to his disciples to have a small boat standing by in order that the crowd would not crush/ press upon him (something along those lines).
For he had healed many so that they fell about/ thronged about/ were on top of one another – idea- epipiptein.
The evil spirits- (unclean spirits in Greek) – all seem to be following the same course of action- “you are the Son of God”- and Jesus response is the same as well- strict orders to shut up.
But he/ they are thwarted – a polu plairthos – a great multitude from galilee and then as well from all over- Judea, Jerusalem, from around the Jordan, and around Tyre and Sidon, follow them there. All the last groups, Mark says, because they heard everything that he was doing.
I don't think I would have handled it the same way as Jesus- even if I didn't have the heart to send people away (which I might have), I would have interacted with the crowd begrudgingly- I appreciate solitude/ rest after periods of busyness.
And he said to his disciples to have a small boat standing by in order that the crowd would not crush/ press upon him (something along those lines).
For he had healed many so that they fell about/ thronged about/ were on top of one another – idea- epipiptein.
The evil spirits- (unclean spirits in Greek) – all seem to be following the same course of action- “you are the Son of God”- and Jesus response is the same as well- strict orders to shut up.
Chapter 3 Small town gossip
Chapter 3
Another story about sabbath watchers with agendas- I wonder if Mark put it here because he had just told one – so he then thought of this one. It also shows something of a progression- there is a growing group chrystalising against Jesus. “some of them were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus so they watched him closely, to see if he would heal him on the sabbath” How did Peter (or Mark) know this? I suppose it could have been more than just being there and seeing the expressions on their faces- seeing how they responded when challenged by Jesus- seeing the way they departed in groups, whispering among themselves. Small town stuff where small town gossip got around. Peter might have even had friends that were close to such people and told him of the some of the conversations.
How big would the Herodians have been? I imagine the disciples and Jesus received word of the plotting in the same sort of way- what sort of conversations would this have led to amongst the disciples- I suppose we see some of the potential outworkings of these conversations and then personal rumination when Peter tries to prevent Jesus from following a path that would get him killed.
There were fast friends and brothers within the group- they could have talked fairly unencumbered I imagine- there was so much going on- trying to get a handle on Jesus- taking this punt on him- somehow being captured by him- seeing a noose starting to tighten- following threads through- what does Thomas say about following Jesus to Jerusalem and dying with him...
Another story about sabbath watchers with agendas- I wonder if Mark put it here because he had just told one – so he then thought of this one. It also shows something of a progression- there is a growing group chrystalising against Jesus. “some of them were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus so they watched him closely, to see if he would heal him on the sabbath” How did Peter (or Mark) know this? I suppose it could have been more than just being there and seeing the expressions on their faces- seeing how they responded when challenged by Jesus- seeing the way they departed in groups, whispering among themselves. Small town stuff where small town gossip got around. Peter might have even had friends that were close to such people and told him of the some of the conversations.
How big would the Herodians have been? I imagine the disciples and Jesus received word of the plotting in the same sort of way- what sort of conversations would this have led to amongst the disciples- I suppose we see some of the potential outworkings of these conversations and then personal rumination when Peter tries to prevent Jesus from following a path that would get him killed.
There were fast friends and brothers within the group- they could have talked fairly unencumbered I imagine- there was so much going on- trying to get a handle on Jesus- taking this punt on him- somehow being captured by him- seeing a noose starting to tighten- following threads through- what does Thomas say about following Jesus to Jerusalem and dying with him...
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Awkward Greek- 2:23-28
2: 23
Some clumsy Greek here on Mark's part apparently
“The expression hodon poiein tillontes is strange, since it is the plucking, not the travelling, which is usually thought to be the dominant idea. To read the participle as a subordinate would suggest the ludicrous idea that they were clearing a path through the corn by plucking ears, which would not be very effective, but also far in excess of the licence allowed in Dt 23:25 to 'pluck the ears with your hand, but not to put the sickle to your neighbour's standing grain' (for the pe'ah legislation which probably underlies this provision see Lv 19:9-10; 23:22). Presumably Mark means that, as the law allowed, they were plucking ears as they went, but he has expressed it awkwardly.”
Greek all seems a bit awkward to me still.
Verse 27 is kai elegen autois, To sabbaton dia ton anthrwpon egeneto kai ouk ho anthrwpos dia to sabbaton. Which is- and he said to them, the sabbath was made on account of man (or because of) and not man on account of the sabbath- zerwick and grosvener have – on man's account for (for the sake of).
Taken with the short story before it- very succint way of expressing something humans are very want to do. Get a man made (or God made) construct which was meant to be an aid and make it into a tyrant of sorts. Australia is doing a fine job of this at the moment with occupational health and safety related stuff- public liability insurance, low ropes courses having to be taken out of campgrounds, I can't take kids anywhere near water as an In Home Child Carer.
Sabbath was meant to rest human souls – help them reconnect in with the Creator- and here we have a whole lot of uptight people running around wondering whether others were 'breaking it' or not.
The conclusion Jesus draws is interesting- therefore (because wste is starting an independent clause – Zerwick and Grosvener) the son of man is lord even of the sabbath. I'm not sure it really follows- what is he saying?
- man is above the sabbath- but we are not 'lords' of the sabbath. - the Son of man is- is he saying in an indirect way that he is God?
Some clumsy Greek here on Mark's part apparently
“The expression hodon poiein tillontes is strange, since it is the plucking, not the travelling, which is usually thought to be the dominant idea. To read the participle as a subordinate would suggest the ludicrous idea that they were clearing a path through the corn by plucking ears, which would not be very effective, but also far in excess of the licence allowed in Dt 23:25 to 'pluck the ears with your hand, but not to put the sickle to your neighbour's standing grain' (for the pe'ah legislation which probably underlies this provision see Lv 19:9-10; 23:22). Presumably Mark means that, as the law allowed, they were plucking ears as they went, but he has expressed it awkwardly.”
Greek all seems a bit awkward to me still.
Verse 27 is kai elegen autois, To sabbaton dia ton anthrwpon egeneto kai ouk ho anthrwpos dia to sabbaton. Which is- and he said to them, the sabbath was made on account of man (or because of) and not man on account of the sabbath- zerwick and grosvener have – on man's account for (for the sake of).
Taken with the short story before it- very succint way of expressing something humans are very want to do. Get a man made (or God made) construct which was meant to be an aid and make it into a tyrant of sorts. Australia is doing a fine job of this at the moment with occupational health and safety related stuff- public liability insurance, low ropes courses having to be taken out of campgrounds, I can't take kids anywhere near water as an In Home Child Carer.
Sabbath was meant to rest human souls – help them reconnect in with the Creator- and here we have a whole lot of uptight people running around wondering whether others were 'breaking it' or not.
The conclusion Jesus draws is interesting- therefore (because wste is starting an independent clause – Zerwick and Grosvener) the son of man is lord even of the sabbath. I'm not sure it really follows- what is he saying?
- man is above the sabbath- but we are not 'lords' of the sabbath. - the Son of man is- is he saying in an indirect way that he is God?
Fasting- depth of field- 2:18-22
Fasting
“and people came and asked him... is just 'and they asked him' (no people- no seperate subject) in the greek (still the same meaning- maybe a slight difference in that it might show more of a straightforward flow in Mark).
They are trying to get a handle on him- We've just had the scribes of a pharasaical persuasion grumbling at him, because he's not giving off the right signals about his deference to accepted purity conventions, and now others have come to him comparing him to perhaps the two things in their world that seem to be the closest fit. John's followers and those of the pharisees, fast- its what those seriously into religion in Israel do- yet you're followers don't- why is that? Where do we put you? They have noticed an incredible authority when it comes to his teaching- he teaches the scriptures in a powerful way- has a deep appreciation for them- but seems a bit lax on a few things.
What did they do with his answer I wonder? With the benefit of hindsight it seems clear enough- but at the time... The question was relatively straigtforward, and the motivation for asking it- Jesus answer: He's got bridegrooms coming and going with new and old wineskins with new and old wine being sloshed around. That's the end of it- we don't hear of any more questions, I imagine the questioners are trying to untangle the answer they had been given. Probably a few layers here- Jesus a masterful communicator with a potent veiled message. He had to be careful how he released it – otherwise he would get himself killed prematurely (it was going to get him killed in the end- more than the message- he was a man of substance- he was a little too believeable- if he had have been a crackpot the authorities wouldn't have had to worry about him, the crowds would not have come flocking- a scene like that on the way up to the passover with him riding on the donkey and the crowds rejoicing in the fact and yelling out hosanna to the son of David, wouldn't have happened. Though it was very hard to get a handle on Jesus, when you put all the pieces together, you ended up with congruence). He gave answers that often required pondering- if you were only there for the spectacular factor you would miss it, but it you sought and strove for meaning, the ideas you might come up with, could set you on a very interesting journey. There is an invitation to exploration, I think, often with Jesus answers.
There is Peter remembering this event (If we take Papias' information as been correct- collaborated by various church fathers a bit after him)- I wonder if Peter and Andrew had conversations where they compared Andrew's experience following John the Baptist with their experience following Jesus. And Peter remembered and retold Jesus take on people questioning him about it.
Then there is Mark compiling the material (With my limited knowledge, it seems that much form criticism is potentially dubious- that conjecture has to be one of your major tools- so your first plank could be conjecture followed by a second plank based on the same- it feels like form criticism often doesn't properly recognise this limitation- so you can get a whole lot of theories and scholarship built on not much). Not that it's bad to ponder how the gospels were put together and come up with theories on how this happened- just need to remember that you are dealing with potential possibilities- so take heed you myriad of form critics. Far too easy to have presuppositional analysis, a flat view of history which doesn't necessarily match reality very closely.
Mark is also telling the story and has a reason for doing so- and he is making editorial decisions as he goes. And however the Old Testament was put together, we are, here, on much plainer ground. All the accounts of Jesus in the New Testament are based on eye witness accounts- For all the gospels it was potentially no more than 35-40 years- and even if you take the older view of the lateness of John- you are still most probably dealing with John the apostle's recollections of the actual events. The actual events and remembrances of those events constrain the editing (another thing form criticism often got wrong). So, though we don't have each gospel account necessarily following the strictest chronology, and at times splicing different events together- they are not made up events- and this shapes the remembering and the editing. They certainly read like eyewitness accounts- interestingly they don't necessarily read like present day christian accounts- they are more abrupt, less sensational, less didactic.
So we get this incredible man through the lens of Peter and Mark- which does give it a certain flavour- though very different if it was a made up account or something where there was a whole lot of analysis that went with it. We also get three other lenses (complicated a little by the fact that two of them are using a lot of similar material to Mark – mostly his material according to most scholars)
Each has differences to the others- as you would expect- and we do get slightly different views. I'm glad of that. As it is we don't really have a huge amount written about this Man/God. There is no more interesting person in history (I'm sure I'm right even though I don't know every person in history). Far more has been written on heaps of other people. Its good to have that depth of field from more than one account.
“and people came and asked him... is just 'and they asked him' (no people- no seperate subject) in the greek (still the same meaning- maybe a slight difference in that it might show more of a straightforward flow in Mark).
They are trying to get a handle on him- We've just had the scribes of a pharasaical persuasion grumbling at him, because he's not giving off the right signals about his deference to accepted purity conventions, and now others have come to him comparing him to perhaps the two things in their world that seem to be the closest fit. John's followers and those of the pharisees, fast- its what those seriously into religion in Israel do- yet you're followers don't- why is that? Where do we put you? They have noticed an incredible authority when it comes to his teaching- he teaches the scriptures in a powerful way- has a deep appreciation for them- but seems a bit lax on a few things.
What did they do with his answer I wonder? With the benefit of hindsight it seems clear enough- but at the time... The question was relatively straigtforward, and the motivation for asking it- Jesus answer: He's got bridegrooms coming and going with new and old wineskins with new and old wine being sloshed around. That's the end of it- we don't hear of any more questions, I imagine the questioners are trying to untangle the answer they had been given. Probably a few layers here- Jesus a masterful communicator with a potent veiled message. He had to be careful how he released it – otherwise he would get himself killed prematurely (it was going to get him killed in the end- more than the message- he was a man of substance- he was a little too believeable- if he had have been a crackpot the authorities wouldn't have had to worry about him, the crowds would not have come flocking- a scene like that on the way up to the passover with him riding on the donkey and the crowds rejoicing in the fact and yelling out hosanna to the son of David, wouldn't have happened. Though it was very hard to get a handle on Jesus, when you put all the pieces together, you ended up with congruence). He gave answers that often required pondering- if you were only there for the spectacular factor you would miss it, but it you sought and strove for meaning, the ideas you might come up with, could set you on a very interesting journey. There is an invitation to exploration, I think, often with Jesus answers.
There is Peter remembering this event (If we take Papias' information as been correct- collaborated by various church fathers a bit after him)- I wonder if Peter and Andrew had conversations where they compared Andrew's experience following John the Baptist with their experience following Jesus. And Peter remembered and retold Jesus take on people questioning him about it.
Then there is Mark compiling the material (With my limited knowledge, it seems that much form criticism is potentially dubious- that conjecture has to be one of your major tools- so your first plank could be conjecture followed by a second plank based on the same- it feels like form criticism often doesn't properly recognise this limitation- so you can get a whole lot of theories and scholarship built on not much). Not that it's bad to ponder how the gospels were put together and come up with theories on how this happened- just need to remember that you are dealing with potential possibilities- so take heed you myriad of form critics. Far too easy to have presuppositional analysis, a flat view of history which doesn't necessarily match reality very closely.
Mark is also telling the story and has a reason for doing so- and he is making editorial decisions as he goes. And however the Old Testament was put together, we are, here, on much plainer ground. All the accounts of Jesus in the New Testament are based on eye witness accounts- For all the gospels it was potentially no more than 35-40 years- and even if you take the older view of the lateness of John- you are still most probably dealing with John the apostle's recollections of the actual events. The actual events and remembrances of those events constrain the editing (another thing form criticism often got wrong). So, though we don't have each gospel account necessarily following the strictest chronology, and at times splicing different events together- they are not made up events- and this shapes the remembering and the editing. They certainly read like eyewitness accounts- interestingly they don't necessarily read like present day christian accounts- they are more abrupt, less sensational, less didactic.
So we get this incredible man through the lens of Peter and Mark- which does give it a certain flavour- though very different if it was a made up account or something where there was a whole lot of analysis that went with it. We also get three other lenses (complicated a little by the fact that two of them are using a lot of similar material to Mark – mostly his material according to most scholars)
Each has differences to the others- as you would expect- and we do get slightly different views. I'm glad of that. As it is we don't really have a huge amount written about this Man/God. There is no more interesting person in history (I'm sure I'm right even though I don't know every person in history). Far more has been written on heaps of other people. Its good to have that depth of field from more than one account.
Who needs the doctor? - 2:17
yesous legei autois Ou chreian echousin oi ischouontes iatrou all oi kakws ouk kalesai dikaious alla hamartwlous
Jesus said to them, the well (strong) have no need of a doctor but those who are ill. I have not come to call righteous but sinners.
kakws- pert. to experiencing harm in a physical sense, bad, badly
I wonder exactly how Jesus was meaning this- Does this have some of that understanding of – 'good, why do you call me good, no one is good but God'. He also tells the story of two men who had been forgiven debts- which one is going to love more- the one with the bigger debt forgiven. I'd say the plain meaning was what he was wanting to get across- to open up the pharisees eyes- these people you look down on don't need your condemnation- they could do with help. But he certainly wasn't saying that the pharisees didn't need his help- however righteous they may have considered themselves. Still- perhaps the pharisees should have known- they had studied the scriptures more than most in the room- though there is still need-(and just as great)- do they stand in slightly different position to the 'sinners'? “Are you a teacher of Israel, and yet you do not understand these things?
Jesus said to them, the well (strong) have no need of a doctor but those who are ill. I have not come to call righteous but sinners.
kakws- pert. to experiencing harm in a physical sense, bad, badly
I wonder exactly how Jesus was meaning this- Does this have some of that understanding of – 'good, why do you call me good, no one is good but God'. He also tells the story of two men who had been forgiven debts- which one is going to love more- the one with the bigger debt forgiven. I'd say the plain meaning was what he was wanting to get across- to open up the pharisees eyes- these people you look down on don't need your condemnation- they could do with help. But he certainly wasn't saying that the pharisees didn't need his help- however righteous they may have considered themselves. Still- perhaps the pharisees should have known- they had studied the scriptures more than most in the room- though there is still need-(and just as great)- do they stand in slightly different position to the 'sinners'? “Are you a teacher of Israel, and yet you do not understand these things?
Party going Pharisees - 2:15-16
There are teachers of the law – the actual word is scribes- why does the NIV put teachers of the law? I'm not sure why it's scribes who were pharisees, something there in the Greek I don't get- seems to me to say the scribes of the pharisees. Anyway- they are at this gathering- how did they get invited? Were they friends of Levi? How did they each view the other? There does seem to be a few layers in the politics at the time- and how they would play out in a small town. How did Peter and the others view the pharisees? What actually marked you as a pharisee? Was it something similar to being a Sydney Anglican? You came out of the same college- you sounded the same when you talked about things of faith- a definite flavour about you that others picked up. I suppose being from Cornerstone could act in the same way- though I think Sydney Anglicanism is a closer match- the insistence on the bible- the woodeness there- the distrust of experience.
It's when Jesus starts to eat with the tax collectors and sinners that they become indignant. So does that mean they don't mind people mixing with these people – but eating with them is not on- a certain amount of pragmatism on the pharisees part- draw the line at sitting down to a meal- definitely pollute yourself here.
Still can't quite work out Levi here- how has he pulled this off? How did throwing a dinner party like this – with a few hours notice, work in Capernaum. He's got this eclectic mix- tax collectors and sinners (who are the sinners? prostitutes? the town robber?- how did you join this club?) and the scribes (it seems we're taking them as pharisees) all under the same roof- and the pharisees obviously not impressed. Is it because Jesus is such a public person at this stage- that people just gate crash wherever he turns up. They'd spent a fair bit of time at Peter's place- we're over at Levi's tonight. Would this have been an unusual gathering under normal circumstances?
Or has Levi just got connections running both ways- other tax collectors is understandable- sinners (funny designation) has connections there as well- (did he need to have a group of thugs for persuasion and coercion at times?) then on the other side the pharisees...
So as completely unsubstantiated speculation- could say yes- that Levi a very interesting man- perhaps fairly robust- (whethered the ire of the people) maybe had a bent towards the pharisees and counted many as friends- had a zeal for the law himself- can be seen in the way he has structured his account of Jesus life (if he did- I think probable- though I definitely don't understand the synoptic relationship).
Or not- A man who has come full circle- repented and followed- and events just tumbled upon themselves, and the next minute he has good whack of the town in his house for a Barbie (probably by this stage quite a few from neighbouring towns as well- how much time has past since Jesus kicked off?).
Perhaps a bit of both- I think you have to allow for both in reconstructions (especially with so little to go on). Can't get too caught up in the speculation – otherwise you end up like Dave Walker- saying this is what happened – and thinking it did, when it is just your reconstruction, based at times on pretty flimsy evidence. And that whole looking back thing is often inaccurate fullstop. It gives us perspective- we can see trends and learn from things- but it is compressed and unreal time- the present, as always, is the most important time- and this is what is so hard to add to the reconstruction- as though it is all happening in present time.
It's when Jesus starts to eat with the tax collectors and sinners that they become indignant. So does that mean they don't mind people mixing with these people – but eating with them is not on- a certain amount of pragmatism on the pharisees part- draw the line at sitting down to a meal- definitely pollute yourself here.
Still can't quite work out Levi here- how has he pulled this off? How did throwing a dinner party like this – with a few hours notice, work in Capernaum. He's got this eclectic mix- tax collectors and sinners (who are the sinners? prostitutes? the town robber?- how did you join this club?) and the scribes (it seems we're taking them as pharisees) all under the same roof- and the pharisees obviously not impressed. Is it because Jesus is such a public person at this stage- that people just gate crash wherever he turns up. They'd spent a fair bit of time at Peter's place- we're over at Levi's tonight. Would this have been an unusual gathering under normal circumstances?
Or has Levi just got connections running both ways- other tax collectors is understandable- sinners (funny designation) has connections there as well- (did he need to have a group of thugs for persuasion and coercion at times?) then on the other side the pharisees...
So as completely unsubstantiated speculation- could say yes- that Levi a very interesting man- perhaps fairly robust- (whethered the ire of the people) maybe had a bent towards the pharisees and counted many as friends- had a zeal for the law himself- can be seen in the way he has structured his account of Jesus life (if he did- I think probable- though I definitely don't understand the synoptic relationship).
Or not- A man who has come full circle- repented and followed- and events just tumbled upon themselves, and the next minute he has good whack of the town in his house for a Barbie (probably by this stage quite a few from neighbouring towns as well- how much time has past since Jesus kicked off?).
Perhaps a bit of both- I think you have to allow for both in reconstructions (especially with so little to go on). Can't get too caught up in the speculation – otherwise you end up like Dave Walker- saying this is what happened – and thinking it did, when it is just your reconstruction, based at times on pretty flimsy evidence. And that whole looking back thing is often inaccurate fullstop. It gives us perspective- we can see trends and learn from things- but it is compressed and unreal time- the present, as always, is the most important time- and this is what is so hard to add to the reconstruction- as though it is all happening in present time.
From Edersheim
A whole mob of people ends up that night at Levi's house- Jesus is having dinner there- with his disciples – what was this like for Peter, Andrew, James and John – and Levi? I'd think a fair bit of joy. There were many tax collectors and sinners there as well- I wonder if this was a fairly normal sort of phrase – you're like a pack of tax collectors and sinners- catchy- Galileans were fiercely patriotic to the true Israel as a general rule- according to Tommo, there numerous uprisings in Galilee over the years- appropriate for tax collectors to be uttered in the same breath as sinners.
On the religious makeup in Galilee- Edersheim does seem to say there was a snobbish attitude to the galileans from the Jerusalem establishment- where they were looked down on for their 'hill billiness- accent. The travelling teacher (perhaps coming from Jerusalem?)- common, Due to a bit of a lack in the country areas. Still. I think the synagogue schools would have been operational in most places (where do I check that- Edersheim?) Was it 12 when if they showed real promise they would be shipped off to Jerusalem to one of the prestigious schools, following a particular rabbi- Not sure don't know enough. The point is, there was a divide between the Jerusalem with the temple and the Sanhedrin and the outlying areas- but in terms of the religious atmosphere- I'm not sure if this would have been much less. Thousands went down for the festivals in Jerusalem. Scribes and Pharisees are turning up regularly as part of the crowds- at this stage I suppose most of them are local rather than from Jerusalem.
If anyone wishes to be rich, let him go North; if he wants to be wise, let him come South. Such was the saying, by which Rabbinical pride distinguished between the material wealth of Galilee and the supremacy in traditional lore claimed for the academies of Judea proper. (p.30) -hence, can any good thing come out of Nazareth.
The Talmud, on the other hand, charges the Galileans with neglecting traditionalism; learning from one teacher, then from another (perhaps because they had only wandering Rabbis, not fixed academies); and with being accordingly unable to rise to the heights of Rabbinical distinctions and explanations. That there hot blood made them rather quarrelsome, and that they lived in a chronic state of rebellion against Rome, we gather not only from Josephus, but even from the New Testament (Luke 13:2 ; Acts 5:37). (p.40)
Their mal pronunciation of Hebrew, or rather their inability properly to pronounce the gutturals, formed a constant subject of witticism and reproach, so current that even the servants in the High Priests Palace could turn round upon Peter, and say, “Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speech betrayeth thee” (Matt 26:73) – a remark this, by the way which illustrates that the language commonly used at the time of Christ in Palestine was Aramean not Greek. Josephus describes the Galileans as hardworking, manly and brave; and even the Talmud admits (Jer. Cheth. iv. 14) that they cared more for honour than for money.
...north eastern or Upper Galilee was in great part inhabited by the gentiles- Phoenicians, Syrians, Arabs and Greeks, whence the name “Galilee of the Gentiles”. (Matt 4:15) (p24 – sketches of Jewish social life).
On the religious makeup in Galilee- Edersheim does seem to say there was a snobbish attitude to the galileans from the Jerusalem establishment- where they were looked down on for their 'hill billiness- accent. The travelling teacher (perhaps coming from Jerusalem?)- common, Due to a bit of a lack in the country areas. Still. I think the synagogue schools would have been operational in most places (where do I check that- Edersheim?) Was it 12 when if they showed real promise they would be shipped off to Jerusalem to one of the prestigious schools, following a particular rabbi- Not sure don't know enough. The point is, there was a divide between the Jerusalem with the temple and the Sanhedrin and the outlying areas- but in terms of the religious atmosphere- I'm not sure if this would have been much less. Thousands went down for the festivals in Jerusalem. Scribes and Pharisees are turning up regularly as part of the crowds- at this stage I suppose most of them are local rather than from Jerusalem.
If anyone wishes to be rich, let him go North; if he wants to be wise, let him come South. Such was the saying, by which Rabbinical pride distinguished between the material wealth of Galilee and the supremacy in traditional lore claimed for the academies of Judea proper. (p.30) -hence, can any good thing come out of Nazareth.
The Talmud, on the other hand, charges the Galileans with neglecting traditionalism; learning from one teacher, then from another (perhaps because they had only wandering Rabbis, not fixed academies); and with being accordingly unable to rise to the heights of Rabbinical distinctions and explanations. That there hot blood made them rather quarrelsome, and that they lived in a chronic state of rebellion against Rome, we gather not only from Josephus, but even from the New Testament (Luke 13:2 ; Acts 5:37). (p.40)
Their mal pronunciation of Hebrew, or rather their inability properly to pronounce the gutturals, formed a constant subject of witticism and reproach, so current that even the servants in the High Priests Palace could turn round upon Peter, and say, “Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speech betrayeth thee” (Matt 26:73) – a remark this, by the way which illustrates that the language commonly used at the time of Christ in Palestine was Aramean not Greek. Josephus describes the Galileans as hardworking, manly and brave; and even the Talmud admits (Jer. Cheth. iv. 14) that they cared more for honour than for money.
...north eastern or Upper Galilee was in great part inhabited by the gentiles- Phoenicians, Syrians, Arabs and Greeks, whence the name “Galilee of the Gentiles”. (Matt 4:15) (p24 – sketches of Jewish social life).
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Levi 2:13-14
“And he went out again beside the sea- does this mean he was just going for a walk? Or was he going out knowing that the crowds would come- How did they come? and all the crowd came to him and he taught them- what day is it? what would they normally be doing? Have half the businesses in Capernaum and surrounding towns just taken holidays? And what is the attitude of the crowd as the sit and listen? What was the conversion rate from the interested crowds to those who actually followed him? What conversations went on afterwards? How far could you make your voice carry in such a situation? Would there have been any precedent in these people's lives? perhaps in Jerusalem in the temple precinct, listenting to speakers at the great festivals (how did that all work- how much of a 'service' did they have?)
and as he was passing by he saw Levi the son of alphaios sitting at the custom house, and he said to him follow me. And he rose (anastas – got up) and followed him.
Levi hadn't left his place of work where others had- Did Jesus take note of him on the way to the 'sea' and then tell him to follow him on the way back? Had there been any interaction between them before this time? Had there been other times when Levi had been sitting in the crowd listening intently. How well did he know Peter and Andrew and James and John? They must have known each other- how would it have worked- Did Peter and the others sometimes have to take fish to other markets in the neighbourhood and get taxed by Levi as they passed by? Had their father's had to pay Levi's father at the same booth? Just had an interesting thought about how far the family memory went back with some sort of sense of immediacy – in my grandfathers day... and surely this was far more vivid than in our times when oral history was more vivid, nuanced and perhaps accurate.
Galilee was under Herod Antipas at the time.
Was it 4 BC or so that his Father Herod the great died? - I imagine the tax arrangements hadn't changed too much in the time- The Romans farming it off to local rulers, who then farmed it off to provincial administrators who in turn did the same- at each level a cut being taken. (How exactly did it work in Galilee?) If you had a contract- you'd probably been able to pull a few strings to get it- and I imagine once you had it- if you kept the money flowing further up, you would have kept it- consolidated your position as a friend of the administration (and at the same time enemy of the people) and being upper middle class.
Did they attend the same synagogue (How many where there in a town the size of Capernaum- I assume it is not the same as us with denominations and numerous small churches- but was there more than one?) What is the religious make up of a galilean village? I assume that the divisions such as Pharisees and Saducees were either not as strict or not as well attended as further south- What percentage of the population attended the Synagogue- was there such a thing as nominalism in the same way we experience it – I get the impression that their whole atmosphere was soaked in religion in a totally foreign way to Australia.
There could have been some pretty interesting goings on in the local synagogue- was someone like Levi barely tolerated there?
What's going on for him? He couldn't have escaped the fuss about this new teacher/ prophet/ healer figure- it is probably reasonable to assume that Levi had heard him in person- he hadn't left his booth on this day- but when he knocked off normally I assume that would have given him time to be a part of one of the crowds in the evening- Even if he hadn't heard him in person- and I imagine this unlikely- he would have certainly heard all sorts of stories- perhaps talked to people who had been healed or had demons driven out of them- he would have seen a wide cross section of the population in his job. Still, far more likely he would have gone to hear him- even if when he did – it was with other priveleged types – who didn't take belief too seriously- and were there out of curiosity – the mild interest of the slightly disinterested- but who knows- though it is hard to imagine a passionate Jew who was passionate about God, being very comfortable as a tax collector- we know next to nothing- except perhaps speculations can have a certain amount of accuracy- the nature of job forces something of itself onto the worker- as a general rule the type is true- factory worker, teacher. policeman- a person often has a natural aptitude in such an area- but even if he doesn't he develops what is needed for the job- the no nonsense approach of the policeman, the almost religious way smoko is viewed by the factory worker- (like the sabbath).
Was Levi longing to follow the crowd and listen to this man? Had his soul being captured or at least captivated at this point- the process is surely going on- Did he stay by his post like the respectable accountant who often ends up putting the firm first – And then you get this moment as Jesus comes back from the shores of the lake and he is walking by the booth (probably for the second time that day) and 'he saw' Levi- I'd say Mark is just telling the story in his brief fashion and in one sense doesn't mean anything by this- but reading a bit more over the top- I think Jesus really did see him- he often saw people others didn't- and whatever the facade is – he doesn't stop there (where a lot of our relating happens) – how many others in the Synagogue would have signed Levi up for such an enterprise. How did Jesus see in such a way- not much before he has perceived in his spirit what others were thinking- I think its more complex than super Jesus or the 'man' (as in there a bits of both- the whole humanity divinity thing in Jesus not broken up in a greek way- he was a whole person)- There is wisdom working here in it deepest sense – and wise people often are very good at discerning people's heart- Jesus I think says as much many times- handwashing, outside of cups, not entrusting himself to the crowd because he knew what was in the heart of man-
Yep- one of the hallmarks of Jesus- his clear vision- the ability to see the heart of the matter.
He wouldn't have been walking alone- how many people were in the immediate vicinity (I really want to get there or thereabouts), they'd probably just heard amazing things, but then the most amazing thing that day happens (Mark doesn't particularly try to bring this out in any way- just tells) Jesus tells (doesn't ask), Levi to follow him- and he leaves his booth (where he hadn't earlier in the day) and does just that.
If this is the same Matthew that wrote the gospel of Matthew- does seem to speak of a man who grew up steeped in Jewish lore- had it ever penetrated is heart up to this point? After this the concern for his people is most un tax collector like- his gospel very much for a Jewish audience- whatever took place before this – his response to Jesus was immediate and whole hearted.
and as he was passing by he saw Levi the son of alphaios sitting at the custom house, and he said to him follow me. And he rose (anastas – got up) and followed him.
Levi hadn't left his place of work where others had- Did Jesus take note of him on the way to the 'sea' and then tell him to follow him on the way back? Had there been any interaction between them before this time? Had there been other times when Levi had been sitting in the crowd listening intently. How well did he know Peter and Andrew and James and John? They must have known each other- how would it have worked- Did Peter and the others sometimes have to take fish to other markets in the neighbourhood and get taxed by Levi as they passed by? Had their father's had to pay Levi's father at the same booth? Just had an interesting thought about how far the family memory went back with some sort of sense of immediacy – in my grandfathers day... and surely this was far more vivid than in our times when oral history was more vivid, nuanced and perhaps accurate.
Galilee was under Herod Antipas at the time.
Was it 4 BC or so that his Father Herod the great died? - I imagine the tax arrangements hadn't changed too much in the time- The Romans farming it off to local rulers, who then farmed it off to provincial administrators who in turn did the same- at each level a cut being taken. (How exactly did it work in Galilee?) If you had a contract- you'd probably been able to pull a few strings to get it- and I imagine once you had it- if you kept the money flowing further up, you would have kept it- consolidated your position as a friend of the administration (and at the same time enemy of the people) and being upper middle class.
Did they attend the same synagogue (How many where there in a town the size of Capernaum- I assume it is not the same as us with denominations and numerous small churches- but was there more than one?) What is the religious make up of a galilean village? I assume that the divisions such as Pharisees and Saducees were either not as strict or not as well attended as further south- What percentage of the population attended the Synagogue- was there such a thing as nominalism in the same way we experience it – I get the impression that their whole atmosphere was soaked in religion in a totally foreign way to Australia.
There could have been some pretty interesting goings on in the local synagogue- was someone like Levi barely tolerated there?
What's going on for him? He couldn't have escaped the fuss about this new teacher/ prophet/ healer figure- it is probably reasonable to assume that Levi had heard him in person- he hadn't left his booth on this day- but when he knocked off normally I assume that would have given him time to be a part of one of the crowds in the evening- Even if he hadn't heard him in person- and I imagine this unlikely- he would have certainly heard all sorts of stories- perhaps talked to people who had been healed or had demons driven out of them- he would have seen a wide cross section of the population in his job. Still, far more likely he would have gone to hear him- even if when he did – it was with other priveleged types – who didn't take belief too seriously- and were there out of curiosity – the mild interest of the slightly disinterested- but who knows- though it is hard to imagine a passionate Jew who was passionate about God, being very comfortable as a tax collector- we know next to nothing- except perhaps speculations can have a certain amount of accuracy- the nature of job forces something of itself onto the worker- as a general rule the type is true- factory worker, teacher. policeman- a person often has a natural aptitude in such an area- but even if he doesn't he develops what is needed for the job- the no nonsense approach of the policeman, the almost religious way smoko is viewed by the factory worker- (like the sabbath).
Was Levi longing to follow the crowd and listen to this man? Had his soul being captured or at least captivated at this point- the process is surely going on- Did he stay by his post like the respectable accountant who often ends up putting the firm first – And then you get this moment as Jesus comes back from the shores of the lake and he is walking by the booth (probably for the second time that day) and 'he saw' Levi- I'd say Mark is just telling the story in his brief fashion and in one sense doesn't mean anything by this- but reading a bit more over the top- I think Jesus really did see him- he often saw people others didn't- and whatever the facade is – he doesn't stop there (where a lot of our relating happens) – how many others in the Synagogue would have signed Levi up for such an enterprise. How did Jesus see in such a way- not much before he has perceived in his spirit what others were thinking- I think its more complex than super Jesus or the 'man' (as in there a bits of both- the whole humanity divinity thing in Jesus not broken up in a greek way- he was a whole person)- There is wisdom working here in it deepest sense – and wise people often are very good at discerning people's heart- Jesus I think says as much many times- handwashing, outside of cups, not entrusting himself to the crowd because he knew what was in the heart of man-
Yep- one of the hallmarks of Jesus- his clear vision- the ability to see the heart of the matter.
He wouldn't have been walking alone- how many people were in the immediate vicinity (I really want to get there or thereabouts), they'd probably just heard amazing things, but then the most amazing thing that day happens (Mark doesn't particularly try to bring this out in any way- just tells) Jesus tells (doesn't ask), Levi to follow him- and he leaves his booth (where he hadn't earlier in the day) and does just that.
If this is the same Matthew that wrote the gospel of Matthew- does seem to speak of a man who grew up steeped in Jewish lore- had it ever penetrated is heart up to this point? After this the concern for his people is most un tax collector like- his gospel very much for a Jewish audience- whatever took place before this – his response to Jesus was immediate and whole hearted.
Jesus lack of success 2:8-12
Which is easier to say... what is Jesus point here- In that situation I could say neither- at least I couldn't forgive the man his sins and I couldn't heal him of his paralysis- Jesus could do both. He could say both, but in terms of 'doing' the first was far harder.
The inference seems to be that it is easier to say your sins are forgiven to the man- but to show you (the crowd or more particularly the scribes) that it is legitimate for me to say this I will say something that seems harder- stand up, take your mat and walk
The crowd's reaction are that they are amazed (literally to stand outside oneself existasthai- I wonder if thats where existential comes from- be amazed, astonished, Zerwick) and they glorified God- there doesn't seem to be a huge amount of results from this glorifying- but Jesus continues to do such things- is that a reflection of how far he will go for those that will listen and follow- or along with that, God's perogative to invite all in...
Interesting thinking about success and the signs of it- Jesus had huge crowds come to see him, he miraculously healed 100's? 1000's? He brought people back from the dead- but at the end of the three years, how many people were there that had really changed their hearts and their minds (or had them changed)?
Jesus would not submit himself to the crowds- he knew they were fickle, he delighted to do his Father's will-... even in Jesus case- perhaps more slow and steady (and strong and deep) than spectacular and really 'successful'.
The inference seems to be that it is easier to say your sins are forgiven to the man- but to show you (the crowd or more particularly the scribes) that it is legitimate for me to say this I will say something that seems harder- stand up, take your mat and walk
The crowd's reaction are that they are amazed (literally to stand outside oneself existasthai- I wonder if thats where existential comes from- be amazed, astonished, Zerwick) and they glorified God- there doesn't seem to be a huge amount of results from this glorifying- but Jesus continues to do such things- is that a reflection of how far he will go for those that will listen and follow- or along with that, God's perogative to invite all in...
Interesting thinking about success and the signs of it- Jesus had huge crowds come to see him, he miraculously healed 100's? 1000's? He brought people back from the dead- but at the end of the three years, how many people were there that had really changed their hearts and their minds (or had them changed)?
Jesus would not submit himself to the crowds- he knew they were fickle, he delighted to do his Father's will-... even in Jesus case- perhaps more slow and steady (and strong and deep) than spectacular and really 'successful'.
Reading rooms- 2:5-8
Jesus response is so good- he quickly sums up what has occurred- (probably wouldn't have had to be too quickly- I imagine it took them some time to dig through the roof – and then lower their friend down- and that Jesus paused as this was happening and every one watched as it took place) Perhaps when the man made it to the floor and the buzz of the crowd died away as they waited to see what would happen next- how will Jesus react to this- and he comes out with- Child your sins are forgiven- (BDAG has for one of its meanings- 3, one who is dear to another but without genetic relationship and without distinction in age, child- then has this reference as an example of that). What is the paralytic thinking at this stage? - Actually, that wasn't quite what I was after- the scribes in the room (were there one or two that felt a thrill?) were thrown into an inner turmoil – that spilt out into a grumbling among themselves- did the rest of the crowd pick up the implication so quickly- another example of the heritage of the place. - get the feeling the whole way through, that the crowd as a general rule is not as worried about such things- that on the whole they are not as worried full stop, that the thing that would have stuck with them was the man (they would have all known) getting up and walking out of there- and that pondering the full significance was too much to worry about.
perceived in his spirit- How did he know this? It doesn't read like he just overheard them mumbling- It sounds like a supernatural thing- or was he just good at reading faces- but then Jesus response- why do you raise such questions in your heart? This seems like something of a corrective to making Jesus too much just a normal human being- just a carpenter from Nazereth going about his business quietly to save the world. - I can have this train of thought of how Jesus was more of a man/human being than I've ever given him credit for in the past (which is true and good to realise) wonder about how he came to his knowledge of the father, himself and his vocation- think it may have all happened in a way that it happens for us to a large degree- with a few differences- no static in the way from sin as Paul Roe points out, But then things like this pull me up- it is very mystical – beyond my experience- and that somehow adds a bit of distance to the good carpenter from Nazareth. I wonder if this was the disciples experience on a fairly regular basis- It didn't seem that long ago we were having a barbie together and cooking fish on the beach, and now he's walking over the water towards us.
perceived in his spirit- How did he know this? It doesn't read like he just overheard them mumbling- It sounds like a supernatural thing- or was he just good at reading faces- but then Jesus response- why do you raise such questions in your heart? This seems like something of a corrective to making Jesus too much just a normal human being- just a carpenter from Nazereth going about his business quietly to save the world. - I can have this train of thought of how Jesus was more of a man/human being than I've ever given him credit for in the past (which is true and good to realise) wonder about how he came to his knowledge of the father, himself and his vocation- think it may have all happened in a way that it happens for us to a large degree- with a few differences- no static in the way from sin as Paul Roe points out, But then things like this pull me up- it is very mystical – beyond my experience- and that somehow adds a bit of distance to the good carpenter from Nazareth. I wonder if this was the disciples experience on a fairly regular basis- It didn't seem that long ago we were having a barbie together and cooking fish on the beach, and now he's walking over the water towards us.
A crowded room- 2:1-4
Chapter 2
And entering into Capernaum again after some days it became known that he was at home. - Is this Peter's place? Wherever it was Jesus considered at home there (en oikw). How long did he spend there all up? What did he do when he was at home? Did he do any woodwork for people? Don't hear anything of that in the gospels- get the feeling that he completely left that, for this particular task- and that there wasn't much down time in the three years- is that the case? Need to do myself a big calendar and map it all as well as I can.
(After the wedding in Cana John writes- “After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother, his brothers, and his disciples; and they remained there a few days”- I wonder if there was a family connection there)
A crowd gathers around and he speaks to them 'the word'. - the message- not much room- not even around the door- since the man got let in through the roof, does that mean they were all crowded into the house? If so, I imagine it wouldn't be much more than 100 people- how big would have the house been? What was a normal design? The four friends can't get in the front door - because of the crowd- maybe 200 – a whole lot craning to see and hear around the door- take him up to the roof – and unroof it- digging through- they let down their friend on his mat- krabbaton. Doesn't seem like it was brief 'the word'. There is enough time for a sizable crowd to gather, then for the four to come and see they couldn't get in by the front door- then to go up on the roof, with their cargo, and dig a hole through it- and find things to lower him down with. Mark doesn't give us much of the teaching content- would get in the way of his fast paced story- but how good would it have been to be in that house and listening for a few hours? to what Jesus considered the word...
100 teenagers in the Pizza shop at Broken Hill- they didn't all fit in the shop- totally crowded in there and the overflow on the paved area outside, but there was some room to move around. Still can't be too too many- in future years you could talk to other people in the town – were you there that day in Peter's house when we were all crammed into the living room (are they only one roomed houses?) and Jesus was speaking and then there was this banging on the roof- yep got half the roof on my head... Surely there must have been some in Capernaum that became followers and cherished memories such as this- even if the majority of the town did a Uncle Andrew trick with it all (where he hears Aslan singing Narnia into existence and when he sees it is 'only a lion' tries his hardest to believe it wasn't singing and never had, but only roaring as any lion might in a zoo.)
And entering into Capernaum again after some days it became known that he was at home. - Is this Peter's place? Wherever it was Jesus considered at home there (en oikw). How long did he spend there all up? What did he do when he was at home? Did he do any woodwork for people? Don't hear anything of that in the gospels- get the feeling that he completely left that, for this particular task- and that there wasn't much down time in the three years- is that the case? Need to do myself a big calendar and map it all as well as I can.
(After the wedding in Cana John writes- “After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother, his brothers, and his disciples; and they remained there a few days”- I wonder if there was a family connection there)
A crowd gathers around and he speaks to them 'the word'. - the message- not much room- not even around the door- since the man got let in through the roof, does that mean they were all crowded into the house? If so, I imagine it wouldn't be much more than 100 people- how big would have the house been? What was a normal design? The four friends can't get in the front door - because of the crowd- maybe 200 – a whole lot craning to see and hear around the door- take him up to the roof – and unroof it- digging through- they let down their friend on his mat- krabbaton. Doesn't seem like it was brief 'the word'. There is enough time for a sizable crowd to gather, then for the four to come and see they couldn't get in by the front door- then to go up on the roof, with their cargo, and dig a hole through it- and find things to lower him down with. Mark doesn't give us much of the teaching content- would get in the way of his fast paced story- but how good would it have been to be in that house and listening for a few hours? to what Jesus considered the word...
100 teenagers in the Pizza shop at Broken Hill- they didn't all fit in the shop- totally crowded in there and the overflow on the paved area outside, but there was some room to move around. Still can't be too too many- in future years you could talk to other people in the town – were you there that day in Peter's house when we were all crammed into the living room (are they only one roomed houses?) and Jesus was speaking and then there was this banging on the roof- yep got half the roof on my head... Surely there must have been some in Capernaum that became followers and cherished memories such as this- even if the majority of the town did a Uncle Andrew trick with it all (where he hears Aslan singing Narnia into existence and when he sees it is 'only a lion' tries his hardest to believe it wasn't singing and never had, but only roaring as any lion might in a zoo.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)