taking the five loaves and two fish he looked up to heaven, gave thanks and broke the bread into pieces and gave it to the disciples to set before the people (them) and he divided the two fish among them all.
I imagine the looking up into heaven is important. Perhaps Jesus always did this before a meal (what was the tradition among the Jews?) - does seem to say, this is not a solo act- acknowledging that all good things come from the Father.
After this, the big miracle- with no mention by Mark how amazing it was- or how amazing people in the crowds had found it.
Everybody eats and has their fill (echortasthesan- Z &G- satisfy with food, orig. only of feeding animals with e.g. hay (chortos) )
There's some rich imagery going on here in a spare account- the convivial atmosphere, the green grass, the groups looking like flower or vegetable beds- and eating and being like satisfied cows on finishing.
There are 12 basket fulls left over. The account finishes with a record of the number of men who were there- 5000.
This is an incredible number for an event that no one knew was going to be an event before it happened. Surely it represents more than just the curious people of Capernaum- (though a fair proportion of the town must have been there. Young sons perhaps, were sent off to run to relatives and friends in surrounding towns (there would have been quite a few in this fertile area- I think Edersheim says Galilee would have had a fair population at this time)) and let them know that Jesus was on the move. For these people, at this time, he was the main event.
As they walk to their various villages, after being fed (in a highly satisfactory manner), what were their conversations?
It would seem from some of the Greek- there spirits would have been uplifted. Without knowing, they had experienced the rule of God come near- and to perhaps temper some of my response to the New York Number 1 best seller The Shack, the picture that is presented is not one of an austere God- but one of abundance and fullness- like a bbq with good friends and food, like a cow chewing the cud contentedly after it has eaten well.
Either way it would seem that people can be suspicious- as Jesus pointed out- some thought John's asceticism was suspect ('he has a demon') – and when Jesus came with some of the above feel- 'look a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!” (Luke 7)
Monday, May 24, 2010
Convivial flower beds- 6:37-40
Surely Jesus must have known this would send them spinning. They reply, are we to go away and spend two hundred denarii on bread and give it to them to eat?” The NIV has eight months of a man's wages. Jesus ignores this and tells them to go and see how many loaves they have. I don't know how hard they looked- was it a 'look to keep Jesus happy look'? Or was the group of 5000 men- and presumably at least a couple of thousand women, all out there with no food- due to the rushed nature of their arrival? They find five – and two fish, then- kai epataxan autois anaklinai pantas sumposia sumposia epi tw chlwpw chortw. kai anepesan prasiai prasiai kata hekaton kai kata pentekonta.
and he commanded them all to recline* in parties upon the green grass. And they lay down* /took their place like orderly plots of flower or vegetable beds, in groups of hundreds and fifties.
*both these words are used for taking your place at a meal- reclining for a meal.
That may be an over- translation- certainly the NIV or Phillips or NRSV don't include this part of the description. France (p17) has looking like rows of vegetables.
(p267) A sumposion is a group of people eating or (more commonly) drinking together, and suggests a relaxed, even convivial atmosphere; sumposia sumposia is distributive, 'in parties'. prasiai is literally a garden plot or flower bed and is not elsewhere used to describe people, so that prasiai prasiai (similarly distributive, 'in rows') offers a remarkably visual impression of the scene, with men lined up in groups like plots of vegetables on the green grass.
He goes on and mentions that in a Jewish context meals were generally taken seated.
All that definitely adds to a reading of the passage in English. Once again I think we have an example of an event vividly etched into Peter's memory (not surprisingly).
and he commanded them all to recline* in parties upon the green grass. And they lay down* /took their place like orderly plots of flower or vegetable beds, in groups of hundreds and fifties.
*both these words are used for taking your place at a meal- reclining for a meal.
That may be an over- translation- certainly the NIV or Phillips or NRSV don't include this part of the description. France (p17) has looking like rows of vegetables.
(p267) A sumposion is a group of people eating or (more commonly) drinking together, and suggests a relaxed, even convivial atmosphere; sumposia sumposia is distributive, 'in parties'. prasiai is literally a garden plot or flower bed and is not elsewhere used to describe people, so that prasiai prasiai (similarly distributive, 'in rows') offers a remarkably visual impression of the scene, with men lined up in groups like plots of vegetables on the green grass.
He goes on and mentions that in a Jewish context meals were generally taken seated.
All that definitely adds to a reading of the passage in English. Once again I think we have an example of an event vividly etched into Peter's memory (not surprisingly).
Spellbound- 6:30-37
Jesus has compassion on them- for they were like sheep without a shepherd. I don't think I often think this way. There are probably many people around here like that- the salvos seem to be tapping into that at the moment. I wonder how the worldview differs between a typical first century jew and a 21st century australian.
And they get to sit and listen to Jesus teach them many things. He held them- perhaps the rock band thing not too bad an analogy- a bit spellbound. It would be so good to be transported back there and be in the crowd and hear the 'many things' that Jesus was teaching them. Yet for many or most they did not get the thrust of what he was saying- or if they did, chose not to apply it.
There is still the same fascination today with 'great teachers'. They draw great crowds of people who probably often don't put into practice what they say- the mega church phenomena seems to thrive on it. Probably points to a shepherdless like state among many christians- where they (we) could be far more active in seeking Jesus as the shepherd of our souls- and could then be active in both being a shepherd to others and helping them be a shepherd to others. (Hebrew's author's frustration at the spiritual immaturity of those he was writing to).
As is often the case in spellbound moments- they last longer than you think- perhaps the disciples weren't they only ones that 'awakened' to find the sun low in the west, and their minds came back from wherever they were to basic practicalities that the late hour meant. The disciples think that Jesus needs to be organised- and go to help him understand. But there sensibleness gets turned on its head- it will be the spellbound world which will continue.
o de apokritheis eipen autois, Dote autois umeis fagein. “But responding (or answering) he said to them, You give them something to eat.” Bit of a classic- the 'but' is 'de' which is not a particularly strong but- so (greek guru's may correct me here) its sort of this understated 'but', which must have felt anything but that to the disciples. They've just come back from small preaching tours- where I imagine they experienced much excitement as well as trepidation as they became more than just 'hearing learners' but also 'doing learners' (mathetes- 1 one who engages in learning through instruction from another, pupil, apprentice
2, one who is rather constantly associated with someone who has a pedagogical reputation or a particular set of views, disciple, adherent (BDAG)
the related verb (is that the cognate verb?) is manthanw- which means 'I am learning' or 'I learn'.)
They don't even have time for a proper debrief until the crowd intrudes- they've reverted back to the hearing learners in the face of the master- these sort of numbers are his domain, they merely provide aid by pointing out the time- but Jesus does not have this construct in his head. His solution to the problem they bring is for them to directly fix it- You (emphatic) give them something to eat. (for your information Kyle, in Greek, the verb contains what person it is within itself- there is no need for a separate word for a personal pronoun to be used in the sentence- so 'trekw' means 'I run', 'trekeis' means 'you run', and 'trekei' means 'he, she or it runs'. If you want to draw attention to the person doing the action, you can include a personal pronoun- and this is called an emphatic use. So where Jesus says in John, 'before Abraham was, I am!' , instead of just using the word eimi, which means I am, John uses (or Jesus- but he may have been speaking in aramaic) Egw eimi. The same as all the other 'I am' statements in John. - as a further aside, let me give you the three definitions for trekw from the dictionary that all the experts look at, 1. to make rapid linear movement, run, rush, advance
2. to make effort to advance spiritually or intellectually, exert oneself
3. to proceed quickly and without restraint, progress
I think the quickly part can often get left out when you are trekking)
And they get to sit and listen to Jesus teach them many things. He held them- perhaps the rock band thing not too bad an analogy- a bit spellbound. It would be so good to be transported back there and be in the crowd and hear the 'many things' that Jesus was teaching them. Yet for many or most they did not get the thrust of what he was saying- or if they did, chose not to apply it.
There is still the same fascination today with 'great teachers'. They draw great crowds of people who probably often don't put into practice what they say- the mega church phenomena seems to thrive on it. Probably points to a shepherdless like state among many christians- where they (we) could be far more active in seeking Jesus as the shepherd of our souls- and could then be active in both being a shepherd to others and helping them be a shepherd to others. (Hebrew's author's frustration at the spiritual immaturity of those he was writing to).
As is often the case in spellbound moments- they last longer than you think- perhaps the disciples weren't they only ones that 'awakened' to find the sun low in the west, and their minds came back from wherever they were to basic practicalities that the late hour meant. The disciples think that Jesus needs to be organised- and go to help him understand. But there sensibleness gets turned on its head- it will be the spellbound world which will continue.
o de apokritheis eipen autois, Dote autois umeis fagein. “But responding (or answering) he said to them, You give them something to eat.” Bit of a classic- the 'but' is 'de' which is not a particularly strong but- so (greek guru's may correct me here) its sort of this understated 'but', which must have felt anything but that to the disciples. They've just come back from small preaching tours- where I imagine they experienced much excitement as well as trepidation as they became more than just 'hearing learners' but also 'doing learners' (mathetes- 1 one who engages in learning through instruction from another, pupil, apprentice
2, one who is rather constantly associated with someone who has a pedagogical reputation or a particular set of views, disciple, adherent (BDAG)
the related verb (is that the cognate verb?) is manthanw- which means 'I am learning' or 'I learn'.)
They don't even have time for a proper debrief until the crowd intrudes- they've reverted back to the hearing learners in the face of the master- these sort of numbers are his domain, they merely provide aid by pointing out the time- but Jesus does not have this construct in his head. His solution to the problem they bring is for them to directly fix it- You (emphatic) give them something to eat. (for your information Kyle, in Greek, the verb contains what person it is within itself- there is no need for a separate word for a personal pronoun to be used in the sentence- so 'trekw' means 'I run', 'trekeis' means 'you run', and 'trekei' means 'he, she or it runs'. If you want to draw attention to the person doing the action, you can include a personal pronoun- and this is called an emphatic use. So where Jesus says in John, 'before Abraham was, I am!' , instead of just using the word eimi, which means I am, John uses (or Jesus- but he may have been speaking in aramaic) Egw eimi. The same as all the other 'I am' statements in John. - as a further aside, let me give you the three definitions for trekw from the dictionary that all the experts look at, 1. to make rapid linear movement, run, rush, advance
2. to make effort to advance spiritually or intellectually, exert oneself
3. to proceed quickly and without restraint, progress
I think the quickly part can often get left out when you are trekking)
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Groupies- 6:33-34
Jesus take on this mood, was that they were like sheep without a shepherd. He has compassion on them- and a part of that seems to be because he recognises a futility in their lives. They're a bit directionless. He's made a stir by teaching in a way they have not heard, driving demons out of people and doing miraculous healings- and they're running after him like a rock band's groupies (except with less loyalty- the fame seems to be the thing, not the substance behind the man- although in that there probably not that different to groupies).
So the disciples needs here, give way to the needs of the more needy. A pretty good example of the need for action and response.
Perhaps the silence surrounding what happened on their little adventures is another pointer towards the authenticity of the account. There are no trips off to Germany and the goths all becoming followers – in a sort of Asterix and Obelix adventure. It fits.
I wonder if Peter's personality was part of it- not wanting to trumpet his own achievements (he seemed to have a keen awareness of some of his shortcomings- Go away from me Lord – I imagine master or sir would actually be the better translation here- 'for I am a sinful man'. And three years with a man who you looked up to like no other- who was often going on about letting the children come to him- unless you accept God's rule like one of these you can't enter into it, the first shall be last and the last first, the meek shall inherit the earth, having your feet washed by him. And then Peter's own story- so publicly disowning him- and then the grace he received in being restored- all that would leave its mark.
So the disciples needs here, give way to the needs of the more needy. A pretty good example of the need for action and response.
Perhaps the silence surrounding what happened on their little adventures is another pointer towards the authenticity of the account. There are no trips off to Germany and the goths all becoming followers – in a sort of Asterix and Obelix adventure. It fits.
I wonder if Peter's personality was part of it- not wanting to trumpet his own achievements (he seemed to have a keen awareness of some of his shortcomings- Go away from me Lord – I imagine master or sir would actually be the better translation here- 'for I am a sinful man'. And three years with a man who you looked up to like no other- who was often going on about letting the children come to him- unless you accept God's rule like one of these you can't enter into it, the first shall be last and the last first, the meek shall inherit the earth, having your feet washed by him. And then Peter's own story- so publicly disowning him- and then the grace he received in being restored- all that would leave its mark.
Desert inclinations- 6:30-33
From here we are back to the disciples returning from their their preaching tour. And Mark doesn't give us an insight into how it went for them- events overtake their return. We do hear that they reported back all that they had done and taught. There's a review time there. Practical experience pretty hard to beat in terms of a teaching method.
But while they are trying to have this review time (presumably in the house in Capernaum), there are many people coming and going. So much so that they did not even have a chance to eat. So Jesus says to come to a deserted place and rest awhile.
Would this have been a natural response for any 1st Century Jew? - The desert place bit. I imagine that in one sense people were on the whole more outdoors people than now. To get anywhere you had to walk or ride- no hopping into the car, to go from one air conditioned building to another.
Jesus was forced out into these areas on account of his popularity earlier on. He also sought them out alone, early in the morning to pray. So I suppose we don't fully know- but I would imagine that Jesus had gone to places like this for much of his life at different points. Perhaps after a long day in the shed (how would have this sort of business worked in a place like Nazareth? Would he have often taken his tools with him? or predominantly done things at his own place- or would there have been a separate premises for the business?) he would go out walking the hills for the next two hours- perhaps times as a teenager camping out with friends- it seems like a pretty natural response for him (as well as the necessity bit) with the disciples.
Once again they are off in a boat. And in a bit of an insight into the mood of Capernaum- people see them go (and many recognise them)- and a whole lot of people take off on foot. The NRSV says they hurried there on foot- but that doesn't really seem to capture it- they all ran there (and get there ahead of them) – Mustn't of been that far away. Like when the Queen came to Ballarat and I wanted to see her- but we were doing something with Fusion and had to pack up and take a trailer somewhere- Got in the car and went speeding off to see if we could catch a glimpse.
But while they are trying to have this review time (presumably in the house in Capernaum), there are many people coming and going. So much so that they did not even have a chance to eat. So Jesus says to come to a deserted place and rest awhile.
Would this have been a natural response for any 1st Century Jew? - The desert place bit. I imagine that in one sense people were on the whole more outdoors people than now. To get anywhere you had to walk or ride- no hopping into the car, to go from one air conditioned building to another.
Jesus was forced out into these areas on account of his popularity earlier on. He also sought them out alone, early in the morning to pray. So I suppose we don't fully know- but I would imagine that Jesus had gone to places like this for much of his life at different points. Perhaps after a long day in the shed (how would have this sort of business worked in a place like Nazareth? Would he have often taken his tools with him? or predominantly done things at his own place- or would there have been a separate premises for the business?) he would go out walking the hills for the next two hours- perhaps times as a teenager camping out with friends- it seems like a pretty natural response for him (as well as the necessity bit) with the disciples.
Once again they are off in a boat. And in a bit of an insight into the mood of Capernaum- people see them go (and many recognise them)- and a whole lot of people take off on foot. The NRSV says they hurried there on foot- but that doesn't really seem to capture it- they all ran there (and get there ahead of them) – Mustn't of been that far away. Like when the Queen came to Ballarat and I wanted to see her- but we were doing something with Fusion and had to pack up and take a trailer somewhere- Got in the car and went speeding off to see if we could catch a glimpse.
Dangerous questions
The interlude is over- the lens focuses back in on Jesus and the returning disciples. So why put a sandwich here?- its obviously quite intentional on Mark's part. It shows the news of Jesus filtering through all stratas of society, it shows people guessing about who he might be (I think both Jesus and Mark – (and I would think Peter too) encourage such an approach). The questions 'Who do people say that I am? ... But who do you say that I am?” on Jesus part, and the disciples, “Who then is this?” Are open invitations- and also, in a way, pegs for Mark's account.
Here we have had the secular ruler of the region asking this question- and then Mark goes on to tell us a back story about the great man John- who illustrates that it can be a dangerous question. John stakes his all in the end, on Jesus being the messiah- more powerful than him- worthy of great honour- who would baptise with the Holy Spirit rather than water. In view of his coming, he told people to repent- an appropriate response to this coming is to get your morality as sorted out as you can- And in the cells of Herod's palace that got him killed.
Antipas's father- the Herod from who the other Herod's took their name (as well as many of their morals) attempted to kill Jesus when he heard about him – a king that astrologers from far east came to honour. He was paranoid about potential rivals- so he killed all the infants of Bethlehem born around that time frame just to make sure. And though they're not really getting the right end of the stick and their knowledge was small- if it were greater, I imagine the response would be the same. Because it was a threat. It was subversive. A different kind of rule that went on to topple the Roman Empire (albeit a conquest where much of the previous culture existed beside the new and also influenced it).
A world (or rule) away from the intrigues of the Herod household.
Here we have had the secular ruler of the region asking this question- and then Mark goes on to tell us a back story about the great man John- who illustrates that it can be a dangerous question. John stakes his all in the end, on Jesus being the messiah- more powerful than him- worthy of great honour- who would baptise with the Holy Spirit rather than water. In view of his coming, he told people to repent- an appropriate response to this coming is to get your morality as sorted out as you can- And in the cells of Herod's palace that got him killed.
Antipas's father- the Herod from who the other Herod's took their name (as well as many of their morals) attempted to kill Jesus when he heard about him – a king that astrologers from far east came to honour. He was paranoid about potential rivals- so he killed all the infants of Bethlehem born around that time frame just to make sure. And though they're not really getting the right end of the stick and their knowledge was small- if it were greater, I imagine the response would be the same. Because it was a threat. It was subversive. A different kind of rule that went on to topple the Roman Empire (albeit a conquest where much of the previous culture existed beside the new and also influenced it).
A world (or rule) away from the intrigues of the Herod household.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
John, The greatest
Upon hearing of their masters death, his disciples come and take the body and bury it in a tomb. And an important chapter is closed. Somewhere else Jesus says that you don't get men any better than John (I tell you, among those born of women no one is greater than John; yet the least in the kngdom of God is greater than he- Lk 7:28). This verse draws particular attention to the closing of one chapter and the inaugeration of the next. John was the forerunner standing firmly in a long tradition of men of Yahweh- a prophet in the classical mode- a good man- the best of fallen men; and yet now as God's rule entered into this fallen realm in a new and previously unexperienced way, the very least of people under or in this rule, would be greater than John- new creatures- children of God, brothers and sisters (and mums and dads?) of Jesus.
Snake mother
Herod's (Antipas) having his birthday dinner for the nobility- (courtiers – sg) the senior offices of the army, and for the first men of Galilee (hoi prowtoi- Z &G leading men). I wonder who this last group included- Saducees? Or were they not Jews at all. I wonder what the proportion of Jews to non Jews was in Palestine at the time... The Romans like to govern- but not without input from the locals in many places- the Sanhedrin here in Palestine. It must have been a bit atypical- the Jews were a singular people. But the Sanhedrin was down south in Jerusalem.
Can't imagine too many particularly pious people at a party like this.
There all reclining at table and the daughter comes into dance and pleases them all with her dancing. Then comes the silly offer- ( who knows what was going through Herod's head). But the offer is accompanied with a strong oath- so that when it comes back and its not actually something that Herod thinks is a good idea at all- He doesn't have the courage to do the right thing and break his oaths- but is bound on an increasingly evil course by his public stupidity- the greater crime in his eyes was not to lose face.
Who you let influence you... Whoever the daughter is here- she was not choosing at all well- her mother was a snake.
How long was Herod deeply grieved for? The shame of the night before- I suppose some people repent- others live with guilt- and others give themselves to it so that the shame is eventually drowned out.
Can't imagine too many particularly pious people at a party like this.
There all reclining at table and the daughter comes into dance and pleases them all with her dancing. Then comes the silly offer- ( who knows what was going through Herod's head). But the offer is accompanied with a strong oath- so that when it comes back and its not actually something that Herod thinks is a good idea at all- He doesn't have the courage to do the right thing and break his oaths- but is bound on an increasingly evil course by his public stupidity- the greater crime in his eyes was not to lose face.
Who you let influence you... Whoever the daughter is here- she was not choosing at all well- her mother was a snake.
How long was Herod deeply grieved for? The shame of the night before- I suppose some people repent- others live with guilt- and others give themselves to it so that the shame is eventually drowned out.
A stupid offer 6:17ff
Herod has imprisoned John on account of his (Mark specifically points out here- that she is not actually his wife- but his brothers) wife- who had taken a dislike to John because of his fearlessness in publicly telling Herod that it was not lawful for him to have his brothers wife. It must have been an outrage to all pious Jews and raised the indignation of many not so pious- to have a ruler over them with Jewish heritage so flagrantly flout 'the law'. It was obviously a topic that Herodias did not want to be broached and unfortunately for John she wanted him killed and could use her position to make this happen. The whole thing is a very ugly picture. Why on earth would you say to someone ask me anything you wish for – up to half my kingdom and I will give it to you. She was his daughter- so I suppose it wasn't just anyone he was offering this to- but is there a precedent for this sort of thing- is Antipas being original (originally stupid) or were there stories he would have known about... What sort of dance does Herodiados (in the greek- is that just the genitive of Herodias? could be- not very original with their naming in that family. ) I've heard some people say it was a risque dance (Jen back at Uni)- I've just read France- he seems to say this would be a possibility given that the party would have been an all male affair- He also suggests drunkeness for Herod's actions- which definitely fits. Says the up to half my kingdom a 'traditional hyperbole – Est 5:3, 6: 7:2 & 1 Ki 13:8) So the Esther reference was from a Persian King- the 1 kings one is from the man of God from Judah who gets killed by a lion after he was tricked by another prophet into eating and drinking when God had told him not to. And then that prophet goes and gets the body and mourns for him- telling his sons to bury him in the same grave as this man when he dies- How weird is that? Just prior to this the prophet who was tricked, told Jereboam when he offered to give him a gift- “if you give me half your kingdom, I will not go in with you; nor will I food or drink water......”
France says there maybe a scribal error in the description of the dancer as Herod's daughter- different to Matthew's account where he says Herodias's daughter- could be Salome- who later went on to marry Phillip- who used to be her mother's husband... One corrupted family.
The word for kingdom is basileias.
2 territory ruled by a king, kingdom. - the more usual usage is- 1 the act of ruling- a, gener. kingship, royal power, royal rule
b, esp. of God's rule the royal reign of God (usually rendered 'kingdom of God', and oft. understood as royal realm but with dilution of the primary component of reigning activity), a chiefly eschatological concept, beginning to appear in the prophets, elaborated in apocalyptic passages (egs) and taught by Jesus.
Two pages in Vines excellent.
Not sure BDAG is right- that it is a chiefly eschatological concept. Schweizer thought it was. Certainly contains that- and perhaps in the Old Testament it was predominantly that- definitely would be in the apocalyptic literature. Jesus talked about the kingdom as both now and not yet at different times- but what he starts proclaiming is that this once future rule has become present- that is actually his chief message – along with the need for a response to that- in a nutshell. “The time is fulfilled, kingdom of God has come near/ is at hand, repent and believe in the good news.”
France says there maybe a scribal error in the description of the dancer as Herod's daughter- different to Matthew's account where he says Herodias's daughter- could be Salome- who later went on to marry Phillip- who used to be her mother's husband... One corrupted family.
The word for kingdom is basileias.
2 territory ruled by a king, kingdom. - the more usual usage is- 1 the act of ruling- a, gener. kingship, royal power, royal rule
b, esp. of God's rule the royal reign of God (usually rendered 'kingdom of God', and oft. understood as royal realm but with dilution of the primary component of reigning activity), a chiefly eschatological concept, beginning to appear in the prophets, elaborated in apocalyptic passages (egs) and taught by Jesus.
Two pages in Vines excellent.
Not sure BDAG is right- that it is a chiefly eschatological concept. Schweizer thought it was. Certainly contains that- and perhaps in the Old Testament it was predominantly that- definitely would be in the apocalyptic literature. Jesus talked about the kingdom as both now and not yet at different times- but what he starts proclaiming is that this once future rule has become present- that is actually his chief message – along with the need for a response to that- in a nutshell. “The time is fulfilled, kingdom of God has come near/ is at hand, repent and believe in the good news.”
Back to the Sandwich 6:14ff
I was thinking of just skipping through this story about John the baptist- it seems like a fairly long interlude (especially for Mark)- but I've just been reading through it in Greek (that sounds far more impressive than it is – the amount of understanding I have when reading through it is not like normal reading) and there are interesting things here. One is the contrast with another 'king' and his family and their family values. Another is with the impressiveness of John the Baptist.
For awhile here the lens pans back from Jesus and his immediate circle. Jesus is causing a stir in the land- from the highest levels of society down. And there a few different theories about him- The guilty conscience of Herod sides with those that said it was John the Baptist back from the dead- others said it was Elijah, others 'a prophet like one of the prophets'. None of these guesses seems too bad- They're probably about as close as you can get in the Jews collective experience. There's a whiff of one of the prophets of old (they don't appear any more- with the exception of John the Baptist- he was like that too) But with such power- hence the comparisons to Elijah. And if Elijah is showing up again that would increase messianic expectation (strong since 400 BC?). The question of the disciples- why do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?- is a good one.
Malachi 4:5 – Lo, I will send you the prophet Elijah before the great and terrible day of the Lord (Yhwh) comes. He will turn the hearts of parents to their children and the hearts of children to their parents, so that I will not come and strike the land with a curse.
- That's the very last sentence in Malachi- the last sentence in our old testament- where did it fit in for the Jews.
For awhile here the lens pans back from Jesus and his immediate circle. Jesus is causing a stir in the land- from the highest levels of society down. And there a few different theories about him- The guilty conscience of Herod sides with those that said it was John the Baptist back from the dead- others said it was Elijah, others 'a prophet like one of the prophets'. None of these guesses seems too bad- They're probably about as close as you can get in the Jews collective experience. There's a whiff of one of the prophets of old (they don't appear any more- with the exception of John the Baptist- he was like that too) But with such power- hence the comparisons to Elijah. And if Elijah is showing up again that would increase messianic expectation (strong since 400 BC?). The question of the disciples- why do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?- is a good one.
Malachi 4:5 – Lo, I will send you the prophet Elijah before the great and terrible day of the Lord (Yhwh) comes. He will turn the hearts of parents to their children and the hearts of children to their parents, so that I will not come and strike the land with a curse.
- That's the very last sentence in Malachi- the last sentence in our old testament- where did it fit in for the Jews.
FF Bruce on Antipas
From FF Bruce's History of the New Testament p27
How well Antipas served Rome's interests may be gauged in part from the absence of revolt or open unrest on any serious scale in the two regions of his tetrarchy for over 40 years. The troubles which beset Judaea when it became a Roman province in AD 6 do not appear to have affected Galilee or Peraea, even though Judas, who led the revolt in Judaea at this time, was in some sense a Galiliaean, according to both Luke and Josephus.
Although Antipas throughout the whole of his public career had no higher title than tetrarch, his subjects informally called him 'king', especially (no doubt) when they spoke in Aramaic, in which malka is a term with a wider range of meaning than Latin rex or even Greek basileus. This looser usage is reflected in the Gospel of Mark, who (followed by Matthew) calls him “King Herod”; Luke, Josephus, speaks of him as “Herod the tetrarch”.
Antipas was the ablest of Herod's sons. Like his father, he was a patron of Hellenistic culture and a great builder. His chief building enterprise was the city of Tiberias, on the west shore of the Lake of Galilee, which he named in honour of the Emperor Tiberius (c. 22) It was a predominantly Gentile city; since it was built on the site of a cemetery, Anipas's Jewish subjects regarded it as unclean. But Jewish scruples were overcome later, and Tiberias became a famous seat of rabbinical learning. ...
...also rebuilt Sepphoris- destroyed in fighting in following the revolt of 4 BC- this was very close to Nazareth.
How well Antipas served Rome's interests may be gauged in part from the absence of revolt or open unrest on any serious scale in the two regions of his tetrarchy for over 40 years. The troubles which beset Judaea when it became a Roman province in AD 6 do not appear to have affected Galilee or Peraea, even though Judas, who led the revolt in Judaea at this time, was in some sense a Galiliaean, according to both Luke and Josephus.
Although Antipas throughout the whole of his public career had no higher title than tetrarch, his subjects informally called him 'king', especially (no doubt) when they spoke in Aramaic, in which malka is a term with a wider range of meaning than Latin rex or even Greek basileus. This looser usage is reflected in the Gospel of Mark, who (followed by Matthew) calls him “King Herod”; Luke, Josephus, speaks of him as “Herod the tetrarch”.
Antipas was the ablest of Herod's sons. Like his father, he was a patron of Hellenistic culture and a great builder. His chief building enterprise was the city of Tiberias, on the west shore of the Lake of Galilee, which he named in honour of the Emperor Tiberius (c. 22) It was a predominantly Gentile city; since it was built on the site of a cemetery, Anipas's Jewish subjects regarded it as unclean. But Jewish scruples were overcome later, and Tiberias became a famous seat of rabbinical learning. ...
...also rebuilt Sepphoris- destroyed in fighting in following the revolt of 4 BC- this was very close to Nazareth.
Sandwich- 6:14ff
We seem to have a Sandwich here (of which Mark is apparently particularly fond). I wonder where this part of the account came from. Were there people who became followers in Herod's household?- or was it closer to Peter than that. His brother was following John before he started to follow Jesus- either he or Andrew would have known many in John's circle... But it may just have been a common knowledge thing- Many of the goings on of the Herod's would have been common knowledge or become common knowledge- and as a result of the esteem that John was held in- this story would have spread quickly.
So while the disciples are out telling people about the coming kingdom- Mark reminds us that John was killed for declaring such a message. Its a sad story- Herodias's daughter is obviously not well brought up- many rats in the cellars- or in plain sight in the Herod's household.
Sitting above the goings on of the common people- Jesus and the events surrounding him come to the ears of Herod. Tiberius was one of the main fishing centres on the lake- Antipas had spent considerable sums beautifying it- Not a particularly Jewish place I think (need to find out more)- We don't hear of Jesus going here- must have sailed past it many times- and walked somewhere in the vicinity (where would the road go – 10 km away?) Telling, I imagine, that he avoided it- too dangerous- as well perhaps as his mission- sent to the lost sheep of Israel...
So while the disciples are out telling people about the coming kingdom- Mark reminds us that John was killed for declaring such a message. Its a sad story- Herodias's daughter is obviously not well brought up- many rats in the cellars- or in plain sight in the Herod's household.
Sitting above the goings on of the common people- Jesus and the events surrounding him come to the ears of Herod. Tiberius was one of the main fishing centres on the lake- Antipas had spent considerable sums beautifying it- Not a particularly Jewish place I think (need to find out more)- We don't hear of Jesus going here- must have sailed past it many times- and walked somewhere in the vicinity (where would the road go – 10 km away?) Telling, I imagine, that he avoided it- too dangerous- as well perhaps as his mission- sent to the lost sheep of Israel...
Reliance and independence- 6:6b-13
Jesus is quite specific about how the disciples are to travel- we hear of no instructions of what they are to teach, but they are to take nothing but a staff and sandals- no bread, no bag, no money in their belt. Stay in the first house you enter in a town and shake the dust off your feet to any place that will not hear your message- “So they went out and preached that men should change their whole outlook.” (Phillips) – 'ina metanowsin
First time they are sent out- and in Australia we'd have him up for a lack of duty of care. Pretty important lesson for the disciples there about what to rely on- they are basically on their own in the twos- with a message they don't understand all the implications of- but they have the example of Jesus. There is a mixture here of reliance and independence- Special agents with a fair degree of latitude for independent action within a larger mission. Perhaps its interdependent action- they are there in twos.
First time they are sent out- and in Australia we'd have him up for a lack of duty of care. Pretty important lesson for the disciples there about what to rely on- they are basically on their own in the twos- with a message they don't understand all the implications of- but they have the example of Jesus. There is a mixture here of reliance and independence- Special agents with a fair degree of latitude for independent action within a larger mission. Perhaps its interdependent action- they are there in twos.
Sentness- 6:6b-12
From here he goes about among the villages teaching. And then he sends the twelve out in two's with authority over unclean spirits- and with interesting instructions.
To this point the disciples have just been following Jesus around- camping with him, out in the desert places because of his fame, spending time in the crowded house in Capernaum, probably helping with a whole lot of logistical things in order to feed such a group- transport across the lake, What did they sleep on when out in the country- what did they cook with? I imagine some of them were responsible for some of these things. They had been picked by Jesus as apostles- (with close connections to apostellw- sent with a commission) – but up until this point not a lot of sending has happened. They have had many eye opening experiences- I imagine the lake tempest, and pig possession was still fresh in their minds (they may have been for the rest of their lives) – it doesn't seem that long ago they were asking, “Who then is this?” and now they are sent out on a preaching mission- casting out demons and healing people as they go.
They certainly don't have the complete picture- but they also do have a good grounding- having lived with Jesus for how long now? Heard him teach on numerous occasions and had that teaching explained to them in private. There were others such as the man possessed with the legion, who were 'sent' straight away- a living example of the effect of the coming of the rule of God. And then because of the nature of his mission there are others who he tells not to tell anyone what has happened to them. Still- It would seem that 'sentness' is not that far around the corner if you follow Jesus for any length of time. And he is not concerned if you do not have the complete picture.
To this point the disciples have just been following Jesus around- camping with him, out in the desert places because of his fame, spending time in the crowded house in Capernaum, probably helping with a whole lot of logistical things in order to feed such a group- transport across the lake, What did they sleep on when out in the country- what did they cook with? I imagine some of them were responsible for some of these things. They had been picked by Jesus as apostles- (with close connections to apostellw- sent with a commission) – but up until this point not a lot of sending has happened. They have had many eye opening experiences- I imagine the lake tempest, and pig possession was still fresh in their minds (they may have been for the rest of their lives) – it doesn't seem that long ago they were asking, “Who then is this?” and now they are sent out on a preaching mission- casting out demons and healing people as they go.
They certainly don't have the complete picture- but they also do have a good grounding- having lived with Jesus for how long now? Heard him teach on numerous occasions and had that teaching explained to them in private. There were others such as the man possessed with the legion, who were 'sent' straight away- a living example of the effect of the coming of the rule of God. And then because of the nature of his mission there are others who he tells not to tell anyone what has happened to them. Still- It would seem that 'sentness' is not that far around the corner if you follow Jesus for any length of time. And he is not concerned if you do not have the complete picture.
Home town- 6:1-6
Chapter 6
and they left from there, and came (erchetai) into his own home town – patrida- patris 1. a relatively large geographical area associated with one's familial connections and personal life, fatherland, homeland
2. a relatively restricted area as locale of one's immediate family and ancestry, home town, one's own part of the country.
I wonder if a certain amount of time has passed since the happenings of chapter 5.
A homecoming; but Jesus is not welcomed back with open arms. Nazareth sounds as though it was smaller than Capernaum- He was well known here- oukh houtos estin ho tektwn, o wios tes Marias kai adelfos Iakwbou kai Iwsetos kai Iouda kai Simwnos; kai ouk eisin hai adelfai autou hwde pros 'emas
Is this not the Carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon and are not his sisters here with us?
This is a bit of a classic and perhaps shows how well Jesus did incarnation. He had been the tektwn or the son of the tektwn for somewhere around 20 years- and worked for at least 15 of those. This is how he is known- as evidenced by the way his fellow townspeople fit him into the scheme of things- occupation/ family. There does not seem to be any suspicion that Jesus may have turned out like this- We always thought that boy was destined for great things- he always was wise beyond his years- there was that time he healed gertrude's boy. Somehow Jesus the Carpenter was too normal a jewish Carpenter to warrant the possibility- too good a fit to be sprouting such wisdom and doing such deeds of power through his hands. So they took offence at him- sounds very Australian- tall poppy stuff. (Can work the other way too- the hometown/family environment can hold you back- like Harold in Nowra feeling people had this set idea of her and it was hard to 'be' out of that)
Shack quote------ (We routinely disqualify testimony that would plead for extenuation. That is, we are so persuaded of the rightness of our judgement as to invalidate evidence that does not confirm us in it. Nothing deserves to be called truth could ever be arrived at by such a means. -Marilynne Robinson, The Death of Adam).
His family have already had a similar reaction – now the people he grew up with.
Would seem to point to Jesus not doing any deeds of power before his public mission- and not particularly doing any teaching either- maybe no discipling either- what was he up to? Former teachers and mentors of mine would say that he had failed to live up to his potential- been a bit of a disappointment. What exactly was happening when Jesus got baptised?
And in those Nazareth years what was running through Jesus head- did he know at 25 he wasn't ready yet? Still had to reach the flower of manhood- still had to grow in his experience and understanding of his Father?
The preparation is thorough.
Jesus quickly puts his finger on what's going on- (did he know what would happen when he went back? or did he suspect it and not fully know- but went anyway?)
There is a contrast in Nazareth to the amazing events that have come before- here he could do no deed of power, except a few minor healings. He marvelled at/ wondered at there unbelief. Seems pretty significant the effect of lack of faith. What was the root here of Jesus marvelling at the lack of faith. Was it because he knew (and loved) these people he had grown up with- knew there ways and their goodnesses, wanted to share the kingdom with them, was hoping many of those old friends and acquaintances would enter in- and hardly any did- that in this case it was the villagers not living up to their potential?
and they left from there, and came (erchetai) into his own home town – patrida- patris 1. a relatively large geographical area associated with one's familial connections and personal life, fatherland, homeland
2. a relatively restricted area as locale of one's immediate family and ancestry, home town, one's own part of the country.
I wonder if a certain amount of time has passed since the happenings of chapter 5.
A homecoming; but Jesus is not welcomed back with open arms. Nazareth sounds as though it was smaller than Capernaum- He was well known here- oukh houtos estin ho tektwn, o wios tes Marias kai adelfos Iakwbou kai Iwsetos kai Iouda kai Simwnos; kai ouk eisin hai adelfai autou hwde pros 'emas
Is this not the Carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon and are not his sisters here with us?
This is a bit of a classic and perhaps shows how well Jesus did incarnation. He had been the tektwn or the son of the tektwn for somewhere around 20 years- and worked for at least 15 of those. This is how he is known- as evidenced by the way his fellow townspeople fit him into the scheme of things- occupation/ family. There does not seem to be any suspicion that Jesus may have turned out like this- We always thought that boy was destined for great things- he always was wise beyond his years- there was that time he healed gertrude's boy. Somehow Jesus the Carpenter was too normal a jewish Carpenter to warrant the possibility- too good a fit to be sprouting such wisdom and doing such deeds of power through his hands. So they took offence at him- sounds very Australian- tall poppy stuff. (Can work the other way too- the hometown/family environment can hold you back- like Harold in Nowra feeling people had this set idea of her and it was hard to 'be' out of that)
Shack quote------ (We routinely disqualify testimony that would plead for extenuation. That is, we are so persuaded of the rightness of our judgement as to invalidate evidence that does not confirm us in it. Nothing deserves to be called truth could ever be arrived at by such a means. -Marilynne Robinson, The Death of Adam).
His family have already had a similar reaction – now the people he grew up with.
Would seem to point to Jesus not doing any deeds of power before his public mission- and not particularly doing any teaching either- maybe no discipling either- what was he up to? Former teachers and mentors of mine would say that he had failed to live up to his potential- been a bit of a disappointment. What exactly was happening when Jesus got baptised?
And in those Nazareth years what was running through Jesus head- did he know at 25 he wasn't ready yet? Still had to reach the flower of manhood- still had to grow in his experience and understanding of his Father?
The preparation is thorough.
Jesus quickly puts his finger on what's going on- (did he know what would happen when he went back? or did he suspect it and not fully know- but went anyway?)
There is a contrast in Nazareth to the amazing events that have come before- here he could do no deed of power, except a few minor healings. He marvelled at/ wondered at there unbelief. Seems pretty significant the effect of lack of faith. What was the root here of Jesus marvelling at the lack of faith. Was it because he knew (and loved) these people he had grown up with- knew there ways and their goodnesses, wanted to share the kingdom with them, was hoping many of those old friends and acquaintances would enter in- and hardly any did- that in this case it was the villagers not living up to their potential?
Astounded with great utter amazement- 5:41-43
Takes a dead girls hand and says Talitha Cum- immediately the girl gets up and begins to walk about – and not surprisingly those looking on are overcome with amazement (no distinction made here with the family or the disciples). Another direct remembrance from Peter- those words and their effect etched into his memory- so that even though this is a greek work, they still get handed down in the original aramaic they were spoken in.
*kai exestesan [euthus] ekstasei megale
lit, stand outside oneself, be astounded- the euthus is according to Z and G no more than a mere Marcan mannerism here, then ekstasei means utter amazement, megale- great.
They were astounded with great utter amazement
BDAG- they were quite beside themselves with amazement
He tells them to give her something to eat. - how much of the actions were for the little girls benefit- we don't want her becoming a 'freak celebrity'? Surely that was a part of the mix in all this- Jesus concern for her and her family.
What a week for the disciples. Near death experiences from which they are rebuked for being scared, mass pig possession with a tomb wanderer with super human strength sitting calmly at Jesus feet afterwards, a woman cured of a 12 year illness on the way to bringing a 12 year old back from the dead. I wonder if for Peter looking back, the 'Talitha Cum' was bound with the words to Jairus, 'Do not fear only believe'. And for Jairus and his wife- and for the 12 year old girl who would have heard the story from her parents. They experienced this utter amazement-
*kai exestesan [euthus] ekstasei megale
lit, stand outside oneself, be astounded- the euthus is according to Z and G no more than a mere Marcan mannerism here, then ekstasei means utter amazement, megale- great.
They were astounded with great utter amazement
BDAG- they were quite beside themselves with amazement
He tells them to give her something to eat. - how much of the actions were for the little girls benefit- we don't want her becoming a 'freak celebrity'? Surely that was a part of the mix in all this- Jesus concern for her and her family.
What a week for the disciples. Near death experiences from which they are rebuked for being scared, mass pig possession with a tomb wanderer with super human strength sitting calmly at Jesus feet afterwards, a woman cured of a 12 year illness on the way to bringing a 12 year old back from the dead. I wonder if for Peter looking back, the 'Talitha Cum' was bound with the words to Jairus, 'Do not fear only believe'. And for Jairus and his wife- and for the 12 year old girl who would have heard the story from her parents. They experienced this utter amazement-
Do not fear, only believe- 5:35-40
While all this is going on, some people come from Jairus's house to tell him his daughter is dead, so why worry the teacher any more- but Jesus overhears this interaction and says- 'Do not fear, only believe'. I'm sure Jairus' anxiety levels have been high throughout the day- and receiving the news your daughter had died would only heighten this- What do you do with a statement like that from Jesus? Did he just keep on with him- well we'll see this through- or was there some hope at that reply. Its a sentiment that Jesus seems to express often- Do not fear, only believe- and when the disciples are afraid in a force 10 storm- he rebukes them in similar words.
And at this point, somehow Jesus stops the 'Jesus show spectacle', and goes on with just Peter, James and John, and Jairus. How did he do this? There is this strong public property effect that mostly Jesus welcomes or allows- He takes the disciples away to be alone for some recuperation time, sees the crowd coming has compassion on them and allows them to intrude- But here is a boundary for Jairus and his families sake. This is not a sideshow alley act. I imagine he said it with sternness- and that that authority that the people picked up on when first hearing Jesus was in operation here. - A force of character to sway a crowd.
Again when he reaches Jairus's house and is met by a whole lot of mourners- after them laughing at him for telling them she is not dead only sleeping so why weep?- “then he put them all outside, and took the child's father and mother and those who were with him and went in where the child was.”
Sounds very much like he took command of the situation once Jairus had asked his help- Doesn't seem to ask Jairus to move his extended family members and mourners out of the room- does it himself- and gives the family space. He tells them she is sleeping (when he knows she's not) is this to try and combat the sensational factor? He 'strictly orders' the family that no one should know this. I wonder what the motive is- there were too many people involved to keep it a secret- Jesus often is downplaying what he does in a sense- going for understatement- but his actions are speaking louder than his admonitions.
And at this point, somehow Jesus stops the 'Jesus show spectacle', and goes on with just Peter, James and John, and Jairus. How did he do this? There is this strong public property effect that mostly Jesus welcomes or allows- He takes the disciples away to be alone for some recuperation time, sees the crowd coming has compassion on them and allows them to intrude- But here is a boundary for Jairus and his families sake. This is not a sideshow alley act. I imagine he said it with sternness- and that that authority that the people picked up on when first hearing Jesus was in operation here. - A force of character to sway a crowd.
Again when he reaches Jairus's house and is met by a whole lot of mourners- after them laughing at him for telling them she is not dead only sleeping so why weep?- “then he put them all outside, and took the child's father and mother and those who were with him and went in where the child was.”
Sounds very much like he took command of the situation once Jairus had asked his help- Doesn't seem to ask Jairus to move his extended family members and mourners out of the room- does it himself- and gives the family space. He tells them she is sleeping (when he knows she's not) is this to try and combat the sensational factor? He 'strictly orders' the family that no one should know this. I wonder what the motive is- there were too many people involved to keep it a secret- Jesus often is downplaying what he does in a sense- going for understatement- but his actions are speaking louder than his admonitions.
Blessed public property- 5:25-34
I'd imagine the streets of Capernaum were dusty. How narrow? The large crowd is thronging around him, “followed him and pressed in on him (sunethlibon). Listened to a podcast yesterday on the Holy Spirit from Pete Vol. He was talking about how Jesus became public property- and that this is where the Spirit wants to take us – to places where Mother Teresa or Boenhoeffer have been- to self forgetfulness (made a distinction there with unselfishness).
And there was a woman in the crowd that day that was glad Jesus had decided to do that. 'Since this crowd is not respecting your privacy, I shall take advantage of that and push through the throng to touch your cloak. Ah the 'right' of privacy – it runs deep in me. I don't know if they'd understand in quite the same way in 1st Century palestine the way our individual western world goes about this. I do feel sometimes like descriptions I've heard of American foreign policy- swinging from isolationist to interventionist, times of wanting to be off in the bush, walking on my own or perhaps one or two good friends- not wanting to engage with the problematic world around me- and other times where I do.
She has had a rough run (simply and minimally stated by Mark). Suffering from hemorrhages for 12 years. Had 'endured' (can get a bit of an insight with that word with Teresa- different doctors saying very different things- Naturopaths recommending things they do) much under many physicians, had spent all she had- was no better- in fact had grown worse.
So here's another last ditch effort- what have I got to lose- he might be able to help me (like Jairus, the disciples and the demons- the last group knew very clearly what they had to lose). It it pays off- though not quite like the woman would have hoped. We have too 'euthus's' (immediately's) in quick succession. The woman knows straigtaway that the bleeding has stopped and she has been cured of her disease (she felt in her body). What a feeling that must have been. But there is no time to enjoy it. Jesus immediately feels power has gone out of him, and he stops and questions the crowd. The disciples think this is ridiculous- and politely tell him. But Jesus isn't interested in the slinking away overjoyed approach. The woman is terrified and comes and owns up- And then Jesus gives her a chance of deeper joy- he interprets the event for her- and sends her with grace on her way. “Daughter your faith has made you well; go in peace and be healed of your disease.”
Probably a deliberate choice of words by Jesus- your faith has made you well- get the feeling he's talking about more than just the physical healing. And then as corrective against my private world thinking- he tells her to go in peace and be healed of her disease. She already was healed of her disease- but I think Jesus is saying- your action was legitimate and has my blessing- it was not some impersonal 'power' transaction- that's why I didn't let it go at that though you would have liked that.
And her gratitude can flow in a more helpful direction- Jesus has pointed her to the fact that her healing was or could be more than just physical – more global- when she thinks of this event- it wont be just the coat touching- the thing that will occupy centre stage is the personal interaction with Jesus- unexpected, scary but in the end so very welcome.
There was a whole crowd there- the woman was very aware of that at the start- was seeking privacy among them- and then when called out, it was in front of all those people- but I imagine by the end she's largely forgotten about the crowd (they are still there all around her), and felt like she was having this personal interaction with Jesus- she's in a far more self forgetful place at the end- with heightened joy I would think.
And there was a woman in the crowd that day that was glad Jesus had decided to do that. 'Since this crowd is not respecting your privacy, I shall take advantage of that and push through the throng to touch your cloak. Ah the 'right' of privacy – it runs deep in me. I don't know if they'd understand in quite the same way in 1st Century palestine the way our individual western world goes about this. I do feel sometimes like descriptions I've heard of American foreign policy- swinging from isolationist to interventionist, times of wanting to be off in the bush, walking on my own or perhaps one or two good friends- not wanting to engage with the problematic world around me- and other times where I do.
She has had a rough run (simply and minimally stated by Mark). Suffering from hemorrhages for 12 years. Had 'endured' (can get a bit of an insight with that word with Teresa- different doctors saying very different things- Naturopaths recommending things they do) much under many physicians, had spent all she had- was no better- in fact had grown worse.
So here's another last ditch effort- what have I got to lose- he might be able to help me (like Jairus, the disciples and the demons- the last group knew very clearly what they had to lose). It it pays off- though not quite like the woman would have hoped. We have too 'euthus's' (immediately's) in quick succession. The woman knows straigtaway that the bleeding has stopped and she has been cured of her disease (she felt in her body). What a feeling that must have been. But there is no time to enjoy it. Jesus immediately feels power has gone out of him, and he stops and questions the crowd. The disciples think this is ridiculous- and politely tell him. But Jesus isn't interested in the slinking away overjoyed approach. The woman is terrified and comes and owns up- And then Jesus gives her a chance of deeper joy- he interprets the event for her- and sends her with grace on her way. “Daughter your faith has made you well; go in peace and be healed of your disease.”
Probably a deliberate choice of words by Jesus- your faith has made you well- get the feeling he's talking about more than just the physical healing. And then as corrective against my private world thinking- he tells her to go in peace and be healed of her disease. She already was healed of her disease- but I think Jesus is saying- your action was legitimate and has my blessing- it was not some impersonal 'power' transaction- that's why I didn't let it go at that though you would have liked that.
And her gratitude can flow in a more helpful direction- Jesus has pointed her to the fact that her healing was or could be more than just physical – more global- when she thinks of this event- it wont be just the coat touching- the thing that will occupy centre stage is the personal interaction with Jesus- unexpected, scary but in the end so very welcome.
There was a whole crowd there- the woman was very aware of that at the start- was seeking privacy among them- and then when called out, it was in front of all those people- but I imagine by the end she's largely forgotten about the crowd (they are still there all around her), and felt like she was having this personal interaction with Jesus- she's in a far more self forgetful place at the end- with heightened joy I would think.
Jairus' mindset?- 5:22-24
No teaching happens here. Jairus seizes his opportunity (I wonder how many times he'd heard Jesus before – or had seen him heal people). Was he someone that had posted lookouts, or himself was roaming the shore? He's one of the leaders of the Synagogue- (I presume in Capernaum). What sort of discussions had he had with his fellow leaders? What was going in his own thinking about Jesus? Does that all get sidelined by a family crisis? To thugatrion mou eschatws echei- my little daughter is at the end- or at the point of death (Z &G). And though he still hasn't quite made up his mind about Jesus, he has no choice but to take a chance on him- like the disciples in the boat, or the demons in the man. They roll the dice with hope.
“Come and lay your hands on her on her that she might be saved and might live.”
Interesting- a different approach to the Centurion, he sends a servant, just say the word- Here's a religious leader of the people and he wants him there in person- Is part of this their different worlds – that approach made sense to a soldier- the laying on of hands makes sense to a jew- are there Mosaic regulations about this sort of thing?
Jesus goes with him- and the crowd just follows along to gawk. (Did any leave at that point in respect for the leaders privacy?).
“Come and lay your hands on her on her that she might be saved and might live.”
Interesting- a different approach to the Centurion, he sends a servant, just say the word- Here's a religious leader of the people and he wants him there in person- Is part of this their different worlds – that approach made sense to a soldier- the laying on of hands makes sense to a jew- are there Mosaic regulations about this sort of thing?
Jesus goes with him- and the crowd just follows along to gawk. (Did any leave at that point in respect for the leaders privacy?).
lake criss crossing- 5:21
There's a bit of criss crossing going on here over the lake. I'd say we're in the next day- so they spent a night in the region of the Gerasenes- and then get asked to move on, like when you're travelling around and camp near a park in town, or maybe like Gypsies- Not very high up in the social hierarchy. They had a massive day the previous day- was going across the lake a chance for them all to recuperate a little before going on? There are other times when Jesus does this- and on that occasion the crowds find them pretty quickly- Jesus looks at them and has compassion on them (great word- splangchnizomai). It would seem that they are often getting thwarted- and that plans have to change accordingly. Good to remember this- that they weren't walking around in a vacuum- but often and increasingly like outcasts- and as they went on Jesus had to be careful of where he chose to go (hence Tyre and Sidon?) so as not to be arrested before the opportune time.
He comes back to somewhere near Capernaum and the reception is somewhat different to his last – a demon possessed tomb roving man, to a great crowd. Were there people on the lookout for him as he came back? It would have only been the day before most of them were listening to Jesus, as he sat in the boat and taught them. What about the local economy? I suppose full days of teaching didn't always happen- perhaps not even the majority of the time- were there times where Jesus talked during lunch break- did they have siesta's? I suppose word of mouth, was the way news travelled most of the time in this area.
There were times when the crowd sat and listened to Jesus for three days- and pretty well had no food for that time- How does that work in terms of where they stayed- did they just camp out?
Definitely a world away from modern Australia.
He comes back to somewhere near Capernaum and the reception is somewhat different to his last – a demon possessed tomb roving man, to a great crowd. Were there people on the lookout for him as he came back? It would have only been the day before most of them were listening to Jesus, as he sat in the boat and taught them. What about the local economy? I suppose full days of teaching didn't always happen- perhaps not even the majority of the time- were there times where Jesus talked during lunch break- did they have siesta's? I suppose word of mouth, was the way news travelled most of the time in this area.
There were times when the crowd sat and listened to Jesus for three days- and pretty well had no food for that time- How does that work in terms of where they stayed- did they just camp out?
Definitely a world away from modern Australia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)