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?
Saturday, January 23, 2010
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'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)