Mark

So here I am starting book two of the New Testament!

My first impression:

Is the gospel according to Mark the "cliff notes" version or something?

In only the first 22 verses, Mark has covered
what was a week's worth of reading in Matthew!
(the first 4 chapters!)

brief.

but he skipped a lot....

I have heard that the four gospels are like
four different faces of Christ,
or four personalities.

Matthew presented Jesus as "The Messiah",
and several of the events he describes
show how the life of Jesus fulfilled old testament prophecies.

Mark presents Jesus as "The Servant",
so he skips all that prophecy stuff.

And since servants don't record their genealogies,
he skips that too.

and his whole childhood, too.

So what are we left with?
Just the briefest account of the crucial events.

Only one thing is in my thoughts after reading this chapter,
the part about the unclean spirit.

Mar 1:23
And in their synagogue was a man with an unclean spirit.
And he cried out,
Mar 1:24 saying, What is to us and to You, Jesus of Nazareth?
Have You come to destroy us?
I know You, who You are, the Holy One of God.

I can't remember if I've mentioned this already or just thought it,
but how is it that spirits know who he is
without a doubt
before anyone else does?

It seems like every human he encounters wonders about him,
but every demon or spirit knows exactly who he is.
I'm going to have to study the biblical accounts of evil spirits in detail sometime.

And I wonder, are they still around right now?
Do I know people who have unclean spirits residing in them?
Do I have one residing in me?

I also thought it was interesting that after healing a leper....

Mar 1:44 and He said to him, See that you say nothing to anyone.
But go and show yourself to the priest,
and offer those things which Moses commanded for your cleansing,
for a testimony to them.
Mar 1:45 But going out, he began to proclaim it very much,
and to spread about the matter,
so that Jesus could no more openly enter into the city

If Jesus had just removed a curse from me,
and all He demanded in return was my cooperation,
and he "strictly charged" me to do something,
I think I would do it.
(I would probably be afraid the healing would reverse itself or something if I didn't.)

I wonder how Christ felt about that fellow.
I wonder if he has spoken to him since,
and if so, what he said to him.

Mark 1

If Jesus had just removed a curse from me,
and all He demanded in return was my cooperation,
and he "strictly charged" me to do something,
I think I would do it.
(I would probably be afraid the healing would reverse itself or something if I didn't.)

Now I'm quoting myself.
Is this the first sign of madness?

In my previous post I was wondering about the leper who ignored a stern warning from Jesus.

Since then I discovered a speech on these verses
("The Healer of Hurts" by Ray Stedman)
that taught me something interesting about this event.

Mar 1:40 Then a leper came to Jesus and began pleading with him.
He fell on his knees and said to him, "If you want to, you can make me clean."

Back then, leprosy was considered incurable,
and no one since the days of Elisha had ever recovered from it.

(This one fact alone shows that the leper had incredible faith in Jesus by saying
"If you want to, you can make me clean",
but that's not related to the point I want to record here)

This is a description of leprosy by William Barclay:

The whole appearance of the face is changed, till the man loses his human appearance and looks, as the ancients said, "like a lion or a satyr". The nodules grow larger and larger. They ulcerate. become staring. The voice becomes hoarse, and the breath wheezes because of the ulceration of the vocal chords. The hands and the feet always ulcerate. Slowly the sufferer becomes a mass of ulcerated growths. The average course of the disease is nine years, and it ends in mental decay, coma, and ultimately death. The sufferer becomes utterly repulsive -- both to himself and to others.

Since way-back in Jewish history, leprosy was a symbol of evil and sin.
Not that everyone who had it was evil,
but it was a visual reminder of what happens on the inside of a person who remains in sin.
It grows
and distorts
and consumes,
it eventually makes a person unrecognizable,
repulsive to God and to himself.

so people would truly be amazed to hear that

Mar 1:41 Moved with compassion, Jesus reached out his hand, touched him,
and said to him, "I do want to. Be made clean!"
Mar 1:42 Instantly the leprosy left him, and he was clean.

Isaiah had predicted that when Messiah came,
he would do certain physical miracles.
The eyes of the blind would be opened,
the lame would leap like the hart,
the tongue of the dumb would sing,
and lepers would be cleansed and healed.

immediately Jesus commands him to do a specific thing:

Mar 1:44 telling him, "See to it that you don't say anything to anyone.
Instead, go and show yourself to the priest,
and then offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded
as proof to the authorities."

So it is clear that Jesus had something in mind other than the obvious.
What he had done was enough,
but it could have been so much more!
Not just a healing
but evidence to the proper authorities that Jesus deserved their attention.

The part I am not capable of understanding is
Why would God have this event turn out the way it did?

Mar 1:45 But when the man left, he began to proclaim it freely.
He spread the word so widely that Jesus could no longer enter a town openly,
but had to stay out in deserted places...

Sure the man went around praising and proclaiming.
But that's not what Jesus wanted here!
Doesn't God prefer obedience over praise?

What if the man had done what Jesus commanded him to do?
What if he had presented himself cleansed in front of the authorities,
asking them to do whatever Moses had instructed them to do?
The priests,
never hearing of such a thing before,
would have had to scramble to find the appropriate scriptures,
just to fulfill their duty correctly in such un unfamiliar situation.

It would have been an incredible witness!

Even Jesus calls it a testimony,
or evidence
or proof,
or however your bible translates the Greek #3142

so......

If I believe
1) Jesus never acted in any way other than perfect faith and living in accordance with the will of God

and I believe
2) These events are so important that nothing is accidental, God is involved and paying attention to these events.

then what the heck just happened here?

Jesus did a miracle that was predicted for the Messiah,
he asked the man he just healed to do something.
the goal was pure,
but it didn't happen.

The result was that the ministry of Jesus was limited,
he couldn't even enter the city.

I know this result has to fit both points 1 and 2 above,
but it just seems strange to me that Jesus,
being perfect in my opinion,
didn't get what he asked for.

kinda makes me go "Hmmmmm..."

You know what it makes me think?
That this is exactly what happens when christians have free will.
and decide to not do what they know they should do.

Up at the beginning when I said this:

If Jesus had just removed a curse from me,
and all He demanded in return was my cooperation,
and he "strictly charged" me to do something,
I think I would do it.
(I would probably be afraid the healing would reverse itself or something if I didn't.)

SUDDENLY I REALIZE HOW FITTING THIS IS FOR ME.

Jesus HAS removed a curse from me.
Jesus HAS commanded me to do certain things
and I HAVEN'T done them very well.
oops...
(hope the healing doesn't reverse itself)

Mark 2-3

Now that I have read these chapters,
I realize I should have named this topic something like
"The Scribes and Pharisees Disapprove".

It seems like whatever Jesus does,
there is someone watching who imagines some fault with it.

Here are five examples of their criticism in a row:

scribes

Mar 2:5 And seeing their faith,
Jesus said to the paralytic,
Child, your sins are forgiven to you.
Mar 2:6 But some of the scribes were sitting there,
and reasoning in their hearts,
Mar 2:7 Why does this one speak such blasphemies?

scribes and Pharisees

Mar 2:16 The scribes and the Pharisees,
when they saw that he was eating with the sinners and tax collectors,
said to his disciples,
"Why is it that he eats and drinks with tax collectors and sinners?"

Pharisees

Mar 2:23 It happened that he was going on the Sabbath day
through the grain fields,
and his disciples began, as they went,
to pluck the ears of grain.
Mar 2:24 The Pharisees said to him,
"Behold, why do they do that which is not lawful on the Sabbath day?"

Pharisees

Mar 3:1 And He again entered into the synagogue.
And a man was there who had a withered hand.
Mar 3:2 And they watched Him
to see if He would heal him on the sabbath day,
so that they might accuse Him.
Mar 3:5 When he had looked around at them with anger,
being grieved at the hardening of their hearts,
he said to the man, "Stretch out your hand."
He stretched it out,
and his hand was restored as healthy as the other.
Mar 3:6 The Pharisees went out,
and immediately conspired with the Herodians against him,
how they might destroy him.

scribes

Mar 3:22
The scribes who came down from Jerusalem said,
"He has Beelzebul," and,
"By the prince of the demons he casts out the demons."

I hope I never get to be so hardened with tradition,
so set in my ways,
that I let my self-created framework blind me to truth
even when it is right in front of my eyes.

These guys were in the presence of perfection
and couldn't see it.

I know I am prone to judgement and self-promotion,
I especially enjoy a false sense of superiority when I think I know something,
(and I want to protect it.)

so I need to keep these guys in mind.
I know I am just like them.

Mark 4

Ah, the kingdom parables again...

Well, now that these have been percolating through my mind for a month or two,
I have a slightly different take on them the second time around.

Three parables this time.
(Mark doesn't record the one about leaven.)

(hmmm... that's interesting, now that I think about it.
Matthew's gospel had a lot of Jewish stuff in it,
presenting Jesus as the messiah
that had been promised in the Old Testament.
This one is to all people, presenting Jesus as a servant,
and here he only uses the sower, the laborer.)

1) The first parable is a sower sowing seeds,
and it describes what happens to the seeds
in different types of soil.

2) In the second parable the sower sows seed,
the seed does whatever it does "he knows not how",
and the sower comes back and reaps the harvest.

3) The sower sows a little mustard seed,
and it grows into a world changing thing.

Jesus interprets the first one for everyone:

Mar 4:14 The sower sows the Word.

And he explains what happens to the Word
as it falls into different types of hearts.
It will either be snatched away immediately,
or will grow at first but fade from lack of roots,
or be choked by other things,
or be fruitful.

So if you have been reading along,
You have heard the word, right?

Which one of those results happened to you?

It had to have been one of those four.

but wait a minute.....

maybe you didn't really hear the word!

Jesus adds some very intriguing comments
about this new style of teaching.

Mar 4:11 And He said to them,
To you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God.
But to those outside, all these things are given in parables
Mar 4:12 so that seeing they may see, and not perceive;
and hearing they may hear, and not understand;
lest at any time they should be converted,
and their sins should be forgiven them.

and if I am reading it right,
this one is even more intriguing:

Mar 4:23
If any man has ears to hear,
let him hear.
Mar 4:24
And He said to them,
Take heed what you hear.
With that measure which you measure,
it shall be measured to you.
And to you who hear,
more shall be given.

It almost seems as if he is giving us a way out,
a way to not hear yet if we aren't ready.

In other words,
up until now Jesus has been extremely straightforward.
He commanded some to follow,
Instructed all to repent,
and has been sowing the word
to all the disciples who have been following him.

But now the mobs are coming from every corner of the land looking for healing.
Maybe in their single-minded desperation for healing,
they don't understand what is really going on.
they aren't seeing that what Jesus wants of us
is more than a healthy body.
They just want to be healed.

When my five-year-old son attends a parade,
he is more interested in the candy being thrown from the floats,
he doesn't give a thought to the purpose of the parade,
or what it commemorates.

In the same way,
maybe Jesus began speaking in parables
so they wouldn't be held accountable.

I am coming to believe that
once you hear the word and understand what it means,
you are held accountable for how you behave from then on!

Maybe it is set in stone that once you have ears to hear,
and you've heard,
You Are Trapped.
You have to make a decision one way or the other.
accept or reject.

And if it is a basic truth,
in my mind, it can't be a wishy-washy thing
that changes on a whim.
Maybe it is an unalterable locked-in concept
that once you hear the truth and understand the truth
and still turn away,
you have sinned. (did I already say that?)

Anyway,
that's what I'm wondering if this verse really means:

Mar 4:24 And He said to them,
Take heed what you hear.
With that measure which you measure,
it shall be measured to you...

Maybe speaking in parables was a way to get the message out
to people who were ready and hungry for it,
and had ears to hear,

but was also at the same time a cosmic safety valve
for those who didn't realize what they were getting into,
for those who didn't have ears to hear,
and weren't prepared for the real Jesus.

Mark 5

Does anyone else see a common thread in chapter 5?

First Jesus encounters a man with an unclean spirit.

Mar 5:8 For He said to him,
Come out of the man, unclean spirit!

Then the spirit moves into a herd of swine, also unclean.

Mar 5:11 And a great herd of pigs was feeding near the mountains.
Mar 5:12 And all the demons begged Him, saying,
Send us into the pigs, that we may enter into them.

Then,

Mar 5:25 A certain woman,
who had an issue of blood for twelve years,
Mar 5:27 having heard the things concerning Jesus,
came up behind him in the crowd,
and touched his clothes.

This woman was certainly considered unclean by law,
not fit for the company of others,
not allowed in the temple.
an outcast.

She was healed.
Jesus was talking to her, and

Mar 5:35 While he was still speaking,
they came from the synagogue ruler's house saying,
"Your daughter is dead. Why bother the Teacher any more?"

and he heals even her, another unclean.

What was the common thread?

unclean.
unclean.
unclean.
unclean.

Chapter 5 must be "The chapter of the unclean", huh?


Don't know what it means,
unless it is to show how Jesus had compassion for every single person
no matter how wretched,
no matter how far gone they seemed to be.
Touching lepers.

Crossing and recrossing the borders
between polite society and the dimmest corners of humanity.

...not quite ready for that, myself!

I can't even step out into an unfamiliar neighborhood without feeling out of place
and fearful.

Boy, sometimes I think I have a long way to go.

-=-=-=-

Funny, I just noticed something after I wrote
"crossing and re-crossing the borders"

I didn't notice it before,
(and maybe this is a stretch of the imagination),
but it looks like Jesus specifically crossed over
to rescue the man from Legion

Mar 5:1 And they came over to the other side of the sea,
to the country of the Gadarenes.

Then he frees the man from "many" (5:9),

Mar 5:12 All the demons begged him, saying, "Send us into the pigs, that we may enter into them."

He is freed from "all the demons" (5:12)

and then:

Mar 5:21 When Jesus had crossed back over in the boat
to the other side,
a great multitude was gathered to him;
and he was by the sea.

Now to me that seems like a little summary of the gospel:
"Christ crossed over into this world
to free us from many sins,
then he crossed back over.

I hope I'm in that great multitude gathered to him on the other side!

(so why do I feel so...
so unclean?)

-=-=-=-

Well, I am now almost two weeks behind.

I finished reading chapter 6
but I don't have anything to say about it,
so I'm movin' on to next week.

seeya there?

Mark 6

Well, I was gonna skip this chapter
to try and get caught up,
but I can't resist a comment or two.
(and what's the hurry, anyway? Who's setting the pace?)

As a designer, I deal with patterns every day.
Being a pattern-recognition kinda guy,
I can't help but wonder when I see them in the scripture.
Are they intended?

The pattern for today is twelve.

I notice that Jesus called twelve disciples.
The woman had been bleeding for twelve years.
The dead girl was twelve years old.
They picked up twelve baskets of leftover bread.

Does it mean anything?
I dunno....
Why bring it up?
I dunno....

I searched the gospels for other twelves:

Jesus was twelve years old when he taught in the temple.

Most every other twelve is in reference to the disciples,
including this (when he was speaking just to them):

Mat 19:28 Jesus said to them,
"Most assuredly I tell you that you who have followed me,
in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on the throne of his glory,
you also will sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

and once at the end he said:

Mat 26:53 Or do you think that I couldn't ask my Father,
and he would even now send me more than twelve legions of angels?

(Which I guess is not really a twelve since it is "more than twelve").

You know, back when I was reading Matthew
the verse 19:28 about the twelve thrones
didn't really mean anything to me.

But now that I think about it, it means one of two things:

Mat 19:28 Jesus said to them,
"Most assuredly I tell you that you who have followed me,
in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on the throne of his glory,
you also will sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

If he was speaking in general:
1) that all of us who follow Jesus will sit on one of the thrones, judging one of the tribes.

Or if he was speaking directly to the twelve disciples,
and each would sit on a throne:
2) Judas himself, being present and one of the twelve,
will sit on one of the thrones!

1) I don't know if I want to be a judge,
and it doesn't seem like he was speaking in general anyway.
2) Judas as one of the judges?
Could there be a third possibility?

Anyway, So where was I going with those
three main twelves in a row boom.boom.boom?
woman.child.bread?

well, nowhere really...

Maybe it is senseless to highlight something
with no insight or meaning to make it relevant, huh?
So I'll just lay all this aside and shut up now.

-=-=-

(later...)

I still haven't taken the time to search through the scriptures
for all the accounts of unclean spirits and demonizing,
but I notice here another mention of it:

Mar 6:7 He called to himself the twelve,
and began to send them out two by two;
and he gave them authority over the unclean spirits.

Interesting.
He "gave them authority".

Implying that without it,
no matter how faithful or hopeful we are,
no matter how good we as christians are,
unless it is given to us, we ain't got it?

and something occurs to me about those demons.

When they they entered the animals,
the animals immediately committed suicide.

Makes you wonder if demons had ever tried demonizing
animals before.
And if so, don't they talk to each other?
"Don't try it, it will be the end of you..."

Or maybe that is the goal!

Maybe every demonized creature is suicidal!

Mankind just invents countless ways of going about it,
some of them excruciatingly slow and painful.

man just doesn't have the decency
to run to the nearest cliff and jump off it
like a pig does.

.......
......
.....
....
...
..
.

Mark 7

How easily this slipped away from me!

I started getting busy before Christmas,
and told myself I would get caught up over the holiday.
Now the holiday is almost over
and I have not read one single chapter!

I hope I can be more consistent from now on.

Anyway....

(it feels strange trying to pick it up where I left off,
it was so long ago that I've sat here.)

So where were we?

Jesus is in a place called Gennesarat,

Mar 6:56 And wherever He entered,
into villages or cities or country,
they laid the sick in the streets and begged Him
if only they might touch but the fringe of His garment.
And as many as touched Him were made whole.

Then the Pharisees and scribes track him down from Jerusalem,
and start questioning him about Jewish traditions
(and the fact that He and his disciples aren't following them)

And he makes some statements that cause me to question
many of the traditions I see around my own life:

Mar 7:7 However, they worship Me in vain,
teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."
Mar 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God,
you hold the tradition of men, the dippings of pots and cups.
And many other such things you do.
Mar 7:9 And He said to them,
Do you do well to set aside the commandment of God,
so that you may keep your own tradition?

I can't help but think of my own religious upbringing
(in the Catholic church).

Now that I have read a good portion of what Jesus has taught,
and I find few teachings that parallel the religious stuff
I remember from my childhood,
I feel somewhat bitter about it.

Things like
"Don't eat meat on Friday", and
"Women shouldn't be in church without their heads covered",
or baptism of babies
or purgatory
or confession
or calling men "Father"
or giving up something for lent,
or the countless other traditions created by men
to "lord it over the laity",
all these seem like the "living by the law" stuff
that never worked
and
that Jesus came to free us from anyway!

Even though I try to be merely amused by these things,
I know deep down I have a scar somewhere
that won't let me let it go.
Its almost as if "The Church" kept me away from "the church"
for so long
because I couldn't tolerate the trappings.

And I feel like so many people are duped by the Sunday morning ritual
that they only have the smallest glimmer of the light Jesus has for them
if they only knew it.

Of course, who am I to judge?

Maybe I am feeling good about my new understanding,
that I don't have to blindly follow ritual and tradition
like the rest of the sheep,

but I'm instantly deflated by the truth behind it.

Mar 7:15 There is nothing from outside a man
which entering into him can defile him.
But the things which come out of him,
those are the ones that defile the man.

And what comes out of me?

Well, rather than make a personal confession here,
I'll just leave it to him to explain:

Mar 7:21
For from within,
out of the heart of men,
proceed evil thoughts,
adulteries,
fornications,
murders,
Mar 7:22
thefts,
covetousness,
wickedness,
deceit,
lasciviousness,
an evil eye,
blasphemy,
pride,
foolishness:
Mar 7:23
All these evil things
pass out from inside
and defile the man.

Yeah, so maybe I am free of most ritual and tradition,
but I am certainly not free of those things!

(...and I always thought the heart was a good thing!)

You know, I wrote that with a smile on my face
(about the heart being a good thing)
but now that I think about it,
that one point could explain a lot in my own life

"out of the heart of men proceed evil...."

Could that be true?

These evils proceed from my own natural heart?

hmmm.

I believe that a person's soul is their soul,
meaning that it is always there and it never changes.
It just is what it is.

I believe that a person's mind is always changing.
It grows, learns, understands.
It is always gathering, organizing and adapting.

But I have been wondering about something.

Why is it that when my mind is on these truths
I have little difficulty understanding what they mean,
And yet I find it so difficult to be the person I think I should be?

If my soul is not part of my daily decision making,
and my mind is clear and knows what is right,
what is it in me that causes me to fail continually?

Is he telling me that it is my heart?

Now I recall reading that we are promised a new heart
when we are born again.

Can't the one I have be repaired?

Now I also remember something a teacher said.
"Nowhere in the bible do you ever hear of
someone's heart being healed.
They are always given a new one!"

If this is true,
My final thought of the day is this:

If I know in my own life,
from within me somewhere
is pouring out
evil thoughts, pride, lust, greed, etc
...
and he is saying this is from my heart,
...
then I know
that even though I have been baptized several times,
and asked for a new start many times,
and felt reborn at least once,
my heart is still not right.

So what's the deal?
Do I ask for a new one every day or what?

Mark 8

Reading the following four verses has a strong impact on me.

Mar 8:34
And calling near the crowd with His disciples,
He said to them, Whoever will come after Me,
let him deny himself
and take up his cross and follow Me.
Mar 8:35
For whoever will save his life
shall lose it;
but whoever shall lose his life
for My sake and the gospel's,
he shall save it.
Mar 8:36
For what shall it profit a man
if he shall gain the whole world
and lose his own soul?
Mar 8:37
Or what shall a man give
in exchange for his soul?
Mar 8:38 Therefore
whoever shall be ashamed of Me
and of My Words
in this adulterous and sinful generation,
the Son of Man shall also be ashamed of him
when He comes in the glory of His Father
with the holy angels.

It speaks out to me.

It strikes me as the essential kernel of what He came here to say.

The core of a life built on Christian belief.

As soon as I write this, I remember arriving at a similar place
as I was reading the book of Matthew.
I wrote that Mat_11:28-30 was
"the personal crescendo of the Gospel" for me.
(did I really write that? personal crescendo? ha.)

But immediately I was curious to find out:

Were they the same verses?

Looking back, I discover that they are not ! ! !

Mat 11:28 Come to Me all you who labor and are heavy laden,
and I will give you rest.
Mat 11:29 Take My yoke on you and learn of Me,
for I am meek and lowly in heart,
and you shall find rest to your souls.
Mat 11:30 For My yoke is easy, and My burden is light.

interesting.

They are similar,
but there are verses in the previous chapter that correspond exactly,
and I glossed right over them.

Mat 10:38 And who does not take up his cross and follow after Me
is not worthy of Me.
Mat 10:39 The one finding his life shall lose it.
And the one losing his life on account of Me shall find it.

I'm not mentioning this to try and claim that some teachings
are more important than others.
I am simply making the observation
that my concept of "the central message" shifted a bit from then to now.

Anyway, so what is it about these verses?

It seems to me that up until now,
Jesus has been speaking in parables,
and healing people but then telling them to remain quiet,
and avoiding crowds and towns at particular times.
Often choosing a low profile, in other words.

But now its like he just gathers everyone together
and states it in no uncertain terms.
Just a straight-to-the-point no-nonsense
bet-your-life-on-it kinda thing.

I can't imagine there is any way to misinterpret this!

Not only that;
We are given an awesome prophecy in verse 38, when
(speaking of himself in the third person to avoid an instant blasphemy charge)
He promises that

the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father,
along with the holy angels.

That will be a day I don't want to miss...!

Mark 9

Boy, sometimes when I am reading
I have question
after question
after question....

Mar 9:1 And He said to them,
Truly I say to you that there are some of those who stand here
who shall not taste of death until they see the kingdom of God
come with power.

So did the Kingdom of God come and we missed it?
Or are some of those people still alive today?
Or maybe he meant when you die you haven't really tasted death?
Or maybe he is saying when the Kingdom of God comes, some people will die?

I've been told to keep an eye out for the word "until" in the text,
because it will be significant.
This reads like a prophecy, doesn't it?

They shall not taste of death until they see the kingdom of God come?
meaning that when they see the kingdom of God come,
they will see death?

Am I reading too much into this?
Being too analytical with a hardened heart?

ok, moving on....

Mar 9:2 And after six days Jesus took Peter and James and John
and led them up into a high mountain, apart by themselves.
And He was transfigured before them.

Six days after what?
After that "until" prophecy?
Who was counting, and why?
Looking back, Matthew said the same thing.
Why bother to mention it?
Did nothing happen after that speech until now?

Or is this event the kingdom of God come with power?

If he hand-picked the twelve,
why does he leave some of them out of this glorious experience?
Are some disciples preferred over others?

Is this kind of like my own experience at work?
Although all the workers at my company contribute to its success,
only a portion of them are given profit-sharing bonuses?
I wouldn't think Jesus would be like that.

Should I set the bible aside until I am more in the spirit
of receiving what it has to offer?
Or should I wade through no matter how I am feeling,
because "something is better than nothing"?

ok, I am "wading through" today....

Mar 9:4 And Elijah with Moses was seen by them,
and they were talking with Jesus.
Mar 9:5 And Peter answered and said to Jesus,
Rabbi, it is good for us to be here.
And let us make three tabernacles,
one for You, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah.
Mar 9:6 For he did not know what to say,
for they were very much afraid.
Mar 9:7 And there was a cloud that overshadowed them.
And a voice came out of the cloud, saying,
This is My beloved Son. Hear Him.
Mar 9:8 And suddenly, looking around,
they did not see anyone any more,
except Jesus alone with themselves.

My Life Application notes remind me
that
God appeared to Elijah on a mountain,
and
God appeared to Moses on a mountain.

I guess back then
before airplanes and helicopters or hot air balloons,
climbing a mountain was the only way
to rise above the normal everyday rabble.
and now that I think about it,
it still remains a very good way to get away from it all.

I can picture myself on a mountain right now
alone and breathing fresh air,
feeling just a little closer to God,
even though he is available to us anytime everywhere.
Sometimes it just doesn't feel like it.

But I think the point of this event,
Is that the disciples would easily make the mistake
of saying something like
"Jesus is as great as Moses"
or "He is as great as Elijah"
and the point had to be made that those men were men,
but Jesus was the Son of God.
a crucial distinction.
He immediately commanded them to tell no one.

Mar 9:9 And as they came down from the mountain,
He commanded them that they should tell no one
the things that they had seen
until the Son of Man had risen from the dead.

So for some reason it was important for these three people to witness this,
but to save the knowledge of it until after the resurrection.
I am curious to know what they did or said later, but I'll resist the urge to read ahead.

Mark 10

Mar 10:21 Then Jesus, beholding him, loved him and said to him, One thing you lack. Go, sell whatever you have and give it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in Heaven. And come, take up the cross and follow Me.
Mar 10:22 And he was sad at that saying and went away grieved, for he had great possessions.

When I read verse 21, I am intrigued by two words...
"loved him".
I don't know why it jumps out at me.

Ok I take that back,
I DO know why it jumps out at me.

I just did a search through all four gospels for the words "love", "loved" and "loving".

I am usually reluctant to mention anything in the future of the reading plan because I would rather wait until we get there. I don't really have anything to discuss about it, this is just a list of the other places that mention love by Jesus (there are MANY other "loves" in the text, just none by Jesus other than these)

Joh 11:5 And Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus.
Joh 11:36 Then the Jews said, Behold how He loved him! (Lazarus)
Joh 13:1 And before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that His hour had come when He should depart out of this world to the Father, having loved His own in the world, He loved them to the end.
Joh 13:23 But there was one of His disciples leaning upon Jesus' bosom, the one whom Jesus loved.
Joh 15:12 This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.

So the list is:
- The rich young ruler (Mark 10:21)
- Martha and her sister and Lazarus
- His own
- a disciple (John?)
- you

All of the remaining references are to "the disciple Jesus loved" in John 13:23 (Joh 19:26, 20:2 and 21:20)

-=-=-=-

Anyway, (back to Mark 10)
It seems peculiar to add "loved him" about the rich young ruler.

I heard an interesting conjecture by a teacher I enjoy listening to on the internet.
I tried to repeat it to a friend at a bible study one night,
but botched it so badly I am going to record it here
straight from the "Stedmaniac" source...
( http://www.pbc.org/dp/stedman/index.html )

This is by Ray Stedman:

"We do know that this gospel was written by a young man named John Mark, who appears several times in our Scriptures. His mother was named Mary, and was a rather wealthy woman who had a big house in Jerusalem.

Early church tradition tells us that Mark became the companion of Peter. Eusebius, a church father writing in the third century, says that the early Christians were so entranced with all the things Peter told them that they asked Mark to write them down. Perhaps that is how we got The Gospel According to Mark, for it reflects much of Peter's memories and experiences with Jesus.

This much about the origin of the Gospel of Mark can be verified from Scripture. But there is another aspect of it which perhaps I ought to call "Stedman's speculation", because it is not inspired, but is something which long has intrigued me: I pass it along for you to make of it what you will. In Chapter 14, Verse 51, reference is made to an incident which only Mark records. In his account of Jesus' betrayal and arrest. Mark tells us that as he was being led away by the soldiers, a young man followed him, wearing nothing but a linen cloth about his body. Apparently thinking he was a disciple of Jesus who had been foolish enough to remain behind while all the others had run for their lives, the soldiers attempted to seize him. But all they got was the cloth as he ran naked into the night. Many scholars have suggested that this was Mark, for he would have been a "young man" at that time. Perhaps, because of his fascination with Jesus, he had been hanging around, hoping to learn more, had gotten into this trap unknowingly, and had to flee for his life, leaving his garment behind. The fact that Mark is the only one who mentions this incident is highly suggestive that this indeed was Mark himself.

But there is another story, in Mark 10, found in Matthew and Luke as well, which has fascinated me -- the story of the rich young ruler. Here we have a young man who, toward the end of Jesus' ministry, came to him with a question. He was a wealthy young man of the ruling class, evidently a handsome, very warm person. He ran up and knelt at Jesus' feet, and said, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" {Mark 10:17b RSV}. Jesus Said, "Have you kept the commandments?" The young man said he had kept them from his youth. Then Mark records something that neither of the other accounts tell us. He says, "And Jesus looking upon him loved him," {Mark 10:21a RSV}. That little personal note suggests to me that Mark was that rich young ruler.

So perhaps that little story of the young man who ran away without his robe is Mark's way of telling us that the rich young ruler who went from Jesus so sorrowfully -- as the account tells us, because he had great possessions -- did not remain sad, that later on, having thought things over, he made the commitment Jesus required of him: he gave away all that he had. He gave up his inheritance, and all he had left was a robe -- and he lost even that, finally, and he came and followed Jesus. I do not say that the Scriptures tell us explicitly this is what happened -- but I think it is! So, if you do not mind the 'Stedmaniac' version, this gives us a little added insight into The Gospel According to Mark."

Mark 11

Today I just have a few miscellaneous observations,

Mar 11:10 Blessed is the kingdom of our father David,
who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!
Mar 11:11 And Jesus entered into Jerusalem and into the temple.
And when He had looked around on all things,
the hour already being late,
He went out to Bethany with the Twelve.

I had glossed right over this the first time I read it,
but by coincidence this is the same scripture we are studying
in our Monday night group.
Someone pointed out the fact that verse 11 seems kind of anti-climatic,
I mean, this is the Triumphal Entry!
the moment he has been putting off until "my time has come",
and what happens?
He looks around the temple, and leaves for Bethany?

okay....

So the next day a LOT happens in the temple.
I just thought it was interesting that nothing happened
on the big day
(unless I missed something?)

-=-=-=-

The next thing that captured my attention is this:

Mar 11:24 Therefore I say to you, All things, whatever you ask, praying,
believe that you shall receive them, and it will be to you.
Mar 11:25 And when you stand praying,
if you have anything against anyone,
forgive it so that also your Father in Heaven may forgive you your trespasses.
Mar 11:26 But if you do not forgive,
neither will your Father in Heaven forgive your trespasses.

He said this as the disciples noticed the fig tree had withered
after Jesus cursed it.
What I thought was interesting was the second verse,
where he adds the condition "if you have anything against anyone".
Is he adding this as a requirement for having prayers answered?
Do our own trespasses need to be forgiven for these
types of prayers to be effective?
I really don't know....
It sounds plausible,
but I would rather not build doctrine on a misunderstanding.

I went back to Matthew to see if he said it diffferently
or maybe I just missed it,
but no:

Mat 21:21 Jesus answered and said to them,
Truly I say to you, If you have faith and do not doubt,
you shall not only do this miracle of the fig tree, but also;
if you shall say to this mountain, Be moved and be thrown into the sea;
it shall be done.
Mat 21:22 And all things,
whatever you shall ask in prayer, believing, you shall receive.

So that is no help.
The part about forgiveness wasn't in Matthew.

Maybe I need to get one of those "Harmony of the Gospels"
things so I can get the whole picture
before I start trying to analyze it.

Here's one:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/study/harmony/index.html

hmmm, I just noticed this harmony pairs
Mark 11:24-25 with Matthew 6:14-15
I certainly don't agree with that!

This one is more accurate, at least for these verses:
http://www.lifeofchrist.com/life/harmony.html

Wow, this one is really cool!
It has the complete text with lots of notes and stuff
http://www.hjg.com.ar/ce/resumi.html

anyway...
It just seems interesting that he speaks about forgiveness
during his explanation of permanently crippling the fig tree.
(He certainly didn't forgive the barren tree!)

So I know I am missing something here,
but I will just let it soak for awhile.
Maybe when I revisit this in the book of Luke
I will gain more insight, eh?

Ha, I just checked those harmonies again, no luck in Luke!
(Or in the gospel of John, either)
http://www.hjg.com.ar/ce/c11i.html#ss08
oh well....

-=-=-=-

I also noticed he uses the phrase "when you stand praying" in verse 11:24
I don't pray all that much, but when I do it is usually
brief moments in the car, or in the bathroom
or at odd moments throughout the day.
nothing formal.

I find that when I set out to pray in a more formal way,
my mind is easily distracted,
I can't focus on it for too long.

I'm sure it is primarily from lack of practice,
but even in church where supposedly the stage is set for prayer
(If you can't pray in a church...)
I still find it difficult.

And I am so lazy.
If I were to try it standing, it sure wouldn't last long.

I always thought my most effective prayer time
(although rare)
was half-sitting/half lying on a comfortable couch
in semi-darkness
with new age music lightly playing in the background.

So that is why the phrase "when you stand praying"
seems so strange to me.

So when YOU pray,
do you look up?
or do you look down?
Do you stand?

Mark 12

So Jesus
the promised one
has arrived in the big city
on the day Daniel specified,
in the pinnacle week
of the master plan.

Now he is in the temple...
and the cheif priests and elders are here.
The leaders of the chosen people,
the trusted ones
finally have a chance to greet and worship
the reason for their existence.
The focal point of the whole system.
(Mar_11:27)

What a glorious moment!

I am glad to be here.

I hear Jesus speaking about a vineyard.
Yes, we are God's chosen people,

His vineyard,
what a perfect example of who we are.

Yeah, we are like farmers!
See our fruit.
(Mar_12:1-2)

Uh oh....

What did he just say?

Something about the beating of God's servants.
and stonings.
and the killing of God's own son.
(Mar_12:7-8)

Uh, now I'm really confused.

Destroy the farmers?
Take the vineyard away?
Give it to others?
(Mar_12:9)

shock.

Did I hear it wrong?
This is not what I expected.

Why did he start using parables again anyway?
Aren't the preists and elders worthy of straight dialog?

Why does he look so disappointed and alone?

Now the religious leaders are trying to seize him!
The crowd is getting alarmed.

Suddenly the elders turn and leave.
(Mar_12:12)

?

This is bizarre, I don't get it.

Next my leaders send doubting inquisitors,
(Mar_12:13)

Herodians asking about taxes
Sadducees asking about resurrection
Setting traps,
probing for weakness.

He answers well.

And then a final question from an honest scribe:
"Which commandment is greatest of all?"

Mar 12:29 Jesus answered,
"The greatest is,
'Hear, Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one:
Mar 12:30
you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart,
and with all your soul,
and with all your mind,
and with all your strength.'
This is the first commandment.
Mar 12:31
The second is like this,
'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'
There is no other commandment greater than these."

No one asked him any more questions.
(Mar_12:34)

-=-=-=-

Comment from Jack:
I cheated again. I looked ahead to the other gospels
to see how they phrased it, and was surprised to
realize that they don't mention these "greatest
commandments" at all!

Wouldn't you think the greatest commandments
would be important enough to be included in ALL
the gospels?

Well, we have two accounts anyway...
Matthew 22 and here in Mark 12.

Wouldn't you think they would have stuck in people's
minds enough to be recorded consistently in both?

I mean, if someone taught a lot of stuff I couldn't
remember exactly, but then made it easy for me
by summarizing it into "the greatest commandment"
wouldn't I at least remember that part accurately?

But no, the two accounts are slightly different.
(see Mat_22:36-40)

Matthew leaves out the
"Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one"
and to love him
"with all your strength"

It just bugs me that they are different!

Anyway, funny how you always hear people saying
what "the golden rule" is,
but you never hear them say that first part about
"the Lord is one."

Why have we dropped that part?
Is it because we don't know why He said it?
What it meant?
It doesn't sound like part of a commandment.

Maybe that's why we ignore it.

Mark 13

Mar 13:2 Jesus said to him,
"Do you see these great buildings?
There will not be left here one stone on another,
which will not be thrown down."

Here again we have an entire chapter of end-time prophecy
given to us by Jesus himself.

I looked back over Matthew chapter 24 and it is nearly a word for word match.

They might not agree on "the greatest commandment",
but these chapters are almost identical (one part of Matthew moved to 10:17-23)
and a few differences can be seen in this Harmony

Anyway, about the 'not one stone' part, I've been thinking about that.
My Life Application Bible notes state that this happened already in 70A.D. (70CE?)
and every other commentary I have agrees with it.

I can see that Jesus predicted the loss of their temple,
and the Jews don't have their temple anymore,
so that aspect of it has been fulfilled.

And in another way of looking at it,
Jesus teaches us that all our man-made accomplishments
are like chasing after wind,
and all will return to dust,
and I can certainly see the wisdom in that.

but something still bothers me about it.

I'm not trying to turn a molehill into a mountain or anything,
but isn't the wailing wall still there?
Isn't that why people still flock to it?
because its is the only part of the temple that is left?

But Jesus seemed to make a point by using a very graphic word choice
"There will not be one stone left upon another"
which sounds pretty specific.

I am thinking that if anyone can be taken literally,
it is Jesus himself, dontcha think?

In my mind I'm wondering if it is really fulfilled yet.
Maybe begun, but not fulfilled...

In fact, in this chapter he says a lot of things will begin,
but not be fulfilled until...

Well, I am going to try a paraphrase here.

Okay, they ask him

Mar 13:4 Tell us, When shall all these things be?
And what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?

and He lists a buncha stuff that will be the beginnings...

Mar 13:8 These things are the beginnings of sorrows.

but its not until verse 14

Mar 13:14 But when you see the abomination of desolation,
that spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not
(let him who reads understand), then...

Major bad stuff starts happening like the world has never seen,
which he refers to as "tribulation" in verse 19,

and again in verse 24 as "that tribulation".

Mar 13:19 "For [in] those days [there] will be tribulation [or, affliction],
such as [there] has not been like from [the] beginning of [the] creation
which God created, until now, and never at all shall be.

(end of paraphrase)

Looking back on what I wrote about this back in Matthew 24
I made a big deal about how Jesus called Daniel a prophet in this verse.

I was talking to someone about this,
and she pointed out that some texts (more accurate, in her opinion)
omit the part "spoken of by Daniel, the prophet".

At first I felt a little deflated.
I mean...
Here I am, trying to study,
and wanting to understand,
and it is discouraging to realize
that manuscripts disagree.

anyway,
plodding on,

I wondered how the meaning would change without these words.

After thinking about it, not much!

Mar 13:20 And unless the Lord had shortened those days,
no flesh would be saved....

! ! !

Does anyone believe this has already happened?

If so, how can you explain the very next thing that happens in "those days":

Mar 13:24 But in those days, after that tribulation,
the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,
Mar 13:25 and the stars of Heaven shall fall,
and the powers in the heavens shall be shaken.
Mar 13:26 And then they will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds
with great power and glory.
Mar 13:27 And then He shall send His angels and shall gather His elect
from the four winds, from the end of the earth to the end of heaven.

Ok, that has definitely not happened yet, right?

Did I miss the second coming?

Mark 14

Mar 14:3 And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper,
as He reclined, a woman came with an alabaster vial
of pure, costly ointment of spikenard.
And she broke the vial and poured it on His head.

I would like to know what this smells like.
I found some pure spikenard oil on the internet
and I'm gonna order some.

"Spikenard oil can be effective for tension, stress, migraine, nervous indigestion and insomnia."
Although I believe Jesus was as perfect as a man can be,
(and didn't need artificial relief)
it sounds like this was a good oil for the moment, huh?

Here's the best resource I found about it:
http://www.ashburys.com/oil/eo_spikenard.htm

but I also stumbled upon this article,
which I thought was interesting:

Spikenard has a profound and complex aroma, a combination sweet/spicy/musky, a very organic earthy scent. Still reasonably rare and reasonably expensive, most find spikenard's name much more familiar than its fragrance. Its reputation is ancient. It was an ingredient in perfume formulas from Egypt, India, and throughout the middle east. It is mentioned three times in the Song of Songs. The ancient Greeks and Romans had a beloved perfume fragrance based on spikenard. Spikenard's main claim to fame comes from its prominence in the New Testament. It was the famous spikenard perfume that Mary of Bethany used to anoint the feet of Jesus Christ, filling the entire room with its aroma. (Whether she is Mary Magdalene, now matron saint of perfumers, is still the subject of debate, as it has been for centuries). The Spikenard perfume used by Mary was likely the Roman (Nardinum) which was very popular at the time throughout the Roman empire. Rather than its wonderful fragrance, however, what is most famous about spikenard is its high cost. Two of the gospels comment on its price. Judas Iscariot was apparently offended at the anointing of Jesus, demanding to know why the jar of ointment was not sold, and the proceeds given to the poor.
Why was spikenard so expensive? Because of where it grows and the difficulty in obtaining it. Spikenard is not native to the Middle East. It is native to the Himalayas, in Nepal and India and grows at high altitudes. Spikenard was brought down by caravan and exported throughout the ancient world. Its use in the ancient world is a demonstration of their sophisticated trade routes and the importance placed on aromatic material.
Various medicinal uses include skin care; rejuvenating mature skin, allergies and skin rashes.
Nervous system; insomnia, nervous indigestion, migraine headaches, stress & tension, it has relaxing, sedative properties.
Spikenard was anciently believed to bear mystical, romantic properties. The part of the plant from which this wonderful fragrance is obtained is the crushed rhizomes and roots. It is important to remember that spikenard was not used as a perfume in and of itself. It was an ingredient of complex perfume formulas. Modern Bible translations often refer to the oil used by Mary as "pure nard". We believe that this was not the case for several reasons. The controversy is based on the fact that the early Bible translators did not know the meaning of the word "pistic nard" as found in the early texts. The translators assumed that the word "pistic" must mean pure. However, we believe that the word "pistic" is a reference to another ancient and expensive perfume ingredient called "Pisticia" which was used in ancient perfumes. Another reason we believe that it wasn't pure spikenard, is because the level of sophistication of perfumes in the 1st century AD. Because of the nature of the scent of pure spikenard, it is not logical that Mary would have used it as a perfume in it's pure form. The alabaster box (pyxis) is another clue that it was a finished perfume rather than a single perfume ingredient which would typically be stored in a terra cotta container. Perfumers of the time were a mysterious lot, who kept their trade secrets to themselves. We have discovered that the ancient perfumers often altered their formulas to suit the particular taste of their clients. In the case of Spikenard perfume, we have found ancient formulas that substitute the top notes of lilly for rose oil. It is also likely that certain ingredients were used depending on their intended use. Although no one today can be absolutely sure of the exact formula or fragrance used by Mary to anoint Jesus, we believe that the Roman (Nardinum) formula is the most likely. Another ingredient in Nardinum is "amomom" whose name means literally "without blame", and the name of yet another ingredient means "Joy of the Mountains". In the light of its discovery in Tutankhamun's tomb, used by King Solomon, and in the anointing of Jesus, it can be appreciated that spikenard was truly a fragrance fit for a king.

This led me to another site which relates "A Brief History of Spices"
http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/history/lecture26/r_26-1l.html

I'm also curious to discover what myrrh and frankincense smell like,
but I'm getting off track....

-=-=-

Mar 14:9 Truly I say to you,
Wherever this gospel shall be proclaimed in all the world,
this also that she has done will be spoken of for a memorial of her.

Oh Yeah?
Try to find that in the Gospel written by Luke!

Ok, I shouldn't be so quick to criticize.

Ya know what?
I think I'm cursed.

I'm cursed by the fact that my introduction to literature
consisted solely of Hardy Boys and Sherlock Holmes books.
That's all I read as a kid.
My mind grew up on these skepti-detective works,
and now that I think about it,
everything I read is with the same critical perspective,
I just can't help it.

When I am reading these beautiful accounts of love and sacrifice,
I am continously and consistently distracted by logical processing.

Sometimes I wish I could shut my mind off
and just enjoy a narrative for what it is
without judgement.

but I can't do it....

For example,

Mar 14:36 And He said, Abba, Father, all things are possible to You.
Take away this cup from Me.
Yet not what I will, but what You will.
Mar 14:37 And He came and found them sleeping, and said to Peter,
Simon, do you sleep? Could you not watch one hour?

If the witnesses were asleep,
how do they know what Jesus prayed?

Mar 14:39 And again He went away and prayed and spoke the same words.
Mar 14:40 And when He returned, He found them asleep again
(for their eyes were heavy),
neither did they know what to answer Him.

And again I ask, how do they know he spoke the same words?

Ok, you will probably tell me they heard just that one part
before nodding off,
and I will be content to know that the important part "got heard" and recorded
just as it should have been,
and try not to wonder what else "got prayed" during that whole hour.

One hour is a whole lotta praying, was that just the first sentence?

Well, there is a lot more to this chapter,
but I'm off-kilter and I refuse to go on...

-=-=-

Jesus, I'm sorry.
I'm not doing myself or anyone any good by poking holes.
I can't pray for more than ten seconds without losing focus.

When I get there
and fall to my knees before you,
and feel ashamed of this type of arrogance,
please forgive me.

Mark 15

Mar 15:1
And straightway in the morning
the chief priests held a consultation with the elders
and scribes
and the whole council,
and bound Jesus,
and carried him away,
and delivered him to Pilate.

This chapter has a deeper significance for me now than it did a year ago,
for two reasons.

A year ago I was asked to play the part of Pontias Pilate
in the Easter Cantata.
Our portrayal of this scene was probably not even close to the way it actually happened,
but thinking about the role and trying to re-create it on stage
got me wondering what it was really like back then.
It seems like every bible story I ever heard as a kid
is now being updated in one way or another
now that I am an adult,
and sometimes the difference kind of shocks me.
As a kid I remember hearing that Jesus was brought before Pontias Pilate,
and Pontias Pilate washed his hands of it.
In other words
my impression of it was that he didn't want to deal with it, and refused to get involved.

After wondering what Pontias Pilate was really like,
and putting myself in his shoes for awhile,
I have a greater appreciation of his dilemma.
Personally, I tend to shy away from the responsibility of leadership,
and I would not enjoy being a judge in a courtroom,
especially if the eyes of the entire community were on me,
waiting for my decision.

When I was younger I remember hearing that Jesus was brought before Pontias Pilate,
and Pontias Pilate washed his hands of it.
In other words,
my impression was that he didn't want to deal with it,
and refused to get involved.
Now I read the text and get the impression that he really tried.

Anyway,
If I had been him in the same situation,
I'm pretty sure I would have done the same as he.
just doing a job...
unaware of the significance of it.

-=-=-

The other recent event that has modified my mental picture
is the movie "The Passion of Christ"
which has been playing in theaters since Ash Wednesday.
It covers this portion of the New Testament,
starting from around Mark 14:32
and ending right where this chapter 15 ends.

I don't remember what my conception of the crucifixion was as a kid
but this movie certainly updated it!
I guess in the back of my mind I always knew about the cruelty of it,
and the agony the victims must have felt,
and its not like brutality in general has ever been far from us,
but I just don't like to think about it too much.

When I see people wearing crucifixes it is just a symbol to me.
I don't see it and think of someone actually dying.
especially an innocent person wrongly accused.
a human sacrifice.

Seeing this movie,
(and reading this chapter coincidentally at the same time)
has brought the reality of it back to the surface for me.
I wonder how others think of it.

What do you think about
when you are wrapping that crucifix
around your neck
every morning?

Is it just a shiny thing after awhile?
a decoration?
a brand?

-=-=-

Maybe this isn't the place to discuss movie reviews,
but I was talking to a friend the other day
and she asked me something that really got me thinking.
I was praising the movie
for elevating the story in the conciousness of so many people.
People like me who have heard the story all their lives
but never felt the reality of it
until seeing it on the screen.
(maybe I am just one of those "visual people"?)

But her question was:
"What about the people who don't know the story?"

What did they see?
Basically just the torture of a man with no background
none of his teaching
no healing.

How much of an understanding would you have
of the gospel
the "good news"
if all you read was just this one chapter of the New Testament?

not much?

So in that respect,
the movie probably fails to bring people
into a closer relationship with God.

Unless it inspires someone to find out more about the story,
the ultra-violence is pointless,
if not profane.

-=-=-

For any of you who are "visual people",
my friend Peggy recommends "The Greatest Story Ever Told".
Personally, I am more of a "Jesus Christ Superstar" kinda guy.

Mark 16

The Resurrection According to Mark

This is the second account of the resurrection that I have read, and the details of this one are so different than Matthew's that I can't help but notice them after only the briefest first glance.

I hate to always seem so critical,
and I am certainly no expert on literary comparisons,
but here's why I make the statement:

Matthew tells us that two Marys come to see the tomb
Mark tells us it was those two and another, named Salome

Matthew mentions a great earthquake, and the stone is rolled back
Mark doesn't mention it. The women find the stone already moved

Matthew describes an angel sitting on the stone.
Mark describes a young man sitting inside the tomb.

Matthew tells of fearful guards who become like dead men.
Mark misses this observation or ignores it.

and finally, after being informed that
"He is risen"
and instructed to
"Go tell the disciples"

Matthew has the women running to share the news
Mark has the women trembling in fear and telling no one.

These discrepancies seem too contrary to ignore.

-=-=-

When I was reading Matthew for the first time
I didn't really notice how abruptly it ended.

Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying,
All authority is given to Me in Heaven and in earth.
Mat 28:19 Therefore go and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all things, whatever I commanded you.
And, behold, I am with you all the days until the end of the world.
Amen.

That is a FABULOUS ending.

But doesn't it make you wonder
what happened after that?

I mean, Jesus said these encouraging words
and then what?
Where did he go?

It just leaves him sitting with eleven men
on a mountain in Galilee.

The reason I mention this is because
there is one more thing about this final chapter of Mark
that I feel compelled to mention.

After reading this verse:

Mar 16:8 And they went out quickly and fled from the tomb.
For they trembled and were amazed.
Neither did they say anything to anyone, for they were afraid.

...I came across a very interesting sentence in a commentary (VWS)
which said:

"By a large number of the ablest modern critics
the remainder of this chapter
is held to be from some other hand than Mark's.
It is omitted from the two oldest manuscripts."

hmmm?

Yeah.

So in some manuscripts the story just ends right here,
with a young man in the tomb talking to three women,
and they run away in fear.

-=-=-

Okay, so I don't necessarily believe commentaries,
but I went on to learn a few interesting things
about the next few verses:

Mar 16:9 And when Jesus had risen early the first day of the Sabbath,
He appeared first to Mary Magdalene,
out of whom He had cast seven demons.

The first day of the week (#4413,#4521;)
A phrase which Mark does not use.

Out of whom he had cast seven devils
With Mark's well-known habit of particularizing,
it is somewhat singular that this circumstance was not mentioned
in either of the three previous allusions to Mary
(Mar_15:40, Mar_15:47; Mar_16:1).

Out of whom (#575,#3739)
An unusual expression.
Mark habitually uses the preposition (#1831,#1537,#846) in this connection
(Mar_1:25, Mar_1:26; Mar_5:8; Mar_7:26, Mar_7:29; Mar_9:25).

Moreover, "from" is used with "cast out" nowhere else in the New Testament.

[i]Mar 16:10 She went and told those who had been with Him,
as they mourned and wept.[/i]

Mar 16:10 -
She (#1565)
An absolute use of the pronoun which Mark has never used, but appears here
and again in verse Mar_16:11,
and again in verse Mar_16:13.
It would imply an emphasis which is not intended.
Compare Mar_4:11; Mar_12:4, Mar_12:5, Mar_12:7; Mar_14:21.

Went (#4198)
and again in Mar_16:12,
and again in Mar_16:15.
This verb for "to go" occurs nowhere else in this Gospel except in compounds.


Them that had been with him (#1096,#3396,#846)
A circumlocution foreign to the Gospels.

Here are a few more:

Mar 16:12 -
After these things (#3326,#5023)
An expression never used by Mark.

Mar 16:14 -
Afterward (#5305)
Not found elsewhere in Mark. Often in Matthew.

Mar 16:20 -
The Lord working with them (tou kuriou sunergountos). Genitive absolute.
This participle is not in the Gospels elsewhere

So it seems possible that Mark didn't write these verses?

-=-=-

but

Maybe the point is to ignore the details.
and focus instead on the miracle
of life after death.

If so,
then I am content to ponder on just that fact.
That Jesus died and rose again.
It is the core of my belief.

-=-=-

So here I am at the end of another Gospel.

Boy, this one certainly took longer than the first,
although it is much shorter.
At this rate I should be finished with my first pass
in about 8-9 years?

meet me in Luke....