Revisiting Mark

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mendalla

Eastern Lowland Gorilla
Messages
32,006
Reaction score
14,464
I think it was more than simple remorse. It was the realization that it had gone as Jesus called it. Why that leads to weeping depends on how you read it. If you read it as Jesus making the prediction based on his knowledge of Peter's character, then Peter is realizing that he really is as flawed as Jesus thought. If you read it as Jesus foretelling coming events, them perhaps the realization that he had been trapped by fate into this moment made him weep.
 

paradox3

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,087
Reaction score
4,174
Agreed that it could be either scenario @Mendalla or even a combination of the two.

There might also be some anticipatory grief as events unfold for Jesus. At the time of Peter's denials, Jesus has just appeared before the Sanhedrin and been condemned.
 

paradox3

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,087
Reaction score
4,174
Back to remorse. I have always understood both Peter and Judas to be remorseful.

But Mark makes no mention of it where Judas is concerned.

Matthew's gospel has Judas dying by suicide (hanging) so this is likely where I got the idea he regretted his actions.
Acts tells us Judas died unexpectedly in a field.
 

unsafe

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,537
Reaction score
1,025
Paradox3 you ask ----Why did Peter weep? Was it remorse or something else?

My view ----If you really look at it Peter is now entering into sin as he says he does not know Jesus so the curse has now entered and come upon him and with sin comes condemnation and guilt and shame ----and this part is really important here in my view ---as it says -----this ----

71 He began to call down curses, and he swore to them, “I don’t know this man you’re talking about.”

72 Immediately the rooster crowed the second time.[h] Then Peter remembered the word Jesus had spoken to him: “Before the rooster crows twice[i] you will disown me three times.” And he broke down and wept.

I say ------So verse 71 says ----he began to call down curses ---what was he actually doing here -----understanding this is important to know why he was weeping right away ----

the Greek word for Curse in this scripture is ----

Strong's Concordance
anathematizó: to declare anathema, devote to destruction
literally, anathematize, put under a divine curse


I say ---this is my view on this ---verse 72 ---says -- immediately after the rooster crowed ---Peter remembered what Jesus had said and he broke down and wept ------Peter came to realize that he was bearing witness to the words Jesus had said to him and didn't believe ----and what he did brings a curse upon him ----divine destruction ------so the weeping was actually done in True Repentance as it was done right after the sin was committed -----and we are called to repent right away after we sin ----to repent later is not true repentance ----
 

paradox3

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,087
Reaction score
4,174
so the weeping was actually done in True Repentance as it was done right after the sin was committed -----and we are called to repent right away after we sin ----to repent later is not true repentance ----
Nice observation about the immediacy of Peter's response.
 

paradox3

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,087
Reaction score
4,174
Mark 15

Mark 15 is closely paralleled by Matthew 27 although Matthew 27 has a few additional events, unique to that gospel.
The suicide of Judas was briefly mentioned yesterday. Another such event is the dream of Pilate's wife which we talked about on the Matthew thread.

The stories of Mark 15:
  • the appearance before Pilate
  • the release of Barrabas and the flogging of Jesus
  • the mocking of Jesus by the soldiers
  • the crucifixion
  • the death of Jesus after His cry "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
  • the release of His body to Joseph of Arimathea and the placement in the tomb
As always when I encounter the Good Friday story, I find it hard to read. It is brutal, horrific and disturbing.

There is a little part of the story unique to Mark. When Joseph of Arimathea goes to Pilate and asks for the body of Jesus, Pilate is surprised to learn that Jesus is already dead. Here is the text:

Mark 15:43-45 New English Translation (NET Bible)
43 Joseph of Arimathea, a highly regarded member of the council, who was himself looking forward to the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. 44 Pilate was surprised that he was already dead. He called the centurion and asked him if he had been dead for some time. 45 When Pilate was informed by the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph.

For reflection:

(He) went boldly to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. (Mark 15: 43 NET)
 

paradox3

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,087
Reaction score
4,174
It seems that Jesus died more quickly than Pilate expected him to. There is a narrative in John which addresses this as well, but the details are different.

Why would this be?

For a long time, I thought that His quick death was meant to point to God's mercy. But now I am not so sure. Commentators have suggested the reason is the severity of the flogging Jesus received. My study bible indicates that crucified men often lived for two or three days.
 

unsafe

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,537
Reaction score
1,025
Todays reflective verse ----

(He) went boldly to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. (Mark 15: 43 NET)

This is the scripture from above ----
Mark 15:43-45 New English Translation (NET Bible)
43 Joseph of Arimathea, a highly regarded member of the council, who was himself looking forward to the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. 44 Pilate was surprised that he was already dead. He called the centurion and asked him if he had been dead for some time. 45 When Pilate was informed by the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph.



The He here is Joseph of Arimathea as we see in the scripture -----So Joseph was an honorable member of the Counsel who was a follower of Jesus as he was wailing for the Kingdom of God ---- so this tells us why he would want to take possession of the body of Jesus -----Mark doesn't say that Joseph was a rich man but Matthew 27:57 NIV -- does say this ---so for me this is important because a poor man who was a follower of Jesus would not have the courage to go to Pilate and ask for Jesus body ----so it seems that Joseph was a confident driven man who was able to go to Pilate and ask for the body and I believe God was behind that drive and answered request ---- you will see why I say that here below ----not only did he ask for the body he gave Him his tomb--- Matthew 27:57-21 NKJV -----so to understand this we need to Know that the counsel that Joseph belonged to was the very counsel that called for Jesus death --------this was fulfilling the Prophecy in Isaiah -----

Isaiah 53:9 (GW)
9 He was placed in a tomb with the wicked.
He was put there with the rich when he died,
although he had done nothing violent
and had never spoken a lie.


I say -----It is so amazing to me to see God's Sovereignty in making sure that all players involved play their part to come to the victory He wants ---no human can stop what God wants to happen ----every detail is planned out so all works for the good in the end ----Christ was laid in a new Tomb never used before ---and it is He who makes us a New Creation upon receiving Him in our hearts ----

Great Reflection for today
 

paradox3

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,087
Reaction score
4,174
Isaiah 53:9 (GW)
9 He was placed in a tomb with the wicked.
He was put there with the rich when he died,
although he had done nothing violent
and had never spoken a lie.
As I have been reading through the gospels, I have paid very little attention to the footnotes and various references to the prophets, etc.

Maybe someday. :angel:

I can see this opening up a whole new line of exploration.
 

Mendalla

Eastern Lowland Gorilla
Messages
32,006
Reaction score
14,464
It is interesting how much legend has built up around Joseph of Arimathea. It's like the bit that is told about him in the Gospels just whet appetites. His story got expanded in the non-canonical Gospel of Nicodemus and some additional details about him show up in writings of people like Iraeneus and Tertullian. Eventually, of course, he somehow got identified as the first Christian missionary to the British and (even later than that) as the first custodian of the Holy Grail, but none of this predates the Middle Ages and a certain amount of it is Glastonbury abbey in the UK fluffing their own reputation. To be fair, there is evidence that Christianity arrived in Britain quite early in the faith's history, just none that supports Joseph being the one who brought it.

On topic, Joseph's role is interesting in light of some comments from Father Just. He points out that the best models of faith in Mark are generally not the Apostles, who are often questioning, squabbling, and so on. It's minor players like Bartimeus, the Syro-Phoenician woman, the bleeding woman, and such. Joseph kind of fits that mold, too.
 

paradox3

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,087
Reaction score
4,174
Joseph kind of fits that mold, too.
Yes, I think he fits that mold. He was bold in speaking to Pilate and probably put himself at a fair amount of risk. It is not hard to imagine the interchange going very badly.

I would also include the "certain young man" on your list of minor players who model faith.
 

Mendalla

Eastern Lowland Gorilla
Messages
32,006
Reaction score
14,464
Yes, I think he fits that mold. He was bold in speaking to Pilate and probably put himself at a fair amount of risk. It is not hard to imagine the interchange going very badly.

I would also include the "certain young man" on your list of minor players who model faith.

And Jairus. And the paralyzed man's friends.
 

Waterfall

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,624
Reaction score
3,614
He points out that the best models of faith in Mark are generally not the Apostles, who are often questioning, squabbling, and so on.

I think it was hard for the apostles to believe that Jesus was the Messiah because they were not taught to think that the Messiah would be one that suffers and dies. In the Jewish faith the Messiah would be a great liberator of the Jews and rule over them during the Messianic age.
 

Waterfall

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,624
Reaction score
3,614
I find the release of "Jesus Barrabas" (translated as Jesus son of the father), as named in Mathew, to be revealing.
Here we have a rebel or insurectionary who has been imprisoned by the Roman governor for going against Roman authority.
The crowd choosing Jesus Barrabas seems to be saying that they prefer a Messiah that would overthrow the Romans rather than a saviour {Jesus) who appeared to be ineffective in overthrowing the government.
Again, Barrabas would have seemed to be more like the Messiah they were waiting for.
So maybe it's just a story to point out why very few in Mark recognized who Jesus was.
 

Mendalla

Eastern Lowland Gorilla
Messages
32,006
Reaction score
14,464
The crowd choosing Jesus Barrabas seems to be saying that they prefer a Messiah that would overthrow the Romans rather than a saviour {Jesus) who appeared to be ineffective in overthrowing the government.

Appeared to be? It wasn't even on his radar. Jesus was more interested in reforming the nation spiritually than in giving the Romans the boot.

I always find it interesting that modern interpreters (Last Temptation of Christ, Jesus Christ Superstar) often put Judas in the role of zealot egging Jesus on, which puts a rather different spin on the betrayal.
 

unsafe

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,537
Reaction score
1,025
Mendalla ---you said -----Joseph's role is interesting in light of some comments from Father Just. He points out that the best models of faith in Mark are generally not the Apostles, who are often questioning, squabbling, and so on. It's minor players like Bartimeus, the Syro-Phoenician woman, the bleeding woman, and such. Joseph kind of fits that mold, too.

my view ----I agree the Disciples were not the good models of faith ---the Disciples struggled with true faith ----their faith wavered because I believe they had a bit of a problem of allowing their Discipleship to boost and feed their ego at times ---they did argue and got offended at times as well and all this blocked their Faith and trust in who Jesus really was and the power He was able to give them ---- -we can have faith but not trust ---Trusting in who Jesus was and what He said is key to strengthen Faith -----and when you Trust you will put that faith into action because you have no doubt that what Jesus says will happen -----these great faith people who were healed ----trusted Jesus and had Faith in what He could do and their Trust put that Faith into the right action and they got the right results ------

This is so important for us today as many may have the right Faith but not trust in what God Promises in His word -----so they have dead faith because of their lack of trust -----This is not taught in main stream Churches and many are stumped as to why their faith doesn't work ------Trust is key for faith to act ----these true faith people in scripture called and never gave up till they did what they had to -to get the healing they wanted ---Doubt was far from these people ---they trusted with all their heart --soul and mind -----and got the right results ---and this works today the same way for all who receive Jesus in their hearts --- The word inbirths the right faith and we have to Trust what the word says and put our Faith into the right positive action to get the results -----the proof is in the scripture
 

paradox3

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,087
Reaction score
4,174
Mark 16

The woman go to the tomb early in the morning, prepared to anoint the body of Jesus with spices. They worry about who will roll away the stone for them from the entrance to the tomb. They discover it has been moved already. When they enter the tomb, there is a young man in white sitting on its right side. He tells them not to be alarmed; Jesus has been risen. "Go and tell the disciples, even Peter," he says "that Jesus is going ahead of you into Galilee."

They run from the tomb, afraid and bewildered. They do not say anything about what they have seen and heard.

For reflection:

"And they said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid." (Mark 16: 8)
 

BetteTheRed

Resident Heretic
Messages
17,966
Reaction score
7,968
What always blows me away about this story is that we never question the existence and role of Barabbas. Literally, "son of the Daddy'; exactly what Jesus is claimed to be?
 

paradox3

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,087
Reaction score
4,174
Although there are two alternative endings to Mark, their authenticity is disputed. Some bibles provide one or both of these endings, generally indicated with brackets or mentioned only in the footnotes. Verse 16:8 is usually regarded as the end of the Gospel of Mark.

"And they said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid." (Mark 16: 8 NET)

I like it as an ending. It leaves us with a bit of a mystery. What will happen next? Will there be post-resurrection appearances? What does the whole thing mean?

For Mark, it seems fitting to leave matters up in the air. He gives us nothing in the way of a birth narrative and now, at the end of his gospel, just an empty tomb and a few words from the character in the white robe.

Who was this man? An angel, perhaps? Some have speculated he was the "certain young man" who ran away naked.
 

paradox3

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,087
Reaction score
4,174
What always blows me away about this story is that we never question the existence and role of Barabbas. Literally, "son of the Daddy'; exactly what Jesus is claimed to be?
Raises some questions about what that crowd was actually shouting, doesn't it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top