Revisiting Mark

[Mendalla]

is this lecture informing your understanding of Mark's gospel? That might be the question to consider.

Dr. Just has spent a lot more time studying Mark and it's context than I can hope to. He knows some context and nuances that I do not. So, as always with things like this, it gives me some new context to consider and maybe points out some things I didn't know (like the possibility that Peter was the source for some of it) or didn't consider before. Same as reading Borg's chapter on the Gospels. Reading the gospel "cold" simply cannot teach me as much as knowing the context, nuances of language, and so on.

 

[paradox3]

Thanks @Mendalla that makes a lot of sense. I get what you are saying about context & nuances of language.

Is reading scripture a spiritual practice as well as an intellectual pursuit for you? I guess that is what I am wondering about & not expressing very well. Speaking personally, I am striving for a balance between the two, I think . . .

Back in the fall, I was thinking about how I might create the kind of bible study I enjoy here in real life. It is on hold right now, of course.

I have participated in some that almost provided too much information & reading. It might be interesting enough at the time, but afterwards I don't recall a lot of the material. OTOH, after a long stretch of bible studies organized as Wink suggests, I felt like we might have been doing too little in the way of learning & getting too focused on the personal sharing.

A couple that were done by clergy people provided a good balance of the two.

Just thinking this through.

 

[Mendalla]

Is reading scripture a spiritual practice as well as an intellectual pursuit for you?

It is, I think. Probably in a different way than it would be for a "real" Christian. It's really me exploring the roots of my values and spirituality and, maybe, trying to find a way back to that. I know I'll never be an evangelical like unsafe or even a "mainstream" Christian again, but I'm definitely drawn to exploring the ideas and stories so maybe some kind of "progressive" Christian. Whatever the heck that means. There seem to be multiple understandings of what makes a Christian "progressive".

 

[paradox3]

Regardless of exactly how we are engaging our minds and spirits around here, we will carry on with Mark.

I am interested in another Luke thread but plan to focus on the material that is unique to Luke. I am still getting my thoughts together about how I will approach it but I am keen to explore Luke from this angle. Stay tuned.

 

[Mendalla]

We never really got into the whole discussion of marriage and divorce in 10:1-12. I suppose it is much discussed in the context of debates about divorce, same-sex marriage and such. But I find the line, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote this commandment for you" interesting. I am trying to figure out exactly what he means by this. Because of their/our hardness of heart God had to allow divorce because he knew we just wouldn't be able to abide by the ideal presented? Is this a product of the sinful state of humanity (or our fallibility if you're not into Original Sin)? Would a saved world not need divorce as an option because every marriage would conform to the ideal?

 

[BetteTheRed]

I find the concept of partnerships and the longevity of same to be both very interesting, and very personal. The current social norm in the western world appears to be "serial monogamy".

 

[paradox3]

Because of their/our hardness of heart God had to allow divorce because he knew we just wouldn't be able to abide by the ideal presented?

This is my reading of it. Did you notice that Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of dismissal and divorce the woman? There is no mention of it being allowed the other way around.

Jesus upholds the ideal of marriage but does allow for divorce. It seems that either the man or the woman can initiate this. But if the divorced remarry, they are committing adultery and thus breaking one of God's (ten) commandments.

 

[paradox3]

Mark 11

Jesus and the disciples enter Jerusalem to the cries of Hosanna! Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord!

The next day, Jesus is hungry and spots a fig tree. He finds no fruit on the tree, for it was not the season for figs. He says to it, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." The disciples hear this.

Jesus enters the temple area and begins to drive out the buyers and the sellers. He overturns the tables of the money changers and the chairs of those selling doves. The house of the lord has been turned into a den of robbers.

Jesus and the disciples see the fig tree withered from its roots. Faith can move mountains, Jesus explains and He teaches them about prayer. They are to pray without doubt in their hearts and they will receive what they ask for. They are to forgive others so that they may be forgiven.

The chief priests and elders challenge Jesus about his authority. But Jesus refuses to explain by whose authority he does things.

For reflection:

And his disciples heard it. (Mark 11: 14 NET)

 

[paradox3]

And his disciples heard it.

This reminds me of yesterday's discussion about how we engage with scripture. There is hearing and there is hearing.

Mark 11 has Jesus cursing a fig tree and driving the buyers & sellers out of the temple. Both actions seem out of character for Jesus and are interesting to contemplate.

 

[Mrs.Anteater]

I can’t make sense - and probably there is none- out of the fig tree story. Jesus behaves like a child with a temper tantrum, cursing a tree because it doesn’t have fruit outside of the season. That’s a kind of god I can do very well without. Then saying that prayer can move mountains- well, maybe he should have prayed figs on the tree then.
Its a part that all the authoritan-God loving christians love. The arbitrary punishing God, even if HE isn’t even morally right.

 

[paradox3]

Then saying that prayer can move mountains- well, maybe he should have prayed figs on the tree then.

It certainly is a curious story.

Interesting that the tree withered from the roots. The curse was "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." This didn't necessarily mean the tree had to wither and die. It could have lived without producing fruit or it could have produced fruit which remained uneaten.

 

[Mendalla]

It certainly is a curious story.

Interesting that the tree withered from the roots. The curse was "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." This didn't necessarily mean the tree had to wither and die. It could have lived without producing fruit or it could have produced fruit which remained uneaten.

Which suggests that the withering carried meaning in the story. I mean, this strikes me as a parable or myth of some kind. What would it mean that the curse destroyed the tree instead of just rendering it barren?

(And no, I am not sure myself. Just suggesting that it's a story whose real meaning isn't about trees and figs.)

 

[Redbaron]

In other gospels, the fig tree withers right there and then... Mark has it withered the next morning, so that the story of the fig tree brackets the scene in the Temple. Maybe there's a symbol that something that started out so full of promise and hope seemed to fade away to uselessness over time? The house of prayer devolves into a den of robbers; a place of the Spirit becomes just another merchandising opportunity?

 

[Mendalla]

Mark has it withered the next morning, so that the story of the fig tree brackets the scene in the Temple.

Dr. Just (it's apparently pronounced "Yoost" by the way), mentioned upthread, calls attention to this bracketing. It's something Mark does in other places, too, using one story to bracket another or inserting a story into another. Think how the bleeding woman's healing happens while Jesus is en route to Jairus' place. So, yeah, it does tend to suggest that Mark is relating the two in some way, eh.

Both actions seem out of character for Jesus

I would probably add an "in Mark" there. In Matthew, when you read his rants against the scribes and Pharisees, the cleansing of the Temple seems a lot more plausible. He comes across as angrier, more aggressive in that Gospel.

 

[paradox3]

My NIV study bible suggests in its notes the fig tree story symbolizes the Judgement to come. First God's judgement and later the perishing, perhaps?

I wonder if this is a common interpretation of the text. I have never encountered it before.

In reading this story, I usually find myself sympathetic to the fig tree. How was it supposed to produce fruit out of season???

 

[Mendalla]

The whole "out of season" thing is a curious addition, isn't it? Not quite sure how it adds to the meaning of the story. Makes Jesus look like a bit of a jerk, really.

His teaching on the fig tree seems to be encouraging the whole "vending machine God" notion, does it not?

22 Jesus answered them, “Have faith in God. 23 Truly I tell you, if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and thrown into the sea,’ and if you do not doubt in your heart, but believe that what you say will come to pass, it will be done for you. 24 So I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

But then he adds the teaching on forgiveness normally buried in the Lord's Prayer,

25 “Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone; so that your Father in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses.”

And I noticed that there was no 26 in the NRSV on Bible Gateway. NIV had the number but no verse. A footnote on the NRSV says, "Other ancient authorities add verse 26, 'But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father in heaven forgive your trespasses.'" So apparently verse 26 isn't really accepted by modern translators or something? Old translations like the King James and 1599 Geneva have it, but modern ones seem to bury it in a footnote.

 

[Redbaron]

As far as the whole out of season situation, I seem to hear echoes of Jesus saying (I think mostly in John's gospel) 'My hour has not yet come.' Yet that didn't stop people from expecting things from him (his mother at the wedding in Cana in ch. 2, for example.) Could this figs-before-their-time be a sort of reflection of that?

 

[paradox3]

Makes Jesus look like a bit of a jerk, really.

Jesus as a bit of a hothead seems to be the theme here.

Worth remembering the next time someone asks you WWJD?
You can always say that Jesus would throw the tables and the chairs around.

 

[Mendalla]

A curious thing that I noticed and I am surprised I have not noticed it before.

Here in Mark, Jesus rides a "colt", which would mean a "young horse". No donkey is mentioned. Ditto Luke from what I can find scanning translation in BibleGateway.

So I flipped back to Matthew. He says Jesus rode a donkey AND her colt. Which is a bit weird. I assume the colt was walking alongside, though Matthew says Jesus rode "on them".

John says "donkey" but cites a prophecy that says "donkey colt", meaning a young donkey.

So what the hell did he ride? A donkey and a young horse are not the same thing. They are related (mules are a hybrid of the two), but not the same. We traditionally use "donkey" (from Matt and John), which seems more "humble" but the "young horse" of Mark and Luke seems more king-like so does our reading of the entry to Jerusalem change depending on the account we use?

 

[Mendalla]

Did some more version scanning. Douay Rheims actually used "colt of an ass" in Luke, so fits better with John and Matthew, but others including both King James and modern ones like the NIV and NRSV, just say "colt" so I am guessing the word in Greek is just "colt" and the translators of Douay Rheims added "of an ass" just to harmonize with the other gospels.