The Gospel of Mark

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

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

Register Log in
The question that always leads to my mind when reading about the feeding of the 5000 is how big a crowd it must've been. 5000 is a lot. I don't think I've ever been in a crowd like that. 150 or 200 is a big crowd for me; perhaps 500 in one place. And in the Scripture is not just 5000 people but 5000 men. And surely there would be some women; let's have Pat they have as many women as men – 2500 women. And where is there women that are babies and little children and where there is a gathering there is going to be older children and youth; let's say another 2500 people. So now we've 10,000 gathered together in the open air with murmurs and voices crying children, scolding parents, giggling teens and white noise of birds and insects and the wind rustling in the trees, as well as the waves lapping on the shore.

How many people lived in that area? Would that have been 10,000 people able and willing to gather in one place for a day. Remember this would be when transportation was limited mainly to walking and a journey of 30 miles made by take two days or more.
It was also before the invention of microphones or sound systems. I know that a century or so ago public speakers were taught to throw their voices to the back of a large auditorium, and people are expected to listen closely. Some I doubt would be able to hear much at the back of the crowd of 10,000. I could be wrong.

But somehow I doubt that the number 5000 men as well as women and children was accurate. I think it more likely that it was a large crowd, well over 200 perhaps, but nothing near 5000 and more.
 
Seeler said:
The question that always leads to my mind when reading about the feeding of the 5000 is how big a crowd it must've been. 5000 is a lot. I don't think I've ever been in a crowd like that. 150 or 200 is a big crowd for me; perhaps 500 in one place. And in the Scripture is not just 5000 people but 5000 men. And surely there would be some women; let's have Pat they have as many women as men – 2500 women. And where is there women that are babies and little children and where there is a gathering there is going to be older children and youth; let's say another 2500 people. So now we've 10,000 gathered together in the open air with murmurs and voices crying children, scolding parents, giggling teens and white noise of birds and insects and the wind rustling in the trees, as well as the waves lapping on the shore.

How many people lived in that area? Would that have been 10,000 people able and willing to gather in one place for a day. Remember this would be when transportation was limited mainly to walking and a journey of 30 miles made by take two days or more.
It was also before the invention of microphones or sound systems. I know that a century or so ago public speakers were taught to throw their voices to the back of a large auditorium, and people are expected to listen closely. Some I doubt would be able to hear much at the back of the crowd of 10,000. I could be wrong.

But somehow I doubt that the number 5000 men as well as women and children was accurate. I think it more likely that it was a large crowd, well over 200 perhaps, but nothing near 5000 and more.
Click to expand...

I believe it was 5000+. Still today it's possible for crowds that large to assemble.
 
Summary: Mark 7: 1-37

The Pharisees and scribes who have come from Jerusalem gather round and notice some of the disciples eating with unwashed hands. There are many traditions of the elders which are similar. So they question Jesus.

He replies, "Isaiah rightly prophesied about you hypocrites." (7:6 NRSV) He accuses them of neglecting the law of God and holding to human tradition. Jesus calls the crowd again and says, "Listen to me, all of you and understand, there is nothing outside a person that by going in can defile, but the things that come out are what defile." (7: 14-15 NRSV)

His disciples ask later about the parable. Jesus declares all foods clean and describes the evil things that come from the human heart: fornication, theft, murder, adultery, avarice, etc. These are the things which defile a person.

Next Jesus goes away to the region of Tyre. He enters a house and does not want anyone to know he is there. A Gentile woman approaches him and begs for healing for her little daughter. Jesus initially refuses but is persuaded to cast out the demon.

When Jesus returns from Tyre a deaf man with a speech impediment is brought to him. Jesus heals the man but orders the people to tell no one. The more he requested silence, the more zealously the healing is proclaimed. The people are astounded beyond measure.
 
Reflection Mark 7: 1-37

These three stories were told in Matthew 15 but some of the details vary. It was not a single deaf man cured in Matthew's gospel but many individuals with a variety of ailments.

When we discussed the interaction of Jesus with the Pharisees, there was some debate about the Jewish dietary laws. Was Jesus referring to them or not? Some of us thought yes and some thought no. Here all foods are declared clean.

In the story of the Syrophoenician woman, we have Jesus changing His mind and expanding His ministry to include Gentiles. Does this make it any more likely that Jesus changed his mind when walking across the sea in Mark 6?

And we continue to see Jesus not wanting to draw attention to himself. I still find it curious that He wanted the story about the demon-possessed pigs to be shared widely.
 
Thoughts on Mark 7:27-30...

Mark gives the story in a brief form, indicating the battle which the woman fought in proving herself equal to a test of faith.

Christ was sent to Israel's lost sheep; His ministry extended no farther, and he told the woman so.

The woman's method of attacking Christ and taking hold of his own words in her interest won the day for her.

When he said, "Let the children eat first; it isn't good to take their bread and throw it to the dogs," she admitted that saying's truth.

She noted that Jesus used the word that was applied to the housedogs, that had the right to gather up the crumbs under the table. Upon this word she clung.

She found the place where he'd left an opening, "I'm thankful to receive the Jews' crumbs." In overcoming Christ with his own arguments, this woman showed faith.

And Jesus yields to her, for the sake of that word of trust, of assurance which she has spoken.

Let her therefore go home, for the demon had already left her daughter. And so she found the situation when she went home: the daughter now lying on the couch, with no more indication of her suffering.

We, who have God's promises must show more faith. We must be instant in prayer and persevering in our appeals to God. We must learn to answer God with his own words.
 
It is all debatable and argumentative ein the mortal mind as being one temporarily possessed by blinding passion ...

Thus we are separate and divinely schismed from the crippled wise man that ends up with squat ... except to observe this from exoteric space as radical ... with implications of things than are more than humans wish to know ...

Especially about the grief caused by men wishing to control others minds for monis' terous gain ... tis subconscious aviris ... small thing in the genes ...

We could lose it all in a heap of word ... God unseen? Thus great fonts ... they keep role 'n out ...
 
Thoughts on Mark 7:31-32...

This healing's story is one peculiar to Mark's gospel.

After his time in Syrophenicia, Jesus didn't go directly back to Galilee. He went through the borders of Coele-Syria and Upper Galilee, along the Leontes, and then down from Caesarea-Philippi through Gaulanitis into the Decapolis.

He used the time in teaching his missionaries things which were necessary for them in their calling.

It was after Christ's return into the Sea of Galilee's area that he was brought a man that was deaf and had a speech impediment. He couldn't articulate, he was unable to form the words. It was an ailment in which the extent of Satan's power's evident.
 
Jae said:
Thoughts on Mark 7:31-32...

This healing's story is one peculiar to Mark's gospel.

After his time in Syrophenicia, Jesus didn't go directly back to Galilee. He went through the borders of Coele-Syria and Upper Galilee, along the Leontes, and then down from Caesarea-Philippi through Gaulanitis into the Decapolis.

He used the time in teaching his missionaries things which were necessary for them in their calling.

It was after Christ's return into the Sea of Galilee's area that he was brought a man that was deaf and had a speech impediment. He couldn't articulate, he was unable to form the words. It was an ailment in which the extent of Satan's power's evident.
Click to expand...
Your grasp of Middle Eastern geography certainly exceeds mine. :)

Being deaf with a speech impediment is an example of Satan's power, in your view? People considered many diseases and ailments to be the work of demons in biblical times. Lacking the medical knowledge of today, this is not too surprising.

We hear of many physical and mental illnesses being cured & often faith is given the credit. How do we explain these stories? Was Jesus capable of miraculous healing or were most of these ailments psychosomatic? How significant was the power of hope? We know today that the body, mind and spirit are intertwined in many ways.
 
paradox3 said:
Your grasp of Middle Eastern geography certainly exceeds mine. :)

Being deaf with a speech impediment is an example of Satan's power, in your view? People considered many diseases and ailments to be the work of demons in biblical times. Lacking the medical knowledge of today, this is not too surprising.

We hear of many physical and mental illnesses being cured & often faith is given the credit. How do we explain these stories? Was Jesus capable of miraculous healing or were most of these ailments psychosomatic? How significant was the power of hope? We know today that the body, mind and spirit are intertwined in many ways.
Click to expand...

It should be clear to all by now (chiefly because I've stated as such) that I believe Jesus to be divine. As such is the case, it logically follows that I believe he was (and is) capable of miraculous healing.
 
One may believe what they were told without question as naivete is the instance !

Alternately one may base BS on experience blended with information of past errors ... of which there are a pile of conflicts associated with Eire in visions ... esoteric or exoteric ... which may require some pairing and parenting ... spud Pi?

What we don't know is amazing ... and such chaos leads us to raising the durn dished out things on a stick ... shafted surroundings?
 
Thoughts on Mark 7:33-37...

Jesus withdrew the sick man from the crowd. His act awakened him, to make him note all that Jesus did with him, for only through signs could Jesus communicate with him.

Jesus then put two of his fingers into the man's ears. The deafness was evil; by touching the organs, Jesus transmitted to them his power.

He next moistened his finger at his mouth and touched the man's tongue. The tongue and the ears were diseased.

Jesus looked up to heaven and sighed. He felt sympathy for the sufferer.

We see that the healing meant a strain for Christ. And at last he spoke the Aramaic word: "Ephphatha," which Mark translates for his readers: "Open!"

The result: the ears were opened, and his tongue was loosed; whereas he could formerly make sounds, he could now articulate and speak

Jesus impressed upon them that they shouldn't tell of the miracle. They did just the opposite: they proclaimed it. They were astonished, having the former miracle in mind as well.
 
Always wondered about charismatic tongues compared to the celibate in the lower realms of high church doings ...

Best to speak as if you didn't know anything either as intelligence is not highly rated ... in ragus of emotional composition ...

Thus the stoo' we're in ...
 
Jae said:
Thoughts on Mark 7:33-37...

Jesus withdrew the sick man from the crowd. His act awakened him, to make him note all that Jesus did with him, for only through signs could Jesus communicate with him.

Jesus then put two of his fingers into the man's ears. The deafness was evil; by touching the organs, Jesus transmitted to them his power.

He next moistened his finger at his mouth and touched the man's tongue. The tongue and the ears were diseased.

Jesus looked up to heaven and sighed. He felt sympathy for the sufferer.

We see that the healing meant a strain for Christ. And at last he spoke the Aramaic word: "Ephphatha," which Mark translates for his readers: "Open!"

The result: the ears were opened, and his tongue was loosed; whereas he could formerly make sounds, he could now articulate and speak

Jesus impressed upon them that they shouldn't tell of the miracle. They did just the opposite: they proclaimed it. They were astonished, having the former miracle in mind as well.
Click to expand...
Interesting that he used saliva and his fingers to heal and not just the laying on of hands. Prior he also suggested giving food to the girl he brought back to life from "sleeping" similar to what you would do for someome who's sugar levels had fallen.
 
Waterfall said:
Interesting that he used saliva and his fingers to heal and not just the laying on of hands. Prior he also suggested giving food to the girl he brought back to life from "sleeping" similar to what you would do for someome who's sugar levels had fallen.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but the girl was dead. D-e-a-d dead.

What these do show along with some other miracles that Jesus can heal in a myriad ways.
 
Thoughts on Mark 7:17-23...

The missionaries had gotten into the habit of talking over Jesus' teaching, in order to find its meaning, to get the understanding.

Here they waited until Jesus came home with them, to the place where they all were lodging. Here they asked him concerning this saying.

The missionary notes Jesus' speech, in which he scorned their lack of insight. Their stupidity is made prominent, in order to bring out their need of instruction.

Jesus extends the saying, which before had touched only upon humanity's moral sphere, in order to make his meaning plainer.

Food can't affect a person's condition before God. They're taken into the stomach, and the waste matter's pooped out, thus purging the body of matter which might make him unclean. Thus Christ extended his saying concerning uncleanness to abolishing the distinction maintained in the OT concerning foods' cleanness and uncleanness.

The lesson which Christ wanted to teach: the process' physical side touched upon by him was only a side issue.

That upon which all depends is the right attitude, the understanding of the things that go out from the body. From inside come thoughts, desires, words, actions that defile the person. God looks into the heart. The thoughts are shameful before God.

And they all live in the heart: murders, assaults, thefts, slaveries, covetousness, divorce, jealousy, blasphemy, foolishness, etc.

These are the things that defile a person. A missionary has need to watch over their heart, lest any of these evil seeds sprout and grow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top