According to Chapter 7 of the Gospel According to Mark, Jesus was confronted by a group of Pharisees and legal scholars who demanded to know why he had not insisted that his disciples follow the rabbinical rules regarding ritual washing before eating. Although various parts of the Torah (such as Leviticus Chapters 13-15) contain various rules regarding purification rituals (especially where people have had diseases or discharges), the rules referred to here in Mark may have been part of an oral tradition considered by the Pharisees to have been handed down from Moses (and later codified in the Talmud). As in other situations in which authority figures raise objections regarding the behavior of weaker or lower-status people, Jesus responded in defense of those being attacked. He objected to the legal scholars' tendency to insist on following human traditions that honored God "with the lips," while belittling people who could not be expected to know all the rules. He also criticized the Pharisees and scholars for using technical legal requirements to avoid broader ethical responsibilities toward their elders. As in Chapters 2, 3 and 4, Jesus addressed his responses separately to the legal challengers, to the crowd, and to his disciples. He insisted that a person is not contaminated by anything that goes into his or her mouth, but rather by what comes out of it (in the form of spiteful speech).
It is, of course, easy to criticize the Pharisees and scribes in the story for what appears to be an excessively legalistic approach to piety. But the author of the Gospel seems more concerned with (a) emphasizing Jesus' unique authority, and (b) raising questions about the natural tendency of all people to excuse their own shortcomings while insisting that other people behave only in ways that seem proper. For example, it is easy for those of us who have never been tempted to use illegal drugs or alcohol to feel highly critical of those who have found themselves addicted to those substances. At the same time, we all hope God will forgive our own faults; after all, we know that our intentions have always been good. All too often in our own time, the Bible is used, not as a proclamation of God's love, but as a weapon for proving that other people are behaving improperly. Can you think of any ways in which you object strongly to behavior by other people, who have given in to temptations you do not personally share? On the other hand, does Jesus really believe that "anything goes?" How can we tell what rules are important?
Sussex United Methodist Church Online Bible Study
Friday, January 10, 2014
Monday, December 2, 2013
Mark 6:45-56--Walking on the Water
According to Mark's account, immediately after Jesus had fed five thousand people with five loaves of bread and two fish, he ordered his disciples to get into the boat and "go on ahead to the other side." He said farewell and went up on the mountain to pray. As evening came, while Jesus was alone on land, the disciples strained at their oars "against an adverse wind." Mark reports that as Jesus came toward them, he intended to walk on past them (possibly to meet them at the destination, because they were making so little headway against the waves). As Jesus was walking on the sea, the disciples thought they were seeing a ghost and cried out in fear. Immediately, Jesus called out, "It is I; do not be afraid." When he joined them in the boat, the wind ceased, and the disciples were astounded, "for they did not understand about the loaves." Why does Mark mention the loaves that had fed the crowd? What is the connection between this incident and the feeding incident? Why does Mark keep saying that things happened "immediately"? In what sense does Mark suggest that the disciples' hearts "were hardened"?
In all events, when the boat landed, Jesus and the disciples were in the land of Genesaret, where people recognized Jesus "at once." Wherever he went in the region, people brought sick people to Jesus, begging him to heal them. Mark reports that all those who even touched the fringe of his cloak were healed. The reference to "fringe" may refer to a prayer shawl, reminding people of the protection of God's "wings." Recall that in Chapter 5, a woman had sought to be healed by Jesus by touching the hem of his garment, in a manner that might have been intended to avoid a direct contact that could render Jesus ritually unclean. In what ways does Mark use these sick and desperate people to compare and contrast to Jesus' disciples? How might their understanding be similarly limited?
In all events, when the boat landed, Jesus and the disciples were in the land of Genesaret, where people recognized Jesus "at once." Wherever he went in the region, people brought sick people to Jesus, begging him to heal them. Mark reports that all those who even touched the fringe of his cloak were healed. The reference to "fringe" may refer to a prayer shawl, reminding people of the protection of God's "wings." Recall that in Chapter 5, a woman had sought to be healed by Jesus by touching the hem of his garment, in a manner that might have been intended to avoid a direct contact that could render Jesus ritually unclean. In what ways does Mark use these sick and desperate people to compare and contrast to Jesus' disciples? How might their understanding be similarly limited?
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Not Really About the Bread: Mark 6:30-44
After recounting the death of John the Baptist, the sixth chapter of the Gospel According to Mark describes the return of the disciples Jesus had sent forth earlier. In keeping with the tone of the rest of the chapter, Mark does not recount any great successes in the mission work of the apostles; instead, they are described as simply reporting what they had done and taught. Noting that they had not had any time to rest, or even to eat, Jesus invited the disciples to retreat by boat to a place in the desert that would be away from the crowds for a while.
The crowds, though, would not leave them alone. According to Mark, they followed Jesus and his disciples wherever they went, like stalkers. Instead of allowing himself to become annoyed, Jesus felt "moved with compassion," and began to teach the crowds again. As the afternoon wore on, the disciples encouraged Jesus to send the crowds away, so that they would all have an opportunity to obtain food (and perhaps lodging). Surprisingly, Jesus pushed the issue of food back onto the disciples: "Give them something to eat." (verse 17). Assuming that he meant they should go to buy food for the crowd, the disciples began to calculate the practical difficulties. At that moment, Jesus interrupted them by asking how many loaves they had with them. "Five loaves and two fish," was the reply. Ordering the crowd to be divided into smaller groups, Jesus blessed the loaves and fish, and gave the food to the disciples to distribute. Everyone ate "and was filled," and twelve baskets of bread fragments and fish were gathered back up. Five thousand had been fed.
This incident is one of the few events that is recounted in all four gospels; it was clearly understood to be very important. Why would it be more important than the other amazing things Jesus did? At least one lesson of the story is that when Jesus' followers dedicate whatever meager resources they have, Jesus blesses the effort with great power. Details such as the crowd size estimate, the conclusion that everyone had been "filled," and the huge volume of leftovers, all testify to Christ's power. But how did it happen? Did food just keep appearing in the bottom of the baskets, like scarves in a magician's hat? Or did loaves appear suddenly all over the hilltop? Did the example of generosity inspire people in the crowd to quietly add their own hidden food supplies to the baskets, as the baskets were passed around?
Puzzling as the questions are to us, the mechanism of the feeding of the crowd does not really seem important to Mark. Without describing how Jesus fed all the people, Mark emphasizes Jesus' compassion, the paltry resources of his followers, Christ's insistence that his disciples should address the issue of the crowd's needs, and the disciples' amazing success when Christ is with them. Is Mark only interested in demonstrating Jesus' great power, or does Mark's account suggest an additional message to financially or numerically beleaguered churches, in times of mass hunger or disaster?
The crowds, though, would not leave them alone. According to Mark, they followed Jesus and his disciples wherever they went, like stalkers. Instead of allowing himself to become annoyed, Jesus felt "moved with compassion," and began to teach the crowds again. As the afternoon wore on, the disciples encouraged Jesus to send the crowds away, so that they would all have an opportunity to obtain food (and perhaps lodging). Surprisingly, Jesus pushed the issue of food back onto the disciples: "Give them something to eat." (verse 17). Assuming that he meant they should go to buy food for the crowd, the disciples began to calculate the practical difficulties. At that moment, Jesus interrupted them by asking how many loaves they had with them. "Five loaves and two fish," was the reply. Ordering the crowd to be divided into smaller groups, Jesus blessed the loaves and fish, and gave the food to the disciples to distribute. Everyone ate "and was filled," and twelve baskets of bread fragments and fish were gathered back up. Five thousand had been fed.
This incident is one of the few events that is recounted in all four gospels; it was clearly understood to be very important. Why would it be more important than the other amazing things Jesus did? At least one lesson of the story is that when Jesus' followers dedicate whatever meager resources they have, Jesus blesses the effort with great power. Details such as the crowd size estimate, the conclusion that everyone had been "filled," and the huge volume of leftovers, all testify to Christ's power. But how did it happen? Did food just keep appearing in the bottom of the baskets, like scarves in a magician's hat? Or did loaves appear suddenly all over the hilltop? Did the example of generosity inspire people in the crowd to quietly add their own hidden food supplies to the baskets, as the baskets were passed around?
Puzzling as the questions are to us, the mechanism of the feeding of the crowd does not really seem important to Mark. Without describing how Jesus fed all the people, Mark emphasizes Jesus' compassion, the paltry resources of his followers, Christ's insistence that his disciples should address the issue of the crowd's needs, and the disciples' amazing success when Christ is with them. Is Mark only interested in demonstrating Jesus' great power, or does Mark's account suggest an additional message to financially or numerically beleaguered churches, in times of mass hunger or disaster?
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Mark, Chapter 6: "A Foretaste of Danger"
According to the sixth chapter of the Gospel According to Mark, Jesus left his unwelcoming hometown and ordered his chosen twelve disciples to go ahead into the surrounding villages in teams of two, preaching repentance. Although he "gave them authority over evil (or "unclean") spirits," he told them not to take anything with them except a staff (perhaps as a reminder of Moses' staff of authority?).
They must have felt woefully unprepared and poorly equipped for the mission. When have you been assigned a task, either in church or in any other context, in which you felt unprepared and inadequately supported? It's a lonely, frightening feeling. But the disciples went--and notwithstanding all warnings about the possibility of rejection, they experienced nothing but success. At this moment of apparent triumph for the Gospel message, Mark inserts a detailed and graphic account of the arrest and bizarre death of John the Baptist. Mark's account blames King Herod's wife Herodias for arranging the death of John. When Herodias' daughter pleased Herod and his guests with a dance performance, the king offered her "anything" as a reward, and (after consultation with her mother, who held a grudge against the prophet because of his earlier criticisms of her) the daughter requested John's head. Feeling cornered, the king agreed. Why does the Gospel report the death of John in such detail? Why at this point in the story? It would have been hard to anticipate that the Baptist would be put to death in such a manner. What are the implications for Jesus' followers--not only his followers in Galilee, but his followers everywhere, today?
They must have felt woefully unprepared and poorly equipped for the mission. When have you been assigned a task, either in church or in any other context, in which you felt unprepared and inadequately supported? It's a lonely, frightening feeling. But the disciples went--and notwithstanding all warnings about the possibility of rejection, they experienced nothing but success. At this moment of apparent triumph for the Gospel message, Mark inserts a detailed and graphic account of the arrest and bizarre death of John the Baptist. Mark's account blames King Herod's wife Herodias for arranging the death of John. When Herodias' daughter pleased Herod and his guests with a dance performance, the king offered her "anything" as a reward, and (after consultation with her mother, who held a grudge against the prophet because of his earlier criticisms of her) the daughter requested John's head. Feeling cornered, the king agreed. Why does the Gospel report the death of John in such detail? Why at this point in the story? It would have been hard to anticipate that the Baptist would be put to death in such a manner. What are the implications for Jesus' followers--not only his followers in Galilee, but his followers everywhere, today?
Saturday, August 3, 2013
ONLINE BIBLE STUDY: "Scandal in the Home Town?" THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK, CHAPTER 6, VERSES 1-6.
Immediately after three accounts of impressive healings, and
just before an account of Jesus' sending out his twelve disciples on their own
mission forays, the Gospel According to Mark offers a brief report of Jesus' disappointing visit
to his home town (which Mark curiously does not identify). Matthew and Luke
both report the same incident in their gospels, but those accounts offer somewhat different
details and emphasis. According to Mark's brief
account, Jesus led his disciples to his home town, where on the Sabbath,
he began teaching in the synagogue. Many
who heard him were "astounded." (verse 2). Although the phrasing recalls the earlier
astonishment in Capernaum that Jesus taught "as one with authority, and not
as the scribes," here the astonishment in Jesus' hometown seems to have
been of a different character.
Immediately, the listeners began asking questions about his
credentials. "Where did this man
get all this! What is this wisdom that
has been given to him? What deeds of
power are being done by his hands!" That seems odd. Why would Jesus' former neighbors refer to him as "this
man"? Why would they ask such
questions, if they had heard about Jesus' earlier miracles and expected
something similar to happen in their midst?
The Gospel According to Luke describes the crowd in Nazareth as
admiring Jesus, at least at first.
"And all spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words
that came from his mouth. Is this not
Joseph's son?" (Luke, 4:22). Mark
does not report anyone in his home town speaking well of Jesus or praising his
public speaking ability. What does Mark
think was on the minds of the synagogue congregation?
The words Mark attributes to the listeners are fairly
ambiguous. The ancient Greek written
language contained no punctuation marks, and so we should remember that all the
punctuation marks in modern English translations of the Bible have been inserted by
the translators. In this passage, the
text gives very different impressions, depending on which punctuation marks are
used. For example, "What deeds of
power have been done by his hands?" may sound like a simple request for information, while "What deeds of power have been done by his hands!" may sound like an exclamation of praise. Moreover, the comments could have been laced
with sarcasm, which is hard to suggest, with any kind of punctuation. "What deeds of power are being done by his hands?" "What's with this guy?" and "Where did he get that?" or "Who does he think he is?" would not be sincere requests
for information at all; they would be expressions of annoyance or
disbelief. Mark reports that "they
took offense at him." Why would the
crowd have responded to Jesus with such unprovoked hostility?
A possible hint might be hidden in verse 3 of Mark's
account: "'Is not this the
carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon,
and are not his sisters here with us?' And they took offense at him." Some ancient manuscripts render the opening
part of that sentence as, "the son of the carpenter and of
Mary..." Luke and Matthew both
include references to a father (Matthew 13:53-58; Luke 4:16-30). But most ancient manuscripts of Mark contain
no reference to Joseph. In biblical
Galilee, identifying any man as the "son of" his mother was very
unusual, since the usual formula for a full name in one's home town would be
"[name], son of [father's name]."
It is possible that the omission of a reference to "the son of Joseph the carpenter" is simply an
accidental drafting or copying mistake.
After all, in the days before printing presses, all books were copied by
hand.
Perhaps,
though, the unusual reference to Jesus as "the carpenter, the son of Mary
and the brother of James..." does not really reflect any accidental
omission of something like "the son
of Joseph the carpenter, ..."
Perhaps the phrasing reflects instead a local sense of scandal about the
circumstances of Jesus' birth. Maybe the
villagers' failure to acknowledge Jesus as the son of Joseph was intended as an
insult, because it was widely suspected that Mary had become pregnant before
her marriage to Joseph. Even if
the listeners in the crowd were not suspicious about Jesus' parentage, they may
have been highly skeptical about the reports from other towns that Jesus was a
prophet, or perhaps even the Messiah. How could Jesus be someone so special? They had watched him grow up. How could a mere carpenter, who had even once
been reported to be crazy (see Mark Chapter 3), and who didn't even have legitimate parentage, have
done the mighty deeds that people claimed he had done? How could such a man ever be taken seriously
as a prophet or possible Messiah? If
that was their thinking, what did the people in Jesus' home town miss, by
refusing to give him a chance?
Do
you find individuals or groups whose background is so distasteful or
disreputable that you cannot imagine them actually doing or saying something
admirable? Can you think of a politician
you cannot trust, on any subject? Are
there reports of wonderful accomplishments attributed to particular individuals
that you dismiss out-of-hand as totally unbelievable? Why do we tend to
"type-cast" people?
Are
there individuals you have known for a long time, whom you could not imagine becoming
a famous athlete, a movie star, or a Nobel Prize winner? Would it feel embarrassing or irritating to
learn that a younger brother or sister, or someone you had once trained for
their job, had been chosen for a great honor, rather than you?
Mark
reports in verse 5 that Jesus "could do no deed of power there, except
that he laid his hands on a few sick people and cured them." Was it really not possible for Jesus to do any "deed of power" there,
because of the people's lack of faith?
Why does Mark say that Jesus was "amazed" at their
unbelief? Wouldn't he have been able to
predict their reaction, having known them all for so long?
In
all events, Jesus did not linger, but immediately set off teaching "among
the villages." (Verse 6). He also
called the twelve together and began to send them out, two by two. He instructed them to go to individual
houses, rather than synagogues, and whenever rejected, simply to "shake
the dust" of that place off their feet.
In what ways could his own reaction to rejection in his hometown help
prepare the disciples to deal with the possibility of rejection? If he could use his own experience of
rejection by old neighbors to help train his disciples, was his visit to his
home town really a failure? In what ways
should modern disciples expect to deal with rejection (and even failure) in
ministry? How can we avoid becoming
timid, in the face of experiences of rejection and embarrassing failures? How might we use our own experiences of
rejection or failure to help others?
Monday, July 15, 2013
ONLINE BIBLE STUDY: "Too Late to Help?"--MARK, CHAPTER 5, VERSES 35-43.
While Jesus was still talking with a woman who had just been
cured of a chronic bleeding disorder, people came from the house of the leader
of the synagogue, to tell him that his sick daughter had already died. The leader had earlier implored Jesus to come
to heal his daughter, but their trip to the house had been interrupted, and now
it seemed to late for Jesus to help.
"Why trouble the teacher any further?" the messengers
asked. Undeterred, Jesus reassured the
father, "Do not fear, but only believe." He then pressed on, taking only Peter, James
and John with him. Arriving at the
house, he saw a commotion of people wailing and weeping, in the traditional
ancient Middle-Eastern manner of mourning.
As he entered the house, Jesus asked the mourners, "Why are you
making a commotion? The child is not
dead, but sleeping." Upon hearing
these words, they laughed at him.
Ignoring the laughter, Jesus put the mourners outside, and took
the mother and father inside to where the twelve-year-old child was, along with
his three accompanying disciples. Taking
the child by the hand, he said to her in Aramaic, "Talitha cum;" that
is, "Little girl, get up."
Immediately, she got up and walked around, amazing everyone. Jesus ordered everyone to keep the incident a
secret, and he told them to give the girl something to eat.
At the beginning of the chapter, the child's father had shown
great confidence in Jesus' ability to heal his daughter. How would he have felt, upon hearing the news
from the messengers? Would his
confidence in Jesus have been shaken?
Would he have assumed that it was too late for Jesus to help? Can you recall any times when it has just
seemed too late for Jesus to be of any help to you? Did you then continue to pray for help, or
choose not to trouble Jesus further? If
your own problem or illness has not eventually been taken away, in response to
your prayers, has that affected your feelings about this story? Would it seem implausible, or merely
mysterious?
Why did Jesus tell the mourners that the child was "not
dead, but only sleeping"? Was he
really suggesting that the onlookers had been mistaken in pronouncing the death
of the girl, or was he really suggesting that death was not as serious as it
appeared, but only like "sleeping"?
Why did the author make a point of indicating that the girl was twelve
years old? That was the same number of
years that the woman described earlier in the chapter had been suffering from
her bleeding disorder; could the coincidence suggest a connection between the
cases? Twelve years old was the age when
a girl typically left her father's protection for marriage. Was it significant that her father still
sought to protect her? If she was
considered an adult, why did Jesus address her as "little girl"? Was that the same sort of family-like
familiarity he was suggesting by addressing the woman he healed earlier in the
chapter as "daughter"? Why
would Jesus suggest that the parents give their daughter "something to eat"? Was it because she must have been hungry
after her ordeal? Did it indicate that
she was "really on the mend," because she was able to begin eating
normally again? Did it prove that she
was really alive, and not a ghost?
Why does Mark's Gospel place so much emphasis on Jesus' healing
ministry? Why do you think Jesus only
allowed three of his disciples to see this particular healing/resuscitation? Why would Jesus insist that "no one
should know" about such an amazing event?
How would it have been possible to keep it a secret, in any event?
Thursday, June 20, 2013
ONLINE BIBLE STUDY: "Interrupted on the Way." MARK, CHAPTER 5, verses 11-34.
After Jesus had healed the daemon-possessed man in the land of
the Gerasenes, he returned by boat to the more familiar Galilean side of the Sea
of Galilee, where he was soon surrounded by a great crowd. There a man named Jairus
"repeatedly" begged Jesus to come to his house and "lay hands"
on his desperately sick daughter, so that she might be made well and live. Jairus was a "leader in the
synagogue," and although the exact nature of Jairus' office is difficult
to determine, it was evidently a position of some status. As Jesus followed Jairus toward his house,
large crowds followed Jesus and pressed upon him. Mark's narrative indicates that Jesus'
journey to Jairus' house was interrupted by a woman who had been hemorrhaging
for twelve years, despite the efforts of many physicians.
According to Mark, the woman had "endured much," at
the hands of the physicians, and had spent "all she had" on their
unsuccessful efforts to cure her. Have
you known people who have spent almost everything they had on medical
care? It is easy to imagine the frustration
and desperation that such efforts could have generated, especially where the
treatments had failed to produce any benefit.
In the woman's case, the problems would have been compounded by
the fact that chronic bleeding may have left her in a continuous condition of ritual
impurity. See Leviticus 12:1-8 and
Leviticus 15:19-30. Not only was the
woman apparently "unclean," but everyone who touched her might also
be considered unclean. According to
Leviticus 15:19, anyone who touches a woman during her "regular
discharge" is also unclean "until evening." Leviticus 15:25 indicates that "If a
woman has a discharge of blood for many days, not at the time of her impurity,
or if she has a discharge beyond the time of her impurity, all the days of the
discharge she shall continue in uncleanness; as in the days of her impurity,
she shall be unclean."
This ritual uncleanness also presented a special problem for the
woman who now hoped to be healed by Jesus.
She presumably knew that Jesus was on his way to "lay hands"
on the daughter of Jairus, in order to heal the girl of her sickness. Jesus might be able to heal the woman's
bleeding condition on the way, but if he "laid hands" on the bleeding
woman, he would make himself "unclean" until evening. In that case, Jesus might not be able to
attend to Jairus' daughter in time to save her.
On the other hand, if the woman did not reach out for Jesus' help now, she
might never see him again. Have you ever
been in a situation in which the apparent solution of your own problem would
apparently cause a problem for someone else?
In which an affirmative answer to your prayers meant a denial of someone
else's prayer request? How would you
decide what to do or pray for?
The unnamed woman in Mark's
account evidently decided upon a plan that would attempt to obtain a cure
without making Jesus "unclean."
She seems to have rationalized that if she touched only the fringe or
hem of Jesus' garment, Jesus would not have consciously "touched
her," and he would still remain ritually pure. Perhaps that minimal, indirect contact would
still be enough to provide her some relief from the bleeding condition. Managing to touch the hem of his garment in
the midst of a large and pressing crowd, though, would be difficult and perhaps
even dangerous. She would have hurry her
way through the crowd (without angering people by touching them), and she would
have to kneel down, reaching out toward his feet, probably from behind. It would have been humiliating, and she could
have been accidentally trampled in the process.
Have you ever known anyone who was willing to do something totally
humiliating or dangerous, to gain some great reward?
In the midst of the raucous crowd, Jesus surprised his followers
by asking who had touched him. Was he
kidding? There were whole masses of people
touching him--why would he ask that? He
said he felt his power being used. The
woman came forward "in fear and trembling" and confessed her whole
plan. Had she been secretly trying to
"take advantage" of Jesus' power?
Have you ever been caught out, in the midst of a secret plan, worried
about how your efforts would be received?
Why did Jesus then address the woman as "daughter"?
If Jesus knew she was there, why did he not simply turn and heal
the woman? Amazingly, the woman was already
healed, apparently without Jesus' having to do anything. According to Jesus, her faith had resulted in
her healing. Yet he had earlier
indicated feeling "power" going forth from him. Is faith alone ever enough to result in
healing? It is interesting to note that
the word translated "healed" also means "saved" or
"rescued" or "restored."
Is the story really more about a physical cure, or restoration to social
and spiritual wholeness? Or both?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)