Early Miracles and Teachings of Christ

In the first few chapters of mark, and all throughout the New Testament, we see Jesus performing miracles everywhere he goes. Not only did he heal these people, but he stayed and loved on them as well. As I read story after story of miracles and communion, I could not help but feel jealous. Jealous that I never got to see Jesus in the flesh. It would have been amazing to be able to be there the night the paralytic took up his mat and walked. But even still I am grateful that I get to read about His works.

Also, the Calling of Levi is a passage that hits home. The large crowd was astonished and appalled that Jesus was talking to this tax collector. Let alone he had dinner at his house. Even today we get judgmental when we see people talking or hanging around today's "tax collectors" and "sinners." When will people realize that it is "not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick?"(Mark 2:17) It is our call to go to where they are and not wait for them to come to us.

Demons

The DJG discusses the fact that the demons were cast into the pigs by Jesus. These are animals. Also, it stated that it was sometimes thought appropriate to transfer demons from the sufferer to some object like a pebble, a piece of wood, or some water to effect a cure. However, Jesus transfered the demons into the pigs. The demons repeatedly asked Jesus not to send them into the Abyss. According to the DJG, Jesus ministry was the first stage of the defeat of Satan, the final stage to be in the eschaton (8:31)
I had never thought of the fact that the pigs were animals possessed of demons. I had always thought of people possessed of demons. Then, I remembered another animal that was evil. "The serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made." (Gen 3:1) The Bible says, "He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work." (1st John 3:8) Also, Jesus prayed that God would protect the one's that God the Father had given to Jesus from the evil one according to John 12:48 until the judgment of the last day. (DJG)
The Bible states that ancient serpent called the Devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray would be cast down to the earth in the last days and that they would overcome him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony. (Rev. 12:9-11)

Demons

It is interesting to note how demon possession has been dealt with in the past. For instance, the use of incense, medicines, the laying on of hands (does this have anything to do with being ordained? just kidding), use of a finger ring and a bowl of water, wood chips, ashes,dog hair and other materials have all been used for exorcisms. I'm glad that all these methods were documented so that we can understand how they treated demon possessed people. After the reading, the thing that stuck out to me the most in these pages was the fact of how Jesus dealt with the possessed. He did not need any help from other sources just his speaking was enough to cast out the demons, of course that is one reason why some questioned who Jesus was. However, I don't question who he was and is these instances simply prove to me that Jesus is over all.

The disciples

I find it rather interesting that the characters of the disciples ranges. These are twelve men from differing walks of life who have come together and now choose to completely devote themselves to following Christ. I think that this has a lot to say about the major diversity of Christianity. Christ did not choose to make the "religious leaders of the future" an upper crust part of society. He chose those who could sustain themselves and he chose those who were of the people. You almost couldn't find more common than basic fishermen. These twelve men truly had an amazing amount of character to follow Him when many others abandoned Him. I think we forget that much of the time that we read about, Christ had more than twelve men following him. He had crowds of people following Him and yet it was these twelve that he pulled out of anonymity and asked them to not only follow Him but to preach and do other things in His name.

A New Way Of Looking At Jesus' Life

It amazes me that Christ can give us fresh new ways to look at Him when we as humans start to drift away. We have a tendency to say I heard that before. I'm here to say that I am excited about the view of Christ's life I am already getting through the historical background. I have seen views from a verse to verse view, but I needed to see Christ from fresh eyes and clear thought with my heart open.

Jesus is the Son of God

Wenham writes that the first description Mark uses to describe the way he sees Christ is seeing Him as the Son of God. Wenham goes on to explain that Jesus is recognized as the Son of God by several, but "only when compelled to do so by oath does Jesus Himself accept this description-and it leads to His death." This is an amazing concept to me. The fact that Jesus was and is the Son of God and people were recognizing and claiming Him to be such. However, when He accepts this recognition and these claims, we kill Him for it. This is nothing new to us. I myself grew up hearing that "For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life." But this concept has been sort of renewed in my heart. I just can't get over the fact that we killed Him-onlybecause He was being Himself.

Sickness or Sin?

Its just a slight cough. Its just a runny nose, just....an ulcer, just....heart disease, just...cancer. All the result of poor diet, lack of excercise, bad life choices, and not listening to our mother's when they tried to teach us to wash our hands before we ate our dinner. Or could these actually be the result of sin? Garland made a good point in his commentary on Mark 2:1-12. The parlytic man let through the roof was paralyzed because of sin. Even as I read the commentary I could not help but hate the idea. But I had to ask myself why I hated it so much. Perhaps it is because I do not like to face the facts. Perhaps I don't want to face physical consequences for my sins...or consequences period. Who does. Who wakes up in the morning saying, "I hope I sin today so that I can face up to the horrible physical, emotional, or spiritual consequences the sin may bring!"? But the fact is, sickness can be caused by sin. Garland, however, does make sure to say that we should not be so quick to deal out judgment on people just because they are sick, lest we become like Job's friends. But, just the same, perhaps we should not be so quick to toss the idea that some sin equals sickness just because modern science has all the answers.

One among many

As I was reading the material on "Revolution Movements" that talked about all the different kinds of revolutionaries, I thought how difficult it must have been to distinguish Jesus from all the others. I suspect the multiplicity of revolutionary leaders compelled the writing of the gospels. How does one distinguish the "Son of God" from all the other crazy revolutionary leaders? The gospels, I believe, attempt to answer that question. I sometimes wonder if Christ were to come to Jerusalem today, how would we as Americans perceive Him?

Marks view of Jesus

As I was reading Garland he pointed something out that I, until then, had not thought about. Garland stated that Mark was the only gospel that did not get into the human background of Jesus. Mark wants you to view Jesus as "more than human" but a "divine being". Matthew and Luke both sink their teeth into where Jesus came from in a human perspective. They both write about Jesus' ancestors, but Mark just kind of hits the high spots of Jesus' human side and focuses on Jesus the Christ, the Son of God. People often ask about Jesus as a teenager and why we don't read about His childhood years in the Bible, but I think that Mark "hits the nail on the head", Jesus wasn't a normal teenager, He wasn't a normal child, He was and is always divine and superior. I had read the Bible before, but I had never really thought about how the Disciples viewed Jesus.

The Baptistism of Jesus

In the reading of the NIV Commentary it made me think about why would Jesus need to be baptized. I really have no idea. We see baptisim as a symbol of death to life. All of our sins washed away. Jesus lived the perfect life so he live a sinless life. Maybe I missed something or someone could tell me more about it but it really stood out to me while I was reading the material for class.

Fishers of Men

I found it interesting to learn that being a “Fisher of men” meant more to the original hearers than just a reference to missions. According to Garland, “Fishers of men” is an Old Testament metaphor for gathering people for judgment. To the original hearers of this statement, this metaphor would not simply mean that Simon and Andrew would simply be gathering men, but revealing to them that their life can not go on as before, and would give the people they gather a chance to follow Christ. This metaphor is more than just a reference to gathering people, but is a gospel presentation.

Sacrifice

In the last lecture, Dr. Foster talked about sacrifices. A comment that really stuck out to me was "Without purity of intention, sacrifice is not acceptable." He talked about how the sacrifices showed gratitude and praise to God. I guess I've never really thought a lot about the sacrifices of Jewish people of the time. Even though I knew/know that it wasn't like this, I still had it in my head that they were merely sacrificing to keep themselves good with God or something. When yes, they were seeking forgiveness for their sins, but it was so much more than that. They were praising God through their obedience to him. This just really made me focus on the offerings I give, and not so much in monetary ways, but just in my life in general, and how through that obedience I'm praising Him.

Jesus As Christ

I thing I found to be interesting as I was reading the The Garland book was the use of the term Christ. I hear the term all the time in church, but I have never realy thought about the term before. The term Christ means anoited one. Christ was a term for someone anointed by God to carry out specific task realeted to the liberation of Iseral. I never relized what a bold statement this would have been for Mark to make. Alot of people would have seen this as untrue. Because Jesus died on a cross he wasn't anyone famous After he died Rome was still in charge. In there mind there wasd know way he could be Christ. I know though that Jesus did fulfilled what he was sent out to do not just for Isreal but everyone. Earning the name Christ I know after learning the meaning behinde Christ I'll never look at the word the same way.

The Practice of Sacrifice

During the last lecture Dr. Foster mentioned of the Second Temple Jews' practice of sacrifice. I did not know that it was this deep for the STJ's. I never thought of the STJ's or any Jews sacrificing out of gratuity and praise towards God. I just assumed that their sacrifices were just so God didn't strike them down dead for not doing so, since that was the case for the Romans who just sacrificed to all sorts of "gods" so they wouldn't get mad at them. I also liked how the Presenter of the sacrifice was to divide it between God, the Priest, and himself. I also realized that God was blessing the presenter by only asking for the blood and fat of the sacrifice. Since it was against Jewish custom to eat blood and fat anyway, God left all of the "good stuff" to the presenter and the priest.

Why do we do what we do?

In the previous class discussion one statement rang out to me. Dr. Foster stated that "Anything you do is trivial, unless it is done with obedience." I worte that down to remember and remember I did. In a sense that is a hard statement to grasp. As ministers we "do" a lot in our ministry. And it raised the question in my mind, "Who do I do it for?" Do I do it because God ask me too? or Do I do it because I want to build a name for myself? That is a tough question and is one that still looms in my mind. I look back and see the life of Jesus and how his actions and doings were far from trivial. He lived and died out of obedience to His father. In ministry I get caught up in the opposite. It seems like I live and I die for Charles Rikard. My desire isn't always focused on God. My actions and doings aren't always in obedience to God. A lot of the time they are out of selfishness or rebellion towards something. And I feel that that one statement is one that each minister should consider. Why do we do what we do and who do we do it for? I know that is a long question and probably not the best one to ponder, but I know in my life that I get set in my ways and forget that I am performing ministry out of the obedience to God and His call in my life. This always applies in many other aspects besides ministry as well though. Take for instance, church buildings, jobs of any nature, and relationship decisions. I am not trying by any means to say I am perfect, but when I reach there i will let you know (little side humor, not being serious). And some may think that this in nonsense for me to even talk about, and who knows maybe in the long run it is, but I find it relevant in my life and I want to share this with you my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. I love you all.

Are We Pharisees

While reading Garland I came across an interesting statement that the members in today's churches are just as bad as the Pharisees of old. At first I got a little ticked at the idea of this guy saying that the people in my church were as bad as the Pharisees. The people in my church are kind and generous, but then I thought how would they react if I brought a prostitute and her child to church. Or if one day I went to the local drug dealer and invited him to a Sunday School get together. Would they accept them right away, or be enraged at the fact that I asked someone that didn't meet our social standards to the house of God? I would like to believe that they would, but after thinking about I am starting to wonder. The fact is that Christ ate with these people and died for these people. Can we as the church today say that we still reach out to these people with the love of Christ.

John the Baptizer as the mentor of Jesus?

:) Recognized as E-mail of the WEEK! -02/16/2005

Something the ENT asserted (without question), in our reading, caught my attention. The ENT asserted that John the Baptist was a mentor to Jesus. I'm not sure where they recieved this information because it is definitely not an assumption derived from the biblical text alone. It may have been derived from some extra-biblical source that I have never seen, but, other than that, I can't imagine where that idea is established. The biblical text allows for the idea that Jesus and John knew each other and were in fact related but John viewed as a mentor seems to be eisegesis. At least two Gospels make it clear that John felt unworthy to even care for the sandals of Jesus-A mentor would never respond to his disciples in this manner. Even Jesus said a servant cannot be better than his master which would put John on the same level in knowledge and revelation as the Son of God. My point is this, Jesus was God in the flesh, he didn't need teaching from human beings. The passage in Luke that declares that Jesus "grew in wisdom" does conflict with my thesis but that passage could have a range of meanings. Further, a case might be made that John didn't even know Jesus very well although they were cousins (John wasn't sure Jesus was the Messiah and questions him before his execution). Finally, lets assume for a second that John was the one that helped Jesus "grow in wisdom", naturally, a question arises : who taught John that could not have also taught Jesus? I end with one more question that summarizes this blog: where and when did John evolve from a relative whom is unworthy to care for Jesus' sandals to the Son of God's mentor in the Jewish faith?

The time was ripe!

Well, I hope this post works! I think I've figured it out.

In once again studying the history surrounding the New Testament period, I am amazed at how ripe the time was for Jesus to enter into our world. Even during the time Alexander was conquering the world, one can clearly see that God was involved, working through all to accomplish His purposes. The Greek language spread across the known world, making it possible for the New Testament church to spread the gospel. It is also interesting to observe the religious atmosphere that was being built B.C. The Jews were growing restless, longing for a messiah to come and rescue them from the hand of the pagans. Judaism also had its share of hypocrisy and corruption in its highest representatives, the priests, and these men did not want their power or authority to be challenged. As we also study the governments and the shifting of power from ruler to ruler, we can see that the government that would rule during the time of Christ is one that would not tolerate any kind of rebellion. It would crucify any that would try or any accused of trying. All--the language, the culture, the religious atmosphere of the Jews and the Romans, the governments-- was set in place for the Son of God to be born into the world, and in the fullness of time, God sent His Son! Oh, the study of this intertestamental period is of utmost importance because during this time, God was still at work!

Interesting lecture information

This week as we were going through the grograpy I found it very interesting. The thing that I thought about was the digging of the tunnel into solid rock during the reign of Hezekiah. What an amazing project that must have been considering the fact that they did not have equipment like we have today. Something else I thought about is how amazing it is that all of this ties into the story of the Life of Christ. I have never really thought about all of these historical happening as being apart of this wonderful story. Also during the lecture Dr. Foster said that if Jews believe that they must follow the law in order to maintain a close relationship with God, then let it be. I totally agree with him on this point. I think that we should let them know that Jesus was sent here to fulfill the law, by dying on the cross for us, which makes the gift of Salvation free.

The unpardonable sin (Mark 3: 29)

:) Recognized as an E-Mail of The WEEK! -1/26/2005

I found the material in Garland on the unpardonable sin (blasphemy against the Holy Spirit) to be very illuminating. Garland explained the common deficiencies in understanding this sin, implicitly appealing to the church today to understand the words in context while accounting for a potential use of hyperbole (135). Additionally, Garland's reference in the same paragraph to Alan Hugh McNeile's analysis of OT "unpardonable" sins lends credence to the theory that Jesus chose his words to underscore the seriousness of the sin, not necessarily excluding the guilty from future repentance and forgiveness.

Taking a more pastoral approach, Garland explains that if defined "as deliberately scorning the power and forgiveness of God," the expositor can bring comfort to those believers in fear of having committed an unpardonable sin. Garland cites the apostle Paul as an example of a former blasphemer who turned from his sinful ways as a result of an experience with God, harmonizing with Mark 3:29 by saying that the sin "would have been unforgivable had he continued to spurn the Lord" (136).

I find that this approach seems to be the most logical in light of the nature of God and his desire for repentance. To reject someone who would otherwise repent and be forgiven on the grounds of a previous sin seems to be antithetical to the revealed will of God,"not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance" (2 Pet. 3:9, NASB). Nevertheless, those who have blasphemed the Holy Spirit have placed themselves in a position of extreme danger, leaving them suceptible to further hardening of their hearts and a life of rejection of the mercy of God. In this sense, their sin would be unforgivable.

The Authorship of Mark

After reading the introduction on the authorship of Mark in the NIV Application Commentary, I find it very interesting how we really do not know who wrote the book of Mark. Growing up in my good Baptist church I always assumed that some guy named Mark wrote the book. So who really wrote the The Gospel According to Mark? Although, many people believe it was written by John Mark, it is a question that probably will never get answered. Plus, it is obvious that the author did not really care about people knowing his name. All he really cared about was telling the story of Jesus Christ the Son of God.

Jesus' Disciples

I find it interesting that we get so frustrated with the disciples because they did not realize who Jesus really was in the beginning. We tend to think badly of the disciples because they often doubted who Jesus was even when walking with him. As we read through Mark, we have to keep in mind we already know more than the disciples knew at that time about who Jesus was. We already know the end result, where as they were still trying to figure it out. I think we have much more in common with the disciples than we would like to admit. For example, when reading the Biblical text we often read more into it than we should. The point Mark is trying to make is simply that Jesus is the Messiah. Mark is not concerned with Jesus’ background or where he came from. Similarly, the disciples were always looking for something else in a Messiah. Their expectations of a Messiah are greater than what they find in Jesus being of a somewhat very normal, humanly man. It takes a voice from the clouds saying, “This is my son, of whom I love. Listen to him!” (Mark 9:7) to get the disciples Peter, James, and John to realize who God really was. It’s not even until after Jesus has died on the cross that the centurion realizes who Jesus is (Mark 15:39). Yet knowing what we know today about Jesus, which was more than the disciples knew at this time, we still think that we can justify criticizing the disciples for their ignorance. Are we any more faithful or obedient than they were? Would we have reacted in the same way that the disciples did if we had been one of Jesus’ disciples?

Place of Authorship

I find it interesting to read in the DJG the veiw that the gospel of Mark may have been writen in Rome or Italy. There are many places the gospel could have been writen which include; Decapolis, Trye, Sidon, Syria, and the East as well as Rome. The veiw of Rome or Italy is based on the fact the author uses Latinisms with-in the gospel. Two examples given are the "widows mite," and "inside the court yard." I feel the author would have used more examples than the two given, and some with greater importance than a coin and a courtyard if writen in Rome, where pagan gods were worshiped. What do you think. I do feel it would be impossible to narrow down a place of authorship with out knowing who the author is.