Scripture
The following Scripture forum is intended for discussion, ideas, and insights regarding the biblical passages presented. As can be seen below, the selected scripture is given from a particular book of the Bible (e.g., The Gospel of Mark). Following the passage, a brief section of exegetical notes on the text are given for literary and historical context, as well as clarification and explanation.
The specific purpose of this forum is simply for anyone to prayerfully and thoughtfully read the biblical text, meditate on it, and discuss themes, insights, and/or personal applications that are theologically and practically relevant for what it means to be a Jesus follower in our present culture. The goal is, in a sense, to strengthen the bond of Christian belief with Christian living in light of the inspired scriptures as they have been proclaimed by the church throughout the centuries. But the goal of reading scripture is not necessarily to be seen in the reader’s subjective perspective, that is, the scriptures are not meant to be privately interpreted. Instead, they are to be publically proclaimed as a witness to the life, message, and work of Jesus Christ. Our goal here is to illuminate our understanding and relationship with God through his Son, and in the power of the Holy Spirit, by faithfully engaging the Bible and how God has spoken in the past, the present, and will continue to speak in the future. This is the task, responsibility, and privilege of studying Holy Scripture.
Getting to the Heart of the Matter: Mark 7:1-23
By Phil Higley Wednesday, June 2nd, 2010Mark 7:1-23 (ESV)
Now when the Pharisees gathered to [Jesus], with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, 2they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. 3(For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands, holding to the tradition of the elders, 4and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.) 5And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?” 6And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; 7in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ 8You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.” 9And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! 10For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ 11But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, whatever you would have gained from me is Corban’ (that is, given to God)- 12then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, 13thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.” 14And he called the people to him again and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand: 15There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.” [16 ] 17And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. 18 And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, 19since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) 20And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. 21For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”
Introduction
Verses 1 through 23 in chapter 7 present a very detailed account of Jesus’ ability to clarify and challenge the religious standards and authorities of the culture. In this portion of scripture we see Jesus speaking in the following chiastic structure:
A Purity of heart is what God seeks (v. 6)
B Human based religious teachings are worthless (v. 7)
B’ The teaching of the elders nullifies God’s word (vv. 9-13)
A’ Only evil from the heart defiles (vv. 14-23)
The Issue: Commands of God and Traditions of Men (vv. 1-13)
In the beginning verses we find that Jesus’ theology and praxis is attracting the attention of major “theologians” from Jerusalem itself. These religious teachers from Jerusalem immediately inspected the conduct of Jesus’ disciples and proceeded to direct their criticism to Jesus himself. The Pharisees’ questioning was of ceremonial purity verses ceremonial defilement. And this makes sense because we know that the Pharisaic Jews emphasized “ceremonial cleanness” because a whole section of the Mishnah is devoted to the subject. However in Jesus’ time there was no written form of the Mishnah (that came about 200A.D.) so it is likely an oral tradition that arose out of an interpretation of religious cleanness from the Old Testament. This cleanliness is likely what is meant by “tradition of the elders” (v. 3).
Basically this whole section and the complaints of the Pharisees directed toward Jesus had to do with the religious authorities elevating human tradition above God’s Word. It’s sometimes easy to do this in culture when scripture is taken for granted and irresponsibly used and interpreted. Case in point is Jesus’ quotation of Isaiah. Jesus is calling the religious authorities—in a theologically explicit way—unequivocal spiritual phonies. They followed the traditions of men because such teaching required only mechanical and thoughtless conformity without a pure heart. To make his accusation concrete Jesus uses the example of declaring “Corban.” What’s Corban? Mark tells his gentile readers that it means “given to God.” Through their religious tradition, some of the Pharisees’ were able to break the commandment of honoring father and mother by devoting their resources to God. Here’s how this worked, for example: “If a son became angry with his parents, he could declare his money and property “Corban.” Since Scripture teaches that any vow made to God could not be violated (Num 302), his possessions could not be used for anything but service to God and not as a resource to assist his parents financially.” But Jesus obviously condemned this practice by showing that the Pharisees and scribes were guilty of canceling out God’s Word (and his command to honor one’s parents) through their tradition. Hence Jesus’ quote of Isaiah and his calling the Pharisees hypocrites is quite apropos to the situation at hand.
The Real Problem: Legitimate Defilement (vv. 14-23)
If the Pharisees wanted to know what Jesus thought about the human condition in relation to their religious traditions, then he clearly states what he thinks in v. 15. Jesus proclaims what does and does not make a person unclean. What is external cannot defile a person. Food, for example, cannot do this—not even if it is eaten with unwashed hands or declared unclean by kosher food laws. (Keep in mind that this must have sounded quite shocking to Jesus’ audience.) What really makes a person unclean comes from within; out of the heart and will—what one thinks, says, desires, and does—these only can make a person unclean. This is part of the Gospel message.
But the disciples still aren’t apprehending Jesus’ message, so they ask him about the parable in v. 17. It seems that from Jesus’ response in v. 18 that he expects them to “get it.” But in his grace he answers: The reason nothing entering a person from the outside can defile him is because it enters into the stomach, not the heart (v. 19). And it is in the heart where the true issues of life are found. In Semitic expression the heart is the center of human personality that determines man’s actions and inaction (e.g., Isaiah 29:13 says “These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me”). The Gospel Jesus proclaims is not a set of “new” laws, but a changing of the heart. When the heart changes then the rest of a person’s being changes.
→ 7 CommentsTags:
Water and Bread: 6:45-52
By Phil Higley Thursday, May 27th, 2010Mark 6:45-52 (ESV)
Immediately Jesus made his disciples get into the boat and go before him to the other side, to Bethsaida, while he dismissed the crowd. 46And after he had taken leave of them, he went up on the mountain to pray. 47And when evening came, the boat was out on the sea, and he was alone on the land. 48And he saw that they were making headway painfully, for the wind was against them. And about the fourth watch of the night he came to them, walking on the sea. He meant to pass by them, 49but when they saw him walking on the sea they thought it was a ghost, and cried out, 50for they all saw him and were terrified. But immediately he spoke to them and said, “Take heart; it is I. Do not be afraid.” 51And he got into the boat with them, and the wind ceased. And they were utterly astounded, [52for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened. 53When they had crossed over, they came to land at Gennesaret and moored to the shore. 54And when they got out of the boat, the people immediately recognized him 55and ran about the whole region and began to bring the sick people on their beds to wherever they heard he was. 56And wherever he came, in villages, cities, or countryside, they laid the sick in the marketplaces and implored him that they might touch even the fringe of his garment. And as many as touched it were made well.]
Introduction
Our story here of Jesus’ walking on the water picks up directly after the miracle of the feeding of the 5,000. Although Mark does not record the reaction of the crowd to the multiplication of the loaves, some scholars think that the hurried departure in v. 46 implies (like in other places) that there was danger of a messianic uprising as a result of the miracle. (John’s Gospel 6:15 refers specifically to this.) We are told that after sending the disciples away in the boat, Jesus stayed to dismiss the crowd.
Prayer on the Mountain (v. 46)
Mark’s mentioning of Jesus going up on a mountain to pray is an evidence of the crisis nature of the situation within the story. Why? Because there are only three occasions in this Gospel in which Jesus withdraws to pray, and each time some sort of crisis is involved (e.g., 1:35; 6:46; 14:23-36). Each incident involves the temptation not to carry out God’s mission for him—a mission that would ultimately bring suffering, rejection, and death. These crises seem to represent an ascending scale and reach their climax in the agony of Gethsemane.
Vv. 47-48
The time of the incident is “evening” (v. 47). Since it was “already very late” (v. 35) before the feeding of the five thousand, “evening” here must mean late at night. The Lake of Galilee is only about four miles wide. Thus a boat in the middle of the lake could easily be seen in the full moon of Passover time from the shore.
Apparently the wind was blowing from the north or northeast and had blown the disciples off their course. We are told they were “straining at the oars” (v. 48)—an indication of a stiff headwind. Jesus came to them “walking on the lake,” about the fourth watch. According to Roman reckoning, (and Mark follows this), the night was divided into four watches: 6-9pm, 9-12pm, 12-3am, and 3-6am. “He was about to pass by them.” But what does his passing by him imply? Was Jesus going to pass by for any particular reason?
Vv. 49-51
To try to rationalize Jesus’ walking on the water as anything but a miracle is to royally miss the point of what Mark is communicating. But this doesn’t mean that the disciples instantaneously thought they were seeing a man walking on the water either. We’re told that they were terrified. In fact, we are told that the disciples thought they had seen some sort of water spirit—or water demon. Jesus calms their fears with words of assurance about his identity and commands them to “take heart/courage.” After Jesus climbs into the boat another miracle seemingly occurs in the text; e.g., “the wind died down.” Mark includes this for a reason. Then Mark says that the disciples were “utterly astounded.” There was unmistakably some sort of relationship between his getting into the boat and the calming of the wind. Only this explains the attitude of the disciples.
The Problem is with the Disciples’ Christology Vv. 52
Mark relates his explanation of the disciples’ panic at seeing Jesus walking on the water and their amazement at the calming of the wind to their failure to understand about the multiplication of the loaves. Had they understood about the loaves, i.e., that the sovereign Lord of the universe was in action there (in front of their very eyes!), they would have been prepared to understand walking on water and calming waves. Jesus was likely testing his disciples in some way when he was walking “past” them. Their response, however, to Jesus in their struggle was one of unbelief, doubt, and fear. Their problem was a Christological one. We are therefore told that their hearts were hardened.
______________
Notes from:
The Oxford Bible Commentary, Edited by Barton and Muddiman, 2001.
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol 8, Edited by Gaebelein, 1984.
→ No CommentsTags:
Synoptic Overview of Jesus’ Feeding the 5,000
By Phil Higley Monday, May 17th, 2010The following blog post consists of some of the notes that I’ve taken on the synoptic account of Jesus’ miracle of providing food to 5,000 people. This miracle occurs in all of the gospels but is most emphasized in the synoptics (i.e., Matthew, Mark & Luke). In fact, the feeding of the 5,000 is the only miracle of Jesus recorded in all four Gospels and thus warrants a synoptic overview. The following are my notes and observations without any reference to commentary material whatsoever. It’s important to go through exercises like this once in a while so that the reader (in this case, me) of the text can make observations within and by the text alone without any dependence on commentary material or theological analysis from an outside source. Obviously those sources are paramount in understanding a text, but sometimes it’s up to the reader to just read the text for what it is without any external help. All I have used in this exercise is a Synopsis, a Greek Synopsis, a Bible, and a concordance.
For reference, here are the NT passages that record this event (click on reference to follow to Scriptural text):
Walking Through the Synoptics…
Both Matthew and Mark report that Jesus and his disciples withdrew in a boat to be by themselves in an anonymous place. It is interesting that both accounts use vivid language to describe Jesus and the disciples withdrawing to a place described as “lonely”. This withdrawing and lonely language contrasts the subsequent event of the crowds following. Luke, on the other hand, gives the specific location of Bethsaida as the place where they went. Could it be that Luke wants to identify the “lonely place” based on his historical based inquiry? This is certainly possible. Further, it also seems evident that Luke is much more descriptive in his Gospel with respect to dates and places, this being such an example. Additionally, John’s account simply describes the lake they presumably crossed, which is also interestingly mentioned first as the Sea of Galilee, and then, for the audience, identified as the Sea of Tiberias. Mentioning the lake under these two different names may be demonstrative of his audience, one which might have not been familiar with the name Galilee. Nonetheless, each author essentially makes the point that Jesus went away.
As noted above, all four gospels mention that after the ‘withdrawing’ event, crowds followed Jesus and the disciples. The word choice to make this point is interesting in all of the accounts. For example, Matthew recalls that the crowds “heard” and then followed, while Mark writes that they (e.g., the crowds) “saw” and ran ahead. Luke notes that the crowds “learned” and then followed, while John says that the multitude followed because they “saw the signs” that Jesus performed. Whatever the reason, each author found it reasonable to describe that the people followed Jesus as a result of who he was and what he was doing. This event in all four accounts is the precursor for one of the great miracles that Jesus would perform not only in the sight, hearing, or learning of the people, but actually for all of the people. As a side note, there is a good deal of additional information that John provides to his readers. He includes a section describing where Jesus is at the time of his seeing the multitudes, as well as noting the coming Passover celebration. Being on a “mountain” with his disciples, Jesus looks up and sees a multitude. John’s perspective indicates for the reader that Jesus is on a mountain, which is indicative of many OT allusions, and reminds his readers of Jesus’ association with the Passover. This is obviously significant because it’s a clear OT allusion, as is the fact that God fed Israel in the Exodus account.
Matthew and Mark are the only ones to note Jesus’ coming ashore. They are also the only ones to clearly indicate that he went into a boat. Moreover, these two accounts present for the reader what Jesus experienced after coming ashore, namely, seeing a “great throng”. Both authors set up Jesus’ compassionate response: “and he had compassion on them”. This tandem account indicates what will come of Jesus’ compassion, that is, the miracle of the feeding. However, Mark gives additional reasoning for Jesus’ compassion. He indicates that the people were like sheep without a shepherd, they were lost (see Matthew 9:36 for parallel). The result is that Jesus began to teach them many things (in addition to healing them as describe only in Matthew and Luke). What did Jesus teach them? Mark doesn’t say, but Luke includes that he taught them of the “kingdom of God.” Interestingly, John doesn’t record any part of these accounts from the synoptic tradition. A reason for this may be that, according to John’s context, Jesus starts to address his disciple Philip about the crowd. In John’s view, Jesus’ interaction with the crowd is turned toward his disciples.
Matthew and Mark both identify that the “lonely place” where Jesus, the disciples, and the crowds are present is now a place that is getting dark. The day has turned to night and the disciples are concerned with the welfare of the crowd. The synoptic accounts (John doesn’t come in until Jesus’ question to Philip) all note that the disciples ask Jesus to “send” the crowd away to get something to eat (Luke includes lodging). It seems that the authors all point out that the disciples are concerned with the crowd, but they fail to take into account that Jesus is the shepherd of these people, he is responsible for them. In light of this, Jesus admonishes his disciples and tells them to feed the people.
At this point, Mark gives additional information that Matthew and Luke do not. Mark indicates that the disciples ask the rhetorical question: “should we go buy two hundred denarii worth of bread…?” (John’s account also mentions this: Philip says that “Two hundred denarii” wouldn’t even be enough to buy the bread. Luke’s account also alludes to this rhetorical question in v. 13 about buying food.) It seems that the question is meant to show that it is practically impossible to feed all the people. Jesus, however, asks his own question: how much bread do you have? Matthew and Luke come back into the picture at this point, but it is interesting to note John’s take on all of this. In John, Jesus’ question to Philip, i.e., how are we to buy bread for all these people? is indicative of his omniscience. John says that Jesus already knew what he was going to do! Evidently John is pointing out that Jesus is aware and able to accomplish what is to come. Furthermore, this puts Jesus in the role of a divine teacher for his disciples as well. Simply put, he’s testing them.
The synoptic accounts are fairly similar in their rendition of the disciples’ response to Jesus’ question. They all include “they said” for example. What’s particularly interesting, however, is Luke and John’s text. Luke chooses to echo Mark v. 37 about the cost of food for all the people. Moreover, Luke is also the first to point out how many people this “crowd” is composed of: 5000 men. Alternatively, John’s account is more focused on the particular disciples. For example, Andrew is the one who gives the answer about the bread and fish, but he follows his answer with a skeptical response; “what are they among so many?” Thus, in this section, Luke chooses to place the question and the number of people strategically before the feeding, while John chooses to focus on the dialogue between particular disciples of Jesus.
The next section includes a consensus between all of the evangelists that Jesus ordered the people to sit down. Matthew and Mark imply that Jesus directly ordered the crowds whereas Luke and John report that Jesus, through his disciples, made the people sit down in groups upon the grass (Luke doesn’t mention grass, however. John inserts the 5,000 here). Perhaps the authors here are indicating that Jesus’ strategy is clear and orderly, that is, the miracle is to be performed not in frenzy, but in a reverent fashion. The next lines indicate a very strong consensus between the synoptic accounts. Clearly the synoptic accounts are drawing from some standard feature of this miracle story that was well known. Perhaps it is an allusion to the last supper language in 26:26 where Jesus blessed, broke, and gave the bread to his disciples. Basically, the only dissimilarity between the gospels is that of John, who only gives short summary of the blessing and distribution. It is, however, interesting that John mentions that they ate “as much as they wanted.” This statement clarifies that this is indeed a miracle; it’s an ‘all you can eat buffet’ as it were. At the end of the miracle account, Matthew and Mark both report on the amount of people whom were there, five thousand men (Matthew is the only evangelist to report “besides woman and children”).
John’s account includes an additional declaration. The people knew that Jesus was special, so much so that they were going to make him king by force. John tells that because of this, Jesus withdrew again. It is possible that John includes this information due to the explicit nature of his gospel. Nevertheless, we move on to the next section.
Notes: The Gospel of Matthew 14:13-21
The content of this pericope is strategically placed between the larger context of Herod’s execution of John the Baptist and Jesus’ walking on the water. When reading the pericope, one notices several features from 14:1-12 that add tremendous weight and are directly connected to the miracle account. For example, the scene is set up by Herod hearing about Jesus’ powers (v. 2b). Instead of focusing on Jesus, however, Herod recalls his execution of John the Baptist. Regarding the Baptist, it is interesting that the author emphasizes Herod’s fear of the crowd due to the fact that they regarded him as a prophet. In 13:57, Jesus, being rejected in his own land, said that “Prophets are not without honor except in their own country and in their own house.” Nonetheless, the atrocious execution of the Baptist is told to Jesus by John’s disciples. As a result, we enter into our pericope on a very sad note (contrast this with the subsequent miracle of the four thousand in ch.15).
It’s clear that the author extends the grief of the execution and its emphasis into the miracle account. It seems difficult to imagine Jesus’ grief and sadness upon hearing about John’s death. In response to the death, we are told that Jesus “withdrew to a deserted place by himself.” The author, here, emphasizes Jesus’ great love of John, for his reaction is a very somber one (recall John’s in ch. 3). With that, the crowds are introduced back into the story (13:13b). Perhaps the author’s reference to the crowds is related to the earlier crowds spoken of in 14:5, the ones that regarded John as a prophet. Moreover, there may be a reference here to crowds spoken of further back in 9:36 (e.g., “When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd.) If this is the case, then just as Jesus is grief stricken as a result of hearing about John’s death, then the crowds too are just as distressed. Thus, when Jesus saw these very crowds and their anguish, “he had compassion for them and healed their sick.” (v. 14b) The story is quite comforting at this point due to Jesus’ role as a compassionate and caring figure for the ones whom regarded John as a prophet (again, recall 13:57). Even though originally Jesus left to be by himself, he’s not about to allow the crowds to be by themselves. Clearly without the preceding context of John’s execution by Herod, the placement of our pericope doesn’t have the weight or substance that the author intends it to have.
The context proceeding the pericope is the event of Jesus’ walking on the water. Before the water event, however, and directly after the feeding of the five thousand, Jesus instructed his disciples to go in the boat and he dismissed the crowds. At this point, Jesus, like in v. 13, goes to a place on the mountain to pray (v. 23). The author’s emphasis on Jesus going up on a mountain is reminiscent of Moses (e.g., Exodus 19 and 24), and in light of the prophet language interwoven through this episode, this reference to the mountain is particularly interesting. What’s also noteworthy is that twice before this pericope Jesus is described as being on a mountain in the context of a crowd (5:1; 8:1). This time, however, Jesus is alone and praying. The scene that follows is similar to Jesus’ compassion for the people. Before Jesus performed a miracle for all the people in the presence of and through his disciples, but this time he performs a miracle to the effect that his disciples worship him. Thus, it seems also that the subsequent context of the mountain and water event are a further accentuation of the person of Jesus. This also seems to indicate that the pericope’s inclusion between these contexts serves multiple functions for the reader. On the one hand, it is concerned with the death of John and Jesus’ compassion for the crowds in light of this tragic event. On the other, it is a miracle account that precedes a much more intense and personal miracle for the benefit of the disciples, one that is also illustrative of his divinity (e.g., 14:27).
In closing, we have seen that the contextual placement of 14:13-21 by the evangelist is intended to serve multiple functions for the reader. Additionally, within this context, there are various emphases such as compassion and mourning for the death of a friend, compassion and comfort for a mourning crowd, allusions to a great prophet on a mountain, and unambiguous miracles performed by the person of Jesus. The intent and aim of these emphases within the pericope and its surrounding context by the author portray Jesus in a very vivid manner. They highlight his humanity as well as his divinity.
Theological Summary of Matthew 14:13-21
The theology of this pericope presents the person of Jesus as a compassionate leader who both loves and will provide for people in need. The need of the people, however, is not just for bread alone, but is for compassion and love. The people in this account needed comfort and in Jesus’ providing for them, one presumes that they received more than just a meal. Moreover, in being compassionate toward the crowd, Jesus is also similar to the OT concept of Yahweh providing for his people in the wilderness. Yet in this account the grace and provision of Jesus is amplified compared to the OT. When the disciples want the crowd to leave, Jesus, in his compassion, freely provides for them.
As for how this account could be used in preaching or teaching, I believe that the Matthean version needs to be read in light of its surrounding context. As mentioned above, the weight and substance of the account hinges on the execution of John the Baptist. Thus, for a contemporary person to understand this pericope, in the context of preaching or teaching, they must be aware of its placement in the author’s account. It might be helpful to highlight the ministry of John the Baptist as well. Additionally, one must always remember that Jesus was not just handing out free meals and making the people feel good just in a temporal sense (though this can’t be discounted). He is more than a miracle-maker in terms of feeding thousands of people; he is the Christ, the Son of God. The latter context makes this rather clear (e.g., 14:27 εγω ειμι “I AM”).
Notes: The Gospel of Mark 6:32-44
Mark places this pericope in the middle of a larger context which is quite interesting. The preceding milieu has to do with the rejection of Jesus in his own village (6:1-5), Jesus sending out his disciples with authority and power (6:7-13), and also Herod hearing and speculating about Jesus and the things done in his name (6:14-29). The result of these events gives way to inquiries regarding just who he is. Herod, for example, was concerned with the person of John the Baptist and his execution when contemplating the person of Jesus. One of Mark’s emphases in this context seems to draw attention to the death of John, and to draw further attention to the person of Jesus. Furthermore, what’s interesting is that in v. 30 the apostles’ report to Jesus about their deeds and actions has no reference to the death of John. It is important to note that there is no reference about Jesus being distraught about John’s death in this context. (This is different than the Matthean account.) Mark’s emphasis in this context is hard to decipher as a result. Is it that he just moves on to the feeding pericope without considering the execution of John, or is it that he is concerned with the actions of the disciples being sent and reporting back to Jesus?
The placement of the pericope in relation to the preceding context seems to draw attention to defining the power and authority of Jesus. For example, earlier when Jesus sent his disciples out, they were told to bring neither food nor money (v. 8). In the pericope at hand, there is an emphasis on the disciples’ perspective about not having any food (well, only five loaves…) for the crowd and specifically not possessing any money to buy food for the people. Again, Jesus simply asks a question of how much food they have, and then miraculously provides for all. (This is somewhat similar to Elisha’s feeding in 2 Kings 4:42-44.) Nonetheless, the proceeding context, I believe, is very important for understanding the magnitude of this pericope.
After the feeding of the people, Jesus sends his disciples across the lake. What is rather interesting is Mark’s emphasis of the mysterious nature of Jesus (recall earlier guesses of just who he is vv. 14-15). The emphases regarding his divine nature are obvious, however. When the storm hits the lake, Jesus makes the “I AM” declaration in addition to calming the winds. Mark then provides for his reader a very revealing statement after this account, namely, “…they did not understand about the loaves…” What exactly does this statement refer to? Perhaps it is a further accentuation of his power and authority in light of the miracle feeding. If he can feed five thousand with a little bit of food, and he can compare himself to Yahweh as well as calm the winds, then the result is that he is likely divine. Mark’s pointers are therefore very influential for his readers.
In conclusion, it seems that Mark’s account has less to do with John the Baptist’s execution (in contrast to Matthew’s account), and more to do with the authority and unfolding of whom Jesus is in his divinity. He sends out his disciples with power and authority, but when questioned about not having food or money by these same disciples, he feeds five thousand with his power and authority. The scene’s climax takes place on the lake with the disciples “terrified” and “utterly astounded, for they did not understand about the loaves…” Mark’s context and emphases are rather clear. This person named Jesus is neither John come back from the dead nor Elisha; instead, he is the “I AM.” For the reader, there is no doubt that Jesus is proclaimed to be God almighty.
Theological Summary of Mark 6:32-44
Not surprisingly, the theology of this pericope is principally tied to the larger context. Although the pericope is representative of Jesus having compassion on the people because they are “like sheep without a shepherd,” it is also telling about the nature of Jesus himself. He feeds the people because he has compassion on them, but he also teaches them many things. Unlike the people whom rejected him earlier, these five thousand receive his blessings. The real unfolding of his person, however, seems to be revealed in the latter context of his calming the winds (which one can’t help but think of the Genesis account where the spirit/wind is hovering over the waters), and the “I AM” statement (recall Exodus).
Teaching or preaching from this pericope has to take into account the previously mentioned contexts. For example, the account is extremely similar to that of Matthew’s, but when placed in Mark’s larger context, which is also somewhat similar to Matthew’s, we can see different emphases by the author. A clear example of one of these emphases is Mark’s divergence from focusing so much on John the Baptist in the feeding account. Furthermore, I think there are quite a few allusions to the OT throughout the pericope that are necessary for supplementary insight. For example, there’s the mountain reference, prophet references, Elijah, Elisha, “I AM”, calming of the winds, power, authority, etc. These are examples that demonstrate the richness and complexity of the pericope and its surrounding context. Thus, all of these topics have to be taken into account when preaching or teaching on this pericope.
Notes: The Gospel of Luke 9:10b-17
The larger context into which Luke places the feeding miracle is chiastic. For example, Jesus’ sending of the twelve with power and authority is followed by Herod pondering who this Jesus is. The speculations consisted of John the Baptist returned, Elijah, or perhaps one of the ancient prophets. The episode after the miracle puts Jesus in the context of asking his disciples a similar question of who he is. Again, the crowds ponder the question, like Herod, and answer with John the Baptist, Elijah, or one of the prophets. Thus, Luke places the miracle in a context that begs the question: Who is Jesus? As this question was profoundly important to the first century audience, it is also equally important for us today (actually yesterday, today, and tomorrow).
In Luke’s account, the placement of the pericope influences the way it’s read in the sense that it’s right in the middle of the bigger question of Jesus as messiah. The climax is clearly in the latter context of Peter’s confession (v. 20). This doesn’t mean that the pericope can’t be read and analyzed by itself, but it does imply a building up of the bigger messianic question by Luke. This Jesus, the one who can feed five thousand, is the messiah. Perhaps this is Luke’s larger emphasis. From the larger context it’s evident that Jesus is obviously special and everyone around him is wondering, but it’s in Peter’s confession that the suspense is revealed.
Furthermore, the situation with the crowd in v. 11 is emphasized differently by Luke compared to that of Matthew and Mark. Luke, for example, says that Jesus welcomed the crowds instead of having compassion on them. The word for welcome in Luke (αποδεξαμενος) is wholly different than compassion (εσπλαγχνισθη) in the other synoptic accounts. That being said, Jesus’ welcoming of the people is akin to his welcoming answers to the question of who people say he is (v. 18). This further accentuates Luke’s description of Jesus after welcoming the crowd, and then speaking to them of the “kingdom of God and healing them.” These are probably illusions to Isaiah 61.
In sum then: it seems that Luke is emphatic about his placement of the miracle account. It comes (1) after Jesus’ sending of his disciples with authority and power, as well as the ensuing question of his theological role, and (2) before the important messianic question that he asks his disciples. The answer that Luke emphasizes of course is that Jesus is the Messiah.
Theological Summary of Luke 9:10b-17
The principle theological point of this pericope within its larger context has to do with Jesus as “The Messiah of God.” This is clear from the references to John the Baptist, Elijah, and one of the prophets before the pericope and following it. Clearly the crowds perceive that Jesus is “from” God in some special way, but it is only with Peter’s confession that we realize that Jesus is the Messiah. Here there is unequivocally something to be said for special revelation. It is also significant to note that shortly after the confession, Luke includes the transfiguration account. Thus, the feeding miracle is strategically placed by the author to begin a theological inquiry into the person of Jesus. This is the beginning of Luke’s Christology as it pertains to the divinity of Christ.
Some suggestions for how this pericope could be used in preaching or teaching are to draw on Luke’s emphasis of Jesus’ theological significance for the story. A decent way to go about this might be to study and contrast the characters of John the Baptist, Elijah, and some of the prophets with the way in which all the evangelist’s portray the person of Jesus. Secondly, it might be helpful to call attention to the fact that Luke emphasizes Jesus’ teaching on the kingdom of God and his healing of the people.
Notes: The Gospel of John 6:1-15
The larger context into which John places the feeding miracle is a fascinating one that contains a good deal of rich and complex theology. The context preceding the pericope involves Jesus in a heated theological discourse of which he rebukes some Jews over Sabbath observance. Using this as a springboard, Jesus speaks a great deal about his Father and references John the Baptist as a witness to himself and the person of Moses. John decides to place the pericope at hand directly after this episode.
The author chooses to follow this pericope with the walking on the water event. However, the feeding metaphor is emphasized by the evangelist all the way from the literal feeding of the five thousand to Jesus speaking about his own flesh and blood for consumption. Clearly the placement of this pericope is essential for John’s overall theological emphasis of Jesus being the bread of life.
One of the especially important features in John’s account is the fact that Jesus is described as already being aware that the multitude coming toward him will need food to eat. He is also described as already knowing what he will do when he tests Philip with the question. This important element of the story fits very nicely into the way Jesus is speaking before and after the miracle event. Jesus is very bold and clear in his proclamation and the author is drawing attention to this. In fact, Jesus’ feeding miracle is so awesome in the sight (and stomach) of all the people, that he perceives that they would make him king by force, which is a unique addition to the feeding story in all of the gospels. There is no ambiguity here, Jesus is regarded as “…the prophet who is to come into the world!”
The following episode (6:22-34) portrays some type of super natural “teleport” (what else can it be referred to?) of which the previous crowd, i.e., the ones who were fed, are now looking for Jesus. His rebuke is clear in that he accuses them of just wanting to fill their stomachs with bread. It is interesting that Jesus moves from the literal feeding of the people to the metaphor of himself being the bread of life that people need to eat (e.g., 6:35, 41, 48, 51). The emphasis John is making is dependent on our original pericope of the five thousand.
In conclusion, John’s account of the miracle seems to be the most theologically explicit. The miracle is really a type of springboard for which Jesus declares that he is the living bread. In this sense, John uses the miracle as a basis to amplify its theological significance. This analogical method is one of the main emphases that John uses and is therefore crucial for directing the reader of his gospel. Just as Moses was there when the people received food, this Jesus is now bringing the bread of life for the people, the true food from heaven itself (vv. 31-34). It is unmistakable that the way John intends his theological perspective to be read is dependent on his placement of the feeding miracle before Jesus’ declaration about being the bread of life.
Theological Summary of John 6:1-15
John’s account of the miracle and its surrounding context is extremely rich in Christological content. The theology of the section finds its apex in Jesus declaring that the ones who eat his body and drink his blood have eternal life (vv. 52-59). Eternal life is the culmination of the bread analogy. For this reason, the feeding miracle really finds its true meaning within the subsequent context and should be read in relation to it.
This section could be used in teaching and preaching to really dig into the nature of Christ as well as the purpose that the incarnation serves. Although there is so much theology in this section, much can be drawn out about Jesus’ mission and what certain persons wanted to impose on his mission (e.g., vv. 14-15). It would probably be helpful when teaching about this particular account of scripture to emphasize Jesus’ authoritative perspective regarding his mission. Perhaps reading the feeding miracle and then analyzing Jesus’ later discourse with the crowd he admonishes (vv. 26-35) would be insightful for both the physical bread he provided, and the eternal bread which requires belief in him whom God has sent (v. 29).
→ 2 CommentsTags:
A Homicidal Banquet: Mark 6:14-29
By Phil Higley Monday, May 10th, 2010Mark 6:14-29 (ESV)
King Herod heard of it, for Jesus’ name had become known. Some said, “John the Baptist has been raised from the dead. That is why these miraculous powers are at work in him.” 15But others said, “He is Elijah.” And others said, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.” 16But when Herod heard of it, he said, “John, whom I beheaded, has been raised.” 17For it was Herod who had sent and seized John and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, because he had married her. 18For John had been saying to Herod, “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.” 19And Herodias had a grudge against him and wanted to put him to death. But she could not, 20for Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and he kept him safe. When he heard him, he was greatly perplexed, and yet he heard him gladly.
21But an opportunity came when Herod on his birthday gave a banquet for his nobles and military commanders and the leading men of Galilee. 22For when Herodias’s daughter came in and danced, she pleased Herod and his guests. And the king said to the girl, “Ask me for whatever you wish, and I will give it to you.” 23And he vowed to her, “Whatever you ask me, I will give you, up to half of my kingdom.” 24And she went out and said to her mother, “For what should I ask?” And she said, “The head of John the Baptist.” 25And she came in immediately with haste to the king and asked, saying, “I want you to give me at once the head of John the Baptist on a platter.” 26And the king was exceedingly sorry, but because of his oaths and his guests he did not want to break his word to her. 27And immediately the king sent an executioner with orders to bring John’s head. He went and beheaded him in the prison 28and brought his head on a platter and gave it to the girl, and the girl gave it to her mother. 29When his disciples heard of it, they came and took his body and laid it in a tomb.
Introduction
To some readers, this story seems quite an odd place to position the death of John the Baptist within Mark’s gospel account. We will see that the story isn’t odd at all but has been carefully selected and helps to develop Mark’s gospel account. The grotesque and sordid murder of John the Baptists clearly foreshadows the coming passion account of Jesus’ violent and bloody death on the Roman cross. On this point, it is important to note that Mark devotes fourteen verses to the death of John but only three to his ministry. Again, this is important. Here are some brief observations to keep in mind while reading the account: (1) Jesus, like John, will be executed by civil authorities; (2) Herod, like Pilate later, hesitates to execute the person in question but then does so; (3) Herodias, like the chief priest later, finally gets her way through scheming and pressure; (4) the disciples come and bury John, like Joseph of Arimathea is to do for Jesus. In essence the tale here in Mark serves as an ominous warning about the fate of Jesus. The cross is already looming in the background from this point on in the narrative.
A Homicidal Banquet (6:14-29)
The previous story of the sending of the twelve disciples is all the more important in v. 14 because the twelve clearly made a regional impact, so much so that King Herod heard about it. And at this point in the story Herod does not in any way shape or form have a clean conscience. Why? Because he had the greatest prophet, i.e., John the Baptist, executed because of a foolish vow to a young girl. And when Herod hears of Jesus and his proclamation of the kingdom and repentance, the message is uncomfortably close to John’s message of repentance. As a result Herod superstitiously believes that John has come back from the dead in the person of Jesus (v. 16).
The story recalls John the Baptist being arrested by Herod (v. 17), who put him in prison because he had denounced Herod’s adulterous union with Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife (v. 18). The Jewish historian Josephus reports that John was put in prison at Machaerus, the fortress situated in Perea, on the eastern side of the Dead Sea. Mark does not identify the place of John’s imprisonment. Herodias was the daughter of Aristobolos, one of the sons of Herod the Great; so she was a niece of Herod Antipas. This information is important to our story because John’s condemnation of the union is because the Mosaic Law prohibited marriage to one’s brother’s wife while the brother was still alive (see Lev 18:16).
But Josephus emphasizes the political motives behind the action of Herod against John. These were no doubt real. In order to marry Herodias, Herod had to rid himself of the daughter of King Aretas IV, whose kingdom lay just to the east of Perea. The situation there was already sensitive, and John’s preaching had the potential to cause real trouble. Mark, however, emphasizes the moral considerations within the story. Calvin, in his commentary material, comments on this passage in the following way: “We behold in John an illustrious example of that moral courage, which all pious teachers out to possess, not to hesitate to incur the wrath of the great and powerful, as often as it may be found necessary: for he, with whom there is acceptance of persons, does not honestly serve God.” Calvin’s point is basically that John portrays what this moral courage is, even though it’s oftentimes not easy to proclaim. Nevertheless, moral courage is paramount for serving God.
Not surprisingly, in vv. 19-20 we have Herodias not very happy (indeed an understatement) about John’s condemnation of her marriage. In fact she was infuriated by him and literally wanted to murder him. Herodias falsely believed that the only place where her marriage certificate could safely be written was on the back of the death warrant of John. But as the early church father Chryostom remarks: “Herod could have the head cut off of John but he did not cut off the voice!” But we find in the story that John was ironically being protected from her murderous desires by Herod himself. Motivated by fear and a recognition of John’s righteousness and holy character, Herod at one point refused to allow John to be put to death. Herod was awed by the purity of John’s character and feared him as the bad fear the good. This fear, however, was not righteous. Yet like a demented sociopath, we are told that Herod liked to listen to John but that he was perplexed by what John said.
In vv. 21-23, however, Herodias finally got the opportunity she was waiting for. Herod celebrated his birthday with a banquet that he invited the military and political leaders of his tetrachy to. At this festive occasion Herodias’ daughter went before the guest to “dance” (v. 22). Many scholars believe the account suggests that Herodias blatantly used and sent her daughter into the banquet hall to dance as part of her murderous scheme to get rid of John the Baptist. What’s more, the dance was probably a lewd one, which in that culture was out of bounds and beyond the pale. But considering the history of the Herod family, it’s not entirely surprising that Herod (her father figure) would gawk—along with his friends—at his daughter functioning as a sexual object for birthday entertainment. We are told that Herod and his guests were so pleased with her “performance” that he made a vow to her up to half his kingdom. According to many scholars, the words “up to half my kingdom” were probably a kind of proverbial way in that culture of expressing openhanded generosity and were not to be taken literally.
In vv. 24-25 the girl left the banquet hall to seek the advice of her mother. Herodias’ automatic and sick reply portrays the premeditated nature of her homicidal plan. Mark does not mention any surprise on the daughter’s part when her mother made the request. In fact, the daughter added two things: she wanted John’s head “right now” and she wanted it “on a platter” (v. 25).
Here in the story we can imagine Herod saying, “wait wait wait, I was trying to be generous but you want me to cut a righteous man’s head off? You’re clearly being unreasonable and abusing my generosity.” But sadly no; Herod cowardly and foolishly gives in to the demand. Mark ends this shocking and sad story with John’s disciples coming for the body to give it proper burial. Herod no doubt thought that he was now finished with the righteous prophet be both feared and respected. But this was not to be. The ministry of Jesus, as we are told at the beginning of the story, stirred up Herod’s memories of John and his guilty conscience returns to haunt him.
—————
Notes from:
The Oxford Bible Commentary, Edited by Barton and Muddiman, 2001.
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol 8, Edited by Gaebelein, 1984.
The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, Witherington III, 2001.
→ No CommentsTags:
Rejection and Commission: Mark 6:1-13
By Phil Higley Monday, May 3rd, 2010Mark 6:1-13 (ESV)
He went away from there and came to his hometown, and his disciples followed him. 2And on the Sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things? What is the wisdom given to him? How are such mighty works done by his hands? 3Is 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. 4And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor, except in his hometown and among his relatives and in his own household.” 5And he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them. 6And he marveled because of their unbelief. And he went about among the villages teaching.
7And he called the twelve and began to send them out two by two, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits. 8He charged them to take nothing for their journey except a staff- no bread, no bag, no money in their belts- 9but to wear sandals and not put on two tunics. 10And he said to them, “Whenever you enter a house, stay there until you depart from there. 11And if any place will not receive you and they will not listen to you, when you leave, shake off the dust that is on your feet as a testimony against them.” 12So they went out and proclaimed that people should repent. 13And they cast out many demons and anointed with oil many who were sick and healed them.
Rejected at Homecoming (6.1-6a)
The themes of faith, and the growing opposition faced by Jesus, are continued in the story of the rejection of Jesus in his hometown. Jesus has come into conflict with the authorities (2.1-3.6) and with his own family (3.21-35). Now the opposition seems to spread to the town where he grew up. As in 1.22-23, the occasion of Jesus’ arrival in his hometown is not for a family visit, but for ministry and teaching (v. 2); and again Mark seems more interested in the negative reaction this provokes than in the actual contents of the teaching. This reaction is articulated in the rhetorical questions about Jesus’ origins and family (v. 3). At one level, all that is said is that Jesus’ origins imply that he is a very ordinary person. Whether anything more is implied is not very clear, but it’s possible to take the rhetorical questions as somewhat offensive. For example, it was very unusual to refer to a Jewish man as the son of his mother, rather than his father. Various possible interpretations have been suggested by scholars: is this hint of doubt about the legitimacy of Jesus’ birth (Joseph was not really his father)? Is this a hint that Jesus has no human father because he is the Son of God? It is doubtful though if Mark sees any great significance in the words here: any hints of the type suggested are at most extremely allusive. That said, it’s possible that Jesus’ audience was recalling the rumors about his illegitimate birth (see John 8.41; 9.29)—a man was sometimes called the son of his mother in ancient society if his father was unknown—which may indicate that the audience was purposely insulating him with this title as a reference to illegitimacy.
Likewise the mention of Jesus’ brothers and sisters is probably taken at face value and poses problems on a theological level to the Roman Catholic doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, which actually comes at a much later period in Christian history. But perhaps more importantly, Mark here shows us that Jesus’ reply in v. 4 implicitly compared his own position with that of a prophet. But nowhere else in this gospel does Mark make much of the idea of Jesus as a prophet.
The story concludes with the note about Jesus’ inability or possibly unwillingness to do any miracle because of the unbelief of the people. This is the negative side of the positive correlation between faith and miracles seen already in Mark: miracles can and do take place in a context of faith. Conversely, where there is no faith, miracles cannot occur. Did Jesus not have the power to do miracles? No. He had the power to do miracles, but not the will, because they rejected him. Again, miracles belonged among those who were ready to believe.
Men on a Mission (6.6b-13)
This section consists of a preliminary commission where Jesus calls the Twelve and sends them out two by two so that they can (1) depend fully on God for all their needs, (2) proclaim a message of repentance, and (3) heal people. All of these acts were also associated with Jesus’ ministry. By these activities they were demonstrating that the kingdom of God had come with power. But the mission of the Twelve is a mere extension of the ministry of Jesus that completely overshadows it. Their independent mission waits till after Jesus’ resurrection of course.
The call and sending of the disciples is paramount in this version of the story. Jesus had carefully prepared his disciples for this mission. He had called them with the promise “I will make you fishers of men” (1.17). He had withdrawn on several occasions to give them special attention (3.7, 13; 4.10). And, all the while they had been with him, they had witnessed his mighty acts and had listened to his wise words. Now it was time for them to be sent out (e.g., 3.14-15: “that he might send them out to preach and to have authority to drive out demons”). The sending of the disciples in pairs was so that the truthfulness of their testimony about Jesus might be established “on the testimony of two or three witnesses” (Deut 17.6).
Jesus says in v. 11 that if anyone doesn’t welcome the disciples or listen to them in a given region, they are to shake off the dust from under their feet as a witness to them. But what does this symbolic gesture mean? We know that it was customary for Jews to shake foreign dust off their clothes when they had been traveling outside the Holy Land. Thus perhaps the point is to treat such inhospitable people as foreigners, subject ultimately to God’s judgment (see Acts 13.51; 18.6).
Lastly, notice that in v. 12 it says the apostles preach so that people would repent. Jesus’ disciples, like their Master and the Baptist, seem to be involved in the same sort of eschatological preaching that requires repentance and turning back to God. Repentance is part of the Gospel message. They are also said to cure many sick and cast out demons. As pointed out earlier in our Mark series, demon possession and sickness are oftentimes distinguished; and that is the case here because notice that they require different sorts of remedies. Mark, it would appear, does not see demon possession as just another form of physical or even mental illness.
—————
Notes from:
The Oxford Bible Commentary, Edited by Barton and Muddiman, 2001.
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol 8, Edited by Gaebelein, 1984.
The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, Witherington III, 2001.
→ 4 CommentsTags:
