Through the Bible -- Mark 9

Previous posts at bottom
____________________
1. Mark 9:1 actually is the final verse in the previous section. Peter has confessed Jesus as the Messiah. Then Jesus has told them that he is going to die. Then he talks about the exchange between this moment and the coming kingdom. To gain the whole world now means to lose it then. Similarly, to be ashamed of Jesus now is for him to be ashamed of you when he comes with his angels (8:38).

That paragraph concludes then with the shocking statement that some of them would not taste death before the arrival of the kingdom of God with power (9:1). On its face, this statement is confusing. It is similar to the statement in Mark 13:30 that the generation of the disciples would not pass until all the events of Mark 13 had taken place.

Several options have been suggested beyond a sense that Mark did not understand. The versification may suggest that Stephen Langton, who made the chapter divisions in the early 1200s, may have seen the Transfiguration as the fulfillment of the statement. It immediately follows in chapter 9. 

Probably the easiest suggestion is that this is a reference either to the resurrection or the Day of Pentecost. The kingdom of God did come in power at the resurrection, and we see it in full swing on the Day of Pentecost.

2. Mark 9:2-8 is a curious event -- The Transfiguration. Jesus, Peter, James, and John are with Jesus on a high mountain. Suddenly, Jesus becomes intensely white. Moses and Elijah appear with him. Peter doesn't seem to know what to say. He suggests maybe putting up three tents.

But he hears a voice from the sky saying that Jesus is God's beloved Son. It is a similar statement to the one that Jesus hears at his baptism in 1:11. But in Mark's presentation, only Jesus hears the pronouncement then.

It is a revelation of Jesus' glory. The presence of Moses and Elijah suggests that Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets. The pronouncement of Jesus as the Son of God is a declaration that he is in fact the Messiah.

In keeping with the theme of the messianic secret, Jesus commands them not to tell anyone what they have just witnessed until after the resurrection (9:9). They of course don't understand what he means in keeping with the them of the dullness of the disciples.

The event gives them reason to ask about the coming of Elijah, understood to be a prophecy about the coming of the Messiah, based in Malachi 4:5-6. Jesus hints that Elijah has already come. As in Matthew, he seems to refer to John the Baptist  (cf. Matt. 11:14). 

3. This stretch of Mark, from Peter's confession to the beginning of Passion Week, seems to focus on the cost of discipleship. Jesus will tell his disciples three times that he is going to the cross to die. Three times, they will say or do something that shows they do not understand.

In this chapter, Jesus tells them a second time that he is headed to the cross (9:30-32). They do not understand him, again in keeping with Mark's "disciples don't get it" theme. So what do they do? They debate over who will be the greatest in the coming kingdom (9:33-37). They are thinking earthly kingdom. They are thinking ruling.

Jesus' response is that the one who wants to be first (which was what they wanted) must become last (9:35). That is to say, the person with the highest honor in the kingdom is the one who is a servant of others. He takes a child on his lap and instructs them to receive them in his name (9:36-37). Unlike our world where children are cherished, children were low in status in that world. When Jesus says to receive children in his name, he is saying to watch out for the lowest in status.

At the end of the chapter, Jesus warns against those who might cause any "little one" who believes in him to sin. While it is certainly possible to apply this teaching to literal children, it seems likely that Jesus is thinking of any lowly follower of him. We must not be the cause of other's stumbling. Jesus says it would be better to be thrown into the sea with a millstone around our neck than to face the judgment of causing others to stumble in their faith.  

Jesus then speaks of things that might cause us to sin. Speaking hyperbolically, he says it would be better to chop our own hand off than to let it be a source of temptation for us. The same is true of our feet or our hands. If they are a source of temptation, a cause of our sin, then it would be better to cut them off or pluck them out.

The point seems clear enough. Do not put yourself in contexts where you are tempted to sin. Cut those parts of your life off, so that you will remain faithful to Christ. The end result of the other path is to be thrown into Gehenna (9:47). This is the only passage where hell is mentioned in Mark's Gospel.

Jesus alludes to Isaiah 66:24 where the image of a worm not dying and fire not ending seems to refer to the rotting corpses of the dead outside of Jerusalem. In Mark 9, it certainly refers to the eternal consequences of causing others to stumble. Whether it refers to a literal fire is unclear from Mark itself although this seems to be how Matthew interprets it.

The statement about salt seems a little odd in the train of thought. It may very well have been a free-floating saying of Jesus that Mark decided to put here. In Matthew, it is incorporated into the Sermon on the Mount. 

It does fit, however. Salt cannot chemically lose its identity, but it can be corrupted. In other words, it can become something other than salt. As the warning about temptations to sin, Jesus warns us not to lose our saltiness and to remain salt. When we are salt in the world, we season everyone's life, and we live at peace with each other (9:50).

4. An interesting event earlier in the chapter is when the disciples are unable to cast out a spirit. The description sounds somewhat like epilepsy, which perhaps at the time would have been seen as having a spirit. The spirit does not speak and -- in the end -- Jesus heals the boy no matter how they might have conceptualized the situation. Jesus meets us where we are.

Jesus is upset with his disciples, another instance of the theme of the disciples lack of faith. Jesus will later indicate that this was a very difficult case, one that required prayer. (Later manuscripts added "and fasting" in 9:29) Interestingly, the father of the boy also struggled with faith. But he gave us the prayer for all of those disciples who struggle with faith -- like the first twelve.

"I believe. Help my unbelief" (9:24).

5. The final piece of the chapter is when John the son of Zebedee discovers someone else casting out a demon in Jesus' name. The incident reminds us of John 10:16 where Jesus says he has other sheep not of this fold. There, he is probably referring to later Gentile believers.

Here, Jesus indicates that those who are not against him are for him. These are actually individuals who are doing good in his name. Whoever gives a cup of water to Jesus' missionaries will find favor with the Lord. They may not be formally following Jesus, but they are following Jesus. And God will treat them as such. 

Mark 1:1-13
Mark 1:14-15 
Mark 1:16-45
Mark 2
Mark 3
Mark 4:1-34
Mark 4:35-5:43
Mark 6
Mark 7
Mark 8

Mark 11:1-11 (Palm Sunday)
Mark 11:12-25 (Temple Monday)
Mark 11:26-12:44 (Debate Tuesday)
Mark 13 (Temple Prediction)
Mark 14:1-52 (Last Supper)
Mark 14:53-15:47 (Good Friday)

Mark 16 (The Resurrection)    

Through the Bible -- Mark 7

Previous posts on Mark at the bottom.
_________________________
1. Mark 7 is a key Scripture for understanding Jesus' ethic. Elsewhere in Mark, Jesus says that the command to love God and love neighbor gives us the first and second most important commands of the Law (Mark 12:28-34). Matthew 22:40 goes further -- all of the Law can be summed up in these commands. [1] What is the essence of a Christian ethic? It is to love God and love others, where the love of others includes our enemies (Matt. 5:43-48).

Mark 7 not only gives us supporting evidence for that love command, it clarifies for us that Christian ethics is a heart ethic. That is to say, it is a virtue ethic rather than an act-oriented ethic. Our human sense of right and wrong often deteriorates into "dos and don'ts." It is hard for most people to handle nuance or complexity, which requires an ability to think on a higher, more complex level.

So religious systems often deteriorate into rules. Then the human penchant for certainty over ambiguity multiples rules, and inevitably religions can become legalistic -- at least their members can. Legalism is a love for rules for their own sake. The Bible becomes a list of rules, and fundamental principles are ignored because of "this verse."

2. The Pharisees and some scribes come up from Jerusalem to "inspect" Jesus. In their minds, they are the authorities coming to pronounce a verdict on Jesus. This is the hubris of some with formal authority in the face of divine authority. They do not realize that they have no authority whatsoever in the face of Jesus.

(As an aside, we tend to stereotype the ancient Pharisees because most of Jesus' encounters with them in the Gospels are negative -- Matthew 23 especially. However, like today, some Pharisees followed their traditions from a love of God. Nicodemus would be a case in point. Some people are strict because they're legalists. Others are strict because they want to do everything to the glory of God and they believe God requires of them all the things they do. [2])

3. The flash point is washing one's hands before eating, along with all the items associated with eating. [3] It's easy for us to think this is about good hygiene and germs, but that would be to impose modern concerns on the biblical text. They knew nothing of such things.

This was about purity. Think the holiness codes of Leviticus. In the marketplace, one was likely to touch something that was religiously unclean. The practice thus seems meant to ensure that you do not contaminate yourself by eating with hands that have been "commonized" (koinos) or made unclean. It's not a matter of sin but of ritual purity.

(As an aside, it is unclear that the word baptizo here is about "immersing" ones hands. It is possible, but it would be the root fallacy to think that the word always must mean immersion because of a historical root going back to a word for dipping. The meanings of words wander with cultural use and they can easily leave etymological or historical meanings behind. "Wash" is the safest translation to avoid overinterpretation.)

4. Verses 3-4 explain basic practices of Pharisees and "the Jews." These explanations likely imply that the original audience of Mark was Gentile or non-Jewish. You don't need to explain to a Jew what a Jew does. [4]

These verses also explain that this hand washing practice is the "tradition of the elders." These were likely specifically Pharisee traditions about how to keep the Law. The Sadducees claimed to just follow the Law -- not traditions about how to keep the Law. [5] Of course that's a crock. The Sadducees also had their own traditions on how to keep the Law. In that sense they are like fundamentalists today who claim to follow Scripture alone, not recognizing that their interpretations follow traditions they aren't even aware of. It wasn't tradition itself that they were rejecting but Pharisaic tradition. [6]

5. Jesus effectively calls them hypocrites and legalists. They claim to follow God. They put up a good show of following God because they follow a lot of rules. They follow God "with their lips" (7:6). But, perhaps like some Christians today, their heart is far from him. The way they treat others reveals that they really have no part in the real service of God. They use their rule keeping as an excuse not to do the things that God wants the most -- mercy, faith, and justice for those without it (Matt. 23:23). They strain out gnats from their cereal, but let camels pass through.

Jesus uses the example of getting out of taking care of your parents by pretending to dedicate those resources to God (7:9-13). "Sorry mom, I can't take care of you because I've designated those funds." It's a lawyer trick that uses the details of the Law to get out of keeping the heart of the Law. Many Americans do this today with the Bible, using a verse here or there to wiggle out of the more fundamental principles of Scripture. [7]

Mark once again uses an Aramaic word, corban. Mark does this 7 times and it is a small piece of a cumulative case that Mark is the earliest of the four Gospels. 

6. In 7:14-23, Jesus gives the heart of his virtue ethic. External things do not make a person unclean. That's not how it works. "Uncleanness" is something that is on the inside. It comes from the heart. If the heart is "unclean," evil things come out. These include things like sexual immorality, murder, adultery, envy, slander, and others. Defiling things don't come from the outside. They are a function of what is inside.

These words reflect a fundamental moral truth. The acts we do are not the focus of whether we are doing good or evil. Rather, it is the attitude and intention of our hearts that reveals whether our acts are truly evil. Don't get me wrong, there is a place for considering the consequences of an act as well. One can unintentionally wrong someone. There are unintentional sins.

But this is not the focus of a Christian -- or New Testament -- ethic. Paul presents the same ethical approach in Romans 14. Two people can do the same thing and it be sin for one and not sin for the other, depending on one's intention in relation to the act. Whether one is acting from a heart of faith is what makes the difference (Rom. 14:23). In Paul's view, "nothing is unclean in itself" (Rom. 14:14). It is rather our attitude toward the act that makes it clean or unclean. [8]

7. A key verse in this paragraph is 7:19, usually translated as something like "Thus he declared all foods clean." Traditionally, this verse has been understood to release Christians from keeping the Old Testament food laws. It thus would sit alongside traditional understandings of Acts 10 and Paul in Romans 14 and Colossians 2.

At the very least, we should probably nuance this understanding to recognize that Mark is writing for non-Jews. Matthew does not copy this remark in his version of this story. After all, he is likely writing for a Jewish audience that did not likely believe Jews were free from keeping the food laws.

It is of course a parenthetical remark that would not likely have come from Jesus' lips. In fact, Logan Williams has made a landmark proposal that in fact Jesus is saying that the stomach cleanses all food that we eat, making washing of hands unnecessary. [9] While this is an important argument, it probably fails not only on the grammar of the verse (katharizon is masculine, nominative, singular, which seems to be an independent nominative and thus not tied to the grammatical train of thought). It also fails to recognize the Gentile orientation of the comment.

The traditional understanding would thus seem correct. Four decades after Jesus' crucifixion, there were Gentile Christian communities that did not believe that the Jewish food laws were binding on them, and they saw Jesus as the ultimate authorization of this position. This is of course the understanding of most Christians today, namely, that we can eat pork, blood pudding, and other foods prohibited of Israel in Leviticus.

8. Mark 7 has two more stories. The first is the story of the Syro-Phoenician woman. She is not a Jew -- a striking juxtaposition with a story of great interest to non-Jews. Jesus is far afield in Tyre and Sidon to the northwest. It would be a 2-4 day journey from Galilee.

Her daughter has an unclean spirit. Again, this is a striking juxtaposition with a story that has just been about what makes a person unclean. Unlike those things that are thought to make a person unclean when you touch them, Jesus' touch works the opposite direction. And in this case, he does not even touch her. His faith from a distance cleanses this young girl of her unclean spirit, and the demon leaves her.

One of the more striking aspects of their conversation is Jesus' words to her on the priority of "feeding the children" of Israel. He effectively refers to the woman as a puppy milling around the table where the children are eating. [10] She does not reject the premise but instead responses that even the puppies get to eat scraps from the children's table. 

Jesus casts the woman's daughter out and makes her clean.

9. The final story in the chapter is the healing of a deaf man who also cannot speak. Jesus spits and touches the man's tongue. He sticks his fingers in his ears. These actions were of course not necessary, but they probably were known patterns of behavior used by other healers of the day. They are thus an example of Jesus meeting his world within their own cultural assumptions.

Mark gives us another Aramaic word, Ephphatha. See above. The man is instantly healed and begins to speak.

Jesus tells them not to tell anyone. This is part of the "messianic secret" theme where in Mark especially Jesus commands the demons not to speak his identity and tells those he heals to tell others. The demons obey. But of course most of the people don't, making it difficult for Jesus to travel openly. 

It would seem that, in this season, God gives us humans the freedom to disobey him. This is a major rejection of the impulse of some Christians to try to take over their governments to force the world to follow their understanding of God's rules.

[1] Matthew 7:12 is similar, as is Romans 13:10.

[2] See especially Joseph Sievers and Amy-Jill Levine, eds, The Pharisees (Eerdmans, 2021).

[3] Some later manuscripts include the table itself.

[4] It is of course possible that this as a marginal note that made its way into the text. It is not copied into Matthew, which used Mark as its primary source. Matthew similarly does not copy Mark 7:19. It does include Mark 13:14. These three verses in Mark have traditionally been seen as parenthetical comments from the author of Mark to his audience. 

However, in the case of the first two, it is clear enough why Matthew would not include them. Since he is likely writing to a Jewish audience, he does not need to explain what Jews do. And quite possibly he would not see 7:19 as applying to a Jewish audience. More below.

[5] This sense of the Sadducees is based on one source alone -- Josephus, Antiquities 13.297. Some have mistakenly read this passage to mean that the canon of the Sadducees only included the Pentateuch. That may also be true, but it is not what Josephus was saying here.

[6] It reminds me of denominations that say they aren't denominations. Or churches that say they are non-denominational when they clearly stand in the streams of particular Christian traditions.

[7] One example is the full participation of women in the gospel, something modeled throughout the New Testament and anticipated even in the Old Testament. Yet modern day "Pharisees" use 1 Timothy 2:12 to try to wiggle out of this fundamental principle of Pentecost (Acts 2:17; cf. Gal. 3:28).

[8] In this regard, Paul and Mark seem to operate within similar communities of early (Gentile) Christianity.

[9] Logan Williams, "The Stomach Purifies All Foods: Jesus’ Anatomical Argument in Mark 7.18–19," NTS 70 (2024): 371-91.

[10] It helps the tone a little to recognize that the word used is not dog outright but "little dog," perhaps suggesting a playful tone to the conversation.

_________________________

Mark 1:1-13
Mark 1:14-15 
Mark 1:16-45
Mark 2
Mark 3
Mark 4:1-34
Mark 4:35-5:43
Mark 6

Mark 11:1-11 (Palm Sunday)
Mark 11:12-25 (Temple Monday)
Mark 11:26-12:44 (Debate Tuesday)
Mark 13 (Temple Prediction)
Mark 14:1-52 (Last Supper)
Mark 14:53-15:47 (Good Friday)

Mark 16 (The Resurrection)  

Through the Bible -- Mark 6

Now that we're past Pentecost, I want to go back and finish Mark. Previous chapters of Mark at bottom.
_________________________
1. The core theme of Mark 6 would seem to be discipleship and its cost. The chapter begins with Jesus visiting his hometown of Nazareth, where he is rejected. [1] Here we get the well known proverb that a prophet often has honor everywhere except in his own hometown.

His family is included. Mark gives us every reason not to think that his mother or brothers were on board with his ministry during his time on earth. We also have every reason to think that Mary went on to have other children. We have their names here -- James, Joses, Jude, Simon. He had sisters too. It is arguably an unhealthy view of sex that stands in the background of the Catholic and Orthodox belief that Mary remained a "perpetual virgin."

It says that Jesus "couldn't" perform many miracles there. This is a statement of Nazareth's lack of faith rather of Jesus' lack of power. Nevertheless, as with his omniscience, it is likely that the second person of the Trinity self-limited his use of power while he was on earth. Jesus arguably "played by the human rules" on earth, relying on the Spirit for his power to be an example for us as well.

2. The middle part of this chapter gives us another sandwich structure. Jesus sends out the Twelve on mission (6:7-13). [2] Mark tells about the fate of John the Baptist (6:14-29). Then the disciples return (6:30).  

The disciples are apprentices. They are following Jesus and learning from Jesus to do Jesus' "trade," which is the proclamation of the good news and the need for repentance. It is the healing of the sick and the casting out of demons. They go and do so with success. [3]

For their support, they are to rely on those to whom they are ministering (no bread, no bag, no money -- 6:8). They are not to give a sense of wealth (only one tunic -- 6:9). They are to stay with one host so that social pressures don't result in jealousy and infighting, which would distract from the mission (6:10). If a town rejects them, they shake the dust off their feet, a sign of leaving that village to its own fate (6:11).

3. To illustrate the possible outcome of being a disciple of the gospel, Mark has sandwiched in the story of John the Baptist's end here.

Herod Antipas hears about Jesus and is afraid that John the Baptist has come back from the dead. Others said Jesus was Elijah, the forerunner of the Messiah. Still others thought he might be a prophet. These are the same options that Peter will present in Mark 8 when Jesus asks who people are saying he is.

John the Baptizer had spoken out against Herod taking his brother's wife Herodias to be his wife. To do so, both had divorced their first spouses. Herodias was not happy about John condemning them, so Herod arrested John.

We know the story. On Herod's birthday, Herodias' daughter dances for him. He offers her pretty much whatever she wants. On her mother's advice, she asks for John's head. 

The telling of the story suggests that Herod was sympathetic to John. It blames his death primarily on Herodias. The impression we get is that Herod was pressured into it.

4. The rest of the chapter has two of Jesus' more well-known miracles. The first is the feeding of the 5000, the only miracle to appear in all four Gospels. We know the story. Jesus withdraws into a remote place. As a human, Jesus had a personality, and we wonder if he was actually an introvert.

The crowds follow him. Jesus performs a nature miracle for he breaks the law of matter conservation. He multiplies five loaves and two fish to feed the crowd.

This shows Jesus' compassion (6:34). They are "like sheep without a shepherd." Their lives lack meaning and purpose. They suffer without any hope. They are alienated from their heavenly Father. Jesus is showing them the way.

The theme of discipleship may also continue as Jesus asks his disciples to feed the crowd. Is this a test of their faith? If so, they do not particularly do well at it.

5. Another "super-natural" miracle then takes place when Jesus walks on water (6:45-52). The crowds have left and Jesus' disciples have also left for Bethsaida ahead of him. He wants some time alone with God to pray. But by evening, the disciples are making little headway on the Sea of Galilee because the wind is against them. He walks out to them on the water during the "fourth watch" (3-6am).

They think he is a ghost (phantasma). They are afraid. So while he was going to pass by them, he gets in the boat and the winds cease instead (6:51). The idea of Jesus "passing by" may be an allusion to Yahweh passing by Moses or Elijah.

The theme of the disciples not understanding is highlighted at the end (6:52). Their hearts are said to be hardened, a curious thing to say although it fits with Mark's theme that the disciples didn't get it. One wonders what this theme meant in Mark's own day.

6. The chapter ends with a summary statement of Jesus' ministry. They land at Gennesaret just west of Capernaum. Crowds come to him. He heals the sick. They want even to touch his garments and be healed, reminding us of the woman with a hemorrhage in the previous chapter.

[1] A key insight into Luke's artistic freedom is the fact that he, using Mark as a source, moves this event to the very begining of Jesus' ministry (Luke 4:16-30) and uses it to shape a kind of inaugural address that present the core theme of Jesus' earthly ministry based on Isaiah 61:1-2.

[2] The Gospel of Matthew, using Mark as a source, expands this mission into a whole chapter (Matt. 10) and adds a mission sermon.

[3] Luke, again using Mark as a source, adds the disciples' glee that even the demons obey them. Jesus then remarks that he is seeing Satan being dethroned as the prince of this realm (Luke 10:18).
_________________________

Mark 1:1-13
Mark 1:14-15 
Mark 1:16-45
Mark 2
Mark 3
Mark 4:1-34
Mark 4:35-5:43

Mark 11:1-11 (Palm Sunday)
Mark 11:12-25 (Temple Monday)
Mark 11:26-12:44 (Debate Tuesday)
Mark 13 (Temple Prediction)
Mark 14:1-52 (Last Supper)
Mark 14:53-15:47 (Good Friday)
Mark 16 (The Resurrection) 

Through the Bible -- Acts 2

Last week I shifted my weekly through the Bible to Acts. Here is Acts 1. Today is Pentecost Sunday, so we shift now to Acts 2.
__________________________
1. Acts 2 is the birth of the church. It is the birth of the church because it commences the age of the Spirit. Before Pentecost, the Spirit is promised. After Pentecost, the Spirit is in us, empowering us for mission and righteousness, binding us together, and mediating Jesus presence among us.

The Spirit of God is in the Old Testament, but he often is not fully understood nor is his presence in the lives of God's people considered typical. The Spirit comes on Samson for strength, but Samson is far from righteous (Judg. 14:19). The Spirit of God is everywhere present but he is treated as simply the presence of God in the world rather than as a distinct person (Ps. 139:7).

Now, the Spirit will be in every believer. In fact, the Spirit is the indicator that a person has joined the people of God. One can repent and not yet be in Christ. One can confess one's sins, believe, and confess faith and yet not be saved. You can be baptized, as the Samaritans are in Acts 8, but they were not yet "in." 

The Spirit is God's seal of ownership (2 Cor. 1:22). The Holy Spirit is the guarantee of our coming inheritance and a foretaste of glory divine (2 Cor. 5:5; Eph. 1:14). If someone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to him (Rom. 8:9). You can receive the Spirit before baptism, and you are saved (Acts 10:44-48). You can be baptized but not be saved because you do not yet have the Spirit (Acts 8:14-16).

In Acts 2:28, Peter sums up the process of joining the community of faith. Repent, be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgivness of sins, and receive the Holy Spirit. The crowds realize that they have crucified their Messiah, their anointed one, their king. They must repent. They need forgiveness for their sins.

In this regard, baptism symbolizes the washing away of their sins. God has offered the possibility of forgiveness on the basis of Jesus. Baptism into his name is an acknowledgement of him as king. Baptism in his name is to activate him as the authenticator and authority behind their reconciliation to God. Then they will receive the Holy Spirit and God will be in them, purifiying their hearts of sin (Acts 15:8-9), joining them together in unity, empowering them for witness.

2. What happened that day? They were no doubt praying, as we see at the end of Acts 1. The Day of Pentecost was the Jewish Feast of Weeks, fifty days after Passover. It was the day of the wheat harvest. And so the church will be born on a day of harvest, some 3000 souls will believe (2:41).

Pentecost had also come to be associated with the giving of the Law at Mt. Sinai. And so on this day God writes his law on the hearts of his people through the Holy Spirit (cf. Jer. 31:33).

Pentecost is also the reversal of Babel. At the tower of Babel, God scatters the nations by dividing them by language. They are no longer able to understand one another.

But on the Day of Pentecost, the Spirit empowers the apostles to speak in other languages. Those Jews who are in Jerusalem for the feast all hear the good news proclaimed in their own tongues. It is far too early in the day for the disciples to be drunk. Rather, they are filled with the Spirit. 

3. The Spirit is the great equalizer. There are differences between men and women's bodies. But the Spirit comes equally on both of them. Sons and daughters will both prophecy by the same Spirit (2:17). There is no difference in spiritual capacity between them. There never was. But now we should expect the Spirit to speak through women regularly. The curse has been undone, and the Spirit shows no partiality. In Christ there is no longer male and female. 

4. Peter delivers the first sermon of Acts on the Day of Pentecost. The people are perplexed at what is happening. So, Peter will give the model sermon of Acts, the essence of what is called the "kerygma," what is proclaimed.

He begins with the story of Israel. This event has not happened out of the blue. It is the culmination of history. Peter quotes Scripture. This is the fulfillment of Joel 2. It is the beginning of the new covenant. Whoever calls on the name of the Lord Jesus will be saved (Acts 2:21).

Jesus had come as a man. God had done mighty works through him. The people of Jerusalem had handed him over according to God's foreknowledge and plan (2:23). In their ignorance, the audience itself had participated.

Then we get to the key line in every sermon in Acts: "God raised him" (2:24). [1] The resurrection is the centerpiece of Luke's theology. It represents the vindication of Jesus and his authenticity as God's representative. This is exactly what prophets like David had forseen. Peter reads Psalm 16 spiritually to hear a foreshadowing of Jesus not remaining in death.

Jesus has now been exalted to God's right hand -- enthroned as Messiah and Lord. Acts 2:36 gives us the timing in Luke's theology. These are royal titles, and Jesus "is made" Lord and Christ when he sits down and is enthroned at God's right hand. He was heir apparent before this time, but now he is seated at the right hand of the God as king. 

5. Three thousand are added to the company of believers. They devote themselves to the apostle's teaching. They are in constant fellowship, eating daily with each other, praying together.

The picture we get at the end of Acts 2 is a paradigmatic one, an idyllic one. It is Luke's picture of the ideal church. They worship daily together in the temple. They eat and fellowship with each other. They pray together. They share their possessions in common. If one person has more and another person has a need, they share.

Signs and wonders are normal. After all, they have the Spirit within them. The things that Jesus did by the power of the Spirit, they will now do in the power of the Spirit. Fear came on those watching, and new believers were being added daily. They were "being saved," meaning that they were becoming part of those who would escape the coming judgment of God. 

[1] Except for Stephen's in Acts 7 -- he was stoned before he got to that part of the sermon.

Through the Bible -- Acts 1

Since next Sunday is Pentecost, I thought I'd shift from Mark to Acts.  

_____________________
1. Acts is volume 2 of Luke. It was written for the same person as the Gospel of Luke, someone named Theophilus (Acts 1:1). He is called "most excellent Theophilus" in Luke 1:3, making many wonder if he was a Roman governor (cf. Acts 24:2). 

The name "Theophilus" means "lover of God," making some think the name is a literary device and that Acts was written for anyone who loves God. As such, it would be addressed to all lovers of God. It is also possible that Theophilus was a Christian name given to a Roman governor at baptism. We know of at least one Roman governor who becomes a believer in Acts 13, Sergius Paulus. 

In the end, it seems likely Theophilus was a real person, maybe even a patron who sponsored the writing of Luke-Acts.

2. The Gospel of Luke was about "everything that Jesus began to do and teach" (Acts 1:1). In Acts, Jesus continues to teach through his Spirit in the apostles and his church. Luke 24 ended with Jesus' ascension, and Acts will pick up the story at that point. 

There is one key difference. A straightforward reading of Luke 24 would easily give us the impression that Jesus rose from the dead and ascended on the same day. [1] Yet in Acts 1 we hear that there was a forty day period between the resurrection and the ascension (Acts 1:3). From one standpoint, therefore, Luke 24 "telescopes" Acts 1.

The comparison shows that Luke used some artistic freedom in his presentation, which was perfectly acceptable at the time. It also means, however, that we are not likely getting a videotape or transcript of the events. Luke has arranged and told the events in a way that brings out truths about the Way. [2] That was his priority, the message. 

Jesus tells them to wait in Jerusalem. John the Baptist had foretold that Jesus would baptize them with the Holy Spirit (Luke 3:16; Acts 1:5). That will happen in Acts 2 on the Day of Pentecost. They are getting in the stalls at the Kentucky Derby. The race of the church will begin in Acts 2. [3]

3. The final question the disciples ask Jesus is whether he will now restore the kingdom to Israel. This is very revealing. It reflects that their expectations of Jesus as Messiah have always been military and political. They were not expecting Jesus to die, as the Gospel of Mark so clearly shows (e.g., Mark 8:31-32). Then they clearly were not expecting him to rise either (cf. Luke 24:21-24).

So now they are wondering, "Are we back on for kicking the Romans out of Jerusalem and taking the kingdom back for Israel?"

Jesus does not contradict their expectation in itself. After all, Luke 21 points to a "times of the Gentiles" when Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Romans (21:24), an allusion to the destruction of Jerusalem that would happen forty years later. Presumably, after the times of the Gentiles were over, the kingdom of God would come and an expanded Israel would inherit the earth.

But they do not understand the timing. Just as they did not anticipate Jesus death and resurrection, they did not anticipate Jesus' ascension. Jesus is taken out of their sight into heaven. Luke-Acts is the only place where Jesus' ascension is explicitly told, although Hebrews may allude to it. [4]

Heaven is not likely straight up, although that is the way they thought of it in their worldview. From what Paul says in 2 Corinthians 12:2, they likely pictured a universe where you went straight up through layers of sky to the highest sky where God's throne was. It is an illustration of the fact that God reveals himself in our categories so that we can picture and grasp his point in our language and peripheral frameworks.

If God created the universe out of nothing, then God's essence is not in this universe. His "throne room," a metaphor in itself, is "somewhere else." I have always thought of heaven and hell as being in another dimension, but that is simply a picture that works for me in our time.

So Jesus "stoops to their weakness," as the hymn says, meeting them in terms they understand. [5] He ascends until he is out of sight. Then presumably he transports to wherever heaven is. 

4. We might view Acts 1:8 as the key verse of Acts. It gives us a generalization of the whole book in a nutshell. 

For example, "You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you." The book of Acts is a recurring series of events where believers receive the Holy Spirit, and power is an immediate consequence. I grew up in a tradition that emphasized purity as what comes with the Spirit, and we do find that idea at least once in Acts (15:9), the purification of sins.

However, power is the key manifestation of the Spirit in Acts. We find the power to perform miracles (e.g., Acts 3). There is the power of boldness (e.g. 4:31). They receive the power to speak in languages they have not learned (2:6).

With this power, they testify to the resurrection. "You will be my witnesses." They were disciples. In Acts 2 they become apostles -- individuals sent with a commission. The specific commission is to witness to Jesus' resurrection. According to Paul, this is a central part of what it means to be an apostle (1 Corinthians 9:1). There are no apostles of this sort today because Jesus has not appeared to anyone today the way he appeared to them. Paul was the last (1 Cor. 15:8).

So they will become apostles in Acts 2 and will be sent with the commission to testify to the resurrection. These initial apostles included more than just the Twelve. Paul was one of them. Barnabas likely witnessed the risen Jesus as well (1 Cor. 9:6). A husband-wife pair called Andronicus and Junia may also have been in this number (Rom. 16:7). 

They will witness to the resurrection in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, and the ends of the earth. This is a kind of map to the book of Acts. Acts 1-7 are in Jerusalem. Then Acts 8-12 are in Judea and Samaria. Finally, Acts 13-28 are to the ends of the earth, remembering that Rome was the end of the earth in the geographical paradigm of Jesus' day.

5. The remainder of Acts 1 deals with the replacement of Judas (1:12-26). The number twelve was important because it symbolized the tribes of Israel. The twelve apostles point to the restoration of Israel. 

First, Luke tells us who the eleven remaining disciples are. Peter seems to be the leader, and we remember that is the first man to whom Jesus appeared (Luke 24:34). In the Gospels we have, Peter is the lead apostle, although Jesus' brother James will seemingly become the leader of the Jerusalem church.

There are others there beyond the Twelve -- Acts 1:15 says 120. The women who had supported Jesus are mentioned, as now is Jesus' mother Mary and his brothers (1:14). Luke does not indicate that Jesus' mother or family were present at his crucifixion. John is unique in that regard. Mention of the presence of the women reminds us that Luke more than any of the Gospels features the presence and participation of women in the early church and its ministry.

Peter feels led to call for the replacement of Judas. He quotes Scripture -- Psalm 69:25 and Psalm 109:8. The early Christians likely meditated on these psalms as they thought about the sufferings of Jesus -- especially Psalm 69 since several of its verses are referenced in the New Testament in relation to Jesus. They are psalms of lament, where the psalmist asks God for rescue in suffering. They are even more specifically imprecatory psalms that call for God to vindicate the psalmist in the face of his enemies.

Reading these verses spiritually, Peter understands the Spirit to be telling them to replace Judas' "office" among the twelve. The criteria for the replacement include that it must be someone who has been with them since the time of John the Baptist. Interestingly, the apostle Paul would not qualify. It is often suggested that Paul was the real replacement for Judas, but he would not have qualified according to Acts. 

Paul and Barnabas were in a second tier of apostles. There were the Twelve, the first tier. Then there was a second tier to whom Jesus also appeared, but they were not among the Twelve. We see this two tier sense of the apostles in 1 Corinthians 15:5-8.

6. Acts 1:18-19 is where we find out the fate of Judas. Luke's account is a little different from the other Gospels. All the Gospels except John indicate that Judas received money for betraying Jesus. In Matthew he returns the money and then hangs himself. Then the priests buy a field with it (Matt. 27:7-8). In Acts 1, Judas buys the field and dies there "falling headlong" (Acts 1:19).

At least on a surface level, these two accounts are not precisely reconcilable. In Matthew the priests buy the field. In Acts, Judas does. The mode of death also seems to differ. Some have found it very important to find a historical reconciliation on the level of detail. For example, perhaps Judas tried to hang himself and the rope broke, causing him to fall headlong.

These attempts at harmonization are well-intentioned but probably unncessary. Ancient history writing could involve some creative license. Also, the agreement on the core event with difference in detail actually points to the historicity of the event. It is exactly what we would expect with oral tradition. Both accounts agree that the money was used to buy a field and that the field was called "Akeldama," "field of blood." They both agree that Jesus died soon after Jesus' death.

7. They cast lots and Matthias is chosen. We never hear of him -- or the majority of the disciples -- ever again. There are some traditions about what befell them, but they are not in Scripture.

On the surface, throwing dice does not seem the best method of choosing a leader, but in their worldview, God was understood to direct the way the lot fell. Presumably, God met them in their expectation within their framework of understanding. That it was a cultural practice is clear because the Roman soldiers cast lots to decide who would get Jesus' clothing (e.g., Matt. 27:35). This is the only time in the New Testament when believers cast lots to make a decision.

It is perhaps a reminder that "description is not prescription." That is to say, the Bible narrates a lot of events. We are not meant to emulate all of them (for example, Judas hanging himself). Sometimes the Bible describes what they did without prescribing that we do it the same way.

8. They bathe this decision in prayer (Acts 1:24). Prayer is another one of the key themes of Luke-Acts. The followers of the Way prayed regularly in community (2:42). They prayed for God's guidance. They prayed for the power of the Spirit. Although it is not explicitly mentioned before the Day of Pentecost, we should assume that, as mentioned here at the end of Acts 1, they were praying in the upper room when the Holy Spirit comes upon them.

[1] The angels appear to the women at the tomb on Easter morning. "The same day," two men meet Jesus on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13). When they realize it's Jesus, they head back to Jerusalem "that same hour" (24:33). When they arrive back, Jesus has already appeared to Peter and then suddenly appears to all of them (24:36). Then he leads them out to Bethany and is taken to heaven (24:50).

Clearly, this is a syncopated version. For example, Matthew and Mark have all the appearances to the main apostles in Galilee, and it is in Galilee that Jesus gives the Great Commission. Luke 24 has no room for any appearances in Galilee, even though he surely knows about them. 

[2] "The Way" is how Luke refers to the Jesus movement several times in Acts (e.g., Acts 9:2; 19:23).

[3] Some have suggested that the Day of Pentecost was a second Spirit event in the life of the apostles since Jesus breathes on them and tells them to receive the Holy Spirit in John 20:22. However, the story world of Luke-Acts is a self-contained one. In it, the Day of Pentecost is the fulfillment of the promise of John the Baptist. John has a different story world, and Acts does not include it. You might argue that John 20:22 is John's allusion to or version of Pentecost.

[4] E.g., Hebrews 4:14.

[5] From the hymn, "Spirit of God, descend upon my heart."

Through the Bible -- Mark 4:35-5:43

Previous chapters of Mark at bottom.
_________________________
1. The end of Mark 4 and Mark 5 happen around the Sea of Galilee. After the Parable of the Sower, which also happens by the sea, Jesus and his disciples set out on the lake in a boat. Archaeological remains suggest this would have been a relatively small boat of about 27 feet length, 7.5 feet width, and a little more than 4 feet high.

The "Sea" of Galilee itself is only about 8 miles wide at its widest point in the center. Most of the places Jesus would have traveled would have been more like 5-6 miles wide, and the traditional location of the scene at the beginning of Mark 5 (Kursi) was about 5-6 miles across the lake. It would have been about an hour and a half to two hour journey depending on the winds.

At the end of Mark 4, the disciples find themselves in a wind storm on the sea. If you look at the picture to the right, you can imagine how terrifying it would be for the seas to get rough in a storm in such a boat. The sides were only a little more than 4 feet high and water was coming in.

Jesus sleeps. He was fully human. No doubt his ministry was physically exhausting even though he was perhaps only 30 years old. The disciples think he is crazy to sleep through the storm. They awaken him. "Don't you care that we are going to die?!"

Nonchalantly, Jesus rebukes the storm. The wind stops. The lake becomes calm. He rebukes them for their lack of faith, fitting with the "dullness of the disciples" theme in Mark.

Meanwhile, they are shocked. Jesus can not only heal. He cannot only cast out demons. But Jesus has authority over physics as well. Of course, they would not have divided the world up the way we do. We might put miracles relating to the laws of nature in a completely different category than exorcism. But we note that the Gospels point to such abilities on Jesus' part.

2. The story in Mark 5:1-20 is one of the more bizarre in the Gospels. They reach shore in the land of the Gerasenes, perhaps about halfway down the east side of the lake. [1] As they disembark, they are greeted by a man who turns out to have not just one but a legion of unclean spirits.

He stays near tombs. He has extraordinary strength, as is often reported of those who are possessed. He is often crying out, often hurting himself. He is outside of human society. He abides in a liminal zone that is outside the boundaries of human existence.

The demons recognize Jesus. They know him as the Son of the Most High God (5:7), and the possessed man bows before Jesus as before his king. [2] Jesus commands the demons to come out, and they beg Jesus not to torture them. 

Jesus asks their name -- possibly a reflection of the fact that Jesus did not function with his omniscience while he was on earth. After all, Jesus will say in Mark 13:32 that he does not know the hour of his return. In short, the Gospel of Mark does not present Jesus as omniscient on earth. [3]

The demons' name is "Legion" because they are many. In a military context, a legion consisted of as many as 5000 men. The text indicates 2000 pigs received the demons (5:13). The demons beg Jesus to go into the pigs, a request that he grants. The pigs then rush down into the sea and drown.

The fact that there are pigs there indicates that they are not in Israel. The Jewish Law of course prohibited the consumption of pigs. The loss of such pig life might not have been of great concern for a Jew. But of course for the pig owners, this represented a huge financial loss, and they beg Jesus to leave their country. They are understandably afraid as well (5:15).

However, it is a fantastic development for the possessed man. Previously naked, now he is wearing clothes. He is now in his right mind. He wants to go with Jesus. But Jesus bids him to stay and be a witness to Yahweh to his people. As a result, he spreads the word about Jesus throughout his land. In a sense, he is the first Gentile (non-Jewish) missionary in the New Testament.

3. The final scene of Mark 5 is what we might call a "sandwich" construction, more technically called an intercalation. The "bread" of the sandwich is the story of the healing of the daughter of a synagogue ruler named Jairus. These verses (5:21-43) begin and end with the story of Jairus.

In the middle is the story of the woman with a blood flow. It is the "meat" or the "peanut butter and jelly" in the sandwhich. This intercalation structure brings two stories together in a way that they inform each other. We will see the structure later with the story of the fig tree (the bread) and Jesus' action in the temple (the meat). So the story of Jairus begins. Then "we interrupt this story for the story of a woman with a hemorrhage." Then "we resume the story of Jairus still in progress."

The story of Jairus is the first time that Jesus raises someone from the dead. Jairus leaves his dying daughter at home to find Jesus. He has faith that Jesus can heal his daughter. Jesus is his last hope. He finds Jesus and falls at his feet, begging him to come heal her.

The story is of course interrupted by the story of the woman with a blood flow. Doctors had been of no use to her for years. They had only brought her torment with their treatments.

Like Jairus, she also has faith in Jesus. She thinks that she will be healed if she can only touch him. She manages to touch his clothing. She is immediately healed.

Again, Jesus did not seem to be aware of her presence until she touches him. He feels a power go out from him. Interestingly, it only took her faith for her to be healed. Jesus does not have to say or think anything for it to happen. Her faith is sufficient. Yet, at the same time, we are told that a power goes out from him.

He asks who touched him. His disciples think he's crazy. He's being mobbed, after all. But the woman identifies herself, and Jesus indicates that it is her faith that has made her whole once again.

4. Then the story returns to Jairus. A healing to a woman is about to take place here as well. They were on their way to Jairus' house when some from his house meet them. They inform Jairus that his daughter has died. They suggest he need no longer bother the rabbi Jesus.

But Jesus tells Jairus to have faith and not to fear. The quelling of fear, by the way, has been a continual theme throughout these verses today. When they arrive, Jesus tells the wailing group that the girl is only sleeping. Wailing was presumably part of the mourning ritual, although no doubt they were sad. They mock him for saying she was only sleeping. 

Jesus enters her room with only the parents and his core disciples Peter, James, and John. In Aramaic, he tells the girl, "Talitha cumi" or "Girl, arise." The twelve year old girl immediately arises. Jesus tells them to give her something to eat.

Jesus tells them not to tell anyone what has just happened -- part of the messianic secret theme in Mark. Although often the people he tells this do not listen, in this case, we have no reason in the text to think that they disobeyed him. Presumably the story was told by Peter and the others later.

Although it is not a primary argument, the fact that Mark has more Aramaic in it than the other Gospels is often seen as a supporting argument for it being the earliest Gospels. It also supports the majority view that Aramaic was Jesus' primary if not exclusively language spoken during his earthly ministry. 

 [1] The traditional site is a place called Kursi today. The oldest and best manuscripts read "Gerasenes" in Mark and Luke but "Gadarenes" in Matthew. Both Gerasa and Gadara were too far inland to be the precise location of the event, but both accurately depict the same region. "Gergesa" would have been more precise, and some later manuscripts have it, but it is not the most likely reading of the original of any of the Gospels.

[2] Although it is a point of debate, to "proskyneo" before someone could refer to a range of activities. In the hindsight of Christian theology, we immediately jump to the concept of worship. But you also proskyneo-ed before a king, and the expression "Son of God" was a royal title. I suspect that in Mark's audience's mind, bowing before a king comes closer to the original connotation here.

[3] To harmonize our theology with the biblical texts, I have suggested that Jesus did not access his omniscience while he was on earth. It would be mildly heretical to suggest he emptied himself of his omniscience, since orthodox theology holds that the divine attributes of the Trinity are immutable. So, I have suggested a willful bracketing of divine prerogatives like omniscience. You might say that he kept his omniscience in a divine subconscious while he was on earth. 

_________________________
Mark 1:1-13
Mark 1:14-15 
Mark 1:16-45
Mark 2
Mark 3
Mark 4:1-34

Mark 11:1-11 (Palm Sunday)
Mark 11:12-25 (Temple Monday)
Mark 11:26-12:44 (Debate Tuesday)
Mark 13 (Temple Prediction)
Mark 14:1-52 (Last Supper)
Mark 14:53-15:47 (Good Friday)

Mark 16 (The Resurrection) 

Through the Bible -- Mark 4:1-34

Previous chapters of Mark at bottom.
_________________________
1. In the Gospel of Mark up to this point, Jesus has healed. He has cast out demons. He has called disciples. We know that he has preached about the kingdom of God. But it is not really until Mark 4 that we get our first real excerpt of his teaching.

In Mark 4:33-34, we are told that Jesus routinely taught in parables -- or riddles, you might say. You may have heard at some point that parables were stories that made Jesus' point clearer. There was once a book on preaching titled, Learning to Preach Like Jesus whose premise was that the point of your preaching can be clearer if you use stories. [1]

But that is not the sense we get from Mark 4. After Jesus gives this "parable of the sower," he indicates that the purpose of the parables was to filter out those who "have ears to hear" (4:9) from those who do not. They were riddles of a sort. Jesus anticipates that, to those outside the kingdom, his riddles will be heard but not understood (4:12). Although they will see Jesus, they will not perceive him to be who he is.

Ironically, the disciples do not understand the meaning of the Parable of the Sower, whose point is that only those with ears to hear will understand. Jesus remarks, "Don't you understand this parable? How then will you understand any of my parables?" (4:13). They apparently do not have ears to hear.

Here is a second major theme of the Gospel of Mark. One theme is the "messianic secret," which refers to Jesus' consistent practice of veiling his true identity as Messiah. A second theme is the dullness of the disciples, their difficulty in understanding the nature of Jesus' mission and his core message. I have sometimes summarized this theme as "the disciples don't get it."

Yet the disciples are in a different category than the outsiders. Jesus will unveil the meaning of the parables for them. "To you has been given the secrets of the kingdom of God" (4:11).

Mark 4:34 says that Jesus didn't open his mouth without a parable -- an obvious hyperbole. But it is clear that parables were Jesus' main mode of teaching. When we then read the Gospel of John, we are immediately struck by the fact that there is not a single parable of Mark's type in it. It alerts us that the Gospel of John is not so much a literal, historical presentation of Jesus as a symbolic, theological one.

2. Jesus delivers the Parable of the Sower by the Sea of Galilee (4:1). The sea remains a centering feature of these chapters. Again, because the crowd is so large, Jesus teaches from a boat slightly off shore.

In the Parable of the Sower, seed is scattered everywhere. Jesus pictures four different types of soil in particular. There is the path. There is rocky "soil." There is soil where thorns are also present. Finally, there is good soil.

These four types of soil are a kind of allegory for how the word of God plays out among those who receive it. [2] For some people, the word of the good news goes in one ear and out the other. They are like spiritual Teflon -- nothing sticks. They might not have even heard you. They have no interest in the things of God or at least the true things of God. They are like seed spread on a path that the birds immediately eat. Satan snatches the word right out of their ears.

There is another kind of soil that is rocky. Because the seed cannot get any deep root, it springs up immediately but just as quickly withers in the sun. These are the shallow Christians, the "fair-weather" Christians. When the faith gets hard, when it demands something of you that makes you uncomfortable or requires you to sacrifice something, you're out of here.

These are also those who like Christian faith when it fits their culture. This can take place on either side. There is the sugar daddy Jesus who gives you everything you want and doesn't require any changes to your life. But there is also the political, militant Jesus who doesn't require you to change your tribal thinking or desire to squash those who are different. These are the cultural Christians who say they find Christianity attractive even though they don't believe in God, but what they find attractive is a skewed version of Christianity without Jesus.

The third soil has thorns alongside the wheat. It eventually chokes out the faith. This can be the cares of the world -- how can I feed my family. But it can also be the abundance of the world -- Mark singles our riches as well (4:19), The world takes over in this person's heart. Perhaps they go through the motions of faith but their heart is no longer in it.

Finally, there is good soil. It takes root. It goes deep. It doesn't wither with correction or persecution. It keeps looking to Jesus even though the cares of the world might try to crowd him out. It reproduces and bears fruit manyfold. 

3. We get to hear these interpretations because the disciples do not understand what Jesus is saying without Jesus' interpretation. But Jesus is willing to give it to those who seek it. I have heard individuals use this parable as an argument for predestination -- you are predestined to be a certain kind of soil. 

However, note that the disciples get to understand. They are not good soil initially, but they take the first step. They ask for Jesus to explain. And so there can be movement from bird food to good soil. Lord, help us to see what we do not see.

4. Mark has probably taken some loose sayings of Jesus and put them here alongside the Parable of the Seeds. We should not find this a problem as it wasn't a problem in Mark's day. Many have a strange expectation that we almost need to be looking at a videotape of Jesus. But Mark's concern was likely to include as much of Jesus' teaching as he could practically fit in an orderly way rather than to give us a blow-by-blow of the order in which things happened. Matthew 13 will expand these parables even further.

Mark gives us three additional parables alongside the Parable of the Sower, a fitting place to put them. First is the parable of the lamp and the bushel basket. You don't put a lamp under a basket because the purpose of the lamp is to give light. And the things you try to hide will eventually come to light (4:22). If the sequence of thought seems a little unclear, it could be because Mark is collecting a few of Jesus' different sayings into one place.

What I mean is that Jesus' sayings likely circulated only by word of mouth for decades. That doesn't mean that they got all messed up like the telephone game -- that's a bad representation of the process. In the telephone game, you whisper something around the room and then see how messed up the message is by the time it gets to the last person. The person who whispered the original message says what it was in comparison to how it gets mangled going around the room.

But in the first century, the message was not whispered, it was preached publicly. Like the end of the telephone game, the first disciples were still "in the room" for decades to correct any inaccuracies in the message. Further, recent studies have shown that the core of oral tradition is usually quite persistent, although the details often vary on the edges. [3] This is exactly what we find in the Gospel traditions.

So it seems likely that Mark has placed some individual oral sayings of Jesus here and there as seemed appropriate. When the train of thought is unclear, that could be a sign of a collection of sayings (e.g., Mark 9:49-50). Of course, it could simply be our (or my) problem of not realizing how the train of thought actually goes. In the end, each statement is true one way or another.

5. One of those sayings preserved here in Mark 4 is that God gives more to the one who has, and takes away from the person who doesn't have (4:25). The measure you give is the measure you get (4:24). If you give more, you get more. These are riddles which, unfortunately, have been twisted in unhelpful directions.

For example, some might take these to say that you will automatically prosper materially the more you give to others. Others have taken these saying as a kind of divine blessing on the rich and curse upon the poor. The poor should have everything taken away, and the rich are those whom God likes. These are self-indulgent interpretations (me, me, me) rather than interpretations with the spirit of Jesus.

The key is not to think of what one "has" in terms of possessions but in terms of faith. When one has faith, more will be given. Also, 4:24 speaks of giving as the key to "getting more," but the more one gets is not money or possessions but divine favor.

6. The parables of the growing seed and the mustard seed are similar in meaning. You can't always see growth in the short term. It seems to happen when you're not even looking. Then suddenly it is there blossoming. The mustard tree is one of the biggest bushes known in Israel, yet it starts out so small to begin with. 

Such is the kingdom of God. You do not always perceive how God is growing it. Yet, suddenly, it is time for the harvest or suddenly, it has grown so much that the birds nest in its shade. No doubt at times the growth of the kingdom did not seem great at first. As we can infer from what Paul says in Romans 9-11, Israel did not seem to embrace Jesus as its Messiah. 

But God's kingdom was growing nonetheless, even if it was not always apparent. The time for harvest would come before you knew it. Then Christ would reign and all would be right.

[1] Ralph Lewis and Greg Lewis, Learning to Preach Like Jesus (Crossway, 1989).

[2] In the late eighteen hundreds, the German scholar Adolf Jülicher suggested that Jesus wouldn't have used allegory (Die Gleichnisreden Jesu). He argued that any allegories in the Gospels were later additions by the church and that Jesus' original parables would have only had a single point.

I think he meant well, but my reaction has always been, "Who says?" Silly German categorizers with anti-Catholic biases. If Jesus wants to use an allegory, he can use an allegory. You and your silly rules.

[3] The work of Kenneth Bailey has been very helpful here, although there are perhaps some extremes to his work (e.g., his chiastic interpretation of 1 Corinthians). For an excellent yet measured presentation of these basic insights, see James D. G. Dunn, A New Perspective on Jesus: What the Quest for the Historical Jesus Missed (Baker Academic, 2005).

_________________________
Mark 1:1-13
Mark 1:14-15 
Mark 1:16-45
Mark 2
Mark 3

Mark 11:1-11 (Palm Sunday)
Mark 11:12-25 (Temple Monday)
Mark 11:26-12:44 (Debate Tuesday)
Mark 13 (Temple Prediction)
Mark 14:1-52 (Last Supper)
Mark 14:53-15:47 (Good Friday)
Mark 16 (The Resurrection)

Through the Bible -- Mark 3

Sunday summaries of Mark continue for Through the Bible. Previously:

Mark 1:1-13
Mark 1:14-15 
Mark 1:16-45
Mark 2

Mark 11:1-11 (Palm Sunday)
Mark 11:12-25 (Temple Monday)
Mark 11:26-12:44 (Debate Tuesday)
Mark 13 (Temple Prediction)
Mark 14:1-52 (Last Supper)
Mark 14:53-15:47 (Good Friday)
Mark 16 (The Resurrection)

_________________________

1. At the end of Mark 2, Jesus got into his first conflict over the Sabbath. There, it was because his disciples were picking grain to eat as they walked through a field. In the story, the Pharisees consider this harvesting -- working on the Sabbath and thus breaking the commandment. Jesus quotes Scripture to show that the Sabbath commandment is not an absolute. There are exceptions, and he is one of them.

Immediately following at the beginning of Mark 3, we have another Sabbath story involving Pharisees (3:1-6). [1] In ths case, there is a man who is not whole physically. Jesus senses that some who are more legalistic are watching to see if he will "break the Law" by healing on the Sabbath. Of course, this is not breaking the Law. This is breaking their interpretation of the Law, which was wrong. [2]

Jesus sets their priorities straight. Life is more important than a rule for its own sake. It angers him, their out-of-focus view of things. God's laws are for our benefit, not mere tests of obedience. They need to grow up in their sense of God's priorities. God makes exceptions. He heals the man, and we see for the first time the beginnings of plots to kill him. 

This is one of only three times that the Herodians are mentioned in the New Testament. We have to make an educated guess about who they were. Quite possibly, they were a group that wanted to see a Herod as ruler of Israel again, as opposed to a Roman governor like Pontius Pilate.

2. Word gets out that people get healed when Jesus is around. Those possessed with evil spirits are liberated. The result is that Jesus is mobbed. Here he gets a little offshore in a boat to preach to the crowds so he doesn't get mobbed (3:7-12). We see him withdrawing for the first time.

We see the second instance of Mark's "messianic secret" theme. When Jesus engages evil spirits, he commands them not to tell others that he is the Son of God (3:11-12). They must obey. It is not Jesus' time yet. Peter is the first human to confess it in Mark 8:29. But the first human to get that this means he will die for humanity is the centurion at the cross in 15:39.

3. In 3:13-19, we have the chosing of the 12 core disciples. This number seems to echo the twelve tribes of Israel. The implication seems to be that Jesus mission involves the restoration of Israel. This is certainly how the disciples themselves seem to have understood it (Acts 1:6).

The lists in the Gospels differ a little from each other, leading tradition to line up various ones from the different accounts. The list here in Mark 3 is Simon (Peter), his brother Andrew, and the brothers James and John the sons of Zebedee. These are the core disciples in Mark. Then there was Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas. There is James the son of Alphaeus, sometimes called "James the Less." Then the list finishes out with Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas Iscariot.

Mark adds some details. We are reminded that Peter or "Rock" was a name that Jesus gave Simon. It wasn't his given name. In Aramaic, the actual name Jesus gave him was Cephas. We are told that Jesus called James and John the "sons of thunder" (3:17). We can see that thunder in the book of Revelation! Thaddaeus might be Judas son of James in Luke 6:16. 

It is interesting that the second Simon is called "Simon the Zealot." The Zealots were not an organized group until around the time of the Jewish War in AD66-70. Mark would have known this group. It seems natural therefore to think that Simon may have participated in the war. Otherwise, he surely would have avoided the term as Matthew does.

4. In the final part of the chapter, the opposition to Jesus increases (3:20-35). Interestingly, his family tries to talk some sense into him (3:21). His mother and brothers arrive and try to get him to come out of a house where he has been so mobbed that they can't even eat (3:20, 31). 

Jesus distances himself from his family. They don't see the big picture. Perhaps there is also some envy. You think of his brothers who were born legitimately and so could do what siblings do, needling Jesus for being born before their parents were fully married. Later, his brother James still seems a little too preoccupied with purity laws in the face of the mission (Gal. 2:12).

Jesus astoundingly (especially for that day) puts the will of God above his family. "Those who do the will of my Father are my brothers and sisters" (Mark 3:35). The church is a new family that is more real than one's biological family. Note that even Mary does not seem to fully understand what is going on. Joseph, quite possibly, is already out of the picture.

5. "Headquarters" is getting involved. Teachers of the Law have heard about Jesus and have come "down" from Jerusalem. "Down" in this context relates to the fact that Jerusalem is elevated but also reminds us that our sense of north as up is part of our worldview. They are there to exert their power and control over things religious. Jesus is a charismatic fly in their ointment. He hasn't gone through the proper ordination process that might involve their approval. Who does he think he is? He needs to be brought under control or at least knocked down to size.

Not going to happen. They accuse him of using the power of Satan (Beelzebul) to cast out demons. Jesus looks at them like they're crazy. Don't put any of these guys in charge of a battle because they'll have their own side attacking their own side. Satan doesn't fight himself!

Organizationally, there is great insight here, as we would expect. If an organization is full of infighting and backstabbing, without trust between its members, it's not going to do so well. "A house divided against itself cannot stand," Jesus said (3:25). These are words Lincoln would quote during the Civil War as he tried to keep the country together as a union.

6. It is in this context that Jesus articulates what is called the "unpardonable sin." The unpardonable sin is attributing to Satan what is actually the work of the Holy Spirit. It is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. It is a warning to us today not to attribute to Satan works that could actually be the work of God. I have sometimes thought of those who might suggest tongues-speaking is of the Devil. I would be very careful.

Some of those with a overly sensitive conscience have wondered if they might have committed such a sin. I remember hearing a story of a man who was faithful to the church, tithed faithfully, and was in all respects one of the most eager helpers. But when asked if he would join the board, he said he couldn't because he had once committed the unpardonable sin.

No one should worry about the unpardonable sin. If it is true that the Holy Spirit draws us to him, then anyone who truly comes to God in repentance has not committed this sin. After all, it is the Spirit that makes that repentance possible. Any prodigal can return if his or her repentance is genuine.

In this case, these teachers of the law are way past that point. They have a form of godliness but without the power. They once had a choice but now their heart is hardened of their own doing. They have the official position but no position in God's kingdom. So often those who hold official positions of power on earth are nothing from a heavenly perspective.

[1] Remember that the chapter divisions were added later. Mark has clustered these two stories together side by side likely because of their common engagement of the Sabbath. Mark did.not likely arrange all of the stories in chronological order. In these early chapters, we see some thematic grouping and also a sense of increasingly conflict.

[2] We should not think that these individuals represented all Pharisees either. It is hard to see the famous Hillel having any problem with Jesus healing a man on the Sabbath.

Through the Bible -- Mark 13 (Prophecy about Temple)

I was unable to do a summary of Mark 13 during Passion Week, so here is a Sunday post to fill in that gap:

Psalm Sunday
Temple Monday
Debate Tuesday
Maundy Thursday
Good Friday
_________________________

1. Mark 13 -- along with its parallels in Matthew 24 and Luke 21 -- often features prominently in end times prophecy teaching. For example, my grandfather believed that the re-establishment of Israel as a nation in 1948 started the last generation before the rapture. There was actually a book written titled, Eighty-Eight Reasons Why the Lord Will Return in 1988. Mark 13 featured in that list.

One of the key reasons is Mark 13's mention of the budding of the fig tree (13:28-31). When you see it bud, you know the summer is near. Then Jesus says that "this generation will not pass" until all these things come to pass (13:30). We've already seen from Mark 11 that the fig tree that withers there likely symbolized the Israel of that day. So couldn't the budding of the fig tree be the re-establishment of Israel?

What happens within that generation? We have just heard in 13:26. The Son of Humanity will come on the clouds of heaven. Is this not the second coming, the return of Christ?

This is an ingenious interpretation. It gets around one of the key riddles of the passage. In the flow of the chapter, Mark 13:30 seems to say that that generation -- his generation, the disciples' generation -- would not pass before the Son of Humanity came on the clouds. The "generation after Israel's rebirth" argument helps alleviate the puzzle, at least until such time as the 1948 generation might all die off.

2. Is it the right interpretation of the passage? It doesn't seem to be what the passage meant originally. But one of the lessons we learn as we watch the New Testament interpet the Old Testament is that fulfillment can happen in more-than-literal ways. Sometimes I call such interpretations "spiritual" interpretations. Or you might call them "figural" interpretations. These are interpretations that weren't clearly in the minds of the Old Testament authors, but they are meanings that the New Testament authors saw in the words of the biblical texts. 

I grew up with this way of interpreting the text without even knowing it. The Spirit could make a passage come alive and speak to you directly. For example, there is a family story about how someone in my family thought God was telling us to move to Florida when the words "thou hast given me a south land" jumped out to her while reading Judges 1:15 in the King James Version. We were trying to decide if it was God's will to move to Florida at the time, and several passages jumped out at various family members. And move to Florida we did.

However, the Israel/fig tree/last generation interpretation of Mark 13 does not seem to be what the text meant originally. "This generation" does seem to refer to Jesus' generation. There is no clear connection between the fig tree illustration here and in Mark 11. And, most importantly, the context of the chapter points to a much different time in history.

God can fulfill the passage however he desires on a more-than-literal level. But Mark 13 originally was not primarily about the end times. It was primarily about the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70. 

3. Let's go back to the beginning of the chapter, Mark 13:1-4. At the end of Mark 12, they are at the temple. Jesus has pointed out that the poor widow has given more proportionally than the wealthy have. As they are leaving the temple, One of his disciples admires the stones of that temple.

That's when Jesus begins the train of thought of the chapter. He tells them that none of those beautiful stones will be left standing on each other. This destruction of that temple happened in AD70. The set up for the chapter is Peter, Andrew, James, and John asking him privately when the destruction of that temple is going to happen (13:4). They want to know what the signs of its impending destruction will be.

This all already happened. Jesus' predictions about the temple all came true. That temple no longer stands -- no stone of it is on top of any other. [1] 

The context is crystal clear. The introduction to the chapter is not about the end times as we think of them. The chapter sets us up to expect the chapter to be about the events surrounding the destruction of the temple by the Romans in AD70.

4. Many will come claiming to be the Messiah, the anointed ones to overthrow the Romans and establish the kingdom of Israel. No doubt claims were made around AD70. They all failed.

Wars, rumors of wars, earthquakes, famines (13:7-8) -- I am amazed when people point to wars in the Middle East as signs of the end times. Have they no sense of history whatsoever? There are always wars, earthquakes, and famines going on and have been throughout history. Mark 13 refers to the Jewish War from AD66-72, culminating in the temple's destruction.

"They will deliver you up to councils" (13:9). Who is the "you" here? Who is Jesus talking to? The passage tells us. He is talking to Peter, Andrew, James, and John. He's not talking to Ken Schenck. It is amazing how narcissistically we sometimes read the Bible, making ourselves the "you" of its passages. It's not wrong to do that. It's just not what the text actually meant originally.

Quite clearly, the "you" of the passage is Peter, Andrew, James, and John. In a secondary sense, the "you" of the passage is the audience of Mark's Gospel. We are not reading the passage in context when we see ourselves as the "you." And what if every Christian for the last 2000 years read themselves as the "you" of the passage? Was the passage fulfilled in the year 1200 too? Maybe. But not literally, not for what Mark 13 actually meant when it was written.

Mark 13:9-13 was originally about the persecution that the early church experienced in the years leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70. Did Peter, Andrew, James, and John appear before councils like the Sanhedrin? Absolutely they did.

5. Now we get to a key verse in the passage. "When you see the abomination of desolation standing where it must" (13:14). Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye in recent times saw this verse in terms of an end times Antichrist setting himself up in a rebuilt temple as God (cf. 2 Thess. 2:4). This is part of the ingenious stitching together of verses that was started by John Darby in the 1800s. Brilliant connective work. And far be it from me to tell God how to spiritually fulfill the biblical text.

But the original, first meaning of Mark 13:14 is overwhelmingly clear. The passage is about the destruction of the temple. The desolation of the temple by the Romans is what Mark has in view. Luke 21 makes the desolation of Jerusalem explicit. In its paraphrase of Mark 13:14, it reads, "When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, know that its desolation is near." Luke takes Mark's ambiguous wording and paraphrases it to make its meaning clear. [2]

Mark 13:14 was thus a prediction that the temple Jesus was looking at would be destroyed. There is no place in the Old or New Testament that literally predicts the rebuilding of a temple again. I'm not saying it couldn't happen. I'm simply saying it is not predicted. [3] All the Old Testament prophecies about a rebuilt temple were fulfilled in 516BC with the rebuilding of the second temple.

Most importantly, the inspired book of Hebrews tells us that there is no further need for an earthly temple. Christ has entered the true temple in heaven (Heb. 8:2). With one sacrifice, Christ has ended the need for sacrifice (Heb. 10:14). Christ's atoning sacrifice has ended the sacrificial system of the old covenant (10:9). There is no need for a temple in the end times (Rev. 21:22).

In short, no rebuilt temple today could ever house the glory of God. Hebrews is definitive. Jesus is the only temple we need, and if the temple were ever rebuilt, it would likely become a stumblingblock to the very elect, a easy idol in waiting for Satan to use to distract God's people from the glory of Christ. God's glory will never return to any earthly temple again. Jesus is the glory of God in this regard, end of story.

6. There is an interesting aside in Mark 13:14 -- "let the reader understand." Because of what a reader is today, we are prone to think it's talking about us understanding as we read. But a "reader" in the first century was the person who read a text aloud to an audience, remembering that many if not most early Christians were illiterate.

Some take the verse to relate to the fact that the phrase "abomination of desolations" is an allusion to Daniel 11:31. Matthew 24:15 makes this allusion explicit. Accordingly, some take the expression "let the reader understand" to mean that the person reading should understand that this event is the fulfillment of Daniel.

It was the fulfillment of Daniel in a spiritual sense. The original fulfillment of Daniel 11 took place in 167BC when the Syrians defiled the temple. This is a testament to the multiple meanings that Scripture can have (it's "polyvalence"). Daniel 11:31 had already been fulfilled once by the time of Jesus.

And it was fulfilled again in AD70, as we have seen. We will see if God chooses to go beyond the text's meaning and fulfill it again in the manner of Hal Lindsay and Tim LaHaye.

I and many others think that the statement "let the reader understand" was a reading cue to the person reading Mark to a church in the first century. Highlight this verse, the cue says, because it's important and its soon. Why? Because the verse goes on to tell Peter, Andrew, James, and John to flee Judea when these things are happening (Mark 13:15). Head for the mountains.

And there is a tradition that the Jerusalem church did flee the city before it was destroyed by the Romans in AD70.

The statement "let the reader understand" is sometimes taken as a clue as to when the Gospel of Mark was written. It is often dated to the time just before or just after the temple was destroyed. For various reasons, I suspect the Gospel was started before the temple was destroyed but that it reached its current form not long afterward.

7. The end of the chapter does seem to blur into the return of Christ. You could argue that some biblical prophecy does that. As the prophet looks to the future, similar "eschatological" events blur together. Mark has more than one statement that might have led his first century audience to think that Jesus would return within their lifetime. Mark 13:30 is one of them -- this generation will not pass until all these things happen. Mark 9:1 is another -- some standing here will not die until the kingdom of God has come with power.

N. T. Wright has ingeniously suggested that the coming of the Son of Humanity was a reference either to the departure of Jesus from Israel or to him coming in judgment on Jerusalem. This interpretation would alleviate the tension of the passage in relation to its fulfillment in that generation. [4]

He rightly points out that the language of the sun darkening and moon turning to blood could be similar to the kind of language we used when we talk about "earth-shattering" events. For example, Acts 2:20 seems to relate this language from Joel 2 to the Day of Pentecost. It could refer to something momentous rather than something like solar and lunar eclipses, still less a transformation of the moon into hemoglobin.

8. However, perhaps a reference to Jesus' second coming remains the best interpretation of the final portion of the chapter. Mark blurs from predictions of the destruction of Jerusalem to the final return of Christ. The end of the chapter tells Peter, Andrew, James, and John to be watchful as these events unfold (13:32-36). No one knew exactly when Jerusalem would be destroyed. 

And today, no one knows when Jesus will return. "No one knows the day or the hour" (13:32). It is amazing that people still try to set dates. I am also amazed when people say that the signs of the times are clear that Jesus will come back soon. Certainly we must live in readiness and expectation. But people have been saying "the signs are clear" for hundreds of years. 

My grandfather saw signs in the 1940s of the Lord's imminent return. We were on the edge of our seats in the 1970s with Hal Lindsey. I would hardly let my mother out of my sight at a store for fear she would be taken and I would be left behind. We were expecting again in 1988. We were primed for the "any day" of Tim LaHaye in the early 2000s. 

Yes, we must live in constant expectation, full stop. But we also note that every prediction -- and "it's so clear it's happening soon" -- has failed. 100% failure rate.

Watch and stay awake. Yes! Keep your candle lit. But it will happen "when you least expect it" (Matt. 24:44).

[1] The wailing wall in Jerusalem -- which you can still visit today -- was not a wall of the temple but a retaining wall holding the earth of the temple mount in place.

[2] The overwhelming majority of Bible scholars have concluded that Luke used Mark as one of its primary sources.

[3] 2 Thessalonians 2:14 comes closest because it talks about a man of lawlessness setting himself up in the temple as God. However, the temple was still standing when Paul was alive. The passage does not predict a rebuilt temple. Further, there is debate over what the temple referred to here is. Ezekiel 40-45 is highly symbolic but primarily looked to the re-establishment of the temple after the Babylonian captivity. As we will mention, Hebrews prohibits any future literal fulfillment still to come.

[4] In Daniel 7, the Son of Humanity comes to the Ancient of Days, a movement that at least initially is up rather than down.

Though the Bible -- Mark 16 (Easter)

Happy Easter! I have done a more detailed verse-by-verse analysis of the resurrection stories in the Gospels in Explanatory Notes on Jesus' Resurrection.

Psalm Sunday
Temple Monday
Debate Tuesday
Maundy Thursday
Good Friday

_________________________

1. The burial of Jesus is not the end of the story! In many ways, it is just the beginning.

We get the impression from the other Gospels that Jesus was buried somewhat hurriedly. Joseph of Arimathea secures the body. The women take note of where his body was put so that they can come back after the Sabbath and perform proper burial rites. What can be done is done before the Sabbath begins at sundown.

Accordingly, the women come early on Sunday morning to the tomb with spices to anoint Jesus' body. Present are Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome (16:1), the same three women mentioned in 15:40. In that world, they are overlooked and often unseen. The others are hiding, but they are still thinking about Jesus.

Who will roll the stone away? It is apparently a large stone in front of the tomb. They are not expecting there to be any other people around. It is barely sunrise. But to their surprise, the stone in front of the tomb is already rolled away.

As we have seen throughout Mark, his presentation is very to the point. The women go into the tomb. It is apparently big enough at least for four people, for when they go inside, there is a young man in white sitting there on the right. Although Mark does not tell us, Matthew tells us this was an angel.

2. "He is risen!" That is the message that the angel gives them. "Don't be amazed."

But the women are fearful. Mark 16:8 ends the Gospel as it has survived with the women telling no one out of fear. More on the ending of Mark in a moment. It is curious that Mark says the women tell no one out of fear. In Matthew, which almost all think used Mark as its main source, the women immediately tell the disciples, as also in Luke and John. 

Some have suggested that the women's reaction in Mark 16:8 fits with Mark's repeated sense of the disciples' misunderstanding. They repeatedly do not understand what is really going on. They don't understand the nature of Jesus' mission. They don't understand that he has to die. Here, they don't see that this is exactly what Jesus had been saying would happen.

Others have suggested that this ending is meant to urge us to tell about Jesus' resurrection. The women don't tell. Are you going to remain silent too? Go and tell that Jesus is risen!

3. Some have misread Mark as not teaching resurrection. But the angel clearly tells them that Jesus is risen. Just because Mark does not narrate any resurrection appearances doesn't mean he doesn't believe they happened. He clearly alludes to resurrection appearances in Galilee.

In Matthew and Mark, we only hear about resurrection appearances in Galilee. The fact that Peter is singled out probably alludes that the key resurrection appearance in Galilee was to him. The only candidate we have among the various appearances mentioned in the Gospels is John 21, along the Sea of Galilee. Luke syncopates the Galilee appearances out of his narrative, although he hints of the appearance to Peter in Luke 24:34.

These curiosities are a reminder that the picture is likely much clearer to us -- with four Gospels -- than it was to them as they lived through it. We wonder how anyone could question. But Jesus' appearances likely left room for both faith and doubt. As it is with us, there was enough evidence for faith if we have the heart for it. And there was enough room for doubt if someone had the heart for it.

4. The ending of Mark was quite a debate point when versions other than the King James began to come out. The earliest Greek manuscripts of Mark do not have 16:9-20. There is early evidence for it in the quotations of the Fathers, but these come to us by way of later manuscripts too. We can have fun debates about the external evidence for the ending. 

The internal evidence is definitive. Mark 16:9 starts the resurrection story all over again, as if 16:1-8 didn't exist. It is in a different style, giving a pop-pop-pop summary rather than a narrative unfolding like the rest of Mark. In short, it is an obvious tack-onto a version of Mark that seemed to end abruptly. It caps a tooth using an early summary of Jesus' resurrection appearances, a summary that draws from the endings of the other Gospels. The summary may indeed be as old as the second century. There is another shorter ending among the manuscripts that did the same thing.

There's thus nothing wrong with the content of Mark 16:9-20. I suspect it's all true. It just wasn't part of the original Gospel of Mark. Given how ancient and orthodox it is, I don't have a problem with pastors using it (for example, I have seen pastors quote it's version of the Great Commission). However, I suspect many do so without realizing it.

Did Mark really end at 16:8? Like the ancient church, 16:8 does seem like an odd way to end the Gospel. I personally lean toward a sense that the original ending was lost or removed very early on. I've heard some suggest that the ending of Matthew points toward how Mark orignally ended. 

Whatever the case, God has let it come to us as it is and there is nothing wrong with it. It does leave us with the question of what we will do. Will we be silent in fear or will we tell others that Jesus is risen. There is space for doubt. But there is space for faith too! What will you do?