Wesleyan philosophy 2 -- What is good thinking?

Deductive Reasoning
There is a style of logic whose official form seems to go back to Aristotle from 384-322 BC. You might call it “syllogistic logic” because it has a format that involves “syllogisms.” With syllogisms, you have premises that build to logical conclusions. If the premises are true and the logic is valid, then the conclusion must also be true.

I have never been able to imagine a scenario where this approach to truth claims would not be valid. I recognize that such logic might possibly take on a different form in a different culture. For most of us, especially in daily life, our reasoning is more intuitive and implicit. We do not usually tell our spouse, “premise 1, premise 2, conclusion.” (Some of us might from time to time, but our spouses may consider us rather weird and annoying.)

While this particular form of logic might be cultural in some sense, I cannot see where it does not reflect underlying absolute truths of this universe. Another culture might express such truths in other forms, but I consider that a difference in form rather than substance.

The moniker, “Western logic” seems a bit peculiar. Ancient Greece was a quite different world than mine. There was no Europe at that time. Ancient Greece was different from Renaissance Italy and Enlightenment Prussia too. “Western” mainly says, “not Eastern, not Africa, not Middle East, not South American," and so forth. I suppose it means a modern European perspective on Aristotelian logic that has carried over from Europe to academic philosophy in the United States.

While I believe more metaphorical and intuitive forms of logic are valid and get at the same truths, I find Aristotelian logic and its heritage to be more precise and thus more helpful at truth-processing than more impressionistic, everyday arguments or more narrative versions. The syllogism is a bit like math, and it is hard to argue that 1 + 1 does not equal 2. Accordingly, if all truth is God’s truth, then syllogistic logic is part of natural revelation and thus absolute truth in its substance. I can’t see any way around it. I find it extremely unhelpful to align it with certain people groups, except perhaps in relation to its form.

I call this sort of reason, “micro-reason.” It is not worldview reasoning or even paradigmatic reasoning. Such larger “macro-reason” is very open to question and examination. "Macro-reason" is the use of micro-reason to argue for truths. It is micro-reason in action. When our contemporaries question Wesley’s quadrilateral, they must surely be questioning macro-reason with larger assumptions and the application of micro-reason. When they do so, they are using micro-reason or fundamental logic.

Micro-reason is used in all thinking, as soon as we connect two atoms of thought together. We cannot interpret the Bible without using our micro-reasoning. [1] We cannot process a word from the Lord through the Holy Spirit without micro-reasoning. From Tertullian to Kierkegaard to Barth, these “I believe it because it is absurd” folk used micro-reason. Even Jacques Derrida, as opaque as his deconstructionist writings are, used micro-reason, although he tried very hard to obfuscate it. Micro-reason is thus foundational, underlying truth of any propositional kind, including truths we might draw from the Bible.

This sort of micro-reason or fundamental logic to the universe ultimately boils down to fundamental presuppositions. At some point, you hit basic definitions and assumptions that cannot be proved. Geometric proofs ultimately are built on the basis of fundamental axioms that cannot be proven. They are simply assumed.

One of the fundamental tests for truth is the coherence test. Does a proposed truth contradict itself? The law of non-contradiction states that a claim cannot both be true and untrue if it is stated literally. So if you find a fundamental contradiction in a collection of truth claims, at least one of your truth claims must be false in some way.

It does not seem to me that any of these understandings of logic contradict faith in general, let alone Wesleyan faith. Logic seems to be fundamental to the way God has made this universe. It is part of absolute truth. It is part of natural revelation. We cannot avoid it, not even when we are trying to listen to Scripture and interpret it.

Inductive Reasoning
Deductive reasoning starts with certain assumptions and then draws conclusions, like an upside-down V. By contrast, inductive reasoning is like a normal V. You draw in evidence and make inferences. Unlike deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning tends to be open-ended. Unless you have all the possible data, there is always the chance that the next piece of data you collect will throw the coherence test out of whack and sink your hypothesis.

The scientific method is inductive. You collect evidence. You form a hypothesis. You collect more data and test the hypothesis. You refine the hypothesis if necessary. Eventually, you have enough proven results to present a theory, and so forth. This process never strictly ends as long as there is more data to collect. Paradigms form. Paradigms shift. And so on.

A recent display at the Smithsonian declared the scientific method to be white in nature. We face a similar question to that we mentioned in relation to Aristotelian logic. In this case, we point back to Francis Bacon, who was English and lived from 1561-1626.

I consider any such designation extremely unfortunate and undesirable because of how incredibly successful the method has been. It seems to me that it describes the approach that people in all times and all places have used in one form or another for discovery. Where can we find water? Such and such suggests we might dig here. Let’s dig. No water. Let’s try over here. Water. While there may be cultural dimensions to the way the scientific method is expressed and formulated, let us strongly refrain from associating it with any ethnicity or people group. That almost begs for racist inferences of a most heinous nature.

Thus while the results of any particular scientific quest are not absolute truth, the scientific method as a model for seeking truth would seem to be part of the logic of the universe. It is sound reasoning. The results, however, are more often than not eternally tentative.

If the coherence test is a test for truth that relates to deductive reasoning, the “correspondence test” is a test that relates to inductive reasoning. Does the claim that I am making correlate with the data I have? A third test for truth is the pragmatic test. If I operate on the assumption that this hypothesis is true, does it “work” in the world? Does it get me from a to b? You may have heard the expression, “for heuristic purposes.” The idea is that I assume something to see if the hypothesis “works” without assuming it is actually true.

Logical Fallacies
Many different logical fallacies lurk and abound in our reasoning. Some are formal and relate more to deductive reasoning. Others are informal and relate more to inductive reasoning. They are fallacies because they violate the fundamental laws of logic above. Note that one’s conclusion might be true and yet poorly argued.

Below are some logical fallacies. We should point out that they are fallacies because they do not necessitate a certain conclusion. Practically speaking, sometimes this sort of reasoning turns out to point to something that proves to be true in the “real world.” By calling them logical fallacies, we mean that you cannot be certain the conclusion is true. The conclusion does not follow for certain.

• Hasty generalization – you form a conclusion without enough evidence yet
• Ad hominem fallacy – you attack the person rather than the argument they are making
• Circumstantial fallacy – you assume a conclusion without direct observation but from surrounding, “circumstantial” evidence.
• “After this, because of this” – A form of the circumstantial fallacy. Just because something followed something else chronologically doesn’t prove the first thing caused the second.
• Genetic fallacy – The origins of a conclusion or the reasons why someone believes a conclusion neither prove nor disprove the conclusion.
• Fallacy of diversion – basically, changing the subject
• Fallacy of equivocation -- slipping a different meaning to your terms in mid-argument
• False alternative – You give an "a or b" choice when there are actually other options as well.
• Slippery slope fallacy – Once you start moving in a particular direction, it is not guaranteed that you will continue moving further in that direction.
• Circular reasoning/begging the question – assuming your conclusion in your argument
• Fallacies of composition and division – You assume everything in a group is a certain way because something in that group is that way. Also the opposite: because of a general trend of a group you assume everything in that group manifests that trend.
• Appeal to ignorance – Absence of evidence does not disprove a claim
• Appeal to the majority – something isn’t true just because most people believe it
• Appeal to improper authority – citing someone who is not an authority on an issue does not support your case
• Appeal to emotion – something isn’t true because it “feels so right”
• Appeal to force – you can’t make something true by forcing people to affirm it

These basic fallacies would seem to be sound warnings. They do not indicate for certain that your conclusion is false, but they do indicate that your logic for reaching those conclusions is invalid. They are the stuff of political and religious rhetoric. We would be wise to know them well so that we can spot when our minds are potentially being manipulated.

There is nothing unWesleyan about the idea of these fallacies. This would seem to be a good thing because they would seem to be part of the absolute truth of the universe as God has created it. Their form may have cultural elements, but the underlying truth to which they point would seem to be unassailable. They are part of natural revelation.

[1] Unavoidably, micro-reason is thus logically prior to Scripture because we cannot interpret Scripture or any revelation without using it. When we speak of the priority of Scripture to reason in the quadrilateral, we are speaking of it in relation to what I am calling "macro-reason."

Clear Instructions and Online Education

I would seem to be quite bright in some ways and quite stupid in others. Perhaps the two are related. One of my strengths is to see the big picture when others cannot. One of my weaknesses is not seeing what's right in front of me. 

This past year, I've taken a number of classes with Southern New Hampshire, the "Game Programming and Development" major. I have enjoyed the courses for the most part. Honestly, the courses have not really made me competent at anything. I find the 8 weeks just enough to get a taste of each subject. They are like bookmarks on subjects I would need to return to if I wanted to go anywhere with them.

Mind you, 8 weeks is pretty much standard now for online courses. It's not something that can really be negotiated, I don't think. I took a Calculus II course with Arizona State last year that was 7 weeks long and brutal. They didn't cut out a thing. But it's almost inevitable, IMO, that these 8-week courses won't cover as much material as a normal 15-week one. To me, it's an argument for self-paced learning.

I messed up on a final project for an SNHU class recently because of accompanying documentation that was supposed to go with a project. Mind you, I had some distractions and turned it in during the middle of the night. The code I turned in was almost up to snuff. The grade was more because of a failure to include things I could have easily included. How did that happen?

It happened because I didn't double-check the rubric. This is a pet peeve of mine with the courses I've taken with Southern New Hampshire. The instructions for assignments are usually pretty thin. To get a sense of what you need to turn in, you pretty much have to go to the rubric and translate it into steps yourself. I find this incredibly annoying. The best courses have been those when individual professors have stood in what seems to me a glaring gap at times (and they do have some really good adjuncts).

I have wondered if there is an intentional desire for students to learn how to go to the web to figure out things ourselves. I doubt it. It just seems that there is an unintentional and quite inappropriate gap between the knowledge base you need to complete some assignments and that which is provided. 

Now this may be my stupidity in part, my inability to see what is right in front of me. It could be my incredible blindness at times. I'm not leaning in that direction, but I have to accept it is possible. I had a high school teacher who couldn't believe that I could read a whole book and not have noticed who the author was. She was wrong.

Here's another pet peeve of mine. It was true at IWU with their online programs and they wanted it to be true of the seminary some 7 years ago. I'm sure they've given in. 

I wanted instructions to spell out what day of the week assignments were due on. So if your first discussion post was due on Thursday, I wanted to say so. They did something like "Day 4." WHY?????

Southern New Hampshire doesn't even do that. Somehow, when you take your first class, you pick up that discussions are on a Thursday-Sunday flow and assignments are due Sunday. But they don't say anything like that in the instructions for an individual assignment.

This has been an annoyed student. When I create online courses, they have clear instructions. Just saying.

 

Wesleyan philosophy 1 -- What is philosophy and is it Christian?

We are possibly creating a Wesleyan wiki on philosophy. Here was my opening salvo on the first question:

1. What is philosophy (and is it even Christian)?  

Philosophy, if we built off the etymology of the word, would seem to involve the “love of wisdom.” Here Proverbs 1:7 immediately comes to mind: “The fear of Yahweh is the beginning of knowledge; wisdom and instruction fools despise.” Proverbs suggests that, if we are to pursue true wisdom and knowledge, God must stand at the beginning of our quest.

This observation suggests to me that philosophy need not be antithetical to faith. Might we not say something in keeping with the proverb to say, “Faith in God is the proper beginning of philosophy.” I would see Augustine quite in keeping with this approach when he spoke of “faith seeking understanding” (fides quaerens intellectum).

What of Colossians 2:8: “Look lest someone will be one taking you captive through philosophy and empty deceit according to the traditions of mortals, according to the elements of the world and not according to Christ”? On the one hand, this statement would not preclude a philosophy “according to Christ.” On the other, the rest of the passage makes it clear that a particular religious practice is in view, perhaps a form of Jewish mysticism or syncretism. Perhaps the word philosophy does not really convey in English the nature of the group to which Colossians refers.

What then is philosophy as it has been approached in the “Western” tradition? It is what we might call a “meta-discipline.” Philosophy stands outside of all other areas of thinking and asks, “What’s going on?” It is like a scaffolding beside other knowledge. First order knowledge asks questions about a subject. Second order knowledge asks, “What is going on as we ask and answer questions about a subject?”

Here we do run into a potential conflict with faith. Are we allowed to ask questions about the existence of God? Hebrews 11:6 says, “Without faith it is impossible to please [God], for it is necessary for the one who comes to God to believe that he is and that to those who seek him he becomes a rewarder.”

Here is where various Christian thinkers have parted ways. Let me mention three key positions on this question. 

• “I believe because it is absurd.” (Tertullian) 
• “I believe in order to understand.” (Anselm) 
• “I understand in order to believe.” (Abelard)

The first position has a radical sense that faith will not make rational sense or that reason has little or nothing to do with faith. As Tertullian put it, “What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem or the Academy to do with the Church.” Ironically, of course, Tertullian uses reason and was influenced by Stoicism. In the 1800s, Kierkegaard had a similar perspective but uses reason to tell us about it.

The Reformed tradition has often leaned in this direction as well. Whether it be Abraham Kuyper or Karl Barth, there is a strong sense that without proper presuppositions, no truly meaningful and valid knowledge is possible. Barth has had an immense influence on post-liberalism in the United States, and this impact has been felt on the Wesleyan tradition in general. Many broader Wesleyan thinkers are only a “hair’s breadth” from Reformed epistemology.

On the other end of the spectrum, grass-roots Wesleyanism has drunk deeply from American fundamentalism. Although it might deny it, it comes close to the third position. Josh McDowell famously wrote a book titled, Evidence That Demands a Verdict. We are enamored by Lee Strobel’s The Case for Christ and C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity. These works assume that human reason leads directly to God and faith.

Because we find Wesleyans in all three positions, we dare not say that there is just one Wesleyan position on this question. I personally think that Wesley himself came closest to the “faith seeking understanding” approach. Wesley was no enemy to reason, but he clearly began all his explorations with faith. The core of faith for him would not have been revisable but reason, tradition, and experience might negotiate around the edges.

My own position is that faith is the starting point for all discussions and that it is reasonable. It may not seem provable from our finite, skewed vantage point as humans. I suspect it is provable from God’s infinite, omni-accurate perspective. I just do not have complete access to that. Even my reading of the Bible has to go through my finite, skewed brain.

The Bible does not reject the asking of questions (e.g., Habakkuk 1:2). Faith is not afraid of questions because it is confident that God knows the answers. Nor is God afraid that he might disappear if we try to ask objective questions about his existence. It seems to me that the motto, “Faith seeking understanding” is very Wesleyan.

Acts 2 Explanatory Notes

Happy Pentecost! Although I have published extensive notes on Acts, I haven't done so in the format I use to self-publish. I posted Acts 1 a year ago. Here are re-formatted notes on Acts 2:
___________________________
Witnesses in Jerusalem (Acts 2-7)

The Day of Pentecost (2:1-47)
2:1 And when the Day of Pentecost was fulfilled, all were together into the same [place], [1] 2. and a sound suddenly came from the sky, as of a forceful wind bringing, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting.[2]
The Day of Pentecost was one of the three times when a Jewish male was supposed to appear in Jerusalem at the temple before the Lord (cf. Exod 34:23). It was also known as the "Feast of Weeks" because it was seven weeks after Easter and the "Feast of Ingathering" or "Feast of First Fruits" because it celebrated the beginning of the wheat harvest (cf. 34:22).

We can assume from Acts 1:14 that these believers have been praying as important context for the coming of the Holy Spirit. It is also significant that they are "together." That is, they are unified.

The word for spirit (pneuma) is related to the word for wind (pnoe). Spirit is something that is blown. The metaphor of "filling" is frequently used with the Holy Spirit, like a cup that is filled.

3. And distributed tongues as of fire appeared to them and sat upon each one of them.
The idea of tongues of fire is attested by Philo at the event of the giving of the Law at Mt. Sinai, and we can find in other places an association between Pentecost and Sinai. It is thus at least possible that we should hear new covenant overtones to the Day of Pentecost. Pentecost is the birth of the church, the full inauguration of the new covenant, the "feast" of the first fruits of the Spirit and the first ingathering of harvest!

 
4. And all were filled with Holy Spirit and began to speak in different languages as the Spirit was giving to them to make utterance.
Acts uses a number of expressions for the event that takes place here. They are "filled" with the Spirit. They are "baptized" in the Holy Spirit. They "receive" the Holy Spirit. These would all seem to be roughly synonymous expressions.

Being filled with the Holy Spirit is an initiatory experience in the book of Acts. That is to say, a person has not truly become part of the people of God until he or she has received the Spirit. This baptism in the Spirit is the means by which one's past sins are cleansed (cf. Acts 15:9).

Within the narrative world of Luke-Acts, this event is the fulfillment of Luke 3:16. That is to say, we would introduce foreign elements into Luke's story if we insert John 20:22 here where Jesus breathes on them to receive the Holy Spirit. In the story world of Luke-Acts, this is the first time that the disciples receive the Spirit.

For Acts, Paul, and Hebrews, receiving the Holy Spirit is the initiatory experience for a Christian. Faith (Paul), repentance (Luke), and confession (John) are important precursors to inclusion in the people of God, but they are not the borderline per se. "If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they are not his" (Rom. 8:9). The Holy Spirit is a seal indicating God's ownership of us (2 Cor. 1:22). He is the earnest of our inheritance, serving both as a down payment and guarantee of our salvation (2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5).

From the perspective of much of the New Testament, therefore, one is thus not a "Christian" unless one has received the Holy Spirit, and if someone has received the Holy Spirit, he or she is part of the people of God. Therefore, in the narrative world of Luke-Acts, the Day of Pentecost is the birth of the church.

The primary manifestation of receiving the Holy Spirit is power, as indicated in Acts 1:8. The first manifestation of this power in Acts is speaking in languages, although people do not speak in these "tongues" every time they are baptized in the Spirit in Acts. These would seem to be human languages in Acts 2. The word for utterance here also seems to suggest divinely revealed messages.

5. And Jews were dwelling in Jerusalem, devout men [and women] from every ethnos that is under the sky. 6. And when this sound came to be, [3] the multitude came together and was confused because each one was hearing them speaking in their own dialect.
We should picture this crowd as an overwhelmingly Jewish crowd. The mention of every "ethnos" does not mean that they are Gentiles but that these Jews have come from every "nation." However, the word nation is misleading because the Roman world was an empire, not a collection of nation-states like we have today. They were rather regions dominated by certain ethnic groups, under Roman rule. An ethnos is thus a region dominated by a certain people group, with other people groups like Jews living among them.

Pilgrimage to Jerusalem was a feature of the Judaism of the day, especially to the three pilgrimage festivals of Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles. We thus see, thus the picture of Diaspora Jews from all over the Roman Empire coming to the temple. The volume of the noise from the rushing wind must be quite spectacular to attract a large crowd from the broader city.

7. And they were amazed and marveled saying, "Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? [4] 8. and how are we each hearing in our own dialect in which we were born-- 9. Parthians and Medes and Elamites and ones who dwell in Mesopotamia, both Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10. both Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya by Cyrene, and the residents of Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11. Cretans and Arabs, we hear them speaking the great things of God in our languages?
In 2:7-11 we get a sense of how many regions were represented in Jerusalem on feast days. This cross-section of Diaspora Judaism will serve as a conduit for the Jesus movement spreading throughout the world. When Paul writes Romans over twenty-five years later, we might be puzzled how the church got there. The Day of Pentecost is often mentioned as a strong possibility.

We get an overtone here that people might not have thought Galileans to be likely to speak in so many different languages. It is not the only place where we pick up on a certain negative stereotype of these Jews from the northern part of Israel.

2:8 indicates that the languages spoken were human languages and that the use of tongues here served the purpose of evangelism. Some have emphasized the word hear, suggesting either that the gift was in the ability of the audience to hear in their own language and, perhaps, that the apostles were speaking the same ecstatic tongues as in 1 Corinthians 14.

However, this interpretation goes well beyond what the verse says and is based rather on the drive to harmonize this chapter with 1 Corinthians. It says that they were speaking in our language. Accordingly, they heard them speaking in their languages, just as we might hear someone speaking another language today. Although the other instances of tongues-speaking in Acts do not indicate the nature of the tongues, Acts 2 may tip the scales toward them being human languages in the other instances too.

Acts does not indicate that tongues always accompanied receiving the Holy Spirit. The believers at Samaria are not said to speak in tongues in Acts 8, nor is Paul said to in Acts 9. Acts thus does not lead us to believe that tongues is in some way the sign of the Holy Spirit.

The content of what they were saying was understood. These thus do not seem to be the same tongues as 1 Corinthians 14, which were not understood without a distinct interpretation. The content of the speaking was witness to "great works of God," likely with the resurrection of Jesus at the core.

12. And all were amazed and were perplexed, one saying to another, "What does this want to be? 13. But different [ones], mocking, were saying, "They have become drunk with wine."
There seem to be two basic reactions to the event. Some are perplexed and want to know more. Others immediately reject the spiritual nature of the event and propose that the men are drunk. In other words, some have ears to hear and others do not.

Peter's Sermon (14-36)
14. But Peter, having stood with the eleven, lifted up his voice and uttered to them, "Men, Jews and all the residents of Jerusalem, let this be known to you and hear my words, 15. for these are not drunk as you yourselves suggest, for it is the third hour of the day.
This is the first and most important sermon in Acts, giving Peter's response to the crowd. We call the basic gospel message of this sermon the "kerygma," that which is proclaimed. The sermon of Acts 2 gives us a basic sense of the preaching of the early church as Luke reports it.

For more than one reason, we probably shouldn't think of this sermon as verbatim. It would be in keeping with the practices of ancient history writing for Luke to summarize, paraphrase, even at times create material for such speeches. [4] The main parts of the sermon each begin with a word that addresses the crowd. The first is "Men, Jews, and all those dwelling in Jerusalem."

First, Peter rejects the claim that they are drunk. It is only 9 in the morning. There may be some implied parallel between being filled with the Spirit and being drunk with wine (Eph. 5:18). We might note that Peter fully assumes that they do consume the kind of wine that can make a person drunk. It is just not the time of day that they would normally be doing so.

16. "But this is that which has been spoken through the prophet Joel,
By contrast, Peter indicates that the event is the fulfillment of the words of Joel 2. The New Testament authors read the Old Testament with spiritual eyes. The Holy Spirit inspired them to hear God's voice in the words, often in a "fuller sense" or sensus plenior that gave the words extended meanings beyond what their original authors understood. Joel himself probably did not know the fullness of how God would use his words at that time, which were directed to the Israel of his own day centuries before.

17. "'And it will be in the last days,' says the Lord,

'I will pour out from my Spirit upon all flesh,
     And your sons and your daughters will prophesy,
And your young men will see visions,
     And your old men will dream dreams.
18. And, indeed, upon my male servants and female servants in those days,
     I will pour out from my Spirit
     and they will prophesy.
These are key verses indicating that the age of the Spirit is one in which both men and women will preach. Preaching is often a form of prophesying, that is, speaking forth the word that the Lord has given to a particular group of people, a divine utterance. Prophecy is much more "forth-telling" than it is "fore-telling." It is not usually about the very distant future but about the people right in front of you.

The Spirit is the great equalizer, and since men and women possess the Spirit in full measure, there is no spiritual activity that is limited to a certain gender or type of person. "In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free. There is not male and female" (Gal. 3:28). Acts knows no limits on what a woman might do in the church.

19. "And I will give wonders in the sky above
     and signs on the earth below,
     blood and fire and vapor of smoke,
20. The sun will be transformed into darkness,
     and the moon into blood
Before the Day of the Lord comes,
     the great and glorious,

In the prophets, the Day of the Lord was a day of the Lord's judgment, one that could occur as often as needed. Acts presumably relates this to the great Day of the Lord, the final judgment. In that sense, the entire age of the church is syncopated into this moment.

Language of the moon darkening and the sun turning to blood is eclipse language. It is not clear that Luke foresees a literal eclipse at some time but this is apocalyptic language. He may actually be saying that the Day of Pentecost fulfilled the thrust of those signs.

21. And it will be [that] everyone who calls 
     on the name of the Lord will be saved.'
One of the main themes of Acts is that anyone can now call on the Lord, and anyone who does will be saved. Luke also uses deterministic language but these two types of language should not be connected philosophically as in Calvinism. In keeping with the fatalism of the day, Luke assumes that those who are called have been chosen by God and yet also believes that the gospel is for everyone and anyone merely need call upon God to be saved.

 
22. "Men, Israelites, hear these words. Jesus the Nazarene [was] a man attested by God to you by powers and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know.
The next section of the sermon, beginning with “Men, Israelites,” goes from 2:22-35. These verses focus on Psalm 16:8-11, which Luke uses in conjunction with Psalm 110:1 to indicate that Jesus' resurrection is also the fulfillment of prophecy, just like the day of Pentecost. One of the first points of each sermon in Acts is that the events taking place fulfilled the Old Testament Scriptures and were all part of God’s plan.

In 2:22 specifically, Luke's Christology focuses on the empowered humanity of Jesus. Jesus is specifically described as a man whom God endorsed by empowering him to do signs and wonders through the Holy Spirit. In this sense Jesus the man gives us an example of what is possible through the power of the Holy Spirit.

23. "This [man], given up by the appointed plan and foreknowledge of God, you killed through the hand of lawless people, having crucified [him]...
One feature of the sermons of Acts, of which this one is the most important and central one, is that the enemies of Christ did not prevail. Jesus' death was in accordance with the foreknowledge and plan of God. No one has ever gotten the best of God, not even for a moment.

24. "... whom God raised, having loosed the birth-pains of death, since it was not possible for him to be held by it.
The climax of every sermon in Acts except one (Stephen's sermon--he is stoned to death before he can get to this part of the sermon) is the statement that "God raised him from the dead." Notice again that the agency is that of God the Father rather than Jesus himself.

25. "For David says to him, 
'I saw the Lord before me constantly, 
    because he is on my right [hand]
    so that I might not be shaken.
The Greek version of Psalm 16:8 differs a little from the Hebrew, a hint that Luke is at least paraphrasing. The Hebrew reads, "I put the LORD" but the Greek reads, "I foresaw." While Peter might have known some Greek, it seems more likely that he would have spoken Aramaic on the Day of Pentecost, suggesting that Luke is at the very least making Peter's sermon conform to the text in which his audience would have read the psalm. More importantly, this different wording leads Luke's Peter to see these words as a prophecy by the psalmist, understood to be David, rather than a statement about the psalmist himself, as it likely was in its original meaning.

26. "'Because of this, my heart rejoiced,
    and my tongue exulted,
    and still my flesh will dwell in hope.
The version Luke's Peter quotes in 2:26 also follows the Septuagint with the expression "in hope" rather than the likely Hebrew, "securely." These variations should not bother us. Under God’s inspiration, The New Testament use of Scripture focused on the message the audience needed to hear, not on historical or inductive study of what the Old Testament texts originally meant. This use of Scripture was fully in keeping with the way most Jews read the biblical texts at the time. [5] Because God wants to be understood, he meets us where we are in our understanding, largely in our categories, and takes us from there.

27. Because you will not abandon my life in Hades,
    nor will you give your holy [one] to see corruption.
28. You have made known to me ways of life;
    you have filled me with gladness with your face.'

29. "Men, brothers [and sisters], being permissible for me to say with boldness to you concerning our patriarch David that he both died and was buried and his tomb is among us until this day.
Now Peter gives a spiritual interpretation of the psalm. The original psalmist was likely expressing his confidence that God was going to save him from dying. Hades was the Greek word for the place of the dead in general rather than hell as a place of torment for the wicked. “Hades” thus could be a metaphor for death. God was not going to let the psalmist die in his current situation. It was yet time for the psalmist’s body to decay. God was going to rescue him from his current danger.

Here in Acts 2, Luke’s Peter takes the psalm spiritually to mean that God would not leave the Messiah dead. Again, we should not be troubled that Peter reads the psalm differently than its original meaning. God is speaking through the words as Peter understands them and bringing a true message to the crowd.

30. "Therefore, being a prophet and having known that God swore to him with an oath [that] from the fruit of his loins to sit upon his throne, 31. "... having foreseen, he spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ that neither was he abandoned in Hades nor did his flesh see corruption, 32. this Jesus God raised up, of which we are all witnesses.
The core event to which the apostles gave witness was the resurrection. An apostle is someone who is sent with a commission. In Acts, the apostles were sent with a very clear task to give witness to the resurrection. In most cases in the New Testament, an apostle is someone to whom the risen Christ has appeared, who has been sent to witness to his resurrection, which means to witness to his Lordship.

As we mentioned, Peter is reading Psalm 16 through spiritual eyes. He is hearing a word that relates directly to Jesus, a fuller meaning to the biblical text when it is read in relation to Jesus and his resurrection. Christians still today often have the words of the Bible jump out at them in this way. The Spirit blows where he wants (John 3:8).

33. "Therefore, having been exalted to the right [hand] of God and the promise of the Holy Spirit having received from the Father, he has poured out this that you yourselves both are seeing and hearing.
The New Testament indicates that the age of the Spirit can only commence once Jesus has completed his mission to die and rise from the dead. This is at least one sense in which the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. The Son runs his part of salvation’s race then tags the Spirit. The Spirit of Christ returns to earth.

In a number of places, the Gospel of John almost echoes themes in Luke and Acts, making us wonder if John had read them. Here is a theme that John will develop in the later part of his Gospel. Jesus ascends to heaven and then sends the Holy Spirit.

34. "For David did not ascend to the skies, but he himself says, 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit on my right [hand] 35. until I should place your enemies under your feet."'
Here we have a foundational interpretation of Psalm 110:1 for the early church, one that may have been central to early Christian understanding of the resurrection. Jesus' resurrection is understood to be a cosmic enthronement whereby Jesus is exalted to God's right hand in the highest heaven.

The key to this interpretation is to see “my Lord” as David referring to the Messiah. In the original meaning, the psalmist was probably referring to an earthly king. In the original meaning, the psalmist says that Yahweh, the LORD, anointed the psalmist’s Lord, the king, and placed him as king at God’s right hand. In the spiritual interpretation, David writes of how YHWH would install the Messiah as king.

36. "Therefore, let all the house of Israel know assuredly that both Lord and Christ God has made this Jesus, whom you yourselves crucified."
Here is the climax and finale of the sermon. Jesus has been enthroned as Lord and Messiah. God “has made him.” They crucified him. God enthroned him. The timing of the enthronement in context is post-resurrection. Thus we might say that Jesus was heir apparent up to this point, but then is seated on the throne after his resurrection, ascension, and exaltation. This is the “session,” the seating of Christ on the throne.

The vast majority of the New Testament puts the focus of Jesus’ identity as Messiah at his resurrection. Only the Gospel of John emphasizes the pre-existence of Jesus. In Acts, as in Paul and Hebrews, the resurrection and exaltation is Jesus’ commencement in office as Son of God. His anointing as king most focally takes place at this moment, even if sonship language might apply to him previous to that point as well.

The Response (2:37-41)
37. And having heard, they were pierced to the heart, and they said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "What should we do, men, brothers [and sisters]?"
Here we have the response to Peter’s sermon. We should note that the boldness of Peter to preach is one of the manifestations of the power that has come on him because of the filling of the Holy Spirit. Immediately after the crucifixion, he and the disciples hid from those who might come after them. Now they are speaking boldly in public.

The crowd realizes what they have done. The crowd has a moment of conviction. Upon realizing that they have participated in the crucifixion of their own Messiah, they want to turn and see restoration.

38. And Peter says to them, "Repent and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39. "For the promise is to you and to your children and to all [those] from afar as many as the Lord our God should call."

This verse unfolds how to call on the name of the Lord. First, one repents or turns from one's self-destructive path. Repentance is a major feature of Luke's theology (in contrast to Paul, who hardly mentions it). Then one believes or exercises faith. The crucial moment, however, is when one receives the Holy Spirit. This is the moment when one actually becomes part of the people of God, is cleansed of one's past sins, and is going to be saved on the Day of the Lord.

The timing of receiving the Spirit seems clear. While I deeply respect the tradition of my own church that receiving the Spirit is a subsequent experience to “conversion,” nothing in this verse suggests such a thing. The clear impression of the text is that when a person repents and is baptized in water, filling with the Spirit should follow. It is a problem in Samaria when they have been baptized but have not immediately received the Holy Spirit (8:14-17).

Sins are a problem and obstacle to reconciliation with God. In some way that Acts does not make explicit, baptism in the name of Jesus relates to the forgiveness of sins. It likely relates to a cleansing inside that corresponds to the cleansing of the body on the outside. This is not simply a matter of ritual. The right attitude must accompany the baptism—repentance.

Similarly, we might infer from the thief on the cross in Luke 23:43 that water baptism is a normal and important part of the process but not essential. The thief does not have an opportunity for baptism before his death. (True, this is before the age of the Spirit commences) Similarly, the Gentiles in Acts 10 receive the Holy Spirit before they are baptized in water. They are already “in” the people of God before the ritual act that signifies their cleansing and usually catalyzes the Holy Spirit coming in Acts.

The promise was first for the Jews. It was for all Israel. The good news was not something different from God’s promises to Israel but good news for true Israel and the true Israel of the future. In Acts 10 we will learn that the good news is for the Gentiles as well. It is as Joel said for everyone who calls on the name of the Lord.

40. And with many different words he was witnessing and exhorting them, saying, "Be saved from his crooked generation." 41. Therefore, those who received his word were baptized and about three thousand souls were added on that day.
Those who repent, are forgiven, and receive the Holy Spirit are part of the people of God. Within Israel, they are the true Israel, the righteous remnant. By contrast, those in Israel who have not belied were a “crooked” and destined for judgment. Perhaps Peter especially had the leadership of Israel at that time in mind.

About 3000 people respond positively to the message and join the Jesus movement. The pattern in Acts is repeated several times. Some group is praying and the Holy Spirit suddenly comes on them. The group receives power, along with the cleansing of the Spirit and forgiveness of sins.

That power shows itself in various ways. It typically involves boldness to witness to the good news. Sometimes they speak in other languages as part of this proclamation. Sometimes they have the power to heal, as in Acts 3 immediately following Pentecost. Two consequences usually follow also on these demonstrations. We will see persecution soon enough, and it seems to grow with each demonstration. 2:41 shows us the other typical consequence—people turning to the Lord. The number of “converts” to the Jesus movement also grows as time goes on.

Early Church Fellowship (2:42-47)
42. And they were holding fast to the teaching of the apostles and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayers.
One principle of biblical application is that “description is not prescription.” Just because Judas went out and hanged himself, we are not to do the same when we betray the Lord. In that instance, the text describes what happened without prescribing it. However, biblical narratives often do have what is called an “evaluative point of view.” Whenever God’s perspective is given, it is clearly the evaluative point of view of the text. [6] At other times, we must try to infer whether the story is implying that what happens is positive or negative.

These verses give us an idyllic picture of the earliest church, and Luke seems to consider this picture a very positive one indeed. That is, Luke wants us to see this picture as the ideal. He is not merely describing the early church. The evaluative point of view of Acts is entirely positive toward this picture.

The earliest Christian community involved teaching and teaching by the apostles. The source of their teaching is presumably the Holy Spirit, although they have also been apprentices of Jesus and have learned much from him. Community life involves fellowship (koinonia) and prayer. The importance of fellowship should not be underestimated. The breaking of bread suggests a level of mutual approval and intimacy. The early church became family.

Prayer is something that Luke positively emphasizes in both Luke and Acts. Luke has more parables and teaching on prayer than any other Gospel. The disciples were presumably praying on the Day of Pentecost before the Holy Spirit came.

43. And fear was coming on every soul, and many wonders and signs through the apostles were coming to be.
The apostles performed miracles, which brought a fear at the seriousness of the power of the Spirit. It is interesting that it is not suggested that all the believers there performed miracles. However, 1 Corinthians 12:10 suggests that ordinary people in the church could also have the gift to do so. Nothing in the biblical texts suggests that such gifts ended with the first apostles. Rather, in the age of the Spirit, we would expect these powers to be present in an ongoing way among Christian communities that have the Spirit.

44. And all the [ones] who believed were in the same [mind] and were holding all [things] common, 45. and the goods and the possessions they were selling and distributing them to all as ever they were having need.
There was a communal aspect to the early church. Those who had more possessions than they needed sold them and gave them to others who had need. The sense probably is not that they sold everything, although it is possible that some did. Those who think the Lord will return immediately or soon sometimes rashly do such things.

Again, the evaluative point of view of Acts is positive toward this sharing of possessions. It does not mandate it, however. Ananias and Sapphira were not mandated to sell all their property (5:4). Nevertheless, clearly Acts smiles on these believers sharing their excess with those in need. In other words, the early church behaved as a family, and they helped each other out accordingly.

46. And daily holding fast together in the temple and breaking bread at home, they were partaking of food with rejoicing and a generous heart, 47.praising God and having grace with all the people, and the Lord added to those being saved daily into the same [group].
They continued to pray at the temple. We get no sense at this point that they were anticipating that the temple would soon be destroyed. Indeed, Acts 21:24 suggests they continued to participate in the sacrificial system, perhaps implying that they did not yet understand the full scope of Christ’s atoning death. We have to remember that many things are clear to us in hindsight that were not yet clear to them.

The centrality of fellowship and eating in each other’s homes continues. The church is a new family. The “Lord’s supper” was such a meal that they probably shared weekly on Sundays. It was not at that time a small, distinct ceremony as we practice it today. It was probably more like what we call a pitch in dinner or potluck. Jude seems to call it an agape or “love feast” (Jude 12). Paul addresses abuses of the Lord’s supper at Corinth (1 Cor. 11:17-34).

New people were “being saved” daily. This is shorthand for individuals repenting, being baptized, receiving the Holy Spirit, joining the people of God, and thus beginning a journey toward the salvation that would take place when the Lord returned and they did not face the wrath of God.

Nor is the sense one of “progressive salvation,” as if we are gradually being saved. Rather, people were being saved daily, one by one, salvation event by event. One person was saved and then another, not “I’m a little bit saved. Now I’m more saved.”

They also held favor with the people. Under peaceful circumstances, non-believers should respect and admire believers for their wholesome and peace-loving nature. One of Luke’s special emphases is the unified and peaceful nature of the church. Christianity sometimes had a bad reputation in the Roman empire. Luke wants Theophilus and all his readers to know that these rumors are false. Christians are not troublemakers by nature, although trouble sometimes comes to them from their opponents.

[1] temporal infinitive construction

[2] periphrastic

[3] genitive absolute

[4] question expecting a yes answer

[5] Cf. the ancient Greek historian Thucydides, who says he composed some of the speeches in his history of the Peloponnesian War.

[6] Here we should remember that God meets us where we are in revelation. The books of the Bible are instances of God meeting his people largely within their own categories and taking them from there. For example, the perspective of God at the end of Job is God as revealed to the author of Job at that point in the flow of biblical revelation. It is a contextualized presentation of God’s perspective.

Notes from the Wesleyan Sidelines

I listened with interest to the General Conference of the Wesleyan Church this week. I feel a little detached at the moment. I'm not working at a Wesleyan school (though working with several). Perhaps that gives me more freedom to speak. If I were in leadership somewhere, I'd have to be more careful, I suppose.

There were clear tensions at the conference. I thought the leadership did a good job steering between Sylla and Charybdis. They did a good job diversifying the voices, I thought.

On a late-night whim, I made a quick drawing to try to capture the diversity of the church that, I think, expresses some of the tensions in the church right now:

It's a poorly drawn tree. The trunk is the "holiness folk," the roots of the church. They are deeply troubled at any discussion of allowing tongues or drinking. They think we are going to hell in a handbasket.

Closely related to that group are what I call the "culture warriors." They are in continuity with the older group although their issues are civilly oriented rather than the older morality orientation. Their chief concerns are to codify statements in the Constitution against abortion and to prevent TWC from ever accepting homosexuality. They are trying to prop up the tree.

The bulk of the tree I pinned as "Church Growthies." These are the larger churches and the ones focused on evangelism, discipleship, and marketplace ministry. I suspect they hold the dominant influence at the moment. Certainly some issues of interest overlap between these groups.

I put some birds in the tree. There are a good number of Baptists who have become Wesleyans over the years. The Wesleyan Church bears the impact of baptistification like the rest of the American church. These elements often reinforce fundamentalist elements in the church.

I also put some charismatics who have joined us. It was interesting to realize that tongues is already practiced in some Wesleyan churches. I suspect that Latino elements of the church, and perhaps some other diverse congregations, have quite a bit of this element.

Then there is always a group of Wesleyans who are secretly or not so secretly attracted to our Anglican roots. There are even some closet Catholic lovers in our midst. These tend to be the more contemplative Wesleyans.

Finally I put fire on the top to represent what I decided to call "radical Wesleyans." Call them "Don Dayton" Wesleyans if you would. They are the closest we have to the Orange Scotts and Luther Lees. Call them progressive Wesleyans. Call them "social justice warriors." The cultural warriors think they should be kicked out of the church. To them they are burning down the church. So are they on fire for God or setting the church on fire?

I'm pretty happy with this picture. It is meant to be descriptive rather to endorse or condemn a faction. To me, it explains the tensions.

This is probably long enough for a post, although I have thoughts on tongues and drinking, considered at the conference.

Book Contract

Somewhat unexpectedly, a contract for a book I had been working on several years ago has revived. I'm afraid I won't be filling in gaps in my Mark Explanatory Notes for at least a couple months. Perhaps I will post some experts from the revived project.

Ken 

Explanatory Notes -- Mark 6:10-29 (John the Baptist)

I made such good progress last week writing up notes on the last third of Mark that I thought I would continue to try to fill in gaps in my notes. 

_______________________

6:10 And he was saying to them, “Wherever you enter a house, remain there until you depart from there. 11. And whatever place does not receive nor hear you, departing from there, shake off the dust under your feet as a witness against them.” 

Interestingly, Jesus tells them not to move around at a particular location. One can see the practical value of such an approach. You could get individuals at a location fighting with each other over who gets the "apostles" tomorrow night. While the "evangelists" are supposed to be spreading the good news there, you could see the situation devolving into internal squabbles and petty conflicts.

We remember the honor/shame nature of Jesus' world. It would be considered an honor to be the host for such "prophets" from God. If there is a set pattern for who receives the honor, then you can avoid fights over sharing it. We find traces of this honor in Romans 16:5, where Epenetus is recognized as the "firstfruit of Asia for Christ."

Similarly, dishonor will abide on any place that does not welcome the "missionaries." Shaking the dust off one's feet is thus a symbolic act that recognizes the condemnation resulting from their rejection of Christ. I seem to remember that one of my grandfathers, who was a church planter, sometimes recalled this verse when someone rejected the good news.

It is also a reminder that, while every soul is worth as much time as we might give, there are other souls that need the good news too. The urgency, the immediacy of Mark's Gospel suggests that the drive to see everyone have an opportunity may lead us to move on. God calls different people differently. There have been missionaries who have spent a lifetime in a culture without much fruit, only for a next generation to bring it forth. Then there are others who, like Paul, move forward in rather short time.

12. And having gone out, they were preaching that they should repent. 13. And they were casting out many demons, and they were anointing with oil many sick [people] and they were healing [them].

The disciples go on mission. Jesus recognizes that, with his time on earth limited, he will not be able to reach all Israel himself, and certainly not the whole world. They will have to carry it forward and, indeed, teach others to take it forward. Here they are truly "disciples." They are learning to do what Jesus does. They are apprentices. They are doing their internship.

The core of their message is the need for Israel to repent. This was the message of John the Baptist. This is the message of Jesus. It is the message of his disciples. Israel needs to return to the Lord in preparation for the arrival of the kingdom of God.

The core of their activities are the casting out of demons and the healing of the sick, just as Jesus did. So we today have as our mission the same things that Jesus did. The New Testament knows nothing of the end of the age of miracles. After all, we are still in the age of the Spirit.

John the Baptist

6:14 And King Herod heard, for his [Jesus'] name became visible, and he was saying, “John the baptizer has been risen from the dead and for this reason these miracles are working in him.” And others were saying, “It is Elijah.” And others were saying, “Prophet,” as one of the prophets. 16. And having heard, Herod was saying, “John, whom I myself beheaded, was raised.”

Herod Antipas remains the Roman appointed ruler of Galilee and the country east of the Jordan River. We are about to hear the story of what happened to John the Baptist prior to Jesus beginning his earthly ministry. For Herod's part, he fears resurrection. It is a reminder that resurrection was not a politically neutral concept in Jesus' day. Resurrection is cosmic revolution. 

Jesus will make it clear later in 9:13 that John the Baptist himself symbolically was Elijah. Malachi 4:5 speaks of Elijah coming before the great day of the Lord. He is God's messenger (Mal. 3:1) who prepares the way of the Lord. In the Gospels, Jesus is the "Lord" for whom John the Baptist prepares. John the Baptist is the prophet who goes before the Lord.

Herod does not have all these things worked out. He just knows that he has put to death the most significant prophet of God in a very long time. We get a picture here of him fearing what God will do in response. What he fears God will do is resurrect John the Baptist as the beginning of a cosmic revolution. 

6:17 For Herod himself, having sent, took hold of John and bound him in jail because of Herodias, the wife of Philip his brother, because he married her. 18. For John was saying to Herod, “It is not lawful for you to have the wife of your brother.” 

Herod Antipas had several brothers. Archelaus was his full brother, who ruled briefly in Jerusalem. However, he had two half-brothers named Philip. There was Philip the "tetrarch," who is mentioned in Luke 3:1. Then there was the Philip mentioned here, Herod Philip I. This Philip married a niece of theirs named Herodias.

But Herod Antipas was more powerful and influential than Philip. Somehow he manages to wrest her from his own brother and marry her himself. This was seen as deeply wrong by most Jews, and John saw it as a violation of Leviticus 18:16.  

19. And Herodias was holding a grudge against him and was wanting to kill him, and she was not able. 20. For Herod was fearing John, knowing him to be a righteous and holy man, and he was protecting him. And having heard him much, he was confused and gladly was hearing him.

Suffice it to say, Herodias was not pleased to have her name in John the Baptist's mouth, especially since he had such great influence over the people. She was apparently quite pleased with her political ascension. She had managed to climb higher up the ladder of power by marrying Antipas. She would be quite pleased if John would just go away.

For his part, Mark portrays Antipas as at least having enough discernment to know that he should be careful about John. John is a righteous and holy man, and you do not treat God's prophets lightly. Antipas hears what John has to say, even though it is displeasing. Because of these events, the Jewish historian Josephus mentions John the Baptist. [1] Josephus thinks that Herod killed John purely to prevent John from causing an uprising against him.

[1] The classic passage in Josephus about John the Baptist is Antiquities 18.116-119.

6:21 And a suitable day having come, when Herod made a banquet on his birthday [celebrations] for his greatest and the chiliarchs and the first [people] of Galilee, 22. and his daughter by Herodias having entered and having danced, it pleased Herod and those reclining [at table]. The king said to the girl, “Ask me whatever you wish and I will give it to you,” 23. And he swore to her, “Whatever you ask me, I will give to you up to half of my kingdom.

Salome was the daughter of Herodias and Philip. For Antipas' birthday, she does a dance for Herod and his guests. The event seemed to have taken place near the Dead Sea at his palace at Machaerus, but important people from Galilee (where he also ruled) came south for it.

Offering "up to half the kingdom" is an expression we also find in Esther. It was not meant literally. Its sense was rather to ask boldly for something beyond what you might normally ask. We should probably understand Antipas to have had quite a bit to drink by this time of the celebrations.

6:24 And having gone out, she said to her mother, “What should I ask?” And she said, “The head of John the baptizer.” 25. And having entered immediately to the king with speed, she was asking him saying, “I wish that you at once give me on a platter the head of John the Baptist.” 26. And having become very sorry, the king—because of the oaths and those reclining [at table]—did not want to reject her.

Herod's step-daughter, Salome, is not sure what to ask for. Her mother does not suggest something that Salome herself might enjoy. Instead, Herodias uses the opportunity to get something that she has not been able to secure, the death of John the Baptist. She asks for his head on a platter.

No doubt Salome knew the story. She seems happy enough to oblige her mother even though it was her own father than her mother left. Perhaps she too enjoys a more luxurious life with her new step-father. She asks for the head of John the Baptist on a platter.

Mark says that Antipas is very sad about this request. But his honor is now at stake. He has also made one of the most serious oaths he could make. He grants her request.

6:27 And immediately, having sent, the king ordered the executioner to bring his head. And having gone away, he beheaded him in the jail 28. And brought his head on a platter and gave it to the girl, and the girl gave it to her mother. 29. And his followers, having heard, came and took his corpse and placed it in a tomb.

It is done. John is immediately beheaded in the fortress jail. The gory head is brought to the girl, who gives it to her mother.

John's movement had such an impact that his followers would continue decades after his death. Over two decades later, Paul would run into followers of John the Baptist at Ephesus (Acts 19:4). These were individuals that had repented and been baptized in anticipation of the coming of the Messiah and the restoration of Israel as an independent nation. At that same time, Priscilla and Aquila disciples Apollos into "the Way" of Christ. He also had only believed in the message of John at that time (Acts 18:25).

The Gospel of John may very well date to the 90s of the first century. This is more than sixty years after John the Baptist. Yet many would suggest that the story of John the Baptist in John is told in such a way as to strongly emphasize that John's ministry only pointed forward to Jesus. John wants to make it clear that John's role was over once Jesus arrived on the scene. "It is necessary for that one to increase, but me to be lessened" (John 3:30). 

Many scholars believe John has this emphasis because, even at the end of the first century, there were still followers of the message of John the Baptist who had not gone on to believe in Jesus.

Explanatory Notes -- Mark 16:1-8 (Resurrection)

Explanatory notes on Passion Week in the Gospel of Mark (still a few missing pieces). 

• Palm Sunday (Mark 11:1-11)
• Monday Money Changers (Mark 11:12-19)
• Tuesday Debates I (Mark 11:20-33)
• Parable of the Tenants (Mark 12:1-12)
• Tuesday Debates II (Taxes and Resurrection, Mark 12:13-27)
• Tuesday Debates III (Great Commandment and David's Son, Mark 12:28-44)
• Prophecy on Destruction (Mark 13:1-23)
• Second Coming (Mark 13:24-37)
• Jesus' Anointing (Mark 14:1-11)
• The Last Supper (Mark 14:12-26)
• Gethsemane, Trial, Arrest (Mark 14:27-72)
• Friday Morning (Mark 15:1-15)
• The Crucifixion (Mark 15:16-37)
• The Burial (Mark 15:38-47)

Today for Easter, we conclude with the resurrection in Mark 16. Christ is risen! He is risen indeed!

__________________________________

16:1 And when the Sabbath had passed, Mary the Magdalene and Mary the [mother] of James and Salome bought spices in order that, having come, they might anoint him. 2. And very early on the first [day] of the week they come to the tomb, the sun having risen.

The women observed where they had put the body of Jesus on Friday (15:47). But they do not anoint him in observance of the Jewish Sabbath from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday. They now come to finish the burial process on Sunday morning. 

Nothing in these verses transfers the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. The expression, “on the first of Sabbaths,” is an idiom for “on the first day of the week.” They buy spices on Sunday and do not treat the day as they have just treated Saturday.

However, this first day is an eighth day—it is a day of new creation. This day will be the “Lord’s Day.” For Christians, every Sunday is a little Easter, another day of Christ rising from the dead. The sun has risen, and the Son has risen.

The women who come are the same women we saw in Mark 15:40 who looked on as Jesus died. Mark makes no mention of Jesus’ mother Mary. We know from that verse that the Mary here is the mother of James “the less” or “the younger,” presumably James the son of Alphaeus.

16:3 And they were saying to themselves, “Who will roll away for us the stone from the door of the tomb?" 4. And having looked up, they see that the stone has been rolled away (for it was very large). 5. And having entered into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right, having worn a white robe, and they were alarmed.

They understandably wonder who will roll the stone away from the entrance to the tomb. The tomb has been cut out of a rock face, and a rock has been used to secure the entrance. Such rocks at times sat into grooves in the bedrock so that they stayed in place when in position.

However, when they arrive, they not only find that the rock has been rolled away from the entrance. There is a man in white inside the vault. Presumably, he is an angel.

16:6 And he says to them, “Do not be alarmed. You are seeking Jesus the Nazarene, the one having been crucified. He is risen and is not here. Behold, the place where they put him."

The angel announces Jesus’ resurrection. “He is risen!” The women are understandably alarmed. This is neither the first nor the last time that an angel tells someone not to be afraid when appearing to them.

Jesus’ resurrection is a bodily resurrection. Because he is risen, his body is no longer there. Resurrection is not a spirit going to heaven. For the earliest Christians, like the Pharisees and other Jews of the time, resurrection involved a body (cf. 1 Cor. 15).

16:7 "But depart, tell his disciples and Peter that he goes ahead of you into the Galilee. There you will see him, just as he spoke to you."

Interestingly, the angel points to Galilee as the place where Jesus will appear to the disciples. However, in Matthew, Luke, and John, Jesus’ first appearance is in Jerusalem. In Matthew, he appears there to the women on their way (Matt. 28:9). In John, he appears near the tomb to Mary Magdalene (John 20:14). In Luke and John, he appears to them on the night of his resurrection (Luke 24:36; John 20:19). 

Assuming that the original ending of Mark is lost, it is of course possible that Mark also told of a Sunday night appearance. However, as the text of Mark stands, we are left to expect the primary appearance to be in Galilee. In Matthew, this appearance is when Jesus gives the Great Commission.

In Mark 14:28, Jesus tells the disciples that he will meet them in Galilee after he is raised. At the time, they have no real understanding of what he has told them. Here, Mark makes it clear that this promise was fulfilled, even though in the verses we have he does not go on to narrate the event. He only indicates here that it would indeed take place.

16:8 And having gone out, they fled from the tomb, for trembling and amazement was taking hold of them. And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

In its current form, Mark does not narrate the women going on to tell the disciples what had happened, although Matthew does (28:8). The women are understandably confused and frightened. On a historical note, it is unlikely that someone would invent this account if it were not true. It is a strong historical argument that Jesus’ tomb was indeed empty when the women came to anoint him.

The reaction of the women also fits two key features of Mark’s narrative. First, it fits the hiddenness of Jesus’ messianic identity. He did not rise publically in front of everyone. His resurrection took place in a way of which only a few were initially aware. He required faith.

Secondly, his followers do not immediately understand what was going on. This fact fits with the lack of understanding his followers have in general. Their lacking may have provided hope for the audience of Mark, especially if Mark was written around the time of the Jewish War or the destruction of Jerusalem. Even the first disciples did not get it right the first time.

Some believe that Mark ended his Gospel at this point to prompt the audience to consider its response to Jesus, his death and resurrection. Are they going to be like these women or are they going to go tell someone? My personal hunch is that more verses sat here originally, but that they were lost at an early date. 

Other Endings

Most scholars consider it quite unlikely that the ending of Mark in the King James was part of the original Gospel of Mark. We of course do not have any original manuscript of any book of the Bible. So scholars look at the copies we have and try to determine the most likely conclusion, using both internal and external evidence.

External evidence is what we see in the manuscripts. Here, the oldest Greek biblical manuscripts we have do not have verses 9-20. There are mentions of the ending that seem to be quite old, but Eusebius in the early 300s indicates it is not a prevalent reading of the Greek manuscripts in his day. There is a "shorter ending" that exists in some manuscripts, indicating that someone capped the book at one point because there was no ending they found pleasing there.

In the end, the internal evidence is determinative. Verse 9 effectively starts the whole chapter over again, like verses 1-8 didn't exist. It proceeds in a summary rather than narrative fashion--there is a sudden style change and the text forgets anything about what was said about the women in 16:8.

I personally think it likely that there was another ending to Mark after verse 9, but one that was lost to history at a very early date indeed. Since Matthew used Mark as a source, it may give us some hints as to what was originally there.

Explanatory Notes -- Mark 12:13-27 (Tuesday Debates II -- Taxes and Resurrection)

Paying the Poll Tax

12:13 And certain of the Pharisees and the Herodians send to him in order that they might trap him in word.

These individuals do not come to Jesus directly. They send innocent-looking representatives. We remember that not all Pharisees were hypocrites, but the Gospels remember certain individuals from the Pharisees as key opponents to Jesus. The Herodians were likely a group wanting to see some Herod in charge of Israel rather than a Roman governor like Pilate.

Jesus is not fooled.

12:14 And, having come, they say to him, "Teacher, we know that you are true, and it is not a care to you about anyone. For you do not look to the face of a person, but in truth you teach the way of God. Is it lawful to give poll tax to Caesar or not? Should we give or should we not give?"

Flattery is the name of the game. They don't mean a word of it. They don't believe he is true. They don't believe he teaches the way of God. 

On the other hand, it is true that Jesus did not play favorites with people because they were important by earthly standards. He didn't care if someone was rich. He didn't care if someone was famous. He didn't care if someone was powerful. If anything, those attributes made him less impressed with someone. Matters of worldly importance were "not a care" to him.

Then they get to the point. Should you pay taxes or not? If he says yes, then what kind of a Jewish messiah can he be, siding with the Romans. That won't make the people happy. These Pharisees can use it to knock down his popularity.

If he says no, then they can take him to the Romans. This guy is telling the people not to pay taxes. He's an enemy of Rome. You must stop him.

This is the double-bind they were trying to put Jesus in.

12:15 And having known their hypocrisy, he said to them, "Why do you test me? Bring me a denarius that I might see [it]." 16. And they brought [one]. And he says to them, "Whose image [is] this and the inscription?"

And they say to him, "Caesar's."

Jesus sees right through them. But they don't understand his perspective on money. They assume that money matters, that money is a thing. They do not know that money has no place in Jesus' values. It is not a thing. It is irrelevant to him and God's kingdom.

Jesus asks for a coin, worth about a day's wage. He asks whose image is on it. Obviously, it is Caesar's.  

12:17 And Jesus said to them, "Repay the things of Caesar to Caesar and the things of God to God." And they marveled at him. 

Whose image is on the coin? Caesar's? Well, give it back to him. Jesus' answer is that Caesar can have all his coins back. Coins are irrelevant to the kingdom of God. Money is irrelevant to the kingdom of God.

The Resurrection

12:18 And Sadducees come to him, who say there is not resurrection. And they were asking him saying, 19. "Teacher, Moses wrote to us that 'if a brother of someone should die' and leave a wife 'and he should not leave a child,' that 'his brother should take the wife and should raise up seed for his brother.'

The Pharisees have had their shot. Now it is the Sadducees' turn. The Sadducees were a priestly group who differed significantly with the Pharisees on a number of key issues, perhaps the most famous of which was the afterlife. The Pharisees believed in resurrection, often a very bodily resurrection. The Sadducees did not. 

Resurrection belief in Israel seems to have resurrected especially in the early second century BC, around the time of the Maccabean conflict. The Sadducees reflected the tradition before then, such as that found in the book of Sirach (ca. 200BC). Pharisaic belief of the late 100s is best reflected in a book called 2 Maccabees.

The Pharisees also followed oral traditions on how to keep the Law, called the "tradition of the elders." The Sadducees of course had their own traditional interpretations and oral traditions--they just denied it. They claimed just to stick to the Law and not the added traditions of the Pharisees. Nevertheless, the application of Scripture to a new context and new situations almost always involves going beyond what is explicitly said.

The Sadducees were from the highest social class of Israel. In one hypothesis, they actually were from the earlier lineage of high priests before the Maccabees took over the priesthood in 152BC. Then when Herod the Great eliminated the Maccabean line, this formerly priestly class was available to serve once again. In any case, it is a theory.

The law that these Sadducees invoke is the rule of levirite marriage, found in Deuteronomy 25:5. Because the firstborn son inherited the property, it was important for there to be a firstborn son. If an older brother did not have one and died at a pre-mature age, any younger brother was to take on his wife (even though he was probably already married) and raise up seed for him. That child, in effect, was not his son but the son of his older brother. This rule, in effect, is what happened in the case of Boaz and Ruth, although there he was not a brother but a relative of the deceased.  

12:20 "[There] were seven brothers. And the first took wife and, dying, he did not leave seed. 21. And the second took her, and he died, not having left seed, and the third similarly. 22. And the seven did not leave seed. Last of all, the wife also died. 23. In the resurrection, whose wife of theirs will she be, for the seven had her [as] wife."

The mention of seven brothers evokes 2 Maccabees 7, a classical Pharisaic text on resurrection. In that story, seven brothers and their mother suffer martyrdom because they believe in a better resurrection (cf. Heb. 11:35). The Sadducees here must think they are pretty clever and quite cheeky to evoke the image of 2 Maccabees. 

12:24 And Jesus said to them, "Do you not err on account of this, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God? 25. For whenever they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor give in marriage, but they are as the angels in the skies.

Jesus hands it right back to them. Once again, his opponents are making a false assumption. They are assuming that men will dominate women in the kingdom of God just like they dominated them then. They assume that, in the kingdom, women would be subordinate to men just as women were subordinate to men then.

But women will not be subordinate or inferior to men in the kingdom of God. Women will not be "given" in marriage. Indeed, there will be no marriage in heaven because there will be no sex in the kingdom. Both men and women will have transformed bodies like the angels in heaven. [1]

On a side note, there is no biblical basis for the sentiment you sometimes hear that husbands and wives will not recognize each other in heaven. This rumor presumably arose in some way from this passage. But the passage does not say anything like that.

[1] Mark is not clear what the location of this afterlife existence will be. I have chosen the kingdom of God on a new earth as the location. However, it is possible that heaven is in view. 

12:26 "And concerning the dead, that they are raised, do you not read in the book of Moses at the bush how God said to him, saying, 'I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob?' 27. God is not of the dead but of those who live. You err much."

Jesus gives another argument that sounds very much like the rabbinic arguments of his day. At the burning bush, God says, "I am the God of Abraham" (Exod. 3:6). Jesus focuses on the present tense. If God is the God of Abraham in the present tense, then Abraham must have continued to live beyond death somewhere. And we have other Gospel texts that suggest that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will return to the earth when the kingdom of God fully arrives (e.g., Matt. 8:11).

Explanatory Notes -- Mark 12:1-12 (Parable of Tenants)

I've been writing explanatory notes this week on Passion Week in Mark's Gospel. Thus far:

• Palm Sunday (Mark 11:1-11)
• Monday Money Changers (Mark 11:12-19)
• Tuesday Debates I (Mark 11:20-33) 

___________________________________________________

12:1 And he began to speak to them in parables. "A person planted a vineyard and put a hedge around it and dug a winepress and built a tower and rented it out to farmers and went on a journey. 2. And he sent to the farmers a servant at the time so that from the farmers he might receive from the fruit of the vineyard.

This is the eighth and final parable in the Gospel of Mark, and it is found in all three of the Synoptic Gospels. It closely parallels the similar parable in Isaiah 5. It is a parable about the leadership of Israel at that time.

God is the planter, and the vineyard is Israel. God planted Israel. In Isaiah 5, the vineyard yields wild grapes or bad fruit. With an unproductive vineyard, God threatens to remove its hedges and let it become a dry wasteland with thorns and thistles.

The hedge in Isaiah seems to be God's protection of Israel from outsiders. Later rabbis would consider the oral traditions that made sure you kept the Law (by overkeeping it) to be the hedge of Deuteronomy 22:8--a guard rail so that you did not violate it. But it is not clear that the Law is in view here.

Interestingly, God rents out the land to farmers. Implicit in this imagery is a sense that the leaders of Israel are not exactly Israel. This is not a parable of Deism, the Enlightenment philosophy that saw God creating the world and no longer involved in it. It is at least possible that this parable has overtones of exile. Israel is being run by outsiders.

Still, God expects his portion of the land. He expects fruits of righteousness. God expects good grapes.

12:3 And having received him, they beat him and sent [him] empty-handed. 4. And again he sent to them another servant, and him they struck on the head and disgraced. 5. And another he sent, and him they killed and many others, beating some, and killing some. 

The prophets of Israel did not always fare well. We should not overread the imagery--this is a parable not an allegory. But one could infer that the leadership of Israel even when it was in control of its land was farmed out. How difficult it is for the righteous to end up in power. How difficult it is for those in power to stay righteous. They are often like farmers God put in control but who are not exactly God's people.

The fact that Israel killed God's messengers is repeated in the Gospels. Luke 13:34 says, "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets." Matthew 23:31 says, "You are the descendants of those who killed the prophets." We should possibly see John the Baptist as part of this mix.

12:6 Still he was having one beloved son. He sent him last to them, saying, "They will respect my son." 7. But those farmers said to themselves, "This is the heir. Come. Let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours." 8. And having taken, they killed him and cast him out of the vineyard.

Jesus is clearly the Son whom God sent. In this parable, he anticipates that he is about to be killed by the leadership of Israel like the prophets before him. In 11:18, they have already begun to plot. If he stays in the environs of Jerusalem, it is only a matter of time.   

12:9 What will the Lord of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy those farmers and will give the vineyard to others. 10. Not even have you read this Scripture: "The stone that the ones building rejected--this [one] has become the head of the corner." 11. This [head] came to be from the Lord, and it is marvelous in our eyes.

The victory of such "farmers" is only temporary. There will be consequences. The landowner, so patient for so long, will not suffer this insolence forever, especially when they have killed his son. He will utterly destroy them. Although Mark does not make the connection to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 explicit, the audience of Mark would make the connection easily enough.

The event of Palm Sunday echoed Psalm 118 in more than one verse. Here Jesus quotes it again explicitly (Psalm 118:22). They have rejected Jesus as a stone in the building of Israel, but God is going to make Jesus the cornerstone of the kingdom of God. God is the Master of the vineyard. He will install whom he wants to install. He will build the way he wants to build Israel. And he wants to build on Jesus. This is a truly marvelous development!

12. And they were seeking to grab him, and they feared the crowd, for they knew that he spoke this parable against them. And, having left him, they went away.

The leaders of Jerusalem are not stupid. The fact that they do not have ears to hear does not mean in this instance that they do not know what he means,. They simply reject it with all their being. At the end of Monday, they wanted to find a way to get rid of Jesus. Now it is Tuesday and they feel even more strongly about it.

Explanatory Notes -- Mark 15:38-47 (Burial)

The Aftermath

38. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. 

Mark does not explain the significance of this event, but we might infer from elsewhere that the barrier that stood between humanity and God's presence has been severed. Certainly, Hebrews might interpret the event in this way (e.g., Heb. 10:10), and the Gospel of Mark and Hebrews may have been written at about the same time with a Roman audience in mind. 

There are other possible explanations, such as an expression of the grief of God. These interpretations are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps it could be interpreted along the lines of the glory of God leaving the temple.

39. And the centurion standing in front of him, having seen that he thus breathed out, said, “Truly this man was Son of God.” 

Many have argued that this moment is the climax of the Gospel of Mark. A story can of course be told in more than one way. Matthew arguably tells the story with a double climax. First, there is the victorious resurrection. Then there is the Great Commission. But Mark tells the story in such a way that the climax is at the cross. The resurrection is not the focus of the story's energy in Mark.

We can catch a glimpse of why in Mark 10:45. "The Son of the Mortal did not come to be served, but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for others." The cross for Mark highlights Jesus absorbing the wrath of God toward Israel and the world. We find this kind of thinking in a Jewish book from about 150 years earlier, 2 Maccabees. In one chapter, seven brothers and their mother are martyred for their refusal to apostatize from the God of Israel. The youngest brother before dying expresses his hope that, through their deaths, "to bring an end to the wrath of the Almighty that has rightly fallen on our whole nation" (7:38).

We might call this atonement theology both a "satisfaction" of God's anger/justice toward Israel and, in a sense, a "substitution" of the deaths of these righteous brothers for the whole of Israel. Isaiah 53:5 expressed the same idea long before any Jew had a sense that part of being Messiah was dying for the sins of Israel: "He was wounded for our transgressions; he was bruised for our iniquities." This sort of "substitutionary atonement" was part of the Jewish background of the New Testament.

We are so used to this logic that it is hard for us not to read it in its full, cosmic scope. We do not realize how startling the scope of Hebrews' theology is. What, not just for Israel? What, even for all the sins of the Old Testament? Their immediate thought must have been, "He is dying for the Israel of this moment, so that our kingdom can be restored." 

All of these are of course pictures. They are goo-goo gah-gah talk. Theologians have argued and debated the full significance of the cross for two millennia. Mark simply says it was a ransom (10:45) and that his blood was poured out for many (14:24). He doesn't go into theological depth.

The centurion gets it. The way Jesus died demonstrated that he was indeed the Son of God, the king. Ironically, he is the first person in the Gospel of Mark to get the connection between Jesus' suffering/death and the fact that he is the Messiah of Israel, the anointed king. Peter understood that Jesus was king, but he did not get the cross (Mark 8:31-32). The same was true of James and John, who still fight over who will be greatest in the restored Israel (10:35-40). 

The centurion is the first person in Mark to see that Jesus' death demonstrates that he is the Messiah. It is not that he is the Messiah despite dying on the cross. He is the Messiah because he dies for the sins of Israel. And it is a non-Jew who sees it first. 

This is what Paul will say in 1 Corinthians 1:22-23. He preached Christ crucified, a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Greeks. It was a stumbling block to the Jews because it suggested that the humiliation of the Roman fist was the glory of God. It suggested that the last shall be first and that to lose is to win. This made no sense to the Greeks, just as it makes little sense even to many who call themselves Christians today.  

40. And women were watching from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James the Less and Joseph, and Salome, 41. who were following him when he was in Galilee and they were serving him alongside many others who came up with him to Jerusalem.

It is easy to forget that wherever the Twelve were, wherever disciples were, there were key women who followed and went along with Jesus. Luke 8:3 suggests that they were the primary support for Jesus' ministry. Mary Magdalene is never said to be a prostitute anywhere in the Bible. Luke 8:2 notes that she had been possessed of seven demons before Jesus cast them out. In John 20:17, she is the first witness to the resurrection and the first one sent to witness thereto (which is what an apostle is).

"James the Less" is the other James--in other words, he was not James the son of Zebedee. He was James the son of Alphaeus (Mark 3:18). But his mother was in Jesus' company as a disciple. Joseph is probably another of those who followed Jesus with his mother and brother to Jerusalem, although not one of the Twelve. Salome is only mentioned in Mark. 

It is a reminder again that there were a lot more followers of Jesus than just the Twelve. They had come up to Jerusalem perhaps in part because it was Passover. But they may also have had the same mistaken expectations of others. They may have thought that Jesus was going to be enthroned as king right there at the Passover. Even after his resurrection, Acts 1:6 records this expectation.

42. And it already having become evening, since it was the Preparation, which is before Sabbath, 43. Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent council member, who also himself was awaiting the kingdom of God, having dared to enter to Pilate, even asked for the body of Jesus. 44. And Pilate marveled that he had already died, and calling for the centurion, he asked if he had already died. 45. And having known from the centurion, he gave the corpse to Joseph.

Jesus is crucified on Friday. In Mark's account, this is the day of Passover, the fourteenth of Nisan. If he was crucified in AD30, that would be April 7. The Sabbath began at sundown, so there was some hurry to get Jesus down and buried quickly. John says they had to break the legs of the two criminals so they would die more quickly (John 19:32). Pilate is surprised that Jesus is already dead. He double-checks with the centurion in charge of the crucifixion.

Joseph of Arimathea asks for the body and provides the tomb. He is apparently a member of the Sanhedrin. Luke 23:51 says that he had not agreed with the plan to put Jesus to death. We are not entirely sure where Arimathea was, but it was a village in the country. He is a prominent enough person in the city to have direct access to Pilate. 

He was awaiting the kingdom of God. The fact that his name is remembered suggests that he became part of the Jesus movement after the resurrection. These names became sealed in the story as it was told and retold beyond Jerusalem, and the good news reached people who had never met these individuals, like us.

46. And having bought a linen, having taken him down, he wrapped him in the linen and placed him in a tomb which had been hewn out of rock. And he rolled a stone against the door of the tomb. 47. And Mary Magdalene and Mary the [mother] of Joseph were seeing where he has been put.

Assuming that Jesus was crucified at the traditional location in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, then his place of burial was a stone's throw away. Recent archaeological evidence does indicate that the current shrine dates at least back to Constantine, when he first build on the traditional site of Jesus' burial. There are also other barrel tombs hewn out of rock in the church that are possible candidates.

There seems no time in Mark to do the normal anointing for burial. The best the women can do is note where he has been laid and plan to come back first thing Sunday morning to complete the ritual.

Explanatory Notes -- Mark 15:16-37 (The Crucifixion)

The Crucifixion
15:16 And the soldiers led him away outside of the palace (that is, the praetorium), and they called together the whole cohort. 17. And they dressed him in purple and, having woven a thorny crown, they placed [it] on him, 18. and they began to greet him, “Greetings, King of the Jews!” 19. And they struck his head with a reed and spat on him, and getting on their knees, they were giving him homage. 20. And when they had mocked him, they stripped him of the purple and put his garments on him and led him out that they might crucify him.

To the Roman soldiers, Jesus is a nobody. He is their sport for the day. "Look, it's the king of the Jews," and they beat him. They dress him up in the purple of royalty. They make him a crown out of thorns. They mockingly kneel before a king that fits their prejudices and "superiority" over the Jews. They are Romans. Everyone else is dirt.

[I write these notes after Russian soldiers have done similar atrocities to Ukrainians.]

They strike him with a reed. They spit on him. In their minds, they have the unquestioned power. To them, Jesus is just a weak piece of scum. They smack him randomly, like a bully in a schoolyard.

Then when they've had their fun, they strip him naked and get on with their business.

21. And they forced a certain Simon of Cyrene as he was passing by, coming from the country ([he is] the father of Alexander and Rufus), that he might take up his cross. 22. And they bring him to Golgotha (which is being translated, “Place of a Skull”), 23. and they were giving him wine mixed with myrrh, which he did not receive.

After the beating he has received, Jesus is not strong enough to carry the crossbeam of the cross. The pole to which it was attached would more or less be situated permanently just outside one of the city gates. Romans crucified criminals as a sign to anyone who might even entertain the thought of defying Rome. The cross was far more than an instrument of torture. It was a tool of humiliation and shame. It was a way of telling non-Romans that they were scum and dirt.

A man named Simon is in the wrong place at the wrong time. The Romans "recruit" him to carry the crossbeam. It must have had a profound impact on him because Mark and his audience know his children, Alexander and Rufus. It makes sense to think that Simon became a follower of Jesus after that.

He is from Cyrene in North Africa, although it is not clear whether he had moved to Israel. He is coming from the country, so he at the very least does not live in Jerusalem. 

Golgotha, just outside the city gate, is where the permanent pole for crucifixion was situated. It was probably on the northwest side of Jerusalem on a small hill. Most scholars believe that the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is indeed the most likely location. [1] Although it is currently within the city walls, archaeological evidence suggests that it was outside the wall at the time of Jesus. 

[1] Gordon's tomb became a favorite suggestion in the 1800s, but this suggestion faces serious problems. Principally, it does not matter how the site looks today. 1900 years is a very long time. What is important is what the site looked like 2000 years ago. The site has certain sentimental advantages, but few historical ones.

They offer Jesus wine mixed with myrrh to deaden the pain. Jesus wants none of it.

24. And they crucify him and they divided his garments, casting a lot upon them [for] who would take what. 25. And it was about the third hour, and they crucified him. 26. And the inscription of his charge had been inscribed, “The King of the Jews.” 27. And with him they crucified two thugs one on his right and one on his left. [2]

The dividing of garments echoes Psalm 22:18. As we will see in a moment, this psalm must have been on Jesus' mind on the cross. Again, Jesus is nothing to them. He is just some scum who deserved to die. Perhaps they laugh as they divide up his stuff, almost forgetting that he is there.

The third hour would be 9am. The Sabbath begins at sundown, so the Jewish leaders would be keen for it all to be over by dusk. The Romans would oblige. A friend of mine once noted that Mark does not emphasize the agony of the cross the way we often do today. It was more the shame of the cross that they focused on.

Pilate and the Romans are more than happy to mock the Jews and Jesus with the title, "King of the Jews" above him. Ironically, he is the King of the Jews. Mark will make it clear in a moment that the cross is a demonstration of his messianic identity, not a disproof of it.

[2] A number of later manuscripts of Mark have a verse 28 here: "And the Scripture was fulfilled that says, 'And he was reckoned with lawless ones.'" There is no conspiracy here. Copyists tend to expand and explain rather than cut things out, although this is not an absolute rule. Matthew used Mark and does not mention the Scripture--which is something he would likely have done given his emphasis on Jesus fulfilling Scripture. Luke does have this quote at 22:37. Perhaps a copyist felt like it fit even better at the cross.

29. And those passing by were insulting him, wagging their heads and saying, “Woe, the one who destroys the temple and rebuilds [it] in three days. 30. Save yourself, coming down from the cross.” 31. Similarly, the high priests, mocking to one another with the scribes were saying, “He saved others. He isn’t able to save himself. 32. Let the Christ, the King of Israel come down now from the cross that we might see and believe.” And the ones who had been crucified with him were reviling him.

Jesus' enemies gloat. There is a German word for it, Schadenfreude, joy at the misfortune of others. There was a time where they had to keep their mouth shut because of the crowds who loved Jesus. Now that evil and mischief has prevailed, they can reveal their true hearts and their true colors. We sometimes see this in cultures where the ungodly come to power. The evil that used to be whispered and hidden can now be aired in public along with the kinds of abuse that go with it.

Or perhaps they followed Jesus briefly for the wrong reason. Perhaps they thought Jesus was a violent man like them. He was going to pound the Romans with God's fist. "No? He wants to redeem God's enemies? He lets them arrest him? Serves him right!"

The chief priests and scribal elite have finally won (or have they?). They couldn't beat Jesus in argument. They couldn't beat Jesus in popularity. But by golly they could kill him. "You thought you were so cool healing other people. Can't heal yourself, can you, heh, heh, heh!" "Let's see you destroy the temple now!"

"Still think you're the king, the Messiah? Show us a trick Jesus. Come down from the cross."

Even the two criminals next to Jesus mock him. Mark tells nothing of one of the criminals coming to his senses. If all we had were Mark, we would assume they both mocked Jesus as well. It is one thing for the so-called respectable people to mock you. Even the actual low-lives are mocking you.

33. And the sixth hour having come, it became dark over the whole land until the ninth hour. 34. And in the ninth hour Jesus cried with a great voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani,” which is translated, “My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?”

The sixth hour was noon. Psalm 19:1 says that the skies declare the glory of God. Now they declare the agony of God. The darkness forebodes the death of God. At the ninth hour, 3pm, Jesus cries out in Aramaic, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

In Mark, this is the only thing Jesus says from the cross. He is quoting Psalm 22:1. He feels abandoned by God the Father. We can imagine this psalm running through Jesus' head as he struggles for breath, having to push his feet against the spikes to push himself up for breath. There was not a lot of talking from a cross.

You often hear people say that God the Father had to turn away from Jesus because he was taking on the sin of the world. Nothing in the biblical text says this idea. God the Father cannot be anything but one with God the Son. This is an example of taking pictures and metaphors too far. Jesus feels abandoned--what human would not? But he is not abandoned. God is everywhere present, even in hell. He just isn't experienced there.

Nor does God learn anything on the cross. God knows everything. God created the very possibility of the cross. There is no difference between head knowledge and experiential knowledge for God. God created the very possibility of experiential knowledge. God knows everything. He always has. He always will.

35. And certain of those standing alongside, having heard [him], were saying, “Look, he is calling Elijah.” 36. And a certain man, running, and having filled a sponge with sour wine, having placed [it] on a reed, he was offering him a drink, saying, “Wait. Let us see if Elijah should come to take him down.” 37. And Jesus, having let go a great sound, breathed out.

It is quite likely that Jesus' speech was slurred and halting. They do not seem to hear fully what he is saying. They heard something that sounds like Elijah. They can't make sense of it. Perhaps they think of Malachi 4:3, where Elijah comes before the Lord comes to his temple. A man runs to give him some sour wine, perhaps to quench his thirst.

But Mark does not tell us that the sour wine ever reached his lips. Quite unusually, Jesus dies long before a person being crucified would. His pain is not just physical. Someone has said, "He died of a broken heart."