Session 11: Class Notes

A short class on Christmas week means more material for the blog.  Chapter 14 continues Mark's whirlwind pace as the final hours unfold.  It's a powerful story I encourage you to read it slowly in order to allow the scenes to develop in your minds eye.

--

Plans and Preparations - Mark 14:1-16

Mark 14 opens with plans and preparations overlapping and intersecting.

Annas and Caiaphas

Chief Priests and the Scribes:  Actively seeking a way to capture and kill Jesus.  They wanted to avoid a riot.  As we've noted Jerusalem is a packed house during the time of the Passover and given the anti-occupation sentiment the city is a powder keg.  The Jewish religious establishment is in an uneasy alliance with the Roman political leadership.  Jewish High Priests were appointed and deposed by Roman political leadership.  If a Jewish rebellion breaks out that needs to be quashed by Roman force then the Jewish religious leadership lose face with the Roman leadership (as they were unable to help keep their people peaceable) and they lose clout with the Jewish people (as they won't be able to truly support any rebellion).

Woman with the Alabaster Jar: The anointing of Jesus with the costly perfume is an image that hearkens the ritual of appointing a new king.  Throughout Israel's history a new king was designated and deemed blessed by God when a high priest or prophet anointed an individual.  The anointing is also the tangible expression of Jesus' title.  Messiah (translated as Christ in Greek) literally means "Anointed One."  Jesus turns the image though by interpreting it as preparation for his death (we'll see later that his coronation is his death).  Jesus' interpretation of the anointing speaks to a very different vision for what kind of King and Messiah he is.

SIDE NOTE:  In this story some of Jesus' disciples complain that ointment should have been sold and the money given to the poor.  In his response Jesus says, "The poor will always have with you."  What do we do with this?  It sounds a bit discordant from the other words and work of Jesus.  Here are a few interpretations of this statement.

• Jesus has previously made the analogy that this time of his ministry is like a wedding party.  He is the bridegroom and since he is near now is a time of rejoicing.  The woman's act is appropriate for it is a celebratory act.
• The woman's gift is an act of worship and as such it was an appropriate gesture.
• The Gospel of John contends that it was Judas who complained about the woman's gift.  The gospel says that Judas kept the common purse for the disciples and would steal from it.
• Jesus was poor and so such a gift to the poor was perfectly acceptable.
• "Poor" does not have to be limited to a definition of economic condition.  "Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs in the kingdom of heaven"
• "The poor you will always have with you" is not a statement of resignation but an exhortation to live and work among the poor.

Judas:  Judas makes a deal to betray Jesus and begins plotting for an opportunity to do so.  Why does Judas decide to betray Jesus

1. It's in his nature.  From the beginning Judas was an untrustworthy character and he was destined to betray.  Acts 1:16 seems to imply this (by the way, here are the two accounts of what happened to Judas, threw away the money and died by hanging AND bought a field and died by falling in his field)

2. He was a true believer that Jesus would save them from the Romans.  Because of this belief Judas thought he might be able to force Jesus' hand to act by betraying him to the Romans.

3. Judas became disillusioned with Jesus.  It was becoming increasingly clear that Jesus was not the Messiah Judas thought him to be and in his disappointment and anger (he did just invest three years of his life with this guy) he makes a bad call.

The Disciples:  Jesus instructs the disciples to set up the room for a celebration of the Passover feast.  The instructions sound very similar to the instructions given in preparation for the Triumphal Entry.  There is also a clandestine sense to the plans.  Interesting note, the plans do not outline instructions for the procurement and preparation of the Passover lamb, a central aspect of the meal that would have necessitated a sacrifice at the temple.

--

The Last Supper - Mark 14:17-25

Before diving into the table the group present responded to the question, "What does Holy Communion mean for you?  What do you appreciate about that act of worship?"  Here's what I heard:

• Reminder of sacrifice for all
• Appreciate taking communion weekly
• Physical reminder that Jesus gave his life for us
• Renewal, it's like going out with friends
• Trouble with Transubstantiation
• It's still a mystery
• Feel fulfilled, makes my day, enjoyable
• Remembrance (of the life of Jesus and the gift of his life), Acceptance (God's acceptance of us and our acceptance of Christ as our savior), Fellowship (with other Christians)
• Appreciate walking to the front, there is an affirmative act that we partake in
• Appreciate breaking the bread as a community, reminder of sharing, of togetherness, and of equality

I believe that Holy Communion (or the Eucharist, or the Lord's Supper) is a beautiful act of worship that is many layered in symbol and significance.  It is a beautiful mystery that is worthy of our continued exploration.  I celebrate the responses above and below I'll offer what I hear in the ritual as explored in the Gospel of Mark.

The Last Supper took place during the heavily symbolic Passover meal.

Passover is the celebration of when the angel of death passed over the Hebrews, killed the first born of the Egyptians, and convinced the pharaoh to free the Hebrews from slavery.  Passover is a celebration of deliverance, of liberation.  The people of God were free from oppression and free to worship.  Passover was a meal of identity.  The story of God's deliverance was a core story for the people of God and it was a key way of understanding YHWH.  The God of Israel is a God of liberation.  The meal itself helped tell this story and reinforce this identity.  For example:

• The unleavened bread, the bread of affliction, was a reminder of suffering endured and survived.
• Vegetable or herb dipped in salt water serves as a reminder of the tears shed while enslaved and how the people cried out to God for deliverance.
• Bitter herbs reminded people of the bitterness of servitude.
• Lamb shank reminds the celebrants of the lamb that was slain on the night of the first Passover.  The Hebrews were to paint lamb's blood over their door frame as a sign to the Angel of Death to pass over that house.

Over the years elements have been added and symbols have been reinterpreted.  Deuteronomy 16:1-8 outlines the core elements of the celebratory meal, the bread and the lamb.  In the celebration of the Lord's Supper Jesus reinterprets the symbols of the meal, specifically the bread and the lamb.

Now wait, you may say, "I remember Jesus talking about the bread ("this is my body"), but we don't have lamb at communion."  Jesus doesn't mention lamb in Mark 14.  In fact, it's kind of odd that they are celebrating Passover, yet this central element is missing.  Mark 14:12 specifically states that this is the time the Passover lamb is sacrificed right before it talks about the disciples going out to make preparations for the meal.  So, what happened?  Did they forget that part?  I see two theories:

1. This is once again a dig at the Temple complex.  The Passover lamb was to sacrificed the day before the meal at the temple.  The scriptures state clearly that the lamb has to be offered at "the place God will choose as a dwelling for his name".  By not having the lamb were they shunning the temple and making the implicit accusation that the temple was no longer the dwelling place for the name of God?  Or...
2. The lamb was present at the Lord's Supper in the person of Jesus.  Perhaps, this is what Jesus is referencing when he says about the cup, "This is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many."  The image of Jesus as the "Lamb of God" was prevalent in Johannine literature (ie Gospel of John and Revelation) and thus had a place in the early church.  Was Jesus layering metaphors by referring to himself as both the lamb and the new temple, the place God had chosen for his name to dwell (Mark 14:58)?

Perhaps it's a combination of both theories.  Whatever the case it's clear that Jesus is taking existing tradition and setting it in a new direction.

It's important to note that the Passover meal is not only a meal of remembrance but a meal of identification.  The meal was a means but which those who partake share in the experience.  It is not simply a case of "this is what happened to others long ago" but  broadened to mean, "this is what happened, and happens, to me/us."  Jesus refers to this idea when he asks James and John, "Are you able to drink from the cup I drink" (Mark 10:38).  This makes the supper scene ironic in the moment (all the disciples share the common bread and the common cup identifying themselves with Jesus yet all desert Jesus on the night of betrayal) and sets up redemption in the story of Pentecost (the disciples finally live into their role as ambassadors of the gospel).

"OK, everybody get on this side of the group picture!"

The church celebrates the Lord's Supper as a table of remembrance ("Do this in remembrance of me").  Yet we also need to celebrate it as a table of identification.  A place where we affirm our desire to walk the way of Christ, to see his story become our story.  The Apostle Paul puts it beautifully when he says,

"I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings by becoming like him in his death, if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead." - Philippians 3:10-11

This is my "so what" of Mark 14.  Each time I'm offered communion, I ask myself, "Is this true for me?  Do I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings?"  I wish I could say that the answer is always a confident, "Yes!".  I cannot.  What I can say is that the invitation from Christ to come and follow is always there, regardless of my response.  And that the offer of the bread and the cup is grace that I can claim with confidence. 

Mark 12: Q & O with the Tracy & Bruno

Hi friends, I love the fact that Tracy and Bruno are taking their connection with the group to another level with their questions and observations.  It's awesome!

Here's their offering for Mark 12.  I've responded to some of their questions in blue below
--
Parable of the Tenants - Mark 12:1-12

Comment made that “they were afraid of the crowd”(v.12) so what was happening that the crowd could threaten the appointed leaders?  As we've noted Jerusalem is a packed house during the time of the Passover and given the anti-occupation sentiment (and the "Messiahs" of recent past), the city is a powder keg.  The Jewish religious establishment is in an uneasy alliance with the Roman political leadership.  If a Jewish rebellion breaks out that needs to be quashed by Roman force then they lose face with the Roman leadership (as they were unable to help keep the peace) and they lose clout with the Jewish people (as they won't be able to fully support the rebellion).

Is this the same crowd who said, “Crucify him” several days later?  Not sure.  Maybe, but likely not.  The courtyard wherein Pilate would have asked about what to do with Jesus was a relatively small space and likely only accessible by the Jewish religious leadership.  The "Crucify him!" crowd was more than likely less than 100 people, the majority of whom would have been looking to get rid of Jesus for some time now.

Paying the Imperial tax to Caesar   Mark 12:13-17
The coin with Caesar’s face can be returned to Rome but what was God’s that needed to be returned? Check out my session notes on this section.

Warning Against the Teachers of the Law   Mark 12: 38–40
Who are teachers of the law today?  Great question.  Literally, I think it would be priests, pastors, perhaps also Deacons.  I think though that the concept could be justifiably broadened to include anyone that is given deference because their role in society is based upon healing, protecting, guiding, and/or helping.

What was their job and role in the community? Check out my session notes on this section.

Why pinpoint the teachers of the law vs. others?  I think it's because the basis of their power is their supposed understanding of God and the ways of God.  James 3:1 says, "My brothers and sisters, not many of you should become teachers, because we know that we teachers will be judged more strictly."  By using authority derived from association with God to undertake actions opposed to the heart of God is to take the Lord's name in vain.  There are plenty of people not teachers of the law who are equally arrogant.

Bruno and Tracy's Thoughts:
The wrong kind of knowledge can make people arrogant, judgmental and self-righteous.  Today we often hear that “knowledge is power” which doesn’t seem so different from Jesus’ time.  But much of that knowledge is likely not ‘true knowledge of the divine’.

Note that Jesus observed these men.  He didn’t just glance at them and then judge them.  So looks like the Scribe’s punishment is due to their arrogance and not humbleness to do the Will of God.

The Widow’s Offering  Mark 12:41 – 44

1. Jesus watched what people put in the offering plate.
2. Offering was money and not the  “things that belong to God” 
3. Somehow by dress or appearance, Jesus knew who was “rich” and who wasn’t Check out my session notes on this section.
4. Copper coins then are like pennies today?? – the smallest denomination at least in the USA
5. If the money is Caesar’s and going to the Temple’s treasury then anyone giving offering is misguided?  Good question.  Roman money would have needed to be exchanged for Temple approved coinage, yet I think your question also leads to a deeper reflection on the offering.  Check out my session notes.

Tracy and Bruno’s Thoughts:
Copper coins used since 600BC.  Romans saw use of copper for coinage – easy to mold, reusable.  It’s the smallest denomination in the USA and England (per Copperalliance.org.uk).

Isn’t the widow doing what Bartimaeus did i.e. gave all he owned?  Kind of.  The significant difference is to whom (or to what) each of them are giving all that they owned.

Did Jesus “google” this woman and knew she was a widow, not remarried?  Not sure, perhaps because she was there giving the offering instead of a male in her family which would have been expected.  Did her clothing reveal her marital status (more on clothing later)?  Was two coins all she had?  Did Jesus surmise this because in his time an unmarried widow was penniless?

If people can tell who is rich and who isn’t by their appearance, does this matter?  Maybe? Dressing humbly but not with the intent to deceive will convey our more authentic selves as appearance does not impress God.  But on the flip side, going to the Temple or church could be entering sanctified space of Heaven on Earth.  In this case, wouldn’t attendees want to clothe themselves in their “Sunday’s best”?

Do we ask ourselves the question, what are we poor in and what can we offer that would make us feel like we gave all of ourselves?  How do we seek for an answer?  Prayer?  Other?

Crowds are faceless and unpredictable.  They will follow a leader only to condemn him if an event triggers rage or fear.  Think of Mussolini (Italy) in the 1940s, Ceaușescu (Romania) in the 1980s and of course, Jesus in the 30s.  Jesus was “playing with fire” sandwiched between crowds that followed him for the wrong reasons (Jesus was not going to destroy the Roman empire) and the “establishment” (high priests, scribes, Roman authorities).  Really interesting connections!

Only money was being offered.  This put the Temple in the same place as Rome, i.e. a center of wordly power.  Yes, exactly! Jesus’ metamessage: the Temple becomes irrelevant re communicating with God.  In Mark 13 Jesus predicts the physical destruction of the Temple.

Session 10: Class Notes

Trying to cover two chapters in one night is rough.  We dove into several stories in chapter 12 and gave a tip of the hat to chapter 13.  If you have any questions or observations from sections we didn't cover in either of those chapters please put it in the comment section below.  I may not have anything worthwhile to say in response but I believe wisdom will be heard from among the group.

--

Mark 12 opens with Jesus telling a parable that is a direct response to the religious leadership's challenge of Jesus' authority.  The parable Jesus tells has a striking resemblance to a illustrative prophecy told by Isaiah.

Mark 12:1-9 Then he began to speak to them in parables. “A man planted a vineyard, put a fence around it, dug a pit for the wine press, and built a watchtower; then he leased it to tenants and went to another country. When the season came, he sent a slave to the tenants to collect from them his share of the produce of the vineyard. But they seized him, and beat him, and sent him away empty-handed.  And again he sent another slave to them; this one they beat over the head and insulted.  Then he sent another, and that one they killed. And so it was with many others; some they beat, and others they killed. He had still one other, a beloved son.  Finally he sent him to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ But those tenants said to one another, ‘This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’ So they seized him, killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard.  What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the tenants and give the vineyard to others.

Isaiah 5:1-8 Let me sing for my beloved my love-song concerning his vineyard: My beloved had a vineyard on a very fertile hill.  He dug it and cleared it of stones, and planted it with choice vines; he built a watchtower in the midst of it, and hewed out a wine vat in it; he expected it to yield grapes, but it yielded wild grapes. And now, inhabitants of Jerusalem and people of Judah, judge between me and my vineyard.  What more was there to do for my vineyard that I have not done in it?  When I expected it to yield grapes, why did it yield wild grapes? And now I will tell you what I will do to my vineyard. I will remove its hedge, and it shall be devoured; I will break down its wall, and it shall be trampled down.  I will make it a waste; it shall not be pruned or hoed, and it shall be overgrown with briers and thorns; I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain upon it. For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, and the people of Judah are his pleasant planting; he expected justice, but saw bloodshed; righteousness, but heard a cry!  Ah, you who join house to house, who add field to field, until there is room for no one but you, and you are left to live alone in the midst of the land!

Not all of the parables are meant to be interpreted as allegories but this one by Jesus seems particularly pointed given: his past condemnation of the religious leaderships practices (Mark 7:6-9); his confrontation of the religiously sanctioned practices at the temple (Mark 11:12-23); the fact the religious leaders took the parable as aimed directly at them (Mark 12:12).  So how might we break this allegory down?  Let's look at the principle figures:

• The Owner of the Vineyard = I think the Isaiah 5 reference says clearly that this is God.
• The Messengers Sent by the Owner = Both Luke 13:34 and Matthew 23:31 make it clear that the messengers are the prophets.  Nehemiah 9:26 also points to this as an established pattern of the Israelite's response to the prophets.
• The Son of the Owner = Jesus seems to be referencing himself here particularly given the next verse where he quotes Psalm 118, again seemingly referring to himself.
• The Land = Again the Isaiah passage points us to a particular conclusion.  The land is the people of Israel.
• The Tenants = If the land is the people of Israel then those meant to care for the land are the religious leadership.  The condemnation of the tenants and the offence the religious leaders took also points to the conclusion that they are symbolized by the tenants.  Fun Fact: The chief priests and the scribes referenced in this section would have been wealthy absentee landlords.  Jesus flips the script on this reality by referring to them not as owners of land but as merely tenants on God's property.

The judgement is clear.  Those with social, economic, and political power (the religious leadership) are consuming the people of God (particularly the poor) by their greed ("Ah, you who join house to house, who add field to field, until there is room for no one but you" - Isaiah 5:8).  And they are doing so in the name of God.

--

A Roman Denarius inscribed,
"Caesar, son of the Divine"

Mark 12:13-17

This story contains the oft quoted line, "Render to Caesar what is Caesar's and render to God what is God's."  Another faithful way to translate that phrase from the Biblical Greek would be to say, "Pay back to Caesar what you own him and pay back to God what you owe him."  If we were to flip it into a question it'd be, "Who are you indebted to?  Where does your allegiance lie?"

The story begins with a tag team duo that embodies the old Sanskrit proverb, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."  The Herodians (socially elite and wealthy Jews who were puppet political rulers propped up the Roman empire and thus had a vested interest in seeing Rome's domination endure) paired up with Pharisees (religious leaders more commonly associated with the hoi polloi who wanted to see God kick Rome out of the land of Israel) to ask Jesus a question.  "Should we pay taxes to Caesar?"  It's a great trap.

• If Jesus says yes...Then he would lose favor in the eyes of the crowd who were at the moment the only thing preventing the religious leaders from moving against Jesus (Mark 12:12).  The taxes levied by Rome and by their Jewish proxies (such as the late Herod the Great  who built the temple by heavily taxing the poor) were despised by the Jewish people.  Taxation was one of the issues that led to consistent uprisings among the people of Jerusalem.
• If Jesus says no...He'd win points with the people but the Herodians would have clear justification to have him arrested by the Roman authorities for inciting dissension and treason.

Jesus does neither.  Instead, he flips the script.  In asking for a coin he exposes that they were guilty of idolatry as they were carrying a graven image (a no-no particularly by the religious leadership in the temple).  His response further exposes their hypocrisy by the clear implication that they are in fact beholden to the kingdom of domination and oppression (symbolized by Rome) rather than to God and God's kingdom vision for Israel and for all.

--

Mark 12:38-44

Your Bible may insert headings that imply these are two separate stories, yet I contend that it is one story.  When studying the Bible it's important to keep in mind that headings, chapters, and verses are not sacred scripture.  They are later additions:

• Chapters, as we know them, came about in about the 13th century (nearly a millennium after the Bible in it's current state was formed).
• Verses came about in the 16th century.
• Headings are mostly created by the publishers of any given version of the Bible.

The Greek Text of John 1:1

Often these additions have a subtle way of shaping the way we understand the text.  It's not malicious by any means, but it does unconsciously point us along the interpretive path of someone we've never met.

Back to the story at hand.  Jesus has made it pretty clear that he is frustrated, disgusted, brokenhearted, at what the Temple has become.  The symbol of God's presence has become wedded to and infected by a system of domination and oppression.  Many of the religious leaders seem to have abandoned God's repeated call to care for and protect the marginalized and vulnerable among the community.  In verse 38 Jesus again goes directly at the injustice and hypocrisy paraded before him.

"Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around in long robes, and to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces, and to have the best seats in the synagogues and places of honor at banquets! They devour widows’ houses and for the sake of appearance say long prayers."

Scribes were those who copied the Hebrew scriptures (aka the Tanakh).  This was an esteemed profession that garnered them respect as experts on the Torah.  As experts on the law they were sought after as teachers, arbiters, trustees, and executors of estates (it was in this capacity that they would have been able to "devour widow's houses").

Mosaic of the Widow's Mite in the
Basilica of Sant'Apollinare Nuovo, Italy

After condemning the scribes, Jesus turns to face the Temple Treasury.  At the treasury, those making an offering would have to declare publicly the amount and the reason for the offering.  He watched the show as those with wealth came proclaiming their large gifts.  He watched as a poor widow came and gave all that she had to the Temple because of the offerings required during the celebration of the Passover.  Keep in mind Jesus attitude towards the Temple and his recent condemnation of the religious leaders who are "devouring" the livelihood of widows as you listen to his words.

"Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the treasury.  For all of them have contributed out of their abundance; but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, all she had to live on."

Is he commending her faith?  Or is he illustrating his condemnation of the way the religious system has followed the ways of the world in oppressing the poor?

I think the scriptures give clear teaching on giving from a place of faith (2 Corinthians 9:6-8; Proverbs 11:24-25; 1 Kings 17:7-16) but I don't think that's Jesus' main point in this passage.  There stories do seem to contrast intentions of the heart, the proud and the humble, and the oppressor and oppressed.  Jesus is illustrating his point that the widow is being devoured right before their eyes.  Jesus saved his harshest critiques for those who used religion as a means to disenfranchise and demean others.

--

Mark 13:1

Josephus was a Romano-Jewish historian both in Jerusalem in the first century.  He initially fought against the Roman occupation but later defected becoming a friend of Rome.  He became a historian of the Jewish - Roman conflicts in the first century.  Hear his description of the Temple during the time of Jesus:

… The exterior of the building wanted nothing that could astound either mind or eye. For, being covered on all sides with massive plates of gold, the sun was no sooner up than it radiated so fiery a flash that persons straining to look at it were compelled to avert their eyes, as from the solar rays. To approaching strangers it appeared from a distance like a snow-clad mountain; for all that was not overlaid with gold was of the purest white... - Josephus from The Jewish War

Now listen to one of the disciples (my money's on Peter) in Mark 13

"As he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher, what large stones and what large buildings!"

The disciples response seems appropriate given Josephus' description.  Yet remember Jesus' illustration of the withered fig tree?  Jesus ceases speaking in images and implications.

“Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down.”

Some see this as evidence that Mark was written after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple by Rome in 70 AD.  Others contend that since the temple was burned and not torn down completely that this is a clear indication that Mark was written before the fall of the temple.  Either way, in our narrative, Jesus' claim points to an end and a new beginning for the people of God.  If the temple was not to be the center of life then what would be?  Where would humanity seek God?  What sign would point to God's presence in our midst?

--

So what?

The words of Jesus remind me again of the "So What?" I posted in last week's notes under the section entitled, "True Religion".  It also causes me to reflect on the daily little choices.

Mr. Burns from the Simpsons
perfected the evil laugh.

I'm convinced that none (or at least very, very few) of the scribes and the chief priests woke up in the morning with an evil laugh and a plot to fleece the poor.  I think that they even began with (and perhaps still possessed at some level) good intentions.  Yet what happened along the way?  My guess, the maintenance and growth of the institution eclipsed the simple initial vision God gave his people.  How does such a switch take place?  The daily little choices.  The ways we respond to hurt, disappointment, fear, and success.  Kingdoms are built a brick at a time.  It's passages like those in Mark 12 that invite me to pause, reflect, ask others, and take stock of the kind of kingdom I'm building in my heart.

Session 9: Class Notes

Hi friends!

Mark 11 holds another significant shift in the unfolding of the good news of Jesus the Christ.  Here we enter Jerusalem during the Passover celebration.  Chapter 11 focuses on two events, Jesus' dramatic entry and Jesus' confrontation in the Temple.  Before we enter the city, let's retrace our steps and get a feel for our surroundings.

1. Approximately a third of Mark's book is devoted to this one week in Jerusalem.
2. Until this point, Jesus seems to have spent most of his time around the small towns nestled against the sea of Galilee.  He has made notable excursions to "unclean" lands to the north, east, and south yet it appears he has not visited any major city.
   
3. It is believed that Jerusalem held a population of roughly 40,000.  During the week of Passover the number in the city ballooned to any where between 200,000 to 400,000 people.  Jews and Godfearers and others came pouring into the city.  The Temple in Jerusalem was an ancient marvel and this was a prominen time for the Temple.  The mass influx of people meant increased business, heightened tensions, and more spectacle.
4. Passover was the celebration to commemorate God's deliverance from oppression in Egypt (specifically the night when the angel of death passed over the Hebrews, killed Egyptians, and convinced the pharaoh to release the Hebrews).  The rules for observing the Passover are outlined in Deuteronomy 16:1-8.
5. Jesus has been very clear with the disciples about what will happen in Jerusalem.  He has told them at least three times that, "the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death; then they will hand him over to the Gentiles; they will mock him..and kill him; and after three days he will rise again."

Dueling Parades - Mark 11:1-11
As with most of Jesus' actions, there are layers of meaning to his entry into Jerusalem.

Religious

Riding on a colt upon which no one previously had ridden is a direct enactment of Zechariah 9:9-10

"Rejoice greatly, O daughter Zion!  Shout aloud, O daughter Jerusalem!

 Lo, your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

He will cut off the chariot from Ephraim and the war-horse from Jerusalem; and the battle bow shall be cut off, and he shall command peace to the nations; his dominion shall be from sea to sea,and from the River to the ends of the earth."


The entry into Jerusalem feels very much like a prophetic drama.  The Old Testament is replete with examples of prophets engaging in dramatic acts as a way to illustrate truth, awaken the imagination, and direct people to the way of God.  Sometimes miraculous, sometimes mundane, and often odd, the prophetic drama is a common element of the ministry of Jewish prophets.  We have already seen examples of the prophetic drama in Jesus ministry in the feeding of the multitudes.  Perhaps Jesus knew about the colt because of his divine nature and/or perhaps he knew about the colt because he had been planning this dramatic entry.

Political

The first day of the Passover celebration was a big deal.  Think of it like the Opening Ceremonies of the Olympics, everyone was there.  It's the kickoff to a massive week.  Jesus entry into the city would not have been the only arrival that day, in fact it is likely that there would have been another parade with much more pomp and circumstance.  The Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate would likely have also entered Jerusalem that day.  Pilate's entry would have been much different.  Astride a war house and amidst columns of Roman Centurions, Pilate's parade would have been a show of force, a demonstration of the vast power of the Roman empire (read Zechariah's prophecy above again).

When Jesus enters he is hailed as a king (the throwing of robes on the ground was reserved for the return of a conquering king), and the crowds exalt him as an ancestor of David (under King David's reign Israel reached the zenith of it's military might).  Their cries of "Hosanna" literally translate to "Save now" yet might be more figuratively translated as, "Long live the king!"  Yet what kind of king arrives on a donkey with a motley crew of dense disciples?  Jesus' entry mocks the pomp of Pilate and proclaims that his reign is unlike any earthly ruler that has gone before him.  With two would-be rulers entering Jerusalem who will be crowned as king?

The comparisons between the two entries, the imagery conveyed by the animal ridden, and the political overtones hearken to an interesting historical reference.  Tracy and  Bruno made this fascinating connection.  They noted,

Napoleon Crossing the Alps
Jacques-Louis David

Napoleon Crossing the Alps
Paul Delaroche

"The unridden beast (colt or donkey) is one reserved for kings but why an eques?  Why not a camel?  Perhaps the mule/donkey was known as a beast of burden, a very sure-footed one.  It’s like God, very sure-footed.  Reminds us of a famous painting, “Napoleon Crossing the Alps”(left) by Jacques-Louis David painted in 1805 which pictures Napoleon riding a white stead.  However, he actually rode a mule (right) because he needed a sure-footed animal to cross the Alps.  Napoleon is crossing the mountain i.e. the Temple to fight the Austrians in the Battle of Marengo.  Likewise, Jesus’ battle is against the merchants in the Temple then the priests.  Both had a clear vision of their mission and how they would accomplish it.  PS: we are drawing parallels in history, not comparing Jesus with Napoleon as individuals!"

Many thanks to the Bovals for this insight!

The jubilant entry ends oddly.  Jesus enters the temple, looks around, and leaves without any fanfare.  Was the crowd dispersed so soon (the text does say that it was late)?  Was the lack of action an intentional strategy to make the people wonder what kind of Messiah he was?  Or perhaps Jesus was simply doing a little reconnaissance work, getting ready for the next big show.

Temple Showdown - Mark 11:12-26
The Second Temple was the impressive creation of Herod the Great (or as many contemporary Jews called him, Herod the Monstrous).  The temple was more than beautiful architecture, it was also the center of religious, political, and economic life for Jews in Jerusalem.  It was where the throne of God was kept.  Artisans, builders, fabricators, would have benefited from the business the temple generated.  The wealthy leaders of the temple, the Sanhedrin, would sway incredible power over the lives of people in Jerusalem (and beyond) and thus would be in a continual dance with the Roman authorities.  This is the center and this is where Jesus seems to go berserk.

What has Jesus so wound up?

• High Prices?  Pilgrims to Jerusalem for Passover would likely have not brought the necessary sacrifices with them.  Instead, they would come to the temple and purchase the sacrificial animals before the ritual.  Also, only temple coins were accepted forms of currency.  The coinage of other peoples typically revealed the imagery of kings or animals and was not permitted on the temple mount.  During Passover there was high demand for these goods and services.  Were these small business owners taking advantage of the religious holiday and the out-of-towners with jacked up rates?  While Jesus doesn't come out and condemn them for price gouging he does quote Jeremiah chapter 7 wherein the God refers to the people as "robbers"for the ways they take advantage  and hurt others.  Some historical sources reveal other rabbi's condemning the gross markup on goods necessary for worship.  Was Jesus upset at the economic exploitation?

  

  A Model of the Temple During the First Century

• Exclusion?  In the Gospel of Mark, we've seen Jesus upset.  In Mark 10 Jesus was indignant when the disciples shamed the mothers and attempted to prevent the children from coming to him.  In Mark 3 Jesus was angry when some refused to acknowledge the inherent value of a crippled man but instead sought to use the crippled man as a means to trap Jesus.  It seems like one of the things that got his goat was the exclusion and/or devaluing of others.  During the temple scene we only hear Jesus say one thing, "Is it not written, 'My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations’? But you have made it ‘a den of robbers."  Here Jesus is smashing together two prophets (Isaiah 56:7 & Jeremiah 7:11).  The money changers and the merchants would have been plying their craft in the section of the Temple known as the "Court of the Gentiles".  This area of the Temple was specifically meant as a place for Godfearers, those ritually deemed unclean, or any non-Jew to gather.  It was meant to be a place of inclusion where all could gather and seek God.  Was Jesus angry because it had become a place of commerce, that the merchants had taken over the space (a market place and a house of prayer can look and feel very different)?  Was he angry that the merchants were specifically overcharging the non-Jews on the margins?
• You've changed?  The prophets Jesus quotes (and really most of the prophets) give their harshest critiques of worship and of the temple when Israelite people engage in willful and/or complicit oppression of the vulnerable.  Perhaps the issue for Jesus was that the Temple had changed.  The Temple (originally the Tent of Meeting) was a place originally focused on communion with God; a tangible expression of the covenant God made with the Hebrews.  But in the first century something felt different.  In the first century, the Temple was not only the center of religious life but also of economic and political life for the Jew.  What happens to faith when it becomes allied to power?  It seems here that the Temple became an agent of reinforcing a social hierarchy that solidified power in the hands of a few and did so in the name of God.  In flipping the tables Jesus was calling for more than a reform, he was dramatically calling for a completely new vision.

Don't Like Figs?
The dramatic scene at the temple is book ended by a strange scene with a fig tree.  Often when Mark encapsulates a story with another story the idea is that the stories are meant to interpret each other.  Figs were often used as a symbol of the success and prosperity of the Israelite people.  They were a sign of blessing.  With that in mind, and holding onto the story of Jesus shutting down the Temple, let's look at the fig story again.

The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry.  Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs.  Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard him say it.
In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots.  Peter remembered and said to Jesus, “Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!”
“Have faith in God,” Jesus answered. “Truly I tell you, if anyone says to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and does not doubt in their heart but believes that what they say will happen, it will be done for them

I am convinced that the fig is a symbol for the Temple and for what the Temple had become.  What had been a symbol of the success and blessing of the Israelite people (remember the Temple was not only an architectural wonder its true greatness came because it spoke of God's presence with the people) had become corrupt, shriveled, and dead.  It was time to toss what was broken (the temple is built upon a mountain is the highest point in the city) and Jesus is calling on his disciples to pray for a new way to emerge.

OK, So What?
For me the entry into Jerusalem and the Temple scene raise two simple points.

1. The Way.  The early communities that coalesced around the life and teachings of Jesus referred to themselves as followers of "The Way".  They saw that Jesus invited people to, "Come, follow me."  It was this invitation into discipleship, into a way of life that inspired them.  I love using this kind of language and imagery to talk about Christianity.  Of course, following Jesus, or the way of Jesus, always leads me to the question, "Where does this way go?  Where will it take me?"  Ultimately the story of the resurrection says that the way of Jesus leads to life.  The story of Jesus entry in Jerusalem with all of it's symbolism and with all that happens there has something powerful to say about where "The Way" will lead us before we come to the resurrection.
2. True Religion (not the jeans).  Jesus action at the temple reminds me of a simple and profound scripture.  James 1:27, "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."  "Orphans and Widows" is the Bible's way of saying, "the vulnerable, voiceless, and powerless in your society".  I think the phrase, "keep oneself from being polluted by the world" raises the question, "What does it mean to be polluted by the world?"  Well, to answer what James meant about being polluted by the world, we should probably look first at the book of James.  The context of verse 1:27 in the book of James talks about integrity, humility, and how we treat others, particularly those with wealth and those without.  Something tells me that this would be a good place to begin looking for our answer.

Refreshment Schedule

Hi friends, I'm not sure why I didn't think of this sooner.  Here is a schedule for the refreshments for our remaining classes.  I'll update it regularly as I hear from group (if I have missed something please email me or put it in the comments section below).

"OK, everybody on this side of the table for the picture!"

12/29 - Pua

1/5 - Anuhea

1/12 - Service at Next Step Shelter

Updated on 12/28

Session 8: Class Notes

The wonderful Thanksgiving holiday has put me behind schedule a bit.  Here are the class notes (as best I as can remember) from our study of Mark 10.

Read Mark 10:1-12 - Pick a Side

My professor on Romans and Galatians used to say every class, C.I.E.  "Context is Everything."  The opening story in Mark 10 discusses a topic our modern ears feel all too familiar with, divorce.  And yet, when we explore the historical context, deeper themes emerge.

During the first century there were two prominent rabbis, Hillel and Shammai, who shaped much of Jewish religious thought.

Hillel and Shammai by Loren Wells

The two schools of thought were often in conflict (with Hillel's teachings typically being more popular).  Divorce was one of their documented topics of debate.  Hillel and Shammai came to different conclusions on Deuteronomy 24:1,

"...a man enters into marriage with a woman, but she does not please him because he finds something objectionable (also translated as 'indecent') about her, and so he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house..."

The question is, "What does something objectionable mean?"  Shammai taught that this only referred to some sort of sexual infidelity.  Hillel held a looser interpretation.  For Hillel, "something objectionable" could include just about anything that displeased the husband (eg burning a meal, developing acne, contracting an illness, etc.).   It's easy to see that the Pharisees's question about divorce could have been a been an attempt to paint Jesus in a corner.

Let's also remember the overt (and often oppressive) patriarchy that pervaded the culture and disempowered women of the time.  Technically, a woman could not divorce her husband.  Dissolving the marriage was a right reserved by-and-large by the husband.  If a husband divorced his wife, he put her at risk.  Culturally speaking, she would likely be the one to carry the burden of shame from such an action (ie What did she do wrong that led him to divorce her?).  Should would have few legal avenues for gainful employment.  She would likely return to her father's household and hope to be welcomed back under the care of her family of origin.

With this in mind, let's look again at Jesus' response.

• "...from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.'" Here Jesus references the creation story in Genesis.  Genesis though tells two different creation stories.  In Genesis chapter 2, the creation of humanity begins with Adam (which means "Man" in Hebrew)  and after some trial and error to find Adam a companion, Eve (which means "to Live" in Hebrew) was created from Adam's rib.  It's not a stretch to interpret a patriarchal worldview form this story.  In Genesis chapter 1 there lives a different account of the creation of Adam and Eve.  There is says,

"So God created humanity  in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." - Genesis 1:27

This account clearly places man and woman on equal footing.  They are both created in the image of the divine.  This is the creation story that Christ points us to.

• "Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate,"  Remember, it is the male who has the power culturally to separate.  Here we can hear Jesus saying that the ultimate authority does not rest in the husband, but in God.
• "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."  At first glance this might sound harsh, yet it is actually a statement of equality.  In first century Palestine, a husband could not commit adultery against his wife, to do so would imply equality.  If a married man (A) had an affair with a married woman (C) then that man (A) would have committed adultery against the married woman's (C) husband (D).  A man could only commit adultery against another man.  When Jesus says that a married man would commit adultery against his wife. he is elevating the wife to a place of equality.  Jesus takes it a step farther by stating that a woman has the ability to divorce her husband.  Again, he is making a claim of equality.

When his detractors tried to create a forced choice about his position on divorce (ie are you a student of Hillel or Shammai?) Jesus chose option #3.   Jesus' response seems to say, "The question isn't, 'What is divorce?  When is it OK?'  The question is, 'What is marriage?'"  He wants them to reclaim a mystical and wonderful understanding of marriage where, by the grace and power of God, two equal persons become one.

Read Mark 10:13-16 - What Does a Blessing Look Like?

First, check out the last blog post (the Mark 9:33-37 section) for a few quick notes about children in first century Israel.  I'll wait.

Jesus was indignant.  It is likely that his disciples would have been shaming or belittling the mothers who brought their children to see and be blessed by Jesus.  Jesus is more than disappointed with his followers, he is angry that they would try and prevent any from coming to him.

This story of Jesus blessing the children reminds me of a beautiful story by Henri Nouwen.  After a successful career as a seminary professor and best-selling author, Nouwen, a Roman Catholic priest, made a dramatic life change.  He went to work as a chaplain at the L'Arche Daybreak community in Toronto.  L'Arche communities foster care and friendship between residents who live with severe mental and physical disabilities and those who do not.  The following experience during his time at L'Arche illustrates what it means to be blessed.

Henri Nouwen

"I would like to tell you a little story about our community. There is one of my friends there who is quite handicapped but a wonderful, wonderful lady. She said to me, "Henri, can you bless me?" I remember walking up to her and giving her a little cross on her forehead. She said, "Henri, it doesn't work. No, that is not what I mean." I was embarrassed and said, "I gave you a blessing." She said, "No, I want to be blessed." I kept thinking, "What does she mean?"

We had a little service and all these people were sitting there. After the service I said, "Janet wants a blessing." I had an alb on and a long robe with long sleeves. Janet walked up to me and said, "I want to be blessed." She put her head against my chest and I spontaneously put my arms around her, held her, and looked right into her eyes and said, "Blessed are you, Janet. You know how much we love you. You know how important you are. You know what a good woman you are."

She looked at me and said, "Yes, yes, yes, I know. I suddenly saw all sorts of energy coming back to her. She seemed to be relieved from the feeling of depression because suddenly she realized again that she was blessed. She went back to her place and immediately other people said, "I want that kind of blessing, too."

The people kept walking up to me and I suddenly found myself embracing people. I remember that after that, one of the people in our community who assists the handicapped, a strong guy, a football player, said, "Henri, can I have a blessing, too?" I remember our standing there in front of each other and I said, "John," and I put my hand on his shoulder, "you are blessed. You are a good person. God loves you. We love you. You are important." Can you claim that and live as the blessed one?"

Read 10:17-31 - The One that Walked Away

Sculpture by Nikolai Aldunin

As is often the case in Mark, studying the details helps the larger picture come into focus.

• "Why do you call me good?  No one is good except God alone."  Is Jesus just being coy here?  Perhaps.  Personally, I think Jesus is once again masterfully maneuvering out of a contrived set up.  In the ancient near east it was common (and good manners) to repay a compliment with a compliment.  I think Jesus is side stepping the man's not so subtle play for a commendation from the teacher by turning down the compliment and turning the conversation to God.
• "You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; You shall not defraud; Honor your father and mother."  One of these things doesn't belong.  It's common to skim through the partial list of the of the 10 Commandments Jesus' gives without catching the discordant note.  "You shall not defraud"  This isn't one of the 10 Commandments.  "You shall not steal" and "You shall not bear false witness" are both among the 10 but Jesus does not use the language for either of those.  "Defraud" has a particular implication.  The word used here was commonly used to talk about withholding payment for services (eg such as refusing to pay a hired hand for a days labor at the end of the day) or keeping a deposit or a surety unjustly.  Perhaps Jesus was giving an approximate list of the 10 Commandments or it is a momentary lapse in memory.  My hunch, it's intentional in order to draw attention to economic exploitation.
• "Teacher, I have kept all these since my youth."  That's a bold claim.  "I've kept all of the 10 Commandments since I was a child."  Who says that kind of thing?  In Jewish tradition, only three people would have been able to make such a claim: Abraham, Moses, and Aaron.  He's elevating himself into some rare air.
• "'You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.' When he heard this, he was shocked and went away grieving, for he had many possessions."  "Possessions" is not a reference to things but to property.  At last we learn that this man was very wealthy and as a landowner with "many possessions" he likely would have had political power as well.  Does Jesus special commandment hint at how he amassed and maintained his wealth?  Is the command to give the money to the poor more about charity or about recompense and justice?
• "'How hard it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!'  And the disciples were perplexed at these words."  The traditional thought of the time (and one that continues to live in some Christian traditions today) is that wealth is a sign from God that you're doing the right things (Deuteronomy 28:11).  Jesus flips this notion on its head.  It's no wonder the disciples were perplexed.  So what does this mean?  I like the this quote from Augustine on the matter:

“Riches…are gained with toil and kept with fear.  They are enjoyed with danger and lost with grief.  It is hard to be saved if we have them; and impossible if we love them; and scarcely can we have them but we shall love them inordinately.  Teach us, O Lord, this difficult lesson: to manage conscientiously the goods we possess.”

Read Mark 10:32-45 - Still Not Getting It

Just a couple of quick notes:

• This is the third time Jesus has clearly outlined what is to come.  The disciples don't seem to be picking up what he is putting down.
• Verse 37, the Sons of Thunder ask to be on his right hand and on his left when he comes into his kingdom (ie when he is finally made king).  Make a mental note to return to this later.
• Verse 45, "ransom" means to buy back or to redeem.  Think of a pawnshop.  Something, or in this case someone, is held in captivity and they need to be freed.  This would happen in the ancient world were debt would subject someone to slavery and they would need a kinsman to redeem them, to pay the debt and buy their freedom.  Israel, the people of God, needed to be redeemed from the very real Babylonian exile (Isaiah 59:12, 15, 20).  The Apostle Paul often used the language of redemption in his letters to the churches which were written before the gospel of Mark (Gal 3:13, Gal 4:4-5, Rom 3:23-24).  This kind of language was already present in the early Christian communities.

Read Mark 10:46-52 - The One that Walked With
The story of Bartimaeus is in direct relationship to the stories that have gone before it.

• "Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus" - "Bar" in Hebrew means "Son" or "Son of".  So the name Bartimaeus literally means "Son of Timaeus".  So why say it twice?  Perhaps this is more evidence of Mark's gentile audience that likely would not have known the Hebrew or perhaps the repetition was meant to draw attention to the name.  Either way, it's always good to know what the names of characters in the Bible mean.  "Timaeus" can be translated as purchased one or one who is/was bought.  The "Son of One Who Was Purchased" sound like someone who needs to be ransomed.
  
• "'Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!' Many sternly ordered him to be quiet" - "Son of David" was a title with clear Messianic connotations.  Here, Mark's Messianic Secret is flipped as it is not Jesus who says to keep it on the down-low but the crowd who attempts to silence the blind man.
• "So throwing off his cloak, he sprang up and came to Jesus." - The cloak would have been a key possession to a blind beggar.  He would have spread it before him to collect the coins and gifts from people as he sat begging.  To toss it aside was not only to give up a layer of protection and warmth but also his primary means for collecting revenue.  Do you hear the reversal of the rich man before him?
• "What do you want me to do for you?" - Jesus asks the same question he previously asked the Sons of Thunder when they came to him (verse 36).  This man wants to be made well in contrast to the disciples request for power and prestige.
• "He...followed Jesus along the way" - Unlike the rich man who did not follow, Bartimaeus move with Jesus and these stories become an illustration of Jesus' words in verses 41-44.

The "So What?" of Chapter 10
In Mark 10 I hear the gamut of reasons that lead people to seek our Christ.  In this chapter people come:
...with questions
...with a desire to blessing
...with a need for certainty
...with the hope of healing
...with a lust for power and prestige
...with the need to be justified

And to the one that came that I would likely be quick to judge and discount, it says, "Jesus looked at him with love..." (verse 21).  If Jesus looked at that one with love then I think he looked at them all with love.

Many people come to the church, to the body of Christ.  People come for all sorts of reasons and for reasons that aren't too much different than those 2,000 years ago.  So it's my hope that I, that we, can help one another follow the example of Christ.  So to each one that comes to Central Union may we, by grace, look at everyone with love.