Mark ch. 2-3

Well, it's been about a week or so since I last blogged, and I know you're itching to read my thoughts on things- both of you.  

I decided to combine chapters 2 and 3 because I didn't have a whole lot to say about either one.  I finally broke through my "clean bible" mindset and started using a hi-liter to mark things I wanted to remember.  I actually read through these chapters about 3 times each- twice on my own and once with my wife.  I think part of me wanted to blog verbally with her before putting something down to post.  All that to say, despite my efforts, I have very little light to shed.

ch. 2 v.4 "... Son, your sins are forgiven."  

I was struck by this because when reading it, or having watched it in movies, I've always pictured the man on the mat as having been an older man- or at least someone equal to Jesus' own age.  I don't think of him as being someone young enough to be called "Son" by someone who was likely only about 30.  I realize this is probably of extreme minor importance, but for me it shows something moving to me- Jesus' absolute assurance in:

 

1. who He is- God the Father 

and 

2. Who we are to Him- his children- regardless of age, etc.

To me, it was endearing while at the same time authoritative for him to call the man "son."

I had a similar reaction to vs. 16- 

"When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the "sinners" and tax collectors, they asked his disciples:  "Why does he eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?"

Now, we're all familiar with the idea that Jesus would always hang with those the rest of us refer to as "corruptors of character", so it should come as no surprise that he was doing this, but to me, in my grammar head, I see "sinners" in quotation marks and automatically assume that narrator is trying to make a point about the thoughts of those speaking.  In other words, "I'm not going to label them as 'sinners', but the Pharisees labeled them- because that's what Pharisees do."  To me it was the narrator, and later Jesus, sticking up for these people.  He knew they were sinners because he says that he came to call the unrighteous, not the righteous, but he's not going to accept the judgement of others on these that he loved.  Now, it likely has nothing to do with that because their grammar rules don't fit ours, but I like the idea that it was Jesus refusing to give in to the piety of others.

New Wineskins

It took me about 3 readings to figure out this parable.  It always freaks me out when I don't catch a parable the first time because I remember what Jesus said about speaking in parables so that they would be ever hearing but never understanding.  I never wanted to be one of those never-understanders.  Anyway, it finally dawned on me that the Pharisees and their rigid rule following ways would never have been able to take in the message of Jesus (the new wine) without contaminating it and twisting it about and ruining both it and them.  They couldn't contain it or receive it in their "old wineskin" state.

Look Back in Anger- Ch. 3- vs. 5

You'll have to excuse the David Bowie reference, but it fits.  Here Jesus has just pressed the Pharisees about what it more lawful on the Sabbath: to kill or to save a life- to do good or to do evil.  It says when they refused to answer that "He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed by their stubborn hearts, said to the man, "Stretch out your hand."

Now I know (because my wife told me so) that they wouldn't answer because they knew it would have given Jesus authority either way.  They couldn't very well side with evil and be teachers of the law nor could they say he was right because they intended to trap him- but he turned the trap on them.  However, that it not what struck me.

As a teacher, a big pet peeve for me is students not owning up.  I'm not saying they have to always be in the right, just have a position- an honest one.  "I was talking in class because I don't care what you have to say," is a far better response to the why are you talking question than silence ever was.  To me, anyway.  As for these teachers, when pressed they couldn't say one thing for themselves- they were cowards.  I think that was insulting to Jesus- not just being weak or cowardly but being so bold to question and yet so slow to defend their own position.  I wonder if Jesus was thinking, "Just take a side!  You'll be wrong, but choose!  Instead you throw out snares then run and hide."

Nicknames for the apostles

I'm sure many of us have been intrigued by Jesus' choice of homies from time to time, but consider this- he gave them not just new names, a few of them at least, but nicknames.  Not only did he choose the boisterous (James and John) but he actually called them "Sons of Thunder."  That shows grit and also a real relationship.  In fact the first thing it says about why he chose apostles was so that they might "be with him-"  He desired relationship- as he still does with us.  And of course he chose Judas, knowing he would betray him.  That takes courage, yes, but love more than anything.  

I would be thrilled if I knew God had a nickname for me because that tells me he really knows me- and cares for me.

Alone Time

Lastly, I am struck by how many times it says that Jesus withdrew or left to be alone.  I know how often I need that, so it's comforting to see that he needed it as well.  Of course I'm pretty sure that his alone time was far more productive and meaningful than watching O'reilly or something like that.  

Still, he withdrew- and so in an attempt to be more like Jesus, I will as well.