When he saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and bowed down before him; and he shouted at the top of his voice, ‘What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me.’ For he had said to him, ‘Come out of the man, you unclean spirit!’ Then Jesus asked him, ‘What is your name?’ He replied, ‘My name is Legion; for we are many.’ He begged him earnestly not to send them out of the country. Now there on the hillside a great herd of swine was feeding; and the unclean spirits begged him, ‘Send us into the swine; let us enter them.’ So he gave them permission. And the unclean spirits came out and entered the swine; and the herd, numbering about two thousand, rushed down the steep bank into the lake, and were drowned in the lake. (Mark 5: 6-13)

The unclean spirits did not immediately observe the command of Jesus to leave the man. Instead they acknowledge the source of Jesus' authority, bow down, and begin to negotiate.

I often behave in a similar way. I know Jesus. I pray, study, and worship to better understand the message of Jesus. But my purposes are divided and I haggle over the details.

I am pushed and pulled in many directions. I am confused. I sometimes mistake my confusion for free will. I mistake my failure to choose as freedom to choose.

Jesus asks, "What is your name?" This can also mean what is your identity? What is your cause? The demons avoid a direct answer. Do they have a true identity or clear cause?

It is a good question for me. Who are you? What is the purpose of your haggling? What are you trying to achieve? The most effective negotiation is when both parties have clear and complementary purposes.

Above is Anger, Depression, Confusion, and Fear... by Dan Fulwiler.

They came to the other side of the lake, to the country of the Gerasenes. And when he had stepped out of the boat, immediately a man out of the tombs with an unclean spirit met him. He lived among the tombs; and no one could restrain him any more, even with a chain; or he had often been restrained with shackles and chains, but the chains he wrenched apart, and the shackles he broke in pieces; and no one had the strength to subdue him. Night and day among the tombs and on the mountains he was always howling and bruising himself with stones. (Mark 5: 1-5)

This demoniac was probably a Gentile. The Eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee was populated mostly by Greek-speaking Syrians.

According to Luke the man was naked. This is embarrassing to us. It would have been abhorrent to most Jews.

According to all three gospels the man lived in tombs. For the religious this was spiritually unthinkable. Having anything to do with such a man would threaten your own spiritiual integrity.

The man was strong and violent - though the violence seems to have been targeted mostly at himself. But clearly a frightening character.

If anyone would seem to be outside the care of God, certainly it was this man.

On that day, when evening had come, he said to them, ‘Let us go across to the other side.’ And leaving the crowd behind, they took him with them in the boat, just as he was. Other boats were with him. A great gale arose, and the waves beat into the boat, so that the boat was already being swamped. But he was in the stern, asleep on the cushion; and they woke him up and said to him, ‘Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?’ He woke up and rebuked the wind, and said to the sea, ‘Peace! Be still!’ Then the wind ceased, and there was a dead calm. He said to them, ‘Why are you afraid? Have you still no faith?’ And they were filled with great awe and said to one another, ‘Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?’ (Mark 4: 35-41)

The Parables challenge me with depth and texture of meaning. It seems likely that Jesus told stories that could have many different - equally accurate - applications depending on time, place, and circumstance.

In contrast the gospels sometimes tell stories about Jesus - rather than by him - that I find much more difficult to fully resolve.

This encounter with a storm is related in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Most scholars argue that Mark is original source. It fits his adventure-story theme.

In what way did the followers demonstrate a lack of faith? In time of trouble they turned to Jesus. Jesus seems to rebuke them with two questions.

"Why are you afraid?" Should faith in God to remove all cause to fear? This strikes me as implausible and inconsistent with many other aspects of scripture. The Greek can mean cowardly. Perhaps Jesus was rebuking not the fear, but how one chooses to respond to fear.

"Have you still no faith?" The followers did not just call out to Jesus, they awoke him with an accusation: "Do you not care..." How often do we respond to trouble by blaming God? As long as we insist that God is to blame it is very difficult for God to work with us.

But if this was the meaning intended by Jesus it was, evidently, lost on his followers. According to Mark they did not respond with self-reflection but with awe and surprise at the power of Jesus. Then why did they wake him up?

With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear it; he did not speak to them except in parables, but he explained everything in private to his disciples. (Mark 4: 33-34)

There were many collections of sayings and parables. If Mark was trying to present a brief, action-packed, biography he would not want his narrative burdened with too many already well-known quotes. He had another purpose.

Two-thousand years later, though, we regret not having every story, parable, and saying of Jesus.

In the fourth and fifth centuries many of the early writings were excluded from an emerging canon of accepted texts. In subsequent generations many of these non-canonical writings came to be seen by Church authorities as inaccurate and misleading.

Only in the last century have a few of these lost writings been reclaimed from ancient hiding places and trash heaps.

One of my favorites is the Gospel of Thomas. Unlike the four gospels of the canon it has no narrative and very little commentary. It is a collection of 114 sayings attributed to Jesus. About half reflect sayings also found in the canon.

More on the Gospel of Thomas is available from Early Christian Writings. Today many churches celebrate the feast day of St. Jude. Some believe that Jude or Judas is also Thomas. Judas Thomas or Judas Didymus means the Judas the twin. Judas is listed in the canonical gospels as a brother of Jesus.

Above is the Doubt of Saint Thomas by He Qi.

He also said, ‘With what can we compare the kingdom of God, or what parable will we use for it? It is like a mustard seed, which, when sown upon the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth; yet when it is sown it grows up and becomes the greatest of all shrubs, and puts forth large branches, so that the birds of the air can make nests in its shade.’ (Mark 4: 30-32)

This smallest of seeds, often sown onto poor and rocky soil, can still find a place to grow. The mustard seed can remain dormant for years waiting for the right conditions to germinate. The mustard plant tends of flourish in dry climates. Despite all odds the small seed can become a place of protection for the vulnerable.

The mustard plant is an evergreen that does well in sandy saline soil. The mustard plant is not separated from the harsh climate, it is a product of that climate. The plant is hardy and produces an abundance of seeds, but tends not to be prolific. It coexists with many other species. Does the comparison with the Kingdom of God extend this far?

The mustard plant provides shade in the desert. The mustard plant is a place of protection in winter storms. If the sandy salty soil is our soul and the Kingdom of God is as a mustard seed, we might understand that within each of us is the potential to become as the mustard plant: a place of rest and sustenance in the midst of life's storms.

He also said, ‘The kingdom of God is as if someone would scatter seed on the ground, and would sleep and rise night and day, and the seed would sprout and grow, he does not know how. The earth produces of itself, first the stalk, then the head, then the full grain in the head. But when the grain is ripe, at once he goes in with his sickle, because the harvest has come.’ (Mark 4: 26-29)

This parable is unique to Mark. Is this an expansion on the earlier Parable of the Sower?

In the other gospels, more than in Mark, the Kingdom of God is coming, close by, and at hand. Recognizing and receiving the Kingdom of God is a principal theme of Jesus' ministry.

If the human soul is the soil - as in the previous parable - then the seed can be perceived as the apprehension of God's intention.

The soil receives the seed and then, according to this saying, "produces of itself" (kapophoreo automatos). The Greek strongly implies acting on one's own impulse without instigation or intervention.

With our modern understanding of biology this explanation may seem to undervalue the seed, sun and rain. But the parable gives special emphasis to the receptivity and fertility of the soil.

Our apprehension of God's intention emerges gradually - stalk, then head, then ripened grain --- and we do not always understand how this happens.

Our free will - a gift and expression of God - may sow the seed. We must consciously choose to consider God's intention. But our conscious choice, will, and logic can only go so far. It is in our dark, moist, and earthy soul that we fully encounter the reality of God.

And he said to them, ‘Pay attention to what you hear; the measure you give will be the measure you get, and still more will be given you. For to those who have, more will be given; and from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away.’ (Mark 4: 24-25)

Most translations of Mark connect these two sayings. The translator above uses the second saying to explain the first.

The original Greek does not insist on such a connection.

The first saying can stand as an independent principle. In my mind it echoes "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespress against us." Deal with us as we deal with others.

My reading of the second saying is so profoundly different than the traditional translation that I must be wrong. But it will take much more study to determine why or how I am wrong.

The original Greek is almost a rhyme:

Hos echo didomi
Hos echo kai
Hos echo airo

Whoever has (or holds) will receive.
Whoever has (or holds) indeed...
Whoever has (or holds) will be lifted up.

The conjunction in the second phrase might be understood as, "Whoever has indeed will receive." The third phrase could as easily mean, "Whoever has will take away."

My Greek is so poor that I must be missing something. But the Greek is so simple, it is difficult to find the error. At the very least, I am encouraged to give very close attention.

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2006

Closer examination found that my Greek New Testament has a typo. In the second line of the rhyme there should be the adverb ou modifying the verb echo. This introduces the negative sense so prominent in other translations Further, I have found that what I translated as indeed can also mean "likewise." So the whole phrase could be rendered as:

Whoever has will receive.
Whoever has not will likewise.
Whoever has will be lifted up (or taken away)

While fully admitting I am a complete amateur in Greek translation, this corrected rendering still provides plenty of room for alternative understandings. The traditional translation is an entirely reasonable rendering. But there are other possibilities.

Above is the River Taught Me to Listen by Anne Vilsboll.

He said to them, ‘Is a lamp brought in to be put under the bushel basket, or under the bed, and not on the lampstand? For there is nothing hidden, except to be disclosed; nor is anything secret, except to come to light. Let anyone with ears to hear listen!’ (Mark 4: 21-23)

Luke places this parable in a similar context and sequence. Matthew has it as part of the Sermon on the Mount.

In his fourth chapter Mark offers four parables and a couple aphorisms in rapid succession. The lack of setting or narrative is a bit jarring to most modern readers. But his contemporary readers were unlikely to notice. Collections of wise sayings - as in the Book of Proverbs or the Gospel of Thomas - were common.

I wonder if the author of Mark did not see himself as a popularizer of such wisdom literature. This gospel is distinquished by its focus on miracles, fast pace, secrecy, and lack of attention to much of what Jesus said. It is as if Mark was seeking to present Jesus as an action hero.

About the same time that Mark is supposed to have been written, the most popular literary form was the Greek "romance novel." These usually short fantasies and adventures provided a narrative structure that Mark could have used to fuse wisdom sayings, oral traditions, and other sources into something that would have been well-received by a wide reading audience.

The four gospels - and especially Matthew, Mark, and Luke - share a great deal. But they each have a unique perspective, tone, and somewhat different purpose.

A synoposis Chaireas and Callirhoe, perhaps the oldest surviving Greek Romance, is available from Montclair State University.

And he said to them, ‘Do you not understand this parable? Then how will you understand all the parables? The sower sows the word. These are the ones on the path where the word is sown: when they hear, Satan immediately comes and takes away the word that is sown in them. And these are the ones sown on rocky ground: when they hear the word, they immediately receive it with joy. But they have no root, and endure only for a while; then, when trouble or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately they fall away. And others are those sown among the thorns: these are the ones who hear the word, but the cares of the world, and the lure of wealth, and the desire for other things come in and choke the word, and it yields nothing. And these are the ones sown on the good soil: they hear the word and accept it and bear fruit, thirty and sixty and a hundredfold.’ (Mark 4: 13-20)

How do we become as good soil?

I grew up among the farms of the Great Plains surrounded by some of the most fertile soil on the planet.

In many places there is 12 to 16 feet of dark, rich top soil. Year after year the soil gives back even more than a hundredfold.

This fertility is the outcome of a recurring cycle of growth and death. For millennia upon millennia vegetation would die, decompose, and add its complexity to the decomposing of what had died before it. Animal waste, burrowing insects, bacteria, and more give the soil additional resources.

It is a messy and time-consuming process.

The fertility of our souls has a similar origin. Each day we die a little, each day we share the complexity of those around us. Each day we choose either to receive the good seed and grow or reject it with stony complacency.

Rocks and stones only weather and dissipate. But even they contribute diverse minerals to the soil.

When he was alone, those who were around him along with the twelve asked him about the parables. And he said to them, ‘To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything comes in parables; in order that“they may indeed look, but not perceive, and may indeed listen, but not understand; so that they may not turn again and be forgiven.” ’ (Mark 4: 10-12)

The reference to Isaiah is meant to cause those listening to put the current teaching in the context of a well-known passage of scripture.

In the chapter from which Jesus quotes, God calls Isaiah to prophecy with a tumult of irony and sarcasm. God bitterly complains that the people are not applying their skills of spiritual discernment.

As a result of being blind and deaf - unable or refusing to perceive God's intentions - the people of Isaiah's day were on the edge of disaster.

Isaiah was sent to help them see and hear before it was too late. The implication is that this is also the role of Jesus and his parables.

The parables are spiritual exercises. They give us the opportunity to discern the profound spiritual potential of the most common aspects of our daily life.

Most Biblical scholars perceive that verses 10-12 did not originate with Jesus but were added by the early Church. Such judgments are beyond my competence. What interests me is how our received understanding of a particular passage may not be the only reasonable understanding of the passage. Many scholars suggest this passage is inconsistent with the radical equality of Jesus' message. In its traditional English translation this is a reasonable critique. But - for better or worse - koine Greek is often open to multiple understandings.

Above is Three Fluid Graces by Salvador Dali.

When he was alone, those who were around him along with the twelve asked him about the parables. And he said to them, ‘To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything comes in parables; in order that “they may indeed look, but not perceive, and may indeed listen, but not understand; so that they may not turn again and be forgiven.” ’ (Mark 4: 10-12)

Are there insiders and outsiders in faith? Here Jesus seems to say so. Are there some who know mysteries and others who do not?

Jesus also seems to say that the parables are designed to obscure rather than to illuminate. He quotes from Isaiah 6: 9-10 to make this point.

The Greek translated above as secret is musterion. This can mean secret, mystery, hidden. It also carries the sense of being implicit, or not explicit, or not obvious.

Most of us are attracted to insider information. Most of us are flattered if we know something not widely known. I wonder if Mark was like us? Or perhaps this translator of Mark?

The Greek might be rendered as something closer to: "He said, "You have been given subtle insights into divine power, those outside are fulfilled through parables."

This treatment suggests not so much insider privilege as different roles, perhaps even different needs.

The Isaiah quote may be a good example of the subtlety of which Jesus spoke. More on it tomorrow morning.

Listen! A sower went out to sow. And as he sowed, some seed fell on the path, and the birds came and ate it up. Other seed fell on rocky ground, where it did not have much soil, and it sprang up quickly, since it had no depth of soil. And when the sun rose, it was scorched; and since it had no root, it withered away. Other seed fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked it, and it yielded no grain. Other seed fell into good soil and brought forth grain, growing up and increasing and yielding thirty and sixty and a hundredfold.’ And he said, ‘Let anyone with ears to hear listen!’ (Mark 4: 4-9)

How can we be as good soil? How can we receive the understanding needed to empower our growth?

Jesus begins this and other parables with the instruction to listen. The Greek is akouo.

We cannot be sure precisely what Jesus said, probably using Aramaic. But it is interesting that the Hebrew scriptures most often use two words which we would translate as listen.

Shama' is the most common. Qashab is less common. Both can accurately be translated as listen. But there is a subtle difference of meaning.

For example, Isaiah 32 begins with: "See, a king will reign in righteousness, and princes will rule with justice. Each will be like a hiding-place from the wind, a cover from the tempest, like streams of water in a dry place, like the shade of a great rock in a weary land. Then the eyes of those who have sight will not be closed, and the ears of those who have hearing will listen."

Those who have shama' will qashab. Those who can hear will actually listen. They will pay attention, they will use their ability fully and for the purpose it was intended. They will not be distracted, divided, or deterred.

I expect Jesus was telling us to qashab.

Again he began to teach beside the lake. Such a very large crowd gathered around him that he got into a boat on the lake and sat there, while the whole crowd was beside the lake on the land. He began to teach them many things in parables... (Mark 4: 1-2)

I am often accused of being vague. Some are annoyed that I seem to be implicit when I could be explicit.

The critiques are accurate, though the behavior is usually unintentional.

On simple matters I can be as clear as others. But on important matters I am inclined toward questions, analogies, and metaphors.

My form and approach is not as purposeful as the parables of Jesus. But I have clearly been influenced by his form and approach.

To deal responsibly with important issues we should be dialogical. Even in the rare case where I am absolutely certain, that certainty is of little value to others.

Jesus works to teach us principles to be applied in solving the tough and unexpected. These are not clear rules, black or white, right or wrong.

But if we embrace and engage the principles they prepare us to deal thoughtfully and effectively with ambiguity, ambivalence, and unpleasant alternatives.

Jesus tells us parables as a means of reminding us that we are to pay attention, think, and make choices that advance God's purposes.

Above is Allegory 1959-1960 by Robert Rauschenberg.

Then his mother and his brothers came; and standing outside, they sent to him and called him. A crowd was sitting around him; and they said to him, ‘Your mother and your brothers and sisters are outside, asking for you.’ And he replied, ‘Who are my mother and my brothers?’ And looking at those who sat around him, he said, ‘Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother.’ (Mark 3: 31-35)

Many have read into this comment an early signal that Jesus is less concerned with blood relationship, specifically his Jewish origins, than with the chosen relationships of faith.

Matthew and Mark each place this saying at the close of a public debate with the Pharisees. There is even some suggestion that this may have been the first contest between Jesus and "scribes who came down from Jerusalem." (Mark 3: 22) It is possible these scribes (lawyers or religious scholars) had been sent specifically by the Jerusalem authorities to assess Jesus.

The core message of the third chapter of Mark and Matthew 12 is encouragement to give undivided attention to what is truly important. Don't be distracted by Sabbath rules from caring and healing. Don't be distracted by appearances, pay attention to outcomes. Don't be a house divided against itself.

In the midst of this message someone tells Jesus his family is looking for him. There is no indication that Jesus, at the close of this encounter with the scribes and Pharisees, did not embrace his mother and brothers. But Jesus consistently demonstrates a keen sense of timing and priority.

Don't be distracted. Don't be divided. Perceive what is needed now. Attend to what is possible now. Don't miss the opportunity to fulfill God's intention now.

‘Truly I tell you, people will be forgiven for their sins and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit can never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin’— for they had said, ‘He has an unclean spirit.’ (Mark 3: 28-30)

Matthew and Luke include a very similar saying, without Mark's speculation as to intent.

In each case the Greek phrase is a bit different. Working only with Mark here is an attempt at a very literal meaning:

Who speaks hurtfully for the Holy Spirit cannot hold to the letting go of sin being bound in perpetual error.

I treat the Greek preposition eis very differently from the translation at the top. Depending on the object, this preposition means into, unto, to, towards, for or among. At the top it is translated as "against."

I also treat the verb echo more explicitly. At the top this is translated as "has," I have chosen hold to. Echo usually means to have, to hold, to posssess, to hold one's self, to adhere, or to cling.

Based on this reformulation of literal meaning, I offer a less awkward rendering as in:

Whoever speaks hurtfuly as if speaking for the Holy Spirit cannot receive forgiveness while being bound to such perpetual error.

For me a twist (straightening?) of a three letter preposition produces a very different outcome. Dear God, may the meditations of my heart be acceptable.

And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, ‘He has Beelzebul, and by the ruler of the demons he casts out demons.’ And he called them to him, and spoke to them in parables, ‘How can Satan cast out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but his end has come. But no one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his property without first tying up the strong man; then indeed the house can be plundered. (Mark 3:22-27)

A respected and learned pastor began to explore the mystical possibilities of healing by the Holy Spirit. After years of study and prayer he began to preach on his exploration. The sermons were increasingly passionate, very much in contrast to his previous style.

The Chairman of the Church Board was himself ordained and a long-time college professor of religion. He and the Chairman of the Elders, publisher of the local newspaper, asked a psychologist to interview the pastor. The pastor agreed to a series of talks.

The psychologist reported the pastor did not exhibit evidence of significant psychological problems. The exploration of mysticism continued. The sermons continued. A small book was published. Some were drawn to the new message, others decided to leave the church.

A few years later, while still in his fifties, the pastor was overcome by a sudden, fast-moving cancer. He prayed for healing. The healing did not come. I am told he died angry at God.

The entire controversy was dealt with politely and professionally. I wonder if the scribes were not, in a way, more helpful in proclaiming Jesus to be satanic. A spiritual debate was conducted on spiritual terms and produced spiritual outcomes.

Above is Satan Smiting Job by William Blake.

Then he went home; and the crowd came together again, so that they could not even eat. When his family heard it, they went out to restrain him, for people were saying, ‘He has gone out of his mind.’ (Mark 3: 20-21)

In many languages - and certainly in koine Greek - pronouns are often implied. It can be a bit like Abbott and Costello's routine of "Woo's on first?" Who is acting on whom?

The first verse above can be reasonably understood as, "Then going to a dwelling place; the crowd gathered again, so that they (Jesus and his followers?) could not eat."

In the next verse the use of family is speculative. A very literal translation of the Greek could read: "Hearing this they went to exert power saying it is amazing." The implied pronoun could be the disciples seeking to influence the crowd, rather than family trying to constrain Jesus.

What is translated above as "out of his mind" can also mean to amaze, astonish, or throw into wonderment. Which meaning is best depends mostly on point-of-view.

In these particular verses there is no way to know for sure. There is not, in my judgment, even a contextual clue as to a more likely meaning. There are aspects of scripture that we can only approach with love, humility, and good humor.

The possibility of confused pronouns in these verses may have been first suggested by Johann Christian Schottgen (1687-1782) who translated and published A New Lexicon of Greek-Latin in the New Testament in 1765.

He went up the mountain and called to him those whom he wanted, and they came to him. And he appointed twelve, whom he also named apostles, to be with him, and to be sent out to proclaim the message, and to have authority to cast out demons. So he appointed the twelve: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter); James son of Zebedee and John the brother of James (to whom he gave the name Boanerges, that is, Sons of Thunder); and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him. (Mark 3: 13-18)

The Gospel of Mark is interesting as much for what it does not relate as for the urgency with which the story is told. In Matthew and Luke the appointment of the twelve is closely associated in sequence with the Sermon on the Mount or the Beatitudes. There is nothing comparable in Mark.

What many consider the core teaching of Jesus is simply absent. The Jesus of Mark is a healer, an exorcist, a story-teller, a provocateur, and a kind of prophet. But this Jesus is not a teacher. Mark's narrative can be compared to a life of Lincoln that does not quote from any of the public speeches.

Perhaps Mark was confident his audience already knew the teachings, but needed to know more about the context. Mark is very attentive to the secret aspects of his hero's life. Like a modern celebrity journalist the author's purpose may be precisely to communicate the private side of the public ministry. Is Mark the Kitty Kelley of the evangelists?

At the very least the fast-paced, action-packed, but somewhat superficial treatment of Mark highlights the value of multiple perspectives. We can give thanks that four gospels survived. I give thanks that for the first time in 1500 years our understanding can also be informed by other writings of the early church long-lost.

The gospel of Mark encourages a recognition that I seldom know the whole story. Even when I do know most of the story I may choose to focus on elements of the story that miss the main point. I expect God is often amazed at how quickly and confidently I can learn the wrong lesson.

Jesus departed with his disciples to the lake, and a great multitude from Galilee followed him; hearing all that he was doing, they came to him in great numbers from Judea, Jerusalem, Idumea, beyond the Jordan, and the region around Tyre and Sidon. He told his disciples to have a boat ready for him because of the crowd, so that they would not crush him; for he had cured many, so that all who had diseases pressed upon him to touch him. Whenever the unclean spirits saw him, they fell down before him and shouted, ‘You are the Son of God!’ But he sternly ordered them not to make him known. (Mark 3: 7-12)

Luke does not include this element. Matthew provides considerably more detail (Matthew 9: 18-38)

In Matthew the source of healing is made explicit. In the case of a diseased woman Jesus says, "your faith has made you well." With two blind men Jesus explains that healing "shall be done to you according to your faith."

The Greek used for faith is pistis which suggests to be persuaded or convinced. We cannot be sure what Jesus said in Aramaic. But the Hebrew verbs most often used for faith ('emuwn, 'aman, and their derivitives) have a different sense than the Greek.

The Greek suggests an intellectual insight and position. The Hebrew is more behavioral. For example, 'aman means to support or nourish as a nurse or midwife supports those in need.

In some translations Jesus tells the diseased woman in Matthew 9:22 that her faith had made her "whole." This is a creative translation of the Greek, but I wonder if it is not very close to the meaning of Jesus.

Above is Modes of Persuasion by Eliran Kantor.

Again he entered the synagogue, and a man was there who had a withered hand. They watched him to see whether he would cure him on the sabbath, so that they might accuse him. And he said to the man who had the withered hand, ‘Come forward.’ Then he said to them, ‘Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the sabbath, to save life or to kill?’ But they were silent. He looked around at them with anger; he was grieved at their hardness of heart and said to the man, ‘Stretch out your hand.’ He stretched it out, and his hand was restored. The Pharisees went out and immediately conspired with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him. (Mark 3: 1-6)

Jesus was angry. The Greek is orge which suggests indignation, wrath, and agitation. He was angry at the porosis of the Pharisees: their callousness, dullness, and stubborness.

The Pharisees were the most orthodox of the faithful. Too many of the Sadducees had been attracted to a sophisticated Hellenistic worldview. The Essenes could lose themselves in abstraction. The Pharisees were scrupulous in their disciplined observation of the law.

Jesus was loving, caring, patient, and forgiving with nearly all. But again and again the Pharisees draw his anger and disdain.

Wandering, failing, falling, neglecting, and more Jesus could work with. But self-righteousness was beyond the reach of even his miracles. The Pharisees treated the law of Moses as an idol. As long as they worshiped that idol they were unable to perceive the intention behind the law.

Dear God, lead me not into temptation. Protect me especially from the temptation to confuse my purposes for your purposes.

And he said to them, ‘Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need of food? He entered the house of God, when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and he gave some to his companions.’ Then he said to them, ‘The sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the sabbath; so the Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath.’ (Mark 2: 26-28)

Scripture versus scripture, rule versus rule. What is the role of rules? How are we to read scripture?

Jesus is consistent in seeking God's intention. The Bread of the Presence (see 1st Samuel 21) is consecrated to the purpose of God. Were David and his men advancing the purposes of God?

What is the purpose of the Sabbath? It was consecrated to the purpose of God. Were the disciples advancing the purposes of God?

When we approach scripture do we seek to understand God's intention or advance our own? Jesus was insistent - especially with the Pharisees - that we not mistake our intentions for God's.

Matthew's version of this story adds Jesus telling the pharisee's, "But if you had known what this means, 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the guiltless."

One sabbath he was going through the grainfields; and as they made their way his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. The Pharisees said to him, ‘Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the sabbath?’ (Mark 2: 23-24)

We cannot be sure of all the regulations in place for the Sabbath. These were not gathered in written form until the end of first century. Further, at the time of Jesus' ministry there were contending positions. The Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and followers of John the Baptist did not agree on what was allowed or not allowed on the Sabbath.

But to avoid work on the Sabbath - such as gathering food - was almost certainly a consensus-position of the sects. This would also seem to be the clear meaning of scripture as in Deuteronomy 5:12.

We tend to take for granted our understanding of God's intention. Again and again Jesus over turns our prior understanding. Where we have finally achieved clarity, Jesus causes us to reconsider. Especially where we have reached a self-satisfying understanding of God, Jesus is apt to raise a fundamental question or offer a compelling alternative.

Above is Wheatfield with Crows by Vincent Van Gogh.

No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old cloak; otherwise, the patch pulls away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear is made. And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise, the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost, and so are the skins; but one puts new wine into fresh wineskins.’ (Mark 2: 21-22)

Jesus offers a new teaching and a new way of understanding. He did not, however, seek to overturn the old way. Rather, he sought to fulfill the original purpose of the old way.

How do we accommodate the old and new? We want to patch the old cloak so that the tear will not grow, to preserve the cloak and continue to enjoy its warmth and protection. Not only do we use shrunk cloth, but we try to find a texture and color that will best match the old.

The gospel of Luke makes clear we prefer old wine. (Luke 5: 39). But we cannot use old wine skins to hold new wine. The fermentation will burst the old skins. So we prepare new skins that will flexibly respond to the turmoil of the new becoming old, that will contain the volatile new as it ages. We will also wait patiently for the new wine to assume the depth of color, texture, and taste that comes only with time.

Many of those who heard Jesus were urgently seeking an agent of change, the bringer of a new age, a messiah who would dramatically transform their situation. Many heard Jesus and decided he was not the one for whom they sought. He seemed too much a reformer and insufficiently a revolutionary.

In terms of the wider society, it was at least two generations - and some would suggest 200 years - before the teachings of Jesus were being heard and believed by large numbers. Old wine is worth the wait.

Now John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting; and people came and said to him, ‘Why do John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?’ Jesus said to them, ‘The wedding-guests cannot fast while the bridegroom is with them, can they? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast on that day. (Mark 2: 18-20)

If Jesus is the bridegroom, who is the bride? His disciples, the people, Israel, the world?

Jesus specifically identifies his disciples as wedding guests or, in the gospels of Matthew and Luke, as the bridegroom's attendants. Some other is the bride.

Throughout the Hebrew scriptures the covenant of God with Israel is compared to a marriage. Here is one example from Hosea 2:

On that day, says the Lord, you will call me, ‘My husband’, and no longer will you call me, ‘My Baal’. For I will remove the names of the Baals from her mouth, and they shall be mentioned by name no more. I will make for you a covenant on that day with the wild animals, the birds of the air, and the creeping things of the ground; and I will abolish the bow, the sword, and war from the land; and I will make you lie down in safety. And I will take you for my wife for ever; I will take you for my wife in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love, and in mercy. I will take you for my wife in faithfulness; and you shall know the Lord.

There are many other examples, including Ezekiel 16, Isaiah 54, and - perhaps - the Song of Solomon. Jesus has come to renew this covenantal relationship. The bride was at least the whole of Israel.

In Hosea and elsewhere in scripture marriage is presented as a profound source of struggle, pain, disappointment, commitment, and loving transcendence. In offering himself as the bridegroom Jesus may be suggesting that our relationship with God is of a similar nature.

And as he sat at dinner in Levi’s house, many tax-collectors and sinners were also sitting with Jesus and his disciples—for there were many who followed him. When the scribes of the Pharisees saw that he was eating with sinners and tax-collectors, they said to his disciples, ‘Why does he eat with tax-collectors and sinners?’ When Jesus heard this, he said to them, ‘Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I have come to call not the righteous but sinners.’ (Mark 2: 15-17)

Jesus does not suggest that his colleagues are anything but sinners. Jesus is, nonetheless, in loving, caring relationship with them.

This little story is essentially the same in Luke and Matthew. But the gospel of Matthew - in whose home this story takes place - adds a crucial element.

In the first gospel Jesus also says to the scribes, "Go and learn what this means, 'I desire mercy not sacrifice.'" (Matthew 9: 13)

For many ritual sacrifice had become a principal path to righteousness. The Pharisees were advocates of infusing daily life with temple ritual.

Jesus does not deny the sins of his followers, but at this dinner Jesus first suggests that his understanding of righteousness will be unlike that of the Pharisees.

"Mercy not sacrifice" is a principle articulated in several books of Hebrew Scripture including First Samuel, the Psalms, and Hosea. In my judgment a better English translation for the ancient Hebrew concept of mercy - which may be what Jesus had in mind - is our modern concept of empathy. Above is Art Empathy by Richard Lazzara.

And as he sat at dinner in Levi’s house, many tax-collectors and sinners were also sitting with Jesus and his disciples—for there were many who followed him. When the scribes of the Pharisees saw that he was eating with sinners and tax-collectors, they said to his disciples, ‘Why does he eat with tax-collectors and sinners?’ When Jesus heard this, he said to them, ‘Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I have come to call not the righteous but sinners.’ (Mark 2: 15-17)

The Gospel of Mark was written in koine Greek. This is not the Greek of Plato and Aristotle. It is much more the Greek of the marketplace.

If educated Americans write and speak with the English of the New York Times, Koine is similar to the English spoken by a Chinese entrepreneur to his Polish customers.

The language is functional, sufficiently communicates the main idea but tends not to capture subtlety or nuance.

This is a particular challenge to contemporary Bible readers because Jesus was probably not speaking Greek, but Aramaic and the Greek we are reading in translation was not written until many years after the death of Jesus.

When the linguistic challenge is combined with a profound difference in social and cultural context, our ability to fully understand Jesus encourages both a creative imagination and some real humility.

Just two examples: in these verses the word translated as "sinners" is the Greek hamartolos. It is an adjective (not a noun as translated). It can mean to make a mistake, to wander, to miss the mark, fail to observe certain rituals, or to be profoundly wicked.

The word translated as righteous is dikaios. This can mean law-observing, traditional, correct, innocent, virtuous, just, or faultless.

When Jesus was speaking in Aramaic a half-century before these Greek words were selected, what was the meaning Jesus intended? What was the main idea of this teaching? What is Jesus saying to us?

Jesus went out again beside the lake; the whole crowd gathered around him, and he taught them. As he was walking along, he saw Levi son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, ‘Follow me.’ And he got up and followed him. (Mark 2: 13-14)

Levi is also known as Matthew. Levi was his Hebrew name. Matthew was his Greek name. Jesus, except for an accident of Greek spelling, would be known to us as Joshua. His Hebrew name was Yeshua (meaning Jehovah is salvation). Most of us have different identities depending on the time, place, and who is with us.

Those appointed by the Romans or the Herodians to be tax harvesters were wealthy men. They were given a quota to collect and were allowed to keep whatever they could collect above the quota.

Levi is not a tax harvester. He is sitting at the tax booth. Levi is employed by a tax harvester in a role that is similar to a toll booth operator. Because he is beside the lake Levi was probably collecting a fee for fish taken from the lake. He was also given a quota, but he was always paid the same very low wage regardless of what he received in fees.

The tax harvesters were often influential and respected men. Their employees were despised as being little more than theives. The first followers called by Jesus were all fishermen. I expect Jesus had heard them grumbling - or worse - regarding Levi.

I wonder if it was especially for the benefit of Simon and Andrew, James and John that Jesus called Levi. We are usually satisfied with our own partial definition of another. Jesus consistently demonstrates that we should, instead, come to truly know one another as unique expressions of God.

Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, ‘Why does this fellow speak in this way? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?’ At once Jesus perceived in his spirit that they were discussing these questions among themselves; and he said to them, ‘Why do you raise such questions in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, “Your sins are forgiven”, or to say, “Stand up and take your mat and walk”? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins’—he said to the paralytic— ‘I say to you, stand up, take your mat and go to your home.’ And he stood up, and immediately took the mat and went out before all of them; so that they were all amazed and glorified God, saying, ‘We have never seen anything like this!’ (Mark 2: 6-12)

How did the paralytic react to assurance of forgiveness? It would seem he had not yet stood up. Did he feel any change in his condition?

Jesus equates spiritual forgiveness with physical healing. Did the paralytic perceive the connection?

When Jesus tells the paralytic to stand up he does so immediately. Was forgiveness and acceptance of forgiveness a precondition to standing?

I am sure of God's love and forgiveness. But I often fail to live in accordance with this belief. What I believe and how I behave are incoherent.

Jesus can cut through the confusion. Spiritual reality and physical reality are the same. Choose to be real.

Above is a piece of art that has been detached from its creator. It is floating around the web without attribution. It is sometimes called Reality.

Then some people came, bringing to him a paralysed man, carried by four of them. And when they could not bring him to Jesus because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him; and after having dug through it, they let down the mat on which the paralytic lay. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, ‘Son, your sins are forgiven.’ (Mark 2: 3-5)

Illness was often - sometimes still is - perceived as punishment.

It is not yet clear if this forgiveness has a practical outcome. There is no euthus here. Upon hearing of forgiveness the man does not immediately begin jumping up and down.

Jesus attended first to the spiritual issue. Your sin - wandering - is forgiven - sent away, given away, gone.

Their faith contributed to forgiveness.

The plural is interesting. Not just the paralytic's faith but also the faith of his friends seems connected with forgiveness.

Jesus acknowledged that the friends had already begun the work of forgiveness. The friends were persuaded that the man was able to be - deserved to be - healed.

The friends had prepared the way for restoring spiritual and physical wholeness.

But he went out and began to proclaim it freely, and to spread the word, so that Jesus could no longer go into a town openly, but stayed out in the country; and people came to him from every quarter. When he returned to Capernaum after some days, it was reported that he was at home. So many gathered around that there was no longer room for them, not even in front of the door; and he was speaking the word to them. (Mark 1: 45-Mark 2: 2)

As already confessed, I am not entirely comfortable with the ministry of healing. I go so far as to wonder if Jesus may also have found it troublesome.

I perceive wholeness to be a major goal of his ministry. Jesus does not separate the physical and spiritual as I am inclined to do. A physical illness may have a spiritual source. A spiritual achievement may depend on physical strength.

Jesus came to restore humankind to the wholeness of God's original intention. Whatever the impediment - spiritual, emotional, intellectual, or physical - Jesus was ready to reconcile the created to the creator.

But the work of physical reconciliation could sometimes obscure the work of spiritual reconciliation. No doubt it gathered a crowd, but the crowd often seemed more interested in the spectacular than the spiritual.

This is between you and God, he seems to be telling the leper. But the leper cannot be quiet. Nor could I. When the crowd gathers Jesus speaks the word - logos - a deep teaching of fundamental reality, of God's purposes, and God's intent.

But I have the impression that most of the crowd was milling about waiting and watching for the next act of physical healing and ignoring the source of spiritual healing being poured upon them.

Help me, dear God, to move closer to wholeness by whatever path to which you may call me.

Immediately the leprosy left him, and he was made clean. After sternly warning him he sent him away at once, saying to him, ‘See that you say nothing to anyone; but go, show yourself to the priest, and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, as a testimony to them.’ But he went out and began to proclaim it freely, and to spread the word, so that Jesus could no longer go into a town openly, but stayed out in the country; and people came to him from every quarter. (Mark 1: 42-45)

Jesus warns the leper to behave in accordance with the law of Moses, showing himself to the priest. Scripture specifies a way for a priest to confirm that leprosy has been healed.

He also warns the leper to "say nothing to anyone" presumably regarding the source of his healing.

The purpose of Jesus in this regard is unclear. He has already impressed the synagogue crowd by ordering the unclean spirits to leave a man. The opportunity to hide such healings is past.

The original Greek suggests, at least to me, a possibility. Lego medeis hupago deiknuo is the core phrase: "Say nothing, go show" is close to a literal translation.

Don't spend so much talking about your relationship with God, demonstrate its meaning in what you do.

The leprosy left immediately, another application of euthus. Jesus also sent away the leper "immediately."

Above is Hiroshima 1961 by Yves Klein.