Jesus in the Four Gospels

  • Thread starter Thread starter patrick457
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What amazes me is that the so-called virgin birth doesn’t appear in all 4 gospels! Of course, when you’re telling a story about a person and he was born out of a virgin, it’s only natural to say “Naaaah, let’s cut that part out, doesn’t seem to be very important.” Please, spare me this bull----.
 
Perhaps to drive home the point that the disciples are faithless dullards, Mark in the following pericope (the calming of the storm; 4:35-41) has the disciples tell Jesus rather bluntly: “Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?” and Jesus retorting back: “Have you still no faith?” When Jesus finally orders the storm to die down, the disciples could only remark: “Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?” thereby bringing us back to Mark’s emphasis on Jesus being a mysteriously unique figure, as well as further hammering the point of the disciples’ blindness (the only ones who know Jesus’ true identity as “son of God” within the story are supernatural beings like God and the demons; by contrast, most of the human dramatis personae are in the dark as to who Jesus is - Mark’s hearers, in a case of dramatic irony, are thus privileged to be ‘in the know’).
There is another scene which proves this same point even further. Mark is one of the two gospels which includes two feeding stories. The first (6:30-44) has 5,000 men (plus uncounted numbers of women and children) being fed with only five loaves and two fish, while the second (8:1-10) involved 4,000 people, seven loaves and “a few” small fish. At first, the two stories seem to be so similar as to be repetitive (Luke and John do not include the latter feeding), but it serves the purpose of showing the readers, or rather the hearers of the gospel the disciples’ comprehension skills (or lack thereof). Three times in the first story, the place where the crowd gathers is described as deserted or desolate:

The apostles returned to Jesus and told him all that they had done and taught. And he said to them, “Come away by yourselves to a desolate place and rest a while.” For many were coming and going, and they had no leisure even to eat. And they went away in the boat to a desolate place by themselves. …] And when it grew late, his disciples came to him and said, “This is a desolate place, and the hour is now late. Send them away to go into the surrounding countryside and villages and buy themselves something to eat.”

In the second story, Jesus subtly attempts to provide His disciples a cue for recalling the previous feeding:

In those days, when again a great crowd had gathered, and they had nothing to eat, he called his disciples to him and said to them, “I have compassion on the crowd, because they have been with me now three days and have nothing to eat. And if I send them away hungry to their homes, they will faint on the way. And some of them have come from far away.”

One would expect the disciples to say, “Why not feed them the same way you did that other crowd.” Instead, however, we get this gem of a question:

And his disciples answered him, “How can one feed these people with bread here in this desolate place?”

The disciples are either so thick, or have collective amnesia: I mean, they were right there in the previous feeding in the other “desolate place”!

Mark, however, does not let the disciples off the hook yet. After the feeding, Jesus has a dispute with “the Pharisees” concerning signs, after which:

And he left them, got into the boat again, and went to the other side. Now they had forgotten to bring bread, and they had only one loaf with them in the boat. And he cautioned them, saying, “Watch out; beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod.” And they began discussing with one another the fact that they had no bread. And Jesus, aware of this, said to them, “Why are you discussing the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened? Having eyes do you not see, and having ears do you not hear? And do you not remember? When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?” They said to him, “Twelve.” “And the seven for the four thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?” And they said to him, “Seven.” And he said to them, “Do you not yet understand?”

Which brings us back to chapter 4:

And he said to them, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, so that

they may indeed see but not perceive,
and may indeed hear but not understand,
lest they should turn and be forgiven.


The disciples, therefore, are acting like “those outside:” seeing but not seeing, hearing but not hearing. There is again the trademark Markan irony at play here: immediately after Jesus talks about signs, His disciples mistake a metaphorical statement for literal truth. After just having seen Jesus feed crowds, they worry that one loaf will not be enough for all of them. The disciples could get their numbers right, but make horrible interpreters.
 
Is it Historically sustainable that events that happened 50-70 years before the were written would be so accurately vivid within the memories of the people? Could any Christian Mythology be developed within this time frame that would maculate the gospels?
 
Is it Historically sustainable that events that happened 50-70 years before the were written would be so accurately vivid within the memories of the people? Could any Christian Mythology be developed within this time frame that would maculate the gospels?
Of course it is possible, but Faith tells us the Holy Spirit would have prevented this, as these are inspired writings.

That said, we must consider that in the Apostolic era and well before, the art of oral tradition was much different and highly dependable. Its often hard for us in this modern age of electronic media to recall that people had to rely on oral tradition, given the lack of other means.
 
Who was this kid?
His name was not recorded. Neither were the names of many people - the woman caught in adultery, the paralytic, jairus’ daughter, any of the lepers.

We’re you wanting to make a point with this question?
 
His name was not recorded. Neither were the names of many people - the woman caught in adultery, the paralytic, jairus’ daughter, any of the lepers.

We’re you wanting to make a point with this question?
The Catholic Chuch makes no point about this boy, which makes me curious about him.
I see you think your last question actually made grammatical sense.
 
The Catholic Chuch makes no point about this boy, which makes me curious about him.
I see you think your last question actually made grammatical sense.
No, blame that one on my iPhone and its silly autocorrection, and the fact that I didn’t see that it had put we’re where I wanted to put were. 😛
 
Is it Historically sustainable that events that happened 50-70 years before the were written would be so accurately vivid within the memories of the people? Could any Christian Mythology be developed within this time frame that would maculate the gospels?
Well, Alexander the Great had to wait for two to three hundred years before someone wrote a proper ‘biography’ of him. And it took the Buddha about four centuries for his teaching to be written down. But no one doubts that Arrian’s or Diodorus Siculus’ works or the Pali Canon are more or less fairly reliable or at least contain reliable material. Compare that with Jesus, whose life and teachings were set down in written form pretty quickly (Paul, writing in the 50s-60s, doesn’t give us much information about Jesus, but he does make passing references to some of the basic facts in his letters).

About “mythology”: I like pointing out to people how the way the word ‘mythology’ or ‘myth’ is used today (stupid nonsense only stupid, primitive loons could take seriously) is a twisted bastardization of its true and original meaning.
 
The disciples, therefore, are acting like “those outside:” seeing but not seeing, hearing but not hearing. There is again the trademark Markan irony at play here: immediately after Jesus talks about signs, His disciples mistake a metaphorical statement for literal truth. After just having seen Jesus feed crowds, they worry that one loaf will not be enough for all of them. The disciples could get their numbers right, but make horrible interpreters.
I quote here from Kyle Keefer’s The New Testament as Literature (one of Oxford University Press’ Very Short Introductions series), to which this thread is mostly indebted to:

Jesus’ almost constant frustration with the disciples and their amazing ability to misunderstand pulls the reader in two directions. In one sense, Mark encourages admiration and even worship of Jesus. Rarely do narratives spotlight one particular character – as Mark’s gospel does – without portraying the antagonist sympathetically. Because Jesus has many attractive qualities, readers do tend to take his side and thus share in his frustration over the disciples’ stupidity. Yet the reader might also side with the disciples. This would especially be true within a religious community that already adhered to Christianity. In this second sense of sympathetic reading, the reader would share in the puzzlement that the disciples feel. Readers who do not claim any religious connection with Mark can be as easily confounded by Jesus as the disciples in the narrative are. By pushing the reader both toward the uncomprehending disciples and the enigmatic Jesus, the Gospel of Mark tends to destabilize the reader and to make the narrative just as challenging as its protagonist.

As mentioned earlier, the greatest irony in Mark’s gospel is that almost know one knows who Jesus is. Mark partly privileges the audience by saying right at the very beginning that Jesus is “son of God,” although he leaves it at that with no clarification. Time and again, supernatural entities appear in the course of the story revealing His true identity (usually using that key phrase “son of God”), sometimes in the ostensive hearing of everyone, but most of the time, either Jesus orders them to shut up, or the people around Him are just too blind and deaf.

And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.”

And immediately there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit. And he cried out, “What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God.” But Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Be silent, and come out of him!”

And he healed many who were sick with various diseases, and cast out many demons. And he would not permit the demons to speak, because they knew him.

And whenever the unclean spirits saw him, they fell down before him and cried out, “You are the Son of God.” And he strictly ordered them not to make him known.

And when he saw Jesus from afar, he ran and fell down before him. And crying out with a loud voice, he said, “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 was saying to him, “Come out of the man, you unclean spirit!”

And a cloud overshadowed them, and a voice came out of the cloud, “This is my beloved Son; listen to him.” And suddenly, looking around, they no longer saw anyone with them but Jesus only.

Going back for a bit on the previous post again:
In the second story, Jesus subtly attempts to provide His disciples a cue for recalling the previous feeding:
In those days, when again a great crowd had gathered, and they had nothing to eat, he called his disciples to him and said to them, “I have compassion on the crowd, because they have been with me now three days and have nothing to eat. And if I send them away hungry to their homes, they will faint on the way. And some of them have come from far away.”
One would expect the disciples to say, “Why not feed them the same way you did that other crowd.” Instead, however, we get this gem of a question:
And his disciples answered him, “How can one feed these people with bread here in this desolate place?”
The disciples are either so thick, or have collective amnesia: I mean, they were right there in the previous feeding in the other “desolate place”!
You can really feel that Mark is very harsh on the disciples, since at the conclusion of the pericope after that of the first feeding (Jesus walking on water; 6:45-51), we are told:

And he got into the boat with them, and the wind ceased. And they were utterly astounded, for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened.

No wonder they’d be asking that question in the second feeding, seeing as how the first one went completely over their heads. 😃
 
Upon reaching the second half of the gospel, the themes of blindness and irony begin to converge with the other main theme of Mark: of Jesus as a crucified Messiah.



A little later after the talk about leaven (8:14-21), we finally get to the story of Peter confessing Jesus in Caesarea Philippi. Mark’s version of the story is interesting in that Peter proclaims Jesus as “the Christ,” but not the “son of God,” a title no human character in Mark’s narrative would ever use for Jesus up until the very end of Jesus’ life. As we’ve noted a number of times already, Mark has already set the stage for both titles at the very beginning: this is, after all, “the good-news of Jesus Christ, son of God.” Mark then closes this brief episode with yet another warning of secrecy from Jesus: here we have Peter getting it (halfway) right, but Jesus shuts him up all the same, just like the demons who call Him by His real identity: the “son of God.” The messianic secret all over again. Apparently, Mark’s Jesus is not a very good evangelist.

One could say that Peter’s confession of Jesus as Messiah is really the bridge between the first and the second half of the gospel, since immediately afterwards Jesus becomes increasingly fixated on His impending death. And it is in the second half of the gospel that we begin to see the exact nature of Jesus’ being Christ. Mark opens the following section with the words: “And he began to teach them.” It’s a bit of an odd narration, since Jesus has been teaching ever since the beginning of the story. It is better to take this as a cue from the narrator that we are now at a turning point.

And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again. And he said this plainly.

No more time for parables here: now Jesus is being painfully open and frank. But hold on a moment. Didn’t Peter just say that Jesus was the Christ? What’s all this jabber about suffering and death?

While Christians often expect that part of what it meant for Jesus to be “the Christ” was to suffer and die for the sins of the world, there was no such concept in the ancient world. In other words, the Jews did not have any idea of God’s anointed dying an ignoble death. Now it is a bit inaccurate to speak of the ‘messianic expectation’ in a 1st century context since different people had different ideas about what the Messiah would be like. The messiah was expected a royal figure, others a priest, still others a prophet or some combination of the three. Some thought that he would be a normal human being born from the common population, while others expected a superhuman, angelic (dare I say semi-divine) figure to come down from heaven. Still others seem to have not expected any messianic figure at all but just something like grand, cataclysmic signs of deliverance or mundane, divinely-inspired courage to fight against the authorities. There wasn’t even an agreement as to how many messiahs there would be. But the one thing that the messianic figure is not supposed to do is to die - at least in a manner as humiliating and servile as a Roman crucifixion. He is the “anointed one,” for pete’s sake (no pun intended); not a slave or a manual laborer or a criminal.

So the Christian idea of looking at various bits and pieces of the Old Testament (Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, etc.) and intepreting them in a messianic light is really a radical ‘innovation’, and a very odd one at that: it is unthinkable, ridiculous, even offensive to Jew and gentile alike (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:23). Messiahs don’t suffer, nor do they get beaten or crucified. There’s no way that they could ever be. This is exactly the foolishness and the stumbling block Mark’s gospel is designed to overcome.
 
To quote from Keefer again:

[T]he Gospel of Mark creates paradox, and nowhere is the paradoxical nature of the gospel more apparent than in the events that lead up to Jesus’ death. Almost immediately after this discourse with the disciples, Jesus begins to focus upon his impending death. Again gathering the disciples together for a private session, Jesus tells them that “the Son of Man must endure great suffering and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, be put to death and rise up three days later” (8:31). Twice more, with slight variations (9:31 and 10:33), he predicts his doom. This triad, often called Mark’s “triple passion prediction,” is one of the most obvious literary markers of the gospel. Mark’s triple statement highlights the most important characterization of Jesus in this gospel: he is the suffering Son of Man.

Mark also uses these predictions to further characterize the disciples. After the first one, Mark adds the editorial comment, “And he spoke to them plainly.” Yet they continue to misapprehend him. Their three reactions to Jesus’ distressed predictions are: to rebuke him (8:32), to argue among themselves about who was greatest (9:34), and to ask for privileges once Jesus receives his glory (10:37-40). The rebuke of Jesus by Simon Peter in 8:32 expresses confusion, but the other two border on callousness. In the face of the imminent death of their teacher, all they concern themselves with are their own rewards and security.

During the Last Supper number in Jesus Christ Superstar, the disciples sing a chorus which in my opinion so captures this Markan theme of them being filled with self-serving delusions of grandeur, all the while Jesus moves closer and closer to His doom.

Always hoped that I’d be an apostle
Knew that I would make it if I tried
Then when we retire, we can write the gospels
So they’ll still talk about us when we’ve died

The disciples in the narrative act as stand-ins for the original audiences, who would have also struggled with the idea of Jesus the Christ dying an ignoble death. Like Peter, they would have taken offense at the whole prospect. The interesting thing here is, while Peter “takes [Jesus] aside” in private, Jesus turns around and scathingly rebukes Peter (and perhaps by implication, the others as well) in the open, even calling him “Satan.”

And he said this plainly. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. But turning and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said, “Get behind me, Satan! For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”

A suffering messiah was not common sense at the time. It was not a “thing of man.” All of which shows that God does not believe in ‘common sense’. To drive the point home further, Jesus then addresses “the crowd” which somehow appeared:

And calling the crowd to him with his disciples, he said to them, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it. For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? For what can a man give in return for his soul? For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power.”

This is more in line with what a messiah is supposed to do: come in glory with the angels. We see here the full pattern which informs parts of Mark, as well as the entire gospel: a correct identification of Jesus; a charge of secrecy; a correction of a misunderstanding about the necessity of suffering; and a promise of future, eschatological glory and reward. The promise of future glory is further emphasized by the pericope immediately following it:

And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. And he was transfigured before them, and his clothes became radiant, intensely white, as no one on earth could bleach them. And there appeared to them Elijah with Moses, and they were talking with Jesus. And Peter said to Jesus, “Rabbi, it is good that we are here. Let us make three tents, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah.” For he did not know what to say, for they were terrified. And a cloud overshadowed them, and a voice came out of the cloud, “This is my beloved Son; listen to him.” And suddenly, looking around, they no longer saw anyone with them but Jesus only.
And as they were coming down the mountain, he charged them to tell no one what they had seen, until the Son of Man had risen from the dead. So they kept the matter to themselves, questioning what this rising from the dead might mean.

The episode functions as a proleptic portrait of the way Jesus will be transformed after His death into glory in the resurrection. But since that hasn’t happened yet, Mark recalls the messianic secret motif. “He charged them to tell no one what they had seen, until the Son of Man had risen from the dead.” There would be no crown without a cross, so Mark returns the emphasis to the upcoming death of Jesus and the need for secrecy in the meantime, almost as if Jesus must teach people a new, different notion of the relation between the Messiah and glory. While everyone thinks that the Messiah will simply be all triumph and glory as he gains dominion over the earth, what Jesus has to teach them is that the anointed one must first experience suffering before he could enjoy the rewards of glory. We now have one answer for why Jesus is so big on silence in Mark’s gospel: so that He can teach everyone a new notion of what the Messiah will be and do.
 
Who was the little boy who brought the gifts that day?
We don’t know. Narrative-wise the boy functions like a deus ex machina: he conveniently has what was needed at that moment.

It’s highly common for Mark and the other gospels to randomly introduce one-shot characters into the narrative. Some of these are given names, but beyond that, not much else. The gospels aren’t really known for character depth, as scholar E.P. Sanders once pointed out:

The synoptic gospels lack most of the things that we now expect in the story of someone’s life. Looks, personality, character - we know very little. When it comes to the other figures besides Jesus, we are really in the dark. Pilate, curiously, is given touches of character by Matthew and John, but for the most part the other actors are very flat. Peter, we learn, was a little wishy-washy. What was John like? James? We do not know. What about the Pharisees? They appear in a group, denounce Jesus, sometimes are denounced in turn, and disappear. What were they up to? Were they all equally hostile towards Jesus? Where did they go when they disappeared? If they thought that Jesus’ disciples were breaking the sabbath law (Mark 2.24), why did they not lay a charge by reporting them to a priest (who might have fined them by requiring that each bring a sin offering, two birds, when next in Jerusalem)?
Many readers today do not realize how episodic the synoptic gospels are, since Christians have had almost 2000 years to build up a more novelistic view of the events and people in the gospels. Books have been written, movies made, explanations offered. On Sundays numerous priests, pastors and teachers retell some aspect of the gospel account, adding personality and motive. Judas, the disciple who betrayed Jesus, is often depicted as a frustrated zealot who wanted Jesus to lead a revolution, who thought of himself as a great man in Jesus’ kingdom, and who was bitterly angry when he learned that Jesus wanted another sort of kingdom. This gives the story colour and drama. There is nothing in the gospels about Judas’ ambitions at all. Perhaps he realized that Jesus was a marked man and decided to get out when he still could, while also making a profit. One guess is as good as another. Similarly Mary Magdalene has appealed enormously to people who have imagined all sorts of romantic things about her: she had been a prostitute, she was beautiful, she was in love with Jesus, she fled to France carrying his child. For all we know, on the basis of our sources, she was eighty-six, childless, and keen to mother unkempt young men.
 
I should mention here briefly that an author named Mary Ann Tolbert (Sowing the Gospel: Mark’s Work in Literary-Historical Perspective) proposed the idea of the parable of the sower acting as a sort of character introduction for Mark’s gospel. In her reading, the key focus in Mark is not on the seed itself, but on the kind of ground onto which it falls. Thus, the parable (which for her functions as an introduction to the first half of Mark’s gospel, which in her interpretation runs from 1:14 to 10:52) introduces the typology for each of the major groups in the story. In addition, the parable also functions as a synopsis of the next section.

Seed on the footpath = the scribes, the Pharisees, the chief priests
Seed on rocky ground = the disciples, especially Peter, James and John
Seed among thorns = Herod (6:14-29), rich young man (10:17-22), possibly also Pilate
Seed on good soil = those healed by their faith

Let’s do a little recap of the parable, shall we?

“Listen! Behold, a sower went out to sow. And as he sowed, some seed fell along the path, and the birds came and devoured it. Other seed fell on rocky ground, where it did not have much soil, and immediately it sprang up, 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. And other seeds fell into good soil and produced grain, growing up and increasing and yielding thirtyfold and sixtyfold and a hundredfold.”

…] And he said to them, “Do you not understand this parable? How then will you understand all the parables? The sower sows the word. And these are the ones along 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: the ones who, when they hear the word, immediately receive it with joy. And they have no root in themselves, but endure for a while; then, when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately they fall away. And others are the ones sown among thorns. They are those who hear the word, but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word, and it proves unfruitful. But those that were sown on the good soil are the ones who hear the word and accept it and bear fruit, thirtyfold and sixtyfold and a hundredfold.”

Tolbert ties the blind, dense disciples of Mark, and especially Peter, with the rocky ground (Peter = ‘rock’, get it? ;)) of the parable, who first receives the word with joy, but quickly fall away, as we’ll soon see. We’re kind of building up to something here, so better keep this at the back of your mind as we go on. As Mark would say, “let the reader understand.”
 
Before we move on, let’s show highlights of the characters in Mark being affected by their ‘blindness’ in the first half of the gospel. 😉

http://duncebrewery.com/dunce.jpg

And they came, bringing to him a paralytic carried by four men. And when they could not get near him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him, and when they had made an opening, they let down the bed on which the paralytic lay. And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, “Why does this man speak like that? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?”

===

And as he reclined at table in [Levi’s] house, many tax collectors and sinners were reclining with Jesus and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. And the scribes of the Pharisees, when they saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors, said to his disciples, “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

===

Again he entered the synagogue, and a man was there with a withered hand. And they watched Jesus, to see whether he would heal him on the Sabbath, so that they might accuse him. …] The Pharisees went out and immediately held counsel with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him.

===

Then he went home, and the crowd gathered again, so that they could not even eat. And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for they were saying, “He is out of his mind.” And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, “He is possessed by Beelzebul,” and “by the prince of demons he casts out the demons.” …]​

And a great windstorm arose, and the waves were breaking into the boat, so that the boat was already filling. But he was in the stern, asleep on the cushion. And they woke him and said to him, “Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?” And he awoke and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, “Peace! Be still!” And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm. He said to them, “Why are you so afraid? Have you still no faith?” And they were filled with great fear and said to one another, “Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?”

===

And Jesus, perceiving in himself that power had gone out from him, immediately turned about in the crowd and said, “Who touched my garments?” And his disciples said to him, “You see the crowd pressing around you, and yet you say, ‘Who touched me?’”

===

He went away from there and came to his hometown, and his disciples followed him. And on the Sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things? What is the wisdom given to him? How are such mighty works done by his hands? Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

===

King Herod heard of it, for Jesus’ name had become known. Some said, “John the Baptist has been raised from the dead. That is why these miraculous powers are at work in him.” But others said, “He is Elijah.” And others said, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.” But when Herod heard of it, he said, “John, whom I beheaded, has been raised.”

===



And when it grew late, his disciples came to him and said, “This is a desolate place, and the hour is now late. Send them away to go into the surrounding countryside and villages and buy themselves something to eat.” But he answered them, “You give them something to eat.” And they said to him, “Shall we go and buy two hundred denarii worth of bread and give it to them to eat?”

===

And he saw that they were making headway painfully, for the wind was against them. And about the fourth watch of the night he came to them, walking on the sea. He meant to pass by them, but when they saw him walking on the sea they thought it was a ghost, and cried out, for they all saw him and were terrified. But immediately he spoke to them and said, “Take heart; it is I. Do not be afraid.” And he got into the boat with them, and the wind ceased. And they were utterly astounded, for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened.

===

Now when the Pharisees gathered to him, with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. …] And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?”

===

In those days, when again a great crowd had gathered, and they had nothing to eat, he called his disciples to him and said to them, “I have compassion on the crowd, because they have been with me now three days and have nothing to eat. And if I send them away hungry to their homes, they will faint on the way. And some of them have come from far away.” And his disciples answered him, “How can one feed these people with bread here in this desolate place?”

===

The Pharisees came and began to argue with him, seeking from him a sign from heaven to test him.

===

Now they had forgotten to bring bread, and they had only one loaf with them in the boat. And he cautioned them, saying, “Watch out; beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod.” And they began discussing with one another the fact that they had no bread.

===

And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again. And he said this plainly. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top