Tag Archives: miracles
Team 5 Question 2
1. Scholars who examine the parallels note that Matthew’s redaction displays three tendencies: it abbreviates Mark’s stories, improves his style, and offers a new, “improved” image of Jesus. Compare the following passages: Mt 8:1-4//Mk 1:40-45; Mt 8:23-27//Mk 4:35-41; Mt 9:18-26//Mk 5:21-43 and identify passages that illustrate these tendencies. How, specifically, have Matthew’s changes transformed or “improved” the character of Jesus?
Establishing that Matthew’s redaction displays three tendencies: Abbreviation of Mark’s stories, Improvement of style, and more desirable image of Jesus, we are able to clearly identify distinctions between the passages of Matthew and Mark. Beginning with Jesus healing the man with leprosy in Mt:8:1-4 and Mk 1:40-45, the reader will undoubtedly notice, when comparing the two passages side-by-side, that the three tendencies in Matthew’s redaction are present. Matthew’s passage is significantly shorter, written in a manner in which the story is more direct or improved, and there is no mention of Jesus being “indignant” which, ultimately, paints a better picture of Jesus for the reader. Continuing with Mt 8:23-27 and Mk 4:35-41, we are told the story of Jesus calming the storm. Again, Matthew writes the passage more effectively and directly than his predecessor. Rather than creating a possible image of separation between Jesus and the men, like in Mark, Matthew eliminates that possibility and continues to improve the image of Jesus. He does this in the passage by not only asserting that Jesus stayed with the men, but also by portraying Jesus as a man of compassion rather than a man who criticizes men who lacked faith or were afraid. Lastly, in Mt 9:18-26 and Mk 5:21-43 we are told the story of Jesus raising the dead girl and healing the sick woman. Though similar in story, yet again, Matthew holds true to his redactional tendencies. Compared to the passage in Mark, in Matthew Jesus’ is portrayed significantly better. Matthew’s passage abolishes any notion that might negatively portray Jesus by making the miracles public, adding more witnesses, and making him more in tune with the less fortunate (e.g. sensing the hemorrhaging woman).
2.Identify the people who are the objects of Jesus’ healings. What do you imagine their social status was in the ancient world? How do these miracle stories provide concrete examples for the teachings Jesus delivered in the Sermon on the Mount?
The three people who are the objects of Jesus’ healings are the man with Leprosy, the dead girl, and the sick/hemorrhaging woman. The authors of these passages write in a style that implies that the individuals being saved or healed are of a lower less fortunate status. Jesus’ miracle stories provide concrete examples for the teaching Jesus delivered in the Sermon on the Mount because, during the sermon, Jesus asserts that people who follow him and are suffering will receive it. Giving truth to that, all three individuals healed by Jesus were suffering followers.
3. Mt 8-9 lists ten miracles. In Exodus 5-12, Moses performs ten miracles: they are in fact ten plagues against Israel’s opponents that culminate with Israel’s escape from slavery in Egypt. What theological points do you think Matthew is trying to make by clustering these ten miracles together?
The theological point that Matthew is trying to make by clustering these ten miracles together is establishing a connection between Moses and Jesus. By creating the connection or similarities between the two, Matthew ultimately fulfills his goal of portraying in a more desirable and divine way.
Team 4 question 2 (4/26)
The main difference between Mark 3 and Mathew 12 is the way in which the miracle is portrayed. Consistent with what White says throughout the Casting Spells chapter, Mark’s stories tend to be longer versions of the story giving that provide more detail into the actual events of each miracle where as in Mathew, the miracle is considerably shorter and attempts to serve as more of a lesson of faith. The author attempts to accomplish this by including a prophecy from Isaiah to try and give more credibility to Jesus by by saying to the readers that Jesus is a man of prophecy and not a fraud. Another reason that the miracle is toned down in Mathew 12 because in the past, as stated by Bohak and Cotter, there was a fine line between miracles and magic. So by downplaying the miraculous nature of his healing, Mathew is creating more trust between the ancient people and Jesus so they know he is not just a conjurer of cheap tricks. Moving on to Mark 6 and Mathew 14 many of the same differences arise. The main difference is the way in which the disciples react to the miracles performed by Jesus is that in Mark, all of the disciples are bewildered by the Jesus walking on water and culling the storm. Where as in Mathew the disciples understand the reason for the miracles, that being that Jesus is the son of God. Again the is written in to the Mathew narrative to inspire more confidence in Jesus and his followers. Another difference between the two that was also shown earlier also appears in these two stories and that is the addition of a lesson of faith(as seen with the inclusion of the prophecy from Isaiah before). This time in Mathew the added part speaks of how Peter struggled to walk on the water because he did not have a strong enough faith causing Jesus to question it. Lastly, Mathew is supposed to depict a more divine leader who came down to save human beings where as in Mark his virtuosity is not as defined. This is shown in Mark when Jesus was walking on water he intended to walk right on by the boat where as in Mathew he was headed toward it the entire time.
Team 4 Question 2
Throughout all of Mathew and Mark several differences are consistently demonstrated. These difference give the reader a clear understanding at what Mathew was trying to accomplish in his rendition of the gospel. Mathew puts a premium on abbreviating and improving the writing of mark while also improving the image of Jesus himself. These differences are shown in Mathew 8:1-4 and Mark 1:40-45, this is the story where Jesus cleanses a man of his leprosy. However, the passages classically show the differences between Mathew and Mark. First, there is a clear difference in the lengths. Mathew has trimmed up his version into a much more concise telling. Second, there are distinct differences in both the reaction of Jesus to the man and how the man reacts to being healed. In Mark, Jesus seems taken aback when the leper approaches and asks for his help, where as in Mathew, Jesus willingly accepts and heals him. Mathews also chooses to leave out the part where the leper tells everyone despite what Jesus has asked him. Mathew uses these two differences to show improvements to Jesus and his followers by making Jesus a more open and willing healer and also making his followers better at following his directions.
These differences are again shown in Mathew 8:23-27 and Mark 4:35-41. In these passages Jesus quells the storm while his disciples are on the boat. Mathew, keeping true to form, shortens his version and improves the image of Jesus. He accomplishes this when he tells that Jesus stayed with his disciples during the storm instead of leaving them as it is told in Mark. Jesus also turns the experience into more of a teaching moment by asking them about their faith before quieting the storm as opposed to after in Mark. Finally, there is another improvement of the disciples in Mathew where they ask Jesus for help instead of asking why he would cause them to perish in the storm. Lastly, Mathews improvements to Jesus are shown in Mathew 9:18-26 and Mark 5:21-43. These passages tell the story of Jesus healing the hemorrhaging woman and resurrecting the daughter of Jarius. In Mathew the daughter is already thought to be dead where as in Mark she is alive during his trip and “dies” by the time he arrives. This is a small difference but intends to improve how Jesus looks because he was not late in Mathew. Next when healing the hemorrhaging in Mark, she sneaks up to him and then runs away. This is much different than in Mathew where he senses her and tells her to approach him. Another difference is that the woman is much more confident in front of him in Mathew. At the end of the story Jesus arrives at the house of Jarius, tell them she is not dead, and then brings her back. Again, changes were made by Mathew. First, in Mark, Jesus only heals the daughter in front of Peter, James, and John. In Mathew however, it is implied that more people are present to witness the event, making his actions more credible. These passages conclude differently, in Mark no one hears of his miracle, where as in Mathew, everyone does.
The people healed by Jesus were a leper, a hemorrhaging woman who had been an outcast for 12 years, and a small girl. The common factor here is that they are perceived to be more disadvantaged or weaker than most people, these are the people that Jesus helps. Another factor is that they are people who had faith in his abilities. These miracles provide a solid example of what Jesus was trying to teach in his sermon on the mount. The sermon basically gives a moral code to live by in which he says people who need help will receive it as well as people with a benevolence in their heart and those who believe. These are all shown by those who are helped in the miracles.
The idea of Mathew listing 10 miracles in chapters 8 and 9 is that there is a relation between him and Moses with his 10 miracles. The connection is that Moses saved his people through the act of 10 miracles and Jesus fulfills his role as messiah by doing the exact same. By doing this Mathew gives Jesus more credibility in the eyes of the readers at the time.
Team 6, Question 2
Both Matthew 8:1-4 and Mark 1:40-45 present the story of Jesus healing a leper. However, Mark and Matthew describe this event differently: it is obvious that the story in the Gospel of Matthew is much shorter than it is in the Gospel of Mark, therefore, it’s easy to recognize how Matthew’s redaction of the Gospel of Mark shows the tendency of abbreviation. I also discovered that this specific story in Matthew offers an “improved” image of Jesus: notice the verse Mark 1:41: “Moved with pity…” and its footnote “e”: “other ancient authorities read anger” –it is not hard to see that Mark’s description of Jesus’ reaction here might cause unnecessary confusion: why would Jesus feel angry when the leper asks for a healing miracle? On the other hand, Matthew 8:3 simply did not include Jesus’ reaction whatsoever. This is one of many changes in the Gospel of Matthew which provides the readers a transformed characteristic of Jesus. Similarly, the description of Jesus’ calming the storm in both Matthew 8:23-27 and Mark 4:35-41 shows the same tendencies: Matthew’s version of the story is much more concentrated and abbreviated, it also shows an improvement of writing style as well as the transformation of Jesus’ characteristic. For example, in Mark 4:38, the disciples are described to approach Jesus with the question: “Teacher, do you not care if we perish?”(4:38) This attitude is completely transformed in the Gospel of Matthew: “Save, Lord; we are perishing.”(8:25) This is to say that the disciples in the Gospel of Matthew have a clearer understanding of Jesus’ identity than they are described in the Gospel of Mark. This transformation also elevates Jesus’ identity from “teacher” to the “Lord”.
The story of Jairus’ daughter and the woman’s faith presented in Matthew 9:18-26 is also a serious transformation of the story presented in Mark 5:21-43. It is not difficult to see how Mark’s version of the story contains many details and how Matthew’s version of the story is much more abbreviated and less detailed. There are several important concepts that are worth paying attention to: 1) the healing of the woman, 2) the moment Jesus realizes the woman has touched His garment, 3) the moment Jesus faces the woman, 4) the appearance of the person from the ruler’s house. In the Gospel of Mark, the healing of the woman occurs instantly when she touches Jesus’ garment: “And immediately the hemorrhage ceased; and she felt in her body that she was healed of her disease.”(5:29) Jesus realizes someone has touched His garment by “perceiving in himself that power had gone forth from him,”(5:30) then after Jesus questions about the person who touched His garment, the woman “came in fear and trembling and fell down before him, told him the whole truth.”(5:33) This scene is completely different in the Gospel of Matthew: after knowing someone has touched His garment, Jesus simply turns and heals the woman by saying “Take heart, daughter; your faith has made you well.”(9:22) Notice that the woman is healed not by touching Jesus’ garment but by Jesus’ words. These changes in the Gospel of Matthew place emphasis on Jesus’ divine healing power in order to provide a new and “improved” image of Jesus as the Son of God.
The appearance of the person from Jairus’ house (Mark 5:35) is not recorded in the Gospel of Matthew–this also shows us how Matthew emphasize people’s faith and their proper understanding of Jesus’ identity.
Even though Jesus performs healing miracles to variety of people, most of the objects of Jesus’ healings are often people of lower social class, presumably the ones that are generally considered “weak”(disabled, women, children, etc.) These miracles mirrors the teachings Jesus delivered in the Sermon of the Mount and also provide concrete examples for understanding the concept of social and metaphysical values which Jesus proclaims in the Sermon of the Mount.
Matthew put emphasis on the resemblance between Jesus and Moses by listing ten miracles in Matthew 8-9 in comparison to the ten miracles Moses performed, which are described in Exodus 5-12. This comparison not only serve the purpose of giving Jesus credibility as well as validating Jesus’ authority, it also serves the purpose of proclaiming the good news of salvation: the ten miracles Moses performed was for the purpose of freeing Israelites from the slavery in Egypt: this is a form of salvation. On the other hand, in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus’ ten miracles imply a much more elevated Salvation: the eternal Salvation. The parallelism being: Moses brought his people out of Egypt and freed Israelites from slavery and Jesus is able to bring salvation to the people and free us from being slaves of sin.
Mark
Team 6, Question 2
Throughout Jewish, non-Jewish, and religiously mixed territories Jesus performed a variety of miracles in a variety of settings. These miracles included multiple healings of both Jewish and non-jewish people, as well as miraculous acts such as the exponential multiplication of bread and fish in the feeding of the thousands of followers, and calming the seas. While some of these miracles took place in predominately Jewish areas, most of these took place in areas lacking followers of Jesus. Obviously, Jesus was not limiting himself to the amount of miracles he could perform, but it does seem that most of these took place in non-jewish areas for one reason or another. I feel that this may have been able to prove his power and sway followers in areas outside of Jewish areas that may have respected him to begin with. By performing such miracles in front of skeptical populations, the popularity or “legend” of the new King of the Jews could now be confirmed throughout a widespread area. In addition to these non local populations, even Jesus’ own disciples were portrayed as doubters who questioned his supernatural abilities, as well as his motives for enacting them. The supernatural elements of Jesus also paralleled those of Moses, and the comparison to Moses made it easier for Jewish believers to put their faith in the new messiah
ROJ 5/10 Team 4, Question 2
Throughout Jesus’ travels between Jewish, non-Jewish, and mixed territory we see a variety of miracles. Along with that, we see differing reactions to Jesus’ acts and we get some allusions to current events of the time this gospel was written. Mark’s gospel is not the most impacting or narrative, but he did a good job interconnecting current events, Jewish figures, and the idea of this new kingdom of God.
Jesus’ miracles often were repeated where the second repetition “intensifies some aspect of the first, usually dealing with the theme of misunderstanding” (White 268). The miracles we see twice are sea miracles, exorcisms, healings, and feeding of many. Also, most of the miracles were done in either Jewish or mixed territory, or en route between the three. Another thing I noticed is that most miracles were done in non-Jewish or mixed territory, while questioning and disbelief came in Jesus’ hometown and around there. The reason for this, I believe, was to signify the spreading of the new kingdom that would be open and available to everyone, not just Israelites. Both healing miracles signify Jesus extending help to those around Israel just like the food miracles do as well. Before these events, however, the first exorcism of the demon “Legion” is a strong indicator of Jesus’ new ideals on rule. Here, he exorcises a demon name “Legion” (symbolic of Roman legion or division of Roman military that had conquered and still occupied the country) and put the demon into a herd of pigs which Jews were not allowed to eat. The pigs then were cast into the sea and thus destroyed. The footnotes in the bible state that this miracle is in reference to the “destruction of Pharaoh’s army in Israel’s Exodus deliverance” (1801).
Then with the feeding of first five thousand then four thousand, we see Jesus once again offering his aid and wisdom to the peoples around Israel. In his hometown, he was questioned because they could not believe like those who had never known Him before He was called into service as a prophet. Jesus’ response to this was to commission the twelve disciples to “build the renewal movement” (1802). Others we see questioning him are his disciples themselves (which Mark did on purpose) and we always saw that disbelief on sea. It seems Mark made them question him on purpose to let the reader or audience see what they could not, thus building a stronger sense of belief in Jesus.
Overall, I would say the reason for these ten miracles in the Markan gospel was to build a faith in a people that were dealing with destruction of both their home and faith itself. Mark worked to show the readers or audience that with Jesus, a new kingdom came and it would be open and available to any who simply believed. Mark’s similarities between Jesus and Moses were also purposeful and changed in order to fit his narrative, but the core of the stories that resembled Moses were there nonetheless.
Team 5, Question 2 – Miracle Chain in Mark
In Mark chapters 4 through 8, Jesus travels with his disciples to both Jewish and non-Jewish regions around the Sea of Galilee. While the miracles probably came from earlier written or oral sources, they did not include the elaborate context that Mark’s narrative gives. One of Mark’s main goals in his story-telling was to convey to his audience that God’s kingdom was quite unlike the types of kingdoms or empires they were used to, and not at all what they would expect. Jesus’ miracle ministry unfolds by demonstrating that faith in God could come from non-Jews as well as Jews, and that faith was essential to the advancement of this heavenly kingdom. Most of the miracles in Mark come in doubles (two sea miracles, two healings, two food miracles, two exorcisms). It is interesting that the bulk of these miracles happen in either non-Jewish or mixed territories. It seems that Mark may be making a statement on empty religion that brings about the wrong kind of kingdom (for example, he cannot do many miracles when a region lacks faith, and he refuses when religious leaders demand miracles). Many of the miracles involve a physical touch of Jesus, and all of them are misunderstood by the disciples.
Mark’s elaborations on the miracle stories offer the reader (or listener) a context for the greater meaning of Jesus’ mission. Jesus’ first words in Mark are “The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God has come near…” (Mk 1:15). The miracle stories each carry undertones of what that kingdom is to look like – quite different than the Roman kingdom, in that the power structure would be inverted, the marginalized would become central, and the hypocrisy of the religious elite would be proven empty compared to those with humble faith. Mark used language familiar to his contemporaries regarding this new kingdom, which was to be an “alternative to the empire of Rome.” (Wainwright, Basileia Movement). Keeping in mind the context of when Mark’s gospel was written, I expect this imagery and mission of Jesus would have been incredibly powerful to his audience. For example, the Jews were facing war, the storming of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple at the hands of the Roman legion, so I imagine audiences would have had a strong reaction to the story of Jesus casting out the demon “Legion” from the possessed and violent man in Gerasenes. Like the man could not be restrained by the community while the demon Legion had invaded his body, so Mark’s audience may have felt powerless against the Roman legion invading Jerusalem. But in the context of this miracle story, Jesus’ ministry has expanded as he now come to cast out the Roman empire and set up God’s empire.
Further, the miracles themselves and the ones who experience the miracles paint a picture of something very different that the religious leaders were expecting (which would fit in with Mark’s prevalent theme of misunderstanding). Jesus chastises the Pharisees who criticize him for dining with tax collectors and sinners, healing on the sabbath, feeding his hungry disciples. Many like the Pharisees may have thought law-keeping would be key in God’s kingdom, and purity and religious status to be its characteristics. But Jesus, by visiting and healing non-Jews as well as Jews, by expressing compassion in his ministry over rules and regulations, and by having miracle success as a result of people’s faith (rather than their “rightness”) shows that the kingdom to come would be ruled in a very different way. The disciples consistent lack of understanding drive the point home even more to Mark’s audience – almost like letting them in on a secret that the characters in the story can’t seem to grasp. Jesus’ traveling miracle narrative is like the literal “way” that John the Baptist prophesied about in Mark 1:2-3, setting in motion the beginning of a new rule that according to Mark’s gospel, Jesus believed was at hand.
Team 1, Question 1
This part of Mark is portraying Jesus as having a connection with God. In Mark 1:22 it says “They were astounded at his teachings for he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes did”. Right after that in Mark it briefly describes Jesus casting out an unclean spirit. But even the unclean spirit is given a chance to connect Jesus with God; in verse 24 the unclean spirit says “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.” When Jesus forgives the sins of the Paralytic, the people question to themselves how this person had authority to forgive sins, because only God could forgive sins. Giving another connection to the divine being, and Jesus responds to their questioning in their hearts by performing the more difficult task of telling the man to get up and walk.
Jesus often didn’t conform to the traditional customs of the land, like feasting when John the Baptist and his disciples as well as the Pharisees were fasting, he also ate with people who were sinners, and he and his disciples broke the Sabbath day by eating forbidden grain and healing people. For not feasting Jesus responded to the people by saying “The wedding guests cannot fast while the bridegroom is with them, can they?… .” In this statement Jesus is referring to himself as the bridegroom, which probably did not make sense to a lot of people who heard him say it. But later in Mark Jesus says that his parables were intended so that the outsiders would not understand what he was saying. In response to eating with the sinners Jesus says “I have come not to call the righteous, but sinners.” A pretty logical response that if you want more people to be righteous you should go to the ones who aren’t. And in response to breaking the Sabbath he says in Mark 2:27 “The Sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the Sabbath; so the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.” And in response to healing on the Sabbath he says “Is it lawful to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?” and then it says they were silent, meaning that essentially Jesus won that argument.
The parable of the sower tells of someone sowing seeds, and his seeds fall on different places determining which seeds will sprout, and grow and produce lots of grain, the ones that fall on good soil, grow and produce 30, 60 or even 100 fold. And then Jesus finishes the parable by saying in Mark 4:9 “Let anyone with ears to hear listen!” Then Jesus goes on to say in Mark 4:21-23 Jesus follows up the parable of the sower with an analogy of a lamp saying “I s a lamp brought in to be put under the bushel basket, or under the bed, and not on the lamp stand? 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!” The symbolism of the light, is a connection to Jesus as the light of the world. And this analogy is saying that if you know the word then you need to go sow it somewhere instead of hiding it, but a lot of people who hear it are not going to get well rooted in it. The comparison of the mustard seed to the kingdom of heaven means that from something small the kingdom of heaven will grow into the greatest kingdom. Similar to how the seeds which fell on the good soil end up producing up to a hundredfold.