Week 1
Genesis 1-15; Psalm 19, 104, 148; Mark 1-5
What do you think about the Yahwist, Elohist, and Priestly sources? Related question: It doesn't seem Moses is the author of the book of Moses, but he was the central character and so responsible for teaching his people the religion God revealed to him that he deserves to have the first five books named after him.
This is a reference to textual criticism of the Pentateuch from the last two centuries. At the end of it all, many critics believe that the Pentateuch is composed of four strands of literature. The argument is the Pentateuch is a hodgepodge of composite works representing different geographical and theological viewpoints. This was to make sense of the different names for God that were used throughout. The theory went that Moses drew from a J document (Yahwist) and a E (Elohist) document. The J document used YHWH (God) while the E document used Elohim (the Lord God). They would then argue that Deuteronomy was a separate document (D document) that was added much later. They argue this because to make sense of some of the seemingly law discrepancies between Leviticus and then what Moses wrote in Deuteronomy. The Priestly document (P) were the redacted writings of the Priests, namely Ezra who wrote around 600 BC, at a much later date than Moses.
The problem with these source theories:
(1) is that they all are based on the assumption that revelation from God is not a valid starting point. So instead of revelation from God, the Bible is an account of people's religious development and the assumption is the Hebrew people cannot have developed differently than the other religious people groups of the ANE.
(2) It is almost impossible to separate sources except by how God is named. It is very difficult to separate parts of the Pentateuch by stylistic differences. There is a lot of confusion about how to divide up these sources.
(3) There is no evidence or examples of this method of composition in the ANE. This criticism fails to understand ANE style of writing, where repetition is common. This is all dependent on subjective criteria, absolutely no evidence for it.
I do like Sandra Richter's explanation. She asserts that Moses is indeed the author, and believes that he included oral tradition of Hebrew people that may have been written down or may not have, but that this VERY OLD literature, the oldest in the Bible is found in Gen. 2-11. Gen. 1 is Moses preface to the Pentateuch. This helps explain the two different creation narratives. It is Moses writing an explanation to the Hebrew people of who God is and who they are in relation to Him. This explains the contrasting styles of creation narrative . These narratives do not contradict one another, but complement one another. They are not chronological events of creation, but tell theological truths . Moses and ANE peoples did not have the advantage of science or understanding of the fossil record.
Other reasons Moses is the likely author:
(A) Moses was attested to be the author by Jesus and the disciples/apostles who wrote the NT. They refer to the law of Moses, "Moses wrote", "the law" - that Moses wrote this was well attested in the first century.
(B) It is very difficult to conceive of any other Hebrew who would have been qualified to write it. Remember all those nights of the cloud descending on Moses' tent, Moses coming out of the tent having to put a veil over his face because it was shining, being on the mountain 40 days and nights, fasting and receiving God's law. He would have had ample time to write it and compile Genesis, all while being led by the Holy Spirit. When God first appeared to Moses in the burning bush, he identifies himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob - so Moses knew through oral tradition who his ancestors were, he knew the covenant of Abraham. He seems to be the one entrusted to write it down.
(C) He could have used other sources to write it, like Oral tradition, which was a very reliable way to transmit history from one generation to the next. Abraham would have carried these stories with him (of the beginning of time, of the flood, the genealogies, in his back pocket as he is traveling from Mesopotamia up into Canaan.
Confusing that there are two creation narratives… why would, in order to solve confusion, there be newer additions of the Bible that would include only one? Why are both stories always included?
Both stories are necessary. They complement each other quite nicely. In the first, we have a literary force of nature, and the structure is remarkable. I don't think these are literal days, but a literary structure Moses gave us to communicate a few things: (see Epic of Eden God's Original Intent)
(A) God is sovereign and transcendent and speaks the world into existence and established proper boundaries and symmetry in creation.
(B) There is a pattern of increasing authority in his creation, with the pinnacle being the creation of Adam and Eve (at the same time). All authority over creation is given to humanity.
(C) God blesses the seventh day and rests. This is the highest day, showing God is the ultimate authority. The picture of Him resting gives us an image of kings who once they have secured the order and balance of their kingdom, rests from their work.
In the second creation narrative ,
(A) mankind is the center of creation, and the focal point of it. He is not created last, but before God creates the animals. Remember, he names them. And God walks in the garden with Adam and Eve. And Eve is created out of the rib of Adam. It highlights that we were created from the dust of the earth, that God breathed life into us.
(B) and we get a beautiful picture of the Garden of Eden. If we did not have chapter two, we wouldn't understand the last two chapters of Revelation.
(C) It shows us the intimacy God wanted with Adam and Eve - if we only had Chapter 1, we wouldn't know that… we wouldn't see how God desires to walk among his people, to be present with them, to have relationship with them.
And if we didn't have chapter 1, we wouldn't understand the absolutely other and sovereignty of God as Creator. We need both.
It's like going on a Disney trip and you leave with lots of pictures. If you and I were to create a photo album to retell our vacation, ours would not look similar. We might choose to capture it in different ways. I may do a thematic picture book, each page showing a different Disney event. One page would be a rides page, another a show page, the other a parade page, a character page. They would accurately capture my trip, though it was not in a chronological order. You may capture it another way. You may want to make your more personal, with pictures focusing not on scenery but on your family.
Point: The Gospels are all a retelling of Jesus' life and ministry; however, they tell it from different view points with different purposes they are trying to communicate. If they were exactly the same, we would have to question their validity. Even in a court of law, two witnesses to the same event will see it and tell it differently. All courtrooms know this. It is expected. It makes Scripture even more reliable, that would be careful to include all in the narrative instead of trying to rewrite it all to perfectly align.
Gen. 1:2, The earth was formless and void, yet there were waters? It does appear that the OT believed in some type of preexisting chaos. A correct reading of the Hebrew is "In the beginning when God began to create". This is significant because it says that the earth was already in existence. It was a formless void, undeveloped, unproductive, a "darkness" hovered over the mass of subterranean water represents the absence of God's penetrating and life-giving light yet to come. The wind from God indicates his presence on the scene and the beginnings of his ordering it all.
Gen. 3:4, "But the serpent said to the woman, 'You will not die; for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." What does being like God mean here? In this context "being like God" means "knowing good and evil". In other words, God told them not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for if they do, they will surely die." God was saying to them, you may have everything in this garden for your good to bless you. you also rule the earth. The only thing you can't do is decide what is morally right and wrong. That is for me alone. You don't get to be God in that way. And the serpent is using this to tempt them to be like God, to decide for themselves what is right and wrong, to "play God" in essence. Satan deceives us this way all the time. We think we have the right as humans to decide what God means with His holy law.
In Gen 4, the births of Cain and Abel are clearly stated as sons of Adam and Eve. Then in Gen 5, in the family tree of Adam, there is no mention of Cain and Abel. I have wondered if it was a cultural issue or if it got lost in the shuffle over the years. This was intentional. Genealogies are always very intentional. Abel is of course dead, murdered by his brother Cain. Cain is cast out (sent East of Eden) for his sin in murdering his brother Abel. He will have no part in the history of redemption. Notice also, this begins the unusual and unpracticed propensity of God to chose the youngest sons to be his image bearers and representatives in his great plan of redemption. God does not look to birth order as was the Patriarchal society functioned to determine inheritance and land and function, but God looks to the heart to choose his leaders. Notice Seth will be the one who will worship God and so through his line would come men like Enoch (who walked with God and was no more), and Noah would come from his line.
Gen. 4:23-25, Lamech (in the lineage of Cain) "says to his wives: Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; you wives of Lamech, listen to what I say: I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for striking me. If Cain is avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy- sevenfold." This shows that Cain's violence intensifies among his progeny. It just gets worse. Lamech is murdering in exchange for a mere wound. He is exacting unjust return for what he received. Very violent and evil. And yet, he is claiming the graciousness that God gave to Cain when he murdered Abel in putting the mark on him to protect him from others committing violence against him since he was leaving the presence of God's protection. It shows the corruption of Lamech in trying to claim that same protection for his own horrific violence. It also shows the first case of multiple wives in the Bible.
Similar question: is the Lamech in Gen. 5 the same as the one in Gen. 4? No. The Lamech just mentioned is of Cain's progeny. The Lamech in the next chapter is of Seth's progeny. These are completely separate genealogies.
When Enoch was no more and walked with God, would you consider this some sort of rapture? It is a break in the rhythm of this genealogy. Notice how every other person, it ends with "and he died". Enoch's is unique. Clearly he had a special closeness and relationship with God "he walked with God". it denotes a righteous life and close fellowship with God. he apparently also escapes the "sting of death" with the phrase "and he was no more, because God took him". It appears there was something supernatural about his leaving the earth. Remember how Elijah was also taken up into heaven as well. And it appears to be a testimony to his faith and close walk with God.
In Gen. 6, who were the Nephilim? We don't know. There have been many ideas about who they were but we simply don't know because the literature is so old.
(A) Some doubt it was really angels because no where else in scripture do angels seem to be sexual beings. They are celestial.
(B) Some surmise "sons of gods" means the kings of earth were beginning to procreate with commoners.
(C) It could be marriages between the faithful God fearers and the wicked Canaanites.
(D) We do have references to this in Jude 6, "And the angels who did not keep their own position, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains in deepest darkness for the judgment of the great day." Could this be a reference to this preflood story?
(E) At any rate, this story is inserted to highlight the increasing wickedness on the earth that would necessitate such a drastic response by God to destroy all creation. It shows that the boundaries God had set were severely transgressed.
Gen. 6:19 vs. 7:2 - Not really sure about this difference . Earlier God instructs Noah to bring two of every kind of living flesh according to their kind, two of every kind shall come to you. also store food up. In 7:2, God says "Take with you 7 pairs of clean animals (the male and the mate), and a pair of the animals that are not clean (the male and mate); 7 pairs of the birds of the air also to keep their kind alive on the face of all the earth. Could be God clarifying His instructions, wanting a complete number of the clean creatures while still allowing the unclean to exist. It is impossible to know the chronology of these events.
Gen. 10 - shows the descendants of Noah and their people groups with their different languages, but in Gen. 11, before the Tower of Babel it describes all as speaking the same language. Gen. 10 is a genealogy and a snapshot of the human race in the post-flood era. It explains the descendants of Noah's sons by their families, languages, lands and nations. It is not prior to the Tower of Babel story per se. In other words, this list explains a vast time line of how the nations began to form from Noah. The Tower of Babel is placed here for thematic reasons, not chronological reasons. It is to show that the sin of pre-flood humanity had carried on through this new line of Noah's. "Let us build" shows prideful rebellion and this desire to be like God - straight from the Garden of Eden- Note the Lord needs to "come down" to see what man had tried "to build up to reach him". It communicates God's transcendent nature which was COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAN ALL PAGAN RELIGION THAT SAYS YOU CAN REACH GOD, THAT GOD INTERMINGLES WITH CREATION. God scatters them abroad and frustrates their language which is punishment fitting to the crime. Obviously, what we experience at Pentecost with the coming of the Holy Spirit, we see all people understood a common language. A beautiful redemptive picture of the plan and work of God to bring us all together again in Christ.
I felt like Abraham pimped Sarah out when he told her to lie and say she was his sister - just part of patriarchal society? Certainly, this is confusing and ties in with the culture of the time. We can't understand these stories from our cultural vantage point. Abraham was not perfect in today's world. The Bible (and thereby, God) is not saying this is right. But what we do see is God working with people in their own cultural contexts. He is not saying that it is right.
It seems like OT people had no trouble realizing God was talking to them and telling them specifically what to do to win battles, etc. Now not so clear. I think most of us "hear God" by a strong feeling or sense that he is directing us. I don't know anyone who reports actually hearing the voice of God. I'm sure more of us wish his direction was that clear. Before the coming of Christ, God spoke to specific people - prophets, kings like David and Josiah, priests like Moses and Samuel, and Abraham and Noah. It seems they heard directly from God. When Jesus came, we beheld the glory of God in a way they never had. We got an up close and personal Word of God. In the flesh. We have his very words recorded. Jesus himself interpreted a lot of what the prophets and priests and Moses were saying, that the pharisees and scribes and Sadducees conflated and messed up for God's people. When Jesus left, he said he would not leave us without a comforter and without a guide. Today that guide is the Holy Spirit which is available to all believers, not just priests and prophets and kings. You have the Bible which is the very Word of God and you have the Holy Spirit. Abiding in the vine, as Jesus says, means abiding in the very words of God and in his Spirit. It is a constant abiding. This is how we hear from God today. Obviously, the more we invest in hearing, the more we hear and understand.
Observation: Noah and his sons are named repeatedly, but not their wives. (Women are not normally listed in genealogies. Genealogies in ANE were used to track patrimony and land. This was a patriarchal society. Women were only listed if there were multiple wives and they were distinguishing between sons. If women are mentioned, as in Matthew's gospel in genealogies, you must ask why… there is a reason and a purpose specific women are mentioned in the genealogy of Jesus. It's not that Ancient culture hated women, it was just there was no need to include them when the ancestral lines were traced through the patriarchs.
Loved what was told in Isaiah coming up again in Mark. Noticed the direction to "make straight paths for him". the path theme is repeated many times in the Bible . At the very beginning the writer is making clear that a 400 year old prophesy is being fulfilled. Things are starting to come together in God's plan of redemption.
Mark 2:18-20 - what is Jesus trying to teach us about fasting? I don't think it's so much he's trying to teach us about fasting as he is saying that something entirely new is coming to you. and this is good news. This is reason to celebrate. Fasting has a great purpose in denying ourselves so that we focus on God and discipline ourselves from the pleasures of the world. Fasting has great purpose and usefulness, but there is a time and a place for that. Jesus, the Good news of God, is doing something entirely new and this is cause for rejoicing and celebrating.
Mark 3:29, what is the unforgivable sin? "Truly I tell you, people will be forgiven 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 said, he has an unclean spirit." What is that unforgivable sin? in this context it is playing God and determining for yourself what is the definition of holy and unholy. they are calling the Spirit within Jesus unclean or evil. Jesus is empowered by the HS, but they are claiming he is filled with an evil spirit. They are attempting to redefine the very definition of holiness and who God is, in claiming that someone who is in fact perfectly holy is unholy. you are not allowed to call evil good, and good evil. This you may not do. Don't miss the good news earlier… all sins can be forgiven, even all kinds of blasphemies. This is hard to do, but particularly easy for pharisees and scribes who think they know it all and yet get it entirely wrong and teach people these wrong things. Similar to when Jesus says "if anyone leads one of these little ones of mine astray, it would be better for a milestone to be tied around his neck and thrown into the sea. " Matthew 18:6
So when the demons explain who Jesus is, does no one else hear them? Related question: why does Jesus tell them not to say anything: Demons know Jesus identity. They know his mission is to destroy the forces of evil (1:21-28). Jesus does not allow the unclean spirit to advertise Jesus' real identity. He does allow the spirit to act up and cause convulsions and make a scene. So clearly Jesus is allowing people to see the potency and destruction of the enemy. And he is also showing people and the demons that he is coming to do spiritual warfare against Satan's forces. He is showing visibly, that evil is being destroyed through his hand.
But they are not allowed to speak or communicate meaningfully, for the following reasons:
(A) whenever his fame gets ratcheted up, the crowds get too big and his actual ministry is impaired (probably why Leper is told to keep it on the downlow).
(B) unclean spirits are not appropriate instruments for advancing the good news. That is the domain of the Holy Spirit. He has not entrusted the gospel to angels or demons.
(C) Timing . The full significance of Jesus mission and identity cannot be announced until Jesus has died on the cross and been raised from the tomb. After the pivotal events take place, then the demand for secrecy is lifted.
Why did Jesus tell people he healed to tell others he had done it but other times orders them to say nothing? The whole Gospel of Mark is an identity mystery. Who is this man Jesus? From God's perspective and the perspective of the supernatural realm, it is known. The demons and the angels know who Jesus is, his identity is known from the beginning. When the centurion declares that Jesus was the "Son of God" it is the first time a human being in Mark's gospel identifies Jesus with this supreme title. The disciples are kind of in the middle. They get it on one level, but do not understand fully. They have partial understanding. In Mark's gospel, the whole theme is really about the mystery of Jesus and how he reveals himself.
Mark 4:11-12 - how does this reference to Isaiah fit here? This is a reference to Isa. 6:1- 12, esp. vs. 9-10. This is the call of Isaiah. Isaiah's listeners had long refused God's earnest warnings and invitations to repent. Isaiah's preaching, therefore, was going to be puzzling and mysterious to them AS PART OF THEIR PUNISHMENT FOR PERSISTENT REBELLION. In Mark's Gospel, Jesus is portrayed as a patient master teacher who is trying to bring his listeners to the light. He taught in parables to try to form a bridge of human experiences to understand God. Jesus, as master teacher, patiently gauges the flow and depth of his teaching to the capacity of his listeners. In Mark 4:33 he says, "He spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear it." The parables had two simultaneous functions BASED UPON THE ATTITUDE OF THE HEARER. (1) To hide the truth of the gospel from those who are determined to resist and reject it… for them it will get more puzzling and confusing to a closed hearted person. (2) to enlighten and illuminate the minds of those who have an open heart toward Jesus and the gospel. They will be able to understand enough to actually say yes to God. They will be enlightened by the parables. Implications: OBEDIENCE IS THE KEY TO SPIRITUAL INSIGHT. You don't have to have full understanding first, and then say "I'll obey you Lord"; rather, first you surrender to God, who will then give you the insight you need to obey him. this is the mystery of the kingdom - you will never understand anything until you are willing to obey.
Why could he explain everything to his disciples but speak in parables to the people? Could they not have understood as well? in Mark 4:21-25 Jesus talks about a lamp and how there is nothing hid, or anything secret, except to come to light. If anyone has ears to hear let him hear. Listen up! The measure you give will be the measure you get, and still more will be given you. For to him who has will more be given; and from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away."
Jesus is telling them he is unveiling the secrets of the kingdom that have been hidden for a long time. When we hear the measure you give, you will get, we think of things and stewardship or judgment of others, but Jesus is talking about listening to the Gospel, and HOW WE INVEST IN HEARING. In other words, the degree to which we invest in listening carefully will be the measure we understand . No light can be put on hold. Once the light is put out there, you can't stop it. But you can't just sit there and be inert with it. You must respond. A response in the positive yields more and more understanding and more and more light. If we respond negatively, even what we understand now, is in danger of being washed away. There is no inertia with the light.
Mark 4:26-29 - this whole parable confuses me. Is it saying that the kingdom of heaven is that we just scatter the seed and then do nothing more? Is it connected to the parable of the sower? Yes these parables are connected. They are three primary parables using agriculture. The parable of the four soils, the parable of the ignorant sower/harvester, and the parable of the mustard seed. In this particular parable, the middle one, we rarely take it on its own terms. The activity of sleeping and rising of the farmer is not work. This is the twist. Not only does the sower not work, he doesn't understand the mystery of how the seed grows. In fact, we are told that a force other than the sower causes the growth (the sprouting, growing, and full production of the grain). But when the harvest comes, this man suddenly goes to work and harvests the crops. We must open our ears to hear this message. The man is active in sowing, inactive over the entire growth of the seed, and active again at harvest. Our constant temptation as churchgoers and ministers is to eliminate the mystery of the growth of spirituality. It is not our job to understand this mystery of how faith is born and grows in people. That's God's work. Our only work is to plant the seed and to reap it. Paul and Barnabas sowed the word of God, and they appeared to be very unsuccessful, but the Word of God spread, regardless of their apparent "failure". They were often forced out and stoned, they would shake the dust off their feet and move on. Similar with the first parable, the sower is just throwing seed out liberally, and the seed is falling where it falls. He has no control over where it falls on the hearts of whom the seed falls. Only God can work on the inside of a person. Our responsibility is to sow and reap. Don't try to play God in the lives of others. I have to remember that about my own children.