The contrast of two processions entering Jerusalem.
One of peasants the other of the powerful.
One to promote the Kingdom of God, the other the Empire of Rome.
One to create trouble, the other to prevent it.

The contrast (and tinming) was organiseded by Jesus to lampoon authority.
The entry of Jesus seems like a pre-planned political demonstration.
Jesus was claiming the role of the Jewish Messiah
Jesus was also challenging the prevailing power.
So not so much a "Triumphal Entry"
but a -Challenger at the Gate".

A Domination Social System
This was a feature of Israel, and the whole Roman world) at the time.
Rule by a few without any voice for the proletariat.
Economic exploitation, through the centralisation of wealth.
Religious Legitimisation of the system through the message fo the priests.
Priests preached that this is how God wants it to be
the divine right of kings, humble obedience.

The High Priest had to walk a tightrope
between placating Roman authority and the people
keeping the tribute flowing and keeping domestic peace.
Jesus was a blatant threat to this balance
with his talk of equality and justice.

The Message of Jesus was directed at the peasants.
The theme of Mark is one of a journey;
Following Jesus on The Way
The Way that leads to Jerusalem
Jerusalem as the place of confrontation
Perhaps where the ways of heaven meet those of earth.
Such confrontation then leads to death and resurrection

The Cross was a symbol of both resurrection and imperial retribution.
Has it become a symbol of dominant religious authority, or repression?

Mark's Gosepl is structured to teach the meaning of following Jesus.
The message of Palm Sunday, is one of making a decision,
whether to accept the ruling domination system
or to follow Jesus to (mortal) destruction.

(it would seem that the church has taken the former option;
become the very beast that Jesus challenged
and which destroyed his body.

The title leads us, confusingly, astray.
As with the format of his entry to the city,
Jesus is issuing a challenge to authority.

We might wonder how much truth there is in the stories.
Are they included just to make the point that Mark needs to get over?
Are they Parables, or events used in parabolic form?
Are we asked to think about what was written,
but not to take it at face value?

The tale of the fig tree, which immediately precedes the temple story,
is used to illustrate the fate of the temple - why?
Because it was not bearing fruit.

Many interpret what Jesus did as a condemnation
of what was going on in the Temple – blood sacrifice etc
But blood sacrifice was a, historically, worthy way to honour God
- giving something of value. We give money. They gave possessions.

The Temple was the centre of Judaism,
but had an ambiguos nature as sitting on the boundary of Roman authority.
It was both a fortress and the seat of religious/divine power.

The Jews had been warned by the prophets
that worship there did not excuse them from doing God's work
nor shield them from His anger. (Micah 6::6-8)

The action of Jesus in the Temple was symbolic.
There was nothing wrong with money changing (it was needed)
or selling animals (they were needed).
The action of Jesus was a symbolic closure of the Temple altogether
- just as he had said about the fig-tree.
He was not “cleansing the temple” but closing it, because it was not bearing fruit.
When worship becomes a substitute for righteousness, God rejects the place of worship.

In places, Mark's account reflects the situation of the time when the Temple was under seige.
Maybe the "den of robbers" remark was inserted to cover that,
and refers to those rebels using the Temple as a fotress,
as it does not fall naturally from the other OT quotations.

Note that, just as the entry to Jerusalem was pre-planned,
so Jesus visited the Temple on the previous day as a reconnaisance for what he was going to do.
He "wrote his sermons (parabolic actions) in advance".
Both were challenges to those collaborating
with violent dominant authority.

Tuesday

After a short face-off (over the place of John the Baptist),
Jesus tells the tale of the “Wicked Tenants” (or “Greedy Tenants”)
(this may be a later Christian additive)..
The explanation is plain – with Israel as the vineyard.

The next conflict is over the need to pay taxes,
which has been (and often is) seen as justifying the separation of church and state ( render to God or to Caesar.)
and thus the separation of life into religious and political, so giving absolute authority to secular authority in their realm.
This is a false division.
Next comes a question about marriage and the rites of the dead,
asked by Sdducees who did not believe in the, fairly recent, idea of an afterlife.
Jesus gives a non-answer about heaven but concludes that “God is God of the living not of the dead” - which is fascinating,
as it could deny an afterlife altogether with out saying as much, or even that God is a human invention.

“Which is the first commandment”. Here Jesus commends the questioner.
His answer (Love God and love your neighbour) comes from the Torah, and is a radical departures from the ways of the world.
The questioner then adds that hese are more important than Temple practices, a statement that Jesus affirms.
Jesus Teaching about the son Of David,
seems complex and irrelevant. Perhaps Jesus is saying “keep it simple” and then points to the simple faith of the poor woman paying her Temple tax.
Jesus predicts the destruction of the Temple, as he was bound to when Mark was writing, after all it was then a fact, or imminent.
Then he foresees the persecution and problems which will follow.
This, like many prophetic books, is (or is adjusted to become) a political treatise looking ahead to what will happen unless “we” take a prescribed course.
Is it a call to surrender to Roman authority, or at least to get out of Jersualem and flee to the hills?
Mark also predicts the time after the war when Christianity will return (the return of Jesus),
but it follows a time of terrible suffering (the revenge of the Roman legions).

Wednesday

The anointing with nard is reported in all the Gospels,
(though at a different point in Luke's)
along with the priests idea of killing Jesus
and Judas's thoughts of betrayal.

The Crowd are on the side of Jesus, the preacher.
Authority finds his impact to be a threat.
(note the the later Gospels progressively, and significantly,
change the emphasis of Mark's Gospel on the role of “The Crowd”).

The book spends some time pointing out
the structure, and thrust, of Mark's Gospel,
which obviously denies any literal veracity.
It is a message, a political pamphlet, rather than a historical record.

Mark has Jesus predicting what is going to happen to him
yet we must realise that this was written when it had already happened.
Mark's message is that we must all be prepared to accept the same fate as Jesus.
It was a very relevant possibly at the time of writing,
but Mark shows that we are ready to reject that path.
for one of dominant authority adopted by religious leaders.
The story of the anointing follows the same theme
of the need to surrender all
and put our trust in Jesus
– to follow his way.

It is used as a preaching device to subordinate the congregation.
The tale of betrayal by Judas points to the opposite path.

Maunday Thursday

Mark's and John's accounts are significantly different
1. John makes it a Passover meal (on Friday), so pointing to Jesus as the sacrificial lamb of God.
2. John has Jesus make a large (5 chapters!) speech at the supper.
3. John has Jesus washing the disciples feet and omits the “this is my body...” saying
Maybe John is more concerned with doctrine than with truth.

Again the day is pre-planned and secret arrangements made in advance.
The authorities are after him and he has to take evasive action.

Mark's account sets up the Holy Communion liturgy (perhaps already current at that time).
The whole ministry of Jesus had a focus on sharing food across social boundaries.
Mark's account links back to the feeding of the 5000 (the sharing of food) and to the meal taken before the Exodus.
There is no reference to sin or salvation, merely to freedom from the bonds of this world.
Jesus prays (in solitude) and his prayers are reported!
There is obviously nothing but doctrine here.
A lesson being preached by the author to further his story.

The book sees Judas as “the betrayer” rather than “the negotiator”, which makes much more sense.
He was the one whom Jesus trusted, with the money, and with whom Jesus had a private conversation at supper.
He was also the only one who died with Jesus, though by his own hand.
Why has he been so vilified by the disciples?
Maybe because of ignorance and envy (he was the favoured one).
By the author, because of the need for an anti-hero in the story.
By the church, to speak against the love of money and against betrayal.
Maybe.

In the story, the disciples see the soldiers as a threat rather than an escort.
The actual assault by Peter involves a deadly weapon, which he should not have possessed
– and certainly could not have carried in a public place.
John's story of the time in the garden is fabrication!

The story of Jesus before the High Priest is also untenable
as, again, there were no disciples present to make a report.
Presumably this was a later fable constructed to fit the needs of the Christian community.
The reported events do not follow any legal pattern
and the verdict is based on a post-Easter concept
of the significance of Jesus as “the Son of God”
- and that this is blasphemy in Jewish eyes.

The story of Peter's denial in the courtyard is a literary device
both to affirm denials by those being persecuted, in Mark's day,
and to contrast with the refusal of Jesus to deny his role.

Friday Jesus was taken to the Roman governor, tried, sentenced, tortured (as was usual), and executed.
So far as the Romans were concerned it was routine,
despite the legends that Christian memories later wound around it.
It is seen as a dreadful day (yet is it more deadful than the death of other martyrs?).
The death of Jesus is given all sorts of understandings:
Substitutionary atonement, with its attached concepts of Jesus and of our nature,
is, for most of us, an understanding rooted in childhood and reinforced by song and liturgy.
It is based on Anselm's legalistic argument, but is absent in much of the New Testament (particularly from Mark).
The focus on the crucifixion derives from Paul's letters
and the need for atonement on the concept of original sin,
so vital to clerical authority.

Note the prominent role of women in the crucifixion and resurrection stories.
The death of Jesus was only a sacrifice in so far as it was giving his life for a cause.
There is no reality in it as a substitution for sin, or anything else.
Mark sees the death as an execution by the authorites
because he challenged the domination system of priest and pontiff.
It was this domination system that Jesus challenged – and he lost.

Did Jesus have to die?
Was it a divine necessity or a human inevitablity?

Does God really demand the death of the prophets/martyrs/innocents?
Perhaps the followers had to seek out a reason, a purpose for his death.
Other OT figires are said to have seen a divine purpose in their suffering (eg Joseph)
It was the passion of Jesus that got him killed, just as it was for Alexei Navalny.
In both cases, the authorities were justified in what they did
by the fact that these were, both, trouble makers,
stirring up dissent at a critical time, politically..

Friday

Jesus was taken to the Roman governor,
tried, sentenced, tortured, and executed.
So far as the Romans were concerned it was routine,
despite the legends that Christian memories later wound around it.

It is seen as a dreadful day (yet is it more deadful than the death of other martyrs?).
The death of Jesus is given all sorts of understandings:
Substitutionary atonement, with its attached concepts of Jesus and of our nature,
is, for most of us, an understanding rooted in childhood and reinforced by song and liturgy.
It is based on Anselm's legalistic argument, but is absent in much of the New Testament (particularly from Mark).

The focus on the crucifixion derives from Paul's letters
and the need for atonement on the concept of original sin,
so vital to clerical authority, in all ages

Note the prominent role of women in the crucifixion and resurrection stories.
The death of Jesus was only a sacrifice in so far as it was giving his life for a cause.
There is no reality in it as a substitution for sin, or anything else.

Mark sees the death as an execution by the authorites
because he challenged the domination system of priest and pontiff.
It was this domination system that Jesus challenged – and he lost.

Did Jesus have to die?
Was it a divine necessity or a human inevitablity?

Does God really demand the death of the prophets/martyrs/innocents?
Perhaps the followers had to seek out a reason, a purpose for his death;
something that excused, or camouflaged, their craven behaviour.
Other OT figires are said to have seen a divine purpose in their suffering (eg Joseph)
It was the passion of Jesus that got him killed, just as it was for Alexei Navalny.
In both cases, the authorities were justified in what they did
by the fact that these were political trouble makers,
stirring up dissent at a critical time .

Saturday

Saturday This is a day skipped by the Gospel of Mark.
The Apostle's Creed includes his descent into hell
(why? It seems a strange additive.).

This is the time that the idea of a general resurrection of the “sleeping saints”
can be fitted in by those focussed on such unlikely concepts.

Matthew's Gospel adds an earthquake to Mark's tale of the crucifixion to help them on their way.
Other stories (eg the Gospel of Peter) can be seen to have had the tale,
of their rescue added at a later date (after 200 and before 700AD).
The idea is built on some surviving Jewish tradition,
but not supported by New Testament texts.
Yet we include it in the Creed!

Easter Sunday

Starting with the story of the shining young man in the tomb,
this is a tale of magic and manipulation - and incredibly
the basis of the whole Christian religious package.

The stories are presented as parables,
but interpreted by the church as factual accounts.
What is more the stories conflict in the different Gospels,
each being used to support different ideas.

Yet the “empty tomb” has become the key to being a Christian.
Even St Paul followed, or maybe generated, this path (in 1Co15:14).

However, by trying to treat the stories as factual, we miss their meanings.
Because the Bible is not factually true does not mean that it does not carry truth.
From these messages we can see that: The tomb could not hold him
His physical death is irrelevant.
Jesus, who was crucified , has been raised:
there is a greater authority at work here.
You will see him: he will come to you, all
and we may read "Go to Gallillee"
go back to the start of his ministry -the Nazareth maifesto.
that is where you will find Jesus!
which is presumably a parable of the way that the rich
can, or should, come to the aid of the Christian commuity)

Matthew 28:18-20 All authority has been given to Jesus: a churchy message, but supportive.
Make disciples of all natiosn: not belivers but followers of his Way.
Obey everything I have commanded: obedience not belief is called for
I am with you always: within us and around us.

Luke's story of the road to Emaus is blatantly parabolic, and true.
It is a story that happens again and again.
It is followed by Jesus appearing to the discioples
and showing his hands and feet (crufixion nails went through wrists not hands!!)
The point is that this is more than just a story it has meaning.
(yet is still not a factual account )

John, as usual, extends the story into an incredible sequence suited to his theology.
The whole basis of the story is the affirmation “Jesus lives!”
Some might say that he is experienced through the Holy Spirit,
but that is basically the same thing.
The second message is that God has vindicated Jesus, and thus his message..
The goodness within each of us responds positively the message of Jesus.
The third message is that the powers of this world have been defeated.
Which is ,as yet, untrue. However this is a crucial element of faith.

St Paul believed that he had seen Jesus
- not as a physical thing but as a reality..
He came to see “Jesus is Lord, because that meeting changed his life.
He then came to acknowledge that the Kingdom of God is on its way,
but, as St Augustine wrote:
“We without God can not. God without us will not”.
- or vice-versa.

Good Friday and Easter present a message that we need to die and rise again.
Present orthodox doctrine is acorruption of the facts.
1. Self should not be central. We need to follow the way of Jesus to the Kingdom.
2. We need to confront the (mistaken or even evil) authorities of this world.
The church, in its many forms, is part of that authority.
Its role is to crucify Jesus, agsin, so that he is unable to spread his message.
He is presented, at Easter, as a corpse which has done its redeeming work.
It is finished!

The passion of Jesus was for the Kingdom of God,
what it could be like on earth if God reigned,
if equality and justice overcame
the self-centred egotism
of present doctrine.