 |
| Christianity Explored |
Mark 8:22-26
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
22 And they *came to Bethsaida. And they *brought a blind man to Jesus and *implored Him to touch him.
23 Taking the blind man by the hand, He brought him out of the village; and after spitting on his eyes and laying His hands on him, He asked him, “Do you see anything?”
24 And he [a]looked up and said, “I see men, for [b]I see them like trees, walking around.”
25 Then again He laid His hands on his eyes; and he looked intently and was restored, and began to see everything clearly.
26 And He sent him to his home, saying, “Do not even enter the village.”
Footnotes: Mark 8:24 Or gained sight Mark 8:24 Or they look to me
During the Christianity Explored class, Wednesday, the question was asked in regard to Mark 8: (paraphrased) Why did Jesus Christ use spitting and saliva in some healing? I stated that God and Christ could have healed the blind man instantly, but this was a matter of progressive faith or a progression of faith. The man would be provided more healing as he demonstrated more faith.
Short explains this was done 'to awaken faith in the man.' (1166). 'But on account, perhaps, of the weakness of the man's faith, he did not at first attain full clarity of vision...' (1166). The healing did ultimately fully occur. (1166).
John 9, also contains a story where Jesus Christ uses spittle.
Barclay has an interesting take on the use of spittle in the context of the three synoptic gospels. He writes in regard to Mark (7: 33; 8:23).
Mark 7:33
New American Standard Bible (NASB) My add:
33 Jesus took him aside from the crowd, by himself, and put His fingers into his ears, and after spitting, He touched his tongue with the saliva;
Barclay
'What was it about these miracles which made Matthew and Luke omit them? They are unusual miracles and they do stand apart. In both of them Jesus used spittle to effect a cure (7: 33; 8:23); and the healing of the blind man is one of the rare occasions where a miracle had, as it were, two stages.' (92).
Barclay opines that Matthew and Luke may have omitted Jesus Christ's lack of immediate success with the healings, as he used spittle which was a conventional method. (92). 'Matthew will tell no miracle story in which the cure in not immediate.' (92). Perhaps, in regard to miracles, Mark was more willing to document the humanity and human workings of Jesus Christ as Messiah. This done without differing with three other gospels in essential New Testament theology. This differing emphasis is reasonable within the New Testament theology of God, the Holy Spirit inspiring Scripture through individual writer perspectives.
2 Timothy 3:16
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
16 All Scripture is [a]inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for [b]training in righteousness;
Footnotes: 2 Timothy 3:16 Lit God-breathed 2 Timothy 3:16 Lit training which is in
BARCLAY, WILLIAM (1976) The Letters of James and Peter, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press.
SHORT, STEPHEN S. (1986) ‘Mark’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
No comments:
Post a Comment