Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- mark_2 [2024/08/07 20:17] – pastordaniel
+++ mark_2 [2024/08/07 20:22] (current) – pastordaniel
@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 **AI Summary of Phillip J. Long**
-Based on this academic paper, the author's interpretation of the bridegroom passage in Mark 2:18-22 can be summarized as follows:
+Based on this academic paper, Long's interpretation of the bridegroom passage in Mark 2:18-22 can be summarized as follows:
 . Jesus is describing his practice of open table fellowship as a joyous wedding banquet, with himself as the bridegroom hosting the celebration.
@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 . For Mark's audience, this demonstrates Jesus' inclusive approach and encourages the church to welcome those on the fringes of society.
-The author argues against interpretations that see this passage as created by the early church or as promoting replacement theology. Instead, he views it as an authentic saying of Jesus that fits within Jewish eschatological expectations of the time.
+Long argues against interpretations that see this passage as created by the early church or as promoting replacement theology. Instead, he views it as an authentic saying of Jesus that fits within Jewish eschatological expectations of the time.
+** Authenticity**
+Long argues for the authenticity of Jesus' bridegroom saying in Mark 2:18-22 through several key points:
+. Addressing common objections:
+   a) Refutes the idea that it's a creation of the early church
+   b) Argues against it being a later insertion to justify fasting practices
+   c) Challenges the notion that it reflects later church theology
+. Lack of explicit messianic claim:
+   a) Jesus is not directly equating himself with the Messiah
+   b) The bridegroom metaphor is used to describe his ministry, not necessarily his messianic status
+. Consistency with Hebrew Bible imagery:
+   a) Draws on the marriage metaphor common in prophetic literature
+   b) Aligns with eschatological expectations of renewal and celebration
+. Criterion of embarrassment:
+   a) Jesus' reputation for feasting rather than fasting could be seen as embarrassing
+   b) This reputation is well-attested across Gospel traditions
+. Contextual fit within Mark's narrative:
+   a) Consistent with Jesus' practice of open table fellowship
+   b) Fits the broader theme of meals in Mark's Gospel
+. Eschatological language:
+   a) Use of phrases like "the day is coming" aligns with prophetic and apocalyptic traditions
+   b) Connects to expectations of the New Covenant and restored relationship with God
+. Lack of explicit resurrection references:
+   a) The saying doesn't clearly predict Jesus' death and resurrection
+   b) This argues against it being a later creation to explain post-resurrection practices
+. Compatibility with Jesus' known teachings:
+   a) Consistent with Jesus' emphasis on joy and celebration in God's kingdom
+   b) Aligns with his practice of welcoming outcasts and sinners
+. Linguistic and cultural appropriateness:
+   a) The metaphors used fit the first-century Jewish context
+   b) No anachronistic elements that would suggest later composition
+Long concludes that these factors, taken together, suggest the saying is more likely to be authentic to Jesus than a later creation of the early church.