Medicine Hat Joe

Week 30  Mark 2-3

I don’t think I’d necessarily title Mark 1 Jesus’ Salad Days but in general the beginning of the story is pretty nice. People are surprised & amazed & impressed by Jesus. Things are fairly smooth and mostly trouble-free. But that soon changes.
Starting in chapter two Mark tells five consecutive stories and in each of them there’s some element of backlash:
• Jesus tells a paralyzed man: your sins are forgiven. Reaction: some teachers of the law were…thinking to themselves…he’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?
• Jesus socialized with disreputable people. Reaction: the Pharisees…asked his disciples: “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?”
• Jesus’ disciples didn’t fast. Reaction: people…asked Jesus, “How is it that John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees are fasting, but yours are not?”
• The disciples picked grain on the Sabbath. Reaction: Pharisees said to (Jesus), “Why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?”
• Jesus healed a man on the Sabbath. Reaction: Pharisees were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal him on the Sabbath.
In rapid succession Mark lists five events where the Lord is criticized or second-guessed. Mark doesn’t sustain that same rapid rate of reporting – I only found about a dozen other places where he highlights adversity against the Lord. But he makes an emphatic point early-on that Jesus was both a) Popular & Liked and b) Popular & Disliked.

Note: quotes from Mark 2:6-7 2:16 2:18 2:24 3:1-2 (NIV)

Week 29  Matthew 22

The parable of the wedding feast is fourteen-verses long and has some complexifying details. I wanted to pare it down to just the main story:
The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused…
Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. So go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find’.
So that’s the parable at face-value. A king planned a wedding celebration. His invited guests declined. So he invited a completely different group of people. The literal story. But with parables people and events are facsimiles of someone or something else.
An OT-reader doesn’t need too much imagination to figure out what the elements represent. The king is the Lord. The invitation is God choosing Israel. The refusal is Israel turning down God. The second invitation is God extending the invitation to non-Israelites.
That’s the main idea. Details wispy enough to not be incriminating. But a forecast that could unsettle some of the people in Jesus’ audience.

Note: quotes from Matthew 22:2-3 & 8-9 (NIV). Follow-up: in 22:15 Matthew implied – but didn’t explicitly say – that Pharisees in the crowd doped-out the meaning of this parable (and weren’t happy). Whereas in 21:45 he says the Pharisees definitely did get-it.

Week 28  Matthew 23

Jesus was asked a test question: which is the greatest commandment in the Law?. His reply was that there was a short hierarchy of laws:
Law #1: love God
Law #2: love your neighbour.
Jesus said that all the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments. So all of the hundreds of other laws were suspended on those two – all subordinated to the two Primary Directives.
The 10 Commandments are a pretty good example of the connection between personal actions and the Big Two:
The first few commands spelled-out what I do concretely to show that I love the Lord (for instance: I don’t manufacture an idol). That’s a visible action of love-for-the-Lord.
The second group of commandments show what it looks like to love people (I don’t kill them. Don’t have random sexual intercourse with them. Don’t steal their property).
[I wondered if all of the laws could be ranked from top to bottom – but I figured that’s likely impossible and beside-the-point.]
But what I know is the top two laws – the Greatest & the Second Greatest. All the rest are subsidiaries to the Big Two – all my specific behaviours cascade down from there. And conversely I think that all my individual actions can be broken down and examined (kind of deconstructed or back engineered) to see how – or if – what I’m doing reconnects to either loving the Lord or loving other people.

Note: quotes from Matthew 22:36 40 (NIV)

Week 28  Matthew 17

Matthew’s transfiguration story is retold by Mark & Luke.
All three writers say that Jesus’ clothes became blazingly bright. But Luke adds that the appearance of his face changed (and Matthew that his face shone like the sun).
MM&L all say that Moses & Elijah appeared and began talking with Jesus. But in Luke there are two additional details.
First: Moses & Elijah appeared in glory. So in their visible return-to-earth appearance they were enhanced (one version says in majesty and another that they were bright and glorious). Visually spectacular.
Second: in very general terms Luke says what they were talking about: (they) were speaking of his (Jesus’) departure, which he was about to accomplish in Jerusalem (other versions replace departure with the more explicit decease or death).
I don’t know what the main reason for the transfiguration was. In my past readings I’ve tended to think that it was to confirm & solidify PJ&J’s belief in Jesus. But now I’m wondering. Maybe these two premiere OT figures emerge from the realm beyond death not to shock-and-awe PJ&J but to talk to Jesus about his death. A solemn & serious conversation about the Lord’s very near future. Out of all the things he had done Jesus had never died. And at the transfiguration he had a chance to discuss the great transition with two experienced & knowledgeable men of faith.

Note: quotes from (Luke 9:29 & Matthew 17:2 (CSB) Luke 9:31 (CSB DRA & ERV)

Week 27  Matthew 17

Jesus did a lot of exceptional things in the gospels but his transfiguration is one of the really unusual & unique ones.
The Lord had gone up onto a mountain with Peter James & John and then he was transfigured before them (quite a few bible versions use that term: transfigured. Others use a more common word: changed).
The Lord’s baptism is the one similar event in the gospels. In both cases a voice came from heaven and said more-or-less the same thing:
Baptism: this is my one dear Son; in him I take great delight
Transfiguration: this is my one dear Son, in whom I take great delight. Listen to him!
But the two events are also different. When Jesus was baptized: just as he was coming up out of the water, the heavens opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him. But at the transfiguration his physical appearance was actually altered (it seems more like a dramatic enhancement than a complete makeover). Matthew describes that metamorphosis: his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became white as light.
Another (stupefying) difference: Moses and Elijah also appeared before them (the disciples), talking with him (Jesus)’. A couple of old paintings of the transfiguration have the disciples lying on the ground with their hands in front of their faces. Which seems about what you’d expect.

Note: quotes from Matthew 17:2 3:17 17:5 3:16 17:2 3 (NET)

Week 26  Psalm 58

David’s opener is a question-and-answer:
Q: do you rulers really pronounce just decisions? Do you judge people fairly?’
A: No! You plan how to do what is unjust, you deal out violence in the earth.
He’s talking to the people who get to administer justice. Officials who make decisions and have authorization to lay-down-the-law.
There are a couple of things in-play when it comes to justice. There’s the law code itself. Then there’s the person who applies the law – the Legal Umpire. When there’s an injustice problem – let’s say I get assaulted & robbed – then that needs to be resolved. So the umpire listens to the evidence and then interprets the law and makes decisions & rulings & judgments. When the umpire is impartial then justice-is-served.
But in psalm 58 David is talking about a certain type of umpire who isn’t impartial. A partisan judge. Someone who: a) plans how to do what is unjust & then b) administers violence in the earth. So that’s a concern for me in my assault-&-robbery case: what if I end up getting a Psalm 58 umpire?
David  reassures me that in the end there is a God who judges in the earth – an Umpire of the umpires. But while I wait for the slow turning of the wheels-of-justice I have to build stamina. Recognize justice’s limitations. Concede that I might not get a fair-shake. Endure the way things actually are.

Note: quotes from Psalm 58:1-2 & 11 (NET)

Week 26

I use my wordbook quite a bit. It lists all the important words in the bible (that’s why it’s called an ‘exhaustive concordance’). I can find every location of every word.
There’s a value-added feature in this concordance. Right beside the word I’m looking up there’s a reference number (for example: ‘courage’ has #2294). 2294 takes me to the back of the book where I can find the original Greek word for ‘courage’.
Normally I don’t bother flipping back to the ancient language listings – I don’t know any Hebrew or Aramaic or Greek so I’m out-of-my-depth. But I decided to look up the word ‘courage’. There in the Greek dictionary under #2294 it said that the word for courage was tharsos and that tharsos was related to another word: thrasus – meaning bold. I typed thrasus into my search engine.
The results linked the word thrasus to a (second-ranked) god in Greek mythology. His name was Thrasos and he had plenty of boldness-courage. In fact he represented carelessness, recklessness, and rash actions. He was a kind of poster-boy for the chaotic and impulsive aspects of human behavior. In other words: excessive boldness.
I think of courage as a positive virtue. But reading about Thrasos is a useful reminder that courage can degrade into something crazy. That a throwing-caution-to-the-winds type of courage needs an adjective: something like Deranged Courage. Or it maybe even disqualifies it from the courage classification.

Note: Thrasos quotes are from online Search Assist June 23, 2026 & The Theoi Project.

Week 26  John 16

One of my favourite “Verses To (try to) Live By” is where Jesus told his disciples: these things I have spoken to you so that in Me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world.
I broke down the verse. Reordered and personalized it:
a) in this world I’ll have to face tribulation & adversity
b) but Jesus has overcome the world
c) so I can exercise my courage
d) the result for me will be peace & confidence.
Whenever I face a risky situation I’m automatically leery about acting. It’s maybe indecision. Fearfulness. Uncertainty. Self-preservation. But if the situation is actually worth acting on then I have to engage my courage. Courage is what stiffens-up my action-taking mechanism.
Anyway…in John Jesus says that the ecosystem I inhabit is adversarial in nature – in a permanent & ongoing way. So it’s an environment that’s always taking some courage for me to face. And Jesus says my courage isn’t dumb or foolish courage. It’s legitimate because he has prevailed over the system.

Note: quote from John 16:33 (NASB)
I looked at this verse in some other versions. More than 20 of them (~40%) used the word courage (or be courageous. Be encouraged. Take courage. Have courage). But quite a few (~15) used expressions like cheer up or be of good cheer. I’m not sure how the two stack up against each other. But be courageous seems weightier & more sturdy than cheer up. I prefer courage.

Week 25  Mark 15

One of the few places in the NT where the word courage is used comes right after the crucifixion when Joseph of Arimathea gathered up courage to ask for Jesus’ body so he could bury it. Some versions say that Joseph:
• boldly went to Pilate and asked for Jesus’s body (quite a few use bold)
• dared to approach Pilate
• was brave enough to go to Pilate.
I looked up ‘courage’ in the dictionary. Sure enough – one of the synonyms of courage is boldness. Implying daring or fearlessness. Maybe even brashness. Which I’m not sure Joseph was. I prefer courage. Joseph:
• took courage and went to Pilate
• gathered up courage
• took his courage in both hands.
Mark called Joseph a prominent member of the Council, who was…waiting for the kingdom of God
Matthew: a rich man from Arimathea…who (had) become a disciple of Jesus
Luke: a member of the Council, a good and righteous man
And John: a disciple of Jesus, but a secret one for fear of the Jews.
Going to Jesus’ executioner was a hazard for Joseph and he’d likely have done some serious risk assessment. There’d be the possibility of guilt-by-association. Sticky questions to answer. Suspicions to deal with. Getting shut down. Reputation to lose.
So maybe Joseph’s life wasn’t on-the-line. But going to Pilate still took courage since Joseph had to gather-up-his-courage to do it.

Note: quotes from Mark 15:43 (NASB & CSB CEB ERV ESV LSB & NTFE). Joseph: Mark 15:43 Matthew 27:57 Luke 23:50 John 19:38 (NASB)

Week 25  Matthew 9

In my bible the expression ‘take courage’ is only used a few times in the gospels – and about half of them come when Jesus was talking to physically incapacitated people:
• the paralyzed man
• the hemorrhaging woman
• Bartimaeus the blind man
The three cases seemed pretty hopeless but even so the people made a last-ditch attempt at recovery. It might have been a sort of grasping-at-straws initiative but to me it looks like some courage was being shown. Still…Jesus told them: take courage.
There’s a range of courages on the Courage Scale running from Elite Courage (being super-brave or heroic) all the along to Workaday Courage (pluck or grit or determination). So some courages show a higher degree of courage than others. But all courages decide against cowardice. Against timidity or fearfulness or indecision.
Courage is acting even when my chances are looking pretty bleak or chancy. The niggling prompt to go out-on-a-limb when it’s safer to stay put. A trade-off: safety or uncertainty? Courage shifts me away from inertia. Cajoles and pushes me to step into the Taking Action Zone.
Staying in the Not Taking Action Zone means I don’t have to overcome any fear – so a convincing argument can be made for staying out of the Taking Action Zone. On the other hand if I don’t take-my-courage-in-hand I might – down the line – end up regretting that I gave up too easily.

Note: the three healings are in Matthew 9:1 22 & Mark 10:49