Bulgaria: Religious Freedom

June 20, 2004 by Cup&Cross
Filed under News

International Religious Freedom Report 2003
Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor

The Constitution provides for freedom of religion; however, the Government restricts this right in practice for some non-Orthodox religious groups. These restrictions are manifested primarily in a registration process that is selective, slow, and nontransparent. The Government prohibits the public practice of religion by groups that are not registered.
There was no change in the status of respect for religious freedom during the period covered by this report. In December 2002, the Government passed a new law on religion–the Confessions Act. While an improvement over the previous law from 1949, religious and human rights groups have criticized the new law for the preferential treatment given to the Bulgarian Orthodox Church and for provisions that appear to take sides in what many see as an internal Church conflict.

The generally amicable relationship among religions in society contributed to religious freedom; however, discrimination, harassment, and general public intolerance of non-traditional religious minorities remained an intermittent problem. No major incidents were reported during the period covered by this report, and attitudes towards non-traditional groups continued to improve. Tensions between factions within the Bulgarian Orthodox Church and concerns about Islamic fundamentalism continued to receive media coverage.

The U.S. Government raised the issue of religious freedom repeatedly in contacts with government officials and Members of Parliament in the context of its overall dialog of promoting human rights.

Section I. Religious Demography

The country has a total area of 42,855 square miles, and its population is approximately 7.9 million according to a 2001 census. According to the most recent statistics from the country’s National Statistical Institute, approximately 82.6 percent of citizens are Orthodox Christians and approximately 12.2 percent are Muslims, while the remainder includes Roman Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Gregorian-Armenian Christians, Uniate Catholics, and others. Another study used 1998 figures to estimate that 85 percent of the population are Orthodox Christians, 13 percent are Muslims, 1.5 percent are Roman Catholics, 0.8 percent are Jews, and 1 percent are from other religions. A total of 36 denominations are registered officially with the Government, up from 30 in 2002. According to the head of the Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights and Religion, a number of denominations still have pending registration requests with the Sofia Court.

Some religious minorities are concentrated geographically. The Rhodope Mountains (along the country’s southern border with Greece) are home to many Muslims, including ethnic Turks, Roma, and “Pomaks” (descendents of Slavic Bulgarians who converted to Islam centuries ago under Ottoman rule). At the western extreme of the Rhodopes, there are greater numbers of Pomaks, and on the eastern end, more ethnic Turks. Muslim ethnic Turks and Roma also live in large numbers in the northeast of the country, primarily in and around the cities of Shumen and Razgrad, as well as along the Black Sea coast. There are comparatively large numbers of Roman Catholics in Plovdiv, Assenovgrad, and in cities along the Danube River. Eastern Rite Catholic communities are located in Sofia and Smolyan. Many members of the country’s small Jewish community live in Sofia, Ruse, and along the Black Sea coast. However, Protestant groups are dispersed more widely throughout the country. While clear statistics are not available, evangelical Protestant church groups have had particular success in attracting numerous converts from among the ethnic Roma minority, and these churches tend to be the most active denominations in predominantly Roma inhabited areas.

Although no exact data are available on attendance levels, most observers agree that evangelical Protestants tend to participate in religious services more frequently than other religious groups. Members of the country’s Catholic community also are regarded as more likely than members of other faiths to regularly attend religious services.

Missionaries are present in the country, including, for example, representatives of evangelical Protestant churches and more than 100 missionaries from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons).

Section II. Status of Religious Freedom

Legal/Policy Framework

The Constitution provides for freedom of religion; however, the Government restricts this right in practice for some non-Orthodox religious groups.

The Constitution designates Eastern Orthodox Christianity as the “traditional” religion. The Government provides financial support for the Eastern Orthodox Church, as well as for several other religious communities perceived as holding historic places in society, such as the Muslim, Roman Catholic, and Jewish faiths, which also are considered “traditional.” These groups generally benefit from a relatively high degree of governmental and societal tolerance.

A new law on religion, known as the Confessions Act, was approved by Parliament on December 22, 2002. It entered into force 1 week later, replacing an outdated religion law dating back to 1949. Religious and human rights groups have strongly criticized the law for the preferential treatment given to the Bulgarian Orthodox Church and for provisions that appear to take sides in what many see as an internal Church conflict. Under the new law, all religious groups, with the exception of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, must register with the Sofia Municipal Court before they can practice their beliefs in public. The rather broad influence given to the Religious Denominations Directorate of the Council of Ministers, particularly regarding the Directorate’s exclusive right to give “expert opinions” to the Court regarding registration matters, also has been a cause of concern.

Several drafts of the new law were under consideration in late 2002. The Act was adopted before international legal experts and human rights groups had the opportunity to review the final draft to ensure it was consistent with international standards on religious freedom. Upon review following adoption of the law, legal experts and human rights groups found some provisions in the law to be ambiguous or even contradictory. A review prepared in early 2003 for the Council of Europe highlights that the provisions dealing with the process of registration neither specify the criteria establishing the basis on which the Court should grant registration, nor the grounds on which such registration can be withheld. The Act also fails to specify the consequences of failure to register as a religious community or outline any recourse if a competent court refuses to grant registration. Therefore, the actual impact of the new law will depend to a great extent on how the Act is implemented, including the Sofia Municipal Court’s practices regarding registration. There are reports that some groups have encountered undue delays with their re-registration. Since visas are contingent on re-registration, the Missionary Sisters of Charity and the Salesians reportedly have been denied visas.

For most registered religious groups there were no restrictions on attendance at religious services or on private religious instruction. Four Islamic schools (including a university-level Muslim divinity school), a Muslim cultural center, a multi-denominational Protestant seminary, university theological faculties, and religious primary schools operated freely. Bibles and other religious materials in the Bulgarian language were imported or printed freely, and Muslim, Catholic, and Jewish publications were published regularly.

Optional religious education courses are offered in state-run schools. Following the successful introduction of a program to provide optional Islamic education classes in primary schools in 2002 using a textbook proposed by the Chief Mufti and approved by the Ministry of Education, the Ministry agreed to assist with funding for such courses in 2004. The Chief Mufti’s office reports that in 2002 it funded more than 1,000 students participation in the pilot program. The Ministry announced that approximately 18,000 primary and secondary school students attend religion classes. Evangelical groups have expressed concern that other textbooks designed to be used in public schools for religious education are biased in favor of the Orthodox perspective.

The Government generally has encouraged greater religious tolerance since 1998 by seeking to promote greater understanding among different faiths.

Restrictions on Religious Freedom

The Government restricted religious freedom through a registration process that is selective, slow, and nontransparent. The Government prohibits the public practice of religion by groups that are not registered.

The split within the Bulgarian Orthodox Church between those who support Patriarch Maksim and those who view him as illegitimate because he was selected in 1971 under Communist rule to head that church led to tension between the groups and violence in July 2002. The schism, which began in 1992, continued despite attempts by the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha Government to heal the rift. While many Bulgarians viewed the Government as generally favoring the group headed by Maksim, the Government had stayed formally neutral regarding the leadership status of either Maksim’s “Holy Synod” or the so-called “alternative synod.” However, the new law recognizes Patriarch Maksim as the sole representative of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. It furthermore prohibits any group or person who has broken off from a registered religious group from using the same name or claiming any properties belonging to that group. Effectively, this prohibits members of the alternative synod from formally registering as the Bulgarian Orthodox Church or from claiming any of the Church property currently under its control.

On July 22, 2002, Stefan Kamberov, a 66-year-old priest associated with the alternative synod, was murdered near the St. Panteleimon Monastery near Dobrinshte. The two synods were in open conflict regarding the control of the monastery. Two suspects with connections to Maxim’s synod (including one priest) have been arrested in connection with the murder, but the case has not yet been brought to trial.

While the observance of religious freedom has improved for some nontraditional groups, other groups have faced official disfavor and been disadvantaged by the Government’s persistent refusal to grant registration. The legal requirement that groups whose activities have a religious element must register with the Sofia Municipal Court remained an obstacle to the activity of some religious groups, such as the Unification Church and the Sofia Church of Christ. Other church groups have successfully registered through the Court, but continued to face some discrimination and antipathy from many local governments.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses are legally registered, and have been recognized since 1998; however, there have been problems between the Jehovah’s Witnesses and some local authorities. The Jehovah’s Witnesses have had a difficult time in Burgas, a city on the Black Sea. The locally elected municipal authorities, responding to public demonstrations against a Jehovah’s Witnesses prayer house being built so close to a public school, used their “public order” powers to stop construction of the prayer house. The case is pending before a court and being appealed to regional authorities. Also Article 21 of the new Confessions Act, which requires religious organizations to register at the national and then the local level, is viewed as likely to exacerbate such problems since certain localities like Burgas have been consistently hostile to non-traditional groups like the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

In some cases, local authorities used the lack of registration as a pretext for interference with some groups and harassed others. Some church groups circumvented the administrative obstacles created by a lack of registration by registering as non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Technically it remained illegal for a church to conduct any religious activities through its NGO-registered organization, although the Government sometimes tacitly allowed such groups to conduct worship as long as they kept a very low profile. There were periodic reports of police using lack of local or national registration as a pretext to confiscate signboards and materials, detain or expel religious workers, and deny visas or residence permits to foreign-national missionaries.

The national Government on some occasions, but not systematically, has stopped local governments from enforcing restrictive municihe Black Sea coast. However, Protestant groups are dispersed more widely throughout the country. While clear statistics are not available, evangelical Protestant church groups have had particular success in attracting numerous converts from among the ethnic Roma minority, and these churches tend to be the most active denominations in predominantly Roma inhabited areas.

Section II. Status of Religious Freedom

Legal/Policy Framework

The Constitution provides for freedom of religion; however, the Government restricts this right in practice for some non-Orthodox religious groups.

The Government generally has encouraged greater religious tolerance since 1998 by seeking to promote greater understanding among different faiths.

Restrictions on Religious Freedom

The national Government on some occasions, but not systematically, has stopped local governments from enforcing restrictive municipal government decisions, which appear to fall into a gray area of the law. Burgas, Plovdiv, and Stara Zagora are among the municipalities that have reported the greatest number of complaints of harassment of non-traditional religious groups. Some observers note with concern a tendency by certain municipalities to enact regulations preemptively that may be used to limit religious freedom if a perceived need arises.

These restrictive actions appear to be motivated by public intolerance. In November 2001, the city of Kurdzhali refused to issue the Christian Unity Biblical Association a permit for a planned public gathering. A spokesperson for the municipality reportedly justified this decision by stating that the evangelical association preached ideas that were “alien to local people.” In June the Municipal Council in Burgas passed a decision banning Jehovah’s Witnesses from building a prayer hall near a local public school. According to the Chairman of the Council, local residents and the school community protested the construction of the building. The Council’s decision was based on regulations granting it the authority to protect “public order and security.” Central government authorities have made no attempt to appeal the Council’s decision.

Although several municipalities such as Burgas, Plovdiv, Pleven, Gorna Oryahovitsa, and Stara Zagora previously had passed local ordinances that curtailed religious practices, often in contravention of the Constitution and international law, it does not appear that these have been strictly enforced. There were no reported incidents of street-level harassment of religious groups by the authorities during the period covered by this report.

A number of religious groups have complained that foreign missionaries and religious leaders experience difficulties in obtaining and renewing residence visas in the country; the issuance of residence visas appears to be subject to the whim of individual authorities. New amendments to the Law on Foreign Persons, which went into effect on May 1, 2001, have created problems for foreign national missionaries and religious workers. The revised law has no visa category that explicitly applies to missionaries or religious workers, and rules for other categories of temporary residence visa (such as self-employed or business-owner) have been tightened in ways that seem to make it more difficult for religious workers to qualify. This problem has been exacerbated by the fact that key government institutions have not yet developed implementing regulations or procedures to handle their new responsibilities under the law, despite the fact that the new law is in force. American evangelical missionaries in Stara Zagora reported confusion and delays in their visa application process from October 2001 through June 2002, including bureaucrats demanding unexpected fees or bribes. Missionaries therefore may have to limit the time and purpose of their visits to the 30 days accorded to tourists. Human rights groups also have protested the cancellation of residence status of several persons on undisclosed national security grounds, alleging that the action was a pretext for religious discrimination. In one case involving Ahmed Musa, a human rights attorney asserted that the expulsion was motivated by the desire of the police to seize the assets of a religious foundation; however, this allegation has not been confirmed.

The high school curriculum includes a course on religion initiated by the Ministry of Education. The original plan called for a world religion course that avoided endorsing any particular faith; however, members of other religions, especially ethnic Turkish Muslims, maintain that the Bulgarian Orthodox Church receives privileged coverage in the textbooks. The religion course is optional and is not available at all schools.

Following the successful introduction of optional Islamic education courses in 2002, and the expected development of additional courses in 2004, there has been some discussion of requiring pal government decisions, which appear to fall into a gray area of the law. Burgas, Plovdiv, and Stara Zagora are among the municipalities that have reported the greatest number of complaints of harassment of non-traditional religious groups. Some observers note with concern a tendency by certain municipalities to enact regulations preemptively that may be used to limit religious freedom if a perceived need arises.

The Department of Theology of Sofia University changed its rules requiring all students to present an Orthodox Church baptismal certificate and married students to present an Orthodox marriage certificate in order to enroll in the Department’s classes. This change has made it possible for non-Orthodox students to enroll in the Department.

The Government has abolished the construction and transportation battalions, to which ethnic and religious minorities previously were assigned in order to segregate them from the regular military forces. While the conscript troops of the military are integrated, the professional officer corps contains few members of ethnic or religious minority groups.

The failure of the Government to restitute certain confiscated properties remains a sore point in relations between various denominations and the State, and prevents these denominations from raising more revenue through the use or rental of such properties. There were no indications that the Government discriminated against members of any religious group in making restitution to previous owners of properties that were nationalized during the Communist period. However, NGOs and certain denominations claimed that a number of their properties confiscated under the Communist years have not been returned. For example, the Muslim community claims at least 17 properties around the country that have not been returned. The Orthodox Church, Catholic Church, Methodists, Adventists, and other groups also claim land or buildings in Sofia and other towns. Former Jewish properties mostly have been recovered over the last 10 years, with one exception in downtown Sofia that is pending before the court. A central problem facing all claimants is the need to demonstrate that the organization seeking restitution is the organization–or the legitimate successor of the organization–that owned the property prior to September 9, 1944. This is difficult because communist hostility to religion led some groups to hide assets or ownership, and because documents have been destroyed or lost over the years.

The law provides for alternative service for a 2-year period, more than twice as long as regular military service; universal conscripted military service is 9 months for most recruits, while university graduates serve just 6 months. Reportedly, several individuals are serving in an alternative civilian capacity in lieu of military service. Nonetheless, human rights observers complain that procedures for invoking this alternative as a conscientious objector are unclear. There were no new reports of incarcerations on religious grounds during the period covered by this report.

The Constitution prohibits the formation of political parties along religious lines.

There were no reports of religious prisoners or detainees.

Forced Religious Conversion

The Constitution prohibits forced religious conversion, and there were no reports of forced religious conversion or attempts at forced conversions, including of minor U.S. citizens who had been abducted or illegally removed from the United States, or of the refusal to allow such citizens to be returned to the United States.

Improvements and Positive Developments in Respect for Religious Freedom

In October 2002, the Government decided to transfer ownership of the property at 9 Suborna Street to the Jewish organization “Shalom,” thus resolving one of two significant outstanding cases of Jewish community property restitution. Following the successful introduction of a program to provide optional Islamic education classes in primary schools in 2002, the Ministry of Education has agreed to assist with funding for such courses in 2004. The Chief Mufti’s office reports that in 2002 it funded more than 1,000 students participation in the pilot program and expect other denominations to develop similar programs in 200all students to enroll in a course on religion, and students would be given the option of which course they wish to take.

It appears that some local ordinances that restricted religious freedom have not been enforced, and in some cases were suspended, due to pressure from the central Government.

Section III. Societal Attitudes

Relations between the major religious communities generally were amicable; however, discrimination, harassment, and general public intolerance of non-traditional religious groups (primarily newer evangelical Protestant groups) remained an intermittent problem. The number of reported incidents decreased during the period covered by this report. Strongly held suspicion of evangelical denominations among the populace is widespread and pervasive across the political spectrum and has resulted in discrimination. Often cloaked in a veneer of “patriotism,” mistrust of the religious beliefs of others is common. Such mainstream public pressure for the containment of “foreign religious sects” inevitably influences policymakers. Nevertheless, human rights observers agreed that such discrimination has gradually lessened over the last 5 years as society has appeared to become more accepting of at least some previously unfamiliar non-traditional religions.

There are disputes within the country’s Muslim community, in part along ethnic lines. Most Bulgarian Muslims, the majority of whom are ethnic Turks, practice a moderate form of Sunni Islam. Some are concerned that Muslims of Bulgarian ethnicity (“Pomaks”) and Roma Muslims, particularly those living in remote areas, are susceptible to “fundamentalist” (often referred to locally as “Arab” or “Wahabi”) influences associated with foreign funding of mosque construction and the training of imams in Arab countries. Opponents of the Chief Mufti within the Muslim community have accused him of failing to counteract or even fomenting the spread of Islamic extremism; however, these charges have not been confirmed.

Section IV. U.S. Government Policy

The U.S. Embassy regularly monitors religious freedom in ongoing contacts with government officials, clergy, lay leaders of minority communities, and NGOs. Embassy officers met with Orthodox clergy members (from both sides of the schism), the Chief Mufti and other senior Muslim leaders, with religious and lay leaders of the Jewish community, as well as with the leaders of numerous Protestant denominations. During the period covered by this report, the Embassy remained closely engaged with government and religious officials concerning the new law on religion, with various denominations regarding the restitution of properties, and with Muslim leaders regarding the war on terrorism. The Embassy maintaio new reports of incarcerations on religious grounds during the period covered by this report.

The Constitution prohibits the formation of political parties along religious lines.

There were no reports of religious prisoners or detainees.

Forced Religious Conversion

Improvements and Positive Developments in Respect for Religious Freedom

It appears that some local ordinances that restricted religious freedom have not been enforced, and in some cases were suspended, due to pressure from the central Government.

Section III. Societal Attitudes

Section IV. U.S. Government Policy

The U.S. Embassy regularly monitors religious freedom in ongoing contacts with government officials, clergy, lay leaders of minority communities, and NGOs. Embassy officers met with Orthodox clergy members (from both sides of the schism), the Chief Mufti and other senior Muslim leaders, with religious and lay leaders of the Jewish community, as well as with the leaders of numerous Protestant denominations. During the period covered by this report, the Embassy remained closely engaged with government and religious officials concerning the new law on religion, with various denominations regarding the restitution of properties, and with Muslim leaders regarding the war on terrorism. The Embassy maintained close contact with the Council of Europe and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe regarding their views on the Confessions Act and a mutual goal of ensuring that international religious freedom standards are met.

ned close contact with the Council of Europe and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe regarding their views on the Confessions Act and a mutual goal of ensuring that international religious freedom standards are met.

Tags: Bulgaria, freedom, religious

Prayer, Fasting and Spirituality

June 15, 2004 by Cup&Cross
Filed under 365, News

Leave a Comment

Nearly seven out of ten (69%) of the surveyed Bulgarians strongly affirm the expectation that the Bulgarian Church is a prayer center. In contrast, only 17% believe that prayer should be the primary function of the church.

Prayer
One out of two unchurched Bulgarians do not see a connection between prayer and spirituality.
One out of two church members affirm prayer and home groups as priority ministries for the church.
Every second church member prays twice or more daily
One out of four (25.53%) church members do not pray in the morning, noon nor evening, but do pray every day at another appointed time
Every fourth (25.5 %) church member has no set time for prayer.

Fasting
40% do not fast
24% fast sometimes
18% fast once or twice weekly
18% fast more than two days per week

Spirituality is defined by church members as:
Walking in the Spirit (40%)
Closeness to God (31%)
Operating under the gifts of the Spirit (11%)
Love toward neighbor (10%)
Works of faith (5%)
Care for widows and orphans (2%)
Humbleness (1%)
None of the surveyed, defines spirituality as resulting from prayer and fasting or standing under persecutions

Tags: 365, and, fasting, news, prayer, spirituality

Usage of the Bulgarian Bible

June 10, 2004 by Cup&Cross
Filed under News

Leave a Comment

One out of three Bulgarians who read the Bible regularly read a version published after 1989.
One out of three reads less than one chapter from the Bible per day.
One out of ten (11%) read over ten chapters per day.
Nearly half (48%) read the Protestant versions of the Bulgarian Bible published in 1924 and 1940.
Other translations are also used as shown on the figure below.

Tags: bible, Bulgarian, usage

Christian Enlightenment Center

June 5, 2004 by Cup&Cross
Filed under News

Leave a Comment

Cup & Cross Ministries is working on adding a new department to the Shalom Group, a conglomerate for ministry which we started in 1996. Mission Maranatha and the Bulgarian Christian Television, Shalom TV were among the first successful projects of Shalom Group. The new department is called Christian Enlightenment Center and it will provide Christian media resources, solutions and training on the territory of Bulgaria through the following strategy:

Vision
To fulfill the Great Commission of Christ to the Church, “Go teach all nations …” (Matthew 28:19) as did the disciples of Christ beginning in Jerusalem and then “to the uttermost parts of the world” (Acts 1:8), preaching the Gospel of which were witnesses (Luke 1:2)

Methodology
1. Creating an atmosphere for spiritual upbringing based on the Biblical truths and Christian values of the individual.
2. Return to the Biblical principles which are valid and vital for the society, culture and person.
3. Implementation of the information technologies and communication methods in the presentation of the Bible and Christian resources for spiritual commitment which motivates the search for truth.

Strategy
1. Applying the Biblical principles for Christian living, along with fasting and prayer as a credo for work and ministry.
2. Development and maintaining of a library containing various translations of the Bible, reference literature (dictionaries, concordances), Christian books, newspapers, magazines and brochures.
3. Development and maintaining of an audio library with audio tapes, and CDs with the audio Bible, sermons, teachings and Christian music.
4. Development and maintaining of a library with video tapes, DVDs, and VCDs with Christian sermons, teachings, films and programs.
5. Development and maintaining of an information database with Christian resources and software.
6. Organizing and holding of seminars, conferences and training events to educate of the Biblical principles and Christian values, as well as contemporary computer and information technologies.
7. Supporting and working with local churches, Protestant denominations, missions, foundations and other para-church organizations with similar goals, methodology and Christian morale.

Tags: center, christian, enlightenment

Annual Bulgarian Conference

June 1, 2004 by Cup&Cross
Filed under News

Leave a Comment

During Memorial Day Weekend Cup & Cross Ministries participated in the Third Annual Conference of Bulgarian Churches in North America. The conference took place on May 29-31, 2004 in Minneapolis and was hosted by the local Bulgarian Evangelical Church. Over 130 delegates from Bulgarian communities of Dallas, Chicago, Los Angeles, Montreal and Atlanta attended the event. Among the Bulgarian ministers present, there were pastors who have been persecuted along with their families as a part of the underground church in Bulgarian during the Communist Regime.

The conference began on Saturday with an introduction of the ministries present and a concert in honor of May 24, the Bulgarian holiday which celebrates the Bulgarian alphabet and culture.

The Sunday morning service was accompanied with a picnic, followed by two sessions on the topic of the conference, “The Joy of the Lord is our Strength”. The first one was presented by the pastor of the Bulgarian Church in Los Angeles, and the second one by our ministry.
During the presentation we were able to inform of some of our findings of our research.

Cup & Cross has worked with Bulgarian immigrants for the past ten years, and our team has actively and purposefully observed the Bulgarian Evangelical Churches in North America for almost three years as a part of our research. We were able to present each minister, pastor and leader of a congregation with a special copy of the results of our research. The churches were also presented with a special Bible study software prepared by our internet ministry team of which administrates www.bibliata.com.

A new ambitious goal was set to review the results and analyses provided by the research and implement them in the ministry of the local congregations through a church-planting program for Bulgarian communities in North America.

Our research called for awareness of cross-cultural challenges, immigration dynamics and interchurch relationship as well as their affect on the churches identity and ministry. The conclusion included an altar call and dedication prayer for the future of the Bulgarian Evangelical Churches in North America and especially for the second generation of Bulgarian immigrants.

It was decided that the 2005 annual conference of Bulgarian Evangelical Churches in North America will take place in Los Angeles. The conference gave us an opportunity to network with Bulgarian congregations and communities nationwide. It is our prayer that their ministry is successful and blessed in the future.

Tags: annual, Bulgarian, conference

Religious Awareness 101

May 30, 2004 by Cup&Cross
Filed under 365, News

Leave a Comment

For several years now, our team in Bulgaria has led an extensive Sunday School program using the Sunday School program that Cup & Cross developed in 2001 for the purposes of the Bulgarian Church of God. Although the program’s primary emphasis has been among adults in the area of Christian education and discipleship, its has proven very effective among children and teenagers.

Taking under consideration of the above, several of the churches we work with have opened a special Sunday School outreach for the children and young adults in the villages. Through this endeavor, the Sunday School program has flourished.

Three weeks ago a new implementation of the program was allowed by a local secular school in the village of Kamenetz. The faculty has extended an invitation to our team to hold a Religion Awareness class on Tuesdays. The class has been well attended since its start and will continue through the school year. This week, our team received a letter from the school principal expressing her appreciation of the efforts and the work.

Since Bulgaria is officially an Eastern Orthodox country, all offered religious classes in state schools have been Eastern Orthodox oriented. This is one of the first times that theology with a Protestant orientation is being taught in a Bulgarian state school. It is our prayer that as Bulgaria continues to develop its policy on religious tolerance, more classes like this are offered.

Tags: 101, 365, awareness, news, religious

Gateway Cities for Bulgarian Evangelical Churches

May 25, 2004 by Cup&Cross
Filed under News

37 Comments

Bulgarian Evangelical Churches are located in cities which have a high concentration of foreign-born immigrants. Such cities are called gateway cities, a large immigrant point-of-entry city to the United States. Immigrants typically enter the United States through one of these cities and settle there. Such cities contain over half of the foreign-born population in the United States. There are Bulgarian Evangelical Churches active in five of the seven gateway cities as follows:

Bulgarian Evangelical Churches in Gateway Cities

Gateway City	Foreign Born	Percent of Foreign Born	Bulgarian Church
1. New York, NY	3,657,269	18.7%	Yes
2. Los Angeles, CA	3,944,828	27.1%	Yes
3. Houston, TX	460,380	12.3%	Yes
4. Washington, DC	578,786	8.6%	No
5. Miami, FL	1,072,843	33.6%	Yes
6. Chicago, IL	914,58	11.1%	Yes
7. San Francisco, CA	1,250,693	20.0%	No

Geographical Location of Bulgarian American Churches and Gateway Cities.

Several facts are obvious from the above comparison. It is apparent that Bulgarian immigrants come to North America in ways similar to other immigrant groups, channeled through the listed gateway cities. Large cities which are gateways are more probable to become a settlement for Bulgarian immigrants due to the availability of jobs, lodging and other immigrants from the same ethnic group. The emerging Bulgarian immigrant communities share religious similarities and belongingness which are factors helping to form the communities. As a result of this process of formation of Bulgarian immigrant communities, the Bulgarian Evangelical Churches in North America emerge. It also seems natural to suggest that as this process continues, Bulgarian Evangelical Churches will be formed in the remaining two gateway cities (Washington, D.C. and San Francisco) and other large cities which meet the requirements to become a gateway city (for example, the city Atlanta). If this is true, it should be proposed that the Bulgarian Churches in North America follow a strategy for church planting and growth which targets this type of cities.

Tags: Bulgarian, churches, cities, evangelical, gateway

Mark 10 from a Critical Point

May 20, 2004 by Cup&Cross
Filed under News

Leave a Comment

Date
The Jerome Bible Commentary states that the Gospel of Mark was written in AD 64, immediately after the death of Apostle Peter (Mally 22). Lane agrees with a date between AD 60-70, but definitely before the destruction of Jerusalem (21). Anderson uses the same time pointer in his conclusion that Mark was written approximately AD 65-70 (26).
Authorship

Lane writes that the Gospel is anonymous, but traditionally linked to Mark (21). This affiliation derives from the traditional view, which describes Mark as one of Peter’s associates. The Jerome Bible Commentary identifies the author as John Mark from Acts 12:12, 25 and Mark from 1 Pt. 5:13 (Mally 21).
The Interpreter’s Bible points out that the author is obviously not an expert of Judaism, and does not recognize the importance of the accurate description of the historical situation. For example, he calls Herod “a king,” while Herod is only “a governor” under the Roman rule (Grant 637).

Purpose
This characteristics of Mark’s account incorporate both his audience and his intent of writing. Anderson’s opinion is that Mark wrote to the Gentiles in the Roman Empire (29). On the other hand, The New Interpreter’s Bible states that both Syro-Palestinian and other ethnic groups of immigrants, forming minority communities in the Roman Empire, were among Mark’s audience (515).
Mark is also the earliest attempt to reduce the apostolic tradition to a written form. This makes his account the source for any further Gospel writing (Lane 1-4). Mercer Commentary of the Bible goes even further to suggest, that “before Mark there was no genre of literature known as Gospel” (Dowd 975). To further describe the life situation of the writing of the Gospel account, Anderson points out that Mark’s attempt to promote Christianity was done in a time when martyrdom was a reality (25).
Mercer Commentary of the Bible defines The Gospel of Mark as “a popular ancient biography, written from the presumption of the apocalyptic world-view” (Dowd 975-76). At the same time, Schweizer writes that the account is lacking biographical information (39). Anderson also agrees that Mark’s purpose was to present the person of Jesus, and not a biography or history (3).

Structure
Because of his traditional association with the apostle Peter (1 Pt. 5:13), it is suggested that the purpose of Mark was to introduce Peter’s preaching in written form. Lane presents an interesting comparison between the structure of the Gospel of Mark by chapters and the account of Peter’s sermon in Acts 10:36-41 (7-11).

The Jerome Bible Commentary points out that the structure of Mark can be divided both according to Geographical and Theological characteristics. The Geographical division is determined according to the travels of Jesus through the years of His ministry. On the other side, the Theological frame has two major divisions: the Ministry of Messiah and the Ministry of the Son of Man (Mally 22).

While Anderson disagrees with the existence of Q, Schweizer believes that Mark has used the Q-document as a source for his Gospel account (Anderson 4). Another proof that Mark is the first Gospel, is the fact that its structure has been closely followed by both Matthew and Luke (Anderson 2, 4). In the Gospel of Matthew, chapters three and four, Matthew follows the Markan narrative, but also attaches additional information from Q. Evidence for the use of information from Q is the obvious contrast between the length of the Gospel accounts (Schweizer 11).

Finally, the structure of Mark is compressed, but not chronological (Anderson 32, 34). The ending of the Gospel has been suggested to have a short and long version, excluding and including the passage of Mk. 16: 9-20. In both of the cases, it differentiates form the Markan style of writing and was probably edited later in the second century (Grant 645).

Criticism
The Interpreter’s Bible points out that the composition of the Gospel was based on oral tradition (Grant 634). Form Criticism characterizes the structure of Mark as episodic, where the different episodes in the plot of Mark are linked by words like, “immediately,” “again,” “and” (Anderson 7).

Opposing the possible application of Form Criticism, Anderson writes that:
1. Circumstantial details which were not of theological significance for the Early Church were preserved in the Markan account.
2. Eyewitnesses were present in the Early Church to check the accuracy and fullness of the written Gospel.
3. Transmission was not a free process, but rather a continuous transmission with specific set of rules without rules and limitations (Anderson 15).

Redaction Criticism, however, suggests that the style of writing is usual for Mark. Proof for this is the great number of various repetitions and stories, embedded within each other (Perkins 510-11).

Mercer Commentary on the Bible points out that the literary criticism structures of inclusion and chaism are among the main forms of repetition in the Markan Gospel account, where the inclusion is “a frame defined by the starting phrase,” and the chaism is “even more extensive repetition” (Dowd 975). The New Interpreter’s Bible states that the structure of the Gospel is such that individual narratives cannot be treated apart form their proper place in the story (Grant 512).

The following paragraphs are dedicated to highlight the most important aspects and annotations of Mark 10, combined with the view of different commentators on the application of different kinds of criticism on the Markan text.

§187 Marriage and Divorce (Mk. 10:1-12)
The mentioning of the house in this passage is not recorded by Matthew (Mt. 19:10-12) (Schweizer 383). Lane shows an interesting sequence that starts with the question of the Pharisees, continues through the Jewish tradition, provokes the Rabbinical interpretation of Moses and reaches to the heart of Creation narrative (356). The idea is that through His question Jesus challenges the legal system of the Jews.

While The Jerome Bible Commentary defines only v. 12 as a pronouncement, Lane argues that the whole passage is a pronouncement story (Mally 44, Lane 356). Mark 10:10-12, however, is definitely not a pronouncement story.

Anderson provides an interesting analogy between the teachings of Paul and the structure of Mark. He compares 1 Cor. 7:10-11 and Mk. 10:11-12 finding similarities between the doctrinal teachings of the Church on the marriage and divorce, presented in different contexts by both Paul in Mark (39).

According to Taylor, Mk. 10:1 is proto-Lukan, and vv. 2-9 is pronouncement story (Taylor 64). Bultmann describes Mk. 10:1-12 as a scholastic dialogue apophthegm (Bultmann 21).

There is a problem with Mark’s geographical note 10:1. It seems like Mark did not have accurate information about the place and the time of this story. Matthew updates the location mentioned by Mark from “Judea beyond Jordan,” “Gallilee” which Jesus left in order to go to Judea.

Also, in Matthew the crowd follows Jesus, while in Mark a new crowd gathers around Him. Jesus’ style of ministry is also different. While Mark states that He “taught” the crowds, Matthew accents the healing ministry of Jesus.

In Mark 10:2 there is a difference between the questions, which the Pharisees ask Jesus. Matthew adds “for any cause” to the words of Mark.

In Mark 10:3-9 there are no major differences among the Gospel writers. In v. 3 the Pharisees refer to Dt. 24:1, where Moses allowed them to giver a certificate of divorce. Mk. 12:6 is a quotation from Gen. 1:27; Mk. 12:7 from Gen. 2:24. Verse 9 may be the limit of the pronouncement story.

In 10:10, Mark records the words as a question asked by the disciples, while Matthew presents it as a saying of Jesus.

Mark 10:11 introduces few differences between the text and the record of Matthew. The Markan text condemns both men an women for divorce, while Matthew includes only men divorcing their wives. The Matthean text also allows divorce in a case of “unchastity.”

Matthew further includes an addition to the divorce case, which neither Luke nor Mark record. It refers to celibacy and has six facts about it:
1. Celibacy is better (Mt. 19:10).
2. Celibacy is not for everyone (Mt. 19:11).
3. Celibacy may be natural (Mt. 19:12).
4. Celibacy may be forced (Mt. 19:12).
5. Celibacy may be sacrificial (Mt. 19:12).
6. Celibacy may be commanded (Mt. 19:12).

§188 Jesus Blesses the Children (Mk. 10:13-16)
The blessing of the children seems like an appropriate continuation of the pronouncement on the divorce sanctity of marriage (Lane 359). The passage is recorded by all three of the Synoptic writers; however, the narrative is more objective in Mark than it is in Matthew’s description of the event (Schwitzer 384).

The original story in Mark 10:13 is the story of the children being brought to Jesus “to be touched” by Him. Matthew changes the verb to “laying of hands.” Obviously his perspective on the Doctrine of Laying of Hands was important at the time of writing. Luke, however, revises the little children to infants, making the range of their age wider, which was probably significant for him.

In 10:14 Mark describes Jesus as being “indignant.” Both Matthew and Luke, who obviously did not like this characteristic as a part of Jesus’ personality, omit this word.

While Luke agrees with Mark 10:15 on the “receiving” the kingdom of God, Matthew accents on the “changing” and “becoming,” which refers to the Doctrine of New Birth. Matthew also focuses on a particular phrase he likes to use, namely the “Kingdom of Heaven”. He uses this phrase as a replacement of the “Kingdom of God” used by both Mark and Luke, probably to escape any vain pronouncement of God’s name.

Mark 10:16 is in a correlation with 10:13 where Mark uses the word “touch.” The same phrase is used by Matthew, but omitted by Luke.

Taylor agrees that this is a pronouncement story, probably formed in the second period of Gospel Formation (Taylor 72, 148); however, vs. 15 may have been added in the last period (Taylor 106). Bultmann calls these passage a biographical apophthegm (Bultmann 32).

Verse 13-16 is often used by religious groups and denominations to defend the doctrine of infant baptism. The text, however, talks about Jesus blessing the children, and not baptizing them as some may propose.

§189 The Rich Young Man (Mk. 10:17-31)
The story of the rich young ruler has three major subdivisions:
1. Conversation between Jesus and the Ruler.
2. Saying of Jesus to the disciples on the entrance of rich men in the Kingdom.
3. Blessings for the disciples.

Mark 10:17-27 is a single unit expressing the essence of Jesus’ teaching on the entrance into the Kingdom (Lane 363). Mark 10:24b-27 is not a passage about riches, but about God’s freedom to give salvation to whomsoever He wills (Mally 46).

Taylor defines this passage as a pronouncement story (Taylor 64, 66). Bultmann, however, divides the passage. According to him, vs. 17-22 are scholastic dialogue “genuine apophthegm,” vs. 23,25 are logia sayings, and vs. 26 “serves as the introduction point of a new saying” (Bultmann 21, 75, 331).

In 10:17 only Mark mentions that Jesus was preparing for a journey. Mark uses the adjective “good,” which obviously, created a problem for Matthew who uses only the word “Teacher.” Luke, however, follows Mark’s structure.

All three Synoptic writers have different description of the man. While for Mark he is only a “certain man,” for Luke he is a ruler, and for Matthew he is someone who he later calls “a young man” (Mt. 19:20, 22).

In 10:18 there is no difference between Mark and Luke; Matthew omits good teacher as a natural continuation of the context created in the previous verse.

In 10:19 both Mark and Luke suggest certain that the man had certain knowledge of the law. Matthew, however, has doubts about his proficiency in it.

In the list of the commandments there are at least three differences between the lists of commandments from Ex. 20:12-16 and Dt. 5:16-20 that follow:
1. Luke changes the order of the first two, putting You shall not commit adultery before You shall not murder.
2. Mark lists You shall not defraud , which is not one of the Ten Commandments. Since this is an obvious error in the words of Jesus, both Matthew and Luke fix this in their lists.
3. Matthew adds You shall love your neighbor , which is not one of the Ten Commandments, but is a commandment in which Jesus incorporated some of them.

In 10:20-21 Mark and Luke agree on the phrase since my youth, while Matthew carefully omits it since it is in a contradiction with his following statements about the age of the man (Mt. 19:20, 22).

In 10:22, among the three Synoptic Gospels, Mark has the most vivid and descriptive reaction of the man. According to Mark, he is shocked from the radical words of Jesus and grieving because he is not willing to completely follow them. Matthew omits the shock. Luke reduces the emotional condition of the man to being sad.

The financial status of the man is the reason for his lack of spiritual success. According to Mark he possesses many possessions. Matthew carries the same idea. Luke simply describes him as being rich. Verse 22 ends the narrative and is followed by various sayings of Jesus related to the wealth and the kingdom.

Verse 10:23 contains the same contrast as in v. 15 appears. Matthew uses the phrase Kingdom of Heaven, while both Mark and Luke use the Kingdom of God.

In 10:24 Mark’s repetition of Jesus’ words is later omitted by both Matthew and Luke.

In 10:25-27 There is no major difference between the three Synoptic writers in this passage. It is interesting to notice that comparing to vv. 15, 23 even Matthew here uses the phrase the Kingdom of God in v. 25 in agreement with both Mark and Luke.

Mark 10:28 is defined by Bultmann as speech material also understood to be a transition (Bultmann 330). “We left everything” in Matthew and Mark is replaced by ”We left our homes” by Luke.

Mark 10:29-30 are according to Bultmann “a prophetic saying” (Bultmann 110). Briggs describes it as a promised reward for self-denial. This is one of Jesus’ sayings, which casts Him the role of a Prophet (Briggs 78). Both Matthew and Luke expand Jesus’ saying. Matthew adds the enthronement procession of Jesus and the apostles over the 12 tribes of Israel. Luke adds to all of the above the Kingdom.

Mark 10:31 is a “floating saying.” In 10:30-31 the list is pretty much the same, beside the changes in Luke, where he replaces fields with wife. Luke also replaces the phrase for my name’s sake with for the sake of the kingdom of God. He also changes the hundred fold from Mark and Matthew to very much more. Mark repeats the list pattern similar to v.24, where he uses repetition to stress the importance of the passage. All three of the Gospel accounts contain the same eschatological promise.

Mark 10:32-34 can be taken together with Mk. 8:32-33; 9:30-32 because of similarities in the structure of these passages (Taylor, 40, 149, 179). Bultmann describes it as “pure esoteric instruction” (Bultmann 331). It is also the third passion prediction with locale in vs. 32(Marxsen 73). The term amazed is used only three time in the New Testament, only by Mark (1:27; 10:24) (Stein 261).

Luke and Mark do not record The Parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard. It exists only in the account of Matthew, in progressive correlation with the eschatological promise from the previous verse.

§191 The Third Prediction of the Passion (Mk. 10:32-34)
Mercer Commentary of the Bible lists the three Passion Predictions as follows:
1. First Passion Prediction (Mk. 8:31-9:29)
2. Second Passion Prediction (Mk. 9:30-10:31)
3. Third Passion Prediction (Mk. 10:32-52) (Dowd 975).

Lane suggests a comparison between the three Passion Predictions and the Passion Narrative (375).

	Mk. 8:31	Mk. 9:31	Mk. 10:33-34	Passion Narratives
Delivered to the Chief Priest and Scribes	–	(X)	X	14:53
Sentenced to death	(X)	–	X	14:64
Delivered to the Romans	–	–	X	15:1, 10
Mocked, spit upon, scourged	–	–	X	14:45; 15:15-20
Executed	X	X	X	15:20-39, 44
Resurrected	X	X	X	16:1-8

The above table shows a possibility that Mark’s description of the Passion was after the resurrection, since all the details of the passion are pointed as a part of the prophesy a Jesus.

The journey in 10:32 is the one that Jesus was preparing for in Mk.10:17. As it was earlier noted both Matthew and Luke omitted this preparation. At his point Matthew mentions the direction of the Journey, while Luke remains silent.

Mark 10:33-34 is the words of Jesus’ prophecy. Both Luke and Matthew record the event. Only Matthew refers to the killing of Jesus as a crucifixion. Luke adds to the story the misunderstanding of the disciples.

§192 Jesus and the Sons of Zebedee (Mk. 10:35-45)
The Enthronement Promise required from Jesus by the mother of the Sons of Zebedee is a new eschatological element (Schwetizer 385). Anderson writes that the cup can either be a symbol of joy (Ps. 16:5; 23:5; 116:13) or of suffering and punishment (Ps. 11:6; 75:8; Is. 51:17, 22) (255).

Mark 10:35-40 and 10:41-45 are two different pronouncement stories (Taylor 64, 66). In Bultmann’s view, the whole passage is a scholastic dialogue apophthegm; vs. 38, 39 are secondary element (Beare 198);

In 10:35 Mark records that the brothers themselves came to ask Jesus, while Matthew changes the story to their mother coming to Jesus and asking. Luke does not record this particular story.

In 10:36-40 The dialogue here remains unchanged; however, in both records Jesus’ answer is given to the brothers and not to the mother. Matthew omits the reference of Mark to Jesus’ baptism in vv. 38, 39.

In 10:41-44 Luke suggests a dispute between the disciples, which is not in a parallel with Mark’s segment. The dispute is most probably a reference to the record on the Sons of Zebedee in the previous passage. The comparison between the Gentile civil-authority structure and the disciples remains the same through all three Synoptic accounts.

Mark 10:45 contains another comparison between the disciples and the purpose of Jesus’ coming. It is omitted by Luke, who adds a rhetorical question as a conclusion to this passage.

§193 The Healing f Bartimaeus (Mk. 10:46-52)
According to The New Interpreter’s Bible, this passage is the final healing miracle (655). Lane also agrees on this point (Lane 386). The Jerome Bible Commentary states that this miracle, combined with the healing of the blind man in Mk. 8:22-26, forms the Dedaction Section of Mark (Mk. 8:27-10:45)(Mally 46).

Mark 10:46-52 is a miracle story (Taylor 120; Bultmann 213). Clearly, its purpose is to present Jesus as the Divine Healer. It served as a encouragement of the faith in the Early Church.

Mark 10:46 starts with two totally different chronological statements. Mark and Matthew claim that the time of the occurrence of the story was as they were leaving Jericho. Luke states that it was as they were approaching the city (Lk. 19:1-10). Furthermore, Mark names the blind man, while Luke does not record his name. Matthew records two blind men instead of one, which is an expression of Matthew’s tendency to emphasize the miracle works of Jesus. There is agreement in all three accounts of the place where the miracle occurred, as well as the crowds that were present.

In 10:47-48 Mark and Matthew omit the question of the blind man/men who is going by. The prayer of the blind man/men and his/their dialog with the crowd remains fairly the same through the Gospel accounts.

In 10:49-50 Matthew and Luke reduce Jesus’ response to the prayer of the blind man/men recorded by Mark in details.

In 10:51 the dialog between the blind man/men and Jesus remains the same, beside that Mark uses “My teacher,” while Luke and Matthew write Lord. The emphases of the word is that the blind man saw Jesus as Lord, while the disciples did not realize this fact.

Comparing to Mark 10:52 Matthew records the compassion of Jesus; however, he omits Jesus’ words which have a reference to the faith of the blind man/men.

It also seems like Mark does not mention one of the blind men in his early records. Matthew talks about both of them together. Luke places one of them at the entrance of Jericho, the other one in the city (Lk. 19:1-10). However, all three of the Synoptic writers agree on the immediate healing. Luke also adds the reaction of the crowd.

Conclusion
From the position of my literal interpretation and denominationally formed understanding of Mark’s account, I agree with the Markan authorship of the Gospel, the year and location of its writing, and the audience and purpose of the author. I am also convinced, that Form Criticism can most effectively follow the formation of the Markan text, and establish the basic original narratives for its development. It seems only appropriate to accept that because of its textual length, linguistic peculiarities, and doctrinal development the Markan account has a chronological and formative priority compared to Matthew and Luke. The use of Q-source is reasonable and essential in explaining the synoptic problem. Therefore, proper, scholastic Markan interpretation is intensively based on these theological grounds.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson, Hugh. The Gospel of Mark. Greenwood: The Attic Press, Inc., 1976.

Beare. F. W. The Earliest Records of Jesus. New York: Abingdon Press, 1962.

Briggs, R. C. Interpreting the Gospels. New York: Abingdon Press, 1969.

Dowd, Shayn E. “Mark.” Mercer Commentary of the Bible. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1995.

Grant, Frederick. “Introduction to Mark.” The Interpreter’s Bible. Vol. VII. New York:
Abingdon Press, 1951.

Lane, William L. The Gospel According to Mark. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing
Co., 1974.

Mally, Edward. “The Gospel According to Mark.” The Jerome Bible Commentary. Vol.
II. Englewood Cliff: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1968.

Marxsen, Willi. Mark the Evangelist. trans. James Boyce, etc. New York: Abingdon Press, 1969.

Perkins, Pheme. The New Interpreter’s Bible. Vol. VIII. Nashville,: Abingdon Press, 1995.

Schweizer, Eduard. The Good News According to Matthew. trans. David E. Green. Atlanta: John Knox Press,
1977.

Stein, Robert H. The Synoptic Problem. Grand Rapids: Baker Bookhouse, 1987.

Taylor, Vincent. The Formation of the Gospel Tradition. London: Macmillan, Co., 1953.

Tags: critical, mark, point

Notes on Mark 10

May 15, 2004 by Cup&Cross
Filed under News

Leave a Comment

1. Matthew updates the location mentioned by Mark. Mark says it that Jesus is in Judea beyond Jordan, while Matthew states He adds that he left Galilee in order to go to Judea.
2. The crowd follows Jesus in Matthew, while in Mark a new crowd gathers around Jesus. In Mark the people gather with Jesus.
3. Jesus’ ministry is also different. While Mark states that He taught the crowds, Matthew accents the healing ministry of Jesus at this particular occasion.

10:2 There is a difference between the questions which the Pharisees ask Jesus. Matthew adds “for any cause” to the words of Mark, giving a universal usage to the meaning and application of divorce.

10:3-9 No major differences in this passage. In v. 3 The Pharisees refer to Dt. 24:1, where Moses allowed them to giver a certificate of divorce. Mk. 12:6 is a quotation from Gen. 1:27; Mk.
12:7 from Gen. 2:24.

10:10 Mark puts it as a question by the disciples, while Matthew presents it as a saying of Jesus.

10:11 [exceptional clause] Mark refers to both man and the woman committing adultery in a case of divorce, while Matthew reduces to only the man. Mathew has an addition to the divorce case, which neither Luke nor Mark record. It refers to celibacy and has six facts about it:
1. Celibacy is better (Mt. 19:10).
2. Celibacy is not for everyone (Mt. 19:11).
3. Celibacy may be natural (Mt. 19:12).
4. Celibacy may be forced (Mt. 19:12).
5. Celibacy may be sacrificial (Mt. 19:12).
6. Celibacy may be commanded (Mt. 19:12).

II. Jesus Blesses the Little Children
This passage is recorded by all three of the Synoptic writers.

10:13 The original story in Mark is the story of the children being brought to be touched by Jesus. Matthew changes the verb to laying of hands. Obviously his perspective on the Doctrine of Laying of Hands was important at the time of his writing. Luke, however, revises the little children to infants, making the range of their age wider, which was probably significant for him.

10:14 In this verse Mark describes Jesus as being indignant. Both Matthew and Luke, who obviously did not like this characteristic as a part of Jesus’ personality, omit this word.

10:15 While Luke agrees with Mark on the receiving the kingdom of God, Matthew accents on the changing and becoming, which refers to the Doctrine of New Birth.
Matthew also focuses on a particular phrase he likes to use, namely the Kingdom of Heaven. He uses this phrase a replacement of the Kingdom of God used by both Mark and Luke, probably to escape any vain pronouncement of God’s name.

10:16 This verse is in a correlation with 10:13 where Mark uses the word touch. Here he changes to laying of hands is used by Matthew, but omitted by Luke. [blessed]

Mk. 10:17-31 The story of the rich young ruler has three major subdivisions:
1. Conversation between Jesus and the Ruler.
2. Saying of Jesus to the disciples on the entrance of rich men in the Kingdom.
3. Blessings for the disciples.

10:17 Only Mark mentions that Jesus was preparing for a journey. Matthew omits the adjective good with the word Teacher.

The three Synoptic writers have different description of the man. While for Mark he is only a certain man, for Luke he is a ruler, and for Matthew he is someone who he later calls a young man (Mt. 19:20, 22).

10:18 No difference between Mark and Luke, while Matthew omits good teacher as a natural continuation of the context created in the previous verse.

10:19 While both Mark and Luke suggest certain that the man had certain knowledge of the law, Matthew obviously has doubts about his proficiency in it?

Also, there are at least three differences between the lists of commandments from Ex. 20:12-16 and Dt. 5:16-20 that follow:
1. Luke changes the order of the first two, putting You shall not commit adultery before You shall not murder.
2. Mark lists You shall not defraud , which is not one of the Ten Commandments. Since this is an obvious error in the words of Jesus, both Matthew and Luke fix this in their lists.
3. Matthew adds You shall love your neighbor , which is not one of the Ten Commandments, but is a commandment in which Jesus incorporated some of them.

10:20-21 Mark and Luke agree on the phrase since my youth, while Matthew carefully omits it since it is in a contradiction with his following statements about the age of the man (Mt. 19:20, 22).

10:22 Among the three Synoptic Gospels, Mark has the most vivid and descriptive reaction of the man. According to Mark, he is shocked from the radical words of Jesus and grieving because he is not willing to completely follow them. Matthew omits the shock. Luke reduces the emotional condition of the man to being sad.
The financial status of the man is the reason for his lack of spiritual success. According to Mark he possesses many possessions. Matthew carries the same idea. Luke simply describes him as being rich.

10:23 The same contrast as in v. 15 appears. Matthew uses the phrase Kingdom of Heaven, while both Mark and Luke use the Kingdom of God.
10:24 Mark’s repetition of Jesus’s words is later omitted by both Matthew and Luke.
10:25-27 There is no major difference between the three Synoptic writers in this passage. It is interesting to notice that comparing to vv. 15, 23 even Matthew here uses the phrase the Kingdom of God in v. 25 in agreement with both Mark and Luke.
10:28 We left everything in Matthew and Mark is replaced by We left our homes by Luke.
10:29 Jesus\rquote saying is expanded by both Matthew and Luke. Matthew adds the enthronement procession of Jesus and the apostles over the 12 tribes of Israel. Luke adds to all of the above the Kingdom.
10:30-31 The list is pretty much the same, beside the changes in Luke, where he replaces fields with wife. Luke also replaces the phrase for my name’s sake with for the sake of the kingdom of God. He also changes the hundred fold from Mark and Matthew to very much more.
Mark repeats the list pattern similar to v.24, where he uses repetition to stress the importance of the passage. All three of the Gospel accounts contain the same eschatological promise.

Both Luke and Mark omit The Parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard. It exists only in the account of Matthew, in progressive correlation with the eschatological promise from the previous verse.

10:32 This is the journey Jesus was preparing for in Mk.10:17. As we earlier noticed both Matthew and Luke omitted this preparation. At his point Matthew mentions the direction of the Journey, while Luke remains silent.

10:33-34 The only difference is that Luke only mentions the prophecy about Jesus as a reference, while both Mark and Matthew records it. Only Matthew refers to the killing of Jesus as a crucifixion. Luke adds the misunderstanding of the disciples.

Mk. 10:35-45 10:35 Mark records that the brothers themselves came to ask Jesus, while Matthew changes the story to their mother coming to Jesus and asking. Luke does not record this particular story.

10:36-40 The dialog here remains unchanged; however, in both records Jesus’ answer is given to the brothers and not to the mother. Matthew omits the reference of Mark to Jesus’ baptism in vv. 38, 39.

10:41-44 At this point Luke suggests a dispute between the disciples, which is not in a parallel with Mark’s segment. The dispute is in most probability referring to the record on the Sons of Zabedee in the previous passage. The comparison between the Gentile civil-authority structure and the disciples remains the same through all three Synoptic accounts.

10:45 Another comparison between the disciples and the purpose of Jesus’ coming. It is omitted by Luke, who adds a rhetorical question as a conclusion to this passage.

10:46-52 10:46 This passage starts with two totally different chronological statements. Mark and Matthew claim that the time of the occurrence of the story was as they were leaving Jericho. In order to secure his previous insert of the story about Zachaeus Luke states that it was as they were approaching the city (Lk. 19:1-10). Furthermore, Mark names the blind man, while Luke does not record his name. Matthew records two blind men instead of one. There is agreement in all three accounts of the place where the miracle occurred, as well as the crowds that were present.

10:47-48 Mark and Matthew omit the question of the blind man/men who is going by. The prayer of the blind man/men and his/their dialog with the crowd remains fairly the same through the Gospel accounts.

10:49-50 Matthew and Luke reduce Jesus’ response to the prayer of the blind man/men recorded by Mark in details.

10:51 The dialog between the blind man/men and Jesus remains the same, beside that Mark uses My teacher, while Luke and Matthew write Lord.

10:52 Matthew records the compassion of Jesus; however, he omits Jesus’ words which have a reference to the faith of the blind man/men.
It seems like Mark omits one of the blind men in his early records. Matthew talks about both of them together. Luke places one of them at the entrance of Jericho, the other one in the city (Lk. 19:1-10). However, all three of the Synoptic writers agree on the immediate healing. Luke also adds the reaction of the crowd.

Tags: Gospel, mark, mark 10, notes

Mark 2:26

May 10, 2004 by Cup&Cross
Filed under News

Leave a Comment

” . . . {David} went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat . . . ”

1 Samuel 21:1-6
“Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest . . . so the priest gave him hallowed bread . . . ”

Problem: Mark quotes Jesus as saying that Abiathar was the high priest, but the account in Samuel to which James refers, says that Ahimelech was the high priest. Therefore, it is argued, that one, or both accounts, is in error.

Solution:
The apparent inaccuracy is resolved once it is realized that Abiathar and Ahimelech were names of both father and son. This can be seen by a comparison of the following passages:
1 Samuel 14:3 – “And Ahiah, {mg. called Ahimelech} the son of Ahitub . . . ”
1 Samuel 22:20 – “And one of the sons of Ahimelech the son of Ahitub, named Abiathar, escaped, and fled after David.”
2 Samuel 8:17 – “And Zadok the son of Ahitub, and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar, were the priests . . . ”
1 Chronicles 18:16; 24:6 – same as 2 Samuel 8:17.

The following diagram illustrates the point:

Ahitub (1 Samuel 14:3)	Ahitub (2 Samuel 8:17)
father of Ahimelech (1 Samuel 14:3; 22:20)	father of Abiathar (2 Sam. 8:17; 1 Chron. 18:16)
father of Abiathar (1 Samuel 22:20)	father of Ahimelech (2 Sam. 8:17; 1 Chron. 18:16; 24:6)

Jesus and the account in Samuel refer to Ahimelech (or Abiathar, his other name), the son of Ahitub. There is, therefore, no inaccuracy. Jesus uses one name, and the Samuel’s account uses the other name, for the same individual.

Tags: mark

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Bulgaria: Religious Freedom

Prayer, Fasting and Spirituality

Usage of the Bulgarian Bible

Christian Enlightenment Center

Annual Bulgarian Conference

Religious Awareness 101

Gateway Cities for Bulgarian Evangelical Churches

Mark 10 from a Critical Point

Notes on Mark 10

Mark 2:26

Our new ministry books on Amazon.com

Recent News

News & Updates

Our new ministry books on Amazon.com

Recent News