Mark 1:20 - Did Jesus Cause James and John to Disobey?

The Verse

Mark 1:20 Without delay he called them, and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired men and followed him.


My Paraphrase

Right away He called them, and they left everything--their nets, their father, and the hired men--and followed Him.


My Thoughts

This is a strange verse because it mentions Zebedee, their father. A fast reading would cause you to gloss over this fact. But when you slow down an think about it, a very significant question arises: Is this disobedience? The fact that they left their father--in a seeming time of need--seems to be disobedience of the commandment, "Honor your father and mother," doesn't it? Wouldn't it have been more in accordance with the law to finish the day's work and then follow Jesus? Apparently not, though, as Jesus would not have called them to sin. Apparently, either Zebedee was cool with it (he had other hired men with him after all), or Jesus--knowing hearts--knew that Zebedee was fine with it. We can probably assume that this moment was not a big deal because the verse doesn't record any anger on Zebedee's part. I wonder if it was another situation where James and John were perhaps discussing Jesus earlier--maybe even in front of their father--so when Jesus shows up, they drop everything and follow, and Zebedee is no worse for the wear. 

Still, it's a point I hadn't thought of before, so I felt like sharing it.

My last thought on this verse is that, in this situation, James and John had more at stake seemingly, than Peter and Andrew had.  First of all, they had familial attachment that they had to choose to leave. Peter and Andrew were brothers, but neither of them had to leave family in order to follow Jesus in this particular case--as far as we know, anyway. This temporary spurning of family perfectly illustrates Jesus' command in Matthew 19:29 "Everyone who has left houses, brothers, sisters, father, mother, children, or farms to follow me will get much more than they left. And they will have eternal life." Secondly, unlike Andrew and Peter whose nets were working at the time of their call (verse 16), James and John were here having to fix theirs (verse 19). This denotes an extra struggle. Not only did they have the regular stress of fixing torn fishing nets, but also the fact that any repair time is actual fishing time lost. They were set back twice before Jesus ever came a'calling. This could mean that they hadn't even been able to catch any fish that day, and after following Jesus, they definitely wouldn't have. That's a big deal for a fisherman not to have caught any fish for an entire day, you know? These probable setbacks show James and John giving perhaps even greater personal sacrifice than the original two. . .but again, they saw following Jesus as worth it.

And apparently, Zebedee had enough men to cover it. So. . .the lesson here is. . .don't drop the ball in Jesus' name, unless there are enough people to cover you! But on the other hand, you can't be like the man in Luke 9:59-60 who uses burying his father as an excuse not to follow Jesus. You need to love and honor your family, and leaving them in the lurch is not responsible, but transversely you can't make them an idol to hold you back from doing what God wants you to do.  Apparently in this verse, James and John were being completely obedient both to their earthly and Heavenly fathers, or their action would not have Jesus' endorsement! 

The Bible: Chauvinist Propaganda? Pt. 4

1. God is referred to as "He."

Sounds logical, doesn't it? He is God the Father. There is no God the Mother...So God must hate women. Are women being slighted? No, this is not God trying to keep women under His very holy thumb.

This is something that I had to think about when I started listening to music by artists like Tori Amos. From her earliest albums, she has proclaimed this "Anti-Male-God of the Bible" stance. Look up the lyrics to her song "God" from "Under the Pink." This is a song from a very imbittered, searching-yet-rejecting young woman. I wish that she and people who think like her would just realize once and for all that it's the concept of a "male" God that they have a problem with, and that the Biblical God is not actually like that at all. Unfortunately, people confuse the Real God with this "made-up" god, and therefore reject the Real One. There is a reason God is referred to in masculine terms, and it's not b/c He hates women. I hope to point it out in this blog.

First of all, we need to keep in mind one important point. It may make sense that even though animals and people on this planet are male and female, God must be male or female or both. However, God is not any of those. The Bible refers to God as "He"; however, God is not actually a "He." The Bible says that God is a Spirit (John 4:24). ....However, this verse goes on further to explain God as "He"...so am I making a contradictory point? I hope not. Please let me explain.

First of all let me point out one even greater point: God CREATED male and female. (Gen. 1:27, Mt. 19:4) This means that He's not actually either one. He's not both. He's not a yin or a yang. He's just God. God is God. "I Am." WE were created with genders, b/c:
1.) Marriage is a picture of Christ and the church (first verses of Rev. 19).
2.) He wants us to reproduce (Gen 1:28).
3.) For companionship (Gen 2:18).

God does not have a gender. He is complete as He is...And even saying "complete" is not probably accurate. God has no needs, and if He had, He has already met them. So...why do we call God a "Him?" This is b/c He is our Father...and as a general rule, fathers are "he's," right?

"But isn't that circular reasoning?" you ask, "To call God our Father, you would also have to already assume that He is a 'He.' Besides that, why can't God be our Mother? Or...why not avoid gender at all and be an 'It'?"

First things first. Why is God not "The Supreme 'It'"? Simply this: God seeks to have a personal relationship with us the way a father has with his children. Think about it. Do you feel a particular personal closeness to electricity? What about gravity? Do you sit and chat with inertia? Um...No. If God were an "It" we would probably think of Him as a force of nature rather than Someone we can know on a personal level and furthermore talk to. That's the way we humans think. I mean...we have a hard enough time understanding the Holy Spirit as a "He." In our minds, a being is never an "it" unless you are talking about Science Fiction.

(Sub point: It wouldn't work if He switched genders (i.e. Zeus), b/c He must be constant--Someone we can trust at all times. Zeus was not trustworthy. People were warned against trusting him, in fact.)

So now we come to the ever nagging question: Why not "She?" Now, there may be many reasons. One that I've heard is that women sinned first and since God is all-knowing, He knew women would do it, so as punishment, He picked man. I hope that you can see by now that this is not backed up by Scripture, and if you can back it up with Scripture please do. Maybe I haven't read it all very well.

Another reason I've heard is that women are weak. In some ways, yes I would totally agree. However, in other ways, women are far stronger than men. That's not enough proof.

Another reason I've heard is that men are more logical and reasoning............yeah...........I will refrain for the purpose of, as a friend of mine puts it, "preserving the peace."

And the list goes on. Let me tell you the main reason I believe that a God--who is NOT actually a "He"--has revealed Himself as "He."

Okay...remember when I discussed the differences between the strengths of men and women? (see: http://andnarrowistheway.blogspot.com/2008/04/bible-chauvenist-propoganda-pt-1.html ) We are going to have to go back in time now to a few months ago, b/c . . . I've been dragging my feet with this "series" and so if you forget what I'm talking about, it's my fault for taking so long. Sorry for the delay.

Basically, I pointed out that men tend to be more straightforward and physically strong. Women tend to be more subtle and aesthetically beautiful. Both of these can be for good. Both of them can be for evil. However, they are for good in completely different ways and evil in completely different ways. So, with the understanding of men's and women's strengths, let's figure back into the equation why God would present Himself as a Father and not a Mother.

I find the answer simple. We can see why He didn't choose "She" already. Think of every goddess you know...Think of any of them that don't have to do with sex in some way. This is because when venerated to divine status, women become all-powerful sex-objects. In order to be close to a goddess, some sort of sexual rite or aspect must be performed or explored. Now, is God simply not "Mother" b/c He hates sex? Absolutely not. He created it, remember? But He wants a personal relationship with us, not a sexual one. He wants "Agape" not "Eros." Therefore He chooses to describe Himself as the gender that most fits that desire.

Let me explain. This is what Paul is referring to when he says that man was created in the image of God but woman was created in the glory of man. Men are easier for humans to venerate to positions of strength and authority--our little minds can wrap around a "Great Protector" as someone who wants our trust, that's the desire of God. Women are created in the glory of man, which means she is the desire of man. Sex isn't a ritual God wants from us. He doesn't require sex, b/c He created it specifically for a husband and wife. It's a special gift to us. (Incidentally, look what we do with it. Like everything nice we get from God, we abuse it in every way possible.)

This doesn't mean that women are more base or more sinners or whatever. It just means that in order to reproduce, God wanted us to be attracted to each other. This is probably why men are more attracted to what they see--b/c women are aesthetically beautiful and graceful, and women are attracted to what they hear--sweet words from a strong confident man (Oooohh...chills just now....but I digress...).

Now let's bring up the counter argument. First off, what about great rulers in the past who were women? Think of Elizabeth I. She was an exemplary national leader, right? Yes. She was also nicknamed "The Virgin Queen."....Think about it.

Also, Cleopatra was an Egyptian queen famous for her political dealings with Rome. . .and even more famous for her affairs with the leaders of Rome.

Secondly, What about Mary the mother of God? To some (not all) Roman Catholics Mary is "Co-Redemptrix" and almost equal with God the Father. Some would rather pray to her than to the Father or to Jesus, b/c she is "less threatening" and "more gentle." And, I suppose you could argue that to ALL Roman Catholics, Mary is not an object of lust . . . However, how did Mary even become important in the first place? Her reproductive system. I don't mean to be disrespectful. She was a very honorable person, but her importance in history comes from her distinctly female ability to reproduce.

There is some talk of Mary Magdalene as venerated (which really only happens in gnostic circles), but also with her: she receives this status b/c of having some supposed kind of "more than disciple, a la Da Vinci Code" relationship with Christ. Surely no one intelligent is still using the Da Vinci Code to discount the Bible anymore, are they?

Thirdly,...I know I know...there's some obscure goddess out there that you read about in college that wasn't sensual. Whatever. She was obscure. God doesn't want to be obscure either. God wants to be huge in our lives.

Of course, women can make good leaders and not have sex involved. Look at Judges 4 with the story of Deborah. Here was a married woman who was leading a very sinful nation of Israel. She was a prophetess and was instructed by God to tell Barak to go into battle against Sisera. Barak would only go if she went with him and as a result, Deborah prophesied that God would not deliver Sisera into Barak's hands, but into the hands of a woman. That woman was Jael who invited a tired, battle-weary Sisera into her tent and after he'd fallen asleep, drove a tent peg through his head....Something interesting to note: Would Sisera have fallen for the trap if the invite had been from a man? I guess we will never know. . .however, even if it wasn't a sexual invite (which there is no reason to think it was), it seems to make sense that a woman's invitation would be significantly less threatening, and therefore the the ONLY reason the ploy worked was because of Jael's feminity.

Even nowadays, sex isn't necessarily associated with female leaders. Madeleine Albright, Hillary Clinton, Margaret Thatcher, etc.--Even if you don't agree with them politically, you must at least give them credit for being strong leaders. However, I'm not just talking about strong female leaders, I'm mostly talking about venerated women. When women are queen of a world leading empire or higher (as in goddess) their sexuality is always an issue. God is even more than that, hopefully we can begin to see why He chooses to represent Himself in masculine terms?

This doesn't mean that male gods aren't perceived as sexual, though. Many cults and sects and mythologies out there believe such (i.e. Zeus and Shiva...however they both changed genders whenever they felt like it...). It's just that, for female deities, sex is a major--if not main power. Think of the greatest human love you can experience...This is typically observed as the love between a man and a woman (if it's not, then why is Hollywood making so much money off it?). That closeness is great and wonderful, but that's not how we are to view God. If He made sex for us, He requires something else for Him, and so that means picking a relationship we can most define as: "not sex related." Father has much more the connotations to describe His character and how we are to view Him and honor Him.
Something important to notice: as God portrays Himself in masculine terms, He also portrays Himself in "un-masculine" terms as well. For instance, He is called "Wonderful Counsellor;" also, His protection is like that of a mother hen's; He sometimes talks in a still, small voice; He clothes the lilies; His eye is on the sparrow; "Prince of Peace"; "Lamb of God"; and the list goes on. He is not "being feminine" with these attributes, but likewise He is not a "male" Father. He just is. And we are to understand that we are to have a deep relationship, devoid of sex, with Him.

That's basically what it comes down to. Man was created in the glory of God. God's love for mankind is agape. Woman was created in the glory of man. The love between a man and a woman is eros. God doesn't want eros with us. He wants agape.



Okay, I want to clear up a seeming contradiction before I go on. It seems I am saying two different things. First, I'm saying that the Bible is not chauvinist--but at the same time, I'm admitting that women were viewed as second class citizens by early humanity. I'm actually not contradicting. The fact that humans messed it up since the beginning of time, just happens to be recorded in the Bible--but that wasn't God's plan. That is exactly what I'm trying to figure out...WHERE did society get the idea that men were better than women? ...Read on.

Last installment: 5. The hint of the prophesied Messiah.