Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Mark

[Koine]

"Whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours" (Mark 11:24) is reckless and false, preying on both religious believers' idealistic hopes as well as the psychological impulse to rationalize away religious failures.

Ever heard the phrase "it's easier to ask for forgiveness than beg for permission"?

Obviously this is talking about just doing things you want, without having to explain yourself or go through the (sometimes difficult or uncomfortable) formalities and courtesies that might otherwise be required beforehand.

I've always thought there's a kind of tangential connection to this sort of reasoning whenever I've thought about Biblical verses like Mark 11:23-24, and what I believe is the underlying logic and appeal of this: "Truly, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and thrown into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says will come to pass, it will be done for him. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours."

Whether this was actually said by the historical Jesus, as the gospel implies, or if it was just a secondary teaching of the Christian community that was only later ascribed to Jesus, I think the crux is the same: it's easier to lure people in with the promise of fantastic abilities and miracles, but then to let their self-doubt and tendency to rationalize things away take care of things when it doesn't come true, than it is to admit that faith isn't actually as fantastic and powerful as it's made out to be, or that God isn't really looking out for our interests and health and well-being like we might otherwise want to believe.

I think we can also make a connection here with other things throughout the history of religion, too, like eschatological predictions.

For example, it's easier to just go ahead and say "the end is near" — or, in more traditional Christian garb, "the kingdom of God is near" — and then when this fails to take place in the way that it was supposed to, to just let people rationalize it away: for example, that it was just a "spiritual" end or spiritual kingdom, or that it meant "near" relative to God's perception of time and not ours, or that God changed his mind or decided to give people more time to repent, or whatever the explanation might be.

Again, similarly, when it comes to prayers being answered or Christians' supernatural abilities, this is also rationalized away in various ways: the idea that there were some unstated conditions/limitations for this, or that this may have been the case in the past but no longer applies today, or — as something that may be cunningly built into the original prediction itself — that it's simply a matter of "not having enough faith." However, none of these three explanations likely represents the true intention of the original promise. Even elements of the third explanation in the original here probably weren't intended to truly limit fulfillment in the way some people might think.

So, in effect, whether we're talking about claims of miraculous supernatural/prayer abilities or end-times predictions, in either case it's a win-win for religious figures looking for a following: they have everything to gain (mainly the credulity of believers and their enthusiasm for the fantastic and supernatural) and little to lose (because of believers' tendency to only focus on the positive and not any failures, rationalizing the latter away).

[jimwalton]

Jesus spoke in a context. People get into interpretive trouble when they ignore the context. In Mark the saying to which you are referring is couched in the story of the fig tree and the cleansing of the Temple—an indictment of religious people on false expectations and false practices. As far as your analysis, t's true that people want the easy path and the one where they get what they want, but that doesn't mean Jesus's statement is reckless and false. Jesus is talking about a bona fide relationship with God that results in spiritual harmony, and at the same time decrying religious practices for the benefit of self. It's in that context, then, that you are claiming he's giving people false hopes based on selfish requests, luring people with deceitful teachings. I hope you can see the contradiction in what Jesus is saying and what you are claiming. Prayer, according to Jesus, is not putting oneself in charge and getting whatever you ask for. Instead, Jesus is talking about a harmony with God that puts one in a position of being a participant with what God is doing, which makes the impossible possible. The necessary condition of his teaching is a relationship with God, not just religious practice. What makes prayer vital is its harmony with God, not just wishful optimism.

In your earnest praying, there comes a point where God tells you what he is going to do. At that point, you live as if it’s a done deal, no matter how great or seemingly ridiculous it is. And as you act in faith, believing, and walk in that faith, so shall it be done. At that point the fulfillment may still be difficult, and it may be trying to you, but your duty is to persist in faith; God will move the mountain as you continue to pray and to live in Him with an undivided heart and a firm perseverance.

The text really has nothing to do with wishful optimism or blind faith.

[Bob Dylan]

That was wonderfully said.

[Yellow Highlighter]

Can you back your statements with direct scriptural verses to allow for this interpretation of context because the way it appears to me us that you have added context from your own choosing.

[jimwalton]

Sure.

Remember that here Jesus is talking only to his disciples, not to the crowds. They have had 3 years with him, and there's a lot of contextual background to what He says.

> In Mark the saying to which you are referring is couched in the story of the fig tree and the cleansing of the Temple—an indictment of religious people on false expectations and false practices.

The fig tree story in both Matthew and Mark is in the context of the cleansing of the Temple. The two are really one story. The fig tree story is a parable of the spiritual impoverishment of the religious system in Jerusalem. In the temple cleansing, Jesus remonstrates the religious leaders for turning the Temple from its divine intent into not only something secular but also something immoral (a den of thieves, Mt. 21.13). The fig tree story that follows it in both Gospels is a parable of judgment over the lack of "fruit" where there should be every expectation to find some (Mt. 21.19). It was a picture of uselessness instead of productivity, death instead of life, practices that were contrary to fellowship with God, and spiritual indifference. Judgment was appropriate for their negligence, hypocrisy, and deceit. Spiritual deadness calls for judgment.

So Jesus is developing the theme of a productive relationship with God rather than a dead, hypocritical, and deceitful one. To that end He says the words of "Have faith...say to this mountain...you will receive what you ask for."

Both Gospels follow the text with the leaders questioning Jesus's authority, a question that goes unanswered.

Matthew follows that with the Parable of the Two Sons (Mt. 21.28-32), where the person who actually does God's will, regardless of their words or background, is praised. Then both Mt & Mk have the Parable of the Tenants, where the tenants reject the rightful son and heir. Jesus identifies himself as the rightful Son, the fulfillment of messianic prophecy, and the judge of the Earth.

In the middle of all this is Jesus's words about faith and prayer. The context is how to appropriately relate to God—which is what the covenant and the Temple are all about. Here is what Jesus is saying:

* Repudiate the hypocrisy, greed, and deceit.
* What is required is truth faith and honest prayer (Mk. 11.22-25).
* What matters most is the appropriate response of lifestyle, not the facade of good but unfulfilled intentions (Mt. 7.21; 12.50; 21.28-32, 43)
* What matters most is spiritual truth (Mk. 12.1-11, the recognition and worship of Jesus), not self-serving hypocrisy and religious practice.

Jesus is always talking about relationship (Jn. 14), and never about religion (Mt. 23. He deplores religion. In Mark, his treatment of fasting (Mk. 2.18-22) includes some parables that the new wine (Jesus) requires a rejection of the old wine (religion). He infuses new meaning into the Sabbath, claiming to be Lord of it (Mk. 2.23-28). He speaks in terms of relationship in Mk. 3.34). He rejects their religious hypocrisy (Mk. 7.6-23). Instead He speaks of relationship (Mk. 8.34-35). When Jesus talks about prayer, He's talking about spiritual harmony with God (Mt. 6.10; Mk. 11.17). Prayer is never just treating God like Santa Claus, making your list, and getting what you want (Mt. 6.5-15, esp. v. 10). We are to seek first God's kingdom (Mt. 6.33).

When Jesus speaks of prayer, he couches it in the context of the parable of the fig tree (Mt. 21.21) and is also speaking figuratively about casting mountains into the sea, He is referencing Jewish texts that speak of "removing mountains" as an infinitely long or virtually impossible task. "The sea" is often a symbol in the Gospels, and especially Mark, for a place of chaos and destruction. So if the fig tree is a parable, and "moving mountains" is figurative, and the sea is symbolic, we are remiss to claim Jesus meant literally that ya get whatevah ya ask fer. Instead, Jesus is making a comment about "true religion." It's not religion at all, but rather relationship with God. Faith and prayer are required for confronting the upcoming mountains of difficulty about how God would carry out His plans. Those difficulties that challenge our faith are a call to confidence, not doubt. "Faith" here doesn't mean blind belief, but instead to be confident and hold fast to the evidence they'd seen and in what they know to be true.

[Yellow Highlighter]

> So Jesus is developing the theme of a productive relationship with God rather than a dead, hypocritical, and deceitful one.

What both of you are doing is developing context for this verse via persuasion that is not guaranteed fact but interpretation. It may seem persuasive but the problem with this interpretation is that is is not directly related to the actual verse which is clearly directly related to faith or more importantly faith in the power of God to defy natural order.

Yes, he is speaking to his disciples but the context specifically related to this passage or rather the ops passage deals with the significance of faith not works as in the fig tree story you are presenting. So again, you are applying an overarching theme of your own interpretation like you would in an Lit class.

> To that end He says the words of "Have faith...say to this mountain...you will receive what you ask for."

Like I asked the original poster, how are you directly connecting this verse with your interpretation?

> What is required is truth faith and honest prayer (Mk. 11.22-25)
> What matters most is the appropriate response of lifestyle, not the facade of good but unfulfilled intentions

I appreciate the effort you place in your replies but this is only relevant if the question is about Jesus' overall message to his disciples but it's not. I don't want to be educated on the overall message to provide some possible context because the actual context is strictly related to faith in Jesus power and the veracity of his teachings such that his followers can move mountains.

I believe that it seems to be a common response in the discussion of miraculous works where the actual verses related are muddied by external themes to provide context that doesn't get to the heart of what's on the real topic.

> When Jesus speaks of prayer, he couches it in the context of the parable of the fig tree

Right. In both cases the the point is clear: faith can defy natural order. That's the obvious context and any verse provided should relate to this context. More importantly faith in Jesus and in God rather than other gods for example. Peter couldn't walk on water, Jesus couldn't or wouldn't perform miracles in his home town because of the peoples disbelief to his amazement.

> The sea" is often a symbol in the Gospels, and especially Mark, for a place of chaos and destruction. So if the fig tree is a parable, and "moving mountains" is figurative, and the sea is symbolic, we are remiss to claim Jesus meant literally that ya get whatevah ya ask fer. Instead, Jesus is making a comment about "true religion." It's not religion at all, but rather relationship with God. Faith and prayer are required for confronting the upcoming mountains of difficulty about how God would carry out His plans.

You are replying to me like a priest speaks to his congregation. I don't need a lesson in symbolism in the bible.

> Faith and prayer are required for confronting the upcoming mountains of difficulty about how God would carry out His plans.

Again literary interpretation.

[jimwalton]

> What both of you are doing is developing context for this verse via persuasion that is not guaranteed fact but interpretation.

All writing, not to mention all communication, requires interpretation. The Constitution requires it, the law requires it, philosophy texts require it, along with history, historical documents, etc. It's not a weakness in the Bible or more particularly in the Gospel accounts, but instead a common nature of all communication. Of course it's an interpretation.

> It may seem persuasive but the problem with this interpretation is that is is not directly related to the actual verse which is clearly directly related to faith or more importantly faith in the power of God to defy natural order.

All communication has to be understood contextually. If I'm going to the store and say, "I'm leaving" is very different than if I have had a fight with my spouse and say "I'm leaving." The actual verse has a linguistic context ("moving mountains" was an idiom for doing something difficult or seemingly impossible), a cultural context, and even a context in Jesus's ministry. He is talking to His disciples after 3 years of being with them. We don't just yank out this sentence and interpret it in a vacuum.

> So again, you are applying an overarching theme of your own interpretation like you would in an Lit class.

The Bible is a rich literary work, filled with literary devices, motifs, and genres. It can be diagnosed culturally, grammatically, literarily, historically, and theologically.

> Like I asked the original poster, how are you directly connecting this verse with your interpretation?

Their dead religion bore no "fruit" (the fig tree visual aid). What mattered most was the appropriate response of lifestyle, not the facade of good but unfulfilled intentions (Mt. 21.28-32). Instead what Jesus asked of them was a life of faith (Mk. 11.22, which in the Bible is an acknowledgement of the truth based on the evidence they had seen). This relationship with God based on the truth of his existence and that Jesus was God in the flesh. In that relationship of harmony with God, there are no limits to what God can do. Nothing will be too hard for a person of faith. The power is a Person whose limitless power is available for him who fulfills the conditions implied in faith.

> Right. In both cases the the point is clear: faith can defy natural order.

But this is NOT the point. "Moving mountains" was a cultural idiom and not to be taken literally. We have many such sayings also. "He was just bustin' my chops." "He was pulling my leg."

Jesus never moved a mountain (a geological formation). Neither did any disciple, ever. They healed people, and they preached, but they never even tried to defy natural order. That's not how they understood it.

> You are replying to me like a priest speaks to his congregation. I don't need a lesson in symbolism in the bible.

It's all part of the understanding of what Jesus was really talking about.

> Again literary interpretation.

Yep, no problem with interpreting the text. It's necessary.

[Griffen]

> People get into interpretive trouble when they ignore the context.

Motivated reasoning is also rampant in Christian reinterpretations. It's not always atheists who misinterpret context.

[jimwalton]

You're right that it is, but that doesn't mean every interpretation is wrong. We have to be very careful to handle the Bible properly and to interpret wisely.

[Koine]

> Faith and prayer are required for confronting the upcoming mountains of difficulty about how God would carry out His plans.

So how do you interpret parallel sayings like "I also tell you this: If two of you agree here on earth concerning anything you ask, my Father in heaven will do it for you" (Matthew 18:19)?