New Thoughts (06/24/08-06/25/08)
Perhaps I had been wiser to simply keep these verses with the previous section, but when I broke out my outline some years ago now, I had separated these as indicators of the course of Jesus’ travels. Of course, in trying to correlate the several Gospels together, they present what appears to be a problem. It is quite clear that Matthew and Mark were covering the same event in recording the feeding of the four thousand, and it is reasonably clear that this journey to two apparent destinations comes close on the heels of that feast.
A skeptic would not, I suppose, be satisfied even with the accumulation of explanations that have been presented. It remains true that first, the texts of both accounts have suffered variation: Matthew being found with either of Magadan or Magdala, and Mark with Dalmanutha, Magadan or Magdala. Now, some of these variations seem clearly enough to be attempts to make the record match, so set that aside. Let it stand forth with all its seeming discrepancy. Let us discount Magadan altogether, it being the one name which seems to have almost no backing story.
But, consider the case for Magdala and Dalmanutha as neighbors. The case here seems reasonable enough. We have the region of Magdala, and the district of Dalmanutha. Well, if I look at those two descriptions, it seems we are to understand from Matthew that their arrival was at the borders of Magdala, the frontier as it were. Meanwhile, Mark writes of a landing in the section or allotment of Dalmanutha, perhaps even to be taken as on the shores of that place.
So, consider the description of the geography as we have it. Magdala shows up as one of a nearly equidistant series of settlements, cities, what have you lining the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. It starts with Bethsaida, located there at the northern tip of the lake, and proceeds through Capernaum, Gennesaret, Magdala and Tiberias at relatively similar intervals, each being something like five miles from the other. So, we have Magdala sitting on the southern end of that same plain which has Gennesaret at its northern extreme, although it is a quite narrow plain, hugging the coast of the Sea. We then find that just south of what is believed to be this Magdala, the gentle shoreline created by that plain is broken abruptly, a steep and precipitous hill jutting out into the water at that point. Then, just a little farther south, we find a narrow glen where a small stream of some sort empties into the Sea.
This glen is placed little more than a mile south of Magdala, far enough north of Tiberias to be outside of that city’s sphere, but certainly close enough for a Magdala that perhaps of equal note at the time. Magdala, we learn, was known, as was Tiberias, as a seat of learning during the development of the Rabbinical commentaries. It is also noted that there was a fairly significant industry involving indigo dye, that greatly prized color pioneered by the Phoenicians in that same region. Both of these would confer a certain amount of power on the city. Add to this the tower reference. Given the placement of that chain of cities along the shore, perhaps the city of Magdala was deemed to have some military value as well, holding the southern plain as it did. The point is that to suppose a small fishing village, one which would have been familiar enough to those whose memories gave foundation to the Gospels and perhaps even to those the Gospels were initially written for, was so located does not stretch credibility in the least.
It is no different than our own region. I grew up in towns that were known by and large by a single name. But, those who were part of that town would be quite aware that there were really several lesser towns or even villages that composed what most considered the town. The town might define the legal boundary, encompassing a territory with sufficient population for the state to allow incorporation. But, like the political fictions that are the nations of the Balkans and the Middle East, the original boundaries persist in the minds of the people, particularly those most native to the region.
So it was in the Griswold of my youth, which had its many sub-villages, some little more than a house or two, almost none having so much as a single public building. So it was in most places in Eastern Connecticut, each identified city or town having several subdivisions whose boundaries and raisons d’etre were long since lost in dusty memory. So it is here in Massachusetts as well. Few people are even aware that Chelmsford, Tyngsboro and Westford were once a single town. Now Westford itself is only a single town to those outside its borders. Indeed, there are several towns within, whose residents, speaking to others from that town, would hardly think of themselves as living in Westford at all, or at least only secondarily to their true place, be it Forge Village, Graniteville, Parkersville, or Nabnasset.
My point is simply this: there is no reason not to accept that this Dalmanutha was, as it were a district of the larger Magdala. There is no reason not to accept that these men who were native to the general area, and who had, in many cases, worked this sea for years would be quite aware of that smaller town. After all, if we are correct in thinking that Peter is the source for Mark’s material, and Matthew for his own, is it surprising that the fisherman would be familiar with the lesser fishing village, while the tax collector would tend to think of the more profitable center?
As I was thinking on this after studying yesterday it occurred to me that the question that deserves consideration is not so much where they came to as it is why they went there in the first place. Again, I have to declare it and remind myself that as random and arbitrary as His travels may seem to be, they were absolutely of a purposeful nature. I might do well to remind myself that this same thing holds in my own life, in so far as I am a child of the Father. As much as I may plan and chart and set out my sense of the future, it is He who determines my path, even as He has declared it in His word. And for this, although I may not always like the journey, I am assuredly thankful. For, He knows my future and guides me faithfully onward as I journey through this life.
At any rate: why has he come to this place? All we have record of as happening on this visit to the western shore is a brief confrontation with a group of Pharisees and Sadducees. Then, He’s back in the boat and off to the other shore once again, returning to Bethsaida (Mk 8:22). Did He really come over just for the sake of an argument? It seems rather unlikely to me, but perhaps it is so. Perhaps He just wanted His disciples to be aware of how great and unprincipled was the opposition to His ministry. Look! The Pharisees and the Sadducees, who agree on so little, are joined together in opposition. They have set aside their supposed devotion to the true doctrine to come against True Doctrine. Beware their leaven indeed (Mt 16:6)!
Well, one cannot hear about Magdala and not be put in mind of Mary Magdalene. She is not mentioned by this name in either Matthew’s or Mark’s gospels until quite near the end of the ministry, and then she is named as one who should be familiar already. Likewise, John takes no note of her until we come to the scene of the empty tomb. Only Luke seems to give her any notice at some earlier point, earlier enough that I should think it well prior to the visit we have before us, some time just prior to His delivering of the Sermon on the mount (Lk 8:2). She is spoken of there as the one ‘called Magdalene’, and this comes on the heels of his record of that dinner at Simon’s house, when the woman of sin had wiped his feet with her hair and perfume (Lk 7:36-50). Many have made the connection between these two, and supposed that Mary, called Magdalene, was indeed the woman at Simon’s house. There is no necessary cause for such an understanding.
However, when one takes into account that alternative meaning of magdala, as indicating a woman of the night, her hair twisted and plaited upon her head, the possibility exists that she was, if not the same woman, a practitioner in the same profession. But, this can be no more than supposition. Whatever her past may have been, her present, as Luke declares to us, is that the demons which had plagued her had gone out of her at the command of Jesus.
Now, as much as Luke clearly seeks to keep his records straight and his narrative in true order, it must be noted that first, this is a Greek history, and may not be as stringently concerned with chronological sequence as we are. Second, what he has compiled here are the recollections of those who had been witness to the events. Whether Mary’s encounter came before the Sermon or after the two miraculous feasts is not necessarily something people had taken careful note of at the time.
Consider: neither Matthew nor Peter, as we hear him through Mark, even saw fit to mention how this woman came to be in the company of the disciples. Other than her presence at the Crucifixion and later at the grave, no notice is taken of her. They are Jewish, after all, and their society has relegated women to a lesser status. This is no comment on Jesus’ perspective. Indeed, if anything, it points to a rather radical departure from tradition on His part, that He finds these women fit company to keep. Luke, coming from a different culture, sees a different picture, and takes a different interest. But, as to nailing down the proper sequence of events, I don’t believe we can necessarily expect that from him.
If he had had opportunity to interview Mary herself, I suppose her recollection of things would no doubt be much clearer. Although, I would have to say that my own recollection of that moment of coming to Christ is not so accurate that I could nail it down in reference to other historical events of the time. There was nothing about the event that would lead me to try and place it in such reference. Likewise for Mary, I should think. The moment in which He delivered her of those devils and forgave her sins might be ever so clear in her memory, etched, as it were. But, there would not necessarily have been any reason for her to have such deep memories of what had transpired immediately before or immediately after. I suppose we might allow that she would remember that great Sermon if she had been present there, and doubtless, had she been around for the miracle feedings, those too would register.
But, there is nothing that demands us to suppose that she had been there, even if her deliverance preceded those events. If she is truly of Magdala, and all of these things were happening on the opposite shore, it is entirely possible that she was not present. She might not have a clear knowledge of whether her moment came before or after these things. For all that, even had Luke interviewed her, he may not have thought to ask how the timing went anyway. Far more interesting to know why she had come to be a follower of the Christ. Far more interesting to know that story than exactly where it fit in that three year period.
So, let us suppose that, while neither Matthew nor Mark see fit to mention it, her moment may very well have been on this visit. The argument with the Pharisees may have outweighed the event for importance, so far as the disciples were concerned. After all, consider what they have just been witness to as they accompanied Jesus. They have seen healings by the hundreds. More than that, they have seen Him feeding thousands on next to nothing, and not only once, but twice now! One woman’s deliverance after such events might not be all that noteworthy to them. This confrontation with the Pharisees, though, particularly coming on the heels of such miraculous events; that’s going to be remembered.
As I consider the why of Jesus’ coming to this town, a chance for debate does not strike me as the sort of reason that would motivate Him. The salvation of one lost soul, though? Yes, I can see Him undertaking the journey for that purpose. After all, we have seen Him walk all the way up to Tyre to bring life to one child, to bring hope to one Gentile mother. This little jaunt across the waters is nothing by comparison, and here is the opportunity to restore life to a daughter of Abraham, one who has a particular purpose in the closing chapters of this ministry, though she has no way of knowing it now.
So, as I move on to consider the next portion of the story, I might be well advised to recall that this argument and the subsequent ‘teachable moment’ for the disciples, while expected and accomplished, was not necessarily the point of His coming. If anything, it is the opposition team.
Oh! Let me draw that application out just a bit. It’s important! The primary purpose of our Lord was not to enter into theological debates. He is Truth, and He is bound, as it were, to uphold Truth when lies would seek its overthrow. He will stand up and declare the True doctrine of heaven, but that’s not His primary purpose. It is, as it were, merely a reflection of His character that He will not suffer the lie to thrive. No, He is come to deliver, to redeem, to save. That is His purpose. He came to seek and save the lost. That He had so many opportunities to set doctrine straight as He went about His mission was icing.
This must be balanced, to be sure. What I see in Him is that the two are never far separated. For, healing the sick body, delivering the demon-plagued spirit, is of little use if the mind, the soul is left sick unto death. Doctrine is the great curative of the soul. A true knowledge of God is the life blood of the mind. So, He teaches Truth to cleanse mind and soul, even as He heals the body, and delivers the spirit. It is a particularly holistic approach to healing that He takes. But, at the forefront remains the purpose of Deliverance. He purposes to deliver, and He purposes that such as He delivers shall remain delivered, for He has never lost a one. So, He teaches those He heals and He heals those He teaches, that He may truly be all and in all for all whom He calls His own.
