On the road with Jesus in Mark

Mark 8:27 Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, “Who do people say I am?”

Mark 9:33 They came to Capernaum. When he was in the house, he asked them, “What were you arguing about on the road?”

Mark 9:34 But they kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest.

Mark 10:17 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

Mark 10:32 They were on their way up to Jerusalem, with Jesus leading the way, and the disciples were astonished, while those who followed were afraid. Again he took the Twelve aside and told them what was going to happen to him.

Mark 10:52 “Go,” said Jesus, “your faith has healed you.” Immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus along the road. 

In the central panel of Mark's Gospel, 8:27–10:52, where thrice Jesus plainly tells his disciples what must happen to the Son of Man (suffer, die and be raised after three days), we have a repeated phrase to remind us what is going on. That is, it is not just the knowledge that Jesus must die (8:31; 9:30; 10:33-34), but that his path is set, there will be no deviation, but from here on in it is Jerusalem or bust.

In that sense, Mark 8:27–10:52 is Mark's long equivalent to Luke's 9:51:

Luke 9:51 As the time approached for him to be taken up to heaven, Jesus resolutely set out for Jerusalem.

Thrice in this section, Jesus three times tells his disciples that he must die, and six times (including the very first verse and very last words) we are told that he is on the road. This spatial information brackets as well as peppers this important section, which is only highlighted by the unique interaction with final suppliant, Bartimaeus. 

Bartimaeus is not the first blind man in Mark; the previous section similarly concluded with a blind man (8:22-26). They play a contrasting role to those who can see but are nonetheless blind to Jesus' identity. But where Bartimaeus stands out is he is the first suppliant who is permitted to follow Jesus, and to follow him "on the way" (10:52). He is then fulfilling what the disciples will prove to be unable to do, despite encouraging them to do so (8:34-38) and them assuring him of their willingness to do so (10:28).

But Bartimaeus will follow, because now is the time for Jesus' identity and mission to be made known, as he will presently do in his three trips to Jerusalem (11:1vv). He contrasts to all those Jesus forbade follow, and to the previous suppliant who was unwilling to follow because of his great wealth. 

This important section, highlighted by the repetition of "on the way", reinforces Jesus' mission. It challenges the reader to consider whether they are willing to follow Jesus, the Son of David, the Son of Man, the Son of God, counting their life as cursed, that by losing their life for him, they might truly gain it.

The Seven Sayings and the Stations of the Cross

I've been doing a bit of research (mainly using Wiki and the Bible!) on two things associated with Good Friday: the Stations of the Cross, and the Seven Words of Jesus. I'm fairly familiar with the Seven Words, or sayings of Jesus from the cross. They are (mostly) biblical, and come from the four Gospels: 3 Luke, 3 John, 1 Matthew//Mark. I say mainly because the first, "Father forgive them, for they don't understand what they're doing," (Lk 23:34) is not thought to be original to the Gospel, but a later addition.

The Seven Words are the seven statements or questions Jesus speaks from the cross, and between them they express different aspects of what being crucified meant for Jesus, and by extension, suggest for us how we are to respond to or understand the crucifixion. Here are the Seven Words, from the NIV:

Luke 23.34 “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”
Luke 23.43 “Truly I tell you, today you will be  with me in paradise.”
John 19.26-27 “Woman, here is  your son,” “Here is your mother.”
Matt 27.46//Mark 15.34 “Eli, Eli [Mark has Eloi Eloi], lema sabachthani?”
John 19.28  “I am thirsty.”
John 19.30  “It is  finished.”
Luke 23.46  “Father, into your  hands I commit my spirit.”

The order is supposed to be chronological and tell a bit of a story as they look outwards, then upwards in despair, but then resolving to trust. They address or are about different figures: the guards, the rebel, John and Mary, and then, with the last four, God. With the first of the final four we have a bit of the Aramaic translation of Psalm 22. Instead of Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani, the Hebrew would have 'azavthani. The next two are just one word each: dipso and tetelestai.

The Stations of the Cross on the other hand do not have anywhere near the same pedigree. The story I heard was Constantine's mother Helena was dispatched to Jerusalem to find some material evidence supporting Christianity. She managed to find the cross - the other two of the rebels either side of Jesus were ruled out by not being able to heal a sick man, but when laid on the True Cross^TM, he was healed. I'm sure there's enough pieces of the True Cross^TM to build Noah's Ark. She also snaffled the Titulus (the sign above Jesus' head), which, according to a definitely true documentary I saw, is in a church somewhere in Italy. But the other thing she did was go for a walk on the via Delarosa and give a running commentary on what she imagined Jesus' journey to the cross to have been like. "I reckon Jesus fell over there," "That looks like the place Simon of Cyrene would have subbed in," and so on. It's totally made up, so it may be true, but that would be chance rather than due to research. 

The list was originally seven, was then expanded to double that size, and was then renewed by Pope John Paul II, and okayed by Pope Benedict XVI. Three of the original seven are biblical, leaving four fanciful ones. Of the additional seven only one is made up, and even then probably to take the tally to the magical 14. When the list was updated in the 20th Century, seven of the original were kept, and the whole list is biblical. 

Here is the old list of fourteen, with the bold ones the ancient seven, and the biblical ones in italics. Three of the non-biblical ones are Jesus tripping. so maybe Helena saw some trip hazards, or maybe she tripped over and before people could have a go at her she said "well if Jesus tripped over, you shouldn't laugh at me." I don't know. I also don't know who Veronica is. 

1. Jesus is condemned to death
2. Jesus carries His cross
3. Jesus falls for the first time
4. Jesus meets His mother, Mary
5. Simon of Cyrene helps Jesus carry the cross
6. Veronica wipes the face of Jesus
7. Jesus falls for the second time
8. Jesus meets the women of Jerusalem
9. Jesus falls for the third time
10. Jesus is stripped of His clothes
11. Jesus is nailed to the cross
12. Jesus dies on the cross
13. Jesus is taken down from the cross
14. Jesus is placed in the tomb

Thankfully JP II thought the list could do with a sprucing up, leaving us the following list. I've put the seven which he kept from the earlier fourteen in bold. As I said above, all fourteen are biblical.

1. Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane;
2. Jesus is betrayed by Judas and arrested;
3. Jesus is condemned by the Sanhedrin;4. Jesus is denied by Peter;
5. Jesus is judged by Pilate;
6. Jesus is scourged and crowned with thorns;
7. Jesus takes up his cross;
8. Jesus is helped by Simon of Cyrene to carry his cross;
9. Jesus meets the women of Jerusalem;
10. Jesus is crucified;  
11. Jesus promises his kingdom to the repentant thief;
12. Jesus entrusts Mary and John to each other;   
13. Jesus dies on the cross; and
14. Jesus is laid in the tomb.

Finally, it is interesting to note where the Seven Sayings and the Stations of the Cross coincide. At station 10 Jesus speaks his first word; at 11 the second, and the third at 12. The remaining four are all said while dying on the cross - station 13. 

What do we do with all this? It is worth reflecting that these two ritualised things - the sayings and the stations - are a mixture of all four Gospels, of history, theology and myth. They are all meaningful for billions around the world, as they help us understand and memorialise this most central event in Christian history, theology and ritual. I obviously think the stations of the cross (at least the ancient versions) are pretty funny in how they came about, but that is not to deny the significance of remembering Jesus' death in that way. Indeed, it is in our nature and speaks to our physicality, to remember things in this way, as Christians have done for the last 1990 years or so, and will continue to do until Jesus returns.

Psalm 131 - At peace with Yhwh

With the last few psalms of ascent we come to the shortest psalms of the collection, with 132 the exception. 131, 133 and 134 are each only three verses each, which ties them together as a unit.

131:1

The psalm proper begins with Yhwh as the addressee, and then three לא־ (not) statements: not lifted up (my heart), not exalted (my eyes), not walking (in greatness), and then, with an ellipsis, assuming "not walking", a virtual fourth, as they are not walking (in things too wonderful for me). This introduction of what they are not doing raises an obvious question: if that's what you're not doing, what are you doing? This is a pattern established from the very first psalm, which begins by detailing the blessed one, who does not a, nor b, nor c.

131:2

If they are not haughty, proud, or boastful, then who are they? 131:2 explains exactly that. They have become calm and quieted their soul. It begins by continuing the repeating the pattern of לא, but combines it with אם (if), forming an idiom. אם־לא sometimes means what it looks like: "if not", but other times (eg. Prov 4:16) is something closer to "until". Goldingay (BCOTWP) suggests "No, rather" to continue the chain of "no's" from v1. It seems to me that the precise idiom found here however seems to be close to the one used sometimes by Isaiah (often it's "if not), in for example 5:9 and 14:24, which is better translated "surely", which seems to be its meaning here also. The mix of idioms confuses me a bit, as contrary meanings for the same words makes it hard for a non-native speaker. All this is a reminder that we approach the text from a great distance - thousands of years and cultures and languages - so what is confusing for us need not be for them. On a side note, from Isaiah's usage of the idiom but using both meanings shows that they had no issues grasping the meaning from context. 

In the second half of v2 the comparison comes. Throughout the psalms of ascent one notable feature is that they tend to have just one illustration or a matching pair of illustrations. In this case we are to picture the (often all-too brief!) peacefulness of a young child resting with their mother, completely safe, at ease, at peace. There are two noteworthy features here in the final stich of the verse; the first is the reuse of נפשׁי (my soul) at the end of each half of this verse: I have quieted my soul/like a child upon [their mother] is my soul. This also highlights the second feature, which I think is probably another ellipsis: the first stich of the second half of this verse has, literally, "like a child upon its mother", and the second stich is "like a child upon my soul." I think it's probably correct to say that אמו (its mother) is to be assumed in the final stich, so that rather than imagining first a child with their mother and then a child with my soul, we supply "its mother" and assume the verb "to be", such that we end up with "like a child upon its mother/like a child upon [its mother] is my soul." Craig Broyles has a lovely suggestion, which is:

This juxtaposition leads one to think further of Yahweh as mother, with one’s  soul or self as the weaned child that is quieted upon her (cf. Isa. 46:3; 49:15). (Craig C. Broyles, UTB; Baker 2012; 470).

I should also add that, as Goldingay explains, the idea that גמל means "weaned" in this context is a little odd. Perhaps it's best to think of a child who has not finished nursing forever (the normal meaning of weaned) but one who has just finished a feeding session (weaned until the next time they need to feed!). We often call it "milk drunk," which I think adds to the idea of being completely satisfied and there being no possibility of wanting for anything else.

131:3

As well as being connected with the shorter psalms which follow, 131 also has a clear connection with 130, as the final verses both address Israel, and both tell Israel to יחל (hope) in Yhwh; indeed the first clause of 130:7 and 131:1 are identical: יחל ישראל אל־יהוה. They both do this because they reflect on what has been learned through personal experience and seek to use that to encourage their fellow Israelites.

With Ps 124, but also interestingly, within these final five, Ps 132 and 133, this is a David psalm, so the best way to read that is perhaps as learning from the patience and humility exhibited by David. Interestingly though, the final phrase of this psalm, מעתה ועד־עולם (from now and forever) elsewhere occurs with reference to God's eternal kingdom centred in Zion and around David (the eight exact hits for this phrase are Isa 9.7; 59.21; Mic 4.7; Ps 113.2; 115.18; 121.8; 125.2; 131.3). The first of these is the reading often associated with Christmas:

“Of the greatness of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this.” (Isa 9.7 NIV11)

The second Isaiah reference is about his Spirit-endowed servant who always speaks the word of the Lord, and Micah is discussing the restoration of the remnant. I obviously don't know which came first - the psalm or the prophets, but it's certainly interesting to see how this phrase is used in the Hebrew Bible, but knowing from the superscription that this is a David psalm, it certainly adds an extra layer. 

Reflecting on the psalm

The psalm teaches the pilgrim about the approach of their heart as they draw near to God in the temple. Psalm 130 taught them that they can approach, because with Yhwh is forgiveness. In this psalm though, they are reminded that forgiveness must never lead to arrogance, but to humility. Less proud Pharisee and more penitent tax-collector (Luke 18). 

The eschatological quiet taught by this psalm hinges on the trust in Yhwh's character as explained in the previous psalm. "It is well with my soul," "not my will but yours," "to live is Christ and to die is gain" - such expressions reflect well the quiet calm on show here. Even more shocking in the world today where strong-man leaders are all the rage (one commentator perfectly said that we vote not for the one with the best policies but the one who can take over a room), is that for any "David's", whose hope is in Yhwh, that their character is to be peaceable, humble and calm. How wonderful it would be to have some leaders who are peaceful rather than talking themselves up all the time! 

Far better then, to follow the one who did not exalt himself, but gave his life as an offering, and to learn from his mindset (Phil 2).

Herod Chiasm (Luke 23.7-11)

in contrasting Mark with Luke and the Pilate account (Mark 15.1-15, Luke 23.1-25), what is noticeable is the absence in Mark of the Herod account in the middle of the Pilate narrative (Luke 23.7-11).

The 'sandwich' technique is well known in the gospels, placing one story within another, perhaps to emphasise the centre, or even just to enhance memory in retelling the passage.

In Luke it seems both the Pilate and Herod accounts are important, but for different reasons. With Pilate, the flow of the narrative is what stands out: the mounting innocence of Jesus but the guilt of Barabbas. The Herod account however wishes to emphasise Jesus' innocence, but the guilt of the scribes and chief priests - and this is what the following chiasm reveals:


A 23.7 And when he learned that he belonged to Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent him over to Herod...

B     8 When Herod saw Jesus, he was very glad, for he had long desired to see him...

C         9 So he questioned him at some length,

D             but he made no answer.
D’             10 And the chief priests and the scribes stood by,

C’         vehemently accusing him.

B’     11 And Herod with his soldiers treated him with contempt and mocked him.

A’ Then, arraying him in splendid clothing, he sent him back to Pilate.



Thematically, we see:

A: To Herod
A': From Herod

B: Herod's joy at Jesus
B': Herod's contempt at Jesus

C: Questioning Jesus
C': Accusing Jesus

D: No intervention from Jesus
D': No intervention from the scribes

like some chiasm action? get some more here!

'supdate

if you've been grieving my blogospheric absence, let me fill you in on where i've been:

nowhere really – just busy!

i stepped in at the last minute to do a sermon on prayer, a great time - though not long enough - to think through whether i really do value prayer or not.

essay on Isaiah 26 was great fun, but took waaaaay too long - i spent 2 and a half weeks working on the Hebrew, and only a couple of days looking at the theological issues surrounding it.

next on the list was exam fun and games - philosophy was first, and then Church History (European Reformation).

the mayhem was broken up with a weekend camp for SWAC youth, where i had the honour of talking through 2 Peter with them.

i arrived back in time for my New Testament exam, translating and exegeting 2 passages from John 7:29-31 and John 1:11-13. it was good fun, but there was a little too much winging-it, not quite enough knowing-what-on-earth-i'm-talking-about.

i arrived back yesterday from speaking at a vision valley snow camp on the two sons in Luke 15. it was a great couple of days, very tiring, but an awesome opportunity to share the reckless love of our heavenly father with some young people who may not have heard of it ever before.

anyway, i'm off to Gradcon in a couple of days, i just need to knock this essay on the head before then!

anyway, that's where i've been. i hope you've been well too, dear reader.

speak soon,
D5

sermon downloads a plenty

if you don't find my voice whiney, nasal, dull, or patronising, you may be tempted to listen to some of my sermons which are available to download.


09 Mar 2008 Grace that Works Philippians 2:12-30
    i particularly liked the way Daniel 12 helped us think through what this meant.

15 Jun 2008 Between A Rock & A Hard Place Exodus 16-17
    i tried something quite different here - i tried to start with the OT, jump to the NT and explain how that increased our understanding of what is going on in the OT. i wanted to get away from the 'here's the OT, but don't worry about that so much: here's where it points to in the NT' - as if there were no value in it of itself, as if the OT were only of value for showing us the NT. tell me if you think it worked!

20 Jul 2008 The King with Authority Luke 4.1-13
    how to do a sermon on Isaiah 61 without really going there properly

11 Jan 2009 The Blessing of Forgiveness Psalm 32
    interestingly, i did a sermon in October on Matthew 18 also on forgiveness (the guest speaker in the evening is the one who made the web page, mine obviously didn't make the cut), so i really enjoyed having a second dip into this really tough topic.

19 Apr 2009 The value of wisdom Proverbs 1-3
    an introductory sermon on the prologue to Proverbs, focussing on ch3

i'm also on tonight, talking about prayer as mission, but the boss is speaking (as i write this!) on the same topic: i'm assuming i won't make the cut, but thinking about how our prayers promote the gospel has been quite rebuking for me as i think through it. perhaps i'll post some thoughts on it sometime.

UPDATE:

24 May 2009 Promoting Jesus :: Our prayers Matthew 9:35-10:5
    trying to think through where prayer fits in in promoting the gospel. i wonder where you might have gone, what you would have emphasised, whether you would have done a bit more of a systematic theology of prayer.

take up your cross

how do you understand the take up your cross passage?

Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me."

Matthew 16:24 (cf Matthew 10:38, Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23, Luke 14:27)

is it:

1. follow Jesus, even to the point of death?
   
2. forget who you are, think only of the crucified Christ?
   
3. to follow Jesus is to count your life as cursed?

i always thought the third, but realise others feel quite differently about it. mind you, i've never thought super-deeply about which it is.
compounded with that, there is (at the very least) an element of truth in each of my options.
there may of course be other readings.

last week's talk

went a bit like this one:
i should add: except for the asking questions bit at the end.
it made a change from the way i normally picture myself as preaching - start watching about 10 seconds before the end to see that style!

if you're interested, the talk was from Luke 4:31-44, was called:
Confronting Jesus :: The King with Authority (it was part of a series we're doing called confronting Jesus, or for the oldies: encountering Jesus!
and it went a bit like this:

• 31-32 Authority to Teach
  
• 33-37 Authority to cast out Evil Spirits
  
• 38-39 Authority to cast out Sickness
  
• 40-41 Authority of the Christ
  
• 42-44 Authority for the Kingdom

i thought it went ok. had a bit of fun.
the wordle:

a wedding telegram of sorts

I will sing for joy in GOD,
explode in praise from deep in my soul!
He dressed me up in a suit of salvation,
he outfitted me in a robe of righteousness,
As a bridegroom who puts on a tuxedo
and a bride a jewelled tiara.

For as the earth bursts with spring wildflowers,
and as a garden cascades with blossoms,
So the Master, GOD, brings righteousness into full bloom
and puts praise on display before the nations.

- Isaiah 61:10-11, The Message

(click on pic to view at original location)

while i was at an accordance (mac bible software) seminar today, some friends were getting married. and i'm preaching tomorrow morning on this passage*, which i can now read in dozens of different translations at a glance, because of my new software.

it all comes together so nicely!

i pray Nath and Kat would continue to look forward, from their great day, to this even greater one.

* well, Luke 4:31-44 but my OT reading is Isaiah 61

something worse than abortion (again)

i've been falsely referring people to this post, thinking i said what i'd been thinking.

as it appears this is not the case, rather simply my background thinking; and considering i've had discussions with people over this subject in the last couple of weeks, i thought i should post more fully my thoughts.


as mentioned in the background post, the foundation for looking at this question is the idea of Retrieval Ethics. that is, considering the twisted nature of this current existence, with suffering, death and sin, how can we hope to retrieve some good in a circumstance. in some ways, it is choosing the lesser of two evils.


and i think, in my humble, correctable opinion, that this framework for ethics can be applied to the issue of abortion. and i believe this for several reasons, but also with many caveats.

1. abortion should never be the norm. God is a God who loves life, who creates life, who sustains life. life is a good thing, thus abortion should never be thought of as simplistically as "an option".
   
2. lying outside of the couple of standard deviation points of the normal scenario, there will always be circumstances that are unusual, that are not to be seen as normalising or precedent setting - yet definitely suggest a need to seek the better be retrieved from an already awful situation.
   
3. (and this is the icky one) the time in a womb is not to be undervalued - to say the only true value in life is found in having a full four-score years, ticking all the appropriate boxes (wife, kids, grandkids, house, holiday home, overseas ski holiday, rewarding career), is to place a false descriptor on true wealth. true wealth, for the Christian (and for the non-Christian too, in a Christian's perspective!), is to be loved by God. that this is of less value in the time spent in the womb is to put up a false benchmark.

in light of this, i can forsee times, places, situations, where Jesus' words in Luke 23:29 will be real for some people in the here and now, For behold, the days are coming when they will say, ‘Blessed are the barren and the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!’
and this time may be closer, or even current for some people in the here and now. i indeed know of people, situations, where for their child to be born, could be the beginning of a horrific life, for child, for mother, for family.

now i want to say again, that this is not the norm. nor could this ever be normalising.
but my point is that this could be - and is. and to retrieve good out of the situation, abortion may be the better thing.

materialism vs hedonism

reflecting tonight on old friends who would work all summer, yet spend their entire wages on weed and grog (marijuana and alcohol), a friend's remark really got me thinking. he said,
"i have much more respect for a hedonist than a materialist."

i guess i had never really tried to work out which i preferred, but in essence he was saying,
rather be the perishing, who echo "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die," with those of 1 Corinthians 15 (and interestingly also Isaiah 22)
than the arrogant (who will obviously also perish), who says "I will do this: I will tear down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods." (Luke 12)

indeed, in the Bible the fool who is perishing is to be pitied, rather than put down, unlike the arrogant farmer of Luke 12.
for instance the words of King Lemuel (from his mum) in Proverbs 31:6-7,

Give strong drink to the one who is perishing,
and wine to those in bitter distress;
let them drink and forget their poverty
and remember their misery no more.

but what difference is there really between the perishing fool who thinks there is nothing beyond the grave but rot and decay (the hedonist), and the arrogant fool, who believes that he is in control of his own destiny (the materialist)?

i ask this because at the end of the day there is none.
in Luke 12, the purpose of his materialism is that he may say to himself, "Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry."

the materialist is really a hedonist, only with superannuation.

well actually,
the materialist responds to eternity by carving it up into manageable chunks (80 years or so),
whereas the hedonist faces it a day at a time, squeezing the most out of every minute.

the bible was written for me! or was it?

When you're feeling a bit down, reading the Psalms, it's easy to start seeing yourself in them.

When I wept and humbled myself with fasting,
it became my reproach.
When I made sackcloth my clothing,
I became a byword to them.
I am the talk of those who sit at the gate,
and the drunkards make songs about me.
[...]
Hide not your face from your servant;
for I am in distress;
make haste to answer me.
Psalm 69:10-12,14

You start saying - yeah, that's so true. That's exactly what's been happening. It's like it was written just for me, 3,000yrs beforehand!

But then you come across something like this:

Reproaches have broken my heart,
so that I am in despair.
I looked for pity,
but there was none,
and for comforters,
but I found none.
They gave me poison for food,
and for my thirst they gave me sour wine to drink.
Psalm 69:20-21

And then you remember that all of the scriptures point not to you, but to the Christ, the suffering servant King – to Jesus, who fulfilled this on the cross.
He was despised, abandoned, rejected; to top it all off all 4 gospels testify to him being offered sour wine to drink, fulfiling this Psalm. (c/f Matthew27:48, Mark15:36, Luke23:36, John19:29-30)

For our sake [God] made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
2 Corinthians 5:21

r.e. riddle

i was very encouraged reading this passage, as i prepared for my scripture class this morning:

Luke 5:1-11 On one occasion, while the crowd was pressing in on him to hear the word of God, he was standing by the lake of Gennesaret, and he saw two boats by the lake, but the fishermen had gone out of them and were washing their nets. Getting into one of the boats, which was Simon's, he asked him to put out a little from the land. And he sat down and taught the people from the boat. And when he had finished speaking, he said to Simon, “Put out into the deep and let down your nets for a catch.” And Simon answered, “Master, we toiled all night and took nothing! But at your word I will let down the nets.” And when they had done this, they enclosed a large number of fish, and their nets were breaking. They signaled to their partners in the other boat to come and help them. And they came and filled both the boats, so that they began to sink. But when Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus' knees, saying, “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord.” For he and all who were with him were astonished at the catch of fish that they had taken, and so also were James and John, sons of Zebedee, who were partners with Simon. And Jesus said to Simon, “Do not be afraid; from now on you will be catching men.” And when they had brought their boats to land, they left everything and followed him.

as i am apt to do, i was trying to see what john had to say about this event, when i chanced upon this:

John 1:40-42 One of the two who heard John speak and followed Jesus was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. He first found his own brother Simon and said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which means Christ). He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter).

Painting by Sarah Snazell (1965-1999)

now, it's quite likely that the "they" in luke's account refers to simon peter and andrew, as luke attests (6:14) that they are indeed brothers.
but any attempt to reconcile the two as the one event is quite impossible.
the lucan account makes it quite clear that, just as jesus sought them out, so should they seek others. john wants to make it explicit that, if you seek jesus, you will find him - 1:38 Jesus turned and saw them following and said to them, "What are you seeking?"

looking at mark (1:16) and matthew's (4:18) almost identical accounts, notable perhaps only for the insistence that the brothers were fishermen through and through, the two options of embellishment by john and luke, or simplification by matthew and mark leap out.

i guess it could well be that both events were relating to true instances of disciples being called, the identity being added as luke and john saw fit (think thucydides' approach); the important point being not the disciples, but jesus, and how he chooses his followers: some knock at his door, seeking him earnestly. others (c/f paul) are chosen, almost despite themselves.

the distinct difference of these approaches, regardless of the solution, beg the question: which are you?

ooooooh. ghosts!!!

fatima asked an interesting question about ghosts. well, that was basically the extent of the question, posed in response to my first (and yes, still only) review of Enoch. coincidentally, at the same time i was pondering what the bible has to say on the topic, i happened upon a talk on 2 Peter, which, as does Jude, refers implicitly (Jude explicitly), to Enoch.
this section in particular was telling:

2 Peter 2:10-15 Bold and willful, they do not tremble as they blaspheme the glorious ones, whereas angels, though greater in might and power, do not pronounce a blasphemous judgment against them before the Lord. But these, like irrational animals, creatures of instinct, born to be caught and destroyed, blaspheming about matters of which they are ignorant, will also be destroyed in their destruction, suffering wrong as the wage for their wrongdoing. They count it pleasure to revel in the daytime. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their deceptions, they feast with you. They have eyes full of adultery, insatiable for sin. They entice unsteady souls. They have hearts trained in greed. Accursed children! Forsaking the right way, they have gone astray.

the point the speaker was making, was those who go on about the supernatural, described as "angelic ramblings", are perhaps those who are possibly not the best examples of Christian leadership.

that in mind (!), on to ghosts.

as far as i can tell, there are 3 words translated "ghost" in the good book:
obe (ghost, spirit of a dead one), as found in Isaiah 29:4,

And you will be brought low; from the earth you shall speak,
and from the dust your speech will be bowed down;
your voice shall come from the ground like the voice of a ghost,
and from the dust your speech shall whisper.

fantasma (apparition, apparition, spectre), seen in Matthew 14:26 (c/f Mark 6:49),

But when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were terrified, and said, “It is a ghost!” and they cried out in fear.

pneuma (spirit), found twice in Luke 24:36-43,

As they were talking about these things, Jesus himself stood among them, and said to them, “Peace to you!” But they were startled and frightened and thought they saw a spirit (ghost). And he said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit (ghost) does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. And while they still disbelieved for joy and were marveling, he said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate before them.

now i'm sorry, but all this says is that people were, just as today, aware of ghosts. i mean heck, even i "know" that ghosts have neither flesh nor bones. just as i "know" leprechauns wear green and have little beards and fairies have wings and wands.

all this proves nothing (nor disproves, i might add).
what i'm still not sure of is what the saul/samuel narrative (1 Sam 28), nor the transfiguration with jesus chatting with moses and elijah (Mark 9:2vv) adds to this question. can God retrieve people from sheol? why not! and they were all highly symbolic appearances, God obviously appropriating them for good cause.

so i don't know. did you think i would? the bible is silent, and how am i to dispute people's own experiences? i can imagine the conversation now:

i saw a ghost once
no you didn't
oh. but-
-no, you didn't
...oh. ok.