Giving Praise Back

Luke 9:10
(10)  On their return the apostles told him all that they had done. And he took them and withdrew apart to a town called Bethsaida.

(10)  Καὶ ὑποστρέψαντες οἱ ἀπόστολοι διηγήσαντο αὐτῷ ὅσα ἐποίησαν. καὶ παραλαβὼν αὐτοὺς ὑπεχώρησεν κατ' ἰδίαν εἰς πόλιν καλουμένην Βηθσαϊδά.

Every time I read about this I have a sense of the apostles coming back with a mixture of righteous pride and surprise.  The righteous pride is being proud of what God has done.  It is not pride in themselves, but in their God.  Maybe I'm giving them too much credit, but that's kind of how I picture it.

I also imagine a little bit of surprise.  They had to have been at least a little bit amazed the first time they were able to cast out a demon or heal someone who was sick.  They had seen Jesus do it, but now they had that authority too as delegated to them by Jesus.

I also think of them like proud children coming to their dad when they do something big.  It could be like riding your bike without training wheels.  Or maybe it's swimming around the pool.  The point is that it is something that dad had encouraged you to do and you were able to do it for the first time.

I take this as something of an imperative for us to offer back praise to God when He answers prayers.  It's so easy to get caught up in what we want next that we may forget that He is the source.  I think that He must appreciate it when we give Him the glory for what He has done in our lives.

Witness at Home

Luke 8:39
(39)  "Return to your home, and declare how much God has done for you." And he went away, proclaiming throughout the whole city how much Jesus had done for him.

(39)  Ὑπόστρεφε εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου, καὶ διηγοῦ ὅσα σοι ἐποίησεν ὁ θεός. καὶ ἀπῆλθεν καθ' ὅλην τὴν πόλιν κηρύσσων ὅσα ἐποίησεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς.  

This may be one of Jesus' toughest teachings.  At least it can be for me.  This is addressed to the Gerasene demoniac after Jesus cast Legion into the herd of pigs.  This man was understandably very excited to be free from this demonic oppression.  He wanted to go and follow Jesus.  Jesus instead told him to go back home and tell what had happened.  This man was obedient.

So why is this so hard?  We know from earlier studies that a prophet is without honor in his hometown.  Yet Jesus told this man to go back to his hometown.  I don't know what effect he had on the people, but I can tell you from my own experience that I have not had much success with this so far.  I have told my family all that Jesus has done for me and they think I'm a nut, even those who claim to know Him.  That is discouraging, but it shouldn't stop me from being faithful.

On a side note, I think that this verse gives us some insight into Christology.  Jesus told the man to διηγοῦ ὅσα σοι ἐποίησεν ὁ θεός.  God is the clear subject of that clause.  It was God who did things to the man.  So what did this man do?  He κηρύσσων ὅσα ἐποίησεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς.  What is the subject of that clause?  Jesus.  This gives us one of two options.  Either the man was mistaken in thinking that Jesus is God or Jesus really is God.  It's hard to think that Luke would let such a grave heresy go without comment, doesn't it?  Therefore, I think it's safe to assume that Luke is equating Jesus with God in this narrative.

We are Family

Luke 8:19-21
(19)  Then his mother and his brothers came to him, but they could not reach him because of the crowd.
(20)  And he was told, "Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see you."
(21)  But he answered them, "My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it."

(19)  Παρεγένετο δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἡ μήτηρ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ, καὶ οὐκ ἠδύναντο συντυχεῖν αὐτῷ διὰ τὸν ὄχλον. 

(20)  ἀπηγγέλη δὲ αὐτῷ, Ἡ μήτηρ σου καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί σου ἑστήκασιν ἔξω ἰδεῖν θέλοντές σε. 

(21)  ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς, Μήτηρ μου καὶ ἀδελφοί μου οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ ἀκούοντες καὶ ποιοῦντες.

I have always found this passage to be fascinating.  Jesus' family came to see Him.  Someone, perhaps a disciple, told Him that his mother and his brothers (αὐτὸν ἡ μήτηρ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ) were outside to see Him.  It is most reasonable to assume that οἱ ἀδελφοὶ refers to men that grew up in the same house He did.  They had the same mother, but of course they had different fathers.

One might think that He would be glad to see His family.  After all, He was extremely busy with His ministry.  However, a parallel passage tells us that they wanted to have Him committed because they thought He was insane.  Nevertheless, you would think that He would at least meet with them to explain His ministry to them.  After all, they needed to believe in Him as much as anyone else.

But what did He do?  He put them off.  His mother had no special influence with Him.  Instead, He called His followers His family.  

Where does this put you?  Are you in His family?  Are you one of His brothers or sisters?  Or are you still on the outside?  If you are not in the family I urge you to start following Jesus.  It's not easy, but you will never regret it.

The Non-Metro Prophet

Luke 7:25
(25)  What then did you go out to see? A man dressed in soft clothing? Behold, those who are dressed in splendid clothing and live in luxury are in kings' courts.

(25)  ἀλλὰ τί ἐξήλθατε ἰδεῖν; ἄνθρωπον ἐν μαλακοῖς ἱματίοις ἠμφιεσμένον; ἰδοὺ οἱ ἐν ἱματισμῷ ἐνδόξῳ καὶ τρυφῇ ὑπάρχοντες ἐν τοῖς βασιλείοις εἰσίν.

This verse comes in Jesus' discourse with the people regarding John the Baptizer.  He is asking them what they expected of John.  I find the word μαλακοῖς fascinated based on its glosses.  Thayer has the following:

1) soft, soft to the touch

2) metaphorically in a bad sense

2a) effeminate

2a1) of a catamite

2a2) of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man

2a3) of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness

2a4) of a male prostitute

This is the same word used in 1 Cor 6:9 that is usually translated as "men who practice homosexuality."  Here it is used to describe the garments that John did not wear.  We know that he wore a coat made of camel's hair and a leather belt around his waist.  Basically, he was dressed pretty roughly.

I don't think that this leads to a theology of dress.  I don't want to commit the exegetical fallacy of using the semantic range of a word inappropriately.  In the context of clothes it does refer to soft.  However, I find it interesting that it is also used to describe men who are homosexual.  Maybe it's a stretch, but I would see this today as saying that John was not dressed like a metrosexual worship leader.

Plotting in Rage

Luke 6:11
(11)  But they were filled with fury and discussed with one another what they might do to Jesus.

(11)  αὐτοὶ δὲ ἐπλήσθησαν ἀνοίας, καὶ διελάλουν πρὸς ἀλλήλους τί ἂν ποιήσαιεν τῷ Ἰησοῦ.

This comes right after Jesus healed the man with the withered hand on the Sabbath.  The Jewish leaders were so zealous about the law that they forgot that healing was a noble task.  It wasn't like Jesus made some poultice and spread it on the man's hand in hopes that something might happen.  He powerfully healed this man with a useless hand.  Yet this enraged the leaders.

This is interesting from a Greek perspective because the word ποιήσαιεν is in the optative mood, which we don't see a whole lot of.  This is the mood of hope.  Basically, they were dreaming of how they might get rid of this Jesus who was rocking their collective worlds.

We may look at these folks and mock a little bit.  However, doesn't this even happen to us who call ourselves Christians?  We don't like it when Jesus pushes us outside of our comfort zones.  You mean we have to serve in our community?  You mean we have to forgive people who wronged us?  You mean we have to love our enemies?  What is that all about?

We still do this to a degree.  Obviously we don't try to have Jesus crucified, but effectively we do try to find ways to push His teachings out of our lives.  Or is it just me?

In the Presence

Luke 5:8
(8)  But when Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus' knees, saying, "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord."

(8)  ἰδὼν δὲ Σίμων Πέτρος προσέπεσεν τοῖς γόνασιν Ἰησοῦ λέγων, Ἔξελθε ἀπ' ἐμοῦ, ὅτι ἀνὴρ ἁμαρτωλός εἰμι, κύριε·

One of my favorite passages in Scripture is Isaiah 6.  I love Isaiah's reaction to being in the presence of God.  He realizes the depth of his sin and his desperate need for atonement.  There is no question about where Isaiah saw himself next to God.

Peter has the same reaction.  He realizes that he is in the presence of holiness and is painfully aware of the depth of his sin.  This seems to be the natural reaction for all of us.  Look at the reaction you get when you mention the name of Jesus.  People realize that the gospel begins with condemnation of sin before it gets to forgiveness.  We all realize that we are sinful men who need atonement.

I think it is significant that Peter tacks κύριε on the end of his statement.  He doesn't fully understand who Jesus is, but he knows that Jesus has authority over him.  Nothing like a miraculous catch of fish to get a fisherman's attention.

Good Christology

Luke 4:33-34
(33)  And in the synagogue there was a man who had the spirit of an unclean demon, and he cried out with a loud voice,
(34)  "Ha! What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are--the Holy One of God."

(33)  καὶ ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ ἦν ἄνθρωπος ἔχων πνεῦμα δαιμονίου ἀκαθάρτου, καὶ ἀνέκραξεν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ, 

(34)  Ἔα, τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί, Ἰησοῦ Ναζαρηνέ; ἦλθες ἀπολέσαι ἡμᾶσ; οἶδά σε τίς εἶ, ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ.

This passage tells me that we need to be careful about how we apprehend Christ, to use an old term.  It's easy to know who He is, but for that not to really matter in our lives.  In this case, the unclean demon knew who Christ was, but it was still an unclean demon.  Having the right Christology made no difference.

Where do you stand with this?  It's great if you can say οἶδά σε τίς εἶ, ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ.  There are a lot of folks who may call themselves Christian who can't even do that.  However, simply knowing that Jesus is the holy one of God is still possible for a demon.  This demon had Satan has its lord rather than Christ.

Who is your lord?  Who rules your life?  I'm not asking if you're perfect, but is your deepest desire to live for God's glory?  Do you want to live in a way that would please and glorify Jesus?  If so, I would call you a brother in Christ.  If you call your own shots then you are simply giving Him lip-service.  Get off the fence and give your life to Him.  It's scary and it is not always easy, but it is completely worth it.

Still Marveling

Luke 2:49-50
(49)  And he said to them, "Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?"
(50)  And they did not understand the saying that he spoke to them.

(49)  καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς, Τί ὅτι ἐζητεῖτέ με; οὐκ ᾔδειτε ὅτι ἐν τοῖς τοῦ πατρός μου δεῖ εἶναί με; 

(50)  καὶ αὐτοὶ οὐ συνῆκαν τὸ ῥῆμα ὃ ἐλάλησεν αὐτοῖς.

We noted yesterday that His parents didn't quite understand who He was.  This is further proof that they didn't understand.  As a parent I cannot imagine the horror of losing a child for three days.  On top of it, this is a child that was conceived by the Holy Spirit.  They didn't fully understand who He was, but He was still their 12 year-old boy.  You couldn't issue an Amber Alert for a child back in first-century Palestine.  They just had to look all over the big city for Him.

Jesus was pretty incredulous when they found Him.  By starting His question with οὐκ He expected a positive answer.  In other words, this seemed obvious to Him.  Why wouldn't they know to look for Him at the temple?  Did they already forget how He was conceived?

Their relative cluelessness gives me some hope.  I realize that I am not the only one who loses sight of who Jesus is.  He is God in the flesh (incarnate).  He commands and deserves all my worship and obedience.  He is not just a good example for me to follow, though He is that as well.  He is the Lord of the universe.  Let's treat Him that way in how we worship but also in how we relate to Him.  

For example, I am often convicted by the relative shallowness of my prayer life.  How can I not spend more time praying to the Lord of everything?  I have access to God.  How can I not take advantage of that?

I often live like I do not understand the saying that Jesus spoke to His parents.  How about you?

Marveling

Luke 2:33
(33)  And his father and his mother marveled at what was said about him.

(33)  καὶ ἦν ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἡ μήτηρ θαυμάζοντες ἐπὶ τοῖς λαλουμένοις περὶ αὐτοῦ.

This comes right after Simeon gets to hold the infant Jesus at the temple.  He rejoices that God was faithful to His promise not to let Simeon die before he saw Messiah.  Then Simeon goes on about how he has seen salvation for the people.  Joseph and Mary don't really understand what is going on.

This has always seemed a bit strange to me.  They know how the baby was conceived.  Joseph had not known her through the whole pregnancy.  Yet they were still amazed at what Simeon said.  Every Jewish family who had a boy hoped that he would be Messiah.  They had more reason to think so than anyone else given how He was conceived.  Yet they didn't understand.

I realize that I do this with the promises of God sometimes.  Read Ephesians 3 sometime and look at how Paul describes what prayer can do.  Look at how Paul describes the power and love of God.  Yet I don't always live my life like I believe that is going to happen.  I don't want to get into word-faith nonsense, but do I even live like I think it could happen?  Not always.

Are you θαυμάζοντες over God and His promises?  That is to say, are you marveling?  Do you have a sense of wonder and awe over what God has done, is doing, and will do based on promises in His Word?  This is one of the reasons why daily time in the Word is so critical.  I know that I need to be in a state of θαυμάζοντες more often.  How about you?

Alive and Aware

Luke 1:44
(44)  For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.

(44)  ἰδοὺ γὰρ ὡς ἐγένετο ἡ φωνὴ τοῦ ἀσπασμοῦ σου εἰς τὰ ὦτά μου, ἐσκίρτησεν ἐν ἀγαλλιάσει τὸ βρέφος ἐν τῇ κοιλίᾳ μου.

The Greek here follows the ESV just fine, so that is not the issue today.  The issue comes in the sanctity of life.  John the Baptizer clearly had some sort of consciousness when he was in Elizabeth's womb, unless you want to just write this passage off as some kind of Near Eastern idiom.  My wife has had two viable pregnancies and she attests to the fact that babies react to different external stimuli.  

I do not like to beat the drum of politics too often here.  There are a myriad of blogs where you can go for that.  However, I do want for you to consider this passage.  It is clear that babies in mothers' wombs are living.  We have both scientific and biblical evidence affirming that.  Given that, how can we call the decision to terminate that baby a "choice?"  

A True Servant

Luke 1:38
(38)  And Mary said, "Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word." And the angel departed from her.

(38)  εἶπεν δὲ Μαριάμ, Ἰδοὺ ἡ δούλη κυρίου· γένοιτό μοι κατὰ τὸ ῥῆμά σου. καὶ ἀπῆλθεν ἀπ' αὐτῆς ὁ ἄγγελος.

I think that in our fear of committing some of the Catholic mistakes with Mary we Protestants move too far away from her.  However, she is a hero of the Bible as much as any of the big Old Testament guys.  In fact, she generally went without any major sins, unlike most of them.  Of course, there was the matter of questioning her Son's sanity, but overall she was incredibly faithful.

This profession of her faith encourages me greatly.  As you have probably heard, the word ἡ δούλη could also mean "slave."  We tend to shy away from that word in America because of the horrible oppression against slaves in the South, but I think that is a better word than "servant."  Mary saw herself as completely submissive to the Lord's will.

On top of that, she adds γένοιτό μοι κατὰ τὸ ῥῆμά σου, which I think was translated perfectly in the ESV.  Are we that submissive to God's Word?  Do we believe it no matter what?  Do we see it as perfect and completely worthy of trust?  Or do we run it through the filter of what we think is best?  Do we look at it through the eyes of our culture or do we take it for what it says?

Taking God's Word for what it says makes it a lot easier to come up with doctrine, but it makes it much more difficult to live authentic Christian lives.  God's Word holds us to a very high standard.  Let's act as if we believe this.

Signs

Mark 16:17-18
(17)  And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues;
(18)  they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover."

(17)  σημεῖα δὲ τοῖς πιστεύσασιν ταῦτα παρακολουθήσει· ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου δαιμόνια ἐκβαλοῦσιν, γλώσσαις λαλήσουσιν καιναῖς, 

(18)  καὶ ἐν ταῖς χερσὶν ὄφεις ἀροῦσιν, κἂν θανάσιμόν τι πίωσιν οὐ μὴ αὐτοὺς βλάψῃ, ἐπὶ ἀρρώστους χεῖρας ἐπιθήσουσιν καὶ καλῶς ἕξουσιν.

Folks like Bart Ehrman like to use text-critical problems to undermine the authority of the text.  The fact is that the text we have as our New Testament is extremely reliable.  There are some minor discrepancies in some of the manuscripts here and there, but there are only two major chunks that are in dispute.  We'll get to the other one in John, but this is probably the biggest one.

It's hard to imagine folks trying to apply verse 18, but they do.  I'm not sure if my faith is strong enough to try this.  It certainly is not strong enough to try this based on this text.  There is a reason why this passage appears in [[ ]] in most Bibles.  The best manuscript evidence does not contain this passage.  Personally, were I preaching through Mark I don't think I would preach on this passage.  I would, however, explain to my congregation why I'm not.

This is one of the problems with the KJV-only folks.  They don't have any way of dealing with the text-critical problems of this passage.  Therefore, you can end up doing some pretty wild stuff.  I have heard of snake-handling churches before.  Mine is not one of them nor will it be.  I don't plan to go out of my way to drink "deadly poison" either.  

Of course, if I were more charismatic I'd probably latch on to this passage like the snake did on Paul's arm.  But as for me, I think the best thing is to shake it off into the fire.  We should know it's out there and understand it, but I don't think it counts as Bible.

Condemning

Mark 15:2
(2)  And Pilate asked him, "Are you the King of the Jews?" And he answered him, "You have said so."

(2)  καὶ ἐπηρώτησεν αὐτὸν ὁ Πιλᾶτος, Σὺ εἶ ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων; ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς αὐτῷ λέγει, Σὺ λέγεις.

I think I tend to marvel almost as much as Pilate when I read how Jesus defended Himself before these mock trials.  This was what He came for, so it didn't make sense to fight.  I have enough of a sense of self-preservation that I tend to read the hero's plight in any story with eyes for how he can get out of it.  In this case it would seem that Jesus could have got Himself out of this bind.

The phrase translated "You have said so" is simply Σὺ λέγεις..  With the pronoun it would quite woodenly be "you yourself say."  I'm not sure why it gets translated in the perfect, but that works too.  The point is that Jesus didn't fight.  He was led like a lamb to the slaughter.

What does this do to you?  Do you wonder how this guy could be such a wimp and roll over and die?  That would be a very natural response.  Or do you marvel that this guy could have saved Himself several times and yet chose this path.  It was not an easy one, but it's what He came to do.  I hope that this fills you with deeper love and appreciation for the Savior.

I also hope that this spurs you on to greater action.  What have you come to do?  You haven't come to die for the sins of the world, but what have you come to do?  Are you doing it?  Are you as focused as the Lord was in His mission?  If not, what is distracting you and what can you do to eliminate those distractions?

Blasphemy!

Mark 14:61-64
(61) But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?"
(62) And Jesus said, "I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."
(63) And the high priest tore his garments and said, "What further witnesses do we need?
(64) You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?" And they all condemned him as deserving death.

(61) ὁ δὲ ἐσιώπα καὶ οὐκ ἀπεκρίνατο οὐδέν. πάλιν ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς ἐπηρώτα αὐτὸν καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ, Σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ εὐλογητοῦ;
(62) ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν, Ἐγώ εἰμι, καὶ ὄψεσθε τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκ δεξιῶν καθήμενον τῆς δυνάμεως καὶ ἐρχόμενον μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ.
(63) ὁ δὲ ἀρχιερεὺς διαρρήξας τοὺς χιτῶνας αὐτοῦ λέγει, Τί ἔτι χρείαν ἔχομεν μαρτύρων;
(64) ἠκούσατε τῆς βλασφημίας· τί ὑμῖν φαίνεται; οἱ δὲ πάντες κατέκριναν αὐτὸν ἔνοχον εἶναι θανάτου.

This is the extent of Mark's recording of Jesus' testimony at the false trial put on by the Jews.  It took two little words for them to condemn Him: Ἐγώ εἰμ.  These are the same words that would get him into hot water in John 8, but we'll get there in a couple of months.  The point is that Jesus' testimony was blasphemous in their ears.

Why?  He was invoking the divine name.  He took them back to Exodus 3:14.  This was inconceivable to them and it gave them ample reason to have Him killed.  To equate oneself with God was certainly blasphemous.  Of course, there is an exception if you actually are God.

You may have noticed that I do not necessarily provide a rich exegetical insight daily.  I didn't think that I would for a couple of reasons.  One is that I am hardly an expert at Greek, though I am getting better.  The other is that the English translations do a very good job and there is not a lot to add in most cases.  However, even this relatively short study over seven weeks or so has shown me time and time again that Jesus indeed claimed to be God.  This is not something that we need to infer.  It is right there in the simple statement Ἐγώ εἰμ.

Keep in mind that there are other words and expressions He could have used.  I have to think that there was purpose to every word recorded in Scripture.  I don't think that the repetition of this phrase was a coincidence.

Living with Deception

Mark 14:18-19
(18)  And as they were reclining at table and eating, Jesus said, "Truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me, one who is eating with me."
(19)  They began to be sorrowful and to say to him one after another, "Is it I?"

(18)  καὶ ἀνακειμένων αὐτῶν καὶ ἐσθιόντων ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν, Ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι εἷς ἐξ ὑμῶν παραδώσει με, ὁ ἐσθίων μετ' ἐμοῦ. 

(19)  ἤρξαντο λυπεῖσθαι καὶ λέγειν αὐτῷ εἷς κατὰ εἷς, Μήτι ἐγώ;

This is one of those passages where I really try to put myself in the setting.  These twelve men had seen a lot and been through a lot with Jesus.  They had learned to expect the unexpected with Him as His teachings continually turned their worldviews around.  Remember, this is the same guy who touched lepers and spoke to a Samaritan woman.  

Their indignation at his statement comes through much more strongly in the Greek.  When they all say, Μήτι ἐγώ the word μητι indicates that they expect a negative response.  No one thinks that Jesus is referring to him.

Except for Judas Iscariot.  He knew the truth.  We know from a previous verse that he had already plotted with the Jews to betray Jesus.  I can only imagine how his heart must have been racing at Jesus' statement.  He had to know that he was found out.  Then it was confirmed later with Jesus' symbolic dipping of the bread in the bowl.

There are a lot of things we can apply from this passage.  However, the one dear to my heart is unconfessed sin. Are you a professing believer with unconfessed sin in your life?  I'm specifically thinking of sexual sin like porn or homosexuality.  Is this something that you are trying to hide?  When it's talked about at church do you take the stance of Μήτι ἐγώ like Judas did here?  Does it eat away at your heart every time you have to put on the good church face to cover up this secret life of sin?  Do you look at your kids and realize that these naked people after whom you lust are other people's little princesses?  

I don't care if you talk to me, your pastor, or a trusted friend.  Talk to someone.  Have the humility to get help about this.  We have too many people saying Μήτι ἐγώ at church every week.  Please stop being one of them.

Note to the Reader

Mark 13:14
(14)  "But when you see the abomination of desolation standing where he ought not to be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.

(14)  Ὅταν δὲ ἴδητε τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως ἑστηκότα ὅπου οὐ δεῖ, ὁ ἀναγινώσκων νοείτω, τότε οἱ ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ φευγέτωσαν εἰς τὰ ὄρη,

There are a lot of things in Mark 13 that I find to be confusing.  I haven't quite decided where I land with respect to the Olivet Discourse.  What is "this generation?"  What does it mean that the Son does not know the hour that He will return?  These things are a bit confusing.

However, I think that this verse is interesting.  While there are no parentheses in the Greek text, there effectively is one in here.  The phrase ὁ ἀναγινώσκων νοείτω literally translates to "let the one reading understand."  This tells me that we are to understand the Gospels as written works that were meant to be preserved.  This stands in contrast to the way some folks see these works.  They were not just oral tradition that happened to be written some centuries later.  This was meant for our eyes. 

Of course, that still doesn't necessarily clear up what this passage refers to.  I lean toward an idea of partial preterism, but I am not sold on it.  In other words, this discourse was partially fulfilled when Jerusalem was sacked in 70 A.D.  I can't adequately describe all the details, but I do know that taking that interpretation clears some things up when it comes to New Testament prophecy.

God of the Living - Markan Style

Mark 12:26-27
(26)  And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God spoke to him, saying, 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'?
(27)  He is not God of the dead, but of the living. You are quite wrong."

(26  περὶ δὲ τῶν νεκρῶν ὅτι ἐγείρονται οὐκ ἀνέγνωτε ἐν τῇ βίβλῳ Μωϋσέως ἐπὶ τοῦ βάτου πῶς εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ θεὸς λέγων, Ἐγὼ ὁ θεὸς Ἀβραὰμ καὶ ὁ θεὸς Ἰσαὰκ καὶ ὁ θεὸς Ἰακώβ; 

(27)  οὐκ ἔστιν θεὸς νεκρῶν ἀλλὰ ζώντων· πολὺ πλανᾶσθε.

I have a friend who suggests that it is good to read through the Bible with certain themes in mind.  Thanks to some conversations I've had I am now attuned to some elements of the orthodox Christian faith that I have taken as understood, but have not necessarily thought through.  This post is something of a repeat of an earlier one, but that's OK because that sort of drives the point home.  We'll get here again in Luke too.

This passage ends a conversation Jesus had with the Sadducees.  They didn't believe in eternal life so they came up with what they considered to be an absurd scenario to prove the folly of the idea.  Jesus explains to them that they were thinking too materially in terms of marriage in eternity.  He then defends this idea of eternal life by quoting God's conversation with Moses.  Any good Jew would know this passage as well as he knew his own name.

What I find interesting is the use of the participle in verse 27.  Both are present active participles.  This indicates that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are in some sense alive at the moment that this was spoken.  In other words, there wasn't some future that they had to wait for.  They are alive with God right now.

This gives me great hope, but it also reminds me of the urgency of the gospel.  Where are you going to spend eternity?  Where will your friends and family spend it?

The Power of Prayer

Mark 11:22-25
(22)  And Jesus answered them, "Have faith in God.
(23)  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.
(24)  Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.
(25)  And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses."

(22)  καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ Ἰησοῦς λέγει αὐτοῖς, Ἔχετε πίστιν θεοῦ, 

(23)  ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι ὃς ἂν εἴπῃ τῷ ὄρει τούτῳ, Ἄρθητι καὶ βλήθητι εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν, καὶ μὴ διακριθῇ ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ ἀλλὰ πιστεύῃ ὅτι ὃ λαλεῖ γίνεται, ἔσται αὐτῷ. 

(24)  διὰ τοῦτο λέγω ὑμῖν, πάντα ὅσα προσεύχεσθε καὶ αἰτεῖσθε, πιστεύετε ὅτι ἐλάβετε, καὶ ἔσται ὑμῖν. 

(25)  καὶ ὅταν στήκετε προσευχόμενοι, ἀφίετε εἴ τι ἔχετε κατά τινος, ἵνα καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς ἀφῇ ὑμῖν τὰ παραπτώματα ὑμῶν.

This is Jesus' explanation for the withered fig tree. It is also perhaps one of the more abused passages in Scripture here in America. Is Jesus' advocating a prosperity theology here?  I don't think so, but I'm not entirely sure how to take this.  One thing I am sure of is that prayer does not change God's mind in the way we think of minds being changed.  When I read Ephesians 1:10 I see that God has a plan for the fullness of time.  I don't see how that plan is going to change by my desire to have more stuff or even to see suffering alleviated in the world.

What I do know is that verse 25 has got in the way of many a prayer.  It certainly has interfered with some of mine.  It seems that forgiveness is expected of us as well.  The word ἀφῇ is in the subjunctive.  That is the mood of possibility.  In other words, we must extend grace for this to be possible.

This is a tough post to write and I feel like I should have picked something easier.  However, I do welcome comments.

Dealing with Wealth

Mark 10:25-27
(25)  It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God."
(26)  And they were exceedingly astonished, and said to him, "Then who can be saved?"
(27)  Jesus looked at them and said, "With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God."

(25)  εὐκοπώτερόν ἐστιν κάμηλον διὰ τῆσ τρυμαλιᾶς τῆσ ῥαφίδος διελθεῖν ἢ πλούσιον εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ εἰσελθεῖν. 

(26)  οἱ δὲ περισσῶς ἐξεπλήσσοντο λέγοντες πρὸς ἑαυτούς, Καὶ τίς δύναται σωθῆναι; 

(27)  ἐμβλέψας αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς λέγει, Παρὰ ἀνθρώποις ἀδύνατον ἀλλ' οὐ παρὰ θεῷ, πάντα γὰρ δυνατὰ παρὰ τῷ θεῷ.

This passage is a fun one to preach to the American church.  This is especially true in light of the excesses that we enjoy in the name of Jesus.  Take a peek at what goes on down in Houston, for example.  So we come up with clever ways around this passage.  One of my favorites is that there was a gate in the wall of Jerusalem called "the eye of the needle."  It was so small that a camel had to be unloaded and then had to kneel down to go through it.  Therefore, Jesus is supposedly telling us that it is not impossible as it seems when we consider putting a real camel through a real needle.

The problem with this is verse 27.  Apparently it was possible for man to shove a camel through that narrow passage.  However, Jesus tells us that a rich man entering heaven is impossible for man to do, but God can do it.  This leads to a couple of points.

The first is that it is impossible for any man to enter the kingdom of God on his own.  Man needs God to save him.  However, I don't think that is the particular emphasis here, though the repeated παρὰ in verse 27 does reinforce how it all works.

I think that this passage must be read with Jesus' other teachings on wealth.  I don't think that Jesus commands all of us to be paupers.  However, He does command us not to be mastered by money.  Most of us in America don't feel like we're mastered by money.  We don't feel like we are because we don't think much about it when we have plenty of it.  It is inconceivable for us to live like the Haitians do.  Yet people do survive that way.

Are we to sell everything like Jesus commanded the Rich Young Ruler?  Maybe, but not necessarily.  I think Jesus knew what stood between this man and truly embracing Christ.  He was not ready to let go of his functional savior that he had in wealth.  Instead, he wanted to have it both ways.  

Are you ready to let go of everything for Jesus?  My daughter is sitting near me playing LEGO Indiana Jones. My son is napping upstairs.  I love them both dearly.  Could I stand to have them taken away?  I don't want to contemplate it, but ultimately God needs to be my source of joy, not them.  The same goes for my wife, my job, my health, etc.  Ultimately God needs to be enough.

Is He enough for you?

More Good

Mark 9:47-48
(47)  And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell,
(48)  'where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.'

(47)  καὶ ἐὰν ὁ ὀφθαλμός σου σκανδαλίζῃ σε, ἔκβαλε αὐτόν· καλόν σέ ἐστιν μονόφθαλμον εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ ἢ δύο ὀφθαλμοὺς ἔχοντα βληθῆναι εἰς τὴν γέενναν, 

(48)  ὅπου ὁ σκώληξ αὐτῶν οὐ τελευτᾷ καὶ τὸ πῦρ οὐ σβέννυται·

There are a couple of things I'd like to point out in this passage.  The first has to do with the Greek.  These verses come at the end of Jesus' brief discourse about what Setting Captives Free calls "radical amputation."  Jesus is using hyperbole to explain that holiness is worth any price.  I don't think He literally meant that we should dismember ourselves.  After all, blind men can still lust.  His point is that we must be willing to do whatever it takes in our pursuit of holiness.  It is better to enter heaven after living without internet access than it is to have internet access and go to hell.

What is interesting is that the Greek doesn't literally say "it is better."  Instead, it says "it is good."  Greek doesn't use comparative and superlative like English does (better, best).  Instead, it bumps things down a notch.  In this instance, when there are two things set in opposition to each other and there is a modifier like καλόν between them we can take that to mean comparison.  This isn't earth-shattering, but if you're a new student of Greek this can be kind of tricky.

The other point is that this is yet another passage where Jesus speaks of eternal reward contrasted with eternal condemnation.  Those who have been thrown into hell have to deal with eternal worms and unquenchable fire.  That sounds pretty grisly and pretty graphic to me.

Republishing

My apologies to those who read this blog through RSS.  I realized that I had tagged my Mark posts with Matthew.  I fixed that, but had to republish.

I apologize for the inconvenience!

The Unforgiveable Sin

Mark 3:28-29
(28)  "Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter,
(29)  but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin"--

(28)  Ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πάντα ἀφεθήσεται τοῖς υἱοῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων, τὰ ἁμαρτήματα καὶ αἱ βλασφημίαι ὅσα ἐὰν βλασφημήσωσιν· 

(29)  ὃς δ' ἂν βλασφημήσῃ εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον οὐκ ἔχει ἄφεσιν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, ἀλλὰ ἔνοχός ἐστιν αἰωνίου ἁμαρτήματος

This passage always creates some controversy. How can there be an unpardonable sin? What does it mean to blaspheme the Holy Spirit? Is this something we as Christians should worry about?

My understanding is that if we are concerned about it then we have nothing to worry about. A Christian is someone who is sealed and indwelled by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, a Christian cannot blaspheme him.

Him? Yes, I wrote Him. Of course, τὸ πνεῦμα is neuter, but that doesn't make the Holy Spirit neuter. The word for "spirit" is τὸ πνεῦμα. In this case, the words τὸ ἅγιον modify the word "spirit." This refers to The Holy Spirit. The articles on both words imply that the two go together.

My take on this is that we cannot blaspheme an impersonal force. We'll get to this more later on when we get to the book of Ephesians. Also, how is it possible to blaspheme anyone but God? I agree that the Trinity is never explicitly spelled out in Scripture other than the spurious addition in 1 John 5, but there is plenty here to understand the triune nature of God. Three persons, one God. Confusing? Yes. Again, I don't want to worship a God that I can completely understand. If God were completely comprehendible by men then He isn't much of a God.

Creation of an Institution?

Mark 8:29-30
(29)  And he asked them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter answered him, "You are the Christ."
(30)  And he strictly charged them to tell no one about him.

(29)  καὶ αὐτὸς ἐπηρώτα αὐτούς, Ὑμεῖς δὲ τίνα με λέγετε εἶναι; ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ Πέτρος λέγει αὐτῷ, Σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστός. 

(30)  καὶ ἐπετίμησεν αὐτοῖς ἵνα μηδενὶ λέγωσιν περὶ αὐτοῦ.

I have often heard that Matthew 16:18 is the proof text for the establishment of the papacy.  This is the parallel passage where Jesus has the same conversation with Peter.  However, there is no commentary about how Peter is the "rock" and upon this rock Christ would build His church.  

I don't want to make too strong of an argument from silence, but it has always seemed to me that such an important doctrine would be clearly spelled out if indeed that is what Matthew 16:18 was all about.  Mark is known for his brevity, but I would think that he would have repeated the command to establish Christ's church on earth.

Instead we simply get Peter's confession.  It doesn't take much Greek to appreciate the statement Σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστός.  Jesus indeed is the Christ.  Incidentally, when I read ἐπετίμησεν I think of the glosses "rebuke" or "warn."  Jesus was serious about them keeping this quiet until the time was right.

Sadly, I'm afraid that many of us operate as if this was still in effect.  Now it is our job to go and make disciples of all nations.  Let's be sure to do that instead of keeping quiet.

All Things Well

Mark 7:37
(37)  And they were astonished beyond measure, saying, "He has done all things well. He even makes the deaf hear and the mute speak."

(37)  καὶ ὑπερπερισσῶς ἐξεπλήσσοντο λέγοντες, Καλῶς πάντα πεποίηκεν· καὶ τοὺς κωφοὺς ποιεῖ ἀκούειν καὶ τοὺσ ἀλάλους λαλεῖν.

When I read this today I mentally translated Καλῶς πάντα πεποίηκεν to be "all he has done is good," which would also be accurate.  Of course the ESV makes it sound much more polished, but I like my translation too.  The point is that everything Jesus has done, does, and will do is good.

Do you believe that?  I'm hanging on to that promise after a very long night with our son last night.  He caught the flu that Amanda and Lily had.  Amanda was up with him most of the night while he threw up.  I was up for some of that time to help Amanda by doing laundry, changing the bedding, and fetching stuff.  I feel pretty lousy today and Amanda is going to be a train wreck.  

I know that Jesus is not the cause of Noah's suffering.  However, I also know that God could certainly have prevented this.  Our house could have been spared this bug.  At the very least Noah could have been spared it.  We could all feel rested and refreshed today.  As it stands, Lily is the only one who got a good night's sleep last night.

Yet in the end I realize that all things happen for the good of those who love God.  Jesus has done all things well.  I believe that this trial will add to our sanctification if we keep the right attitude.

Who is Jesus?

Mark 6:3
(3)  Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him.

(3)  οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τέκτων, ὁ υἱὸς τῆς Μαρίας καὶ ἀδελφὸς Ἰακώβου καὶ Ἰωσῆτος καὶ Ἰούδα καὶ Σίμωνοσ; καὶ οὐκ εἰσὶν αἱ ἀδελφαὶ αὐτοῦ ὧδε πρὸς ἡμᾶσ; καὶ ἐσκανδαλίζοντο ἐν αὐτῷ. 

Mark 6:50

(50)  for they all saw him and were terrified. But immediately he spoke to them and said, "Take heart; it is I. Do not be afraid."

(50)  πάντες γὰρ αὐτὸν εἶδον καὶ ἐταράχθησαν. ὁ δὲ εὐθὺς ἐλάλησεν μετ' αὐτῶν, καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς, Θαρσεῖτε, ἐγώ εἰμι· μὴ φοβεῖσθε.

I really wanted to write on both points today because I think both speak to some misconceptions about who Jesus is.  The first regards this strange idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary.  This is a dogma that has evolved over the centuries and has really become quite puzzling to me.  There are other words that could have been used to refer to "cousins," but here Mark chose to use ἀδελφὸς and αἱ ἀδελφαὶ to speak of the men and women who were in his family.  I have heard it said that these could be understood as male and female cousins, but the most natural reading of these words is as translated in the ESV.  Jesus had half-brothers and half-sisters.  Therefore, Mary and Joseph had normal relations as husband and wife.  I don't think this detracts anything from Mary, but it does attack a dogma.

The other is a translation that I don't really understand.  Quite literally, Jesus says, "Take heart; I am.  Do not be afraid."  I'm not sure where "It is I" comes from other than the KJV did it that way and English translations tend to follow suit.  I think that "I am" is a lot more powerful in addition to being the most natural rendering of ἐγώ εἰμι.  

Just off the top of my head I see how well this would preach.  Jesus was speaking words of comfort to the disciples.  Why should they take heart?  "I am."  Where have we heard that before?  Exodus 3:14.  There is another construction that Jesus could have easily used if He wanted to convey the meaning of "It is I."  Instead, He chose to use "I myself am."  Just as God told Moses to tell the Hebrews, in this case the disciples could be reassured because "I am" was with them.  

Is the great "I am" with you?  Do you take comfort from this fact?  I find that this little phrase gives me pause once again.  It is so easy for me to take my relationship with Jesus for granted because of familiarity and routine.  I never want to lose sight of the fact that I know the great "I am."