The nearness of the kingdom (v. 1)—This verse belongs in chapter 8, at the end of Jesus’ teaching there. But it’s an important verse, so let me get the whole of it before us: “And He said to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you that there are some standing here who will not taste death till they see the kingdom of God present with power.’" Note some crucial points. The kingdom would come in the lifetime of Jesus’ disciples; thus, it is not future from our time, as premillennialism teaches. Further the kingdom would come “with power.” This helps us narrow down even more when that kingdom would arrive. In Luke 24:49, Jesus said to His apostles, “Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high." “Power” would come upon the apostles in Jerusalem. Now let’s consider Acts 1:8, Jesus again talking to His apostles before His ascension: “But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you.” So, according to Mark 9:1, the kingdom of God would come in the lifetime of the apostles, and it would arrive “with power.” After Christ’s resurrection, the apostles were to remain in Jerusalem until they received “power” (Luke 24:49), a “power” that would come with the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8). When did the Holy Spirit come upon them? That event is recorded in Acts 2:1-4, the day of Pentecost. Peter preached to the multitudes, 3,000 were baptized, and the kingdom—the church—was established. “Kingdom” and “church” are two different terms for the people of God. “Kingdom” indicates the kind of government the Lord established for His people, and “church,” which literally (in the Greek) means “called out,” indicates our separation from the world. Other terms are also used for God’s people—body, sheep, saints, etc. All of these give us different perspectives on our relationship to God. To separate “kingdom” from all of these other designations is arbitrary, capricious, and has no authority in the Scripture. Premillennialism is a materialistic, worldly philosophy. And it has no sanction in the Bible.
The transfiguration (vs. 2-13)—This event is recorded in Matthew 17. Here are my comments there: “Jesus took Peter, James, and John to a high mountain for an event we call the “transfiguration.” “He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and His clothes became as white as the light” (Matt. 17:2). Moses, the great lawgiver, and Elijah, the great prophet, appeared and talked to Him. Peter spoke up, suggesting that three tabernacles be built, one each for Jesus, Moses, and Elijah. But in Mark’s account of this event, we learn that Peter didn’t really know what he was saying because the three apostles “were greatly afraid” (Mark 9:6). Apparently the point of the transfiguration is found in [Matthew 17] verse 5: “While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and suddenly a voice came out of the cloud, saying, ‘This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him!’" The authority of Jesus, above that of Moses and Elijah is established—hear Christ, not Moses.” Mark includes a discussion about Elijah in this location. The disciples asked Jesus about the coming of Elijah: “Why do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?” (v. 11). The scribes were correct. The next-to-last verse of the Old Testament (Malachi 4:5) reads, “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet Before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD.” Jesus indicated to them that “Elijah” had already come. Matthew 17:13, in the parallel passage in that gospel, says “Then the disciples understood that He spoke to them of John the Baptist.”
The mute, epileptic boy (vs. 14-29)—Jesus comes upon His disciples disputing with some scribes with a large crowd around (v. 14-15). A man brought his epileptic son to Jesus (vs. 17-18). He had previously brought him to Christ’s disciples, but they had failed in their attempt to cast out the demon. Jesus shows a little irritation with them: “O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I bear with you? Bring him here to Me" (v. 19). It’s not terribly surprising that perfection in human form would occasionally get aggravated at imperfections, especially after they had been with Him for almost three years and were still so weak. Jesus ejected the demon (v. 25). The disciples asked Him why they had been unsuccessful (v. 28). Matthew has Jesus discussing their insufficient faith (cf. Matt. 17), but Mark omits that and only mentions the peculiarity about the kind of demon that inhabited the boy. Jesus told His apostles, “This kind can come out by nothing but prayer and fasting” (v. 29). We have no idea what He is talking about because demon possession doesn't happen today. But apparently there were levels of strength within the demon populace. Let us hope we never find out from personal experience.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Mark 8
Feeding the 4,000 (vs. 1-10)—This story is found in Matthew 15, and here are my comments at that place: “We’ve seen a similar story in (Matthew) chapter 14 where Jesus miraculously fed 5,000 (men). Now the number is 4,000, and this time there are seven loaves of bread and “a few little fish” (Matt. 15:34). And, when finished, there were seven baskets full of leftovers. Not surprisingly, the disciples show some obtuseness. In Mt. 15:32, Jesus said to them, “’I have compassion on the multitude, because they have now continued with Me three days and have nothing to eat. And I do not want to send them away hungry, lest they faint on the way.’" And the disciples asked Him, “’Where could we get enough bread in the wilderness to fill such a great multitude?’" Didn’t they remember the feeding of the 5,000 men (excluding woman and children)? But let’s try not to be too hard on these fellows; it’s just not every day you see somebody feed over 10,000 people with a handful of food—and have more left over than you started with. It takes time for faith to grow; it doesn’t spring up overnight.”
The Pharisees seek a sign (vs. 11-12)—Mark indicates that, in asking for a sign, the Pharisees were “testing Him” (v. 11, NKJV). The ASV uses the word “trying,” and the KJV “tempting.” Bottom line is, their motives weren’t pure. Jesus had given plenty of “signs”—all the miracles that He did. This particular question wearied Him: “He sighed deeply in His spirit” (v. 12). And He wasn’t going to showboat and perform a miracle when they wouldn’t have accepted the implications of it anyway. Matthew adds that the sign of the prophet Jonah would be given, i.e., Jesus would spend three and nights in the grave and then come forth (Matt. 16:1-4).
The leaven of the Pharisees (vs. 13-21)—Here are my comments on this scene, as found in Matthew 16:5-12: “The disciples didn’t have any bread with them (Matt. 16:5), so Jesus uses the occasion to teach an object lesson: “’Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees’" (Matt. 16:6). The apostles, obtuse as usual, thought He was talking about real bread. Jesus, seemingly frustrated, censures their lack of faith and understanding, referring them to the feeding of the 5,000 and the 4,000. If the Lord could feed that many miraculously, why were they worrying about food? “Then they understood that He did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees” (Matt. 16:12). They finally got it.”
There is one notable exception in Mark’s account. Rather than the “leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees,” Mark replaces the latter with “Herod.” The Herodians were a Jewish political party that supported the Herod family’s claim to the throne of Israel. They were Roman lackeys, no more, but remember Mark’s audience—it was almost surely Gentile and probably Roman, so the Herodians would mean more to them than the Sadducees, who were basically a Jewish sect enamored with Greek philosophy, something the Romans couldn’t understand for the life of them.
The progressive healing of a blind man (vs. 22-26)—This is an interesting healing. A blind man is brought to Jesus for healing. The Lord first spit in the man’s eyes and laid hands on him, then asked if he saw anything (v. 23). “I see men like trees, walking” (v. 24). Jesus then touched the man’s eyes and he “saw everyone clearly” (v. 25). Why Jesus performed this miracle in two stages is unknown; He certainly could have done it immediately. Clarke has an interesting suggestion. That the blind man’s eyelids were “gummed” together from not being used for so long, and the spitting on them by Jesus was to loosen them. Once the eyelids were open, Jesus asked him what he saw, and then healed him completely. I don’t particularly like that explanation, but I thought it was interesting, and a possibility, I suppose. More likely, there was something in this man’s faith that Jesus wanted to strengthen—step by step, building his faith in what Jesus could do. But this is only speculation, given that the Bible doesn’t provide the reason.
Peter’s confession (vs. 27-30)—Jesus asked His apostles who men said that He was (v. 27). Various opinions were expressed (v. 28). But when the Lord asked them who they thought He was, He received Peter’s famous response “Thou art the Christ” (v. 29). Mark doesn’t mention Jesus’ rejoinder of blessing Peter, building His church, the keys of the kingdom, etc. Matthew 16:18-19 give the fuller account.
Peter rebuked (vs. 31-33)—Jesus them told His disciples about His upcoming passion in Jerusalem: “the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again” (v. 31). This was incomprehensible to the apostles; Jesus was going to reign as an earthly king, how could He be killed? Peter rebuked Him; such a thing as Jesus described could not happen. But the Lord’s return rebuke of Peter is stern: “Get behind Me, Satan! For you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men" (v. 33). Peter wanted what men wanted—the earthly king—not what God had been promising, forgiveness of sins, since Genesis 3:15. The ignorance of the Jews regarding the Old Testament meaning was—and is—appalling.
The cost of discipleship (vs. 34-37)—It is interesting that this teaching, a rather hard one, was not spoken in a corner: “When He had called the people to Himself, with His disciples also” (v. 34). Jesus wanted as many people as possible to know what it would cost to follow Him—deny yourself, take up your cross, follow Him (v. 34). The one who tries to keep his life for himself, will eventually lose it (eternally); but the one willing to lose his life for Christ’s sake, will find it (eternally) (v. 35). Then He asks the piercing questions, “For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?” (vs. 36-37). What’s more important to us than eternal salvation? Hopefully nothing, but it is something we all need to consider seriously. Is there anything we would not give up for the Lord’s sake? Because if we are ashamed of Him (not willing to sacrifice all for His cause), then He will be ashamed of us in the coming judgment (v. 38).
The Pharisees seek a sign (vs. 11-12)—Mark indicates that, in asking for a sign, the Pharisees were “testing Him” (v. 11, NKJV). The ASV uses the word “trying,” and the KJV “tempting.” Bottom line is, their motives weren’t pure. Jesus had given plenty of “signs”—all the miracles that He did. This particular question wearied Him: “He sighed deeply in His spirit” (v. 12). And He wasn’t going to showboat and perform a miracle when they wouldn’t have accepted the implications of it anyway. Matthew adds that the sign of the prophet Jonah would be given, i.e., Jesus would spend three and nights in the grave and then come forth (Matt. 16:1-4).
The leaven of the Pharisees (vs. 13-21)—Here are my comments on this scene, as found in Matthew 16:5-12: “The disciples didn’t have any bread with them (Matt. 16:5), so Jesus uses the occasion to teach an object lesson: “’Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees’" (Matt. 16:6). The apostles, obtuse as usual, thought He was talking about real bread. Jesus, seemingly frustrated, censures their lack of faith and understanding, referring them to the feeding of the 5,000 and the 4,000. If the Lord could feed that many miraculously, why were they worrying about food? “Then they understood that He did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees” (Matt. 16:12). They finally got it.”
There is one notable exception in Mark’s account. Rather than the “leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees,” Mark replaces the latter with “Herod.” The Herodians were a Jewish political party that supported the Herod family’s claim to the throne of Israel. They were Roman lackeys, no more, but remember Mark’s audience—it was almost surely Gentile and probably Roman, so the Herodians would mean more to them than the Sadducees, who were basically a Jewish sect enamored with Greek philosophy, something the Romans couldn’t understand for the life of them.
The progressive healing of a blind man (vs. 22-26)—This is an interesting healing. A blind man is brought to Jesus for healing. The Lord first spit in the man’s eyes and laid hands on him, then asked if he saw anything (v. 23). “I see men like trees, walking” (v. 24). Jesus then touched the man’s eyes and he “saw everyone clearly” (v. 25). Why Jesus performed this miracle in two stages is unknown; He certainly could have done it immediately. Clarke has an interesting suggestion. That the blind man’s eyelids were “gummed” together from not being used for so long, and the spitting on them by Jesus was to loosen them. Once the eyelids were open, Jesus asked him what he saw, and then healed him completely. I don’t particularly like that explanation, but I thought it was interesting, and a possibility, I suppose. More likely, there was something in this man’s faith that Jesus wanted to strengthen—step by step, building his faith in what Jesus could do. But this is only speculation, given that the Bible doesn’t provide the reason.
Peter’s confession (vs. 27-30)—Jesus asked His apostles who men said that He was (v. 27). Various opinions were expressed (v. 28). But when the Lord asked them who they thought He was, He received Peter’s famous response “Thou art the Christ” (v. 29). Mark doesn’t mention Jesus’ rejoinder of blessing Peter, building His church, the keys of the kingdom, etc. Matthew 16:18-19 give the fuller account.
Peter rebuked (vs. 31-33)—Jesus them told His disciples about His upcoming passion in Jerusalem: “the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again” (v. 31). This was incomprehensible to the apostles; Jesus was going to reign as an earthly king, how could He be killed? Peter rebuked Him; such a thing as Jesus described could not happen. But the Lord’s return rebuke of Peter is stern: “Get behind Me, Satan! For you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men" (v. 33). Peter wanted what men wanted—the earthly king—not what God had been promising, forgiveness of sins, since Genesis 3:15. The ignorance of the Jews regarding the Old Testament meaning was—and is—appalling.
The cost of discipleship (vs. 34-37)—It is interesting that this teaching, a rather hard one, was not spoken in a corner: “When He had called the people to Himself, with His disciples also” (v. 34). Jesus wanted as many people as possible to know what it would cost to follow Him—deny yourself, take up your cross, follow Him (v. 34). The one who tries to keep his life for himself, will eventually lose it (eternally); but the one willing to lose his life for Christ’s sake, will find it (eternally) (v. 35). Then He asks the piercing questions, “For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?” (vs. 36-37). What’s more important to us than eternal salvation? Hopefully nothing, but it is something we all need to consider seriously. Is there anything we would not give up for the Lord’s sake? Because if we are ashamed of Him (not willing to sacrifice all for His cause), then He will be ashamed of us in the coming judgment (v. 38).
Friday, April 2, 2010
Mark 7
Conflict over washing of hands (vs. 1-13)—This event is found in Matthew 15, and I will simply reproduce my thoughts from that location: “I at least appreciate the honesty of the Pharisees here in their attack on Jesus: “Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders?” by not washing their hands when they eat bread (v. 2). They aren’t claiming that Jesus and His disciples were disobeying the Law of Moses. The Pharisees equated their traditions WITH the Law and that was the problem. Jesus then points out that their traditions actually contradict the Law of Moses with an example regarding honoring one’s parents. In an age without Social Security, Medicare, etc. etc., children were expected to provide for their parents in old age; the parents took care of the kids when young, now the children were responsible when their parents were aged. But the Pharisees wouldn’t take care of their aged parents: “Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God” (v. 6), they’d say. So instead of “honoring father and mother” by taking care of them, they would give the money as a “gift to God.” In one sense, this makes the crime even more atrocious—refusing to honor a command of God in the name of God. No wonder Jesus called them “hypocrites,” and the fulfillment of prophecy: “’Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: “These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men”’” (vs 7-9). The fight between Jesus and the religious leaders of the day grows.”
That which really defiles a man (vs. 14-23)—True impurity, Jesus teaches, comes from within. “There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man” (v. 15). The fleshly man will die and return to dust; God isn’t concerned with whether man’s hands or washed or not, but whether his heart is. Purity of heart is Christ’s point here: “for from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a man" (vs. 21-23). The disciples were so embedded in Jewish traditions and ritualism that they had not grasped the point, either, when Jesus first said it (vs. 17-19). The power of tradition, culture, and life-long teaching is very difficult to overcome, and we have seen and commented on many examples of this during Jesus’ ministry. His apostles simply did not understand the true nature of His mission because they had been so grounded in Jewish customs and ideas. But the point Jesus makes here about outward versus inward purity—“blessed are the pure in heart” (Matt. 5:8)—is one of the crucial, cardinal distinctions of the Christian religion.
The Syro-Phoenician woman (vs. 24-30)—Mark tells us that this woman was a Greek. Again, since this story is related in full in Matthew, I will copy my comments from that location. The verses refer to Matthew’s account, which is found in chapter 15:21-28 of his chapter: “This is a great story. Jesus was in the region of Tyre and Sidon and a local woman—a Gentile woman, that’s very important—comes and asks Him to heal her demon-possessed daughter. Jesus ignores her and the disciples want Him to run her off. The Lord is not being cruel here, not at all. He is trying the woman’s faith—and persistence. More than once, Jesus taught doggedness in prayer—how badly do you want what you are asking for (cf. Luke 18:1-5). He responds to this Gentile woman “’I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,’” meaning the Jews only (v. 24). But she does, indeed, persevere: “Lord, help me!” (v. 25). Jesus continues to test her: “’It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs” (v. 26). That could be taken as an insult; the “children,” again, are the Jews, and the “little dogs” are the Gentiles. “I came to the Jews,” Jesus said, “and I shouldn’t take what I’m supposed to give them and give it to Gentiles.” But once more, there’s no insult intended; it’s a test of faith. And the mother passes: “And she said, ‘Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs eat the crumbs which fall from their masters' table’" (v. 27). Jesus praises her faith and heals her daughter. You gotta love that woman, who knew what Jesus could do and just wouldn’t take no for an answer.”
The healing of a deaf and dumb man (vs. 31-37)—A man who was both deaf and had an “impediment in his speech” was brought to Jesus. The Lord does something very unique in healing this man: ”He took him aside from the multitude, and put His fingers in his ears, and He spat and touched his tongue” (v. 33). Why Jesus did this is hard to discern; there is no explanation given in the text. Most of His healings were done with simply a word (see the previous story), so perhaps He wished to indicate that God’s power can be implemented through other means. But that is pure speculation on my part; your guess would be as good as mine. Regardless, “immediately his ears were opened, and the impediment of his tongue was loosed, and he spoke plainly” (v. 35). He commanded the man and his friends not to tell anyone, “but the more He commanded them, the more widely they proclaimed it” (v. 36). People continued to be astonished at His deeds, and spoke a great truism: “He hath done all things well” (v. 37).
That which really defiles a man (vs. 14-23)—True impurity, Jesus teaches, comes from within. “There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man” (v. 15). The fleshly man will die and return to dust; God isn’t concerned with whether man’s hands or washed or not, but whether his heart is. Purity of heart is Christ’s point here: “for from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a man" (vs. 21-23). The disciples were so embedded in Jewish traditions and ritualism that they had not grasped the point, either, when Jesus first said it (vs. 17-19). The power of tradition, culture, and life-long teaching is very difficult to overcome, and we have seen and commented on many examples of this during Jesus’ ministry. His apostles simply did not understand the true nature of His mission because they had been so grounded in Jewish customs and ideas. But the point Jesus makes here about outward versus inward purity—“blessed are the pure in heart” (Matt. 5:8)—is one of the crucial, cardinal distinctions of the Christian religion.
The Syro-Phoenician woman (vs. 24-30)—Mark tells us that this woman was a Greek. Again, since this story is related in full in Matthew, I will copy my comments from that location. The verses refer to Matthew’s account, which is found in chapter 15:21-28 of his chapter: “This is a great story. Jesus was in the region of Tyre and Sidon and a local woman—a Gentile woman, that’s very important—comes and asks Him to heal her demon-possessed daughter. Jesus ignores her and the disciples want Him to run her off. The Lord is not being cruel here, not at all. He is trying the woman’s faith—and persistence. More than once, Jesus taught doggedness in prayer—how badly do you want what you are asking for (cf. Luke 18:1-5). He responds to this Gentile woman “’I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,’” meaning the Jews only (v. 24). But she does, indeed, persevere: “Lord, help me!” (v. 25). Jesus continues to test her: “’It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs” (v. 26). That could be taken as an insult; the “children,” again, are the Jews, and the “little dogs” are the Gentiles. “I came to the Jews,” Jesus said, “and I shouldn’t take what I’m supposed to give them and give it to Gentiles.” But once more, there’s no insult intended; it’s a test of faith. And the mother passes: “And she said, ‘Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs eat the crumbs which fall from their masters' table’" (v. 27). Jesus praises her faith and heals her daughter. You gotta love that woman, who knew what Jesus could do and just wouldn’t take no for an answer.”
The healing of a deaf and dumb man (vs. 31-37)—A man who was both deaf and had an “impediment in his speech” was brought to Jesus. The Lord does something very unique in healing this man: ”He took him aside from the multitude, and put His fingers in his ears, and He spat and touched his tongue” (v. 33). Why Jesus did this is hard to discern; there is no explanation given in the text. Most of His healings were done with simply a word (see the previous story), so perhaps He wished to indicate that God’s power can be implemented through other means. But that is pure speculation on my part; your guess would be as good as mine. Regardless, “immediately his ears were opened, and the impediment of his tongue was loosed, and he spoke plainly” (v. 35). He commanded the man and his friends not to tell anyone, “but the more He commanded them, the more widely they proclaimed it” (v. 36). People continued to be astonished at His deeds, and spoke a great truism: “He hath done all things well” (v. 37).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
