Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Uncategorized

  • Notes on Mark 10:32-52

    These notes accompany my podcast titled A Time to Seek Healing.

    Translation and Notes

    32Now they were on the road going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was walking ahead of them, and the disciples were amazed. But those who followed were afraid. And taking the twelve aside again, he began to tell them again about things that were about to happen to him.

    Jesus is resolutely moving forward to his destiny, but as we shall see, the disciples are still unable to comprehend just what that destiny is. So for the third time, Jesus tells them what is about to happen.

    The border between Galilee and Jerusalem is the most important borderline in any life. It tests the reality of our profession. When we cross it in our lives and actions, we go from comfort into pain, from ease into jeopardy, as Jesus did. But if we do not cross it, we leave the road which leads to fullness of life, and to power. — IB Exposition on Mark 10:32

    33“Look, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the son of man will be betrayed to the high priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death, and hand him over to the gentiles, 34And they will strike him, spit on him, whip him, and kill him, but after three days he will rise up from the dead.”

    Jesus provides more details here than he has before. Why don’t the disciples see? For the same reason that we often do not—they had their own agenda.

    “Many a man has become a hero in the heat of the moment. But there is also the courage of the man who sees the grim thing approaching far ahead, of the man who has plenty time to turn back, of the man who could, if he chose to do so, evade the issue, and who yet inflexibly goes on. There is no doubt which is the higher courage.” — Barclay, DSB on Mark 10:32-34

    35And James and John, the sons of Zebedee approached him and said, “Teacher, We want to ask you something and have you do it for us.”

    Here is the disciple’s agenda—personal power in the new kingdom. This doesn’t mean that they were totally selfish and seeking only their own good. I’m certain that they were working on the best motivations. They thought that if they could just get into the right positions, they would be able to serve the victorious Messiah.

    This is the final form of unacceptable prayer. It was sincere; it was earnest; it was wrong. James and John were asking Jesus to fit into their plans. They had no concern at the moment over fitting into his plans. Prayer is always unacceptable when it says to God, “You do whatever I want.” — IB Exposition on Mark 10:35

    36So he said to them, “What do you want me to do for you?” 37They said to him, “Appoint us [to positions] so that one of us will sit at your right hand and one at your left in your glory.” 38Jesus said to them, “You don’t know what you’re asking for! Can you drink the cup that I am drinking or be baptized with the baptism that with which I’m being baptized?”

    Mar 10:38 – Ye know not what ye ask – Ye know not that ye ask for sufferings, which must needs pave the way to glory. The cup – Of inward; the baptism – Of outward sufferings. Our Lord was filled with sufferings within, and covered with them without. — John Wesley

    39They said to him, “We can.” Jesus said to them, “The cup that I am drinking you will drink, and you will be baptized with the baptism which which I am being baptized. 40But to sit at my right or my left is not mine to give, but is for those for who it was prepared.”

    “Jesus’ rule still takes place in the context of the Father’s sovereignty.” — Bock, p. 309

    It’s easy to read this as predestination, but I don’t see it in this passage. Jesus is simply leaving the positions in the kingdom to his Father’s sovereignty, and not making appointments early. The disciples still needed to prove themselves in service.

    41Now when the ten had heard this they became indignant at James and John. 42And Jesus called them and told them, “You know that those who consider themselves rulers of the gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 43But it is not to be this way among you, but whoever wants to be great among you must be your servant. 44And whoever wants to be first among you must be the servant of all.

    Again, we see the concept of servant leadership. One can get quite tangled in this whole issue, and assume that there is no place for leadership. Each person must abase themselves and never step to the front. But Jesus is simply putting things in the right perspective. Serve first, then lead, and your leadership is itself about service. Leading and serving at the same time is difficult, because it gives one the greatest opportunity for selfishness and for “lording it over people.” Those who have no power cannot be tempted by it. Jesus is looking for people who can lead and serve simultaneously, people who can be trusted with power because they will use it appropriately

    45For the Son of man didn’t come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many people.”

    See Isaiah 43:3-4, 23-24. Many scholars believe this saying was built on those passages. Some also cite Isaiah 53:10. See Bock, p. 309n15. Compare also 2 Corinthians 5:15.

    46Now they came to Jericho, and as he was coming out of Jericho with his disciples and a sizable crowd, the son of Timaeus, Bartimaeus, a blind beggar sat by the road.

    A seemingly chance encounter becomes the opportunity both for a healing and for teaching.

    47And when he had heard that Jesus the Nazarene was coming, he cried out and said, “Son of David, Jesus, have mercy on me.”

    The opportunity must be taken. We are left with the implication that had this man not cried out, he would have been missed.

    48And some folks began to rebuke him so that he would shut up. 49But Jesus stopped and said, “Call him.” And they called the blind man, saying to him, “Calm down! He’s calling you!” 50But throwing his outer garment off he stood up and went to Jesus.

    Opposition doesn’t stop him. He keeps on crying out. Jesus hears, cares, and calls out to him. Can you be stopped by individual need?

    There is sometimes a disdain for “meanwhile” ministries even on the part of those working for the reorganization of society. Acts of mercy and charity tend to become only “palliatives.” They contribute nothing to a new social structure. The individual need is lost sight of in the glow of the far, shining horizon. — IB Exposition on Mark 10:49

    51And Jesus answered him and said, “What do you want me to do?” And the blind man said to him, “Rabbi! I want to see!” 52And Jesus said to him, “Go! Your faith has healed you.” And immediately he began to see and followed him in the way.

    Do you see the contrast here to the disciples? Jesus is teaching a lesson here through the miracle. The most important thing the disciples needed from Jesus at that point was not a change of direction, greater intelligence or the promise of eventual power. They needed to see where they were going. They needed to be prepared. They eventually received that healing, but only after experiencing the depths of despair.

  • Notes on Mark 10:23-31

    These notes supplement my podcast titled Last and First. The included translation is a working translation. Check out passages in your favorite Bible version.

    23Then Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How difficult it is for those who have possessions to enter into the kingdom of God.”

    I’m sure that the disciples were disappointed that they had not gotten such a valuable new addition to their ranks. They might have felt that he would be in competition for the best places, but each one would have assumed he would get the best place, and thus have this talented person in service.

    Jesus crosses their disappointment by suggesting that the rich, who were normally regarded as exceptionally blessed, would have difficulty entering the kingdom.

    For those who believe Jesus never taught righteousness by faith, this passage has to be a challenge. Jesus here is making it very clear that in order to enter the kingdom one must put one’s trust in him, and at the same time that those who have many other things to trust in will have grave difficulty doing it.

    The textual variant in verse 24, “those who put their trust in riches” is probably a scribal effort to blunt the message, but it also does see part of the point. It’s the matter of trusting others. Because I am not rich, I might say that this passage doesn’t speak to me. But I might easily place my trust in my education, my talents, or my strength of will. Jesus is making the harder point, however, that simply because one has some things to trust in, one will find it difficult to put one’s trust in God.

    If I am helpless, and my only possible option is to trust another person, I may make that leap. If I still think I can fix a situation myself, I’m strongly tempted to fix it myself. It isn’t just those who knowingly and openly trust; it’s all those who have that temptation who need God’s grace even to be willing to enter the kingdom.

    24Now his disciples were amazed at his words, so Jesus answered them again, “Children, how difficult it is to enter into the kingdom of God!

    Mar 10:24 – Jesus saith to them, Children – See how he softens the harsh truth, by the manner of delivering it! And yet without retracting or abating one tittle: How hard is it for them that trust in riches – Either for defence, or happiness, or deliverance from the thousand dangers that life is continually exposed to. That these cannot enter into God’s glorious kingdom, is clear and undeniable: but it is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a man to have riches, and not trust in them. Therefore, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom. — John Wesley

    25It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.”

    Camels are large animals used to transport heavy loads of valuable merchandise long distances. Jesus’ outlandish statement emphasized the point he was making. — Learning Bible (CEV) on Mark 10:25

    “The verse means, strangely enough, what it says.” — IB Exposition on Mark 10:25

    With the comment from the Interpreter’s Bible I thing enough said!

    26They were even more amazed, saying to one another, “Then who can be saved?” 27But Jesus, gazing at them, said, “For men it is impossible, but not for God. For all things are possible with God.”

    Because they believed that prosperity was a sign of blessing, the disciples would have thought that the rich were the most likely to enter the kingdom not the least. Thus if those who have the special mark of God’s blessing cannot enter, who possibly can?

    Barclay says of prosperity: “It is an acid test of a man. For a hundred men who can stand adversity only one can stand prosperity. Prosperity can so very easily make a man arrogant, proud, self-satisfied, worldly. It takes a really big and good man to be worthy of prosperity. –Daily Study Bible on Mark 10:23-27

    28Peter said to him, “Behold, we have left everything and followed you.” 29And Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, There is nobody who has left household or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for my sake, and for the sake of the good news, 30who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, households and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and fields with persecution, and in the coming age, eternal life.

    Mar 10:30 – He shall receive a hundred fold, houses, &c. – Not in the same kind: for it will generally be with persecutions: but in value: a hundred fold more happiness than any or all of these did or could afford. But let it be observed, none is entitled to this happiness, but he that will accept it with persecutions. — John Wesley

    God’s blessings can, in themselves, become temptations. There is the temptation especially to spiritual pride, but also to fall back from our complete trust in God and begin trusting in the material blessings he has given us, rather than in the one who gave us those blessings.

    Often God denies us “blessings” because he knows we are not ready to receive them.

    31But many who are first will be last, and those who are last will be first.” — Mark 10:23-31

    Whatever you think God is going to do, whoever you think has the inside track with divinity, be prepared to be wrong! God doesn’t look at things as we do.

    For a list of references I’m using regularly, see my previous notes entry.

  • Christian Carnival B2

    . . . has been posted at Chasing the Wind. Why B2? Because Michael presented the number in various formats, and I chose that one. Nice break from Roman numerals, eh?

    There’s a good deal of material here I’d like to read and comment on. I wonder how much I’ll get to?

  • Notes on Mark 10:13-16

    These notes accompany my podast Children and Divine Priorities.

    Translation and Notes

    13And they brought him children so that he might touch them. But the disciples rebuked them.

    Notice again that the disciples are not on the same agenda as Jesus is. They haven’t gotten kingdom principles. To Jesus children are important both in themselves—they receive the kingdom with the right spirit—but they are also important as an example to others. His disciples could learn from children. But instead they turn them away.

    There is a common picture in people’s minds about this incident with the children. First, we see it as singular. Some children, once or twice, make it in to have Jesus bless them. It’s a nice little “bless you, bless you” kind of scenario, sort of like a politician kissing babies. But I think that children were attracted to Jesus and that this was a constant sort of scene. Jesus enjoyed talking with them, listening to them, and pointing to them as examples.

    This beautiful little episode, expressing an attitude so unlike the academic rabbinical attitude toward women and children, and yet so characteristically Jewish, can scarcely have been invented. — IB Exegesis on Mark 10:13-16

    14But when Jesus saw what had happened he was indignant and said to them, “Let the children come to me, don’t prevent them, for the kingdom of God is made up of this sort of people!”

    Back in Mark 9:42 Jesus has warned against being a stumbling block. Just as the disciples didn’t “get it” about the crucifixion, so they didn’t get it about not putting a stumbling block in front of other people. The children referred to in these two passages can include both those young in the faith and those young in years. What happens when we get up on our eminence based on years of experience or years of education and turn away those who lack the majesty of our own position in the church?

    We need to be prepared to learn from children and youth. I have had frequent conversations with people about church services and why the young people or children don’t like them, and have to be forced to attend. Once they get old enough to resist, they no longer go. Why? Well, don’t ask me! Ask the children and young people. What would you like to do on Sunday morning that would truly excite you? Now you’re going to get answers that you can’t use, but you’ll also get many sincere answers that you can.

    What do you do if the adults are offended by what is done in order to work with the youth? Good question. What did Jesus do? He was angry with those who turned the children away, but he received the children.

    This matter of the indignations of Jesus throws a clear light on his spiritual greatness. He never showed indignation over personal affronts. All through the scourging and crucifixion “opened he not his mouth.” The only reference he made to his executioners was, “Father, forgive them.” It is a humbling experience to compare his indignations with our own. What most quickly rouses ours as a rule is some injury done us, real or fancied, some slight, some rejection. Then we blaze like a freshly lighted fire. While many of us continue to look out on evils that engulf vast numbers, or on injustices that cry to the skies, with undisturbed equanimity. — IB Exposition on Mark 10:14

    15I tell you truly, whoever doesn’t receive the kingdom of God as a child will never enter into it.”

    Jesus could never resist the opportunity to provide a lesson. Here he repeats his lesson from Mark 9:37.

    16And he called the children, placed his hands on them, and blessed them.

    Jesus suits actions to his words. He takes the children in and blesses them.

    — Mark 10:13-16

    References

    For your convenience, here again are the key references I’m using:

    Commentaries

    Barclay, William. The Gospel of Mark (Daily Study Bible). Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1956.

    Bock, Darrell L. Jesus According to Scripture. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002.

    Keener, Craig S. The IVP Bible Background Commentary. Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993. Via Logos Bible Software.

    Wesley, John. John Wesley’s Commentary, from eSword.

    Wuest, Kenneth S. Mark in the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1950.

    Bibles:

    The New Oxford Annotated Bible (NRSV)
    The Learning Bible (CEV)
    The Oxford Study Bible (REB)
    UBS Greek New Testament, 4th Edition

  • Notes on Mark 10:1-12

    This working translation and notes expand on the presentation in my Bible Pacesetter Podcast titled The Question of Divorce.

    Translation and Notes

    1And he left there and arrived in the region across the Jordan from Judea, and again a crowd came to him, and as it was his custom, he taught them again.

    Jesus is continuing his trip toward Jerusalem and death. The rest of Mark is focused on the coming sacrifice. On the way, however, challenges continue.

    2And the Pharisees were approaching him and asking him if it was legal for a man to divorce his wife. They were testing him.

    This episode is a challenge to Jesus’ attitude toward the law, rather than a question intended to honestly discover information about God’s attitude to divorce.

    There was, however, a very real question about divorce in the culture, with the followers of Shammai holding a strict interpretation of divorce and allowing it only in the case of adultery, while the followers of Hillel allow divorce for almost any reason. I’m usually in sympathy with Hillel, but in this case, Shammai seems to me to have gotten the divine intention just a bit better.

    3But he answered them, “What did Moses command you?” 4So they said, “Moses permitted us to write a divorce paper and to divorce.”

    Like good Christians of today, the questioners are ready with a scripture that supports their position. Many a Bible student has latched onto a less clear scripture and pounded his Bible, refusing to consider any other option. The Pharisees were right—in that sense. They had their scripture, and if that one scripture was the sole basis on which a decision should be made, they had their case. That was, of course, precisely what they assumed.

    Their scripture, in this case, is Deuteronomy 24:1-4. The certificate of divorce was very important. This was a merciful provision (IB on Mark 10:1-12). A woman who was not a virgin needed to be able to prove that her reasons for not being a virgin were legitimate. A woman sent away without any evidence was completely at the mercy of anyone.

    This whole topic cries out to be treated as a trajectory. Start with a situation in which divorce was solely the province of the man, who could send his wife away merely verbally, leaving her with nothing. The provision of Moses was that a certificate was required. Jewish tradition expanded on that and provided more rules that made it harder for the man to be arbitrary. Christian tradition has typically been a bit confused on the issue.

    Jesus suggests where we find the ideal to pursue—Genesis 1 & 20—in the spiritual union that God intended. This passion of the two sexes for one another is God’s best metaphor for his passion for seeking us. If you don’t believe me, just read any Andrew Greeley novel. Greeley has an incredible capability for expressing the gospel in the form of fiction, and has a thoroughly Biblical view of the relationship of human sexuality to salvation.

    So the trajectory in this case would run from no stability in sexual relations, through the rules and documents specifying how one gets out, to the near forbidding of divorce, to an ideal in which a “husband loves his wife as Christ loved the church” (Ephesians 5:25-26). Our focus should be on creating and preserving marriage bonds that live up to the “one flesh” ideal.

    5But Jesus said to them, “He wrote you that commandment because of your hardness of heart. 6But from the beginning of creation male and female he created them. 7Because of this a man will leave his father and mother and will be joined to his wife, 8and the two will become one flesh, so that they are no longer two but one flesh. 9So what God has joined together nobody should separate.”

    Jesus also turns to the scriptures—a different one in this case. He does what we should do much more often in dealing with issues of sexual morality. He looks for the ideal. That ideal is expressed, as Jesus tells his questioners, in Genesis 1:27 and 2:24. The first tells us that God created one humanity, who are male and female. Genesis 2:24 tells us that the two combine to become “one flesh.”

    Now it is physically impossible for the two to actually become one body, but God intends the spiritual union, the combination of their two lives, emotions, and desires into one to be so complete that from the outside they look like one person. In this case I have a quibble with Darrell Bock (p. 299), who notes that “Jesus sought to shift the issue from what will allow one to get out of a marriage to an emphasis on staying in it” and also “the most important point: marriage is designed to be permanent.”

    Jesus is definitely intending such a shift of emphasis, but I think his point here, based on the scriptures he uses, is that the union is to be so complete and divinely ordained and accomplished, that permanence is the only imaginable goal. In other words, the emphasis is on the nature of the bond; the permanence is derived from that.

    10Now when they were in the house again his disciples were questioning him about this. 11He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery with her, 12and if she, having divorced her husband, marries another, she commits adultery.”

    The explanation Jesus gives his disciples simply applies the principle he gave his questioners. The one who creates a split in the sacred bond is the one who is responsible.

    And here is where I think it is extremely easy to misapply this passage. First, Jesus does not attempt here to provide a complete discussion of marriage and divorce. He answers a question and deals with the controversy. At the same time he provides a number of pointers to how questions should be answered. The incompleteness of his answer might be noted by comparing this passage to Matthew 5:32, in which an exception is provided.

    But if we look at the sacredness of the bond in question, the two becoming one flesh, what can possibly break that bond? In modern times there have been many cases, for example, in which a woman has been instructed to remain in a marriage with a physically abusive husband in order to preserve the sacredness of the bond. But what precisely is the sacred bond she is preserving? Surely the husband is not behaving as “one flesh” with the wife he is beating.

    This is, in my view, a case of applying the facts of one case to another without discovering the principles behind it. If a wife could demonstrate that her husband had committed adultery by having sexual relations with another woman, the church would have recourse to act against him as a matter of church disciple. If the woman instead shows that her husband is beating her, what should the reaction of the church be? I would suggest it should be at least every bit as strong as the church’s reaction to the husband who has committed adultery. That man is committing an offense against he divine institution of marriage and has broken his marriage covenant as much as the man who commits adultery. Of course, the same principle would apply were the sexes of the partners involved reversed.

    Jesus points us to the ideal, an ideal we should aim to carry out in our lives. But that ideal is violated both by actions that terminate the marriage covenant in effect, and by actions that terminate it in public. We are more concerned with the public ending of the marriage bond, with people knowing that it has happened. We need to be just as concerned that a marriage has ended even when it is only privately known.

    Note: See this entry for a list of works commonly cited in these notes.

  • Notes on Mark 9:30-42

    The following notes and references expand on the material I presented in today’s Bible Pacesetter podcast on this same passage, Discipleship the Hard Way. This includes my working translation (not to be mistaken for a polished and final one), some notes, and some additional quotations and references.

    Translation and Notes:

    Teaching about the Cross

    30When he had left there, he traveled through Galilee, but he didn’t want anyone to know.

    Note that the secrecy here gives a clue to the secrecy theme in Mark generally. Jesus is keeping control of the agenda.

    Barclay comments on the importance of teaching the disciples:

    “He [Jesus] had to leave behind him a band of persons on whom these propositions were written.” — Barclay on Mark 9:30-31

    As Barclay notes here, while Jesus didn’t leave us written words, he left us these disciples. This was the critical importance of his spending time with them and teaching them. They would be the human means–accompanied and aided by the Holy Spirit–of getting the word out to all of us.

    31For he was teaching his disciples and telling them that the Son of Man will be betrayed into the hands of people, and they will kill him, but when he has been killed, after three days he will rise again.

    There is good indication that the teaching took place over some period of time. Wuest goes so far as to suggest different groups of disciples, traveling separately so as to be more secretive, but I think that goes well beyond the implication of the text.

    Barclay notes:

    “The human mind has an amazing faculty for rejecting that which it does not wish to see.” — Mark 9:30-31

    Often a lack of understanding does not result from our inability to understand, but rather from our unwillingness to understand. We can even deceive ourselves into thinking we don’t understand when actually we do. Jesus will be able to tell the difference!

    32They didn’t understand what he was telling them, yet they were afraid to question him.

    Barclay suggests they simply didn’t understand the meaning of the upcoming resurrection, but I would suggest that with many other commentators that the problem was that the understood what Jesus said very well, but couldn’t integrate it with their view of the Messiah.

    John Wesley comments:

    Mar 9:32 – They understood not the word – They did not understand how to reconcile the death of our Saviour (nor consequently his resurrection, which supposed his death) with their notions of his temporal kingdom. — John Wesley, Commentary

    The following quote from the Interpreter’s Bible on Mark 9:32 (Exposition) is enlightening:

    Consider how reluctant multitudes in the modern world are to accept the Cross of Jesus as the supreme revelation of God. Other conceptions and idealizations fit so much better into our “onward and upward” thought forms. The serene teacher of Galilee, the persuasive expounder of wise and helpful axioms of living, even the Jesus of Palm Sunday, acclaimed and honored, is so much simpler, more attractive, more congenial to our culture, to our reliance on education, to our disparagement of extremes. Many prefer an intelligent, reasonable Jesus, an inspiring example, the counterpart of a broad-minded liberal, a leader of all good causes. They too find it hard to understand the saying about crucifixion and death. And because so many do not understand it, the Christian faith, instead of being conceived and presented to the world as God’s act of redemption, has dwindled down into another set of moral maxims, impotent to face and subdue the tragic evils of life and of history. When we think of the gospel in any such fashion as that, we make a detour around the Cross, and so miss the way. — IB exposition on Mark 9:32

    Who is the Greatest?

    33And they entered Capernaum, and while they were in the house he asked them, “What were you discussing on the way?”

    Hate it when this happens. You’ve been going along happily living your own life and ignoring what Jesus teaches, and suddenly he asks you what you’ve been up to!

    The Interpreter’s Bible notes:

    What a disconcerting question! How would we like to have it suddenly put to us? There is always danger of great embarrassment when Jesus joins the conversation and asks quietly, “What were you talking about?” — IB exposition on Mark 9:33

    34But they were silent for on the way they had been discussing who was greater among themselves.

    This is a complete contrast to what Jesus has been trying to teach them, and demonstrates the point of verse 32—they simply didn’t get it!

    35And he sat down and called the twelve and said to them, “If anyone wants to be first, let him be the last and servant of all.”

    Servant leadership—it’s something we talk about a lot, but it is very hard to practice. We are very much programmed as human beings to desire position and power. Sometimes servant leadership puts one in a position of power. When that happens it’s even harder to maintain the servant attitude.

    Barclay comments:

    “It is strange how a thing takes its proper place and acquires its true character when it is set in the eyes of Jesus.” — Barclay on Mark 9:32-35

    “If we took everything and set it in the sight of Jesus it would make all the difference in the world to life.” — Barclay on Mark 9:32-35 [these two sentences come a few lines apart in the same paragraph — HN]

    36And he took a little child, he put it right in the middle, took it in his arms, and told them, 37“Whoever receives one of these little children in my name receives me, and whoever receives me, doesn’t receive me, but the one who sent me.”

    Often even in service we want to serve the person who is most important. If we can just follow the biggest person in sight around, perhaps we’ll get somewhere. At least we can bask in some reflected brilliance. But Jesus asks us to serve people who are unimportant, who can’t reward us, and in many cases can’t even thank us. He’s asking us to make service the object of our efforts, and not the means.

    The One Who Doesn’t Follow With Us

    38John said to him, “Teacher, we saw a certain man casting out demons in your name and we hindered him, because he’s not following right along with us.”

    Notice how this man is carrying out the work of the kingdom. Throughout the gospel of Mark, the sign that the kingdom is advancing is that the demons resist and then flee. But since this man is not part of the “in” crowd, the disciples want him stopped. What’s special about them any more if just anyone can do it? But Jesus again emphasizes the fact that service is to be our object, and not a means to importance. The important thing was that the kingdom was advancing and people were being set free.

    John Wesley comments:

    Mar 9:38 – And John answered him – As if he had said, But ought we to receive those who follow not us? Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name – Probably this was one of John the Baptist’s disciples, who believed in Jesus, though he did not yet associate with our Lord’s disciples. And we forbad him, because he followeth not us – How often is the same temper found in us? How readily do we also lust to envy? But how does that spirit become a disciple, much more a minister of the benevolent Jesus! St. Paul had learnt a better temper, when he rejoiced that Christ was preached, even by those who were his personal enemies. But to confine religion to them that follow us, is a narrowness of spirit which we should avoid and abhor. — John Wesley, Commentary

    39But Jesus said, “Don’t hinder him. For there is nobody who will do a miracle in my name and will be able to speak evil of me right afterward. 40For whoever is not against us is for us.

    Note the contrast to the similar statement in Matthew 12:30 and Luke 11:23. Both have their appropriate viewpoint. In this case, pride caused the disciples opposition to this man.

    John Wesley notes:

    Mar 9:39 – Jesus said – Christ here gives us a lovely example of candour and moderation. He was willing to put the best construction on doubtful cases, and to treat as friends those who were not avowed enemies. Perhaps in this instance it was a means of conquering the remainder of prejudice, and perfecting what was wanting in the faith and obedience of these persons. Forbid him not – Neither directly nor indirectly discourage or hinder any man who brings sinners from the power of Satan to God, because he followeth not us, in opinions, modes of worship, or any thing else which does not affect the essence of religion.

    Mar 9:40 – For he that is not against you, is for you – Our Lord had formerly said, he that is not with me, is against me: thereby admonishing his hearers, that the war between him and Satan admitted of no neutrality, and that those who were indifferent to him now, would finally be treated as enemies. But here in another view, he uses a very different proverb; directing his followers to judge of men’s characters in the most candid manner; and charitably to hope that those who did not oppose his cause wished well to it. Upon the whole, we are to be rigorous in judging ourselves, and candid in judging each other.

    And Barclay, on the same passage:

    “It is necessary always to remember that truth is always bigger than any man’s grasp of it.” — Barclay on Mark 9:38-40

    41Whoever gives you a cup of water in the name because you are of Christ, I tell you he will definitely not lose his reward.”

    We don’t work for the reward, but God will reward.

    References

    These are some references I consulted:

    Commentaries

    Barclay, William. The Gospel of Mark (Daily Study Bible). Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1956.

    Bock, Darrell L. Jesus According to Scripture. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002.

    Keener, Craig S. The IVP Bible Background Commentary. Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993. Via Logos Bible Software.

    Wesley, John. John Wesley’s Commentary, from eSword.

    Wuest, Kenneth S. Mark in the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1950.

    Bibles:

    The New Oxford Annotated Bible (NRSV)
    The Learning Bible (CEV)
    The Oxford Study Bible (REB)
    UBS Greek New Testament, 4th Edition

  • Book: Christian Theologies of Scripture

    Note: This is a repost due to the database crash. I believe this is the only post that was not part of the restored backup, so we should now have all entries.

    Having just turned from a book which I did not find very helpful, I’m happy to present one which I consider an exceptional gift to the Christian community, Justin Holcomb’s Christian Theologies of Scripture.

    I wrote a short blog entry immediately after hearing about this book, promising that I would read it and then comment further. Well, that time has come. This book is everything I had hoped it would be.

    I have read selections from most of the authors referenced, but with my specialty in Biblical languages, grounded in ancient near eastern languages, I often miss things that happened after about 100 CE. I’m more likely to know the name of an Egyptian or Babylonian king than one from Medieval times. It’s easy to get an unbalanced perspective on a theologian by reading only selections of his work. I’d mention Aquinas as a good example. It’s exceedingly difficult to acquire a passing acquaintance with his work–he’s just too complex for that.

    For people like me, who are very interested in the topic, but who need some overview, Holcomb has managed to provide a superior learning opportunity. I would go so far as to recommend that anyone who takes discussion of Biblical inspiration, or who thoughtfully considers inspiration in connection with Bible study, should read this book. Part I, dealing with patristic and medieval theologies is worth it by itself. There is an overview followed by overviews of Origen, Augustine, and Aquinas. The reformation/counter-reformation section is worthwhile if for no other reason than to correct the common misconception of “sola scriptura” as understood by the reformers, and its twin misconception that Roman Catholic Bible study of the period was dead.

    I found Part IV, Contextual Theologies of Scripture least helpful, but that is not the fault either of Holcomb as editor nor of the selected authors. I just have to admit that for me, many of these views of inspiration just get a bit too wild, and so I have a hard time understanding why one bothers. Scripture in the African-American Christian tradition was an exception to that assessment–I found that chapter extremely helpful, and I think many preachers could learn something about preaching and applying scripture from that chapter. I must warn white guys like myself, however, that using African-American approaches to scripture can be hazardous. I was teaching once in an African-American church, and I was using some liberation vocabulary and applying some Old Testament stories to modern situations. One lady became more and more agitated until she raised her hand and interrupted me. “That’s all good enough,” she said, “But when are you going to deal with what it actually says?” She did have a point!

    In any case, I rate this one a clear 5 on my numerical scale.

  • Book: Hebrews

    Attridge, Harold W. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989. 437 pages.

    This is the second of two commentaries I have been spending a great deal of time with. The library managed to get both of them to me on the same day, loaned from different libraries–a shocking event!–and thus I worked with them in parallel.

    This is Harold W. Attridge’s volume in the Hermeneia series. I can say almost the same thing as I said about the last commentary, though the author is much less known. But Attridge has produced a commentary that goes right along with the standards expected of the Hermeneia series.

    Most criticisms of Biblical commentaries come from someone buying/borrowing the commentary with the wrong expectations. For example, the New International Commentary on the New Testament can expect material suitable to a serious Bible student or pastor. It is an extremely valuable series for the expository preacher. Hermeneia, on the other hand, is aimed at the scholar, and you should expect to have some trouble following it if you are not acquainted with major critical disciplines.

    This volume is no exception. It’s discussions of major critical issues are extremely strong, but you will find very little that can be imported directly into your sermons or Bible lessons. That shouldn’t be a complaint–that’s not the purpose of the volume. You will find many things that you can apply if you take the time to think about them and figure out the applications for yourself.

    I would recommend this to any scholar or serious Bible student with some background in critical disciplines. Some Greek will also be useful.

  • Book: The Book of Hebrews

    Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990. 426 pages.

    I’ve been reading and using F. F. Bruce’s commentary on Hebrews for the last few weeks, and it has to go back to the library tonight as I’ve exhausted my renewals, so I thought I’d write a few notes. For those acquainted with F. F. Bruce or the New International Commentary on the New Testament little comment is necessary. Essentially it’s what you would expect from that author in that series.

    For those who are not acquainted with author and series, this commentary manages an excellent compromise between scholarly depth and value for the pastoral library. If you ignore the footnotes you will find a great deal to incorporate into your expository teaching. The footnotes tend to bring in a great deal of technical detail that will be of interest only to those who know Greek or the various disciplines of Biblical criticism.

    This is an evangelical commentary which comes through especially in the application. It does not shy away from critical issues, however. Note that this is one of the older volumes, and so is based not on the NIV, but rather on the RSV and NEB. I do not, however, consider it too far out of date to be extremely useful.

    Generally I commend this commentary to the library of pastors or teachers who have a fair amount of background in Biblical studies. Biblical languages are optional, but will allow you to make more use of footnotes and some of the more advanced material. Pastors can expect to find useful material for sermons quickly and easily.

  • Isaiah 53: A Short Note on the Suffering Servant

    Yesterday Adrian was apparently surprised that anyone would question that the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 (or better, Isaiah 52:13-53:12) was Jesus. He said:

    The answer to the first question is very straightforward if you believe the bible is without error and Jesus can be trusted. For he himself tells us who the prophet is speaking of –


    Luke 22:37 For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.”

    So, can we now all accept that Isaiah 53 is about Jesus? Jesus himself might not have had a theological degree, but I do think we should take his exegesis seriously!

    Further, he is amazed that anyone could think that this passage was not about substitution:

    Now, as far as question 2 goes, I simply cannot see how Isaiah 53 can possibly be stripped of the idea of punishment and substitution. Dave Warnock claimed in this comment section to have found commentaries that disagree. . . .

    Let me look at these points in reverse. I quite agree that the ideas both of substitution (though I think it can be better expressed) and of punishment occur in Isaiah 53. There actually have been commentaries that claim that those concepts do not occur, but I am only aware of them by citation (and refutation) in Childs (Isaiah in the OTL), and Childs disposes of them pretty quickly.

    My question would be, “What of it?” I have thought that the ideas of substitution and punishment were present in Isaiah 53 since I can remember, but that doesn’t make the chapter support penal substitutionary atonement as it is being argued currently. If all folks want to prove is that the ideas of “substitution” and “punishment” occur in the Bible, I can concede their point. But it seems that they want me to buy the entire doctrine based on the presence of a couple of concepts.

    Since I believe that penal substitution is one valid expression of the atonement, I am scarcely surprised to find it in scripture. But thus far every person with whom I have debated this point has been unsatisfied with my calling PSA “one valid expression.” They want this one metaphor to be the sole expression. That is a narrowing of doctrine that I reject.

    So let me start by saying that both the ideas of substitution and punishment can be found in Isaiah 53. There are some additional points that I think should be emphasized, but they will only broaden the picture, not eliminate the concepts.

    So let me turn back to the question of whether this is Jesus. I’m going to try to abbreviate my comments, so please forgive me (and chastise me in comments) if I fail to cover all points. Traditionally there have been two extremes in the interpretation of Isaiah 53. The first is the more or less standard Christian view that this is a prophecy, or more precisely a predictive prophecy of the suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus. I’m referring to a simple, one-to-one relationship. Isaiah was talking specifically and exclusively about Jesus and Jesus specifically and exclusively fulfilled the prediction. The other extreme views the suffering servant as Israel collectively, suffering for their sins and the sins of the world in general, yet redeemed by God and restored.

    Informed readers will be able to point out difficulties with these interpretations very quickly. Isaiah 45:4 stands against the identification with Jesus by identifying the servant directly at Israel. Many interpreters see Isaiah 49:1-3 as a narrowing of this concept specifically to the prophet (or someone of whom he spoke) individually as a representative of Israel. In objection to understanding Israel as the servant one can present Isaiah 53:9 “done no violence” and “no deceit in his mouth.” It hardly seems likely that someone in the prophetic tradition would present Israel as totally innocent.

    There is an intermediate position (in fact, more than one, but I don’t want to write a small book here), which sees the servant firstly as the (reformed) remnant of Israel. In this case, the exiles, who will eventually be restored to Judea become the servant, despised by the remainder of the people (Ezekiel 11:1-13). This leaves us with not precisely substitution but a form of representative suffering, in which a small group suffers for a larger group. This concept would have been easier to comprehend in the ancient world, which was less individualistic. We think of offenses and punishments as personal things. I sin, Jesus dies for me, I am saved from sin. In that formulation there is no representative suffering; there is a simple swap. But we should take seriously the words of Hebrews 2:10-15 where Jesus is said to be perfected through suffering, and to be made “of one stock” (REB) with his brothers and sisters. This intermediate position is then completed with the identification of Jesus as the ultimate representative of Israel.

    Let me quote Wolf (Interpreting Isaiah: The Suffering and Glory of the Messiah, p. 215):

    The suffering and salvation of the nation led Isaiah to his fullest disclosure of the suffering and exaltation of the Servant, who is “Israel” par excellence. The fourth Servant Song describes the meaning of the death of Christ and its significance for a sinful world. . . .

    Now I’m not quoting Wolf in support of every element of my interpretation, but specifically in connecting the servant of the early songs, clearly identified as Israel, with the servant of Isaiah 53, with characteristics that are not as applicable.

    Here I would like to note my problems with Adrian’s approach of simply telling us that Jesus said it and we should respect Jesus’ exegesis. First, this approach is fairly weak if one is going to ever dialog with a non-Christian. Acts 8:26ff tells the story of the Ethiopian eunuch, which Adrian also references. Imagine if Philip used that approach. “You’re reading Isaiah 53? Well, there’s this guy who lived in Judea, and he said this applied to him.” I’m suspecting Philip’s approach was slightly more complex than that. If Jesus provided a good exegesis, one would hope a good exegete could provide an explanation.

    But second, I think that approach rips Isaiah 53 out of its context in Isaiah and loses us part of the understanding. If we start with the idea of Israel as God’s servant–a role to which they were called–we can then take the single step to the remnant who suffer, but not merely for their own transgressions. Many of them were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    Yet even a quick read of Isaiah 53 will leave you dissatisfied with that solution. Perhaps we’re talking about one heroic figure, contemporary with the prophet if one sees this as an exilic 2nd Isaiah (40-55), or someone amongst the exiles, to which most of the passages are primarily addressed. That is a useful idea, but nonetheless I don’t think it fully fulfills the promise of the passage.

    Both of those concepts, however, provide some context for the type of suffering which befell the ultimate servant. Just as the exiles receive God’s punishment from a foreign power that is God’s agent, so Jesus is crucified by the Romans. Just as the exiles were despised by those not taken, so Jesus is handed over for that punishment by his own people. The redemption is accomplished by God’s action exalting his servant and redeeming the many.

    I feel quite a lot like someone who has attacked a several acre field with a small garden hoe, but I’ll leave it at that. Let me commend to you both of the books (Wolf and Childs) that I have quoted in their comments on the servant songs. They provide a good survey and basis for further research.