On the road with Jesus in Mark

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Structures in Mark 2-3

 I know I'm supposed to be an OT guy now, but I'm preaching through Mark until Easter, and I can't help myself. There are some things which stand out, and I haven't noticed elsewhere, but help me make sense of it much better. 

Jesus, Justify Yourself! Mark 2:1-3:6

Following Francis Moloney, who sees 2:1-3:6 as part of "Jesus and the Jews" (1:14-3:6), it makes sense to go back to the beginning of chapter 2 to make sense of the five scenes (and not just because there's a nice chiasm he identifies).

2:1-12 Justifying forgiving sins before healing, to show that the key ailment is spiritual rather than physical, which demonstrates he has God's power to forgive.

2:13-17 Justifying calling Levi and eating with his friends in order to show that he has come to call sinners, that everyone who recognises they are sick is welcome in the kingdom of God.

2:18-22 Justifying not fasting in order to demonstrate that these days are new and special days, that Jesus is now with them, but will be taken away.

2:23-28 Justifying picking grain on the Sabbath in order to explain that God made Sabbaths for people to enjoy, not people to keep Sabbaths.

3:1-6 Justifying healing on the Sabbath to show God's intention is to save life, in contrast to the Pharisees who are willing to team up with the Herodians in order to kill.

So we can see that each of these short anecdotes in Mark 2:1-3:6 are about Jesus vindicating his and his disciples' actions, and showing how spurious the claims are which will lead ultimately to his death, which his opponents' will from then on pursue (3:6).

Something changes when we hit the next section, and then there is another change when we hit chapter 4, so how does this intervening section work?

Who really understands Jesus? Mark 3:7-35

3:20-35 is seen to be a Markan Sandwich, but the sections before are a little less clear. 3:7-12 is viewed as a summary of the crowds, while 3:13-19 a summary of the disciples, now that all twelve have been called.

However, I’m always on the lookout for parallels. The parallels between 3:20-21 and 3:31-35 present themselves with not too much work, but the clearest one in 3:7-19 I’ve not seen mentioned. The parallel is actually less clear in the Greek than the English, which takes the idea of "his family" (3:21 EVV) from the second half of the sandwich, namely 3:31-32. In 3:21 it only has the ambiguous “οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ” (those with him), which, in light of 31-32 is interpreted as "his family".

For me, the noting of the locations in 3:7 and 3:13 tell us that we are supposed to read these stories together. 3:7 talks about the sea, while 3:13 has them on a mountain. Both pericopes involve groups of people coming together around Jesus; in 3:7-10 it is the crowd, described by their geographical origin, who are coming to him to be healed, while in 3:13-19 his disciples are mentioned by name (and occasionally a little more information).

This leaves in the centre (3:11-12) the description of the behaviour of the unclean spirits, who alone understand and declare who Jesus is, “You are the Son of God.” Compare this with the centre of 3:20-35, namely 3:22-27, likewise a discussion of unclean spirits.

The question dominating these two pericopes (3:7-19; 3:20-35) is, “Who really understands Jesus?” The spirits alone truly understand who Jesus is, and the threat he poses to them. His family on the other hand think he’s crazy, thereby showing they aren’t truly his family; rather it’s whoever obeys God.

Interestingly, the phrase in the beginning which draws the crowd to him is “what he was doing” (ὅσα ἐποίει, 3:8); who is Jesus’ family at the end? “Whoever does the will of God.” (ὃς ἂν ποιήσῃ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ, 3:35). Jesus is doing the will of God, so he is the one they should follow.

I'm not sure whether this way of making sense of this section Mark 3:7-35 has been raised before, but with the ποιεω inclusio bracketing the two Markan Sandwiches centring on spirits, this seems a coherent way of understanding what's going on.

Getting behind Jesus in Mark

Ὸπίσω in Mark's first call narrative

We're in Mark for the next term, and I noticed something interesting with the preposition ὀπίσω (behind) in 1:17, 20. It occurs twice in the calling of the first disciples (1:16-20), once with each set of brothers. What I found interesting is that it occupies two different places in each calling, whereas it could easily have been within one or even both callings. 

The first time is in Jesus' call to Simon and Andrew, where he says to come "behind me", and their response is to follow (ὰκολουθέω) him: 

16-18 And going along the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew, the brother of Simon, casting into the sea, for they were fishermen. And Jesus said to them, “Come behind me, and I will make you become fishers of men.” And immediately leaving their nets, they followed him.

Ὸπίσω is in the call, but not in response. This contrasts with the second call, to James and John, where there is no speech, simply a report that he called them, and the response that they followed behind him:

19-20 And going on a little, he saw James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, and they were in the boat fixing the nets. And immediately he called them. And, leaving their father Zebedee in the boat with the workers, they departed behind him. 

It would have been easy enough to include ὀπίσω in the response in the first instance, or in the call in the second. Instead, what we in effect have is a bracketing together of the two calls of the two pairs of fishing brothers, the call with ὀπίσω in the first being concluded by the response with ὀπίσω in the second. 

Ὸπίσω elsewhere in Mark

Apart from the one time ὀπίσω occurs as an adjective (13:16), it occurs thrice outside of the call narrative. The first is in the introduction (1:7) as Jesus is previewed as the one who will come after John (ἔρχεται ... ὀπίσω μου). If we are able to link this with the calling of the disciples a paragraph later, then John is introducing Jesus as his disciple, albeit the disciple who will become the master. The cluster (if thrice within a chapter can be called a cluster) in the opening of the Gospel indicates that Jesus is to be followed rather than simply learned from.

The other uses of ὀπίσω are found around the turning point of Mark; twice in 8:33-34. This is the paragraph where Peter announces he believes Jesus to be the messiah, and where Jesus details what must happen to the Son of Man. Peter's defence of Jesus quickly leads to a rebuke, as he is told "Get behind me, Satan!" (ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου, σατανᾶ). This is then quickly turned into a teaching point, as he describes to his disciples the life of the one who "wishes to come after me" (θέλει ὀπίσω μου  ἀκολουθεῖν). 

Thinking through ὀπίσω in terms of discipleship, following on from chapter 1, indicates that this odd use of ὀπίσω both for Peter/Satan (8:33) and for true disciples (8:34) might be better understood together rather than separately. That is, for Peter to be told to "get behind me" might be not so much as a dismissal (go away from me) as a command to situate himself in the correct position (follow after me). Peter's problem was that he had gone out in front, trying to tell Jesus what to do, rather than behaving rightly as his disciple: following, learning and listening. 

That was his original calling (1:17) and to that he must return in order to be an authentic disciple of Jesus. 

Psalm 132 - Yhwh's great promises to David

Structure

Although this psalm does not have the heading "for David", it is easily the one most thoroughly soaked in talk of David. As I explain below, it is essentially a retelling of 2 Samuel 6-7. Like Psalm 130 this psalm has an ABAB structure. There is much repetition, and much correspondence, especially between the two B sections. The way I see it, each section has the introduction from the narrator, and then some speech, first from David, then Israel, then Yhwh in the past, then Yhwh looking to the future. The sections have different lengths (respectively, 10,10,8,12), but each AB pair has 20 stichs (which should correspond to the number of lines in the setting out in of most translations), giving the psalm a nice balance.

A intro 1-2 Remember when David swore to Yhwh

speech 3-5 David's vow to build Yhwh's house

B intro 6 The excitement of hearing of David's vow

speech 7-10 The people encourage Yhwh to dwell in Zion

A` intro 11a-b When Yhwh swore to David

speech 11c-12 Yhwh's vow to build David's house

B` intro 13 When Yhwh chose to dwell Zion

speech 14-18 Yhwh's promises to David in the future

Each section has Yhwh and David; in the two A sections they are adjacent, while in the B sections they are not. Furthermore Yhwh and "the mighty one of Jacob" occurs with one word separating them, twice in the first A section (v2,5). Otherwise the first AB section reuses the word "tabernacle" or "tent" (v5,7), and the second A`B` sections reuse the phrase עדי־עד (for ever ever, v12,14). Apart from these, most of the correspondence is between the two A sections and between the two B sections.

1-5; 11-12

The first of these is unsurprisingly נשׁבע - he swore. They both occur in the respective headings of their sections (v2,11), as the respective oaths of David and Yhwh are introduced. The oaths themselves are discussed in both respects with the conditional אם (if); thrice in v3-4a (and assumed in 4b) and once in 12a. In the case of David's oath, this is a Hebrew oddity where it forms the first half of a phrase but where the second half remains unstated. "If I do x before y (then may something bad happen to me)." So in this case, David's oath is that he will not care for his own interests - by going home or lying down or having a nap - before he builds Yhwh a house. But if he does, then something bad may happen to him. 

The second A section (11-12) reuses אם just the once, but in a positive sense, so that if David's descendants do indeed obediently follow Yhwh, then they will sit on his throne forever.  Interestingly the word order is "then your sons for ever and ever will sit on your throne", so that it's not "for ever and ever" which finish the thought, but "your throne" to be the note to finish this thought on. It's not the length, but the place, which is at the forefront.

6-10; 13-18

There are more repetitions between the B sections, with "resting place" being found in v8 and v14, as well as "anointed one" (lit. "messiah") in v10 and 17. The discussions about the priests and steadfast ones in v9 and 16 are repeated almost verbatim.

9	16
כהניך ילבשׁו־זדק	וכהניה אלבישׁ ישׁע
וחסידיך ירננו	וחסידיה רנן ירננו

The perspectives are obviously different - v8 is from the perspective of the people and v16 is Yhwh speaking, but otherwise there are two notable differences. The first is the clothing: v9 the priests will be clothed with righteousness; v16 the priests will be clothed with salvation. The second difference is the enthusiasm with which steadfast ones will rejoice - in v16 the verb is repeated, such that they will certainly, or enthusiastically, sing for joy (רנן).

Both B sections speak then of the joy of a restored Zion; in v6 it is boasted of from far away, while in v13 it is ensured because Yhwh has chosen (or desired - v13, 14) to choose that as his dwelling place. The places mentioned here - Ephrathah and Ja'ar - are interesting choices. David is said to be an Ephrathite, as Bethlehem was in the area of Ephrathah. We have Judah>Ephrathah>Bethlehem. So in David's home region it is heard that something is happening in Jerusalem. But it is found out also in "the fields of Ja'ar" - which is interesting in the other way - it's very confusing what this might mean. 

Everywhere else in the Bible Ja'ar is translated "forest", but the weirdness of saying "the fields of the forest" has led translators to go instead with "the fields of Ja'ar", assuming that there is some other place (maybe alternate name for Ephrathah?) which is actually called "Ja'ar." There are three options:

1. there is a place called Ja'ar that isn't recorded anywhere else
2. there is a field in a forest
3. there is a typo (NIV footnote suggests Jearim or Je'arim - which just means forests rather than forest)
4. Ja'ar is an alternate name for Ephrathah

It could well be that we are to read the two stichs of v6 in parallel, so that, rather than opposite ends of the land like in 120:5 (Meshek and Kedar), Ephrathah and Ja'ar are more or less the same place. If Ephrathah is or was largely a wooded region, then the places people would live and farm within it would the fields, so I think option 3 probably makes the most sense, and that the name was given it because it was a wooded place.

The story of the psalm

In terms of the story this tells, it all hinges around the person of and promises to David. It revolves around the goings on in 2 Samuel 6-7 where the ark of Yhwh (cf. v8 ark of your power) is brought to Jerusalem and David intends to build a house for Yhwh (v2-5). The intent (or vow, v2) is turned on its head, as instead Yhwh swears (v11a) that he instead will build David a house his servant (v10), promises that his descendants will rule after him (v11b-12). 

The final section of the psalm seems to be more eschatological and hoping despite hope, possibly betraying a post-exilic context. Although her priests may be clothed in sackcloth now, "Her priests I will clothe with salvation" (v16). The line of David may not look like much now, but as with Isaiah 11 (although with different lexemes), Yhwh will cause David's line to "sprout" once again, and he will light his path. The glory that his enemies now enjoy will be turned into shame, will be taken from them and given to the anointed descendant of David.

The image used in v18b continues that begun in v17a. The horn which sprouted there is linked to a crown which "blossoms." The messiah is something of a tree - planted by and nurtured by Yhwh. Just as blossoms come from a tree at the right time of year, so too will Yhwh's chosen one be crowned. This quite beautiful imagery of a floral crown is in obvious contrast with the crown of thorns worn by Jesus as he was proclaimed king, but the irony of course is that the ones who crowned him in jest had their joking turned to shame, as Jesus rose like blossoms on a tree which otherwise seemed dead.

How do you solve a problem like Samaria?

Not the Samaritan woman. (c) 20th Century Fox

In John 4 we meet a Samaritan woman, and the question of her heritage is an important one. Indeed, several times we encounter the people called the Samaritans in the NT, but we don't really know much of them and it's hard to say with much precision exactly who they are.

Bible

The OT references are mostly within 1-2 Kings and 2 Chronicles, although there are a smattering of references in Ezra-Nehemiah and in the prophets (Isa, Jer, Eze, Hos, Amos, Obad, Mic).

In the NT there are far fewer references. In  Matthew 10 Jesus tells his missionaries to go nowhere among the Samaritans. In Luke 9 Jesus is not welcomed by a Samaritan village, although he rebuffs the suggestions of his disciples to nuke the town. In Luke 10 the Samaritan is portrayed positively against the unneighbourly Jews, and similarly, in Luke 17, in a border region between Galilee and Samaria only the Samaritan can be bothered thanking Jesus for his miraculous cleansing. Skipping, for the moment, over the extended discussion in John 4, in John 8 'Samaritan' is hurled as an epithet meant to discredit Jesus. Briefly, in Acts, Jesus' prohibition in Matthew 10 is overturned, as the disciples are commanded to go there in Acts 1, and this is followed up in chapter 8 with an official mission to the Samaritans.

If we might summarise, there is a movement from Samaritans and Samaria as a region where Jews are not welcome, where a Jew should expect no help from a Samaritan, and it is only the death and resurrection of Jesus that properly extends the good news to these people and this region.

It might be noted that geographically there is something of an oddity in the NT region we know as Israel/Palestine. The Jewish regions are in the north (Galilee) and south (Judea), while Samaria is in the centre of the land, causing an annoying detour for pilgrims from the north who would head to the temple for the festivals.

The disciples correcting ethnic stereotypes about Samaritans. From That Mitchell and Webb Look.

As a social media relationship status might indicate, 'it's complicated'.

Going Back

The region is in many ways the spiritual home of Israel. It is the geographical centre of Israel, and Shechem, in the centre, is where Jacob's well was bought. But then there was Joseph, Egypt, the Exodus, the period of the Judges, and then the early monarchy, and everything was (relatively) happy. But when Solomon's son Rehoboam took some poor advice, the ten northern tribes split from Judah, taking the name Israel as well as all the northern land (~930BC). For pragmatic reasons - the text makes very clear (1 Kg 12.28) - he set up two golden calves, repeating (doubling!) the sin of Israel in the Exodus (34), declaring them Israel's delivering gods. 2 Kings 17 explains this as one of the key reasons, two centuries later, that Yhwh delivered Israel into the hands of Assyria for destruction. 

We know the same thing happened 150 years later to Judah by Babylon, but there was a difference in foreign policies. The Babylonians settled the Judahites largely together, while the Israelites were scattered, deprived of their national identity, and the region was resettled with similarly dispossessed peoples from other Assyrian conquests. All this meant there was very little identity left for those living in the land by the end of the 6th Century when Judah was returned and allowed to rebuild their temple.

However, and this is where it gets interesting, it seems the Samaritans (if we may call them that) had built their own temple now on Mount Gerizim, next to Shechem, and this stands behind their strong opposition to Judah rebuilding in Jerusalem - jealousy. The Judeans (as we might now call them) however prevailed, and what might have been a polytheistic and idolatrous worship was now a firmly established monotheism, with their scriptures what is now known as the Samaritan Pentateuch. This is much the same as the Pentateuch known elsewhere as the five books of Moses, but there are several additions and revisions to emphasise the importance of Gerizim and Samaria over Jerusalem (such as the extended verse following the Decalogue).

By Jesus' time there was no temple left, as the Judeans had destroyed this in 128BC as retribution for Samaria allying themselves against them in a war, which leads us to the discussion we see in John 4, which prompted this investigation.

John 4

After establishing that Jews and Samaritans have greatly impaired relationships (John 4.9), although not so bad that Jews may not purchase food from them (4.8), the Samaritan woman takes control of the conversation by asking Jesus to explain the riddle with which we began this investigation: how do you solve a problem like Samaria?

“Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.”” (John 4.20 NIV11)

We don't have a temple on our mountain; you do; are you telling me that you're right and we're wrong? The question of 'where' one may worship is all important, as this has been the dividing factor for nine centuries. The Jewish (ironic) answer would have been yes, although their temple would only remain extant another 40 years. Jesus however has a different answer, as he explains that behind the 'where' is ultimately the 'who', and the 'who' to which the temple points is standing right in front of her. 

It is probably fair to say the temple Jesus is saying refers to himself is the Jerusalem temple, but he does not seem at all concerned by this. Something greater than the temple is here, for Jews, for Samaritans, and indeed for the whole world.

Matthew 22.34-46 and the Shema

still thinking about the trinity (first talk this Sunday. see previous post for details).

in Deuteronomy 6, we have the Shema: "Hear O Israel, the Lord your God is One." and following that is the command to love your neighbour as yourself.

and then when Jesus in Matthew 22 quotes the command, which sums up all the prophets, it's interesting that he follows it with a question about Psalm 110, one of the most popular texts in the NT for pointing to Jesus' identity as the Christ.

So my question is, is Jesus (or the evangelist) saying something about the Shema, in particular, questioning the identity of Yhwh as a monad, and perhaps making room in the description of Yhwh for the Christ?

or is there not really much of a link between Matt 22.34-40 and Matt 22.41-46? (or is it just a different link?)

Jesus the Leper

three thoughts on Mark 1.40-45

1

people with disfiguring skin ailments weren't allowed in camp with the rest of Israel, they had to be outside the camp, in desolate places, calling 'Unclean! Unclean!' to warn people away from them. (See Lev 13)

Jesus met such a person, and what is particularly striking is the way he took the man's place. the man is unclean, outcast, rejected, excluded - and Mark tells us Jesus was himself in such a place, where he met the man, and remained in that place. yet the man was healed, cleansed, and was able to join again into his society.

furthermore, Jesus was killed, cursed, and buried outside the city walls. the life the man was condemned to live Jesus took.

2

after Jesus healed the man he told him to present himself to the priest, to fulfil the law in offering the appropriate sacrifices. (See Lev 14) but we are told by Mark, he instead went and told people about Jesus.

i wonder whether the reason he didn't offer a sacrifice is because the true sacrifice was standing there right in front of him. he was both physically clean, yet through faith he understood that Jesus also had cleansed him on the inside.

3

the issue of the messianic secret pops up here also. for the uninitiated (and please correct me if i've remembered this wrong), this is the idea suggested by Wrede that Jesus was a failed messiah, like many others. therefore he wanted to keep the whole subject secret. this explains why it was only after his death (and particularly with Paul's missionary activity) that people began to acknowledge him as the messiah.

this was countered by others who read the synoptic gospels as primarily historical, and that if Jesus told people to say nothing, then that's what he did. the reason? he had a plan, and being outed as the messiah anytime before 'the hour' was not on - he had his own divine schedule and it was the resurrection, rather than any miracles or preaching, that would reveal his true identity.

from a narrative position, i wonder whether the messianic secret is there for the benefit of the readers. as we read him telling people not to tell anyone, we say - as if you couldn't! it's obvious who he is! what excuse could an ex-leper make to explain his healing?! - reinforcing in the reader who we know Jesus to be - the messiah, the beloved son of God.



looking forward to Dave's talk on Mark 1.40-45 this sunday at wildstreet@5 - see what he has to say!

Jesus :: Man or Muse?

Something i was thinking through last year was how the theology of the gospels affected their historicity. it was interesting to read of the recent NT Wright conference via Mark Thompson's blog, particularly Richard Hay's criticism that Wright's approach makes the individual voices of the evangelists disappear (see the third paragraph of this summary of the conference).

and this was exactly my issue with the attention on the historical followed by Schweitzer, re-appropriated by Wright and even Paul Barnett - we can continue on our 'Quest'*, but what are we truly seeking to find?

the Jesus we are presented with is at once the historical man who lived, died, rose, and ascended; but we also meet him as the apostles knew him and convey him to us. and this is no tension, but elements that amplify each other.

image from schweitzer's book

*the abbreviated title of Schweitzer's 'Quest of the Historical Jesus' - also an abbreviated title for a longer English, for an even longer German title!

Jesus in you

i haven't yet read a Greek Grammar textbook and said 'oh wow'. but i did say 'that's really interesting' after reading the section on the preposition Πρός (pros).* i've always assumed the idea of 'asking Jesus into your heart' was a Biblical idea, talking about what you do when you become a Christian.

it seems the place this comes from is Revelation 3:20 (hovering should show the verse). but what does it mean to come in to (not into), and to whom is Jesus talking to?

anyway, long story short, the people he's talking to are already Christians, who are being lukewarm in the way they're living out their lives. and εἰσελεύσομαι πρός (eiseleusomai pros [enter in]+[to]) always has the idea in the NT of coming in toward/before someone/thing.

so what we can say is that it's not an offer of salvation, but a consequence thereof. and i would want to say it's a 'being with' idea, not 'dwelling within' - the verse continues with a shared meal, which would otherwise be parasitic!!! it's about fellowship with Jesus.

i was going to finish off this post talking about the fact that the holy spirit is who does dwell within the heart of the believer - but the closest i can find is 1 Corinthians 6:19 and 2 Timothy 1:14, but even they are inconclusive - especially 2 Timothy which could just as well be translated 'among us' (ἐν ἡμιν - en hemin) whilst 1 Corinthians talks about the Holy Spirit being in 'the body' of 'youse' - part of the theme of the picture of a church being one body, with Christ as the head.

where do we get this idea of inhabitation? sci-fi?
where else in the bible???

i guess if anything, it puts the emphasis back on salvation being relational.

* pp380 in Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan 1996

religious? moi?

i listen to the radio a bit. mostly to 702 ABC Sydney. they often have interviews with various people, and they often get asked the 'so are you religious?' question.

and i can't remember yet hearing anyone say 'no'. and this frustrates me. partly because making up your own religion doesn't make you religious; if anything it says you're deluded. secondly because being superstitious about which sock you donn first does not equate with trusting that your eternal salvation is in the hands of something or someone greater than yourself.

but i think the final reason i find such a response so frustrating is that i spend so much of my time trying to explain that i'm NOT religious, that Christianity is a-religious, that Jesus didn't spend much time going around exonerating the religious leaders of his day, rather hammered them for being false shepherds, hired men, duplicitous wolves. i therefore go to great lengths explaining the difference between following Jesus and religion.

am i right to do this? or in this culture of postmodernity does everyone have the right to determine for themselves what religion entails?

sermon downloads a plenty

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATE:

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

the authentic Jesus

up at nextgen (formerly known as KYLC), a week-long conference where leaders of youth and kids are taught and trained to be better able to teach the youth and kids they disciple about Jesus.

the morning talks have been on Jesus' discourse on the Spirit in John (14:22-17:26), and by Grant Retief (from RSA).

he said (on 16:12-15) that we ought to submit to the apostolic interpretation of the ministry of Jesus because the promised Holy Spirit will teach the disciples, he is the promised Spirit of Revelation.
Thus (and this is my thinking), what does this say to the quests for the historical Jesus? the reconstruction of his life apart from, or behind, the obviously slanted teaching in the gospels. that is, knowing there is a purpose (ie that - in John's words - that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God, and that by believing, you may have life in his name), means that we're not getting a facts-only view of Jesus of Nazareth.
so is there a point in seeking to discover him apart from the gospels and epistles - finding the Jesus that is not portrayed through the filter of the paraclete?
what should we say to people with projects like John Carroll's The existential Jesus?

i'm really interested to find out - but i wonder why? am i dissatisfied with the Jesus revealed to me by the prophets by the Spirit? why do i have this insatiable desire to be able to picture Jesus banging away at an A-Frame* in Capernaum by the Sea of Tiberias?

* the word on the street is that Jesus wasn't so much a french-polisher or a cabinet maker, but a carpenter who builds houses. which a chippie friend of mind says says a lot about Jesus - not about the showy-heights of cabinet making, but the grunt work of foundation building. but that's exactly the kind of stuff i'm talking about - why do we want to know this stuff!

The Mohammed that never was

a German Islamic scholar has obviously had a call from his superiors to get a bit of controversy generated, so he's come out and said that, as far as he can tell, the evidence would seem to suggest that Mohammed never existed. well, i wonder what he would say if someone told him HE didn't exist? probably not a lot - eh? not much you can say when you're gone in a puff of logic.

seriously though folks, i remember when the controversy (=bad history+james cameron television crew) about the misnamed 'Jesus' Family Tomb', and people remembered the comments by the west australian primate, saying that he didn't think finding the bones of Jesus would harm people's faith to any huge extent. now, whilst he may have some supporters in Spong and co, he obviously has a different conception of a God who reveals himself in history in the man Jesus Christ.

but what effect would it have on Muslims, i humbly enquire, if it were proved beyond reasonable doubt that Mohammed never were? Don Carson once said he thought, not much. at the end of the day, the Qur'an is the way Muslims know God. not thru their prophet. that he happened to use Mohammed is seen to be the physical conduit Allah chose to use is by the by - what matters is that Allah gave the Qur'an to all the Muttaqun that they may obey him in all righteousness.

sure, Mohammed may have been a good example of following Allah, but he was hardly the first - all the old testament prophets are listed as part of his forerunners in the faith.

it may be this will lead to anger, but i hope not. indeed, it may challenge Muslims to rethink about their functional deification of Mohammed, and to consider how it is they can truly know God - how it may be that he has made himself known.

pre-incarnate souls?

a couple of years ago a friend asked whether i believed we all existed eternally. whether 'you' and 'i' were beings, in the broadest sense possible, since before the creation of the world, and existing until after it's wrapped up again.

he was come from a broadly 'spiritualist' position i guess, partly buddhist, partly hindu, partly his own thinking - your average 'western spiritualist' for lack of a better category.

i went straight to Ephesians 1 -

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavens, in Christ; 4 for He chose us in Him, before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless in His sight. In love 5 He predestined us to be adopted through Jesus Christ for Himself, according to His favour and will, 6 to the praise of His glorious grace that He favoured us with in the Beloved.

- and i sort of agreed with him, that we were in some sense 'existent', in that we were an idea in God's 'mind', thus in some sense, sure, we are before and after all created 'stuff'.

i hadn't thought about it much since then until this morning, rereading this passage, plus the thinking i've done since reading The Fire that Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment by Edward Fudge.

although not coming to the same conclusions as him regarding hell (see this post among others over at Soli-Deo-Honoria for some great thoughts on this), i appreciate his courage to question the axiom of eternal human souls.

and as i re-read Ephesians 1:1-2:10, i feel that it's not so much about us, as about Christ; that to draw too much out regarding ourselves is not being faithful to the passage. it feels as though the gist is 'because of Jesus, the fate of anyone who is linked to him is as if they were there with Jesus before creation, so secure is their fate.'

i wouldn't want to push this too far, but to say that i'm not so certain we are pre-existent sprites, who for a time inhabit human frames, being incarnate for a time until we are released again into a spiritual reality, much like the gnostics and other spiritualists would conjecture.

indeed, any spiritual existence, if any, is for the short time between our deaths and the new creation, when we will again be bodily beings.

Christocentrism

sometimes I get a bit over Christocentrism.
it’s not that I don’t agree that all the scriptures point to Christ. But I always thought Christ came to show us God -

No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, [Jesus] has made him known. John 1:18

If the Bible is God’s self revelation, Christ is the Word of God, revealing God to us – then why do we always talk about reading and preaching Christocentrically?
Jesus is about revealing to us God
Jesus is about reconciling us to God
Jesus is about bringing us into God’s Kingdom
Jesus is about bringing about God’s Kingdom
and on top of all that, Jesus is God
so why Christocentric?
why not Theocentric – you cover Christocentric anyway.

i think a little levity on this would make free preachers up to preach God from all the Scriptures. To preach God, who is revealed throughout his scriptures, who is revealed in Jesus, but also reveals himself to us as he relates with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; with Jepthah, Gideon and Barak, with Rahab, Ruth and Rehoboam.
i think as we then preach God, we will preach Christ – the Son of God; we will preach the Holy Spirit, we will preach the whole host of God’s revelation to us in his Word, as well as in his words.

if you're wondering why i've been moved to write this? listening to some Dale Ralph Davis talks from last year's SMBC Preaching Conference as he worked through Judges and some other OT narrative passages, i am thinking more and more that we are allowed to just preach God.
it may be that the pressure i feel to make everything Christocentric is from a perceived lack of this around the world, but the error of not preaching Christocentrically is not preaching Theocentrically, but moralistic sermonising. so as a reaction to doing bad biblical theology i can understand the emphasis on Christocentrism, but that's not the direction i'm wanting to go.
make sense?

today tonight is not on this weekend

probably just for programming reasons, but still - convinced that Jesus was a crazy, or if not, then a con, what do you do with the resurrection?

what do you do with THAT, Anna Coren?
my guess, going off "current affairs'" form, is to just ignore the past, and turn it into a puff piece, a nice break from the harsh exposés of the last couple of days. I could imagine it going a little something like this:

little palestinian battler, the boy from the bush made good, the unassuming chippie from the north-west keeps a promise that was made a long long time ago

all they then need is a few emotional friends and relo's talkin' him up, maybe a party, and a slow-mo with some moving background music, perhaps even Jessie, or something similarly moving; a montage of key events - hanging out in the temple with the grown ups (the little rascal), reading from Isaiah in the synagogue, losing it in the temple, healing blind Bartimaeus, holding the little children in one arm, a lamb in the other (or perhaps even a velociraptor, and of course the plethora of emotions flowing out of his arrest and crucifixion.
of course the climax (of the montage, as well as the song), comes when Jesus is running out of the tomb, magically transported to the beach, running towards Mary and the disciples, who all fall down in slow-motion, giggling and laughing and crying because they're so happy.

can you think of a better reaction? i can't.

this post probably makes a little more sense in the light of Friday's and Saturday's posts. and if you've read C.S. Lewis anywhere on Liar, Lord or Lunatic

Christ is risen;
He is risen indeed!

Christotypism

i may have already mentioned my sermon series on Lamentations, thankfully the moose is up. it's done, done, done.

i had a squiz at the Perspective website (a resource set up by a bunch of pastors with helpful tips for preachers)

for interest's sake i had a look, and they gave three ways of looking at the OT, and specifically the book of Lamentations;

1/ A Christotelic Approach - Jesus the fulfillment of the OT. OT sets up the problem, Jesus is sent by God as the solution to them.

2/ A Christotypic Approach - the OT provides the shadow, Jesus is the epitome.

3/ An Exemplary Approach - look at the examples of good and bad. learn from it.

(this was from Bryson Smith's outline - not to be confused with Byron Smith)


i think there are places for all three of these approaches.

my previous post refers to a group who may use 3/ a whole heap, i'm not sure of the extent of the other two.

in our church's series on the story of life used 1/ a heap more.

going through Lamentations, a few years ago i would definitely have used 1/ and 3/. but this time around it was 2/ all the way.


it was hard, it felt almost wrong to say that Jerusalem was a "type" of Christ. the language is of Jerusalem being the annointed one, God's holy one, almost messianic. [like the (relatively) new Jewish reading of Isaiah 52-53.]

Jesus came as Jerusalem, was punished as Jerusalem.

and thinking through the atonement after having read Lamentations in a Christotypic way made it a whole lot clearer.

and i pray this was also true for the fellow-travellers.

who da king?

on a recent holiday in Geelong (about 1hr west-south-west of Melbourne) i watched Taladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby, a fairly ordinary hollywood film, replete with a few guffaw-worthy scenes, my favourite was the one that was also on the ad (so just watch the trailer - no need to watch the rest of the film).there was Ricky Bobby and his wife sitting around the table, overflowing with his sponsors' food, and he starts to give thanks, saying, "Dear Lord Baby Jesus," and then proceeds to give thanks for his "hot wife", kids (Walker and Texas Ranger), as well as his sponsors for their gracious provision of food.

his wife then gets a little narky with his constant rememberance of Jesus as a baby; "he did grow up you know!"

isn't it funny how hollywood sometimes hits the nail right on the head?

he did grow up, he did die. and (perhaps surprising to those with nightmarish visions of this half-naked man eternally hanging on a cross), he did rise again from the dead.

yet, as we read from Matthew 2 this Sunday, he "was born king". He didn't become king, didn't kill off anyone and everyone who in his paranoia may have been a rival (c/f Herod, most of the successors to Jereboam's throne).

no; he was born king, with no regent, predecessor nor successor.

his life on earth was what it was, not that he might become king, but because he already was.

And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Philippians 2:7b-11

WSBI 3

well, WSBI has begun! incarnate as WaSaBI, the first week: last week, was well attended and was quite encouraging.

the topic was Sanctification, and much to our collective amazement, it seems the picture the Bible paints is one of positional sanctification. this means that Sanctification (in essence, becoming more like Jesus), is something that has been done: in God's eyes we are sanctified, as well as being justified (declared right).
so it's not just that because we have been justified, we are now acceptable to God, and therefore over time we will become more like Jesus, or more sanctified - rather, our identity as Christians is now one of being positionally sanctified, as it says in 1Peter2:9,

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

as for style, it was a bit more MYCesque, more group work, whereas i was thinking more along the lines of a talk, followed by some small group stuff. but the presenter did an admirable job.

so the 2nd one kicks off in a fortnight, with the hopefully juicy topic of sin. John Macarthur (not Mark Driscoll as i previously believed) said that, 'If I had one hour to tell somebody the
gospel, I'd spend 55 minutes on sin, five minutes on everything else.'


will keep you posted...

something worse than abortion

the untouchables series at church have been interesting and engaging, to say the least. they were on racism, homosexuality, abortion and church and state. a step away from the week-to-week exegetical preaching we're used to, the topical talks have been a good point for engagement with the community.

the angle that wasn't looked at, at least explicitly, was from the perspective of retrieval ethic. mainly associated with (i think) Reinhold Niebuhr (but also Michael Hill of Moore College), it's looking at questions that would, should be open and shut, were we living in a perfect world.

but since we aren't, questions such as "war", are actually not as simple as "war's bad", because, using the paradigm of the retrieval ethic, there may be "worse things than war", such as (to use the Niebuhr example) Hitler ruling the world! that is not to say there should be no boundaries, no rules of engagement, no limits - but that pacifism isn't necessarily the answer, as so many who quote John 18:36 may claim:

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”

likewise, i think the same may apply to the question of abortion. we see the "right to lifers" coming to blows with the "pro-choicers", in much the same way as pacifists come at the warmongers.

it's not about the 3rd way or the middle path; rather accepting doing the best we can in this fallen world to be compassionate, merciful and just, recognising that we are under God.


anything we can therefore do is not going to reverse the curse, nor should that be in our minds.

1 Chronicles 29:11-12 Yours, O Lord, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the majesty, for all that is in the heavens and in the earth is yours. Yours is the kingdom, O Lord, and you are exalted as head above all.
Both riches and honor come from you, and you rule over all. In your hand are power and might, and in your hand it is to make great and to give strength to all.