- In verses 1-2, Mark tells us that the Passover was near, and that the leaders of Israel were looking for a way to kill Jesus.
- In verses 3-9, we are told how Jesus was anointed at Bethany, in preparation for his burial.
- In verses 10-11, Judas goes to the leaders of Israel to betray Jesus to them.
Showing posts with label Gospel of Mark. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gospel of Mark. Show all posts
Saturday, 23 October 2010
The lamb is prepared
Mark 14:1-11 (which I'll preach tomorrow, God-willing) is a very interesting passage in its structure:
Saturday, 11 September 2010
The stone the builders rejected
Jesus is the "stone the builders rejected". The parable he told in Mark 12:1-12 is quite remarkable - as ahead of time, he explained and warned the leaders of Israel of exactly what they were doing... and indeed, the parable enraged them and pushed them further in going ahead and doing it!
But though the builders rejected it, he is the one chosen of the Lord, and it is marvellous in the eyes of those who truly love God.
It will be the same with the church of Christ today. The builders of our societies and political leaders will commonly think nothing of the word of God or the people of God. But God shall overturn their verdicts, and establish his work all the same; a work which will last, when all that man is trying to built has crumbled away to nothing - a work which God is doing even today, all over the world.
But though the builders rejected it, he is the one chosen of the Lord, and it is marvellous in the eyes of those who truly love God.
It will be the same with the church of Christ today. The builders of our societies and political leaders will commonly think nothing of the word of God or the people of God. But God shall overturn their verdicts, and establish his work all the same; a work which will last, when all that man is trying to built has crumbled away to nothing - a work which God is doing even today, all over the world.
Friday, 27 August 2010
The blind and the lame
The Bible is full of echoes. The more you study the Bible in trust and obedience, the more you'll hear them. It's part of what convinces me that the Bible is the word of God... the echoes are so many, so meaningful, and so multi-layered, that it's immensely beyond the genius of any man to construct such an interplay - especially when those echoes are in different books by different human authors spanning the centuries.
Of course, you always have to ask yourself if you're hearing a real echo or not, or if you've been a bit fanciful. And you have to interpret exactly what is being said through the echo - what are the intended implications?
Sometimes something comes up rather wonderfully just through the different combinations of reading that you may be involved in - your personal studies, studies at church and in family, etc.
Here's one that I've just seen for the first time today, one part from my own reading and another through preparing a sermon. I'm going to quote the first passage in the ESV, because I think the interpretation of the rather obscure passage is rather good, keeping a literal idiom whilst making its meaning clear. This is 2 Samuel 15:3-9, describing how David established his kingdom over all Israel, coming to Jerusalem:
When King David came to claim his kingdom, his enemies (the Jebusites) posited the blind and the lame as his enemies. They were of course speaking mockingly - even the blind and lame would defeat him! But David rose to the challenge, and came to claim his kingdom.
Here in Matthew the true David comes to claim his kingdom in Jerusalem, having ridden in on the king's donkey and come to visit his house (the temple) - and the blind and the lame are there to great him; not as posited enemies, but as his welcomers and friends, those whom he heals. Jesus came to bringing healing and peace to the nations (hence he rode the donkey, not the war-horse), not judgment and death. But notice by implication, that the scribes and the chief priests have taken the position of the cursed Canaanite Jebusites. As Jesus came to visit to judge/cleanse the temple he was purging it of the evils that had grown up under their oversight, and hence it was a fairly clear rebuke to them. But instead of receiving the rebuke, the rejected it and the rebuker. They identified themselves as instead of being God's chosen leaders, being Jehovah's enemies those who (ultimately in AD70) were the class waiting to be destroyed by the true David's determined vengeance.
Of course, you always have to ask yourself if you're hearing a real echo or not, or if you've been a bit fanciful. And you have to interpret exactly what is being said through the echo - what are the intended implications?
Sometimes something comes up rather wonderfully just through the different combinations of reading that you may be involved in - your personal studies, studies at church and in family, etc.
Here's one that I've just seen for the first time today, one part from my own reading and another through preparing a sermon. I'm going to quote the first passage in the ESV, because I think the interpretation of the rather obscure passage is rather good, keeping a literal idiom whilst making its meaning clear. This is 2 Samuel 15:3-9, describing how David established his kingdom over all Israel, coming to Jerusalem:
3 So all the elders of Israel came to the king at Hebron, and King David made a covenant with them at Hebron before the Lord, and they anointed David king over Israel. 4 David was thirty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned forty years. 5 At Hebron he reigned over Judah seven years and six months, and at Jerusalem he reigned over all Israel and Judah thirty-three years. 6 And the king and his men went to Jerusalem against the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land, who said to David, “You will not come in here, but the blind and the lame will ward you off”—thinking, “David cannot come in here.” 7 Nevertheless, David took the stronghold of Zion, that is, the city of David. 8 And David said on that day, “Whoever would strike the Jebusites, let him get up the water shaft to attack ‘the lame and the blind,’ who are hated by David's soul.” Therefore it is said, “The blind and the lame shall not come into the house.” 9 And David lived in the stronghold and called it the city of David. And David built the city all around from the Millo inward. 10 And David became greater and greater, for the Lord, the God of hosts, was with him.Now, in Matthew 21:1ff we read how the Son of David - a central theme of Matthew's - came to claim his kingdom in Jerusalem, as he headed into the final week and to the cross. The Lord comes suddenly to his temple, and symbolically purges it - anticipating the greater purging that was to come in AD70. And lo and behold, in this passage the same characters - the blind and the lame - appear as back in 2 Samuel when his predecessor came to his:
14 And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple, and he healed them. 15 But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying out in the temple, “Hosanna to the Son of David!” they were indignant, 16 and they said to him, “Do you hear what these are saying?” And Jesus said to them, “Yes; have you never read, ‘Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies you have prepared praise’?”It's an echo - no doubt about that; too much is correlated for it to be a coincidence. But how to construe it? What was Matthew, and ultimately the Holy Spirit, hinting at? Here's my stab:
When King David came to claim his kingdom, his enemies (the Jebusites) posited the blind and the lame as his enemies. They were of course speaking mockingly - even the blind and lame would defeat him! But David rose to the challenge, and came to claim his kingdom.
Here in Matthew the true David comes to claim his kingdom in Jerusalem, having ridden in on the king's donkey and come to visit his house (the temple) - and the blind and the lame are there to great him; not as posited enemies, but as his welcomers and friends, those whom he heals. Jesus came to bringing healing and peace to the nations (hence he rode the donkey, not the war-horse), not judgment and death. But notice by implication, that the scribes and the chief priests have taken the position of the cursed Canaanite Jebusites. As Jesus came to visit to judge/cleanse the temple he was purging it of the evils that had grown up under their oversight, and hence it was a fairly clear rebuke to them. But instead of receiving the rebuke, the rejected it and the rebuker. They identified themselves as instead of being God's chosen leaders, being Jehovah's enemies those who (ultimately in AD70) were the class waiting to be destroyed by the true David's determined vengeance.
Saturday, 21 August 2010
Behold your king
Just over 2 1/2 years ago, I began teaching through Mark's gospel in the Kijiji slum in Nairobi. Then we moved to Eldoret, and I began again from the start of the book, preaching on Sunday mornings when it was my "turn".
We've now reached chapter 11, where Jesus at last enters Jerusalem, the end of a long road - openly showing and declaring himself (and having the people declare him) to be the promised Messiah, come now to bring salvation to God's people, riding the donkey of prophecy (Zechariah 9:9). It feels like we've been travelling with him for those years as the disciples did - watching, listening and learning. The repeated teachings about the true nature of the Messiah's kingdom and what real Christ-honouring service means - in contrast to what the natural expectation of blind, fallen man is - has made a deep impression on me and I hope on my hearers, which I pray will bear lasting fruit for us all.
Two interesting things I learnt - firstly, riding a donkey does not in itself signify poverty or self-abasement; Solomon was set on a donkey when he inherited the kingdom from his father David (1 Kings 1:33); in fact, all the king's sons did (2 Samuel 13:29). Secondly, the popular idea (I read it in John Wesley's notes) that the same crowd that shouted out "Hosanna" later shouted out "crucify him!" is nothing more than a speculation, and an unlikely one on the face of it - the gospels tell us that those who welcomed Jesus as the Messiah were those who came up to Jerusalem with him; those who shouted "crucify him!" a few days later were the allies of the rulers in Jerusalem.
Now that we've reached this great moment, it's quite thrilling. For a long time, Jesus was content - actually deliberately chose - to remain away from open controversy and centres where premature attention would be drawn to him. But now, as the true king of Israel and of the covenant, and now that the planned time had arrived to ratify that covenant with his blood, he mounted the king's donkey and deliberately presented himself to the capital of Israel, God's chosen city, as the one for whom they had been waiting. The rulers complained and then schemed when Messianic praise was given to him - but the "nobodies" who had been waiting long for this moment rejoiced and could not keep quiet with their shouts of praise as the so-long longed-for King now strolled in to - at last - inaugurate his kingdom. This is especially exciting when you preach to lots of this world's "nobodies".
That kingdom was to be brought in through a painful cross, of which Jesus in those proceeding times had spoken often, though with so little understanding even from his nearest. But understand it or not, the kingdom had arrived. That ultimately meant devastating judgment for those who did not want it - but liberty and life now to be freely given to those who were waiting. Which are you? To the unbelieving eye, a carepenter-cum-popular-preaching was riding on a young animal into the city. To the eye that God had opened, the king was about to ascend his throne. Which do you see?
We've now reached chapter 11, where Jesus at last enters Jerusalem, the end of a long road - openly showing and declaring himself (and having the people declare him) to be the promised Messiah, come now to bring salvation to God's people, riding the donkey of prophecy (Zechariah 9:9). It feels like we've been travelling with him for those years as the disciples did - watching, listening and learning. The repeated teachings about the true nature of the Messiah's kingdom and what real Christ-honouring service means - in contrast to what the natural expectation of blind, fallen man is - has made a deep impression on me and I hope on my hearers, which I pray will bear lasting fruit for us all.
Two interesting things I learnt - firstly, riding a donkey does not in itself signify poverty or self-abasement; Solomon was set on a donkey when he inherited the kingdom from his father David (1 Kings 1:33); in fact, all the king's sons did (2 Samuel 13:29). Secondly, the popular idea (I read it in John Wesley's notes) that the same crowd that shouted out "Hosanna" later shouted out "crucify him!" is nothing more than a speculation, and an unlikely one on the face of it - the gospels tell us that those who welcomed Jesus as the Messiah were those who came up to Jerusalem with him; those who shouted "crucify him!" a few days later were the allies of the rulers in Jerusalem.
Now that we've reached this great moment, it's quite thrilling. For a long time, Jesus was content - actually deliberately chose - to remain away from open controversy and centres where premature attention would be drawn to him. But now, as the true king of Israel and of the covenant, and now that the planned time had arrived to ratify that covenant with his blood, he mounted the king's donkey and deliberately presented himself to the capital of Israel, God's chosen city, as the one for whom they had been waiting. The rulers complained and then schemed when Messianic praise was given to him - but the "nobodies" who had been waiting long for this moment rejoiced and could not keep quiet with their shouts of praise as the so-long longed-for King now strolled in to - at last - inaugurate his kingdom. This is especially exciting when you preach to lots of this world's "nobodies".
That kingdom was to be brought in through a painful cross, of which Jesus in those proceeding times had spoken often, though with so little understanding even from his nearest. But understand it or not, the kingdom had arrived. That ultimately meant devastating judgment for those who did not want it - but liberty and life now to be freely given to those who were waiting. Which are you? To the unbelieving eye, a carepenter-cum-popular-preaching was riding on a young animal into the city. To the eye that God had opened, the king was about to ascend his throne. Which do you see?
Friday, 30 July 2010
The way up, is down
Jesus' teaching about true Christian greatness is very simple. The way up is down. To get higher, you must descend. The true honours of the kingdom belong, not to those who have raised themselves to great positions of authority, but to those who have lowered themselves into self-less service. The very greatest of all, is the one who has become the servant of all (Mark 10:44).
It is right to be ambitious. God made man ambitious. But like every other thing, godly ambition gets corrupted by the sinful selfishness. Godly ambition means wanting to get lower, get humbler - to where we can do more to serve for Jesus' sake. Even as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve and give his very self as a ransom for many.
I read a lovely example of this in Steve Saint's book which I mentioned a couple of months ago. Rachel Saint (Steve's aunt, sister of the martyred Nate Saint) has a very strong impression when she was converted that God was saying to her, that if she was faithful, then he would give her the privilege of serving a bunch of brown people who were still living in the stone age. If the word "privilege" just made you wince, then it's time to do some more learning in the school of Jesus.
Only by putting together the pieces in the book did I realise that it was some decades later that Rachel Saint became a Bible translator and live-in missionary amongst the jungle Waodani tribe - the tribe that murdered her brother. She became the one who taught them the Scriptures and the way of salvation, or "God's trail" as it is touchingly described, patiently, and slowly over a number of years.
In the worldly way of thinking, that is madness. But in Jesus' thinking, this was true greatness. She passed the tests, proved faithful, learnt how to get down lower and lower - until aged 46 she had descended far enough and was ready to be given the prize of spending the next 36 years being a nobody in this present world, but a great favourite in heaven as she served that jungle people. Awesome.
I think I see the same spirit too at work in this paragraph penned recently by a missionary wife:
But never forget that in Jesus' kingdom, the way up is down. How are you really doing?
It is right to be ambitious. God made man ambitious. But like every other thing, godly ambition gets corrupted by the sinful selfishness. Godly ambition means wanting to get lower, get humbler - to where we can do more to serve for Jesus' sake. Even as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve and give his very self as a ransom for many.
I read a lovely example of this in Steve Saint's book which I mentioned a couple of months ago. Rachel Saint (Steve's aunt, sister of the martyred Nate Saint) has a very strong impression when she was converted that God was saying to her, that if she was faithful, then he would give her the privilege of serving a bunch of brown people who were still living in the stone age. If the word "privilege" just made you wince, then it's time to do some more learning in the school of Jesus.
Only by putting together the pieces in the book did I realise that it was some decades later that Rachel Saint became a Bible translator and live-in missionary amongst the jungle Waodani tribe - the tribe that murdered her brother. She became the one who taught them the Scriptures and the way of salvation, or "God's trail" as it is touchingly described, patiently, and slowly over a number of years.
In the worldly way of thinking, that is madness. But in Jesus' thinking, this was true greatness. She passed the tests, proved faithful, learnt how to get down lower and lower - until aged 46 she had descended far enough and was ready to be given the prize of spending the next 36 years being a nobody in this present world, but a great favourite in heaven as she served that jungle people. Awesome.
I think I see the same spirit too at work in this paragraph penned recently by a missionary wife:
Last week we visited two of the poorest families in the Church. One family are relocating to the village because they cannot afford the 3 pound a month rent! They had no money to transport their things so I offered a storing space we have, as they were going to leave all their things! However when chatting it appeared that there would be nothing to leave - one stool. No bed, no mattress, no chair, no nothing. A young couple with a dear 9 month old. We met in their hut, the 2 families had had nothing to eat for two days and the children were sitting in a daze, quietly resigned, no fuss. Of course when we heard of the situation we made sure they had plenty of food. What a sad, sad life some of these people live, the eldest child sent home from school as there was no money for fees. One of these families is with us on a Sunday and last Sunday was just one of those days. The smallest child pooped three times on the bathroom floor (tmi!) as he never uses a toilet. The mother is struggling with incontinence since the birth of her last child and the odours in our lounge last Sunday were not good. (Another lady suffers the same!) The cushions soiled, soiled women, soiled children, manky house... these are really the times when we are called to love with that great compassion that the Lord Jesus has towards us! To hold one's tongue and to take time to gently teach, to ignore smells, to value people, to accept their help with the dishes, to encourage and build up, not to belittle and make ashamed. To do the opposite of Kenyan Society and to love... How I pray for a more genuine heart of love in THESE situations, not one that grumbles and 'fudder fudders' about the unpleasant job of sorting the loo etc etc. That is what I am called to do, but only with God's enabling do I stand a chance of making progress.Perhaps you have a good load of qualifications, career's going well, etc., and you're really making it. Very good; all these things are good in their place.
But never forget that in Jesus' kingdom, the way up is down. How are you really doing?
Saturday, 24 July 2010
The way of the cross
Tomorrow, God-willing, I am resuming preaching from the gospel of Mark on Sunday mornings. (You can download some of the previous sermons here).
One of the repeating emphases in the gospel of Mark is teaching about the true nature of Jesus' kingdom. Jesus' kingdom is not like the kingdoms of this world. Going the way of Jesus means going the way of the cross. Glory does not come now, but after taking up one's cross to die - again and again. The Master sets the great pattern; for our salvation, he shunned earthly glory and chose rejection, suffering and damnation at Calvary, before he rose again the third day.
In this setting, one of Mark's repeated refrains is to show us how little the disciples understood - even though it was spelt out in the clearest terms, again and again. The problem was not that Jesus' teaching was not plain enough; it was that it clashed with the road to glory that was in the disciples' hearts. And on this theme, Matthew Henry has some great words:
One of the repeating emphases in the gospel of Mark is teaching about the true nature of Jesus' kingdom. Jesus' kingdom is not like the kingdoms of this world. Going the way of Jesus means going the way of the cross. Glory does not come now, but after taking up one's cross to die - again and again. The Master sets the great pattern; for our salvation, he shunned earthly glory and chose rejection, suffering and damnation at Calvary, before he rose again the third day.
In this setting, one of Mark's repeated refrains is to show us how little the disciples understood - even though it was spelt out in the clearest terms, again and again. The problem was not that Jesus' teaching was not plain enough; it was that it clashed with the road to glory that was in the disciples' hearts. And on this theme, Matthew Henry has some great words:
[Note] the confusion that the disciples were hereby put into. This [way of the cross] was so contrary to the notions they had had of the Messiah and his kingdom, such a balk to their expectations from their Master, and such a breaking of all their measures, that they understood none of these things, v. 34. Their prejudices were so strong that they would not understand them literally, and they could not understand them otherwise, so that they did not understand them at all.What teachings are there that you or I don't understand - not because we can't understand them, but because we don't want to?
Monday, 26 April 2010
The divine original
Yesterday I preached on marriage and divorce from Mark 10:1-12 - the message can be downloaded from www.graceeldoret.org. Here are a few thoughts following that.
Marriage is an illustration of why the doctrine of diviine creation is so important. After all, what is marriage?
Is it whatever society wants it to be? Is it a human creation, that we can mould and shape to the preferences of the hour? These questions have to be answered before we can even discuss ideas like "gay marriage", because they lie underneath them.
Jesus teaches us that to know what marriage is, and how it should operate, we must go back to the divine original. The original marriage was a prototype, a pattern for others to follow. Adam could not send Eve away without sending himself away; her creation from one of his ribs illustrated a permanent principle: that in marriage the two are intended to permanently be one. He could not take another wife, because there were no others to take: God made him one wife, not three. He could not take a man as his wife, because God made him an Eve to complete him, not a Steve. God set a binding pattern for us to follow - not to adjust according to the spirit of the age. Without the strong doctrine of divine creation, all of this falls apart. Attempts to re-sculpt marriage are basically atheism: they deny that there is any God who has set out a way for us to follow.
The fact that Western society's rejection of Biblical marriage has coincided with Western society's family breakdown is not a coincedence. Because we do live in God's creation and not the fantasy land of our own imaginations, if we don't follow the lines that God prescribed for us, things don't quite work. I might like to imagine in my head that my Land Rover Mark III is a nippy little BMW Mini, but if I actually try to live out that belief on the road it won't work out well for any of us. Rather, I need to drive it the way the designer intended. In the sexual revolution, the West decided that we can drive off a cliff and land safely at the bottom, simply because we wish it to be so. It's not working, and it never will. Sexual freedom is enjoyed not when we become slaves to whatever desire strikes us next (how could it ever be so?) It is enjoyed within the safety and protection of the limits that God set for us, and nowhere else: when we are free to have all that God wanted for us, protected from what he did not.
Marriage is an illustration of why the doctrine of diviine creation is so important. After all, what is marriage?
Is it whatever society wants it to be? Is it a human creation, that we can mould and shape to the preferences of the hour? These questions have to be answered before we can even discuss ideas like "gay marriage", because they lie underneath them.
Jesus teaches us that to know what marriage is, and how it should operate, we must go back to the divine original. The original marriage was a prototype, a pattern for others to follow. Adam could not send Eve away without sending himself away; her creation from one of his ribs illustrated a permanent principle: that in marriage the two are intended to permanently be one. He could not take another wife, because there were no others to take: God made him one wife, not three. He could not take a man as his wife, because God made him an Eve to complete him, not a Steve. God set a binding pattern for us to follow - not to adjust according to the spirit of the age. Without the strong doctrine of divine creation, all of this falls apart. Attempts to re-sculpt marriage are basically atheism: they deny that there is any God who has set out a way for us to follow.
The fact that Western society's rejection of Biblical marriage has coincided with Western society's family breakdown is not a coincedence. Because we do live in God's creation and not the fantasy land of our own imaginations, if we don't follow the lines that God prescribed for us, things don't quite work. I might like to imagine in my head that my Land Rover Mark III is a nippy little BMW Mini, but if I actually try to live out that belief on the road it won't work out well for any of us. Rather, I need to drive it the way the designer intended. In the sexual revolution, the West decided that we can drive off a cliff and land safely at the bottom, simply because we wish it to be so. It's not working, and it never will. Sexual freedom is enjoyed not when we become slaves to whatever desire strikes us next (how could it ever be so?) It is enjoyed within the safety and protection of the limits that God set for us, and nowhere else: when we are free to have all that God wanted for us, protected from what he did not.
Friday, 12 March 2010
"Some of you will not taste death"
Six days before his Transfiguration, and some months before his death, resurrection and Pentecost, Jesus said these words:
If I remember correctly, in his thought-provoking and very worthwhile book "The Last Days According To Jesus", R C Sproul argues that this reference must be ultimately to AD 70. That is the year when the old theocratic kingdom and the Old Covenant was finally abolished, leaving only the world-wide church of Jew and Gentile joined together in Christ. That, he argues, is when the kingdom had finally come with power - the old scaffolding of Judaism which had preceded and supported it for a time as it had grown and distinguished itself was now totally taken away.
This interpretation has some attractions, chiefly in the words that "some... will not taste death", which on the surface do seem to imply a time-gap to be measured in terms of years, not days or weeks - and a significant number of the apostles dying off in the meantime. My problem is whilst I do see the Biblical importance of AD 70, I do not see that importance explained in terms of the kingdom of God "coming with power" at that date. On the contrary, I do see the day of Pentecost as explicitly being marked out in terms of that significance (exemplified in many many texts, e.g. John 7:39, "But this he spoke about the Spirit, which those who believe on him would receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified" and the words spoken on the day itself, Acts 2:16ff). The pouring out of the Spirit and the formation of the church was when the kingdom came "with power". The kingdom was present when the king began his ministry (Mark 1:15) - but then hidden, and in apparent weakness, even seeming to die (at Calvary); but from Pentecost it was present "with power". Jesus the king was risen and ascended and had now climbed his throne from there to reign. He had then received and poured out the promised gift of the Spirit as the first and fundamantal act of his inaugurated kingship over the nations.
We can add to this the consideration that in fact one of the twelve, Judas, did in fact die before the day of Pentecost. It could be objected that "some will not die" suggests that several will - but there is plenty of Biblical precedent for Jesus speaking in a guarded and cryptic manner at this time when his disciples were still somewhat limited in their understanding (c.f. John 16:25, spoken in the very eve of Passover). Perhaps we can fold in the years after Pentecost into the fullness of what is meant by Jesus? i.e. He does not mean "you will not die until the day the Spirit has come", but he also includes the outworking of the Spirit's presence in the church as the church would grow, survive persecutions, envelop Samaritans and then Gentiles, etc. i.e. Not only Pentecost, seen as the seed, but also its inevitable fruit as it came to maturity. We know that James the son of Zebedee, for one (Acts 12), died before this power had gone forth in the first formal Gentile missions (Acts 13:1ff) - in the days when the promise of a multi-national church as still awaiting major chapters in its fulfilment.
The Transfiguration was witnessed only be "some", namely Peter, James and John - but in what sense did the kingdom come with power on that day? It was by its very nature a secret event - hidden except to a close inner-circle, and gone as soon as it was come. To be sure, those three witnessed Jesus in his glory, which was to see the power of the king himself. But how was the actual rule of the king established or advanced through that event? Furthermore, none at all of the twelve had died before that day - this seems to stretch the words to breaking point and beyond. It is true that the gospel writers draw our attention to the following of this event after the saying, which suggests a connection. But I do not think that the connection they are drawing is "this is the fulfilment"; the connection they are drawing is that the apostles were given an assurance and confirmation of what Jesus had promised, though it is not yet. What is now will still be weakness and death and the apparent annihilation of the kingdom - yet they may patiently wait, because Jesus has shown them the secret of how they will be fulfilled in due time.
“Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.” (Mark 9:1)There is some difficulty in these words - exactly which event (events?) was Jesus referring to? What does the seeming suggestion that some (many, most?) of the apostles could taste death in the meantime imply? What is implied by the immediate conjunction of the account of the Transfiguration in the accounts in each of Matthew, Mark and Luke, and their remarks on the time-scale intervening? (John does not report this saying or the Transfiguration)?
If I remember correctly, in his thought-provoking and very worthwhile book "The Last Days According To Jesus", R C Sproul argues that this reference must be ultimately to AD 70. That is the year when the old theocratic kingdom and the Old Covenant was finally abolished, leaving only the world-wide church of Jew and Gentile joined together in Christ. That, he argues, is when the kingdom had finally come with power - the old scaffolding of Judaism which had preceded and supported it for a time as it had grown and distinguished itself was now totally taken away.
This interpretation has some attractions, chiefly in the words that "some... will not taste death", which on the surface do seem to imply a time-gap to be measured in terms of years, not days or weeks - and a significant number of the apostles dying off in the meantime. My problem is whilst I do see the Biblical importance of AD 70, I do not see that importance explained in terms of the kingdom of God "coming with power" at that date. On the contrary, I do see the day of Pentecost as explicitly being marked out in terms of that significance (exemplified in many many texts, e.g. John 7:39, "But this he spoke about the Spirit, which those who believe on him would receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified" and the words spoken on the day itself, Acts 2:16ff). The pouring out of the Spirit and the formation of the church was when the kingdom came "with power". The kingdom was present when the king began his ministry (Mark 1:15) - but then hidden, and in apparent weakness, even seeming to die (at Calvary); but from Pentecost it was present "with power". Jesus the king was risen and ascended and had now climbed his throne from there to reign. He had then received and poured out the promised gift of the Spirit as the first and fundamantal act of his inaugurated kingship over the nations.
We can add to this the consideration that in fact one of the twelve, Judas, did in fact die before the day of Pentecost. It could be objected that "some will not die" suggests that several will - but there is plenty of Biblical precedent for Jesus speaking in a guarded and cryptic manner at this time when his disciples were still somewhat limited in their understanding (c.f. John 16:25, spoken in the very eve of Passover). Perhaps we can fold in the years after Pentecost into the fullness of what is meant by Jesus? i.e. He does not mean "you will not die until the day the Spirit has come", but he also includes the outworking of the Spirit's presence in the church as the church would grow, survive persecutions, envelop Samaritans and then Gentiles, etc. i.e. Not only Pentecost, seen as the seed, but also its inevitable fruit as it came to maturity. We know that James the son of Zebedee, for one (Acts 12), died before this power had gone forth in the first formal Gentile missions (Acts 13:1ff) - in the days when the promise of a multi-national church as still awaiting major chapters in its fulfilment.
The Transfiguration was witnessed only be "some", namely Peter, James and John - but in what sense did the kingdom come with power on that day? It was by its very nature a secret event - hidden except to a close inner-circle, and gone as soon as it was come. To be sure, those three witnessed Jesus in his glory, which was to see the power of the king himself. But how was the actual rule of the king established or advanced through that event? Furthermore, none at all of the twelve had died before that day - this seems to stretch the words to breaking point and beyond. It is true that the gospel writers draw our attention to the following of this event after the saying, which suggests a connection. But I do not think that the connection they are drawing is "this is the fulfilment"; the connection they are drawing is that the apostles were given an assurance and confirmation of what Jesus had promised, though it is not yet. What is now will still be weakness and death and the apparent annihilation of the kingdom - yet they may patiently wait, because Jesus has shown them the secret of how they will be fulfilled in due time.
Saturday, 6 March 2010
He came to do his Father's will
In teaching John's gospel at Bible college, one of the explicit ever-present themes is the unity of Father and Son. Jesus again and again insists that his words are those of the Father, that he perfectly does his Father's will, that he and the Father are one in their purpose, that to know him is to know the Father, etc., etc.
One thing I am more appreciating is how this theme is ever-present in the other gospels too. It may not always be explicit, but it is there. Consider the passage I am preaching on tomorrow (God-willing), Mark 8:31-38. In context, Peter has just confessed Jesus as the Messiah, the Christ - and now Jesus reveals just what his Messiahship will look like:
Jesus is also going to come in judgment, with the holy angels. But what glory will he come in? His Father's - having completed his Father's commission, he receives his Father's reward. And who can judge except God alone? Yet Jesus does it - not simply because he is God, but because he is the Son who is always sent by the Father's authority to do the work which the Father has to do; whether creation, redemption or final judgment. To love one is to love the other; to dishonour one reveals - whether a person admits it or not - the true thoughts of heart towards both.
One thing I am more appreciating is how this theme is ever-present in the other gospels too. It may not always be explicit, but it is there. Consider the passage I am preaching on tomorrow (God-willing), Mark 8:31-38. In context, Peter has just confessed Jesus as the Messiah, the Christ - and now Jesus reveals just what his Messiahship will look like:
31 And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again. 32 And he said this plainly. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. 33 But turning and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said, “Get behind me, Satan! For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”Jesus is going to suffer and die - but why? Because, verse 33, he has set his mind on the things of God. He is doing his Father's will, not that of (carnal) man.
34 And he called to him the crowd with his disciples and said to them, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 35 For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it. 36 For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? 37 For what can a man give in return for his life? 38 For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” (ESV)
Jesus is also going to come in judgment, with the holy angels. But what glory will he come in? His Father's - having completed his Father's commission, he receives his Father's reward. And who can judge except God alone? Yet Jesus does it - not simply because he is God, but because he is the Son who is always sent by the Father's authority to do the work which the Father has to do; whether creation, redemption or final judgment. To love one is to love the other; to dishonour one reveals - whether a person admits it or not - the true thoughts of heart towards both.
Friday, 26 February 2010
Who Jesus is
Mark's gospel begins with the bold declaration that he wants to show us that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.
Mark then leads us through the near three-years of Jesus' ministry, showing us all that Jesus revealed of himself and also showing us the disciples' extreme slowness to perceive what it was all pointing to: this great verdict about the true identity of their teacher. The demons know it, and tremble; even Gentiles like the Syro-Phoenician lady understand far more quickly. But these Jews, with their deeply faulty preconceptions about the work of the Messiah and the manner of his first coming, cannot get it.
Eventually we get to the the great initial climax of the gospel, in chapter 8, when Peter finally confesses on behalf of the disciples: "You are the Christ".
But have you ever compared Mark with John? Because John tells us that the whole reason why Peter and the others came to Jesus at the beginning of his ministry was because they were persuaded (by the John the Baptist's testimony, then by each other) that he was the Christ! "One of the two who heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. He first finds his own brother Simon, and says to him, 'We have found the Messiah', which is, being translated, the Christ" (John 1:40-41).
So what is going on here? Is it a contradiction? What does it mean?
Surely this: it was one thing for Peter and the other disciples to believe in Jesus as the Messiah at the start. But it was another when they had seen Jesus irreparably separated from the Jewish religious leaders, rejected by many of his followers, and apparently totally failing to carry out the work which they had, according to their erroneous preconceptions, expected the Messiah to do. This confession now came after they had been forced to face up to the fact that Jesus would not be leading an Israelite army, taking on the Romans, being received by the Jewish leadership, reigning in Jerusalem, restoring the territory controlled under David, etc., etc. It was a confession of true faith: they believed in Jesus because they knew him for who he was, not because he had satisfied carnal sense and belief. It was thus a truly valuable confession of faith: not that of a beginner - many had followed him but were now nowhere to be found - but tried and true. Not flawless, of course - but nonetheless, the real thing.
The lesson is clear. You began trusting Jesus as Saviour. But then you will have had to go through the mill, because that is God's will for us - what do you say now?
Mark then leads us through the near three-years of Jesus' ministry, showing us all that Jesus revealed of himself and also showing us the disciples' extreme slowness to perceive what it was all pointing to: this great verdict about the true identity of their teacher. The demons know it, and tremble; even Gentiles like the Syro-Phoenician lady understand far more quickly. But these Jews, with their deeply faulty preconceptions about the work of the Messiah and the manner of his first coming, cannot get it.
Eventually we get to the the great initial climax of the gospel, in chapter 8, when Peter finally confesses on behalf of the disciples: "You are the Christ".
But have you ever compared Mark with John? Because John tells us that the whole reason why Peter and the others came to Jesus at the beginning of his ministry was because they were persuaded (by the John the Baptist's testimony, then by each other) that he was the Christ! "One of the two who heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. He first finds his own brother Simon, and says to him, 'We have found the Messiah', which is, being translated, the Christ" (John 1:40-41).
So what is going on here? Is it a contradiction? What does it mean?
Surely this: it was one thing for Peter and the other disciples to believe in Jesus as the Messiah at the start. But it was another when they had seen Jesus irreparably separated from the Jewish religious leaders, rejected by many of his followers, and apparently totally failing to carry out the work which they had, according to their erroneous preconceptions, expected the Messiah to do. This confession now came after they had been forced to face up to the fact that Jesus would not be leading an Israelite army, taking on the Romans, being received by the Jewish leadership, reigning in Jerusalem, restoring the territory controlled under David, etc., etc. It was a confession of true faith: they believed in Jesus because they knew him for who he was, not because he had satisfied carnal sense and belief. It was thus a truly valuable confession of faith: not that of a beginner - many had followed him but were now nowhere to be found - but tried and true. Not flawless, of course - but nonetheless, the real thing.
The lesson is clear. You began trusting Jesus as Saviour. But then you will have had to go through the mill, because that is God's will for us - what do you say now?
Thursday, 4 February 2010
Human depravity
In fact it wasn't the ordinary day at the office finishing me off last week - it was "atypical pneumonia"! Thankfully the antibiotics seem to be doing exactly what they're meant to; four doses so far and I feel so much better.
This weekend, God-willing, I'll be preaching on Mark 7:1-23. This is the passage in which Jesus exposes the great difference between Pharisaical religion and true religion. Defilement does not come from outside - what you can touch or eat - it comes fundamentally from within, inside the heart.
Why is there so much wickedness in the world, and why is it so widespread? Because there are fallen people in the world, and they carry within them the root of every possible evil. Where do the horrors we can read of in the daily papers come from? From your and my wrong desires, placed in the situation and with the opportunity to express themselves.
Yesterday I read of a 17-year old, well liked and respected high school student who..... hired the school drug dealer for $1,000 to kill his mother. Which the school drug dealer did, stabbing her over 40 times after the door was left open to let him in. The reason was because she insisted he do his chores and observe the curfews she imposed. Tellingly, there were lots of comments on the website from his friends, who could not bring themselves to believe it. "I really feel there's something not quite right here" was the kind of comment - he was such a nice guy, surely nice people can't have this kind of thing in them.... and yet they really can, and do.
Christianity can afford to be uniquely frank about the real corruption of humanity, because it actually has the solution for it. Man-made religions, with all their rules which are supposed to make us righteous in God's sight, have to deny the truth. The fall of man, total depravity, the captivity (not freedom) of the human will to sin - all these things the philosophers and religionists of this world hate and try to scoff at. And yet the realities of the daily paper and our own inner struggles with appalling evils remain: stubborn facts that won't go away.
And yet they do go away, where the power of Christ's death is known and received. Christianity has the radical solution that the Son of God took the whole penalty of our wrong upon himself and paid off the whole lot. It says that he rose from the dead, and sends God the Holy Spirit to purge and make new creations out of those whom he saves. He comes himself by his Spirit to live in them, and little by little that corruption can be put to death. It is a solution every bit as radical as the problem. Man is immensely wicked to the very core - yet Jesus died for people who are immensely wicked to the very core.
You won't find this teaching of human depravity in man-made, Pharisaical religion - because such religion has no solution for it. Human "good works" cannot make up for such an enormous deficit. But the fact that such depravity is very real is in itself a great evidence that Christianity is true - because it can look the reality in the face, admit it all, and then say "and here is the answer".
This weekend, God-willing, I'll be preaching on Mark 7:1-23. This is the passage in which Jesus exposes the great difference between Pharisaical religion and true religion. Defilement does not come from outside - what you can touch or eat - it comes fundamentally from within, inside the heart.
Why is there so much wickedness in the world, and why is it so widespread? Because there are fallen people in the world, and they carry within them the root of every possible evil. Where do the horrors we can read of in the daily papers come from? From your and my wrong desires, placed in the situation and with the opportunity to express themselves.
Yesterday I read of a 17-year old, well liked and respected high school student who..... hired the school drug dealer for $1,000 to kill his mother. Which the school drug dealer did, stabbing her over 40 times after the door was left open to let him in. The reason was because she insisted he do his chores and observe the curfews she imposed. Tellingly, there were lots of comments on the website from his friends, who could not bring themselves to believe it. "I really feel there's something not quite right here" was the kind of comment - he was such a nice guy, surely nice people can't have this kind of thing in them.... and yet they really can, and do.
Christianity can afford to be uniquely frank about the real corruption of humanity, because it actually has the solution for it. Man-made religions, with all their rules which are supposed to make us righteous in God's sight, have to deny the truth. The fall of man, total depravity, the captivity (not freedom) of the human will to sin - all these things the philosophers and religionists of this world hate and try to scoff at. And yet the realities of the daily paper and our own inner struggles with appalling evils remain: stubborn facts that won't go away.
And yet they do go away, where the power of Christ's death is known and received. Christianity has the radical solution that the Son of God took the whole penalty of our wrong upon himself and paid off the whole lot. It says that he rose from the dead, and sends God the Holy Spirit to purge and make new creations out of those whom he saves. He comes himself by his Spirit to live in them, and little by little that corruption can be put to death. It is a solution every bit as radical as the problem. Man is immensely wicked to the very core - yet Jesus died for people who are immensely wicked to the very core.
You won't find this teaching of human depravity in man-made, Pharisaical religion - because such religion has no solution for it. Human "good works" cannot make up for such an enormous deficit. But the fact that such depravity is very real is in itself a great evidence that Christianity is true - because it can look the reality in the face, admit it all, and then say "and here is the answer".
Saturday, 28 November 2009
There was a man
There was a man who ...
- Was glad to hear the word of God
- Did many things in response to it
- Had a conscience which was spoke to him clearly
- Resisted sin and protected God's servants from evil
Friday, 22 May 2009
How can it be?
And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with tax-collectors and sinners, they said unto his disciples, "How is it that he eats and drinks with tax-collectors and sinners?" - Mark 2:16
After over two decades learning more about Jesus, I think cannot understand this question myself. Not in the sense the Pharisees asked it - they didn't classify themselves as sinners, and saw no reason why Jesus shouldn't fraternise with them. But if we do see who we really are, and who Jesus really is - just how is it that he can fellowship with us? Jesus had to explain to the Pharisees that is was the sick who needed a doctor - and as the "physician of souls" he'd come to visit those who knew that they needed him. That's why he came to them. But why did he come? How can he have been willing to come so low, to stoop so far, to fellowship with us?
That's the mystery of the good news which Mark wrote to explain - "the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God" (chapter 1, verse 1). We'll never understand it fully though by God's help we make progress year by year. We'll never reach the goal because the love is infinite; the good news is that we'll have an eternity to keep going towards it.
Saturday, 25 April 2009
Mark 2:1-10 - The Son of God
Who is Jesus? That's the theme of the book of Mark. Mark tells us in verse 1 that the good news is a person. The good news is Jesus, the Son of God. From heaven, the voice announces it at his baptism.
But, it's going to take the whole book to see the disciples understanding that fact and its implications. The mid-way point is where they finally see who he is - and then they have to start a new course of instruction, to understand what it is that the Son of God has come to do. We're still near the start of that process.
When Jesus healed the paralytic, he showed that the scribes' wonderings in their heart were redundant. It was easier to say that a man's sins were forgiven - because there could be no proof. But it was easier to heal a man than to take away his sins - prophets had in past days done the former, but only God could do the latter. What Jesus actually did rendered such speculations totally academic. At his bare word, he both forgave the man's sins and restored him to total health. To do that was the prerogative only of God. No prophet could clam the authority to forgive sins - and God would never work a miracle to authenticate a prophet who had strayed by claiming the power to do so. By doing both in sequence, Jesus showed who he was; no mere prophet, but God in the flesh, the heaven-sent Messiah. His naked word has authority in the physical realm and the spiritual. The same one who commands things that are not to be, was the one who now stood before them.
That's why there's no point in only following Jesus a little. It's got to be all or nothing. Either Jesus is God and is to be worshipped and served with all our hearts, or he is nothing at all. He's not some guru, imam or Rabbi to be followed to a certain extent. If he is meant to be followed at all, he is meant to be followed totally. That's the stark truth that then faced those murmuring scribes on that day - and us today also.
But, it's going to take the whole book to see the disciples understanding that fact and its implications. The mid-way point is where they finally see who he is - and then they have to start a new course of instruction, to understand what it is that the Son of God has come to do. We're still near the start of that process.
When Jesus healed the paralytic, he showed that the scribes' wonderings in their heart were redundant. It was easier to say that a man's sins were forgiven - because there could be no proof. But it was easier to heal a man than to take away his sins - prophets had in past days done the former, but only God could do the latter. What Jesus actually did rendered such speculations totally academic. At his bare word, he both forgave the man's sins and restored him to total health. To do that was the prerogative only of God. No prophet could clam the authority to forgive sins - and God would never work a miracle to authenticate a prophet who had strayed by claiming the power to do so. By doing both in sequence, Jesus showed who he was; no mere prophet, but God in the flesh, the heaven-sent Messiah. His naked word has authority in the physical realm and the spiritual. The same one who commands things that are not to be, was the one who now stood before them.
That's why there's no point in only following Jesus a little. It's got to be all or nothing. Either Jesus is God and is to be worshipped and served with all our hearts, or he is nothing at all. He's not some guru, imam or Rabbi to be followed to a certain extent. If he is meant to be followed at all, he is meant to be followed totally. That's the stark truth that then faced those murmuring scribes on that day - and us today also.
Reading it in
I turned to my IVP New Bible Commentary, on Mark 2:1-12. Here's (most of) the first paragraph:
"When Jesus ventured back into Capernaum, the house was mobbed, presumably by people wanting healing. But Jesus continued to preach the good news to them, for that was his purpose. It must, therefore, have been a great temptation for him to be irritated when four men, anxious to get their sick friend healed, lowered him through the broken roof right in front of Jesus as he taught. But Jesus saw only faith. ... Perhaps the four friends thought that their action would bring Jesus back from 'useless' preaching to 'practical' healing. Jesus, instead of healing at once, publicly forgave the man his sins. Imagine their disappointment."
How much basis is there in the text itself (or in parallel passages in Matthew and Luke), for the parts picked out in bold? Virtually none. It is of course interesting to ponder about what may be "in between the lines" and circumstances also involved that are not directly commented on in a particular story. But though it's interesting to us, the fact is that the divinely inspired author picked out the bits he did, and it's our job to work with that. If we end up emphasising, as this commentator does, things that the Spirit of God chose not to emphasise, and fail to emphasise the things that he did emphasise, then we're not doing our jobs. Here the commentator reads between the lines - and not only that, but laces what he thinks he sees there with terms like "must" and "presumably" as if his personal speculations were certain. And that reading of what isn't there but is only a possible conjecture, becomes a frame for the whole thing.
I could only compare it negatively with the commentary I'd immediately put down before picking up this one. I flicked to the front of the "New Bible Commentary" to see who was the author of the part on Mark. Oh - it's the same guy who wrote the other one!
The other one he wrote in 1961. This one, he wrote in 1994. The old one examines the text carefully and focuses on what's in there to draw sound Biblical applications. The later one is more flavoured by the kind of text-ignoring irrelevance-highlighting hyper-speculation that passes for "scholarship" in the academy but ought to be intensely disliked by every lover of God's word. What happened to the author between 1961 and 1994? Growth in this kind of "scholarship" is not spiritual progress.
"When Jesus ventured back into Capernaum, the house was mobbed, presumably by people wanting healing. But Jesus continued to preach the good news to them, for that was his purpose. It must, therefore, have been a great temptation for him to be irritated when four men, anxious to get their sick friend healed, lowered him through the broken roof right in front of Jesus as he taught. But Jesus saw only faith. ... Perhaps the four friends thought that their action would bring Jesus back from 'useless' preaching to 'practical' healing. Jesus, instead of healing at once, publicly forgave the man his sins. Imagine their disappointment."
How much basis is there in the text itself (or in parallel passages in Matthew and Luke), for the parts picked out in bold? Virtually none. It is of course interesting to ponder about what may be "in between the lines" and circumstances also involved that are not directly commented on in a particular story. But though it's interesting to us, the fact is that the divinely inspired author picked out the bits he did, and it's our job to work with that. If we end up emphasising, as this commentator does, things that the Spirit of God chose not to emphasise, and fail to emphasise the things that he did emphasise, then we're not doing our jobs. Here the commentator reads between the lines - and not only that, but laces what he thinks he sees there with terms like "must" and "presumably" as if his personal speculations were certain. And that reading of what isn't there but is only a possible conjecture, becomes a frame for the whole thing.
I could only compare it negatively with the commentary I'd immediately put down before picking up this one. I flicked to the front of the "New Bible Commentary" to see who was the author of the part on Mark. Oh - it's the same guy who wrote the other one!
The other one he wrote in 1961. This one, he wrote in 1994. The old one examines the text carefully and focuses on what's in there to draw sound Biblical applications. The later one is more flavoured by the kind of text-ignoring irrelevance-highlighting hyper-speculation that passes for "scholarship" in the academy but ought to be intensely disliked by every lover of God's word. What happened to the author between 1961 and 1994? Growth in this kind of "scholarship" is not spiritual progress.
Friday, 10 April 2009
Mark 1:35-39
Mark 1:35 Now in the morning, having risen a long while before daylight, he went out and departed to a solitary place; and there he prayed.
- What it would have been to have listened in on the prayers of the Son of God! Matthew Henry says, "though as God he was prayed to, as man he prayed." What prayers they must have been.
- If the Son of God, though without sin, must pray - how much more we?
- Jesus did not only pray at meetings of the synagogue, or with his disciples, or in family homes. He also sought a solitary place to pray on his own.
- Early in the morning will always be the best time for prayer. Our minds are fresh, and not yet filled with all kinds of other things. Jesus chose this time even though he had been very busy the previous day, and through the evening (verse 21-34). The Sabbath had been the day before, but far from saying that he had done enough in spiritual duty for a few days now, Jesus was found praying early the next morning. How much more then must we?
- He knew what he was to do that day - to go and preach (verses 38-39). But before he would preach, he must pray. Why do our efforts for the Lord often meet with so little success - is it for this reason; we have not, because we ask not? The Saviour set us a different example.
- See here again (very common in Mark) Jesus' strong sense of divine purpose. He always knows what he is doing. Often it is "immediately" or "straight away" Jesus did such-and-such; Jesus gets up early; he is not swayed by local popularity; he knows where he came from and what he came for.
- Whilst there is much in that observation that is unique to Jesus, yet there should be a reflection of the master in the disciple. Believers have a purpose. God has given us various different vocations in our lives - at home and at work. We have neighbourhoods, work places, work colleagues and families, and we have gifts and talents that God gave us to use amongst them. Should a believer be found slouching each evening in front of the television, or investing all his spare time in his own entertainment? No; he should be like the Saviour, knowing what his purpose is and not wasting the precious time given to him in carrying it out.
- Jesus did not come for fame. He did not come for an earthly kingdom, earthly fame or earthly crowds. He came to set up the kingdom of God (Mark 1:14-15) - a kingdom unlike those of this world; much lesser when weighed by man's scales, but much greater in actuality. This kingdom spreads when the word spreads. There is preaching, which is then by the Spirit of God believed, and so it becomes mighty and powerful in changing lives and communities and countries. The kingdom of God is like a mustard seed and like leaven - small and silent; but the greatest of the trees in the garden, and which will leaven the whole lump. Jesus did not stay in Capernaum because the people had been struck by his miracles. He must go and preach elsewhere too, and plant the seeds there. As-yet unknown truth can only be spread by declaring it. That is why preaching then and now must always take the primary place.
Saturday, 4 April 2009
He ate with them
Mark 1:29 - "Now as soon as they had come out of the synagogue, they entered the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John."
When the synagogue service in Capernaum ended, whose house did Jesus enter? It wasn't the leader of the synagogue. It wasn't the mayor of the town, or some local politician or dignitary. It wasn't anybody rich or famous. It was the humble home of poor fishermen.
That house, Simon shared with his brother Andrew, his wife, and as the next verse tells us his wife's mother too. He and his brother were poor and uneducated (Acts 4:13). But it was that house which the Son of God visited that day. It was this family which the Lord of Glory had favoured. He had chosen two of these believers amongst his closest disciples, and was pleased to fellowship with them.
That's God's way, and in a nutshell that's the "good news" of the gospel. God comes and fellowships with the lowly. He scorns the high and the mighty - the self-righteous have no place in his kingdom. But with those who groan and labour with a knowledge of their sins and who humble themselves, he comes and eats and drinks. God visits sinners and makes himself known as their friend. Hallelujah!
Have you become very low, that God might lift you up? Or are you still puffed up in your own pride and self-sufficiency, on high, in which position he will forever scorn you?
When the synagogue service in Capernaum ended, whose house did Jesus enter? It wasn't the leader of the synagogue. It wasn't the mayor of the town, or some local politician or dignitary. It wasn't anybody rich or famous. It was the humble home of poor fishermen.
That house, Simon shared with his brother Andrew, his wife, and as the next verse tells us his wife's mother too. He and his brother were poor and uneducated (Acts 4:13). But it was that house which the Son of God visited that day. It was this family which the Lord of Glory had favoured. He had chosen two of these believers amongst his closest disciples, and was pleased to fellowship with them.
That's God's way, and in a nutshell that's the "good news" of the gospel. God comes and fellowships with the lowly. He scorns the high and the mighty - the self-righteous have no place in his kingdom. But with those who groan and labour with a knowledge of their sins and who humble themselves, he comes and eats and drinks. God visits sinners and makes himself known as their friend. Hallelujah!
Have you become very low, that God might lift you up? Or are you still puffed up in your own pride and self-sufficiency, on high, in which position he will forever scorn you?
Saturday, 24 January 2009
The baptism of Jesus
Matthew 3:13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to Jordan to John, to be baptised by him. 14 But John forbade him, saying, "I need to be baptised by you, and do you come to me?" 15 And Jesus answering said unto him, "Permit it to be so now: for thus it becomes us to fulfil all righteousness." Then he permitted him.
Q. Why was Jesus baptised?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
