- 8:27-9:1 As already blogged, Peter gets a hammering for not accepting Jesus' conception of His ministry and trying to correct Him. Jesus is going to offer Himself as the ransom as no man can give anything in exchange for his life (37), even if he had the whole world (36), so Peter's shame at His words is deadly (38), because although some may not taste death before the Kingdom comes (9:1), Jesus will.
- 9:33-50 The disciples argue about who's greatest and Jesus gives them a simple illustration of greatness - a child, welcoming children, and accepting the ministry of children. John responds to this illustration, perhaps because he feels guilty, or perhaps because he foolishly thinks he can prove he does the right thing, by talking about having stopped some man who was "not following us". Even the "us" gives him away. Then Jesus says, "wrong call - those not against us are for us". Then in vv41-42 He gives two "whoever" teachings. The first is aimed at the surface level mistake John made, although it cuts deeper by teaching the priority of Christ's own Name over "us". But v42 hits deeper, putting the giver of water and the man driving out demons into the category of little ones illustrated by the child of v36: cause one of these to fall away and you're better off dead. But John just did.
- 10:35-45 Here we go again - but dinner's ready. All I'll say is this: isn't v39 gracious on Jesus' part? Though the brothers arrogance and spiritual blindness is stunning, though they haven't got the servant nature of the kingdom (none of the 12 have, v41), Jesus speaks of their future discipleship - which is, like His Messiahship, death. But they will be - they, like us, can be saved.
Sunday 24 February 2008
Those disciples again
One thing I really will have to think through is the sheer hammering the disciples get in Mark 8:27-10:52. Three incidents particularly stand out:
Seeing Bartimaeus
Reading closely through Mark 8:27-10:45 sets up 10:46-52 wonderfully. The Bartimaeus pericope is the perfect ending to this section.
Firstly, Bartimaeus is in no doubt who Jesus is. When the crowds say that Jesus the Nazarene is passing, Bartimaeus cries out, "Son of David, Jesus, have mercy on me." Note the word order, not always preserved in English translations.
Secondly, note the contrast between the crowd and Bartimaeus. Mark skilfully sweeps his camera over Jesus, His disciples and the crowd, giving us in the brief mention of Jericho a sense of pace, then settles with telling detail on the solitary blind beggar. The crowds are caught up in the drama of the King's march to glory: they have not figured out that He is the Servant King (10:45). Jesus however makes Himself Bartimaeus' servant (10:51).
Thirdly, and this blew me away, Bartimaeus casts aside his cloak. That cloak was the item he might pledge, but would have returned to him at night according to Old Testament law. It was, as something that could be pledged, of worth, but Bartimaeus casts it aside to rise quickly and follow Jesus. Contrast that with the rich man of 10:22.
Fourthly, note the rebuke of the crowds yet Jesus' insistence they call Bartimaeus. We are back into 10:13-16. Bartimaeus, with his simple request, does receive the Kingdom as a child; but there was no learning from 10:13-16 that Jesus works that way.
Finally, although Jesus freely grants Bartimaeus his request, Bartimaeus follows. Those freely saved by grace, though technically free to go, always in fact follow, a road we know from the use of the verb in this section of Mark in Jesus' mouth, is a road that begins with a death - our own (8:34). So Mark clears us up on that: His death freely saves and that is that. Discipleship flows out of that. Our death to self is not meritorious, even if it is the keeping of the first four commandments (implicit in 10:21). It cannot save us; rather, we must first, like Bartimaeus, be saved and put into a state of salvation (Greek perfect) to become disciples. We must be raised (Greek in 10:49 can't be unintentional) to life by His call before we can then die.
Firstly, Bartimaeus is in no doubt who Jesus is. When the crowds say that Jesus the Nazarene is passing, Bartimaeus cries out, "Son of David, Jesus, have mercy on me." Note the word order, not always preserved in English translations.
Secondly, note the contrast between the crowd and Bartimaeus. Mark skilfully sweeps his camera over Jesus, His disciples and the crowd, giving us in the brief mention of Jericho a sense of pace, then settles with telling detail on the solitary blind beggar. The crowds are caught up in the drama of the King's march to glory: they have not figured out that He is the Servant King (10:45). Jesus however makes Himself Bartimaeus' servant (10:51).
Thirdly, and this blew me away, Bartimaeus casts aside his cloak. That cloak was the item he might pledge, but would have returned to him at night according to Old Testament law. It was, as something that could be pledged, of worth, but Bartimaeus casts it aside to rise quickly and follow Jesus. Contrast that with the rich man of 10:22.
Fourthly, note the rebuke of the crowds yet Jesus' insistence they call Bartimaeus. We are back into 10:13-16. Bartimaeus, with his simple request, does receive the Kingdom as a child; but there was no learning from 10:13-16 that Jesus works that way.
Finally, although Jesus freely grants Bartimaeus his request, Bartimaeus follows. Those freely saved by grace, though technically free to go, always in fact follow, a road we know from the use of the verb in this section of Mark in Jesus' mouth, is a road that begins with a death - our own (8:34). So Mark clears us up on that: His death freely saves and that is that. Discipleship flows out of that. Our death to self is not meritorious, even if it is the keeping of the first four commandments (implicit in 10:21). It cannot save us; rather, we must first, like Bartimaeus, be saved and put into a state of salvation (Greek perfect) to become disciples. We must be raised (Greek in 10:49 can't be unintentional) to life by His call before we can then die.
Wednesday 20 February 2008
Moses and Elijah
Still working through Mark, now into the Transfiguration.
Why Moses and Elijah?
Here's a thought.
Last time Moses met God on a mountain, the big question was how the sin of the golden calf could be atoned for: now God reveals the answer.
Last time Elijah met God on a mountain, the big question was whether there was a remnant: and Jesus has brought some prime examples of the remnant.
If those last words sound loaded with irony, they are. Then again, you and I aren't any better, are we?
Why Moses and Elijah?
Here's a thought.
Last time Moses met God on a mountain, the big question was how the sin of the golden calf could be atoned for: now God reveals the answer.
Last time Elijah met God on a mountain, the big question was whether there was a remnant: and Jesus has brought some prime examples of the remnant.
If those last words sound loaded with irony, they are. Then again, you and I aren't any better, are we?
Peter gets a lecture
In preparing Mark 9:14-10:52, I've really got to start at 8:27 and work to 10:52. In fact, I've really got to get an overview of the gospel.
So I've been in what I thought was familiar territory: Mark 8:27-9:1.
Familiar? I've never even looked at the map.
The whole section 8:33-9:1 now reads as a lecture to Peter. Three times Mark uses epitimao, to impress, insist on or rebuke. Jesus insists that the disciples don't speak of His Messiahship (8:30), then Peter insists Jesus is wrong (8:32) and finally Jesus insists to Peter that he is talking Satanic rubbish (8:33). Note how Jesus begins teaching about His sufferings, and that they "must" happen - they are essential to His mission. We can assume He was discoursing at length. Which means Peter decided to discourse at length in 8:32, where he begins.
What I find shocking is how Jesus notices the other disciples, turning from Peter, and rebukes him. Then Jesus calls the crowd and makes an invitation to discipleship, Peter presumably still in the position of rejection behind Him. Peter is rebuked and rejected and Jesus seeks new disciples.
At the heart of the invitation is the question, "how will you ransom your life." Each verse is explanatory of the last in 8:34-38. In simple terms, it goes like this: die and become My disciple (v34) because only dying will save your life (v35) because even the whole world is no gain compared to your own life (v36) because there is nothing you can give as ransom for your own life (v37 - antallagma). So don't be ashamed of Me and My words - because they are about the ransom God will give (10:45). Verse 38 comes over Jesus' shoulder to the shocked Peter as further rebuke, to be compounded, I think, in 9:1. Some will still be alive and see the Kingdom come in power, but that implies some won't be - supremely Jesus, who must die for it to come. Die to your worldly mindset, your worldly ambitions for power and public glory, those Satanic temptations once set before Me (Matt. 4:1-11), says Jesus to Peter. Die and lose everything you value for me and this Gospel of My necessary death as ransom: for how else shall price be found for you (cf Psalm 49:7-8).
So I've been in what I thought was familiar territory: Mark 8:27-9:1.
Familiar? I've never even looked at the map.
The whole section 8:33-9:1 now reads as a lecture to Peter. Three times Mark uses epitimao, to impress, insist on or rebuke. Jesus insists that the disciples don't speak of His Messiahship (8:30), then Peter insists Jesus is wrong (8:32) and finally Jesus insists to Peter that he is talking Satanic rubbish (8:33). Note how Jesus begins teaching about His sufferings, and that they "must" happen - they are essential to His mission. We can assume He was discoursing at length. Which means Peter decided to discourse at length in 8:32, where he begins.
What I find shocking is how Jesus notices the other disciples, turning from Peter, and rebukes him. Then Jesus calls the crowd and makes an invitation to discipleship, Peter presumably still in the position of rejection behind Him. Peter is rebuked and rejected and Jesus seeks new disciples.
At the heart of the invitation is the question, "how will you ransom your life." Each verse is explanatory of the last in 8:34-38. In simple terms, it goes like this: die and become My disciple (v34) because only dying will save your life (v35) because even the whole world is no gain compared to your own life (v36) because there is nothing you can give as ransom for your own life (v37 - antallagma). So don't be ashamed of Me and My words - because they are about the ransom God will give (10:45). Verse 38 comes over Jesus' shoulder to the shocked Peter as further rebuke, to be compounded, I think, in 9:1. Some will still be alive and see the Kingdom come in power, but that implies some won't be - supremely Jesus, who must die for it to come. Die to your worldly mindset, your worldly ambitions for power and public glory, those Satanic temptations once set before Me (Matt. 4:1-11), says Jesus to Peter. Die and lose everything you value for me and this Gospel of My necessary death as ransom: for how else shall price be found for you (cf Psalm 49:7-8).
Tuesday 19 February 2008
The Bad Guys in Mark's Gospel ...
... are the disciples.
Whoa.
What do you think of that?
We've just reached as a homegroup Mark 8:1-26, as we approach the section I'll be leading the teaching on in a few weeks time. We focused today on how sinful the disciples are. But I've been noticing it everywhere. Twice they feed large crowds and twice they don't understand about the loaves (6:52; 8:21), they try to stop other people from being involved in the mission of Jesus (9:38-41), they won't let children come to Jesus (10:13-16), they argue about who's greatest, try and bagsy the best places in heaven and eventually they all abandon Him before the cross, Peter nosediving spectacularly from "have-a-go hero" to being petrified (pun completely intended).
But right now I am blown away by Mark 8:18: "having eyes do you not see and having ears do you not hear?" Compare that with Mark 4:11-12, in which Jesus says that the secrets of the kingdom have been revealed to them but the parables are for the outsiders who ever seeing do not perceive and ever hearing do not understand. The disciples, for all the time Jesus has spent with them and invested in them, are too hard of heart (8:17). If you combine Jesus' critique of the heart in 7:20-23 and His experience of the hearts of the disciples, carefully brought together in chapters 6 to 8 of Mark alongside healing miracles among the unclean Gentiles, you have as clear a narrative case for the doctrines of total depravity and of regeneration (need of) as you could ever get.
Whoa.
What do you think of that?
We've just reached as a homegroup Mark 8:1-26, as we approach the section I'll be leading the teaching on in a few weeks time. We focused today on how sinful the disciples are. But I've been noticing it everywhere. Twice they feed large crowds and twice they don't understand about the loaves (6:52; 8:21), they try to stop other people from being involved in the mission of Jesus (9:38-41), they won't let children come to Jesus (10:13-16), they argue about who's greatest, try and bagsy the best places in heaven and eventually they all abandon Him before the cross, Peter nosediving spectacularly from "have-a-go hero" to being petrified (pun completely intended).
But right now I am blown away by Mark 8:18: "having eyes do you not see and having ears do you not hear?" Compare that with Mark 4:11-12, in which Jesus says that the secrets of the kingdom have been revealed to them but the parables are for the outsiders who ever seeing do not perceive and ever hearing do not understand. The disciples, for all the time Jesus has spent with them and invested in them, are too hard of heart (8:17). If you combine Jesus' critique of the heart in 7:20-23 and His experience of the hearts of the disciples, carefully brought together in chapters 6 to 8 of Mark alongside healing miracles among the unclean Gentiles, you have as clear a narrative case for the doctrines of total depravity and of regeneration (need of) as you could ever get.
Sunday 17 February 2008
Exegeting Mark 9:14-10:51 - a journey
Over the next few days I'll be preparing a couple of talks, one a Sunday all-age talk and the other a midweek seminar for Christians wanting in-depth study, on Mark 9:14-10:51. The Sunday talk just focuses on the rich young ruler, but I want to cover over the days I work at the passage the different elements to my study.
I sat down this afternoon and read the section in the ESV. I was actually supposed to stop at 10:31, but I couldn't, as I started to note in the sections I was reading echoes of the section afterwards. This is my conclusion:
Now what do I do? Feel free to help!
I sat down this afternoon and read the section in the ESV. I was actually supposed to stop at 10:31, but I couldn't, as I started to note in the sections I was reading echoes of the section afterwards. This is my conclusion:
9:14-29 Miracle associated with faith
9:30-32 Announcement of sufferings
9:33-37 Argument over who is greatest/"servant of all"
9:38-50 Disciples try to stop something and Jesus rebukes them
10:1-9 Argument with Pharisees over law
10:10-12 conversation continues with disciples
10:13-16 Disciples try to stop something and Jesus rebukes them
10:17-22 Discussion with rich young man over law
10:23-31 conversations continues with disciples
10:32-34 Announcement of sufferings
10:35-45 Argument over places in heaven/"servant of all"
10:46-51 Miracle associated with faith
Now what do I do? Feel free to help!
Tuesday 12 February 2008
Little Greek Words and Long Roads into the OT
Last week I led children's work on Mark 7:1-23 and this week I'm leading homegroup on Mark 7:24-37, preached last Sunday (see last two posts).
Having written the last post, I've looked at the Greek for the passages last week and this. Aaargh!
If you have a resource like that, use it - it is worse that Amateurish to do otherwise.
In 7:1-23, the koinoo word group is used for defiled or unclean, meaning basically "common". In 7:25, the spirit is akathartos, "uncleansed". Something that is akathartos renders things holy and common equally akathartos.
What does that mean for the reading that 7:24-30 presents a solution for 7:1-23? I don't think it raises a problem, but some scepticism is required. Firstly, the word akathartos describes all spirits in Mark. Secondly, we're entering a new section in the Gospel, a journey outside Jewish territory.
Equally, the fact we leave Jewish territory, Jesus having just abolished the food laws and redefined uncleanness can't be coincidental.
I think the point is that we are not fit for God's presence. The drumbeat of Leviticus is "Be holy" (qds word group); it isn't "be common" (a call the Amateur's snobby side would find hard.) But we are always outside of the holy by virtue of our hearts. Jesus however is well-equipped to deal with the root cause of our not being holy, as He demonstrates by driving out the demon.
And the last post? What about the moral and forensic nature of uncleanness. He might be able to deal with the cause, but can He deal with the consequence, namely our lack of holiness and our guilt before God? I refer you to the solution discussed there.
By the way - have you noticed how Jesus helps the helpless? He deals with people with thoroughly broken bodies or under terrible spiritual oppression. Isn't that because we're all in that boat because of the state of our hearts: helpless and oppressed?
Having written the last post, I've looked at the Greek for the passages last week and this. Aaargh!
If you have a resource like that, use it - it is worse that Amateurish to do otherwise.
In 7:1-23, the koinoo word group is used for defiled or unclean, meaning basically "common". In 7:25, the spirit is akathartos, "uncleansed". Something that is akathartos renders things holy and common equally akathartos.
What does that mean for the reading that 7:24-30 presents a solution for 7:1-23? I don't think it raises a problem, but some scepticism is required. Firstly, the word akathartos describes all spirits in Mark. Secondly, we're entering a new section in the Gospel, a journey outside Jewish territory.
Equally, the fact we leave Jewish territory, Jesus having just abolished the food laws and redefined uncleanness can't be coincidental.
I think the point is that we are not fit for God's presence. The drumbeat of Leviticus is "Be holy" (qds word group); it isn't "be common" (a call the Amateur's snobby side would find hard.) But we are always outside of the holy by virtue of our hearts. Jesus however is well-equipped to deal with the root cause of our not being holy, as He demonstrates by driving out the demon.
And the last post? What about the moral and forensic nature of uncleanness. He might be able to deal with the cause, but can He deal with the consequence, namely our lack of holiness and our guilt before God? I refer you to the solution discussed there.
By the way - have you noticed how Jesus helps the helpless? He deals with people with thoroughly broken bodies or under terrible spiritual oppression. Isn't that because we're all in that boat because of the state of our hearts: helpless and oppressed?
Monday 11 February 2008
Comments
I've made it possible for more people to comment on the blog. Please do say if you find anything useful, or if you'd like to offer stimulus for further reflection.
Sunday 10 February 2008
Ontological, Moral or Forensic?
Last week I led children's work on Mark 7 (see previous post) and in the light of vv21-23 described the human heart as a "mudspring" - for out of it flows all that makes us unclean. Any solution we could dream up would only keep it clean for a second or two, as we're always creating new mud/sin.
Our minister has four children, of whom three were in that class, and the message got through. So in today's family service, he picked up on the language to present Jesus as the one who makes us clean from Mark 7:24-end.
It got me thinking about a category mistake.
What is sin? And what is uncleanness?
Sin is something we not merely do - it has to do with what we are. Sin flows out of our hearts and it is fundamental to understanding our place in the universe. As something that flows out of our hearts, it has ontological value - it has to do with the ousia anthropou, the being of man. But as fundamental to our place in the universe, a place defined by our status vis-a-vis God, it has moral and forensic value, being essentially about our standing before a holy God and our guilt before a judging God. Sin is therefore a complex category.
Unclean is not. Therein lies my category mistake.
I foolishly so equated mud with sin that I gave the impression that God is essentially someone who can't stand hoovering so doesn't let any dirt in the house. Which is understandable - I sometimes do have attacks of "I must get this place clean". But unclean is not like that. It is a status declared by the priest over persons, food, buildings and other items as representative of a holy and judging God.
So we don't need a good scrub. We need a change of status. We don't need washing through, as ultimately Catholic theology implies. We need a change of status, as Luther and Calvin taught. We need someone to cause our status to be holy, done in the Old Testament by sacrifice; we need someone to give us a right standing before God, a work that can only be done by a good defence lawyer and someone to pay the fine. Now read 1 John 1:5-2:2.
Our minister has four children, of whom three were in that class, and the message got through. So in today's family service, he picked up on the language to present Jesus as the one who makes us clean from Mark 7:24-end.
It got me thinking about a category mistake.
What is sin? And what is uncleanness?
Sin is something we not merely do - it has to do with what we are. Sin flows out of our hearts and it is fundamental to understanding our place in the universe. As something that flows out of our hearts, it has ontological value - it has to do with the ousia anthropou, the being of man. But as fundamental to our place in the universe, a place defined by our status vis-a-vis God, it has moral and forensic value, being essentially about our standing before a holy God and our guilt before a judging God. Sin is therefore a complex category.
Unclean is not. Therein lies my category mistake.
I foolishly so equated mud with sin that I gave the impression that God is essentially someone who can't stand hoovering so doesn't let any dirt in the house. Which is understandable - I sometimes do have attacks of "I must get this place clean". But unclean is not like that. It is a status declared by the priest over persons, food, buildings and other items as representative of a holy and judging God.
So we don't need a good scrub. We need a change of status. We don't need washing through, as ultimately Catholic theology implies. We need a change of status, as Luther and Calvin taught. We need someone to cause our status to be holy, done in the Old Testament by sacrifice; we need someone to give us a right standing before God, a work that can only be done by a good defence lawyer and someone to pay the fine. Now read 1 John 1:5-2:2.
Saturday 2 February 2008
My Heart's One Desire is to be ... ?
Are we good or are we bad? What's the state of the human heart? I'm fed up with Christians suggesting goodness of heart, that "God will look on our hearts" as if that were a good thing.
I put this together whilst preparing children's work on Mark 7:1-23.
In summary, there are 16 mentions of the heart in the ESV, of which 14 reflect a use of the Greek kardia. Of those 14, three set the high standard of heart-faith or heart-love Jesus expects, and all the rest are negative comments on the state of the human heart (although one of these 11 negative comments comes in the probably non-Markan conclusion). The heart is a well of sinfulness (Mark 7) and hardened against the Gospel (most mentions in Mark).
Here are all the mentions:
(Mar 2:6)
Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts,
(Mar 2:8)
And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them, "Why do you question these things in your hearts?
A practical example of hardness of heart.
(Mar 3:5)
And he looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, and said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." He stretched it out, and his hand was restored.
Another practical example of the hardness of human heart.
(Mar 6:50)
for they all saw him and were terrified. But immediately he spoke to them and said, "Take heart; it is I. Do not be afraid."
A positive encouragement, but the word "heart" does not appear here in the Greek.
(Mar 6:52)
for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened.
Another practical example, and again, hardness.
(Mar 7:6)
And he said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, "'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me;
Jesus is expositing Scripture, but applies this text as a description of the reality of the Pharisaic heart.
(Mar 7:19)
since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.)
(Mar 7:21)
For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery,
Jesus explains the condition of the human heart. It is not affected by such externals as food. No rather evil wells up inside it.
(Mar 8:17)
And Jesus, aware of this, said to them, "Why are you discussing the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened?
Jesus asks concerning the state of the disciples' hearts, saying that they seem to be hardened.
(Mar 10:5)
And Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.
Jesus describes the state of Pharisaic hearts, yet also the hearts of all those for whom Moses wrote the law in question in Mark 10: hard.
(Mar 10:49)
And Jesus stopped and said, "Call him." And they called the blind man, saying to him, "Take heart. Get up; he is calling you."
Although the ESV uses the word "heart", it does not appear in the Greek.
(Mar 11:23)
Truly, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, 'Be taken up and thrown into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says will come to pass, it will be done for him.
Jesus challenges us to heartfelt faith: this verse does not describe a person present in the discussion, except possibly by implication Himself, rather it sets a standard.
(Mar 12:30)
And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'
(Mar 12:33)
And to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one's neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices."
These two verses belong together in the same conversation, and indicate the high standard Jesus sets.
(Mar 16:14)
Afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at table, and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen.
Even if we do not regard these verses as part of the original Gospel of Mark, they show what its first readers thought would be an appropriate ending to what they thought an incomplete Gospel: a rebuke to the hardness of the hearts of the disciples. After all, it is a repeated theme.
I put this together whilst preparing children's work on Mark 7:1-23.
In summary, there are 16 mentions of the heart in the ESV, of which 14 reflect a use of the Greek kardia. Of those 14, three set the high standard of heart-faith or heart-love Jesus expects, and all the rest are negative comments on the state of the human heart (although one of these 11 negative comments comes in the probably non-Markan conclusion). The heart is a well of sinfulness (Mark 7) and hardened against the Gospel (most mentions in Mark).
Here are all the mentions:
(Mar 2:6)
Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts,
(Mar 2:8)
And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them, "Why do you question these things in your hearts?
A practical example of hardness of heart.
(Mar 3:5)
And he looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, and said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." He stretched it out, and his hand was restored.
Another practical example of the hardness of human heart.
(Mar 6:50)
for they all saw him and were terrified. But immediately he spoke to them and said, "Take heart; it is I. Do not be afraid."
A positive encouragement, but the word "heart" does not appear here in the Greek.
(Mar 6:52)
for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened.
Another practical example, and again, hardness.
(Mar 7:6)
And he said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, "'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me;
Jesus is expositing Scripture, but applies this text as a description of the reality of the Pharisaic heart.
(Mar 7:19)
since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.)
(Mar 7:21)
For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery,
Jesus explains the condition of the human heart. It is not affected by such externals as food. No rather evil wells up inside it.
(Mar 8:17)
And Jesus, aware of this, said to them, "Why are you discussing the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened?
Jesus asks concerning the state of the disciples' hearts, saying that they seem to be hardened.
(Mar 10:5)
And Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.
Jesus describes the state of Pharisaic hearts, yet also the hearts of all those for whom Moses wrote the law in question in Mark 10: hard.
(Mar 10:49)
And Jesus stopped and said, "Call him." And they called the blind man, saying to him, "Take heart. Get up; he is calling you."
Although the ESV uses the word "heart", it does not appear in the Greek.
(Mar 11:23)
Truly, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, 'Be taken up and thrown into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says will come to pass, it will be done for him.
Jesus challenges us to heartfelt faith: this verse does not describe a person present in the discussion, except possibly by implication Himself, rather it sets a standard.
(Mar 12:30)
And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'
(Mar 12:33)
And to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one's neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices."
These two verses belong together in the same conversation, and indicate the high standard Jesus sets.
(Mar 16:14)
Afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at table, and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen.
Even if we do not regard these verses as part of the original Gospel of Mark, they show what its first readers thought would be an appropriate ending to what they thought an incomplete Gospel: a rebuke to the hardness of the hearts of the disciples. After all, it is a repeated theme.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)