The Jesus-centred, Trinitarian gospel of Mark 1:1

"The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God"

Mark 1:1 beautifully frames the gospel as both Jesus-centred and Trinitarian. The gospel is about Jesus, but Jesus can only be understood in relationship to the Spirit who he is anointed ('Christed') with, and the Father he is "Son of".

We miss the Trinitarian nature of Mark 1:1, and so many other passages because when we read "God", we don't identify God with a person of the Trinity (usually the Father); and when we read "Christ", we read it as a surname, if we're lucky as a title, if we're really lucky as about being anointed, and very rarely as about who Jesus is anointed with.

"God [the Father] anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 10:38)

God and his Gospel

"whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it" (Mark 8:35)

Still thinking over my previous post on 'perichoretic salvation' I am struck today how, as Peter Mead comments, we often "have the notion that we know about God" already. Cor Deo and the like are excellent at saying 'actually you don't know the half of who God is'. He is much better than you think or could even imagine. I am really thankful for people like them encouraging me to seek to know God better and love him more.

However, this can be perverted (not by them) into saying that we just need more information about God. The cross becomes an exclusively revelatory event and before we know it grace has been lost and we're having to love and emulate this wonderful God in our own strength.

In contrast to this revelatory emphasis I know many will talk about 'gospel' all the time but never about God! We are 'saved', but are left wondering whether salvation all that attractive.

I don't think the answer is to equate the gospel and God. God is the Gospel is probably a great book and a helpful corrective, because without God the Gospel is not good news, but I'm not sure about the title. Perhaps the answer is to keep them distinct but intimately united, not separating them but not equating them either. I.e. lets be Trinitarian about this...

Bible study on Mark 10:13-27

Yes, I'm messing with the Christianity Explored bible study again. Here is my week 5 (What is Grace?) bible study on Mark 10:13-27 (instead of 10:17-29):

1. Why would the disciples think that the children should not brought to Jesus to be blessed? (verses 13-16)

• Insignificant. Nothing to offer? Nothing to receive? Jesus would not be interested?

2. How does Jesus respond to the disciples keeping the children away? (verse 14)

• Angry, because he does love them and can bless them.

3. What does verse 17 tell us about the man? What is he concerned about? What does he think of Jesus?

• desperately concerned about salvation
• very respectful of Jesus

4. What has the man done and not done? (verses 19-22)

• commandments v. given away everything and followed Jesus

5. In what ways is the man rich and not rich? (verses 21-22)

• treasures on earth v. heaven

6. Who is good enough to be saved; the rich man or the children?

• Neither. No one is good but God alone.

7. How is the man different from a child?

• child has done nothing and has nothing
• child doesn't love his possessions and his works

BONUS QUESTIONS

This passage describes being describes the same thing in several different ways:

• owning the kingdom of God (v.14)
• receiving the kingdom of God (v.15)
• entering the kingdom of God (vv. 15, 24-25)
• inheriting eternal life (v.17)
• treasure in heaven (v.21)
• being saved (v.26)

What do these different descriptions tell us about the cliché of "being saved"?

The disciples were "amazed" and "even more amazed" at Jesus' teaching about how hard it is for rich people to be saved. They assumed rich people would be saved, and children were of no importance.

Why did they view people differently to Jesus?

Is it impossible for rich people to be saved?

Some thoughts on Mark 10

Mark 10:13-16

The disciples prevent the little children from being brought to Jesus presumably because they thought they had nothing to offer Jesus and/or didn't have capacity to receive anything from him. Jesus explains to the disciples that in fact the Kingdom of God belongs to those like children. They "receive" the Kingdom of God because they have nothing in their hands. They don't even need to have the something which is gives them the capacity to receive (e.g. certain ritual/moral/intellectual preparation). To be human, and particularly to be sinful, is to be in position of utter dependence upon the grace of God for every good thing - including the Kingdom of God.

Mark 10:17-31

The next passage continues the same theme, as Jesus again explains who will inherit the Kingdom, and identifies his disciples as "children" who will (10:24).

The incident of "the man who had everything" (Alan Cole) also highlights the distinction between God and humanity. Only God is good, and only for him is nothing impossible. It is not that rich men cannot enter the Kingdom of God, but that even rich men cannot enter the Kingdom of God because for all men it is impossible.

Jesus' command is not so much that the rich man gives everything he owns to the poor, but that he leaves behind what he has to follow Jesus (that what he does with his wealth is incidental can be seen by comparing with vv.28-29 where the emphasis is again on leaving). Giving away his wealth is not a work that the rich man has to do to earn the right to enter the Kingdom of God, but is just a natural corollary of following Jesus in his itinerant ministry - following Jesus is actually entering the Kingdom of God. Peter boasts that they have "left everything" but Jesus cuts him short by pointing out that actually they has received far more than they have lost.

Money is like the banana in a monkey trap. If the monkey is unwilling to let go of the banana he will never escape. Only by letting go and coming with nothing to offer, whether good works or good things (all of which are gifts from God, not good things we offer him), do we follow Jesus. We can't serve both God and money, and we can't receive the Kingdom of God into a hand already full of stuff.

Christianity Explored Week 4 Bible Study

I've rather foolishly re-written the week 4 bible study for Christianity Explored. As I was studying the passage I became convinced that it, and the whole of Mark was more eschatological than the questions were giving credit for. I also had a nagging doubt about the significance of the healing of a blind man at Bethsaida.

I also felt that I needed to re-jig certain things for this particular group. I'm not sure I've fully succeeded but here are my questions.

Link to PDF file

Multiplying grain

"the Gospel miracles are ... acted parables of the kingdom." (FF Bruce)

The Parable of the Sower (Mark 4) describes grain multiplying many times over. It is followed by Jesus asking the disciples "Do you not understand this parable? How then will you understand all the parables?"

The Feeding of the Five Thousand (Mark 6) describes grain multiplying many times over. It is followed by an explanation that the disciple "did not understand [the acted parable] about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened".

The Feeding of the Four Thousand (Mark 8) describes grain multiplying many times over. It is followed by Jesus asking the disciples "Do you not yet perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened? Having eyes do you not see, and having ears do you not hear? And do you not remember? When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?".

Any thoughts?

A few notes on not coveting

Listening to: Belle and Sebastian: The Life Pursuit

Mark 10:19 (parallel: Luke 18:20)

The Christianity Explored booklet asks "What did Jesus expect the man to notice about his list of the commandments in Mark 10:19?" I can't remember what it exactly wants to answer to be, but you have commands 5-9 listed - i.e. not the first table and not the command not to covet. I think Jesus was pointing out to the rich young man that while he had not done the external acts prohibited by the second table of the law, he had not obeyed the spirit of them.

I have been challenged before that honouring your father and mother is not an external act but, like coveting, is about the state of your heart. But Exodus 21:15-17 expounds the commandment as not striking or cursing your parents. Deuteronomy 27:16 talks about not dishonouring and Matthew 15:4 (parallel: Mark 7:10) expands on honouring by saying that it is not reviling. All of which suggests it was seen more as an external act.

1 Timothy 1:9-10

the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers [5th commandment], for murderers [6th], the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality [7th], enslavers [8th? cf. Deuteronomy 24:7], liars, perjurers [9th], and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,

Again the absence of the 10th commandment not to covet is notable. Also interestingly, I believe the Reformers considered this passage to be mainly about the 'civil use of the law'.

Hosea 4:2

there is swearing, lying [9th], murder [6th], stealing [8th], and committing adultery [7th]; they break all bounds, and bloodshed follows bloodshed.

... no commandment to honour father and mother, or not to covet.

James 4:2

You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel. You do not have, because you do not ask.

James sees coveting as the cause behind murder. Justifiably you could also quite easily see that it is the cause of breaking all the rest of the second table, or at least commandments 6-9. This is anticipated in part within the 10th commandment itself which lists some of the things we may covet - i.e. wives who we may commit adultery with and possessions we may steal.

Romans 7

When Paul chooses to explain how the law works to bring knowledge of sin, he picks the commandment not to covet. Mark Seifrid commenting on this passage explains this not an insignificant choice:

All other transgressions against other (the dishonouring of parents, murder, adultery, theft and false witness, and so on) have their root in coveting, which is the antithesis of the love commandment. In this commandment the whole weight of the law comes to bear on us.

(p. 117, Christ Our Righteousness)

Why we get on the merry-go-round in the first place

The lack of recent blog activity (now being overcompensated for) may have made you realise that I've been quite busy recently. I tend to go through phases of taking on too much, and Christmas was a wonderful rest from that. Tim Chester's The Busy Christian's Guide to Busyness is a brilliant book on how it is our lack of faith that often (although not always) leads us to be over busy. I highly recommend it.

But Helmut Thielicke said the same a few decades ago when preaching on the parable of the seed growing secretly (Mark 4:26-29):

Our overactivity, which constantly keeps us on the merry-go-round and yet, no matter how fast we go, gets us nowhere, but only makes us dizzy, is not caused by the fact that we were so nervous or that we had no time. It is just the opposite. We are nervous and we have no time because we think everything will stop without us and because we think we are so tremendously important - we parvenus [newcomers/upstarts] in this old business of creation! And this is why we can never let anything get out of our hands and be entrusted to others. That's why we hold on to everything convulsively and thus wear ourselves out all over again. Undoubtedly, all this is connected with the ultimate decisions of our life and not so much at all with medicine or with the problem of our modern way of life. And because we have thus taken over the management of the bankrupt assets of creation, because we do everything ourselves and therefore must always be producing something, we never get away from constant care and concern. For anybody who takes everything upon himself finds that everything depends on him.

(p.84f, The Waiting Father: Sermons on the Parables of Jesus)

Isn't the true gospel so freeing in comparison to the false gospel of our mastery over the world? No wonder it rest is so important in the bible. Not because passiveness towards the world is the ideal, but because God is active in caring for his creation.

Thielicke on the Parable of the Soils

Helmut Thielicke makes two really important points that I think I often miss when reading this familiar parable:

1. It is a solemn parable

I wonder whether we have caught the sadness that hangs over this story. Jesus spoke this parable at a high point in his life and activity. The people were flocking to him in great numbers [and yet] the parable is really pointing out how frequently the divine seed is destroyed - destroyed in stony hearts, by the heat of the sun, by choking thorns and predatory birds - this is why there is in this parable a deep sense of grief and sorrow. And all this is seen and proclaimed while outwardly the people are coming in droves, inspired with festive enthusiasm, and the hucksters are rubbing their hands with delight over this "colossal" attraction

(p.53, The Waiting Father: Sermons on the Parables of Jesus)

2. It is meant to provoke a response

We should be misunderstanding [Jesus] disastrously if we thought that this was simply an enumeration of the forces which obstruct and choke our faith for our information or even for self-examination. This is more than "analysis." Jesus is never interested in counting and statistics; he always puts us to work. He says: Weed out the thorns; see to it that the seed does not fall on the path; be careful lest you be people so shallow that the Word cannot take root. Jesus says: Be good soil.

(p. 59f, ibid)

More random thoughts, this time on fear

Listening to: Antony and the Johnsons: I Am a Bird Now

Stream of conciousness blogging...

When Martin Luther expounded the 10 commandments in his Small Catechism he began every explanation with "We should fear and love God....". Fear and love/Law and Gospel/Repentance and faith etc. The two sides the Christian life are fundamental to Lutheran spirituality, and I think to the Bible too. But the language of fear is something that I really struggle with. I've been thinking about it a bit recently as I've come across things all over the place which have challenged me to think.

For example, Mark 4:35-5:20 which describes Jesus performing two miracles. In the first he stills a storm. In the second he casts out demons into some pigs. In both the reaction of the people is fear. The disciples fear him, but keep following him. The second group fear him, and ask him to depart from their region.... Is the first a good fear and the second a bad fear? In which case what is it about the fear which is good/bad? Is it what it leads to... i.e. pushing Jesus away, or clinging to him?

Perhaps, but what about Luke 5:1-10? Again Jesus performs a miracle and people are afraid. Peter falls on his knees and says "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord". He is pushing Jesus away, and Jesus responds by telling him "Do not be afraid".

Is that good fear or bad fear? Presumably good, but Jesus doesn't think it is appropriate!

But maybe that is because fear is the beginning of wisdom, but not the end. Fear is good at pushing us into the arms of love, but then be left behind. Verses could be multiplied to show this is not the case, but one striking example was brought up by Richard Coekin in the A Passion for Life DVDs the men in our church are watching. Looking at 2 Corinthians 5-6 he helpfully drew out four motivations for evangelism:

1. The fear of Christ (5:11)
2. The love of Christ (5:14)
3. The commission of Christ (5:20)
4. The day of Christ (6:1-2)

Surely the fear of Christ which motivates us to evangelism is fear for the sake of those who don't believe? Well, 2 Corinthians 5 doesn't seem to say that. Christians will appear before the judgment seat of Christ (5:10) "therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade others" (5:11). It is fear for ourselves that motivates us!

Discussing the Richard Coekin video at church this morning a friend said that he understood the fear of God, but not the love. I think he meant experientially rather than intellectually. I think I understand both experientially to some degree, but I really don't understand fear intellectually. In my heart I felt that he had too much of the fear of death and condemnation that we have been freed from (Romans 8:1-17; Hebrews 2:15). But I'm not sure that I was right. I do feel that we too often take the freedom described to mean that 'fear of God' for Christians is an insipid 'respect' or 'reverence' without any fear of punishment. This doesn't seem to be what the Bible describes, and besides it all just seems too neat. Fear isn't so easily packaged as Melachthon commented:

when will a terrified conscience, especially in those serious, genuine, and great terrors that are described in the Psalms and the Prophets and certainly experienced by those who are truly converted, be able to determine whether it fears God on account of himself or in fear is fleeing eternal punishments? These two great impulses can be distinguished on paper, but they cannot be separated in real life, as these slick sophists dream. (p.189, Apology to the Augsburg Confession, Article XII: Repentance, BOC)

Sorry for the mess that is this post. It reflects the mess my mind is in on this issue! But at least nobody can accuse me of being a "slick sophist"!

Any thoughts?

The missing commandment

And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, "Which commandment is the most important of all?" Jesus answered, "The most important is, 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 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.' The second is this: 'You shall love your neighbour as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these." (Mark 13:28-31)

Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet," and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: "You shall love your neighbour as yourself." Love does no wrong to a neighbour; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. (Romans 8:8-10)

For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: "You shall love your neighbour as yourself." (Galatians 5:13-14)

If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, "You shall love your neighbour as yourself," you are doing well. (James 2:8)

Does anyone else find it odd that of the two greatest commandments which sum up the law, Paul and James say only the second is necessary to 'fulfil' the law. To love your neighbour as yourself keeps the whole law according to Paul. But what about the God-ward commandment, which is the first not just in order but priority?

While that may just seem an oddity, the fact we are still required keep such a sweeping commandment creates an additional problem. We often remind people that nobody loves God with their whole heart, mind, soul and strength. But isn't the second great commandment equally impossible? It is very nice of God to 'let us off' having to keep the first commandment, but the second will break us as well. Not very freeing is it?

Yet Paul in Galatians says that loving our neighbour as ourselves is living in freedom. James says we have to do what the 'law of liberty' says (1:25) which is presumably the same as the 'royal law' of 2:8. However, we may feel that far from being free we are still living under subjection to commands and laws if we have to obey this great (OT, indeed Mosaic) commandment. True, it seems we are given a little more freedom to work out what loving our neighbour may mean in practice. Rather than having it spelled out in detail for us (e.g. command to leave the edges of the field for the poor, Leviticus 19:9) we can decide the best way to help to help our neighbour ourself. But when Paul talks about freedom, he means more than this. He means freedom from the curse of not keeping the law and freedom from the sin it enlivens.

Perhaps the solution is contained in Luther's famous observation, in The Freedom of the Christian, of how we are both free and enslaved as Christians:

A Christian is perfectly free lord of all, subject to none.

A Christian is a perfectly dutiful servant of all, subject to all.

The first statement concerns our God-ward relationship. The second statement our human-ward relationships. They relate to what Luther described as two different kinds of righteousness.

The distinction between two kinds of righteousness rests upon the observation that there are two dimensions to being a human creature. One dimension involves our life with God, especially in the matters of death and salvation. The other dimension involves our life with God’s creatures and our activity in this world. In the former we receive righteousness before God through faith on account of Christ. In the latter, we achieve righteousness in the eyes of the world by works when we carry out our God-given responsibilities.

(Charles Arand on Melancthton's Apology)

These two dimensions of life are not unconnected, as Jesus demonstrates clearly when he answers the question 'Which commandment [singular] is the most important of all?' with two commandments. However they are ordered and distinguishable.

Only being righteous in the first (vertical) dimension can lead to being righteous in the second. But being righteous in the second cannot bring righteousness in the first. As Luther says: 'Good works do not make a good man, but a good man does good works; evil works do not make a wicked man, but a wicked man does evil works' (Freedom of the Christian). This is because it is God who justifies (Romans 8:33) and the judgment of men is meaningless (Luke 16:15). It is our relationship to God which defines whether we are righteous or not.

But God's justifying declaration, like all his words is creative. So righteousness in the first dimension not only can but will lead to righteousness in the second dimension. That is why Paul can express such incredulity when despite being justified before God we are not acting as just people in the world, and why James says that Abraham's 'faith was completed by his works' (2:22). If God has declared us righteous in Christ by faith, in the promise of baptism, then we must be righteous not just before God but before men.

This certainty that one kind of righteousness will lead to the other is why (human-ward) works do not supply something that (God-ward) faith lacks, but instead 'perfect' or 'complete' faith. As Seifrid comments on James' statement that we are justified by works:

His formulation is important: he does not say that they were justified 'by faith and works', but they were justified by works alone! Justification ultimately must be by works, because works are faith's perfection [...] works that justify are never alone. They are an outworking of faith, which is present with them

(pp.180-181, Mark Seifrid, Christ our Righteousness)

So works do not fulfil a law which has not already been fulfilled by Christ who is received by faith. Instead they complete what has already begun, in one sense what has already happened, in Christ's death and resurrection. This is why James says that in Abraham's work of offering up Isaac 'the Scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"' (2:23). What God had promised before the act (that Abraham was righteous) was being played out (fulfilled) in his obedience through his faith in that promise. God did not lie in speaking when Abraham was a sinner, but created the reality.

This word is perhaps what James is talking about in 1:23-25. He says:

But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror. For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing.

The word tells us who we are in Christ Jesus. We are righteous in God's sight because Jesus loved God with all his heart, mind and strength. We can forget that truth and so don't live like it is true. But if we remember that image of ourselves, and believe it, we will act like it.

Does that makes sense? I've sort of skated along at quite a rate pulling in quite a bit of stuff, and maybe haven't been quite as focused as I should have been.

Further thoughts here.

The Spirit of Christ

A bible study introducing the Holy Spirit. Specifically with the aim of showing up the connections with the historical Jesus and how we can receive him. Please feel free to give some suggestions for improvements.

MARK 1:4-11

⁴And so John came, baptising in the desert region and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. ⁵The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him. Confessing their sins, they were baptised by him in the Jordan River. ⁶John wore clothing made of camel's hair, with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey. ⁷And this was his message: "After me will come one more powerful than I, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. ⁸I baptise you with water, but he will baptise you with the Holy Spirit."

⁹At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptised by John in the Jordan. ¹⁰As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. ¹¹And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."

What does John say the difference between his baptism and Jesus' baptism is?
> John baptised with water, Jesus will baptise with the Holy Spirit

What 3 things happen to Jesus at the Jordan river?
1. He is baptised by John
2. Spirit descends on him like a dove
3. God the Father declares that Jesus is his son

[Note: Jesus did not need to be baptised because he needed to repent and be forgiven (compare Matthew 3:13-15). Baptism is linked with repentance and death (Mark 10:35-40; Romans 6:3-4). Jesus was baptised when he didn't need to for the same reason he died when he didn't need to. To identify with sinners and go ahead before them to face God's judgment against sin, and the new life of resurrection.
Similarly, he did not become God's Son at his baptism. He was already his Son before he was sent to this world (John 3:16-17; 1 John 4:9-14).]

ACTS 2:22-41

Peter speaking to a crowd in Jerusalem shortly after Jesus died, was raised from the dead and went to heaven:

²²"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. ²³This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. ²⁴But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.

[...]

³²God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. ³³Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. ³⁴For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said, " 'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand ³⁵until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet." '

³⁶"Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."

³⁷When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"

³⁸Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. ³⁹The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call."

⁴⁰With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation." ⁴¹Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

Once Jesus was exalted to the right hand of God what does he do?

> Pour out the promised Holy Spirit, which he received (again), on the disciples.

To receive the Spirit what did the hearers of Peter need to do?

> Repent and be baptised for the forgiveness of sins?
> Through that the promise must be believed. What is the appropriate response to a promise? Faith!

ROMANS 8:5-16

⁵Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. ⁶The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; ⁷the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. ⁸Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.

⁹You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. ¹⁰But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. ¹¹And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.

¹²Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation—but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. ¹³For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, ¹⁴because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. ¹⁵For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father." ¹⁶The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children.

What difference does living in accordance with the Spirit make?

> Desiring what the Spirit desires (v.5).
> Life and peace, not death and hostility toward God (vv.6-7; 13).
> Adoption as God's children (vv.14-16)

What is the connection between the Spirit, Jesus Christ and us?
> Both are 'in' Christians (v.9)
> The Spirit gave life to Jesus and to Christians (v.11)
> The Spirit goes together with being children of God (vv.14-16). Christians are children of God, and Jesus was declared to be at his baptism (Mark 1:11).

How do you feel about the idea of the Spirit of Christ 'in you'?
> Invasive?
> Controlling? [so is sin, but this control gives you freedom (Romans 8:2; 2 Corinthians 3:17).]
> Impossible to grasp? [Spirit in the background always pointing us to Christ. The Spirit himself is not visible just his effects, like wind (John 3:8).]


[OPTIONAL EXTRA:]

PHILIPPIANS 2:1-11

¹If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, ²then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose. ³Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. ⁴Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.

⁵Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:

⁶Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, ⁷but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. ⁸And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross! ⁹Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, ¹⁰that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, ¹¹and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

What does a life in fellowship with the Spirit look like?
> Christ-like
> Humble to the extent of counting yourself nothing
> Selflessly serving others to the extent of dying

Mark 13 events that happen in Mark 14-16

Following on from my last post on Mark 13, here are some pointers to an over-realized eschatology of Mark 13.

Mark 13	Mark 14-15
'brother will deliver brother over to death' (v.12)	Judas betrays Jesus (14:10-11)
'those who are in Judea flee to the mountains' (v. 14)	Jesus predicts that 'the sheep will be scattered' (14:27) when he is arrested and dies, which is what happens (14:50).
Jesus constantly commands that the disciples 'stay awake' and 'be on guard' (vv. 9, 23, 33, 35, 37)	Jesus in Gethsemane tries to encourage the disciples to keep watch and stay awake but they keep falling asleep (14:32-42)
Jesus predicts the disciples will be brought before governors, councils and kings (v.9)	Jesus is brought before the 'chief priests and the whole Council' and Pilate (14:53-15:5)
Jesus says that he may come 'when the rooster crows' (v.35)	Peter denies Jesus while and the rooster crows (14:66-72)
'the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light' (v.24)	'when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour' (15:33)
'There will be earthquakes in various places' (v.8)	[As Jesus dies 'the earth shook, and the rocks were split' (Matthew 27:51)]

Obviously they don't quite fit. But nevertheless there is a striking overlap. I suppose if the whole of history is concentrated and contained in Christ's passion and resurrection then it is to be expected.

Still don't know what to do with it though.

What is the point of Mark 13?

Mark 13 caused me some considerable vexation when we reached it in Christianity Explored. I find it difficult because much of it seems to point toward the passion narrative, some seems to fit better with the early church (pre 70AD?), but some of it doesn't seem to have happened at all. However, this is perhaps only a problem if we assume that Jesus is giving a straight answer to the disciples' question ('when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are about to be accomplished?') which would be most unlike him. I decided to see what the explicit commands that Jesus gives were to get more of a handle on the passage. They are:

• 'See that no one leads you astray' (v.5)
• 'do not be alarmed' (v.7)
• 'be on your guard' (v.9)
• 'do not be anxious' when before governors and kings about 'what you are to say' (v.11)
• 'Pray that it may not happen in winter' (v.18)
• 'if anyone says to you, "Look, here is the Christ!" or "Look, there he is!" do not believe it' (v.21)
• 'be on guard' (v.23)
• 'know that he is near' (v.29)
• 'Be on guard, keep awake' (v.33)
• 'stay awake' (v.35)
• 'Stay awake' (v.37)

Jesus is not concerned that we know when the end will come because no-one but the Father knows that (v.32). In that respect he doesn't answer the disciples' question. Instead he is concerned that we are aware that the day could come at any moment, but that nevertheless we shouldn't panic when signs of this appear.

Perhaps Tom Torrance is right when he comments on Mark 13:

He has told us that [his second coming] will be sudden, and just when we expect it least, like a thief in the night. But there are signs of His coming. They are not signs that tell us when He will come, but signs and pledges telling us unmistakably that the end will come, as surely as day follows night, and that world-history will be brought to a close [...]

God gives us signs in history like that, not in order to predict the time of Christ's coming but to keep us faithful to our task of preaching the Gospel to all nations, and serving of our fellow-men in acts of unstinting love.

(pp. 21-22, When Christ Comes and Comes Again)

I'm still not sure, but I'm still thinking.

Watching in the night

'At the end of 430 years, on that very day, all the hosts of the Lord went out from the land of Egypt. It was a night of watching by the Lord, to bring them out of the land of Egypt; so this same night is a night of watching kept to the Lord by all the people of Israel throughout their generations.' (Exodus 12:41-42)

'But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Be on guard, keep awake. For you do not know when the time will come. It is like a man going on a journey, when he leaves home and puts his servants in charge, each with his work, and commands the doorkeeper to stay awake. Therefore stay awake—for you do not know when the master of the house will come, in the evening, or at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or in the morning— lest he come suddenly and find you asleep. And what I say to you I say to all: Stay awake.' (Mark 13:32-36)

'And they went to a place called Gethsemane. And he said to his disciples, "Sit here while I pray." And he took with him Peter and James and John, and began to be greatly distressed and troubled. And he said to them, "My soul is very sorrowful, even to death. Remain here and watch." And going a little farther, he fell on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. And he said, "Abba, Father, all things are possible for you. Remove this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will." And he came and found them sleeping, and he said to Peter, "Simon, are you asleep? Could you not watch one hour? Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak." And again he went away and prayed, saying the same words. And again he came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were very heavy, and they did not know what to answer him. And he came the third time and said to them, "Are you still sleeping and taking your rest? It is enough; the hour has come. The Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. Rise, let us be going; see, my betrayer is at hand."' (Mark 14:32-42)

With great thanks to my friend Jonny who showed me the Exodus connection.

And in case you ask I don't really understand Mark's 'Little Apocalypse'. I find it interesting how much of what it talks about happened in the Passion story, but I can't tie it up all neat and tidy. However, that does make clear that the focus is on the cross as the centre-point of history around which all else turns (even the remaking of the world).

Who do you say I am?

In his lectures, Christology, Dietrich Bonhoeffer made the plea that in theology we give priority to the question of who over how, and that we always seek answers to the question of how in terms of who.

[...]

We can too readily assume that Christianity is meaningful, useful, relevant, even true, only if it seen to offer solutions to [...] practical problems. We can too readily subsume theology (as Ritschl did in the nineteenth century) under the category of means and ends.

(pp. 69-70, James B Torrance, Worship, Community and the Triune God of Grace)

My prayer as I 'lead' a new round of Christianity Explored from tomorrow that I remember this. Too often recently I have stressed how Christianity meets felt needs, and so missed much of the Gospel which is a person (as Mark says at the beginning of Mark's Gospel; 1:1).

Mark's Gospel, which Christianity Explored looks at, is deeply concerned with Jesus' identity. I didn't really get it at the time but I am sure that that is why the forerunner of UCCF's FREE Gospel Project was named 'Identity'. [I remember that project particularly well as that 'Identity Gospel' was the first time I ever read the bible as an adult.]

Too the end of reminding myself who Mark says Jesus is, I have just quickly read through the Gospel and noted down all the instances of people explicitly saying who they think Jesus is (a very incomplete way of looking at it I know, but hopefully helpful).

• Mark: "Jesus Christ, the Son of God" (1:1)
• God the Father: "You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased" (1:11)
• Man with an unclean spirit: "Jesus of Nazareth...the Holy One of God" (1:24)
• Unclean spirits: "You are the Son of God" (2:11)
• His family: "He is out of his mind" (2:21)
• The scribes from Jerusalem: "He is possessed by Beelzebul...He has an unclean spirit" (2:22-30)
• Disciples: "Teacher" (4:38, followed by stilling of storm when they ask:"Who then is this", v.41?)
• Man with unclean spirit: "Son of the Most High God" (5:7)
• Those from the ruler's house: "Teacher" (5:35)
• People at the synagogue in his hometown: "the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon" (6:3)
• Some people: "John the Baptist...raised from the dead" (6:14)
• Some others: "He is Elijah" (6:15)
• Some more others: "He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old" (6:15)
• Herod: "John, whom I beheaded, has been raised" (6:16)
• Syrophoenician woman: "Lord" (7:28)
• Some people: "John the Baptist" (8:28)
• Some others: "Elijah" (8:28)
• Some more others: "one of the prophets" (8:28)
• Peter: "You are the Christ" (8:29)
• Peter, James and John: "Rabbi" (9:5)
• God the Father: "This is my beloved Son; listen to him" (9:7)
• Father of a boy with an unclean spirit: "Teacher" (9:17)
• Disciples: "Teacher" (9:38)
• Rich Young Man: "Good Teacher" (10:17) and "Teacher" (10:20)
• James and John: "Teacher" (10:35)
• Bartimaeus, a blind beggar, the son of Timaeus: "Son of David" (10:48) and "Rabbi" (10:51)
• Crowd: "he who comes in the name of the Lord" (11:9)
• Peter: "Rabbi" (11:21)
• Pharisees and some of the Herodians: "Teacher" (12:14)
• Sadducees: "Teacher" (12:19)
• One of the scribes: "Teacher" (12:32)
• One of his disciples: "Teacher" (13:1)
• Judas: "Rabbi" (14:45)
• Jesus: "I am [the Christ, the Son of the Blessed]" (14:62; in response to the High Priest's question; 14:61)
• Jesus: "You have said [I am the King of the Jews]" (15:2; in response to Pilate's question)
• Pilate: "the King of the Jews" (16:9)
• Soldiers (mockingly): "King of the Jews" (16:18)
• The chief priests with the scribes (mockingly): "the Christ, the King of Israel" (16:32)
• Centurion by the cross: "the Son of God" (15:39)
• Angels: "Jesus of Nazareth" (16:6)

[The different colours represent different groups of people, and the bold words are those that echo Mark's introduction in 1:1]

I glean a few things from this (which are quite obvious, sorry):

1. The book is structured round the key confessions of Jesus as Messiah and Son of God. It is clear that both are important.
2. God the Father's declaration at Jesus' Baptism, and the Transfiguration is as important as Peter's in 8:28. The dramatic events around the cross also have the feeling of a voice from heaven.
3. The trial before Pilate and the High Priest is very important, as is the verdict given by the sign above the cross, and the Centurion.
4. The disciples at no point during the Gospel come to a realisation of who Jesus is, with the one possible exception of Peter's confession in 8:28.
5. The outsiders are the people who see the truth; those with unclean spirits, the Syrophoenician woman, Blind Bartimaeus and the Centrurion.

What do you want me to do for you?

Mark is quite subtle in some ways about how he expects his readers to respond to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Rico Tice in Christianity Explored this evening pointed us to two different responses to Jesus.

The two accounts are clearly meant to be read together as they immediately follow on from one another and contain exactly the same question from Jesus: 'What do you want me to do for you?' (10:36, 51). Clearly they are also important as they occur immediately before the entry to Jerusalem and the Passion narrative.

James and John's respond to the question: 'Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory' (v. 37). Bartimaeus responds: 'Rabbi, let me recover my sight' (v. 51).

It is difficult at first to see how the two answers relate to one another. Presumably one is supposed to be the opposite of the other. But how?

I am open to being persuaded otherwise, but I think the answer can be gathered from 3 observations:

1. Jesus asks the question what he can do.
2. Jesus' response to James and John is to ask whether they can do what he will do (ie. drink the cup he will drink). Their answer is 'yes', and Jesus almost grudgingly confirms that they will, but adds that this will not make him approve them to sit at his side.
3. The link verse between the two narratives is 'the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many' (v. 45).

Reading the narrative of the request of James and John on its own may lead you to conclude that the point is to teach us that to follow Christ means to take up our cross; to be 'slave of all' (v.44). However, reading the two narratives together shows that this is secondary, although essential. First, we must accept that we like the blind beggar have nothing to give to God we can only receive.

This is a difficult truth to take to heart.

In the Christianity Explored course the final question is 'If you could ask God one question, and you knew it would be answered, what would it be?'. One of our group tonight confessed it would be 'What do you want me to do for you?' According to the Gospel that is the question that Jesus asks!

'nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything' (Acts 17:25)

Elisha's miracles

Elisha performs astonishing miracles and one of the highlights is when he raises the Shunammite's Son (2 Kings 4). But he doesn't always find miracle-working straight forward. He sends his staff to be laid on the dead son but it does not work. He then has to go to house, shuts out the crowd from the room, and lays on the child, 'putting his mouth on his mouth, his eyes on his eyes, and his hands on his hands'; but that only makes the child warm. He then has a short break and repeats the process before the child wakes up coughing and spluttering. Later in the same chapter Elisha also feeds a hundred men with 'twenty loaves of barley and fresh ears of grain in his sack'.

In Mark 5 Jesus also is brought to someone's home to raise their child from the dead. He also shuts the door behind him and a couple of others but simply holds the child by her hand and speaks words to her and she immediately is risen and able to walk around. In the next chapter Mark records how Jesus feeds five thousand people with five loaves and two fish.

The other restoration of Peter

"go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you." (Mark 16:7)

"now Peter is singled out and included in the group who are commanded to follow to Galilee: it is not yet too late for them to become disciples once more. The message is thus not simply a command, but an assurance that the death and resurrection of Jesus bring forgiveness and the opportunity to begin again" (p.66, Not Ashamed of the Gospel: New Testament Interpretations of the Death of Christ by Morna D. Hooker)

Anointing of Jesus

"I tell you the truth, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her." (Matthew 26:13)

I think I ought to do a list of episodes which appear in every single one of the four gospels. I don't think there can be many and arguably this one isn't one as the four accounts of Jesus being anointed do not all tally nicely and there seems to be more than one event described in the NT. But anyhow, I have always found this phrase in Matthew's account weird. But I think the sermon I heard at church on Sunday has hinted at a reason behind it.

Of course the anointing is to burial and that is explicit in 3 of the 4 accounts. However could it not also be an anointing of Jesus as King? It is like David and Saul but as different as he is different yet similar to them. It is an anointing to death, through which comes glory; an anointing by a lowly woman and not a mighty prophet or priest.

I don't know, I'm just musing.