Comments (2)

By philhigley, March 15, 2010 10:46 am

Miscellany 522.

NO PROMISES TO UNCONVERTED MEN’S SEEKING SALVATION

It was not meet that God should make any promises of success to unregenerated seekers of salvation. For it is not meet that any should have absolute promises of success, unless they do what they can, or if they are slack and partial and ben’t through in seeking. Nor is it meet that absolute promises should be made to such as are thorough in seeking, unless they are persevering in it. It is not meet that God should promise men success, if they would be engaged in seeking during any limited time, as for a day or month or year. Therefore, it was not meet that God should make any absolute promises of success to any unconverted seekers; for no unconverted man will be thorough in striving for eternal life, and be fixed and persevering in it.

The Arminians say that God has promised that if men will make a good improvement of common grace, he will give special. Then I would ask, how long must a man make good improvement of common grace, in order to be entitled to that promise? Will it be a performance of the condition of the promise, if a man doth it for a day or a week? If it be said, that a man must go on in making a good improvement of it, waiting for the fulfilling of the promise in God’s time; I answer, that I believe that God has promised special grace to those that are faithful in the improvement of common grace, and continue so to be: but there are none but those that have special grace, that do thus. There is no promise of grace but what is implied in that, “To him that hath shall be given” (Lk 8.18). God make promises of grace only to grace.

Edwards establishes in the first paragraph that God is not obligated to promise anything to humankind. At the chagrin of the average Arminian or theologically inept person regarding the main facets of Reformed Theology, this fact might be offensive. However, it is requisite that a promise of grace or mercy on the part of God is just that, grace or mercy—but by God alone. You see, grace and mercy are never obligatory in any way shape or form because grace and mercy would (1) be nonsensical categories of thought, and (2) they would be self contradictory ideas that would leave nothing more than absurdity. What does this mean then? It means, as Edwards has pointed out, that God is not under any obligation to promise anything to the one who is not regenerated by the Holy Spirit. This fact, however, is always seen in light of God’s love for the world in his Son Jesus. But even then the Atonement by Jesus was not obligatory on the part of God, but God’s own free decision. God is the only one who is truly free. Speculators about this fact would do well to hold their tongues until the eschaton.

In the second section, Edwards points out the pelagian tendencies of Arminianism to make a necessary connection (falsely I believe) from common grace to special grace, or said another way, common grace to salvation grace. Arminians tend to argue that the common grace that God gives all people, whether regenerated or unregenerated to exist second by second and moment by moment physically and spiritually, can inevitably lead to a position of attaining special grace. An easier way to understand this is that Edwards is stating that Arminians believe that humans can effect their own salvation by common grace. Keep in mind that I said effect and not affect. This is the essence of the Arminian heresy presently in the church, but it’s not just Arminian, it’s human nature. We tend to think we’re always better than we are, but the truth is that we’re worse than we can realize. We also must bear in mind that God loves us more than we can imagine in our own sinfulness and depravity. This is a mystery.

In any case, Edwards’ point, I believe, is that by common grace we can affect our own salvation in the sense that God has provided common grace to do so. However, special grace which is salvific in nature does not occur by our own causation, but only the Spirit’s regeneration of our being by the special grace which is given by God. Edwards is pointing out in the second section that anything else would be absurd because one would have to wait an eternity for common grace to lead to special grace. Again, said another way, special salvific grace is always given and never achieved.

Why this matters:

This whole situation matters because Christianity is the story about how God reaches down and lifts us out of our own depravity by his mercy alone. As he lifts us out of a slough of despond we may grab onto him as a child would a parent, but the child cannot lift himself out alone. For some children, they grab on harder to God’s grace. For others, they let him do all the work.

On the other side of the coin is the exact opposite of Christianity, i.e., Religion. Religion typically has a story about how you and you alone are the arbiter of your own salvation. You need to be good, you need to be nice, you need to be loving, etc. etc. All of these concepts of religion are indeed good, but they do not save. Instead, the typical person who attempts to abide by them often sees them as a means of works righteousness. In religion, humanity saves humanity by some strange and corrupt form of rugged individualism. In Reformed Theology, and, I would argue, Christianity in general, the only saving possible is by and through the person of Jesus Christ.

We are saved by Grace alone through Faith alone, and consequently unto good works alone.

Basically, Arminians just have the whole dynamic of soteriology backwards.

Comments (2)

By philhigley, March 9, 2010 11:09 am

Miscellany 514. Christian Religion

Without divine revelation, ’tis impossible the world should ever have come to any tolerable knowledge of future rewards and punishments. I believe the world, without revelation, never would have come to any determination that there was any future rewards and punishments, but would have remained midnight darkness about it. But if they could have found out that there was to be any such thing, they would have been forever ignorant, whether they were eternal or temporal, and of what kind they were; the nature, kind, and degree, and circumstances of the happiness of heaven; what it was they were to enjoy, and with what qualifications. These things would forever have been as much unknown, as how that part of the universe is formed that is beyond the starry heavens. Indeed, what the Scripture reveals of the future happiness of the righteous, is exceeding rational, and excellently fit and congruous: that those that are holy shall hereafter be made perfectly holy, that they shall enjoy a happiness that is holy and spiritual, that they shall see God, and be in his presence, and everlastingly enjoy his love. But the world never would have found this.

Interesting points by Edwards. Keep in mind, however, that he’s got some loaded words here and that some of his words have taken on different meaning relative to our current context. Some of the interesting words/phrases which I would like more definition on are the following:

Rewards and punishments…

happiness of heaven…

perfectly holy…

Comments (0)

By philhigley, March 8, 2010 10:55 am

I admit I’ve been neglecting my studies as of late, which is wholly evidenced by my lack of blog posts over the last month or so. Though I’m doing about three hours a week of NT exegesis and analysis and commentary compression work, I’ve also been neglecting my blog writing as well as readings in systematic theology and philosophical theology. This has come to a stop today.

Why? Yesterday I heard a sermon that emphasized our culture’s obsession with leadership, and how everyone wants to be a leader. One of the interesting statistics mentioned in the sermon was that on a recent survey, about 7 out of 10 people considered themselves leaders. Adequately qualified, the pastor’s point was that typically people within our culture always want to see themselves as leaders because being a ‘follower’ kind of sucks. It’s pounded into our mindsets to be our own leaders, autonomous, independent, powerful, etc. However, there’s quite a danger to this kind of thinking because it lacks the insight of what it means to be a good follower and a good servant. It lacks humility. The pastor’s evidence of this was the original 12 Apostles and their lack of qualifications for being “leaders”.  In short, all of the apostles did not have any formal leadership qualities, but Jesus chose them for a particular purpose. They all had to become disciples first before they could be leaders. (And let me tell you a secret: we’re all followers of something or someone.) I’m a follower of Jesus, though not always a good one. I try and follow the example set forth by Jesus by loving my neighbors the best way I know how, and also loving myself the best way I know how. This topic is another blog post but my point is that I’m a follower of Jesus. He’s the master; I’m a disciple. In any case, what it means to be a good follower for me is to challenge myself with theology and philosophy; to challenge my views on culture, the church, and how I ought to live my life. While sitting and listening to the sermon, I was convicted about my current laziness in regard to studying and reading and interacting with theology. In sum, then: I need to get up earlier in the morning and crack the books and read and be challenged. This also obviously includes being missional in my verbal witness as well, but I’m always working on that.

With my confession stated above, it is my intent to blog at least three times a week for the rest of this month. I will be focusing in my blogs on Jonathan Edwards’ “Miscellanies” 501-832, in the Yale Edition, edited by Ava Chamerlain. The blogs will be nothing spectacular, I assure you, but they will consist of some of the more interesting miscellanies that Edwards’ wrote—from my perspective of course. I’ve read quite a bit of Edwards and quite a bit about him, so I feel somewhat confident to state a particular miscellany, and then make a short comment on it. For today I’m focusing on one of his miscellanies that is quite apropos to what I have communicated above regarding being an obedient follower of God. The most profound example of following God the Father is in the example and witness by Jesus himself. Edwards says in miscellany 501:

Christ’s Righteousness. ‘Tis most agreeable to the tenor of the Scripture that believers shall partake with Christ in that exaltation and glory which the Father gives him in reward for his obedience, his doing the work which he did in the world by the Father’s appointment. The whole mystical Christ shall be rewarded for this, which is the same thing as having Christ’s righteousness imputed to them.

I assume that the “whole mystical Christ” refers to those who truly have put their faith and trust in Christ, that is, ‘believers’.

On another note, one of the more interesting examples of Christ’s obedience is the Gethsemane episode. Here’s the whole section of text, but I was specifically thinking about vv. 38-39 & 42.

Gethsemane (NIV)

³⁶ Then Jesus went with his disciples to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to them, “Sit here while I go over there and pray.” ³⁷ He took Peter and the two sons of Zebedee along with him, and he began to be sorrowful and troubled. ³⁸ Then he said to them, “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me.”

³⁹ Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”

⁴⁰ Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. “Could you men not keep watch with me for one hour?” he asked Peter. ⁴¹ “Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak.”

⁴² He went away a second time and prayed, “My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done.”

⁴³ When he came back, he again found them sleeping, because their eyes were heavy. ⁴⁴ So he left them and went away once more and prayed the third time, saying the same thing.

⁴⁵ Then he returned to the disciples and said to them, “Are you still sleeping and resting? Look, the hour is near, and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. ⁴⁶ Rise, let us go! Here comes my betrayer!”

Comments (0)

By philhigley, March 2, 2010 1:49 am

Reading Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics is like trudging through a thick jungle with only a rusty and dull machete. Oftentimes there are great pyramids in a clearing that stand very strong, up out of the canopy in an ominous and awe inspiring way. Other times there are pyramids and other ancient structures which the jungle has claimed and taken back with a thick layer of organic debris. Just as it is difficult to clear a path through the jungle it is even more difficult to investigate exactly what the jungle has taken back as its own. The journey may be difficult but the end result is magnificent to be sure.

Comments (4)

By philhigley, February 18, 2010 11:37 am

Here’s Colbert’s first interview with Bart Ehrman…

Comments (7)

By philhigley, February 9, 2010 2:34 am

I'm Ludwig Feuerbach and I'm exceptionally intelligent...

Ok, here’s the nature of this entry–at, umm, 10:34pm on a Monday night. I’m going to try and do a post in 300 words or less (not counting the preface of course). Here we go:

I was just reading about how Ludwig Feuerbach claimed that all theology is anthropomorphic, since God is essentially a projection of unfulfilled human potential. And remember that an anthropomorphism is basically a human tendency to see other things as analogous to ourselves. It’s kind of like when people sometimes see their pets in overly anthropomorphic ways—like my mother (sorry mom ).

Anyhow, Feuerbach might have a point to a certain degree, but I believe his assertion is basically fallacious. Why? I’ve got two reasons out of many….

First, God has revealed himself most basically and profoundly through his Son Jesus, the Christ. We see God through the incarnation of his Son, Jesus, who is both 100% man and 100% God, according to Christian theology and the Creeds of the Church. Thus, Feuerbach’s sampling is a little skewed because he’s actually got the wrong perception of true humanity. Indeed, true humanity is demonstrated through the person and work of Jesus. For example, the Apostle Paul understands this concept when he refers to Jesus as the second Adam. Whereas the first Adam brought death through his sin and disobedience, the second Adam (Jesus) brought life eternal and an example of true humanity, love, and compassion. Simply stated, Feuerbach’s actually got the whole thing backwards. All human potential is fulfilled through Jesus—the true human—and thus our problem is projecting ourselves as our own false gods. Basically, Feuerbach’s point is really just another definition of idolatry…

But this is easy considering Feuerbach’s premise, right? His premise assumes that Jesus is not the Christ. But why should I accept his premise? Has he given me any substantive reason to reject the person and work of Jesus? No, he hasn’t. Most people don’t really want to talk about Jesus as much as they want to talk about themselves.

Second reason: How pray tell does Feuerbach know what constitutes fulfilled human potential? Regarding this question I believe Feuerbach’s proposition implodes and is essentially self-defeating. Here’s what I’m thinking. Feuerbach says that “God is nothing but a projection of human imagination.” But all “nothing-but” statements presuppose “more-than” knowledge. Basically, how could he know that God was “nothing but” unless he knew “more than” that himself. In short, the central statement of Feuerbach’s system is fallacious and self-defeating because it implies more knowledge than it allows.

Additionally, Feuerbach never considers that perhaps his own atheism is a projection of his own imagination. Maybe Feuerbach is simply imagining that there is no God. I recall there being a verse in the OT that says something to the degree that only a fool says in his own heart there is no God. Feuerbach may well just be foolish, kind of like Don Quixote, haha.

In any case, it’s always amazing that these exceptionally “intelligent” minds can always assert something without adequately defending their position in light of their own assertion. My points above, I believe, illustrate my own assertion rather simply in both a theological and philosophical manner. The first assumes that God has indeed revealed himself in the person and work of Jesus. Either take it or leave it. You either believe (i.e., have faith) that Jesus is who he said he was or you do not. In a very practical way, C.S. Lewis states this trilemma well: Jesus is the Lord, a liar, or a lunatic. Without playing word games and taking Lewis out of context, which some people try and do, make your pick. The second point is purely philosophical and is not dependant on any faith commitment from either theology or inductive reasoning. This last point deductively demonstrates the logical absurdity of Feuerbach’s thesis based on his own categorical syllogism. His argument simply doesn’t work from a purely logical perspective.

Ok, that’s it… This is a blog post after all and nothing more. Oh ya, I’m at 625 words…

Comments (0)

By philhigley, February 4, 2010 11:01 pm

Mark 1:35-45 (ESV)

And rising very early in the morning, while it was still dark, Jesus departed and went out to a desolate place, and there he prayed. ³⁶ And Simon and those who were with him searched for him, ³⁷ and they found him and said to him, “Everyone is looking for you.”

³⁸ And Jesus said to them, “Let us go on to the next towns, that I may preach there also, for that is why I came out.” ³⁹ And he went throughout all Galilee, preaching in their synagogues and casting out demons.

⁴⁰ And a leper came to him, imploring him, and kneeling said to him, “If you will, you can make me clean.”

⁴¹ Moved with pity, Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him and said to him, “I will; be clean.” ⁴² And immediately the leprosy left him, and he was made clean.

⁴³ And Jesus sternly charged him and sent him away at once, ⁴⁴ and said to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, for a proof to them.” ⁴⁵ But he went out and began to talk freely about it, and to spread the news, so that Jesus could no longer openly enter a town, but was out in desolate places, and people were coming to him from every quarter.

Intro:

Within this section of text we see differing reactions by people to Jesus’ early ministry. Whereas in the preceding verses we are not told of any human opposition to Jesus (only demonic), in these verses we see the initial affects of Jesus’ works and teachings on people in a couple of different ways. First, it seems that some people are seeking out Jesus for healings alone and nothing more. Mark implies that Jesus is being viewed by some people as a utility, perhaps even a tool. In fact, the one man who Jesus heals of the skin disease outright disobeys his wishes (v. 43) right after he heals him. Secondly, the disobedience and ingratitude of the healed man clearly influences the direction of Jesus’ ministry. Jesus is not just a healer of physical sickness, but Mark alludes to the fact he is a spiritual healer too (we will see this in the next section 2:1-12). Some people will readily accept physical help, but when it comes to spiritual help they instantly rebel. Additionally, some people whom Jesus heals in the gospels have very short memories when it comes to their restoration relative to their devotion to Jesus as a disciple. In any case, what we already see here in these verses is a case of personal motives when it comes to Jesus. Regarding these motives, Mark gives us a glimpse into how people are seeking out Jesus for various reasons, selfish or not. And keep in mind that we have previously been told that because of Jesus’ works he has become “famous” (v. 28) throughout the region of Galilee, but he is not interested in fame or fortune, but doing the will of his Father. Clearly v. 35 indicates that people are already missing the point of his ministry….

Verses 35-39

It is possible that v. 35 is meant to suggest a certain crisis was already taking place within Jesus’ ministry. The reason for this might be due to there being an enthusiastic recognition to Jesus on the part of individuals who did not desire to become his disciples, but only to get something. In the other two places in Mark’s Gospel where Jesus prays, he is also faced with a crisis (6:46 Feeding the multitude; & 14:32-41 Garden of Gethsemane). So what might this certain crisis be in chapter 1? The crisis is the shallow and superficial response of some of the people (not all) to Jesus. Just as in our contemporary context, so too back in the 1^st century some people were interested in what he can do to heal their physical afflictions or their circumstances in life. As a response to all of this, Jesus seeks the strength and direction that only communion and fellowship with the Father can provide. We are given very specific details here in v. 35: Jesus got up early when it was still dark to go to a quite place and prayed. It is likely that Jesus’ prayer and communion with the Father was about what he should do regarding the responses he was getting to his ministry. To make the point all the more serious, we have Simon (Peter) finding Jesus and calling out to him with a certain sense of urgency in v. 36: “Everyone is looking for you.” But were the people seeking Jesus for the wrong thing and the wrong reason? Either way, Jesus’ response is to continue on in his ministry of preaching, teaching, and casting out demons—which all point again to his attack on the powers of darkness.

Verses 40-45

In these verses we have the story of a man with a dreaded skin disease (not necessarily “leprosy” per se) coming to Jesus. The man is driven by desperation to violate the social codes and the Levitical law (Lev. 13:45) in order to find a cure. Such a person, as the man well knew, was to go about crying “Unclean, unclean” so that no one would approach him and be contaminated. But this man knew of Jesus’ power because he says, “if you will, you can make me clean.” Notice, however, that the primary concern is with being clean so that he can reenter Jewish society, being a whole person. This is a very Jewish way of looking at disease in biblical times, by focusing on its ritual effects, whereas a pagan would have simply said, “if you will, you can make me well.”

In this story we also see a definite contrast between Jesus, who can make someone clean, and the priest, who can only declare someone to be clean. Clearly Jesus is seen as superior. Later rabbinic literature suggested that such skin diseases were as difficult to get rid of as raising the dead (insert sarcasm here). Thus the miracle takes on significance as a deed of great power. The seriousness, however, with which Jews took this disease is clearly shown by the fact that they believed that someone who came in contact with a person with such a disease may as well have touched a corpse. A man with such a disease was among the living dead—untouchable (see Num. 12:12; Job 18:13).

Note: The ESV chooses to translate the textual variant in v. 41 as “Moved with pity, Jesus…” However, there is a good argument to make that the original text says: “Being indignant, Jesus…” Basically, the more difficult reading is preferred by scholars because of Ockham’s razor and the fact that many early manuscripts have the alternate reading. So much for Chicago’s “in the original manuscripts…” hahaha Sure would be helpful if we had those originals…. In any case, on this point I would like to ask anyone to comment on the pros and cons of both variants, i.e., “indignant” or “moved with pity.”

Moving on, we are told that Jesus heals the man instantaneously. But what’s more, Jesus touched the man, which stands in contrast to what is found in 2 Kings 5:10. This would certainly render Jesus unclean, but the issue of Jesus’ view of the Levitical laws is not really fully broached until Mark 7. Some scholars hold that Jesus was willing to incur uncleanness in order to help others, but this interpretation seems suspect considering that we are nowhere told that Jesus, like the man he heals, ever went through ritual cleansing after this encounter. What Mark will suggest in chapter 7 is that Jesus believed that with the inbreaking of God’s dominion these rules about clean and unclean, and indeed also various Sabbath rules, were obsolescent. Such rules had fulfilled their purpose, but now the Holy One of God appeared and a new state of affairs was at hand.

What’s very interesting and very important in this episode is Jesus’ stern warning to the man to say nothing to anyone (vv. 43-44). The man was directed by Jesus to simply show himself to the local priest in order to receive a clean bill of health according to Mosaic Law and enter into society in order to fulfill his desire. But the man, as mentioned in the intro was explicitly disobedient to Jesus’ command. The man does his own free-lance witnessing to what has transpired, and notice that the text says the man “spread the news….” Unfortunately, however, he bore witness about the wrong thing in the wrong way. The results of this ill-advised witnessing were all wrong and against Jesus’ command. As a result of the man’s disobedience, ingratitude, and perhaps arrogance, we are told that Jesus was made unable to come openly into a Galilean city because of his burgeoning reputation as an itinerant healer (think of the “faith healers” in our own American context; Jesus does not want that sort of reputation because it would thwart the essential purpose of his ministry.) Thus Jesus goes out once more to the desert or wilderness area to escape the throng (v. 45). But this time not just the disciples but the crowds follow him. The man who came to bring in God’s shalom and rest was himself to have no rest or peace.

Comments (1)

By philhigley, February 1, 2010 8:24 pm

Observations on the Gospel of Mark

Mark 1:21-34 (ESV)

And they went into Capernaum, and immediately on the Sabbath [Jesus] entered the synagogue and was teaching.  ²² And they were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one who had authority, and not as the scribes.  ²³ And immediately there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit. And he cried out,  ²⁴ “What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are- the Holy One of God.”  ²⁵ But Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Be silent, and come out of him!”  ²⁶ And the unclean spirit, convulsing him and crying out with a loud voice, came out of him.  ²⁷ And they were all amazed, so that they questioned among themselves, saying, “What is this? A new teaching with authority! He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him.”  ²⁸ And at once his fame spread everywhere throughout all the surrounding region of Galilee.  ²⁹ And immediately he left the synagogue and entered the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John.  ³⁰ Now Simon’s mother-in-law lay ill with a fever, and immediately they told him about her.  ³¹ And he came and took her by the hand and lifted her up, and the fever left her, and she began to serve them.  ³² That evening at sundown they brought to him all who were sick or oppressed by demons.  ³³ And the whole city was gathered together at the door.  ³⁴ And he healed many who were sick with various diseases, and cast out many demons. And he would not permit the demons to speak, because they knew him.

Intro:

If the preceding vv. of 16-20 demonstrated Jesus’ authority in calling disciples, then vv. 21-34 begin to exhibit the authority and power of his word in teaching, exorcism, and healing. In this section of the text Mark wants to establish and present Jesus as an authority by highlighting some of the extraordinary works he performed early in his ministry. Additionally, Mark chooses to emphasize the early response to Jesus’ synagogue message, which was rather positive by the people. This is a partial contrast to the later episode of Jesus’ teaching being rejected in the Nazareth synagogue in chapter 6. Lastly, what also makes this section of Mark both amazing and mysterious is that we have the first event of a demoniac reacting to the incarnate Son of God, and Jesus simply eradicating whatever unclean spirits were in the man with a word. On top of this, Jesus is beginning to heal those who are sick as a demonstration of his compassion for those who are in need and his authority over sickness and even death.

Verses 21-28

We are told initially that Jesus and his disciples entered a synagogue in Capernaum, which was normative at the time to hear the scriptures read aloud in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek, to pray and worship, and to hear a short exposition on a piece of scriptural text (i.e. a sermon). Mark indicates that Jesus was the teacher on this particular day, and although we aren’t told what he was saying, we can see the demonstrative effect of this teaching in two ways. First, the people “were astonished at his teaching” because he taught them in a way very different to that of the scribes, and with authority (exousia) being emphasized in the original Greek. The people were, in effect, overwhelmed by Jesus’ teaching. There’s some humor in this verse too because Mark is obviously taking a shot at the pedagogical practices of the scribes and their (non)ability to teach—which was their principal job and expertise in the 1^st century. The scribes’ authority was based on their own learning, whereas Jesus’ seemed to be like that of a prophet—someone who had received a word of God without study.

The second demonstrative effect of Jesus’ teaching is much more serious within the context of the narrative. It has to do with the response of a demon possessed man upon hearing the teaching of Jesus. First off, this man should not have even been present in the synagogue because he was ritually unclean from having a spirit, and thus we should probably see his entry into the synagogue while Jesus is there as a deliberate provocation. The demon/spirit in the man will be confronted and challenged by its opposite—the Holy One of God. Notice also that Jesus’ focus is on teaching and his teaching is interrupted, and only then does he respond by healing the possessed man. We will see that this is a regular pattern in Mark’s Gospel. Healings seem mostly to happen in response to a pressing need, not as part of a program Jesus set out to follow. Notice, however, that in this circumstance it is the spirit/demon in the man that initiates the conversation. It is not accidental that Mark presents an exorcism as the first miracle in his Gospel. He wishes to make evident that Jesus has come to destroy the powers of darkness. His ministry involves waging war on these powers.

Supplemental note: We also see that the words of the spirit/demon must then be seen as hostile. They should also be seen as an attempt, by a naming ritual, to get control of the situation. This defensive maneuver required that a correct name or title be used for Jesus in order to try and gain control. The OT parallels to the phrase “what to me and to you” (cf. Judg 11:12; 2 Sam 16:10; 19:22; 1Kings 17:18) means something like: What do we have to do with you, or what do you want with us, or why are you meddling with us? The spirit/demon rightly feels threatened and so is hostile, even though Jesus has done nothing to warrant such verbiage. Yet it is a paradox that Jesus encounters evil not merely on the Sabbath but in the synagogue right at the beginning of his ministry. The demon seems to be suggesting that by his teaching there, Jesus had invaded the territory of the spirit/demon.

Additionally, we can see some very interesting things in this exchange between the demon and Jesus. First, the demon uses “us” in v. 24, maybe implying that there is more than one spirit present or as a collective whole for the fact that Jesus’ attack is on the whole community or realm of evil. Here, as elsewhere in Mark, only God, or supernatural beings, or humans who have received revelation from above know who Jesus really is. Notice also that the demon says it “knows” who Jesus is, but knowing doesn’t necessarily meaning having a relationship with, like in our culture. To say, “I know God,” does not equate to “I have a relationship with God.” Likewise, to say, “I believe in God” also does not necessarily mean “I have a relationship with God.” The reason is clearly indicated in this text because the demon really knows Jesus and believes in Jesus. Additionally, and importantly when speaking on the subject of demon possession from a New Testament context, it is important to stress that in Mark’s Gospel there is a distinction made between those who are sick or have a disease or fever and those who are possessed! This suggests that Mark does not in any way, shape, or form see demon possession as just another disease.

Regarding Jesus’ exorcism of the demon from the possessed man, there are some interesting characteristics present. Jesus uses no adjuration, incantation, physical manipulation, or appeal to a deity to accomplish this exorcism—as was the case in the ancient near east, and even now. Instead, the emphasis is entirely on Jesus’ simple, effective command, “Be silent, and come out of him!”, and so on his innate authority in the situation. Jesus does not need any help. Lastly, the response of the surrounding people in the narrative is noteworthy. Jesus’ powerful acts are definitely unsettling and often prompt questions about who he might be. Notice we are told that the crowd debates this matter, which means it is not a foredrawn conclusion.

Verses 29-34

As a presupposition regarding the literary construction of the Gospel of Mark, the assumption is that Mark is getting much of his information and material first-hand from the Apostle Peter, and vv. 29-34 reinforce this fact. The incident of these verses took place after Jesus left the synagogue, v. 29, and went to the house of Simon and Andrew (probably nearby; only Mark’s Gospel account mentions Andrew). We are not told what caused Peter’s mother-in-law’s fever. It had, however, put her in bed; and Jesus was told about her. The healing is described simply, yet with interesting detail: “Jesus came and took her by the hand and lifted her up.” The cure was instantaneous and complete, and this inferred because she got out of bed and began to serve the needs of her guests, which probably means she prepared food for them.

The last section of our text makes mention of Jesus extending his healings not to a few but many. It’s often a thematic part of the all the gospel accounts that Jesus is always generous with his healings. These healings again are divided up between either those who “were sick or oppressed by demons.” Again, Mark makes a differentiation between sickness and demonic activity. On the last point, we are told that Jesus muzzles the demons because “they knew him.” Luke’s Gospel reveals another element: “because they knew he was the Christ (Luke 4:41). Many scholars believe that the reluctance by Jesus to have the demons reveal him as the Messiah is best explained by Jesus’ desire to show by word and deed what kind of Messiah he was (e.g., one quite different from the popular conception of the Messiah) before he declared himself.

Comments (0)

By philhigley, January 19, 2010 6:53 am

Below is a news story about a new (and old I suppose) archeological discovery in Israel. Apparently some very ancient paleo-Hebrew writings have been found on a shard of pottery. There’s nothing particularly new about finding Hebrew writings from the biblical period on what has been called “ostraca,” which are just pottery fragments used as writing material. What’s wholly different, however, about this new finding is that biblical scholars, philologists, and ancient near eastern archeologists maintain that these writings are from the 10th Century B.C.!!! That probably doesn’t mean much to the everyday Joe but it is indeed a breathtaking and shocking discovery and will revolutionize the way we view the Old Testament texts from the Bible and also their veracity.

Here’s the story link and below is a video with some brief highlights. By the way, for you Hebrew scholars with only two years of Hebrew language graduate classes like me, you unfortunately wont be able to translate the writings because—again they’re consonant form is in paleo-Hebrew and there are definitely no vowel marks like in your Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia! LOL. Here’s to the veracity and antiquity of the Old Testament; and don’t forget to read your Bible…