Mark 12:28-34 Proper 26
"Which commandment is the first of all?" (12:28b)
"This passage is referred to as a 'scholastic dialogue' by Bultmann and has parallels in Matthew (22:34-40) and Luke (10:25-29). While the same two commandments are identified as the most important in each of these gospels there are some quite remarkable differences. These are generally explained by the likely existence of a variety of oral traditions. It may also reflect the possibility that the issue was raised with Jesus on more than one occasion. As a travelling rabbi whose teaching drew crowds wherever he went it would not be surprising to find that the same question was raised many times in different settings. However we seek to explain the differences it is important to consider this text in its context - the gospel of Mark.
It is set in the midst of conflict and dialogue with representatives of the temple cult. Mark 12 commences with the parable of the tenants (1-12), deals with questions about taxes (13-17) and moves in response to a question about marriage and the resurrection (18-27). After this account comes discussion about the Messiah (35-37) and a denunciation of the scribes (38-40). In all this dialogue Mark suggests the crowd was on Jesus' side and they were "listening to him with delight" (37b).
So what is the issue here? Why is the question of the first and greatest commandment raised in this context?
Mark gives us a clue when he states that the scribe saw that Jesus had "answered well" the questions put to him. This question would seem to have been an honest enquiry of importance to the scribe. It is a question raised by all of us as we find ourselves with many choices or options and need to make decisions. The question raised is phrased differently according to each situation, but it boils down to the question "What is most important?"
The scribe was a student of the law. It was his task to interpret the written law. His skills were in reading and writing.
The Pharisees were about living the law. They wanted to understand the detail of the law so they could keep it, live righteously and receive the blessing of God.
The Sadducees were about the Temple and its traditions and practices. The temple was the focus of the life of Israel. Worship of God was central for these people, and God was worshipped at the Temple. It was the seat of their power, and the Sadducees were concerned to preserve Israel by preserving the temple and its practices. Some refer to this as the temple cult or cultus. It is the practice of religion; the things people do as part of their religious observance.
So we find Jesus and one of the scribes debating the issues - which is the first or greatest of the commandments. For the Pharisees there were 614 different commandments, and the Sadducees would have known them as well. Which one, asks this student of the law, is the most important.
Jesus was not to be confined by the limits placed on him by the scribe and offered two commandments instead of one. The first is based on a citation from the Torah (Deuteronomy 6:5). Love the one true God with all your heart, soul and strength. In this Jesus inserts "and with all your mind". Jesus continued to with a second command to love your neighbour as yourself. This is also from the Torah (Leviticus 19:18b).
The scribe responded positively to Jesus and repeated the commandments. Mark's gospel presents a slight variance from Jesus' words to his response: "Love God with all your heart, understanding and strength" (33 NIV).
I confess to being drawn to the idea of loving God with your mind and understanding. Our relationship of love to God is to be a thoughtful and considered response where we use all the faculties God has given as we follow him. Mark's rendition of this encounter indicates that Jesus wants us to use our brains as well!
This discussion about details of the law with people who were about protecting their way of religious life is a challenge that people of faith must face as well. S0 often we embrace one expression of Christian faith and worship and serve within that denomination or group. For me it is The Salvation Army. For others it may be Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, Pentecostalism, or one of a variety of Christian traditions. Wherever our allegiance is placed we must remember that it is a way of responding to God.
The leaders of these groups, even as they are ordained or empowered by God, remain fallible human beings, and even in community flawed thinking can rule. Many thinking people are aware of the fallibility of their leaders and those in authority. That fallibility is matched by our own. As we live under authority we cannot cede total responsibility for our actions, present and future, to that authority. We are ultimately answerable to God, and our priority must always be to love God with all we have (the whole of our heart, soul, mind and strength) and to love our neighbours as ourselves. Love of the organization comes much further down the list of commandments.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Gospel October 25
Mark 10:46-52 Proper 25
"What do you want me to do for you?"
The story line of the gospel takes a turn with Jesus' encounter with Bartimaeus.
In Mark 7:22-26 the healing of another blind man is recorded. There the healing required two actions by Jesus. On that occasion the first effort bought a response "I see people; they look like trees walking around." (8:24). When the healing was completed this man returned to his village.The unnamed blind man could not see clearly immdiately after Jesus had touched his eyes, but did see clearly after the second action.
In this encounter we do know the name of the blind man. He was Bartimaeus - the son of Timaeus.
As Jesus and the disciples left Jericho they passed the place where Bartimaeus begged for alms. Blind though he was he knew it was Jesus and called out to him. The cry of Bartimaeus was plain "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!" Under Jesus instruction Bartimaeus was allowed to approach, declared his desire to see, and was healed. Bartimaeus did not go to the city, or to a nearby village. Bartimaeus followed Jesus on the way. That way led to Jerusalem.
There are a number of interesting aspects to this passage apart from the redirection of the plot line from teaching the disciples to heading for the cross.
* The bravery and courage of throwing off his cloak and leaving his begging blanket behind
* The rejection of the crowd in words similar to those used to try to keep the litle children away
* Use of the title 'Son of David' - a prelude to the cries as Jesus entered Jerusalem. Bartimaeus recognized him before the crowds acclaimed him.
* Jesus question to Bartimaeus was "What do you want me to do for you?"
As the pericope concludes Bartimaeus followed Jesus on the way.
Here is the turning point in the story. Jesus is recognized for who he is, Bartimaeus threw off his past, and committed himself to Jesus. He followed Jesus on the way after Jesus had met his needs.
What is our response?
Other readings:
Hebrews 7:23-28
Job 42:1-6,10-17/Jeremiah 31:7-9
"What do you want me to do for you?"
The story line of the gospel takes a turn with Jesus' encounter with Bartimaeus.
In Mark 7:22-26 the healing of another blind man is recorded. There the healing required two actions by Jesus. On that occasion the first effort bought a response "I see people; they look like trees walking around." (8:24). When the healing was completed this man returned to his village.The unnamed blind man could not see clearly immdiately after Jesus had touched his eyes, but did see clearly after the second action.
In this encounter we do know the name of the blind man. He was Bartimaeus - the son of Timaeus.
As Jesus and the disciples left Jericho they passed the place where Bartimaeus begged for alms. Blind though he was he knew it was Jesus and called out to him. The cry of Bartimaeus was plain "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!" Under Jesus instruction Bartimaeus was allowed to approach, declared his desire to see, and was healed. Bartimaeus did not go to the city, or to a nearby village. Bartimaeus followed Jesus on the way. That way led to Jerusalem.
There are a number of interesting aspects to this passage apart from the redirection of the plot line from teaching the disciples to heading for the cross.
* The bravery and courage of throwing off his cloak and leaving his begging blanket behind
* The rejection of the crowd in words similar to those used to try to keep the litle children away
* Use of the title 'Son of David' - a prelude to the cries as Jesus entered Jerusalem. Bartimaeus recognized him before the crowds acclaimed him.
* Jesus question to Bartimaeus was "What do you want me to do for you?"
As the pericope concludes Bartimaeus followed Jesus on the way.
Here is the turning point in the story. Jesus is recognized for who he is, Bartimaeus threw off his past, and committed himself to Jesus. He followed Jesus on the way after Jesus had met his needs.
What is our response?
Other readings:
Hebrews 7:23-28
Job 42:1-6,10-17/Jeremiah 31:7-9
Friday, October 16, 2009
Gospel October 18
Mark 10:35-45 Proper 24
"For the 'son of man' came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." (10:45)
This passage has three 'movements' that unfold in a very natural way. The argument between the disciples is embarrassing and the blatant plea for preferential positions by James and John does the twelve no credit. We must remember that they are real people - and 'sainthood' is something the church dispensed. It was not how Jesus referred to them. Criticize them if you will, but do not fail to examine your own heart in such matters.
Jesus elsewhere is recorded saying the disciples will 'sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel' (Matt 19:28). This may have been the background for the request for preferential treatment by the sons of Zebedee. How often do we find that a gift of privileged status provokes a desire for more rather that gratitude at undeserved graced! And so an argument ensues.
Here is an opportunity to again assert the values of the kingdom - and to apply them to a very real situation. Jesus asked if they could drink of the 'cup' that he must drink, and had predicated his suffering and death in Jerusalem. Do the Sons of Thunder really understand what they are asking?
Here is the lesson:
The rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them. Leadership in the world means power over others - but in the kingdom of God leadership means service. Remember that.... and apply it. Jesus, their leader, concluded the discussion by identifying his purpose - to serve others as their 'ransom'. This idea (parallel text Matt 20:28) is also picked up in 1 Timothy 2:6 and Hebrews 9:15. Here is the ultimate service - giving yourself so that another may have life.
In our humanity this ideal of self-giving is often pushed to the backburner. Leadership is seen as getting things done; often in the way we think is best and at the expense of those we lead. This is so in the church and in the world. All in positions of authority need to look regularly to this passage, and reflect carefully on their leadership practice.
Jesus showed us the way of leadership - it is the way of service, it is the way of suffering.
Other readings:
Hebrews 5:1-10
Job 38:1-7(34-41)/Isaiah 53:4-12
"For the 'son of man' came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." (10:45)
This passage has three 'movements' that unfold in a very natural way. The argument between the disciples is embarrassing and the blatant plea for preferential positions by James and John does the twelve no credit. We must remember that they are real people - and 'sainthood' is something the church dispensed. It was not how Jesus referred to them. Criticize them if you will, but do not fail to examine your own heart in such matters.
Jesus elsewhere is recorded saying the disciples will 'sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel' (Matt 19:28). This may have been the background for the request for preferential treatment by the sons of Zebedee. How often do we find that a gift of privileged status provokes a desire for more rather that gratitude at undeserved graced! And so an argument ensues.
Here is an opportunity to again assert the values of the kingdom - and to apply them to a very real situation. Jesus asked if they could drink of the 'cup' that he must drink, and had predicated his suffering and death in Jerusalem. Do the Sons of Thunder really understand what they are asking?
Here is the lesson:
The rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them. Leadership in the world means power over others - but in the kingdom of God leadership means service. Remember that.... and apply it. Jesus, their leader, concluded the discussion by identifying his purpose - to serve others as their 'ransom'. This idea (parallel text Matt 20:28) is also picked up in 1 Timothy 2:6 and Hebrews 9:15. Here is the ultimate service - giving yourself so that another may have life.
In our humanity this ideal of self-giving is often pushed to the backburner. Leadership is seen as getting things done; often in the way we think is best and at the expense of those we lead. This is so in the church and in the world. All in positions of authority need to look regularly to this passage, and reflect carefully on their leadership practice.
Jesus showed us the way of leadership - it is the way of service, it is the way of suffering.
Other readings:
Hebrews 5:1-10
Job 38:1-7(34-41)/Isaiah 53:4-12
Friday, October 9, 2009
Gospel October 11
Mark 10:17-31 Proper 23
"You lack one thing; go, sell what you own and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then, come, follow me." (10:21)
Through the tenth chapter of Mark there are seven 'incidents' or encounters. This very familiar story of the 'rich young ruler' (Mark's account is actually of rich man. In this gospel we are not told he is a ruler, nor that he is young) is placed after Jesus' blessing of children and before the question from the disciples about their reward. Each of these stories could stand-alone but Mark has arranged them in this sequence.
There are some dramatic contrasts between this man and the key figures in the surrounding pericopes.
Children are the focus of the previous incident. They are vulnerable - those days infant mortality rates were high. They are insignificant - they have no power or status. They are trusting and dependent - and will cling to those they trust. Jesus said '...for of such ones is the Kingdom of God'.
The disciples had no power either. What status they had was amongst their own families, and they counted for nothing in the politics of the community or country. They did have an experience of life, they knew what counted in the eyes of their peers - and they had given up whatever they had to follow Jesus.
And there is a rich man. He comes to Jesus. "He is not from the rabble, the sinful, the outcast, with whom Jesus frequently associated and had fellowship. He will be found instead regularly attending the synagogue, perhaps even participating in the service from time to time. " He is a good and powerful man in the eyes of those around him. His answers to Jesus questions show him to be a thoroughly decent man as well. Despite this Jesus tells him that what he has is not enough - he lacks one thing.
From the outside it would seem that he had everything, but this was not the case. Deep within he knew he was missing something. Why else would you ask a rabbi what was needed to gain eternal life?
For this man it would seem that trust in God was lacking. He had plenty of money. He kept the law. He was a 'good' man. Jesus told him what was needed to inherit eternal life. He could not do it.
Today the evangelical response to the rich man's question is "Accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour and you will be saved." A four (or six) step blueprint will be offered, and a prayer prayed. You are in!
I suspect this passage makes that a little less certain. This guy had prayed the prayer for his day. He had followed the program. It was not enough. There was still stuff in the way - his possessions. They had to go so that he was free to follow Jesus.
As I read this very familiar story I wonder what Jesus would say to me if I asked the same question. What is the next step I must take to enjoy the blessing of eternal life? The answer from Jesus will be for me. It will be specific to my circumstances and will be what I must do to reveal my complete trust in him.
What will he say to you?
Other readings:
Hebrews 1:1-4; 2:5-12
Job 23:1-9,16-17/Amos 5:6-7,10-15
"You lack one thing; go, sell what you own and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then, come, follow me." (10:21)
Through the tenth chapter of Mark there are seven 'incidents' or encounters. This very familiar story of the 'rich young ruler' (Mark's account is actually of rich man. In this gospel we are not told he is a ruler, nor that he is young) is placed after Jesus' blessing of children and before the question from the disciples about their reward. Each of these stories could stand-alone but Mark has arranged them in this sequence.
There are some dramatic contrasts between this man and the key figures in the surrounding pericopes.
Children are the focus of the previous incident. They are vulnerable - those days infant mortality rates were high. They are insignificant - they have no power or status. They are trusting and dependent - and will cling to those they trust. Jesus said '...for of such ones is the Kingdom of God'.
The disciples had no power either. What status they had was amongst their own families, and they counted for nothing in the politics of the community or country. They did have an experience of life, they knew what counted in the eyes of their peers - and they had given up whatever they had to follow Jesus.
And there is a rich man. He comes to Jesus. "He is not from the rabble, the sinful, the outcast, with whom Jesus frequently associated and had fellowship. He will be found instead regularly attending the synagogue, perhaps even participating in the service from time to time. " He is a good and powerful man in the eyes of those around him. His answers to Jesus questions show him to be a thoroughly decent man as well. Despite this Jesus tells him that what he has is not enough - he lacks one thing.
From the outside it would seem that he had everything, but this was not the case. Deep within he knew he was missing something. Why else would you ask a rabbi what was needed to gain eternal life?
For this man it would seem that trust in God was lacking. He had plenty of money. He kept the law. He was a 'good' man. Jesus told him what was needed to inherit eternal life. He could not do it.
Today the evangelical response to the rich man's question is "Accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour and you will be saved." A four (or six) step blueprint will be offered, and a prayer prayed. You are in!
I suspect this passage makes that a little less certain. This guy had prayed the prayer for his day. He had followed the program. It was not enough. There was still stuff in the way - his possessions. They had to go so that he was free to follow Jesus.
As I read this very familiar story I wonder what Jesus would say to me if I asked the same question. What is the next step I must take to enjoy the blessing of eternal life? The answer from Jesus will be for me. It will be specific to my circumstances and will be what I must do to reveal my complete trust in him.
What will he say to you?
Other readings:
Hebrews 1:1-4; 2:5-12
Job 23:1-9,16-17/Amos 5:6-7,10-15
Friday, October 2, 2009
Gospel October 4
Mark 10:2-16 (Proper 22)
"Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if a wife divorces her husband and marries another she commits adultery." (10:10-11)
Some think that the issue of divorce is a problem of the modern era. I suspect it has been problem for much longer. In reading this text we gain a sense that it was an issue in Jesus' time, and learn that even the laws of Moses dealt with the issue. Divorce was a problem in the church then, as now. Each of the gospels raises the issue, and Matthew even mentions it twice. Paul's letter to the Corinthians also raises the issue (1 Cor 7:10-11).
Jesus' position on divorce was relevant in the political arena of his time as well. In the background of this controversy is the marriage of Herod Antipas to his brother's wife, Herodias, while his brother was still living. Both divorce and a relationship prohibited by Jewish law are on the menu here. Politically it was a major issue. Herod offended his former wife's father and almost caused war with the Nabateans as she fled to her father, King Aretas. Herod also offended the Jewish religious leaders. For Herod it was a sensitive issue, and criticism was not welcomed.
If Jesus' antagonists are doing more than raising a social or moral issue - they may be trying to push a political agenda as well.
He asked his questioners the basis for their views. The response was based on Deuteronomy 24:1-4. This permitted divorce on the grounds of 'some indecency'. What constituted an indecency was a matter of extensive debate amongst the rabbis. The conservative view allowed divorce for unchastity or adultery. The more liberal view allowed it for more trivial reasons.
Where does Jesus fit in the spectrum of views? For him divorce is not on the agenda. His argument is based not on the Deuteronomistic law but on the plan of creation. Man and woman are made 'one flesh' in marriage. It is God's arrangement for relationship. It is God's plan for closeness, for intimate community and communion.
So the question is this: Whose will is to be done - the will of God or the will of man?
Sin breaks relationships.
Why did Moses permit divorce? 'Because you were stubborn' is Jesus response.
Divorce is a fact of life in our communities today. It comes at a cost. Broken relationships, emotionally damaged children, conflicted grandparents and confused friends and relatives. Loyalties are tested and communities suffer when divorce occurs. No wonder it was not part of the 'original plan.
Can divorce be avoided? I doubt it. Sin and selfishness will always be present. What we must do is encourage good relationships within marriage, and help others see that happiness can be found as each gives to and for the other.
Matthew 5:32 records Jesus as allowing divorce in cases of marital infidelity, and Paul discerned that it was permissible if their non-Christian partner deserted a Christian spouse. Living in peace was the prerogative.
Our Australian lawmakers have given a blanket "OK" to divorce. That is not a Christian approach. Scot McKnight writes that a New Testament pattern is 'to discern the underlying reason for the relationship, and then to judge if that reason is acceptable' (The Blue Parakeet p. 133) As a balanced response to the situation, I'm with him on this one.
Other readings:
Hebrews 1:1-4; 2:5-12
Job 1:1; 2:1-10/16-17/Genesis 2:18-24
"Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if a wife divorces her husband and marries another she commits adultery." (10:10-11)
Some think that the issue of divorce is a problem of the modern era. I suspect it has been problem for much longer. In reading this text we gain a sense that it was an issue in Jesus' time, and learn that even the laws of Moses dealt with the issue. Divorce was a problem in the church then, as now. Each of the gospels raises the issue, and Matthew even mentions it twice. Paul's letter to the Corinthians also raises the issue (1 Cor 7:10-11).
Jesus' position on divorce was relevant in the political arena of his time as well. In the background of this controversy is the marriage of Herod Antipas to his brother's wife, Herodias, while his brother was still living. Both divorce and a relationship prohibited by Jewish law are on the menu here. Politically it was a major issue. Herod offended his former wife's father and almost caused war with the Nabateans as she fled to her father, King Aretas. Herod also offended the Jewish religious leaders. For Herod it was a sensitive issue, and criticism was not welcomed.
If Jesus' antagonists are doing more than raising a social or moral issue - they may be trying to push a political agenda as well.
He asked his questioners the basis for their views. The response was based on Deuteronomy 24:1-4. This permitted divorce on the grounds of 'some indecency'. What constituted an indecency was a matter of extensive debate amongst the rabbis. The conservative view allowed divorce for unchastity or adultery. The more liberal view allowed it for more trivial reasons.
Where does Jesus fit in the spectrum of views? For him divorce is not on the agenda. His argument is based not on the Deuteronomistic law but on the plan of creation. Man and woman are made 'one flesh' in marriage. It is God's arrangement for relationship. It is God's plan for closeness, for intimate community and communion.
So the question is this: Whose will is to be done - the will of God or the will of man?
Sin breaks relationships.
Why did Moses permit divorce? 'Because you were stubborn' is Jesus response.
Divorce is a fact of life in our communities today. It comes at a cost. Broken relationships, emotionally damaged children, conflicted grandparents and confused friends and relatives. Loyalties are tested and communities suffer when divorce occurs. No wonder it was not part of the 'original plan.
Can divorce be avoided? I doubt it. Sin and selfishness will always be present. What we must do is encourage good relationships within marriage, and help others see that happiness can be found as each gives to and for the other.
Matthew 5:32 records Jesus as allowing divorce in cases of marital infidelity, and Paul discerned that it was permissible if their non-Christian partner deserted a Christian spouse. Living in peace was the prerogative.
Our Australian lawmakers have given a blanket "OK" to divorce. That is not a Christian approach. Scot McKnight writes that a New Testament pattern is 'to discern the underlying reason for the relationship, and then to judge if that reason is acceptable' (The Blue Parakeet p. 133) As a balanced response to the situation, I'm with him on this one.
Other readings:
Hebrews 1:1-4; 2:5-12
Job 1:1; 2:1-10/16-17/Genesis 2:18-24
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)