As He went out from Jericho with His disciples and a great multitude, the son of Timaeus, Bartimaeus, a blind beggar, was sitting by the road. When he heard that it was Jesus the Nazarene, he began to cry out and say, “Jesus, you Son of David, have mercy on me!”

…Jesus asked him, “What do you want Me to do for you?”

The blind man said to Him, “Rabboni, that I may see again.”

Jesus said to him, “Go your way. Your faith has made you well.” Immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus on the way.1

How people see Jesus

One of Mark’s great ironies is that people who knew Jesus from youth — who had watched Him grow, play, sweat, and work could see Him as nothing more than “Mary’s Son.”2 Paradoxically, their nearness to and familiarity with greatness…is precisely what blinded them.

Bartimaeus, in contrast, was literally blind yet recognized Jesus’ true nature as the Son of David, Israel’s rightful King. This is the latest installment in Mark’s challenge to our assumptions about the who can — and who can’t — really see.

Recall that after feeding four thousand Gentiles and enduring the Pharisees’ demand for a “sign, to authenticate His authority,3 Jesus warned the Twelve to avoid, “the yeast of the Pharisees and the yeast of Herod.”4 When they failed to get His point, the exasperated Jesus asked:

Don’t you perceive yet or understand? Is your heart still hardened? Having eyes, don’t you see? Having ears, don’t you hear? [emphasis added]5

The honest answer, of course, would’ve been: No, Lord. We don’t see.

That’s why Mark immediately tells the story of the blind man who must be touched twice by Jesus to see clearly.6 It is both a sign of God’s mercy, and an implied caution to the King’s disciples — in any age: Be wary of what you assume you “know” about God’s Kingdom and His intentions. You are being saved in spite of your understanding and performance…not because of it.

How people see themselves

I’m also struck by Jesus’ question to Bartimaeus. The World English Bible translates it as the same question He recently put to the brash sons of Zebedee:

This may be correct. I do not pretend to expertise in Koine Greek, but you may notice variations among translations. Some older versions (e.g., KJV, ASV) have Jesus asking the Zebedee boys, “What do you want Me to do for you?”; Whereas they have Him ask Bartimaeus, “What do you want Me to do [un]to you?”8

While not qualified to express an opinion on the grammatical merits of one or the other translation; in terms of the narrative, I think asking slightly different questions makes sense.

James and John approached Jesus like high performers asking for a promotion. “Teacher, we want You to do for us whatever we will ask.” [emphasis added]9 That’s entitlement talking. That’s the voice of men who think they’re strong, competent, deserving.

Well, as You know, Lord…we’re quite good performers. We always hit our numbers. We’re really excellent employees here in this organization and, well, it only seem right and fair that such exceptional performance should be appropriately rewarded, so we’d like a raise.

If that’s your posture, Jesus’ question lands like an audit:“Spell it out. What exactly do you think I owe you?”

Contrast this with Bartimaeus. He’s a blind beggar. He’s under no illusions about being powerful, or competent, or entitled to anything. In fact, he’s crying out begging for Jesus to “have mercy on me.”10

His request is not, “Do something for me.” He’s not after rewards for what (he thinks) he’s accomplished.

His request is, “Do something to me.” Fix what is shattered. Heal what I cannot heal. Change what I cannot change.

And Jesus does.

Jesus is still asking these questions today:

“What do you want Me to do for you?”
“What do you want Me to do to you?”

One is for the man who thinks he’s strong.
The other is for the man who knows he isn’t.

Either we approach Jesus like He owes us something…
Or we approach Him like He’s our only hope.

So here’s the real issue:
When you pray, which man are you?

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

SEMIFINALS, Match 1 - vote for the 2027 Justin’s Journal read.

Whoever of you wants to become first among you shall be bondservant of all. For the Son of Man also came not to be served but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.1

When reassuring Peter that Twelve would not be forgotten in God’s Kingdom, Jesus ended with the caveat that “many who are first will be last, and the last first.”2 Perhaps this did set well with all the apostles.

This week we find Jesus on the road to Jerusalem, busily reiterating to the Twelve that He must: be humiliated, suffer, die, and then rise from the dead.3 Sometime during this journey, James and John sidle up to Jesus and make a rather bold request: “Teacher, we want You to do for us whatever we will ask.”4 (I wonder if they actually made the request as bluntly as Mark has recorded it, or if the evangelist might have taken some authorial liberty to let the reader know what were really asking.5)

Jesus asks the brothers what, exactly, they want.6 It turns out, they’re seeking political patronage. James and John want to secure their positions in the future Messianic Kingdom, by getting Jesus’ pledge that one will sit at His right hand and the other His left “in [His] glory.”7

Jesus’ reply is, I suspect, pregnant with more meaning that we might initially realize. The first words out of His mouth are, “You don’t know what you are asking.”8 That’s important because of the way we often read the rest of the Jesus’ reply.

In my experience, most Christians seems to assume that when Jesus says, “to sit at My right hand and at My left hand is not mine to give, but for whom it has been prepared”9 that it’s a reference to His eschatological glory at the end of Time. That, in turn, leads to devotional thoughts and pastoral instruction along the lines of:

No one knows who will sit at Jesus’ right and left in glory, but it will likely be someone we’ve never even heard of because the humble and lowly will be elevated in the Kingdom. Who knows? It might even be you.

I’m not necessarily saying this reading is wrong. I don’t have any special “inside knowledge” of what God has planned for eternity; But it seems to me this line of reflection sets awkwardly in a Scriptural context evidently designed to tamp down precisely that sort of aspiration. Furthermore, it looks to me like there’s a much simpler explanation of Jesus’ words here — and one that fits snugly into the narrative flow of Mark.

1. Recall that this whole conversation is taking place as Jesus is on resolute march to Jerusalem10; where, He has repeatedly told the Twelve, He is going to suffer and die before being raised.11

2. Recall that Jerusalem is the place where a King of Israel goes to be enthroned.

3. When Jesus is arrested and brought before Pilate, the governor will explicitly ask the crowd who they would prefer to have released: Barabbas or “the King of the Jews”12

4. During His flogging, it will be Roman soldiers who not only bow down13 and hail Jesus as “King of the Jews” but also “crown” Him (albeit with a crown of thorns).14

5. At Pilate’s command, a prominent sign will be placed above Jesus’ head during His crucifixion proclaiming Him “King of the Jews”15

6. And finally, recall that Mark will tell us: “With Him they crucified two robbers, one on his right hand, and one on his left.” [emphasis added]16

Now…circle back to Jesus response to James and John.

The sons of Zebedee, remember, said that they wanted to sit on either side of Jesus “in [His] glory.” What if one of the things they “don’t know” is what glory truly looks like? They assume — as virtually all the Twelve seem to assume through most of the gospel — that Jesus sitting in His “glory” will be a vision of power and domination. They cannot comprehend that the “throne” Jesus will take up in Jerusalem will be a small wooden plank affixed to a beam or tree on which He will struggle to breathe. They cannot conceive that sitting on the right and the left of the King will not be members of the Twelve, but convicted criminals — indeed, that at least one of those convicts will actually enter the Kingdom of God before any member of the Twelve!18

One of the ironies of Mark’s gospel is that as soon as the other ten find out what James and John have been asking for, they become indignant20 — not because the brothers have abandoned the values of the Kingdom — but merely because they’ve been one-upped! Even among Jesus’ most-intimate friends, no one has yet internalized what He’s really about…what He wants them to be about. And so, the Master goes back to the beginning and explains it yet again…

Now…how many more times is He going to have to explain to me before I actually get onboard?

Leave a comment

Round 2, Match 4 - vote for the 2027 Justin’s Journal read.

Read more

Some of this is probably triggered by the rise of socialist (and now openly communist) ideology in various sectors of American thought-leadership. It’s legitimate to be concerned about fifth-columnists corrupting the church. And yet…as valid as those fears may be…they do excuse neither ignoring Jesus’ initial statement, nor glossing over the fact that when the disciples act shocked, He doubles-down on it:

In the history of attempts to “explain away” this passage, one of the more popular has been to say Jesus wasn’t referring to a literal needle, but to a very narrow opening in a city gate that was, metaphorically, called “the eye of the needle.” Supposedly, a camel would have to be completely unloaded and get down on its knees and then could just barely shuffle through the opening. The end result of this exegesis would be, “Jesus is saying it’s really hard for a rich person to get into Heaven…but you can do it if you try hard enough.” I heard this in my childhood. And preached it. There’s just one problem. There doesn’t seem to be any real evidence for it. As near as we can tell, this explanation first appeared during the medieval period (as a way to lessen the anxiety of Europe’s rich and powerful at the prospect of their eternal comeuppance?).

Rather, it seems Jesus was talking about a needle you sew with; and He was talking about a camel you ride upon. The impossibility is the point. And the apostles' got that. That’s why they cry out, “Then who can be saved?”3

You may have heard that it was common in those days to interpret wealth as a sure sign of God’s approval and blessing. This was — at least in part — an outgrowth of what scholars called deuteronomistic theology.

While not utterly devoid of warrant — as much of the Old Testament as well as Jesus’ own teaching makes evident — this mode of thinking certainly can devolve into deceptive formulaic concepts (e.g., blessing = Divine approval / suffering = Divine condemnation.) This seems to be what had happened with the Twelve. Jesus’ response to them should clue us in on a central tenet of the gospel: “With men it is impossible, but not with God...” [emphasis]4 Jesus was saying: Listen, boys. If you think that you’re somehow going to earn your way into God’s Kingdom, I hate to burst your bubble…but you will not. Furthermore, you cannot.5 At this point, Peter jumps in with a comment, at least…that’s how it gets translated.

I don’t really know how you fit this into the flow of the dialogue unless you hear this “statement” as a sort of veiled question: Ummm…Jesus? You’re saying that not even those with all the marks of God’s blessings can be assured of getting into the Kingdom; And You just basically told us that rich guy that walked off is out, so….I just wanna make sure: Are we still in?

Jesus’ response is unequivocal — both for better and for worse.

Most certainly I tell you, there is no one who has left house, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or land, for My sake, and for the sake of the Good News, [who will not] receive one hundred times more now in this time: houses, brothers, sisters, mothers, children, and land…and in the age to come eternal life. [emphasis added]7

Though we’re used to hearing about the glories of Heaven and eternal life, I’d point out to you that Jesus says those who have left all for Him will also receive “one hundred times more in this time.” He then defines that prosperity explicitly in terms of family and property. He’s not talking about the eternal state ; He’s saying we’ll receive more than we give up in this life. This raises a pointed question: How, exactly, is that prosperity supposed to be coming to me?

I haven’t kept strict financial records, but I’m doubtful that my bank account or family size is one hundred times what it was before I was baptized. It doesn’t appear to me that such an explosion of private wealth has fallen on most of the folks I regularly worship with either. So…what gives?

The only way I can make sense of this is that Jesus is saying, When people genuinely live by the principles of God’s Kingdom, they’ll be there for each other. They won’t simply be polite and professional, but will actually treat one another as family.8 Such people will not hoard resources for their individual benefit. They will share them with fellow members of the Kingdom in need just as they would share them with their own blood kin. This is how My followers will finally realize the promise made so long ago:

…there will be no poor with you (for Yahweh will surely bless you in the land which Yahweh your God gives you for an inheritance to possess) if only you diligently listen to Yahweh your God’s voice, to observe to do all this commandment which I command you today.9

If you’re like me, this sounds entirely too utopian. I find myself reflexively…cynically looking for the “angle.” I suppose it’s because I’ve been betrayed so often that I’ve become wary and jaded. Perhaps that’s you as well…which is why we may be, of all people, the ones who most need to hear the King’s vision for the Kingdom. It wasn’t the King who hurt us. It wasn’t Jesus who lied to us. It wasn’t God who betrayed us. As unbelievable as this vision of the Kingdom sounds, evidently the earliest Christians took it quite literally:

The multitude of those who believed were of one heart and soul. Not one of them claimed that anything of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. With great power, the apostles gave their testimony of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. Great grace was on them all. For neither was there among them any who lacked, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles’ feet; and distribution was made to each, according as anyone had need.10

Before we go further, though, we ought to back-up and inquire about those ellipses I put in the quotation of Mark 10:29-30, because family and property and eternal life were not the only things that Jesus said His followers would inherit. He explicitly included “persecutions” into the the things we would “most certainly” receive.

Thus, His plans for the Kingdom likely make us uncomfortable on two points. First, we’re unenthusiastic about having to give up any of our personal wealth. Second, we’re averse to the prospect of persecution. I wonder if reticence to embrace this dual aspect of the Kingdom doesn’t go a long way toward explaining why some Christian denominations are in demographic collapse.

Of course, even if that is the problem with this or that group, there’s precious little I — or you — can do about it. I’m not called to save denominations. I’ve got all I can handle just trying to throttle my own selfishness and find a way to share more with the folks God has given me to love — especially those that I don’t want to love — in my immediate orbit. Most days, I feel like I’m not making too much progress on this front, but I’m certain of one thing: I’ll never make progress to the destination if I delude myself about what the destination really is.

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

Round 2, Match 3 - vote for the 2027 Justin’s Journal read.

Read more

They were bringing to Him little children, that He should touch them, but the disciples rebuked those who were bringing them. But when Jesus saw it, He was moved with indignation and said to them, “Allow the little children to come to Me! Don’t forbid them, for God’s Kingdom belongs to such as these.1

The transition from the divorce debate to this week’s reading can seem jarring. Perhaps, however, there is more connection than we might initially assume. In the previous story, Jesus advocated for the rights of a spouse — whether the husband or wife — casually discarded in favor of another.2 Here it is not one spouse devaluing another; but Christ’s own disciples doing so!

We begin with people bringing children to Jesus.3 Presumably, He was blessing them — perhaps in a similar manner to the patriarchal blessing stories we read about in the Old Testament.4 The disciples, however, set about rebuking the children and adults, sending them back from whence they came. Mark doesn’t specify their rationale, but it seems likely the Twelve believed Jesus was far too busy to “waste” time with a bunch of rug rats and crumb-crunchers. He was, after all, occupied with the business of bringing about the long-awaited Kingdom of God! The apostles may well have assumed they were doing something Jesus would approve of — like a modern day CEO who expects his administrative assistant to act as a barrier between himself and the unwashed masses.

King Jesus, however, wasn’t having it. When He saw what the disciples were doing, “He was moved with indignation.” [emphasis added]5 This is quite the reaction. It might even strike us as an overreaction, unless we realize that this isn’t the first time Jesus has had to address this sort of thing with the Twelve.

Remember in the previous chapter when John told Him about the time they (i.e., the Twelve) saw a guy casting out demons in Jesus’ name and put a stop to it because he wasn’t a duly-authorized member of the apostolic executive committee?6

Do you recall what Jesus said to them?

Don’t forbid him, for there is no one who will do a mighty work in My name and be able quickly to speak evil of Me. For whoever is not against us is on our side.7

It may interest you to know that one of the first things Jesus says to the Apostles when He sees them turning away these children — “Don’t forbid them!”8 — is, in Greek, exactly the same phrase He used earlier when He rebuked them for stopping the “unauthorized” exorcist! I suspect a big part of Jesus’ “indignation” in this story arises from the frustration that He feels at having to continually say the same thing.

When ordering the disciples to let the children through, Jesus gives a profound rationale, “for God’s Kingdom belongs to such as these.” [emphasis added]9

What does that actually mean? Usually about this point in a Bible class, the discussion collapses into a round-robin debate of precisely what characterizes children: Is Jesus saying to be like children in…innocence?…unquestioning faith?…love?…etc.

While some of these proposals are more orthodox than others, my experience is that most of them owe more to emotionalism and whatever passes for “wisdom” in contemporary pop psychology than they do to the actual text of Mark. This bugs me because it seems that Jesus, Himself, clarified His point.

Most certainly I tell you, whoever will not receive God’s Kingdom like a little child, he will in no way enter into it. [emphasis added]10

Whatever the merits of our various suggestions, it seems that Jesus was thinking primarily of the way in which children receive things.

This, of course, pushes to the next question: Okay, then. How do they receive things?

Here, it’s important to recognize that childhood and adolescence are not the same across all cultures and times. So, to get as close as possible to understanding Jesus, we need to think — not in terms of how children receive things in our day — but how they did so at Jesus’ time and culture.

And there, kids were decidedly not influential. They were valued (at least by their parents) but not powerful. From the universal physical impotence of the newborn (who had to rely on someone else to feed, clothe, clean, etc. them lest they die) to even the older child who remained subordinate to basically everyone else in the family and society at large, children were an image of powerlessness…people one could disregard or dishonor without any particular risk. This is yet another stern warning, in other words, to the apostles about how they evaluate others.11

Presumably all this preceding drama with the children was still happening inside the same house Jesus had entered back in 10:10. If we were accurate to speculate that it was the home of Peter and Andrew, then perhaps these children were nieces, nephews, cousins, neighbors, etc. of the brothers…in other words, people they could more easily slip into contempt for on the basis of their very familiarity.12

Contrast these events, then, with what happens when Jesus departs the house and “into the way”13 (i.e., back into public…out on the road). A grown man comes running up to Jesus and knelt down at His feet asking what he needed to do to inherit eternal life. Initially, that’s all Mark tells us about this guy…but through the course of the passage, we learn that this man “had great possessions.”14

Knowing that, I can’t help but notice that the children (and their caretakers) who were eagerly coming to Jesus were quickly shunted away by His lieutenants; there’s no indication of a similar vetting here. Could it be because the apostles assumed:

It’s quite ironic, then, that this guy who give off all these promising signals and who even received what may have been an apostolic invitation — “come, follow Me”15 — voluntarily walked away because He didn’t like Jesus’ answer to his question, “What shall I do…?”16

So the people the disciples turned away, should’ve been welcomed. And the people they welcome in (or at least, didn’t stop) walked away on their own. Do you think there might be a message here about not trusting our own judgments as to who is — and isn’t — “worth the time” to welcome into the Kingdom?

In closing, because this rich man called Jesus “good” and the Master asked, Why you calling Me that? Only God is good…

I’m reminded of a warning Jesus gave to others who thought they were God’s bouncers too:

“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves. (Matt. 23:13-15)

Leave a comment

Share

Round 2, Match 2 - vote for the 2027 Justin’s Journal read.

Read more

The legitimacy of breaking up a marriage is a topic that generates passionate opinions, both in the ancient world and today. To understand the moment Jesus was speaking in, we should know a little about first-century Judaism. Two major religious parties had formed around competing understandings of a key Torah text:

When a man takes a wife and marries her, then it shall be, if she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some unseemly thing in her, that he shall write her a certificate of divorce, put it in her hand, and send her out of his house. [emphasis added]5

The crux of the debate is precisely what “some unseemly thing” meant. The Shammai Party taught that this had to be an extremely serious moral infraction — basically adultery.6 Short of this, Shammaites held, there was no divine permission to divorce.

The Hillel Party, in contrast, advocated a maximally expansive view of the husband’s freedom to define “some unseemly thing.” If he was displeased with her cooking…her tone of voice…or even if he simply found another woman more attractive (and consequently his current wife “unseemly” by comparison) Hillelites said he was within his God-ordained rights to divorce her…provided he gave her a signed certificate of divorce.

I point out this history because it suggests to me that this was almost certainly not “good faith” question posed to Jesus. Rather, it was simply another effort entrap Him in such a way that no matter how He answered, it would alienate a large portion of His followers. It was the first-century equivalent of demanding an answer to a “gotcha” question on Facebook like:

• Do you love Donald Trump and believe him to be the Second Coming of the Messiah, or

• Do you recognize him as the Prince of Darkness and renounce all his evil ways?

The Pharisees were not asking this to generate light…but heat.

Despite this, it’s instructive that Jesus did not engage in the sort of evasive non-answering that characterizes much communication between the church and the broader society today. It’s obvious He’s aligning with the more conservative Shammaite interpretation, but the way He does so is instructive. He first asks His own question.

“What did Moses command you?”7

Forcing the Pharisees to answer this question somewhat tips their hand. They say only that Moses “allowed a certificate of divorce to be written”8 and are suspiciously silent on the reason(s) why Moses might’ve allowed such a certificate to be written. That, of course, was what the entire debate centered upon! No one — not even Shammai, himself — said that there was never any reason for divorce. He merely insisted that not just any reason would do.

The Pharisees’ apparent lack of an opinion on this rather consequential question should’ve indicated to the observers that they weren’t really interested in finding out what Jesus thought about marriages. Their mission was merely to drive a wedge between Him and a chunk of the population — they may not have even cared which chunk it was!

Nevertheless, Jesus didn’t try to duck this question; And that’s because marriage is, in fact, of vital interest to God. It is a foundational unit of society for fulfilling the original mandate to humanity:

“Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it.”9

While marriage provides for things like companionship and sexual fulfillment, those are far from it’s only — or even principle functions.

Marriage is important enough to God that it is one of the few things that legitimately trumps the relationship of fealty owed to one’s parents.10 Indeed, Scripture attests that the only relationship to be regarded more highly than that with one’s spouse is that with God.

If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. [emphasis added]11

All of this is to say that Jesus answers that marriage is of vital importance. Frankly, God never wants to see it rent asunder; but owning to the hardness of our hearts — and I would add the frailty of our nature — He understands that there can be times where things become so broken that allowing the marriage to die will cause less damage than attempting to prolong it at all costs. But — and this is key — the list of those scenarios is, necessarily, extremely short. Here in Mark 10, Jesus admits only of adultery. It seems to me there’s a fair case to be made that Paul gives us another in 1 Corinthians 7:1-15 (i.e., that if an unbelieving spouse refuses to remain with you unless you renounce Christ, then you let them go and are no longer bound to them). This, it seems to me, is the NT parallel to the Deuteronomic command.

What are your thoughts?

Leave a comment

Round 2, Match 1 - vote for the 2027 Justin’s Journal read.

The Gadarene Demoniac (vss. 1-20)

Evil always outgrows our chains (vss. 1-13)

Where, exactly, is this happening?

After transiting the storm, Jesus and company come ashore…somewhere. Depending on the Bible you’re reading, the text may say this happ…

Read more

Read more

So far, it sounds much like a contemporary therapy session. After verse 40, you’re getting out the songbooks to sing Kum Ba Yah…but Jesus isn’t quite finished. And as it turns out, what He says next continues to shock and offend, for Jesus has the audacity to insist that refusing this path of discipleship will have deadly serious consequences.

It’s significant that this warning comes at the end of the outlined discipleship journey. If the — or, at least, a principal — goal of discipleship is receiving others as Jesus receives them (as He has just illustrated using the child); then causing any “little one” to stumble in their pursuit of the King undermines the fundamental purpose of discipleship.

Those of us raised in communities that emphasize the individuality of salvation (i.e., I have made a personal decision for Jesus, etc.) especially need to hear this. Jesus is not addressing the crowds-in-general here, but the Twelve within the confines of the house. He’s warning His closest disciples about the danger of them causing any of the “little ones” to stumble — and that moments after John proudly announced how they shut down a guy casting out demons in Jesus’ name because he didn’t follow “with us.”5 This, it seems to me, is a divine warning against precisely the type of circular-firing squad squabbling that still characterizes too many interactions among people who all claim to be following Jesus.

Anyone who knows me, knows I’m not one to avoid disagreement and debate. That’s not what Jesus is forbidding here. He is forbidding the condescension and dismissiveness that treats others as not simply “wrong” but as “less”…as “beneath” me.

To disagree and debate is simply to be family. To assume oneself “superior” to others struggling to follow King Jesus — to treat them as somehow second class citizens of the Kingdom because they do not hold with all of your (current) practices and understandings — is to place yourself in legitimate danger of eternal damnation.

Authentic love and respect for others is at the very core of Christian discipleship. This is what Paul would later struggle to get the Corinthians to understand:

Therefore we know no one according to the flesh from now on. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him so no more. Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old things have passed away. Behold, all things have become new. But all things are of God, Who reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and gave to us the ministry of reconciliation; namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not reckoning to them their trespasses, and having committed to us the word of reconciliation. [emphasis added]6

The final few two verses in Mark 9 have occasioned some debate. Some consider these later interpolations, though I’m not convinced that’s a necessary assumption. At the very least, they can be a bit confusing as Jesus seems to play around a bit with the metaphor of “salt.”

He begins by proclaiming that, “everyone will be salted with fire, and every sacrifice will be seasoned with salt.”7 The first clause seems to suggest something about the maturing role of persecution in the life of a disciple. At least, I think the reference to fire has to do with suffering. It’s somewhat surprising since the immediately preceding verses were all about how the disciples ought to avoid that place of “unquenchable fire.”8 Just because an excess of fire is to be avoided, however, that doesn’t mean that in moderate amounts it can’t do good. Indeed, it would be surprising if a Jesus en route to intentionally embrace His own suffering and crucifixion for the salvation of the world didn’t give the Twelve some warning that there might be sanctifying/redemptive suffering in their futures as well.

That the idea that this fire-as-salt is a good thing is made virtually certain by Jesus’ allusion to a Torah text with which the Twelve would’ve been intimately familiar — the requirement of salt to make a sacrifice acceptable.

Every offering of your meal offering you shall season with salt. You shall not allow the salt of the covenant of your God to be lacking from your meal offering. With all your offerings you shall offer salt. [emphasis added]9

If the “salt” in verse 49 is fundamentally a metaphor for the disciples’ maturity, Jesus’ rhetorical question in verse 50 makes more sense: “Salt [maturity] is good, but if the salt [one’s maturity] has lost its saltiness [maturation], with what will you season it?”10 The sort of maturity Jesus is calling for is not of the type that would make disciples who argue about things like who is the greatest?11 Rather, it would shape them into the kind of men who could make a short journey over the countryside while remaining “at peace with one another.”12

Leave a comment

Share Justin's Journal

Round 1, Match 8 - vote for the 2027 Justin’s Journal read.

Read more

He came to Capernaum, and when He was in the house He asked them, “What were you arguing among yourselves on the way?”

But they were silent, for they had disputed with one another on the way about who was the greatest.1

After casting the demon out of the boy, Jesus departs the area. In another data point for the “messianic secret,” Mark tells us Jesus was traveling incognito because He was trying to teach His disciples about what it meant to be Messiah — specifically, that “the Son of Man [would be] handed over to the hands of men, and [killed]; and when He is killed, on the third day He will rise again.”2

The disciples, however, did not understand.3 We might assume confusion wouldn’t have been any particular problem. Couldn’t you just say, “Excuse me, Rabbi. Could you explain that a little more?”

Yet none of the disciples do this, because they were “afraid to ask Him.”4 Almost certainly, they’re recalling what happened the last time Jesus started talking about dying and rising from the dead: Simon tried to talk some sense into Him and got branded “Satan” for the trouble! 5

When they get back to Capernaum and are inside “the house” [of Peter and Andrew?],6 Jesus has a question of His own for the disciples: “What were you arguing [about]…along the way?”7

Surely an awkward and uncomfortable silence ensued. I envision the Twelve shuffling their feet and avoiding eye contact with Jesus. As Alistair Begg describes it, we move from a question the disciples are afraid to ask, to an answer they are afraid to give.

In this regard, the disciples behave like Jesus’ enemies under divine questioning. Mark tells us they said nothing because they had, in fact, been arguing “about who was the greatest [among them]”8

Jesus’ next actions may be more significant than they first appear. He sits down and calls the Twelve.9 Though I’m no scholar of ancient Judaism, it’s my understanding this was the typical posture a rabbi would assume before imparting explanations about the meaning of Torah. For an early reader familiar with Jewish mannerisms “He sat down and called…” would hit similarly to, “He climbed into the pulpit and began to speak…”

Jesus then lays out the principle that greatness is not a function of having power, but of serving others. To make His point, He calls a small child — in the ancient world, one of the most powerless people imaginable — and declares that anyone who takes the time to invest in such a child is really investing his time in Jesus…and, by extension, in the Father.10 Then comes an announcement by the apostles that has always struck me as a bit strange:

Teacher, we saw someone who doesn’t follow us casting out demons in Your name; and we forbade him, because he doesn’t follow us.11

It’s revealing that John says the exorcist he forbade didn’t follow us. Us? Is there an “us” to be following here? Isn’t the whole point of the Kingdom that everyone’s following…the King? The fact that John would say this betrays that, at least at this point, his attitude wasn’t that different from the Pharisees and scribes. He (and presumably the other eleven apostles as well) were far too concerned about their own dignity, status, authority, etc. The same thing happens among Christians today. As a general rule, if you find someone obsessing more about how to better secure their authority, than how to consistently and faithfully serve the last and the least…you’re seeing the same phenomenon.

Leave a comment

Round 1, Match 7 - vote for the 2027 Justin’s Journal read.

Read more

Immediately the father of the child cried out with tears, “I believe. Help my unbelief!”1

A father’s torment

Descending from the Mount of Transfiguration, Jesus, Peter, James, and John find the remaining nine apostles surrounded by a crowd of gawkers and a gaggle of critics. At the center of everything is a desperate father who’s brought his demoniac son to beg for Jesus’ help.

Instead of the Master, however, the man found only servants…none of whom were able to exorcise the demon. This leads to Jesus exasperatedly asking, “Unbelieving generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I bear with you? Bring him to Me.”2

Who, precisely, is included in this category of the “unbelieving generation”?

1. Strictly the nine apostles who failed to cast out the demon?

2. The entourage of scribes come (again) to scrutinize the Kingdom work…but not to help?

3. Everyone present, owing to a generalized lack of faith?

Based on Jesus’ subsequent response to the apostles,3 I’m inclined to lean slightly towards the first understanding…but I’m still not sure. Perhaps all of them are in view.

Jesus asks the father how long this has been happening. Mark has recorded several other exorcism stories to this point, none of which hinted at any need for gathering this sort of background information in order for Jesus to complete an exorcism. Therefore, I suspect there’s some reason — specifically a pastoral one — for what’s happening here. Perhaps Jesus is showing respect to the father. He may well have been the first in a very long time to do so.

If you have a child with special needs — particularly if they’re of the “hidden” variety (e.g., ASD, PTSD, etc.) you’re all too familiar with how often some — even Christians — go first to offering answers about what you need to “do better” so that these behavioral problems will go away.

If you’re honest, of course, you do need help. There are things you don’t know. You may very well have blind spots that are making the situation worse. But, generally, the first thing you need, is not for someone to tell. It’s someone to listen.

The father reveals that this has been going on since childhood. Though Jesus asked only how long it had been happening, the father volunteers additional information, “It has often cast him into the fire and into the water, to destroy him.”4 A cynic might chalk this up to an attempt to manipulate Jesus by “tugging at His heartstrings”; But it seems just as likely to be a verbal unloading of grief that this man has born in silence for far too long because everyone else “got tired of hearing it.” The father closes his response with the plea, “if You are able to do anything, have pity on us and help us.”5

As with the case of addressing the “unbelieving generation” in verse 19, I’m unclear on exactly how Mark wants us to hear Jesus’ reply. The ambiguity is reflected in a variety of English translations. It seems to me there are three basic options.

What does “if you can believe” really mean?

Jesus is simply stating a generic fact.

• “If you can believe, all things are possible to him who believes.”6

If we assume that Jesus’ reference to the “unbelieving generation” included everyone, it’s a little more difficult for me to believe He suddenly switches into calm academic lecture mode here.

Jesus is saying the key to the son’s healing lies in someone else’s belief or unbelief.

• “If thou canst! All things are possible to him that believeth.”7 [emphasis added]

This sort of translation seems to suggest that the failing of the previous exorcism attempts was due to a deficient faith on the part of someone — either the father, the disciples, or both. Though I’m loathe to attribute any such explanation to Jesus, it does seem to fit with either or both:

1. the father’s immediate response - “I believe. Help my unbelief!” [emphasis added] 8

2. Jesus’ own explanation to the apostles for why their efforts failed - “This kind can come out by nothing but by prayer and fasting.”9

Jesus is quoting back the man’s own words to make a point.

• “You said, ‘If you can!’ All things are possible for the one who believes.”10 [emphasis added]

This reading strikes me as slightly more likely than the first. It makes sense in the context, without the potential aura of victim-blaming that hovers over the second.

A disturbing conclusion

As the reader of Mark would expect by this point, Jesus proceeds to exorcise the demon where all others have failed. Though the boy appears dead, when the Lord “took him by the hand and raised him up…he arose.”11

The closing of this story is really what haunts me. When the nine apostles ask Jesus why they were unable to cast out the demon, His explanation is rather mundane. “This kind can come out by nothing but by prayer and fasting.”12

I would’ve expected either (1) an explanation pointed at a singular, personal cause (e.g., that guy didn’t have enough faith” or “Simon, you were too doubt-filled…”), or (2) a sort of gentle excuse for the failure (e.g., “It’s okay boys. None of you are the Messiah or the unique Son of God, so such a work couldn’t really be expected of you.”)

Instead, Jesus’ reply leaves me with the impression that — at least theoretically — the apostles could have…should have…been able to handle it themselves. Even more, I suspect Jesus prescription of prayer and fasting is something that goes beyond the mere actions themselves. Presumably, it must have as many — maybe all — Jews of the day practiced regular prayer and fasting.13 Yet no one else had been able to help this family. Why?

My guess is that what was lacking in the prayer and fasting of others was not an issue of type, duration, intensity, etc. but rather of quality of relationship. My fear is that the thinness of results from the apostles’ efforts reflected an underlying thinness in the quality of their relationship to God and their dedication to His Kingdom. And that scares me, because I recognize just that sort of divided loyalty within my own soul.

And so I join this poor father in crying out, “I believe. Help my unbelief!”14

Leave a comment

Share

Round 1, Match 6 - vote for the 2027 Justin’s Journal read.

Read more

Peter answered Jesus, “Rabbi, it is good for us to be here. Let’s make three tents: one for You, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.” For he didn’t know what to say, for they were very afraid.

A cloud came, overshadowing them, and a voice came out of the cloud, “This is My beloved Son. Listen to Him.”1

Prior to this study, I don’t think I recognized the depth of connection between Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Messiah, and his experience on the Mount of Transfiguration. If we back up a bit to the end of chapter 8, we’ll see that after rebuking Peter’s attempted dissuasion from the call to suffering and death, Jesus:

…called the multitude to Himself with His disciples and said to them, “Whoever wants to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it; and whoever will lose his life for My sake and the sake of the Good News will save it…For whoever will be ashamed of Me and of My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man also will be ashamed of him when He comes in His Father’s glory with the holy angels.” [emphasis added]2

Now, which of Jesus’ “words” do you suppose people might’ve been “ashamed” of? Personally, I doubt it was stuff like the Parable of the Sower. In context, it seems He’s referring to this talk of having to suffer and die in order to bring the Kingdom of God.

It’s significant, then, that right after this Jesus solemnly promises, “There are some standing here who will in no way taste death until they see God’s Kingdom come with power.”3 People have debated exactly what this coming with power event is, but the flow of the narrative most-strongly suggests it’s a reference to the Transfiguration event Peter, James, and John are about to witness.4

You’re likely acquainted with the basics of what happened on the mountain. The apostolic trio witness Jesus glorified and in conversation with Moses and Elijah. Awestruck and afraid, Peter offers to build a tent for each of these luminaries.5

Immediately, a voice comes out of the clouds with a firm command that seems (at least to me) to be directly related to Peter’s idea: “This is My beloved Son. Listen to Him.” [emphasis added]6

Have you ever wondered why the Voice utters this command at this moment? After all, Peter and the brothers have already committed to following Jesus as His disciples. Peter, in fact, has already confessed Jesus as Messiah. There’s no one else around — and the trio are ordered to keep these events secret until after Jesus rises from the dead7 so it seems unlikely that the command was originally intended for a general audience.

It seems to me that the voice must be addressing the three apostles, and Peter particularly. Why?

Within Mark the last we heard from Peter — prior to his idea of building three tents — was back in 8:32 when he rebuked Jesus’ talk of suffering and death as the messianic path.

I very strongly suspect that the voice tells Peter, “This is My Son. Listen to Him,” because has spent the last six days continually resisting Jesus’ revelation about the messianic calling.

And this makes me wonder, “Am I doing any better at actually listening to Jesus?” There’s an old hymn that famously asks: “Must Jesus bear the cross alone, and all the world go free?”

Truth be told, I think there’s a lot of us who want to say, “Yes! Exactly! I’d love that! Sign me up for that church program.”

Thus, I need to hear Jesus words as much as Peter needed to:

“Whoever wants to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it; and whoever will lose his life for My sake and the sake of the Good News will save it. For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? For what will a man give in exchange for his life? For whoever will be ashamed of Me and of My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man also will be ashamed of him when He comes in His Father’s glory with the holy angels.”8

Leave a comment

Round 1, Match 5 - vote for the 2027 Justin’s Journal read.

Read more

Read more