Many thanks to Peter Davies, vicar at Audley for his permission to reproduce this morning’s sermon here. Very helpful, I thought, for how clearly he put things. Echoes of Rich Lusk at one point – which certainly is not a criticism!
I have to say that this familiar passage is such a shock to the system.
Re-reading Mark 14 is interesting. In Gethsemane, the disciples were urged to stay awake, watch and pray so that they might not fall into temptation. Jesus himself stayed awake and prayed – presumably including prayer to remain faithful under the forthcoming trial.
A sobering statement on human nature. The disciples could see Jesus, the Son of God incarnate, praying to his father that he might not yield to temptation. Yet they thought (implicitly or explicitly, it doesn’t matter) that they could endure without the Father’s help. Astounding – and sobering.
That also gives a point of contact between chapters 13 and 14. The concluding exhortation in chapter 13 is “stay awake”, the same thing Jesus has to tell the disciples in chapter 14. Could this be one key to working out Mark’s intent in these chapters?
Just noticed an inclusio here. Jesus appoints apostles (3:13-19) before being rejected by his immeediate family (3:20-35).
Later, Jesus is rejected at Nazareth, his home town (6:1-6), and then sends the apostles out (6:7-13).
Could it be (kite-flying time!) that the intervening section concerns why even those closest to Jesus can reject him?
Answer 1: Because the same word attracts different responses. God is not obliged to open people's eyes (chapter 4).
Answer 2: Because evil is so powerful - but Jesus is more so (5:1-20)
Answer 3: Because Jesus needs to raise the dead (5:21-43)
I've just noticed the really obvious.
It isn't just the lack of an exception clause that makes Mark 10 different from Matthew 19. The question Jesus is recorded as being asked is different too.
Matthew 19: Is divorce lawful for any reason?
Mark 10: Is divorce lawful?
Matthew 19: Except for unfaithfulness (notwithstanding the debate about how to translate that word)
Mark 10: Yes - but not that way from the beginning.
The difference in the question helps a lot with the difference in the answer. Matthew has focussed on the precise nature of the exception. Mark has focussed on the intended permanence of marriage which makes any premature ending a tragedy. Because that is Mark's focus, he doesn't appear to preclude exceptions - whether there are exceptions is not his interest.
What are we to disciple?
The object of “disciple” is “all nations” (panta ta ethnE), not “those of all nations” (hoi ek pantOn tOn ethnOn). So we are to disciple nations qua nations.
By the time we get to “baptising” the object is simply “them” (autous).
Has anyone met a self-evidently correct explanation of Luke 17:37 that can cut through the pages of depate there are. I’m not overwhelmingly persuaded by anything I’ve met.
The two questions I’m left asking are
I've often wondered why Jesus sent Legion into the herd of pigs. Lots of obvious things have come to mind for a while - it shows the size of the demonic force just defeated for one.
Thinking about the Exodus made me wonder. God destroyed the Egyptian army by plunging them into the sea in Exodus 14. Jesus destroyed a demonic army by plunging them into the sea in Mark 5. Co-incidence, or is Mark teaching us that because of Jesus' crucifixion those demons "whom you see today you shall never see again" (Exodus 14:13)?
I’m preparing a sermon for a wedding on 1 John 4:7-11.
Having found a way of laying the text out in a way that I think is quite helpful, I thought I’d share it…
