James's Weblog

Doug Wilson says some very helpful things about getting major issues and minor issues the right way around in theology.

Specifically, how sad – and how serious – when people take a minor issue (one on which we may quite respectably agree to disagree) and turn it into a major issue (one on which we do not have the latitude to disagree). As Wilson argues, at that point the issue has to become a major one on both sides. It is a major issue to mis-classify a minor issue as major.

I'm greatly enjoying spending some time in Paul's letter to the Philippians, in preparation for the first of our new quarterly combined services. The two churches (Kemsing and Woodlands) will come together for a shared Communion service 4 times a year. I am really looking forward to the occasion. In many respects, the two churches are very different. However the riches we share in Christ are many, and this quarterly celebration will be the chance to rejoice in that and to commit afresh to serving together in holding out the word of Christ. For that reason, we will be looking at the letter of Philippians when we get together in this way, and that starts this coming Sunday.

As I've been looking at Philippians, I've discovered just what a fine commentary Peter O'Brien's one is.

At the end of his introduction, he has a section on the purpose of the letter. He shows how Paul's purpose in writing develops in 4 ways, and then sums up what he has said in a single paragraph (page 38):

Wayne Grudem is very helpful in his Systematic Theology on what we mean when we refer to "the word of God".

He points out on pages 47-48 that "the word of God" can refer, in Scripture, to the Son of God, Jesus Christ. It can also refer to God's speech in 4 forms: 1. His decrees; 2. His words of personal address; 3. His speech through human lips, and 4. His words in written form, for us the Bible.

R T France is very helpful on what Jesus expects of his disciples. He comments on Mark 10:

Peter Leithart makes a wonderful observation about Jacob, Esau and Joseph.

He says this:

Esau is a “hairy man” (sa’iyr), something we learn only when Jacob dresses himself in goat hair to approach his father (Genesis 27:11, 23). Jacob becomes a hairy one, subbing in for his brother. The only other use of the word in Genesis is in 37:31, where it describes the “kid” killed to fool into thinking that Joseph has died. Both passages involve substitution, and both involve deception of a father.

I think this has struck me before. Re-reading 1 Samuel, we find that:

• Saul is rebuked by Samuel (1 Samuel 15)
  • David has to flee to the Philistines (1 Samuel 21)
    • The Ziphites betray David to Saul, then David spares Saul's life (1 Samuel 23-24)
      • Samuel dies (1 Samuel 25:1)
      • David accepts Abigail's gift, and marries her after God kills her fool of a husband (1 Samuel 25:2ff)
    • The Ziphites betray David to Saul, then David spares Saul's life (1 Samuel 26)
  • David lives among the Philistine (1 Samuel 27)
• Saul is rebuked by Samuel (1 Samuel 28)

Why is Mark 6:14-29 in Mark's gospel?

It's a good question. Mark devotes significantly more space to the death of John the Baptist than the other gospel writers, yet it is a story that involves neither Jesus nor his disciples. Mark's gospel is usually characterised by brevity; he rarely uses 10 words if 5 will do; Matthew and Luke (when they record the same events as those found in Mark) almost always contain a longer and fuller account. Yet the death of John the Baptist seems an exception - for some reason, he thinks it so important that he devotes about one fortieth of his gospel to the story. Why?

To make things more confusing, the chronology and the focus of the story is ambiguous. The story of John the Baptist is set in the account of Herod deliberating who Jesus is. Is this a story about who Jesus is? If so, why does the account of John's death itself take up so much space and involve so much detail? Or is this a story about John the Baptist? If so, why is Mark concerned with Herod's questions? And why does Mark record a "flash-back" like this. Jesus only begun his ministry after John's arrest; at some point after that, but before 6:16, John is executed. Herod hears of Jesus' ministry and thinks back to John's death. Why?

This post will attempt to look at the details of Mark 6:14-29, as it is found within its context in Mark's gospel, and to answer that question. (It's a longer than average post for this blog).

I thought the reference in Mark 6:23 to "up to half my kingdom" sounded familiar. Sure enough, the phrase also occurs in Esther 5:3 and Esther 7:2.

That got me thinking.

In the book of Esther we have a king with an extravagant party who makes an oath to depose his queen, which would be (for her) a kind of death. He promises a girl up to half of his kingdom, and then executes somebody because it is effectively what that girl asked for. We have someone (Haman), who has the king's ear, asking for the people of God to be put to death. Sound familiar?

“I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.” (Luke 10:21)

I have always read this, but subconsciously read Jesus to say “and revealed them to those who are not terribly wise or understanding — in fact, some thoroughly unexpected people”.

R T France thinks that, in looking for links between the story of the raising of Jairus's daughter and the healing of a bleeding woman, recourse to the detail of “12 years” is “a counsel of despair” (page 235, fn 20).

Interesting, Larry Hurtado does not agree. From page 88 of his commentary: