The Three Houses of Mark 3 February 9, 2010

I.

¹ And He entered the synagogue again, and a man was there who had a withered hand. ² So they watched Him closely, whether He would heal him on the Sabbath, so that they might accuse Him. ³ And He said to the man who had the withered hand, “Step forward.” ⁴ Then He said to them, “Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?” But they kept silent. ⁵ And when He had looked around at them with anger, being grieved by the hardness of their hearts, He said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” And he stretched it out, and his hand was restored as whole as the other.^{[a] 6} Then the Pharisees went out and immediately plotted with the Herodians against Him, how they might destroy Him.

II.

¹³ And He went up on the mountain and called to Him those He Himself wanted. And they came to Him.[...] ¹⁹ [...] And they went into a house.[...]³¹ Then His brothers and His mother came, and standing outside they sent to Him, calling Him. ³² And a multitude was sitting around Him; and they said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are outside seeking You.”

³³ But He answered them, saying, “Who is My mother, or My brothers?” ³⁴ And He looked around in a circle at those who sat about Him, and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! ³⁵ For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.”

III.

²⁵ … if a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. ²⁶ And if Satan has risen up against himself, and is divided, he cannot stand, but has an end. ²⁷ No one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man. And then he will plunder his house.

High/Low Christology?

There are some who would promote the erroneous idea that as the Gospels become later in date of composition they begin to portray Jesus as God. This sort of reasoning is largely dependent upon how critical scholars, who are through and through naturalists or deists, interpret the Gospel of Mark. Mark’s Gospel, they claim, portrays a very flesh and blood Jesus, not a God-Man. Jesus is seen as getting angry, having compassion, etc. Whereas in the Gospel of John, they claim, He is, basically, on Zoloft, impervious and bold and explicitly defined as God (cf. John 1:1). As satan manipulated the Word of God in the garden of God, so these men and women also manipulate the Word of God, neglecting to mention Jesus’ sorrow, anger, and compassion all throughout the Gospel of John, and the slew of references – explicit and implicit – to the Deity of our Lord, by our Lord Himself, all throughout Mark’s Gospel.

Individuals who would support the idea that the idea of Who Christ is gradually moved into the realm of “God-Man” theology propose a distinction between two types of Christology – (a.) “high” Christology, which shows Christ as God-Man, Exalted, Sovereign, etc, and (b.) “low” Christology, which shows Jesus as a special man of God, a type of a higher prophet or moral teacher, or even a new Moses (but not God) – in spite of what the text actually presents.

Mark 3 gives us an example of “high” Christology, as does chapter 2 (which I will post on tomorrow), in the example of the three houses. In each house mentioned in the preceding verses, Jesus is entering the house and driving those whom He did not want there, taking what they presumed was theirs, and doing so without regard for any opposition He may face. To put it bluntly, Mark 3 shows Jesus Christ acting on earth as Sovereign Theanthropos (God-Man).

The Three Houses

The three houses are significant because they show Jesus’ authority in three different ways.

1. House of God (vv. 1- 6) – Jesus enters as Lord of the Sabbath (cf. 2:28), heals a man’s withered hand by commanding him to do the impossible (i.e. “stretch out your hand”). His authority over sin, the Sabbath, and sickness is here exhibited, and the Pharisees are compelled to leave.

2. A House (vv. 19-22) – The Lord enters with His chosen men and, presumably, teaches those who are following Him. While no one is reported as “leaving” (as in the case of the Pharisees leaving the synagogue/house of God), those who think He is “out of His mind” (i.e. His physical relatives) are on the outside and are not part of His spiritual family.

3. The Strong Man’s House (vv. 25-27) – Here, the Lord explains why the house figure in this chapter shows up so frequently: It demonstrates His strength over the wicked one, His role as Divine Rescuer/Redeemer. As the only One who is stronger than the strong man, Jesus has bound satan, entered his territory, and taken back what is rightfully God’s. He states this parable/example in order to put the Pharisees in their place for stating that He only could cast out demons by the power of beelzebub.

As the Pharisees were on the outside of the kingdom of heaven, and thereby shown to be children of the devil, because of their claim that “He only casts out demons by the power of beelzebub”, so Jesus’ physical family members are on the outside for they also consider His ministry to be illegitimate (i.e. they say that He is only doing what He is doing because He is mentally unstable). Similarly, as the man with the once withered hand stands in the synagogue with Jesus and is now part of His spiritual family, so too those who are sitting around Jesus are called His spiritual family.

What we see in Mark 3 is God exercising His Sovereign strength in binding the strong man and redeeming His once captive people, and His Sovereign Will in choosing who will come to Him. This is not “low” Christology. The Lord Jesus’ words can only be seen for what they are:

An implicit claim to full Deity.

And His actions scream that He regularly assumed an authority that only God Himself possesses.

The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath, yes; but He is also Lord of the synagogue, the physical body, or whatever other domain the enemy of our souls had formerly tried to dominate and claim as His own. Christ has bound the strong man, as He is infinitely stronger, and has plundered him.

What Does This Mean For Us?

An obvious teaching to be gleaned from this passage is that it is fellowship with Jesus that makes one part of God’s family, not religio-national (i.e. whether or not one is Jewish means nothing) or familial descent. Those who are sinners saved by His grace (cf. 2:13-17), are those who follow Him – they are His family, we who are saved by the grace of God through faith in Christ are His.

Therefore, those who are regenerate are on the inside with Jesus; those who are not regenerate are on the outside. There is a distinction between the saved and the unsaved that Christ Jesus Himself held to quite firmly, but one that the contemporary church has watered down or lost altogether. We would do well to remember this and not sacrifice biblical truth to postmodern distortions of tolerance and acceptance. Jesus accepted sinners, of course; but the ones who truly are accepted by Him become saints, being forgiven of their lawless pasts, and become slaves to righteousness.

A Narrative Model/Pattern

As a side note, be sure to note the pattern laid out by the Holy Spirit here. There are two physical/earthly scenarios and one explanatory spiritual scenario (here in the form of a teaching explaining what is going on in the chapter). This is important, for it shows us a narrative pattern that is consistent throughout Mark’s Gospel and helps us determine the literary/theological necessity of Mark 16:9-20, which liberals like to debate as “not original” because of its appearance in later manuscripts (which is a completely unnecessary assumption that I’ve spoken about in brief here). Mark’s narratival/theological method is consistently as follows: a physical event is paralleled by a spiritual event, the latter explaining/shedding light upon the former (this is a pattern found in Genesis and perhaps the entire Pentateuch). If you have the time, read the Gospel of Mark carefully and note the parallelisms that center around a common theme (e.g. in this chapter the diverse stories center around Jesus binding satan and plundering his goods, in Mark 5 the stories center around Jesus being the One to Whom all creatures plead [whether the demons of hell, the unregenerate men and women who oppose Him, those saved by His compassion and grace, or those who seek His help for others]). Mark 16:9-20 is original; the Gospel would be incomplete without it.

-h.

The Straw Man Fallacy: Considering Questions of Causality February 5, 2010

From wikipedia:

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position

When confronted by skeptics, as I’ve noted elsewhere, we should always carefully inspect their questions logically, in order to best determine how we should respond. In many cases, what I’ve noticed is that their arguments are guilty of a number of fallacies. For example, one fallacy that is prevalent in the field of higher criticism is the fallacy of division (as I’ve written about here). At times fallacies are enjoined to one another. If the fallacy of division is committed in respect to what the authors of the New Testament believed, then it follows that the rejection of their theology is not the rejection of the theological content actually presented in  the New Testament, but a distorted form of that theology. In the final analysis, what is rejected is not the theology of the New Testament, but a “straw man” set up in its place.

The above example from higher criticism is a little more subtle; however, there are many more direct examples of this that can be found in some of the most popular skeptical literature available today (e.g. anything by Richard Dawkins). The fallacy is observed in statements like: “We don’t need God to explain why things happen the way they do, we have science.” It can also be found in an interaction between Napolean Bonaparte and French mathematician Simon-Pierre Laplace that gives us a great concrete example of the fallacy in action. From wikipedia:

Laplace went in state to Napoleon to accept a copy of his work, and the following account of the interview is well authenticated, and so characteristic of all the parties concerned that I quote it in full. Someone had told Napoleon that the book contained no mention of the name of God; Napoleon, who was fond of putting embarrassing questions, received it with the remark, ‘M. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator.’ Laplace, who, though the most supple of politicians, was as stiff as a martyr on every point of his philosophy, drew himself up and answered bluntly, ‘Je n’avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là.’ (“I had no need of that hypothesis.”) Napoleon, greatly amused, told this reply to Lagrange, who exclaimed, ‘Ah! c’est une belle hypothèse; ça explique beaucoup de choses.’ (“Ah, it is a fine hypothesis; it explains many things.”)

(Laplace)

Laplace’s famous “I had no need of that hypothesis” statement assumes that the postulation of the existence of God serves as  a hypothetical supernatural alternative to his naturalistic endeavor to explain why things are the way they are. This is a false assumption, but one that is still held by many in their attacks upon the faith. You see, the god of the skeptic is a being who is invoked to provide a (pre-scientific) explanation of why things are the way they are, but this isn’t the God of Christianity. As I’ve explained elsewhere, however, the God of Christianity, from the beginning, encouraged scientific endeavor within its proper metaphysical framework, even giving the first man the job of taxonomist.

The error, therefore, consists in misrepresenting the God of Scripture as a pre-scientific explanation of why things are they way they are; for the skeptic, we can either god as a means of explanation or natural causes, the two are mutually exclusive and never to meet. But this just isn’t the case in Scripture; for Scripture teaches us that natural causes and supernatural causes are never mutually exclusive but represent two sides of the same narrative coin.

A great example of this can be found in the book of Esther, a book that details the socio-political-historical series of events that led to a lowly Jewish woman’s rise to becoming queen, the salvation of the Jews and the destruction of their socio-political enemy (i.e. Haman) for trying to destroy them – all without mentioning God once. Does the absence of God’s name, then, take away from he supernatural nature of the events recorded? Not at all. Rather, God uses human agency to accomplish His will. Simple enough.

So the god of the skeptics is not the God of Scripture. Their god disallows man’s free exploration of nature via science, because either it is he or science that can serve as an explanatory model, but not both of them. Our God, however, tells us that He created us to inspect the universe and contemplate nature. Biblically speaking, God created us to do science.

The God of Scripture invites man to reason with Him; He isn’t afraid of him.

As Christians, we need to point this out to those who would criticize us on the basis of their own misrepresentation of God, and inform our accusers of their logical error. When they claim that we postulate the existence of God to serve as an alternative explanatory model, we can correct them according to Scripture, showing them that supernatural and natural causes are never mutually exclusive in the Bible – only in their own minds.

-h.

“So He came and took her by the hand and lifted her up” February 4, 2010

²⁹ Now as soon as they had come out of the synagogue, they entered the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John. ³⁰ But Simon’s wife’s mother lay sick with a fever, and they told Him about her at once. ³¹ So He came and took her by the hand and lifted her up, and immediately the fever left her. And she served them.

Mark 1:29-31

Lately, it’s been a real struggle for me to muster up the strength to read and write, let alone post anything up here. I’ve been facing internal and external difficulties, and have been somewhat discouraged by it all. Without getting into the details of all that I am facing, however, there is something that I think we all face while walking through difficult times, and that is the question of whether or not our concerns are something that we should even bring to the Lord.

What I mean is this: Like Peter, we all know that we are walking with Jesus, that we’ve all left our nets behind, hopped off our fishing boats, left behind our familial trade in order to be taught and led by Him. Yet, haven’t we all questioned whether or not our problems were valid problems, in light of all that He is doing and planning to do through His disciples?

I think we have.

And I know I have.

But are there any concerns that are invalid because they seemingly have little to do with what we think Christ is doing?

As I read Mark 1:29-31 last night, a single stood out to me. That word was:

“So…”

Being a disciple of the Lord Jesus didn’t keep trouble from coming to Peter’s mother-in-law, but neither did it keep Peter from Jesus from coming to Peter’s house – the very place where the trouble was located. Jesus came to Peter’s house because they told Him about her, and He cared.

It’s really that simple.

He cares.

In the midst of a fast paced passage where a the Messiah is announced, baptized, fought against by the very devil of hell, and casting out demons in public view, Peter brings a concern of his to the Lord – so the Lord goes to address that problem.

What is encouraging is not the idea that the Lord will remove my problems, but the fact that He is concerned, that He does hear, and that He does respond to my seemingly insignificant woes.

-h.

“Come and see” January 28, 2010

⁴³ The following day Jesus wanted to go to Galilee, and He found Philip and said to him, “Follow Me.” ⁴⁴ Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter. ⁴⁵ Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found Him of whom Moses in the law, and also the prophets, wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”

⁴⁶ And Nathanael said to him, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?”
Philip said to him, “Come and see.”

⁴⁷ Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward Him, and said of him, “Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no deceit!”
⁴⁸ Nathanael said to Him, “How do You know me?”
Jesus answered and said to him, “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.”

⁴⁹ Nathanael answered and said to Him, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!”

⁵⁰ Jesus answered and said to him, “Because I said to you, ‘I saw you under the fig tree,’ do you believe? You will see greater things than these.” ⁵¹ And He said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, hereafter you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.”

- John 1:43-51

Some Thoughts About Skepticism and Evangelism

How is Nathanael’s bold statement of skepticism met with by Philip?

With an extension to “come and see” Christ, where He resides, what He is like, and to get to know Him.

And how does the Lord respond?

He almost commends Nathanael’s honesty, even though Nathanael is wrong.

How do you and I respond to the skepticism of others?

Like Philip, all we can do is tell others about Jesus; the rest is up to Him. However, we can do this in love, addressing their skepticism by urging them to “come and see” Who Christ is.

Did Philip know whether or not Nathanael’s skepticism was legitimate or if he was just using it as a mask to cover his fixed and firm unbelief (as some of the Jews are later guilty of, cf. John 5)? We don’t know. He is only recorded as dealing with Nathanael’s question by pointing him to Christ.

It is Jesus who knows the hearts of men, who knows whether or not they are legitimately skeptical, and Who will address them as needed.

- h.

“…besides the regular burnt offering…” January 22, 2010

¹ Now the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, ² “Command the children of Israel, and say to them, ‘My offering, My food for My offerings made by fire as a sweet aroma to Me, you shall be careful to offer to Me at their appointed time.’

³ “And you shall say to them, ‘This is the offering made by fire which you shall offer to the LORD: two male lambs in their first year without blemish, day by day, as a regular burnt offering.

⁴ The one lamb you shall offer in the morning, the other lamb you shall offer in the evening, ⁵ and one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour as a grain offering mixed with one-fourth of a hin of pressed oil.

⁶ It is a regular burnt offering which was ordained at Mount Sinai for a sweet aroma, an offering made by fire to the LORD.

⁷ And its drink offering shall be one-fourth of a hin for each lamb; in a holy place you shall pour out the drink to the LORD as an offering.

⁸ The other lamb you shall offer in the evening; as the morning grain offering and its drink offering, you shall offer it as an offering made by fire, a sweet aroma to the LORD.

-Numbers 28:1-8

If there is anything that drives people away from the Old Testament, it’s long passages of instructions that seem to have no direct impact on us who are no longer under the law but grace. Numbers 28-29 are two chapters that fall under this category. After a series of trials and battles (cf. Num. 21-25), we reenter the arena of censuses and lists and names and detailed instructions on how and when to present offerings to the Lord. And the crowds that once gathered to watch as Israel conquered her enemies, the Angel of the Lord almost killed a false prophet, and Israel fell under another plague for sexual immorality and idolatry, slowly thins out, to skim over the next few chapters until some other narrative or an interesting prophecy pops up.

At least that’s what I found myself doing.

As I read Numbers 28-29 today, I couldn’t help but wonder how the passage applied to any believers, let alone me, until I saw a constant refrain throughout every section describing when and how Israel was to present offerings before the Lord. That phrase is:

“…besides the regular burnt offering…”

You see, God begins by telling Moses that Israel is to present an offering every day and every night.

In other words, every day was to begin and end with sacrifice.

Yes, there were special days on which Israel was to present offerings specifically commanded by God for the occasion – but these were to be presented “besides the regular burnt offering.“

Every day and every night – Sabbath to Sabbath, regardless of what else was going on.

And it dawned on me that this wasn’t just a list of details, but a visceral picture of what my life should look like – what every believer’s life should look like. As Israel’s days were to be marked by perpetual sacrifice, so the Lord calls His children to offer their bodies as a living sacrifice (cf. Romans 12:1-2). We are called to do this not once or twice, but always. We are to give ourselves, day in and day out, completely to God as Christ has “…given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma” (Eph. 5:2).

Since the sacrifice of the lamb points to Christ’s sacrifice for us, how are we to understand this passage of Scripture? What can we learn from it, as regards Christ?

Simply: All of Israel’s days began with the sacrifice of the lamb and ended with the sacrifice of the lamb, and we would do well to do the same – to surround ourselves with Christ, “looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God” (Hebrews 12:2).

That’s all :)

Peace.

-h.