Posted on

Good News about Jesus Christ and the introduction to Mark’s Gospel—Mark 1:1

Mark titles either his Gospel or its opening words with,“the beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, God’s Son.” So even a previously uninformed reader knows Jesus’s identity from the start, even as it unfolds only gradually in the narrative. It’s no surprise when the Father honors Jesus as his Son in Mark 1:11. What is more of a surprise for the uninformed reader will be how little his human contemporaries recognize him, and how the Gospel will climax in and elaborate the crucifixion of God’s Son.

“Good news,” or euangelion, applied to all sorts of things in Greek, but given Mark’s signaled interest in Isaiah in v. 2, it probably evokes the promised good news of Israel’s restoration emphasized there. In v. 3, Mark will note the herald of Isa 40:3 who prepares the way for YHWH, who leads his people through the wilderness in a new exodus, bringing them back to their land from exile and restoring them. Many Jews had resettled in the land, but they still awaited the full restoration of their people, along with the renewed creation God had promised (such as new heavens and new earth, Isa 65:17; 66:22). Isaiah goes on to speak of this way-preparing herald in terms of the remnant of God’s people, announcing good tidings to the rest of them (Isa 40:9, the standard Greek translation twice using the verb euaggelizô).

The next use of this verb in standard Greek translation of Isaiah appears in Isa 52:7, speaking of the messenger who “brings good news” (euangelizomenou) about peace for God’s people, who brings good news (euangelizomenos) involving salvation and God’s reign. In this context in Isaiah, this is good news that judgment has ended, and God is restoring his people. Isaiah 52:7 speaks of this as the good news, or gospel, of peace, of salvation, and of God’s kingdom.

That Mark wants to emphasize good news is clear because it frames Mark’s introduction. Mark treats John the Baptist as the optimum model of this herald, this way-preparer for YHWH, as he prepares the way for Jesus. (This should also let the biblically informed reader of Mark know something further about Jesus’s identity: he is YHWH.) But after John the Baptist’s arrest in 1:14, Jesus begins the public ministry that Mark’s Gospel addresses. Mark describes it this way: “Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming God’s good news, by saying: ‘The time has been fulfilled! God’s kingdom has drawn near! Turn your lives around and depend on the good news!” (Mark 1:14-15).

That Mark’s understanding of this good news evokes Isaiah is also clear because of the mention of God’s kingdom, or God’s reign, as part of this good news (1:15). Remember Isa 52:7: part of this good news is, “Our God reigns.” Other Scripture praised God’s kingship as most evident in the conspicuous day of God’s justice (e.g., Ps 93:1; 96:10; 97:1; 99:1). It would be the kingdom that would shatter temporary earthly kingdoms with an eternal one (Dan 2:44), the kingdom of the Son of Man (Dan 7:14) and his people (7:18, 27). Jesus, too, places no trust in such temporary kingdoms and rulers (Mark 13:8-9).

Jesus uses “kingship” language to describe the content of his parabolic teaching (Mark 4:11, 26, 30; 9:47); it contrasts with the pseudo-royal governor of Galilee (6:14, 22-27) who executes God’s herald (6:27). Disciples see a foretaste of kingdom glory (8:38—9:1) in Jesus’s transfiguration (9:2). As Jesus enters Jerusalem, the crowds hail the promised kingdom of the Davidic king (11:10)—although they may overplay the Davidic part (12:37). Jesus announces to his disciples that they will share in the expected messianic banquet with him in God’s kingdom (14:25)—though separation between them must intervene.

Here we can begin to catch the irony of this “kingdom” from a human vantage point. But Jesus declares that this kingdom belongs to children (10:14-15) and to those who love their neighbor (12:34). He brings it not to prestigious and powerful people such as Herod Antipas, Jerusalem’s high council, Pilate, or to those proud of their wealth (10:23-25), but to people who are disabled (such as blind beggars), who are socially marginalized (such as tax collectors), and to others who are the antithesis of social prestige. (One prestigious person, Joseph of Arimathea, does somehow get the kingdom message closer to right than his colleagues; 15:43.)

But from here on out, Mark’s Gospel uses royal language almost exclusively in one way: for Jesus as the rejected king of his people, crowned with thorns and enthroned on a cross (Mark 15:2, 9, 12, 18, 26, 32, 43). We should have suspected as much, when already in the introduction the kingdom herald John was arrested (1:14), and in the last verse about “king” Herod Antipas Mark gets beheaded (6:27). The kingdom of this world was not ready to give up its worldly power.

Yet Jesus will return to Galilee to meet his disciples (16:7), so the preaching of the good news will start again, and spread among all nations (13:10), even in the face of hostility (13:9-11).

The fulness of the kingdom will come. Jesus’s signs of and teaching about the kingdom will prevail. But Mark is realistic about this world. This world’s kingdom’s will not surrender until the Son of Man returns (8:38; 13:26; 14:62). In Daniel, the reign of the Son of Man (the human one [Dan 7:13-14], contrasted with the preceding kingdoms depicted as beasts [7:3-8]) is linked with the triumph of the consecrated ones of the Most High (7:22, 27)—after suffering (7:21, 25). Let no one deceive you: suffering continues in this present age. But also let no one deceive you that this age is all there is. The fullness of our promised home is yet to come.

Posted on

Immigrants and welfare in Jerusalem—Acts 6:1-6

A conflict arose between the Hellenist and Hebrew Jewish followers of Jesus in Jerusalem in Acts 6:1. Most of the Hellenists spoke only Greek, having originated in the Diaspora. They included “Cyrenians, Alexandrians, and others of those from Cilicia and Asia” (6:9). These immigrant Jews remained loyal to the temple; most settled in their ancestors’ homeland precisely because they retained respect for its institutions and customs. This conflict in the church thus pitted local Judeans against immigrant coreligionists.

Today we read about conflicts between local people and immigrants in many places, and it is helpful to understand that such conflicts are not new. (Lest I be accused of simply pandering to the news cycles, I started with the biblical text before and during the writing of my Acts commentary, published in 2012-2015, and only after my initial exegesis did I consider analogies and applications.)

Analogies today can help make their predicament in the text feel more concrete. For example, many people from former French colonies have migrated to France and found less opportunity there than they had expected. (A closer ancient parallel to that in the first century would be the many provincials who settled in Rome, but that would be background for a different lesson.) Some, in fact, have found discrimination, something that my wife experienced during her education in France (though she also received great blessings from others there). Or we may consider Latino/a immigrants in the United States, some even with ancestral ties to parts of the U.S. that were once part of Mexico. (That was nearly two centuries ago—about twice as long as a Roman general had deported Judeans to Rome before the scene in Acts 6.)

Any such analogies have weaknesses; boundaries within the empire were porous for travel, for example, but those who were not indigenous to a city could remain “resident aliens” rather than citizens for generations! The analogies do, however, help us to feel more concretely the sorts of feelings reflected in Luke’s description of the text, and that he might have expected his audience to feel. Much of Luke’s audience probably lived in urban areas with significant populations of resident aliens. The churches would include a mixture of both resident aliens and long-time citizens, with the former probably predominating (at least in Roman colonies, where most Jews and Greeks were resident aliens). Because many were gentiles and all lived in the Greek-speaking Diaspora, however, they would probably identify first of all with the Hellenists rather than the Hebrews.

In the Jerusalem church, the immigrant widows complained that they were not receiving their fare share of the community’s care for needy widows (6:1). Back then, most women could not earn very much, and most widows were dependent on their social networks for support. Based on biblical teaching about caring for widows, Jewish communities provided for their own widows. But in this period, the support seems to have been local, through relatives or local synagogues. But Hellenists, some of whom settled in Jerusalem in old age, probably had a disproportionate number of widows. Certainly they had fewer local relatives to support them. Not surprisingly then, Hellenist widows received less support. And, not unlike today, problems from the wider society also could impact the church.

Luke emphatically favors concern and respect for widows (Luke 2:37; 4:25-26; 7:12; 18:3-5; 20:47; 21:2-3; Acts 9:39-41). At the same time, his term for their “complaining” is not a positive one, either in his work (Luke 5:30; 15:2; 19:7; cf. 12:13) or in biblical precedent (see Exod 16:7-9, 12; 17:3; Num 14:27, 29; 16:41; 17:5, 10; Ps 106:25). If the term suggests that their approach to the problem was less than ideal, perhaps they did not try to raise the problem with the leadership (not that leadership always listens).

In whatever manner we construe their complaining, however, it soon becomes clear that the apostles consider their cause to be just (or, at the very least, not worth dividing over, Acts 6:3).

Even though Luke does not explicitly identify the Galilean apostles among the “Hebrews” against whom the widows complained, the apostles were in charge of the food distribution program (Acts 4:34-35), so they bore ultimate responsibility for solving the problem. Luke may use the massive growth of the church (6:1a) to help explain how the apostles had missed the problem, but what is clearer is that they move quickly to remedy the situation.

The apostles hand over the food distribution program to others. Matters had grown too large for personal attention even to each of the sick who needed healing (Acts 5:15-16; cf. Luke 5:15-16, 19; 8:19; 19:3), so the apostles follow Jesus’s example and delegate (Luke 9:1-2; 10:1-2). (One may compare how inappropriate complaints in Num 11:1 nevertheless led to the appointment and Spirit-filling of seventy elders in Num 11:16-17. The apostles, however, most clearly evoke Exod 18:19-21; Num 27:18-20; and Deut 34:9.)

These were not simply any new leaders, however. Although only a minority of Judean residents had Greek names, all seven of the new leaders have Greek names (Acts 6:5). They are not only Hellenists, but very conspicuously Hellenists. The community selected (6:3, 5) and the apostles blessed (6:6) members of the offended minority group.

But again, these were not merely any members of the minority group, but those whom both groups could trust to put God’s work first and to act fairly (6:3). The church was growing in cultural diversity and needed culturally diverse leaders (cf. 13:1); whoever was truly full of the Spirit and wisdom could be trusted in the other matters. (Genuine fullness of the Spirit needs to be spiritually discerned, but it is not limited by culture or ethnicity.)

Why appoint diverse leaders? Perhaps for the peace of the community. Or perhaps because those culturally closer to the situation could more readily see needs that Hebrew “blind spots” had missed. Or perhaps both. In Acts 8, the culturally sensitive Hellenist Philip paves the way for Peter’s ministry to Samaritans and Gentiles. In Acts 15, the church seeks a consensus solution, at least sufficient for working agreement.

I know from experience that if I state applications here that I think should be obvious, some will protest and accuse me of mixing my opinions with Scripture. So instead, I offer an invitation. Pray about what I have highlighted in this passage. Ask the Lord what he may want you to do about it.

 

Posted on

Genocides

When brothers and sisters in Christ complain about how their people have been treated, we should listen.

“Weep with those who weep” (Rom 12:15)

“If one member of Christ’s body suffers, then every other part suffers with it” (1 Cor 12:26)

 

In the past, U.S. crimes against humanity include the slaughter and displacement of Native American peoples and participation in the African slave trade that decimated cultures and in which perhaps a third of the captives died on the transatlantic voyage. Thank God for those who stood up against it.

 

Most people today say, “We would have stood against such abuses.” But how often do we look the other way today?

 

“If we had lived back when our ancestors did, we wouldn’t have killed the prophets like they did” (Matt 23:30)

 

The twentieth century witnessed genocide after genocide: the German genocide of the Herero and Nama peoples (1904-1908), the Ottoman extermination of Armenians in the next decade, the subsequent Nazi extermination of millions of Jews (along with others, including Roma people), mass murders under Stalin, Mao, Idi Amin and Pol Pot. The world cried, “Never again!” after the genocide in Rwanda, even though many people knew very well that it had simply spilled over into Congo, eventually leading to millions more deaths. (Cf. my article https://www.evangelicalsforsocialaction.org/foreign-policy/we-cannot-say-we-did-not-know/.)

 

If we had lived back when our ancestors did, would we have spoken for justice? We do live in a time like our ancestors. Documented ethnic and religious cleansing is going on today, for example in parts of Nigeria and Central Africa, in multiple countries.

 

Proverbs 24:11-12 (NRSV):

“If you hold back from rescuing those taken away to death,

those who go staggering to the slaughter;

if you say, “Look, we did not know this”—

does not he who weighs the heart perceive it?

Does not he who keeps watch over your soul know it?

And will he not repay all according to their deeds?”

 

God have mercy.

Posted on

Struck Dead—Acts 5:1-11

Ananias and Sapphira wanted to look sold out to God like so many others in the heat of revival. Others, moved by God’s Spirit, were selling property to meet the needs of the poor (Acts 4:31-35), including a disciple named Barnabas (4:36-37). But instead of being sincere in their devotion, Ananias and Sapphira faked it—and God struck them each dead (Acts 5:1-11).

It wasn’t because they didn’t give everything—what they did with the money was still their own choice (5:4). (It was not like the Qumran sect, where everybody who wanted to join contributed their goods, though they could get them back at the end of a year if they decided to leave.) It was because they pretended to be what they were not. God does not want pretend revival; hypocrisy can corrupt the entire movement, if not exposed and expunged (Luke 12:1-2). Like a little yeast that spreads throughout the loaf (1 Cor 5:6; Gal 5:9) or cancer that metastasizes throughout the body (cf. 2 Tim 2:17), fake commitment can infect the entire community and turn real revival into fleshly imitation revival, a toxic substitute for the real thing.

Some of the wording of Acts 5 recalls wording from Joshua 7. Achan kept for himself some of the things from Jericho that had been devoted to the Lord for destruction. Perhaps because of Jericho’s devotion to false gods, everything in Jericho was spiritually polluted, and had to be destroyed (Josh 6:17-18, 21; cf. Exod 22:20; Deut 7:25-26; 13:17), except perhaps for what could be purified by fire and consecrated to the Lord (Num 31:22-23; Josh 6:19, 24). By violating this ban and bringing what was spiritually impure into the camp, Achan removed God’s hand of protection, leading to the deaths of other people (Josh 7:5).

The situation could be remedied only by destroying what was corrupted—now including Achan. Achan’s family surely knew about him hiding the loot under the tent floor, yet they went along with him in the secret, valuing the wealth or family ties above God’s commandment. In contrast to Rahab, who hid Israelite spies on her roof and rescued her family, Achan hid loot under his tent and brought death to his family. After the assembly executed them, they burned them with fire to remove the spiritual impurity.

Obviously church discipline in the New Testament is different: its harshest form involves exclusion from the community, but not physical execution, and the excluded person is welcomed back if they repent. As for spiritual impurity, Jesus showed repeatedly that holiness can remove impurity, rather than the reverse (e.g., Mark 1:41; 2:16-17; 5:30; Matt 11:19//Luke 7:34), a reality that continues among those in whom Christ lives. Of course, that does not permit voluntary participation in things associated with idolatry or evil spirits (1 Cor 10:20-21).

Yet God struck dead Ananias and Sapphira, presumably for the same reason that he struck dead Aaron’s two sons who offered strange fire on the altar (Lev 10:1-2) or Uzzah who, probably more innocently, touched the ark to steady it (2 Sam 6:6-7; 1 Chron 13:9-10). (It is not only readers today who are unhappy about this; David was upset about Uzzah [2 Sam 6:8; 1 Chron 13:11], and Aaron was naturally upset about his sons [Lev 10:16-20]. One of his grandsons, Phinehas, afterward proved quite zealous for holiness [Num 25:7, 11].) God’s holiness is not to be trifled with.

Now, God striking people dead is not common in the Old Testament, and it is even rarer in the New Testament. This is the only example in the Gospels and Acts, where God’s character is regularly revealed in Jesus as he compassionately heals the sick and delivers those who are demonized. But it still has something to teach us, especially when we pray for revival. In deeper intensity with the Spirit, we become more aware of God’s holiness, and more aware of what it means to be consecrated to him. We desire to honor his holiness, to draw deeper in his presence. Just as poison is bad for the body, some things are spiritually toxic for our personal or communal spiritual welfare. A life or community sensitive to God’s holiness will be allergic to spiritual toxins.

Ananias’s and Sapphira’s death struck fear into the hearts of everyone, even the Christians (Acts 5:11). As a result of this and other signs, people were scared to join the movement unless they were really serious about following Christ—no fake devotion was welcome (5:13). No nominal Christians in that setting! But because Jesus’s movement was pure and without hypocrisy, more people ended up joining the movement in the long run (5:14).

May we desire ever deeper holiness, and may those around us be drawn to such holiness. That comes not by legalism—that’s just fake holiness. It comes by the Spirit, who reveals to us the holy and awesome God, maker of heaven and earth, who has graciously chosen to dwell among us.

Posted on

Celebrating being God’s child

Today as I write this (Oct. 17, 2018: I scheduled this in advance), I am celebrating being a child of God.

Today I have felt so loved by God, as his son. This wasn’t something I grew up with before my conversion, but it has come in my relationship with God. I could feel the reality of the Spirit of God’s Son crying out and causing me to cry out, “Abba, Father” (Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6).

One might think that since God has so many children now, it is not special to be his child. But that is not at all the case. This is the Spirit of God’s Son, Jesus Christ (Rom 8:3, 9, 11; Gal 4:4-6), and we are beloved in the Son. He made us his children in the Beloved One, Jesus (Eph 1:5-6). Our Father loves us as He loves Jesus (John 17:23). Of course, I already know that theoretically as the fruit of my study. But it is a step beyond that to celebrate its reality in my heart.

I don’t always think about it and I don’t always feel it. But when I remember what it means in my own relationship to God, when I express it in prayer and worship to God, when the Spirit reminds me, calling within me even when I had been thinking of something else—what sublime joy that brings!