Family Conflict

Often, when detractors read Mark 3:31-33 where Jesus rebuffs his Mother and siblings, they view this as callous and uncaring. That Jesus ignores his own family honor and responsibility. But that is not necessarily true if we understand the complete picture.

I’m not certain why and the gospels do not really tell us, but Jesus’ family seems to have lost perspective on his “calling” and ministry. The inspiring song that Mary offered at his conception has faded from her mind and now she is more concerned about the song her son is singing – a song of redemption and conflict with the religious leaders of the day. A song that could get him killed.  Consequently, they take action and move to seize Jesus by force because, as they described it, ”He is out of his mind (Mark 3:21).”

What happened that made them feel this way?  Was it seeing the crowds that followed him that made them think this? Was it his seemingly intentional aggravation of the Scribes and Pharisees by doing things on the Sabbath that they felt were not appropriate? Was it that the “demons” recognized him and he insisted they be silent? I suppose all of these things and more could lead a family to think perhaps there was a problem and they needed to intervene.  I don’t suspect it was ignorance that compelled them but love and concern. They felt certain if he continued down this path that death would be imminent. They, especially Mary, seemed to have lost sight of Jesus’ role in the world and became concerned that he would soon sing a verse in the song of redemption that would tip the scales and cause skeptics to react with violence.  They felt they must stop him.

Therefore, it was not malice or ill-intent that prompted Jesus to wonder “Who are my mother and my brothers…” It was out of a true understanding of his redemptive mission that these words were spoken. They may have misunderstood his mission but those who were followers and learners of his ministry, those who did the will of God, those were his brothers and sisters and mother. Jesus knew that doing the will of God, believing in the ministry of reconciliation, would not bring peace but a sword. It would divide families and pit them against one another. It would create conflict and division not harmony and unity (Matt 10:34ff). He was not being sarcastic with his question, he was being realistic.

This is indeed a hard concept to fold our arms around. When painted on a canvas of “for God so love the world” it is hard to see in the background personal and familial conflict. But it is there. Not like some subliminal message but a purposeful message that forces a choice; love of God and following Him or love of family. There is nothing easy about that choice. In fact, it is hard to imagine that a loving God would ever put us in a position of having to make that choice. To me, that is the nub of the issue – choosing. We are told to “honor our father and mother that our days may be long.” Now we are informed that believing in and doing the will of God may cause family conflict and confusion. That one family member may be pitted against another. That a choice must be made and family ties severed if that is what it takes to follow the Messiah. Hard indeed and seemingly in-congruent.

Choices are never easy. We have the right to choose, but we do not have the right to choose the consequences of our choices. If you are in a position of choosing – don’t lose heart. Choose on the basis of love – love for God and recognizing your love for family. That does not necessarily mean you abandon family in favor of God. It simply means your allegiance to God is stronger than your allegiance to family. Will that cause conflict – perhaps but don’t seek it. Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness and respect your family obligations. You may find that conflict is avoided and a respect for your belief begins.

Jesus never backtracked on any of  his words that day. It was his family who came to understand his ministry and soon embraced it.

The Sabbath

One of the most oft quoted phrases that Jesus uttered is found in Mark 2:27; “…And he said to them, ‘the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.”

I suspect there are times when we miss the import of what Jesus was saying and how it impacts our life. If he had said, “The Sabbath was made for man’s benefit…” we might understand it better for that seems to be the implication. However the Sabbath is no trivial matter either for the Christ or for those to whom he was speaking.  The Sabbath was pivotal in Jewish life and even it the life of the Messiah.  It was central to the faith practiced by the contemporary Jews of Jesus’ time and as practiced by him.

The Sabbath was not just a convenience, it was a command – Deut. 5:12-15. It was not something that merely represented God’s rest after creation ( Gen 2:3, Ex 20:8-11) it was a solemn day that God said must be observed and any one who did not properly observe it should be stoned to death (Ex 31:15). It is with that backdrop in history that reflects the magnitude of Jesus’ words regarding the intent of the Sabbath. 

Over the years onerous stipulations were added to the idea of keeping the Sabbath. As the years passed and sabbath-keeping became a point of contention, the Mishna gave shape to some 39 stipulations regarding the Sabbath and the “hair-splitting in working out the details” (ISBE, Sabbath) was almost unbelievable. Just an example is that of kindling a fire or extinguishing a fire, neither were allowed on the Sabbath.

In our society, keeping the Sabbath, whether it’s a Saturday or a Sunday is most unusual. I cannot speak to other denominations or religions, but for those of the Christian faith, it appears that the Sabbath is in no manner a day of rest. It is a day of activity; worship, study, worship again, study again, family nights, youth night, committee meetings and business meetings. Activity is the order of the day not rest or even reflection necessarily.  Even our worship is not focused on the spiritual per se. The sermon is often times simply an interruption in a list of announcements and “worship” songs.   Activity is confused with accomplishment and it is thought that the more we do the more spiritual we become. It is for that reason that we all owe a debt of gratitude to the Apostle Paul.

Paul put the brakes on the Law and the Jerusalem council seemed to go along with it. For fear of putting a burden too difficult to bear (in the specific case of circumcision) the council decided to limit the need of Gentiles when it came to conforming to Jewish Law.  Paul went further to basically say all things were allowed as long as it did not cause a brother/sister to stumble. In other words, if what we do offends another, don’t do it (1Cor 8).

Now I suspect that Paul was not abrogating the Law as in the Decalogue for that would be extreme. It was the “tradition of (his) fathers” that garnered his attention (Gal 1:14). It was the minutiae of the Law as evidenced in the Mishna and other “traditions” that became his bone of contention. If that is not the case, then we are left to do “whatever is right in (our) own eyes.”  And of course, many of us do.

I suspect the power of what Jesus said, “The son of man is lord of the Sabbath” is lost to many of us. The impact of those words to those sitting in the synagogue or observing the Sabbath down to the tiniest details brought nothing but contempt for the Messiah. But for us it brought a sense of freedom. Not to ignore the Sabbath, but to keep it as it was intended – a day to refresh and focus on the mighty work of God whether that be reflecting on his creative power or his re-creative power in us through Christ.

Exo 20:8-11

“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

The “Gospel” – Post #2 for the day

If someone were to ask you “What is the gospel?” How would you respond?  Would your response be couched in theological jargon or might it be a straight forward, “Repent and believe that Jesus is the ultimate sacrifice for man’s sin.” Or something different?

Without getting confused by too much theological tap dancing, there are two verses in the Gospel of Mark that seem both straight forward and at the same time lacking in specificity. They are in chapter 1 and verses 14 & 15.  Mark seems to be laying the ground work for the start of the ministry of Christ. It appears that said ministry did not commence until John the Baptist’s ministry was concluded. Why that is I’m not certain and Mark does not explain. Nevertheless with the brevity that only Mark can get away with he simply says:

Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent and believe the gospel.”

As I read this for the umpteenth time, I found myself asking what exactly was it that Jesus was proclaiming? Yes, the text says “The time is fulfilled, the kingdom of God is at hand, repent and believe the gospel.” But that begs the question of what is the gospel?  For many of us, we see that term and think of Paul’s statement in Romans 10:9, “That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved…”  However Mark gives no indication that this is what he means by “gospel.” Or, for that matter, what Jesus means by using the “good news” word.

If we consider several facts, it might appear that Mark could have added some details to this announcement of Christ’s ministry. The facts are: 1) The gospel account is written several years after the death and resurrection of Christ; 2) John Mark was both a contemporary of Paul and Peter;  and 3) Mark had ample opportunity to hear Paul and Peter’s preaching/teaching when it came to the gospel. Nevertheless, he chooses to say apparently what Jesus said, when it came to the Kingdom of God, “repent and believe the gospel!”   Not “believe in who I am and that I will die and be raised so that you can be saved.”  He does not even add the idea of confession simply “repent and believe.”

It is true, we can gather verses from a variety of sources that would appear to flesh this idea of the gospel out a bit more. But I’m not certain we should do that.  If those who heard Peter’s preaching and teaching said to John Mark, “we would like for you to compile this in a book so we might have it and read it again,” then we might assume they knew the full ramifications of the term “gospel.”  Then again, maybe there was not an expansion of the good news other than repent and believe.

When it comes to “gospel” we use the term rather loosely. It can apply to the gospels such as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. A reflection of the canon and how it characterizes certain writings.  It can be the “gospel of Jesus Christ” similar to how Mark begins his writing – “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the son of God (Mark 1:1).” Thus referring to the over-all “good news” or “good message” that Christ brings. Or it can refer to the message of salvation as reduced in its simplist form such as the Four Spiritual Laws, the “Roman Road” and other various cryptic expressions of what it means to “repent and believe.”  In other words, the “gospel” is not always the gospel unless it is defined accordingly.

Interestingly enough, Mark uses the term gospel (euggelion) eight times in his work. Matthew uses it four times and oddly enough Luke and John do not use the term at all. Luke does use a variation, euggelizo, which can mean to preach the good news, but John does not even do that. Is there significance to that? Perhaps.

The first part of Mark’s writing does not deal with the issues of lineage or birth events, it begins rather plainly with the ministry of John the Baptist. John’s ministry was “proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (1:4).” Once that ministry ended and Jesus commenced his ministry apparently it was on the same premise, “repent and believe.”  No strings attached, no qualifications other than repentance and believing and no insinuation that his death or resurrection were necessary to the process.

We throw the term “gospel” around a good deal. Couching it in general terms as the good news of salvation in Jesus Christ seems reasonable. Looking at what Jesus taught; the beatitudes, his healing ministry, his raising the dead, his giving sanity to the not-so-sane, his forgiveness of sin and his message through parables, it becomes a bit more complicated than we might otherwise have thought.  Still, “the time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand, repent and believe the gospel” seems to be rather sufficient for defining the term.

Mourning the Passing of America

Everywhere you turn, television, radio, newspaper, blogs, and the Internet, everyone is covering the death of Michael Jackson. From the LA hospital to the childhood home, mourning rituals are getting prime time attention. Will Americans mourn the death of their country in a similar fashion or will it all slip by without notice? Kind of like Farrah Fawcett’s passing the same day as Michael Jackson.

Our congress is on the eve of passing “hate crimes’ legislation which, as one Representative put it, would make it a federal crime if Miss California were to have lashed out at Perez Hilton for his outragous and bigoted remarks about her.  Hilton was noted as saying if Miss California would have won the pageant, he would have jumped on stage and ripped the crown off her head.  Had he done so and she slapped him or her father would have rushed the stage to defend her, THEY might have been subject to federal prosecution under the proposed hate crimes act because Hilton is a homosexual, a protected species. Hilton may have been guilty of a misdemeanor.   Doesn’t something seem amiss with all of that?

Now I know I cannot speak for a good portion of the younger population, but for those of us in my generation and before, the America we grew up with and have come to cherish is slowly slipping away under a current of far left legislation that will crush the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  If we do not wake up and pay attention, our rights will only be what government says they are regardless of what the founding documents spell out.

It is time to rise up and let our voice be heard. Write your representatives, your senators and your commissioners. Let them know your thoughts. The America that our founding fathers shaped is not dead – yet. Nor must we let it die.  We do not need to recreate America or reshape it (as Obama says) in the fashion of other European governments. It is America, not Euro-America! We can be a contributor in the world community with out having to adopt the same failed policies and programs that Europe has.

In a recent email from a friend, he attached a YouTube video that addresses some of what has been happening in the dumbing down of American principles. It specifically addresses Obama’s comments several weeks ago that America is no longer a Christian nation. Take a look. You may be surprised by what you hear.

My friend, let’s not get too comfortable and complacent. If we are not careful it will not be long before we are taxed beyond our ability to pay, not to mention taxed without any real form of representation in government. They will simply do what they choose – pushing program after program down the throat of Americans until someone gags. 

God help the United States of America.

The Temptations of Christ

I have decided to work through the book of Mark. I’m not certain why but looking afresh at this the smallest of all the gospels, there is an intrigue about the book, its reflection of Peter’s teachings and how they may have impacted John Mark.

My first stop is at the temptation of Christ – Mark 1:12-13. Compared to Matthew and Luke, Mark is rather thin in his account. Simply put, Jesus was driven by the Spirit to the wilderness for forty days being tempted by Satan. That is it. There is no hint of the type of temptations that Matthew and Luke outline. There is no drama being played out. It all is rather matter-of-fact.

Does this mean that Mark assumes his readers know of the other accounts? Could it be that his account is so barren that the other writers felt a need to expand the account?  Unless Jesus told his disciples of this experience, how did anyone know what transpired in the wilderness save for the angels who were ministering to Christ?

I suspect if you’ve spent any time at all in the gospels, you’ve heard sermons and teachings on the temptation scenario. So I will not rehash that here. However, there is one commentary on the event that peaked my interest as soon as I read it. It made me think, “If I heard this in a sermon on Sunday morning, would it ring true?”

The comments are from Gregory the Great, pope from AD 540 til his death some 14 years later. Here are his comments on the temptation of Christ in Mark.

Temptation is brought to fulfillment by three states: suggestion, delight, consent. And we in temptation generally fall through delight, and then through consent; for being begotten of the sin and the flesh we bear within us that through which we suffer conflict. But God, incarnate in the womb of a virgin, came into the world without sin, and so suffers no conflict within himself. He could therefore be tempted by suggestion, but the delight of sin could never touch his mind. So all these temptations of the devil were from without, not from within Him.  (Quoted from The Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Inter-Varsity Press, 1998, Downers Grove, IL  16)

What struck me about that comment was the rather sterile approach to the temptations of Christ. If Christ could be tempted only at the level of suggestion and the temptation not involve his mind (remember he is a man as well as God) then how can I, as a man, identify with that isolation of temptation?  In short, I can’t. None of us could I suppose. If Christ suffered “not conflict within himself,” how can I identify with that, for every temptation and suffering seems to come from within. It is true, sin finds it seed in suggestion, but if it cannot be processed through the mind – if it cannot cause conflict within ones self, then it is no real temptation. Desire is of the mind, suggestion rests outside the mind. As James says, “…Each person is tempted when he is is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire, when it has conceived gives birth to sin…(James 1:14-15 ESV)”  If Christ was not tempted at the level of “delight” then how does that translate into being “tempted in all points as we are… (Heb. 4:15)?”

If all the temptations experienced by Christ were from “without not from within Him” than I am of all men desolate in my sin. I am hamstrung by temptation. I have not a savior who can identify with my struggle. He might be able to sympathize with my torment, but empathy is far from him.

Now I have no idea what type of temptations Christ might have really gone through in the wilderness. If Mark knew, he is not telling. Nor am I convinced that Matthew and Luke got it right. But I suspect, if the agony of the Garden is any indication, something was indeed touching the Master’s heart. It was not just without – it was within. His mind may have told his feet to take flight, but his heart was honed in on the finale and his fingernails were dug deeply into the rocks that provided the backdrop of that moment in time. A decision had to be made – get out or give in and give all.

He resisted the temptation – gave in and gave all. To God be the glory!