Mark 3 - remember Mark?

Wow, it's been a long time! Law and sermons and general distraction. Good to be back.

vs 1

Where else would he be? That actually brings up an interesting question to me. The laws of uncleanness stated things about the ability to enter the temple, but what about synagogue? Since synagogue is not a mechanism mentioned under law, I wonder if that means it's free from such strictures - in 1st century AD, anyway. I don't really care how modern Jews do it, as they're probably doing it wrong.

vs 2

Because of course someone doing a miracle is definitely what you want to catch them up on, if you want to prove they are not the messiah. I mean, it's not like they were expecting to find out that he had sent in a rigged man with a hand withered by special effects. They were going to try and prove Jesus wasn't the messiah by showing that he performs miracles. It's like they woke up without their brains.

vs 3

Jesus obviously did not wake up without his brain.

vs 4

Grrr, people who have already made their mind up about something are annoying. Jesus tries to teach them in words what he is going to show them in example, but they are stubbornly silent.

vs 5

Hah, for anyone who read my above post and was like, "Bit harsh to say grr and call them stubborn," Mark and Jesus both totally had my back. Even Jesus was angry at them. Now the thing is, Jesus trumps me, because he was also distressed about their stubbornness. I just mocked them. I love that some guy's life is totally changed by the tail end of one verse. "Oh, by the way, Jesus then healed him."

vs 6

"Damn that Jesus! He heals people, in front of everyone! In the synagogue! On God's holy day! He must be evil. Also, he's rubbing our faces in it about how awesome he is." I wish I could say I would have been smarter than them, but I'm sure this argument can be made very reasonably.

vs 7

Crowds. How many pharisees had crowds? Well, none any more, they were all following Jesus.

vs 8

Idumea? I looked it up, it's like the Samaria of the south, that isn't Moab. So people were coming from pretty far. This is like when you're at a big event like a wedding, and you say, "And thank you for all the people who travelled so far. We even have a couple all the way from Idumea!"

vs 9

Jesus liked his personal space.

vs 10

Or it was because of this. The last thing you want to soil your messiah credibility is a crowd stampede incident.

vs 11

I think Mark makes the most of this idea, but he's not the only one who mentions it, if I recall.

vs 12

And once again, Jesus tells them to be quiet about it. Not because he doesn't want people to know, but it's like if you were running for district attorney (yes, my analogy is going to be in American language because I have been so culturally imperialised), you would not want the Mafia to send representatives saying, "This man is a real badass. He arrests us all the time. You should totally hire him for the job," because you might think he's on the pull.

There is another thing, though. Remember that Jesus uses the term "Son of Man" for himself, not Son of God. Son of God, whilst it might be a true statement at face value, had been impregnated with all these ideas, some which were unwelcome to Jesus. Trust a demon to tell you the truth and yet in a way that you don't want it.

vs 13

Is Jesus here marking out a pattern we should follow, with a sort of ranked system of leadership? Or is he just doing something that made his ministry more powerful? I suppose the middle ground is to learn from its benefits and use it as hermeneutically responsibly as possible. I've seen some pretty long bows drawn from the calling of disciples.

vs 14

Twelve is obviously an important number, there being twelve tribes of Israel.

vs 15

Two jobs, pretty simple, really. They preach, and they drive out demons. What really interests me is that Jesus puts these two together - the word, and the miraculous back up. Now, a lot of us would say that this model is dead, but some would say it's not. I've yet to see miracles used in this way in the church, so I'm open-minded.

vs 16-19

It's an all-star line up of fishermen, a zealot, a tax collector, and a traitor (and some others whose backgrounds I don't know off the top of my head). What could go wrong? But that's the whole point - partly, that God can work through anyone, and when he does you're far more likely to go, "Wow, God," than, "Hey, awesome speaker." But also, Jesus has built in rebellion and alternative opinion. As to why, it's not really that easy to say. You could say it is for fulfilling prophecy, and you'd be at least partly correct. Was it to show grace too? Was it to have another point of view that he could correct? We don't really know, all we can know is what happens and is recorded.

vs 20

How crowded must the place be that you can't eat? Is there a person between your hand and your mouth? Big party.

vs 21

Like most parents who go to a big party to save their child say.

vs 22

Wow, everyone is crashing this party.

vs 23

Hopefully the person who is between his hand and his mouth has moved at this point. It's a good point, though. How exactly does this hypothesis of the pharisees work? Well, actually, you can make some arguments. It could be a spiritual Ponzi scheme - take some evil spirits, 'drive them out' before you to get people believing, and then just circulate them around into the passers by, and keep the ball rolling, hence leading people astray.

vs 24

But Jesus point is clear - like the eventual end of a Ponzi scheme (it runs out of money and goes broke), a leader who spends his time attacking his own troops eventually might convince people he has changed sides, but also ends up with no army.

vs 25

Reiteration.

vs 26

So even if, worst case scenario, Jesus is working as the prince of demons, he is only proving how defeated he is. Dead man walking, here.

vs 27

So you have to have power over someone to be able to push them around. This is the only other explanation, if it is not a scam.

vs 28

Which is nice.

vs 29

Yes, it's a hard verse, but I like the explanation I've been given, which seems to fit contextually - that these guys had said that Jesus was not using God's power to do his ministry, and as such were speaking directly against God's power, saying God was not God, that the work God was doing was Satan's work. Thinking about it like this, it is actually a little broader than I had first imagined. Whenever someone says, "Oh, that's not a miracle, that person was healed by science," they are denying God's Holy Spirit. Whenever someone says, "God didn't change that person to be a better person, he just needed a religious framework to set his life to," that person is sinning against the Holy Spirit.

The term here, eternal sin, is quite hardcore though. I suppose the way some people want to interpret it is that it's a 'once sinned, always sinned' sin, so that if you do it once, you're damned forever. I mean, that makes absolutely no sense, since Paul is saved. I think you have to read it as 'it is the only sin with eternal consequences' - that is, all other sin can be forgiven, but if you won't accept forgiveness because you refuse to allow that it is the Holy Spirit's power giving it to you, you are sort of boned.

vs 30

Just in case you missed that.

vs 31

Because, you know, it's still so crowded, and the pharisees probably wouldn't get out of the way.

vs 32

Fair enough, right?

vs 33

And you wonder why people thought he was a bit crazy.

vs 34

Still sounding crazy, as these people are obviously not his mother and brothers.

vs 35

But here we have the explanation - Jesus is God's son first. And anyone who does God's will is one of God's adopted children first. It's not that I want to start a cult, but I think the cult of family we have in Australia just totally trumps this truth, and people get sucked in by the "must look after blood relatives at all cost" thing. If you put your family ahead of God's will, you're sinning.

Easy for me to say, I have no kids.