Mark 10

vs 1

Customary Jesus lectures. Like I've said before, a really good speaker in ancient times could charge money for their teachings, simply for the sake of entertainment. So someone going around who is a high quality speaker, and doing it for free - well, people are going to go and listen.

vs 2

A fair and easy question, really, when worded like that. The law has specific arrangements for such things.

vs 3

And so Jesus takes them to the Law. They should know it, so he asks them what it says.

vs 4

By their reading, Moses allowed the issuing of a certificate of divorce, which would tend to indicate it is lawful, Moses being the lawbringer.

vs 5

The crossover of epochs here in this single sentence really profoundly illustrates something I've talked about before - the ancient near eastern sense of history. Moses wrote the law because the Pharisees' hearts were hard? Surely not, at least, not in the way that we would think. He wrote it obviously because people's hearts are hard. But Jesus saying 'your' connects the Pharisees with Israel of old. It's something we wouldn't do, as a rule.

vs 6

The Pharisees go back to Moses, but Jesus goes back to Genesis. He says that God created the two genders, first of all.

vs 7

He then also created the idea of marriage in the two coming together (leaving their families to do so, and start a new family, as it were).

vs 8

Jesus now extrapolates that the two becoming one flesh makes a unity, not two parts.

vs 9

With all of these text together (well, it's all really one bit of Genesis, isn't it) Jesus uses these propositions to defend his position - that people should not separate that which God joins at marriage. So sure, there is a function for divorce in the law, but that is because it assumes it will happen. The law also has rules with what to do with murderers - that doesn't mean it condones murder, only that it deals with it.

vs 10

The disciples obviously find this teaching interesting, and perhaps difficult. After all, it seems to relate directly to an ignoring of the law. Can Jesus really be serious, that people should not get divorced?

vs 11

Jesus lays it out bare. God does not like divorce, so don't do it. Just because there is an option, doesn't mean it's condoned, merely tolerated. In fact, Jesus' language is so strong, he doesn't tolerate it. He says God treats it as adultery. Remember, adultery carries a death sentence - stoning. So don't think he says that lightly.

vs 12

For you girls, he makes it clear it works both ways. Of course, it's mostly women who got stoned for adultery, or at least I've heard. Can't confirm it, of course, I don't have much in the way of statistical data from 1st century Judea.

vs 13

As I would too, I guess. Children do quite often get in the way of things.

vs 14

What does Jesus mean? I've always read it as the unimportant, the marginalised, the powerless. Some people prefer to see it as the ignorant, the innocent, the pure. Never met a child like that, personally. Could be a mix of both. Of course, Jesus could also be saying that little children just go straight to heaven - which is still a fairly popular idea.

vs 15

Again, it's debatable exactly what is meant here. The idea of a simple, direct acceptance, almost gullible acceptance, like that of a child, I think is appealing to some people. I think the idea of accepting the kingdom of God may have a little to do wit that, but also the idea that children pretty much have to take what they're given, because they don't have a choice. They are accepting because of ignorance, but also because of powerlessness.

vs 16

Nawwwww. Jesus huggles the kiddies.

vs 17

It must be something to have people fall to their knees at your feet all the time. A lot of people have made the point, and I will repeat it - you can't actually do anything to inherit something. It's a funny question, really. The whole language of heaven and God is messy like that sometimes. It goes to show how much we misunderstand sometimes, how much we just gloss over things and don't think about them.

vs 18

Jesus doesn't pick on that, though - he picks on the word 'good', and for good reason - because he uses it to further boost his authority. He tells this guy if he really wants to accept his teaching, then he should accept it as God's teaching.

vs 19

Yep, they're commandments all right. He should know them.

vs 20

And he probably has. I'm not saying he was Moses or anything - although Moses killed someone... Anyway, the guy isn't perfect, but he may well have been a righteous man.

vs 21

It's just one thing. Jesus picks on the one thing. It's money. If you really understood the kingdom of God, you surely would just drop the cash and run. Or perhaps you wouldn't...

vs 22

I generally take that to mean that he doesn't return. Which doesn't surprise me, really. Lots of people love money. It's pretty loveable. It's liquid stuff.

vs 23

And so Jesus says it's hard for rich people to get into heaven. This guy is an object lesson.

vs 24

Jesus expands his thought a little there. He states it's simply hard to get in at all! No wonder they're all so shocked.

vs 25

But he repeats himself, and shows how hard it is for rich people to enter the kingdom. I'll make it clear here - there is no "Eye of the Needle" gate. It's not about camels loaded with goods. This is a fallacy. Large animals being squeezed through the eye of a needle is a not uncommon Hebrew idiom. It's used in the talmuds. It means something unlikely or impossible. So Jesus is saying - shock horror - that it's unlikely, or impossible, for a rich man to get into heaven.

vs 26

That's why the disciples are surprised. If Jesus had said, "Rich people just need to give me their money, then they can get to heaven," he would have been a televangelist. But what he's saying is that rich people - who seem to be able to get whatever they want - can't buy their way into heaven. You can't do it by giving your money to a preacher, or giving it away to the poor. Jesus wants people to see that it's only by relying on God being your primary aim and goal in life will you get to heaven.

vs 27

You have to rely on God, you see. It doesn't matter if it's impossible for rich men to get into heaven. Because God can still do it. It's impossible for thousands of people to be fed from a breadstick and a sardine, or for people to be healed of leprosy by touching them. But Jesus does it.

vs 28

Yeah, you tell him, Peter. Of course, they had. They were pretty much official hangers-on.

vs 29

Long list there - but basically boils down to family and fields. Which are the two most important things to a Jew - tribe and land.

vs 30

Jesus does promise a temporal reward! But it's not the sort of thing we in the future think of as reward, I think. It's a huge family, with all the requisite blessings and responsibilities. It's pretty awesome, though. I mean, including people into your family is actually really nice. And with it comes persecutions, too. And then there is also eternal life into the bargain. Awesome.

vs 31

That's one of the big lessons of the family of God - those who we think are first - the rich, the powerful, the influential - they aren't first in God's family. They're not the fathers, mothers, sisters and brothers. They are the ones lucky to get in the door at Christmas time. Well, lots of them are. And many of the poor huddled masses are the ones who will find themselves strolling into heaven without a care in the world - not because they're poor, but because it is so much easier to accept things are out of your control when you're powerless.

vs 32

They're probably astonished and afraid because they know that a showdown will no doubt await Jesus in Jerusalem, and Jesus himself has said that when he goes there, he will die. Long verse.

vs 33

This is not the kind of sentence you want to hear - one that includes "Son of Man" and "handed over to death". I think the disciples know full well that Jesus has not made friends with a lot of Pharisees, and so they are going to be out to get him.

vs 34

It's quite specific, really. Of course, it probably wasn't impossible to guess that they would do such things, if it was a common occurrence. Whether it was or not, of course, the rising from the dead three days later is not common. That's pretty long odds, really.

vs 35

What a strange request to make. I mean, they're hardly going to say, "Can we have a loaf of bread?" when they ask something like this.

vs 36

Funny that Jesus assumes it's going to be something for them. Or it could just be that they are asking. You know how sometimes you'll ask someone to do something, but you'll say, "Oh, it's not for me." I guess you'd still call that doing something for them. Anyway, disregard.

vs 37

Oh, look at that, it does turn out they're asking for something. It's not a terrible thing, though, you know. I mean, sure, it's a little selfish - unless perhaps they really thought they deserved it, and so figured this was the way of going about it. Who knows, perhaps these sorts of petitions were regularly made of the powerful. But in positive, it shows that they really believe that Jesus will be glorified.

vs 38

Jesus asks a question which is rather vague. What he probably refers to is drinking the cup of God's wrath, and being baptised into death.

vs 39

They answer, probably assuming he means drinking from his cup, in fealty perhaps, and being baptised in the Jordan, which perhaps they already had been.

Jesus tells them they will drink the cup and be baptised as he is - this is not a hugely happy thing to be told, but the assumption is they don't fully understand it right away.

vs 40

Whoever they are. I know we've pretty highly exalted people like Peter and Paul, but there is no reason that other truly righteous people, perhaps that we've never heard of, won't have those seats. I certainly won't. Good on them, whoever they are. Kudos.

vs 41

A lot of people think they are saying, "Damn them, why didn't we think of that?"

vs 42

Just like most leaders, really. I mean, there are not many effective leaders who don't do these things.

vs 43

Again, this simply does not work in the real world. What Jesus is describing is impossible. Which is all the more reason to do it - because when we do it and it works, people will go, "No, that's not possible. How do they do it?" to which our response will obviously be, "God does it."

vs 44

Jesus is, thankfully, first. But that's the model we should try and follow.

vs 45

A lot of commentators describe this as the fulcrum of the book - the pivotal point where Jesus' ministry stops being teaching and miracles, and starts towards Jerusalem for the grisly end. It highlights what Jesus' mission is - he has done his preaching, proved his authority, and now he goes knowingly to die.

vs 46

Are we supposed to care that he's the son of Timaeus? I don't really know why we get to know what his name means. Marks him out as a real person, perhaps, that people could go meet? Possibly. Anyway, he's blind, he's begging, and there's a huge crowd around Jesus.

vs 47

Son of David - that's a rather novel title to give Jesus. I don't know that he's claimed it himself, although Messiah is probably close enough.

vs 48

I love that people told him to be quiet. "Quiet blind man. Don't bother the messiah, who regularly heals blind people. Shut your hole. It's only blindness, man up." Damn right you shout.

vs 49

Jesus knows what's what. Someone calls him son of David, they get a cookie.

vs 50

One assumes he followed his voice, or people pointed him in the right direction. Perhaps he had a labrador with him. No, a dog would have added an extra element of coolness to the story.

vs 51

The blind man could have said so many things. This is like in a D&D game when the party comes across a God, and the God offers them anything they want, and they ask for fresh rations and healing. Sure, God can do it, but he could also have made you a king, or given you a golden ape, or whatever.

vs 52

This guy actually gets to follow Jesus, instead of being told not to tell anyone (well, there was a huge crowd). He also gets to see. Both are pretty awesome. Maybe that's why we know his name - because he followed the disciples?

Mark 9

vs 1

Of course, that doesn't refer to the second coming, unless one of the apostles is still kicking about. It's referring to the cross, and the resurrection. That's actually quite cool to think about - the kingdom has come in power - in as much as the firstborn from among the dead is raised. Now we're just waiting for the secondborn.

vs 2

How would you go about describing this in writing? You know, I can't really imagine what happened up there. I can picture a few ideas, based on what is written, but this is such an awesome thing. Also, could this be the first glimmers of what he just mentioned?

vs 3

Of course, this was before nappisan was invented. Seriously though, it must have been awesome.

vs 4

This is a great fulfilment of prophecy on the one hand, but also a great statement of the Law and the Prophets being invested in Jesus' ministry.

vs 5

I guess he was trying to be hospitable? It's a pretty amazing sight - knowing you have the messiah there, and the two biggest names in Judaism.

vs 6

I think we always assume we would just handle these sort of apparitions or visions with total poise. But seriously, it would be rather scary.

vs 7

And this would be scary too. But the sonship of Christ is stated yet again - not only his relationship with the father in terms of family, but in terms of heir to God's power. Listen to him!

vs 8

And then it's done. They get the picture - the law, the prophets, the power of God himself - all are found in Christ Jesus. That's pretty killer. It's a great part of the gospels.

vs 9

See, this time he gives them more specific instructions - once he has risen, this story can come out. Perhaps by way of explanation for his arising. Is it better to do it that way, rather than leave a trail of evidence that points to why he would be resurrected? It seems the resurrection is the key that unlocks the earlier, rather than the other way around.

vs 10

Isn't that great? They didn't want to take it literally, so they thought, "Well, since it can't be literal, how can we interpret it figuratively?" How often do people do that? Of course, some things aren't meant to be literal. And remember, Jesus was always speaking in parables. So it's only fair they're confused.

vs 11

Which is a fair question, seeing that Elijah was there and all.

vs 12

So Jesus tells them that this is how it works - Elijah does come first. But now, can they answer the question of why it is written the messiah must suffer? That is the question they were wondering about, after all.

vs 13

He is of course talking about John the Baptist - who came before Jesus, and has now been beheaded.

vs 14

Great, an argument.

vs 15

But Jesus is too shiny to argue around in mobs - people just want to be around him.

vs 16

Jesus, peacemaker.

vs 17

Okay, so a guy has a demon possessed kid.

vs 18

Ahhh, the disciples couldn't get this one to go. That's quite incredible. Of course, it's quite incredible they could get any of them to go in the first place. But here we are, something to argue about - why couldn't they do what they had done for others?

vs 19

Jesus calls it - he says it's a function of unbelief.

vs 20

Nerves. Also demon.

vs 21

Can you imagine? A childhood of this suffering. Probably awful for the parents too. And no doubt plenty of people can imagine it, and Jesus is unfortunately not there to make it better.

vs 22

Interestingly, this is one of those demons that sounds a lot like epilepsy. Hard to say. Obviously we can't tell. Regardless, it's untreatable at the time.

vs 23

Jesus is prodding here. He's just said that it was because of unbelief that the boy couldn't be healed. Now he's picking up on the words of the father. They have brought him on a chance, with perhaps little feeling that there can be any success. No doubt the disciples' inability to do anything hasn't helped, and probably the pharisees arguing has further strengthened the idea.

vs 24

But of course, the father really wants his child healed. He wants it so much, he is prepared to both state his belief, but also admit his unbelief. He wants to do whatever it takes.

vs 25

Come out, and never enter him again. Two commands there. I must admit, the idea that even if you get rid of evil spirits, that they can just come back and haunt you again, scares the hell out of me. But really, is it any different to the other illnesses and problems that we have, that Jesus dealt with? I mean, the people who he cured of illnesses, did they never get sick? The people he rose from the dead, did they not die again? But here, Jesus makes it clear - the demon shall leave, and not return to the boy. Does that mean he might not get another spirit later in life pestering him? I honestly don't know. It is interesting the point is made, though.

vs 26

I don't know if spirits can just kill people, but certainly they can thrash you around a bit, it seems.

vs 27

Even if he was dead, Jesus could deal with it, so no problem.

vs 28

Which is a fair enough question! I mean, they had driven others out, but this one seemed stubborn, was causing the boy and his father no end of pain, and also had caused an argument with the pharisees.

vs 29

It's very interesting that the fasting bit is only attested to in some manuscripts, to the point that the (T)NIV has left it out. But it's an interesting answer overall - with or without fasting. The idea that Jesus had commented at first about a lack of faith, and now talks about prayer being what dislodges this particular form of nasty, could be seen as giving two quite different answers. The thing is, since instructions for driving out spirits aren't really given, I think our reactions would generally be to pray anyway. Prayer as an action is an act of faith. It makes me wonder if the disciples didn't have to pray aloud to drive out a spirit. Jesus didn't have to.

vs 30

Wouldn't it be great if your ministry was so popular, that you had to go and hide to get away from people?

vs 31

Again, this isn't stuff that he wants the general populace to hear. But he wants his disciples to be ready.

vs 32

This topic seems to keep coming up, almost as if Jesus is trying to get them to realise what he's saying. But I think the more he repeats it, the more scared they are of what it might mean.

vs 33

You never want Jesus asking you about your stupid arguments.

vs 34

And when your argument is something you're already sure Jesus isn't going to like, you really don't want to own up.

vs 35

This is a huge table turner. They were following the way of the world - which is, you know, pretty easily lined up. You're powerful, people serve you. But Jesus and the kingdom of God don't work that way. They're about service, putting others first. How is it that the kingdom of God can be such a topsy turvy place? Isn't it strange that the ways of the world seem natural? I find that strange.

vs 36

Because as you know, children just seem to wander around all over the place, to the point where you can just reach out and grab one at leisure. Good to know some things haven't changed.

vs 37

This is not a road to heaven. To welcome God, you must welcome Jesus. To welcome Jesus, you do not necessarily need to welcome all children all the time. You do need to welcome them in Jesus' name, though. Damn.

vs 38

This rings so selfsame as what the Pharisees would say. It's hard to believe one of the disciples would say this. And yet they do. The AMA smacks of this sometimes - that person is healing people, but not with our methods, so hence he can't be a doctor any more. Of course, some of them shouldn't be, but there's a line.

vs 39

They could say something wrong, possibly, but not bad. I know when I was a younger Christian heresy and wrongness were something I really battled against. I wanted the perfect theology. Nowadays, I recognise that we are always going to be wrong. Better to say something wrong than something bad. We can always be corrected.

vs 40

Remember, of course that whoever is not for us is against us. Both statements can be correct. In this case, people who (a) claim to be following Jesus, and (b) are driving out evil spirits can generally be trusted.

vs 41

Even the simplest gift of encouragement to a fellow Christian is worthy. We've all got to stick together, team. Damn terrorists are out to get us, with their AKs and their AWP campers.

vs 42

Okay, things get a little freaky here if you're reading the TNIV on Biblegateway, because it skips from 42 to 47. In my printed copy, it goes 42, 43[44], 45[46], 47. So I'm not sure if it's a print error in the online edition, or they changed it to be like that. Anyway, I'll follow the printed TNIV and do all these verses under 42, 43, and 45.

So this verse goes till 'sea'. Basically Jesus says you're better off being drowned than causing a Christian to stray. Nasty.

vs 43

Now Jesus looks at those things that might cause us to stumble ourselves. This is a series of damn hard sayings. Whatever it is that causes us to stumble, we should cut it out of our lives. To the point where our hands should be removed by our own volition.

But more than that, stumbling equals falling - because the result is hell. It's verses like these where I suddenly see purgatory as becoming fashionable. The bit that's missing is about worms not dying and fires not being quenched.

vs 45

Same again, but this time with feet. Just repeating to reinforce the message. Again, the bit that's missing is exactly the same words. But don't worry, they are included further down.

vs 47

Yeah, I won't be plucking my eyes out, or cutting my hands or feet off. Does that make me a bad Christian? I'm going to take a gamble and say no, that Jesus is using hyperbole to make the point. The reason I say this is that there is no recorded instances of any of the disciples doing it, or the early church, and I've never known any great Christians to have done it.

vs 48

Finally, Isaiah 66 gets a look in. Nasty. But probably not necessary to repeat. The message is surely clear enough.

vs 49

Salt is good, remember. It makes things tasty and preserved. Salting things with fire sounds a little nasty, though, in the context of people burning in hell. But I think the idea, considering the next verse, is that everyone will taste judgment, but only some will burn. For the rest, the smell of the sulphur and threat of the flames will be enough to preserve them by thrusting them into God's arms, as it were.

vs 50

How often would we go around telling people to have the salt of judgment in them, and to thus be at peace with each other? It's a pretty scary idea, in a way. It's also what you might call threat based teaching, or 'stick based' - do this, or you burn in hell. Something we definitely don't do in schools.