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.
No comments:
Post a Comment