Mark 13

vs 20

So apparently it won't go as long as it should... it will still go a little while though.

vs 21

So all this stuff happens, and still, the end hasn't come. Anyone who thinks it has at this point is still fooled.

vs 22

The elect, of course, should know this message, and so should not get sucked in. But they are only human, and so Jesus says that yes, even they will get fooled.

vs 23

That's exactly it. Jesus tells us ahead of time so that we might not be fooled. Doesn't stop some from being fooled, but at least we're warned.

vs 24-25

Jesus very helpfully quotes Isaiah here, to ensure that we all... know... that it's going to get dark? Sorry, it's not a great deal of help. I am guessing that he is trying to link what he's saying to the Day of the Lord type events. But that would involve me looking more at Isaiah.

vs 26

Seems to me that the darkening of the sun and the heavens shaking is more of a sign that people will notice. Then we should be expecting the glorious reappearing. Which is, really, another sign I don't think anyone will miss.

vs 27

No doubt angels can probably be invisible - although I don't know that it's actually recorded anywhere that they can be in the Bible... hmm... - in any case, I'm expecting this little endeavour will also be quite visual.

vs 28

Well... I do now. But apparently this is a way of telling the season in Israel - look for fig trees with tender twigs and new leaves.

vs 29

Jesus says what I would expect - if the end times are coming, you'll know it.

vs 30

Now, see, here I am, talking all end times, but Jesus seems to be talking about the destruction of the temple. I have read things where people have said that the 'generation' is more like an age - like the Age of Christianity, or something. But I am prepared to allow for the fact that either Jesus is talking about the fall of Jerusalem generally, or he is swapping between that and some end times picture. I find it hard not to read end times into it, but that is more because that's the sort of focus it gets from us today. I guess the fall of Jerusalem isn't as important to us these days.

vs 31

In other words, we can trust them, despite all the other lies and falsehoods that people will speak. This stuff will stand up.

vs 32

So we see now that he was being at least a little bit expansive - I mean, the fall of Jerusalem is surely the sort of thing that doesn't require swathes of secrecy.

vs 33

You don't know, so be alert! It could be any time.

vs 34

I love that servants time is so cheap that you can tell one that his job is to keep watch at the door for when you return.

vs 35

So, like servants, we shouldn't sit around doing nothing - which I am sure is a very tempting thing to do as a servant - but we should work even when we feel we aren't being watched (even though we always are). One assumes, then, that the servant who was posted to door watch duty was also meant to do other things - because otherwise, we'd all just be staring up at the sky.

vs 36

Definitely we are allowed to sleep. I think we can take it in shifts across the world waiting for this to happen.

vs 37

If you need it any more clear, Jesus spells it out. The thing is, of course, we aren't to watch in exclusion to all other activities, as I have said. It's more that in doing all our other duties, we should not neglect watching.

Mark 13

vs 1

No doubt the temple was a magnificent building. This is the one Herod rebuilt, I think, and it was meant to be pretty awesome. Why not comment on it?

vs 2

When the Romans got sick of the Jews making trouble, this is exactly what they did.

vs 3

Andrew for some reason is there - usually it's just the three, but he got in on this conversation.

vs 4

This whole chapter could have been answered in one sentence. Jesus could have said. "Look, about forty years after I die and am resurrected, the temple will be destroyed, because the Romans will attack Jerusalem." So there has to be a reason why he doesn't just answer their question. Probably he takes it as an opportunity to teach the disciples something - as per usual.

vs 5

Jesus' first concern is that people are going to use eschatology and prophecy to trick people. And of course this is a totally legitimate concern. After all, when there is something no-one can know (the future) they can just make stuff up, or even genuinely but wrongly believe that they know, and people could get sucked in.

vs 6

I assume the 'I am he' is an answer to the question, 'What will be the sign'? Because Jesus did not specifically state that this would be a mark of his return, and nor did they specifically ask that.

vs 7

In other words, wars will not herald the end times. They will herald a continuation of things to come. Because people will fight wars all the time.

vs 8

Again, all these things are pretty normal. You can't use them as pointers towards the end times.

vs 9

All this happens by the end of Acts. So that's not really a mark of the end times.

vs 10

This one verse is counted in Matthew too. Now, some people consider that Paul reaching Rome is 'all nations', but obviously there are whole groups of people who hadn't heard, and God cares about them, not just the Roman empire. So this is a pretty long-term goal. We did surprisingly well in 2000 years, I reckon. Note that it only says preached, not that the whole globe must be Christian before the end. Of course, God's word does not return empty to him, but that doesn't mean that just because it is preached everywhere, it will be accepted everywhere.

vs 11

This kind of advice is pretty darn useful and comforting to people who find themselves being persecuted by a government authority.

vs 12

Not that this never happens anywhere else in the world, but it will also be true of Christianity - it will be punished by death, and families will give up their own for being Christians.

vs 13

Not that we're meant to go out and make people hate us - not exactly - but if we are faithful to the message, it will get on people's nerves.

vs 14

Most likely this is referring to the destruction of the temple, and so telling people to flee to the mountains so they don't get killed by the Romans. It's really interesting that Mark adds in his little editorial comment there. Again, he could have far more easily added an editorial comment explaining what Jesus meant.

vs 15

This all sounds a lot like... is it Ezekiel? Where Ezekiel is describing someone trying to flee from the oncoming army? Could be.

vs 16

Get out of there fast. A lot of people seem to picture this as some sort of last battle thing, where Christians will have to flee as the armies of the world come to hunt us all down. Maybe. I'm struggling to see it.

vs 17

How thoughtful of Jesus to think about how nasty it will be for them.

vs 18

Note, though, that he's obviously not talking about some sort of rapturous event - he's worried about them surviving a whole season. Possibly longer.

vs 19

'Never to be equalled again' could just be rather fitting hyperbole. I think it works.

Mark 12

vs 24

Bam. It's not really a question. It's a statement.

vs 25

In as much as the angels are not married, one assumes.

vs 26

Okay, now this argument is not the argument I would make for resurrection. But it is the argument Jesus makes. I think what he's arguing is that God is the God of living people, because he doesn't just say, "I'm the god of Abraham." When Abraham died, he was the God of Isaac. When Isaac died, he was the God of Jacob, and so on.

It's a Rabbinical argument (read: it doesn't make sense), because God really stops there. He regularly refers to himself as the God of Jacob (although really, he could be meaning Israel the nation, which does mean he's the God of the living). But he also does say "Your God", and he rarely talks to dead people.

vs 27

Badly mistaken! Jesus had a real hard spot for the Saducees. Possibly because they were so sad, you see.

vs 28

Note that this teacher of the law asks Jesus a question, not to trap him, but because he'd given a good answer. And it's fair to think that where one good answer is, another might be.

vs 29

Note that Jesus does not reply with one of the Ten Commandments. He replies with the shema.

vs 30

You might notice that Jesus seems to add a word, 'mind'. But in fact, culturally, he is adding the word 'heart'. Because in the OT, the word 'heart' refers to 'that bit of you where you do your thinking'. At least, that's what my resident OT scholar tells me.

vs 31

Not being content to just answer the question, Jesus goes on to give the second best commandment. I think he does this because, in these two commandments, the whole law is summed up. This might actually be said elsewhere (Matt 22:40).

vs 32

So step one - confirm God's unity, check.

vs 33

This really is a great reply from the guy. He's obviously impressed with Jesus.

vs 34

I wonder why people stopped asking questions at this point? Was it because this was just so wise and profound, they couldn't top it? Or was it because Jesus commented back saying the guy was not far from the Kingdom, and others weren't quite so keen to see how far their ignorance took them away.

vs 35

Jesus now takes the leadership on toe to toe. He's not answering questions now - he's asking them.

vs 36

Everyone expects the Messiah to come in the line of David. There's probably a prophecy that says as much. And it is only fair to point out that Jesus' adopted line comes from David.

vs 37

Most people seemed to enjoy Jesus' teaching. It was refreshing and new, no doubt, as well as interesting and who knows, maybe some people liked seeing the teachers of the law having it stuck to them a little.

vs 38

What did I say? Jesus is merciless when it comes to these guys.

vs 39

He loves to point out their hypocrisy. Apparently, they enjoy finery and pomp and importance.

vs 40

And yet, they think that raising money for the temple (and so their own pomp) is more important than the livelihood of a widow, one of the time's most marginalised positions. Jesus judges them severely, and so suggests that anyone who supports them is supporting the wrong team.

vs 41

Personally, I am not one to think that giving is a spectator sport, but apparently Jesus wants to make his point, and most others don't mind letting people see the big wads of cash (remember, these would probably be big chunks of gold or heaps of coins) into the bucket.

vs 42

Just looking across the four translations, it's interesting to see that these two coins are worth: a farthing, a cent, a few cents, and less than a penny. Honestly, I don't know why they bother. The point is that the amount she is offering is bugger all. I suppose you can't put that in your translation (the Greek says, thank you NASB, two lepta, worth a quadran). This is as meaningful, really. If you work off the fact that a denarius is a day's wages for a worker, a quadran is worth 1/64th of that. Were you to, say, take an Australian widow's pension, and work out how much it pays for one day, and then divide that by 64, you would get $0.81. Obviously widows did not get pensions back then, but imagine if someone in your church could only afford to give a weekly donation into the bag of 80 cents.

vs 43

Jesus is obviously impressed by her generosity, so much so he points it out to his disciples.

vs 44

Now imagine that the widow who put the 80 cents in the bag at your church couldn't even afford that. I mean, don't even imagine that she was going to use that money to buy food or something. Even just imagine something as simple as she put that in there instead of being able to buy any tea. How would you feel knowing that an old widow was giving up tea just to give money to the church? See, this story is a two-bladed sword. On the one hand, this widow is giving up all she has for the sake of God. Which is awesome. But on the other hand, the teachers of the law are using that money to dress up in pompous robes.

Mark 12

Can we do a chapter in an hour? Let's find out!

vs 1

Sets the scene. Vineyard built, owner moved.

vs 2

Sure, probably part of the rental agreement - a barter system.

vs 3

This is fairly unbelievable, but not totally crazy. I imagine back then the idea of claiming land would be "We live here, you take it back".

vs 4

After the first servant, it is less believable he'd send a second. But hey, perhaps he is merciful.

vs 5

At this point you should know that the story is about Israel, and the servants being sent are prophets. No Jew would argue - they treated all their prophets badly.

vs 6

Now, see, this is just crazy. You would not send your beloved son to do something dangerous like this, knowing they had already killed your servants. Or would you? Remember, Jacob sent Joseph off to go to his brothers. Still, if he's not at the head of an army, you seriously have to think sending your son is a big deal. Obviously Jesus.

vs 7

About this time, I would be feeling pretty hot under the collar if I were a temple priest or whatever.

vs 8

Eep.

vs 9

Yikes. Seriously, you think that Jesus is preaching peace and love. He just dropped an OT bomb on Israel - I will strip you of your vineyard (common OT picture of Israel) and give it to others (ie non-Israelites). Sound reminiscent of the exile?

vs 10

I love it when Jesus says thinks like, "Haven't you read the scripture" to people whose job it is to do just that. The piece of scripture itself points out that the rejected messengers become the most important part of the thing - that is, it turns out their message is really important, which is probably why they didn't want to listen to it.

vs 11

It must be remembered that many times in history, God has done this same thing - taken someone or something that is seen as nothing, and transformed that into his awesome tool for his own glory.

vs 12

See, the priests and leaders knew what he was talking about. The stupid thing is, of course, that by wanting to arrest him and have him killed, they are really playing right into the parable. That's what Jesus said they'd do. Now they're going to do it. How does that parable end for them again?

vs 13

This will work, for sure. Jesus isn't a good public speaker and debater, let's attack him with questions.

vs 14

Long verse! Very flattering. The question is still cut in half between 14 and 15 though! Stupid verse numbers.

The question is an important religo-political question. The Romans are 'in charge' - if you don't pay taxes to them, they will hurt you. But the Jews have their strong feeling about this being 'their land', and they don't feel they should pay. So what does Jesus say? Does he get the Jews offside, or the Romans?

vs 15

Jesus of course knows they're hypocritical bastards. I know some people try and stand up for them, but we have been told they are trying to trap him, and want him dead. So they're bastards.

vs 16

And so he uses an object lesson. The currency in use, of course, is Roman currency, and so it's got a little image of Caesar on it.

vs 17

So Jesus says, "Sure, pay the tax. But the important thing is that if you are made in the image of God, you should be worried about giving yourself up to God." Which they weren't. So bam.

vs 18

I for one love this question. It's far more theological. It's also one of those classic straw man arguments put up by people who don't actually believe in the thing they're arguing about. Yes, atheists, I'm looking at you.

vs 19

So, they set their argument up in Law. Moses said this, so we're talking about someone who is Law-abiding.

vs 20

This happens fairly regularly in those days, remember.

vs 21

It gets a little silly, but sure, it could happen.

vs 22

The thing about children is, of course, that if any one of them had fathered a child with her, that person might have a 'bigger' claim to being her husband. So it's got to be a childless set of marriages.

Just take a step back from this - how much pressure does the Law put on women! Imagine having to do this today. Crazy.

vs 23

And the question is who will she be married to at the resurrection. You will note, of course, that since polygamy is allowed under the Law, if it had been a man with seven wives, there would be no issue. But polyandry, oh no, can't have that. That's crazy talk.

What's Jesus' answer? Find out tomorrow!

Mark 11

After a long hiatus, it is time to restart my morning readings. A lot of things put them on hold. Not all of them are gone, but still, here I am.

vs 1

Which two? I guess it doesn't matter who was on donkey duty (or as one could so easily see it today, carjacking duty).

vs 2

Okay, I suppose it's not colt-jacking if someone is not riding it at the time. It's more like grand theft colt.

vs 3

It's okay, though, because Jesus tells them he's just going to 'borrow' it, and that should be a more than reasonable excuse for nicking off with the colt, he tells them.

vs 4

Now, I have a lot of negative things to say about the disciples from time to time - about how thick they are, and how they miss things. But I give them credit here. They are told to go commit grand larceny (borrowing, kender style) and off they go.

vs 5

This is not to be unexpected. It is, after all, not theirs.

vs 6

It lacks something - I love the "The Lord needs it" from another synoptic, but this is still great. Jesus' name is obviously well enough known, although it doesn't record a conversation, just a result. They could have preached the gospel at the person, and had the colt given up freely. But the context, and Jesus' instructions, seems to suggest they just go and say, "Jesus wants it," and so it is given.

vs 7

As one does, I suppose.

vs 8

This has some sort of cultural significance. Given the whole context, you could probably say it's got a link to some sort of king-entering-city activity.

vs 9

Yeah, it's a bit of a party. I like the note in the TNIV that explains Hosannah essentially means "Huzzah", although the more original meaning is quite poignant considering it's Jesus. It's a pretty full on procession.

vs 10

So people apparently thought that Jesus was bringing in a kingdom of David. Which, he kinda sorta was, but not as political and temporal. Or really at all political and temporal. Unless you're in the Catholic church in the pre-enlightenment - they were pretty hella political.

vs 11

Did he ride the colt into the temple courts? Did he handbrake it in there, look over its shoulder, and frown? That would be more action. What he did do is see it was late, and decided to head out with his posse to come back later.

vs 12

This story is so apposite, but if you just read it on its own, it makes very little sense, and makes Jesus look like a bastard. Anyway, Jesus is hungry - one of his many human feelings.

vs 13

So it's not that it's a bad tree - it's the wrong season. Our lemon tree has no lemons on it now for the same reason. Come back in a few months, and you can have all the lemons you want - assuming the cockatoos don't get them first.

vs 14

Ouch, that's quite a curse. And he did it in full view of his disciples. He did not entertain private conversations with trees.

vs 15

And now, the tree story is over... or is it? Anyway, Jesus is in a cursing mood, because now he goes into the temple and starts overturning the capitalist state - via merchant tables. It should be noted that for many, this would have been a convenience - being able to buy your sacrificial offering at the door, instead of hauling it from the other side of the country.

vs 16

I think his problems with it were twofold - one, that they were inside the temple courts, and the temple is a holy place, not a market. Two, they were most likely ripping people off. Convenience comes with a price, after all.

vs 17

Some people point out that he says this, and the merchants were most likely in the court of the Gentiles, where non-Jews went to pray, so it was like they were rubbishing on the Gentiles' ability to come to the temple and worship God (which is a huge deal, considering the prophets make it clear that God wants the nations to come obey him in his temple on his holy hill), and so Jesus takes them to task.

vs 18

Yeah, can't have people going around giving amazing teaching. Wait, what? One just has to assume that they were getting a cut of the action here. But also, if he was against the merchants, would he not come after the priests next? And then what happens? Better to get him out of the way.

vs 19

Back home to Bethany. A day's work of teaching and communism well done.

vs 20

That's one dead fig tree. I don't like figs, so no real loss. Apparently, Jesus was all about figs.

vs 21

Good old Captain Obivous. Peter can always be counted on to step forward and say, "Look, the thing I can see is seeable!"

vs 22

This is not an answer, although really, Peter's words were not a question. What does this even mean? Perhaps the next verse will clue us in.

vs 23

And so Jesus is telling them that they, too, can deforest fig plantations if they want to. God will honour their requests.

vs 24[and 25?]

The TNIV on Biblegateway seems to run 24 and 25 together. It skips 26 (the NIV has a footnote telling you words are there, but not what they are, giving a reference to Matt 6:15). The NASB gives the text in square brackets. Anyway, it could be a typo. My hardcopy TNIV is not within arm's reach.

The actual verse(s) themselves say that God will listen to our prayers, and answer them, and will even forgive our sins - as long as we forgive others too. It's a pretty big message. But it raises lots of questions, the most obvious one being, "So if I don't get what I prayed for, I didn't believe hard enough?" Just realise that universal affirmatives may be only partially converted. So this is providing an option for why your prayer will or won't work. It's not exhaustive.

vs 27

Ahh, so he doesn't ride the colt through the temple, like bikie gang Jesus would.

vs 28

Jesus makes it pretty darn clear where his authority comes from, but they probably thought it sounded like an officious sort of question to ask.

vs 29

Damn it, Jesus, that is so annoying. They asked you first!

vs 30

Oh, come on, this question doesn't have anything to do with what they asked Jesus! Well, actually, of course it does. Jesus is spelling out the nature of their question. They're not asking him who signed his permission slip to come to temple. They're asking is his ministry of God or not. And so he throws the question back at them - since they want to judge his ministry, let them judge John TBs first.

vs 31

Okay, you've got to ask, how did Mark (or Peter) overhear this little conversation? I don't know, he doesn't explain. It could be that one of the priests told him later this is what happened.

vs 32

Ahh, Jesus has trapped them with a question. They try to do this to him from time to time, but he is really good at it. It's surprising that John the Baptist still is so loved by the crowds, even after he's been dead so long. I say so long, it's been at most a year or a bit more, likely less.

vs 33

See, I will just point out, we do not always need to be in a rush to explain every aspect of every bit of theology to every person every second. Sometimes, you can just say to someone, "You just don't seem to be worth telling at the moment. I don't think you're going to listen, because your heart is obviously not in the right place." That might sound harsh, and you might think you've no right to make that call. But you know that sometimes you can just feel that someone is being a dick, or obstreperous, or wasting your time. I tell you what, if we all lived for Christ as much as we should, we would not abide people who wasted our time nearly as much. That's something for me to think about more.