Losing Battle

Mark 16

2012-01-02T22:47:00.003+11:00

vs 1

Having not thought, obviously, that there was a big rock in the way. I suppose grief does that to people. Still, it does seem just a little strange.

vs 2

I suppose you would want to do it early, before the crowds (on the street, not at the tomb).

vs 3

They do ask the question, but not until they're almost there. This is what gets me. Perhaps moving the stone is not as difficult as one thinks - maybe they just thought they'd bring some men, and forgot.

vs 4

Someone had beat them to it?

vs 5

After all, he could have been a ghost, or a really well-dressed graverobber.

vs 6

That's not fantastically comforting, either. Did someone steal the body?

vs 7

Without this message, it could have been an invasion of body snatchers. But the angel is telling them Jesus is alive, and is going to see them and talk to them. A huge claim.

vs 8

This is a crazy ending to this book. It ends with the women not telling anyone - which of course, they must have eventually, or else how was the book written? Or was it written by one of the women? Nah, that's silly talk. Perhaps Jesus told them later? Could be. Still, the book just seems to go nowhere with this ending. Apparently books did this back in the day. But someone decided to stick on a few extra verses at some point in time.

vs 9

So after the women ran away, he appeared to one of them first? That is just extraordinary. Not Peter, not John... Mary Magdelene.

vs 10

So they didn't tell anyone about the empty grave... but then when he appears, it's time to spill.

vs 11

Unsurprisingly.

vs 12

A precis of the road to Emmaus, I assume.

vs 13

And again, more disbelief. You would think people would at least start to ask questions now.

vs 14

My oath. I mean, sure, I wouldn't have believed them either, but hey!

vs 15

Again, a pretty good summary of what he said in Matthew.

vs 16

Ouch. The condemnation bit is newly added, I think (from the Matthew type bit I mean). It's a fairly succinct and clear reminder, though, of what we're all playing for.

vs 17

Interesting that signs become part of the equation too.

vs 18

Is this the only bit that speaks of the snake thing? I wonder. Looks to me like it is. Hardly worth starting a snake handling cult over really. But it raises the question that if Jesus said this, why did he say it, and if he didn't, why add it in? Very strange indeed.

vs 19

Ascension summary, nothing wrong with adding that in. It's in the creed, I believe, so why not? Makes for a well rounded out gospel.

vs 20

See, that seems a far more well rounded and befitting end to this gospel. It might not be kosher, but at least it gives closure. Verse 8 is scarily abrupt in comparison. Apart from verse 18, I don't really have any problems with it - it's all attested to elsewhere.

Mark 15

2011-12-14T07:54:00.002+11:00

vs 41

Jesus did not just have his twelve. He had a whole posse of girls with him too. And they were the ones standing there watching him die. You know why? Probably because no-one cared what women were doing.

vs 42

This verse gives us a reason, then, for what happens next. Something to do with the next day being Sabbath.

vs 43

Why did he do this? I've no idea exactly. Perhaps, since he'd died already, if he was left to hang there for the whole Sabbath too, he'd make a mess.

vs 44

He should be surprised - he was only on the cross a few hours. Centurions know everything. And if they don't, they just whack a soldier in the helm and find out.

vs 45

After all, none of this pretending to be dead early so that your friends can come and save you.

vs 46

As you would do with a corpse. Of someone that had died. And who you were not expecting to return.

vs 47

Which is good, because otherwise they wouldn't have known where to go later in the story.

Mark 15

2011-11-18T07:33:00.003+11:00

vs 31

There is a little more mockery, this time about Jesus talk of saving people. Truly ironic.

vs 32

Yes, mock the messiah. That is such a good idea. That will be a good long-term career plan.

vs 33

Whether it was an eclipse (very long eclipse, three hours) or some other supernatural phenomenon, it is definitely not a good sign.

vs 34

And which the author feels no need to mention, but is quite useful for those of us who do not have the Bible memorised, Jesus is quoting Psalm 22:1. That means there is more to this cry than just Jesus being forsaken by God. In fact, the psalm as a whole makes it clear that God has not forsaken Christ - although the first line being quoted is obviously to draw attention to the fact that, for the moment, there is a disconnection.

vs 35

Apparently those standing didn't know either their Bible, or Aramaic. Or he said it so hoarsely and badly that they couldn't understand.

vs 36

I'm going with gaspingly hoarse, since they offer him a drink. After that, they let him be.

vs 37

And then Jesus dies, in a powerfully short verse. One of the good ones by the monks.

vs 38

This is so out of left field. One could perhaps try and state that this is a metaphorical statement, that didn't really happen. But that doesn't fit with how everything else has been stated. I think the curtain really did tear.

vs 39

So to a Roman centurion, apparently dying on a cross and crying out makes you the Son of God? No, but the darkness, the agony and words of the cry, the quickness of the death, and perhaps even the sudden kerfuffle at the temple of people saying, "WTF curtain?" would all lend itself to being quite an impressive situation.

vs 40

We move on now to look at some other spectators. Some women were apparently watching from a distance. Many men whose names you might think of don't get mentioned. We know at least John was there at some point in time. Was Peter watching from the shadows?

Mark 15

2011-11-16T08:49:00.001+11:00

vs 16

Because he was about to give a speech, perhaps?

vs 17

No, apparently to torture him. Soldiers were official torturers, it seems - one imagines you had to be probably a little bloodthirsty to take the job back then. If only it were different now - soldiering does funny things to people, even in the most advanced and disciplined armies in the world.

vs 18

For them of course, it was less a religious thing, and more an opportunity for them to assert Roman dominance over what could be seen as a political activist against Rome. Which Jesus never was. Oops. Still, what someone is and what you can make them out to be are two different things, and only the latter really is important for propaganda.

vs 19

It's some serious mockery, and one assumes it was done publicly enough for everyone to see that the 'king of the Jews' was a joke, crushed under the Roman military sandal.

vs 20

Then they led him out to crucify him. See, I think Pilate would have been happy with the mockery and the beating. Those, nasty as they seem to us today, were just a fact of life back then. Sure, you might not have always been guilty, but a quick institutional beating might make everyone happy, and you get to go home. But Jesus doesn't get to go home.

vs 21

And he becomes forever remembered.

vs 22

There are arguments about where this is. There is an awesome cave in Jerusalem somewhere that really does look like a skull (Google it), but it could be somewhere else.

vs 23

This is one of those verses that does not directly correlate with other verses - my understanding is, though, that this is an offering of a painkiller, so that the nailing etc is not so bad, whereas later offers of wine vinegar are different.

vs 24

We sometimes spend a lot of focus on where nails went, how painful it was, how someone died, because for us it's gruesome. But this was a regular occurrence in the ancient world, and so it passes with this simple message - they crucified him. To think that such a death penalty, not used anywhere in the world any more as far I know, would remain well-known for millennia because of its use here.

vs 25

I have no idea how the time works in the ancient world, it always confuses me. I like this translation - I know when 9am is. The oKJV says "the third hour", which is probably more literal, but meaningless to me.

vs 26

Once again, political points-scoring means the Romans put up a sign saying that this man is being killed because he is King of the Jews. That no doubt caused a little consternation.

vs 27-28

Very interestingly, the TNIV drops 27 and 28, but includes some words from 27 in 26. So that's confusing.

vs 29

Because, of course, it is the right of every person to mock someone who is dying. It's just what you do... I guess. Perhaps they felt betrayed - like they had put some hope in Jesus, and now he obviously was not their messiah.

vs 30

This is the classic argument of all people in all things where they do not understand. They base success on some specific model - for example, to be messiah, you have to be victorious at the head of an army - and so therefore any other thing you do will be failure.

Having said that, being put on a cross does look a lot like failure. But we should remember God likes using failure type things to succeed. It makes him more awesome.

Mark 15

2011-11-15T08:11:00.002+11:00

vs 1

They allowed Jesus to be beaten up a little while they were making their decision.

vs 2

"You have said so," is not really an admission. This is quite different to the, "It is as you say," of the NASB. Jesus is not making it easy.

vs 3

You know, while they are there. Blasphemy probably was not going to cut it for a Roman governor. They needed a good reason.

vs 4

Of course, Pilate's day would have been a lot easier if Jesus just said, "What they say is false, I can prove it, let me go now," but the point is, even if he said nothing, there was no proof open to charge him with death. Also, Jesus had been beaten a fair bit, remember.

vs 5

And so Jesus did say nothing, keeping his apparently God-given right to silence.

vs 6

This is how the Romans ingratiate themselves to the local populace, by freeing prisoners who they know are probably only partly guilty anyway.

vs 7

Okay, so not all the prisoners are victims of imperialism. Some of them are murderers.

vs 8

The asking was probably all part of the custom. I have nothing to base this statement on except feeling. Perhaps the people were stirred up this year by the priests to ask, because the priests were pre-empting the crowd. That just doesn't feel right to me.

vs 9

Which seems a fair question, if he is their king, after all.

vs 10

And see, Pilate knew why Jesus was on trial here - or had been on trial and found guilty. Pilate didn't want to be involved in this stuff. He probably also knew that Jesus was pretty popular, and might have been appealing to the crowd who he thought loved him. But crowds are fickle - if Jesus' closest disciples fled from him, the average person on the street who loved him when he was free probably feels utterly disenchanted with him when he is arrested and held by the Roman authorities they hoped to watch him tumble.

vs 11

Of course, release the murderer guy! Free Hat!

vs 12

So if they want to release the murderer, what do they want to do with the guy who healed their sick?

vs 13

Oh, yes, of course, crucify him. Mobs are so logical.

vs 14

And this is what happens when you try and reason with a mob. They just shout louder.

vs 15

The thing about mobs is, though, they cause trouble, especially to occupying Roman governors. Pilate couldn't have a riot, it would make him look bad, and he might have to kill a lot of people. That's never good.

Mark 14

2011-11-14T07:08:00.002+11:00

vs 61

Well, if you can't incriminate him with lies, perhaps just asking him to incriminate himself will work?

vs 62

What was he going to do, lie? It's funny - for a short gospel, Mark really doesn't mind putting in a pretty potent and full answer from Jesus here.

vs 63

So dramatic. Not just the high priest per se, but the culture. It's great, really. But here, his cunning ruse worked. He just asked Jesus to condemn himself, and he did.

vs 64

As I have said many times before, there's only one person who, if they say they are God, isn't lying. So how do you play the odds? This guy wasn't agreeing with the priests, and yet was calling himself God. Surely he can't be the messiah. Would even the messiah claim Godhood anyway?

vs 65

And so, with a mix of righteous anger, and just regular anger (because I am sure they really were offended by what they thought was blasphemy, but no doubt they were also just regular angry at what they saw was an enemy to them and how they thought life should work, especially how life should work for religious leaders - ie, remaining in power.

vs 66

Now, really, the camera is panning away from the awful beating to focus somewhere else a moment. It is really quite incredible that Peter's story gets as much time as it does.

vs 67

Now, assuming the servant girl wasn't there on the hilltop with a pitchfork, we can probably guess that she saw Jesus around Jerusalem, and so saw Peter with him.

vs 68

Yeah, when someone is saying, "Hey, you're a friend of that known felon, who they are charging with falsehoods," you're probably not thinking you're going to get a biscuit. Peter is scared, but what is more important, he has forgotten what he said.

vs 69

This woman is a real pain in the ass to Peter.

vs 70

Just like when you meet someone from Katoomba you know they're a bogan, Peter has a rustic Galilean accent, and it gives him away. It's probably a similar accent to Jesus, and that is pretty much enough to get him tarred with the same brush by all the city slickers.

vs 71

Oh, ouch. Peter, you are going to eat those words.

vs 72

Did he break down and cry in front of them, I wonder? Or did he run off somewhere and do it in the dark? Regardless, what an awful thing for him, to realise that Jesus, the Son of God, had not only been betrayed by his closest friends, but had known it was going to happen beforehand, told them it was going to happen, and Peter had denied it - denied that Jesus was right - only to realise, again, that he was right and Peter was wrong, and now he probably feels it's too late to do anything about it. Does he rush in and say, "I'm Jesus!" or does he say, "Whatever you do to Christ, do to me"? No. He remains a pussy. For now, at least.

Mark 14

2011-11-13T09:10:00.002+11:00

vs 49

They had their plan - to wait till after Passover. That's what they did, and now they're here. But God also had his plan - the last supper has now taken place, and Jesus is ready for this to all go down.

vs 50

Weak. I mean totally weak. Jesus predicted it, and so it happened. This is the start of a time where the Son of God is alone, and no-one will speak up for him.

vs 51-2

These two verses (which could easily be one verse) always stumps me. Some people say that it was Mark, and he writes this to put himself in the story, to show he was there. Others say it relates to an Old Testament verse, but I can't even remember which one. At the very least, it shows that Jesus' disciples would rather run around naked than stand by him clothed.

vs 53

Basically, all those who had set themselves up as enemies of Jesus. They're obviously the best people to hold him to trial.

vs 54

To us it would seem weird that someone might come and stand by the fire of another person's courtyard, especially someone powerful like a high priest. But times were different then, and cultural mores of hospitality would have prevented even a stranger from being turned away in such a situation. I've got to say, good on Peter for turning up. He ran at first, but at least he's here trying to stick relatively close.

vs 55

D'oh. You'd think someone would have put together a brief beforehand. See, they all knew they hated him, and probably just assumed they'd find something eventually.

vs 56

They couldn't even stitch up a fake charge! Talk about bumbling. Even Ahab could organise getting Naboth bumped off.

vs 57

We assume we get this from Peter mostly, who was close and perhaps could hear this all going on. But it's also possible one of the high priests or teachers of the law later became a Christian, and told this story. Anyway, some guy gets up and says something.

vs 58

This is of course not exactly what Jesus said, but it's not far wrong. He at least heard something.

vs 59

But others then seem to have promptly stood up and made some stupid counterclaim, and the bungling continued.

vs 60

Obviously the right to remain silent is one Jesus was quite fond of. But then, what do you say to stupid, obviously false charges? "That's stupid"?

Mark 14

2011-11-08T09:56:00.003+11:00

vs 37

In fairness, while to Jesus this is the last few hours before his betrayal and death, to the disciples, it is the night after the Passover feast, they've had a big meal and an emotional time, and probably only half-believe that anything bad is going to happen. So it's hard not to sleep!

vs 38

Ahhh, such a classic line, that gets used so often now in a sexual context. Still, Jesus is keen or their prayer support - he obviously values it.

vs 39

So if you think repetitive prayer is useless, Jesus does it. Of course, he could be doing it for comfort as much as anything.

vs 40

Obviously he woke them up, or else all they would have said was, 'snoooooore'. What do you say when Jesus comes up and finds you sleeping again?

vs 41

A third time, and Jesus tells them that there's no more time for sleep. Now they're going to see why they should have been praying.

vs 42

He had been talking about being betrayed, but now here the betrayer comes in the flesh, and all of them are going to see - including the betrayer.

vs 43

Uh oh. Mob justice. And at the head of the mob comes Judas, whose name forever is linked with betrayal. Mecha ouch. The thing with mob justice is, see, even if it turns out that they shouldn't have done what they did, the person they killed doesn't come back to life.

vs 44

Because obviously, not everyone knew what Jesus looked like. It's not like he was on TV.

vs 45

And there you are, the kiss of death. Bad man, Judas.

vs 46

With an inside man, the mob didn't have to worry about a whole, "I'm Spartacus" type event happening. Best not to crucify all 12 of them.

vs 47

After all, this mob was arresting Jesus! Someone has to do something! I mean, it's a frustrating and tense situation. It's kind of incredible this doesn't just explode into a melee at this point.

vs 48

But Jesus knows that he can open his mouth and bring some order. And so he does. The whole fact of them bringing torches and pitchforks is, as he shows, a picture of just how unjust their actions are. They have stirred up hate against him, and they're going to use that to get rid of someone they don't like. It's terribly unjust.

Mark 14

2011-11-07T09:04:00.002+11:00

Stupid exam prep distracting me!

vs 25

"Drink it new" would be a great advertising slogan for communion wine. I assume this is a way for Jesus to tell them that he's not going to be alive much longer - rather than him suggesting he's going to take a lengthy vow of wowserism.

vs 26

They sung a hymn. It's an unnecessary little addition, but it just adds so much flavour to the story.

vs 27

How lovely for them to hear that. I suppose Jesus wants them to be ready for it, to know it's not the end when they do.

vs 28

Again, another reminder of what they should expect - although honestly, how you expect anyone to remember what you said after they say, "You're going to become a traitor."

vs 29

Yeah, Peter, as lovely a sentiment as it is, haven't you learned your lesson about arguing with Jesus yet? This is what faith looks like without brains.

vs 30

I wonder what's more painful, Peter hearing this, or Jesus already knowing it.

vs 31

Note Peter wasn't alone - I just pick on him because he gets named. But they all said the same thing. Judas, of course, knew he was lying. But the rest of them probably honestly believed it. And Jesus stood there, looking at them, knowing it wasn't true. Painful.

vs 32

Jesus prays a lot. It's funny, reading the gospels, I more and more really feel in touch with Jesus's human side. And the more I get to know the Old Testament, the more I think that Jesus really could have come to so many of the conclusions he did basically by just knowing the OT and reading it a certain way. Apart from the miracles, and the occasional voice from heaven, it's possible that Jesus never heard any more from God than we do. I'm not 100% sold on the idea, but it's certainly a sobering thought.

vs 33

Because he knows it's not long now. This is actually a terrible thing he's facing, and he doesn't face it with a British stiff upper lip. Sure, he still follows the path of the martyr, and he does it bravely after a fashion... but this is part of his preparation, this grief.

vs 34

He just wants to let it all out, and he wants his friends there as support.

vs 35

Jesus wanted an out. How many times have you known there is something you need to do for God, and thought, "I really don't want to do this"? I know I've run across it from time to time, although it never involved being killed. Jesus wants to know there is no other way.

vs 36

What a prayer to hear. It is obedient, but strained and awful. I swear, to think God loves us after having to chalk that prayer up on the "My will is different" board... an angry, spiteful, smaller minded God would have just killed all humanity for making him suffer so much.

Mark 14

2011-11-02T08:03:00.002+11:00

vs 13

Seriously, I need to remember these sorts of instructions for my D&D games. This is so out there.

vs 14

A lot of people call Jesus 'Teacher', so it's likely the man knows who they're talking about. Still, just saying to some guy with a jar of water is pretty risky.

vs 15

Now, whether Jesus had a guy come up to him earlier in the week and say, "Hey, Jesus, I've got the perfect room for you and your disciples to celebrate passover," or whether Jesus is just getting his disciples to talk to a person with the inferred message, "The Lord needs your passover room, find somewhere else to celebrate," it's still cool. I mean, they're not given a name, and they're told only to look for a guy carrying water - and while I would assume that was mostly women's work, who knows, it would only take two men to confuse them.

vs 16

Unsurprising, since Jesus told them so. And so they make preparations for passover as they would normally, having no idea it's going to become the last supper.

vs 17

So it's not even the Twelve that go and prepare - Jesus arrives with them, and the other disciples... leave? Stay? Sounds like the Twelve get pride of place.

vs 18

Too late... Judas already betrayed Jesus. But now he's calling him out on it. Or is he? Could he be talking about Peter?

vs 19

They all deny it, of course, except that since Judas already has, that makes him a liar. Perhaps he rationalised it saying, "Jesus said it in the future tense, and I've already done it, so he can't mean me."

vs 20

That really gives it away, given the Greek triclinium eating practice. It's whoever is sitting next to him.

vs 21

Yeah, I've heard people try and re-interpret this as if it were not a bad thing. Jesus would not say 'Woe' if it were neutral. It's bad.

vs 22

Now this seems a slightly odd thing to say just out of the blue at passover.

vs 23

Apparently, it is a specific cup. I have had the whole "how the Lord's Supper links with Passover meal" thing explained to me, and no doubt if you want a better explanation, you can ask a Jew for Jesus. Sufficed to say, they all do it - even Judas. I wonder if that counts as "drinking judgment on one's self" a la 1 Corinthians?

vs 24

Here Jesus marks this as the sign of a new covenant. He may or may not have said 'new', but it is a new covenant. That's a big deal. It's a revisioning of the agreement, a restatement of the principles. Epic.

Mark 14

2011-11-01T08:08:00.002+11:00

Only three chapters to go, makes it seem so short... except chapter 14 is 72 verses long.

vs 1

Oooh, some 'sly' way. How sneaky, TNIV. The NASB actually uses the word 'stealth', which wins at coolness for me. The KJV uses the term 'take him by craft' - so I assume they were going to build a prison out of paddle pop sticks.

vs 2

Apparently their patience wears thin pretty quick, though, after feast day.

vs 3

Mmmm, nard. Actually, nard does not sound all that appetising. It is expensive, though, and without second thought, she basically accosts Jesus with it more thoroughly than any of those department store perfume saleswomen. Can I also just point out that Jesus is staying at a leper's house. That is just way cool. One assumes that he's now an ex-leper.

vs 4

Sounds like something Judas might say... but we're not told here it was him specifically.

vs 5

Apparently Jesus lived pretty simply. He called himself king, but he ate with lepers. He walked around, did his teaching thing, stayed in other people's houses... apparently expensive perfume was not something the disciples were used to seeing on the balance sheet. Which now, it seems, makes them forget that Jesus actually is the messiah, and he can have nice things.

vs 6

See? Jesus likes his perfume bath. Moreover, he doesn't like that they're losing it at this poor woman.

vs 7

It's a fair point, made better in the NIV, I think. The TNIV's "You can help them whenever you want," does not really have the same link to Deuteronomy 15. In any case, Jesus is a limited time offer, and if you want to do something nice for the Lord of all creation while he's here, get in fast.

vs 8

Now, this should not have been a surprise to them. But I'll bet it was. Even she was likely surprised. But Jesus had been saying they were headed to Jerusalem and he was going to die for some time now.

vs 9

Now, it makes me want to ask, does this story make it in because Jesus said these words, or would it have made it in anyway, and so Jesus' words are just highlighting the point? I actually go for the latter, because of the whole burial preparation thing, which you would certainly not leave out if you were writing a gospel. It is worth noting that this is one of the few stories that makes it into all four gospels. So it is a pretty important story.

vs 10

Because Jesus rebuked him, as well as the others, for harassing the woman about the perfume? It's possible. Could have been the last straw. Some people draw Judas as a communist style sympathiser, and when he sees Jesus accept the perfume, he thinks Jesus is just like all the other would-be messiahs, he just wants to be rich. It's not impossible for people to have such disequilibrium in their minds (he stole from the poor bag, after all), but it would seem a little strange. I generally go for he got rebuked one too many times.

vs 11

In the end, the chief priests didn't even need to work very hard. It's like God planned the whole thing, and made sure that even the bumbling bad guys could get a break.

vs 12

They knew Jesus would want to celebrate it, after all - he did every other celebratory thing. And no doubt they were keen to celebrate it. Passover was a big deal - still is, for Jews.

Mark 13

2011-10-31T07:10:00.002+11:00

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

2011-10-30T08:40:00.002+11:00

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

2011-10-28T07:42:00.002+11:00

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

2011-10-27T08:04:00.003+11:00

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

2011-10-25T08:15:00.005+11:00

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.

Mark 10

2011-06-07T09:32:00.004+10:00

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

2011-06-01T07:37:00.004+10:00

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.

Mark 8

2011-05-27T08:21:00.003+10:00

vs 1

See, I read this one verse, and I can see what's coming.

vs 2

Similar situation. Come on guys, you can put 1 and 1 together!

vs 3

Look, he doesn't want to send them away. They're hungry. What will you do?

vs 4

See? Come on, guys. Even the average joe, having heard Jesus heals people, brings someone on the assumption he can do it twice.

vs 5

Seven. More than last time, but with no fish.

vs 6

Again, following a similar formula.

vs 7

Unless a few was a few thousand, we're not really changing anything from last time.

vs 8

I wish I was there. I personally have no need to see miracles per se, but this one is just too awesome. It's my favourite, I think, and not because it feeds people. It is just so unexplainable.

vs 9

Is that men, women, children? Doesn't say. Still a heap.

vs 10

I love that they follow him for days, he feeds them, then just dismisses them as if class is over, and off they go on their next adventure.

vs 11

Perhaps they were just hungry, and bummed they missed out on the bread.

vs 12

Ouch. Although, it's not as if he hasn't given a heap of signs, and isn't about to give yet more. So why even say it? Perhaps this is linked to the whole 'faith that saved you' thing. Jesus doesn't just do miracles for entertainment. Sure, when he does them people might see them, but much of what he does is about compassion as well as testament.

vs 13

Quick boat trip, that.

vs 14

What happened to all those baskets? Perhaps they distributed them among the people.

vs 15

Just... I mean, he says Pharisees and Herod right there. Unless they own bakeries, how could anyone mistake what he's talking about? You know, I bet they did have their own bakeries.

vs 16

Of course it is. That makes perfect sense. Only possible explanation.

vs 17

I suppose the answer is yes.

vs 18

Seriously guys, after all Jesus has said and done, does he have to use these words to describe his closest posse?

vs 19

They remember the details.

vs 20

Seriously! It was in the same chapter! Not that that necessarily reflects chronology, but it was obviously put here for a reason.

vs 21

Note that Jesus doesn't explain it to them, nor us. You would have to be thick not to get it. But people are thick. That's why we need preachers.

vs 22

New story, new cripple, another miracle, we assume.

vs 23

Again, we have the spitting in the eyes, the rubbing, as if Jesus needed to clean his eyes off or something. But Jesus can bring people to life by telling them to stand. He can heal people's daughters without seeing them. So what is the purpose?

vs 24

The blind man, he can see something, but it looks like trees. Obviously this guy wasn't born blind - he knows what trees look like.

vs 25

Which, you know, is awesome. This guy is obviously going to be happy with this.

vs 26

And once again, Jesus tells him to keep it secret. Best of luck keeping that you aren't blind any more a secret. You might be able to do it if you have a white cane and a labrador, I suppose. But this story starts and ends, and we're left thinking, "Okay, so Jesus heals a blind man. Big deal, he's healed plenty." Why pick this story out? Because of the spit on the eyes thing? Okay, great, what does that tell us about Jesus, that his power is running low? Obviously not. The answer, I think, lies in the story that follows. This is just one example of why we can't read things purely in isolation. You need context. It's vital.

vs 27

What's the next story about? Well, Jesus wants to know what his reputation is among the people, who they think he is, how they explain his miracles and teaching.

vs 28

All good answers, really. You might think it's funny that he's not just allowed to be Jesus, but remember, people thought the prophecy was that Elijah would return, so you sort of look for him.

vs 29

Huzzah for Peter! So now we see a little bit of why the miracle was put above - Peter's eyes have been opened. He can see the truth.

vs 30

And once again, Jesus gives his strange, messianic secret warning. I think we've talked about this a fair bit, so we'll move on from it for now.

vs 31

This is obviously a strange teaching to hear when you've just heard Jesus call himself the Messiah - or at least agree to it. We don't expect our powerful leader figures to talk about them being captured and killed.

vs 32

Peter is obviously thinking what I would be thinking - don't ruin the moral of the team!

vs 33

And so now we see that, sometimes, people's heart's blindness can only be partially cured at first. I suppose sometimes we all see Jesus as just a tree walking around, and not in the stark relief that we should.

vs 34

Strong, terribly powerful words. Jesus makes it clear - not just to the twelve, but all the disciples, that his way is a way of death. It's at about this time we would be calling it a cult.

vs 35

The eternal reward picture is strong. It takes a lot for people to be prepared to risk their lives. Of course, not everything people risk their lives for is eternal. Makes me wonder about communist rebels, though - they really want to go and die for the greater good? Strongly held, if a little mistaken, beliefs there.

vs 36

Obviously not much good. But do we think about this enough? I know I certainly don't. I quite like the world sometimes. Particular bits of it. Are they worth my eternal soul? Damn, hard saying.

vs 37

Well, lots. But is it worth it is the question. I mean, mad guitar skills? So the story goes, anyway.

vs 38

I wonder how many people turned around and just walked away here, thinking, "Take up cross? Lose your soul? This is too much. I liked him better when he healed blind people." It sounds crazy, but a lot of people say it now, "I like what he has to say about loving your neighbour, but I don't like what he has to say about righteousness or hell." So I imagine it was similar back then.

Mark 7

2011-05-23T07:45:00.003+10:00

vs 1

Are they a posse, or just come to visit?

vs 2

Not just that they hadn't washed their hands - that they hadn't followed a religious rule made up by the pharisees.

vs 3

See, tradition.

vs 4

Nice of Mark to explain it for us. Just a little note that helps us recognise that this gospel isn't written just for Jews, or else why include something like this?

vs 5

A fair enough question, if you're in charge of religious decision-making for your people. Or at least you think you are.

vs 6

Ouch! Hot damn, that's harsh. Jesus calls a spade a spade. I mean, we wouldn't know if they really cared about God and just had it wrong. But Jesus knows.

vs 7

Isn't it awesome that while the Bible might not have a verse for everything, it's got a verse for an awful lot of specifics, and it seems to have killer cool prophecies for Jesus to fulfil or see fulfilled.

vs 8

See, it wouldn't be so bad if they had not let go of God's traditions. I think so, anyway.

vs 9

See, they have to set aside God's laws to follow the traditions of people. That's just stupid. Surely God's laws would trump a man's laws.

vs 10

Which I personally think is rather harsh, but hey, that's just me. That doesn't mean they shouldn't follow it. Should we put people to death? No. But we should obviously treat dishonouring parents as important.

vs 11

The concept is a little strange, but takes us into the mind of these people. They would claim that it is more important to give to God's temple than to support your family. Very basically.

vs 12

As I said above, the idea was that you should devote stuff to God, and in doing so if your parents starved or something, well, that's just that. God is more important. And you know what, I can see where they're coming from, too. I mean, I would find it easy to think this way.

vs 13

But God wants the former without the latter being undone. And Jesus points out that this isn't the only example.

vs 14

What a powerful statement. Remember, there are laws in the OT that actually do talk about religious uncleanness. What Jesus is saying is quite radical. But it's true. Touching a dead body doesn't make you sinful because it's a dead body. It makes you sinful because God made a law, and you broke it.

vs 15[16]

This puzzled me for ages! The Biblegateway version is missing any notes, or even the number 15! Very strange, just a typo methinks.

vs 17

Not what I'd call a parable, but that's what Mark calls it.

vs 18

Ouch, Jesus is on an insult streak today. Even his disciples are copping it. Although, it seems a fairly clear lesson to me. But then, I don't have hundreds of years of culture telling me it's wrong.

vs 19

Mark makes it clear what Jesus is saying, that all food is clean. It's not clear from the words he records, though. Mark is putting the interpretation on it for us.

vs 20

That is, your actions. Like eating something you shouldn't.

vs 21

It's quite a list. But it is interesting to think about - that these things come from within us. But so often, don't we try and hold things outside us responsible? Pornography, movies, poor education, whatever. Sure, they don't help. But the sin comes from us.

vs 22

The list goes on.

vs 23

And of course evil defiles us. That is, it makes us unable to come to God. But Jesus thankfully does away with that, so we can.

vs 24

I think sometimes Jesus just wanted some privacy for prayer and general health and wellbeing. He wasn't trying to be a ninja, it's just that the thousand people who see you now don't realise you just spent three hours preaching to the thousand people you saw you a few hours ago.

vs 25

This is not an uncommon occurrence for Jesus.

vs 26

But this is a little new. Greeks weren't often going to come and throw themselves at the feet of a Jewish messiah. For one, why would they believe anything would happen? For two, why would a Jewish messiah help a Greek person? But desperate times call for desperate measures.

vs 27

A lovely thought, isn't it, that Jesus is referring to this Greek woman as a dog. But you know what? Jesus spoke to her! We must assume in Greek. I would doubt she was speaking Aramaic. So there, Jesus spoke Greek.

vs 28

This is a ballsy answer. A lot of people would have said, "Dog? You son of a bitch." But her daughter is possessed, that's all she cares about, and so she is prepared to accept Jesus' words at face value, and tell him that even if it is true that she is unworthy of all that Jesus might be, can't she at least have the scraps of what's left over? Because for her, even that is enough to heal her daughter.

vs 29

Jesus got the right answer - it accepted the primacy of the Jews in God's plan, but it also allowed for gentiles to be involved. Plus, it accepted that even if Jesus was to give a tiny amount to her, she felt that would be enough, because he is so powerful. So he heals her daughter. That's killer sweet.

vs 30

And that's the end of that story. Happy ending!

vs 31

This is the same sort of area where that ex-Legion guy was meant to go preach.

vs 32

That the people who brought this deaf man were begging is probably a sign they cared about the outcome.

vs 33

Considering that he just healed a woman's daughter without even seeing her, the whole spitting thing seems a little strange here. Is it to show something? The earlier context doesn't really seem to reveal anything. Perhaps something comes after it.

vs 34

Kind of an interesting thing to say - I mean, Jesus does talk about people whose ears are closed. Perhaps that's the thing he's going for?

vs 35

Huzzah for him! I can't imagine what it's like not being able to speak properly. I have enough problems sometimes as it is. I was saying 'like' so much in the car on the way home, I felt like such a moron. I think I was tired. But to be unable to express yourself for a long time... blergh.

vs 36

Is that why he does it, reverse psychology? It just doesn't sound like that's the reason.

vs 37

That's really just a restatement of his actions. Perhaps this is what the problem is? That when people go and tell Jesus' story, they repeat the miracles, but not his words? So Jesus tells some people to preach, but others he tells to keep silent. Perhaps the ones he lets preach are the ones who will tell the whole story.

Mark 6

2011-05-19T08:29:00.004+10:00

Only have 20 minutes before I have to catch my bus!

vs 1

More travel, always on the move, Jesus was.

vs 2

Because all of that stuff - his teaching, authority, miracles - are all pretty awesome in and of themselves. It's also cool that Jesus would visit synagogues and teach there. He's not a rebel - he worked within the system too. Synagogues, then, are a human construction that God seemed to be happy with at the time.

vs 3

Unfortunately, it's harder to accept something awesome from someone when you've seen them as a child. That's just life. This is nothing new for Jesus. If you're a king, but not born in a castle, it's a hard life.

vs 4

He says it a little differently in John, but the principle is the same. That sort of closeness of relationship is a negative the more official recognition of position.

vs 5

Could not sounds so constraining. But here is a fantastic thing that we see in this verse - miracles are not there for those who lack faith. If the argument is, "People don't believe, quick, do some miracles!" you will see that's not Jesus' ministry at all. These people lack faith, and so he does hardly any miracles.

vs 6

And so are we, who would have given our right foot to be there and meet Jesus. Funny how things work. To us he's messiah and God, to them he's the carpenter's son.

More travelling.

vs 7

Just the twelve, but it's a good start. You see he doesn't send them out alone, but in pairs. I think that's important. Got someone to watch your back.

vs 8

This verse is probably the one that we can most pin "faith" ministries on - the idea that you go out with nothing, and God will provide you with whatever you need. And you know what? That's absolutely true. But the problem is that some people go out in "faith", and then when the money/stuff/whatever does not come to keep them there, they get stubborn, and stay anyway, saying, "Must faith harder," which in effect means bugging people at home to send them money. Honestly, some people are not meant to be out there, I reckon. Jesus was right there, and sent them out, pointed them in the direction. Obviously it's a little bit different now, where Jesus isn't standing there with an arrow.

This is obviously different to when people find themselves in a situation not of their making - like the Christians in the diaspora. They just hit the ground where they were shoved to, and started doing Christiany stuff.

vs 9

Take everything you need, and nothing more, I guess is the lesson here.

vs 10

So the first house that accepts them, they stay in. They don't house-hop. What a different culture we have.

vs 11

Jesus has it all worked out. Their ministry is going to be simple, but still profound.

vs 12

Their job was to preach to people about repentance. Repentance meant something to these people. They'd heard this message before both historio-culturally (exile) and recently and popularly (John the Baptist). It doesn't work quite as well if people aren't ready for it.

vs 13

These things also work better when Jesus is around, but that doesn't mean they don't work at all. Just that it would seem that, even in the olden days, miracles were rare and special, except when something super killer awesome was happening, like Jesus.

That's all the time I've got, folks. More Mark 6 later!

vs 14

You've got to admit, it would be pretty freaky to think someone you had beheaded has come back to life more powerful than you can possibly imagine.

vs 15

This is not really much more comforting, although perhaps less believable due to the time difference. What I mean by that is it's more likely to be not accepted simply because more people would think, "Magical figure, John the Baptist!" since they'd seen him recently.

vs 16

See, he went for the former.

vs 17

We now get a little backwards rewind, to see why this would freak Herod out so much. It all started with throwing John in prison.

vs 18

Which I suppose it isn't.

vs 19

It's a funny thing how spiteful some people can be. I guess Herodias was quite happy to be living in the palace.

vs 20

So Herod feared John, but did he divorce Herodias? No. But he listened to John, and that could lead to some action, so best to take matters into one's hands quickly.

vs 21

As rich and powerful people are wont to do.

vs 22

This sort of largesse is typical, because it both shows his pleasure, and also his power.

vs 23

That's a big promise. Of course, if you asked for that, you'd probably get a dirty look.

vs 24

Fat lot of good it will do for the daughter - except perhaps let her stay in the palace longer too.

vs 25

How gruesome. She'd better have been an awesome dancer.

vs 26

Of course. Can't be soft on prophets in an election year.

vs 27

Lucky John was in prison. Well, not so lucky for John.

vs 28

How lovely. Mother's day cards and a box of chocolates eat your heart out.

vs 29

And Jesus doesn't resurrect him. That would be hella freaky, without a head.

vs 30

Now that our flashback is over, we can return to the story of the twelve and their doings.

vs 31

Jesus is all about rest, and private time. You'd think he'd be all hyperactive healing as many people and preaching as often as he could. But no, even Jesus needed quiet time.

vs 32

Lots of boat travel. Beats walking.

vs 33

They ran! That's how excited the people were to see Jesus.

vs 34

They wanted to hear Jesus teach, so he taught them. The opportunity was there, and even though his disciples were tired and hungry, he still took the opportunity. So the lesson is, take rests and look after yourself, but if someone interrupts your dinner to ask you about Jesus, then tell them.

vs 35

They did pick a remote spot, after all.

vs 36

Remember, McDonald's hadn't opened its Galilee branches yet. It was actually not going to be easy to just pick up food for thousands of people. Like the disciples say, they would need to go to a bunch of surrounding villages, and forage the countryside.

vs 37

Did they have that much in the kitty? Perhaps, they did distribute to the poor after all. Funny, Jesus doesn't 'cure' poverty with a wave of his hand. He gives people money.

vs 38

Not exactly a feast. I could eat that, I reckon.

vs 39

Ahh, the green grass. How picturesque. I've never noticed that before.

vs 40

It's like huge dinner parties, or wedding receptions, all over the place.

vs 41

When you read it like that, it sounds like they are awfully small bits of food, or really, really big loaves and fish.

vs 42

So they're either all on that weight loss stuff that fills your stomach with foam, or there was lots of food.

vs 43

Truly, I think this is my favourite miracle. It shows Jesus' over creation in a quite incredible way. There is simply no way to explain this miracle without miracle (not if you take it that Jesus somehow made the food appear. If you want to get all, "Oh, the people produced their own packed lunches," that's not a miracle, that's a picnic). It flies totally in the face of anything science can explain - unless there's a paper in the journal Nature that has something on spontaneous bakery.

vs 44

Lots of men. Who knows how many people there were! If only we had Jesus catering at Ministry of Game.

Making the last big push this morning.

vs 45

Immediately. Like, the moment they'd finished eating, bam! Return to your homes, nothing to see here.

vs 46

Interesting that the immediacy of the dispersal comes after Jesus had wanted some quiet time, got a huge group of hungry people foisted on him, and he helped them. But right afterwards, he shooed them away and went and prayed. I never noticed that before.

vs 47

Oh, I wonder what's going to happen? Only one verse ago I was learning something new, and yet I can see how easy it is to want to gloss over known stories.

vs 48

It's almost like Jesus thinks, "They can do it, I'll just let them row their hearts out after having done it all night." But then he has mercy.

vs 49

In the meantime, they see him out there, and freak the hell out. Which probably doesn't help their situation any.

vs 50

You'd think after hanging around Jesus for a while, things would get blazé. But no! There's still things that terrify them. Lucky Jesus is there to give them a pep talk.

vs 51

Of course, once Jesus is in the boat, he doesn't feel like a rough ride, so he calms things down.

vs 52

See, Jesus expects people to have a big picture view of him and God. If God can feed 5000 men on a hill with a loaf of bread and a can of sardines, he can do anything. So as if he's going to let his disciples die in a boating accident. We've been here before. But they still don't get it. They can't accept that level of faith. And so they're described as having hard hearts.

vs 53

With, you know, an anchor or something.

vs 54

Jesus is becoming a celebrity. I'm surprised there wasn't a little fleet of boats following him.

vs 55

I wonder how many people brought sick loved ones, and how many people just grabbed the nearest beggar and pulled them towards Jesus in the hope of seeing another healing.

vs 56

The incidence of terrible illness must have dropped pretty significantly during Jesus' little three year tour. I wonder if it had an impact on the population? Probably had an impact on how well Christianity was received. Or possibly not, considering how many people who were healed seemed not to turn around and Thank Jesus for it sometimes.

Mark 5

2011-05-18T07:34:00.003+10:00

vs 1

So they crossed the lake.

vs 2

Tombs aren't a nice place to live. Also, they're unclean.

vs 3

So, he was strong - either that or darn wily. Although why they wanted to bind him with a chain is not yet apparent.

vs 4

Definitely strong, possibly slightly wily - wilyness uncertain.

vs 5

This is I think what is called 'high risk' behaviour these days. Obviously this is not typical for your average social person. As actions go for crazy hermits, I'm not sure where this is on the scale.

vs 6

This is better than getting punched to custard, so it's a win.

vs 7

Now, if you were the average person, and you didn't know that Jesus had driven out evil spirits before, and that they would regularly address him in this way, you might thin it odd that someone pleads that Jesus doesn't torture him.

Even then, though, you may still wonder about the whole "Jesus/God torturing demons" thing. Perhaps torture is sometimes appropriate.

vs 8

Okay, so Jesus had actually tried something on the demon, and now it was begging.

vs 9

I wasn't really aware demons had names (did Adam name them? not important), but this is probably a good illustration, like an object lesson, for Jesus' disciples.

vs 10

Why does the demon ( or the demons) want this? It's not explained. I guess some people might say that they don't want to go back to hell, but really, they get a reprieve of about 10 seconds in that case. Also, I think that's making some assumptions about hell that probably aren't well backed up.

vs 11

They would occasionally eat the corpses. I'm just kidding. Or am I?

vs 12

Again, why? Who can question the desires of demons, really.

vs 13

Which sucks if you own a herd of 2,000 pigs. I mean, that's a hell of a lot of pigs. Now, normally, a Jew wouldn't farm pigs I'm guessing (I mean, what would they do with them?). But still, that probably represents a rather big hit to someone's bottom line.

vs 14

Because, that's a hell of a lot of pigs to end up drowning in a lake.

vs 15

Because people who help hermits are scary. Or probably more reasonably, because people who can help a hermit who was so out of it as him are probably powerful. And that can be scary.

vs 16

And why not? It's a good story, and quite relevant to the time. "Those there told the others about the scores in a recent game of football" would be rather more confusing.

vs 17

Before he kills more livestock. You'd think they might ask how he did it, but no, all they want is the pig-killer to leave.

vs 18

He's a good beggar, this man, although apparently the demons were better and begging than him.

vs 19

It was a fair bit of mercy. About 2,000 pigs worth. It was also a mercy to the demons, apparently, which is a hugely confusing thing to think about. Probably why I don't think about it much. If God can show mercy to fallen demons, that doesn't really impact me a huge amount, except to prove something I already know - that God is good at mercy. But Jesus here is showing mercy to demons, to this guy by giving him a purpose in life and driving out his demons, and to the people of his village by sending him to them to tell them about Jesus.

vs 20

And rightly so. I mean, it's pretty amazing stuff. But what gets me is that Jesus sets in train very early on in his ministry a pattern of people telling people about him, and those people believing. That's no different to you or me, who never got to meet Jesus face to face.

vs 21

So wait, he sailed all the way over there just to heal this guy? That's service!

vs 22

Jesus must have gotten used to this. I've never had anyone fall at my feet, except by accident.

vs 23

Not an uncommon occurrence.

vs 24

So Jesus follows. I've also never had a huge crowd follow me around, or even been in a huge crowd trying to get to one person.

vs 25

Which could no doubt mean all sorts of things. But obviously isn't healthy.

vs 26

I'm sure there are many people who could testify to the truth of this statement in their own lives. Good to know that doctors stick to this tradition.

vs 27

Because cloaks have obvious healing powers. It's funny how people think about this stuff.

vs 28

Which, hey, turned out to be true. So she perhaps knows more about it than me.

vs 29

Which must have been a huge relief.

vs 30

The obvious absurdity of this question should be apparent.

vs 31

It's not lost on the disciples.

vs 32

Why is it he does this? Perhaps it is to call her out, to make her stand up for her faith, to show that it has healed her. I mean, obviously Jesus knows who it is, but he wants them to admit it.

vs 33

Why was she so afraid? Because she stole healing off him?

vs 34

Not his cloak, but her faith. Obviously in him, that he could do it.

vs 35

That's bad news. Perhaps if he didn't heal that woman, the girl would be alive. Perhaps if thousands of people didn't crowd around Jesus, he could have walked faster.

vs 36

This is a ballsy statement. I mean, healing is one thing, but this girl is dead. And it's not like they had no idea when someone was alive or dead. But even if they got it wrong, it's gutsy if you don't already know you can bring someone back from the dead.

vs 37

Why is this? Perhaps because he wanted to actually get there before midnight, but perhaps because he works on this pattern of him doing things, and other people having to take someone else's word that it's true.

vs 38

Typical cultural reaction to death. Watch a Muslim funeral in Palestine some day.

vs 39

He has not even seen her. They probably watched her die - or were called in afterwards to wail and mourn.

vs 40

Regardless, stating a dead person isn't dead makes Jesus a laughingstock. So Jesus sends them all away, except his three and the parents.

vs 41

Why does he record it in Aramaic? I assume because Jesus said it in Aramaic. But why here? Not sure. Perhaps he speaks to her in Aramaic because she's young, and that's the language most spoken in the home?

vs 42

So almost marrying age, would be a real loss to the family. A huge win for Jesus here, showing that patience is a virtue. Also, that he has power over death.

vs 43

Perhaps Jesus didn't want every man jack bringing out their dead and asking Jesus to raise them. That would kind of suck. Or perhaps he wanted some of his better stories to leak out later. I mean, obviously people were told, because we know about it. And I for one and glad, it's a cool story.

Mark 4

2011-05-17T08:31:00.002+10:00

vs 1

You might remember that I preached a sermon on a good part of this chapter, so a lot of this might be repetition.

Also, you might remember that last chapter Jesus asked his disciples to set up a boat for just such an occasion. It's as if he's prescient or something.

vs 2

One of the things he taught them was this.

vs 3

As they do.

vs 4

Not the most effective way to sow seed, perhaps he was feeling rushed.

vs 5

I guess you might have occasional rocky patches on your land, but again, not the best place to sow seed.

vs 6

I'm not much of a horticulturalist, so I'll just take people who have 1st century farming skills at their word.

vs 7

I hate weeds, but that's about as far as I go. Again, others do the gardening.

vs 8

This I can at least attest to, having been in a wheat field and seen (and eaten) bits of grain off a wheat stalk. I don't suggest it - it's much better when ground up and baked into bread.

vs 9

And that's the end of the story. And people go... er, what?

vs 10

Thankfully, or we'd all be in the dark.

vs 11

This is quite a phenomenal statement. We are often struck by it, which is kind of nice, considering that I think we like to think, "Hey, that's not very fair and democratic. Why can't everyone hear the message?" Very communist of us, well done. But in fact, we live in a society where things are advertised to certain groups of people, and are sometimes basically put in code so that others don't understand/aren't interested.

vs 12

Of course, the difference between not wanting to buy cornflakes and not going to heaven might be seen by some to be rather more serious. There's really only two ways to understand it. One is that Jesus knows who should and shouldn't hear, and so tailors his message accordingly. The other is that it's a matter of your own heart, and so the blame is shifted squarely to you. Or a mix of both, I guess, because as I have said in the past, theological paradox does not necessitate dichotomy.

vs 13

Note that I don't think he is saying, "This parable is a key to unlocking all other parables." I think he is saying, "If you can't solve an easy sudoku, you can't solve a master sudoku."

vs 14

Who is the farmer? Apparently not important. Could be God, Jesus, any of us. Jesus doesn't say. What is interesting to consider is that even though it's terrible farming practice, whoever sows the word sows it so that the people who probably won't react to it still at least hear it.

vs 15

Satan's role is important. As I said in my sermon, it's worth remembering that it's not purely people's disinterest that keeps them deaf.

vs 16

Initial investment shows swift return - obviously a scam.

vs 17

This is a damn shame, but I think can be mitigated by explaining to people that with Christianity comes trouble.

vs 18

So the word is heard among the thorns, which is one nice thing.

vs 19

Note that only one kind of response is really wanted - fruit. It was this that made me want to translate the parable into something more akin to an 'all of life' story. Is that what Jesus is saying primarily? It's a good question. He doesn't specify, is my answer.

vs 20

I wish I were this fruitful. I didn't say it in my sermon, because it's a downer and it's not truly a correct way to measure your Christian life, but I wish I could say that 100 people would be in heaven because of me.

vs 21

I don't do either, but I at least know how light works. Also, putting an oil lamp under a bed is likely to set it on fire - which, hey, will generate a lot of light. Briefly.

vs 22

Jesus is saying that, even though he speaks in parables, the truth of God is a mystery meant to be revealed. Sure, some people won't get it, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't tell them. God wants revelation.

vs 23

Basically what I said above covers this little saying.

vs 24

It's like a justice plus mix. Extra berries.

vs 25

This often seems unfair, but again, we must all be communist, because this is exactly how capitalism works. Besides, since it is talking about understanding of God, I think those who have little probably won't care too much if they lose what they have. Not in the short term, anyway.

vs 26

Wait, didn't we just do this, Jesus?

vs 27

This is true. And sure, biologists will argue, but the simple fact is that Jesus meant "everyone but biologists, because they're pedants". Philosophers have no problem with this statement, because we're imaginative.

vs 28

That is how a seed grows, I assume. We even have one growing on the windowsill in the kitchen, but I didn't pay too much attention.

vs 29

That's how it works. What was this parable about? It's more farming practice. Obviously we must read it in the context of the parable of the sower (so perhaps it IS the key to understanding some parables!). We sow the seed, and others may reap it, but God makes it grow. Thank you, Paul.

vs 30

I don't know, Jesus, will you perhaps describe it with another seed analogy?

vs 31

Hah.

vs 32

Who are the birds? What colour is the seed? Why do they perch in the branches? I think it's just a big tree. Small amount seen now, big return in the future. That's the message. Kingdom is like that.

vs 33

And probably a little they couldn't. Or perhaps that's just me.

vs 34

The disciples were part of the plan, see. It's not about controlling flow of information, it is about sustained dissemination. Jesus was thinking long term.

vs 35

Of the lake, I assume.

vs 36

Jesus is an admiral of a little navy. I'd never noticed that before.

vs 37

I wonder if it affected the other boats?

vs 38

I've never been on a boat in a storm (well, kinda once on a ferry), but considering my general reaction to boats is the same as the disciples, even when it's not stormy, I feel for them.

vs 39

It's not as impressive when it doesn't work, trust me.

vs 40

Ouch. But when you think about it, as if the messiah was going to die in a boating accident. "He was drowned for our sins."

vs 41

The thing is, of course, that we're in early days, and they were still baffled at this man called Jesus. I live in a permanent state of bafflement about Jesus, so I am akin to them.

Mark 3 - remember Mark?

2011-05-16T08:03:00.002+10:00

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.

Sermon: John 4:43-54

2011-05-14T14:22:00.003+10:00

Long time no see, blog! Yes, law study has left you somewhat dejected and alone, but fear not, the toil of my labour is below - what turned out to be a very difficult sermon on the end of John 4. Enjoy it, Mr and Mrs Blogosphere.

Sermon 3: John 4:43-54

Jesus heals the son of a servant of Herod – not the most popular person around.

On miracles, and what they are for.

Who is Jesus speaking to as 'needing signs and miracles'? “you people”

Do we take Jesus at his word? (Faith in terms of belief, faith in terms of trust, faith in terms of chance)

Sermon 3 words

A lot of people would say that we live in a country without faith, that Australia is a place where people do not have a desire to talk about issues like faith, because they feel faith is not relevant to their lives. But what if we split that idea, faith, up into a few different words that people use more commonly today? One part of faith is taking a risk. We take risks because we can't control everything. This is something people do every day, all the time. Whether it's sitting on a chair you've never seen before that might be broken or rickety without checking it (probably a low risk), to jumping off a cliff into water (which people do all the time at the blowhole in Warriewood), or driving a car while drunk, assuming you won't get caught by police - each one is taking a risk, because it is doing something without having total control over the outcome.

Another part of faith is trust. Trust means taking people at their word, relying on them to do something. There's a lot of talk about Australians being distrustful, especially of politicians. The truth is, every day we take people at their word. Sometimes it is for simple things – someone offers to buy us a coffee when they go to get one, and we give them five dollars assuming they will bring us back a coffee and hopefully some change. Sometimes, we trust people on really important things – someone offers to invest our life savings for us, and we take them at their word. There are many Australians who fall into trust scams, and lose everything. And no matter how many of these scams get found out, more continue to arise, because people are prepared to trust people who sound trustworthy. We trust other people because we can't do everything ourselves.

The other big part of faith is belief. This is the part that many Australians most often turn their nose up at, as if they don't believe anything, as if everyone fully researches and understands everything before they accept it as true. But when people read in the newspaper that 17 people were killed by a bomb blast, do they travel to Libya and count the bodies? When scientists say they need 4.4 billion dollars to build a particle accelerator, most people just nod and believe them, rather than asking for the complete costings, and studying what it actually costs to research, build and fund such a thing, and questioning its pertinence and relevance. They also have to believe the results the scientists tell them. The simple fact is that we need to accept things that other people tell us, because there is too much information in the world for us to absorb it all on our own. We believe things because there are just some things we can't fully know and understand for ourselves.

Today, as we look at this last, small section of John chapter 4, we are looking at a very small part of Jesus' life as recorded by John the Evangelist, and it is all about faith. In fact, it is a very relevant part of his story for us, because it gives us a glimpse at how faith works when it comes to Jesus. It also helps us to come to a deeper understanding of miracles, which can sometimes be confusing to us today. So let's dive into this last part of chapter four and see what we can learn together.

Jesus has left Samaria after spending two days in a town where he was welcomed, his teaching respected, and his authority acknowledged. He now heads back to his own people, to his home town of Galilee. Straightaway, we are caught by something of a paradox in this account. Jesus has commented that a prophet has no honour in their own country. However, we read that when he arrives, the people welcome him, because they remember all the things he had done during passover in the capital, Jerusalem. You might remember that he had cleared the temple courts of marketeers, and he spoke about rebuilding the temple in three days, and he performed many signs. In fact, if we turn quickly to chapter 2, we will gain some insight into why Jesus made the comment that he did. In chapter 2 starting at verse 23, we read, “Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Festival, many people saw the signs he was performing and believed in his name. 24 But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all people. 25 He did not need human testimony about them, for he knew what was in them.”

Jesus knows these people. He knows all people. He knows what people are like. One minute, they will see the miracles, hear the words of teaching, and believe what he says. But belief alone is not faith. It is only one part of faith. People can change what they believe. Sure, the crowd likes Jesus now, but they will very soon leave him. And we should be wary of that ourselves. How easy is it for you to simply believe in Jesus? When it's what you've always been taught, when it's what you've been securely brought up in and encouraged in at church every week by good bible teachers and strong leadership, how easy is it to just believe in Jesus' name? To accept that Jesus is really the son of God only as fact and not let that truth impact your life? We should be warned by the stunning words of James in his epistle, at chapter 2 verse 19, where he says, “You believe that there is one God? Good! Even the demons believe that – and shudder.” Belief is not enough. Believing there is one God is not enough. Knowing Jesus is the son of God, and that he died for your sin, is not enough! These people had believed in Jesus' name, in his authority, but they weren't going to stick around. There is more to faith than just belief.

So Jesus travels to Cana, and John reminds us that this is the place where he turned the water to wine at a wedding. That really sets the scene for what follows. Jesus is returning to a place where he did a miracle, and it is here that he is going to be asked to do another. You see, a royal official had a sick son in Capernaum. Now, Capernaum was well over ten miles away, and when you can't jump in a car, that's a fair hike, more than a day's walk. But this official has made the trip, because his son is dying, and he has nowhere else to turn. So when he hears that Jesus has arrived in the area again, he starts walking. Remember, this man's son is dying. Does he go out on what could be a wild goose chase to try and hunt down this possible miracle worker? Or does he stay with his son for what could be his last hours alive?

This official takes a risk, and heads out to find this supposed prophet. He takes another risk, too – you see, he is a royal official for Herod, the so-called king of the Jews. Herod was seen basically as a puppet of the Roman regime, and so someone who worked for him was seen as something of a sell-out, a traitor. It was like being a tax collector back in those days, or perhaps going and working for a cigarette company now. Sure, it's a job, but people are not going to think well of you for doing it. This man could not be sure that Jesus would help him, even if he had the power to heal. He might get sent home empty-handed. No wonder when he gets to Jesus, he begs. Thankfully, we know that Jesus does not discriminate against people. Last week, he didn't discriminate against a woman who had been married several times, and then was living with a man outside of marriage. He didn't discriminate against a whole town of Samaritans, who weren't even from the same nation as him, and were considered outsiders, or enemies. He doesn't discriminate against this royal official, and he does not discriminate against anyone today, either. No matter who we are, what we have done, or where we come from, Jesus is willing to deal with us.

But following God is a risk. When you pray for something, you then let it out of your control. Something we really like in the west is control. Control brings security and comfort. This royal official probably had a bit of power and control over life. But when his son was dying, his choices were limited. He chose to take a risk and go to Jesus, rather than to take control, and get the last few hours of his son's life before losing him. Are you prepared to risk your comfort and security, and take the risk of taking God at his word and living the way he expects you to, relying on him instead of yourself? Jesus will accept you, but will you accept him?

Now, Jesus' response to the official is very interesting. The official comes with a need – his son is dying, and he wants help. But Jesus makes a comment – not to the official alone, but to all the people of Galilee, to those people who had believed in Jesus' name in Jerusalem, but who he knew he couldn't trust. He says to them, “Unless you people see signs and wonders, you will never believe.” Now, how would you feel if someone told you that you didn't really believe something you said you did? But that is exactly what Jesus is saying about these people. They had already seen signs. They had already 'believed' in his name back in chapter 2, or so they said. Jesus here is showing the limitations of miracles and wonders in actually convincing people to truly believe, to truly have faith.

You have heard the saying, “I'll believe it when I see it”? These days, the saying is, “Pics or it didn't happen.” Now that so many young people have a camera built into their mobile phone, they demand pictures of everything, displayed on Facebook or emailed around, or else they won't believe that it happened! Many people think they need to see in order to believe. Quite a few people will say, “If Jesus came down and did a miracle in front of me now, I would believe in him.” Does that sound familiar? In Matthew 27:42, the religious leaders said, “Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him.” They had already seen him perform miracles, but that wasn't good enough. Their unbelief was a mockery against Jesus as he died on the cross. More fool them.

The truth is that many, many people saw Jesus perform miracles, or even were healed themselves, and yet did not come to faith in Jesus as Christ, as Son of God. In Luke 17, ten lepers approach Jesus, all call him Master, and all ask to be healed. Jesus tells them to present themselves to the priest, and when they do all ten are healed. But only one returns to Jesus, to thank him and praise God. I wonder how such people reconciled their healing, or the miracles and signs they'd seen, with not having faith in Christ? The fact of the matter is that Jesus had made claims about his godhood, about his mission from the Father, about coming from heaven, about the kingdom of God. And even though these people had heard what Jesus had to say, even though they had seen it backed up with miracles, backed up with heavenly signs, backed up by the testimony of those healed and of John the Baptist, they did not take Jesus at his word. They did not trust Jesus.

Imagine for a moment you were to take a gospel – any gospel, your favourite, perhaps. Mine happens to be John. So, let's take the book of John, and let's cut out everything Jesus has to say. Let's cut out everything that talks about Jesus. Let's only keep in those bits that are miracles, signs and wonders. For one thing, the book would be a lot shorter. But think – even though you read about Jesus turning water into wine, healings, exorcism of demons from people, feeding of thousands, walking on water – and even the resurrection – without having any of what Jesus says included in the gospel, what use would it be? How would we know anything about why Jesus came, what the signs and wonders signified, what his death and resurrection meant, without his words to tell us? Jesus could come to earth, do all those miracles, die, be raised, and ascend to heaven, with none of us being any the wiser about what it meant. All of Jesus' miraculous actions are meaningless, except as signs pointing to the truth of his message. That's how these people were treating Jesus – ignoring his words, only accepting his miracles. And that is meaningless.

When you think about it like that, Jesus' words take on an even more forceful meaning. “Unless you people see signs and wonders, you will never believe.” For them, Jesus' words, the words of God, were not important. No, they needed signs. Even with those signs, though, they were not convinced. They were not prepared to take a risk, they were just happy to accept whatever signs they saw, but nothing else. If your position is that you can't believe what Jesus says until you see a miraculous sign, I would advise you to think deeply about whether it would make any difference. Are you really just using that as an excuse not to take his words seriously?

Now the official, he had come to Jesus, had taken the risk of failure, the risk of rejection, and so he simply says in verse 49, “Sir, come down before my child dies.” And Jesus' reply to this request is simple. “Go, Jesus replied, “your son will live.” No fancy hand-waving, no miraculous sign, no wondrous portent, not even a taking a single step towards the official's house in Caperneum. Just those simple words, “Go, your son will live.” And we are told that this royal official took Jesus at his word and departed. He didn't walk away sad like the rich young ruler. He didn't walk away confused like Nicodemus. He walks away, having taken Jesus at his word, trusting that Jesus is telling the truth, believing that Jesus has the power to back up his words, without having to see a sign, or witness a miracle. It's out of his hands, so he takes the risk that Jesus is right.

Do you recall Jesus' words to Thomas, who had to see Jesus' crucifixion wounds to believe that he was resurrected from the dead? Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” These words are about those people who believe without being able to see the miracles that took place. People like us. We simply do not get the option of seeing Jesus risen the way the disciples did. We have to believe their testimony, believe John's testimony here in his Gospel. We have to trust God that his message in the Bible is both true and sufficient, that he sent Christ to us to save us from our sin, and we can trust him without seeing it for ourselves. We have to trust Jesus' words that his death is enough to take away our sin. We don't get to see the miraculous sign of the resurrection to prove it to us. When we believe, there is no measurable way we can tell if our sin has been forgiven. We have to take Jesus at his word. Do you trust Christ that his death and resurrection has saved you from sin? Do you take Jesus at his word?

The official trusts Jesus enough to turn around and walk back home. By the next day, he is still travelling, when he meets one of his servants, who had probably come to give him the news, and good news it was! The boy was living, healed of his affliction. A miracle! But when the servant tells him of the hour at which the boy's sickness was gone, the official realises that this was the exact time that Jesus had told him that his son would live. As a consequence, we are told, he and his whole household believed. And so we find, at the end of this small window into one of Jesus' miracles, a complete picture of faith. A man takes a risk by giving up the paltry control he has of his circumstances, and coming to Jesus. Jesus informs him that his son is well, and he takes Jesus at his word. He trusts that what Jesus says is true, that he will deliver on his promise. Finally, he sees his son alive and well, and he believes. And his whole family also believes – having seen the healing of the boy, and heard the testimony of the father. They didn't meet Jesus, didn't hear his words, and he never saw the healing. All they see is the boy healed, and all they hear are the words told them about Jesus by the father.

We've looked at some elements of faith separately, but no doubt you can see how they are interlinked. Trusting someone, believing something – both are taking a risk. Trusting someone can also involve believing something they tell you – accepting both the person's truthfulness and the veracity of the facts they base their words on. Similarly, believing some piece of information usually also involves trusting the source from which it comes. For people today, both believers and non-believers, they face several big questions as they consider what role Jesus might play in their lives. Can they believe that God exists, that there is a spiritual reality to the universe, that there might be life after death, a heaven and a hell? Can they trust the words of those who have written the Bible, what Jesus has to say about God, about sin, about how to live? Can they take the risk of losing control over their own life, and putting that control into the hands of God?

They are difficult questions, because they are questions of faith. They can't be explained, nor their answers discovered, merely with science, or even simply with logic. Such spiritual questions must be answered both with the mind and with the heart. It is not simply a matter of believing something – like the people of Galilee, who believed, or perhaps even knew in their heads that Jesus was sent by God. Faith is both a matter of knowing, or believing, and also trusting, and also doing. To have faith in Jesus is to accept what he says, not just as a fact, but as a truth which changes how you live your life. Coming to faith in Jesus is often a process for people, but it doesn't always follow the pattern in this narrative. Many people will never witness the healing of a loved one, for example. The most compelling miracle most people will see is the impact faith has on someone's everyday life, on your life. If we are to be ambassadors of Christ, we must show people that living the life of faith – of belief, trust, and taking risks – is not just a possibility, it is a real and practical way of life. How can we expect others to take these steps, if we can't show them how we do so in our lives?

Materialism material

2011-03-21T08:10:00.003+11:00

Another sermon from quite some time ago (this one is actually dated - April 1 - but it doesn't have the year. However, I remember that it was part of a three part series, the second of which was Easter Sunday, so by using calculation, it was... 2007!). To put it in context, this was part one of a three part series that the church wanted to give on 'giving' - but I personally couldn't stand the idea of giving three sermons in a row on "please give more money to the church" so I gave a series of three sermons on Materialism, Generosity (Easter), and Prosperity.

As a double benefit (or whammy, depending on your attitude) I have also included some notes that I used on this same topic for a youth group presentation. There's actually a Powerpoint that goes with the youth group talk, but since there is no function to add it here, and I don't know that it's worth hosting it on some hosting site for a month, I'll just mention it here. You can always bug me for it if you're keen. And once again, these are posted mainly for the benefit of someone who asked, but are here for everyone to enjoy. So enjoy!

---------------------------------------------------------

Materialism (April 1^st)

The material world isn’t evil - It is OK for Christians to enjoy stuff in the material world

But living for material things is short sighted and wrong - At its worst, it is idolatry and pantheism

Money is the quintessential material good – it can buy you anything material, and nothing immaterial

God gives us some material blessing, so what should we do with it? - Good stewardship

Doesn’t mean being anal about everything – God will challenge you on things as you go

1 Tim 6:17-19 Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life.

-----------------------

Today I want to talk about something that is vital to our daily lives. It’s there when you wake up. It’s with you when you’re at work. It’s all around us. It’s here right now. It’s inescapable. It’s all over you. It’s inside you. You’re sitting on it. You eat it. You probably make a living out of it. What is it?

To put it most simply, it’s stuff. Some people call it “matter”, or the “material world”. Christians might even call it “creation”. You know what I mean, ‘that stuff we interact with every day, that we live in, on, around or with’, that’s the stuff I’m talking about.

Why do I want to talk about stuff? Well, it seems like a pretty important thing to talk about, fundamental as it is to our every day lives. And because it is so much a part of our lives, we need to have a right attitude about it, because our attitude towards stuff will then feed into how we treat stuff and what we expect of stuff. That is, it will affect how we live our daily lives.

Because stuff is all around us, everyone has an attitude towards it. And how people think about the world they live in is important to know, especially if we’re wanting to impact those people with the gospel. So I want to look at the three big overarching beliefs that people have when it comes to stuff. They are: Stuff is Neutral, Stuff is Evil, Stuff Doesn’t Exist.

So let’s start from the end. Stuff Doesn’t Exist. The basic idea of this belief is that stuff, all that stuff that you interact with in various ways in your everyday life, isn’t really stuff. It isn’t really anything at all! It doesn’t exist. It isn’t real. Now you might say to me, “You’re kidding, Ben. No one believes that. I mean, I’m sitting right here on a chair made of stuff, what sort of boffin is going to tell me that it doesn’t really exist?” The answer is, all sorts of people!

Hindus, for example, believe that all the stuff you see, and touch and feel and taste, is all an illusion. They believe that this reality that we live in, which they call maya, is like when you walk into a dark room, and you see a piece of rope, but you think it’s a snake. When you look at it in the dark, you see a snake, and you think it’s really real. But when you turn the light on, you realise it’s just a piece of rope, and you feel like a bit of an idiot. Hindus think that the whole world is like that snake – you’re looking at something, but you can’t really see what it is. What you think it is is just an illusion. It’s actually something else, some actual spiritual reality that is beyond physical stuff.

Buddhists are very similar. Some Buddhists believe the same thing about maya. Others actually believe that the stuff around us really doesn’t exist at all. Instead of it being an illusion that tricks your senses, they believe that we’re actually living in something like a dream. So instead of seeing a rope in a dark room and thinking it’s a snake, the chair you’re sitting on just plain doesn’t exist at all! It doesn’t exist any more than something you dream comes true when you wake up.

Apparently Christian Science teaches that the world is an “error”, and that reality is in fact entirely spiritual. Christian Science acknowledges that we all seem to be experiencing a material existence, but holds that this experience ultimately gives way to a true spiritual understanding of God.

And then you’ve got Solipsists, or Skeptics. They’re a bunch of philosophers with too much time on their hands that believe in what’s called philosophical skepticism. They basically believe that you can't prove that anything really exists outside your brain, so there. You can see why they’re called skeptics!

Hopefully you see what I mean when I say that what you think about stuff affects how you live. If you didn’t really believe that any of this stuff was actually real, how would that affect your attitude towards it? You might think that they would just go around smashing it, or treating it with no respect, because after all, it isn’t real! Well, philosophical skeptics might. But most hindus and Buddhists and Christian Scientists don’t. How do you think they spend most of their time? There are usually two reactions. One is that they spend their lives trying to ignore the stuff around them, trying to look past it and find the real truth that is behind the fake stuff that doesn’t really exist. So they end up ignoring the real world looking for enlightenment. The other reaction says well, since it doesn’t matter anyway, let's revel in it, and they live as greedily and as richly as they possibly can, because after all, it doesn’t matter! What ends up happening is that they can live in a big rich mansion overlooking pitiful poor slums and not care at all, or even feel guilty. After all, those people aren't really poor – they just have an illusion of poverty! Which also means you don't need to help them – you're probably helping them recognise the illusion this way.

Does that sound Christian? Do you think that all the stuff around is not really there? Do you think we should just ignore it, in the hope of seeking a higher truth? The Bible doesn’t seem to think so. It says, in Genesis chapter 1 verse 1, that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”. Does that sound like it’s an illusion? Or does that sound like God actually made something? When God created man and woman, he really did make them. He made bodies for them that really exist. Jesus came in a real body, he was really walking around, he was really persecuted physically, and he was physically killed. And that physical death was important – by his wounds we are healed.

So as Christians, we can strike one of our three options out. The world really does exist. Stuff really exists. Our bodies really exist. God really created them, they aren't an illusion.

What's next? Next we have the idea that stuff is actually bad. Evil. That chair you're sitting on is evil! Well, perhaps it is. Not everyone who believes this option thinks that all things are evil by their very nature – they might only believe that some stuff is created evil, and other stuff is created good. Most usually, though, the division is made between created stuff (which is what we are talking about today) and spiritual stuff. So most people who believe that stuff is evil will tell you that it's only this material stuff – money, cars, chairs, our human bodies – that is evil, but that spiritual stuff – our souls, and angels, and spiritual stuff – is good. Material stuff, bad. Spiritual stuff, good. Philosophically, that's called dualism. Dual mean 'two', so it's a belief basically in two creations: the evil matter one, and the good spiritual one. Gnosticism, the religious movement that came out of early Christian heresies, believes this. One Gnostic actually believed that the God of the Old Testament was different from the God in the New Testament! He said that the old God of Israel who created the world was evil, and so he killed people, and judged them and was all nasty. But the God of the New Testament, Jesus, is the Good God, who created heaven and salvation and gives us souls and the Holy Spirit and all that good stuff.

Some Zoroastrians have a very similar view of the world – that there was a creator God who created all the good stuff, but that evil stuff was also there at the beginning, and even some Muslim beliefs hold that Allah created evil things like Djinni, or demons.

How do people who believe this act? How does this attitude affect their actions? What do you think? Well, for one, you'd expect them to reject anything that they thought was evil, wouldn't you? So no material possessions – no car, no house, perhaps the barest clothes, certainly no collecting of wealth! That's all evil. That's what you'd expect, anyway. And some people who believe this are like that – even in Paul's time, there were people like this, and we read about them in 1 Timothy chapter 4, verse 3: “They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.”

Interestingly, though, they don't all act like that! Peter, when describing these heretics in 2 Peter, says this in chapter 2 verse 1: “They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up.” and then later in verse 13: “Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, revelling in their pleasures while they feast with you. With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning; they seduce the unstable; they are experts in greed—an accursed brood!” So even though they say that they believe that material stuff is evil and that you should have nothing to do with it, they in fact hoard it for themselves, and are adulterous and greedy! Probably they think that, if only their souls are holy and their material bodies are evil, then they may as well use their bodies for evil purposes anyway, because only their souls will go to heaven.

Finally, some people who believe this just become totally fatalistic. Since they believe that their god created both good and evil, then that god must be capricious – which means whimsical or erratic, like you'll never know what they're going to do next. A lot of Muslims believe that Allah is like that – he might do good things, he might do evil things, because he's powerful and erratic. And they just say “Allah wills it” and accept it as part of Allah's nature.

Does any of that sound Christian? At first it sounds a little attractive – after all, we have seen how temptations of riches and sex and power corrupt people, and turn them away from God. It's almost plausible! But do you believe that God created evil stuff, or that perhaps God created some stuff, which was good, and someone else created the Evil stuff? Or perhaps God created all the good stuff, and the evil stuff was just hanging around? I think John put it well when he said in John chapter 1 verse 3: “Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.” God made everything. There's no evil thing that created evil stuff. There's no pre-existent evil stuff that existed before God created the good stuff.

So if stuff exists, but isn't evil, what's our final option, that stuff is neutral? By neutral I mean that it has no moral value. Stuff isn't right, stuff isn't wrong, it's just stuff. So a chair is neither good nor evil, nor is a tree, or a mountain, or a fountain pen. Spiders aren't evil, snakes aren't evil. Puppy dogs and cute kittens aren't good. At least stuff actually exists. But it holds no moral value one way or the other. Philosophically, this view is called neutral monism. It's the idea that only one thing really exists (matter) and that everything is made out of the same thing, when you get right down to it. Because everything is made out of the same stuff, it can't be good or evil. Rather, it's only really good or evil depending on how you use it. Eastern religions tend to call it something like a 'balance', like yin-yang in taoism. Sure, things can be different, they say, but everything balances out. You might think something is good or evil, but really it will all balance out, so it's ok. Scientifically, we'd call it, well, science. Science states that all stuff is just neutral and can be studied as such, and it's only people that put moral values onto things, and that's pretty fake.

And, probably because of science, this view tends to be the one that permeates our society, and all Western societies. So guns don't kill people, people kill people. Food isn't good, it's just a thing. If you eat too much of it, it will be evil, and if you use it as part of a balanced diet, it will be good. A car isn't good or evil – if you fill it with explosives and attack Americans with it, it's evil, and if you drive sick people to hospital with it, it's good. So really, it's not stuff that is good or bad, but it is people who make it good or evil, either by saying it's good or evil, or using it in a good or evil way.

How does this attitude, that stuff is neutral, neither good or evil, affect people's lives? If you want to know, look around. If stuff is neutral, then it means that we as humans make it good or evil. But we suck at that. How does it generally work? If we like it, it must be good. If we don't like it, it must be evil. So sunsets, puppies, good food, clean air, money – all these things are good. They make us feel good, so we value those and try to protect them and make lots of them. But spiders, disease, war, homework and pain, they are all evil. We try and get rid of those. If stuff has no value other than what humans put on it, then we give it an arbitrary value. It's this belief, when taken to its logical conclusion, that tells us it's ok to kill unborn children, or old people, or disabled people, and then farm their organs out so that we can be healthy. Peter Singer, an Australian philosopher, reckons that children up to 4 weeks old aren't real people, so it would be ok to kill them off. Why? Because he decided that you're only really a human if you've got consciousness, and apparently his measuring of consciousness means that newborn babies aren't human.

Is this what Christians believe? Do we believe that God made the world, and left us to decide whether the things in it are good or evil? Maybe some of us do. Like I said, certainly a lot of people in western countries like Australia would believe that. But is that how the Bible puts it? Let's read some and see.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good. And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And God saw that it was good. Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And God saw that it was good. And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night. And God saw that it was good. And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." And God saw that it was good. And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.

God created a good world. And not just good in that it’s nice, or pretty or pleasing or a happy fun place to live. Sometimes, it’s all those things. In Genesis 1, God describes his creation as “good” six times, and “very good” once. By good, he means “pleasing”. So God is pleased with his creation. It’s good because God is good. And when we say that God is good, we don’t mean he’s nice, or pretty or happy and fun. We mean he’s correct. Just. Loving. Righteous. In the right. We don't define God by what is good. We define good by what God is! Nothing God does is ever wrong, or evil. And that includes creation. God is good, and all his works are just. And so his creation is good. It’s not just neutral, it’s not just what we make of it. God made something of it first. He made it good. So stuff, no matter what it is, is not by its nature evil. By its nature, it is good and given by God.

Now obviously, this belief is not without its difficulties. I mean can we really believe this? Is everything, all the stuff around us, really morally good? Are nuclear warheads morally good? Spiders? Cancer? Hard for us to call these things good, isn't it? It really makes us look at what we mean when we say “good”. Like I said, we don't define God by what is good, we define good by what God is. Let me put it another way. Stuff is good, just so far as it conforms to the will of God. God's goodness comes first, it is primary. All other goodness comes from God.

So, we’ve seen how these other beliefs shape people’s attitudes and their actions. What about this one? If stuff is actually morally good, then how should we be living our lives according to stuff?

Well, firstly, we have to realise that it’s good! Paul says in Romans 14:14 “I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself”. Nothing! No food, no act, no piece of stuff is by its nature unclean, that is, profane, unholy, against God. 1 Timothy 4:4 says “For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.”

In fact, let’s keep reading 1 Timothy, because Paul seems to have a lot to say on this subject, and I think he sums up a Christian attitude to material stuff very succinctly. Paul is talking about money, and when you’re talking about stuff, money is about the best example to use – because money is basically liquid stuff. You can buy just about any stuff with money. So what does Paul say?

1 Timothy 6:17-19 “Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life.”

First thing Paul says, is that we shouldn’t be arrogant, or put our hope in wealth. Being arrogant means presuming that you’re more important than you are. Easy to do if you’ve got a bit of money. But hope in a great wealth of stuff is really no hope at all. At the least, it’s short sighted, because while stuff might be good, it isn’t eternal. Apparently, we can’t take our material wealth with us when we die, and for all the things you can buy with money, salvation isn’t one of them. If you take such a vain hope to its logical conclusion, you get idolatry! You end up putting all your trust in money to save you, putting money before God, and that is idolatry. And this isn’t just something that non-Christians can suffer from. 1 Timothy isn’t written to non-Christians, it’s written to Timothy, so that he can give these instructions to the church! So we have to take heed, and not put our hope in wealth. But that’s our own sinful nature that causes this problem of idolatry. The wealth itself is not evil.

Paul says instead that God richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment! Sometimes you can get to thinking that Christianity is a subsistence, hand-to-mouth religion, where God gives us just enough to get by, as if he’s some miser who has to count his coins every day, and that anything he gives us beyond absolute necessity we should give away. But that’s not true at all. God gives us stuff, and we are allowed to enjoy it! Now sure, we’ve got to be responsible. We’ve got to stick within the boundaries, make sure that it conforms to the will of God. But that doesn’t mean that having fun is against the rules. God is not a big dour school principal, and Christians aren’t killjoys. We are actually allowed to enjoy the things God has given us.

Paul continues, though. He says that we should “do good, be rich in good deeds, and be generous and willing to share.” There is nothing wrong with enjoying the good things that God has given you. But that’s not the whole Christian story when it comes to stuff. If that’s all we did, how would we be different from all the other people, who hoard wealth for themselves and revel in it? How would we be different from the rich Hindus who build their mansions overlooking the slums, and have no conscience about it? We are given things to enjoy, but we are also called to do good, to count our wealth not in material possessions that God has given us for enjoyment, but in the good deeds we can do for God. Paul said we should be rich in good deeds. The wealth that God has given us to enjoy, we should share, and be generous with, so that other people can enjoy it too.

So when God gives us wealth, what are we to do with it? We are to use it to do good, be rich in good deeds, and be generous and share it. To some people, that might sound irresponsible. They might say “What about stewardship? What about being wise stewards of what God has given us to look after?” Well, stewardship is important. But I think we get mixed up with what we might think is wisdom – good investment strategies, insurances, and stuff like that – and godly wisdom, which says quite simply “The most worthwhile investment is one that will pay eternal dividends”. Nothing wrong with insurance. Nothing wrong with investments. But will these things serve God's purposes? God doesn't need us to invest prudently to improve his equity. He already owns everything! And since we won't be taking this material wealth with us, what should we be doing with it? Paul says that if we share it, and are generous with it, and do good deeds, that is how we will lay up treasure for ourselves as a firm foundation for the coming age. Because life, real, true life, doesn't end when we leave this planet. This is just the beginning. The coming age is heaven, and I guarantee you that we'll spend a whole lot more time there than we will here.

So don't presume that the stuff you've got is going to get you anywhere. Stuff doesn't even have the ability to make you really truly happy, let alone to save you from your sin and put you back into relationship with God! Only God can do that. So put your hope in him. It's the same God who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. So let's enjoy it! And let's also do good, lets invest in good deeds, and let's be generous and let's share. Good stewardship, that is, looking after God's stuff with his godly wisdom instead of our earthly wisdom, that's the best way to invest our stuff. That's going to have an eternal payoff. And not only that, but it will help us to keep on track. It will help us to live the real good life. The life that starts now, and goes into eternity forever.

Let's pray:

Our heavenly Father, we thank you for the world that you made through your Word and Spirit and authority. We thank you that you have made a world that really exist, that you don't trick us with illusions. We thank you that you have not made an evil world which we have to deny or fight against. We thank you that you did not make a neutral world, and leave it to us to shape it. Father, you made a good world, a righteous world, just as you are righteous. And with those things of this world, the good stuff you have given us, the good money and wealth you have provided to us, help us to have a godly and righteous attitude towards them. Help us to use them in a way that conforms to your good and righteous will. Thank you that we can enjoy them. Thank you that we can share them. Help us to use them also to do good deeds, and to be generous. Thank you that through this transitory, material stuff, we can build relationships and help others, and so build up a treasure in heaven. Help us to treat your world as your good world. Separate us from those other, wrong beliefs about stuff, and help us to answer those who have these wrong beliefs. We ask it by the authority of Jesus, for whom and through whom all stuff was created, AMEN

--------------------------------------

Stuff: The Good, The Bad, Or The Unexistent?

Tonight we are going to look at stuff, and how we as Christians should think about stuff. First of all, though, what is stuff? When we talk about stuff in church, the first thing we often think about is clouds and winds, trees and plants, mountains, rocks, snow, beaches, oceans – basically everything in the world. And when we're talking about all the stuff in the world, we have a Christian-y word for it. What's that word?

Creation. We talk about God creating everything in the world, and the world itself. But something that I think we don't often think about when we're talking about creation is all the other stuff in the world. God created wind, but who created wind turbines? God created trees and plants, but who created houses and apartments? God created snow, but who created snow machines? And God created the sea, but who created the yachts to sail on it? I mean, if we're going to talk about stuff, surely all this stuff is included, right? Do technological devices get included in God's creation? What do you think?

I think God's creation does include all the stuff that is man-made, as we call it. This is important, too, because we are surrounded by stuff in our lives, aren't we? You got here by the use of stuff. Your rooms are cluttered with stuff, perhaps some of you literally. In fact, you're sitting on stuff right now, you're wearing stuff, and later we'll eat stuff. With this in mind, there are two questions I want us to look at tonight about stuff, and how God wants us to think about stuff, and live with stuff he's given us. The first is, very broadly, what should our attitude be to stuff? That is, how do we think about the stuff that God has made? This is an important question, because how we think about things impacts on how we act towards them, doesn't it? So we need to think about stuff, and what we believe about stuff, and see how that impacts how we live with stuff and treat stuff.

So, there are three attitudes that most of the world between them have towards stuff. They are that stuff is neutral, that stuff is evil, or that stuff does not even exist.

Now, I know you're probably scratching your heads a bit and thinking, “Who would believe that stuff doesn't exist?” So let's look at that one first. There are people in the world who believe that the material world, that is the world of stuff, is an illusion. That is, that it's a trick. It doesn't really exist at all. But they do. Hindus and Buddhists both believe that the physical world is an illusion, that they call maya. They think that all physical things are a trick which distracts us from the true reality, which is spiritual enlightenment. So tell me, if nothing in the whole world actually exists, how would that impact how you live your life?

Basically, there are two ways that this view affects your life. On the one hand, you can be like Buddha, and devote your life to ignoring the physical world and its distractions, and try and seek enlightenment so that you can reach nirvana, or a oneness with the spiritual reality, and leave the illusion of the physical world behind. The other reaction says well, since it doesn’t matter anyway, let's revel in it, and they live as greedily and as richly as they possibly can, because after all, it doesn’t matter! What ends up happening is that they can live in a big rich mansion overlooking pitiful poor slums and not care at all, or even feel guilty. After all, those people aren't really poor – they just have an illusion of poverty! Which also means you don't need to help them – you're probably helping them recognise the illusion this way.

If this is what you believed, how do you think it would impact your life and how you lived? The three big things it usually does are one of these. Firstly, you might turn your back on all material goods, and shun them, because they are evil. So no material possessions – no car, no house, perhaps the barest clothes, certainly no collecting of wealth! That's all evil. That's what you'd expect, anyway. And some people who believe this are like that. The second one is a little trickier. They believe that because the material part of them is the evil part, and the spiritual part is the good part, that they can do whatever they want with their physical bodies, because they are evil and temporary, whereas their spirit is eternal and good. So even though they say that they believe that material stuff is evil and that you should have nothing to do with it, they in fact hoard it for themselves, and are adulterous and greedy! Finally, some people who believe this just become totally fatalistic. Since they believe that their god created both good and evil, then that god must be capricious – which means whimsical or erratic, like you'll never know what they're going to do next. A lot of Muslims believe that Allah is like that – he might do good things, he might do evil things, because he's powerful and erratic. And they just say “Allah wills it” and accept it as part of Allah's nature.

Finally, we come to the idea that stuff is neutral. That is, that it has no moral value. So it exists, but it's not evil. It's not good either. It's the idea that only one thing really exists (matter) and that everything is made out of the same thing, when you get right down to it. Because everything is made out of the same stuff, it can't be good or evil. Rather, it's only really good or evil depending on how you use it. Eastern religions tend to call it something like a 'balance', like yin-yang in taoism. Sure, things can be different, they say, but everything balances out. You might think something is good or evil, but really it will all balance out, so it's ok. Scientifically, we'd call it, well, science. Science states that all stuff is just neutral and can be studied as such, and it's only people that put moral values onto things, and that's pretty fake.

How does this idea that stuff is just neutral, neither good or bad, affect how you live your life? Well, if there's no such thing as good or bad, except for what we put into our stuff when we use it, then you'd expect people to try and use their stuff to do good, and not to do bad, right? But when humans are deciding what's good and what's evil, what happens? We end up saying, “Good is what I like, and evil is what I don't like.” When we can say what's good and what's evil, good and evil become worthless. Think about the conclusion of this. If we are all created, if we are stuff, then are we good, or bad? We're neither, we're nothing. So can I just kill someone if I think it's for a good cause? They're just atoms, after all.

So what do Christians believe? Is stuff really just an illusion trying to distract us from the spiritual reality? Why not? (Gen 1:1). Is stuff evil, and trying to corrupt our pure souls, so that we should shun it and not touch it? Is stuff neutral, so that it doesn't matter what it is, we can only define good or evil by how we use stuff?

Well, let me read to you a bit from the Bible. No doubt you've probably heard it before.

How does this belief shape our actions towards our stuff? Well, the book of 1 Timothy actually has a fair bit to say about this. So I want to to look at these, and have a think about them, and discuss what you think God is saying here about how our lives should be shaped by the fact that he has made a good creation.

Now, before we move on to what we're doing tonight, I want to talk about what we'll be doing on our last night in two weeks' time. Because we are looking at stuff, and how Christians should think and act with physical possessions, I am looking at us having an eBay night on our last night of term. What does that mean? It means that over the next two weeks, you should all be looking around at all the stuff you yourselves own, and pick something that you know you can live without. Bring it, and we will take photos of it and write up a sales pitch for it, and then we will sell everything on eBay, and donate the money to those in need.

One Hand With Tranquility

2011-03-13T19:54:00.002+11:00

So, someone asked me to put this up. Here it is!

Work, the Family and our church

What do I mean by work? By work we tend to mean “those things we feel we need to do in order to provide something we think we must have”. So normal paid work (for the purpose of income generation for livelihood), study work (for the purpose of gaining good marks to progress through schooling or gain employment or understanding), house work (for the purpose of providing a comfortable household for living in and perhaps raising children in), relationship work (for the purpose of maintaining relationships so that you have those relationships), church work (for the purpose of maintaining our church so that you have a church to keep going to) etc. Basically anything we feel compelled to do for ourselves, or our family, or our church.

Those last two, family and church, are important additions. We live in a culture that tells us that the individual is so very important. This focus can often cloud our judgement on what we are doing for ourselves. We think “I’m not doing it for myself, I’m doing it for our church”, as if we’re not a member of our church, or “It’s not for me, it’s for the benefit of my family” as if providing for our family does not include ourselves. We have to escape, as Christians, that individualism our culture pushes. Yes, we do need to have responsibility for ourselves, but we also have to acknowledge our communal nature in blood family and in church family. You can’t say that you are doing something for our church and not yourself any more than you can say you’re doing something for your hands but not your body.

If you want to know if I define something as work, just ask yourself “Would I stop doing this if I/my family/my church wasn’t getting any end benefit out of it?” If the answer is yes, it is probably work. If the answer is no, then it probably isn’t work.

There is another kind of work – work we are compelled to do by an outside force. This is still work, but it is not the kind of work we will look at so much. This does include, though, working “for God” out of obedience. Basically because in doing so we are not doing something for ourselves, but we are doing something for God – obeying him. It is his grace that means that we receive something for our obedience.

How do we currently treat work in our lives? Families? Church? Firstly, we see work as a means to an end – because we see productivity as important, and we are generally working towards something that meets our felt-needs. So work as a thing in itself is not as important as the results we get out of it.

Secondly, because we live in a money-centred culture, we see paid work as more valuable than unpaid work. When I say work, most people will inevitably think of employment in a job, rather than say, house work, or university study. I want to look at all the kinds of work that are self-compelled first, but also later and God-compelled work.

Thirdly, we spend a lot of our time either doing work (if you work a 40 hour week, that takes up 24% of your time (or 36% of your waking hours if you sleep 8 hours a day), or doing things involved in our work (preparing for work, travelling to and from work, reading things about our work field, talking about work, thinking about work). We see work (particularly paid employment) as very defining in who we are. We call people “a doctor” or “a builder”. We place value on work because we spend so much of our time doing it.

Fourthly, we do see employed people as more valuable than unemployed people, which indicates that we value employment and productivity (economic productivity in this case). We then place value on work because of its productivity over activities that we don’t see as productive.

Regarding work in family life, we have a cultural picture of one person as ‘breadwinner’ (usually husband), another person in charge of household affairs (usually wife), and dependants (usually children) who don’t seem to contribute much. Grandparents are a bit of a mixed bag – if they aren’t sickly (in which case they are dependants) they are seen as contributing mostly into the lives of the grandchildren.

Regarding work in our church, there are different aspects. People don’t primarily see church as a place of work (unless perhaps they are paid by our church to work), although it is a place that calls for people to contribute.

What does the Bible say about work? Lots.

How should this impact our lives? Families? Church? By making us follow what the Bible has to say about it.

Sermon: One Handful With Traquility: or Why we should work less for God, our family and our church.

Good morning, and welcome to another in our church's series on Living in Christian Family. Today's topic is work, so we want to look at work in the context of God and our two Christian families – our household family and our church family.

I've entitled my talk for today “One Handful With Tranquility” (the spiritual title) or “Why we should work less for God, our family and our church” (the punchy title).

But before I explain any more about what they mean, we really need to understand what I'm talking about when I talk about work. Work has a lot of definitions. In fact, dictionary.com has 13 definitions for work as a noun, two as an adjective, and 25 definitions of work as a verb. Not to mention another 14 idiomatic phrases that use the word 'work' in them.

The funny thing is that even though work can mean so many different things, when I mentioned work as a topic, you probably all thought of more or less the same definition. Let's see a quick show of hands – how many people, when I said I would be doing a church talk on work, thought first of all about “the transference of energy equal to the product of the component of a force that acts in the direction of the motion of the point of application of the force and the distance through which the point of application moves”? Apparently that's the definition of work in physics. I don't know, I never did physics. I'm sure I could have asked one of our engineers about it. Not surprisingly, a sea of hands didn't shoot up. So how many people, show of hands, first thought when I mentioned work “employment, as in some form of industry”, as in “I'm off to work”, “I'm out of work”, “don't call me at work”, “where do you work?” That's more like it. Isn't that interesting? 54 definitions of work, and you pretty much all thought of the same one straight away.

Now, the Bible has a fair bit to say about work, spread throughout its books, both Old and New Testament. Let's do a flyby tour. Genesis starts by telling us that work starts, not with humanity at all, but with God. God works at creating the universe. He creates humanity, and with it he creates work for humanity to do. That work is creative, encouraging growth and beauty in the garden. Man is given ownership over his work – he gets to name the animals himself. Humanity is given a leadership role in creation – to fill the earth and subdue it. But then came the fall, when man's relationship with God was broken, and everything was effected. Work becomes cursed. Although work does not lose the capacity for creativity and beauty, it also now becomes hard and painful, and becomes the only way to provide for yourself and your family.

We then fast forward a bit to the story of Jacob, who as you may know was told he had to work for his uncle for seven years to marry his darling Rachel. So we find the idea of one person working for another, and that a worker deserves wages. Of course, not only does Jacob's uncle, Laban, pull the switcheroo on him and marry Jacob to his older daughter Leah first, but then Laban organises to pay Jacob in goats, and keeps changing which goats he will give Jacob depending on which are the weakest or least numerous! So unfortunately, we also find that workers can also be underpaid, or deprived of their wages, and this is portrayed as injustice.

Zip forward again to Exodus, and we find God's nation of Israel has fallen into slavery under the Egyptian people. Since work has become hard and painful, it can now be used as a punishment, and Pharoah uses it to punish the insolence of the Hebrews when he takes away the straw they used to make bricks.

Zipping forward a little more in Exodus, after Moses leads Israel out of Egypt, God commands his people to build a big tent for him, we call the tabernacle. It's worth noting the many references to the skilled labour of goldsmiths, metal workers, embroiderers, and other artisans which God requires for his tabernacle. So work is not just ploughing the land and shepherding flocks – God has use for skilled artisans in specific work, and he still values things of beauty made by man.

Fast forward to the book of Numbers, and we find God instituting a mandatory retirement age for the Levites – everyone over the age of fifty is bumped to an advisory capacity.

Deuteronomy makes the clear point that God is going to bless his people, but that he is going to use their work to do it. God doesn't just say “follow my laws, and riches will rain down from heaven so you can live the fat life”. He says “I will bless the work of your hands” or “I will bless everything you do”. So God uses the work of his people to provide blessing to them.

This is further seen in Joshua, when God gives the promised land over to the Israelites, but they have to work hard in battle to claim it.

Zip over to Ruth, and you will find that a godly man, Boaz, has a cordial and friendly relationship with his workers. He obviously treats them well, and they respect him. God is a relational God, and work is a relational thing. It always brings us into contact with other people. When we work, we inevitably are brought to a place where we can build relationships with other people. We also see here a strong work ethic from Ruth herself. Now, some people might say she didn't have much choice, what with her and her mother-in-law being poverty-stricken and all. But you look at how much she harvests – more than what they needed for a day's meal. She is working hard enough not just to sustain herself and her mother-in-law, but she is actually seeking to better their position of poverty.

We fast forward through to psalms, and we see all sorts of attitudes to work. In Psalm 90, Moses apparently is requesting that God bless the work of the Israelites. It shows us that since work is something that is God-given, asking him to bless it is a totally reasonable request. Psalm 107 indicates that God undesrtands the bitterness of labour, and he can use it as a device to punish or rebuke those who have wandered from him, in an effort to make them call out to him.

The book of Proverbs has a lot to say about work, but let me sum it up for you – Work hard. Hard work is good work. Skilled work will be rewarded. Hard work means you get food. If you don't work, you won't get paid.

Let's make a quantum leap over to the New Testament. Jesus talks a lot about his work, and the work that he is accomplishing, which means that in Jesus, we again see God as a God who works. John 5:17 tells us clearly that God didn't stop working after day 6 of creation back in Genesis, so don't let anyone fool you into thinking that. Jesus says “A worker deserves his wages”. The parable of the talents or minas is about working faithfully with what you have been given, and not for your own benefit, but for God's benefit.

Acts tells us about people receiving callings from God to go into specific ministry. It also tell us about 'tentmaking' – where people use their paid work to fund their Christian ministry.

Romans tells us that a worker earns his wages. They are not a charity or a gift. They are a debt. You owe a worker their wages.

1 Corinthians tells us that people who are undertaking “Christian” work deserved to get paid for it.

Ephesians tells us that stealing is not an acceptable occupation for Christians. It also tells us that our work should produce enough so that we have the ability to help others with what we earn.

1 Thessalonians tells us to be productive in our work, while 2 Thessalonians warns us not to be idle, lest we starve and die.

2 Timothy tells us that Christians have to be prepared to do any good work that God might bring before us.

James talks about the injustice of not paying workmen their wages, and how God hates such injustice.

That is just a snapshot of the many things that the Bible has to say about work. But if I'm giving a sermon on work, why did I rush through them so quickly? Because I think that as a church, and as a society in general, we have a pretty good grasp of all those concepts that I raised. I'm not saying they are important – they are vital lessons that we need to understand. They are important biblical concepts about work. But I think we know them pretty well. Hands up if, before today, you didn't know that,as Christians, God expects us to be productive? And in fact, most of these are commonly known truths. Our society knows that workers deserve wages. People know that work can be painful and hard. They know that there is value in things of beauty, not just in function.

Of course, knowing things doesn't always translate into doing things. Society may know that workers deserve wages, and yet farmers in Queensland are being investigated by the taxation office for underpaying backpackers hired for fruitpicking jobs. People know that work can be painful and hard, and yet some companies still trade in cocoa, coffee and other primary produce harvested with slave labour. But Australians are generally appauled at such unfairness and injustice. Aussies know the value of working hard.

But the other reason I'm not going to pick up any of these very important themes for my talk today is that I'm not just talking about work for work's sake. This talk is part of our “living in Christian family” series, and so what we want to look at is where work fits in with regards to our relationship with God, and with our relationships with our household family and church family.

See, Aussies know the value of working hard. In fact Australia has some of the highest unpaid overtime figures in the developed world, and Australian business owners have the second highest average work hours in the world, second only to India and Argentina (equal first). Phew. Sounds like we work a little too hard. That means we spend on average over 42% of our waking hours working (unless you're a business owner, in which case it's a flat 50%). That doesn't include time getting ready for work, time spend upskilling for work, time spent talking about work, time travelling to and from work, time reading about things to do with work, or time dreaming about work (where you dream you're at work, then you wake up tired, and you feel like you just exhausted yourself working for no pay). That's a lot of time.

Well, I would say it's too much time. The punchy title for this talk is “Why We Should Work Less For God, Our Family, And Our Church”, and I mean it. Working less will bring about a change in our relationship with God, it will change how we see and spend time with our household family, and it will revolutionise how we see what we can do for our church. I want to spend the rest of this talk addressing three myths that our society tells us about working more, three truths the Bible tells us about working less, and three active outcomes that we can expect if we follow the Bible's commands rather than this world's advice.

Myth #1: Working more makes you a more good or more godly person.

Wow, this is a big one to start with. It sounds so plausible! I mean, someone who doesn't work is lazy, and laziness isn't good. So working must be good. Obviously, then, working more makes you more good, right? I wish I could say that this myth was only prevalent in the outside world. But the truth is that this myth has pervaded the church ever since the industrial revolution. We encourage people to take on extra responsibilities, to put in the extra effort, to go the extra mile with the idea that this is a morally righteous thing to do, with the idea that it's what God wants us to do.

And then, we complain that we don't have time for daily Bible readings. We wished we prayed more. We wish we had more time to reflect on God and his character, or to buid up our relationship with God. People are busier than they've ever been. Don't tell me that this busyness doesn't impact the quality time we spend relating to God. You know it does.

Let me make this clear – God wants us to work. He doesn't want us to be lazy. But he also commands that we rest. So here's...

Biblical Truth #1: God demands that we worship him with our rest, not just with work.

We all know that for six days God created, and the Bible says that “By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.” We all know our fourth commandment, right? Exodus 20:8, “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping 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, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates”. Why did God institute this Law? Well, Exodus 23 (repeated in Deuteronomy 5) tells us that the sabbath day will allow you, your work animals and your slaves to rest and be refreshed. God knows that work is hard, and he wants people to have a chance to rest from their work, and to be refreshed. He even institutes sabbath years of rest for the land, so that it gets to rest and recuperate from being tilled and worked for 6 years. This also provides a welfare system for the poor, who are able to gather food from your land during the sabbath year. And every seven sabbath years plus one, there is Jubilee, where Jewish slaves are freed from their slave labour.

But let me ask you a question – did God rest and bless his day of rest before or after work became cursed and became hard and painful? It was before. So there's more to the sabbath than just relaxation and freedomfrom hard work. The sabbath rest is about setting apart time which is holy, a distinct time for God. God wants his people to have a time where they can focus on him without distraction. It is no surprise that God refers to the first and last day of every holy festival as a sabbath day – on which you will do no work. Those festivals were designed for God's people to remember what he had done for them, and he wanted them to have holy days where they could devote their time to God, and not be distracted by the humdrum need to work their fields or lead their oxen.

Now we don't follow the Old Testament sabbath laws. We don't stone people to death if they don't follow the Sabbath (although that might show you just how important God thought this separation of devotion between work and Him is). How then can we turn this Biblical truth into an active outcome?

Active Outcome #1: We spend more time with God, and we grow spiritually.

Jesus said that “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath”. Jesus calls himself Lord even of the Sabbath. So I don't think it's worthwhile making up a bunch of rules about making our work time distinct from our worship time with God. But we must understand the principle – that we must make sure that we have time set apart from the daily grind of work, so that we can be rested and focus on our relationship with God. The Israelites had one day out of every six, plus the first and last day of every festival, plus one year out of every seven, plus the jubilee year every 50 years. These aren't just holidays (the sabbath years you still have to eat after all), but they are holy days – set apart specifically for God's people to remember him and focus on him. Let me ask you this, and be honest – if you spent a day out of every week focussed wholly on God and your relationship with God, do you think your prayer life would be better? Do you think your spiritual walk with God would be closer? I think mine would.

So what does the modern day sabbath look like? Is it even possible for us to take a day every week to focus on God, let alone year off of work every seven years to concentrate on God? I don't know, to be honest. What I do know is that we have a number of opportunities available to us. Whether you choose to get involved in a regular bible study group or study full time at Bible college, whether you give up a week of your work to be involved at a camp at Camp Kedron, or give up 6 months of your work to go on a short-term mission trip to help a missionary team. Perhaps you are planning on dedicating a significant portion of your retirement to God? Whatever appeals to you, let me just reiterate – God wants us to spend time away from work with him. Remember Mary and Martha – Martha “was distracted by all the preparations that had to be made”, but “Mary had chosen what is better, and it would not be taken away from her.”

Myth #2: Working more provides more for your family.

Our society tries to tell us that if we work more, we will be able to earn more, and therefore provide more for our families – a larger house, another car, a private school education, a lump sum to help children buy their first home, a laptop to help them with their studies – whatever it might be. And truth be told, there is nothing wrong with any of these things. In fact, we read in 1 Timothy that “If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever”. But for some, providing these material goods becomes all consuming. Often both parents will work in order to provide more for the family. The truth is...

Biblical Truth #2: Families need more than money.

The Bible says in Ecclesiastes chapter 4 verse 6, which reads “Better one handful with tranquility, than two handfuls with toil and chasing after the wind”. The wise writer of Ecclesiastes wants us to know that we should work hard.The verse before says “The fool folds his hands and ruins himself”. So being idle is ruin. But he also wants us to know that it is better to work to have what we need, a handful, and maintain tranquility, rather than work for two handfuls, more than we need, and suffer the pain of toiling, not to mention suffering the meaninglessness of chasing after more.

Throughout this series on the family so far, we have seen some important aspects of the Christian family. We've heard about the necessity for discipline as a desirable tool for growth. We've heard about the centrality of marriage and the importance of the relationship between husband and wife. We've heard about the need for the Christian household to be a place where people can see and hear and discuss the truth about God. Remember the Shema? “These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. 7 Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. 8 Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. 9 Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.” We hear all these things, and we think “That's great, but where will I find the time to do them?” We simply can't afford to think like that. We should be thinking “The Bible commands us to do all these things – how will I make sure that I am doing them?”

Active Outcome #2: We end up spending more time with our families, rather than more money on them.

It will be that some people can afford to provide a wealth of material benefits to their families, as well as being able to spend time developing the relationship with their spouse and children. But for many of us, we hold those two in a balance, in a tension. And if we listen to society, it will tell us that the balance should be tipped in favour of work. I was told at a marriage enrichment seminar last week that companies used to look for people who were happily married – the idea being that if you're happy at home, you'll be happy at work, and hence more productive. Companies don't hire like that anymore. They now want their employees to be “married” to their work, and they will look for people who are prepared to put their work lives ahead of their family lives. The workplace provides restaurants, gyms, sporting facilities, showers, even bedrooms. Why? To keep their workers at work! And then we wonder why young people feel disconnected from their working parents. We wonder why they have an attitude of getting everything handed to them, rather than earning it for themselves. Ecclesiastes says that is meaningless! And Jesus repeats it! “A man's life does not exist in the abundance of his possessions” he said.

As Christians, we have to swing the balance in the other direction. Work is necessary to provide for our families. But our society is telling us that spending money on our families is more important than spending time with them. It's a myth. God's plan of sabbath rest is not just made for individuals. It is made for the whole family. We should be spending time away from work so that we as families can focus on God together, can worship God together, and can celebrate God together! The sabbath rest is for you, your son and your daughter, your servants, even your animals. God says that sabbath rest “is a sign between me and you for the generations to come”. If we heed Biblical truth, we will make sure that our whole family puts God in the proper place.

Myth #3: Working more give you job security.

Did you notice that I said Australia has some of the highest unpaid overtime figures in the developed world? Unpaid overtime! Working extra hours for no extra money! Do you know why most people do that? The statistics say that it is because people feel that they need to keep up the hard work, or they will lose their jobs. And of course, when you've got a mortgage on a house you can barely afford, a maxxed out credit card, and debt on your new car, you can't afford to lose your job, or else you'll lose everything.

Unfortunately, this idea that working more provides job security, which has hypnotised our society, is a complete myth. Why? Because...

Biblical Truth #3: It is God who provides for us, not work.

How often do we have to re-learn this principle? God says, “Now listen, you who say, "Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money." 14Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. 15Instead, you ought to say, "If it is the Lord's will, we will live and do this or that.” It is God that provides us with work, and provides for us through work. If we fall for this myth that work provides us with security, then we are in fact turning work into an idol.

God has no problem frustrating the work of man in order to bring their attention back to him. Job 37 tells us “He says to the snow, 'Fall on the earth,' and to the rain shower, 'Be a mighty downpour.' So that all men he has made may know his work, he stops every man from his labor.” Psalm 107 shows us that God understands the bitterness of labour, and uses it as a device to punish or rebuke those who have wandered from him, in an effort to make them call out to him.

We have to learn to put God in charge of our provision, to make God our plan for job security, because then...

Active Outcome #3: We begin to value what God values – work with eternal reward.

Just after he spoke about life being more than our possessions, Jesus said “do not set your heart on what you will eat or drink; do not worry about it. 30For the pagan world runs after all such things, and your Father knows that you need them. 31But seek his kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well.”

Now I've been talking about work, but basically using it as a synonym for employment. But there's a problem with simply defining work as employment. In the household family, depending on the age of the kids, it's possible to have at any one time: grandparents who are retired, kids at school or still at home, a wife/mother looking after those kids and the household, and then you've only got the husband/father “working” in the sense we just defined, unless he finds himself out of work! So then my talk would only be talking to people who were employed in some industry. But we have all these other people in our church. Let's ask some people from these different groups and see what they think. Juliette Hackett, are you currently employed in some vocation? Do you think you still do work? What kind of work? Graham Marlin – are you currently gainfully employed? Do you think you still work? What kind of work? Child X – do you have a paid job? Do you think you still do any kind of work? What do you do? Peter Weldon, are you currently employed? Do you think you still do any kind of work? What kind of work?

Work suddenly becomes pretty big, doesn't it? It involves employment, yes, but also maintaining a household, study, volunteerism and more. We need to expand our concept of work to take in these things so that we can properly relate what the Bible has to say about work to our lives.

God says in Colossians, “And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him” and then “Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men, 24since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving.”

Our church tradition has been built on the idea of the priesthood of all believers – that we all can contribute to the work of our church. And we can do that with our employment – whether it be by assisting in the building project because you're skilled at building, or helping to fund the work of our church with your wages. But if work starts to get in the way of us being actively involved in the work of our church, God's eternal work of building up the kingdom of God, then we have to put it in its place. Whether work is taking our time away from directly impacting the kingdom, or simply making us so stressed that we can't keep loving fellowship with our fellow church members, it has to be put in its place. This doesn't mean that we ditch our jobs. It just means that it is an untenable situation that has to be resolved, and it has to be resolved for the benefit of God's kingdom first, rather than our provision. Sometimes that means making a sacrifice. But it is through sacrifice that God's kingdom grows. Just look at anyone who has been involved in Camp Kedron. People give up a week of work to help lead on a camp, reschedule entire semesters of study to provide bible studies, or donate their entire lives to seeing the ministry of God continue.

I know I might have sounded like I am anti-work this morning, but that's not my point at all. I just want us to know that work must exist as just one part of our lives, as we seek to serve God, our families and our church. We have to be serious about putting God first in our lives, and in our modern society, that means not letting work take our focus away from God.

Amen

John 4:1-42

2011-03-13T08:24:00.003+11:00

I've been working, honest! Again, even though these aren't to be given until May, I'm steadily using my mornings to complete them. Anyway, without further ado, here is my second sermon on John 3-4.

Sermon 2: John 4:1-42

* Paganism isn't good enough, but neither is Judaism. The way to God is through Jesus alone.

Are we putting Jesus to people – his claims, his deity, his authority? Or are we putting our own form of Christianity to them, our own religion?

* Through talking with Jesus, we are apt to find out more about ourselves – challenging stuff. Will we still seek him after that?

* In the way that Nicodemus and the Baptist's disciples could not accept Jesus, so this Samaritan woman does accept him, even without firstly understanding him.

* Jesus talks to the disciples about God's work – the hard and easy work of sowing and reaping his word for salvation.

* The Samaritan woman first tells people about Jesus, then brings them to meet Jesus – and they hear for themselves, and know that Jesus is the Saviour of the world.

Sermon 2 words

Who here has played Monopoly? Who can tell me what happens when you land on the Free Parking square in Monopoly? You might be interested to hear, straight from the Monopoly rulebook, “A player landing on this place does not receive any money, property or reward of any kind. This is just a "free" resting-place.” And yet the 'house rule' for receiving tax money is incredibly popular, with as many as half of people asked believing that it is an actual rule of the game. You might even have some other house rules that you have played Monopoly by in the past. Now, there is nothing wrong with playing Monopoly any way you like. But if you teach your children how to play with house rules, say with the Free Parking rules, were they to go to a Monopoly tournament (yes, they exist) they would be seen as not playing by the official rules.

Now, imagine a world where part of your family lineage, part of your national heritage, and part of your cultural identity was wrapped up in how you played Monopoly. The 'Free Parkers' won't allow their kids to play with the 'Station Builders'. Marriage between '$400 GO landers' and the 'Time Limiters' were forbidden. The 'No Auctioneers' had public debates with the 'Money Lenders'. Sometimes these arguments would come to blows. Different players dressed differently, used different language, had different copies of the rulebook. You have to list how you play Monopoly on your CV to get a job. There are those who turn their backs on Monopoly all together, and play cards. Sounds crazy, doesn't it.

Back in Jesus' day, just like today, there are lots of different, competing ways that people seek to get to God, or to achieve spiritual enlightenment, or to satisfy their spiritual nature. Jesus was a Jew, a member of the Hebrew race who worshipped God through what we call Judaism today. In chapter 4 of John, Jesus happens across a Samaritan woman. Samaritans were the result of mixed blood between Israelites of the old kingdom, mixed with other races and religious beliefs. They were of the opinion that the Jews had it wrong, that only the first five books of the Old Testament were scripture, the books of Moses, and that you didn't worship God at the temple in Jerusalem, but at a holy mountain in their lands. Jews of Jesus' day saw these people as outcasts, and treated them like outsiders, foreigners. They would not eat with them or interact with them. So when Jesus is sitting at a well, and a Samaritan woman comes up and he asks her for a drink, they're not just strangers, they are enemies. There were two different types of monopoly played here. Jews did not ask Samaritans for a glass of water.

The Samaritan woman knows this as well as Jesus does, and so she points it out, verse 9, “You're a Jew and I'm a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?” But Jesus expected such a response. For him, this conversation wasn't going to be about simply food and drink – nor was it going to be simply about Jews and Samaritans not getting along. He responds with one of those cryptic messages that John was so fond of recording in his gospel, saying that if she asked, he would give her living water. Now, living water is not like Sydney water. It's not living because it's got a bunch of bacteria in it. It's living because it gives life – it is water of life.

Now, if you were here last week, you will remember that Jesus said something similarly cryptic to Nicodemus, the Pharisee of the ruling council. He said to Nicodemus, “You must be born from above,” or, “You must be born again.” Nicodemus didn't understand, thinking Jesus was speaking literally. And so the Samaritan woman's response is the same, not understanding what Jesus says. Jesus offered her water, and she responds that the well is deep, and he doesn't have a bucket, so how can he offer her water? Is he greater than Jacob, the father of the nation of Israel, who dug the well?

So Jesus takes it to the next level, and explains what he means by living water, at verse 13, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14 but those who drink the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” That is pretty clear, right? He's not offering water, he's offering eternal life. Jesus unpacks his meaning for her, to make it clear. But she still doesn't understand. He offers her eternal life, she is looking for comfort in this life. She says, “Give me this water, so that I don't have to come out here every day and draw water.”

Jesus came to offer life, in the full, eternally with God. He came with an offer of forgiveness from God, an offer of eternal life with him in heaven. But you know what most people want? They want to be spared walking to the well every day. Jesus offers the kingdom of God, we just want comfort, security, and easy living. Nowadays, many of us in the west don't need to walk to a well to draw water. We can get a drink whenever we want. Tell me, has sparing us that need to walk to the well every day made us any happier? Are we all ready to come to God and seek his kingdom, now that we can get a drink from the tap? Look at your own prayer life – what you pray for yourself and pray for others. If someone is sick, you pray for them to get well. If someone is unemployed, you pray for them to get a job. If they're studying, you pray for good marks. Those things are all good.

But if you stop there, you actually do not have these people's best interests at heart, or if praying for yourself, your own best interests. Because sick people getting well will get sick again. Unemployed people who get jobs will lose them again. Instead, your prayers should focus on the kingdom of God. Pray that someone gets better from their illness, why? Not just so they have a good time and feel better, but so that God might be glorified, and that in doing so they might come closer to God, and give him the glory. Sometimes, what someone might need is a bit of suffering, a bit of discomfort, some problems or obstacles, so that they rely on God more, or concentrate on putting him first. It might be hard to pray for someone to suffer, but you can definitely pray that they will prioritise God as number one, and that whatever happens, that will be their focus. And you should try and make that your focus – that God will always be number one in your life, regardless of the situation, and regardless of the consequences.

So Jesus' offer isn't clear to the woman, but there is something different between the Samaritan woman and Nicodemus. Nicodemus was convinced that what Jesus was offering, being born of the spirit, wasn't possible. This woman, though she is still thinking in earthly terms of water, does think God can do it, and so she asks for the water. And so now Jesus continues to reveal his power, but in an even more challenging way. He miraculously shows the woman that he knows all about her life – and her sinful past. He points out that she's had five husbands, and now she is with another man, to whom she is not married. Let this be a warning to all of us – living with Jesus can be challenging. He will quite readily point out your flaws, your sinfulness, your wrongness before God. Remember what we said last week – that Christians are not less sinful, we just bring their works into God's light to be exposed so that we can ask for help and admit our failures. Jesus even takes the first step with this woman, by exposing her failures, and that can happen to us too – sometimes that exposure can be personal, where God makes us conscious of actions that we are keeping secret, and sometimes those actions can be made public, where everyone gets to see them. That's confronting to think about. But remember – Jesus knew all this about the woman before he offered her eternal life. Sin is not a barrier to heaven, if you are prepared to admit it, and let Jesus deal with it.

It's not over yet for the Samaritan woman, though. Jesus has spoken to her about eternal life, has sought to clear up her confusion, and has even challenged her sinfulness. But she still has questions – now, about how to worship God. Verse 20, “Our ancestors worshipped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.” As I said earlier, there are two kinds of spiritual Monopoly in this woman's mind – the Jewish way of worshipping in Jerusalem, and her people's way of worshipping on the mountain. She still has her prejudices, and may now be trying to stump Jesus, to force him into admitting that if she wants to come to God, she has to give up worshipping on the mountain and come to Jerusalem to worship in the temple. Or maybe she is worried that, even after all this talk, she will be excluded from God, as the Samaritan woman adulteress that she is.

Jesus' answer to her question is incredible. It is difficult to understand how earth-shattering this message is. So I want you to go back to thinking about Monopoly for a moment. What if I were to tell you that, since 2008, Hasbro has been adding a third dice to all Monopoly sets? I'm not lying. It's called the speed die, and it has the numbers 1 to 3, a picture of a bus, and two pictures of Mr Monopoly on it. You're probably wondering, “How does that even work? What does the bus do? It seems to completely change the game, and I don't even understand how it works.” Well, the Samaritan woman is now being told by Jesus that a time is coming when the established religious rules of the Jews and the Samaritans will both be found inadequate. God seeks worshippers who will worship him in the Spirit and in truth. The rules about how people come to God have changed. Playing by the old rules just won't cut it any more – not for Samaritans, not even for Jews.

What does it mean to worship in the Spirit and in truth? She doesn't really understand, but says that she has faith the Messiah will come, the anointed, special one of God, and he will explain such things. Imagine her surprise when Jesus informs her, “I am the one you are talking about.” So what does he mean by worshipping in the Spirit and in truth? In the context of their conversation, I would say Jesus is talking about a time when people don't worship God because they are born a Jew, or raised a Samaritan, or because their culture simply tells them to. They will worship by God's Spirit, who will live inside them. And they won't go to a temple to do it, or a mountain – the book of Hebrews tells us those things are just copies, shadows of heaven, they aren't the real thing. Jesus is the truth, he will say so later in the book of John. By God's Spirit, we can worship him directly, without a temple, without a mountain, without a shrine, without a priest – directly, truly, personally – as directly and personally as the Samaritan woman was talking to Jesus. That is the incredible truth of Jesus' words.

At this point in time, the disciples return (they'd gone to buy food, remember?) and the Samaritan woman leaves, with everything Jesus has said is mulling over in her head. She goes back to her town, and this woman – this five times divorcee, currently living with a man but not married to him, this disgraced woman who has to go and collect water in the middle of the day because she can't go with the other women in the cool of the afternoon – she goes back to her town and tells people about the man she just met, because she wants to bring them to meet Jesus.

The disciples don't ask what Jesus was doing alone with a Samaritan woman at a well in the middle of the day. They do offer him something to eat, though. But unsurprisingly, after his discussion with the Samaritan woman, Jesus wants to turn the conversation to talk about the kingdom of God, so at the same time that the Samaritan woman is trying to convince the people of her town to come and meet Jesus, Jesus is telling his disciples, verse 35, “Don’t you have a saying, ‘It’s still four months until harvest’? I tell you, open your eyes and look at the fields! They are ripe for harvest. 36 Even now those who reap draw their wages, even now they harvest the crop for eternal life, so that the sower and the reaper may be glad together. 37 Thus the saying ‘One sows and another reaps’ is true. 38 I sent you to reap what you have not worked for. Others have done the hard work, and you have reaped the benefits of their labour.”

Even now, as he says these words, the Samaritan woman is telling her townsfolk, vs 29, “Come, see a man who told me everything I ever did. Could this be the Messiah?” 30 They came out of the town and made their way toward him.” She is reaping a harvest – people are coming to meet Jesus. But she didn't sow the crop. Who sowed the crop? Well, for the Samaritans, it started with Moses, writing the law. Then the Samaritan priests taught the people about God, about his law, and about a coming messiah. These people were hungry with hope, hungry for a saviour. Do you ever wonder why there was always a throng of people around Jesus? Why, in the book of Acts, thousands of people come to join the disciples? Because God's people had taken years, decades, even centuries, sowing the seed, teaching them about God, about the Messiah's coming, and growing in them a desire to know God better.

Australia has never been much of a country for reaping, either agriculturally or spiritually. It's people are hard-hearted. Many come from generations of people who have always viewed the church sceptically. And yet so many Australian churches use American models of church planting and evangelism that act as if 40% of people already go to church, and are happy discussing religious topics in public with strangers or acquaintances! Thank God that we have a trickle of immigrants coming into Australia who really are hungry to learn about Jesus, because after people live here a while, they get enculturated – that is, they take on the local attitudes – and grow to think that religion is worthless and talking about spiritual things is taboo. It takes a lot of sowing to reap anything for the kingdom here. Building relationships, answering questions, helping with needs, correcting stereotypes, showing understanding and love – these things need to be done so that when people hear the message, they won't ignore it, or blow it off, or misunderstand it.

The Samaritan woman wants to introduce people to Jesus. Her story is far more like ours than that of most others mentioned in the gospels. Most people in the gospels come directly to Jesus, but that doesn't happen much now. People today don't seek Jesus out. The Samaritan woman is not a Jew – neither are most of us. She wants to introduce people to Jesus, like we do. But first, she has to tell them about Jesus, and the impact he has made on her – we need to do the same. It is only then that the villagers agree to come and meet this Jesus for themselves.

This is, of course, our aim – to get people to meet Jesus themselves, to know him like we know him. But most people today will not go seeking Jesus out. They need others who know Jesus to come and tell them about him. Only then, once they have seen the impact he has on our lives, will they come to meet him themselves. When the people from the Samaritan village actually did come and meet Jesus, they urged him to stay for two days, and because they met him, many of them came to believe that he was the Messiah. They said afterwards to the woman, v 42, “We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Saviour of the world.”

Telling people the message isn't enough. Showing them how Jesus has changed your life isn't enough. Even bringing people to church is not enough. The time has come when God does not accept the prayers of Samaritans at their holy mountain – though they still pray there. The time has come where God does not accept the prayers of the Jews at their temple in Jerusalem – though they still pray at the wailing wall. God only wants one kind of worshipper – those who worship in the Spirit and in truth. Later, in chapter 14, John records how Jesus told the disciples about how the Holy Spirit would come to them once Jesus was gone. He said, “I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever – the Spirit of truth.” This is the only way people can worship God – by his Spirit, which comes to live within them. Not by race, not by ritual, by God's own Spirit.

Think about that when next you are talking to a non-Christian. Has your focus been to try and get them to come to church? To try and change their lifestyle habits? Or has it been to get them to come and meet Jesus? What they need, what we all need, is to realise that earthly temples and mountains will pass away – churches die, whole denominations fail, but Jesus said he will send us another advocate who will help us and be with us forever – the Spirit of truth. That is where our faith should rest, and that is where we should be bringing people – to meet Jesus, to hear his claims of deity and of authority, and to accept his ways, and to worship God in the Spirit and in truth.

Let's pray.

While sermons continue to be written...

2011-02-22T08:07:00.005+11:00

I figured I'd wax on a little about a topic raised elsewhere, regarding whether we should rethink sermons in church, and wondering if sermons are perhaps overrated as a part of church life.

I actually agree with the idea that sermons might be getting past their use-by date, and I give sermons all the time. This topic has actually vexed me for a few years now.

Let's start with a little history. The idea of having a person stand up and give a talk to a large group of people in order to persuade them of something (let's say bigger than a family) goes back a long way. I won't pretend to know how long it goes back. I can take you back to Ancient Greece, where the sophists and other classical rhetorists set up schools to teach people how to do this (Paul talks of such people in 2 Cor 11:5-6). Being able to stand up and say something persuasive was not just a method of gaining political power (like Pericles giving a funeral oratory), or sway the masses to come to your point of view (Acts 17:22-31, Paul does it himself) - it was actually something that could earn you a living in and of itself (so the great Demosthenes himself started out).

(Of course, we could go even further back, and look at what is possibly the first great speechs of the Old Testament - given by Moses in the Pentateuch. But I think our modern day sermon styles are far more built on the Greek style that was the way it was done under Rome in Jesus' time, than it was on truly ancient speech-giving such as at the time of Moses.)

Next, it is perhaps worth saying a thing or two about the purpose of sermons in churches, that their effectiveness can be all the more accurately measured. To talk about preaching as a subset of teaching is perhaps correct, and I've heard that said a lot, although I think it may confuse the matter (much like saying philosophy is a subset of thinking makes it sound like your internal monologue about what you will have for breakfast is somehow a higher class of thought to which metaphysics might aspire). Better to say that they overlap in places. In my opinion, teaching is the passing on of information; preaching is the act of attempting to persuade your audience to respond to and/or act on your message. (The good old Macquarie Dictionary separates the two in a somewhat similar fashion - "preach: to advocate or inculcate (religious or moral truth, right conduct, etc.) in speech or writing" "teach: to impart knowledge or skill; give instruction".)

So, to simply talk about preaching in terms of how people learn is, I think, to miss a bit of what preaching is about. Preaching and teaching are not the same thing, in my opinion. I can go back and flick through all my education books from my teaching degree, and I can throw up a half dozen models which attempt to outline how people learn (my favourite was Multiple Intelligences which was invented by a guy called Howard Gardner, where he says that everyone learns through at least seven different methods: Linguistic, Logical-Mathematical, Visual-Spatial, Body-Kinesthetic, Musical-Rhythmic, Interpersonal, Intrapersonal) but the learning is only part of the object of preaching.

In fact, in a perfect world, you would only need to teach people incidentals pieces of information that were relevant facts allowing them to make informed decisions on the topic about which you are trying to persuade them. But since sermons have been given more and more the job of teaching people what the Bible says, there comes less and less time for them to do the job of convincing and eliciting.

Interestingly, this is a topic that pretty much does not arise in teaching at all (or wasn't really touched on in my degree). You look at how to get the information from your brain (or, more popularly in modern teaching, a textbook, the teacher being a mildy-trained daycare supervisor who may or may not actually know anything about what they are teaching beyond what is in the textbooks, which themselves are dubious) into the brains of others. You don't look at how to actually persuade them that this knowledge is worth acting on, or that it should be responded to a certain way. (Actually, that isn't entirely true. You could make an argument that by only teaching one method, or one set of facts, or one opinion, that you are causing persuasion by controlling access to information. I actually think you'll find the teaching curriculum very much has this in mind, too. One might call this less 'persuasion' and more 'force'.)

No doubt more than one person has written stuff about the topic of how to get people to do things, though. But I find it scary to think I completed a whole teaching degree, and this was not even touched on beyond perhaps looking at Pavlovian conditioning. I have always said that education is not a solution to the world's ills. While it is a popular idea that if you just teach people enough information, they will make the right decision, this not only flies in the face of historical fact, it also is theologically bankrupt.

Unfortunately, this rather disturbing epiphany regarding my dearth of knowledge around the factors of persuasion threatens to derail my whole train of thought. So what I have to do, I think, in order to continue, is to look briefly at what I think the factors involved in persuasion are (which is, unfortunately, going to be informed by my own feelings, thoughts, and anectdotal evidence - pehaps far from perfect, although one might call this the very basis of philosophical thought - but it will at least allow forward momentum) so that I can further analyse this remarkable concept that the role of a sermon is to persuade.

So far as I can see, a person's decision-making is shaped by a million different things, many of them probably unique to that individual. But the question is, can I think of some sort of symmetry into which I can break up these things? My first instinct (reinforced by a little afterthought) is to think of levels (perhaps the wrong word... but just assume I'm not creating a hierarchy for the moment) of acceptance of truth, or at least reasonableness. But let's take a step or two back from that. First principles first.

To enable persuasion, you need, first, consciousness. This, I think, helps to separate persuasion from what might bluntly be called force, but perhaps more correctly needs to be called response to stimuli. While it is true that a caterpillar walking along a wall can be made to walk in a different direction by placing a flaming match near it, that doesn't really count as persuasion. I think that might be simply called response to stimuli. It's not so much the fact that you are threatening the beast with pain or death - one can imagine a martyr-to-be being persuaded by someone that it is not worth throwing away their life for the sake of their beliefs - it is more that the beast doesn't decide whether or not it will throw itself into the flames. It just avoids the pain as a matter of course. A true decision is being made by the would-be martyr, even though there is an attempt to coerce a decision by force. So in terms of this idea, "consciousness" refers to the ability to make decisions abstractly, rather than simply having them determined by outside phenomena. So a consciousness can be persuaded. Can it be forced? I might leave that for now. What is consciousness made up of? I'm hoping we'll get a better picture of that as we go.

What else do we need for persuasion? Probably another consciousness, to do the persuading. But not necessarily. Although I think you do need at least your own consciousness. Although we might say, "The facts persuaded me," I think that's a trick of the language. What might be more correct is to say, "I persuaded myself by acceptance of the facts." When alone, and considering whether or not to jump off a cliff to its bottom, it is not the cliff, nor the height, nor the perceived spectre of possible injury, or a fear of heights, that persuades you - it is your own consciousness appealing, in whatever way, to itself, using these as tools in its arsenal to bring about a decision.

It looks like we also need a decision to make. There can't really be persuading without a decision to persuade on. Now, that decision might be as simple as an either/or "take the left door or the right door". Or it might be as complex as, "Accept this as true," or "Conduct yourself in this way."

So, with the structures required for persuasion to take place sorted out, perhaps now we can look at levels of acceptance of truth, or reasonableness. But those two terms themselves cause us a little bit of problem. For starters, they can make it seem like all decisions are based on truth or reason. Anyone who has met another human being knows this is not the case. Perhaps we should repackage this idea as levels of acceptance of persuasion. I think it's good to look at this from the perspective of the persuadee - after all, the job of persuasion is to elicit a response from the persuadee, and so surely the persuader has to work within the bounds set by the persuadee's levels of acceptance of persuasion - persuadabilities, we'll call them.

What makes up a person's persuadabilities? I think logical reasoning certainly makes up part of it. It's hard to persuade someone to believe or do something illogical. Not impossible, though, especially when the illogic is complex or deeply buried. Of course, it is also possible for people to make decisions to believe, accept or do things that are illogical - proving not only that logical thought is not the only, or even primary, tool in human decision-making. So for example, logic might tell us "A and B" implies A. Attempting to persuade someone that the statment "A and B" does not actually imply, or even require, A, is a hard ask. Having said that, I'm sure you can think of a time when someone you know has acted on or accepted such a premise - I think of a quote from Futurama where That Guy says, "Delivery has nothing to do with the delivery business," hence proving that corporate business is fundamentally illogical. The existence of logical fallacies goes a long way to prove that illogic can be persuasive.

Something's reasonableness is probably a little more difficult to define, but let's go with reason as the process of thought which goes into seeing if something is probable to a point of acceptance. The word "thought" there is to separate it from what comes after - so we are sticking to thought processes here. Still, a lot of stuff feeds into reason. Perhaps we could call reason "the process of interpreting facts, or assumptions pretending to be facts". Reasoned belief is what you use when you sit on a chair, assuming it will hold your weight. There is a probability that it won't - either that it was built badly, is old and frail, or has been sabotaged to fail. Unless you live a life wholly more exciting than mine, though, those probabilities are probably fairly small, and so you sit without first testing every chair you meet. This measurement of probabilities happens in an instant, but takes into account historical experience, anecdotal evidence, all sorts of knowledges, beliefs and assumptions.

Our senses also inform a part of our decision-making. Whereas using reason alone one might read a statement such as "the object is made of metal" and come to the conclusion on the balance of probabilities that the object is solid (to be rather shocked when they find the object is made of mercury at room temperature, which is a liquid), information about an object's physical characteristics discovered by physical senses may assist in determining more facts. I want to separate our senses from our thought life, though. While senses are probably primarily an information gathering tool, we no doubt use them in the way we make decisions. I suppose one could make the argument that the senses give us information, and then we think about it, process it, and decide using thought. Could be true. But I think there is more to it. Think about when you eat something that contains a food you don't like - I don't like coffee at all. Someone puts chocolate brownies in front of me and I go, "Ooooh, brownies!" but I take one bite and I find that they used a teaspoon of coffee in their recipe, and I decide not to eat any more. That decision is not so much based on the information that I don't like coffee (I eat things made with olive oil, and I don't like olives). It is based pretty much straight on sensory perception (tastes bad, not eating this). That I am willing to try eating a Calypo every few years, despite knowing full well I don't like them, is proof that I can be persuaded to ignore my senses (and my reason).

So now we come to things that are probably even harder to quantify. Think of emotions, cultural conditioning, and natural stasis. These all play a part in decision-making. If something makes you feel good (not just in a sensory way, but emotionally) you may well go along with it - donating to charity, perhaps. Cultural conditioning may simply be peer pressure on a grander scale, but I would say that there is an element of decison-making that is wrapped up in the identity of the maker as part of a culture. The actions permissible under the effects of intoxication are a fascinating example, in their difference between various alcohol-consuming cultures, and their acceptance of, for example, anti-social behaviour. Natural stasis could possibly just be called laziness, but it's a huge hurdle in matters of persuasion. Whether linked to a desire for idleness, a preference for the familiar, or a belief in conservatism, the fact is that it is difficult for people to make change, as a rule. Tell someone that if they invest their savings in your firm instead of the firm they are currently invested in, and they will make exactly the same amount of money, and they won't change. You need to offer something more to overcome their inertia.

Some thoughts about persuasion, as opposed to coercion. I would seek to define persuasion as "the act of attempting to achieve a decision being made by someone through affecting their persuadabilities." Coercion, on the other hand, would be "the act of limiting the persuadabilities of someone in order to achieve their making a certain decison." The first thing to be acknowleged here is that it is pretty much impossible to force someone to make a decision. Hold a gun to someone's head and say "Eat this cake or I will shoot you," does not rob them of their ability to make the decision between the two options - it merely attempts to limit their options by making one of their persuadabilities very loud.

Coercion, however, is not always evil - building a wall in front of a cliff might limit people's choices about how they interact with the cliff, but it also stops them from falling or jumping to their deaths. By that same token, persuasion is not always good. Giving someone false information, or tricking their senses, is not attempting to limit their persuadabilities, but is still wrong - convincing someone with a logical fallacy could fit into this category.

It's interesting that, looking at persuasion in this way, rather than preaching being a subset of teaching, teaching actually becomes a subset of preaching - informing people of data so that they might later make a decision based on that data. After all, that is the end, isn't it? We don't teach people things merely so they know them, do we? We hope that by their knowing them they will be persuaded to do something - be a good citizen, recycle, kill the enemy, whatever. It is by not teaching them, or only telling them a little bit of information, or one side of an argument, that we may well be coercing them.

Anyway, that little thought game has helped me understand my own thoughts on persuasion a fair bit. Back to preaching in churches. If the purpose of preaching is to persuade people, then obviously sermons is not the only method of doing so.

It's worth considering how disruptive it would be to the church model to displace sermons. For all its faults, it is probably efficiency that keeps it in its place. The "preacher speaks, audience listens" model works at every size, from tiny church to massive convention. While there are other forms that allow delivery of persuasion and information, that might even work better on a per individual basis, they tend to lose efficiency when multiplied up - either they just don't work with large groups, or the amount of work in including more people becomes exponentially large.

Another point, that I think we don't make enough of historically, is that listening to preachers was as massively popular form of entertainment. People could make a living just going from place to place giving speeches (and yes, I know this still happens, but not so much for entertainment any more). That's sort of fallen from favour these days. People would rather watch TV (and not just watch people give speeches on TV either).

I have often wondered what church would be like if, as the centrepiece of our services, we were offering up something that people actually found entertaining, that also offered the delivering of persuasive and informative messages. What methods of communication are open to us that would be entertaining as well as informative and persuasive? Question and answer times is perhaps a starting point. Discussion groups are obviously one model that flows from that, where conversation facilitators have the role of leading conversation to certain conclusions that people should consider in their own lives. I guess you could go on mass outings, and actually take people by the hand and get them to do what it is you are wanting them to do, so they get a feel for it.

To include teaching, persuasion and entertainment, I actually like the idea of using roleplaying games. Yeah, they're not for everyone, but then, that's why we have a bazillion denominations - for differences in practice as much as dogma. Some people find roleplaying fun, and it is very difficult not to learn things from roleplaying (in the same way it's difficult not to learn things from living). It provides a safe sort of practice area for exploring different aspects of ideas, concepts, and even actions. And, it can be a great generator of further discussion on issues which you seek to persuade on, because it helps to make them more directly and immediately relevant.

Obviously it's a bias that I have, due to it being an activity I enjoy. But it seems to fit the bill a little more easily than sport, or watching TV. And even if it only inspired a church to be built up from nerds, that would still be awesome.

Three sermons on John - sermon 1: John 3

2011-02-13T10:10:00.004+11:00

So this is what my mornings get used up on when I have been asked to preach a three sermon series less than a month from now.

Edit: Did I say less than a month? I meant 12 weeks away. Apparently, I can't tell the difference between March and May. They both start with M, leave me alone! It was wondering, too, because normally this church gives me so much lead time - it's one of the reasons I like them.

Sermon 1: John 3:1-36

John 3 – Jesus makes it clear who he is (John the Baptist backs him up). Will you accept him or reject him? Your judgement is in your hands. You can choose what your judgement will be.

Will you reject him like the Pharisees (who are supposed to love God, but don't when he confronts them – thinking we can get to God ourselves), or like the Baptist's disciples (who are jealous, and don't listen to their own teacher, because Jesus does things in ways we don't like)?

Or will we accept Jesus for who he is, accepting that we can't do anything to come into God's family, but he must make us born from above (like John the Evangelist 3:16-21)? Will we accept that our joy comes from the truth that Jesus comes from heaven – that he is from God (like John the Baptist in 3:27-30, and the Evangelist in 31-36)?

Sermon 1 words

In 2008, an American church planter called Mark Driscoll came to Australia, at the invitation of someone, I don't know who. He's well-known for being masculine to the point of chavinist, and he basically took his opportunity at St Andrews Cathedral to slam Australian Christianity (particularly Australian Christian men) for not being manly enough, and not being American enough. He is the kind of person who, at a Christian conference, invites people to come up and punch him in the face – and when they don't, he says that Christian men aren't manly enough, and so punches himself in the face. He's lucky I wasn't at the conference, as I would have been sorely tempted to sock him one. My opinion is he is invited on speaking tours and such because he is a success (he planted some big church in the USA), not because he is wise. I'm sure he has some good things to say, but his attitude and his opinions on some things have just turned me off completely. I'll never listen to him.

Have you ever looked up to someone, a famous or important person, only to have them say or do something that really stood against what you think or believe? It happens in political and religious situations, but can occur in most any educational situation too – where someone who is in a position of authority makes a statement that grates against you, and causes you to seriously reflect on whether you can continue to submit to their authority, how far you can follow them. No doubt you will have had similar experiences in your lives. We shouldn't be surprised, then, that when we look at the great Teacher, Jesus, we find there are people who are challenged by what he has to say, and must decide whether or not they can live with the claims he makes. This is a strong theme of the Gospel of John – over and over, Jesus will say challenging things to people, make impressive claims, and people are left having to decide whether they can reconcile themselves to him or not.

Today, as we look at John chapter 3, we will see two such reactions towards Jesus. Chapter 3 is not a hugely long chapter, but, as with much of John's Gospel, it is incredibly thick with rich material, and there is no way we will touch on it all today. But I will give you the basic structure, and then we will look for the main points. There are two stories here – one is about a Pharisee (the religious leaders of Jesus' time) called Nicodemus, who sneaks out at night to go and talk to Jesus – that's 3:1-15. The other story is about John the Baptist talking to his disciples about Jesus – that's 3:25-30. You'll see those numbers don't match up. That's because after each story, there is some explanatory information given by John the Evangelist, who wrote the Gospel, to help us understand these incredibly deep and important stories. That should give you an idea of how deep these passages are. It's not a coincidence that two of the Bible's most famous verses come from this chapter.

Nicodemus, we are told, was a Pharisee, but not just any Pharisee – he was a member of the Jewish ruling council. These were important religious leaders that made decisions about what people should believe. They were well respected, and powerful people. But they were met with a problem – this man called Jesus had turned up, and was performing many miraculous deeds, but the things he had to say didn't match up with what the Pharisees told people to believe. Now, it could be thought that Nicodemus was sent by the council to go and talk to Jesus officially, but since he visits Jesus at night, the suggestion is more that he sneaks away to talk to Jesus without anyone else knowing. Perhaps this shows us that the ruling council has already made their mind up about Jesus, but Nicodemus wants to find out more for himself.

And so they have a conversation, in which Jesus puts to Nicodemus a spiritual truth that confuses him, verse 3, “Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.” This is a strange saying. In the book of Mark, we read Jesus saying, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, ‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’” Jesus speaks in mysterious phrases a lot in John, but we must remember that while these phrases might be difficult to understand, those who have ears to hear them will be given the secrets of the kingdom of God.

Nicodemus does not understand. To be fair, “born again” in Greek is a homonym – it can mean two things with the same words. So “born again” can also mean “born from above” - born from heaven, or born from the spirit. Jesus obviously meant the latter, but Nicodemus hears it simply as 'second birth'. He is forced to ask in verse 4, “How can anyone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!” Which obviously they can't. It is the real meaning of this term, 'born again', or 'born from above', which will shake Nicodemus, and cause him to question if he can believe what Jesus says, whether he can follow Jesus.

You see, Jesus goes on to say that no-one can enter God's kingdom without being born of water (that is baptism, which is a representation of repentance for sin) and the Spirit (that is, through the work of God through the Holy Spirit). I'll say that again. No-one can enter God's kingdom without a new life of repentance for their sin, and the work of God's spirit in them. Not only must you turn away from a sinful life, but God must choose you, must work in you, must change you by his Holy Spirit, or else you will never get into heaven.

This might seem clear to us as Christians today. But to Nicodemus, to the religious leaders of Judaism, it was unheard of. They believed, wrongly, that access to heaven came from a mixture of being born of Abraham (that is, being a Jew racially), and following God's laws (that is, being a Jew religiously). Jesus was saying something different, and so Nicodemus replies in verse 9, “How can this be?”

So Jesus rebukes him. Nicodemus is a Pharisee, one of the ruling council, and yet he does not understand how people can come to God. How would you feel if your church's leaders didn't know how you could come to God? It's outrageous. Jesus says that they wouldn't know God if he was right there talking to them – which he was! And so Jesus then fills Nicodemus in on the truth. What Jesus has to say is incredibly thick with meaning, and we just don't have time to cover it in depth. But in essence, he says that he has come from heaven, that he has spoken of what he has seen in heaven, and yet the religious leaders don't listen to him. He asks Nicodemus, “If you won't accept what I say about how God works here on earth in people, to bring them to himself, then how can I tell you more about what God is like in heaven?” And he tells Nicodemus that just as God empowered Moses in the Old Testament to lift the bronze snake so that those who looked at it would be spared God's wrath in the wilderness, so must Jesus be lifted up on the cross, so that all who believe in him may be spared God's wrath, and have eternal life.

John goes on to explain it more for us, and again this is powerful, deep stuff. The point I want to bring to you today comes mainly from verses 19-21. Verse 19, “This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.” I want to be clear about this – John is writing this, not after the story of some prostitute, or tax collector, or thief or murderer. He is talking about Nicodemus! He's talking about a member of the Jewish ruling council! A religious man! His deeds are evil, and he loves darkness, not light! He's the one sneaking around in the dark. Just like someone who lives a good life by today's standards, someone who goes to church, maybe even someone in charge of a church. People who turn their backs on Jesus and what he says, turn their backs on God.

Verses 20 and 21, “Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.” The point is not that those who live by the truth come into the light because people will see all the good things that they do. No, people who live by the truth are living by the truth that God alone has the power to heal them of their wrong, to take away their sin. The only difference between those who love God, and those who love darkness, is those in darkness are trying to hide their sinfulness from God. They're trying to say to God, “Look at me! I'm a good person! I'm worth bringing to heaven!” But you can't fool God. He sees everything.

People who live by the truth, on the other hand, know that they can't hide from God, and know that only God has the power to make them born again, born from above; born from water and spirit, born from repentance of sin, and by the Holy Spirit's power. They come into the light, because they admit that everything they have done is in the sight of God. They bring the good and the bad to God and say, “God, look! I am a sinner! Help me, please, because no-one else can!” And God's reply is John 3:16, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.”

Do you, like Nicodemus, think that you know God better than Jesus does? Do you think you can make a better way to God than that which Jesus offers? Do you think you can hide your sins from God? You can't even hide them from yourself. Don't try and cover them up. Bring them to God in prayer. Say, “Lord, I have wronged you. Please forgive me, and take these sins away.” Admit that you have wronged God, and turn away from such a life, and God in his Holy Spirit will work in you, to make you his own.

The scene changes now, and we are taken to the countryside, where John the Baptist is doing what he does best – baptising people. Jesus and his disciples go up the river a bit, and they baptise people too. Verse 23 says there was plenty of water, and it sounds like there was also plenty of people wanting to be baptised. And considering that Jesus had only just said that people must be born of both baptism and the holy spirit, it would be strange for him not to spend some time with people getting baptised.

Now, John the Baptist is an old hand at this baptism thing. He has been doing it for a while, and he actually had quite a following. We learn from Mark that, “The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him.” John the Baptist was a bit of a religious rock star. He was famous, he lived a quirky and strange life, and many people followed him.

So perhaps we shouldn't be surprised when we read this story here in John's gospel, which tells us that John the Baptist's disciples come to him after having an argument with 'a certain Jew' about ceremonial washing, and start to complain that Jesus now is baptising on the other side of the river, and more people are going to him than to John.

You see, John the Baptist came to prepare the way for Jesus. He had been baptising people for a while, calling them to repent of their sins, and to live the life of a good religious Jew, because soon the Messiah would come. John was not a radical – he wanted people to follow the Jewish law properly, and live righteous lives. But Jesus had spoken out against the Pharisees, saying that they made God's people jump through useless hoops, pushing them to follow rules that were unnecessary and not part of God's law. It would seem that some of John's disciples have met up with one of Jesus' disciples, and have had this argument between themselves. Not only that, but Jesus seems to be getting more popular than John, and that also makes them a little envious.

Now here's the thing. John the Baptist testified that Jesus was the Messiah they had all been waiting for. He announced it! He baptised Jesus when the Holy Spirit came down on him! He was the one who told the world, “This guy here, Jesus, is the Messiah, the Holy One of God!”, and more than that, John's disciples knew that! In verse 26 they say, “that man you testified about, look, he is baptising, and everyone is going to him,” and complaining about his teachings on ceremonial washing. John's disciples knew what John's teaching was about Jesus, but they rejected it – and yet still tried to call themselves his disciples.

There is a big temptation for Christians today to criticise other parts of God's church because they have this practice, or don't have this practice, or even just because we're jealous, and it seems that God is blessing their ministry more fruitfully than ours. Such bickering between God's followers is pointless. Times change – one ministry loses its relevance and therefore its appeal, where another ministry blossoms and bears much fruit for God. To say that what they're doing is wrong because it doesn't follow laws that you made up misses the point of God's kingdom. Yes, Jesus' disciples didn't follow the rules of ceremonial washing that the Pharisees made up. They didn't follow the Sabbath rules that the religious leaders made up. They didn't have to. They followed God, and God blessed them.

John the Baptist's reply to them is a picture of perfect Christian humility before God. He says to them, in a paraphrase of vs 27-30, “Guys, the truth is your ministry will only ultimately succeed if it is blessed by God in heaven. I'm not the Messiah, Jesus is. I'm just the best man at his wedding. I'm not there to get married. When the groom turns up, he gets the bride, and the best man is happy for him. That joy is mine now that Jesus is here. He must become more prominent and important, and I must become less prominent and important.”

We don't serve God to get popularity. We don't serve God to get success. We don't serve God for ourselves. You don't turn up at someone else's wedding to get the bride! God's Kingdom is about God's glory and about him calling a group of people to himself, to make them his people. When we see that happening, whether we get to be a part of it or not, we should rejoice. Whether those making it happen do it within our church culture or outside of it, we should be full of joy that people are coming to the kingdom.

John the Evangelist again writes after telling this story, to help explain, from verse 31, “The one who comes from above is above all” - that's Jesus. “The one who comes from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth.” That's like John the Baptist, or us – here on earth, doing our bit, but remember, as John even repeats it - “The one who comes from heaven is above all.” Then in verse 36 he says, “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them”.

John the Baptist's disciples had refused his testimony about Jesus, and in doing so had rejected the Son of God. We must be so careful to make sure that we do not reject Jesus ourselves by rejecting those that are working for his kingdom, just because they are not 'one of us'. God's church is bigger than that. When we start putting strictures and restraints on how Christians can serve God, we are in fact putting ourselves ahead of God, saying that our rules are as important, or more important, than God's rules. Not so. Jesus must become greater; we must become less.

Let's not be like Nicodemus, and think that we know better than Jesus how people can come to God. Instead, let's live by the truth, and accept that we are sinners, and we don't know everything, and put that in God's hands, knowing that people only come to God because of his Holy Spirit. Let's not be like John's disciples, and think that we know better than Jesus how people can come to God. Instead, let's be like John the Baptist, and seek to serve God's kingdom, attracting people to him, making him greater, making ourselves less. To God be the glory. Amen.

Mark 4:1-20 Soils

2011-02-03T08:38:00.003+11:00

So, I was asked to finish my sermon for Feburary two weeks early so that it could get some constructive criticism and such. And now, I've been asked to write three sermons for March! Which isn't as much time as I'd usually like, but I was asked to preach on these dates some time ago, so I still feel okay about it.

So there won't be a lot going on here over the next few weeks, since I'll be using my mornings to write sermons, as is my practice. To show I'm not lying, here's a sneak preview of the sermon I'll be giving in two Sundays' time!

------------------------

Mark 4:1-20 – The parable of the sowing of seed

Jesus: Prophet, or Performer?
- Jesus had crowds of people listen to him (Mark 4:1), but;
- How many were really listening?
Four Ways To Live
- Which ground are you?
- Fruitful (Mark 4:20) – The pinnacle of Christian living
- Strangled (Mark 4:18-19) – where is your energy going? (Wants, Wealth, Worries)
- Withered (Mark 4:16-17) – what are your struggles?
- Barren (Mark 4:15) – why aren't you listening?

Sermon words

Have you ever missed out on learning some important information because you weren't paying attention? Like poor Manny in the TV show Black Books (Black Books, Series 1, Episode 5 [1:30-2:02], who should have learned the security code for the new door, but instead was distracted by the subbuteo toy in the man's hair, perhaps you have been listening to instructions or lessons from a teacher, instructor, or maybe even a preacher, and something distracts you – a mobile phone ringing, or a friend next to you asking what you're doing afterwards. What's even worse is when you are then supposed to be able to explain what you've learned to someone else.

In the gospel of Mark, which we've been looking at for a few weeks now, we see that Jesus had a lot to say to the people around him. And people were keen to hear it! We've read that so many people crowded to hear him speak, that he had to get on a boat and use it as a floating pulpit. Maybe you've occasionally thought that it would be nice if our church was crowded by thousands of people, so many that Bruce had to get up on the roof to preach to them.

Don't feel dejected if that doesn't happen. Remember that not only was Jesus a better preacher than anyone here (and that is not a reflection on anyone – it's hard to beat someone at preaching who goes by the name Word of God), but also remember that entertainment options back then were a lot harder to come by. No internet, no youtube, no iPad. No TV, no radio, no news programs. Most people couldn't read, and even if you could, there wasn't much to read – no newspapers, no novels. There wasn't even organised sporting competitions to watch or participate in! So when someone turns up in your town and starts preaching, that's a big deal. It's like Justin Bieber giving a free concert in Sydney – lots of people are going to show up.

It's important to realise that while some of those who were there to hear Jesus speak believed that he was a great teacher, or perhaps even a prophet sent by God or something more, many were there simply because it was something to do. And, as I'm sure you all know, your attitude towards what someone says will affect how closely you listen to them.

For example, when I used to work in a service station while I was at uni, people would come in, and I would say, “Good afternoon, sir,” and they would reply, “Fine thanks, mate.” You see the problem there? I may as well have said, “Stock standard greeting, sir,” and had them reply, “Habitual response, mate.” But, if you say to someone, “Don't move!” you are very likely to get their attention. People are less likely to listen carefully to someone if they don't think what's being said is important.

So when Jesus starts talking about a farmer throwing seed on the ground, and what happens to it, there were going to be a number of people who switch off. “I know this,” they'd say to themselves, “I plant my crops every year. What's the point?” Or they might say, “Well, I assume there's some sort of hidden meaning to this, but I can't be bothered working it out.” They hear the words being said by Jesus, but they don't try and puzzle out the meaning, or go and ask him what it means. Like Manny with the security code, they don't admit that they weren't listening, or they don't understand. That would make them look stupid. So they just nod, as if it all made sense, protect their ego, and hope they can pick it up later. Have you ever done that before? I have.

The thing is, Jesus isn't giving talks on farming practices. Back at the start of his speaking tour, Jesus makes it clear what he's talking about: At Mark 1:15, he says, “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!”

This parable of sowing seeds is really about how people respond to what Jesus is talking about. It shows that there are four ways to live, four ways to react to Jesus' claim that the kingdom of God is near, and that you must repent and believe.

There are four ways to live here; four ways to respond to Jesus' message (listed in the second point on the handout). I've listed them there as fruitful, strangled, withered and barren. My question to you tonight is going to be, which of these four soils are you? The seed is the same for everyone – God's word. But the reception of God's word differs for people. So when you read the Bible, or you listen to a talk at church, how do you react to the information you hear?

The fruitful ground is the example all Christians should be aiming for. It represents a life that hears what God has to say, plants it inside, and lets it grow to maturity. A fruitful Christian evaluates every message from God, whether from the Bible, heard in a sermon, discussed in a small group, or read in a Christian book, and seeks to have that message reflected in their life. The fruitful Christian life is a life of accepting the truth, changing to reflect that truth, and helping others to also change to reflect the truth in their own lives.

If you look at your reaction to your Bible readings, or to Christian books, sermons, and bible studies, and you're struggling to see changes in your life and other people's lives, then chances are your attitude is reflected by another kind of soil.

If you hear God's message, and your response is, “I'll try to fit this into my life somewhere, but I'm really busy,” this is the common feeling of the life of strangled soil. There is growth there, for sure. But there are also weeds. You know what weeds do? They suck the nutrients from the ground, so that the proper plant doesn't get the energy to be fruitful. It spends all its time trying to survive. If this sounds like you, then ask yourself the question: what are your weeds? What are those things that are taking up your time and energy, that are stopping you from giving that time and energy to obeying God?

Jesus actually makes some suggestions about what your weeds could be. Sometimes it's because what you want doesn't line up with what God wants for you. So you put your energy into what you want, and it strangles your growth with God. Some people think that wealth can keep them safe, secure and comfortable, and so put their energy into making money. But that's a lie. Any feeling of security that does not come from God is actually a weed, strangling you. And sometimes we just get so caught up in all the worries of life - “Do people like me? Can we pay off our debt? What's going to happen tomorrow?” - and we don't simply trust God's word that the Kingdom of God is near, and these things won't matter. Maybe it's time for us to do some weeding, and put our energies into producing God's eternal fruit, not our own temporary security.

The shallow soil that produces a withered response to God can sometimes be the most difficult to spot. There's growth, looks like a normal plant; there is joy in the person's life. But whenever following God's way becomes hard, when the spotlight is on you, when it conflicts with what you want, or people might ridicule you for it, you cave in. If this is you, then you will find that you can't be fruitful, because your seed is only half-planted. You have understood the message of, and you have accepted it's truth – but you don't live it. When a problem occurs, you don't ask, “What would Jesus do?” You don't ask God for help with the problem. You just do whatever you think is right. Sometimes, you do things you know are wrong, because it's easier.

If this sounds like you, then ask yourself: what are your struggles? What is it that stops you from living the way you should, from putting what you hear from God into practice? What are the things that, when they come into your life, make you feel powerless to live a godly life? Perhaps it's problems with anger that you can't control, or a desire to put other people down to further your own ends. Sometimes it can be choosing to do something you know is against God just because it makes you feel good. Whatever your struggles are, the fundamental solution is to be rooted in God's words, and his message to you. Other Christians can help, but ultimately, if you are not dedicated to living your life for God, then you will wither, and fall away from your faith in God.

Finally, people who are the rocky ground are basically just deaf. There's no reaction, no growth, nothing at all. They simply don't listen to God's message. They may as well have earplugs in when they go to church, if they ever go to church. If this is you – if you find that what Jesus has to say about the kingdom of God has no impact on your life whatsoever - perhaps I can just ask one question for you to think about: why aren't you listening? What gets between you, and Jesus and his message? Surely it is worth at least sitting down and working out what you really think about what he says, the problems you see with what God says, the statements you can't accept.

Because Jesus makes it clear that he doesn't think it's a matter of choice. He says that Satan actually works to keep people from paying attention and hearing what he really has to say about the Kingdom of God. All they hear is the speech about farming practices.

The fact that people can be barren in reaction to God's word is perhaps the biggest challenge to all of us. It means that sometimes, when Jesus speaks, people don't listen. It means that when we talk about the good news, people might not listen.

If you struggle to understand it, or if you find your attempts to be fruitful and share the gospel just bouncing off barren ground, then take heart – even the disciples didn't understand this parable, and had to ask Jesus what he meant. Just remember that Christians who fruitfully obey God are not fruitful because they have no weeds (no distractions), or because the sun doesn't shine on them (no struggles) – they are fruitful because they work through these issues, through faith in God and by his strength. So reflect on your life, on your attitude to what God says to you, and try to bear fruit by living out what you hear from God.

Mark chapter 2

2011-01-27T07:20:00.002+11:00

vs 1

Which one would assume they would have heard had he just been a normal man, since news travels in smaller communities. But probably it travelled a little faster and with more energy given his preaching and miracles.

vs 2

Anyone who's ever preached to a church that has about 11 people sitting in it has I'm sure wondered what it would be like to have people crowding around, unable to fit in the door, to hear you speak. That sort of thirst for words happens, but not to your average preacher.

vs 3

No wheelchairs, so he would have had a pretty sedentary life as a rule.

vs 4

Which, apart from the destruction of property, is pretty awesome. These guys are definitely going the extra mile.

vs 5

This has got to be one of the most popular stories of Jesus' miracles, because of this very line. Jesus doesn't heal the guy, he forgives his sins. Now see, if your sin is not against someone, they can't really forgive you. It would be like if you hit your wife, and I forgave you. Doesn't work. So by implication, Jesus is suggesting that either this guy has sinned against him, or that he is God (against whom all sin is targetted, really).

vs 6

Perhaps one of them said something, or whispered it to another. Or perhaps everyone was thinking it, because it's a pretty ballsy thing to say.

vs 7

Asking questions (even in your mind) about why someone is blaspheming is far more powerful in a time when you could be killed for blasphemy. By the way, blasphemy is actually really well defined by the Macquarie Dictionary:

1. impious utterance or action concerning God or sacred things.
2. Judaism
a. (in Talmudic law) cursing and reviling the `ineffable name' of the Lord.
b. (in later Hebrew history) the violation of religious law by pronouncing one of the four-letter symbols for God rather than using one of the substitute words.
3. Theology the crime of assuming to oneself the rights or qualities of God.
4. irreverent behaviour towards anything held sacred.

Seeing as Jesus did not mention any of the names of God (and honestly, in my opinion definitions 2a and 2b are not biblical), I think we can safely say that the religious leaders meant definition 3.

vs 8

Imagine the shock you would get if someone said that to you. Even if it is fairly obvious what you're thinking, most people aren't confident enough to call you on it like that.

vs 9

Now, the answer to that question is triple-edged, and I think Jesus meant it both ways. For a human, it is impossible to say either. For God, it is easy to say both. For a person pretending to be God, it is easier to say "Your sins are forgiven" than "Get up and walk", since the result is visible in one and not the other (arguably - perhaps measurable is a better term).

vs 10

Obviously Jesus is claiming my middle position - for God, both are possible, and easy.

vs 11

The thing is, of course, that miracles were not unheard of. A miracle doesn't mean that the person performing it is Jesus. So this is still a very big call.

vs 12

And when I say miracles were not unheard of, that still means that they are always surprising, and it would seem always pretty rare too.

vs 13

Going to the lake is probably like going to a factory - lots of people involved in various works during the day.

vs 14

Ahhh, Levi. I think we call him Matthew. Tax collectors get lined up with sinners and prostitutes, so when you think of Jesus calling Levi to be a disciple, think about if he'd been a prostitute.

vs 15

When no-one will hang out with you because of your profession, you really only get to hang out with other people people don't hang out with (imagine if you worked in an abattoir and the president had his strings pulled by PETA - you'd only really hang out with people who didn't call you a murderer and splash paint on you).

vs 16

Remember that Judaism has a big thing about righteous people remaining ceremonially clean, or else they can't go to temple and be in the presence of God. Although probably they're also bigoted.

vs 17

One of my favourite ideas. Of course, everyone is sick. But there are people who think they're fine. Many mentally ill people don't go and seek medical help, for example (although even if they did in Australia, mental health is hideously underfunded). It doesn't make them not in need of help, but it does mean that doctors can't help them if they don't come and ask.

vs 18

Seems a fair enough question. Fasting, after all, is a pretty righteous thing to do.

vs 19

That is, you can't fast in the middle of a feast, when you've got something to celebrate. It's not cool.

vs 20

This is the first, somewhat veiled, passage referring to the fact that Jesus isn't going to hang around. I can just picture the disciples puzzling over this.

vs 21

While I'm sure this is true, I don't think Jesus is teaching them about tailoring.

vs 22

Again, no doubt this is true. What do these two illustrations mean? That Jesus is offering something new - God has never incarnated and walked around with people before (debatable regarding Genesis 2). As such, you have to treat it a different way. The normal rules for living don't adequately cover this.

vs 23

They were hungry, not bored.

vs 24

If you're as pedantic as the Pharisees, I pity you. This is one of the things that Jesus sought to free his people from. I see this sort of thing in Christian society every day. There's a difference between rules and rules lawyer.

vs 25

This is quite a backhand to the face. It would be like going up to your preacher after he finishes his sermon and saying, "Have you ever actually read the Bible?"

vs 26

Why? Because they were with David, and they were hungry. They did what was not lawful because David made the laws. He had a special position.

vs 27

Beware what you think about this. Rest is part of the Sabbath - and that rest is dedicated to God. So it is quite an important concept. But here Jesus is saying that the Sabbath actually exists to be a help to people in their devotion to God, not a hindrance.

vs 28

And of course, Jesus, as God, is in charge of everything, and he could have rewritten the laws right there if he wanted to. But there was no reason to, because he wasn't rebelling against God's law, he was rebelling against the Pharisee's rules lawyering.

Mark chapter 1

2011-01-25T07:35:00.003+11:00

We're about to start a sermon series on Mark at church, and I have to preach on Mark, so I figured, even though I have so many OT books to go through, I should do Mark.

vs 1

Mark doesn't mess around. We're jumping straight into the good stuff.

vs 2

Yes, this is not a quote from Isaiah - the next one is, though. It's a quote from Malachi. Some people say that in such situations, the proper thing was to give name to the major prophet over the minor prophet. Could he have just made a mistake? That really depends on how you think about the Bible, its inerrancy, and its inspiration. Because if you believe that the Holy Spirit inspired the words, then you are somewhat less likely to accept that Mark's mistakes were going to be allowed to end up on paper. After all, if he made a mistake remembering which quotes come from Isaiah, and which come from Malachi, then couldn't he have made a mistake about what Peter said Jesus said?

Some people say that the exact words aren't inspired, but the message behind them is - so that the conceptual point (for example, here, the fact that the prophets spoke of the coming of the Messiah) is sound, even if the exact details are a little skewed. This then has people asking all sorts of questions about the legitimacy of the historical statements. Were there two beggars, one beggar, two gates, one gate? Honestly, does that matter? And that's the thing - no, it doesn't matter if there was one or two beggars. Yes, it does matter if the Bible is inspired, which is what's at the crux of such arguments. Is there space for a paradox here? I would think so, since we have space for them in so many other places.

Anyway, the verse he is quoting is about how there will be a messenger that comes first.

vs 3

The thing about this, of course, is that it can also be read, "A voice calling, 'In the wilderness... etc'" (as it does in (T)NIV and NASB, but not KJV). It's being slightly differently read here, to show that it refers also to John the Baptist.

vs 4

The tameness of this verse, in comparison with the somewhat striking beginning, makes it sound like, "And so, one day, God's prophecy was fulfilled, and someone turned up to fill it." John the Baptist is a fantastic guy. He's like a rock star of the ancient world. He's in every gospel. In Acts, we find that he has been heard of in places Jesus hasn't! He is just a regular guy with a fantastic message.

vs 5

This is like a pre-messianic revival in Judea. John TB is the Billy Graham of the time. People are called to faith, and are renewed in their faith through baptism.

vs 6

We learn more about this in other gospels, but a hair shirt generally marks someone out as being humble. It also marks him out as someone who actually lived - some small details about his life we don't really need to know.

vs 7

Like he says, he's just the messenger. He's the pathfinder, and someone is going to come down that path who you really, really want to meet.

vs 8

This is not something John made up - this is revealed in the prophets. But to hear that this great messiah figure is coming, and for that to be the crux of John TB's ministry, and for it to be so successful, shows you just how desperate people were at the time for a messiah.

vs 9

Everyone else was doing it, after all, and part of Jesus' job is to sympathise with us. He didn't have anything to repent, though. But then, Job made sacrifices for sinful thoughts his kids might have had.

vs 10

Did anyone else see it, or just him? Doesn't say.

vs 11

Did anyone else hear it, or just him? Did Jesus know that this was his destiny? The other gospels show that there was a bit more of a back-and-forthing between Jesus and John TB (not even mentioning childhood Jesus' time in th temple), so I would say this was not a revelation to Jesus of his divinity, although I have heard some people say so. I've always thought that the voice was audible, and so people were like, "Woah, that's mega." You may as well assume miracle after miracle in the gospels, since it doesn't matter how many happen in or around or because of Jesus, people still don't believe. That's the thing about miracles.

vs 12

At once is possibly a bit rich, but he was sort of out in the wilderness already.

vs 13

This is a fantastic job of summarisation. You can read more detail in another gospel, but here you just get wilderness, satan, tempted, animals, angels. Bam. Let's get back to the excitement!

vs 14

John being put in prison is almost skipped over. But it's an important happening. It kicks off Jesus' ministry, according to Mark.

vs 15

It's a very similar message to John TB's. There is no reason people wouldn't get caught up in it, seeing as it's the same message.

vs 16

If they were hairdressers, it would have been slightly stranger.

vs 17

The old 'fishers of men' has fallen, which doesn't really bother me. The point is that Jesus is offering to change them from fishermen into people who grab people (obviously not literally in nets to eat them).

vs 18

And so they left to follow him. Of course Peter would include this in this gospel, since he is Simon.

vs 19

Jesus has a thing for fishermen. Okay, that sounds a little strange. I wonder if it's just because this is where his ministry started, so this is who he ends up with. If he'd started somewhere else, he might have had all leatherworkers, or encyclopaedia salesmen.

vs 20

I assume that they had at the least heard Jesus speak before. This idea of going off and joining a travelling teacher is not unheard of. It was something people did. It's actually incredible how long people can just scrape together a living for such things, right up to today in some places. Probably not worth trying it in Australia, though.

vs 21

This was not out of place. After all, guy turns up, has a following - he is probably a good teacher, may as well give him the floor.

vs 22

Now you see why people followed him. When Jesus spoke about God, he spoke as if he knew exactly what it was about. Some people might just say he was really confident, but then Jesus himself claims to be God, which you have to admit would also help his preaching.

vs 23

Evil spirit posession was just a fact of life back then. I can't really say if it's as prevalent, or more or less, than it was then. Different people say different things. Certainly I wouldn't put it past demons to be traipsing about, considering most everyone ignores their very existence. But honestly, I wouldn't begin to know how to tell them apart - such spiritual sensitivity is not my forte, I don't think.

vs 24

Satan and his minions are always out to try and ruin the story. They are trying to tell everyone that he is the Messiah. This might sound like a stupid strategy - I mean, if they are demons, then surely they're in the know. But the fact is, if you knew someone was demon-possessed, would you listen to what they said? By them saying it, they could actually undermine Jesus' position.

vs 25

Hence, Jesus tells him to shut up. He also tells the demon to take a hike. Now, I have heard people make arguments like, "If Jesus is so powerful, why didn't he destroy the demon, instead of just casting it out?" It's not an unfair question, I suppose, but it is akin to asking, "If God hates sinners, why doesn't he strike us with lightning every time we sin?" Think about the world we would live in were that the case. God knows better, thankfully. There is a time for final judgement, and it is the end of days.

vs 26

That is how it goes, I suppose.

vs 27

If his words of authority on scripture weren't enough, his power to drive out demons simply by telling (that is, really, commanding) them to leave is astonishingly cool.

vs 28

The miracle backs up the teaching. That's what miracles are for. You can't just trust miracles themselves, because they don't really give a message.

vs 29

Perhaps they were on the synagogue hospitality roster for visiting speakers.

vs 30

Immediately! Mark loves his adverbs.

vs 31

There's nothing worse than when your mum is too sick to serve you dinner. Seriously, though, this is another incredible miracle. There are only the disciples around now, and it's Simon and Andrew's mum we're talking about, so it's not like Jesus could have planted her, like a stage magician.

vs 32

News travels fast when free health services are on offer.

vs 33

That's a lot of people.

vs 34

It would be like letting your enemies write your resume. It's the difference between Barak Obama saying, "He's an American soldier," and Osama Bin Laden saying, "He's an American soldier!"

vs 35

So either he snuck out while people were sleeping, or he went out the back door or something.

vs 36

After all, they probably woke up and thought, "Uh oh, we lost the messiah."

vs 37

There's a lot of wisdom teeth problems that need your attention!

vs 38

Jesus healed people out of compassion, but that was not the focus of his ministry. He wanted to tell people his message. If healing people would help them listen, sure. But he didn't come, this time, to end suffering. That comes when he returns. This is just a taste.

vs 39

This is the early days of Jesus' tour. They're still doing the pub circuit, but they've got a new sound that a big record label will no doubt pick up soon. They're on their way to stardom.

vs 40

Leprosy is just a convenient name for skin diseases. But skin diseases suck, not just because they are awful, but because they make you unclean. Hence the guy doesn't ask for curing, but for cleaning.

vs 41

Indignant! Apparently a lot of manuscripts say "filled with compassion", which is the Jesus we know and love, I suppose. Why would he be indignant? Perhaps he was angry with the skin disease, and the fact that someone could be considered unclean and their whole religious life could be destroyed (see, that way, he still sounds nice and gentle towards the person).

But, perhaps he didn't like having unclean people jump him in the street, and so to make him go away, he says, "Sure, be clean, get out of my way!" That doesn't really sound right, though.

vs 42

Regardless, the guy gets healed, and that's pretty much a new life for him. And anyone who has had their life changed by Jesus knows what this is like.

vs 43

Now we start getting into weird territory.

vs 44

The Messianic secret, as it's called. Okay, so when demons say things, Jesus tells them to shut their traps. But when a guy who was healed is told to be quiet, what is the purpose? Is it reverse psychology? Is it because Jesus doesn't want crowds of sick following him around (that would sort of fit with the indignant above!)? Is it perhaps because the guy would be bragging about being healed by Jesus? Matthew Henry says it's because Jesus was being humble (he also points out that the 'strong warning' is more literally 'prohibiting with threats' - so maybe Jesus was indignant with him). While I know Jesus was humble to a degree, I think he also strives to glorify his father, so this doesn't really work for me. Aquinus says that he was setting an example of humility for his disciples, which sounds a little fairer. Others say that it was because he didn't want his message to get spread out so quickly, and still others say that he was only prohibited from telling people until he had made his restitution at the temple (which is important in itself, because it shows that he wants the guy to fulfil his legal obligation to God under the law, thus giving glory to God for the healing).

vs 45

Of course, the guy doesn't listen (this is nothing new) and so Jesus finds himself crowded out of town, and even quiet places are haunted by people looking for a free Medicare bulk-billed heal.

Jonah chapter 4

2011-01-24T07:17:00.002+11:00

vs 1

A strange situation that occurs when we actually don't trust God as much as we think we do. When we think God has done something wrong, we are saying that we know better.

vs 2

The question that arises, of course, is what is it that displeased Jonah? This is an important part of the book. God's dealings with Jonah take up far more space than God's dealings with Nineveh.

Does Jonah not like that God is compassionate and merciful? No, because he was very happy with God being merciful to him.

Does Jonah not like God dealing with people who are not Israelites? Not necessarily - we learn that those on the boat to Tarshish, who were not Hebrews, worshipped God, basically as a result of Jonah telling them about God.

Does Jonah not like God showing compassion on Israel's enemy? I think there is something in this. It's not that Jonah is racist - but he has just become the prophet who saved Israel's enemies from God's judgment. And Jonah knew God would relent, because He knows that God is like that.

vs 3

So as far as Jonah is concerned now, that's his life done. Why would God ask him to do such a thing? He's angry with how God does things.

vs 4

God's reply at this stage is simple: Jonah doesn't have a right to be angry, because God's will supercedes all. At the end of the day, regardless of what God's will is, you have to follow it. Now, we learn more about who God is and how his will affects the decision-making here, but for now, this is the quick lesson.

vs 5

His shelter, for reasons we find later, can't have been very good. He knew that God was going to relent, but he was keen to watch anyway, just in case the odd boulder of brimstone fell down and smote the city.

vs 6

Your own personal comfort can make a big difference to how you feel about things. Jonah had to go a long way, to a place that was foreign to him, and he wasn't keen on it. Now he's sitting there with a crappy shelter, fuming. But God grows a gourd over him (I assume it has big leaves or something) and he smiles a little. Perhaps he thinks that God doing this thing means that his waiting and watching is vindicated. More likely, of course, God is just continuing to be gracious - and again, Jonah is happy with it when it is him getting the grace.

vs 7

So now the worm is happy with God! But Jonah will probably be less so.

vs 8

God almost sounds like he is torturing Jonah with this weather change. Jonah gets so uncomfortable that, once again, he wants to die. This time, it's not because of hundreds of thousands of enemies that are saved, but because he gets sunstroke.

vs 9

Specifically about the gourd, mind.

Jonah's opinion is that yes, he is allowed to be angry with God because of God's actions. Now, there's a fine line here. David writes psalms that express his dissatisfaction with his situation, but they are less about being angry with God, and more about questioning God. Jonah is just plain angry, thinks it's unfair.

vs 10

Of course, Jonah doesn't care about the gourd's wellbeing at all -he cares about his comfort.

vs 11

There again with the animals! Once again, we have a very typical Hebrew rhetorical question. It's not really exactly a rhetorical question, because it is supposed to have an obvious answer. In this case, yes, God should care. It shows that in God's mind, people come first, not God's people come first. God has a heart for Nineveh, and gives them a chance. He doesn't have a long history of being their God and pulling them out of Egypt, he didn't give them laws and prophets (although God does somewhere that I can't remember talk about how he had staged similar exodus actions for other nations). But God does send them a prophet and his message and give them a chance at repentance.

Jonah chapter 3

2011-01-23T08:52:00.002+11:00

vs 1

God really shouldn't have to repeat himself.

vs 2

So the message is similar. God's will hasn't changed on the matter.

vs 3

Jonah's will, it seems, has.

Three days is a long time to walk from one end to the other. Does a city that big exist now? I wouldn't wonder if they said it meaning that it took him three days to deliver his message over the whole thing.

vs 4

This is apparently the message that God gave to Jonah. It's pretty straightforward. We assume there must have been a little more said than that, but this was the basis of the message, it's what we're given. The other bits we can perhaps assume from what Jonah says later, and from what the response of the people is.

vs 5

Their response is, perhaps to someone who has read lots of OT stuff, somewhat staggering. It takes a lot of persuading for Israel to come to God with this sort of contrition. Yet Israel's enemy realises its wrongdoing and goes the whole hog in repentance.

vs 6

Even their king, who didn't hear the message directly, is prepared to go into mourning over his city's fate.

vs 7

The city fasts - even down to their cattle. I have always thought the importance of livestock in such ancient proclamations fascinating. Whether it means that people were treated less valuably, or that livestock, living more closely with their owners, were felt to be more part of the family, it still shows that there is an importance under God to animals that is not really attended to these days.

vs 8

Call on God, and give up your evil ways. Only those two things together is going to do it for you.

vs 9

God may be compassionate. He is not always - Israel knows that well - but he can be. It's the eternal balance between justice and mercy, both of which are parts of God's nature. They exist not in paradox, but in tension. One can rely on both.

vs 10

And so the people of Nineveh were saved. That's a great story. Why is there another chapter? Is not the big message of this book to relent to God, and he will show compassion? No. In fact, there is a whole other story we need yet to consider.

Jonah chapter 2

2011-01-20T07:40:00.002+11:00

vs 1

There isn't much more to do inside a fish, I will grant you. But rememeber, he was just thrown out of a boat in a wild storm, because he had disobeyed God. So him not dying is actually quite something.

vs 2

I don't know that he was actually dead - although if you're several feet underwater, that's pretty similar to the realm of the dead in my book. God can even answer prayers made from the ocean - that may not sound special to you, but imagine if you believed that your god only had power within the boundaries of a certain area - a forest, a desert, a nation - then you realise that one nation's God can hear his people even in the deep of the water. That is awesome.

vs 3

I can't think of anything more scary. Did I mention I'm looking at a boat today? Sigh.

vs 4

Jonah may have been running from God, but at the end of the day, God is still his God. God had chased him all the way out to that boat, now perhaps he might save him from the depths.

vs 5

He really was out there in the water. I mean, it's curtains. He might not have even been able to swim.

vs 6

As far as he was concerned, he was dead. But God saved him from death, in a rather incredible, if uncomfortable, way. Does this mean that he has a change of heart and will now do what God says? Well, again, the book is a little more complex than that. Because, really, so are people.

vs 7

He didn't pray until he knew he was going to die, from the sound of it. Man, we are stubborn sometimes.

vs 8

Funny, one of the psalms I was looking at earlier talked about worthless idols. God really, really hates idolatry. I think idolatry is like the 'sin against the Spirit', in that it attributes God to other things. In that way, it is an unforgiveable sin - until you turn away from idols, you can't worship God.

vs 9

His vows go to God, and he will keep them, he says. He also says that he will say, "Salvation comes from the Lord." Will he say that to the Ninevites? I wonder, because if he did, that could explain their reaction.

vs 10

Ew. But then, there's only two other ways he was getting out - I think I prefer this one.

Jonah chapter 1

2011-01-19T08:02:00.002+11:00

vs 1

Poor Jonah. As soon as you see these words, you could be in mind of Ezekiel, which is not the place you want to be, really.

vs 2

Nineveh is a wicked city, and it's an enemy of Israel. So going there with the job to preach against it is not exactly the peachiest job. Although if you think it's as simple as not wanting to get beat up, well, this book gets a whole lot more complex.

vs 3

Tarsish was the Caseblanca equivalent back then. It was as far as the map of the known world went to the west, pretty much. Opposite direction of Nineveh.

vs 4

Which is, of course, a pretty scary thing to happen. Apparently you can't outrun God or hide from God simply by getting on a boat.

vs 5

These sound like two pretty reasonable responses to a life-threatening situation. Neither work, but it's worth a try.

Going to sleep is less reasonable, but it is apparently still an option.

vs 6

I suppose this is a typical response in a pantheistic worldview. Gods become like a lucky dip.

vs 7

Now, casting lots to get God's approval has been done many times. This is not something we do these days - we try and make more intelligent choices based on caselaw and theological principle. But the thing is, God has honoured this decision-making many times. Doesn't mean you should flip a coin for major decisions, but is 'going with your heart' after considered prayer really any different?

vs 8

Whether the storm calmed enough for them to have this conversation, or they were all huddled together in the hope of not dying - I mean, if the boat is sinking and they're throwing cargo overboard and stuff, I can't imagine they all gathered together for a heart-to-heart. In my imagination, they've always been yelling at each other over the crash of waves and stuff.

In any case, it's not the question Jonah really wanted to answer.

vs 9

He calls himself a Hebrew, which is fascinating. Very pentateuchy. It's not a term I often consider for describing the Israelites, but I think I will now. His point is that his God created everything, so is damn powerful, and hence they're all going to die.

vs 10

They knew he was running from God, but didn't know why. If they're all going to drown anyway, may as well sate their curiosity. Or they just ask the rhetorical question, "You must've done something hella bad for God to be killing all of us to get to you."

vs 11

But curiosity can wait when there might be a way of getting out of it. What sort of sacrifice would this God of the Hebrews want?

vs 12

God is not exactly the one who is in for human sacrifice, but that's definitely what it looks like here. Really, the guys on the boat might never have seen Jonah again, and thought that that's how God worked. God doesn't correct them, so far as we know. Although really, it's less a sacrifice and more of a just punishment, perhaps.

vs 13

They didn't want to kill this guy. It's not cool.

vs 14

They obviously fear some sort of judgment too. This is a great picture of how God treats the other nations. People sometimes are confused or angry about God using a nation (like Assyria) to be his tool or instrument of judgment (like their army invading Israel), but then judging them for their evil actions (by making their empire fall). They say, "How is this fair? They were doing what God wanted." But look at the reactions of these sailors. God wants them to throw Jonah in, but they know killing someone is wrong. Finally, they beg God not to hold them responsible, because they are trying to do the right thing. They don't know much about the Hebrew God, but they are trying to do his will, at least. You always have a choice - you can choose not to be a bloodthirsty army. God will always find another person to do his dirty work.

vs 15

Here, God was happy for them to do it, after they had made it plain they didn't want to kill him, because he knew that Jonah wasn't going to die. They were, in effect, handing Jonah over to God by throwing him in the water.

vs 16

Which seems the right thing to do in such a situation.

vs 17

It's a bit of a bridging verse, so whether it's at the end of chapter 1 or beginning of chapter 2, not really a bother to me.

But wow, what an incredible and strange thing for the Lord to have happen to someone! And imagine being inside a fish for that long! It's little wonder this story stays in the psyche of western society. Of course, most would question its veracity as a real historical happening, but for me, I think it's awesome that God would make such things happen in the real world. It's a fantastic picture of the wonder God can continue to bring into the world. I wish we saw more of this stuff, not because I want to see miracles per se, but just because I feel that the technological and Enlightenment modern world is a much more boring place.

Psalm 31

2011-01-18T10:19:00.002+11:00

Oooh, a slightly longer psalm.

vs 1

Not in his righteousness, obviously. If David, or I guess anyone, were really righteous, we wouldn't need to take refuge in God. Except, of course, that I think even Jesus would have said that he took refuge inGod. So to be truly righteous, you need to take refuge in God.

Anyway, even then you are delivered into God's righteousness, which is better than human righteousness anyway.

Shame, by the way, is a hugely important cultural concept in the middle east, and a lot of cultures. The opposite of shame is honour. So when you hear about an 'honour killing', it's usually because someone brought 'shame' onto the family. Shame needs to be redeemed. Sort of the opposite of guilt needing to be proved.

vs 2

As we've seen before, God is his refuge, so he asks for God to be his refuge, sort of not being presumptive.

vs 3

And once again we see David making his requests for the glory of God's name.

vs 4

Is that the trap of sin? I'd say that's probably being a little to allegorical. We all know that David has enemies, and no doubt they set regular old traps for him. Not like pit traps, but like ambushes.

vs 5

So it would seem Jesus quotes Psalm 31 on the cross too. Of course, David probably isn't dying as he writes this, so he commits his spirit in a less final sense. Or does he? Perhaps he is saying that even if he dies, he expects that God will look after him.

vs 6

Another expression of hate in a psalm. It's actually okay to do this. God hates people who rely on idols too. David may have a more immediate reason to hate them - like they are the enemies of his people, or even his specific enemies.

vs 7

One of the fantastic things about God is that he can see into our very beings and know what it is that makes us upset.

vs 8

Almost like he's put him in a paddock to frolic. A spacious place: it's a lovely, simple picture, and comforting for some reason. Perhaps because I spend so much of my time in a room in the house, or in the car, or in the train, or in the office. Having said that, I rather like those places as a rule. But there's just something emotive about a big open space.

vs 9

There are few times I have been so grieved that I have been truly weakened physically by it. I can definitely think of plenty of times I've been unable to see through crying though. It's at those times, I guess, when you really appreciate God's mercy, and you really, really want it. You want him to stop the pain.

vs 10

I guess if my life was constantly under threat by enemies, I might feel like this too. Thank God that I don't have to deal with emotions like this, and I don't think I ever have had to yet.

vs 11

That's got to suck. It really does suck when your enemies are so numerous or powerful that they can make not just your life hell, but also the lives of your friends and family.

vs 12

Discarded and forgotten, I suppose.

vs 13

They could at least take the trouble to whisper their plots against him outside his hearing. Or perhaps he is so ineffectual against him that they do it to further spite and terrorise him.

vs 14

That's all you have to say, really. I mean, we might throw something about Jesus in there, but that's only further clarifying the point really.

vs 15

So David both acknowledges that his time is in God's hands, but then he requests that, since it's in God's hands, would he mind making those times a little longer?

vs 16

Even if God doesn't save him, that wouldn't mean his love failed. He's not saying that. He's simply asking that God's will might match up with his.

vs 17

Again, it would be shameful not just to David, but to God, if David were to cry out to God for help, as his king, and be defeated. It would be much more glorifying if his enemies were to cop it. He's not trying to blackmail God by calling him out in public - he really cares about how God looks in the situation.

vs 18

He also wants God's enemies to pay their due, because they are not nice people.

vs 19

It's really good, is of course what he means.

vs 20

That's how good it is - it hides his people away from such terrible things, and shelters them.

vs 21

When, hey, you could probably use a bit of knowledge of God's love.

vs 22

Even in a city under seige, God can still come to your rescue and help. You're never cut off from him. It would be like if I were cut off from the internet, or from my Bible. Would I say, "Oh, I am cut off from God"? I might say it, but it wouldn't be true.

vs 23

Since David has had these great experiences, he calls on all his people to trust God and love him too. He is king, after all, and calling the people to worship God is sort of his job. Imagine if all of Israel's kings were so fixated on getting the people to worship God? We'd probably have lots of psalms.

vs 24

Even in times of trouble, he says, you can still worship and rely on God. In fact, that's probably a great time to do so.

Psalm 30

2011-01-17T08:29:00.002+11:00

vs 1

So far, it's not sounding like a psalm of dedication to the temple. Not that what's in the psalm is false. God did save David from his enemies, several times. And David did exalt God. He wrote this psalm, for example.

vs 2

I can't think of any specific healing that we are told about that God did for David. Either that means it's not recorded, or he's just talking about regular healing (he was a bit of a warrior, no doubt he got a few injuries) or he's talking about something else.

vs 3

So far as I know David was never raised from the dead. It's a fine messianic point, but I assume David is talking preventatively.

vs 4

So the psalm has started with David's reasons for praising God. Now he instructs all of God's people to join in that praise.

vs 5

Israel's life with God has not always been peaches and cream. Something they have to acknowledge and accept is that God will punish wrongdoing. But his mercy and love are eternal, while his discipline is only temporary. That's the same for God's people today. It is not Christians that go to hell for wrongdoing. They are disciplined, sure, but also assured a place in heaven. Basically, it's a good thing to be with God.

vs 6

I assume the idea is that God makes him secure, and so on God he will never be shaken. It might be such an obvious statement that it doesn't need such explicit stating.

vs 7

There we are, it is definitely talking about being secure in God's will. It is when God turns his face away, is not blessing what you are doing, that things get unstable.

vs 8

Who else was he going to call? Especially if he recognises that the problem is not some sort of extrinsic problem, it is one between him and God.

vs 9

It's interesting to see these sorts of statements, in the psalms and elsewhere. Those people who bargain with God, who tell him that they exist to give him praise, and if he doesn't save them, then that will be less glory for God. It's not so much a, "Hey, you owe me," it's a, "Hey, think of what people will think." We have to remember that our prayers should be in God's will. I think we focus a lot on the New Testament "God loves us" type prayer, but the Old Testament prayer was more, "You'll do this because it brings you glory you deserve."

vs 10

The Lord is David's help, because David asks for the Lord to be his help.

vs 11

Good old David, always prepared to cut a rug for joy in God. To the dismay of some.

vs 12

The joy that we feel, we feel from God. We can't escape that. If you have joy, you have to thank God for it, because there is nowhere else from which it comes. He is the one who turns grief into joy.

Psalm 29

2011-01-16T07:15:00.002+11:00

vs 1

I just have to say that, on the outset, this psalm is much more like some modern Christian music, in its repetition. Which makes it perhaps more familiar to us, but that much more boring.

We start with a typical lyrical statement - about angels ascribing greatness to God. Of course, being lyrical doesn't make it fictional. It's like writing about butterflies and rainbows, which are also not fictional. Not that angels are like butterflies and angels either. But they do praise God, so it's like telling butterflies to fly or rainbows to be colourful.

vs 2

And why should they be doing this? Because it's what God deserves. He deserves to have heavenly beings singing his praises, and ascribing him greatness.

vs 3

The waters of course being a place that Israelites weren't that keen on as a rule, so to know that God thunders over them is a show of his power over all things. It could also be a picture of a storm out to sea, which is a pretty awesome sight.

vs 4

If we were thinking of thunder in a storm, then the voice of the Lord is powerful, majestic, and also difficult to understand. But then, it's just a picture. Thunderstorms are not God. God actually talks, with a voice that is actually powerful and actually majestic.

vs 5

Again, something a storm might do. But also something God may will to do, even just to show his power, through and over creation. The Lord floods Brisbane, for example.

vs 6

My assumption is that the leap comes from a crash of lightning. Krakow! Eep!

vs 7

So, in fact, God says, "Krakrakrakow boom!" Again, it's a description of power.

vs 8

Kadesh is the desert of the wilderness wanderings, where Miriam died, and where Moses struck the rock with his staff. In one sense, showing that God's voice shakes the desert is a nice contrast to the oceans of earlier. Why the desrt of Kadesh in particular? Perhaps simply because it is a famous desert from Israel's history. I mean, if I were going to mention something in a song, I'd mention something someone would understand - so if 'my heart leapt like a' I'd say kangaroo instead of, say, bilby, or marsupial mouse. My heart may have leapt like all three, but people know kangaroos.

vs 9

I don't know if you've ever given glory to God when looking at a natural event, like a storm. I have, and it's not something I do often, but I assume many people have, since there are so many songs and prayers and videos and such about it. When God did directly (and pre- or post-announced) reveal himself or acted using weather phenomenon, there is a very strong link to them and him to his people. When your fig trees are being stripped of fruit, you don't cry out "Glory" because you don't like figs. You do it because there really isn't any other response to the power of God. Sort of like Job, really.

On a slight tangent, this is one of those verses that makes me wonder how people can say the KJV is the more readily understandable version. Apart from all the unnecessary 'th's, what is a hind? Apparently, it is "the female of the deer, chiefly the red deer, Cervus elaphus, especially in and after the third year". Well. Specific.

vs 10

As much as this psalm has not been one of my favourites, this verse is particularly poignant at present, considering the flooding in Queensland and parts of NSW, and parts of Victoria, and parts of Tasmania. As much as God is king over all that, he is king over all things forever. Comforting thought, and hopefully to many.

vs 11

This is what I would hope and pray for those Christians suffering in the floods at present - that God would give them strength, and bless his people, especially as they seek to help others overcome the grief of loss, and in the clean up and rebuilding.

Psalm 28

2011-01-15T13:07:00.002+11:00

vs 1

God's reaction to David will determine what happens to him. David has to rely on God, because there is nothing else to rely on.

vs 2

I wonder if that means to heaven, or actually towards the temple? I mean, apparently Muslims used to pray towards Jerusalem, before changing it to Mecca, so I wonder if Jews used to do that too? I'm afraid I don't know enough about their liturgical and prayer culture. Anyway, I think the point of the verse is more that David wants God to hear him.

vs 3

I wonder if something specific happened to David to get him to write this line - like one of his neighbours did something - or if it was just a sinful sort of thing that fit with the tempo of the psalm? I mean, it sounds like, "Don't treat me like a sinner, like that Steve, who I know talks about me behind my back. Steve..."

vs 4

Yeah, that Steve, show him what happens when you talk behind people's backs. Ahem. But don't treat me like one of them, because I'm calling out to you for help.

vs 5

Not necessarily because of what they did, then? I mean, that's the idea, I think. Sure, you might have sinned. But a sinful act alone is not going to damn you. It's when you have flagrant disregard for God, and you don't think about him and what he has done, and you dont' call on him for help, that's when you're toast.

vs 6

That's a nice verse. Now, is it a statement that God has heard his cry (the cry from the last few verses) somewhere between the writing of the psalm? Or is it an example of what they call the 'prophetic perfect', where it suggests that something has already happened, because you can trust God so much that you can treat it as if it's happened even though it hasn't yet?

vs 7

These are great statements, but again, is this remembering God's faithfulness in the past, or most recently? Not that it really matters.

vs 8

This is probably a comforting thought. God isn't just the strength of David, but he is the strength of his whole people. Assuming, that is, that they call out to him, rather than being like Steve, who disregards the work of God's hands.

vs 9

It's a request that you make to sort of remind God of things that might glorify him, and promises he has made. There's nothing wrong with asking God for things that he has promised. I mean, it shows that you want it, and that you know he wants it, and that you believe he can and will give it. So long as you don't ask in a whiny way, I guess.

Psalm 27

2011-01-14T09:01:00.002+11:00

vs 1

The answer of course is no-one, but this is usually an idea you would look into when you already are afraid, or when there are things that would make normal people afraid. There's plenty out there to fear, just not anything that outranks God.

vs 2

Sometimes. I don't think there's a promise we can rely on that makes this a reality, except eschatologically. Perhaps we need to think that way anyway.

vs 3

David, I've read your other psalms, so I know this isn't true. But it's a great thing to aim for.

vs 4

If we look at life eschatologically, if this is what we live for, then we'll get it, regardless of armies and enemies. So, awesome.

vs 5

Is the day of trouble just the day when trouble strikes, or is it the Day of trouble? Not sure, but considering that the worst day of trouble is the Day, and God still protects from that, we should be okay.

vs 6

The head being exalted, I'm guessing, is like being head and shoulders above them. So God's safety puts David above his enemies. And I suppose because God has kept David safe, he makes his sacrifices with joy and sings to him in thanksgiving.

vs 7

The tone of this psalm generally gives these words a different expression than in those of anguish. It's like it's a statement that still needs to be made, but with assurance that it will be heard.

vs 8

That's a wonderful thing. His very being tells him to seek God's face, and so that's what he's going to do.

vs 9

David, as always, is putting this request in the context of previous help from God. But when he is positive, he puts it in the context of previous help to him. When he's a little more anxious, he puts it in the context of previous help to Israel.

vs 10

That's a little depressing, but I guess if God is for you, then even your parents can't take that away. This is quite a common thing for many Christians these days, who convert from other religions. It's a powerful verse for them, I'll bet.

vs 11

I wonder if David means that, because he's got the pressure of people seeking to oppress him, that that is a possible cause of him leaving the straight and narrow, and so he's asking God to give him a straight path so he doesn't go and kill someone, or something similar? It's an interesting base for the request.

vs 12

David's life definitely sucked sometimes. But he was sure God could get him through.

vs 13

While the first part of the verse is a great statement that really backs up the tone of the whole thing, the words "in the land of the living" are quite interesting. The way I read it is him saying that he is confident that God will bless him and save him 'during this life', as in, he is not waiting eschatologically. That sort of throws out what I was saying earlier. I suppose the promises of God to Israel really were wrapped up in the here and now, so why not have that faith? That's quite a challenge to me.

vs 14

Thank you, David. I'll try.