|
Mark 3
Feb 10, 2007 12:39:39 GMT -8
Post by michelle on Feb 10, 2007 12:39:39 GMT -8
2/1/06:
11Whenever the evil spirits saw him, they fell down before him and cried out, "You are the Son of God." 12But he gave them strict orders not to tell who he was.
Does anyone have some insight into why Jesus would say this when his mission was to save the lost? Did he want people to have a chance to realize this for themselves?
23So Jesus called them and spoke to them in parables: "How can Satan drive out Satan? 24If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come.
I love Jesus' logical argument here. I think it helps to show the many facets of his personality and to show that there are several ways to make a point. At times he used logic, at times he used stories, and at times he tugged at heart strings.
|
|
|
Mark 3
Feb 10, 2007 12:42:56 GMT -8
Post by Josh on Feb 10, 2007 12:42:56 GMT -8
2/1/06:
I've always been confused about Jesus' statement here. Why can't Satan drive out Satan? Wouldn't that help him to confuse things?
And it almost seems in verse 26 like Jesus IS saying that 'Satan' IS divided. The message of the Gospels is that this end has come with Christ's coming, so, with reverse logic:
if the end of Satan's dominion has come, then his dominion must be divided.
|
|
|
Mark 3
Feb 10, 2007 12:44:00 GMT -8
Post by michelle on Feb 10, 2007 12:44:00 GMT -8
2/1/06:
Maybe that is a power that Satan does not have. Or maybe it's something he knows he cannot do because it would make him look like he is afraid and who would fear someone who himself is fearful?
I don't think Jesus is saying that Satan is divided. If Jesus said that Satan cannot be divided without his kingdom coming to an end and he was saying that Satan was divided, he would be saying Satan's kingdom was at an end. We know that that is not the case, so that can't be what Jesus was saying.
I don't think you can do the reverse logic thing. There can be more than one reason that the end of Satan's dominion has come (i.e. God destroys it), but the end cannot be avoided if the kingdom is divided. It's kind of like a square is always a rectangle, but a rectangle is not always a square.
|
|
|
Mark 3
Feb 10, 2007 12:44:39 GMT -8
Post by Josh on Feb 10, 2007 12:44:39 GMT -8
2/2/06:
You're right... reserve logic alone doesn't make the point, but actually, I AM arguing that Satan's kingdom has already ended. I realize this is a bit controversial, but consider these passages first:
John 12:31 (New International Version)
31Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out.
John 16:11b (New International Version)
11... because the prince of this world now stands condemned.
--Notice the emphasis on NOW, not at the Final Judgment--
Luke 11:20-22 (New International Version)
20But if I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come to you.
21"When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe. 22But when someone stronger attacks and overpowers him, he takes away the armor in which the man trusted and divides up the spoils.
--this verse makes more sense of the version in Mark. God's kingdom has come, and Satan's kingdom has been disarmed and is now being plundered--
Luke 10:17-20 (New International Version)
17The seventy-two returned with joy and said, "Lord, even the demons submit to us in your name."
18He replied, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. 19I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you. 20However, do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven."
--I think the best way to understand this is that Jesus is saying that BECAUSE of the ministry of the Church, Jesus saw Satan fall like lightning (ie, I don't think he's referring to something that happened at the beginning of the universe, at least primarily. The context here is the ministry of the 72 disciples)__
Colossians 2:15 (New International Version)
15And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.
--Satan's kingdom has already been "disarmed and triumphed over"--
New International Version (NIV) Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
Now, all that being said, please read my comments about "binding the strong man" under Mark 3 as well.
While I think Scripture teaches that Satan was bound by Christ in the 1st Century, that doesn't mean that the enemy doesn't have power or that we aren't still engaged in a titanic spiritual struggle against the forces of evil, just that the world is no longer the kingdom of Satan-- it has already been declared the kingdom of Jesus. That's our message- we are taking that factual declaration and acting on it, even though 'things on the ground' might not appear that way often.
The trick here, of course, is the NOW and not YET aspect, so part of this is semantics. It might be tempting to just say: One kingdom is on it's way in and one kingdom is on it's way out. But the reason I don't think we should leave it at that is that Scipture seems very adamant that we should realize that the Kingdom of Jesus is REALLY HERE-- it has arrived and Satan's kingdom is DONE. There has been a critical, clear 'hand-over'. Still, the war for the kingdoms spills over before and after the handoff. And certainly although the Kingdom is here, it has not been cleared of the enemy, and the final enemey, death, (as the New Testament says) has yet to be defeated, although it has lost it's power.
The practical aspect of this, is that I think we should be careful not to give satan too much authority. I don't believe he is any longer the 'prince of this world'. Jesus now has that title.
Does that ring true?
|
|
|
Mark 3
Feb 10, 2007 12:45:23 GMT -8
Post by Josh on Feb 10, 2007 12:45:23 GMT -8
2/1/06:
I view the verse about first "tying up the strong man", so you can rob his house and posessions (Mark 3:27) as a reference to Satan being bound by Christ's ministry and the defeat of the Beast in the 1st Century, and the beginning of the Church age, in which we are currently still plundering Satan's kingdom, which has already been given to Christ (see Rev. 20:1-6).
The most natural meaning of this passage, I think, here is not that the "strong man" (Satan) will be bound in the future, but will soon be bound so that the plundering can begin. There are other Scriptures which back this up- namely, that Satan's dominion came to a decisive end in the 1st Century.
This of course doesn't mean we don't fight demons to this day, it's just that the dominion of this world has been transferred to Christ. The enemies we fight are fighting on OUR turf.
|
|
|
Mark 3
Feb 10, 2007 12:45:50 GMT -8
Post by Josh on Feb 10, 2007 12:45:50 GMT -8
2/1/06:
I think a Bible critic would say that Jesus didn't claim to be the Son of God (only His followers did later), so the Gospel writers had to 'explain' how it wasn't common knowledge that Jesus taught he was the Son of God, but at the same time things had actually happened that would indicate that He was. In effect, they would say that the Gospel writers invented these stories to back up their claims about Jesus, while cleverly providing an excuse as to why earlier people hadn't heard them.
That being said, I think the trustworthiness of the early Christians involved in the writing of the New Testament merits more trust in the text than that; if they said it happened, I don't think we should automatically assume they're trying to explain away some awkward fact.
In fact, this theme of secrecy crops up again and again in the Synoptic Gospels, indicating that it has multiple attestation.
HOWEVER, the Gospel of John seems to have very little secrecy on Jesus' part. In the early chapters of John, Jesus appears to speak quite frankly with others about WHO He is. Think of John 3 (v. 16 in particular). That's a pretty fully developed Christology, quite different at least at first glance from the slowly-developing portrait of who Christ is in the Gospels. Let's put it this way: if one of the climaxes late in the Synoptics is Peter declaring that Jesus is the Messiah, how is it that in John, Jesus is already calling Himself the Son of God?
Part of the answer to this might rest on less of an emphasis on chronology in John's gospel. Another might have something to do with private discussions of Jesus vs. public. Anyway, if you're not familiar with this issue, it's worth investigation.
All that being said, Why the secrecy in the Synoptics?
Here are a few suggestions, maybe others have more:
1) Jesus knew a fuller revelation of his identity would quickly lead to His death; which needs to wait until His ministry was complete. Jesus seems quite focused on things happening at their right time: "My time has not yet come", etc...
2) Jesus was hoping to reveal Himself to His disciples in His own way- a way that wasn't too overwhelming, or in a way that would help his followers to understand different aspects of Him (like, maybe He wanted them to grasp the fullness of His humanity before wrestling with the truth of His deity) This is also like God's own progressive self-revelation throughout the Scripture)
|
|
hume
Advanced Member
Posts: 136
|
Mark 3
Feb 10, 2007 12:47:40 GMT -8
Post by hume on Feb 10, 2007 12:47:40 GMT -8
2/2/06:
Whispers of Deity
"I think a Bible critic would say that Jesus didn't claim to be the Son of God (only His followers did later)"
Yeah, Christ's claims to divinity are rather subtle to our ears. Maybe not so subtle to his original audience though. Consider that exorcisms were evidently a common occurrence at the time; there was nothing very odd about a famous rabbi "casting out demons." However it was unheard of for one to do so as if by his own authority, without direct reference to God. "In all the exorcisms that Jesus conducted, He omitted the invocation of God, which is normally an essential part. The people were invariably amazed, but not at His success — for the Pharisees routinely exorcised demons. The controversy that followed Jesus’ exorcisms invariably revolved around the means by which He pulled it off; the people, not having heard an invocation, were amazed that Jesus possessed the personal authority to boss demons around, but the Pharisees, who realized that such a personal prerogative necessarily implied divine power, theorized instead that Jesus had mumbled an invocation of Satan under His breath. Jesus only refuted the latter view, implicitly teaching His divinity." (http://www.kencollins.com/jesus-11.htm)
In a related vein, think of the Sermon on the Mount, when Jesus repeatedly makes use of a scripture quotation with, "You have heard X, but I say to you Y." Like the ritual of exorcism, this phrasing was a known rabbinical formula of the time -- but again, with a crucial difference. In the usual practice, "X" was one scriptural reference, and "Y" another. To follow the tradition, Jesus should have used one scripture to comment on another. Instead he simply inserts his own words in opposition to God's word. This must have been at best puzzling, if not breathtaking, to his listeners.
Secrecy in the Synoptics
"Parables have a time-release effect; they plant seeds that sprout later.
Jesus taught the public in pithy and memorable parables, so that people would remember them, discuss them, and try to figure out what they meant; and in this way the parables spread far beyond their original audience. Jesus deliberately withheld the meaning of the parables from the public to equip the disciples for successful evangelism later on. He explained the parables to the disciples, told them to wait for the proper time, and then shout from the housetops what they had heard in secret." (http://www.kencollins.com/jesus-14.htm)
Perhaps in a similar way, by withholding loudly trumpeted announcements of his divinity, Jesus intended to give the possibility time to "sink in."
Remember we're talking here about a "Messiah" who was actually MUCH more than what anyone expected the Messiah to be. He could have said, "Hey everyone, I'm the Messiah." But he was more than that. He could have said, "Hey, I'm the Messiah, and I'm God incarnate in human form." But that's crazy talk. No one had any expectation of such a thing; indeed it's utter blasphemy.
Jesus had too much respect for his audience, too much understanding of how people come to grips with wild new ideas, to just dump everything on them at once. He wanted his message to be heard and considered. Saying to a Jewish audience, "I'm God" would be the quickest way to get them to stop listening to you (and also a quick way to stop yourself from talking further to anyone other than the executioner).
|
|
|
Mark 3
Feb 10, 2007 12:49:00 GMT -8
Post by Josh on Feb 10, 2007 12:49:00 GMT -8
2/3/06:
Those are shocking bits of information frequently lost on the modern reader.
"Jesus had too much respect for his audience"
That's a brilliant way of putting it.
|
|
|
Mark 3
Feb 10, 2007 12:49:40 GMT -8
Post by Josh on Feb 10, 2007 12:49:40 GMT -8
2/1/06:
Mark 3:31-35 seems to indicate that the 'spiritual family' trumps the 'physical family'. Now, ideally, a physical family can be a spiritual family, but what a message this is those for whom 'family' has meant nothing but dysfunction!
|
|
|
Mark 3
Jan 20, 2010 16:21:50 GMT -8
Post by Josh on Jan 20, 2010 16:21:50 GMT -8
A question related to:
31Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. 32A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, "Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you." 33"Who are my mother and my brothers?" he asked.
34Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! 35Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother."
What are the implications of this teaching? In what wasy is it okay to prioritize our own physical family? In what ways should we prioritize our spiritual family?
For instance, some "ministers" (dedicated servants of God) seem to have fallen into the trap of neglecting their own nuclear families to the point of personal ruin. However, we also live in a culture obsessed with certain biases on "boundaries" that emphasizes taking care of ourselves and our own first and others only secondly.
To be really practical, how does one decide how to divide their time between their physical family and their spiritual family?
|
|