In the previous thread, I promoted the idea that the potential significance of both the proclaiming and the casting/healing components of the Mark 3 (and 6) commission can have biblically appropriate application in social action. I had suggested in the thread that one of the underlying barriers to seeing (understanding) that social action can be a legitimate evangelistic activity (with potential biblical outcomes of social righteousness), is not that such an understanding can’t be seen in the biblical text, but that many Christians simply cannot see past evangelism being a cognitive-based activity with sole outcomes of personal salvation. Secondly, there is the application barrier—it is easy to see preaching/teaching/witnessing/testifying as an evangelistic application, but not helping the poor, seeking to address injustice social structures or addressing needed social reforms, advocating for the economically vulnerable, job creation, providing basic needs, etc. Third, there is the tendency to narrowly define the “Gospel” proclaimed to mean only the death and resurrection of Jesus for personal salvation. And finally, it’s easy to apply proclaiming and hard to apply casting and healing.
I’d like to suggest in this brief post-script to my previous thread, that we also get it wrong when we narrowly think “proclaiming” is just repent and believe in Jesus (or “Jesus died for your sins, ask for forgiveness,” or “if you were to die tonight and you found yourself outside the gates of heaven and God asked you, ‘Why should I let you into My heaven?’”…and so forth—you get the idea). No. That is us limiting what Jesus meant when he commissioned His follower-fishers to preach. I do assume He means “preach the Gospel.” For in Mark 1:14-15, if you are reading the New American Standard Bible (NASB), the text states, “to preach the Gospel of God.” Older versions, following a text which included a scribal addition, reads, “to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom of God.” Most probably a scribe felt compelled to add to Mark 1:14-15 “kingdom” to help the reader and to better align Mark here with other expressions of the same, such as Matthew’s rendering in his gospel (cf. 4:23). Nonetheless, the insertion in all likelihood isn’t original to Mark or Jesus, but it is the intention—it is the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, which is to be proclaimed. This is affirmed by Mark’s introduction in 1:1 and Jesus’ summary of His mission in 1:15, where He clearly states that He is proclaiming that the “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel” [of the Kingdom of God, which is certainly implied and to be filled in by the hearer of the Gospel narrative]. So, it is not the narrowly understood concept of “Jesus died for your sins, believe in the Gospel and be saved,” which is certainly included; but it is Mark’s definition of the Gospel that counts here. Mark has already defined and given content to his use of the Gospel, which certainly includes God’s righteous reign over all the realms of humankind.
So as we seek the significance of the follower-fisher commission to preach, we should include proclaiming God’s righteousness—which includes His will for social righteousness as it does of His Good News that Jesus died for our sins. What Jesus, in Mark (remember it’s not Paul! Yet!), is preaching is the interruption, the invasion of God’s Kingdom into the realms of humankind. This, for sure, allows preaching/proclaiming to also include the realm of social action, which seeks God’s righteousness in all the realms of society, including advocacy for the poor and economically vulnerable.
Activities > Outcomes
Preaching = teaching/proclaiming how God expects humankind to socially relate > advocacy for the poor and economically vulnerable and changes in social relationships and structures to reflect God’s righteousness.
Finally, I turn to the significance of the proclaiming and casting commission to the first disciples—the sent ones who Jesus desired/choose, the followers-created-to-be-fishers. I have suggested that we easily apply the proclaiming commission—that’s easy, we turn it into a whole range of cognitive-based activities for one basic outcome: witnessing, preaching/teaching, handing out tracks, personal testimonies > personal decisions for Christ. But the casting/healing, we singularly apply that to mean only casting out demons/exorcism and divine healing: praying, laying-on-of-hands, maybe a prayer-chain > the actual healing of whatever/whoever is to be healed and commanding, praying, demanding > the person is freed of demonic possession.
However, we do not do what we do with almost every other text of Scripture: ask what it (the proclamation/casting) means and apply its significance to the time and place we are in. It appears that the proclaiming and casting/healing were commissioning activities in Mark’s story that first mimicked Jesus’ purpose and mission. For this is the first thing out of the box: After Mark defines the Gospel (1:1-3), introduces the characters who will play a part in inaugurating the kingdom (1:4-20)—the eschatological expectations—and summarizes the impact of the presence of the Kingdom (1:14-15)—there will be repentance because of the old, evil age has come to an end and belief/faith in the Gospel because the Kingdom, that is God’s reign has been inaugurated into the realms of mankind, he crafts a story (vv. 21ff) that indicates Jesus’ confrontation with the old age through teaching and casting. The crowds understand that both are amazing (they are awed), both are teaching (to be understood), and both come with authority (a reflection of the presence of the Son-King of the Kingdom). Simply, the commissioning activities are about the confrontation between the old age and the new. These activities are a signal that the Kingdom of God is invading the realms of humankind.
I have suggested elsewhere that Mark has defined the nature of the Gospel of Jesus-Messiah, the Son of God (1:1) through the lens of Old Testament eschatological expectations, which include social expectations of righteousness. Mark defines the nature and context of the Gospel by his blended Old Testament reference in vv. 2-3 and the background to the fisher-promise in 1:17. This includes land-stipulations, covenant expectations, and warnings against idolatry. This context and background that Mark gives his narrative embeds the Gospel with associations to social righteousness, particularly relationships of the non-poor to the poor. Once cannot escape this biblical reality.
If the significance of the commissioning activities of proclaiming and casting are to confront the old age and bring about repentance and faith in this Gospel, then activities and outcomes associated with social action that reflects the presence of the King and His Kingdom expectations are biblically acceptable for the Christian community to be involved with, even demanding of actually.
Action/Activities > Outcomes
Proclaiming/casting/healing = confronting the old age > repentance/people-places free of demonic influence/healing of the sick
Activities that reflect the nature and content of the presence of the Kingdom = confronting the old age > personal salvation and social righteousness
Social action = confronting the old age > Outcomes of social righteousness
Yes, the meaning and significance of the commission to proclaim the presence of the Kingdom and the casting/healing that confronts the powers of the old age can find application in activities of social action.
To refresh, I am looking at the significance of the commissioning texts in Mark 3 and 6, particularly in how the texts function as the fulfillment of the fisher-promise in Mark 1:17. Originally, I was asked a question—is casting out demons social action? This was asked after I delivered a paper on the meaning of fishers of men, when I implied strongly that biblical evangelism is both word and deed and that social action should be considered a naturally, biblical component of our evangelistic activities. I had pointed to the commissioning texts of “proclaiming” and “casting” in Mark 3, suggesting that social action is a reasonable application of the text’s implications. The question was, Is casting out demons social action? This thread has been attempting to answer this question. However, it is not that “casting” is social action; it is that the significance of “proclaiming” and “casting” (and “healing”) implies that God’s reign has come and evangelism is the action of the Church to apply that reign in every aspect of life—both personal to salvation and social to righteousness (God’s righteousness). And, the social righteousness aspect is gained from the embedded Old Testament concepts in Mark’s description of the Good News that relate to commandments and land-stipulations that are to demonstrate right-relationships among people, including the economically vulnerable.
Here I am briefly showing that the casting/healing activities of Jesus has similar reactions and functions in Mark’s Gospel as the teaching/parable/proclaiming activity of Jesus. I highlighted the functions above in a previous post; now, I am briefly showing that people (the crowds, the disciples, Jerusalem leadership) has similar reactions to both proclamation and casting/healing.
We’ve already noted that in Mark 1, right after the introductions of characters whose roles are to inaugurate the Kingdom—John the Baptist, the Holy Spirit, Jesus the Son, and fishers of men—we are shown the first activities of Jesus’ ministry-mission. It comes in a episode depicting the very components of the commission to be given the follower-fishers in chapter 3:
They went into Capernaum; and immediately on the Sabbath He entered the synagogue and began to teach. They were amazed at His teaching; for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as the scribes. Just then there was a man in their synagogue with an unclean spirit; and he cried out, saying, “What business do we have with each other, Jesus of Nazareth? Have You come to destroy us? I know who You are—the Holy One of God!” And Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Be quiet, and come out of him!” Throwing him into convulsions, the unclean spirit cried out with a loud voice and came out of him. They were all amazed, so that they debated among themselves, saying, “What is this? A new teaching with authority! He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey Him” (1:21-27).
Jesus teaches. Jesus exercises authority in casting out a demon. Both actions are seen as authoritative teaching by the onlookers—and both receive the reaction of being amazed by the crowd. This reaction—being amazed—is consistent throughout the narrative. And it should not surprise us that the activities of teaching/proclamation and the miracle/casting/healing are linked together. Furthermore both categories have the same function and receive similar reactions. We see this again just prior to the second commissioning text in chapter 6:
When the Sabbath came, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands?” (6:2)
And again in following ministry episodes:
They were utterly astonished, saying, “He has done all things well; He makes even the deaf to hear and the mute to speak” (7:37).
The chief priests and the scribes heard this, and began seeking how to destroy Him; for they were afraid of Him, for the whole crowd was astonished at His teaching” (11:18).
And Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they were amazed at Him (12:17).
This “amazed” reaction is seen/heard throughout Mark’s Gospel. In fact Mark utilizes a wide range of words to describe this reaction by the crowds, the disciples, and the Jerusalem leadership (1:22, 27; 2:12; 3:21; 5:20, 42; 6:2, 51; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 11:18; 12:17;14:33; 15:5, 44; 16:5, 6). This should indicate to the reader/hearer of Mark’s Gospel that both components of the commission—proclaiming/casting—function in the same way.
In the last post in this thread, I will draw some conclusions and suggest the significance of the proclaiming/casting commission that helps define its application.
As was observed in the previous post, the miracles and the parables and teaching of Jesus have similar functions in the Marken narrative. What is truly amazing and overlooked is that the casting/healing miracles and the proclamation/teaching instances both have similar outcomes and are considered by the “crowds” to be of the same clothe—the same reactions. There is a similar pattern of teaching/proclamation-amazement and casting/healing-amazement in Mark’s narrative world.
First, after Mark introduces the nature of the Gospel, the four pivotal characters that play a role in the inauguration of the Kingdom (John the Baptist—vv 4ff, the Holy Spirit—vv 9ff, Jesus the Son of God—vv 11ff, and the follower-fishers—vv 17ff), Mark introduces a scene that hints at the thesis I am proposing, namely that “proclaiming” and “casting” (and “healing”) are not to be neatly separated into two different activities with two distinct outcomes.
They went to Capernaum, and when the Sabbath came, Jesus went into the synagogue and began to teach. The people were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law. Just then a man in their synagogue who was possessed by an evil spirit cried out, “What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!” “Be quiet!,” said Jesus sternly. “Come out of him!” The evil spirit shook the man violently and came out of him with a shriek. The people were all so amazed that they asked each other, “What is this? A new teaching—and with authority! He even gives orders to evil spirits and they obey him.” News about him spread quickly over the whole region of Galilee (Mark 1:21-27).
What is noticeable here is that after teaching and after the casting the crowds were amazed. And, after the casting episode the crowds observed, “What is this? A new teaching—and with authority!” They considered that the “casting” was also “a teaching.” What is also interesting is that this “new teaching” came with “authority.” This sets up the commissioning of the twelve-followers, where they are told they will have authority to cast out demons.
This pattern can be observed throughout Mark’s narrative, where those who hear the proclaiming/teaching and observe the miracles are “amazed” at what they heard and saw.
In the next post, a review of the “amazed” texts…
The miracle stories are the first to suffer criticism and ridicule from skeptics and academic elites as “made up” or embellished or simply as colorful stories to give the impression that God is at work. Mostly these observations are coupled with “interpretation” that says, It is not that the miracle stories are true or not, but what they mean, namely God was in Christ working to save mankind. Now listen carefully, I believe the miracle stories are true, but I do agree that we should ask why they are part of the written stories. I believe, as evangelicals, we are so intent on affirming the reality of the miraculous, that we overlook or shun any interpretation of the miracles stories other that “look, see Jesus did miracles, so He must be God”—that is, we don’t ask what is the significance of the miracle stories and then make application. We don’t do that—we are afraid to, for fear that we’d be suggesting that a miracle hadn’t really happened or can’t happen. But, we forget that the inspired author (in this case Mark) has written them down to provide a God-breathed account of the Gospel in order to teach us something about discipleship, evangelism, and the Christian faith.
Most critics of the Gospels recognize that the parables and much of the teachings of Jesus are original—or, the actual voice of Jesus. What these same critics (as well as ourselves) overlook is that the parables and the miracles attributed to Jesus are strikingly parallel in function in the narrative; each functioning as part of the literary markers in how Mark uses them in the story to teach us something about the Gospel, about discipleship, about evangelism. While conservative Christians recognize the “apologetic” value of the miracles as “proof” of Jesus’ deity, they have not noticed that even Jesus, many times, refused to work miracles to prove who He was (e.g. Mark 8:11-13; Matt 12:38-42). Also overlooked is how parables and miracles function in the story: Both parables and miracles “conceal” and “reveal,” and both provoked misunderstanding and, as well, indicated the in-breaking of God’s reign. The question to ask, isn’t whether miracle stories in Mark are true (which I believe they are), but what do they mean and what their significance are in Mark’s narrative world. Mark’s inclusion of sixteen or so miracle stories means more than an apologetic for Jesus’ deity.
The Jerusalem leadership misunderstood Jesus’ casting authority (Mark 3:22ff). The disciples lacked insight into the miracles as well, similar to the confusion over Jesus’ parables (cf. Mark 4:13; 6:52; 7:18; 8:21). Interestingly, the words that Jesus said to the disciples after the feeding miracles (Mark 8:18) are similar to those used after the parables in Mark 4; both draw from the Isaiah 6 idolatry-taunt―seeing but not perceiving… hearing but not understanding.
Furthermore, there is a similar response to both the instances of “proclaiming” and the “casting” that is overlooked. The reaction to Jesus’ teaching and the reaction to Jesus’ miracles of healing and casting out of demons are surprisingly similar. We will review this in the next post…
The paradigm set in the vignettes and narrative prior to the Mark 3 commissioning of the called twelve follower-disciples seem, at first read, to indicate two types of follower-disciple activities: one of “proclaiming” and one of “casting” (and “healing” as the Mark 6 repeated commission indicates). I say seems because we neatly separate them as two activities with two different outcomes—proclaiming produces outcomes of confession, repentance, conversion, faith, changed lives, etc. and casting, well, that produces demon-less people.
We jump at application when it comes to the “proclaiming” stories, commissions, and commands. We immediately make broad the categories of potential applications: preaching, teaching, evangelism, passing out tracks, writing books and articles, radio, TV, some even posit plays, drama, music and the cognitive-based activities goes on. Application seems easy when it comes to the proclamation texts. (We will deal with the “outcomes” of proclamation in the last post of this thread and their relationship to evangelism as it is presented in Mark’s Gospel.) But the big, million dollar question is how do we apply the miracle texts and, in particular, the casting and healing texts and stories. If we’re being honest, as conservative evangelicals, we tend to treasure the miraculous in the Bible, but we’re not sure what to do with it. We say we believe they really happened as described in the Bible, but we’re skeptical of how they’re supposed to work today. Some of us affirm that actual miracles take place today; some affirm the “potential” of actual miracles; many by default just don’t know and are actually skeptical of any reported miracle today.
Some simply use—rather than apply—the casting, healing and other miracle stories as “proof” that Jesus is God and that the disciples/apostles were sent by God. The miracles performed are proof of the truth of the Gospel—even if that proof was acted out in the days of Jesus. They are used—the application—as proof-texts that the Gospel is true and Jesus is God, proof, as an apologetic, for our faith, for Christianity, for the deity of Jesus. It’s a slight of hand really: We turn the action of miracles (the casting/healing in our discussion here) into a cognitive-based evangelistic tool, rather than what it appears in the texts of Scripture—an activity, a miracle that has demonstratable outcomes of healed people and demon-less people (and when looking at Mark 5, demon-less territory).
This is where we lose the power of the miracle stories, and their parallel nature and intention to that of proclaiming the presence of the Kingdom of God. There are two things that must be taken into consideration as we ponder how to apply the significance of the “proclaiming” and casting/healing” texts, especially as to how they apply to evangelism. In the second part of this post (3b) I will point out that the proclaiming/teaching stories and the miracle stories both have similar functions in Mark’s Gospel with similar reactions from “the crowds” and disciples. Second, both are to be linked back to the inauguration of the Kingdom of God, the very thing that gives proclaiming and casting/healing content and significance—then application.
It takes Mark until chapter three to introduce the characters who will be playing the role of “followers” (cf. 1:17ff) whom are the “appointed twelve” (as will be noted, actually created twelve). In chapter one and two a few of the twelve appear in the “calling” scenes (1:16-18; 19-20; 2:14), but now in 3:13ff all are introduced and given their co-mission:
And He went up on the mountain and summoned those whom He Himself wanted, and they came to Him. And He appointed twelve, so that they would be with Him and that He could send them out to preach, and to have authority to cast out the demons. And He appointed the twelve: Simon (to whom He gave the name Peter), and James, the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James (to them He gave the name Boanerges, which means, “Sons of Thunder"); and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Zealot; and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Him (Mark 3:13-19: cf. 6:7-13).
A couple of things to notice in the commissioning texts of Mark (3 and 6):
1) First, Mark makes sure his audience links the call back to the promise in Mark 1:17, where Jesus calls followers (“Come, follow Me”) and promises to make/create them “to become fishers of men” (ποιήσω ὑμᾶς γενέσθαι ἁλιεῖς ἀνθρώπων). For in the 3:13ff commissioning text Mark informs us that “He appointed,” literally “He created” the twelve (καὶ ἐποίησεν δώδεκα, and he created twelve). In essence (in Mark’s narrative world) he is informing his readers/listeners that the commission is the inaugurated-fulfillment of the promise “to become fishers of men.” In other words, Jesus creates them so that (with the resulting purpose that they) would be with him, and as a result of this they, too, would be sent to preach and to have authority to cast out the demons (ἵνα ὦσιν μετ’ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἵνα ἀποστέλλῃ αὐτοὺς κηρύσσειν καὶ ἔχειν ἐξουσίαν ἐκβάλλειν τὰ δαιμόνια). The eschatological fishing-task is to be fulfilled in accompanying Jesus on His mission (“witnessing first hand His mission”), that is being with Jesus, which gives them the eventual task of proclaiming and the authority to cast out of demons.
2) Second, it seems that the creation of the twelve is, first, so that the twelve would be with Him (in relationship, in close proximity in a discipleship relationship, in similar purpose and mission, in first hand experience seeing Jesus’ activities and hearing His teachings) and as a result of being with Him, the twelve would have a similar, mirror mission of proclamation and casting out demons. This call is a reflection of what has transpired already in Mark’s narrative world, namely that the story-picture painted by Mark is one of the Messiah—the Inaugarator of the Kingdom—who is doing “preaching/proclamation/teaching” and “casting/healing.”
In fact most of the narrative in chapters 1 and 3 are given over to healings, exorcisms, and explaining who this Jesus is that He has the authority to heal and cast out demons. In Mark 6, which is a repeated commission/explanation (6:7-13), the “sent ones” are sent as living parables, that is the preaching/proclamation/teaching outcome in Mark 6 is action, not just oral speech (i.e., proclamation/verbal witness). They were to take a mere staff, and no bread, no bag, no money in their belt and when they are at their ministry, when there is a rejection or a non-acceptance of their message, they were to shake the dust off the soles of your feet for a testimony against those who had rejected the message. They were living parables to the presence of the Kingdom.
3) There are two ἵνα clauses in the commission—one to indicate that as a result of the creation of the twelve, the twelve would be “with Him” (ἵνα ὦσιν μετ’ αὐτοῦ) and (καὶ) two, as a result of being “with Jesus” the twelve would be sent from Jesus “to preach” and “to have authority to cast out demons” (ἵνα ἀποστέλλῃ αὐτοὺς κηρύσσειν καὶ ἔχειν ἐξουσίαν ἐκβάλλειν τὰ δαιμόνια). Grammatically this allows us to view preaching and casting/healing as equal resulting outcomes of the first resulting clause (the ἵνα-clause) of being with Jesus. This is a good indicator that we have made, too much, two separate categories one verbal/cognitive and the other action (healing/casting). One to which we consider evangelism (the proclamation) and the other (casting), well either only literally casting/healing, or only activities in the days of Jesus, or nothing at all—and certainly not evangelism.
4) There is a similar pattern of teaching/proclamation-amazement and casting/healing-amazement in Mark’s narrative world…the next post in this thread…
My tentative thesis here is that the commission to proclaim the Good News and to have authority to cast out demons is 1) the two seemingly separate components are actually not that distinct in meaning and purpose and 2) the significance of proclaiming/casting is about God’s invasion of time and space. Before we consider a review of the “commission” passages, we need to recognize that when considering the charge to proclaim the arrival of the Gospel and the authority to cast out demons there is a need to return to the mission and purpose for which Jesus came in the first place.
We are too oft to read backwards into the Gospel. We start with Jesus came to die for my sins and read backward into the Gospel narratives and hear a more personal and privatized Gospel (Jesus came to save me from my sins, to give me new life). However comforting this view of the Gospel is, and no matter how true it is as a part of the Gospel, this is not the mission and purpose presented in the Gospel-narrative world of Mark (or Luke or Matthew, or even John for that matter). In a previous post I discussed the basis for the commission text in Mark 3 and Mark 6, which is the summary Mark provide in 1:14-15.
Now after John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”
Originally posted in a thread on Social Action Outcomes and the Fisher Promise in Mark 1:17. Here I pointed out that the two statements—the time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand and repent and believe in the gospel—have a parallel nature to them. I stated that we read these as two statements, but we do not read them as two parallel statements that explain or correspond to each other. This kind of exposition and parallelism would not have been far-fetched given the Hebrew thinking of the one who said it (Jesus) and the one who wrote it (Mark).
The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand
Repent and believe in the Gospel
The meaning is rather simple: the time of the old age (or as Paul puts it, this eveil present age that is under the domain of the evil one has come to an end—that is the time that has come to its eschatological end. Why? Because the kingdom of God is at hand. The dominion of Satan’s reign over the realms of mankind has come to its eschatological end. Now, the time of God’s kingdom has come to rule over the realms of mankind, and this Kingdom has been inaugurated in the appearance of God’s Son-King, the Messiah Jesus. The first imperative is repent, which corresponds to the first indicative that the Kingdom has come. The second imperative is believe corresponds to the second indicative that the hearers are to turn to belief/faith in (loyalty to) the good news that the new age of God’s dominion has dawned.”
One must see this foundation to make sense of the commission statements. Furthermore, the commissioning of the “sent ones” does not come right away; it is preceded by the introduction of the One who inaugurates the Kingd—Jesus, God’s messiah-King-Son—and the promise to followers that they, too, will be inaugurators of the Kingdom—the fishers of men--and then a series of stories about Jesus casting and healing. These stories, too, act as indicators that the Kingdom has come, for Jesus is already invading Satan’s territory.
Next the commissioning of the disciples…
Last April I had the privilege of presenting a paper at the New England regional conference of the Evangelical Theological Society. At the regional conference I gave a version of a paper on the subject of “fishers of men.” More or less an exegesis of Mark 1:1-17, the primary text being verse 17 where Jesus calls for “followers” and promises to make them into “fishers of men.” A question at the end of the session provoked some thought on what I need to be doing next—so I decided to head toward writing on application. Not!
Well, as some of you who read my steady stream of consciousness here, I am a reluctant “practical applier” of Scripture. Mostly because application is well overrated for one, and for another, such detailed, practical application is rare in Scripture. This type of practical application and making everything so detailed and practically relevant is our invention—not Scripture’s and certainly not God’s. More a product of modernity, the church growth movement, and our culture than a well thought out biblical theology. But finding the significance of a passage or a text is often how Scripture “applies” Scripture. So, this is the direction I am heading on my “follow-up” paper to my paper on the Mark 1:17 “fishers of men” passage—Significance Before Application: The Apostolic Commission (Proclaiming/Casting) and Evangelistic Social Action Outcomes.
The question I was asked was related to what appeared to my small, but thoughtful audience as a link between “casting out of demons” in the apostolic commission in Mark’s Gospel and the social action outcomes (or, evangelistic efforts that have a social action component) I had been advocating as a relevant outcome of evangelism. I had stated that the activity of those made into fishers was linked to the various Old Testament passages that include the way in which God intended His people to care, protect, provide, and advocated for the economically vulnerable and the poor. Thus, allowing for a connection between discipleship, evangelism, and social action. I was hesitant in directly answering the good gentleman’s question. I said yes was my answer, but I added cautiously that “casting out demons” was social action in the sense that the significance of the “casting” was dynamically related to God exercising His authority over the realms of man. It wasn’t a well thought out answer (really), so I thought immediately that it was time to move away from argument and foundation-laying (I have written four papers on the subject to date) to developing the significance of what I have been advocating for—that social action can be evangelism—and make a more apparent link between the text of Scripture and the significance of a Gospel that is embedded with content from Old Testament texts linked to idolatry and poverty.
As I began looking into this and developing, not only a theory of significance/application, I have also been visiting the “proclamation” and “casting” texts in Mark’s Gospel. What I discovered was that we separate the two, making almost two distinct “applicable” categories of activity: One being proclamation which is then applied as various forms of evangelism and two the authority to cast out demons. The latter, for the most part isn’t given applicable expression other than directly that of casting out of demons (or exorcism). And the funny thing, many Christians simply either don’t believe we can do that today or simply don’t. However, I think we have read the separation, the distinction into the texts. Not Mark, nor Jesus.
So in the following thread I’d like to reflect a bit on the significance of the proclamation-casting commission and activities in the Gospel of Mark. First, as the proclamation-casting commission is presented; second, as the proclamation-casting activities are presented; and, third, a brief reflection on what that significance might mean to Christians and the church community. Of course my next paper will flush this out more specifically. But these are some initial thoughts.
Next post in this thread, the proclamation-casting commission as presented in Mark’s Gospel…
The tension between being a citizen of this great county, the US of A, and being citizens of God’s kingdom is real. Or, it should be. In fact, I think there should be many sleepless nights and burden filled days for American Christians. I do love being an American. I enjoy the benefits that our form of government and the way our economic system works, and I appreciate the responsibilities that come with the role of citizen. I served in the Air Force, a volunteer, and I even served on the local Town Committee for the Republican Party (now, don’t go pigeon holing me—make sure you read a lot of this blog before making me a stereo-type conservative). And like Daniel and his three friends, I hope I contribute to my country’s welfare. But also like these four young men, I hope I know where to draw the line between what is acceptable in the emperor’s kingdom (i.e., the state) and what is pleasing as a member of God’s Kingdom. For any Christian, this is a tough task. Or, if should be—for too many, there is no tension at all.
Sometimes making this distinction and living it out can lead to a lion’s den and a fiery furnace (as in Daniel’s story). I hope when it is my turn, I live up to my convictions. In July, Americans get all patriotic—even Christians. Around the 4th many churches include such patriotism as a part of its worship, including the singing of the Battle Hymn of the Republic, the Star Spangled Banner, O Beautiful, and God Bless the USA, and in many churches, replacing the Apostle’s Creed with the Pledge of Allegiance. The Red, White, and Blue becomes the center of many American churches during this month. I have a problem with this—you should too! The worship service is to be characterized in such a way to reflect God’s throne and our allegiance to His Kingdom. Sermons—which ought to be a reflection of God’s Word, not American religiosity or civil religion—ought to be the place we learn about this tension and how to deal with it. In some countries and some places in history such kingdom-centered worship led to a lion’s den and a fiery furnace. The New Testament itself, especially books like Galatians and Revelation directly argue against aligning our church-life and Christian experience with the State, or a race, or an ethnic group. The worship of a Christian Church should not promote patriotism at any time, even if it’s only for the 4th of July; but, should celebrate that the church—no matter what country its adherents belong or living in—is a reflection of the eternal worship found in the consummation and in the nature of the Gospel itself. When we portray the Gospel as aligned in any way with a State or culture, we should listen seriously to what Paul said in Galatians 1:8-9:
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!
Better yet, we should make sure that our worship reflects God’s Kingdom rule as Daniel portrayed it in Daniel 7:13-14:
“In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.”
I only pray, despite whatever harm or result of my allegiance to God’s Kingdom comes my way, I can say as the three who faced the fire,
“O Nebuchadnezzar, we do not need to give you an answer concerning this matter. If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the furnace of blazing fire; and He will deliver us out of your hand, O king. But even if He does not, let it be known to you, O king, that we are not going to serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up” (Daniel 3:16-18).
We owe it to the martyrs of old and even those facing the same throughout the world today, who didn’t and doesn’t allow their faith to be a reflection of their civic duties and discovered as a result that their worship was welcomed by the face of lions and the flames of fire. We owe it to the truth of the Gospel. Sometimes, even when it seems unpatriotic, as Christians and citizens of the kingdom of God, we need to know where that line is. I need to know where that line is…daily.
PS In a few following posts I’d like to reflect on that line a little…
I was cautious even to know what to call this post. Nothing unfair. My goals in this blog doesn’t include bashing other religions or provoking unnecessary tension between rival religious groups. But I was intrigued and a bit surprised at the mention of African Christians in a recent NYPost opinion column. Over the years, I have read in numerous books and articles on the growth of the African Christian church, often mentioining that Christians and church plants outpace every other religious group and sect in Africa. Usually the comparison is made to the pace of church planting in America vs. the church planting in Africa—Africa wins out every time. But the facts of African Christianity never seem to make it into the main stream press or the “evening news.” I have read articles by respected journalists on African religions, but without one word on the massive church growth among Christian denominations all throughout the continent. And then there it was in a recent print news commentary I read about the growing tenision between African Christians and radical Islamist (NYPost 7/18/10).
Ralph Peters, the columnists, writes: “The Islamist have it wrong: Islam isn’t the world’s fastest-growing religion. By birth numbers and convert tallies, it’s Christianity.” Now of course I don’t believe someone is a Christian by birth (it must be by choice and allegiance to Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour) and I can’t say what’s in the heart of Mr. Peters, but I take “by birth count” to mean Christian families giving birth to children being raised in a Christian home. Nonetheless, the mention of Christianity in this way in a nationally recognize news outlet was startling to me. Perhaps it’s only the historical value and an attempt at being fair, Peters seems to be contrasting the militant raise of extreme Islam and the, at present, raise of peaceful, joyful Christianity in a country—Africa—usually know for tribal religion and the spread of Islam.
Peters’ writes about the violence and vengeful attacks on African Christians. But that didn’t surprise me. It was the other outcome related observations that stunned me—stunned because it was in the main stream press. He contrasted the “backward and listless” Muslim community, one that is “[c]ondemned to poverty by poor educations.” But, Peters writes, “Christianity blazed” [his emphasis]. He continues, “Mega-churches co’t contain all those who’d accepted Jesus as their Saviour: City parks were packed with ecstatic worshippers every Sunday.” Peters point out that certainly Muslims are converting (being baptized) in Islam, but Christians are not converting to Islam. “Wahhabi Islam’s rejection of joy just does’t speak to Africans—who even in misfortune seem incomparably alive.” In Christianity, the Islamist extremists confront their potential converts with a death-cult, not a faith, “while the vibrant Christianity of Africa pulses with life.”
The second, Peters makes a haunting observation: “Of course, a Christian crusade in response to jihad would be just fine with many Saudis and Gulf Arabs. They don’t care about the suffering of inividual Muslims—only about Islam” [his emphasis]. He references the building of mosques, in particular in places where there are few Muslims (such as “eastern Tennessee”). “Every mosque helps stake a claim for the dar ul-Islam” (that is under the influence of Islam, under the household of Islam) in order to extend its boundaries. Peters doesn’t go into detail on this, but the contrast between Christianity and Islam (especially militant Islam) is made clear by this: namely, while both religions are indeed God-centric, it is Christianity that marks its territory, not by buildings (although one might get that impression by our church-growth fantasies) or forced submission or death, but by loving one’s neighbor. I am reminded that the best apologetic for the Christian faith isn’t a large church congregation or a large building or budget, but the Christian community’s existence for the sake of others. Again, another reason Christians should be in the forefront on the issues of poverty and social justice.
African Christians hopefully will not be militantly crusading against its militant Islamic neighbors any time soon (which Peters seems to think is drawing to a head). But these faithful Christians in a country known for poverty, oppression, and the ever present tension and reality of clashing with their Islamic neighbors, now, are an example of Christ on the planet. The contrast between Christianity and other religious expressions glares at us through this lens. My observations and the references from Peters are not meant to comment on Islam as much as they are to highlight what it means to be “followers of the Way,” the way of Christ in the world.
No doubt a favorite verse among Christians at this time of year. Usually its present somewhere during the Fourth of July period. I heard it at least once this year. When celebrating our nation’s birth, Christian congregations all over America seem to think these verses are about them:
“If I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or if I command the locust to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among My people, and My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin and will heal their land” (2 Chronicles 7:13-14)
Just like a few observations. Without stating it too strongly: Where do we get the idea that this verse applies to America? Or, to our part of the country? Or, our church? You know, if God’s church repents here in American (or put in your town’s nanme) and truly seeks after Him, he will heal our land, i.e., America. First, I don’t mind the application “My people” being applied to the Church. This seems to me a perfectly legitimate correspondence. The New Testament makes that leap all the time: Israel of God OT = the Church, the Body of Christ NT. Writers throughout the New Testament often take God’s OT promises to Israel and applies them to the Church. So, to understand this Old Testament command to be applicable to the Church is appropriate. But, applying this verse to America (or any country) seems a mismatch. Let me offer a few quick observations (and I’ll let you go home).
First, the context is the dedication of Solomon’s temple to God—the context is worship and the supremacy of God. Now, some believe (as some of our American forefather’s did) that America is God’s chosen land, a City on a Hill, and American’s are God’s chosen people. This is good for speeches, political and civic, but is an unsustainable reference from a Biblical point of view. The reference to “healing their land” does not correspond to God healing America. Although I’d equally argue (from elsewhere in Scripture) that there is a relationship between God’s blessings on our country and the Church’s (good) influence on American culture; however, I think we misappropriate this verse because we view it through our patriotism and love of country rather than commitment to Christ and our church-life. It seems more responsible to apply 2 Chronicles to the life of the Church than otherwise. Solomon finalizes the building of the temple and offers a prayer of dedication. At that point the Shekinah Glory, that is, God’s presence pours into (fills) the temple (7:1-3). The correspondence is more likely that if God’s people, the church, humble themselves, turn from their wickedness (stop adopting contemporary cultural values, which is the context—read pass the verses in 13-14) and pray and seek after God, then God’s presence and blessing will become evident among them, His church, that is the local community of God. I’d also like to point out God’s evident presence and blessing doesn’t always look and feel victorious and comfortable. I’d say God’s presence was fully on Jesus, nonetheless, and He still went to the cross. So, if God’s people do humble themselves, turn from their wicked ways (its American, cultural adaptations), and pray—God’s redemptive blessings on the church will not necessarily make them comfortable in their American culture, or nor will the “blessings” to be poured out “fix” America so the church can go on happily and with ease.
So I have come down to rescue them from the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land into a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey—the home of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites (Exodus 3:8; cf. 3:17; 13:5).
Go up to the land flowing with milk and honey. But I will not go with you, because you are a stiff-necked people and I might destroy you on the way” (Exodus 33:3).
In the previous post, I suggested that if those who cannot, through whatever means or for whatever reasons, cannot benefit from the “milk and honey” of the land, are like those who are lactose intolerant and diabetic in that they cannot enjoy the benefits of the milk and honey. Now, of course I do understand that many people are poor of their own doing. And as well, I point out there are many who are wealthy and affluent who are so not of their own doing—but are so despite who they are as people or what they can and cannot do. And as for sin, first I take it that those who are poor and those who are not poor are of the same, both are sinners. But yes, sin can lead to poverty—as well as can wealth. So let’s stop with that game and move toward seeing that it is a Christian responsibility to assist those who are poor to move out of poverty and stop generational poverty, and as well it is a Christian obligation to addresss the causes of poverty. Now with this all said, I’d like to move to a second idea I have from the book Crashers
.
It was the quote that got me going—Land of milk and honey…Bloody lot of good it does if you can’t handle lactose and you’ve diabetes to boot.--but my stream of consciousness kept flowing further in light of the Crashers book. In the reality behind the book I am impressed in how the gathering of experts would be called to act and move toward a crashed airline and would examine the crash, determine its cause or causes, and put things in place to ensure that it doesn’t happen again. I like that analogy.
Wouldn’t it make sense that such a team—or teams—of Christians (and even inviting non-Christian experts as well where needed and appropriate) to descend on areas of poverty and examine the blight and determine the cause or causes, and put things in place to ensure it doesn’t continue (or at least to begin to ameliorate the incidence of poverty)? (Now won’t that be a worthwhile endeavor to fund!)
It is interesting that there is a shift between the first promised move toward the Land flowing with milk and honey at the beginning of the exodus (cf. Exodus 3:8) and the latter part of the story in Exodus 33. In the latter chapters of the book of Exodus, we discover that even the Israelites were idolatrous—not just the Egyptians. This idolatry was a threat, yet they’d still be able to enter the Land flowing with milk and honey (it was a promise), but God would not go with them, because they had become stiff-necked people (a reference to how God viewed people who are idolatrous). The Israelites would inherit the land as promised, maybe even benefit from it, but God would not go with them.
So, it is possible for the people of God—in name at least—to inherit the blessing of God, but be actually without God’s presence. Very similarly, non-poor Christians can enjoy the blessings of God’s creation, yet be without God. They can look and sound like God’s people, but not in truth when they live idolatrous lives. And without repeating myself from a host of other posts, it is clear from the Biblical data and the Gospel itself that Christians are to be associated with the poor and should be concerned about the affects of poverty. It seems to be, although true of any economic culture, but especially true in a culture that promotes upward mobility, that Christians ought to be concerned for those who cannot benefit from the blessings of the Land (i.e., the economic location) and be active (as a Go-Team) that addresses the causes of poverty.
PS But who are the experts? Now that’s a good question, and I don’t intend to offer the answer in an sense of fullness, but I am thinking experts from the social service world, business, education, psychology, urban development and redevelopment, economists, bankers, medical…
So I have come down to rescue them from the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land into a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey—the home of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites (Exodus 3:8; cf. 3:17; 13:5).
Go up to the land flowing with milk and honey. But I will not go with you, because you are a stiff-necked people and I might destroy you on the way” (Exodus 33:3).
I am reading a great novel about investigating a mysterious plane crash. It’s really a great read. Enjoying it immensely. It is a novel called Crashers by Dana Haynes. ”Crashers“ is the name given to Go-Teams who are sent to investigate airline plane crashes, leading experts from specific fields vested in determining the cause of the crash so it never happens again. In the midst of the storyline a character, not necessarily religious, thinks a rather interesting thought that got me thinking. She thought,
Land of milk and honey…Bloody lot of good it does if you can’t handle lactose and you’ve diabetes to boot.
The book and the line referred to, Land of milk and honey remind, obviously, of the references in Exodus about the Land of Promise, the Land of Gift, as “a land flowing with milk and honey.” This was the promise made to the Israelite slaves, captive and abused under Egyptian rule, namely that God would deliver them from Egypt and bring them to a new land, a land flowing with milk and honey. Obviously good news. Mostly the reference to milk and honey simple means the land would be fruitful agriculturally (the milk) and productive (the honey). The land would be a benefit to the incoming inhabitants. It would be workable, sustaining, a land that would allow a measure of self-sufficiency for the Israelites who believed God and followed Him into the land.
But, the second part of the character’s thought brought me back to the numerous references in Exodus and other exodus-related texts to the weak, economically vulnerable and the poor who would be fellow occupants of this land flowing with milk and honey (e.g., Exodus 22:22, 24-25; 23:3, 6; cf. Lev 19:15; Deut 1:17; 10: 18ff ; 16:19; 24:17, 18; Prov 23:10, 11; Jer 7:6, 7; Amos 4:1-2, etc.). It is so true that if one is lactose intolerant, one cannot enjoy the benefit of milk. Nor can honey be useful to someone who has diabetes. Bloody lot of good it does them.
Similarly, the poor and other economically vulnerable populations are exactly in this bloody fix: The poor and economically vulnerable are unable—because of lack of access, barriers, lack of power, educational gaps, demographic separation, gender bias or racism, lack of resources, legislative policy—to enjoy what the land has to offer. The economic vulnerable and the poor cannot utilize the milk and lack the ability to enjoy the honey (or, cannot be productive for the lack of abilities and barriers).
As many of you know (at least the regulars to Words’nTone and those who browse into it from time to time) that my seventeen year old daughter was heading to Houston, TX to meet up with a small group of people who would drive to South Dakota to spend time with the Lakota Indians on the Rosebud Indian Reservation. As a parent, I am thankful to those who prayed for Amanda and the team, and for those who contributed to the costs of the trip. Amanda has safely returned to Connecticut, with stories and a new perspective on life and in her Christian walk. Just to let people know, Amanda wrote a brief email that I shared with my friends, family, and colleagues. Here is that note of thanks…
Hello everyone,
I am back and safely in CT. I want to thank all of you for supporting me and praying for me (and the team) as I journeyed on my adventure to the Lakota Indians in South Dakota.
Thank you, so very much.
Although I am slightly disappointed that it is just as hot here in CT as it was in Texas, at least South Dakota was cool, and not to mention, one of the most beautiful places I’ve ever been. God has truly created a beautiful world.
Anyways, just a brief update on how the trip went. I can honestly say that I learned so much more on this ten day journey than I have in any given month’s time. In my support letter I talked about wanting to “learn compassion,” however, I found myself growing in understanding. Perhaps these are not mutually exclusive, that is, to grow in compassion means to grow in understanding. In particular, I came to understand that the way things are on the reservation are so much more different than in any place I know or have experienced. They have a mixture of their own Indian culture and the American culture; many Indians practice the Christian faith, but still cling to their Great Spirits. One of the most impacting things, it was difficult to grasp a hold of that sad fact that the people on this reservation have the fifth highest place for suicides. This is especially seen with their teenage suicide rates. They have a drastic need for teachers (and of course this is important to me, because I want to be a history teacher), and they desperately need a stronger youth center, along with adult mentors and friends to show them a better way.
Again, thank you all for your support. I will be communicating more on my trip, but this was to let people know, briefly, I made it back and had learned a lot, and am thankful for all of your prayers.
Sincerely,
Amanda
Page 1 of 49 pages 1 2 3 > Last »