Words'nTone

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…

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).

“It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money” (1 Timothy 3:1-3).

“The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth…” (2 Tim 2:24-25).

“For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. For the overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict” (Titus 1:5-9).

Something my mentor and Crown College theology professor, Dr. Don Alexander, once said has stuck with me all these years, etched in my memory. It came first in the form of a question: “By what means does the New Testament teach that a church grows? Through spiritual gifts or leadership?” He went on to explain and concluded the answer lies in “leadership.” Throughout my Christian life, now over thirty years, we’ve been have, ad nauseam, heard about the importance of spiritual gifts, finding our spiritual gifts (I always thought the NT taught they were given, not sought—and the only ones we are to pursue are faith, hope and love), using our spiritual gifts, etc., etc., etc. And as far back as I can remember, there have been some voices on leadership, but most of them just mimic of the business world or some new trend. I think about this every time we “vote” and “elect” new leaders for our churches—how is leadership really defined and characterized in the NT descriptions. This is not a critique of my church’s process (necessarily) or of any church’s—in fact the men and women leaders and the ones to be elected are usually very good people, active in our church, and faithful. One area, however (and there is always a however with me), over the years of my Christian life, I have found to be minimized and made marginal, but is a loud part of biblical leadership, namely can the leader teach? And more specifically, can leadership teach the foundations of the Christian faith as passed on by the apostles? A church leader, at least deacons and elders, ought to be able to teach sound doctrine and refute unsound doctrine. When the NT writer uses “teach” (didaskoo), it carries the weight of “apostolic teaching.” In other words, church leaders need to be able to teach the apostolic truth of the Gospel to their generation of believers in order to keep the church strong, faithful, and alive. They are to guard the church in this way. Size doesn’t matter. It didn’t in the NT—and as far as I can tell, the canon hasn’t been reopen and there isn’t a new redemptive era upon us with more revelation to be included in the canon on church growth and church leadership. Size doesn’t mean the church is being faithful to Scripture or to its Lord—in fact, the opposite seems more true…the larger the church, the more like the world is becomes. What matters is, can leaders teach? Can they guard the Gospel? That’s the legacy of leadership. That’s how a church grows.

Finally, some concluding thoughts. Please remember these are first thoughts. I am hoping to work on a paper, maybe to present, but certainly as a chapter in my hopeful book on evangelism and Social Action: “Significance Before Application: Proclaiming, Casting, and Evangelistic Social Action Outcomes.” But for now, these concluding remarks are very rough draft. My concern in this thread was to attempt some thoughts and a preliminary answer to the question, “How is casting out demons = to social action.” I have suggested below in the posts to this thread that it is not that casting = social action, but that the significance of the fulfillment of the promise to become fishers (Mark 1:17), that is, the significance of the commission to announce the arrival of the kingdom and the activity of casting out of demons (Mark 3:14-15), ought to have social action applications—I’d rather say, they can have social action outcomes.

First as briefly discussed above, I believe part of the impasse, the barrier, to seeing how social action outcomes are a legitimate evangelistic outcome is that we start with application and move back to the text. We start with witnessing and other verbal forms of evangelism and we read back into the Gospel story that is what Jesus must have meant in saying you will become fishers of men. Second, we have a problem with moving from proclaiming the gospel to anything other than “the four spiritual laws,” or “Jesus died on the cross for your sins.” And third, we make no application regarding the significance of the fisher activity of “casting out demons” other than literal exorcism. So we stop and assume we know what the text says because we’ve already figured out how to apply it. So the text (i.e., “fishers of men” in Mark 1:17) must mean what we already think it means, namely, we are to verbally communicate that Jesus saves and fish, catch people for Christ, i.e., get them to convert, be saved, become a Christian. This however is our doing, not the text’s inference, and certainly not what is presented even throughout the whole of the New Testament.

I’d like to return for a moment to Mark 1:14-15, Jesus’ first summary of His ministry and Mark’s primary summary text of the content of what the Jesus-ministry-mission is.

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.”

Let me borrow from Joel Markus’ thought on this passage from his commentary on Mark 1-8. We read this as two statements, but we do not read them as two parallel statements that explain or correspond to each other, which would not have been so far-fetched given the Hebrew thinking of the one who said it (Jesus) and the one who wrote it (Mark). Let’s just say it’s a structure that smacks of Hebrew parallelism.

The time is fulfilled   and   the kingdom of God is at hand
Repent                  and    believe in the Gospel

The significance of the parallelism is that the time of the old age, or this present evil age with all its anti-YHWH aspects, has come to an end; that time (the καιρὸς) has come to its eschatological end, for the Kingdom of God has been inaugurated. The old age of Satan’s rule over mankind has come to its eschatological end, albeit in a “now and not yet” form. And, the time of God’s dominion, His right to rule over the realms of mankind, has come—His Kingdom has been inaugurated in the appearance of Jesus, the Messiah, the Son of God (Mark 1:1). (Also in the “appearance” are the other inaugurators as well—John the Baptist, the Holy Spirit, and the fishers of men.) The first imperative is to repent, which corresponds to the first indicative that the Kingdom has come. The second imperative is to believe, which 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.

The fisher-promise, which comes right after this ministry-mission summary, pulls those who follow this King Jesus, the Messiah, to mirror this ministry-mission. As Jesus begins his ministry in the following verses through chapter 3, consisting of proclamation and casting (and healing), so now in Mark 3:14ff the followers are commissioned to mirror the same. The content of the Kingdom is drawn from Old Testament covenant texts, land-stipulations, and prophetic judgments—all of which contain issues related to the economically vulnerable (as I have already demonstrated and written and posted even on this site). Why shouldn’t we think that both the proclaiming and the casting interventions are related to bringing about the values, laws, and regulations that mirror the rule and reign of the arrived King? One certainly explains it; the other certainly demonstrates it. The proclaiming in the Gospel isn’t about “Jesus saves” (although one of the outcomes associated with the presence of the Kingdom for sure), but about the time when God’s Kingdom has arrived and all of creation is to realign itself with this Kingdom, and all people are to reorient themselves to the demands and values of this Kingdom.

Those who say “fishers of men = verbal communication of the Gospel as evangelism” forget there is a second part, “casting out of demons.” Of course there are those who believe casting is a miracle for today—this is not the debate here, although I have no problem with that assumption. What I am driving at here is, “Do we cast as well as preach, witness, and proclaim?” Few do. So how do those who disagree with me “cast out demons?” Or, do we take literally the fisher commission to proclaim (and narrow it down to only individual salvation) and “spiritualize” or do away with the commission to “cast”? Or perhaps we should see the significance of the Gospel of Mark’s commission and the two interventions of preaching and casting, that is interventions that are to reorient ourselves to God’s inaugurated Kingdom and that God’s Kingdom is “aggressively” taking over the realms of Satan, the present evil age, which has distanced itself through private actions of individuals, through structure sin (intended and unintended), and through both intended and unintended consequences of the choices and social structures we live within? Long sentence, but it makes my point.

Furthermore, as I have pointed out elsewhere, even the casting in Mark’s Gospel, particularly in the lengthy section of chapter 5, is actually about God’s stronger man invading the realms of mankind in order to bring about God’s rule and reign. More on this in a future thread. For now, I believe we should see the significance of the commission to proclaim and cast as interventions that are to move the realms of mankind away from the present evil age that has come to its end and move the realms of mankind—individually and corporately, things of the private sphere and things of the public sphere—toward the outcomes that are to be associated with the arrival of God’s Kingdom.

Yes, proclaiming the presence of the Kingdom and the casting out of demons are to be understood as including social action outcomes that address the needs and conditions of those who live in poverty. Social Action Outcomes can be biblical evangelism.

Tomorrow I present a rough draft of my Fishers of Men (Mark 1:17) paper at the 2010 conference of the Northeastern Region of the Evangelical Theological Society in upstate New York. It’s a draft because I have more work to be done with it—as it is really a chapter in a hopefully forthcoming book on Evangelism and Social Action. Nonetheless, what I do have in the paper clearly presents an interpretation of Mark 1:17 and its fisher-promise as part of a series of character announcements/introductions concerning the arrival of God’s eschatological agents who He sets out as revealers, actuators, agents of the inauguration of His Kingdom (Jesus, John the Baptist, the Holy Spirit, fishers). As the previous fisher-thread and this one indicate, the promise to be made fishers has more to do with inaugurating God’s Kingdom—as God’s partners to reveal that the Kingdom has come in the Gospel of Jesus, the Messiah—than simply a positive and narrow interpretation of fishers of men being a verbal witness or promoting private, individual salvation.

Herein lays one of the difficulties in presenting a new or fresh, out-of-the-box interpretation of a familiar, popular, and fond verse, particularly one that is used as a proof-text for getting people to witness, share Christ, preach Jesus, grow a church, produce and bring in the numbers to “our congregation.” My interpretation lends itself to a much wider “application” of what it means to be a fisher for Jesus. And in particular, my more negative interpretation, built on the text of Mark itself and the Old Testament expectation-promise of God-sent-fishers, hints at the potential destruction and dismantling of social structures and cultural venues, and, as well, a reorientation of how we live and present ourselves as Christian disciples of Jesus, the Messiah—as to how we act as God’s agents of judgment. Long before application is made of this text, we need to fully grasp the significance of this probable meaning for being made fishers of men.

Being fishers of men is not just about multiplying attendees of “my” church—although the breath of application can be about unsaved people coming to “my” church. It is, certainly, more than that. Fishers used by God in the Old Testament turned everything upside-down. They acted as God’s agents to address covenant disloyalty and attachment to foreign cultures that were antithetical to God’s intentions for Israel. Fishers were sent by God to address the causes of injustice and in particular as judgment on those who disregard the issues of poverty and the poor. Now be careful here—these fishers were not necessarily the agents to tell—to witness—about the problems and judgments, they were instruments that God used to bring punishment, exile, destruction, deportation, scattering of those who were not, as a society, living as God intended. Fishers were the means, the instruments, and agents that God sent to reveal His displeasure in injustice (not the verbal announcements, but the action and outcomes involved) and that, then, provided the potential for redemption, restoration, return-from-exile, and remnant, for the world to see and experience the Glory of God. This is the significance of what it means to be fishers of men. The act of fishing is the outcome of following Christ—He makes us His agents of judgment on a world and society that has refused covenant loyalty and justice.

The above exegetical summary is both a fair way to present the text’s meaning and, as well, an interpretive translation of Mark 1:17. I repeat:

Come follow Me and I will make you appear in history, publicly, as God’s agents of judgment who actively pursue the outcomes that reflect the inauguration of My Kingdom.

As the commission in Mark 3 indicates, this, that is the fisher-promise in 1:17, is exactly what happens: God appoints His followers to be His eschatological agents, agents of judgment that are to carry out activities that are in keeping with the inauguration of God’s Kingdom among the realms of humankind. To narrowly truncate the fisher-promise to just verbal witnessing is to miss the broader implications of the inauguration of rule and reign of God. The Old Testament fills the content of such a rule as both salvific (as in bringing people to Christ) and in calling the realms of humankind to reflect the justice of God’s Kingdom—as is evident on the Old Testament background and framework Mark uses to define the Gospel in Mark 1:1-17.

The fisher-promise is not to draw followers to a narrow activity of “witnessing,” but defines them, that is the follower-fishers, and gives them eschatological content, with activities that are consistent with Mark’s thematic and programmatic understanding of the nature and content of the Gospel that is inaugurated with the appearance of the Son of God, the Messiah and the coming of the Spirit, and as well, the appearance of God’s fishers, that is those who follow Him.

Suzanne Henderson begins her book on Discipleship pointing out that in Mark’s Gospel, more than the others, Jesus is always and everywhere in the company of His disciples. “Summoned at the outset of his ministry, those who ‘come after’ Jesus repeatedly bear witness to activities that characterize his early mission. But they are also, in this Gospel story, more than mere bystanders, as they benefit from Jesus’ private counsel and even participate actively in his demonstration of God’s dominion breaking into the human sphere.” Mark’s introductory opening, its summary and intent, as a call to and promise of discipleship (Mk. 1:16-20) serves as an indicator of the nature of the Gospel and the outcomes that are to define the activity of Jesus’ follower-fishers. Fishers is not the call, but the outcome of the call. The fisher text in Mark is more suited to applying its significance from the implications of the judgment texts from the Old Testament which include both the curse of exile and societal destruction (i.e., curse) and the promise of remnant and restoration (i.e., blessing and salvation). The fisher metaphor is more appropriate to be transfered to activities, applications, and illustrations of social action and justice, and not just narrowly to individual, private salvation.