Words'nTone

“Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:10)

There is an intentional and deliberate tie between v 3 (Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven ) and v 10, as can be seen by the underlined above and here in v 3.  I will be honest, to know what was in Jesus’ and Matthew’s mind is near impossible—but the draw is there.  There is reason to link the “poor in spirit” and those “who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness.” Perhaps the question is to ask, what is this righteousness?  We know later in the Sermon Christians are to pursue God’s righteousness (6:33), but before we even get there we know those who thirst after righteousness will be satisfied (5:5), those who wish to enter the Kingdom must surpass the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees (5:20), and that practicing one’s righteousness before men disqualifies for any heavenly reward (6:1).  We know for sure the latter case (in 6:1) refers to the righteousness (i.e., the right actions) extended to the poor (6:2f).  So at least there is internal contextual linkage also in the Sermon on the Mount to suggest that the righteousness referred to in Matthew 5:10 is, but certainly not limited, to the righteousness God expected (from the plentiful texts and contexts from the Old Testament) toward the poor and economically vulnerable.  Perhaps that is why the righteousness of the religious leaders were not enough for entrance into the Kingdom, for their righteousness pertained to looking like they were keepers of the Law, but not real keepers of it.

When Jesus extends the final B-Attitude, we can hear that those who pursue God’s righteousness on earth will be cut off verbally and by action from the places of power and status found on earth, in society:

“Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me (11). “Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you” (12).

This, too, parallels those who are economically vulnerable (i.e., the poor in spirit) who have no place or power as well.  I would suggest it is fair to assume application of the Sermon on the Mount would target the Christian community’s association and advocacy for the poor and economically vulnerable—this upsets the societal tables and places before those with wealth and power and status God’s righteous concerns for the poor.  Perhaps a reason for being persecuted for righteousness sake.

I contend that the Sermon on the Mount is more about the Kingdom Community’s witness in the larger community than about private matters of the heart.  We hear immediately after the B-Attitudes texts that affirm this hearing of the Sermon on the Mount:

“You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men. You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden; nor does anyone light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 5:13-16).

And the section on “you have heard it said, but I say to you” (5:21-48) can be read as having more to do with our associations and relationships with people than just matters of the heart which privatize Christianity.  Reading through the entire text of the Sermon (5-7), one can easily be drawn to an introspective Christianity, but that is not what the whole of the text is about—it is outward focused.  A reading that places the emphasis on the outward witness of the Community of the Kingdom, and it is formed by the beginning of the Sermon which highlights this new community’s association and advocacy of the poor and economically vulnerable.

Business hindered completing the next and final post to this thread...so I continue yesterday’s with this…

---

As noted yesterday, there is an entirely different way to read these B-attitudes (which I suggest is closer to how Jesus and Matthew meant them to be understood) beyond the love affair we have with the self-centered-private sphere which is all-about-us (me,me, me, me!). When we get to the powerful words, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God” (v 9), why do we cheapen them through small and petty application? On two fronts, these words spoken by the Son of God, who left His majestic throne in unspoiled and untainted heaven to come down to sin-filled, corrupt, and self-centered earth, and who would soon die on a shameful cross as the ultimate peace-maker, ought to carry that same weight. First, the crowds that day would have well understood the great movements of history that left them—that is the poor in spirit, those who mourn, and the meek who have no place on the earth—as pawns, marginalized, subject to the whims of history and those with power, and powerless to advocate for themselves. They would have known the brave few peace-makers that had come to stall or avert the powerful who were there to enslave or capture them. They would have known their end—whether in triumph or defeat (mostly defeat). Second, in their time they would have understood that to be a “Son of God” was akin to being a king or emperor (e.g., Caesar was called and referred to as a “son of the gods” himself). Here is the twist—the biblical spin—the sons of God as referred to by Jesus would certainly have the ring of royalty and chosen-ness, but one also of suffering.

As I listened to a rather good sermon on this text one Sunday, I mentioned to my daughter that it is in the destiny of biblical “sons of God” to die in their peace-making activities. We, however, prefer a better, more recognized, life-fulfilling destiny as a peace-maker. Biblical peace-makers die on crosses to bring peace. There is a slight twist in this blessed-position, for to be called a “son of God” in the biblical context is to also to own all the potential suffering that goes with the title.

This brings us to the later book-end of the B-attitudes…and for some summary comments and potential application…

Typically we hear that these Beatitudes are for us “to find true happiness.” In other words, if we just become these (poor in spirit, meek, pure in heart, a peace-maker, etc.) we’d find happiness—you know, be blessed.  However, it seems to me that what these B-attitudes are is a description of the presence of the Kingdom and the framework or ingredients that are to make up the community of the Kingdom of God.

As I have stated here before, we seem to take the “poor” out of the poor and seem to read-in that “in spirit” means the poor can be anyone who has a poor spirit about them.  But that word for poor is never used that way and the connotation is that someone who is poor is someone who has be robbed of a voice or power within the community.  Combine the reference to “poor” with “those who mourn” and “the gentle” (I prefer the translation, meek, which is also a term akin to poor, or one who has no power for self-advocacy in a community) and you really have a description of the down-trodden, the marginalized in a community—you know, the poor in spirit.  We suburbanites like to figure out ways to read these verses as if Jesus mean us, you know the poor, meek, and mournful suburbanite non-poor.  I am sorry, no way this text is to be read that way.  What we have is poor non-poor readers of Scripture when this happens.  The first three blessed-people are blessed because of their condition, not because they have humbled themselves and realized they are broken (i.e., poor in spirit) and truly not happy (i.e., mourning), and although we have power, we’re truly gentle, meek and we now realize we are to have our power under control.  Hogwash!  These first three terms describe how God’s Kingdom turns everything on its head—it’s the poor, and those who mourn because of their loss, powerlessness, or marginalization, and those who are meek and cannot advocate for themselves—it is these in the community who are blessed, for the kingdom belongs to them and they will be comforted, and they will eventually inherit what has been denied them—the earth!

Now that the Kingdom has come, we are to recognize that all is not what it seems in society.  Then, it is the next set of B-attitudes that grab us and points us in the direction of witness and advocacy:  When those who hunger and thirst for righteousness seek such God first (biblical) righteousness, they often will find themselves at the wrong end of the sword (as it were); for those in power and with power, those who by worldly standards are not poor, mournful, or meek, are not receiving of such righteousness in society—these will resist those who hunger and thirst for such right-ness in society (i.e., advocacy for those who are poor, those who mourn, and those who are meek).  It is those who are merciful who will receive mercy.  The presence of the Kingdom and the demand for righteousness among people points to judgment—punishment/curse for those who resist God’s righteous demands on society (on behalf of the marginalized—I think you get the point by now) and reward/blessing for those who show mercy.  The pure in heart are those who show no duplicity and, as the young say, what you see is what you get.  Among those who are advocating for the poor, mournful, and meek, there is no hidden agenda, no duplicity—their advocacy isn’t for show or to be recognized (as we will see in the remaing parts of the Sermon on the Mount).  And peace-makers…more on this in the next post in this thread, along with some concluding remarks…

When Jesus saw the crowds, He went up on the mountain; and after He sat down, His disciples came to Him (1). He opened His mouth and began to teach them, saying, (2)

“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven (3).

“Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted (4).

“Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth (5).

“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied (6).

“Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy (7).

“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God (8).

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God (9).

“Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven (10).

“Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me (11). “Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you” (12).  (Matthew 5:1-12)

While in seminary I somehow was able to skirt by the oft-given assignment of a Greek exegesis paper on the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:1-12) from the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7). But I have been studying and restudying this passages for the last 20 or so years nonetheless. In fact, not that it replaces knowing what the Greek reveals from the passage, I even memorized the Sermon on the Mount during the summer between my freshman and sophomore years of college. One thing I have searched for in this long study and pursuit of this famous text, that is the Beatitudes, is a key, an interpretive key. I have long tried to give this set of sayings a chiastic structure (you know, A B C D C B A or something like that). But such paring up of sayings (i.e., verses) doesn’t seem to be there. But I am convinced that Jesus (or at least Matthew) wanted the readers to make a connection between v 3 and v 10. These are bookends that should help in any interpretion of the text and its meaning and application. Above you can see my underlining to highlight the parallel between v 3 and v 10.

For my Greek nerds, here is the text of 3b and 10b so you can see the obvious parallel being made.

   ὅτι αὐτῶν ἐστιν
         ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν, v 3b

   ὅτι αὐτῶν ἐστιν
         ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν, v 10b

The same blessed promise is made to the “poor in spirit” and to “those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness,” both are assured that “the kingdom of heaven” is theirs. Without parsing too much of this parallel, one would be hard-pressed not to see the significance since it is the kingdom of heaven that is at issue.

Previously Matthew has crafted his gospel to emphasize the centrality and seriousness of the kingdom’s presence:

“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt 3:2)

“Again, the devil took Him to a very high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory” (Matt 4:8)

“From that time Jesus began to preach and say, “ Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt 4:17)

“Jesus was going throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every kind of disease and every kind of sickness among the people” (Matt 4:23)

Second, Luke’s Sermon on the Mount account, although the content is the same, is crafted differently, indicating Matthew’s making of the poor/kingdom (v 3) / persecuted/kingdom (v 10) parallel intentional. Third, the remaining portion of the Blesseds centers on the “persecuted” theme.

“Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you” (Matt 5:11-12).

And immediately, then, Jesus points toward the witness of this present kingdom that His new community is to have. Note the emphasis of the kingdom theme:

“You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men. You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden; nor does anyone light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven. Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 5:13-20).

In light of this, over the next few posts, I would like to make a few observations about the Beattitudes here in Matthew, point out how its not about making us “happy,” but crafting the Christian community into a righteous witness of the presence of the Kingdom of Heaven.

He said to her, “Go, call your husband and come here.” The woman answered and said, “I have no husband.” Jesus said to her, “You have correctly said, ‘I have no husband’; for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; this you have said truly” (John 4:16-18)

Crazy thing.  You hear or read a bible passage for more than thirty years and you finally hear something you didn’t hear before.  The message Sunday morning was good—the preacher stuck to the passage and applied it to his audience; little to no talking about himself or why they need to listen.  Just preached.  But the message was a typical John 4 Samaritan Woman at the Well message.  Nothing wrong with that…I have done that.  But it hit me for the first time, we assume, as do most preachers, the woman’s shame stems from an immoral or adulterous life.  Heck, she has had five husbands and not is with a sixth who is not her husband.  Most conclude it’s her that keeps divorcing or in some way lives immorally.  But that’s not actually the possibilities in mind.  Two more likely possibilities exist for the multiple husbands—both suggesting she’s been passed around a bit.  One possibility is that she is barren and cannot have children, meaning the men divorced her because she could not bare a child—particularly a son.  Infertility was an easy ground for divorce in Israel.  The second might have been that she was the wife of a series of brothers; the family wanting to produce an heir would have provided such a possibility.  There were no more sons—possibly—so no more marriages or the next son refused to marry her.  Both these scenarios would have left her economically vulnerable and a walking-shame in the land.  The reference to the “sixth” not being her husband could have been a cryptic reference to this woman becoming a prostitute in order to have some level of economic resource.  In the end you have a woman who, indeed, is faced with shame, but not necessarily because she choose an immoral life.

Although the application of this story certainly targets the shameful place many woman can find themselves—and not necessarily of their own doing alone—but of the men who never stepped up to love this woman.  No wonder the Samaritan women is shocked that Jesus, and a Jew at that, speaks to her.

Perhaps these observations just point out our poor abilities to read a text, rather than see the true needs of people and why shame is attributed to them in the first place.

“The prohibition against stealing and coveting are thus safeguards in behalf of the primary commandment, the love of God alone, as much as they are safeguards in behalf of the neighbor’s property” [Patrick Miller, an essay, Property and Possession in Light of Ten Commandments, p 48 in a compendium called Having: Property and Possession in Religious and Social Life].

“The acquisition of excessive wealth as it arises out of coveting and stealing is indeed a neighbor issue, but it is fundamentally a matter of the fear of God and the sole reliance on the Lord for the provision of life” [Miller, p 49].

A recent sermon on the 10th commandment, Thou shall not covet, emphasized the sin of wanting what others have. No mention was made of coveting what we already have that has already been coveted and has stolen the economic means for other people’s well-being—which by the way is actually the text where the command is found (Exodus 20:17; cf. Deuteronomy 5:21). This happens in most sermons on coveting. We concentrate through the sermon on what we don’t have but want as sin, not what we have already in our possession that has robbed others of their means of sufficiency as sin. The end of the sermon keeps the non-poor suburbanites comfortably in their social location of having more; but no application for the non-poor to repent of what they already have coveted, making restoration, and finding the salvation that God’s promises for such faith.

Although most often glossed over with poor application, this is what is most likely meant in the wee-little-man Zacch’s words in Luke 19:8:

“Zacch stopped and said to the Lord, ‘Behold, Lord, half of my possessions I will give to the poor, and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will give back four times as much.’”

Whatever the short-little, tree-climbing seeker of Jesus had defrauded the poor, he would restore—just like the Old Testament implies of those who covet, steal, and defraud the poor and economically vulnerable (my goodness, read the Old Testament with your eyes open!). Zacch knew, in the preaching of Jesus was the inauguration of the Kingdom, the presence of the pending judgment of God. God had promised that those who stole and coveted and as a result put the economically vulnerable in peril and in generational poverty would be faced with God’s reciprocal wrath—they too would face such poverty in their life (either through personal tragedy or exile, or death, which would make their wives and children widows and orphans like those they defrauded through stealing and coveting). This is why, when Zacch repents, Jesus says, “Today salvation has come to this house, because he, too, is a son of Abraham” (v 9).

When a sermon stresses future action to be ceased—i.e., to cease wanting what others have in this case—and neglects to point out what one already has in possession might in fact have already broken the 10th commandment, this leaves the lost (the non-poor who don’t know they are lost but sitting comfortably in the pew) not feeling lost (or having broken any commandment, especially not the ones concerning stealing and coveting) and in no need of being sought after (or of repenting for that matter). That is why Jesus ends the short tree-climbing-humbled-tax-collector story with, “For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost” (v10). Contemporary, keep-the-comfortable-comfortable-and-give-more-to-the-church sermons leave the lost (the non-poor right there in the pews each sunday morn’n) not knowing they are actually lost, and as a result, not needing the Son of Man to seek them. This is a sad state of affairs for everyone, for the preacher who leaves the non-poor comfortable and in their sin, the poor who are to be protected, and the non-poor sinner up a tree with no salvation.

Preparing on ‘the way’ for the “sudden appearance” at the Temple
As Mark prepares his reader/hearers for ultimate judgment on the temple (Mark 13), there is a thread of Old Testament referents and imagery that draws our attention back to covenant expectations.  Embedded in this narrative are Old Testament texts that juxtapose the issues of idolatry and poverty.  Mark begins this section with a reference to divorce (10:2ff) and ends with the story of the poor widow (12:38ff). The divorce reference reaches back to Deut 24, which most likely has more to do with protecting women, widows, and orphans than a so-called contemporary divorce exemption for modern American Christians.  This makes sense given that Deut 24 also contains the gleaning codes designed to sustain the economically vulnerable trio—the widow, orphan, and alien (Dt 24:19ff).

Jeremiah’s temple speech forms the background to the Court of the Gentiles confrontation (Mk 11:15ff), where Jesus topples tables and utters harsh words (Is it not written,“MY HOUSE SHALL BE CALLED A HOUSE OF PRAYER FOR ALL THE NATIONS”? But you have made it a robbers’ den, Mk 11:17).  In part, the reference is drawn from Jer 7:11:

Do not trust in deceptive words, saying, “This is the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD.” For if you truly amend your ways and your deeds, if you truly practice justice between a man and his neighbor, if you do not oppress the alien, the orphan, or the widow, and do not shed innocent blood in this place, nor walk after other gods to your own ruin, then I will let you dwell in this place, in the land that I gave to your fathers forever and ever.  Behold, you are trusting in deceptive words to no avail.  Will you steal, murder, and commit adultery and swear falsely, and offer sacrifices to Baal and walk after other gods that you have not known (Jer 7:4-11).

The juxtaposition of covenant references to the economically vulnerable and to idolatry is obvious.  Similar to Isaiah’s judgment against Israel (1-5), outward appearances and rituals were all in place, but there was a misplaced trust that God would protect their religiosity despite neglecting covenant expectations toward the economically vulnerable and their disregard for justice. 

Mark 12, once again, draws on the Isa 1-6 context, particularly the Isa 5 imagery of God’s unproductive vineyard (Then He expected it to produce good grapes, but it produced only worthless ones, Isa 5:2c).  Jesus’ words reflect implications drawn from the original Isaiah parable and contextual implications regarding the poor (Isa 1-5), idolatry (the taunt, Isa 6:9ff), and judgment (exile):

   For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts is the house
                of Israel
        And the men of Judah His delightful plant
        Thus He looked for justice, but behold,
                bloodshed;
        For righteousness, but behold, a cry of distress.
      Woe to those who add house to house and join field
                to field,
        Until there is no more room,
        So that you have to live alone in the midst
                of the land! (Isa 5:7-8).

Mark ends the thread with the ultimate disregard for covenant land-management expectations: oppression of a widow right there in the temple courts.  The widow story carries inferences and allusions to Ex 22, Lev 19, 23, Dt 14, and Mal 3—all texts that juxtapose idolatry and the poor.  Mark focuses on the abuse of a poor widow, who’s only financial resources are stripped from her just so she can enter into the doomed temple.  The poor widow story, despite its common (mis)use as an illustration of sacrificial giving to modern-day temples, is likely a capstone to the thread Mark has weaved throughout his narrative, namely that the Gospel and the presence of the Kingdom are associated with social relationships, particularly toward the economically vulnerable.  This is made even more clear as the listener encounters Jesus’ sudden appearance in the temple where the final judgment is foretold, drawing on the Malachi 3 threat, which, as well, juxtaposes idolatry and the neglect of the economically vulnerable.

---

Notes:

Later, The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead dough to make cakes for the queen of heaven; and they pour out drink offerings to other gods in order to spite Me (Jer 7:18).  Note the “Fig tree” reference (Mk 11) derives partially from Jer 8:13 having a close association with foreign idolatrous influences (“I will surely snatch them away,” declares the LORD. There will be no grapes on the vine, and no figs on the fig tree, and the leaf will wither; and what I have given them will pass away,” Jer 8:13).

The widow reference and “selling doves” as part of the description of the “buying and selling in the temple” (11:15) also ties to the maltreatment of the poor through a reference to the Levitical provision given to the impoverished (But if he cannot afford a lamb, then he shall bring to the LORD…two turtledoves or two young pigeons… (Lev 5:7).  Certainly Mark infers that Jesus has something against the “profit making” activities taking place in the temple, for there is a clear link between the poor and Jesus’ living parable of judgment.

Isa 56:7 (MY HOUSE WILL BE CALLED A HOUSE OF PRAYER FOR ALL THE PEOPLES) also informs the background to Mark’s temple confrontation, where the context is a call to Preserve justice and do righteousness because Yahweh’s salvation is about to come and His righteousness to be revealed (v 1).

Cf. Micah 2:1-2:

   Woe to those who scheme iniquity,
      Who work out evil on their beds!
      When morning comes, they do it,
      For it is in the power of their hands.
    They covet fields and then seize them,
      And houses, and take them away
      They rob a man and his house,
      A man and his inheritance (Mic 2:1-2).

See Chip M. Anderson, “Widows in our Temple Courts (Mk 12:38-44): The Public Advocacy Role of the Local Congregation as Christian Discipleship,” paper, Evangelical Theological Society meeting (Washington, DC, 2006).

The Inference in the Beelzubul parable and Mark’s Isaiah 6 Idolatry-taunt
The programmatic themes established in Mark 1 prepare the hearer for Jesus’ confrontation with the scribes from Jerusalem (Mk 3:22).  Typically, the Beelzubul story is applied to the private sphere, to those who refuse to accept Jesus as Savior (e.g., “Those who refuse Jesus, whom the Holy Spirit reveals, will not find forgiveness”).  This is rather simplistic, misses the text’s significance, and overlooks Mark’s use of antecedent theology.  This story is strategically placed at the end of a series of confrontation stories (1:22; 2:6; 2:16; 3:22) and functions as a judgment response directed to Jesus’ political and religious antagonists.  The judgment rendered in Mark 3:29 (whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin) is not to be applied generally as the rejection of Jesus as Savior, but the rejection of the implications the Kingdoms’ presence.  The Beelzubul story (3:22ff) offers a narrative transition for the parable of the Sower and a reason for Mark’s use of the Isaiah 6 idolatry-taunt, which is the natural consequence of the Beelzubul judgment-parable.

But why blasphemy of the “Holy Spirit” and not blasphemy of God or His Messiah?  First, the Beelzubul controversy is set in terms of the kingdom (If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand, 3:24) with Jesus as the “stronger one” (cf. Isa 40:10) who comes to plunder Satan’s kingdom-house (3:24, 27).  Earlier John the Baptist refers to Jesus as the “mighty one” (ὁ ἰσχυρότερός; cf. 1:8; Isa 40:10, 26) who is associated with God’s Holy Spirit (He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit, 1:8; the Spirit like a dove descending upon Him, 1:10).  Second, there is an association to the first Exodus.  The use of ἐκβαλῶ (cast out) in the Beelzubul narrative (ἐν τῷ ἄρχοντι τῶν δαιμονίων ἐκβάλλει τὰ δαιμόνια, by the ruler of demons He casts out demons, Mark 3:22, 23) connects what God will do to the inhabitants of the Land of Gift and to the exorcism activities of Jesus.  In the original Exodus story we hear:

I will drive them out [ἐκβαλῶ] before you little by little, until you become fruitful and take possession of the land.  I will fix your boundary from the Red Sea to the sea of the Philistines, and from the wilderness to the River Euphrates; for I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and you will drive them out [ἐκβαλῶ] before you (Exodus 23:30-31).

This terminology is also reflected in the bookend-texts describing the call and commission of the twelve (and to have authority to cast out [ἐκβαλῶ] the demons, Mk 3:15; 6:13).

Finally, there is a link between the first Exodus, the Spirit, and “unforgiveness.” In Exodus 23, the Angel of the Lord goes before them to guard them “along the way” (ἐν τὴν ὁδόν).  Israel is warned to obey his voice and not be rebellious toward him, for he will not pardon your transgression, since My name is in him (Ex 23:20-21).  This is followed by warnings against idolatry (vv 32-33; cf. Isa 6:9ff; Mk 4:12ff).  Additionally, elsewhere the Old Testament makes the connection between the Angel of Exodus and God’s Spirit: 

As for the promise which I made you when you came out of Egypt, My Spirit is abiding in your midst; do not fear! (Haggai 2:5).

You gave Your good Spirit to instruct them, your manna You did not withhold from their mouth, and You gave them water for their thirst (Nehemiah 9:20).

Then in Isaiah, we have a clear exodus motif in Isaiah 63, connecting the Exodus-Angel, the Spirit, and the rebellion against “his voice” (cf. Ex 23:21):

   In all their affliction He was afflicted,
      And the angel of His presence saved them;
      In His love and in His mercy He redeemed them,
      And He lifted them and carried them all the days of old.
   But they rebelled
      And grieved His Holy Spirit;
      Therefore He turned Himself to become their enemy,
      He fought against them.
   Then His people remembered the days of old, of Moses
      Where is He who brought them up out of the sea
      with the shepherds of His flock?
   Where is He who put His Holy Spirit in the
      midst of them (vv 9-11).

Zechariah 7 also draws upon this theme and links the exodus land-management stipulations, the role of the Spirit, and idolatry.  Zechariah declares the word of the LORDmourning and fasting (7:5).  Even in exile, there is no attempt to show contrition because they had not linked their idolatrous hearts to their misplaced social relationships (i.e., they made their hearts like flint, a reference to idolatry):

Then the word of the LORD came to Zechariah saying, “Thus has the LORD of hosts said, ‘Dispense true justice and practice kindness and compassion each to his brother; and do not oppress the widow or the orphan, the stranger or the poor; and do not devise evil in your hearts against one another.’ But they refused to pay attention and turned a stubborn shoulder and stopped their ears from hearing.  They made their hearts like flint so that they could not hear the law and the words which the LORD of hosts had sent by His Spirit through the former prophets; therefore great wrath came from the LORD of hosts.  And just as He called and they would not listen, so they called and I would not listen,” says the LORD of hosts, “but I scattered them with a storm wind among all the nations whom they have not known. Thus the land is desolated behind them so that no one went back and forth, for they made the pleasant land desolate” (Zech 7:8-14).

All the earmarks of the Beelzubul controversy are contained in Zech 7: The judgment of exile is analogous to idolatry and exile is related to breaking the covenant stipulations regarding the economically vulnerable and the poor.

The Beelzubul parable infers the charges that provoked the original idolatry taunt (Isa 6), which Mark uses to explain the Sower parable (WHILE SEEING, THEY MAY SEE AND NOT PERCEIVE, AND WHILE HEARING, THEY MAY NOT HEAR AND NOT UNDERSTAND, OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT RETURN AND BE FORGIVEN, 4:11b-12; Isa 6:9f).  Just as the Beelzubul conflict prepares for the Mark 4 idolatry-taunt, Isaiah 1-5 prepares for the original in Isa 6.  Amid the obvious immoral behavior, there are specifics related to land-management and the economically vulnerable:

   Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean;
      Remove the evil of your deeds from My sight.
         Cease to do evil,
         Learn to do good;
         Seek justice,
         Reprove the ruthless,
         Defend the orphan,
         Plead for the widow” (1:16-17).

   Your rulers are rebels
      And companions of thieves;
      Everyone loves a bribe
      And chases after rewards.
      They do not defend the orphan,
      Nor does the widow‘s plea come before them (1:23).

   The LORD enters into judgment with the elders
            and princes of His people,
       “It is you who have devoured the vineyard;
      The plunder of the poor is in your houses.
   What do you mean by crushing My people
      And grinding the face of the poor?”
      Declares the Lord GOD of hosts (3:14-15).

The mention of the vulnerable trio—the orphan, the widow, and the alien—is an obvious reflection of Exodus covenant stipulations (Ex 21-23).  The original Isaiah context gives Mark’s use significance and implications for the realm of discipleship and evangelism, particularly for social relationships involving the poor.

---

Notes:

Also throughout Mark, used to indicate Jesus’ ministry and those who follow Him, but drawing back on the original Exodus; thus, furthering the programmatic themes in the Beelzubul story, reminding of Israel’s “founding moment.” Watts draws a connection between the defeat of Satan the strong man, along with the explanatory kingdom parables (Mk 4:26ff; 4:30ff), and the following two miracles: the stilling of the story (mastery over the sea, against Baal the sea storm god) and the drowning of the demonic legion (the defeat of pharaoh’s army) (Watts).

There is a strong connection between demons and idolatry, which should link Jesus ministry of exorcism and the issue of idolatry that the leaders of Israel are charged with: Lev 17:7; Dt 32:17; Ps 106:37; 1 Corinth 10:20; cf. Jub 1:11; 11:4-6; 1 En 19:1; 99:7.

Extra-canonical material identified the “Angel” (or “messenger”) to be God’s Spirit (as well as the Cloud by Day and the pillar of fire by night in the deliverance out of Egypt and throughout the wilderness journey; cf. Isa 4).

Note: the word draws back to the Ten-Words and forward to the up-coming Word which is the seed in the parable of the Sower who sows (Mark 4).

Note, as the Beelzubul judgment is leveled against Jerusalem leadership, the same is true of the original Isaiah context, particularly the charge of idolatry (Isa 1:29-31; 2:6-9; 2:12-13; 2:18, 20).

The call to become fishers of men
Mark moves from his programmatic Gospel summary (1:1-3) and the inaugurated presence of the Kingdom (i.e., John the Baptist’s preaching, vv 4-8 and the coming of the Spirit, vv 9-13) to a call for followers: “Follow Me, and I will make you become fishers of men” (Mark 1:17).  Although Christians differ over the application of fishers of men, there is a reasonable correlation to an Old Testament theme: The use of fish, fishers, fishermen, and fishing yield evidence of an antecedent background that fits the Marken context.  The concept of fishing carries an Old Testament denotation of God’s judgment—fishers of men are God’s agents of judgment.  Mark blends this Old Testament thread, which draws on the twin themes relevant to this paper, namely idolatry and the poor (Jer 16:16; Amos 4:1-2; cf. Hab 1:14-15; Ez 29:4-5; 38:4; Isa 37:29).

The concentration of judgment throughout these texts draws the reader/hearer back to covenantal obedience and to the economically vulnerable.  Jeremiah announces:

“Behold, I am going to send for many fishermen,” declares the LORD, “and they will fish for them; and afterwards I will send for many hunters, and they will hunt them from every mountain and every hill and from the clefts of the rocks” (Jer 16:16).

The obvious reason for God’s fishermen agents of judgment, the people had become idolatrous:

“Then you are to say to them, ‘It is because your forefathers have forsaken Me,’ declares the LORD, ‘and have followed other gods and served them and bowed down to them; but Me they have forsaken and have not kept My law. You too have done evil, even more than your forefathers; for behold, you are each one walking according to the stubbornness of his own evil heart., without listening to Me. So I will hurl you out of this land into the land which you have not known’” (Jer 16:11-13).

The flow of thought in Jeremiah, where the prophet is the initial agent of judgment (Jer 15-19), contain numerous references to idolatry (including God vs. the gods tauntalogies) as a cause/effect for God’s judgment:

“I will first doubly repay their iniquity and their sin, because they have polluted My land; they have filled My inheritance with the carcasses of their detestable idols and with their abominations.”
   O LORD, my strength and my stronghold,
      And my refuge in the day of distress,
      To You the nations will come
      From the ends of the earth and say,
       “Our fathers have inherited nothing but falsehood,
      Futility and things of no profit.”
   Can man make gods for himself?
      Yet they are not gods!
   “Therefore behold, I am going to make them know--
      This time I will make them know
      My power and My might;
      And they shall know that My name
            is the LORD” (Jer 16:18-21).

“Yet they did not listen or incline their ears, but stiffened their necks in order not to listen or take correction” (Jer 17:23).

“For My people have forgotten Me,
   They burn incense to worthless gods
   And they have stumbled from their ways,
   From the ancient paths,
   To walk in bypaths,
   Not on a highway” (Jer 18:15).

Similar language is used in Amos 4, Habakkuk 1, Ezekiel 29, where the imagery of fishing is a tool of judgment.  This, too, has an apologetic nature:  Ultimately this judgment activity of God will reveal that He alone is the LORD (cf. Jer 16:21) and, through it, God will make Himself known in the sight of many nations (cf. Ez 29: 23). In Habakkuk it is through the fishing activity that the ungodly, the unrighteous, and those who oppose God are gathered together for judgment (cf. Hab 1:14-15).  The judgment passages utilizing fishing imagery also promise a future remnant (through God’s agents of judgment, fishing or the fishers), offering a reasonable application by Mark in calling for followers as fishers of men (i.e., disciples and evangelizers).

In the midst of the references to idolatry are reminders—direct and indirect—of the covenant stipulations concerning the poor.  In Jeremiah 16-18, those who refuse to provide and advocate for the economically vulnerable will become subject to sword and famine, becoming childlessness, that is widows and orphans (Ex 22:24; cf. Ps 109).

“They will die of deadly diseases, they will not be lamented or buried; they will be as dung on the surface of the ground and come to an end by sword and famine, and their carcasses will become food for the birds of the sky and for the beasts of the earth” (Jer 16:4)

Therefore, give their children over to famine
     And deliver them up to the power of the sword;
     And let their wives become childless and widowed
     Let their men also be smitten to death,
     Their young men struck down by the sword in battle.
  May an outcry be heard from their houses,
     When You suddenly bring raiders upon them;
       For they have dug a pit to capture me
     And hidden snares for my feet (Jer 18:21-22).

These consequences are reminiscent of covenant promises and expectations:

You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.  You shall not afflict any widow or orphan.  If you afflict him at all, and if he does cry out to Me, I will surely hear his cry; and My anger will be kindled, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall become widows and your children fatherless (Ex 22:21-24).

Your carcasses will be food to all birds of the sky and to the beasts of the earth, and there will be no one to frighten them away.  The LORD will smite you with the boils of Egypt and with tumors and with the scab and with the itch, from which you cannot be healed. The LORD will smite you with madness and with blindness and with bewilderment of heart (Dt 28:26-28).

Cursed is he who distorts the justice due an alien, orphan, and widow.  And all the people shall say, “Amen” (Dt 27:19).

The identification of fishers as a means of judgment is also found in Amos 4:1-2, narrowing the focus of judgment specifically to oppressing the economically vulnerable:

Hear this word, you cows of Bashan who are on the
            mountain of Samaria,
   Who oppress the poor, who crush the needy,
   Who say to your husbands, “Bring now, that we
            may drink!”
The Lord GOD has sworn by His holiness,
   “Behold, the days are coming upon you
   When they will take you away with meat hooks,
   And the last of you with fish hooks (Amos 4:1-2).

The reference here draws upon the cause of God’s judgment, namely affluent ladies of the Northern Kingdom are oppressing the poor.  The mention of cows of Bashan could be a pun related to idolatry (cow draws us back to the original idol-calves) and pin-points the idolatry to wanton wealth accumulation without concern for its affect (as implied in the exuberant, sarcastic comment “to bring on the drinks!”), specifically implying covenant breaking in oppressing/defrauding the poor.  Amos 4:1-2 is part of a thread that links covenantal unfaithfulness, misshapen values of wealth accumulation, and oppression of the poor:

   Thus says the LORD,
      “For three transgressions of Israel and for four
        I will not revoke its punishment,
        Because they sell the righteous for money
        And the needy for a pair of sandals.
         “These who pant after the very dust of the earth
                  on the head of the helpless
        Also turn aside the way of the humble;
        And a man and his father resort to the same girl
        In order to profane My holy name (Amos 2:6-7).

Therefore because you impose heavy rent on the poor
       And exact a tribute of grain from them,
      Though you have built houses of well-hewn stone,
      Yet you will not live in them;
      You have planted pleasant vineyards, yet you will
                  not drink their wine.
     For I know your transgressions are many and your
                  sins are great,
      You who distress the righteous and accept bribes
      And turn aside the poor in the gate. (Amos 5:11-12).

Hear this, you who trample the needy, to do away with the humble of the land, saying,
       “When will the new moon be over,
      So that we may sell grain,
      And the sabbath, that we may open the wheat market,
      To make the bushel smaller and the shekel bigger,
      And to cheat with dishonest scales,
   So as to buy the helpless for money
      And the needy for a pair of sandals,
      And that we may sell the refuse
                  of the wheat?” (Amos 8:4-6).

This thread points to “haves” who prevent “have nots” from escape out of prolonged poverty.  The call to follow Jesus implies a discipleship that is associated with covenant expectations toward the poor and the consequences of idolatrous patterns of social life.

A few months ago I had finished up a rough draft of my Idolatry-Poverty paper and I posted it on Words’nTone to give readers a chance to read and respond. Now that the paper is all done and delivered (presented Nov 19th, last Thursday), I thought I’d post the cleaned up version of the exegetical section. Hopefully it won’t be too boring or passed over…nonetheless, here is that section of the paper.

---

Mark tends to use the Old Testament at critical points in his narrative and “prefers certain categories of texts for particular concerns.” This is very noticeable in how Mark crafts his narrative using Old Testament texts that juxtapose the issue of idolatry and texts that bring to mind Exodus land-management stipulations related to the economically vulnerable and words of judgment for abandoning them. Mark is quite consistent and intentional in this use—and at critical places (cf. Mk 1, 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13)—thus, making them most likely programmatic for understanding the Gospel and, as well, the nature of discipleship and evangelism.

The Programmatic Summary (Mark 1:1-3)
Mark begins his narrative with a composite Old Testament quotation (Ex 23:20, Mal 3:1, Isa 40:3) which contains juxtaposed references to poverty and idolatry. Mark draws from the concluding summary (Ex 23:20-23) of the “Book of the Covenant” (Exodus 20:1-23:33), which immediately contains warnings against idolatry (You shall not worship their gods, nor serve them, nor do according to their deeds; but you shall utterly overthrow them and break their sacred pillars in pieces, 23:24; You shall make no covenant with them or with their gods. They shall not live in your land, because they will make you sin against Me; for if you serve their gods, it will surely be a snare to you, 23:32-33). Essentially the entire “Book of the Covenant” is structured around this theme. Heading the foundational Ten-Words (Ex 20:1-17) are commands to have no other gods before Yahweh (v. 3) and the prohibition of idolatry in any form (vv. 4-5). Interestingly, even the Ten-Words are bracketed with prohibitions against forms of idolatry, for the tenth commandment, You shall not covet (v 17), is associated throughout the Old Testament with idolatry (cf. Ex 20:23; Dt 7:25; Isa 1:29; 44:9; Ps 115:4). Then after Israel affirms hearing Yahweh (Ex 20:18-22), Moses begins to unpack the Ten-Words, idolatry leading the record (You shall not make other gods besides Me; gods of silver or gods of gold, you shall not make for yourselves…, Ex 20:23-24).

The first time the economically vulnerable trio (the widow, orphan, and stranger) are mentioned in Exodus, idolatry frames the pericope (Ex 22:18-20; 23:13). First, Moses presents a trio of commands prohibiting idolatrous behavior, each with a consequence of death:

• “ You shall not allow a sorceress to live” (Ex 22:18).



• “Whoever lies with an animal shall surely be put to death” (v 19).



• “He who sacrifices to any god, other than to the LORD alone, shall be utterly destroyed” (v 20).

This is immediately followed by land-management stipulations concerning the economically vulnerable trio (You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. You shall not afflict any widow or orphan, vv. 21-22).

As the consequence of idolatry is death, so also for not fulfilling the codes related to the economically vulnerable. They are mirror-retributive in nature: Oppressing the poor provokes their outcry to God, bringing about the sword, making the families of those who violate these land-management stipulations just like the poor, becoming widows and fatherless and, thus, economically vulnerable as well (vv 23-24). Then there is a series of codes that promote action or prohibitions of the non-poor to protect the vulnerable trio from prolonged and generational poverty (vv 25-27), strangers were not to be oppressed (23:9; i.e., defrauded), and the seventh year rest of the fields, the natural growth was to be left for the poor (23:12). The segment, then, closes with a repeated warning against idolatry (Now concerning everything which I have said to you, be on your guard; and do not mention the name of other gods, nor let them be heard from your mouth, Ex 23:13). Exodus 23:20ff reminds and warns that the land-stipulations are to be obeyed, repeating the prohibitions against idolatry (Ex 23:32-33). Idolatry is the antithesis to obeying the “voice” of the angel (v 21), the referent for Mark’s programmatic Gospel summary.

Moving to the Mal 3 referent, the easy correlation is the sending of God’s messenger—ιδου εγω εξαποστελλω τον αγγελον μου (Mal 3:1); και ιδου εγω αποστελλω τον αγγελον μου (Ex 23:20)—and John the Baptist as the messenger preparing the way (οδον) for the Lord (Mk 1:4-8). Overlooked are the contextual concerns regarding the poor that link the Exodus and Malachi referents. Following Mal 3:1, we encounter the vulnerable trio (Then I will draw near to you for judgment…against those who oppress the wage earner in his wages, the widow and the orphan, and those who turn aside the alien, 3:5). Earlier the issue of idolatry was raised: Israel offered profane sacrifices and polluted offerings (1:7-12); Judah is rebuked for profaning the sanctuary of the Lord and has married the daughter of a foreign god (Mal 2:11). Then in Mal 3:5 memories are drawn back to the covenant where the vulnerable trio are introduced with prohibitions against sorcerers (Mal 3:5; Ex 22:18) and those who swear falsely (Mal 3:5; Ex 23:1ff), texts that recall stipulations regarding social relations, including one’s enemy and the needy (Ex 23:1, 7; cf. Ex 20:16; Dt 5:20; Lev 19:11; Jer 5:2, 4; 7:9).

The juxtaposition of idolatry and poverty in Exodus and the memory-judgment context in Malachi bears out the apologetic framework discussed above. Additionally, Mark’s constant use of Isaiah also reinforces this framework, which is particularly vivid in Isaiah 40, a component of Mark’s programmatic summary. Mark’s Isaiah referent itself—A voice is calling, “Clear the way for the LORD in the wilderness; make smooth in the desert a highway for our God” (Isa 40:3; cf. Mk 1:3)—carries imagery common to Isaiah’s world, reflecting the procession of ANE monarchs. Here, Yahweh comes as Victor-king, announcing the Good News (Here is your God! v 9). The indent of the procession is for the glory of the LORD to be revealed so all flesh will see His glory (v 5). Isaiah 40 then compares Yahweh to surrounding idolatrous nations (the nations are like a drop from a bucket and they are regarded as a speck of dust on the scales, v 15; All the nations are as nothing before Him, they are regarded by Him as less than nothing and meaningless, v 17). Mark’s introduction links the Gospel to the concept of the imperial cult of Caesar with the apologetic of Isaiah, namely the incomparability of Yahweh, whose sovereign power over creation is boasted (v 12) and needs no-one’s counsel regarding justice (vv 13-14). Yahweh is distinct from the image-bearers made of gold and silver who need to be fashioned by human-hands (vv 19-20), for He sits above the circle of the earth and stretches out the heavens like a curtain (v 22). God reduces rulers to nothing and makes the judges of the earth meaningless (v 23). The Holy One takes on all-comers: To whom then will you liken Me that I would be his equal? (v 25). Isaiah references the starry hosts (v 26), each representing idolatrous pagan powers, yet it is Yahweh who created them and calls them by name, indicating His might and strength over the idols/gods of the nations.

---

Notes

Cf. Isa 2:7, 20; 13:17; 30:22; 31:7; 40:19; 46:6; Hos 2:8; 8:4; Hab 2:19; 1:18; Zech 6:11; cf. Isa 39:2; 60:9; Jer 10:4, 9; Ezek 7:19; 16:13, 17; 28:4; Zech 9:3; and note Acts 20:33.

You are not to boil a young goat in the milk of its mother (Ex 23:19) is most likely a reference to pagan worship/magic.

Probably not one cessation of all crops, which would put animals and the poor at risk, but a principle of rotating of crops/fields.

The Isaianic references to idolatry are usually in the context of Yahweh’s incomparableness to the other powers; cf. 42:17; 44:9-10; 45:16, 20; 46:1; 48:5; 57:13; 66:3.

False gods totter, Isa 41:7; misplaced trust in idols, 42:17; compared to idols made by hands, 46:5-7; inability to do anything, 48:5; 44:17-20; wearisome, 44:12-13.

I bring this rather long thread to a close, making a brief closing remark on thihs wildly fasinating use of OT texts by Mark throughout his Gospel narrative—the use of OT texts that juxtapose idolatry and the poor.

---

Summary
Although a more detailed, exegetical investigation of the Old Testament referenced texts is needed, the obvious use of Old Testament material regarding idolatry and the poor are certainly embedded into the very nature of the Gospel, making these texts paradigmatic for discipleship and evangelism. Mark’s strong and pervasive use of the original covenant documents, with a high concentration on texts related to idolatry and the economically vulnerable, indicates that the Old Testament ethical texts are paradigmatic for discipleship. The consistent use of Old Testament texts related to expectations regarding the poor and the juxtaposition of references to the issues of idolatry, as well, point to the apologetic and evangelistic potential of social action.

---

The following: A concluding remark from the overall paper as it stands now in draft form. I do have another section to write to better conclude the paper, but the following is a added conclusion to the “application” section (A Defective Social Construction for Christians). So, I include this as part of the thread now.

---

The present model for socio-economic progress and prosperity, objectifies the non-poor Christian’s reality (i.e., “home world”) through habits and experiences of everyday life, and thus assumed a part of his or her belief system—validating the experience of everyday as biblical. The problem for the non-poor believer living in such a history and current social location, then, experiences only a partial reality. For the Christian, this is a defective social construction. The prophets warned of God’s judgment upon those who create or maintain economic structures that benefit some and exclude others (e.g., Amos 4:1ff; Mic 2:1-2; Isa 5:7ff; Jer 22), that pave the way to prosperity for some and prolonged, generational poverty for others. The non-poor accept a world that is duplicitous, limiting the historic and current benefits of a socio-economic system to those the “market blessed.” Furthermore, the reality of everyday life, the acceptance that Suburban life and its enablers, the free market and human acts of power, sustaining an everyday life, are often at odds with the Gospel, especially a Gospel that has been formed by the relationship between idolatry and the issues of poverty. For the non-poor Christian this is an idolatrous mode of living and does not offer a biblically defensive apologetic for the God revealed in Jesus Christ.

Preparing on ‘the way’ for the “sudden appearance” at the Temple…cont’n

Note on “fig tree”: Later in verse 18, The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead dough to make cakes for the queen of heaven; and they pour out drink offerings to other gods in order to spite Me (Jer 7:18); and it should be noted that “Fig tree” reference in Mark 11 is derived partially from Jer 8:13 and has close association with foreign idolatrous influences:

“I will surely snatch them away,” declares the LORD;
    “There will be no grapes on the vine
   And no figs on the fig tree,
   And the leaf will wither;
   And what I have given them will pass away” (Jer 8:13).

Note on widow and offerings: The widow connection is further reinforced by Mark’s reference to “selling doves” as part of the description of the “buying and selling in the temple” (11:15).  Mark ties in the maltreatment of the poor through an obvious reference to the Levitical provision given to the impoverished:

But if he cannot afford a lamb, then he shall bring to the LORD his guilt offering for that in which he has sinned, two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. (Lev 5:7).

Certainly Mark infers that Jesus has something against the “profit making” activities taking place in the temple, for there is a clear link between the poor and Jesus’ living parable of judgment.

---

In the last post, I will make some summary comments on the Marken thread of OT quotations and references that juxtapose the concept of idolatry and poverty…

Preparing on ‘the way’ for the “sudden appearance” at the Temple…cont’n
Mark 12 begins with a parable that, once again, draws on the Isa 1-6 context and the Isa 5 parable-imagery of God’s unproductive vineyard (Then He expected it to produce good grapes, but it produced only worthless ones, Isa 5:2c).  Jesus’ words reflect implications drawn from the original Isaiah parable and its contextual implications regarding the poor (Isa 1-5), idolatry (the taunt, Isa 6:9ff), and judgment (exile):

For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts is the house
      of Israel
   And the men of Judah His delightful plant
   Thus He looked for justice, but behold, bloodshed;
   For righteousness, but behold, a cry of distress.
   Woe to those who add house to house and
      join field to field,
     Until there is no more room,
     So that you have to live alone in
        the midst of the land! (Isa 5:7-8; cf. Mic 2:1-2).

Mark ends his thread with the ultimate abandoning of covenant land-management expectations: oppression of a widow right there in the temple courts.  The widow story, which carries inferences and allusions to Ex 22, Lev 19, 23, Deut 14, and Mal 3—all texts with implicit references that juxtapose idolatry and the poor—offers the final straw regarding their disregard for the covenant expectations concerning the economically vulnerable.  Mark focuses on the abuse of a poor widow, who’s only financial resources are stripped from her just so she can enter into the doomed temple.  The poor widow story, despite its common use as an illustration of sacrificial giving to modern-day temples, is likely a capstone to the thread Mark has weaved throughout his narrative, namely that the Gospel and the presence of the Kingdom are associated with social relationships, particularly toward the economically vulnerable.  This is made even more clear as the listener encounters Jesus’ sudden appearance in the temple, where the final judgment is foretold, drawing on the Malachi 3 threat, which includes the accusation of neglect and oppression of the economically vulnerable.

Preparing on ‘the way’ for the “sudden appearance” at the Temple
As Mark prepares his reader/hearers for ultimate judgment on the temple (Mark 13), there is a thread of Old Testament referents and imagery that draws our attention back to covenant expectations.  Mark 10-12 contains a series of teachings and confrontations scenes that elicited questions or comments related to Messianic expectations.  Embedded in this thread are texts from the Old Testament regarding the issues of idolatry and poverty.  Mark begins this section with a reference to divorce (10:2ff) and ends with the story of the poor widow (12:38ff). The divorce referent reaches back to Deuteronomy 24, which most likely has more to do with protecting women, widows, and orphans than a so-called contemporary divorce exemption for modern American Christians.  This makes sense given that Deuteronomy 24 also contains the gleaning codes designed to sustain the economically vulnerable trio—the widow, orphan, and alien (Dt 24:19ff)—where farmers make available from their own property and produce food for the economically vulnerable.

Then Jeremiah’s temple speech forms the background, as well as Isaianic redemptive promises, to the confrontation in the Court of the Gentiles (Mk 11:15ff), where Jesus topples tables and utters harsh judgment texts, when Jesus disrupts the commerce in the Court, He began to teach and say to them, “Is it not written, ‘MY HOUSE SHALL BE CALLED A HOUSE OF PRAYER FOR ALL THE NATIONS’? But you have made it a robbers’ den” (Mark 11:17).  The reference is drawn from Jeremiah 7:11:

Do not trust in deceptive words, saying, “This is the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD.” For if you truly amend your ways and your deeds, if you truly practice justice between a man and his neighbor, if you do not oppress the alien, the orphan, or the widow, and do not shed innocent blood in this place, nor walk after other gods to your own ruin, then I will let you dwell in this place, in the land that I gave to your fathers forever and ever.  Behold, you are trusting in deceptive words to no avail.  Will you steal, murder, and commit adultery and swear falsely, and offer sacrifices to Baal and walk after other gods that you have not known (Jer 7:9).

The juxtaposition of covenant references to the economically vulnerable and to idolatry are obvious.  Similarly in Isaiah’s judgment against Israel (1-5), outward appearances and rituals were all in place, thus there was a trust that God would protect their religiosity despite neglecting covenant expectations toward the economically vulnerable and their disregard for justice.  Mark, as well, references Isaiah 56:7 (MY HOUSE WILL BE CALLED A HOUSE OF PRAYER FOR ALL THE PEOPLES) where the context is a call to “Preserve justice and do righteousness” because Yahweh’s “salvation is about to come” and “His righteousness to be revealed” (v 1). 

The Inference in the Beelzubul parable and Mark’s Isaiah 6 Idolatry-taunt...continued

Zechariah 7 also draws upon this theme and links the exodus land-management stipulations, the role of the Spirit, and idolatry.  Zechariah declares the word of the LORD (7:4) to the exiles concerning their disingenuous repentance in their mourning and fasting (7:5).  Even in exile, there is no attempt to show contrition because they have not linked their idolatrous hearts to their misplaced social relationships (i.e., they made their hearts like flint, a reference to idolatry):

Then the word of the LORD came to Zechariah saying, “Thus has the LORD of hosts said, ‘Dispense true justice and practice kindness and compassion each to his brother; and do not oppress the widow or the orphan, the stranger or the poor; and do not devise evil in your hearts against one another.’ But they refused to pay attention and turned a stubborn shoulder and stopped their ears from hearing.  They made their hearts like flint so that they could not hear the law and the words which the LORD of hosts had sent by His Spirit through the former prophets; therefore great wrath came from the LORD of hosts.  And just as He called and they would not listen, so they called and I would not listen,” says the LORD of hosts, “but I scattered them with a storm wind among all the nations whom they have not known Thus the land is desolated behind them so that no one went back and forth, for they made the pleasant land desolate” (Zech 7:8-14).

All the earmarks of the Beelzubul controversy are contained in the Zech 7 passage, stressing the judgment of exile as analogous to idolatry and exile is related to breaking covenant, and specifically the stipulations regarding the economically vulnerable and the poor.  The Beelzubul parable infers the charges raised in the original idolatry taunt (Isa 6) and is applied in Mark’s Gospel (4:11ff).  The Beelzubul episode leads to Mark’s use of the Isaiah 6 idolatry-taunt—WHILE SEEING, THEY MAY SEE AND NOT PERCEIVE, AND WHILE HEARING, THEY MAY NOT HEAR AND NOT UNDERSTAND, OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT RETURN AND BE FORGIVEN (4:11b-12).  As commentators have observed, “Jesus adopts a meaning for Isaiah 6:9-10 virtually identical to the original meaning in Isaiah,” making the judgment of the parables in Mark 3 and 4 a declaration of the reality of God’s present activity.  Just as the Beelzubul conflict prepares for the idolatry-taunt judgment in Mark 4, Isaiah 1-5 prepares for the original idolatry-taunt judgment in Isa 6.  Aside from the obvious immoral behaviors, there are specifics related to land-management and the economically vulnerable that are seen as appropriate for the idolatry-taunt:

Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean;
   Remove the evil of your deeds from My sight.
      Cease to do evil,
      Learn to do good;
      Seek justice,
      Reprove the ruthless,
      Defend the orphan,
      Plead for the widow (1:16-17).

Your rulers are rebels
   And companions of thieves;
   Everyone loves a bribe
   And chases after rewards.
   They do not defend the orphan,
   Nor does the widow’s plea come before them (1:23).

The LORD enters into judgment with the elders and
  princes of His people,
   “It is you who have devoured the vineyard;
   The plunder of the poor is in your houses.
What do you mean by crushing My people
   And grinding the face of the poor?”
   Declares the Lord GOD of hosts (3:14-15).

The mention of the vulnerable trio—the orphan, the widow, and the alien/stranger—is an obvious reflection of the covenant stipulations of Exodus 21-23.  The people’s idolatry created attitudes, as well as, religious and socio-economic structures (2:6-8; 2:20) and habits that discouraged or hindered them from their responsibilities toward the poor.  This is significant for how discipleship is formed.  Like the Beelzubul parable, many apply Mark’s parable of the Sower and the consequential Isaiah referent drawn into narrative solely to the private sphere.  However, the original Isaiah context places the implications of its use in the realm of discipleship, the Christian’s social relationships, particularly with the poor—and evangelism.