Mark 8:1–10

Mark 8:1–10 (ESV): Jesus Feeds the Four Thousand

Passage

The last passage was interesting (to me) not because of what Jesus did, but because of how he did it. This passage is interesting to me not because of what happens (though it is a true miracle), but because of what came before. How can we not read this passage without thinking about 6:30–44 in which Jesus fed the 5,000? With that event in mind it’s completely shocking when…

But I’m getting ahead of myself.

Similar to the previous miraculous healing, this episode begins with Jesus teaching a large crowd in a remote place, and him then having compassion on them because they have nothing to eat. It might even be worse this time because Jesus mentions that the crowd has been with him for three days; he tells his disciples that he’s afraid to send them home for fear that they might faint with hunger on the way. In the previous feeding Jesus had told his disciples to feed the crowd, but in this instance he doesn’t even get that far: they preempt his question before he can even ask it, and ask him how they can possibly feed this crowd.

Similar to the previous passage, Jesus asks them how much bread they have, has the crowd sit, and divides the bread amongst the people. Similarly, there are also some fish, which he also divides among them. At the end they end up with seven baskets of leftovers.

Jesus then sends the crowd away, and moves on to his next destination.

Thoughts

The parallels between this passage and the previous one are startling; if both stories weren’t in the same book—for example if Matthew had written about the feeding of the 5,000 and Mark had written about the feeding of the 4,000—I would have thought that it was the same incident with a simple disagreement about the size of the crowd. The two events are almost exactly the same, so that’s why I’m so flabbergasted when the disciples seem to have the same reaction they had the first time: “How are we supposed to feed all of these people?!?” When they had that reaction the first time I can understand it; whenever Jesus did anything new that they hadn’t seen before I can understand them being shocked. But in this case they’re in exactly the same situation they were the first time, so why would they be shocked that Jesus is going to do this?

Well… almost the same situation. In this case, just to make the irony even deeper, the crowd is smaller and they start off with more food than they’d had the last time.

The only thing I can think of is that when they ask Jesus, “How can one feed these people with bread here in this desolate place?” (verse 4 (ESV)), maybe it was an honest question. Meaning that they weren’t being disbelieving, they were honestly asking Jesus, “how do you want to go about this?” It doesn’t sound that way, the way it’s worded, but it’s possible.

And to nail the point home, before I start feeling superior to the disciples, how many times do we all do this? Get into a situation we’ve been in numerous times before, and then start to wonder how God could possibly get us out of it? Sometimes it seems silly or strange when someone else does it, but not when we ourselves do it.

Mark 7:31–37

Mark 7:31–37 (ESV): Jesus Heals a Deaf Man

Passage

This passage is interesting to me not so much because of what Jesus does, but more because of the way in which he does it. As Jesus continues his travels some people bring to him a man who is deaf and has a speech impediment to be healed. Jesus takes the man aside privately, puts his fingers in the man’s ears, spits, and touches the man’s tongue. He then looks up to heaven, sighs, and says “Ephphatha,” which means “be opened” (verse 34 (ESV)). I don’t know what language “Ephphatha” is; I’d guess Aramaic, but it’s just a guess; the study notes and footnotes I had available didn’t tell me.

At this point the man’s ears are opened and he is able to speak plainly. As is so often the case, Jesus tells them to keep it to themselves, and as usual they disregard him and go out and proclaim it. Or, as verse 36 (ESV) puts it:

And Jesus charged them to tell no one. But the more he charged them, the more zealously they proclaimed it.

The reason they can’t help but tell people is given in the next verse: they’re “astonished beyond measure” that Jesus is able to do such things, even making the deaf hear and the mute speak (verse 37 (ESV)).

Thoughts

As I say, it’s interesting how Jesus goes about healing this man. In some instances He simply says the word, sometimes even from great distances without ever laying eyes on the person being healed, and it just happens. But then you have this instance where Jesus pulls the man aside and touches the areas which are not working. Why does Jesus need (or want) to do so much for this man, when in other instances simply saying “be healed” is enough?

The ESV Study Bible notes say that Jesus took the man aside for his healing so as not to draw attention to it, which is feasible, and they also say that the reason Jesus sighs toward heaven is that he is sighing “over the hard-heartedness and physical weaknesses that had arisen on account of mankind’s fall,” which, to me, is definitely a plausible theory, but since the text doesn’t actually tell us why Jesus is sighing it’s just that: a theory.

Mark 7:24–30

Mark 7:24–30 (ESV): The Syrophoenician Woman’s Faith

Passage

In this passage Jesus travels to the region of Tyre and Sidon, and once again, though he would prefer to remain hidden, he is immediately recognized. One of the people who recognizes him is a Gentile woman who comes and falls at Jesus’ feet, begging him to cast out a demon which has possessed her daughter. His response might seem shocking to modern-day readers:

And he said to her, “Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” (verse 27 (ESV))

In other words, the bread is only for the “children,” the Jews, not for the “dogs,” the Gentiles. Her response, however, is that even though this is the case, the dogs under the table still eat the children’s crumbs. Jesus tells her that for this response she can go her way, for the demon has left her daughter, and when the woman goes home she finds that it is so.

Thoughts

As mentioned, many modern-day readers are probably shocked by Jesus’ response to the woman. After all, we live in an age where it’s obvious that Christianity has spread outside of the Israelites, and is for all people rather than just for a specific people group. It might surprise us to learn that when Jesus was on the earth His ministry was focused on the Jews. This is one of only a few examples of Jesus ministering to a Gentile.

As surprised as we might be, however, the woman herself doesn’t seem surprised at all from what is indicated in the text. There doesn’t seem to be any kind of “how dare you” attitude; instead she simply points out that the “children” aren’t consuming all of the “bread,” so maybe it couldn’t hurt for her to take some of the crumbs that are left over. And I guess Jesus agrees with this reasoning, since He heals the woman’s daughter. (The ESV Study Bible notes make the assumption that Jesus had planned to heal the daughter all along and was simply testing the woman, which I’d mostly go along with. I’d probably put it more along the lines of Jesus specifically having this conversation with the woman to call the disciples’ attention to it, and thus calling the attention of the the Bible’s readers to it.)

I’m wondering if there are also cultural issues clouding modern readers’ understanding of this text, since Jesus calls the Gentiles “dogs.” In our society that’s considered insulting, you wouldn’t equate someone with a dog in this day and age, but it wasn’t necessarily insulting in Jesus’ culture. Again, I go by the woman’s response; she didn’t seem to be insulted at all by Jesus’ words. I’m thinking that this might have just been a metaphor, not the insult that it seems to be to our modern eyes.

Very, very minor change

I’ve long recognized that what I’ve been calling “synopses” are much, much more detailed than synopses; a synopsis should be short and concise, and mine are anything but. So I’ll stop calling them synopses.

Mark 7:1–23

Mark 7:1–23 (ESV): Traditions and Commandments, and What Defiles a Person

Synopsis

This passage starts off with a conversation between Jesus and the scribes and Pharisees. The scribes and Pharisees notice that Jesus’ disciples don’t wash their hands before eating. (Or maybe just not washed in the way the Pharisees expect them to be? I don’t know much about their rules for handwashing.) In a parenthetical remark, Mark explains why the Pharisees and scribes find this surprising:

(For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands properly, holding to the tradition of the elders, and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.) (verses 3–4 (ESV), parentheses in original)

So they ask Jesus about this; they ask him why his disciples do not “walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands” (verse 5 (ESV)). Jesus doesn’t directly answer their question, though. He takes things to a higher level, and turns the accusations back around on the scribes and Pharisees:

And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,

“‘This people honors me with their lips,
   but their heart is far from me;
in vain do they worship me,
   teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’

You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”

(verses 6–8 (ESV))

He goes on in verses 9–13 (ESV) to tell them that they have “a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God” for their own “traditions,” and gives an example of this: The Scriptures commanded the Israelites to honour their fathers and mothers, but they have a tradition which allows them to set that commandment aside, and tell their parents that anything that otherwise would have been theirs will instead go to God. Thus, they have created a tradition which they believe somehow supersedes the scriptures.

Jesus then goes back closer to the point the scribes and Pharisees had originally been making by calling the crowd back to him and telling them that people are not “defiled” by things that they consume, it is the things that come out of a person which defile him. But this issue isn’t just misunderstood by the Pharisees; when Jesus is along with the disciples they ask him about this. His response goes into more detail:

And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.” (verses 18–23 (ESV))

Thoughts

So the scribes and Pharisees find it surprising that Jesus’ disciples don’t wash (or don’t wash properly) before meals, and because I’m always trying to see things from others’ points of view—even when I know they’re wrong, as is the case here—I am thinking that this might be more than just them picking a fight with Jesus for the sake of picking a fight. It’s possible that they really are surprised that Jesus’ disciples aren’t washing before eating. By this point in history the Pharisees and scribes would have these rules so ingrained in them that they would automatically assume that any rabbi or teacher, even one that they disagree with, would at least adhere to traditions such as this.

Why do I mention this? Because I always wonder, when reading passages such as this, if we have our own “traditions” that we adhere to more fully than we adhere to the Scriptures. For example, our society will tell us that it’s okay to be “religious” as long as we’re not too religious. Do we, as Christians, believe that? Do we, like society, believe that we should be Christians on Sundays but chase the ALMIGHTY DOLLAR from Monday–Saturday? Do we feel that we can be “too Christian?”

Maybe that’s not a good example, but if I can’t think of many examples it makes me all the more worried that I might be blinded to them; that my culture or my upbringing or the wisdom of the day might be causing me to think improperly on some issues, which cause me to simply not see things that are there in the Scriptures. Things that people from other generations or cultures would see clearly. Make no mistake, this is part of the problem of the scribes and Pharisees Jesus is talking to in this passage. I do firmly believe that they firmly believed they were in the right; I think they were jealous of Jesus’ power and influence and wanted to eliminate a competitor, but I also think that they really did believe that they were Godly men, and that following their traditions was pleasing to Him. They shouldn’t have thought that, as Jesus points out to them they should have known better, but they did. So I come back to: what things in our generation and our culture blind us to the Scriptures? I would like to think—I would love to think—that there aren’t any such issues, and we’re doing fine, but somehow I doubt that’s the case.

Of course, in this passage we have the benefit of Jesus specifically telling us how the scribes and Pharisees were wrong, so there’s no guesswork. Anytime anything is considered more important than the Scriptures it’s a problem, and that’s obviously the case here. I sometimes go easy on the Pharisees and other religious leaders because I think their original intent was good; the rules they were creating were supposed to help them obey God. The Scriptures say “keep the Sabbath” (for example) so they tried to define how one keeps the Sabbath. Their problems were, in my mind, that: 1) they went too far in defining their rules and tried to get too precise (which I think has to do with a lack of faith, but I haven’t articulated in my mind how that’s the case), which led to, 2) they started to consider the rules to be more important than the Scriptures they’d originally been trying to clarify. They lost sight of the goal they’d originally had, and ended up in much worse shape than they’d started in. The problem, of course, is that this happened over the course of hundreds of years, so that gradual process made it very easy to get used to the status quo.

I’m sure they were even more surprised when Jesus told them that nothing outside of a person can defile them. On the face of it this actually contradicts the Old Testament Scriptures, because if you examine the laws, all kinds of things could make a person unclean. Touching a dead body, or a man’s emission, or a woman’s monthly flow, or, yes, eating forbidden food… there were many ways for a person to be unclean. In fact, even touching another person who was unclean would make you unclean; uncleanness was communicable. If you read Leviticus 11, as an example, you’ll get quite a list of clean and unclean food. (The link is to my post on Leviticus 11, not the chapter itself, but the post has a link to the text.)

But as is so often the case, Jesus is taking things a bit deeper than the Pharisees are. You can’t just follow the letter of the Law and think you’re good with God; He actually demands more of us than what the Law explicitly states. If you follow all of the dietary laws and wash your hands thoroughly, but have evil thoughts, or are sexually immoral, or steal, or commit murder (or hate people), or commit adultery, or covet, or are deceptive, or envy, or slander, or are proud, or even if you’re foolish, then you’re not clean.

There is actually a change to the law here, too. Or at least a change to God’s expectations of His people. In this passage Jesus tells his listeners—and Mark makes this explicit in verse 19 (ESV)—that food cannot make a person unclean, which means that the Old Testament Jewish dietary laws no longer apply. I’m not sure what to say about this, though; 2,000 years later we’ve taken for granted that there are no longer “unclean” foods that we need to avoid, but I’m guessing that at the time this was a bombshell from Jesus. This is no longer “you’ve been misinterpreting the law, here’s what it really means,” this is, “the law used to say something, but I’m now telling you that it’s changing.” However, I obviously don’t understand the nuances of this situation, because when the Pharisees and religious authorities put Jesus on trial they never mentioned this incident; I would have thought they’d be very upset by this. Frankly, it might even have been something that they’d have a leg to stand on, legally speaking, but they didn’t go there (at least not in the recorded events in the Gospels), so I’m assuming I’m missing something on this one.

Mark 6:45–56

Mark 6:45–56 (ESV): Jesus Walks on the Water, and Jesus Heals the Sick in Gennesaret

Synopsis

Once again I’ve decided to combine a couple of ESV section headings into one post; the first is a significant miracle of which we’re all familiar, while the second seems (to me) to be more of an aside between stories than a significant event itself. I won’t push that point too far, though; it’s in the Bible, which means that God wanted it there for a reason.

After feeding the 5,000 in the last passage, Jesus has the disciples get in a boat to cross over to Bethsaida. He is sending them on ahead while he dismisses the crowd, and then he goes up on a mountain to pray.

That evening, when the disciples are already well out on the sea (though moving slowly because they are going against the wind), Jesus walks out toward them on the sea. At first he means to walk right on by them, but when they see him they assume he’s a ghost and cry out in fear, so he reassures them that it’s him and gets in the boat with them. As soon as he does the wind ceases. But the disciples still don’t understand what’s going on:

And they were utterly astounded, for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened. (verses 51b–52 (ESV))

Once they get to the other side of the sea, to a place called Gennesaret, people immediately recognize Jesus and start sending sick people to him to be healed. In a stark contrast to Jesus’ reception in his hometown at the beginning of this chapter, Jesus heals many people here:

And wherever he came, in villages, cities, or countryside, they laid the sick in the marketplaces and implored him that they might touch even the fringe of his garment. And as many as touched it were made well. (verse 56 (ESV))

Thoughts

Once again we have an instance of Jesus going off by himself to pray. In fact, that might very well be the reason that he sent the disciples ahead: so that he could get some time alone to devote to prayer. And so I make my usual comment that I make whenever Jesus specifically takes time for prayer: If Jesus, who is God, feels the need (or desire) to take time to pray to the Father, then how can we mortals possibly think we don’t need to pray?

One of the things that interests me about Jesus walking on the water, one of his most famous miracles, is that he didn’t appear to intend it to be famous. When he first sets out he doesn’t even plan to stop and get in the boat with the disciples, he seems to intend to simply walk all the way across the sea and meet the disciples on the other side. I’m sure that would have been considered a miracle too, that Jesus had somehow beaten them to the other side of the sea, but not in the way that it was received when the disciples actually saw him walking on the water.

This passage gives one of the main reasons that I don’t ever let myself think that I’m somehow smarter or better than the disciples. They didn’t understand about Jesus feeding the 5,000 because “their hearts were hardened.” They didn’t understand what was going on because God had not [yet] given them the supernatural understanding necessary to figure these things out. Anything I understand now that they didn’t understand then is only because the Holy Spirit has enlightened me, not because I’m somehow smarter or more spiritual than they were. And of course it’s always easy to have perfect hindsight, whereas the disciples had no idea how any of these situations they were in were going to turn out, so I do my best to keep that in mind too.

It’s also interesting that Chapter 6 starts with Jesus being essentially rejected by the people of his hometown, and ends with him being very well received at Gennesaret. When Mark originally wrote this letter it didn’t contain chapter or verse numbers, but I’m sure the people who introduced chapter numbers later on did this on purpose, starting the chapter with Nazareth and ending it with Gennesaret.

Mark 6:30–44

Mark 6:30–44 (ESV): Jesus Feeds the Five Thousand

Synopsis

In the last passage we diverted from the storyline for a flashback of John the Baptist’s execution, but in this passage we continue on from verses 7–13. The Apostles come back and report to Jesus all that they’ve done and taught, and he brings them with him to a desolate place where they can rest. Unfortunately, the crowds that Jesus had been trying to avoid realize where he and the Apostles are going and rush to get there ahead of them, so that when Jesus gets off the boat he sees that the crowd is already there.

One might think that Jesus would have reason to be exasperated at this, all he wanted was some rest and he isn’t able to get it, but of course his reaction is not one of exasperation:

When he went ashore he saw a great crowd, and he had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd. And he began to teach them many things. (verse 34 (ESV))

But eventually day turns to evening, and the disciples come to Jesus asking him to send the crowd away so that the people can go into the surrounding countryside and villages to look for something to eat. Remember, Jesus had purposely picked a desolate place for he and the Apostles to go rest, so it’s not like there are a bunch of restaurants around for the people to go to for dinner.

But Jesus’ reply is kind of surprising, even to me reading this story for the hundredth time: “You give them something to eat,” to which the disciples reply sarcastically, “Shall we go and buy [two hundred days’ wages] worth of bread and give it to them to eat?” (verse 37 (ESV)).

The text doesn’t record any reaction Jesus had to the disciples’ sarcasm, he simply asks them how many loaves of bread they have. They go off in search of bread, and come back to report to Jesus that they have five loaves of bread, along with two fish. (Maybe I’m being extra hard on the disciples, but I can almost see that last addition as being more sarcasm. “We have five loaves of bread… and two fish.” As if this tiny amount of food would place even a dent in the hunger of this huge crowd.)

Jesus then has the crowd break up into groups, looks up to heaven and gives a blessing, and breaks the loaves and divides the fish and gives them to the disciples to distribute to the people. Not only does everyone eat, they are “satisfied” (verse 42 (ESV)), so it’s more than just a microscopic amount for each person. Not only that, but there is food left over; twelve baskets of food remain after the crowd finishes eating. (If memory serves my old New Student Bible had a note mentioning that the word used here for “basket” meant that it was a very large basket, not a small one, but the main point is that they actually ended up with more food than they’d begun with.)

Verse 44 (ESV) tells us that there were 5,000 men there, meaning that there were way more than 10,000 people there altogether (assuming that most men had wives there, and many would have had children with them as well).

Thoughts

Right off the bat in this passage I like that the Apostles come back to Jesus to report to him all that they have done and taught (emphasis mine). There sometimes seems to have been a tendency in the Gospels for the people around Jesus to focus on his miracles—such as the one mentioned in this passage—and that’s no less true today; we love the power displayed by God’s miracles in the Old and New Testaments. But the true power of God is not displayed through His miracles, it’s through His Word, preached to unrepentant sinners, causing the unrepentant to repent and be changed and come to Him. The true power of God is displayed in Him accomplishing the impossible: finding a way for us to be in His presence.

It’s also interesting that Jesus’s immediate response is to bring the Apostles away on their own so they can rest. I’m sure many modern-day pastors and preachers can relate, though anecdotally I believe that many refuse to take the rest they need and end up burnt out. They may feel that they’re doing it for God’s sake, but working people to the point of being burnt out doesn’t seem to be His way of operating in the Bible. I wonder how much faith plays into this; we have to have faith that God will accomplish what He wants to accomplish, rather than feeling that we have to do it all for Him.

Of course, that doesn’t mean we can always rest when we want to, either, as this passage also demonstrates. The timing is always up to God, even the timing for our rest. As usual, when it comes to questions of the Man Jesus vs. the God Jesus, I don’t know if Jesus was truly taken by surprise when he saw the crowds there, or if he knew all along that they would be there waiting for him. His choice of location definitely made this miracle necessary, since there would be no food around other than what he miraculously supplied.

The Apostles and the disciples don’t always behave well in the Gospels, and they sometimes misunderstand Jesus’ teachings, but that doesn’t mean that they always have bad intentions or miss things. Personally, I think that they really do have the crowd’s well being in mind when they ask Jesus to send them away to find food. I don’t applaud them descending into sarcasm when he instructs them to feed the crowd, but initially I think their hearts were in the right place.

But that brings us to Jesus’ request: “You give them something to eat” (emphasis added). One’s first reaction when reading this would be to wonder what Jesus could have possibly expected them to do with this command. He can’t have expected them to know what was going to happen, he can’t have expected them to look at the miniscule amount of food they had on hand and decide that it would feed the crowd. So what did he expect? I think this passage is somewhat similar to 4:35–41 when Jesus calmed the storm; Jesus had told the disciples that they were going to the other side of the lake, so the disciples should have known that they were going to get there. Similarly, in this passage Jesus tells the disciples to feed the crowd, so the disciples should have had faith that Jesus was going to allow them to do it… somehow. He wouldn’t expect them to know the details, but he would expect them to trust him.

I find this miracle interesting because of the detail of it. Frankly, Jesus could have simply zapped the people sitting there and caused them to be full instead of going through all of the business of taking some bread and fish and dividing it amongst them. I sometimes wonder if perhaps he worked it this way to “hit them over the heads” with the fact that this was indeed a miracle that was happening; the human heart is hard, so if he’d simply caused them to be full they might have doubted that it was a miracle after all. “Hmm. Maybe we weren’t actually hungry,” they might have said. But in the way that Jesus did it, they had a distinct amount of food, which was clearly not enough to feed even the disciples let alone the whole crowd, then that small amount of food was used to feed a huge number of people, and then finally they ended up with leftover food in an amount which was clearly more than what they’d started with.

Mark 6:14–29

Mark 6:14–29 (ESV): The Death of John the Baptist

Synopsis

This passage uses a literary device we’re very familiar with: a flashback. In the previous passage we read about the Apostles being sent out to tell people to repent and to drive out demons and heal people. A lot of people are speculating about how this is possible, thinking that Jesus might be Elijah or John the Baptist or a prophet. Herod leans toward the second hypothesis, wondering if John the Baptist has been raised from the dead to perform all of these miracles. Why does he assume that? Because he is the one who had John beheaded, which brings us to the flashback, where we learn the story of how this happened. The story is this:

Herod married his brother’s wife, Herodias, and John told Herod that this wasn’t lawful. Herodias doesn’t like this, however, and wants to have John put to death, but Herod fears John (knowing that he is a righteous and holy man), so the furthest he will go is to have John imprisoned. In fact, Herod gets into the habit of listening to John, even though it “perplexes” him (verse 20 (ESV)).

Herodias gets her chance when Herod throws a party at which Herodias’ daughter dances for the guests. Herod is so pleased that he offers to reward the girl by giving her whatever she wishes, so she asks Herodias what she should ask for and Herodias tells her to ask for John’s head on a platter. Herod doesn’t like this, but because he made his promise in front of everyone he feels that he has to honour it, so he has John executed and his head brought to the girl on a platter.

Thoughts

I’m assuming that the reason Herod immediately goes to the place of assuming that Jesus is the resurrected John the Baptist is because of his own guilt on the subject. He’s obviously reluctant to act too rashly against John, and only does so when pressed into a corner. That’s not to imply that I think John is innocent in this matter; on the contrary, he seems to be pretty spineless in this story, which is how John ends up coming to a grizzly end.

And other than that, I don’t have much of a spiritual nature to say about this passage. It’s an interesting story, for sure.

Mark 6:7–13

Mark 6:7–13 (ESV): Jesus Sends Out the Twelve Apostles

Synopsis

In this passage Jesus sends the Apostles out on their own—that is, without him—to proclaim that people should repent, and to cast out unclean spirits. He gives them authority over the unclean spirits (verse 7 (ESV)), and some instructions for the journey:

• They aren’t supposed to take anything with them, not even food or money
• They are to wear their sandals, but not bring or wear extra tunics
• Whenever they enter a new place, whatever house they stay at first they are to continue staying at until they leave that region. (This is my interpretation of Jesus’s meaning; his actual words in verse 10 (ESV) are: “Whenever you enter a house, stay there until you depart from there.”
• If a particular place will not receive or listen to the Apostles, they are to shake off the dust from their feet when they leave as a testimony against them.

So the Apostles follow Jesus’ directions, proclaiming that people should repent, casting out demons, and healing people who are sick.

Thoughts

The first thing that interests me about this passage is that it exists at all: Jesus is sending the Apostles out without him. The overall impression we get throughout the Gospels is that the disciples in general and the Apostles in specific don’t always “get it” when it comes to Jesus’ ministry, and though they are sometimes praised by Jesus they are more often criticized for not understanding what is going on. So on one level I’d expect Jesus to want them to better understand His message before sending them out on their own; couldn’t the time that they were gone have been better spent in further instruction and teaching? But the message for me is that one doesn’t need to understand things perfectly to be sent out by God to spread His Word. This is directly applicable to us when we give the Gospel: we should strive to understand it properly and to deliver it properly, but even when we don’t God can use it for His purposes.

Jesus’ instructions to the Apostles as to how they were to go out—don’t bring any extra money, don’t bring any food, just wear what you’re wearing and go—seem to have two purposes: 1) there is an aspect of dependence on God to supply their needs, and 2) it harkens back to the Exodus, and the way the Israelites were to eat the Passover.

There’s another interesting aspect to this passage, which is Jesus instructing the Apostles to “shake the dust off their feet” when they leave a region which has rejected them. This was a Jewish custom of the time, which they would follow when leaving a Gentile region, and later on it became a custom of missionaries when people rejected the Gospel. When I wrote the post on Matthew 10:5–15 I mentioned my assumption that this Jewish custom has to do with not wanting to be unclean by even having the Gentiles’ dust clinging to them; I still think this is the case, and think it’s why Jesus tells his Apostles to do the same: when we give the Gospel to people, whether they accept it or not, we are [obviously] going to be interacting with them, and probably conversing with them and exchanging worldviews. There is always a danger that some of their beliefs will “rub off” on us, or cling to us like the dust of a Gentile region. I think Jesus is symbolically telling his Apostles not to let the peoples’ beliefs cling to them.

I’m not saying that we shouldn’t listen to people when we give them the Gospel. In fact I’d argue quite the opposite. I think we need to be as sympathetic and empathetic as possible, and really try to understand where people are coming from, so that we can better deliver the Gospel to them in a way that they’ll understand. We can’t just talk at them, we have to talk with them. (In the past I’d sometimes invited Jehovah’s Witnesses into my apartment, and they would try to evangelize me and I’d try to evangelize them. When I moved into my current house there was a new guy who would come around and in the beginning I tried to do the same but it was impossible to have a conversation with him because he would refuse to listen. I don’t mean he wouldn’t hear the Gospel—I was expecting that—I mean he wouldn’t engage in two-sided conversation, he would simply talk over me any time I’d try to speak. So I’ve had to stop talking to him, because I simply can’t converse.)

Personally, I believe that this is especially true in multicultural environments, like my city of Toronto, partially because a lot of the disagreements that will arise can be more cultural than theological and partially because explaining the Gospel to a Muslim vs. explaining it to a Hindu vs. explaining it to a lapsed Christian vs. explaining it to an Atheist can be a very different conversation. If you simply have a script you want to follow, and refuse to deviate from that script, the conversation will quickly get derailed and the person you’re talking to will be right in thinking that you never wanted to have a conversation at all, you just wanted to steamroll over them. Instead, be prepared to actually talk with the person and understand what they’re saying, just as you want them to understand what you’re saying, and then let the Gospel do its work.

Of course, in order for this work you need to know your stuff. In other words, you have to actually understand the Gospel and know your Bible. When you get into an actual religious conversation with someone you never know where the conversation will lead, so you should be prepared to go there. Have the honest conversation. Most of the people you’ll talk to aren’t stupid, they have a reason for believing what they believe, and despite what you might think in 99% of the cases it will be more than just blindly believing what their parents have taught them. They’ll have thought things through to a greater or lesser extent, and it will make sense to them, so pretty much by definition you’ll be trying to present them with ideas that won’t initially make sense because your ideas will conflict with ideas that they’ve already internalized.

I’ve taken all of this space to say that we should listen to people when we give them the Gospel; to converse with them rather than speaking at them, and actually listen to what they are saying. But this two-way conversation doesn’t mean that we accept all of their ideas either! This goes back to knowing our stuff; we need to see to it that nobody takes us “captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ” (Colossians 2:8 (ESV)). This isn’t always easy; sometimes it’s easier than others. But we should shake this metaphorical dust off of our feet, and not let non-Christian philosophies cling to us.

But perhaps I should also state the obvious: We can’t shake that dust off of our metaphorical feet unless we actually go out and collect it in the first place—we have to actually give the Gospel to people who need it, or there will be nothing to shake off. That brings us full circle back to the beginning of the thoughts on this post: we may not give it perfectly, but we do have to give it. Let God take care of the rest.

Mark 6:1–6

Mark 6:1–6 (ESV): Jesus Rejected at Nazareth

Synopsis

In this passage Jesus goes back to his hometown and tries to teach there. To my mind, the story takes a very sharp turn; in verses 1–2 (ESV) it seems like it’s going one way:

He went away from there and came to his hometown, and his disciples followed him. And on the Sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things? What is the wisdom given to him? How are such mighty works done by his hands?”

To my ear, that is starting to sound like people are pretty impressed with Jesus. But then in verse 3 (ESV) we see the reverse:

“Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

Jesus seems to take this in stride, however, at least from what we see in the text. In verse 4 (ESV) he says that, “A prophet is not without honor, except in his hometown and among his relatives and in his own household,” and we are told that he is not able to do any “mighty works,” except for the healing of a few sick people. However, in verse 6 (ESV) we are also told that he “marveled” because of the unbelief of the people.

Thoughts

Since Jesus is both fully man and fully God, it can be difficult to talk about his reactions to particular situations; as God He seems to understand that He is being rejected just as other prophets have been by their relatives, but as a man is he hurt by their rejection? Did he hope for more? We are told that Jesus marvels at their unbelief, so to me that seems to indicate that he might have been hoping for more, even though he understood the reasons why he didn’t see it.

To a lesser extent, I think we still see this today. Many Christians feel that it’s more difficult to give the Gospel to close friends and relatives than it is to give the Gospel to complete strangers. In Jesus’ case it was difficult because people had known him all his life; they couldn’t believe that he was more than they’d been believing for all that time. Is that the same for us? Is it that, when we become Christians, others who have known us can’t believe that we’ve become better than we were? Or is it because we’re afraid that they see how sinful we are, day by day, and that therefore they won’t understand what we’re saying about changing; if they haven’t seen a change in us (we worry), then all that we’re saying must be hokum. Hopefully, for most of us, it’s more the former than the latter…