Thoughts on the Resurrection — and humanity

Many of us think that Easter is but one day.

There we would be mistaken. Eastertide runs all the way to Pentecost Sunday, which comes 50 days later. Sunday Lectionary readings continue to point us to the holy mystery of Christ’s resurrection and the promise of eternal bodily resurrection on the Last Day.

On Easter Day, a number of articles appeared in the press discussing the most important feast in the Church calendar. If Christ had not risen from the dead, then our hope as Christians is in vain.

Christ’s disciples did not understand or believe that He would actually rise from the dead on the third day. It was incomprehensible to them, even though Jesus had said this would happen. Furthermore, He raised his good friend Lazarus from the dead several days beforehand. The Critic explored this in light of Mark’s Gospel, ‘This vision glorious’, concerning the women who found our Lord’s tomb empty (emphases mine):

And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid (Mark 16:8)

This is the description in Saint Mark’s Gospel of the response of the women at the empty Tomb on the first Easter Day. It is, scholars think, the earliest of the four Gospel accounts of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. We might think that it lacks Easter joy. “Fled … trembled … amazed … afraid”: these are not words that immediately come to mind when wishing someone a “Happy Easter”. Indeed, the fact that these women were initially silent in the face of the empty Tomb — and, for good measure, an angelic vision declaring “he is risen; he is not here” — overturns any assumption that the Resurrection of Jesus was received as a straightforward “all is good, no need to worry” affirmation.

As we realise when reading Saint Mark’s account of the Resurrection of Jesus alongside those in the other gospels, there is nothing straightforward, easily comprehended about the Resurrection. The accounts by the four Evangelists do not at all neatly, comfortably sit beside each other. The timelines, the characters, the events cannot be straightforwardly pieced together, as if we were watching the concluding episode of a television series, or reading the final chapter of an airport novel. 

The various timelines, characters, and events in the accounts given of the Resurrection in the four Gospels are infinitely richer and more demanding. They are witnessing to and seeking to convey to us something of the explosion of divine presence, light, and life that occurred at that Tomb on the first Easter Day. Little wonder that the four Gospel accounts are anything but straightforward; little wonder that they can appear confused, even contradictory. Language, experience, recollection — all these are stretched far beyond what they can possibly contain on the first Easter Day. The One who is eternal Light and Life, the mighty Creator of all that is, touches and fills the Tomb with creative, life-giving power. 

Neat, comfortable, easily comprehended accounts of the empty Tomb would utterly fail to convey the explosive outpouring of this creative, life-giving power. No straightforward affirmation, the Resurrection of Jesus brings us, with those women at the Tomb, to be silenced in awe and reverence before the revelation of God’s life-giving presence and saving purposes …

The current — and long-running — trend to see Christianity as a social justice project undermines the Resurrection:

There is little that quite so undermines the proclamation of the Resurrection of Jesus, the Easter faith, than regarding it as an affirmation of a political or cultural project. Neatly fitting the Resurrection into political or cultural visions, as a convenient, helpful prop, is to profoundly misunderstand (if not deny) the faith of Easter. It is to entirely set aside Saint Mark’s account of the reaction of the women at the empty Tomb, rendering their reaction unnecessary and inappropriate rather than the authentic witness to God’s presence and act in the Resurrection. 

Let us reflect on this, not just on Easter, which seems an eternity ago for some, but during the rest of Eastertide:

… let us heed the response of the women at the empty Tomb, recognising in that response the witness to the out-pouring of Eternal Light and Life, bringing to humanity — broken, confused, and foolish as we are — participation in the Resurrection life, anticipated now and having its fullness in the life of the world to come …

May Easter Day renew us — amidst whatever tombs, whatever defeats and failures and fears we know — in this enduring hope, this vision glorious.

Another theme which runs from the Crucifixion through to the Resurrection is that of forgiveness, which is so difficult. It can be for me, anyway, particularly in serious situations when people who know how to help have been unhelpful.

It is easier to hold on to grudges against such people than it is to forgive them.

Another article in The Critic, ‘Try Christianity’, explores our difficulty in forgiving others, something that Jesus did so readily, yet He suffered much more hurt than we do.

Let’s start with apologies, something else few of us do:

… the pen of P. G. Wodehouse still manages to express a multitude of sentiments from the pews. On this occasion I’m thinking specifically of a line from The Man Upstairs: “It is a good rule of life never to apologise. The right sort of people don’t want apologies, and the wrong sort of people want to take a mean advantage of them.” In his narration, Wodehouse has summed up how many Anglicans, perhaps even many English Christians, think about God, sin, confession and forgiveness.

While Wodehouse has a point, I would venture that his view on apologies pertains to most people, not just English Christians.

Furthermore, our reluctance to forgive varies among cultures. For some, the mantra is, ‘Don’t get mad, get even’.

The article points us, using the words of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer in the first paragraph below, to our Lord’s example that we remember on Good Friday:

… we are confronted by this God-Man who allows himself to be vulnerable, who confidently demands contrition, and whose property is always to have mercy …

Many of us still believe and act on the conviction that contrition and forgiveness is really rather complicated and perhaps should be avoided. Or that it can only be extended when the one wronged has returned to a position of power and the enfeebled supplicant comes begging. Examples are superfluous here — you will know when your hackles are raised by injustice or snobbery or idiocy. 

The quality of mercy is so alien to the wounded creature that it simply must be a miracle. Today that quality is one which we see in the most maligned of persons, the Man of Nazareth, hanging on the cross. “A man of sorrows”, Isaiah called him, “acquainted with grief — despised and rejected.” When soldiers struck and mocked him he returned “Father, forgive them.” When the thief next to him asked for clemency, he granted it.

Even when we assent to a conceptual understanding of Christian forgiveness we qualify it. As Cosimo de Medici wryly put it, “We read that we ought to forgive our enemies; but we do not read that we ought to forgive our friends.” However, Jesus’ business on earth was not finished until he had assured his friend Peter, the one who denied him, of his consistency.  

Today we remember that Jesus of Nazareth decided that forgiveness was worth dying for. And his life and death stand as an example and challenge to us still.

Well, one would not have seen either of these two themes in the media between Good Friday and Easter, March 29 and March 31, 2024.

A third article in The Critic examined the BBC’s online headlines on March 29:

… it is Good Friday, and the front page of the BBC website appears to have precisely no references to the occasion. The “culture” section contains articles about Beyoncé, the Oscars (that holy ceremony!), Godzilla x Kong and “What we know about the accusations against Diddy”. Stirring stuff. 

Buried deep on the site’s “Topics” section is a “Religion” page. Recent articles include “Rastafarian faith mentor dies, aged 73” (RIP to him) and “UK’s first Turkish mosque faces threat to its future”. Nothing about Easter — though there is a guide to celebrating Holi, which is nice.

A fourth article in The Critic points the finger of blame at the established Church for promoting social justice ideology, ‘The Church of England is practising a secular religion’:

Church attendance is of course declining. One in five worshippers has disappeared since 2019 alone. Is the Church of England spending more and more money on dubious forms of “anti-racism” under the delusion that it will attract young leftists to its services on Sundays? Or perhaps this quasi-theological endeavour is just a more winnable cause than encouraging religious belief and practice. Justin Welby cannot fill his churches but he can fill his heart with a sense of righteousness. 

This isn’t good enough — not for anyone. An obsessive interest in the sacred values of equality diversity and inclusion can distract believers from the divine, but it also threatens the social functions of the Church of England. The Church is one of the last major foundations of tradition left in the United Kingdom, along with the monarchy. The identitarian left has been tearing at the stitches holding us together for a number of years. To imitate its most fanatical tendencies is to encourage divisiveness rather than inclusion.

The Church of England should stop enabling these phenomena. Granted, to place the blame for its diminished status entirely on “woke Welby” would be naive. The problem predates the current Archbishop of Canterbury. A Telegraph analysis shows that church attendance has more than halved since 1987. However, the embrace of secular religion is exacerbating rather than ameliorating its decline.

This year, the Easter services at Canterbury Cathedral featured the Lord’s Prayer recited in Urdu or Swahili, led by native speakers of those languages. On the face of it, it’s something inclusive. Yet, people in every non-English speaking country recite the Lord’s Prayer in their own tongues. When, on holiday, I used to attend services at the Reformed Church of France, I joined everyone in reciting it in French. Therefore, what’s the big deal?

The Telegraph covered the story (as did GB News) in ‘Canterbury Cathedral reads Lord’s Prayer in Urdu and Swahili during Easter service’:

At the 10am service shown on the BBC, The Very Rev Dr David Monteith, Dean of Canterbury Cathedral, invited each member of the congregation to say the Lord’s Prayer in their own language, while it was led in Urdu on the microphone by a member from Pakistan. The subtitles on the screen were in English.

At an earlier service, aired on Radio 4, the prayer was led in Swahili.

The Dean said: “We invite congregations to say the Lord’s Prayer in their own first language at most of our communion services …

“From time to time, we invite someone to lead in their preferred language of prayer – today it’s in Congo Swahili as he was ordained in Zaire, and by a member of the Community of St Anselm from Pakistan …”

Then came Justin Welby’s sermon, which had nothing to do with the Resurrection, the core tenet of the Christian faith:

Shortly after the Lord’s Prayer was said, the Most Rev Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, used his Easter sermon at the cathedral to condemn “the evil of people smugglers” in the wake of a row over the Clapham chemical attacker being granted asylum.

The article also points out:

Several Church of England dioceses faced backlash after appointing individuals or teams to address racial inequality in their regions amid concerns they would alienate ordinary worshippers.

However, dissent is also present elsewhere in the world. Anglican church groupings outside the UK are at odds with Welby:

The Archbishop has been struggling to unite the Anglican Communion because of the row on same-sex blessings.

The conservative Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches (GSFA), which represents churches on every continent and the majority of Anglicans worldwide, has previously said that it expects the organisation to “formally disassociate” from both the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Church of England.

However, it was not only Justin Welby pulling the identity politics strings. In the United States, Joe Biden’s administration declared Easter Sunday, of all days, Trans Visibility Day.

And here I thought that Joe Biden was a Catholic.

The Telegraph had an article on the story, ‘Joe Biden has betrayed Christian America’. The most telling sentence was this one:

And certainly he had dozens of other dates on the transgender awareness calendar, including a whole week in November, he could have chosen instead.

Returning to the UK, on April 3, The Telegraph‘s Madeline Grant wrote about Richard Dawkins having his cake and eating it in ‘Christianity’s decline has unleashed terrible new gods’:

… Professor Dawkins’ admission that he considers himself a “cultural Christian”, who is, at the very least, ambivalent about Anglicanism’s decline is an undeniably contradictory position for a man who in the past campaigned relentlessly against any role for Christianity in public life, railing against faith schools and charitable status for churches.

Before we start preparing the baptismal font, it’s worth noting that Dawkins says he remains “happy” with the UK’s declining Christian faith, and that those beliefs are “nonsense”. But he also says that he enjoys living in a Christian society. This betrays a certain level of cultural free-riding. The survival of society’s Christian undercurrent depends on others buying into the “nonsense” even if he doesn’t.

Grant gives us an example of the ‘terrible new gods’ — Scotland’s new Hate Crime Act which came into force on April 1:

By the New Atheist logic, it ought to be the most rational place in the UK since de-Christianisation has occurred there at a faster rate. Membership of the national Church of Scotland has fallen by 35 per cent in 10 years and the Scottish Churches Trust warns that 700 Christian places of worship will probably close in the next few years. A Scottish friend recently explained that every place where he’d come to faith – where he was christened, where his father was buried – had been shut or sold. This is not only a national tragedy, but a personal one.

New Atheism assumed that, as people abandoned Christianity they would embrace a sort of enlightened, secular position. The death of Christian Scotland shows this was wrong. Faith there has been replaced by derangement and the birthplace of the Scottish enlightenment – which rose out of Christian principles – now worships intolerant new gods.

The SNP’s draconian hate crime legislation is a totemic example. Merely stating facts of biology might earn you a visit from the Scottish police. But perhaps Christianity has shaped even this. It cannot be a coincidence that Scotland, home of John Knox, is now at the forefront of the denigration of women. The SNP’s new blasphemy laws are just the latest blast of that trumpet … 

… Much of what atheists ascribed to vague concepts of “reason” emerged out of the faith which informed the West’s intellectual, moral, and, yes, scientific life – a cultural oxygen we breathe but never see …

… The world isn’t morally neutral, and never has been.

Recognising Christianity’s cultural impact is the first step. The bigger task facing the West is living out these values in an age when they are increasingly under threat.

On Easter Day, The Telegraph‘s Tim Stanley, an agnostic turned Roman Catholic, wrote about the horror of what assisted dying — euthanasia — legislation could bring to the UK. At the end, he had this to say about the impact that widespread unbelief has had on Holy Week and Easter:

Christ died on Good Friday, but for much of the zeitgeist he has never risen again, setting the context for this debate that is minus the hope that once brightened the lives of Westerners even in war or plague.

I thank God I am a Christian. I would have to fake it if I weren’t. In an atheistic culture, beyond the here and now, there is little to live for – and when the here and now become unbearable, nowhere to turn but death.

It is up to us as individuals, with or without the help of the Church and the media, to keep the spirit of forgiveness and the hope of bodily resurrection alive. How do we do that? By studying the Bible, verse by verse.

Palm Sunday, Year B — exegesis on the Gospel, Mark 11:1-11

Palm Sunday is March 24, 2024.

Readings for Year B’s Liturgy of the Palms can be found here. The Lectionary editors give us a Psalm and the choice of one of two Gospels.

My post also includes several posts explaining the importance of what happened on Palm Sunday.

I wrote an exegesis on John 12:12-16 in 2021.

As for an Epistle, may I suggest Philippians 2:5-11, which my Anglican church is using (emphases mine):

Philippians 2:5-11

⁵ In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

⁶ who, being in very nature^[a] God,
    did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
⁷ rather, he made himself nothing
    by taking the very nature^[b] of a servant,
    being made in human likeness.
⁸ And being found in appearance as a man,
    he humbled himself
    by becoming obedient to death –
        even death on a cross!

⁹ Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
    and gave him the name that is above every name,
¹⁰ that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
    in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
¹¹ and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
    to the glory of God the Father.

The alternative Gospel is as follows:

Mark 11:1-11

11:1 When they were approaching Jerusalem, at Bethphage and Bethany, near the Mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples

11:2 and said to them, “Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately as you enter it, you will find tied there a colt that has never been ridden; untie it and bring it.

11:3 If anyone says to you, ‘Why are you doing this?’ just say this, ‘The Lord needs it and will send it back here immediately.’”

11:4 They went away and found a colt tied near a door, outside in the street. As they were untying it,

11:5 some of the bystanders said to them, “What are you doing, untying the colt?”

11:6 They told them what Jesus had said; and they allowed them to take it.

11:7 Then they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks on it; and he sat on it.

11:8 Many people spread their cloaks on the road, and others spread leafy branches that they had cut in the fields.

11:9 Then those who went ahead and those who followed were shouting, “Hosanna! Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord!

11:10 Blessed is the coming kingdom of our ancestor David! Hosanna in the highest heaven!”

11:11 Then he entered Jerusalem and went into the temple; and when he had looked around at everything, as it was already late, he went out to Bethany with the twelve.

Commentary comes from Matthew Henry and John MacArthur.

As long as they are scriptural, I always enjoy reading different perspectives on our Lord’s life and ministry.

John MacArthur’s 2011 sermon does not disappoint. It shows that, as flawed and human as the crowds were, they played a part in God’s plan for His Son:

The week begins with His arrival in Jerusalem. The year is 30 A.D. by the best chronology, the month is the first Jewish month, Nisan, and the arrival is on the tenth, and the crucifixion is on the fourteenth; and that all matters, because God has established a very firm time table. Importantly, it is the Passover week of that year, and Friday will be the day when tens of thousands of Passover lambs will be slain, none of which can take away anyone’s sin. However, on this Passover, there will be one sacrifice made for sin that will take away the sins of all who have ever believed through all of human history, and it will be the sacrifice of the true Lamb.

The week begins with a very strange event. It begins with what would have to be considered a bizarre event. We call it the triumphal entry; but that is really not an appropriate title to capture what’s going on. I don’t want you to think that this is anything really official. It isn’t official in a Jewish sense, it isn’t official in an earthly sense, and it isn’t official in a heavenly sense.

That is why I’ve titled the message, “The False Coronation of the True King.” There really is no question about Christ, that He is the Messiah, that He is the promised King, that He is the son of David, that He is the one with a right to reign. His lineage checks out, His mother and father both in the line of David. He has all the qualifications. He is the Son of Man, He is the Son of God. He has demonstrated His deity and His full humanity throughout His ministry. He is the true King, but this is a false coronation.

That’s why it’s such a strange event. It is not a true expression of faith. It is not a true expression of praise. It is not a true expression of a claim. And it certainly isn’t God’s coronation any more than it is a true human coronation. What did happen on this day was an odd, bizarre event, not like any other coronation of any king …

Coronations aren’t humble, they aren’t unexpected. They aren’t unplanned. They aren’t unofficial. They aren’t spontaneous. They aren’t superficial. They aren’t temporary. But this one was all of those.

Coronations are not to be reversed in a few days so that the one exalted and elevated becomes rejected and executed, like this one. This was no real coronation. Let it be said, Jesus is the real King, deserving of all exaltation, all honor, all worship, and all praise. So this is the false coronation of the true King.

The true coronation of Christ has two parts: one has already happened, and one has not. The first phase of the coronation of Christ, the true coronation, occurred at His ascension, when He left this earth, as described in the first chapter of Acts, and ascended into heaven. We are told, by the writer of Hebrews, that He took His seat at the right hand of God. This was His first coronation and it was a heavenly coronation. Philippians 2 says that when He arrived, He not only took His seat at the right hand of God, but He was given a name; and the name that He was given is the name Lord which is the name above every name, and everyone in existence bows to that name. He has already had His heavenly coronation. He is reigning at the right hand of the throne of God. He is the sovereign of heaven and the universe. But He’s not yet had His earthly coronation.

Philippians 2 describes His heavenly coronation, Revelation 19 and 20 describe His earthly coronation …

This is neither the heavenly coronation of Christ, nor is it the earthly coronation of Christ. It is not a coronation of Christ at all, it is a mock coronation, it is a false coronation, it is a fraud. There are no formalities here in this coronation. There are no dignitaries. There is no regalia. There is no fanfare …

Now up to this point, Jesus had never allowed such an occasion as this. He had never allowed an open, public demonstration declaring Him to be the Messiah. He had never allowed anything like it. In Galilee on one occasion when there were some people who wanted to press Him into sort of taking authority and acting like a king, He fled the scene, because He knew the implications. And the implications were not positive. It was not the way that He would want to establish His purpose, not by taking authority, wielding power, and establishing the kingdom. That would come, and it will come when He returns. This time He came to die.

He didn’t allow this thing to happen, and the reason is because it would precipitate the aggressive action of the leaders who already wanted Him executed. Understand, from the beginning of His ministry the Jewish leaders wanted to kill Him. It started out that way, because the first act that He did when He got to Jerusalem three years before this was go into the temple and attack the place and dismantle it, and discredit their entire religious system. And then He spent three years discrediting their theology, and undermining their interpretations, misinterpretations of Scripture. It was an all-out assault on false apostate Judaism. They despised Him, they wanted Him dead.

Any kind of massive demonstration that made them think His popularity was expanding would then be a threat to the leaders and would only hurry up their act of murder against Him. So He never let it happen. But here He lets it happen. Here the real planner by divine providence is God, because this is the week He must die; and therefore, their desire to kill Him must be escalated to its fever pitch.

They weren’t really prepared to execute Him on the Passover. In fact, the New Testament tells us they didn’t want to arrest Him and execute Him on the Passover because they were afraid of the people. But they didn’t have a choice. They were so fearful of His escalating power that they sped up their murderous intent, which is exactly the way God wanted it, so that on Friday on the Passover, He would be the Passover Lamb.

This is a false coronation for a purpose that none of them would ever have understood. It is strangely designed by God, not as a legitimate exaltation, but to inflame His enemies at exactly the precise time to get things moving so there would be time for a trial and an execution on exactly the right day. He wanted this display with the greatest possible mass of people, the largest crowd possible, so that His enemies would be severely threatened and would execute Him on the divine schedule.

It is estimated that as many as two million people would be in Jerusalem at a Passover even in ancient days. And one of the ways we get at that is ten years after this, 40 A.D., there’s a record in Jewish history that two hundred and sixty-thousand lambs were slain at that Passover – over a quarter of a million. Usually there was one lamb per ten people. That would put it at 2.6 million people possibly. It was a massive crowd. The crowd around Him must have been in the hundreds of thousands. This was the time and this was the place to allow this to agitate His enemies so that He would die in God’s perfect timing.

Mark tells us that when Jesus and the disciples were approaching Jerusalem, at Bethphage and Bethany, near the Mount of Olives, He sent two of them (verse 1), to the village ahead of them and, immediately upon entry they would find a colt that had never been ridden; they were to untie it and bring it (verse 2).

John MacArthur recaps our Lord’s ministry up unto this point, which culminated in His raising Lazarus from the dead:

The ministry in Galilee finished. The ministry in Judea finished. Final ministry in Perea on the east side of the Jordan completed, a few weeks in Perea. He crosses the Jordan near Jericho, comes through the town of Jericho, which is the base of the mountain from Jerusalem down into the area of the Dead Sea; and from Jericho, the road ascends to Jerusalem. So He passes through Jericho, heals two blind men, one named Bartimaeus; saves them spiritually. Brings into His kingdom the most hated man in town, Zacchaeus the tax collector.

Having gathered those souls to Himself in Jericho, He then ascends the twenty-five hundred-plus feet up into Jerusalem for Passover week. He is accompanied by His apostles and His disciples, and an entourage of people that has been growing, because He is, after all, the miracle worker, and He’s proven that by what happened in Jericho. He is compressed in the middle of a crowd; they’re in front of Him and behind Him and all sides of Him.

The word has circulated throughout that area and will continue to circulate throughout Jerusalem that He raised one, Lazarus, from the dead. And that is a true miracle, because there was plenty of evidence that he was dead. They held his funeral, he had been dead for days, and there’s plenty of evidence that he’s now alive because he lives in Bethany. So the escalation of this information about the miracle worker of Jesus, led by the miracle of raising Lazarus from the dead, has this crowd excited, and they’re following Him. They’re enthusiastic as they ascend the hill, because the Passover is the great event of the year. And they approach Jerusalem. And that’s how Mark begins this final week.

MacArthur gives us the meanings of the names of the two towns:

Bethany is that town, that village two miles east, down the slope from Jerusalem. The old name they think means “house of dates.” Bethphage, on the other hand, is a smaller little tiny village we don’t know anything about. Some people think it means “house of figs,” but it speaks of the agricultural life of the area. Both of them very near the Mount of Olives, which is directly east of the temple mount in Jerusalem. You come up from those villages over the Mount, and then you see Jerusalem. When you’re behind the Mount on the downslope, you can’t even see the eastern part of the city, or any of the city for that matter. So these little towns near the Mount of Olives are the location for this event.

Both our commentators point out the continuing humility that so characterised our Lord’s earthly life.

MacArthur says:

This really is very similar to His birth. In His birth, His mother arrives in Bethlehem in humble obscurity riding on a donkey; here, He arrives in Jerusalem riding on a donkey. Yes, He is the true King, King of kings, Lord of lords, Son of Man, Son of God, Messiah, Savior, and no monarch in all human history remotely compares to the Lord Jesus Christ. There is none so magnificent, powerful, wise, sovereign, just, pure, and holy; and all the elite and all the monarchs of all human history collectively together stacked on top of each other wouldn’t go high enough to touch the hem of His all-glorious garment.

Matthew Henry looks at the fact that Jesus borrowed and did not own things:

This colt was borrowed too. Christ went upon the water in a borrowed boat, ate the passover in a borrowed chamber, was buried in a borrowed sepulchre, and here rode on a borrowed ass. Let not Christians scorn to be beholden one to another, and, when need is, to go a borrowing, for our Master did not.

Jesus gave His designated disciples the following instruction (verse 3), ‘If anyone says to you, “Why are you doing this?’ just say this, ‘The Lord needs it and will send it back here immediately.”’

Note that Jesus returned what He borrowed.

That said, Henry tells us that, even in this simple, humble scene, Jesus shows His power, including omniscience:

… there were several rays of Christ’s glory shining forth in the midst of all this meanness. 1. Christ showed his knowledge of things distant, and his power over the wills of men, when he sent his disciples for the colt, v. 1-3. By this it appears that he can do every thing, and no thought can be withholden from him. 2. He showed his dominion over the creatures in riding on a colt that was never backed. The subjection of the inferior part of the creation to man is spoken of with application to Christ (Ps 8 5, 6, compared with Heb 2 8); for to him it is owing, and to his mediation, that we have any remaining benefit by the grant God made to man, of a sovereignty in this lower world, Gen 1 28. And perhaps Christ, in riding the ass’s colt, would give a shadow of his power over the spirit of man, who is born as the wild ass’s colt, Job 11 12. 3. The colt was brought from a place where two ways met (v. 4), as if Christ would show that he came to direct those into the right way, who had two ways before them, and were in danger of taking the wrong.

MacArthur posits that Jesus knew the colt’s owner believed in Him:

… it does assume one thing, that Jesus knows that whoever is in charge of this animal or owns this animal knows who the Lord is. This must be a believer. This must be someone who has put His trust in the Lord. He doesn’t even give them an explanation, “Just say, ‘The Lord has need of it,’ and immediately he’ll send it back here.”

He knows he’ll respond. He knows where the animal is. He knows who the man is. He knows what the man believes, and He knows what the man will do. That’s divine omniscience. That’s miraculous.

The disciples went away and found a colt tied near a door, outside in the street; as they were untying it (verse 4), some bystanders asked why they were untying the colt (verse 5).

The disciples told them what Jesus had said and allowed them to take the young beast of burden (verse 6).

Meanwhile, MacArthur reminds us that John’s Gospel says that the hard-hearted Jewish hierarchy plotted to kill Lazarus. They could not bear the fact that Jesus resurrected him:

But in John 12, it says, “A large number of Jews came to Bethany the next day.” So on Sunday a large number of Jews came to Bethany. And it says, “They came to see Jesus and Lazarus, whom He had raised from the dead.” Now you get the story. The city is swelling with Passover pilgrims. The word is spreading about this guy that was raised from the dead. He is a curiosity. So people are walking the easy two miles because they want to see this man and they want to see Jesus.

This is a problem for the leaders. So John 12 tells us the chief priests took counsel – get this – to kill Lazarus. I mean, how hard-hearted are you when you don’t even deny that the guy was raised from the dead, you just try to kill him again?

Continuing with our reading, the disciples returned to Jesus with the colt and threw their cloaks on it; our Lord sat on the colt (verse 7).

MacArthur reminds us of similar verses from the Old Testament:

And didn’t David ride a mule? And wasn’t Solomon riding a mule even, in 1 Kings chapter 1, on his coronation? Is this supposed to connect Jesus with Solomon and David as a son of David?

Even so, MacArthur says that the main point lies elsewhere — in Zechariah’s prophecy:

But that’s not the main point. Mark doesn’t really tell us why this happened, but Matthew does. Okay? Turn to Matthew 21, Matthew’s parallel account. Matthew tells us why it happened, and it’s not vague.

Verse 4, Matthew 21. Verse 3 says, “If anyone asks you anything, just say, ‘The Lord has need of it.’” Then verse 4, “This took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet.” What prophet? Zechariah. Five hundred years before, Zechariah 9:9, Zechariah said, “Say to the daughter of Zion, ‘Behold your king is coming to you gentle and mounted on a donkey,’ – not even a donkey, but – ‘even on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden, the foal of a donkey.’”

He will come in fulfillment of prophecy. That’s why I love to call this a faithful, a faithful arrival, a faithful arrival. He comes faithful to the prophet’s words five hundred years, as I said, before the prophet had said, “The people of Jerusalem would hail their Messiah riding on a donkey’s colt.” This is not His true coronation, but this is that event that happened that day in Jerusalem. He comes humbly on a donkey’s colt, because He comes not to reign, He comes to die. He comes not as a sovereign, but as a suffering servant and a Savior.

Many people spread their cloaks on the road, and others spread leafy branches that they had cut in the fields (verse 8).

Henry looks at the humble scene, which he says is the example for us to follow as Christians:

The persons that attended, were mean people; and all the show they could make, was, by spreading their garments in the way (v. 8), as they used to do at the feast of tabernacles. All these were marks of his humiliation; even when he would be taken notice of, he would be taken notice of for his meanness; and they are instructions to us, not to mind high things, but to condescend to them of low estate. How ill doth it become Christians to take state, when Christ was so far from affecting it!

On the other hand, MacArthur explains that throwing cloaks or greenery on the ground signified the people’s submission. That would all change by the end of the week, of course, but in that moment:

Why would they spread their coats in the road? That was an old, ancient gesture, a custom that showed submission. “You can walk on me, you can step on me; I’m below your feet.”

Kings were always elevated and people were under their feet. And this was a way to symbolize that: “You can walk all over me; I am submissive to you.” You see it in the coronation of Jehu in 2 Kings chapter 9. “We place ourselves under your authority.” This is an affirmation, at least superficially, “You’re our King. You’re our sovereign” …

They show their fealty to Him by spreading leafy branches under Him. John 12:13 says, “They were palm branches.” And palm branches in the Scripture can be symbols of salvation joy, as they are in Revelation 7:9. Throwing down these branches was a symbol of joy. “You are our deliverer. You are our source of joy.”

They misunderstood our Lord’s purpose in coming to earth to save us from sin:

Their hope for the kingdom was really high; but they had their own view: “Attack the Romans; throw out the Romans. Give us our place in the world, and fulfill all the promises of the Old Testament to us.” And they were all superficial and earthly.

Similarly, MacArthur says that John’s Gospel tells us that our Lord’s disciples understood this scene only later, not at the time:

And His disciples didn’t get it. Did they get the omniscient part? I think they did. Did they get the prophetic part? No. John 12 says, in writing of this very event, John 12:16, “These things His disciples didn’t understand at first; but when Jesus was glorified after His ascension, then they remembered that these things were written about Him, and that they had done these things to Him.” The details, all recorded in the Old Testament, they didn’t understand at the time; but later they understood. This is a faithful arrival, He is fulfilling prophecy.

Jesus also fulfilled a prophecy from the Book of Daniel:

In Daniel 9 we’re given a really important prophecy, Daniel 9:24 to 27, that it’ll be four hundred and eighty three years, sixty-nine weeks of years – sixty-nine times seven, four hundred and eighty three – four hundred and eighty-three years from the decree of Artaxerxes to rebuild Jerusalem, which was in 445 B.C., four hundred and eighty-three years to the arrival of Messiah. If you do the calendar work on that, four hundred and eighty-three years from the decree of Artaxerxes lands you on this day when Jesus came into the city. God’s timing is perfect, down to the clearest detail. It was a faithful arrival, faithful to the divine purpose, prophecy, and timetable.

Continuing with our reading, those ahead of Jesus and those following Him shouted (verse 9), ‘Hosanna! Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord!’ Also (verse 10), ‘Blessed is the coming kingdom of our ancestor David! Hosanna in the highest heaven!’

Henry says that this was all part of God’s plan:

It was God that put it into the hearts of these people to cry Hosanna, who were not by art and management brought to it, as those were who afterward cried, Crucify, crucify. Christ reckons himself honoured by the faith and praises of the multitude, and it is God that brings people to do him this honour beyond their own intentions.

MacArthur tells us what ‘Hosanna’ means in Psalm 118:

That’s an exclamatory plea that means, “Save now. Save now. Deliver us now.” And they’re talking about an earthly, political, military deliverance. They’re shouting Psalm 118, verse 26, a psalm of salvation, sometimes called “the conqueror’s psalm,” which a hundred years before, the Jews shouted at Maccabeus because he was triumphing over the Syrians.

Matthew adds, “They said, ‘Hosanna, save now, to the Son of David.’” That’s the most common messianic title. So they were identifying Jesus as the Messiah: “Save now, Messiah. Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.” That’s the Psalm 118, verse 26, “Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord.”

They said, “Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father, David. Hosanna in the highest.” All these are messianic accolades; and they’re shouting at the top of their voice. Luke adds that they even said, “Peace in heaven, and glory in the highest.”

This is mob hysteria. They know that these things relate to the kingdom. The kingdom will be a kingdom of salvation. The kingdom will be a kingdom over which the son of David rules. The kingdom will be the kingdom promised to David with all those promises fulfilled. The kingdom will be a kingdom of peace, and the kingdom will be a kingdom of glory. Everything shouted is true, scriptural, borrowed out of the Old Testament, accurate. This is God’s King, but this is not God’s time.

Mark ends his account by saying that Jesus entered Jerusalem and went into the temple but, as it was already late, He and the Apostles went out to Bethany (verse 11), where Lazarus, Mary and Martha lived.

Henry gives us this analysis. It was the following day when Jesus overturned the moneychangers’ tables, which is what follows in Mark’s Gospel:

Christ, thus attended, thus applauded, came into the city, and went directly to the temple. Here was no banquet of wine prepared for his entertainment, nor the least refreshment; but he immediately applied himself to his work, for that was his meat and drink. He went to the temple, that the scripture might be fulfilled; “The Lord whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, without sending any immediate notice before him; he shall surprise you with a day of visitation, for he shall be like a refiner’s fire, and like fuller’s soap,“ Mal 3 1-3. He came to the temple, and took a view of the present state of it, v. 11. He looked round about upon all things, but as yet said nothing. He saw many disorders there, but kept silence, Ps 50 21. Though he intended to suppress them, he would not go about the doing of it all on a sudden, lest he should seem to have done it rashly; he let things be as they were for this night, intending the next morning to apply himself to the necessary reformation, and to take the day before him. We may be confident that God sees all the wickedness that is in the world, though he do not presently reckon for it, nor cast it out. Christ, having make his remarks upon what he saw in the temple, retired in the evening to a friend’s house at Bethany, because there he would be more out of the noise of the town, and out of the way of being suspected, a designing to head a faction.

MacArthur says similarly:

He entered Jerusalem, came into the temple, and looked around at everything. What’s He doing? I’ll tell you what He’s doing. He’s casing the place. He’s planning a strategy for the next day.

And what happened on the next day? Verse 15: “He entered the temple, began to drive out those who were buying and selling in the temple, overturned the table of the money changers, the seats of those selling doves. He wouldn’t permit anyone to carry merchandise through the temple. 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”? You have made it a robber’s den.’ The chief priests and the scribes heard this, began seeking how to destroy Him; for they were afraid of Him, for the whole crowd was astonished at His teaching.”

They’ve got a problem now. He’s attacked them at the very heart, and He’s got this massive crowd all stirred up. All this by God’s design to precipitate His death on Friday. No, He’s just checking it out. He’s just developing the strategy for the next day when He goes in and assaults the place.

When Jesus came to Jerusalem, they were ready to hail Him as their Messiah if He did for them what they wanted. Okay? And when He didn’t, they turned on Him and cried for His blood. He left the end of that day and He went back to His friends at the time of dusk, because once it was dark, there was nothing to be done, and it was late in the day; and He left. But He had made His appraisal of the horrific corruption of the temple religion.

MacArthur concludes with an explanation of the people’s fickleness and a contemporary example of a false coronation:

It wasn’t the Romans He would attack, it was the Jews. It wasn’t pagan idolatry He would attack, it was the worship of Judaism, whose religion had been corrupted, whose praise was selfish and superficial.

Did the people know He had the credentials of Messiah? Yeah; born of the line of David, miracle worker, heal sick people, cast out demons, raises dead people. How could they possibly decide to crucify Him? I’ll give it to you real simple: if Jesus doesn’t do what the sinner wants Jesus to do, the sinner will turn on Him.

Can I tell you something? False coronations like this go on every day, all the time. Just turn on your television to some charismatic TV station and watch all the hoopla about Jesus, and watch all the swaying and groaning and moaning and singing and praising, and then listen to the people say, “Jesus will make you rich. Jesus will heal you. Jesus will give you all your dreams. Jesus will fulfill all your desires.” And I will tell you all the praise and the hoopla will go on until Jesus doesn’t deliver the goods that the fallen sinner wants; and they’ll turn on Him.

That’s a very deadly thing to do and very dishonoring to the Lord. That’s why the prosperity message is so dangerous, it lies. It promises the sinner what the fallen sinner already wants in his corrupt condition. What a true believer wants is what will glorify God, honor Christ, and increase His attractiveness to the people around him. The sinful heart can be very interested in Jesus. The sinful heart can be very, very religious until Jesus attacks that false religion.

MacArthur gives us the correct way to approach Jesus:

… when you crown Christ the true King, when you put your trust in Him, you will, as a true believer, say, “Lord, give me what You would want me to have. Reign in my life according to Your will, not mine”…

May all reading this have a blessed Palm Sunday.

Transfiguration Sunday — Year B — exegesis on the Gospel, Mark 9:2-9

Transfiguration Sunday is February 11, 2024.

This is also Quinquagesima Sunday — the fifth before Easter — and the last Sunday in Epiphany, as well as Shrovetide, the three weeks before Lent begins.

Readings for Year B can be found here.

The Gospel is as follows (emphases mine):

Mark 9:2-9

9:2 Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them up a high mountain apart, by themselves. And he was transfigured before them,

9:3 and his clothes became dazzling white, such as no one on earth could bleach them.

9:4 And there appeared to them Elijah with Moses, who were talking with Jesus.

9:5 Then Peter said to Jesus, “Rabbi, it is good for us to be here; let us make three dwellings, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.”

9:6 He did not know what to say, for they were terrified.

9:7 Then a cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud there came a voice, “This is my Son, the Beloved; listen to him!”

9:8 Suddenly when they looked around, they saw no one with them any more, but only Jesus.

9:9 As they were coming down the mountain, he ordered them to tell no one about what they had seen, until after the Son of Man had risen from the dead.

Commentary comes from Matthew Henry and John MacArthur.

John MacArthur puts this reading in context for us, summarising the end of Mark 8:

Peter’s confession, you remember, was the high point of chapter 8. That confession in verse 29, where he says, “You are the Christ.” That confession is also recorded in Matthew and Luke, and the full confession that he made on behalf of all the followers of Jesus was, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” That is the apex of Mark’s gospel.

That is the midpoint of Mark’s gospel. Everything leads up to this, everything flows down from this. To acknowledge Jesus to be the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of the living God, is to make the right judgment concerning Him. Peter made that judgment not for himself only but for all the apostles and all the disciples who were followers of Christ. What Peter said there is verified in the passage before us. Peter said it by faith; he will now see it by sight.

This is a very important moment in the life of the apostles and for us as well. Remember, Peter makes this great confession, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” with the anticipation that the kingdom would come immediately. But no sooner had he made that confession then, in verse 31, “Jesus began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed and then after three days, rise again.”

This was so offensive to Peter and the rest that Peter began to rebuke Jesus in his ignorance. Jesus turned to him and said, “Get behind me, Satan, for you’re not setting your mind on God’s interests but man’s.” Peter was committed to the glory but not the cross. He was committed to the exaltation but not the humiliation. This was the introduction of the scandal of the death of Christ, which, to the Jews, was a stumbling block. This is so hard for them to swallow that our Lord needs to lift them up after this massive disappointment.

So in verse 38, same day, same time, same place, He says, “The Son of man will also come in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.” This is not in place of the glory, this is not in place of the kingdom, this is not in place of the second coming, this is not in place of Messiah’s promised reign, He will come – He will come.

It was very difficult for them to handle the word about the death of Christ. It would be even more difficult for them to handle the reality of it as it unfolded a few months from this moment. When He is arrested, they scatter. And Peter, the self-confessed strongest of them all, who says, “I will never forsake You,” denies Christ on three separate occasions, and the rest of them [except for John, who was at the crucifixion] disappear in terror. It’s a horrendous thing for them, the cross. And they will also suffer as martyrs, virtually all of them but John, and John died as an exile, an old man on a rock in the Mediterranean.

Suffering was coming. They needed to be able to survive it. They needed to have the strength and endurance to get through it. And consequently, the Lord does something for them that is very rare in the New Testament – in fact, this is the only time, really. He moves their faith to sight. He lets them see His glory. If you look at a list of miracles, you probably won’t find this one. If you find a book on the miracles of Jesus, this won’t be one of them, and yet this is the single greatest miracle recorded on the pages of the New Testament prior to the resurrection. Let’s pick it up in verse 2.

Six days later, Jesus took Peter, James and John and led them up a high mountain, by themselves; there he was transfigured before them (verse 2).

Matthew Henry says that this was to prevent the offence of the Cross for them:

… he gives them this glimpse of his glory, to show that his sufferings were voluntary, and what a virtue the dignity and glory of his person would put into them, and to prevent the offence of the cross.

He took these three Apostles because they were the most senior and He had the best rapport with them. They were also among the very first He called when John the Baptist was still preaching at the Jordan, Andrew being the other.

Henry says:

Christ did not take all the disciples with him, because the thing was to be kept very private. As there are distinguishing favours which are given to disciples and not to the world, so there are to some disciples and not to others. All the saints are a people near to Christ, but some lie in his bosom. James was the first of all the twelve that died for Christ, and John survived them all, to be the last eyewitness of this glory; he bore record (John 1 14); We saw his glory: and so did Peter, 2 Pet 1 16-18.

Both our commentators agree that the mountain was in the Caesarea Philippi region.

Henry reasons:

Tradition saith, It was on the top of the mount Tabor that Christ was transfigured; and if so, the scripture was fulfilled, Tabor and Hermon shall rejoice in thy name, Ps 89 12. Dr. Lightfoot, observing that the last place where we find Christ was in the coasts of Cæsarea-Philippi, which was far from mount Tabor, rather thinks it was a high mountain which Josephus speaks of, near Cæsarea.

MacArthur tells us:

Some have said Mount Tabor, that can’t be, that’s too far south and too low. This is a high mountain. They’re in Caesarea Philippi, the region to the north of Galilee, and a high mountain in that area would be Mount Hermon. Mount Hermon towers over the Caesarea Philippi region where Peter’s confession and these moments have taken place. Very likely that mountain.

Henry explains ‘transfigured’:

He was transfigured before them; he appeared in another manner than he used to do. This was a change of the accidents, the substance remaining the same, and it was a miracle … See what a great change human bodies are capable of, when God is pleased to put an honour upon them, as he will upon the bodies of the saints, at the resurrection. He was transfigured before them; the change, it is probable, was gradual, from glory to glory, so that the disciples, who had their eye upon him all the while, had the clearest and most certain evidence they could have, that this glorious appearance was no other than the blessed Jesus himself, and there was no illusion in it. John seems to refer to this (1 John 1 1), when he speaks of the word of life, as that which they had seen with their eyes, and looked upon.

MacArthur discusses the Greek word used for ‘transfigured’:

The word is metamorphoō, from which we get metamorphosis, two Greek words, morphē, meaning body or form, and meta, meaning change. His form was changed. Nothing changed on the inside, right? He’s God. But the outside changed. This word literally means to transform the morphē, the form, the body, the exterior. It’s used four times in the New Testament and always means a radical transformation. It’s used here once and Matthew 17:2 in that text on the transfiguration. It’s the same verb to describe the same thing …

So we’re talking about a radical kind of transformation. His nature could not change, only His appearance. And that’s exactly what changed. His appearance changed. Matthew 17:2, Luke 9:29 says, “His face shown like the sun.”

Our Lord’s clothes became dazzling white, such as no one on earth could bleach them (verse 3).

MacArthur describes what the three Apostles saw:

Listen, these are Jewish men who knew their Old Testament. They knew that when God showed up, He showed up as light. He showed up as light. He showed up radiantly, and He was shining like the sun.

By the way, this is not some kind of mental experience. This is a physical experience for them. This is a real experience, not a vision. Yes, the glory of God shines in the face of Jesus spiritually but here, it happens actually. The blazing glory of His divine nature came through His humanity, pulled the veil of His humanity back. And He was like the sun at high noon.

… “His garments became radiant,” stilbō is the word. It means to glitter like flashing facets reflecting back the blazing sun at high noon on a diamond, an exceeding light. Not flat light but blazing light. Luke says white and gleaming, like linear lightning.

And then I like what Mark says … He says, “His garments became radiant and exceeding white as no bleacher on earth can whiten them,” no gnapheus, the old word used to be fuller, a fuller was someone who bleached things white. This is white – this is white, white, white, blazing white, glittering white, like the sun’s white.

And appearing to them — the three Apostles — were Elijah with Moses, who were talking with Jesus (verse 4).

MacArthur addresses something I have been wondering about for years — how Elijah and Moses received glorified bodies when the Second Coming has not yet happened:

We go from the Son’s transformation to the saints’ association, verse 4, “Elijah appeared to them along with Moses.” Whoa! And they were talking with Jesus. Was this really Moses and Elijah? Yes. But aren’t Moses and Elijah glorified spirits in heaven? Aren’t they part of the just men made perfect, the spirits in heaven? Yes. Don’t they wait to get a glorified body until (Daniel 12:2 says) the establishment of the kingdom and the resurrection of the Old Testament saints? Yes. However, for this occasion, the Lord provided them a visible form.

MacArthur surmises what the three were talking about:

I’ll tell you exactly what they were saying. You say, “How do you know what they were saying?” Because it’s in the Bible. And I will promise you I only know what’s in the Bible, I have never had a vision – I married one, but I haven’t had one. Now – precisely my sentiments.

Listen to what it says in Luke 9:31. “Two men were talking with Him and they were Moses and Elijah who, appearing in glory” – see, they’re in a glorified form, too. “They were speaking of His departure, which He was about to accomplish at Jerusalem.” What’s the subject? His death. His death. They’re talking about His death – talking about His death – the subject matters.

I suppose the disciples might have thought they would be talking about the kingdom and the glory and the overthrow of the Romans and the establishment of the Messiah’s throne over the whole earth, but they’re not. They’re talking about His death because that’s what the transfiguration event is intended to communicate to the disciples, that He has to die, and it doesn’t negate the glory, but it isn’t some interruption of the plan. Here are Moses and Elijah, talking about the death of the Messiah.

Again, these are two men and two very special men, and the testimony of these two men is a confirming testimony because they’re two witnesses and they’re talking about the death of Christ, Moses and Elijah. You mean, Moses and Elijah are aware that the Messiah must die? You mean that this stumbling block to all of us, which we cannot understand, is part of the plan and Moses and Elijah affirm this? That’s exactly what this is about.

Moses is the greatest leader in Israel’s history, rescuer of the nation from captivity, its greatest general, can we say? God was the one who drowned Pharaoh’s army but Moses was the victor by divine power. In authority, he was a king, though he never had a throne. In message, he was a prophet. In service to God, he was every bit a priest, serving God on behalf of His people. He was the author of the Pentateuch, the agent by which God gave His holy law. He’s the greatest.

If you’re going to have somebody give testimony to the fact that the Messiah needs to die, you couldn’t get a better witness than Moses – unless it was Elijah. He could stand with Moses because he fought against every violation of that law. He battled the nation’s idolatry, and he battled it with great courage and words of judgment, and he validated his preaching with miracles. There are only two miracle eras in the Old Testament, the time of Moses – and you know what the miracles were, they were in Egypt – and the time of Elijah. You can read them in 1 Kings 17 to 19, 2 Kings 1 and 2.

There was no lawgiver like Moses and there was no prophet like Elijah. Moses gave the law; Elijah was its greatest guardian. Here are the most trustworthy eyewitnesses. No one could bring the apostles more assurance and confidence that the death of Jesus was in the plan than to hear it from Moses and Elijah, the very men that they look to as the heroes of the Old Testament faith.

So this is in the plan. And here they are, in glory, confirming the glory to come, talking about Jesus’ death. So you have it all there. His death is a part of it, but His glory is coming. And they actually appear, I just read, in glory, in some form like Christ. That shouldn’t surprise you because we’re going to have a body like unto His glorious body. That was a glimpse there.

Then Peter said to Jesus, ‘Rabbi, it is good for us to be here; let us make three dwellings, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah’ (verse 5).

Peter, having heard our Lord say that He would have to die, wants to circumvent this.

MacArthur says:

Holy fear is mixed with stunning, exhilarating wonder at the most divine and incomprehensible experience of their lives. But what’s running through his mind still is this problem of suffering has got to go away. He’s not giving up on this. He’s a tenacious guy. So his plan is this, let’s end all this here. We’ll make the tabernacles and we’ll finish off this deal right here, and we’ll go right into the kingdom, this is good – this is good. Moses and Elijah are talking about the cross. Peter interrupts their conversation, he wants to establish the kingdom on the spot.

… oh, by the way, Matthew says he added, “If you wish.” This is humble. He’s not asking for a tent for himself and James and John, just the glorious ones. He’s wanted the kingdom from the start. His excitement is heightened by what he sees. He hates the idea of death.

It is important to note when the Transfiguration takes place:

He [Peter] knows Elijah is supposed to come at the end (Malachi 3 and 4), and get this: the timing of this event is in the month of Tishri, six months before Passover, when He will die.

And in the month of Tishri, a special event was happening right at this time in Jerusalem. You know what it was? It’s called the Feast of Tabernacles. And what did it commemorate? It commemorated God leading the exodus from Egypt. What perfect timing. This is the time we commemorate the great exodus. What a great time to have our exodus right now. We’ve got Moses, we’ve got Elijah, we’ve got Jesus in glory, let’s just have the Exodus out of this corrupt life of bondage into the glorious kingdom.

Peter’s got his theology pretty well wired. Forget dying, let’s just go to the kingdom. You know, the picture here is really powerful. As one writer said, “This shows that Jesus is not a walk-on in the divine economy.” This is Moses, this is Elijah. The presence of Moses and Elijah signify that this is God’s Son, the King who will reign in glory, and here they are talking about His cross, which means that’s a part of the plan, that’s not an interruption.

Then Mark tells us that Peter did not know what to say; the three Apostles were terrified at what they saw (verse 6).

In the King James Version the word ‘wist’ is used for ‘know’, as we see in Henry’s explanation of the verse:

… whatever was incongruous in what he said, he may be excused, for they were all sore afraid; and he, for his part, wist not what to say (v. 6), not knowing what would be the end thereof.

Then a cloud overshadowed them and from the cloud came a voice saying (verse 7), ‘This is my Son, the Beloved; listen to him!’

Henry says:

… This is my beloved Son, hear him. God owns him, and accepts him, as his beloved Son, and is ready to accept of us in him; we must then own and accept him as our beloved Saviour, and must give up ourselves to be ruled by him.

MacArthur describes the enormity of the cloud and the message from God — for Peter:

So you have the Son’s transformation, the saints association, and then the sleeper’s suggestion, bad suggestion. There’s one more thing, the Sovereign’s correction. This is amazing. Verse 7, “Then a cloud formed.” Guess who showed up? “A cloud formed, overshadowing them.” Matthew 17:5 says, “A bright cloud and it engulfs Jesus, Moses, and Elijah.” They’re engulfed. It symbolizes the Lord’s presence. Luke says Jesus, Moses, and Elijah entered the cloud. They’re all engulfed in the arrival of God. Then a voice came out of the cloud.

Friends, this is the third witness. Moses is one, Elijah is two, here’s the third witness, “This is my beloved Son.” Luke adds that the voice said, “My chosen One.” Matthew adds, “In whom I am well pleased.” And here comes the Father’s testimony. He says this, “Listen to Him.” Listen to Him. Shut your mouth, Peter. That is a very direct rebuke. He has just been rebuked by Jesus and now he gets rebuked by God Himself. “Listen.” Listen. Listen to what? “Listen to what He has to say about His death.”

The kingdom will come in its time – listen to what He says about His death. The transfiguration, obviously, is a glimpse of glory, but its main point was to demonstrate that the glory is later and the cross was now.

Suddenly, when the three Apostles looked around, there was only Jesus (verse 8) — as He was before the Transfiguration.

Henry explains:

Suddenly when they had looked round about, as men amazed to see where they were, all was gone, they saw no man any more. Elias and Moses were vanished out of sight, and Jesus only remained with them, and he not transfigured, but as he used to be. Note, Christ doth not leave the soul, when extraordinary joys and comforts leave it. Though more sensible and ravishing communications may be withdrawn, Christ’s disciples have, and shall have, his ordinary presence with them always, even to the end of the world, and that is it we must depend upon. Let us thank God for daily bread and not expect a continual feast on this side of heaven.

MacArthur says that the three Apostles re-entered reality, life as it was and would be — even unto the Cross:

The preview of the kingdom is gone. Kingdom’s not going to come. The only one left is Jesus, and He’s not in glorious form anymore, it’s Jesus alone, and He’s on the road to the cross, and they will follow. That’s the plan and that’s the message the apostles preached, didn’t they? They preached Christ, crucified and risen again.

Someday, according to Philippians, we will appear ourselves in a body like unto His glorious body. Someday we’ll have that experience, but in the meantime – in the meantime, we suffer for the sake of the cross, we suffer for the sake of the gospel, because it’s suffering and then glory. They had a hard time with the cross, as you can see. They eventually got the message, but it wasn’t easy. And I imagine that when it was hard to handle the suffering, they remembered this experience. The glory will come, and they gave us their witness, “We beheld His glory. We were eyewitnesses of His majesty.”

As the three Apostles descended the mountain with Jesus, He told them not to say anything about what they had seen until He — the Son of Man — had risen from the dead (verse 9).

Henry explains why Jesus said that:

He charged them to keep this matter very private, till he was risen from the dead, which would complete the proof of his divine mission, and then this must be produced with the rest of the evidence, v. 9. And besides, he, being now in a state of humiliation, would have nothing publicly taken notice of, that might be seen disagreeable to such a state; for to that he would in every thing accommodate himself. This enjoining of silence to the disciples, would likewise be of use to them, to prevent their boasting of the intimacy they were admitted to, that they might not be puffed up with the abundance of the revelations. It is a mortification to a man, to be tied up from telling of his advancements, and may help to hide pride from him.

MacArthur has more:

He gave them a command and the command is a “not to” command, not to relate to anyone what they had seen until the Son of man rose from the dead. I can’t imagine how hard that would be. I don’t know whether I could do that. There had been other commands to silence, chapter 5, verse 43; chapter 7, verse 36; chapter 8, verse 30. These are commands to silence … When Jesus did certain miracles and certain healings, He said, “Don’t tell anybody.” When Peter gave the confession on behalf of all of them, “You’re the Christ, the Son of the living God,” He warned them, “Don’t tell anybody.”

And now they come down the mountain, having had this amazing experience, indescribable experience, something like being caught up into the third heaven, I’m sure. And they can’t wait to talk about this and they’re told to say nothing – to say nothing – nothing at all until after the resurrection …

The message is not that Jesus is a healer. The message is not that Jesus is a political liberator, which is what the Jews thought. This would have added fuel to their fire. This would have poured gas on the fire. This would have fanned the flames of Jewish messianic expectation for a liberator.

Already thousands of Jews have been killed in insurrections and rebellions against Rome, trying to overthrow the Roman occupation.

MacArthur answers another question I had about the Transfiguration, namely, could the three Apostles discuss it amongst themselves? MacArthur says:

Interestingly enough, as hard as it must have been, they obeyed. Luke 9:36 says, “And they kept silent and repeated to no one in those days any of the things they had seen.” It must have been good that they could at least talk to each other about it, but they didn’t talk to anyone else.

Ultimately, here is the lesson from this glimpse of future glory in the Apostles’ present day:

There would always be the temptation, and there are people who think this is the message of Jesus, that Jesus is a healer. There would always be the temptation to present Jesus as God, as the Messiah, as the Lord, but those are incomplete. That’s not the gospel. The gospel is that Jesus died and rose again. And He restrains those people who are His followers from giving an incomplete message. “Don’t say anything until you get the full message.” It’s only after His death and resurrection that the great commission comes, to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.

It’s only after that that the Spirit comes and they become witnesses to the glories of the gospel, which the heart of the gospel, of course, is the cross and the resurrection, as indicated in Acts 1:8, and they spread that message around the world.

… the important message is the cross and the resurrection.

… Without it, there is no salvation, there is no kingdom, there’s no hope, and there’s no heaven for anyone.

Re that last sentence, I really wish that someone had explained that to me when I was a youngster! I could never understand why Jesus did not stay on earth, with mankind.

Readers might wish to examine verses 10 through 12, which I wrote about in 2012.

I wrote an exegesis on Matthew’s version of the Transfiguration in 2023, Year A.

Next week is the first Sunday in Lent. Shrove Tuesday (for some, Fat Tuesday, literally Mardi Gras) is February 13, and Ash Wednesday is on February 14. I hope that does not put too much of a dent into anyone’s Valentine’s Day.

Fifth Sunday after Epiphany — Year B — exegesis on the Gospel, Mark 1:29-39

The Fifth Sunday after Epiphany is February 4, 2024.

Traditionally, this is Sexagesima Sunday — the sixth Sunday before Easter — in Shrovetide, which was a preparation period for Lent that included going to Confession before beginning the 40 days of fasting with prayer.

Readings for Year B can be found here.

The Gospel is as follows (emphases mine):

Mark 1:29-39

1:29 As soon as they left the synagogue, they entered the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John.

1:30 Now Simon’s mother-in-law was in bed with a fever, and they told him about her at once.

1:31 He came and took her by the hand and lifted her up. Then the fever left her, and she began to serve them.

1:32 That evening, at sundown, they brought to him all who were sick or possessed with demons.

1:33 And the whole city was gathered around the door.

1:34 And he cured many who were sick with various diseases, and cast out many demons; and he would not permit the demons to speak, because they knew him.

1:35 In the morning, while it was still very dark, he got up and went out to a deserted place, and there he prayed.

1:36 And Simon and his companions hunted for him.

1:37 When they found him, they said to him, “Everyone is searching for you.”

1:38 He answered, “Let us go on to the neighboring towns, so that I may proclaim the message there also; for that is what I came out to do.”

1:39 And he went throughout Galilee, proclaiming the message in their synagogues and casting out demons.

Commentary comes from Matthew Henry and John MacArthur.

This episode picks up from last week’s reading, Mark 1:21-28, where Jesus healed the man in the synagogue who was suffering from a demon.

For those who have not been following the past few weeks of readings from Mark, John MacArthur recaps the Gospel writer’s objective for his Roman audience:

Mark opens his history of the life and ministry of Jesus in verse 1 with a declaration of truth; that is, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. That is the affirmation that Mark will prove. He says it at the beginning, he is going to write a history, at least the beginning of the history of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

To say that any man is the Son of God is a grandiose statement, must be supported, and so Mark begins immediately to give unmistakable testimony to the fact that his identification of Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God, is supportable …

By the time you get to verse 28, you have amassed a great amount of evidence from all different testimonies to the deity and authority of the Lord Jesus Christ.

There is another characteristic of Mark’s Gospel which is the use of words or phrases implying immediacy. Some translations use the word ‘immediately’:

… it says in verse 30, “Immediately they spoke to Jesus about her.”

There’s that “immediately” again, everything with Mark is immediately.

As soon as they — Jesus, Simon Peter, Andrew, James and John (two sets of brothers who fished together) — left the synagogue, they entered Simon Peter’s house (verse 29).

This took place in Capernaum after the Sabbath worship at the synagogue. It was probably early afternoon at this point.

MacArthur has more:

This isn’t the first time they’d seen Him do a miracle. According to Luke chapter 4, He had done many mighty works in Capernaum already. He had done many mighty works in the year before in Judea in the south. They knew His power. And it’s because they knew His power that they invite Him home for lunch.

By the way, they were originally Simon and Andrew – Simon, who later became known as Peter – they were originally from Bethsaida. Bethsaida is a town on the north shore of the Lake of Galilee, a little bit to the east, easy walking distance. They had relocated. John 1:44 says they were from Bethsaida, they had relocated to Capernaum, no doubt for the sake of business. And so they invited Jesus to come home. They would be regular synagogue attenders anywhere that they went, but certainly here in their hometown synagogue, they were there when Jesus spoke.

MacArthur describes Peter’s house, which appears to have been massive:

Now, Simon Peter was married. We know that from 1 Corinthians 9, verse 5, where it is said that Simon Peter has a wife who literally goes with him on missionary trips. And the implication is that the church supported that, that he took his wife along on mission trips, which would indicate by the time he’s into his full-blown ministry in the book of Acts, his children, if he had some, and tradition says they had children – the Bible doesn’t say anything about it – but if they did have children, they would be old enough to be able to care for themselves and Peter could take his wife along with him on mission trips. That’s the statement of 1 Corinthians chapter 9 in verse 5.

But at this particular point early in the ministry of Jesus, Peter still lives in Capernaum, and he has quite a house there. You say, “How do you know what kind of house he had there?” Because I’ve been there …

Excavations have been done in that area that have unearthed the synagogue. And if you go to Capernaum today, about all there is in Capernaum, there’s one little tiny building that is a kind of a monastery, that’s the only occupied building in Capernaum area, the rest is ruins and the dominant ruins are the ruins of the synagogue …

A one-minute walk from the slope where the synagogue is toward the water, and you come to Peter’s house, what is traditionally known as Peter’s house. One writer describes it as a house that’s part of a large insula complex. In an insula complex, you have all the windows and doors on the inside, surrounding a courtyard, and the walls are not windowed on the street side. You go into an entrance door and you have a large plaza courtyard and apartments all surrounding it that were shared by all the members of the extended family. That’s why Peter could live there and his wife would live there and his mother-in-law would live there and Andrew would live there and the children would live there.

It tells us a little bit about the fact that Peter was not just a guy with a hook and a fishing rod, he was a little more up the food chain than that. This house, the excavations of this house, they have found hearths, several of them, meaning there were a number of kitchens there. They have found millstones for grain. They have found stairways to the roofs of the dwellings. The building itself originally was built out of black base salt stone over which a flat roof of wood and thatch was placed.

What is really interesting about it is that archeological investigations have discovered sacred devotional graffiti written on the stone in Greek and Latin and Syriac and Aramaic scratched also in plaster, indicating that it was a gathering place for Christians and most likely a church, get this, going back to the end of the first century or the beginning of the second century. So they were close enough that they knew people who knew Peter, who knew where Peter lived. When you have a tradition that is that old, one writer says, this is a strong possibility that the site indeed preserves Peter’s house.

Well, the synagogue, a one-minute walk to Peter’s house, and that’s what Jesus was invited to do.

Simon Peter’s mother-in-law was in bed with a fever, and they told Jesus about her ‘at once’, immediately (verse 30).

MacArthur says:

They see Jesus being in Capernaum in this occasion as an opportunity for Him to display His power on behalf of a family member. Verse 30, Now, Simon’s mother-in-law was lying sick with a fever. Luke, the physician, adds, “megas fever,” high fever. She had some kind of a severe infection, that’s what produces a fever, right? The body working really hard to fight the infection.

MacArthur reminds us of the primitive state of medicine up until the late 19th century. This is really important to understand:

… no one was really cured of a disease until 1885. In the ancient world, they didn’t know what we know in modern medicine. They didn’t know about viruses and bacteria. People just languished. She had a severe infection, producing a high fever, which was of grave concern to her daughter and her son-in-law, Peter. So it’s a family crisis. And it’s clearly the reason they invited Jesus to lunch. And it says in verse 30, “Immediately they spoke to Jesus about her.”

There’s that “immediately” again, everything with Mark is immediately. No sooner had He come to the house than they made request of Him, in Luke’s account. Luke 4 has an account of this. Matthew 8 has an account of this.

Jesus went to her, took her by the hand and lifted her up; the fever left her and she began to serve them (verse 31).

Matthew Henry reminds us of the completeness of our Lord’s healing miracles:

Observe, How complete the cure was; when the fever left her, it did not, as usual, leave her weak, but the same hand that healed her, strengthened her, so that she was able to minister to them; the cure is in order to that, to fit for action, that we may minister to Christ, and to those that are his for his sake.

MacArthur tells us more:

Verse 31, “He came to her and raised her up.” Luke adds, “She was lying down and He was standing over her.” So she was so fevered that she was lying flat. He was standing over her. And it simply says, “He raised her up.” How did He do it? By taking her by the hand. He just pulled her up. And Luke adds, “He rebuked the fever. ‘Go away, fever.’” That’s some kind of power when even a fever obeys, when all of the causes of the fever disappear.

You remember back in verse 25 he said – Mark said that Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit, rebuked the demon. Here He’s rebuking fever. He has total sovereign control over the spiritual world and total sovereign control over the physical world. He commands and there is instant compliance. Luke says she immediately arose.

Mark’s account, “Taking her by the hand, raised her up and the fever left her.” I don’t know how long she had been ill, but she had been ill long enough to be prone, flat, and they were fearful. But at that very moment, the fever left her. And it says, end of verse 31, “She waited on them,” diakoneō, she served them. She got up and made lunch. That’s maybe the most important comment. The infection was gone. The fever was gone. The symptoms were gone.

Now, you know if you’ve had any kind of a fever for any length of time that even when your temperature starts to come down, you feel – what? – weak and that’s when you don’t want to do nothing but have somebody bring you chicken soup or something. She had no weakness, no dizziness, no sweating, no struggling. All symptoms were gone. She was as if she had never been ill. So well, she served Sabbath dinner. And she didn’t have a microwave and she didn’t have an oven and there wasn’t a store nearby and she didn’t have a freezer. She did everything you had to do to feed four big fishermen and Jesus and the rest of the family, who would have all been there.

That evening at sundown, they brought to Him all who were sick or possessed of demons (verse 32).

The whole city was gathered around the door (verse 33).

Henry says:

It was on the evening of the sabbath, when the sun did set, or was set; perhaps many scrupled bringing their sick to him, till the sabbath was over, but their weakness therein was no prejudice to them in applying to Christ. Though he proved it lawful to heal on the sabbath days, yet, if any stumbled at it, they were welcome at another time. Now observe …

That one cure in the synagogue occasioned this crowding after him. Others speeding well with Christ should quicken us in our enquiries after him. Now the Sun of righteousness rises with healing under his wings; to him shall the gathering of the people be. Observe, How Christ was flocked after in a private house, as well as in the synagogue; wherever he is, there let his servants, his patients, be. And in the evening of the sabbath, when the public worship is over, we must continue our attendance upon Jesus Christ; he healed, as Paul preached, publicly, and from house to house.

Jesus cured many who were sick with various diseases and cast out many demons; and He would not permit the demons to speak because they knew Him (verse 34).

In last week’s exegesis, I cited reasons why Jesus did not permit demons to say much if anything at all. First, He did not want their publicity. Secondly, the Jewish hierarchy later accused Him of having a demonic spirit which caused Him to drive demons out of people; that was when He replied that blaspheming the Holy Spirit, the enabler of His power on earth, was a deadly sin. And there is a third reason, which is that demons pervert the truth if given a chance. False teachers are the devil’s agents. St Paul’s letters tell us that they always come up with a perversion of God’s truth, especially when it involves money.

Returning to our Lord’s healing miracles, MacArthur gives us their characteristics:

… let me give you six realities about the healings of Jesus. This is a good place to do this. Number one, He healed with a word or a touch. He healed with a word or a touch. He rebukes the fever, picks her up, she’s healed by His word, His touch. You find out throughout His healings, there are many of them like that.

Secondly, He healed instantly – He healed instantly. Centurion’s servant, Matthew 8:13, was healed that very hour. The woman with the bleeding problem, Mark 5, as we’ll see, was healed immediately. Jesus healed ten lepers in Luke 17 instantaneously. He touched the man with leprosy in Luke 5, and immediately the leprosy departed. It’s always that way.

He heals with a word or a touch, not some incantations, not some formulas, a word or a touch, and He heals instantly. I’ve heard people say, “I’ve been healed and ever since I was healed I am getting better.” What in the world? Jesus never did anything that made people start to get better. It was all instantaneous.

Thirdly, He healed totally. Mark 1, we just read it. She may well have been dying from infection. He rebukes the fever and she is fully functioning in full strength, no recuperation period. He didn’t say to her, “Sip a little honey and water and take it easy for a few weeks.” He didn’t say, “Claim the healing by faith to make sure you can secure it.”

Fourthly, Jesus healed everybody. He healed everyone. In Luke’s account, it’s the parallel to this passage, Luke 4:40, Luke says, “And while the sun was setting, all who had any sick with various diseases brought them to Him and laying His hands on every one of them, He was healing them.” Every one of them – every one of them. You didn’t have to qualify to make it to the healing line. You notice that people missing a limb or people paralyzed never make it to the TV healing line? Or people who have no eyeballs in their sockets? He healed everyone, absolutely everyone.

… He healed absolutely everyone. This is just one day and He did it every day. He banished illness from Israel.

Fifthly, He healed organic disease. He didn’t heal lower back pain or heart palpitations or a headache or some other invisible ailment. He reversed paralysis, palsy, things that were undeniably supernatural.

So when you look at a healing the way Jesus did it, He healed with a word or a touch. He healed instantly. He healed totally. He healed everyone. He healed organic disease. And sixthly, He raised dead people. That was no more difficult than any other healing because you had to create in any case. He had to create a new limb. You had to create health where there was disease. It was all creative …

And by the way, Jesus did all of this healing in full public view every day in a different location. Not in some kind of fixed environment, high-control circumstances, but any place, any time, in any condition, any circumstance, and always in the open. Oh, and by the way, His miracles didn’t require faith. Be pretty hard for dead people to have faith. “If you believe, I’ll raise you.” His miracles didn’t require faith – virtually everyone He healed was an unbeliever.

Some of them came to faith as a result of the healing, like one out of the ten lepers, but they weren’t believers when He healed them. That wasn’t the point. To say to somebody, “If you have faith, you can be healed,” there’s no precedent for that in the Bible. His miracles were strung out through His whole ministry, not in special controlled environments or circumstances. Everywhere all the time, every day just as a routine of daily activity. And He healed everybody. There were no categories that were beyond His power.

Looking at the word ‘many’ in that verse, MacArthur says:

Somebody might conclude, “Well, He didn’t heal them all, then.” Doesn’t say that. It simply says that the “all” was many as opposed to a few. You know what I’m saying by that. The all were healed. Luke says He healed them all, and there were many of them who were ill, and there were many of them who had demons.

Not a small number. In fact, some take the word “many” and it’s pretty consistently this way as a sort of Semitic expression, a Hebraism meaning the whole. You could apply that in other portions of the Scripture, like in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 7. But they wanted to be healed. They brought everybody.

MacArthur addresses mankind’s unchanging nature:

I might add at this point that they were looking for healing and they were not looking for salvation. They were not looking so much for the – for the soul issues as the body issues. Are you surprised by that? Hey, you ask yourself the question. If you offered our generation of people in our society physical perfection, physical health, and physical wholeness or spiritual salvation, nine out of ten of them would take what? Physical – the physical. Has there ever been a generation more consumed with that than ours? They want the healing. That’s nothing new.

Verse 34, they got it, He healed many. The “all who came” were many, various diseases, cast out many demons.

MacArthur contrasts our Lord’s merciful miracles with the demonic ways of televangelist faith healers:

Now listen, folks, this is an important place for me to say some things I want to say about healing. So hold onto your seatbelt and just listen, okay? I’m saying this because I care and because it’s true and it’s necessary. There have always been false healers who claimed to be able to heal, who prey on people’s sicknesses, who prey on people who are suffering, who prey on people who have disabilities – for money – for money. They are, I think, the lowest of the low, the basest of the base. You don’t get any lower than to get rich by promising a healing to suffering people, a healing you cannot deliver, and a healing God does not promise.

Every time I hear Benny Hinn and his ilk say, “If you send me your seed faith, you send me your money, I’ll pray over your letter and God will send you a healing,” I grieve in my heart. Those false promises prey on desperate people and the world is full of them. It is, to me, the most heinous possible misrepresentation of God and Christ. To me, it is a kind of blasphemy because the net effect is you got all my money, I’m still sick, I reject your God. It’s horrendous …

Can I tell you something? If there was such a thing as a gift of healing, I’d ask God for it. I went to the hospital the other night, a man I’ve known for 60 years, critical care, tubes going in everywhere. I walked through that hospital, I saw little children who were seriously ill. I saw all kinds of people who were suffering. I went in and stood by the bed of my friend and talked with him and to pray with him. I would have given anything for the gift of healing.

I would love to be able to do what Jesus did. I’d love to just go up and down the halls, go in the room, out of the room, in the room, out of the room, in the room, have everybody get out of bed and walk out. By the way, I didn’t run into any healers there. Benny Hinn was not there.

… Think of how thrilling it would be if I had that power or if somebody had that power. If you could just go through the cancer ward and heal everybody, go through the AIDS clinic and heal everybody. Go where they have tuberculosis and whatever other diseases, tumors, just heal everybody.

Why don’t the healers do that? Where were they? Well, maybe if they all got together and they just – like twenty of them went through a hospital, maybe they could do it collectively. You’re never going to see one of them in a hospital unless he’s visiting his sick friends or sick himself. They have to stay in their tent or their building or their TV studio to pull off their deception.

They aren’t going to go to Africa and heal people. They aren’t going to go to India and Bangladesh. Why? Because they can’t heal, no one can heal. And listen to this: Even God doesn’t promise you healing. What He does promise you is death. It’s appointed unto men once to die. You have that promise from God. You will die. You have no promise that you will be healed. Your faith has nothing to do with whether you’re healed or not healed. You can’t activate some kind of healing by just believing. That kind of positive thinking is useless and pointless, and people are becoming filthy rich by selling that deceptive lie.

I watched one the other night that said, “Send me a thousand dollars. Send me a thousand dollars and I will talk to God and your healing will come” …

By the way, if God did give the gift of healing today, He wouldn’t give it to people with really, really bad theology. What, would He authenticate that? You think God is authenticating Benny Hinn’s theology who wrote a book that said there were nine members of the Trinity? That each member himself is a trinity himself? No, God doesn’t authenticate bad theology by giving miracles to people who espouse heresy. The only people who ever did miracles were the people who were given that power by Jesus directly, the seventy and the twelve, so that their message could be authenticated, and it disappeared very fast because once the New Testament began to be written down, then any true teacher could be measured by whether he agreed with Scripture …

… if I had the power to cast out demons – some people think they do – if I had that, I wouldn’t be going over to somebody and trying to get rid of the demon of post-nasal drip or the demon of anxiety or the demon of – I’d be going to the headquarters of every false system, every false representation of Jesus Christ and I’d be saying, “Out. All of you.” I don’t have that authority, so I have to spend my life fighting them another way, writing books and preaching sermons and attacking all those people who falsely represent Jesus Christ.

MacArthur adds a biblical note on the lack of healing in the Old Testament:

You know, the implication of modern healers today is “God has always been a healer, and God is the healer, and He’s always wanted to heal; and people of faith, they’ve always been able to claim their healing.” That is just not true. The first healing in the Bible is in Genesis 20 at the time of Abraham – at the time of Abraham. That’s 2200 B.C. That’s a couple of thousand years after creation. There are no healings before that. There’s a lot of other stuff, as you well know, in the opening 19 chapters of Genesis, a sweeping look at two thousand years of history, but there’s no healing there.

You do have a healing in Genesis 20 and then from Abraham to Isaiah, let’s go from say 2200 B.C., 2300 B.C. to Isaiah 750 B.C., that’s fifteen hundred years, you can search that entire period of fifteen hundred years in the report of Scripture and find maybe twenty miraculous interventions by God that resulted in a healing – maybe twenty among the millions and millions of people who lived in the hundreds and hundreds of years that passed.

And then if you want to go from Isaiah 750 B.C. to Christ, there are no healings in Scripture. None. Not one. And during that period of time, sickness and disease were everywhere. Everybody was dying. That is why when Jesus did a miracle, the Jews responded with shock. Look at Mark 2:12, He had just healed this paralyzed man and in verse 12, man got up, picked up his pallet, his bed, and went out of the sight of everyone so they were all amazed, glorifying God saying, “We have never seen anything like this.” Which is to say, “We’ve never heard of anything like this.” Matthew 9:33, at one of Jesus’ miracles, they said, “Nothing like this has ever been done in Israel.”

So the idea that the healing explosion that occurred around the ministry of Jesus Christ is some kind of standard operating procedure for God among His people is just not true. Jesus had the power of healing and the power to cast out demons, and He delegated that power to two groups, the seventy who represented Him and the twelve and Paul. Why? Because they were going to preach the gospel. How do you know if what they were preaching was true? Because you had all kinds of people preaching all kinds of messages.

The ability to demonstrate power over disease and power over demonic sources, demonic powers, was to say that the message of Jesus Christ is the message of the One who has power over the physical and spiritual effects of the curse. It was a supernatural authentication of true teachers.

Even in the New Testament, we see signs of the Apostolic Era coming to a close with St Paul in his later years:

You go into the New Testament, you get into the book of Acts, into the epistles of Paul, the general epistles, all of a sudden, guess what? Paul is sick. Trophimus is sick and Paul leaves him sick. Timothy is ill. Epaphroditus is ill. There’s no mention of healing in the final pastoral epistles, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus. There’s no mention of, you know, have a healing ministry. There’s no promise of healing in the future.

The healing explosion was not to provide health; it was to affirm the true gospel and the true Messiah, to show His power over disease and demons, to show His power over the physical and spiritual world, to show that He had the power to conquer sin and Satan, and to rescue souls, and to show that He had the power to raise a glorified, perfect body into heaven.

Returning to today’s Gospel verses, the next day, Jesus left while it was still very dark to go to a deserted place, where He prayed (verse 35).

Henry discusses the example that Jesus set for us with regard to prayer:

III. His retirement to his private devotion (v. 35); He prayed, prayed alone; to set us an example of secret prayer. Though as God he was prayed to, as man he prayed. Though he was glorifying God, and doing good, in his public work, yet he found time to be alone with his Father; and thus it became him to fulfil all righteousness. Now observe,

1. The time when Christ prayed. (1.) It was in the morning, the morning after the sabbath day. Note, When a sabbath day is over and past, we must not think that we may intermit our devotion till the next sabbath: no, though we go not to the synagogue, we must go to the throne of grace, every day in the week; and the morning after the sabbath particularly, that we may preserve the good impressions of the day. This morning was the morning of the first day of the week, which afterward he sanctified, and made remarkable, by another sort of rising early. (2.) It was early, a great while before day. When others were asleep in their beds, he was praying, as a genuine Son of David, who seeks God early, and directs his prayer in the morning; nay, and at midnight will rise to give thanks. It has been said, The morning is a friend to the Muses—Aurora Musis amica; and it is no less so to the Graces. When our spirits are most fresh and lively, then we should take time for devout exercises. He that is the first and best, ought to have the first and best.

2. The place where he prayed; He departed into a solitary place, either out of town, or some remote garden or out-building. Though he was in no danger of distraction, or of temptation to vain-glory, yet he retired, to set us an example to his own rule, When thou prayest enter into thy closet. Secret prayer must be made secretly. Those that have the most business in public, and of the best kind, must sometimes be alone with God; must retire into solitude, there to converse with God, and keep up communion with him.

Beware of people who make a public spectacle of prayer out in the streets. They want others to see them and be impressed, just like the Pharisees did. They have their reward from man, not God.

MacArthur tells us of our Lord’s prayer time and links it to the Holy Spirit, His enabler during His time on earth:

He goes to a secluded place, the word is erēmos. It’s the word translated wilderness four times already in this chapter. Here it’s translated a secluded place, away from people. He went to pray because He was fully dependent on the Father’s will, fully dependent on the Spirit’s power.

Remember, I told you the Spirit came on Him because the Spirit intermediated between His deity and His humanity. Three times in Mark, it tells us that He went into that kind of secluded place to pray, Mark 6 and Mark 14. But He prayed all the time. You look at the four gospels, He prayed before His baptism, He prayed before calling the twelve, He prayed before feeding the multitude, He prayed at is transfiguration. He prayed before He taught the disciples how to pray. He prayed before He raised Lazarus. He prayed on the last night with His disciples in the upper room. He prayed in Gethsemane, and He prayed even hanging on the cross.

Why? Because He was subject to the will of the Father and the intermediary power of the Holy Spirit, and He placed Himself always under the Father’s power and under – under the Father’s will, I should say, and under the Spirit’s power. He prayed that all those things that were in the will of God would be accomplished. You can read how He prayed in John 17, there’s a model of His prayers right there. Communing with God was crucial to Him. He had laid aside His prerogatives as the Son of God.

That’s what Philippians 2 means when it says He emptied Himself. He didn’t give away His deity, He just gave away the free exercise of it and submitted Himself to the Father and the Spirit as a part of His humiliation. That’s why He said, “I only do what the Father tells me to do, what the Father shows me. I only do what I see the Father do. I only do what pleases the Father. I do it in the power of the Spirit. And if you say I do it by the power of Satan as in Matthew 12, you blaspheme the Holy Spirit.” Wonderful dependence on the will of God and on the power of the Spirit. That dependence is made manifest in His prayer.

Simon Peter and the others ‘hunted’ for Him (verse 36).

When they found Him they said, ‘Everyone is searching for you’ (verse 37).

MacArthur says:

Luke says, “They tried to keep Jesus from leaving Capernaum.” You’ve got to come back. Hey, this is what we hoped for. You are popular, do you understand this? This is your moment. Wow, this is it. You’ve got to capitalize on this. They’re all back, come on.

Jesus said that they would go on to the neighbouring towns instead, so that He could proclaim His message there, too, for that is what He came out to do (verse 38).

MacArthur tells us:

Verse 38, “He said to them, ‘Let’s go somewhere else.’” I like that. I made my point, right? It’s not about everybody getting their little healing, it’s about proving who I am. I’ve done enough to make it evident. Let’s go somewhere else because somewhere else we can do it again. Let’s go somewhere else, to the towns nearby. Listen to this, “So that I may preach there also, for that is what I came for.” Folks, that’s worth underl[in]ing.

If you ever ask why Jesus came, He came to be a preacher. “The Son of man has come to seek and to save the lost.” “I am come to call not the righteous, but sinners to repentance,” Mark 2:17. Here He says, “I’ve come to preach.” How does He call sinners to repentance? How does He seek and save the lost? By preaching. That’s what I came for – to preach. Remember when He went to the synagogue at Nazareth just before this event? And He came into the synagogue and He opened to Isaiah 61, “The Lord has anointed me to preach the gospel.”

God only had one Son and He was a preacher. That’s why He came, to preach. The miracles only verified the authority and the truthfulness of His message, but there was no salvation in the miracles, the salvation was in believing the preaching – believing the preaching.

Jesus went throughout Galilee, proclaiming the message in their synagogues and casting out demons (verse 39).

MacArthur explains:

So He left. This is so important. Listen to Romans 10:13, “Whoever will call in the name of the Lord will be saved. How will they call on Him whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? How will they hear without a preacher? How will they preach unless they’re sent?” No wonder it’s written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news of good tidings.”

Jesus was a preacher because faith comes by hearing the Word. Same passage, Romans 10. So for weeks, even months, He went from town to town and village to village, preaching and proving the truthfulness of His message by miraculous deliverances from demons and healings. Savior not only verifies who He is, but proclaims salvation through faith in His name. And so Mark pulls together these three realities that we will see played out throughout our Lord’s entire ministry, a ministry of proof, a ministry of prayer, and a ministry of preaching.

Henry has this brief comment:

Note, Christ’s doctrine is Satan’s destruction.

MacArthur gives us two important points on which to end. One is the scope of our Lord’s miracles, and the second is their fulfilment of prophecy:

This is just one day in a three-year power display. There are ninety, 9-0, gospel texts on healing. During our Lord’s ministry, there was an unparalleled healing explosion that virtually banished disease from Israel. This one little spot on the earth, disease was banished. Never was there in history such a healing barrage …

In Matthew’s account of this same miracle, there’s one statement at the end of it that’s worth noting. Matthew chapter 8 … this closing comment, verse 17, “This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet.” And what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet? Isaiah 53:4, “He Himself took our infirmities and carried away our diseases.” The prophet said that He would have the power to bring our diseases, our infirmities, to an end. Will He heal all our diseases? Yeah, in the future – in the future. But He proved that He’s able to do it in the future by doing it when He was here. 

May all reading this enjoy a blessed Sunday.

Fourth Sunday after Epiphany — Year B — exegesis on the Gospel, Mark 1:21-28

The Fourth Sunday after Epiphany is January 28, 2024.

Centuries ago, the seventh Sunday before Easter — which is where we are — was called Septuagesima (‘ges’ is pronounced ‘jez’) Sunday.

Next Sunday is Sexagesima Sunday, the one after that is Quinquagesima Sunday and the one after that — the First Sunday in Lent — is Quadragesima Sunday.

Septuagesima, Sexagesima and Quinquagesima Sundays are part of Shrovetide, established in the Middle Ages. In England, Abbot Aelfric instituted Shrovetide in AD 1000. It was a period during which Christian penitents went to Confession to better prepare themselves for the spiritual disciplines of Lent, which included fasting. ‘Shrove’ meant to ‘strive’, in this case, against sin.

You can read more about Shrovetide and these Sundays here:

Shrovetide — a history

The Sundays before Lent — an explanation (the Sundays that define Shrovetide)

Readings for the Fourth Sunday after Epiphany in Year B can be found here.

The Gospel is as follows (emphases mine):

Mark 1:21-28

1:21 They went to Capernaum; and when the sabbath came, he entered the synagogue and taught.

1:22 They were astounded at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

1:23 Just then there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit,

1:24 and he cried out, “What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God.”

1:25 But Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Be silent, and come out of him!”

1:26 And the unclean spirit, convulsing him and crying with a loud voice, came out of him.

1:27 They were all amazed, and they kept on asking one another, “What is this? A new teaching–with authority! He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him.”

1:28 At once his fame began to spread throughout the surrounding region of Galilee.

Commentary comes from Matthew Henry and John MacArthur.

Today’s reading picks up where we left off last Sunday, with Mark 1:14-20, where Jesus called Peter, Andrew and John (the Gospel writer) once more, extending that call to James. That was upon our Lord’s entry into Galilee. All four men were fishermen and worked together in business.

Mark wrote his Gospel for a Roman audience. Some say he wrote as a journalist. His Gospel takes a Dragnet-style ‘just the facts’ approach with the objective of establishing our Lord’s authority, proving that He is the Son of God. John MacArthur tells us in his sermon, which I cited last week:

… as the story begins, all Mark wants to do is get the groundwork laid down. The first important thing that happens to Christ is His baptism. This is His coronation as the new King from heaven. The Father says, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” The Holy spirit descends, settles upon Him, empowers Him, fills Him for the rest of His life, and the Holy Spirit becomes the intermediary between His divine nature and His human nature so that the two are blended together by the power of the Holy Spirit. He is now Spirit-empowered. He is now granted divine authority. This is His crowning, this is His coronation, this is His inauguration.

What comes out of that is His authority. Mark then immediately wants to demonstrate that authority … He demonstrates the authority of Christ over three realms. One, over Satan and his realm. Two, over sin and its dominion. Three, over sinners. It is important for us to know that if the new King is going to take His throne, if the new King is going to reign, if the new King is going to overthrow the usurper, the temporary king, Satan himself, and if the King is going to conquer Satan and sin and sinners, He has to demonstrate the power to do that.

And so that’s where Mark establishes His authority. First in His temptation, His authority over Satan becomes clear. And then in His preaching, His authority over sin becomes clear because He preaches the good news that if you repent and believe, you will be forgiven and enter His Kingdom. He can overpower and will overpower Satan. He can overpower and will overpower sin.

And thirdly, He can and will overpower the souls of sinners, and that is illustrated in the fact that out of nowhere, He approaches four men and lays a command on them, which they immediately and instantly obey – at immense cost and sacrifice to them. So this is what is established in these three little paragraphs.

Jesus, Peter, Andrew, James and John — ‘They’ — went to Capernaum, and when the Sabbath came, He entered the synagogue and taught (verse 21).

As we read last week in Mark 1:14:

1:14 Now after John was arrested, Jesus came to Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God,

Mark refers to John the Baptist there.

Of that verse and verse 21, Matthew Henry says:

Here is a particular account of his preaching in Capernaum, one of the cities of Galilee; for though John Baptist chose to preach in a wilderness, and did well, and did good, yet it doth not therefore follow, that Jesus must do so too; the inclinations and opportunities of ministers may very much differ, and yet both be in the way of their duty, and both useful.

Galilee was a region known for its fishing and for its population of Gentiles, some who lived there and others who were frequent visitors from other regions in order to purchase fish. It was far away from Jerusalem, the nexus of religious corruption.

MacArthur describes Capernaum for us. It, too, was far from being a holy place:

Capernaum, Kfar Nahum. Nahum is the name of the prophet Nahum. Kfar is village. The village called Nahum. This is at the northwest edge of the Sea of Galilee, at the top of the Sea of Galilee. It is a city that became the largest city on the lake because it was the crossroads. People went through this city going north and south and east and west. It had a Roman garrison because it was a potential area of crime because there was so much action, so much trade, so much travel traffic. It had a customs tax office as well. It belonged in the tetrarchy of Herod Antipas, on the border of his brother Philip’s domain.

Capernaum became Jesus’ headquarters, apparently, during His Galilean ministry. It wasn’t Nazareth where He came from because you remember the first time He went to Nazareth, according to Luke 4, and preached in the synagogue, they tried to throw Him off a cliff. And by the way, Capernaum was a beautiful place, still is, but a very, very sinful place, far away from Jerusalem, far away from the quote/unquote “Holy Influences” of core Judaism on the fringes of a gentile world. It was a very evil place.

In fact, in Matthew chapter 11, Jesus actually said that it would be better for Sodom in the day of judgment than Capernaum. The sins of Capernaum, vile sins, and the opportunity for Capernaum to be exposed to Christ gave them a greater responsibility. And that’s why it would be more tolerable for Sodom than Capernaum in the day of judgment, Matthew 11:23 and 24.

Capernaum once had a promenade about twenty-five hundred feet long, we’re told by historians, a literal walkway on top of an eight-foot wall on the edge of the lake and pier – piers, perhaps several of them, moving out at least a hundred feet into the lake. It was a fishing center, and it was the trade center of the Galilee region. Just to give you perspective, Nazareth is at thirteen hundred feet above sea level and Capernaum is about six hundred ninety below sea level, so it was straight up to Nazareth, straight down to Capernaum. Jesus went there, established His base of ministry there.

The synagogue was the local meeting place for worship and, as such, was a social centre for Jews. A Jew expelled from his local synagogue was a lonely Jew, because the other members of the congregation could no longer socialise with him. The synagogue served as a local court and as a school for boys and men alike. The one thing that could not be done in the synagogue was sacrificial offerings. For those, one had to go to the temple in Jerusalem. That was why Jews went up to Jerusalem for Passover every year. This post has a detailed description from MacArthur on the history of the synagogue which developed during and after the Jews’ time in Babylonian captivity.

In today’s sermon, MacArthur says:

Israel is taken into captivity, 586 B.C. They go to Babylon, they haven’t got the temple, the temple is destroyed. They want to meet. They collect in small groups. Synagogue is simply a word that means to come together, to collect together, and they came together when they were in captivity. When they returned under Nehemiah, they took the concept of the synagogue back and, apparently, it comes, then, out of their experience in captivity.

Synagogues began to proliferate after the captivity, and by the time of Jesus, for example, the Talmud says there were five hundred of them in Jerusalem alone. They were like local churches, local assemblies. They were, according to Philo, synagogues drew the name Houses of Instruction because there the law was read on the Sabbath and explained. And during the week, it was a school. And also during the week, it was a civil court. Scribes who taught, elders who taught, would become judges who would rule in cases of the Law. So they were very, very important places in towns and villages.

Josephus says there were about 240 towns and villages in Galilee and they all had synagogues. Capernaum would have had more than one – Capernaum would have had a lot, it only took ten men to establish a synagogue. If you had ten men, that was enough to start a synagogue. They got together, the law was read on the Sabbath, the law was explained to them. Each synagogue had a ruler who really was the organizer, kind of the executive person, not necessarily a pastor or teacher. Then it had elders. Elders would be responsible for the reading and explaining of the law unless there was a visiting scribe who would do that.

Scribes emerged with synagogues:

Scribes, by the way, were the crucial teaching men, men only, in the first century Jewish society. They traced their heritage back to Ezra who, according to Ezra 7, read the law and explained it basically. We find that also in Nehemiah 8. He is the first in their lineage, if you will. They were the ones who explained the Scripture …

Remember, most people were illiterate. People didn’t have copies of the scriptures because they were in scrolls kept in very, very private places, only available in the synagogue to the one who had access to the scrolls, the ruler of the synagogue, person in charge of that. So people had to hear the Scripture read, and they had to have it explained to them. So scribes became the ones who handled the scriptures. They were the ones that read it and they were the ones that explained it.

They became so revered and honored that they were given the title rabbi. Rabbi is a title that means honored one, and it was given to scribes. They were the civil jurists, as I said. The Sanhedrin was made up of them, the ruling body of Israel. They were the elite because they handled the Scripture. Remember, they viewed their nation as a theocracy.

Mark tells us that the people were astounded at our Lord’s teaching, for He taught them as one having authority, not as the scribes (verse 22).

Henry tells us of our Lord’s devotion to worship and of His preaching:

3. Sabbaths are to be sanctified in religious assemblies, if we have opportunity; it is a holy day, and must be honoured with a holy convocation; this was the good old way, Acts 13 27; 15 21. On the sabbath-day, pois sabbasin—on the sabbath-days; every sabbath-day, as duly as it returned, he went into the synagogue. 4. In religious assemblies on sabbath-days, the gospel is to be preached, and those to be taught, who are willing to learn the truth as it is in Jesus. 5. Christ was a non-such preacher; he did not preach as the scribes, who expounded the law of Moses by rote, as a school-boy says his lesson, but were neither acquainted with it (Paul himself, when a Pharisee, was ignorant of the law), nor affected with it; it came not from the heart, and therefore came not with authority. But Christ taught as one that had authority, as one that knew the mind of God, and was commissioned to declare it. 6. There is much in the doctrine of Christ, that is astonishing; the more we hear it, the more cause we shall see to admire it.

MacArthur reminds us of our Lord’s ministry in Judea, thererfore, people already knew of Jesus at this time and wanted to hear Him preach:

Now, by the time Jesus arrived in Capernaum, according to Luke 4:14, He returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about Him spread through all the surrounding district.

That text also says He was praised by all. The word had come up from His ministry in Judea which lasted nearly a year, of all His power, His teaching, His miracles, all of that. They were well aware of it by the time He arrived, He goes into Capernaum, of course they want Him to teach. Eager to hear Him, they give Him the opportunity, and He began to teach.

MacArthur gives us the Greek words used in this verse:

Let’s start with the first part, “One having authority.” What does that mean? Rule, there was some – there was a kind of objectivity to this. There was a kind of absolute character to this. There was a level of conviction that they were not used to. He didn’t quote anybody. This is reminiscent of the Sermon on the Mount. Matthew 7:28 and 29 says that after the Sermon on the Mount, they were amazed because He spoke as one having authority.

What is authority? Exousia, rule, dominion, jurisdiction, full right, power, privilege, prerogative. He just spoke with this absolute conviction, objectivity, authority, dominion, as if He were in charge and as if this was the truth and that was it. And it says in verse 22, “Not as the scribes.” Not as the scribes.

How did the scribes speak? Well, they didn’t speak with authority, they quoted other rabbis. This rabbi says this, this rabbi says this, there are some people who think this rabbi is right, there are some people who think that rabbi is right. And they prided themselves on being able to attach themselves to the past and quote various revered rabbis. Here is someone who doesn’t quote anybody. Doesn’t get His theology from anybody. Doesn’t give five views. This is not what they were used to.

There were other differences as well. His teaching was absolute, not arbitrary. His teaching was logical, not evasive. His teaching was concrete, not esoteric. His teaching was reasonable, systematic – not mystical, muddled. His teaching was on essential matters, not trivialities. His teaching was clear by way of illustrations and progression – not confusing, allegorical. His teaching had the conviction of truthfulness, not merely suggestion. They never heard anything like it, never.

That’s bound up in the word “amazed.” There are a number of New Testament words that can be translated amazed or astonished or wonder. This is the strongest, ekplēssō. One lexicon says this is what it means: “To strike a person out of his senses by strong feeling.” He, in the vernacular, blew their minds. Never heard anything like it. Never heard anything like it.

Just then — immediately — there was a man with an unclean spirit in the synagogue (verse 23).

Henry explains the meaning of ‘unclean spirit’ and why those words are used in the New Testament:

This passage was not related in Matthew, but is afterward in Luke 4 33. There was in the synagogue a man with an unclean spirit, en pneumati akatharto—in an unclean spirit; for the spirit had the man in his possession, and led him captive at his will. So the whole world is said to lie en to ponero—in the wicked one. And some have thought it more proper to say, The body is in the soul, because it is governed by it, than the soul in the body. He was in the unclean spirit, as a man is said to be in a fever, or in a frenzy, quite overcome by it. Observe, The devil is here called an unclean spirit, because he has lost all the purity of his nature, because he acts in direct opposition to the Holy Spirit of God, and because with his suggestions he pollutes the spirits of men. This man was in the synagogue; he did not come either to be taught or to be healed, but, as some think, to confront Christ and oppose him, and hinder people from believing on him.

MacArthur puts the unclean spirit into the context of what was going on in the synagogue at that moment, contrasting it with the mind-blown congregation:

… for Jesus to speak authoritatively quoting no one and concretely and objectively and clearly was something they were utterly not used to.

But if they weren’t used to it, and it amazed them, it terrified the demon who was living in one man. Verse 23 says this, “Just then,” or if you will again, “Immediately.” Immediately. What do you mean, immediately? At the very time Jesus is teaching and the people are in absolute amazement, there was a man in their synagogue with an unclean spirit and he screamed. It was what Jesus said that hit that demon in the synagogue that day and that demon exploded, blowing his cover.

What terrified the demon? What terrified the demon was the truth. He knew that with the arrival of Jesus was the arrival of the truth. The demons knew that they had developed an untrue, false system of religion that was highly successful in Israel. And it held people captive unto their damnation. They, again, are disguised as angels of light. They hide in the middle of false religion. Satan is, before all other things, a liar and a murderer. He wants to catch everybody in deception and then kill their eternal souls. Truth is therefore deadly to the demonic operation – deadly. This is where the initial conflict comes.

The unclean spirit, through the man, cried out, ‘What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God’ (verse 24).

MacArthur tells us something worth remembering about the beginning of our Lord’s ministry. The demons were the first and only ones at the time to fully comprehend who Jesus was:

In the first half of the Gospel of Mark, the only beings that are sure who Jesus is are the demons. They know Him. They have known Him since they were created by Him. They have known Him since they were dwelling in heaven as holy angels before they rebelled. They have known Him since they surrounded the throne, before Lucifer led them in their rebellion.

Luke says in chapter 4, verse 40, “The sun was setting and all who had any who were sick with various diseases brought them to Him, laying hands on each of them, He was healing them. Demons also were coming out of many, shouting, ‘You are the Son of God.’ But rebuking them, He would not allow them to speak because they knew Him to be the Christ.”

There is no question about their knowledge of Jesus. Here we have, then, the first testimony in the Gospel of Mark to the identity of Jesus and it comes from a demon, chapter 1, verse 24. They know who He is. In fact, in the first half of the Gospel of Mark, they are the only ones who are sure. In chapter 3 and verse 6, the Pharisees and the Herodians do not recognize Him as the Messiah and are already trying to find a reason to kill Him. In chapter 3, verse 22, the scribes came down from Jerusalem and said about Him, “He’s possessed by Beelzebul and He casts out the demons by the ruler of the demons.”

In chapter 6, He began to teach in the synagogue, verse 2. Many listeners were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things and what is this wisdom given to Him and such miracles as these performed by His hands? Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?’ And they took offense at Him.”

The Pharisees didn’t know who He was. The Herodians didn’t know who He was. The scribes didn’t know who He was. The people didn’t know who He was. And even His own followers weren’t sure. If you look at chapter 8 and verse 17, Jesus recognized their discussion about not having enough bread. The problem with that discussion was they had just been through two miraculous feedings, one where He fed five thousand, one where He fed four thousand and created the food. How blind can you be after that?

So Jesus, aware of this discussion, said to them, “Why do you discuss the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet see or understand? Do you have a hardened heart? Having eyes, do you not see? Having ears, do you not hear? Do you not remember when I broke the five loaves for the five thousand how many baskets full of broken pieces you picked up?’ They said to Him, ‘Twelve.’ And when I broke the seven for the four thousand, how many large baskets full of broken pieces did you pick up?’ And they said to him, ‘Seven.’”

And He was saying to them, “Do you not yet understand?” They didn’t understand. It wasn’t until, finally, the great confession of Peter in chapter 8, verse 29, “You are the Christ.” The first half of the book of Mark, the leaders didn’t understand who He was. The people didn’t understand who He was. Even His disciples were unsure about who He was. That was the difference. The crowd was amazed. The demons were terrified. The difference? The demons knew they had reason to be afraid …

James 2:19 says, “The demons believe and shudder.” What makes demons shudder? What makes demons scream? By the way, I read you a number of passages in Mark in which the demons, when they speak, are always screaming. And you need to understand something. They scream because they’re terrified of Jesus. They scream because they’re panicked, because they know where they’re headed. They know about the Lake of Fire long before Jesus refers to it in His Olivet Discourse in Matthew 25:41. They know about the Lake of Fire and that they’re going there long before the book of Revelation is written to describe it in chapter 20.

Henry examines what the demon said:

The rage which the unclean spirit expressed at Christ; He cried out, as one in an agony, at the presence of Christ, and afraid of being dislodged; thus the devils believe and tremble, have a horror of Christ, but no hope in him, nor reverence for him. We are told what he said, v. 24, where he doth not go about to capitulate with him, or make terms (so far was he from being in league or compact with him), but speaks as one that knew his doom. (1.) He calls him Jesus of Nazareth; for aught that appears, he was the first that called him so, and he did it with design to possess the minds of the people with low thoughts of him, because no good thing was expected out of Nazareth; and with prejudices against him as a Deceiver, because every body knew the Messiah must be of Bethlehem. (2.) Yet a confession is extorted from him—that he is the holy One of God, as was from the damsel that had the spirit of divination concerning the apostles—that they were the servants of the most high God, Acts 16 16, 17. Those who have only a notion of Christ—that he is the holy One of God, and have no faith in him, or love to him, go no further than the devil doth. (3.) He in effect acknowledgeth that Christ was too hard for him, and that he could not stand before the power of Christ; “Let us alone; for if thou take us to task, we are undone, thou canst destroy us.“ This is the misery of those wicked spirits, that they persist in their rebellion, and yet know it will end in their destruction. (4.) He desires to have nothing to do with Jesus Christ; for he despairs of being saved by him, and dreads being destroyed by him. “What have we to do with thee? If thou wilt let us alone, we will let thee alone.” See whose language they speak, that say to the Almighty, Depart from us. This, being an unclean spirit, therefore hated and dreaded Christ, because he knew him to be a holy One …

Henry says something vital about unbelief, something of which we should be aware in our Godless society:

for the carnal mind is enmity against God, especially against his holiness.

MacArthur adds something else on unbelief, terror and amazement:

When sinners come to a true understanding of the person of Christ, when sinners come to a true understanding of the authority of Christ as the Son of God, they are also terrified. And terrified sinners tend to run in holy fear to Christ for forgiveness and grace, something demons cannot do. They were terrified and could not be saved. The people were amazed and would not be saved. So the amazed people and the terrified demons end up in the same hell.

Jesus rebuked the demon, saying (verse 25), ‘Be silent, and come out of him!’

And the unclean spirit came out crying with a loud voice, convulsing the man in the process (verse 26).

Of the convulsion, MacArthur says:

… the demon wants to stay. He wants to hold that soul captive for hell. And so he protests, verse 26, by throwing the man into convulsions, sparassō in the Greek, to agitate greatly, convulse, distort by convulsions or seizures. Throwing him into convulsions, the unclean spirit screamed with a loud voice, came out of him. A final protest, but necessary obedience. The power makes them scream, just like the truth makes them scream, just like the purity makes them scream. Whenever they are confronted by Christ, they’re terrified because they have reason to be terrified.

But the demon makes a final statement by slamming the man around in convulsions. Reminds me of Matthew 17. They came to a crowd, a man came up to Jesus, verse 14, falling on his knees before Him and said, “Lord, have mercy on my son, he’s a lunatic, very ill. Falls into the fire, into the water.” This is a demon-possessed boy, the demon slams him into the water to drown him, throws him into the fire to burn him. And Jesus answered and said – because the disciples couldn’t cure him, [Jesus] said – “You unbelieving and perverted generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring him here to me.”

Jesus rebuked him and the demon came out of him and the boy was cured at once. Does He have power to wrest souls out of the kingdom of darkness? Absolutely.

Henry discusses the unclean spirit’s exit and the man’s convulsion:

The victory which Jesus Christ obtained over the unclean spirit; for this purpose was the Son of God manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil, and so he makes it to appear; nor will he be turned back from prosecuting this war, either by his flatteries or by his menaces. It is in vain for Satan to beg and pray, Let us alone; his power must be broken, and the poor man must be relieved; and therefore, (1.) Jesus commands. As he taught, so he healed, with authority. Jesus rebuked him; he chid him and threatened him, imposed silence upon him; Hold thy peace; phimotheti—be muzzled. Christ has a muzzle for that unclean spirit when he fawns as well as when he barks; such acknowledgments of him as this was, Christ disdains, so far is he from accepting them. Some confess Christ to be the holy One of God, that under the cloak of that profession they may carry on malicious mischievous designs; but their confession is doubly an abomination to the Lord Jesus, as it sues in his name for a license to sin, and shall therefore be put to silence and shame. But this is not all, he must not only hold his peace, but he must come out of the man; this was it he dreaded—his being restrained from doing further mischief. But, (2.) The unclean spirit yields, for there is no remedy (v. 26); He tore him, put him into a strong convulsion; that one could have thought he had been pulled in pieces; when he would not touch Christ, in fury at him he grievously disturbed this poor creature.

Henry adds that the process can be similar when an aggrieved sinner comes to believe in Christ:

Thus, when Christ by his grace delivers poor souls out of the hands of Satan, it is not without a grievous toss and tumult in the soul; for that spiteful enemy will disquiet those whom he cannot destroy. He cried with a loud voice, to frighten the spectators, and make himself seem terrible, as if he would have it thought that though he was conquered, he was but just conquered, and that he hopes to rally again, and recover his ground.

MacArthur says that this violent inner struggle is referenced in the New Testament. We don’t convulse necessarily when converted, but there is often a deep inner psychological struggle:

Matthew 11:12 says, “The Kingdom of God suffers violence.”

One of the reasons that there was such a violent move to come into the Kingdom, because you had to fight against your own flesh, your own fallenness, your own pride. You had to be willing to crucify yourself. You had to be willing to take up your cross, as it were, follow Christ. You had to be willing to obey Him, deny yourself. And then you had to hack your way through demon resistance. The Kingdom suffers violence, often the violence was the violent struggle, fierce struggle with demon powers.

The congregation in the synagogue were all amazed and kept asking one another, ‘What is this? A new teaching–with authority! He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him’ (verse 27).

Henry says that the Jewish exorcists operated differently:

The Jewish exorcists pretended by charm or invocation to drive away evil spirits; but this was quite another thing, with authority he commands them. Surely it is our interest to make him our Friend, who has the control of infernal spirits.

At once — Mark’s Gospel is known for terms that express immediacy — our Lord’s fame began to spread throughout the surrounding region of Galilee (verse 28).

Henry elaborates:

Immediately his fame spread abroad into the whole adjacent region of Galilee, which was a third part of the land of Canaan. The story was presently got into every one’s mouth, and people wrote it to their friends all the country over, together with the remark made upon it, What new doctrine is this? So that it was universally concluded, that he was a Teacher come from God, and under that character he shone more bright than if he had appeared in all the external pomp and power which the Jews expected their Messiah to appear in; and thus he prepared his own way, now that John, who was his harbinger, was clapped up; and the fame of this miracle spread the further, because as yet the Pharisees, who envied his fame, and laboured to eclipse it, had not advanced their blasphemous suggestion, that he cast out devils by compact with the prince of the devils.

However, MacArthur sounds a note of caution about amazement, especially as Jesus later left Capernaum for good and cursed the city (Matthew 11:20-24):

“Immediately,” verse 28 says, “the news about Him spread everywhere into all the surrounding district of Galilee.” And that was just the start. Go down to verse 39, “He went into their synagogues throughout all Galilee, preaching and casting out the demons.” He put on a power display that was shocking. Tragedy was, again, people were always amazed and went to the same hell the terrified demons will occupy forever.

The demons knew who He was and couldn’t be saved. The people didn’t believe He was who He claimed to be and wouldn’t be saved. What is necessary is a combination of both. You need to be amazed and terrified. Amazed at such a Savior and terrified at such a judge.

MacArthur has this to say about demons:

Now, I want you to get something in mind. This is an important thing to understand. The demons do not attack Jesus during His ministry, they attack souls of sinners. They’ve always done that. They will always do that. They don’t attack Jesus. Jesus attacks them just by showing up, they panic. They are terrified. They blow their cover. They can’t restrain their fear because while to us they are invisible, they know to Him they are not invisible. And when in His presence, they are fully aware that He recognizes them, and they must therefore scream because of the terror that grips their wicked souls.

The demon in this man is a representative of the demon dread that exists in all demons when confronted by Jesus. So this is not an illustration of Jesus going through His ministry attacking demons. Demons are always there. They’re around now. They were around before. They will be around until the Lord comes and throws them all in the Lake of Fire at the end of the time of the Millennial Kingdom. But they’re always around – but they don’t always blow their cover.

Now remember, Satan is an angel of light and all his ministers are disguised as angels of light. They want to hide in religion. The last thing a demon wanted to do was to reveal himself in a synagogue because the whole idea of being an angel of light is covering yourself in a religious environment. In every false religion, demons dwell. To one degree or another, they possess, oppress, obsess – whatever – people. False teachers are demonized, spouting doctrines of demons by supernatural demonic power.

False teachers are in the domain of Satan. False adherence are in the domain of Satan. Demons go to church. They attend every religious service. If you were to go to the Mormon meeting, this is in the kingdom of Satan, this is controlled by demons, but you wouldn’t see demons shouting because they wouldn’t reveal themselves. They’re hidden in their false religion. But Jesus exposes them by simply showing up, and they can’t restrain their terror.

This one incident is also recorded in Luke 4:31 to 37, and it answers this very important basic question as to whether the Son of God can save sinners from Satan’s kingdom. And the answer is He has complete power already over Satan and also, as illustrated here, over demons. Can He transfer sinners from the domain of darkness into the Kingdom of His own power? Can He do that as Colossians 1:13 puts it? Can He take them out of the kingdom of darkness into the domain of light? Can He overwhelm Satan who has held sinners captive all their life long, according to Hebrews 2:14 and 15?

John 8:44, Jesus said, “You are of your father, the devil.” 1 John 5:19, “The whole world lies in the lap of the evil one.” Second Corinthians 4:3 and 4, “The God of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving.” Ephesians 2, “All unbelievers are under the control of the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that works in the sons of disobedience.” And in Acts 26:18, it is said that salvation turns one from the domain of Satan to God.

Now, if sinners therefore are to be liberated from satanic dominion, then the liberator must have power over that kingdom. Can He? Can He tear, as it were, sinners out of the clutches of demons? Well, according to 1 John 3:8, “The Son of man appeared for this purpose, that He might destroy the works of the devil.” The Son of man appeared for this purpose, that He might destroy the works of the devil.” The new King has to demonstrate His power to dethrone Satan, to rescue sinners from his power.

The need of the human race is twofold. One, we need a sacrifice for our sin. We need a substitute who will pay the penalty for our sin so we don’t have to pay the penalty. And then we need someone who has the power to rescue us from the domain of Satan. And so our Lord Jesus left the divine realm and entered this world to be the sacrifice for our sins on the cross and to demonstrate His power to destroy the grip of Satan and demons and rescue sinners.

Ultimately:

What makes demons scream is the authority of Christ. It terrifies them. And it should terrify you as well. It should terrify sinners the way it terrifies demons. The difference is sinners don’t understand the reality of their doom; demons do. It’s not enough to be amazed by Jesus. The amazed people and the terrified demons will spend forever in the same Lake of Fire. Jesus doesn’t want your astonishment. He doesn’t want your amazement. He wants your fear. He wants you to fear Him as judge and then run to Him as Savior.

Something to think about during the week ahead.

May all reading this have a blessed Sunday.

Third Sunday after Epiphany — Year B — exegesis on the Gospel, Mark 1:14-20

The Third Sunday after Epiphany is January 21, 2024.

Readings for Year B can be found here.

The Gospel is as follows (emphases mine):

Mark 1:14-20

1:14 Now after John was arrested, Jesus came to Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God,

1:15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news.”

1:16 As Jesus passed along the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and his brother Andrew casting a net into the sea–for they were fishermen.

1:17 And Jesus said to them, “Follow me and I will make you fish for people.”

1:18 And immediately they left their nets and followed him.

1:19 As he went a little farther, he saw James son of Zebedee and his brother John, who were in their boat mending the nets.

1:20 Immediately he called them; and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired men, and followed him.

Commentary comes from Matthew Henry and John MacArthur.

Two weeks ago, on the First Sunday after Epiphany (Year B), we had Mark’s account of our Lord’s baptism, Mark 1:4-11.

Mark then covered what happened immediately afterwards in two verses:

¹² At once the Spirit sent him out into the wilderness, ¹³ and he was in the wilderness for forty days, being tempted^[g] by Satan. He was with the wild animals, and angels attended him.

Both our commentators point us to John’s Gospel to find out what happened after the temptation and our Lord’s arrival in Galilee.

Matthew Henry says:

Here is, I. A general account of Christ’s preaching in Galilee. John gives an account of his preaching in Judea, before this (ch. 2 and 3.), which the other evangelists had omitted …

The other Gospel writers omitted those events because John was the only Gospel writer who was there at the time. Matthew’s calling came after John’s.

John MacArthur adds:

And Mark skipped the movement of Jesus when He left Judea and went north through Samaria, as recorded in John 4, encountered the Samaritan woman and disclosed Himself as the Messiah to this half-breed, outcast woman. And Mark picks up the ministry when Jesus finally arrives in Galilee, so many events and much time has passed between the temptation of Christ and the Galilee ministry.

We get to some of these passages from John 2 through John 4 later in Year B and in other Lectionary years. They include the miracle at Cana, the first driving away of money changers from the temple, our Lord’s encounter with Nicodemus and His meeting with the Samaritan woman at the well.

MacArthur explains the brevity of Mark’s Gospel, which, incidentally, was written for the Romans:

And the question comes, why does Mark pull these things together the way He does? Why these brief little vignettes almost? And the answer is because Mark is endeavoring to establish something for us. We now know that Jesus is the new King. This is the book that is written, verse 1 says, to be the gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God. It is the annunciation that the new King has arrived, God’s King, the anointed one, the Messiah, the Savior, the Son of God, Jesus Christ has come. This is His story.

And as the story begins, all Mark wants to do is get the groundwork laid down. The first important thing that happens to Christ is His baptism. This is His coronation as the new King from heaven. The Father says, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” The Holy spirit descends, settles upon Him, empowers Him, fills Him for the rest of His life, and the Holy Spirit becomes the intermediary between His divine nature and His human nature so that the two are blended together by the power of the Holy Spirit. He is now Spirit-empowered. He is now granted divine authority. This is His crowning, this is His coronation, this is His inauguration.

What comes out of that is His authority. Mark then immediately wants to demonstrate that authority … He demonstrates the authority of Christ over three realms. One, over Satan and his realm. Two, over sin and its dominion. Three, over sinners. It is important for us to know that if the new King is going to take His throne, if the new King is going to reign, if the new King is going to overthrow the usurper, the temporary king, Satan himself, and if the King is going to conquer Satan and sin and sinners, He has to demonstrate the power to do that.

And so that’s where Mark establishes His authority. First in His temptation, His authority over Satan becomes clear. And then in His preaching, His authority over sin becomes clear because He preaches the good news that if you repent and believe, you will be forgiven and enter His Kingdom. He can overpower and will overpower Satan. He can overpower and will overpower sin.

And thirdly, He can and will overpower the souls of sinners, and that is illustrated in the fact that out of nowhere, He approaches four men and lays a command on them, which they immediately and instantly obey – at immense cost and sacrifice to them. So this is what is established in these three little paragraphs.

Now on to today’s reading.

After John the Baptist was arrested, Jesus came to Galilee proclaiming the good news of God (verse 14).

Henry gives us an overview of the verse:

Observe,

1. When Jesus began to preach in Galilee; After that John was put in prison. When he had finished his testimony, then Jesus began his. Note, The silencing of Christ’s ministers shall not be the suppressing of Christ’s gospel; if some be laid aside, others shall be raised up, perhaps mightier than they, to carry on the same work.

2. What he preached; The gospel of the kingdom of God. Christ came to set up the kingdom of God among men, that they might be brought into subjection to it, and might obtain salvation in it; and he set it up by the preaching of his gospel, and a power going along with it.

MacArthur gives us the timeline between the time of our Lord’s baptism and His arrival in Galilee:

… time has passed. His baptism is long behind Him, many, many months behind Him. He has been in Judea, cleansing the temple, ministering there. And now He has finally gone to Galilee. But He doesn’t really launch His ministry there until after John has been taken into custody. Six months or more after Jesus’ baptism, John was arrested by Herod. A year later, his head was chopped off.

It was after John was taken into custody that Jesus came into Galilee. Prior to that, John was still baptizing in the Jordan, and Jesus was ministering in Judea, and their two ministries overlapped. You read about the overlap in John 1, 2, and 3, the gospel of John. And you will hear John the Baptist say, “I must decrease, He must increase,” and God saw to that by taking him off the scene, having him arrested. The story of John the Baptist’s arrest is a fascinating one, and Mark will tell it in chapter 6 …

But he makes no comment on that here because he’s following Jesus and the ministry of Jesus. So Mark skips the early ministry of Jesus in Judea, Mark skips His transit across Samaria and has Him end up finally in Galilee. And so, he says, Jesus came into Galilee preaching the gospel of God. Galilee was the northern part of the land of Israel, the hinterlands, the outskirts, far from the religious center in Jerusalem. The fact that Jesus really launched His ministry in full power there was a testimony to the apostasy of the core, the corruption of Jerusalem.

MacArthur explains ‘the good news of God’, which in his version is ‘the gospel of God’:

… please notice the simplicity of subject, preaching the gospel of God. Somebody said God only had one Son, and He was a preacher. God had one method, and that was preaching. Preaching of the cross is to them that perish, foolishness; to those who believe, it is the power of God. Preaching is the means that God ordained, proclamation, heralding the good news. And what is the good news? The gospel of God he calls it, the good news of salvation. What do you mean the gospel of God? I thought it was the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. Well, it is.

It is the gospel about the Lord Jesus Christ, but it is the gospel of God in the sense that God is the source of it. The gospel from God. It is not the idea that the gospel is about God, although certainly it is about Him and about His manifestation in Christ, but it is the gospel that comes from God about Jesus Christ. The gospel of God is a common New Testament term. Romans 1:1, Romans 15:16, 2 Corinthians 11:7, 1 Thessalonians 2:2, 8, and 9, 1 Peter 4:17 refer to the gospel of God.

Jesus said, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news’ (verse 15).

Note that Jesus did not preach a socio-political gospel, which He could have done at that time with all of the inequality in that Roman-dominated Jewish society.

MacArthur says:

Jesus came preaching the good news from God. The message that we have for the world is from God. I mean how basic is that, right? So when you’re going to do ministry, what you do is you repeat the message that came from God. This is not about analyzing the culture. This is not about finding people’s psychological hot buttons. This is not about seeking people’s interest. This is not about devising a message that somehow meets with what they want. We come as heralds announcing a message from God. That’s what we do …

We don’t have a social gospel, folks. We don’t have a social gospel. There’s nothing about our gospel that is designed to relieve society’s inequities. There’s nothing about our gospel that is designed to gain us political ground. There’s nothing about our gospel that’s supposed to have any effect on people’s psychological wellbeing. We have one simple message, and faithful ministry always articulates that saving message of the gospel alone.

Henry alludes to the misplaced expectations of the Jews who did indeed want a socio-political gospel from the Messiah:

… they fondly expected the Messiah to appear in external pomp and power, not only to free the Jewish nation from the Roman yoke, but to make it have dominion over all its neighbours, and therefore thought, when that kingdom of God was at hand, they must prepare for war, and for victory and preferment, and great things in the world; but Christ tells them, in the prospect of that kingdom approaching, they must repent, and believe the gospel.

Henry explains Christ’s Gospel message of repentance, forgiveness and salvation:

They had broken the moral law, and could not be saved by a covenant of innocency, for both Jew and Gentile are concluded under guilt. They must therefore take the benefit of a covenant of grace, must submit to a remedial law, and this is it—repentance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ. They had not made use of the prescribed preservatives, and therefore must have recourse to the prescribed restoratives. By repentance we must lament and forsake our sins, and by faith we must receive the forgiveness of them. By repentance we must give glory to our Creator whom we have offended; by faith we must give glory to our Redeemer who came to save us from our sins. Both these must go together; we must not think either that reforming our lives will save us without trusting in the righteousness and grace of Christ, or that trusting in Christ will save us without the reformation of our hearts and lives. Christ hath joined these two together, and let no man think to put them asunder. They will mutually assist and befriend each other. Repentance will quicken faith, and faith will make repentance evangelical; and the sincerity of both together must be evidenced by a diligent conscientious obedience to all God’s commandments. Thus the preaching of the gospel began, and thus it continues; still the call is, Repent, and believe, and live a life of repentance and a life of faith.

Then there is the element of time, which does not refer to chronological time but rather to prophecy being fulfilled.

Henry says:

The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. This refers to the Old Testament, in which the kingdom of the Messiah was promised, and the time fixed for the introducing of it. They were not so well versed in those prophecies, nor did they so well observe the signs of the times, as to understand it themselves, and therefore Christ gives them notice of it; “The time prefixed is now at hand; glorious discoveries of divine light, life, and love, are now to be made; a new dispensation far more spiritual and heavenly than that which you have hitherto been under, is now to commence.” Note, God keeps time; when the time is fulfilled, the kingdom of God is at hand, for the vision is for an appointed time, which will be punctually observed, though it tarry past our time.

MacArthur says:

The administration of the fullness of time, it’s called in Ephesians 1:10. God’s sovereign moment. The significant hour in human history.

This is it for which the world has long waited, the most significant era in the world’s history, the arrival of the Savior who will pay the penalty for sin and thus provide salvation for all who have believed from the beginning of history to the end. The time is fulfilled. This is God’s great epochal moment. The promises of the Old Testament regarding Messiah, the promises regarding the Kingdom, the promises of salvation are about to be fulfilled. What is the message? That Christ has come not only to conquer Satan but to conquer sin – to conquer sin through the gospel.

The new King has arrived and with Him the Kingdom. The Kingdom is here because the King is here. Wherever the King is present, the Kingdom is. Jesus’ message, very simple, unmistakable: the Kingdom of God is at hand, here it is. I’m here, the Kingdom’s here.

When He was in Nazareth in Galilee, Luke 4, just after His temptation, right at this same time, goes in to the synagogue and He says, “Today this prophecy is fulfilled in your ears.” And He was talking about the Messianic prophecy from Isaiah 61. It is the message, the good news, God’s hour has come, the Kingdom is here because the King is here. How do you enter that Kingdom? Repent and believe in the gospel, writes Mark. Repent of your sin. Believe in the gospel, the good news concerning Jesus Christ.

As Jesus passed along the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon (Peter) and his brother Andrew casting a net into the sea; they were fishermen (verse 16).

MacArthur describes the Sea of Galilee:

The word sea is really much too big a word for that place. It’s kind of Semitic. It’s a lake, thirteen miles at its longest point, seven miles at its widest point. The real name of the place was Gennesaret or Kinnereth, which is a form of the word that means harp. And the reason they called it harp is it’s kind of harp-shaped. Also called the Sea of Tiberias or the Lake of Tiberias for the biggest city on the lake, which is on the western shore. But it’s a harp-shaped lake, seven hundred feet below sea level …

Sea of Galilee, by the way, was a really busy fishing place. There were at least sixteen harbors on that little lake. Sixteen harbors. Josephus commandeered 230 boats off the lake for a war called the Galilee War in 68 A.D. So there were some formidable fishing going on in that lake. It was a repository of a great amount of fish.

MacArthur tells us more about the two brothers’ names. Recall that Galilee was known for its Gentile population:

Those are very familiar Greek names. The Hebrew form of Simon is Simeon, and there’s even a use of the Hebrew form of Andrew in the Talmud, so they may have been Jewish names that got sort of Hellenized.

Jesus said to them, ‘Follow me and I will make you fish for people’ (verse 17).

I still prefer ‘fishers of men’ (verse 17), which actually includes both sexes, but we are not allowed that usage anymore.

MacArthur describes the fishing technique in that era, which is still in use today:

They were casting a net in the sea. Now, this is how they used to fish. They still do in some cases now there on the lake, casting, amphiballō, to throw around – throw around.

They had a circular net, as much as twenty feet in diameter. The perimeter of it had weights in it. They were very good at draping it over their arm in a certain fashion so that it would unfold, and with great dexterity after lots of practice, they could spin that thing and it would fly to its extremity, and it would land on the water fully unfolded and it would begin to sink on the edges, and it would capture the school of fish that they knew were in the middle. And as the weights took it down to the bottom, there was a rope also in the perimeter, the fishermen would dive to the bottom of the water, get the rope, pull the rope tight, drag the fish to the shore. That’s what they did.

Immediately, they left their nets and followed Him (verse 18).

MacArthur says that these men were not itinerant fishermen. They were well established:

There was not any other meat, it wasn’t sheep or anything else, it was fish. So there was a huge market for fish … This was a business. These weren’t day laborers. These men had a business, they were in the business of fishing. They were prominent men, as were James and John, who were in the same business, and they were partners of Peter and Andrew. We learn that later in the gospel accounts …

They had a very successful business. It may well be that these men spoke Hebrew, Aramaic, and even Greek because they had to do business on an international level. 

Some will say that Jesus already met Simon (Peter, Cephas) and Andrew, which is true. They had been followers of John the Baptist, and John the Baptist directed their attention towards Jesus, as chronicled in John 1:29-42, read on the Second Sunday of Epiphany in Year A. It ends with this:

1:40 One of the two who heard John speak and followed him was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother.

1:41 He first found his brother Simon and said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which is translated Anointed).

1:42 He brought Simon to Jesus, who looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You are to be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter).

That was the first call. This was the second. There were others, each one greater than the last. You can read more about this subject in ‘John MacArthur on our Lord’s various calls of the Apostles‘.

MacArthur discusses our Lord’s unusual call to Peter and Andrew. Peter was married, incidentally:

So Jesus comes along to them. They’ve already declared their interest in Him back with John the Baptist months before. So He said to them, “Follow me, and I’ll make you become fishers of men.” This is a command, by the way, that’s highly unusual. Rabbis didn’t do this. We have no record in all Jewish writings of a rabbi commanding people to follow him. Like the prophets, they told people to follow God, obey God, follow the law, but there’s no record they told their hearers to follow them. Some did, but Jesus does something that’s absolutely unique.

He called people to follow Him. He called them in an extreme way. He basically called them to abandon absolutely everything. In fact, this is what He said, as you’ll see in Mark 8:34 and following, “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross, follow me.” It’s the end of your life, drop everything, follow me, I’ll make you fishers of men. They would understand that analogy, wouldn’t they? There was one use of that in the Old Testament, Jeremiah 16:16, fishing for men, but it was with a view to judgment. This is with a view to salvation.

What is He saying to them? Drop your family business. Drop your life the way it is. Join me, let me train you to be a preacher of the gospel, a herald of the Kingdom. Here Jesus established the means by which the Kingdom will advance. He will use transformed sinners that He sovereignly identifies and sovereignly calls. This is dramatic authority, folks, solely belonging to Jesus in which He demands everything.

What is even more remarkable, verse 18, “Immediately they left their nets and followed Him.” Wow. These guys are not pushovers. Would you call Peter a pushover? I don’t think so. Did Peter have a mind of his own? I think so. They dropped everything. What was going on here? A sovereign call and a sovereign enabling. I think this is where the power of God came upon these men, and sovereignly they were moved to follow. And now Jesus has His first two, Simon and Andrew – or Peter and Andrew.

As Jesus went a little farther, he saw James son of Zebedee and his brother John (the Gospel writer) who were in their boats mending the nets (verse 19) for the next fishing trip.

John had also followed Jesus from John the Baptist’s exhortation, hence the aforementioned missing episodes from Christ’s ministry that Matthew did not experience because Jesus called him in Galilee.

Immediately, Jesus called James and John, and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired men and followed Him (verse 20).

MacArthur thinks that Zebedee must have been irked with his sons leaving him:

I think the father could be a little upset at that. Just jumped out of the boat, “We’re out of here, Dad, and we won’t be back.”

However, Henry is more sympathethic:

Perhaps it is an intimation of their care for their father; they did not leave him without assistance, they left the hired servants with him.

MacArthur discusses the names and the relationships:

James is the Greek form of Jacob. John is the Greek form of Johanan. Zebedee of Zebediah, the Hebrew of that. Zebedee was married to Salome who may well have been a sister to Mary, the mother of Jesus. James and John were in partnership with their dad, with Simon and Andrew, according to Luke 5:10. So they were in the same business.

MacArthur has more about these initial apostolic calls from Jesus:

Go over to chapter 2, verse 14, “As Jesus passed by, He saw Levi the son of Alphaeus” – otherwise known as Matthew – “sitting in the tax booth and He said to him, ‘Follow me,’ and he got up and followed Him.” And that’s the way it was with all of them. Amazing, sudden, drop-everything, instantaneous obedience. Really shocking …

And by the time you get to chapter 3, verse 13 and following, you get all twelve of them in place.

MacArthur mentions the later call at the Last Supper, once Judas had left:

And, of course, behind this is the words of Jesus in John 15:16, “You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and then called you and then empowered you to follow me.”

MacArthur discusses the lessons here for ministry, beginning with Christ’s calls:

He had power over Satan, He had power over sin, and He had power over sinners to call them to Himself. And what we learn about ministry is that what matters is sanctity of soul, simplicity of subject, and selectivity of successors … We need to do the same.

I will tell you this, folks. Nothing has been more important in my entire life of ministry than surrounding myself with the right men. That’s how the Kingdom advances. And I’ve always tried to work on the principle of 2 Timothy 2. Second Timothy 2, Paul says, “The things you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” Paul says, “I had the truth, I gave it to you, Timothy. You give it to faithful men who are able to teach others also.” Paul to Timothy, to faithful men, to others also.

But the key is this: Entrust these things to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. So you’re looking for the faithful and the able. The ministry advances through the faithful and the able. Faithful speaks of their character, and able speaks of their giftedness. The Kingdom advances when we are both faithful and able to proclaim the truth.

Here’s the model for ministry: Sanctified heart, overcoming sin and temptation, commitment to the singularity of the glorious message of the gospel that has come to us from God through the pages of Scripture concerning Christ, and selectivity of successors, choosing carefully who you surround yourself with so that you can multiply and extend your ministry on and on.

That’s how our Lord did it. At the same time, demonstrated His power over Satan, sin, and His power even to sovereignly call and transform sinners. He is the King, and the King has given us a strategy for following Him.

May all reading this enjoy a blessed Sunday — despite the cold weather in the Northern Hemisphere at the moment.

The First Sunday after Epiphany, Year B — Baptism of the Lord — exegesis on the Gospel, Mark 1:4-11

The First Sunday after Epiphany is January 7, 2024.

Readings for Year B can be found here.

The Gospel is as follows (emphases mine):

Mark 1:4-11

1:4 John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

1:5 And people from the whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem were going out to him, and were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

1:6 Now John was clothed with camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey.

1:7 He proclaimed, “The one who is more powerful than I is coming after me; I am not worthy to stoop down and untie the thong of his sandals.

1:8 I have baptized you with water; but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

1:9 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.

1:10 And just as he was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove on him.

1:11 And a voice came from heaven, “You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.”

Commentary comes from Matthew Henry and John MacArthur.

Mark 1:1-8 is the Gospel reading for the Second Sunday of Advent in Year B, the exegesis for which is here. That post explains that John the Baptist took a lifelong Nazirite vow to not cut his hair or take strong drink and to live a simple, holy life. There were only two other men in the Bible to live under such a vow: Samuel and Samson.

Picking up in verse 9, Mark tells us that ‘in those days’ Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptised by John in the Jordan.

John MacArthur explains the significance of ‘in those days’:

Verse 9, “In those days.” What days? The days of the ministry of John the Baptist, delineated in verses 2 through 8, “In those days which John was preaching in the wilderness by the Jordan, Jesus came – came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.”

Now remember, Mark is writing from Rome to Romans, mostly gentiles, who would be the initial readers and hearers of this gospel, so he identifies Galilee. Galilee is Galilee of the gentiles. I don’t know if you know the history of Galilee. It was originally, of course, part of the land conquered by Joshua around the eighth century, I think – it was about then – it was invaded by the Assyrians, yes. And when it was invaded by the Assyrians, obviously they deported the Jews and many gentiles came to live there …

So by the time you get to the ministry of John the Baptist, there are just a lot of gentiles in that area. That’s why it’s called Galilee of the gentiles. In fact, it was hated or treated with scorn and disdain by the Jews. One of the things that was said concerning Peter in Mark 14:70 was, “Isn’t he a Galilean?” There was nothing but scorn for Galilee. In fact, the further you were from Jerusalem, the more disdain they had for you, and this was a long, long way from Jerusalem. It was out on the fringes where the unclean people lived.

In John 7, verse 40, some of the people said when they heard these words, “This certainly is the prophet.” Others were saying, “This is the Christ.” Still others were saying, “Surely the Christ isn’t going to come from Galilee, is He?” It would be unthinkable for the Messiah to come from Galilee, Galilee of the gentiles, that scorned place. And yet did they forget Isaiah 9, “There will be no more gloom for her who was in anguish. In earlier times he treated the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali with contempt, but later on He shall make it glorious by the way of the sea on the other side of Jordan, Galilee of the gentiles. The people who walk in darkness will see a great light, the light will shine on them.”

That’s the Messianic prophecy, that the Messiah would come from Galilee of the gentiles, Messiah would come from the land of Zebulun and Naphtali. This is Galilee, northern part of Israel. And the town is Nazareth, so obscure it has to be named and it has to be located into Galilee. If you said Jesus came from Nazareth, nobody would know where it was. Nazareth in Galilee because Nazareth is not known. There is no place in any existing Jewish literature, ancient Jewish literature, where Nazareth is ever mentioned. It’s not in Josephus, it’s not in the Talmud, it’s not in the Old Testament, most obscure no-place place.

And for the Jews, proximity to Jerusalem was everything. The assumption was Messiah would come from Jerusalem, the temple is there, but the head, you know, the core, Jerusalem was corrupt, apostate. So the prophets said the Messiah will come from the fringes. The Messiah will come from the outskirts. He’ll come far at the most remote place from the religious establishment that is apostate. This in itself is a commentary on the corruption of Judaism at the time. And so He came and was baptized by John in the Jordan.

MacArthur tells us about the Jordan:

Just a word about the Jordan. You may have idyllic visions of the Jordan River, this mighty river. No. Jordan River is 105 miles long if you just fly down the Jordan. If you float, it’s 200 miles like that. Ten feet deep. At the widest, 100 feet across. “River” is stretching the word.

But it was there, away again from Jerusalem, in the wilderness, away from civilization because the center was so polluted. But John was baptizing as he had been commanded by God and Jesus came to be baptized.

Matthew Henry reminds us that this was our Lord’s first public appearance as an adult:

His baptism, which was his first public appearance, after he had long lived obscurely in Nazareth. O how much hidden worth is there, which in this world is either lost in the dust of contempt and cannot be known, or wrapped up in the veil of humility and will not be known! But sooner or later it shall be known, as Christ’s was.

MacArthur sets the scene for us:

Mark jumps into the history of Jesus at our Lord’s first public event, His first public appearance, and His first public appearance is His baptism … According to Luke 3:23, our Lord is about 30 years of age by this time …

By the time the Lord arrived for His baptism, John the Baptist had been preaching for about six months, as best we can discern. Moving up and down the Jordan valley, from the north to the south, baptizing all the people who were flooding out of Judea and Jerusalem to come to him, he was preaching repentance and the confession of sin for heart cleansing, symbolized in a baptism, in order that people might escape the wrath that was to come upon Messiah’s arrival and enter into the blessing of His Kingdom.

His message was a message of judgment, a message of wrath, fiery judgment, and he warned the people that they had to escape that judgment that Messiah would bring and enter into His Kingdom, and the only way was to repent and confess their sins. So he was preaching repentance and confession for about six months, calling people to prepare for the Messiah and to prepare to go into His Kingdom and not be judged by Him.

One summer day, likely, maybe in the year 26 A.D., among the crowds that are pouring out to John, is Jesus. This is the only time in the New Testament we ever see Jesus and John together – the only time. John the Baptist, as I said, has been preaching repentance for six months. He is well known in the land of Israel for this ministry. Everybody knows that his baptism is a baptism for repentance and the confession of sin to escape judgment.

When Jesus arrives, at the six-month point, John still has six more months to go. It’ll be another six months that John will be preaching this same message after the baptism of Jesus. At the end of about a year, he is arrested by Herod, he is incarcerated for a period of a year, and then to satiate his wife, Herod has John’s head chopped off.

So this is the meeting of the two. This is the only one recorded in the New Testament. Though they contacted each other through their disciples, there is no other indication they had met. But this meeting is monumental.

In my exegesis on Mark 1:1-8, I cited John MacArthur’s explanation of the Greek word euagglion, which means ‘of the gospel’, gospel meaning ‘good news’. In the ancient world, euagglion did not have a theological meaning. It meant that a new ruler was on the way. New rulers represented good news in that they were proclaimed as the person to bring peace to a nation.

On the face of it, we would say that Jesus had no need at all of being baptised. Furthermore, in other accounts of His baptism, John did not want to perform it, as MacArthur reminds us:

Back to Matthew 3:14, “John tried to prevent Him, saying, ‘I have need to be baptized by you and you come to me?’” What he is saying is this: I’m a sinner, I need to be baptized by you, you don’t need to be baptized by me. All the pronouns there are emphatic in that, in the original. I have need to be baptized by you, you don’t need to be baptized by me. John’s treatment of Jesus is the very opposite of his treatment of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.

If you back up into Matthew 3:7, when He saw the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, He said to them, “You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bear fruit in keeping with repentance.” He said, “You need to repent, and you need to repent with a genuine honest repentance that manifests itself in the fruit of repentance, you snakes.” And Jesus is in a very different category. He refused to baptize the Pharisees and the Sadducees because of their sin and impenitence. He refuses to baptize Jesus because of His sinlessness. Jesus towered above the Pharisees and the Sadducees. John knew it.

In the gospel of John chapter 1, it is John who says, “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” …

John is saying this: “You need no repentance. You need no baptism of repentance, this is a baptism for sinners. You’re not in that category.”

This is one of the greatest affirmations of the sinlessness of Christ on the pages of the gospels. John is saying Jesus is holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners. Hebrews 4:15, “He may have been tempted in all points like as we are, all through those 30 years, at all chronological points but without sin” – without sin. Mark it, the revelation of Scripture is clear in this amazing, strange incident which wouldn’t have been invented by anybody who wanted to make Jesus look good that John is affirming the sinlessness of Jesus. He doesn’t need repentance.

Recall that John and Jesus were relatives, probably cousins, because after the Annunciation, Mary went to see John’s mother, Elizabeth, who was six months pregnant with him at the time. We do not know how often the women met when their sons were growing up or how often the boys saw each other, but MacArthur returns us to John 1 where John the Baptist did not recognise Jesus:

… in verse 31 he says, “I didn’t recognize Him at first.” I think he knew of Jesus and he knew that Jesus, the son of Mary, was the Son of God, the holy child. I think he had full information of that, most likely he knew that. He just didn’t know what Jesus looked like, which is an indication that they hadn’t been together. He didn’t recognize Him. “But so that He might be manifested to Israel, I came baptizing in water. I came baptizing and announcing the arrival of the Messiah. I knew who He was but I didn’t know what He looked like. I couldn’t recognize Him.”

John the Baptiser, as Mark calls him, was our Lord’s herald. Every new monarch or emperor had a herald announcing his arrival before a coronation took place.

MacArthur tells us that John’s baptism of Jesus was His coronation:

This meeting has significance that is sweeping and far-reaching because on this occasion of their meeting, there is the coronation of the new King. Remember I told you that in the gentile world, as well as the Jewish world, the word euaggelion, the word gospel had to do with the ascent of a king, the accession of a king to his throne. And Mark is writing about God’s great King, the new King who is coming, who will declare a new era for the world. This is His coronation.

Matthew tells us that Jesus insisted that John baptise Him:

… let’s go back to Matthew 3 and see what He said. “Jesus answering said to him, ‘Permit it at this time.’” Permit it at this time. It’s idiomatic. He’s saying, “Stop, John, stop hindering me, yield to me this time. It is unusual but it is necessary, allow it now,” idiomatic. Yield to me at this time. This is a special time. Stop the hindering. “Permit it at this time for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” There’s the reason right there. It is fitting for us. It is proper for us. It is necessary for us to fulfill all righteousness. When John heard that, it says, then he permitted it.

What does this mean, “to fulfill all righteousness”? To do everything that was righteous. To do absolutely everything that God required. Did John baptize because God required it? Yes. I just read you John 1:33, “He who sent me to baptize in water said to me” – He’s referring to God. God had given him His message and God had given him this symbolic responsibility. This is God’s will. Jesus says, “If this is what God commands, then I as a man must do what God commands. Regardless of the fact that I am holy, I will be obedient.”

And this is one of the most wonderful insights into the absolutely comprehensive and complete obedience of Christ to the will of God. If God said this is to be done, then I will do this. It is that perfect obedience of Christ that is imputed to you and to me when we put our trust in Him. It’s what’s called His active righteousness. I’ve said this in connection with 2 Corinthians 5:21, “He who knew no sin became sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” Two things are working there. God puts our sin on Him, God puts His righteousness on us …

When God looks at the cross, He sees you bearing the weight of sin. When He looks at you, He sees Christ covering you with his righteousness. He did everything that God said to be done because He was perfectly righteous, perfectly obedient, and it is that perfectly righteous life that has been credited to your account as if you lived it. That’s what justification means.

But there’s a second aspect of it – a second aspect that I think is pictured here beautifully. There was another way in which Jesus fulfilled all righteousness, not only active by His obedience but passively by His death. Righteousness required His death, did it not? The righteousness of God demanded the death that Jesus died. Righteousness demands a penalty to be paid. Righteousness upholds the law, the law must be satisfied, sin must be punished. And Christ, in being baptized then, symbolically identifies with sinners as He would on the cross.

“John,” Jesus is saying, “let me be baptized. I have undertaken a solemn resolution to bear the sin and the guilt of sinners for whom I will die.” He is indeed the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. He must be baptized to satisfy the requirement of His active righteousness and His passive righteousness as well. And then John baptized Him …

And He was baptized secondarily because it was symbolic, I think, of going through the river of death, bearing the sins of His people.

Jesus was fully immersed in the Jordan because, ‘just as He was coming up out of the water’, He saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove on Him (verse 10).

Henry offers this analysis:

1. See how humbly he owned God, by coming to be baptized of John; and thus it became him to fulfil all righteousness. Thus he took upon him the likeness of sinful flesh, that, though he was perfectly pure and unspotted, yet he was washed as if he had been polluted; and thus for our sakes he sanctified himself, that we also might be sanctified, and be baptized with him, John 17 19.

2. See how honourably God owned him, when he submitted to John’s baptism. Those who justify God, and they are said to do, who were baptized with the baptism of John, he will glorify, Luke 7 29, 30.

(1.) He saw the heavens opened; thus he was owned to be the Lord from heaven, and had a glimpse of the glory and joy that were set before him, and secured to him, as the recompence of his undertaking. Matthew saith, The heavens were opened to him. Mark saith, He saw them opened. Many have the heavens opened to receive them, but they do not see it; Christ had not only a clear foresight of his sufferings, but of his glory too.

(2.) He saw the Spirit like a dove descending upon him. Note, Then we may see heaven opened to us, when we perceive the Spirit descending and working upon us. God’s good work in us is the surest evidence of his good will towards us, and his preparations for us. Justin Martyr says, that when Christ was baptized, a fire was kindled in Jordan: and it is an ancient tradition, that a great light shone round the place; for the Spirit brings both light and heat.

MacArthur tells us what baptism means in Greek:

Baptizō means to immerse into water, Jesus was immersed, the symbol of the washing away of the old and purification that leads to newness, He was baptized …

Luke adds, Luke 3:21, “while He was praying” – Jesus was in communion with the Father the whole time – “coming up out of the water,” which is an indication that He was immersed. It doesn’t mean He walked up on the riverbank, it means He came up out of the water.

MacArthur impresses upon us the importance of the heavens being torn apart at that moment, something everyone present would have seen:

Let’s look at the anointing by the Holy Spirit. “Immediately coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened.” This is not a vision, by the way, folks, this is not a vision. We know it’s not a vision because … John 1:32 and following … John says, “I saw it. I saw it. I saw the Spirit descend, I saw it.”

And there’s no reason to think that others didn’t see it as well. It’s not a vision, it’s a visible reality, in contrast, for example, to the vision of Ezekiel 1. He saw the heavens opening. This is a signal of God breaking into time and space. I mean, this is huge. Now, remember, God hasn’t spoken in four hundred years. Four hundred years of divine silence until an angel comes and talks to Zacharias and Elizabeth. And another angel comes and talks to Joseph and Mary, but none of that is public. The heavens have been closed for four hundred years. And now they split.

He saw the heavens opening, and Mark uses a verb that Matthew and Luke do not use, schizō which means to rip. It’s dramatic, the heavens rip open. It’s only used one other time in the New Testament, when the veil in the temple at the death of Christ was ripped from top to bottom. This is so significant because Isaiah has been talking about the coming of Messiah, the coming of Messiah through the 40 chapters and the 50 chapters, and when you come to chapter 64, here’s the cry of the people, here’s the cry of the prophet’s heart, “O, that” – this is Isaiah 64:1. “O, that you would rip the heavens and come down.”

They were waiting for that, that God would rip open the heavens and come down and make His name known. This is anticipation of Messiah. The day is going to come when the silent heavens are going to rip open and God is going to come. The text of Isaiah 64 is a cry for God to do just that, break into history. And the Jews saw that text as evidences that Messiah would come and heaven would split open and down would come God …

Contrast the heavens ripping open with the gentleness of the Holy Spirit’s appearance as if He were a dove:

Heaven rips open and you might think of something violent happening, something crashing down, but the Spirit like a dove descends upon Him.

Now, first of all, folks, this isn’t saying the Holy Spirit is a dove … The Holy Spirit is not a dove. That’s not what it’s saying. It simply says the Holy Spirit descended visibly – visibly. Luke says, think it’s chapter 3, maybe verse 21 or so, in bodily form, in some visible form, He descended like a dove. The question is not why is He a dove, the question is how does a dove descend. You understand the difference?

A dove doesn’t come crashing down. The dove is the gentlest, according to one text of Scripture, the gentlest of the birds. It comes down lightly, delicately, and rests in its place. That’s how the Holy Spirit came. That’s all it’s saying. It isn’t saying the Holy Spirit is a dove. The Holy Spirit is nowhere pictured as a dove. You don’t have to connect it with the dove that Noah sent out of the ark, like many commentators try to do, which is impossible. A dove is a very gentle, beautiful, delicate bird, and the Spirit came down in some visible form with the same kind of gentleness and beauty which is displayed when a little dove lands softly.

The Holy Spirit’s presence is essential here. The Gospel for the Fourth Sunday of Advent in Year B — this liturgical year — was Luke 1:26-38 (see parts 1 and 2 of the exegesis). This is the story of the Annunciation, with the Archangel Gabriel announcing to Mary that she would bear Jesus:

1:35 The angel said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God.

MacArthur calls Isaiah’s prophecy to our attention here:

Isaiah made it very clear that when the Messiah comes, He will be empowered by the Holy Spirit. So this is confirmation that Jesus is the Messiah because here comes the Spirit. Listen to Isaiah 11:1, “A shoot will spring from the stem of Jesse,” that’s the father of David, out of David’s line, “A branch from his roots will bear fruit.” That’s the Messiah coming through Jesse’s line through David. “The Spirit of the Lord will rest on Him.” Messianic prophecy. Thirty-second chapter of Isaiah in the fifteenth verse, “Until the Spirit is poured out upon us from on high.” They knew that when the Messianic Kingdom comes, when Messianic glory arrives, it will be with the full power of the Holy Spirit.

Listen to 42:1, Isaiah 42:1, “Behold my Servant, whom I uphold, my Chosen One whom my soul delights, I have put my Spirit upon Him.” Those are prophecies. The Messiah would have the full presence power of the Holy Spirit. In John 3:34 it says this, that God gave Jesus the Spirit – this is the key phrase – without measure – without measure, without limit. That’s not true of everybody else. Everybody else has the Spirit in measure. Even the New Testament says that even those of us living in the age of the Holy Spirit receive a measure of the Spirit.

But He received the Spirit without measure, the full presence, the full power of the Holy Spirit came down and rested on Him.

We neglect the power of the Holy Spirit to our spiritual peril. Sadly, we do not hear enough about the Holy Spirit in church or in religious courses, be they for children or for adults.

It is essential to know how the Holy Spirit worked throughout our Lord’s life.

MacArthur reminds us:

His whole life was controlled by the Spirit. At the risk of over-simplifying something that is profoundly mysterious and beyond the grasp of all of us, let me see if I can give you a way to understand it. You have the Man Jesus here, you have the Son of God, eternal deity here, and that which is deity is conveyed to the man which is humanity through the means of the Holy Spirit.

As it says, He grew in wisdom and stature and favor with God and man, it was the Holy Spirit dispensing to the man, Jesus, the developing realities of truth that matured Him. That’s how you have to understand it. The Holy Spirit is the mediator between deity and humanity. John Owen makes the point that His divine nature did not directly communicate anything at all to the human Jesus. His divine nature did not communicate anything directly to the human Jesus, it all went through the mediation of the Holy Spirit, part of His self-emptying.

Through the Holy Spirit, divine power came, understanding came, enlightenment came, revelation came, so that His human nature was under the full control of the Holy Spirit, so that everything He did, He did in the power of the Spirit.

George Smeaton, a nineteenth century Scottish theologian, says we must ascribe to the Spirit all the progress in Christ’s mental and spiritual development, all His advancement and knowledge and holiness. The Spirit was given to Him in consequence of the personal union in a measure which no man could possess, constituting the link between deity and humanity, perpetually imparting the full consciousness of His personality and making Him inwardly aware of His divine Sonship at all times. This is the great mystery that always must be considered.

All Jesus’ works, all His words were mediated by means of the Holy Spirit from His deity to His humanity, so that in Matthew 12 when the Jews said, “You do what you do and say what you say by the power of Satan,” remember that? By the power of Beelzebub. Jesus said, “You have blasphemed the Holy Spirit.” If that’s your conclusion, that all that I say and all that I do is from Satan, you have just blasphemed the Holy Spirit because it is by the Holy Spirit that I do all these things. The Holy Spirit is the means of everything, all knowledge, all action in the ministry of Jesus.

It was the Holy Spirit who led Him to preach, right? Empowered Him to preach, the gospel writers tell us. It was the Holy Spirit who led Him into the wilderness to be tempted. I love Hebrews 9:13, and this again touches the same beautiful relationship, says this: “How much more” – verse 14, Hebrews 9:14. “How much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God….”

How did Jesus get to the cross? Through the power and will of the Holy Spirit, through the eternal Spirit, He offered Himself to God as a sacrifice on the cross. In the garden, He says, “Father, let this cup pass from me.” Is there any way around this? What overpowered His humanity was the Holy Spirit. Through the eternal Spirit, He went all the way to the cross. Through the power of the Spirit, He went to the cross. Through the eternal Spirit.

When He came out of the grave, Romans 1 says, “He was declared to be the Son of God” – verse 4 – “with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness.” It was the Spirit who gave Him life. He was conceived in the womb of Mary by the Holy Spirit. It was the Holy Spirit who ministered to Him so that He grew in wisdom and favor with God and man. It was the Holy Spirit who came upon Him at His baptism, signaling that everything in His ministry would pass from deity to humanity through the agency of the Holy Spirit.

So this is divine affirmation, visual. The Old Testament says the Spirit will be on Him, and visibly it was so.

Therefore, let us never minimise the power of the Holy Spirit.

Returning to our reading, after the Holy Spirit appeared, there came a voice from heaven saying, ‘You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased’ (verse 11).

MacArthur says that there was the visible affirmation with the Holy Spirit, after which came the audible affirmation from God the Father:

… you have audible affirmation from the Father. Verse 11, “And a voice came out of the heavens, ‘You are my beloved Son, in you I am well pleased.’” When heaven was split open, God came down in the form of the Spirit and in the voice of the Father. John 8:18, Jesus said, “The Father bears witness of me.” There were many that bear witness of me, He says, but the Father’s witness is the most important of all.

And what is the Father’s testimony? “You are my beloved Son” – you are indeed the Son of God – “in you I am well pleased.” You are the holy child. No prophet ever heard that. Prophet was called friend of God like Abraham. Prophets were called man of God, they were called servant of God. No prophet was ever called a son of God. Taken from Psalm 2, verse 7, which the Jews acknowledged universally to be a Messianic Psalm. The Messiah will be the Son of God. This is at the very center of the reality of the person of Jesus Christ, and over fifty times in the gospels, He’s called Son of God.

What does it mean? It means that He’s one in essence with God, that He has the same nature as God. That’s what it means to be a Son. Pertains to His being co-equal, co-eternal. He is, in the language of Hebrews 1 – beautiful language – the radiance of God’s glory, the exact representation of God’s nature. And thus, all the angels of God worship Him. Not only is He God, but He is beloved of God, agapētos, you are the Son of my love, the Son of my love, and that carries out the connotation of the only Son.

Isaiah also prophesied this:

Isaiah 42:1 … “My chosen one in whom my soul delights,” and that’s what is intended by the final words, “In you I am well pleased.” That is the ultimate testimony to the sinless, holy perfection of the Messiah, the Son of God. You have testimony from John the Baptist of His perfection. You have tacit testimony from the Holy Spirit of His perfection. And then you have verbal testimony from the Father of His sinless perfection.

Therefore, we can conclude that our Lord’s baptism was His public and official coronation:

So you have been to the coronation. You have been to the divine inauguration of the new King, God’s sinless Son, anointed and powered by the Holy Spirit, God’s beloved and divine Son who came to save sinners and establish His Kingdom. This is His official coronation.

MacArthur also points out:

The scene, by the way, is trinitarian, right? Trinitarian, one of the great trinitarian texts in Scripture.

MacArthur reminds us that Jesus referred to His baptism when answering questions on His authority:

In closing, to understand its importance, I want you to turn to Mark 11 – Mark 11. Way into the life of Christ, closing in on His final days, the leaders of Israel find Him in the temple in verse 27, chief priests, scribes, elders, and they came to Him in verse 28, Mark 11, began saying to Him, “By what authority are you doing these things?” Or who gave you this authority to do these things? What are you talking about, what things? Healing, casting out demons, raising the dead, teaching with singular authority? Who gave you this authority? Who told you you would do this?

Jesus said to them, “I’ll ask you one question, you answer me, then I’ll tell you by what authority I do these things.” And what does He do? He takes them right back to what event? His baptism. “Was the baptism of John from heaven or from men? Answer me.” Wow. It was at the baptism – wasn’t it? – where His authority was established. It was there that the Spirit of God came, anointing Him. It was there that the Father affirmed Him verbally. It was there that He received full authority to act, authority to forgive sins, authority to heal the sick, authority to raise the dead, authority over demons, authority to determine truth and destiny.

So you tell me, was the baptism of John from heaven or from men? That occasion when that occurred, believe me, that was talked about a lot. Was it legitimate? They began reasoning among themselves saying, “If we say from heaven, He’ll say, ‘Well, then, why didn’t you believe Him?’” They’re – they’re in trouble. But verse 32, “Shall we say from men? They were afraid of the people for everyone considered John to be a real prophet. Answering Jesus, they said, ‘We do not know.’ Jesus said to them, ‘Nor will I tell you by what authority I do these things.’”

If you don’t recognize my coronation, if you don’t recognize the significance of my baptism, the discussion is over, I have nothing else to say to you. If you will not admit that John was a prophet of God, if you will not acknowledge that what happened at His baptism, the descent of the Spirit of God and the voice of God from heaven affirming me, if you will not acknowledge that, there is no other thing I can say about where my authority comes from. That’s how critical the baptism is. It started there. His authority was tested very soon by Satan.

The Spirit then sent Jesus immediately into the wilderness:

¹² At once the Spirit sent him out into the wilderness, ¹³ and he was in the wilderness for forty days, being tempted^[g] by Satan. He was with the wild animals, and angels attended him.

Our Lord’s baptism was an important and an essential event in His ministry — and a Trinitarian moment for John the Baptist and those present to witness.

May all reading this enjoy a blessed Sunday.

First Sunday of Advent, Year B — exegesis on the Gospel, Mark 13:24-37

The First Sunday of Advent is December 3, 2023.

We are now in a new Lectionary year of readings, Year B, which can be found here.

Many churches will also light the first candle on their Advent wreaths, illustrated in the photo. You can read more about Advent wreaths here.

The Gospel reading is as follows (emphases mine):

Mark 13:24-37

13:24 “But in those days, after that suffering, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light,

13:25 and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken.

13:26 Then they will see ‘the Son of Man coming in clouds’ with great power and glory.

13:27 Then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.

13:28 “From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near.

13:29 So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates.

13:30 Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place.

13:31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

13:32 “But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

13:33 Beware, keep alert; for you do not know when the time will come.

13:34 It is like a man going on a journey, when he leaves home and puts his slaves in charge, each with his work, and commands the doorkeeper to be on the watch.

13:35 Therefore, keep awake–for you do not know when the master of the house will come, in the evening, or at midnight, or at cockcrow, or at dawn,

13:36 or else he may find you asleep when he comes suddenly.

13:37 And what I say to you I say to all: Keep awake.”

Commentary comes from Matthew Henry and John MacArthur.

Over the past few Sundays, we heard read in church Matthew’s account of the second half of our Lord’s Olivet Discourse, which He delivered to His disciples on the Wednesday of Passover week before His crucifixion.

One year ago in Year A’s readings, we heard some of the first part of Matthew’s account — Matthew 24:36-44 — read on the First Sunday of Advent. Matthew’s account has the same message but told in a different way to Mark’s:

24:37 For as the days of Noah were, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.

24:38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark,

24:39 and they knew nothing until the flood came and swept them all away, so too will be the coming of the Son of Man.

24:40 Then two will be in the field; one will be taken and one will be left.

24:41 Two women will be grinding meal together; one will be taken and one will be left.

The first part of Matthew 24 is not in the Lectionary, and, as such, it is part of my Forbidden Bible Verses series, Matthew 24:1-36.

Then, at the end of Year A in 2023, we had the following readings beginning at the Twenty-third Sunday after Trinity (Twenty-fourth after Pentecost):

Readings for the Twenty-third Sunday after Trinity, Year A — exegesis on the Gospel, Matthew 25:1-13 (November 12, 2023)

Readings for the Twenty-fourth Sunday after Trinity, Year A — exegesis on the Gospel, Matthew 25:14-30 (November 19, 2023)

Readings for Christ the King — Reign of Christ — Sunday, Year A; exegesis on the Gospel, Matthew 25:31-46, part 1 and part 2 (November 26, 2023)

Similarly, with Mark’s account of the Olivet Discourse, not all of it is in the Lectionary. Here are the missing passages, also in my Forbidden Bible Verses series:

Mark 13:1-2 – Temple in Jerusalem, Jesus

Jesus foretells the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.

This post also includes links about the temple itself and the history behind the three temples as documented in the Old Testament.

Mark 13:3-13 – false Messiahs, destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, abomination of desolation, war, natural disaster, end of the world, Second Coming

Jesus describes the horrible destruction of Jerusalem’s Temple and the end of the world which leads to His Second Coming.  Every verse in this reading is important. Also see a parallel in  Matthew 24. See basic definitions of Preterists and Post-millenialists.

Now, there are people who think that the Second Coming happened with the destruction of the temple in AD 70. Those people are called Preterists.  Post-millenialists are those working for a utopia on earth, hence engaged in socio-political movements and climate change.

However, St Paul’s letters point to the resurrection of the dead and Christ’s Second Coming. In fact, some of the Thessalonians were so wrapped up in the idea of the Second Coming that they stopped working, so Paul had to urge them to work while waiting. Paul put forth the Old Testament view of the resurrection of the dead, saying that, if we do not believe in the Second Coming, then there is no point in following Christ.

In Mark’s version of the Olivet Discourse — given at the Mount of Olives — only the Apostles’ leaders were there to hear Jesus:

³And as he sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately, ⁴“Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are about to be accomplished?”

As we begin today’s reading, Jesus had just finished describing the havoc surrounding the destruction of the temple and the many years that would follow, bringing false Christs, wars, natural disasters and persecutions everywhere.

Jesus then said that after that those many years — millennia — of suffering, the sun would be darkened and the moon would not give its light (verse 24).

Both our commentators point to the fact that the Apostles and the other disciples expected that Jesus would bring a heaven on earth, a deliverance of Israel.

Matthew Henry’s commentary says:

These verses seem to point at Christ’s second coming, to judge the world; the disciples, in their question, had confounded the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the world (Matt 24 3), which was built upon a mistake, as if the temple must needs stand as long as the world stands; this mistake Christ rectifies, and shows that the end of the world in those days, those other days you enquire about, the day of Christ’s coming, and the day of judgment, shall be after that tribulation, and not coincident with it. Let those who live to see the Jewish nation destroyed, take heed of thinking that, because the Son of man doth not visibly come in the clouds then, he will never so come; no, he will come after that.

John MacArthur says:

What they’re really asking is, “Now we know You are the Messiah – You are the Son of God, You are the Anointed One, You are the King – we acknowledge that, we worship You – we want to know, when are You going to establish Your kingdom? When will judgment come, and the establishment of the promised kingdom?”

Which had been the burning hope in the hearts of Jews for literally millennia, since the promises of God to Abraham, the promises of God to David and the promises of God reiterated to the prophets throughout their history – “When will the Messianic kingdom come? When will the Lord become the King, and rule in a righteous kingdom of peace over the whole earth? When will Jerusalem receive its promised blessing? When will all this happen? You’re the Messiah, so it must be soon since You’re here” – that was the assumption.

Our Lord answers the question by telling them that there is going to be an intervening period of history before the kingdom will be established, and it’s not going to be good. In fact, He says, in verses 5 through 13, that human history will go on – and the implication here is not only for weeks and months but even years – and there will be much religious deception. That’s very clear in verse 6: “Many will come in My name saying, ‘I am He,’ and will mislead many.” There will be great disasters through war, as well as natural cataclysms like earthquakes and famines; these things are just the beginning.

Then, verses 9 to 13, there will be persecution of believers, so this is how human history is going to go. It’s going to be a very difficult time for planet Earth, and life will be characterized by religious deception, by disasters – both caused by man in war and conflict, and cataclysmic natural events as well – and persecution; persecution. That will be how history goes … at the end of human history, there will come a very special period, called in verse 19 “a time of tribulation;” a time of tribulation.

This is when the birth pains become more rapid and more severe. Human history is going to be a painful season. The pain will be stretched out a little bit, and it’ll be moderated, but there will come a period at the end of human history when pain will come rapid-fire and extremely severe.

At the end of that, comes our Lord in glory. And it is at that time that the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light.

MacArthur says this is all in the Old Testament and, as such, our Lord’s followers would have been familiar with those prophecies:

This event needs some staging, and the return of Jesus Christ from heaven with power and glory will occur after God has set the stage, and He will set the stage in an incomprehensible way. Verse 24 – and all this language here that describes the staging is borrowed from the Old Testament. The reference in verse 24 comes out of Joel chapter 2 and 3.

Jesus said that the stars would fall from heaven, and the powers in heaven — the universe — would be shaken (verse 25).

MacArthur tells us:

The reference in verse 25 comes out of Isaiah 34.

Jesus said that, at that point, people living then will see ‘the Son of Man coming in clouds’ with great power and glory (verse 26).

MacArthur says that Jesus was citing Daniel and that St John the Gospel writer depicted the same in Revelation, which was written in a Messianic style — incidentally, one that the Jews would have understood (caps in the original):

The reference in verse 26 comes out of Daniel chapter 7. So, this is all drawn out of the Old Testament; the New Testament is in perfect accord with and agreement with the Old Testament. Here’s the staging. “THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED” – the sun goes out – “THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, THE STARS WILL BE FALLING from heaven, and the powers that are in the heavens will be shaken.” Now, we know that during the period of the tribulation, right, and the great tribulation, great signs will be occurring on the earth and in the sky.

We read them – Revelation 6, Revelation 8, Revelation 16 and in between – so we know those things will already be going on, but here is the final staging. “THE SUN GOES DARK, THE MOON GOES DARK” – because it gets its light from the sun – “THE STARS FALL out of heaven, the powers that are in the heavens will be shaken” – which means the power that holds the heavenly bodies in their place, in their orbit, doing what they normally, predictably continue to do, will be altered. That’s what to expect: the sun goes dark, the moon goes dark, the stars go dark, and everything is careening in space.

It can’t be but days until the Lord comes, because how long could people survive? This is not new information to the disciples, by the way, or to any of the Jews who knew the Old Testament. Let me take you on a quick look at what the Old Testament promised. Isaiah 13 is a place to start – and we won’t be able to cover all the passages with regard to this – but Isaiah 13 looks at this day of the Lord, as it’s called – day of the Lord is a term used of judgment, God’s divine judgment – and the final culminating day of the Lord is described here in Isaiah 13:6 …

MacArthur points out that all the accounts of the Second Coming say the same thing, especially with regard to clouds:

Daniel said, “With the clouds of heaven” … ; John says in Revelation, He comes “with clouds;” Mark says, as we read, He’s coming “in clouds;” Luke says He’s coming “in a cloud;” and Matthew says He’s coming “on the clouds.” So, in, on, with, clouds, folks, clouds; He comes with clouds surrounding Him, lit clouds. They are often God’s chariot, by the way.

MacArthur’s sermon goes into Old Testament prophecy in detail, for those who wish to read more verses.

He concludes this 2011 sermon with a message on climate change:

And I can’t help but say this – you don’t need to worry about preserving the planet, please. You are wasting your time, your money, your energy, and your brain power. The planet’s future is determined, and it has nothing to do with you or Al Gore – nothing – or anybody else. It is determined; and this is where history is going, folks, and it’ll be here until all of this devastation comes, and all the environmentalists on the planet together at the highest level can’t stop this.

Jesus said that the Son of Man would send out His angels, gather His elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven (verse 27).

Henry reminds us that this gathering will also include Jewish believers:

The gathering together of all the elect to him (v. 27); He shall send his angels, and gather together his elect to him, to meet him in the air, 1 Thess 4 17. They shall be fetched from one end of the world to the other, so that none shall be missing from that general assembly; they shall be fetched from the uttermost part of the earth, most remote from the places where Christ’s tribunal shall be set, and shall be brought to the uttermost part of heaven; so sure, so swift, so easy, shall their conveyance be, that there shall none of them miscarry, though they were to be brought from the uttermost part of the earth one way, to the uttermost part of the heaven another way. A faithful Israelite shall be carried safely, though it were from the utmost border of the land of bondage to the utmost border of the land of promise.

Jesus then gave an analogy concerning a fig tree, saying that we may learn a lesson from it: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, summer is near (verse 28).

Recall that earlier that week, while with His disciples, Jesus cursed a fig tree for having no fruit, just leaves.

MacArthur provides this analysis:

He comes into Jerusalem with them, curses a fig tree – and that’s a symbol of the curse that’s going to come on the nation.

And instead of Him destroying the Gentile occupiers, the Romans, which the Jews wanted Him to do, He’s going to destroy Israel. He’s going to judge them; He’s going to curse them as He cursed the tree, and He sets that in motion with a second symbol of that: He goes into the temple and He throws the buyers and sellers out. He just cleans the place of all the corruption and crime, and then comes back on Wednesday, and with the debris and litter still lying around, He occupies the temple for that full day, and speaks the truth in that place for the first time in hundreds of years.

The disciples don’t know what to think. They know that the leaders of Israel are after Him, they know they want Him dead, and Jesus has told them at least three recorded times that He’s going to be arrested, He’s going to die, and He’s going to rise. And they still are trying to figure out, when is the kingdom going to come, and so, they pose the question in verse 4 of chapter 13: “Tell us, when will these things be” – the things that have to do with judgment – “and what will be the sign when all these things are going to be fulfilled?” …

His coming is future, and there is a future generation that is going to see His coming; going to see His coming. And they’re going to know it’s near because they see the events of the tribulation happening all around them. That generation needs to be on the alert – that’s what He’s saying. All right, now let’s look at this text a little more specifically, and I have a lot of things that we need to cover. I’ll try to give you a course in eschatology [the study of the Second Coming] really quick. Number one is the analogy; number one is the analogy.

We’re going to look at the analogy, the application, the authority, and the action – number one is the analogy. Verse 28: “Now learn the parable from the fig tree.” The assumption, folks, is, this can be learned, okay? This is actually a command, from the Greek verb manthanō – get it, learn this. This is not intended to be obscure, this is not intended to be confusing – learn this from the fig tree. Now again, we’re back to fig trees. Just the day before, our Lord had cursed the fig tree – chapter 11, verses 12 to 14.

He used the fig tree as an illustration of Israel. He went to the fig tree because He was hungry. The fig tree had no fruit. That was weird, because the fruit comes first and the leaves later, with fig trees; and there should have been – because there were leaves, there should have been some immature fruit that He could have plucked, and it would have been edible. But when He got to the tree, it had leaves but no fruit, and it was a symbol of Israel – nothing but leaves, religious pretense – and He pronounced a curse on that fig tree, and it died on the spot.

It was a miracle in reverse – the only destructive miracle recorded in the New Testament done by Jesus. This fig tree, then, was an illustration of Israel’s barrenness. But here’s another fig tree, as an illustration, commonly used as analogies. Jotham, in the days of the judges, in Judges 9, used a fig tree as an illustration. Hosea, in Hosea chapter 9 verse 10, used fig trees to refer to the patriarchs. Jeremiah 24:2 refers to good and bad people like good and bad figs. Even Joel, the prophet, in Joel chapter 1 verses 6 and 7, uses fig trees as an illustration of Israel under judgment, so it’s a common thing.

So, our Lord says, “Learn a parable from the fig tree.” They were familiar with fig trees, and here is the simple way to get the lesson. “When its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near.” Now, that is a simple illustration. It simply means that when you see the leaves on a tree, you know the summer is near; why? Because the leaves come in the spring; this is not too complicated. In fact, Luke says, not even a fig tree – Luke says, “All the trees,” indicating its generic – it’s a simple illustration; a simple illustration.

Jesus continued, saying that, when these things happen, the Son of Man will be near — at the very gates (verse 29).

MacArthur further develops his analysis:

Well, let’s go from the analogy to the application. Verse 29: “Even so” – that’s the transition, therefore – “you too, when you see these things happening, recognize that He is near, right at the door.” That’s the link to application. Who – who – who is the you? “Even you too” – who are we talking about – “when you see these things happening” – the you is the “you” of the people who “see these things happening” – what things?

The things just described in verses 14 to 23 – the birth pains – the birth pains of anticipation leading up to the return of Christ. All the final extreme, severe, rapid-fire labor pains; all the signs prior to the final sign, which is Christ coming out of heaven in blazing glory. Whoever is alive to see these things happening, should know that the coming of Christ is near; He is near, right at the door.

So, if you’re alive in the future, in that generation, and you see the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION, and all the rest of the things that begin to happen when the Antichrist establishes the worship of himself, and starts the slaughter of the Jews and the believers, and you’re told to run and flee for your life, as we read earlier – when you see the rest of what’s going to happen, as chronologued for us in Revelation 6 to 19, you know that He is near. The kingdom is near, the King is near, the glory is near; He is right at the door.

This is, then, folks, really the answer to their question. Their question was, when will these things happen? His answer is, when you see these preliminary events taking place, then the end will happen; then will be the coming or the presence of the Lord, and the end of the age.

Jesus said emphatically — ‘Truly I tell you’ — this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place (verse 30).

MacArthur continues:

Now, verse 30 adds this verse – familiar: “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” “This generation will not pass away till all these things take place.”

Now, when you read that, I don’t even think you – you didn’t have even a hurdle there, did you? You didn’t have a bump in the road; there wasn’t even a speed bump. You understood exactly what that meant. It means that whatever generation sees these things happening will see Christ come – what else could it mean? “I say to you, this generation” – the you who see these things happening – “will not pass away until all these things take place” …

The generation that’s alive then will see the end – that simple.

MacArthur then gives a useful warning about the preterism — the belief that this has already happened — which is so rampant in our churches today.

I can attest to that, having met Catholic priests and Protestant ministers who are preterists.

MacArthur explains why they are wrong:

… you would be astounded – and I’m going to give you a little look at this – how many crazy views there are of that thirtieth verse. One: that it refers to the disciples. That Jesus is saying to them, “I’m going to come before you die.” “This genea – you guys – you’re going to live to see the second coming.” What? How could they – how could anybody possibly believe that? Well, because there were people who believe – there are people who believe – that the second coming was fulfilled in 70 A.D., when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem.

That that was the second coming, and that there’s no other second coming, and some of the disciples were still alive – some of them, most of them – so that He is literally saying, “You’re going to see the second coming in your lifetime.” That’s impossible. The only way you come up with that view is if you just totally ignored the Bible, because the description of the events that come alongside the second coming in the time of tribulation are so detailed in the book of Revelation.

As to a third of the world being destroyed, a fourth of the world being destroyed, cataclysmic events in the sky, and on the earth, and on, and on, and on it goes, meteors hitting the earth, destroying the fresh water, destroying the salt water, killing a third of the beasts in the ocean, and on and on and on it goes, and slaughter all over everywhere, that it certainly didn’t happen in the little microcosm that happened on the piece of land that we call Israel. That’s an absolute ludicrous view, and yet there are hyper-preterists, they’re called, who have that view.

Now, there are others who say that Jesus was talking about the disciples, but He was wrong.

Oh, dear. We’ll come back to that in a moment.

Jesus said that heaven and earth will pass away but His words will not pass away (verse 31).

Henry explains the verse simply:

not one of these predictions shall fail of a punctual accomplishment.

Jesus then said that of that day or hour, no man knows, nor do the angels or the Son — meaning Himself — but only the Father (verse 32).

We wonder how Jesus could not know, since He was and is omniscient.

Our commentators say that it was because of His human state that either 1) He was not yet privy to His Father’s knowledge — although He would be after His resurrection — and/or 2) He wilfully restricted parts of His omniscience.

Henry looks at what theologians from the early Church and those of his time (17th century) said:

… neither the Son; but is there any thing which the Son is ignorant of? We read indeed of a book which was sealed, till the Lamb opened the seals; but did not he know what was in it, before the seals were opened? Was not he privy to the writing of it? There were those in the primitive times, who taught from this text, that there were some things that Christ, as man, was ignorant of; and from these were called Agnoetæ; they said, “It was no more absurd to say so, than to say that his human soul suffered grief and fear;” and many of the orthodox fathers approved of this. Some would evade it, by saying that Christ spoke this in a way of prudential economy, to divert the disciples from further enquiry: but to this one of the ancients answers, It is not fit to speak too nicely in this matter—ou dei pany akribologein, so Leontius in Dr. Hammond, “It is certain (says Archbishop Tillotson) that Christ, as God, could not be ignorant of any thing; but the divine wisdom which dwelt in our Saviour, did communicate itself to his human soul, according to the divine pleasure, so that his human nature might sometimes not know some things; therefore Christ is said to grow in wisdom (Luke 2 52), which he could not be said to do, if the human nature of Christ did necessarily know all things by virtue of its union with the divinity.” Dr. Lightfoot explains it thus; Christ calls himself the Son, as Messiah. Now the Messiah, as such, was the father’s servant (Isa 42 1), sent and deputed by him, and as such a one he refers himself often to his Father’s will and command, and owns he did nothing of himself (John 5 19); in like manner he might be said to know nothing of himself. The revelation of Jesus Christ was what God gave unto him, Rev 1 1. He thinks, therefore, that we are to distinguish between those excellencies and perfections of his, which resulted from the personal union between the divine and human nature, and those which flowed from the anointing of the Spirit; from the former flowed the infinite dignity of his perfect freedom from all sin; but from the latter flowed his power of working miracles, and his foreknowledge of things to come. What therefore (saith he) was to be revealed by him to his church, he was pleased to take, not from the union of the human nature with the divine, but from the revelation of the Spirit, by which he yet knew not this, but the Father only knows it; that is, God only, the Deity; for (as Archbishop Tillotson explains it) it is not used here personally, in distinction from the Son and the Holy Ghost, but as the Father is, Fons et Principium Deitatis—The Fountain of Deity.

MacArthur gives us the following explanation, returning to the preterists:

They say, “… in verse 32, He says, ‘Of that day or hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son.’ Since He didn’t know anyway, He just took a guess.” No. Look, it’s one thing to say He didn’t know – in His incarnation He restricted, voluntarily, His attributes, temporarily …

But, He had restricted His attributes temporarily, is one thing; saying something wrong is another …

MacArthur continued developing his analysis the following week, beginning with verse 31, then telling us more about His omniscience as evidenced in Acts 1:

Verse 31 – here’s the authority – “Heaven and earth will pass away” – wow, let’s just stop there for a minute – “Heaven and earth will pass away.” This is not a permanent planet; it is a temporary planet …

We’ve seen the analogy, we’ve seen the application, we’ve seen the authority, and just – this is pretty simple – even though it leaves us a few verses, you’ll see how rapidly they go by – what’s the action required? Let’s pick it up at verse 32: “But of that day or hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone …

He says, “Not even the Son knows” – the Lord voluntarily restricted the use of His attributes – that’s the kenosis in Philippians 2. He laid aside His divine prerogatives – not His divine nature or His attributes, but the prerogative to use them – to the will of the Father, and did only what the Father told Him to do, showed Him to do, and revealed to Him. “All things” – John 15:15 – “I have heard from My father I made known to you” – what the Father told him, He knew and revealed.

By the way, after His resurrection – after His resurrection – He resumed full knowledge. Listen to Acts 1: “So when they had come together, they were asking Him, ‘Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?’” Listen to what He said: “It is not for you to know.” He didn’t say, “It’s not for Me to know,” anymore. Once He rose from the dead, the incarnation and the restrictions were behind Him; it was “not for you to know;” not for you to know. His humiliation had ended, and He was given back the full prerogatives of deity.

Jesus warned that the generation alive at the time of His Second Coming should keep alert, because no one knows when the time will come (verse 33).

MacArthur says — and this, in his analysis, is the action required:

It’s fixed, according to Acts 1, firmly established – as firmly established as the truth of the death and resurrection of Christ in A.D. 30 in the week of Passover on Friday, etc. – you better take heed and be on the alert.

MacArthur says that the Apostles fell asleep the very next night, after the Last Supper in the Garden of Gethsemane:

… just as a footnote, the disciples wouldn’t be a good model of being on the alert in this gospel. You remember the fourteenth chapter … how He took them into the Garden to pray with Him, and they all did what?

Fell asleep, right. They would not be great examples of making sure you stayed awake. In verse 34 of chapter 14, He says, “Remain here and stay awake.” In verse 37, He comes back and finds them sleeping, and says, “Can’t you stay awake and keep watch for one hour?” In verse 38, “Keep watching.” He repeats it in verse 40, repeats it in verse 41 – so that’s the antithesis of watchfulness and alertness.

Jesus then gave the Apostles a parable — or analogy — to reinforce the message, saying this is like a man who goes on a journey, puts his slaves in charge of the household, each with his work, and commands the doorkeeper to be on the watch (verse 34).

To us that analogy might not mean much, but MacArthur says that in that ancient era:

They would take that very, very seriously, that duty …

Therefore, the Apostles would have understood that being watchful and alert for Christ’s return was no trifling matter.

Jesus continued by saying that it is essential to keep awake, for no one knows when the master of the house will return — in the evening, at night, at cockcrow or at dawn (verse 35).

MacArthur explains:

… why all of that?

The period of time in which there was always a watch was from six in the evening – sundown, to six in the morning – sunrise. That is the period of night, when the Romans set a watch. Mark is in a Roman context when he writes, and he knows he will have Roman readers who read, and so he borrows from their familiar understanding. In the Roman twelve-hour watch, there are four three-hour periods. There is – you can go back to verse 35 – the evening, from six to nine; then there is midnight, which identifies the final hour, nine to midnight; then there is rooster crows, at three A.M.; and morning, at six.

So, you don’t know when the master is going to come. You don’t know if he’s going to come in the evening, at midnight, rooster crow, or morning – the names identifying the end of each period. These watches, by the way, are also mentioned in Mark 14 and Mark 15, in the account that is given of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. Be on the alert; be on the alert.

Jesus finished by saying that he — the master of the house, Jesus Himself — may find you asleep when he/He comes suddenly (verse 36).

MacArthur says:

“You don’t want the master to come back suddenly and find you sleeping” – like the disciples will do – “What I say to you I say to all, Be on the alert!” That final generation needs to be alert. Now, they’re going to see the signs; they’re going to see the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION. They’re not going to know the day or the hour. They’re going to be living in such fear because of the horrors that are coming on them. To close, I want you to turn to Luke 21 – Luke 21 and verse 34 – this is Luke’s parallel account of our Lord’s sermon.

Verse 34 of Luke 21: “Be on guard” – “be on guard,” that’s Luke’s version of “be on the alert” – “so that your hearts will not be weighted down with dissipation and drunkenness and the worries of life, and that day will not come on you suddenly like a trap” …

That’s a call for salvation. Pray – pray, that your heart not be weighted down, overpowered, overwhelmed; pray, that you not get caught up in trying to find comfort in immorality, dissipation, drunkenness.

Pray that you not be paralyzed by what He calls “the anxieties of life, or the worries of life,” pulling you in too many directions, disorienting you – things that cause you to struggle. This is a call to the future generation who will read the Bible and read the Scriptures to not allow themselves to be fragmented and pulled apart; to not try to drown their fears in alcohol or immorality. By the way, the word dissipation speaks of the nausea that accompanies debauchery. Don’t let that happen, don’t go that way, because if you do, that day will come on you suddenly like a trap, unexpectedly.

You’ll be snared, with no possible escape.

Jesus ended His Olivet Discourse with this: ‘what I say to you I say to all: Keep awake’ (verse 37).

Henry wisely says that this also pertains to death, which is possibly the more likely eventuality for us. We will certainly encounter the Lord at that time, with our final destination firmly established:

We ought to be always upon our watch, in expectation of his return, v. 35-37. (1.) Our Lord will come, and will come as the Master of the house, to take account of his servants, of their work, and of the improvement they have made. (2.) We know not when he will come; and he has very wisely kept us at uncertainty, that we might all be always ready. We know not when he will come, just at what precise time; the Master of the house perhaps will come at even, at nine at night; or it may be at midnight, or a cock-crowing, at three in the morning, or perhaps not until six. This is applicable to his coming to us in particular, at our death, as well as to the general judgment. Our present life is a night, a dark night, compared with the other life; we know not in which watch of the night our Master will come, whether in the days of youth, or middle age, or old age; but, as soon as we are born, we begin to die, and therefore, as soon as we are capable of expecting any thing, we must expect death. (3.) Our great care must be, that, whenever our Lord comes, he do not find us sleeping, secure in ourselves, off our guard, indulging ourselves in ease and sloth, mindless of our work and duty, and thoughtless of our Lord’s coming; ready to say, He will not come, and unready to meet him. (4.) His coming will indeed be coming suddenly; it will be a great surprise and terror to those that are careless, and asleep, it will come upon them as a thief in the night. (5.) It is therefore the indispensable duty of all Christ’s disciples, to watch, to be awake, and keep awake; “What I say unto you four (v. 37), I say unto all the twelve, or rather to you twelve, I say unto all my disciples and followers; what I say to you of this generation, I say to all that shall believe in men, through your word, in every age, Watch, watch, expect my second coming, prepare for it, that you may be found in peace, without spot, and blameless.”

In that regard, this Sunday’s Epistle — 1 Corinthians 1: 3-9 — provides us with reassurance as believers:

1:8 He will also strengthen you to the end, so that you may be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1:9 God is faithful; by him you were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

May all reading this enjoy a blessed Sunday.

Forbidden Bible Verses — 2 Timothy 4:9-15

The three-year Lectionary that many Catholics and Protestants hear in public worship gives us a great variety of Holy Scripture.

Yet, it doesn’t tell the whole story.

My series Forbidden Bible Verses — ones the Lectionary editors and their clergy omit — examines the passages we do not hear in church. These missing verses are also Essential Bible Verses, ones we should study with care and attention. Often, we find that they carry difficult messages and warnings.

Today’s reading is from the English Standard Version Anglicised (ESVUK) with commentary by Matthew Henry and John MacArthur.

2 Timothy 4:9-15

Personal Instructions

⁹ Do your best to come to me soon. ¹⁰ For Demas, in love with this present world, has deserted me and gone to Thessalonica. Crescens has gone to Galatia,^[a] Titus to Dalmatia. ¹¹ Luke alone is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is very useful to me for ministry. ¹² Tychicus I have sent to Ephesus. ¹³ When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, also the books, and above all the parchments. ¹⁴ Alexander the coppersmith did me great harm; the Lord will repay him according to his deeds. ¹⁵ Beware of him yourself, for he strongly opposed our message.

——————————————————————————————————————————

Last week’s post discussed Paul’s reminder to Timothy about his following the Apostle through all his trials; Paul says that those who are faithful to Jesus Christ through their holiness will be persecuted, while evil people and imposters will continue to deceive and be deceived.

The rest of 2 Timothy 3 is as follows (emphases mine):

¹⁴ But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom^[a] you learned it ¹⁵ and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. ¹⁶ All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, ¹⁷ that the man of God^[b] may be competent, equipped for every good work.

2 Timothy 4 begins with this:

Preach the Word

4 I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: ² preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. ³ For the time is coming when people will not endure sound^[a] teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, ⁴ and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. ⁵ As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfil your ministry.

⁶ For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come. ⁷ I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. ⁸ Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that Day, and not only to me but also to all who have loved his appearing.

This is the penultimate entry on the verses omitted from the Lectionary in 2 Timothy.

Paul, imprisoned for the final time in Rome, knows that his life is coming to an end, therefore, he wants Timothy to finish his work in eradicating the false teachers from Ephesus and reach the Apostle soon (verse 9).

As we know, Timothy was Paul’s spiritual son. The two had been together for around 15 years, since Timothy was an adolescent and a convert to Christianity.

John MacArthur explains Paul’s plea for Timothy to go to Rome as soon as possible:

He had the heart of Paul. He had the habits of Paul. He had the theology of Paul. He was Paul reproduced, the faithful son. And as Paul sits in a cold, dark dungeon, he longs to see his dear friend, his beloved son in the faith Timothy. He says in chapter 1 of this epistle, verse 4, “Longing to see you, even as I recall your tears so that I may be filled with joy. I want you just because I love you. I want you because I enjoy you. I remember your tears. I know you love me. I remember your compassion. I want you here.” And surely there was some work to do as well, and surely there was so much more to say to Timothy who would take up the mantle of leadership in the church. And Paul knew he was facing death, wanted so much Timothy to come. Oh, there were some Roman Christians in the city but that wasn’t like Timothy. And Luke wasn’t there, but Luke could never take the place of Timothy; nobody can take the place of anybody else in a person’s heart. And he wants to see Timothy once before he dies, at least, to pass on the mantle, the baton. Knows, according to verse 6, that the time of his departure is at hand; it is imminent. He will not live long, and if Timothy doesn’t come now, they’ll never see each other this side of heaven. So he urges his faithful son to come.

Weather was also a serious consideration:

He says, “Hasten.” The verb means to make every effort, to be quick, to be in a hurry, to be fast. He uses the word “soon, speedily.” Be in a hurry, be fast, get here quickly. There’s an urgency in this, because time is of the essence. Paul doesn’t have much time before he’ll die. Timothy doesn’t have much time before winter, as we will note in verse 21. And when winter comes, he can’t make the journey because the seas are too rough. And there’s so much to say and so much to share. Paul wants Timothy by his side.

Paul tells Timothy of the whereabouts of three men; Demas has deserted the Apostle for love of the world and gone to Thessalonica while Crescens has gone to Galatia and Titus to Dalmatia (verse 10).

Of Demas, Matthew Henry’s commentary says:

He quitted Paul and his interest, either for fear of suffering (because Paul was now a prisoner, and he was afraid of coming into trouble upon his account) or being called off from his ministry by secular affairs, in which he entangled himself; his first love to Christ and his gospel was forsaken and forgotten, and he fell in love with the world. Note, Love to this present world is often the cause of apostasy from the truths and ways of Jesus Christ. He has gone off, has departed to Thessalonica, called thither perhaps by trade, or by some other worldly business.

MacArthur tells us more, reminding us that Demas was previously faithful to Paul and the ministry:

Verse 10 says, “For Demas, having loved this present world, has deserted me and gone to Thessalonica.” Why is it that the verse begins with the word “For”? That’s an interesting statement, “For Demas.” It’s as if Paul is saying, “Would you please come soon, because Demas is gone?” Could it be that Demas was of such strategic use in ministry that his place needed to be taken by Timothy? The implication here is that Timothy is coming not only for the sake of the heart of Paul but for the sake of the work of Paul, which here before was being done by Demas. We don’t know much about Demas. The first time he is mentioned is in Colossians 4:14 where he is mentioned as one of the esteemed and intimate companions of Paul.

While Paul was writing the Colossian epistle from prison in Rome, Demas was there. Probably Paul wrote Philemon within the same few-day period, and he was there as well, Demas was, when Paul wrote Philemon and is thus mentioned in Philemon verse 24. So he was intimately acquainted with Paul, had been for some years, was there during the time of that first imprisonment in Rome. Must have had some kind of outward ministry of importance. He is called, by the way, in Philemon a fellow worker of Paul. He was a partner in suffering to some degree, must have been a partner in prayer, must have been a partner in some kind of ministry. He was a man in whom Paul had invested much; he surely knew much. And when he deserted Paul, there was a void. And just the fact that it says, “For Demas having loved this present world has deserted me,” indicates that Timothy was going to step into something that Demas had been doing, which gives you an idea that Demas was a pretty strategic person, and at least on the outside was carrying on a ministry.

MacArthur discusses Demas’s betrayal of Paul and the ministry:

The verb, “has deserted me,” needs our attention for a moment. It is a very strong verb. It starts with a root verb meaning to leave, and then it compounds it by adding two prepositions at the beginning of the word, which makes it doubly intense so that it has been translated in sort of an American slang, “leaving me in the lurch.” And it is the idea not just of leaving but deserting in the midst of a dire situation, leaving at a most-inappropriate time. Perhaps the deprivation had gotten to Demas. Perhaps the difficulty, the suffering.

Perhaps he could see the handwriting on the wall Paul was gonna lose his life and he wasn’t about to lose his for that cause; he wasn’t that committed. Maybe he was caught up with Paul because of the noble cause, because of his emotion, his feeling, but never really counted the cost. He may well be one of those seeds that fall on rocky soil and pops up for a little while but when tribulation comes dies. He may be a little bit like the weedy ground where there is a sprouting initially and then the love of the world or the cares of the present age choke out the life before any fruit can come. It would seem to me that he probably was no true Christian at all because it says, “Having loved this present aiōn, age, world.” World system. All the aims, ideals, opinions, values, motives, morals, impulses of the present passing age, they were the things that he loved. He’s much like Judas. He fell in love with the world and apparently never genuinely had a love for Christ and the cause of Christ through Paul. On the outside he ministered, but Judas did too. But on the inside, there was not the commitment and he, like Judas, deserted Paul. Jesus had a deserter. Paul had a deserter. In a sense, it’s kind of comforting, isn’t it, to know that there will be those who will labor alongside us until the time when they decide they’ve had enough and they are gone. Having loved the present age it says he left and went to Thessalonica. Why did he go there? We don’t know. We can surmise that that probably was his home. He is listed in Philemon verse 24 with Aristarchus who according to Acts 20, verse 4 was a Thessalonian. So maybe they were kind of a duo from Thessalonica and he was going home. But the point here is not so much where he went as why he went, and why he went was because he loved the world more than he loved the things of God. And 1 John says, “If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not,” – what? – “not in him.”

MacArthur then shares a personal story about betrayal from an associate he once trusted:

I received a letter this last week from a man who used to work alongside me and who loved the present world and departed and wrote me to tell me in the letter of the disaster of his life, the devastation of his personal life, the destruction of his marriage as a result of that. You will have in your life a Demas or two or three or more. Somebody you pour your life into, somebody you think is on the team, somebody outwardly doing ministry who brings you deep hurt and deep pain and sometimes deep confusion because all of a sudden it becomes apparent that they love the present world, and they leave. Demas is a part of your network too, and mine.

MacArthur tells us about Crescens, about whom we know only from this verse:

Now we know absolutely nothing about Crescens. However, in spite of that, I have a few things I’d like to say. Evidently Crescens was a fairly-capable man, and I say that because Paul sent him to Galatia. Now Galatia was an area in which Paul had labored extensively. He went there on his first missionary journey, his second missionary journey, and on the third one as well, each time going back to Galatia. Evangelizing, founding churches, building leaders. The fact that Crescens was sent to Galatia could indicate that he had the capability to work with a strong church, that he himself therefore must have been a man of some kind of strength, of some kind of spiritual experience in order to be sent to strong churches with strong leaders to work along with them. Yet he is absolutely unknown. We know nothing about him; this is the only time his name is ever mentioned. And so he represents what we call the faithful unknown, who make up the ranks of everybody’s network behind the scenes. No one knows they even exist. No one knows their names, but God knows and somewhere in his own knowledge there is a fullness of reward for that person. The quiet unknown hero who comes along in spiritual maturity and spiritual strength to stand behind someone and do the work unseen. Thank the Lord for the faithful unknown who are gifted, who are called, and who in doing their duty are content to be unknown. God bless them. We are all indebted to them. They’re all around us.

Then we come to Titus. My study of Paul’s letter to him will begin in a fortnight.

Of him, MacArthur says:

And then there is the faithful well-known in verse 10. The faithful well-known. He mentions Titus has gone to Dalmatia. Titus appears 13 times in the New Testament, even has a letter written to him, the epistle of Paul to Titus, which by the way was written between 1 and 2 Timothy. He seemed to be able to flourish in the area of a new challenge. When Paul would go and evangelize an area, Titus was the kind of person who could go in and get the church built and build the leaders and strengthen off of that evangelistic effort. In fact, when Paul wrote the epistle to Titus, Titus was on the island of Crete where Paul, by the way, had preached. And he says here to Titus, “My true child in a common faith,” Titus 1:4. Then in verse 5, “For this reason I left you in Crete that you might set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I direct you.” Apparently, he was an equipper. He was a leader builder. He could go in and take sort of what was there and frame it and shape it and mold it and build it into strong churches. He had been with Paul, by the way, for years. He was in close and intimate work and fellowship. No doubt he had left Crete where he was when Paul wrote the letter of Titus. He left just before this and was now headed for Dalmatia. Now the only thing we know about Dalmatia is that there are dogs that came from there or got named by that name.

Not so these days. Dalmatia is part of Croatia and has many resorts, particularly along the coast.

MacArthur continues:

But Dalmatia was on the eastern shore of the Adriatic Sea, north of Macedonia. Paul had preached in Dalmatia, according to Romans 15:19, so the Gospel had sort of dusted that area too, and that’s a perfect setting for Titus to go in again and pull it all together, strengthen the church, build the leaders. Titus 3:12 indicates that he came and met Paul at Nacapolis and left from there for Dalmatia while Paul was taken to Rome. He apparently was excellent at building leaders. He was the faithful well-known, or the faithful equipper. And we thank God for those who come alongside of us who are very gifted builders and leaders and equippers. Every person in spiritual service needs not only the quiet behind-the-scene unknown but those who can take a forward place, who are strong, who are builders of men and women, who are leaders. He was such.

Paul says that Luke alone is with him, so Timothy should bring Mark to Rome, as Mark is very useful to him in ministry (verse 10).

Students of Acts will remember John Mark, who is this same Mark — the Gospel writer — introduced in Acts 12:

Acts 12:24-25 – Saul of Tarsus, St Paul, St Barnabas, St Mark, John Mark, increasing the Church

The death of Herod Agrippa I caused many to convert to Christ Jesus.

Barnabas and Saul of Tarsus (the latter since converted) had been preaching in Antioch. When they returned to Jerusalem, they brought with them John Mark, the son of Mary, who had been housing many in the church of Jerusalem. John Mark was also the author of the Gospel of Mark.

He also featured in Acts 13:

Acts 13:4-7 – Barnabas, Saul of Tarsus, John Mark, Cyprus, Sergius Paulus, Bar-Jesus, Elymas

At the instruction of the Holy Spirit (see Acts 13:1-3, which represents the narrative shifting from Jerusalem to a Gentile Church), Barnabas, Saul and John Mark (author of the Gospel of Mark) set sail from Seleucia for Cyprus to preach the Good News in synagogues from east to west on the island.

Paul was quite upset with John Mark in Acts 15:

Acts 15:36-41 — Paul, Barnabas, Silas, John Mark, Mark, Antioch (Syria), Cyprus, Syria and Ciclilia

Upon leaving Antioch (Syria) after presenting the Gentiles at the church there with a comforting, biblical letter from the Jerusalem Council, Paul and Barnabas quarrelled about whether to bring John Mark — Mark (verse 37) — on a continuing ministry.

Although later reconciled, as my post explains based on New Testament verses, Paul and Silas continued on in Syria and Paul’s homeland of Cicilia. Barnabas took his young relative John Mark — St Mark of the Gospel — en route to his (Barnabas’s) homeland of Cyprus.

Key verse:

³⁸ But Paul thought best not to take with them one who had withdrawn from them in Pamphylia and had not gone with them to the work.  (Acts 15:38)

Later, by the time Paul was writing his letter to the Colossians, John Mark, referred to as Mark, was with Paul:

Colossians 4:10-11 – Aristarchus, Mark (John Mark), Jesus Justus, Rome

Paul writes of his fellow workers Aristarchus, Mark (John Mark) and Jesus Justus, the only three Jews who are with him in Rome. Jesus Justus was likely to be the only Jewish convert in Rome who ministered alongside Paul while he was in prison.

Henry tells us we can draw a lesson from this:

He speaks respectfully concerning Mark: He is profitable to me for the ministry. It is supposed that this Mark was he about whom Paul and Barnabas had contended, Acts 15 39. Paul would not take him with him to the work, because he had once flinched and drawn back: but now, says he, Take Mark, and bring him with thee. By this it appears that Paul was now reconciled to Mark, and had a better opinion of him than he had had formerly. This teaches us to be of a forgiving spirit; we must not therefore disclaim for ever making use of those that are profitable and useful, though they may have done amiss.

MacArthur calls Mark ‘the unfaithful companion’ who did well:

Let’s look … at the unfaithful companion, the unfaithful companion. “Pick up Mark and bring him with you, for he’s useful to me for service.” Mark, John Mark. His home, Jerusalem, Acts 12:12 tells us. The church in Jerusalem no doubt met in his house. He had accompanied Paul and Barnabas. He was selected as one of the bright, young lights in the Jerusalem church, and he was accompanying Paul and Barnabas on the first missionary journey. But Acts 13:13 says as they started on a difficult part, he abandoned them. It was too much for him. He didn’t have the courage for it. He didn’t have the character for it. He didn’t have the commitment for it. And Paul had no stomach for weak men, and he had no stomach for cowardly men and he had no stomach for uncommitted men. And he didn’t want to saddle his life with a lot of unnecessary baggage that he would have to keep pushing along and pushing along. If you couldn’t stand it, he really didn’t want you around. And so it registered in his mind when John Mark left that he didn’t want him back again. And approximately, according to some calculations, about seven years later Paul and Barnabas were about to set out on another journey. And Barnabas said to Paul, “Let’s take Mark,” and Paul said, “Absolutely not.” Acts 15:36 and following discusses the argument between Paul and Barnabas over Mark.

And because of the unresolved argument, they split and Barnabas took Mark and Paul took Silas. And the parting of the ways between Paul and Barnabas was over Mark. Barnabas thought he had been rehabilitated; Paul didn’t want to take a chance. Mark had failed, and in Paul’s eyes, even though it may have been seven years later, he had proven himself to be unworthy of the difficult rigors of ministry and he wanted no partnership with a weak man. About a dozen years later, we find Paul in prison in Rome, and guess who’s with him? Mark. Many years have passed now, and apparently Mark has proven himself and he’s back with Paul. And while in his first imprisonment, Paul wrote Colossians, and in Colossians 4:10 he refers to Mark. And he wrote Philemon and in Philemon … verse 24 he refers to Mark again. And so after all of those years, Mark was back in the good graces of Paul, an unfaithful companion restored.

After, by the way, according to 1 Peter 5:13, Mark spent some time with Peter. And at the request of the Romans, he wrote his Gospel, which many believe to be a Gospel which reflects the testimony of Peter more than the others … Mark was back with Paul and served him well and probably even assisted Timothy so that he was well known to Timothy also. So 20 years have passed and Mark is faithful and loyal, and Paul says, “Pick up Mark and bring him, for he’s useful to me for service.” Literally very useful, diakonia, the word from which we get deacon, service. Well what use was he? Well he’s been in Rome; he knew the Roman church. He was acquainted with the people. He could be of great help. I think that’s one of the great joys in Christian ministry, by the way, to see an unfaithful person restored, and sometimes it takes a long, long time, a long time. But the Lord does build the weak up again and make them strong. All kinds of people are part of the network, aren’t they? Faithful sons and unfaithful deserters. The faithful unknown and the faithful well-known, faithful companions and unfaithful companions, in this case restored.

As for Luke, the physician turned Gospel writer, Henry says:

Luke however remained with Paul (v. 11, 12), and was not this enough? Paul did not think it so; he loved the company of his friends.

MacArthur says that we should not get too wrapped up in Paul’s wording of that verse:

… we come to Luke the faithful companion, Luke the faithful companion. In verse 11, he says, “Only Luke is with me.” Now some have suggested that in such a statement he’s sort of depreciating the character of Luke. “Please, Timothy, hurry up and get here. Only Luke is here,” implied and you can imagine what that’s like. But we don’t want to express ourselves in that way; that wouldn’t be fair to dear Luke. Luke is a unique person and I want to just mention to you that he is only spoken of two other times in the New Testament. Colossians 4:14 he is named called the beloved physician. Philemon 24 he is a fellow worker of Paul. Beloved physician, a fellow worker. But though only three passages name this man, he is a dominant character in the New Testament. He wrote the Gospel of Luke, which is the longest of all four gospels. Though it only has 24 chapters and Matthew has 28, it has more verses and more words than Matthew. And then he wrote 28 chapters of Acts. 52 chapters of the New Testament were penned by the beloved physician, fellow worker of Paul who was an able historian. He chronicled the life of Christ under the inspiration of the Spirit, and then he chronicled the life of the early church under the Spirit’s inspiration. But he was humble, and he was content to come alongside a great apostle.

He was a constant companion to Paul, faithfully at his side. He was with Paul on missionary journey number two at Troas and Philippi. He joined Paul at the end of missionary journey number three and went with him to Jerusalem. He was with Paul on the ship that crossed the sea and was wrecked, account to Acts 27. He was with Paul in both of his imprisonments. And you read in the book of Acts periodically the pronoun we, we, we. We call them the “we” passages of Acts, and the “we” is Luke including himself in the travels of Paul. But while he doesn’t want any prominence and he doesn’t necessarily want to be well known, he was Paul’s servant. His heart was to come alongside Paul and serve his personal needs. And if anybody ever needed a personal physician, Paul did. Beaten with rods, stoned, whipped, shipwrecked, thorn in the flesh, all that he suffered. He needed a first-class personal, intimate friend. And the fact that he was a physician was of tremendous use, tremendous use. He wasn’t a preacher. We don’t ever hear him preach. We don’t hear him teach. He doesn’t appear to have been a theologian. He was a friend who acted perhaps as a secretary to Paul and certainly as a historian to the Holy Spirit. The fact that he says only Luke does not depreciate his value but simply means the only person I have here is my personal attendant and my personal servant, and I can’t do the work that needs to be done. He needed someone in addition to Luke to get the work done. Paul was not sitting in the corner of a dungeon waiting to die. He was still at it.

Paul continues his list of people, saying that he has sent Tychicus to Ephesus (verse 12).

Paul and Tychicus had a long association. We first meet Tychicus in Acts 20:

Acts 20:1-6 – Paul, third missionary tour, Timothy, Sopater the Berean, Thessalonians Aristarchus and Secundus, Gaius of Derbe, Asians Tychicus and Trophimus, Luke, Greece, Macedonia and Troas

Paul leaves Ephesus after the riot for his third missionary tour, revisiting churches he either founded or helped to build. He took with him the above companions.

Acts 20:13-16 — Paul, third missionary tour, Assos, Mitylene, Chios, Samos, Miletus, Timothy, Sopater the Berean, Thessalonians Aristarchus and Secundus, Gaius of Derbe, Asians Tychicus and Trophimus, Luke

Luke documents the cities and islands he, Paul and their companions visited on the way to Miletus. From Miletus, Paul arranged to sail south on his way to Jerusalem for the feast of Pentecost.

Paul remembers Tychicus in his closing remarks to the church in Ephesus:

Ephesians 6:21-24 – benediction, blessing, grace, peace, love incorruptible, faith, Tychicus

Tychicus carried the Apostle’s letter to the Colossians and to Philemon:

Colossians 4:7-9 – Tychicus, Onesimus

Paul tells the Colossians that Tychicus and Onesimus will visit them. Tychicus will carry the letter to the Colossians. Both were with Paul in Rome and were involved in ministry.

He also had with him the letter to Philemon, Onesimus’s master.

MacArthur says:

… the faithful messenger, Tychicus. Verse 12 says, “But Tychicus I have sent to Ephesus.” He, by the way, is mentioned four other times in Scripture. Acts chapter 20, verse 4 tells us that he was an Asian from Asian Minor who accompanied Paul to Jerusalem with the offering for the poor saints there. He is a faithful associate of Paul. He is mentioned in Ephesians 6:21, Colossians 4:7, Titus 3:12, and here. And his special task seems to be to deliver the letters that Paul wrote. He took Ephesians to Ephesus. He took Colossians to Colossae for Paul. And I believe it’s best to assume that he probably is taking 2 Timothy to Ephesus to give to Timothy. So he was Paul’s messenger, Paul’s delivery service. Perhaps we could identify the statement, “I sent,” or, “I have sent,” as what’s called an epistolary aorist, which means I am sending. And very likely he was sending him to Ephesus where Timothy was with this letter.

He was a faithful man to deliver the Word of God. How vital was this letter? It was vital because Timothy had to know what Paul was saying, if he was gonna set the church right. How vital was this letter? Timothy had to know what God expected him to be. How vital was this letter? Timothy had to get the letter and read that Paul wanted him to come and come immediately before winter so that he had a very important task did Tychicus to get the letter there. He must have been a man of great responsibility. Maybe not a teacher, maybe not an articulator of truth but a messenger with the truth. We have those kinds of people in our network. I thank God for the people around me who facilitate the word getting out, whether it’s in the printed page or through letters or through tapes, whatever it is. Faithful messengers who go take the Word. I think of that every time I see those precious ladies who box those little tapes and send them out, those young men who package the Word of God and mail it all over the world, the Tychicus of the network of any servant of God, those who take the Word.

Then Paul mentions Carpus, who has his cloak at Troas; Timothy is to bring the cloak, Paul’s books and, most importantly, his parchments (verse 13).

MacArthur explains the situation:

While Tychicus was the faithful one who went, Carpus was the faithful one who stayed. You say, “Where did he stay?” He probably stayed home just to conjecture in a sense, from verse 13. He says, “When you come, bring the cloak which I left at Troas with Carpus, and the books, especially the parchments.” Apparently, Carpus, who we don’t know anything about him at all, but he lived obviously in Troas, and perhaps that’s where Paul stayed; in fact, likely he did stay there. And what he is saying to Timothy is, “Look, pick up Mark on your way with you, and when you come, go through Troas and get my cloak and my books and parchments.” He would go from Ephesus to Troas, over land, across the top there down into Macedonia, across Macedonia to the sea, and then he would catch the ship that would go to the city of Brundisium on Italy’s east coast and then over land to Rome. That would be the path he would take. And so he says, “Go north. Go through Troas.” Come across the top and down into what we know as Greece and then across the sea to Italy. And when you get to Troas, on the way pick up my cloak and the books and parchments because I left them at the house at Carpus. Some have suggested that may have been the place where the church met; we don’t know. Surely that’s the place where Paul stayed. He was the one who stayed home to receive the ones that the Lord sent. So you have those part of your network who were sent and those part who were there to take care of the ones who were sent. That was Carpus.

You say, “Why did Paul want his cloak?” Well, winter was coming. That’ll tell you a little bit about his economic condition and maybe about the economic condition of the church. You would think that they wouldn’t have to trek halfway across Europe with a coat. If he needed one that bad, couldn’t they go down to the local store and buy him one? But economic conditions were quite different than they are today. He had one of those and it had to be sent from one part of the world to another part of the world when he got cold. Far cry from our lifestyle. It was a heavy blanket-like garment made out of a wool with a hole in it like a huge blanket. You just put it over your head and it kept off the rain and kept out the cold, and you could even use it like a bed. You just fold yourself in it, almost like a sleeping bag. And winter was coming and the dungeon was dark and cold, and he needed his cloak.

Why had he left it there? Maybe he didn’t want to carry it in the summer. On the other hand, some have even suggested that he was arrested in Troas and hauled off before he could take any of his belongings, and that’s why his cloak was still there and that’s why his books were still there and his parchments were still there, which you can’t imagine he would leave. And that’s why when he finally got to Rome, he was whisked off by the soldiers, put on trial before any of his friends could come to his aid, and that’s why he says in verse 16, “At my defense, there wasn’t anybody there to stand beside me.” Maybe they didn’t even come ‘til later because he had been taken away from Troas; we don’t know that, it’s possible. So he says, “Stop by the house of Carpus and get my cloak.”

And then he says, “Also would you pick up my books and parchments.” The books and parchments, what were they? Well, parchments probably refers to animal-skin scrolls. Books some feel refers to papyrus scrolls. It may have been that some of them would’ve been the Old Testament books, whatever ones of them he had. Some of them may have been his own letters, copies of which he kept. Some of them may have been blanks on which he was about to write other things. The point is he wasn’t finished reading and he wasn’t finished writing and he wasn’t finished studying, and he wanted his books and his papers. And all of it was at the house of Carpus in Troas where Paul had been on numerous occasions, and this man may well have been a host for Paul many times. In his network, he had people who cared for his physical need, who gave him a place to stay, who took care of his coat and took care of his belongings, and those people are so important too. Paul had to depend on folks for those basic things in life. Thank God for the messengers who go, and thank God for the people who receive those messengers into their homes, show hospitality, kindness. They’re all a part of the network too.

Then Paul warns Timothy about Alexander the coppersmith, saying that he did the Apostle great harm, although the Lord would repay him according to his deeds (verse 14) and that Timothy should be wary of him, because he strongly opposed the Gospel message (verse 15).

Henry says:

This is he who is spoken of Acts 19 33. It should seem, he had been a professor of the Christian religion, a forward professor, for he was there particularly maligned by the worshippers of Diana, and yet he did Paul much evil. Paul was in as much danger from false brethren (2 Cor 11 26) as from open enemies. Paul foretels that God would reckon with him. It is a prophetical denunciation of the just judgment of God that would befal him: The Lord will reward him according to his works. He cautions Timothy to take heed of him: “Of whom be thou aware also, that he do not, under pretence of friendship, betray thee to mischief.” It is dangerous having any thing to do with those who would be enemies to such a man as Paul. Observe, (1.) Some who were once Paul’s hearers and admirers did not give him reason to remember them with much pleasure; for one forsook him, and another did him much evil, and greatly withstood his words. Yet, (2.) At the same time he mentions some with pleasure; the badness of some did not make him forget the goodness of others; such as Timothy, Titus, Mark, and Luke. (3.) The apostle has left a brand on the names and memory of two persons; the one is Demas, who forsook him, having loved the present world, and the other is Alexander, who greatly withstood his words. (4.) God will reward evil-doers, particularly apostates, according to their works. (5.) Of such as are of Alexander’s spirit and temper we should beware; for they will do us no good, but all the mischief that is in their power.

Acts 19 describes a riot over the worship of Artemis — Diana — in Ephesus. The pagans refused to listen to Alexander because he was Jewish:

Acts 19:28-34 – Ephesus, riot for Artemis (Diana), Paul’s companions Gaius and Aristarchus, Paul, Asiarchs, Alexander

The riot at Ephesus unfolds: Artemis (Diana) supporters versus Christians and Jews. Paul wanted to speak to the mob, but his disciples and the Roman government representatives, the Asiarchs, forbade him from entering the theatre in Ephesus. The Jews put forward Alexander to speak, but he was drowned out because the Artemis worshippers ignored him as he was Jewish. Many people did not know why they were part of the riot; they simply rushed in to be part of the mob.

However, MacArthur does not think this is the same Alexander, as it was a common name in that era:

Let’s call him the faithless enemy, the faithless enemy. “Alexander the coppersmith did me much harm. The Lord will repay him according to his deeds. Be on guard against him yourself, for he vigorously opposed our teaching.” Alexander is a very, very common name in the ancient names. We do not need to assume that this Alexander is the same as the one in 1 Timothy 1:20 who was a leader in the church at Ephesus who was a false teacher. Nor do we need to assume that this is the same Alexander as in Acts 19:33. All we know about this one, and probably to set him apart from those others, is that he is called Alexander the coppersmith, so we know it’s not the other Alexanders. That word means a metal worker; he worked in metal. Maybe he made idols at Ephesus like Demetrius did out of silver. Maybe he too was an idol maker whose trade had been interrupted by Paul’s preaching in Ephesus. It’s likely that he was in Ephesus. He did Paul much harm, perhaps not only in Ephesus but maybe elsewhere; we don’t know. Timothy needed to be on guard against him, and Timothy at this time was in Ephesus.

On the other hand, some have suggested that this guy was in Rome and that he had harmed Paul in Rome by opposing him at his trial and that Timothy needed to be on guard against him when he got to Rome because he was liable to run into him. We can’t be dogmatic about either because it doesn’t say, but I would tend to think that he was Alexander of Ephesus and that he had done Paul much harm in the past and Timothy needed to guard himself and the church against him because he was right there in Ephesus. And it’s not without reason to assume that as a metal worker he had indeed made idols and that those idols of course represented everything opposite the truth of God. And so he hated Paul and set himself against him. He says, “he did me much harm.” You’ll note that in verse 13, and then he describes the harm in verse 15: “He opposed our teaching. He vigorously opposed our teaching. He showed me much ill-treatment but not in a physical way, in a mental way. He opposed the truth. He stood against the truth, the Gospel.” And then in a simple future prediction, a prophetic statement, Paul says in verse 14, “The Lord will repay him according to his deeds.” No sinner will ever get away with his sin. No person who opposes the Gospel of Jesus Christ will ultimately succeed.

These are the next verses of 2 Timothy:

¹⁶ At my first defence no one came to stand by me, but all deserted me. May it not be charged against them! ¹⁷ But the Lord stood by me and strengthened me, so that through me the message might be fully proclaimed and all the Gentiles might hear it. So I was rescued from the lion’s mouth. ¹⁸ The Lord will rescue me from every evil deed and bring me safely into his heavenly kingdom. To him be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.

May we have the faith and perseverance that Paul had during his decades of unfaltering ministry.

Paul closes with a set of greetings and gives those mentioned — along with Timothy — a blessing, to be explored next week.

Next time — 2 Timothy 4:19-22

Forbidden Bible Verses — Colossians 4:10-11

The three-year Lectionary that many Catholics and Protestants hear in public worship gives us a great variety of Holy Scripture.

Yet, it doesn’t tell the whole story.

My series Forbidden Bible Verses — ones the Lectionary editors and their clergy omit — examines the passages we do not hear in church. These missing verses are also Essential Bible Verses, ones we should study with care and attention. Often, we find that they carry difficult messages and warnings.

Today’s reading is from the English Standard Version with commentary by Matthew Henry and John MacArthur.

Colossians 4:10-11

¹⁰ Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, and Mark the cousin of Barnabas (concerning whom you have received instructions—if he comes to you, welcome him), ¹¹ and Jesus who is called Justus. These are the only men of the circumcision among my fellow workers for the kingdom of God, and they have been a comfort to me.

———————————————————————————————–

Last week’s post was about Tychicus, whose ministry involved everything from being a messenger to preaching, and Onesimus, Philemon’s slave who was working with Paul for the Lord.

Today’s verses reacquaint us with Aristarchus and Mark and introduce us to Jesus Justus, the only three Jews with Paul in Rome.

Aristarchus is Paul’s fellow prisoner, and the Apostle has already sent the Colossians instructions with regard to Mark, i.e. welcome him (verse 10).

Got Questions tells us that the name Aristarchus means ‘best ruler’ or ‘best prince’.

He must have been one prince of a fellow because he was loyal to Paul through thick and thin, even to the point of wanting to stay with his friend in prison.

Aristarchus shows up multiple times in Acts.

John MacArthur walks us through his ministry, which, whilst not notable, was certainly of benefit to Paul and, by extension, to the Lord (emphases mine):

Aristarchus is the man with a sympathetic heart, the man with a sympathetic heart. You know what you need if you’re a leader, if you’re in the Lord’s work? You need some people who are just around to feel your burdens with you. You need some burden-bearers. They aren’t whirlwinds at anything, they just care. You know, they don’t put on great programs, and do great things, and astounding, prominent, out-front things, they just care; and you’ve got to have them. And Aristarchus was one of those people with a sympathetic heart.

Verse 10: “Aristarchus my” – now here it comes – “my fellow prisoner greets you.” Those are deep words. Aristarchus is a Jew with a Greek name, which was common in the dispersion. When the Jews were scattered they often took Greek names. So he says, “Aristarchus sends his love and his blessing, he greets you.”

Greeting someone in that era involved more than saying ‘hello’. It was an emotional embrace.

Aristarchus was probably from Thessalonica originally:

Now Aristarchus’ name appears elsewhere in the New Testament in association with the town of Thessalonica. It’s very likely that he came from that town. And at Ephesus, you remember Paul ministered at Ephesus for three years; and during those three years, Aristarchus was with him. And you remember when finally in Ephesus the riot broke out? When the riot broke out, Aristarchus and Gaius were seized by the mob, and Aristarchus found out what it was to be a prisoner. They recognized him as one of Paul’s companions, and so they seized him. Now that’s in chapter 19.

I wrote about Acts 19 in 2018. Here are the relevant verses relating to Aristarchus and the riot:

Acts 19:28-34 – Ephesus, riot for Artemis (Diana), Paul’s companions Gaius and Aristarchus, Paul, Asiarchs, Alexander

Acts 19:35-41 – Ephesus, town clerk calms down mob

In Acts 20, Paul left Ephesus after the riot and took several companions with him to visit other churches he helped build. Aristarchus was one of the men accompanying him. Tychicus, discussed last week, was another:

Acts 20:1-6 – Paul, third missionary tour, Timothy, Sopater the Berean, Thessalonians Aristarchus and Secundus, Gaius of Derbe, Asians Tychicus and Trophimus, Luke, Greece, Macedonia and Troas

Acts 20:13-16 — Paul, third missionary tour, Assos, Mitylene, Chios, Samos, Miletus, Timothy, Sopater the Berean, Thessalonians Aristarchus and Secundus, Gaius of Derbe, Asians Tychicus and Trophimus, Luke

From Miletus, Paul and some of these men, including Aristarchus, went on to Jerusalem, where Paul was going to present the church there with a gift from the Gentile churches.

Paul was imprisoned in Jerusalem for a long time. Festus the Roman governor granted Paul’s request that his case be heard in Rome. As a Roman citizen, Paul could make such a request. Aristarchus was allowed to travel to Rome with Paul, as was Luke:

Acts 27:1-8 – Paul, Luke, Aristarchus, Julius

MacArthur picks up the story:

Now Paul decides to go to Jerusalem. You know what happens? He takes Aristarchus along. So he goes on that trip. Paul gets on the boat. You remember he was captured as a prisoner in Jerusalem, then he was moved to Caesarea on the coast where he stayed as a prisoner. And then finally, in Acts 27, he gets on a boat to go to Rome to be tried in Rome, and he’s a prisoner on the ship; and Acts 27:2 says when he got on the boat, Aristarchus was with him. Had Aristarchus been with him through all the imprisonment? Very possible. Very possible since the time he identified with Paul in the city of Ephesus, and escaped from the riot, and went to Jerusalem.

From that time until now he has stayed with Paul; as a prisoner in Jerusalem, he hung around. Caesarea, he may have hung around.

When they arrived in Rome, having survived a shipwreck, Aristarchus was in prison, too — just to stay with Paul:

Now here he is back in Rome. And guess who’s there? Aristarchus. And Paul calls him “my fellow prisoner.” And the guy hasn’t committed a crime, he just hangs around with criminals, so he spends his time in jail.

Now the word “fellow prisoner” is a beautiful word; sunaichmalōtos. You know what it means? It means one caught with a spear. Literally it means a war captive or a prisoner. “Aristarchus is a captive like me.”

You say, “Well, why did they capture him? They never did. “Well, why did they put him in prison?” They never did. “But why does he call him that?” Because he just spent his time with a prisoner, he might as well have been a prisoner. He is chosen to be beside Paul. If Paul’s in prison, he’s in prison; that’s his choice. It’s unlikely that he actually became a prisoner in Rome; more likely that he chose to make Paul’s lifestyle his lifestyle, because he was sympathetic, because he cared, because he loved, because he knew Paul needed him. He was a man with a sympathetic heart.

Listen, as I said, there are people who can’t lead a meeting, and they can’t speak, and they can’t be prominent in the church; and maybe they’re the most beloved of all, because they’re the burden-bearers. And you know, we don’t know what Aristarchus did, it doesn’t tell us. It doesn’t tell us he delivered anything or did anything. But you know something? We know that whatever he did, he gave up his freedom to do it, to be a prisoner with Paul. And I’ll tell you something. The Lord’s work would never be done if it weren’t for people like this who are willing to give up their liberty to be a prisoner to accomplish what God wants to be accomplished.

Here’s a sympathetic man. I call him the “man for all seasons,” the “bad weather friend.” Thank God for men who stick with you when it’s hard, because all of them won’t, when it gets rough, and really rough. And Paul says, “Who will volunteer?” Aristarchus, the first one with his hand up. “Me, Paul. Where we going? To what prison?” Yeah, true greatness for those who help, believe me.

The story of Aristarchus reminds me of John Milton’s sonnet which ends with:

They also serve who only stand and wait.

Milton was writing about the loss of his eyesight when he had so much more written work he wanted to accomplish.

To put it into context, here are the final verses of the sonnet:

But Patience, to prevent
That murmur, soon replies, ‘God doth not need
Either man’s work or his own gifts; who best
Bear his mild yoke, they serve him best. His state
Is Kingly. Thousands at his bidding speed
And post o’er Land and Ocean without rest:
They also serve who only stand and wait.’

Interesting Literature explains the meaning:

In other words, God does not require work or gifts from mankind, because God is a king. There are thousands of people travelling all over the world, who are able to work and who work hard serving God; but those who merely stand and wait patiently (instead of running about actively serving in other ways) also serve God just as well as those who go out into the world and work hard to please him through their great deeds. Or, to put it more pithily, ‘They also serve who only stand and wait.’

As the word ‘wait’ suggests, patience is a virtue, and especially a Christian one …

Now we come to Mark, Barnabas’s cousin.

Matthew Henry’s Bible says:

10 Aristarchus my fellow prisoner saluteth you, and Marcus, sister’s son to Barnabas, (touching whom ye received commandments: if he come unto you, receive him;)

The ESV says:

¹⁰ Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, and Mark the cousin of Barnabas (concerning whom you have received instructions—if he comes to you, welcome him),

Henry interprets Mark as being Barnabas’s nephew. We first saw Mark, the Gospel writer, as John Mark in Acts. A row over John Mark took place between Paul and Barnabas. Now, years later, Paul has mended fences with Mark.

Henry says:

Paul had a quarrel with Barnabas upon the account of this Mark, who was his nephew, and thought not good to take him with them, because he departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work, Acts 15 38. He would not take Mark with him, but took Silas, because Mark had deserted them; and yet Paul is not only reconciled to him himself, but recommends him to the respect of the churches, and gives a great example of a truly Christian forgiving spirit. If men have been guilty of a fault, it must not be always remembered against them. We must forget as well as forgive. If a man be overtaken in a fault, you who are spiritual restore such a one in the spirit of meekness, Gal 6 1.

It’s hard to forget as well as forgive, but time heals all wounds where there cannot be an active reconciliation.

MacArthur looks at verse 10, worded as Henry’s was, and says Mark was Barnabas’s cousin.

Whatever the case, it was clear they were related and Barnabas stood up for him. Mark’s mother was very active in the church at Jerusalem.

MacArthur recaps the row:

… Mark, verse 10: the man with a surprising future, the man with a surprising future.

Verse 10, in the middle, “And Mark, sister’s son to Barnabas,” – he’s a cousin of Barnabas – “concerning whom you received commandments; if he come unto you, receive him. Mark sends his greeting along.” Now maybe we shouldn’t call him Mark, the man with a surprising future; maybe we ought to call him Mark, the man with a second chance.

You remember about Mark? Early on in the story of the book of Acts, as the apostle Paul is moving into the excitement of the ministry as God has called him to the ministry, he decides to take this marvelous young man along. Saul and Barnabas are separated to the work of the Holy Spirit calls them to in Acts 13, and verse 5 says, “And when they were at Salamis, they preached the Word of God in the synagogues of the Jews, and they also had John as their helper.” And it’s John Mark. “Hey, we’ve got this young helper along.” Paul always took somebody. He was always discipling somebody.

He took this young man along. You say, “Boy, it’s great for him. Oh, fantastic; just fantastic.” But in verse 13 of Acts 13, it says, “Now when Paul and his company loosed from Paphos, they came to Perga in Pamphylia.” Now that was going to be the dangerous part of the trip. They had to cross those dangerous mountains to get up into Galatia. They were full of robbers and brigands, and you were taking your life in your hands. And it says, “And John departing from them returned to Jerusalem.” When the going got rough, Mark bailed out. He can’t hack it. If it was easy, smooth sailing, he was gung-ho. They hit the tough part, and he caught the quickest ship back to Mother. And Mother’s house was the center of the Jerusalem church, remember? And later on he caused a problem because of this.

Mark — John Mark — and his mother Mary (a commonly given name, as it is now) appear in Acts 12:

Acts 12:24-25 – Saul of Tarsus, St Paul, St Barnabas, St Mark, John Mark, increasing the Church

Acts 13 sees the Church shift from a Jewish one to a Gentile one. John Mark is there:

Acts 13:4-7 – Barnabas, Saul of Tarsus, John Mark, Cyprus, Sergius Paulus, Bar-Jesus, Elymas

Later in Acts 13, John Mark returns to Jerusalem:

Acts 13:13-14a and Acts 13:40-43 — Paul, Barnabas, companions, Antioch, Pisidia, Anatolia, Jewish – Gentile audience

Paul and his companions — including Barnabas — sailed from Paphos in Cyprus first to Perga in Pamphylia then on to Antioch in Pisidia. John (John Mark, Mark of the Gospel) returned to Jerusalem.

The row over John Mark takes place in Acts 15, at which point Paul and Barnabas go their separate ways:

Acts 15:36-41 — Paul, Barnabas, Silas, John Mark, Mark, Antioch (Syria), Cyprus, Syria and Ciclilia

Upon leaving Antioch (Syria) after presenting the Gentiles at the church there with a comforting, biblical letter from the Jerusalem Council, Paul and Barnabas quarrelled about whether to bring John Mark — Mark (verse 37) — on a continuing ministry.

Although later reconciled, as my post explains, based on New Testament verses, Paul and Silas continued on in Syria and Paul’s homeland of Cicilia. Barnabas took his young relative John Mark — St Mark of the Gospel — en route to his (Barnabas’s) homeland of Cyprus.

Key verse:

³⁸ But Paul thought best not to take with them one who had withdrawn from them in Pamphylia and had not gone with them to the work.  (Acts 15:38)

MacArthur recaps the row in the vernacular:

… they’re going to go on their second missionary journey, and Barnabas says to Paul, “Let’s take Mark.” And Paul goes, “You’ve got to be kidding. No deal.” “Paul thought it not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work.” “I don’t want a guy like that along,” Paul says.

“And the fight was so sharp between them” – and the reason Barnabas was championing his cause, now we find out in Colossians, is because he was his cousin; he was a blood tie, see. “So they started a big fight and they split, and Barnabas took Mark and sailed to Cyprus, and Paul chose Silas and departed.” And there was the split between Paul and Barnabas, and Mark was the point of contention.

As we see in verse 10, Paul tells the Colossians to welcome Mark. As ‘greet’ implied more than ‘hello’ in those days, ‘welcome’ meant to receive someone warmly, with generous friendship.

MacArthur says that it is unclear who wrote the instructions about Mark, but they imply that he is now a changed character:

You know why they normally wouldn’t receive him? He had the reputation of being a failure. He had the reputation of being a washout. And so they were commanded. Now we don’t know whether Peter wrote that, Barnabas wrote that, Paul wrote that, or whoever wrote that. But he told them, somebody had spread the word around the Asian churches, “If Mark shows up, he’s reformed, you can receive him. He’s all right guy; he’s come around.”

“So Mark sends his greeting – you know Mark, the one you’re supposed to receive if he comes. Mark is changed.” Oh, it’s good to know. Eleven, twelve years later, Mark has been restored to a place of usefulness. I mean this guy was really useful.

Mark also shows up in Paul’s letter to Philemon:

Philemon 24, He names, “Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, Luke, my fellow workers.” Hey, he was a fellow worker. This guy was in it with Paul. He was doing it.

MacArthur thinks Peter worked with Mark and brought about constructive change, to the point where he considered the future Gospel writer to be like a son:

You say, “Well, what turned him around?” Well, I personally believe it probably was the ministry of Peter in his life. Somehow Peter got a hold of this guy.

In 1 Peter 5:13, “The church at Babylon, elected together with you, greet you; and so does Mark, my son,” says Peter. What happened was, Peter was used to failure; he knew how to handle it. So somewhere along the line, he ran into Mark, and he said, “Guy, I know the route. Come along, I’ll help you.” And so he calls him his son.

When Mark turned himself around, Peter sent him to Paul:

So what happened was – no question about it in my mind – Peter took on a restoration project in Mark, it worked, and then he turned him back over to Paul. Hey, that says something about being able to use your past to help somebody, doesn’t it? Peter, no doubt, was the influence. And Mark had a part. Hey, you want to know something exciting? Mark got the wonderful privilege that belonged only to four men in the whole history of humanity: to write one of the gospels – the gospel of Mark.

Even at the end of Paul’s life, Mark was there:

And listen to this, I love it, 2 Timothy 4:11. Paul’s writing, closing out his life, he says to Timothy, “Only Luke is with me, only Luke is left. Take Mark and bring him with you, for he’s profitable to me for the ministry.” Isn’t that good? “Hey, Timothy, when you come, I just want you to bring one guy. I want you to bring Mark, you know, the former washout. Bring him along, because he’s profitable to me in the ministry.”

Paul never ever thought he was going to quit ministering, I don’t think. He said, “Listen,” – in effect – “you, Timothy, and me, and Mark, I mean we can get it rolling again. Bring him along.” You see, something had happened in Mark’s life from the time that Paul said, “I don’t want him with me,” until the time that Paul is dying at the end of his life, and says, “If there’s anybody I want here to minister with me in my last days, it’s Mark.” And so you look at the picture of Mark, and you say, “Hey, there’s a man with a surprising future.”

A few years after this, maybe six at the most, he sat down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and wrote the gospel of Mark. I’ve often thought, I imagine what he was thinking in his heart when he was writing the gospel of Mark, and the Holy Spirit said this to him: “And when He had called the people unto Him with the disciples also, He said to them, ‘Whosoever will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. Whosoever would save his life, shall lose it. Whosoever shall lose his life for My sake and the gospel, the same shall find it. What shall it profit a man if he gained the whole world and lose his soul, or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?” I can imagine that Mark would have understood a little bit about what it was to deny self and die daily for the cause of Jesus Christ. He learned the hard way.

Beloved, there’s a second chance. There’s a future for failures. Paul had one, and he had a great future, great future. Praise God for restoration.

So Paul’s friends: a man with a servant’s heart, a man with a sinful past, a man with a sympathetic heart, a man with a surprising future. What a team!

The third person in today’s verses is Jesus who is called Justus; he, Aristarchus and Mark are the only men of the circumcision — Jews — among Paul’s fellow workers for the kingdom of God, and they have been of great comfort to the Apostle (verse 11).

Henry tells us more about the man’s name and his reputation:

Here is one who is called Jesus, which is the Greek name for the Hebrew Joshua. If Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterwards have spoken of another day, Heb 4 8. Who is called Justus. It is probable that he changed his name for that of Justus, in honour to the name of the Redeemer. Or else Jesus was his Jewish name, for he was of the circumcision; and Justus his Roman or Latin name. These are my fellow-labourers unto the kingdom of God, who have been a comfort unto me. Observe, What comfort the apostle had in the communion of saints and ministers! One is his fellow-servant, another his fellow-prisoner, and all his fellow-workers, who were working out their own salvation and endeavouring to promote the salvation of others. Good ministers take great comfort in those who are their fellow-workers unto the kingdom of God. Their friendship and converse together are a great refreshment under the sufferings and difficulties in their way.

MacArthur says it is lamentable that, out of all the Jews who heard Paul in Rome, he had only three with him in ministry in that great city:

These are the only Jewish fellow workers who were a comfort to Paul. Isn’t that sad? Do you know that the Jews, for the most part, had rejected him; except for Aristarchus, and he’d been around for a long time; and Mark, and he’d been around for a long time too. And then this new one, Jesus Justus. He was a man with a strong commitment; I know that, because he had to step out from his people.

You know, in Acts chapter 28, when the apostle Paul arrived, the first thing he did was begin with Jewish evangelism, and he started to preach to the Jews. And some believed; that’s true, verse 24 of Acts 28, “Some believed the things were spoken, but some believed not. And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed.”

Here are the pertinent verses:

Acts 28:17-22 — Paul, Rome, Rome’s Jewish leaders, chain

Paul explains to Rome’s Jewish leadership why he is there. Paul says he has never done anything against the Jewish nation, his people, to whom he belonged. Paul stated that He believes in the resurrection of the dead — the ‘hope of Israel’ — which the Messiah delivers.

Acts 28:23-28 – Paul, Rome, Roman Jews, Christianity — ‘the sect’, Isaiah 6:9-10, the Holy Spirit

After giving a discourse, or dialogue, lasting several hours, Paul warns Rome’s Jews against ignoring his scriptural discussion about Christ. He mentions that Isaiah’s words came from the Holy Spirit. Yet, the Gentiles will listen to this message without any prior religious background on the subject.

MacArthur elaborates on what happened. As Paul already knew Aristarchus and Mark, Jesus Justus would have been the only Roman Jew to join him in ministry:

… even the ones that believed, apparently, never got behind Paul, they just got into an argument with their own people. And Paul says, “Well-spoke the Holy Spirit by Isaiah saying, ‘Go to this people and say, “Hearing, you shall hear, and not understand; seeing, you shall see, and not perceive,” for the heart of this people has become obtuse;’ – or fat – ‘their ears are dull of hearing; their eyes have they closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart be converted, and I should heal them. Be it known, therefore, unto you that the salvation of God is sent to the Gentiles, and they will hear it.’ And when he had said these words, the Jews departed and had great arguments among themselves.”

Even the ones that believed apparently never made a commitment to Paul, only three. Only three Jewish fellow workers stuck by him. Two of them have been around a long time; but this one, Jesus Justus, just may have been one right out of that Roman group. And so I call him the man with the strong commitment, because he paid a big price, didn’t he? He walked right out of his own people.

It’s hard to believe the pettiness that occurred in the life of Paul; but it did. He calls him a fellow worker, a fellow worker for the kingdom, sunergoi, co-laborer. And notice this beautiful statement about Jesus Justus. It says, “These have been a comfort to me” …

Paul mentions more of his close friends, to be continued next week.

Next time — Colossians 4:12-14