The Gospel of Mark, which is a fast-moving Gospel that does not dwell on non-essential details, also takes time to highlight Jesus at a meal. The term “also” is used even though it is well understood that Mark serves as a basis for Matthew and Luke. That said, it is significant that Mark, which wastes no time or space in its telling of Jesus’ story, presents the event of Jesus’ meal at the house of Levi the tax collector (Matthew). As Mark serves as the basis for Matthew, the story centered upon this particular meal, as one would expect, are quite similar in detail.
In the third chapter of Mark, we read “Now Jesus went home” (3:20a). The implication is that there was a meal involved, or at least a meal planned, because Mark goes on to report that “a crowd gathered so that they were not able to eat” (3:20b). It would appear that Jesus was expected at a family dinner, but because of the crowd, and the pressing needs of the kingdom of God that were represented by the crowd, Jesus was detained. “When His family heard this they went out to restrain Him, for they said, ‘He is out of His mind.’” (3:21) Along with this, some of the “experts in the law who came down from Jerusalem” (3:22a) seized on this statement by His family to accuse Jesus of being “possessed by Beelzebul” (3:22b), and that “By the ruler of demons He casts out demons” (3:22c). Jesus squarely refutes this charge, as we might expect; and here, in the midst of a scenario that includes the delaying of a meal, He uses kingdom language, albeit in a roundabout manner, saying “How can Satan cast out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom will not be able to stand. If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. And if Satan rises against himself and is divided, he is not able to stand and his end has come. But no one is able to enter a strong man’s house and steal his property unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can thoroughly plunder his house” (3:23b-27).
Jesus does not necessarily dwell on the accusation, as it is not always productive to spend time refuting foolishness, but seizes upon the insinuations in what looks like an opportunity for a teachable moment concerning the kingdom of God. Though the actual phrase goes unsaid, those with ears to hear, both then and now, hearing these words in the context of Jesus’ mission at it relates to the kingdom of God, and understanding the kingdom of God as it relates to the people of God (Israel) to which Jesus spoke, could and can make the application towards their existing situations. Israel was looking for the establishment of that kingdom, and while looking for its coming, they were also supposed to be the continuous representatives and ambassadors for the God of that kingdom, as a light to the surrounding nations. There were, unfortunately, a plethora of opinions that held sway in that day as to how to go about bringing about the reality of that kingdom and God’s rule.
It would appear, at first glance, that little has changed in that regard, though such an observation would not necessarily be true. Yes, there are a vast multitude of divergent opinions of what it means to be a Christian, what Christianity should look like, and how the Church should engage with the world; but because the church, by and large, lacks the historical depth and deeply rooted understanding of its place in and for God’s world that was commonplace in the Israel of Jesus’ day, the observation that would more closely align with reality is that what the Church actually lacks is any true comprehension of what is meant by the kingdom of God. Owing to that, the divisiveness of the Church does not stem from differing notions concerning the coming kingdom, but is actually centered on secondary considerations that are of relatively little value.
Translating part of Jesus’ statement into our contemporary situation, perhaps this is the way we can understand the tying up of the strong man so that his house can be plundered. It is probably most useful to think of Satan, not as the being that personally attacks individuals in order to get them to do “bad stuff,” but rather, as the one that seeks to bring about confusion and uncertainty, getting Christians so focused on that which is not essential, that it becomes impossible to function as a member of Christ’s kingdom on the terms that He Himself lays out. Jesus speaks of a real adversary in these kingdom-oriented efforts and speaks of that adversary clearly. He seems to hold to the notion that Satan is not divided when it comes to his intentions and understanding, but that it is the people of God that are confused and divided in determining what it is that is expected of them by their God, which could be observed in Israel at that time. The people of Laodicea, as we draw the analogy for our subject, are obviously confused as well, with this showing forth in their practice, and this is deeply troubling for Jesus. They have been tied up and are being plundered by an adversary intent on thwarting the plans of God, and they are not showing forth the kingdom of God in their practice, though others around them (the hot and cold cities---Hierapolis and Colossae) are successfully able to do so.
No comments:
Post a Comment