This Kind

We turn our attention to Mark 9:14-29. So, Jesus had returned from the transfiguration with three disciples in tow. As he arrived, people saw him coming, ran to him, greeted him. The multitude had not diminished. They waited. Much had transpired in Jesus' absence. He found his remaining disciples in a heated debate with the scribes. No Pharisees are mentioned, though we know they followed Jesus as much as the throngs. We also know the Sadducees and local elders, wherever Jesus went, were a constant source of testing and strife.

Who were the scribes, exactly? According to Wikipedia, a scribe is a person who writes books or documents . . . and may help keep track of records for priests and government. Scribes of the ancient world were distinguished professionals who could exercise functions we would associate with lawyers, government ministers, financiers and even judges. It was such a crew that Jesus found grilling his disciples. Jesus demanded to know why they questioned his disciples.

The crowd was excited. A fact that might be overlooked is the reaction of the people upon Jesus' return. They were greatly amazed. Why was that, I wonder? Had the political tides changed in his absence? Did the people see the scribes as attaining the dominant position? Then Jesus came back – it seems it was just in time, for the disciples had failed in the power of the new ministry and were now being called out for it.

Yet, before the scribes could muster a response, one close to the center of the controversy stepped up with the answer. In his absence, the remaining disciples of Christ had been presented with a case of possession which was beyond the abilities. The father of the possessed boy told the whole story – they brought the boy into the circle of attention. He was still in the grips of a grievous malady, as the possessing spirit threw the boy about.

Jesus spoke with the father, questioned him about the boy, even as all others held their tongues, waiting to see what might happen next. All along, the crowd kept growing. People sent word of mouth (albeit hushed) that increased the number of curious onlookers. Jesus noticed the increase and chose that setting in which to drive out the evil spirit. So many witnesses served a dual purpose as they not only advertised the good news and the power of faith in God but were set against the naysayers in the sense of legal witnesses.

It is of note that Jesus named the spirit. He named it “dumb and deaf” in verse 25. It may be that the disciples had some practice in healing and power against the evil spirits. Christ did send them out on such field trips. That might explain why the boy was brought to the disciples as well as their botched attempt. Did the disciple know, I wonder, what the name of the spirit was? At any rate, we wonder about the name. It obviously heard Jesus' command. It cried out as it left the boy.

We are aware of at least one case in which the spirits and Christ were in communication. Jesus asked for and received the of 'Legion.' So, in the case of this poor boy, we might assume that the spirit acted in a manner that resulted in no forthcoming name – as if it could not or would not communicate. It is a fact that this spirit was of a kind the disciples could not fight. This kind of spirit, Jesus admitted later, was beyond them, perhaps for that very reason. This kind of spirit was shielded from the disciples and was accessed only through a heightened spiritual regimen that more attuned one to spiritual realities.

The disciples had failed because they were more nearly physical and worldly than spiritual. This is a lesson for all believers. Even the closest and most devout followers of Christ still have worldly limitations to overcome. Discipleship calls for discipline.

Coming Down the Mountain

I want to speak about the interval between the transfiguration and the confrontation. I'll explain by saying this: Jesus and three disciples came down from the mountain upon which had occurred the transfiguration. That took time. Between the transfiguration and their return to the remaining disciples, who were confronted by the scribes, there was a space in which occurred a little more than scampering over rocks.

In Mark 9:9-13 a certain amount of conversation took place that I wish to look at, but first I'll backtrack enough to say this: the transfiguration was stunning. It was stunning not so much because of the brightness, but because the disciples were stunned. Such things just didn't happen. For men to appear in such a manner might seem more appropriate in a science fiction setting than a real-world historical setting. The disciples were afraid. They hardly knew how to act or what to say.

And then there was that voice from nowhere. Suddenly, everything seemed normal again. The men were gone and the disciples stood with Jesus only. Of course, Jesus charged them to keep it all a secret. That fact in itself deserves examination, but I will leave it for others. I want to bring up a matter of a different nature. The disciples recognized dead prophets. In a society that frowned on images, insomuch that there were neither statues nor paintings of the prophets, just how did these simple men recognize them as Moses and Elijah?

Were they moved only by old testament descriptions? If so, they must have been awfully well read for their non-clerical vocations. Or, did Jesus tell them who the two men were? In the space that it took them to return to the other disciples, a conversation occurred on two separate levels. The first was between the disciples themselves, which would suggest that they came down the mountain either ahead of Jesus, or trailing.

Jesus had told them, in verse 9, that he wished the matter kept secret until the Son of man “were” risen, and so in verse 10 the disciples are seen “questioning one with another what the rising from the dead should mean.” I get the sense they huddled at some distance behind Jesus as they walked. They tried to figure it out on their own but came up short. Then they caught up with him to ask outright.

The fact that they asked about Elijah shows me that they at least connected the dots in a scriptural sense. They had recognized the dead prophet, Elijah, and they remembered that Elijah must come before the great and dreadful day of the Lord, Malachi 4:5. Here is my question. Did anyone see what Jesus said in Mark 9:9? He said, “Till the Son of man were risen.” Was it just bad grammar in those days, or are we to understand the term 'Son of man' in a plural sense?

The writers gave that name a greater degree of respect, as we can see in the fact that they capitalized 'Son.' He is the only begotten, so, we must look not at the word son but rather at the word 'man.' Normally, when we think of man in the plural form, we say or write the word 'mankind.' Perhaps the writers of scripture haven't always followed that protocol. On a divergent note, allow me to suggest an alternative interpretation. It may be that the word 'were' was used as a replacement for the future tense expression 'would be.' It was a condition I Progressive, putting emphasis on the course of an action.

Other scripture passages make a clearer case of Jesus' comparison between Elijah and John the Baptist. In Mark 9:12-13, Jesus shows the reason that Elijah had to be first. That reason was restoration. Indeed, if we look closely at Malachi 4:6, we see that it was either restoration or a curse: there was to be one or the other. John was Elijah, setting the stage for the work of Jesus. Malachi has a strong connection to the transfiguration passages of Mark nine. Take note that a fuller is referenced both in the transfiguration and in Malachi 3:2.

Jesus responded not only about the prophetic connection to John but also to prophetic connections to himself. He said, “And how it is written of the Son of man, that he must suffer many things and be set at nought.” It seems that Jesus was commenting about a notable difference between Elijah and the Son of man. That difference was one of direction: Elijah waxed while Jesus waned, as is found in Isaiah 53:12, “He was counted among the transgressors . . .” They were two sides of the wheel of Yin and Yang, yet, the reverse was said by John in John 3:30, “He must increase, but I must decrease.” Lastly, Jesus indicated that they had done with John (Elijah) as it was written of him. There was a written source that told or foretold of John's demise. Elijah went up in a fiery chariot. Nothing was done to him. Where is the book to which Jesus refers?

Mark 9:1-2

In one of the towns below Mount Hermon, in the area of Caesarea Philippi, we find Jesus and his followers in a stationary state. By that I mean they were either camped out or they had access to a house. Jesus and his disciples remained in that area for at least six days before the transfiguration.

There is no reason to think they had not already been there for some time. Indeed, a good bit at the end of chapter eight took place in that same region. In Mark 9:1-2 we find this timeline: Jesus told his disciples that some of them would see the powerful coming of the kingdom before their deaths, then six days later, he takes Peter, James and John up into the mountains.

Did Jesus specifically refer to these three disciples? I think a common misconception about the coming kingdom of God is that it will be the end result and culmination of a linear historical process. In other words, most of us are predisposed to imagine the kingdom of the book of Revelation: the kingdom that follows the apocalypse and the end of the world as we know it.

Here is my point in all of this – if Jesus specifically referred to the three disciples that witnessed the transfiguration, then the transfiguration they saw was the coming of the kingdom of God with power. That being said, we must understand that the revelation of God's kingdom to man is an individual spiritual experience rather than a historical event.

The Cross and the Heart

The Cross and the Heart:

Mark eight contains two points of interest relevant to the spirit of these studies. I wish to bring these points forward. These points are parts of larger issues, and while the larger issues are accorded due attention, these parts are often not viewed as important in their own right.

In Mark 8:15 Jesus charged his disciples, saying, “Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod.” The disciples thought it was because they brought no bread. If ever a sentence was a parable, this was the one. What I wish to point out is the aftermath: the response of Jesus.

He said, in Mark 8:17, “Perceive ye not yet, neither understand? Have ye your heart yet hardened?” We come close, here, to a definition of a 'hardened heart'. Normally, we think of this in terms of Pharaoh's resistance to Moses. We view him as contrary, and as obstinate. Now, according to this response of Jesus to his disciples, we may see the hardened heart as the condition of being obtuse. A hardened heart is simply a matter of not being perceptive, of failing to understand. It is a matter of the mind: wholly spiritual.

How had they failed to understand? They thought of physical bread rather than spiritual leaven. They jumped to the ordinary and comfortable conclusions of the world. It is no understatement to say that human nature is predisposed to a worldly and physical take on new information. If I said, 'heaven is blue', your first thoughts would be of a blue sky. After all, you've seen that often enough, and you associate heaven with a skyward direction. It will likely be a secondary consideration that I meant 'blue' as sad and 'heaven' as the kingdom of God. A hardened heart is a solid worldly preconception.

The other point I wish to bring forward is found in Mark 8:31-34. Jesus plainly tells his disciples what he is about to go through and what he must endure physically to achieve his spiritual goal. Peter pulls him around to rebuke him – likely to say something on the order of 'we won't let that happen; we'll protect you'. So, Jesus faces the other disciples (turns his back on Peter) and says, in Mark 8:33, “Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.” Again, we see the physical world-view at work. The things that be of men stand in stark opposition to the things that be of God.

I digress; I am still getting to the point. That point is found in Mark 8:34. After his exchange with Peter, and possibly as a result of it, Jesus called everyone together to speak to them as a whole. It is likely that Jesus stood apart with his disciples for the exchange with Peter, then called over the multitude, who were lounging at a distance waiting for something to happen. In Mark 8:34, Jesus said to everyone, “Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.”

This is the point: The disciples had not yet experienced the crucifixion of Christ, not that he was speaking to them alone, yet the Roman cross was well-known in the time of Jesus. It may have found its way into the common language and thoughts. It may have figured into local metaphors. Somewhere in the backs of their minds, all of them may have thought it a real possibility they end up on a cross. It may have been in the common usage that a cross represented the thankless and pay-less struggles of their everyday physical existence.

Christ said two things to them. One was, 'if you want to be like me' (come after me), meaning, as I think he did, 'if you want to be spiritual'. The second was, follow me, or in other words, 'do as I do.' If “take up your cross” was common enough to be understood by all who listened, what might it have meant to them? Jesus told them, if you want to be like me, approach these common worldly difficulties, not as things that will defeat you, but as a means to a higher spiritual victory.

The Parable of Mark Seven

Mark seven contains the travels of Jesus from Gennesaret, North to Tyre and Sidon, then South and East to Decapolis and back North to the sea of Galilee. Along the way, Jesus performed many miraculous healings. It was in Gennesaret that the Pharisees and elders from Jerusalem approached Jesus about the issue of unwashed hands.


Knowing how many people Jesus traveled with, and then on top of that, how many people followed him, we can appreciate that reaching Jesus was no small task. Yet we find that those who had come from Jerusalem did just that. This raises questions. How difficult was it to get an audience with Jesus? Had they traveled that distance for the sole purpose of speaking to Jesus, or had they been in tow all along? Did Pharisees normally travel among the disciples?


Also, if they traveled from Jerusalem just to see Jesus, why did they deem that necessary and had their conversation with Jesus degraded into nitpicking over small points of the law or had that been their initial interest? Another consideration is this: did they speak as they walked or were they in a more comfortable setting – say around a synagogue before or after one of his Sabbath talks? Did all of this, finally, declare the standing that Jesus had among the Pharisees and religious elders?


At any rate, it was during his conversation with them that Jesus delivered the parable. This is the parable as found in Mark 7:15, “There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.”


It would appear that Jesus was somewhat central to the people that he called together. It was in response to the conversation he had with his peers from Jerusalem that Jesus “called all the people unto him.” They were a bit distant from the exchange, yet close enough to be called over physically to his location. It was not their attention that he called for as much as their ear-shot nearness. I get the impression of Jesus sitting with the Pharisees and elders perhaps in a market square or open area between houses or a plaza near a synagogue.


I get the impression of the crowd surrounding Jesus and the Pharisees, and Jesus making an exaggerated point – perhaps shaming the Pharisees in the process. I once failed in math during elementary school, and the teacher had all the other students stand around my desk to make a point. I was to be surrounded until I got it.


It was later, after the exchange, that Jesus explained the parable to his disciples. He did this in Mark 7:17-23. It is because of this that we today may see so clearly what Jesus meant by it. The contention is between physical gestures and spiritual realities. The point of the parable is that physical gestures cannot achieve spiritual goals. We can, in fact, be quite spiritual even if we eat with dirty hands. If we are not defiled by such, then defilement is spiritual rather than physical. Jesus offered an extended list of things that do defile a man.


One may note from that list that all of them share something in common. They are spiritual attributes. Please follow my reasoning on this. Jesus said that the things that defile a man are the things that are produced in the heart. Now of course, by saying this, I intend to be understood as saying 'things that are produced in the mind.' If you read every verse in the Bible that deals with the heart, as I have, you come away with the understanding that the writers of the Bible wrote 'heart' while they meant 'mind.'


This is most easily seen in such a verse that puts it this way: “thoughts of the heart,” First Chronicles 29:18.


In my writing, I have a catch phrase that I return to often. It goes like this: “Spiritual is mental is spiritual.” Any attribute that is of the mind lies within the realm of the spirit. In other words, the mind of a man and the spirit of a man are one and the same. Our thoughts, our imaginations, our emotions all stem from the mind.


It is only from such a spiritual realization that one may understand how futile the physical gestures really are. The Catholics get down on their knees and the Muslims bow down on their faces, but both are no more than physical gestures and accomplish no spiritual goal. They bear no truth and have no effect. Some people pray with their faces toward the sky and their hands folded, clasped, or placed together: all physical. Some people finger beads, set up statues of saints, wear beards, wear caps, refrain from musical instruments during worship. All such things are physical rather than spiritual.


The list of things that defile a man are mental attributes and they do so because they are spiritual and touch upon God. Moreover, these attributes are easily translated into physical activities that men feel more at home in. The physical action of a Muslim killing an infidel is based solely in the defiling spiritual attribute of blood lust. Such defiling activities can in no manner appease God, who is spiritual. Neither can they bring the perpetrator of such actions closer to God. We must see the list of defiling attributes as thoughts that lead to depravities. To be spiritual, on the other hand, would involve thoughts that lead us in the opposite direction.