One

One:

Mark 12:28-34, while not a parable, gives an exchange between Christ and one of the scribes in attendance when Jesus told the Sadducees they were getting it all wrong. This particular scribe seems to have been moved by Christ's answers and had gained a newfound measure of appreciation and respect for Jesus. He entered into a genuine discussion with Jesus, not trying to tempt him, or trap him in legalisms. We see in the scribe a certain recognition of a kindred spirit. We might even say that, at least for a moment, Christ and the scribe were one in their zeal for the law of God.

It was the true core nature of the law that interested the scribe. It was the truth of the law that spurred him to speak. What we can take away from the exchange is that not all of the religious elite were hypocrites. Some were genuine in their love of God.

“Which is the first commandment of all?” This scribe cut right to the chase. He wanted to speak about the important stuff. It was not a test to see if Jesus knew the law. It was a bridge and a foundation for communication between what the scribe perceived as like minds. And of course, Jesus knew his stuff.

He answered without hesitation. Jesus quoted Moses, the lawgiver, from Deuteronomy 6:4-5. Jesus went right to the source of the law – the law that all scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees professed – the law from which they derived their authority. It was exactly the answer this scribe wanted to hear.

“Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord.” If Jesus had been just a Rabbi, he, at least, knew the law as well as any other. What mattered to the scribe was not whether this man was a man or God, nor again whether he was better or worse than other religious authorities – what mattered to this man was a true love of God.

What I would like to impress on the reader in the word 'one.' Many, when they read, pass by quickly. There is danger in speed reading the Bible. It is the danger of a cavalier attitude: 'oh yes, the scribe said this, and oh yes, Jesus said that' is an empty appraisal. Stop long enough to consider what you read. Jesus said that God is one, and that is not God the abstract, but God our Lord.

How should we interpret the word 'one?' Should we see it in terms of monotheism? If that's the best we can do, I think we should class ourselves with all the legalistic, name dropping Pharisees and Sadducees who are doing no more than taking a worldly-educated stance. They work and fidget with all the peripheral facts and figures, yet they have no connection to the central truth. Rather, I would impress upon the reader that the correct interpretation of the word 'one' is not 'singular' but 'all-inclusive.'

The Lord our God is one (all-inclusive) Lord. What is a Lord, then? The Lord is the one who possesses the Lordship. All within the Lordship: be it authority, privilege, or servants – all are his: all are one.

This is what I want of the reader: read what Jesus answers, and each time Jesus says 'all', read it as 'one'. Understand both 'all' and 'one' to mean included as a genuine, bonafide part of the whole. For instance, my legs are one with my body and upon my legs, the whole body stands. Therefore, I stand with all my legs.

Mark 12:29-30, “Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord: and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy (one) heart, and with all thy (one) soul, and with all thy (one) mind, and with all thy (one) strength: this is the first commandment. By 'first' we are to understand 'premier.' When Jesus says this is the first commandment, we must define that to mean 'the most important.' Here is an alternative reading: 'Hear, O Israel; God is all-inclusive: and thou shalt love thy Lord with thy all-inclusive heart, and with thy all-inclusive soul, and thy all-inclusive mind, and thy all-inclusive strength: this is the most important truth to live by.'

This resonates with the scribe, for he agrees with his all-inclusive heart in Mark 12:32-33. In the response of the scribe, we see a mind that sees beyond the traditions of me, in that his response values truth: “more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.”

In the law of all-inclusiveness, the second commandment is the same as the first. We might consider it the 'if then' statement that verifies the truth of the law. If you love your Lord all-inclusively, then you love his children ( your brethren) also, for they are included in the Lordship of the Lord.

Jesus perceived the response of the scribe as 'discreet.' Here is what that means: 'Middle English discret < Anglo-French, Old French

The scribe had distinguished himself from the pack, or from the 'pride', I might say. He separated himself as more discerning than most. So, Jesus told him this in verse 34: “thou art not far from the kingdom of God.”

What would such a statement mean in regard of the scribe, or in regard of any of us? God is the lord: he is the premier authority. The kingdom, the Lordship, the truth are all included within the Lord. We can say of ourselves as we can say of the scribe – as, indeed, Christ might have said to the scribe: you see the truth, now include it; when you include the truth, you will be included in the truth.

A Sad Truth

Hidden truths and overlooked is the reason I do what I do. It is why I began with the parables, and it is why I now, from time to time, veer off the beaten path to cover the odd expression or subtlety of wording. I had fully intended to find a parable to work from – then this caught my eye.

Mark 10:1-9 is one of those small episodes in which the religious authorities attempt to test Jesus in matters of the law. Of course, as he always does, Jesus rips them a new one. I am always cheering for Jesus in these slugfests, and Jesus never fails to deliver. In this particular exchange, Jesus tells the Pharisees, the keepers of the law, that something is not quite right in their interpretation.

Indeed, it is a sad truth and a message that all of us should take to heart. Jesus speaks as much to you and me as he does to the Pharisees. That is because we share the same blind spot and predisposition as the Pharisees. So, here is a brief rundown of the incident. The Pharisees pose a simple question from the law: is it legal (but more to the point: is it right) for a man to divorce his wife?

Jesus responds with a question of his own. “What did Moses command you?” There is a subtlety here that seems always to be overlooked. What did Moses, the man, command? What the Pharisees considered as unassailable canon was based more on the instructions of a man than on the actual spirit of God's own law. In a way, this is similar to extremist Muslims who base their canon more on the instructions of a man than on the law of God.

Jesus told the Pharisees that Moses only allowed divorce because of the hardness of the hearts of men. He also told them that the law of God was different from what Moses allowed. In so saying, Jesus tells all of us a sad truth about the predispositions of the religiously-minded – the ones who are always trying to force an issue. The subtlety that Jesus reveals shows us that much in the law of God, at least, those parts most cherished and upheld by men, is no more than arbitrary instruction by some other man.

I think, if we are honest about it, most of what Jewish and Christian leaders and zealots have gone on and on about, are the writings and interpretations of the writings of men. My opinion is that much of what Moses instructed the Jewish people was politically motivated. I say this out of respect for the overwhelming task that Moses took upon himself. Just think of all that Moses had to deal with, of all the people and various factions lobbying, as it were, for special needs and interests. Moses had a lot on his plate.

Moses had to hold it all together – somehow. Divorce was just a small part of that 'somehow.' But, that was neither the law nor the will of God, and Jesus did not fail to explain that part, both in public to all who listened, and in private to his disciples as they sought a clearer understanding of his words. Jesus classified what Moses allowed as a precept. Here, it is up to us to determine if precept is the same thing as law.

A quick internet search for the common definition of the word precept gave me this: a general rule intended to regulate behavior or thought. Synonyms used for precept are principle, rule, tenet, canon, doctrine, command, order, decree, dictate, injunction, and mitzvah, which means a good deed done for religious duty. All of these may, indeed, be legal, although none of them is inherently 'right.' There are wrong decrees and wrong doctrines to be sure.

More importantly, any of these may be created solely from the predispositions of a man, that is: from his thoughts and opinions and feelings. As such, they are wholly arbitrary, non-universal, temporary, and re-writable. There is much in our faiths that we take for solid truth written in stone – but, it simply is not. We have a predisposition for certain things that simply are not the law – by which I mean: the law given by a spiritual God.

A law given by a spiritual God is a spiritual law. While it may exist in our physical world, and be enacted physically, there is a spirit behind it that is bound to no particular enactment or person. Jesus explained the spirit behind marriage: the union of one physical male to one physical female in Mark 10:6-9, “From the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.”

Now, we can look at the precept of divorce, an arbitrary decree given by a man, and see it as perfectly legal, or we can look at the law of marriage given by a spiritual God, and know that it is right. The spirit of the law follows through in every aspect and facet of truth, as Jesus explained to his disciples in Mark 10:11 and 12, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.” Why? Because they are still united in the spirit of the law: they are still one flesh. One flesh may not act against itself as every decision must be made in one spirit. “If a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.” Why? Because they are still united in the spirit of the law: they are still one flesh. One flesh may not act against itself as every decision must be made in one spirit.

There is in these verses a subtle truth that begs honest inspection. There are two laws. One is given by God, the other is given by man. That which is given by man is not really the law, but it strikes a chord with those who look for an easy workaround. It is a sad truth to see so much of it in our faith: that is to say: little physical enactments that replace the spirit of the law.

We see in the Bible Jesus twice quoted as quoting Elias, and railing against the hypocrisy of men in seeking the commandments of men rather than the law of God, as Paul says in Titus 1:14, “. . . commandments of men, that turn from the truth.” We see religious people washing their hands, fingering beads, bowing to pray, marching around square buildings – performing any and almost every physical enactment except the one that actually counts: attending the true spiritual law of God.

Salt

In the previous study, I said that the chapter had concluded on a certain note, but there was actually one statement left. It is the statement about salt that we are all so familiar with. Those of us whose lives have in some way been touched by church or sermons or the odd Bible verse have at some point been made aware that “salt is good.” Verses 49 and 50 of Mark 9 cover this statement, of which I would ask additional attention from the reader.

Let me first offer the statement in its entirety. Mark 9:49-50, “For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt. Salt is good: but if salt have lost its saltness, wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another.”

It must be first seen that a comparison is at play in this statement. The comparison is between salt and fire. It must be seen that the comment is based in a specific understanding of Jewish ceremonial practice. A temple sacrifice, as it was offered to God, was salted with salt. That is, the parts that were kept had salt placed on them. We know salt as both a seasoning and a preservative.

When we look at salt as a preservative, we note in the temple sacrifices that the sacrifice was a 'meal for God' that was shared with his servants the priests. The meat could not possibly be consumed all at once; there were simply too many sacrifices. Therefore, the meat had to last without spoilage. A good thing must be preserved and not allowed to be lost. In this regard, salt may be seen as symbolic of redemption.

When we view salt in the sense of seasoning, we understand that salt makes the sacrifice not only palatable but acceptable in the ceremonial sense of faithful compliance to the laws of God. If all obligations have been met, if all parameters are in place, if a man has assured his conscience before God that things are right, the sacrifice is acceptable. Those of us who live lives of sacrifice rather than license already have an intimate awareness of salt.

The comparison might read like this, 'Just as sacrifices are salted with salt, so every life must be salted with fire.' It behooves us to possess a higher understanding of what Christ meant when he said “fire.” We don't have far to go to get the facts. We need only resort to the old testament to find the fire we seek. The symbolic use of the word fire is prevalent in the old testament.

Exodus 3:2 gives us the very first symbolic use of the word fire, “And the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of the bush: and he looked and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.” In short, 'fire' equals 'God.'

In this sense, symbolic fire is quite real in the lives of men. The second old testament instance of this symbolic, though very real, fire is found in Exodus 13:21, “And the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light . . .” Fire equals God.

A third instance is found in Exodus 24:17, “And the sight of the glory of the Lord was like devouring fire on the top of the mount in the eyes of the children of Israel.” The presence of God in the lives of men was seen with actual eyes, the glory of the real God was witnessed with real eyes. God equals devouring fire. The people so associated God with fire that since God rested on the Sabbath, fire was not now allowed to burn in any home during the Sabbath. Exodus 35:3.

So many are the associations of fire to God that even the Christian faith fully accepted it as found in Hebrews 12:29, “For our God is a consuming fire.”

So, if everyone is to be salted with fire, and that fire is God, two facts present themselves. Fact one is that no life goes unsalted by God. All lives are included in the concept of 'every one' – those who believe in God, those who do not, those who believe in another god: whether it be Allah, Buddha or whatever. People who believe in a higher force, or nature, or in themselves: no one is exempt from the salting of fire.

Fact two is that this single additive, like salt, is what makes a life acceptable and palatable to God. I ask then, are you salted with fire? And, is there a fire that has lost its fire? In other words, are you salted with a salt that just doesn't cut it? If we are looking at a salt that has lost its saltness, then, by comparison, we are looking at a fire that has gone out. We are looking at a life that was salted with God – and then lost God: the only thing that ever made it acceptable. Certainly, Allah makes no life acceptable, Buddha makes no life acceptable. The same can be said for every god that is not really God. The same can be said for nature, science, non-belief or belief in the will of man – these just do not cut it.

One must understand the importance of salt to get the reference that Jesus makes in these verses. Salt was so important that people made salt covenants. The word salary has its origin in people being paid in salt. It is also important to see the fact that every relationship between God and man has always been a covenant. That is, God's love is his agreement, his word.

Every agreement between God and man has been a peace treaty in which both sides proclaim what they will give and what they expect in return. I say peace treaty because mankind has fought God from the beginning. Now, we might jump out in the ocean to save a drowning man, but the time comes when we tire of him fighting our attempts to save him – the time comes when we simply have to wrap an arm around his throat and forcefully drag him in.

When Jesus told his disciples to have salt in themselves, he meant the fire of God. Have God in yourselves. Have in yourselves the one thing that makes you acceptable. That, as I maintain, is the mind of God, which Christ exemplified. Nor can we wrangle among ourselves over any detail of faith, but we must place between us a salt covenant. We must come to an accord that plainly states what we are willing to give and we will reasonably accept in return.

Preaching in the House

In my temporary departures from the parable proper, I think I am striving for continuity. The point of these studies remains true, however, as I seek simply to expand topical awareness. When a seeker seeks truth, he must necessarily begin with a definition. In deriving such a definition through a more exacting scrutiny, and in the course of finding point-on answers, the seeker is compelled to ask the questions that deliver.

In short, we have to understand the words we see and hear. Not everyone communicates as I do, and I approach a matter with that in mind. You and I might have certain difficulties in nailing down a meaning within the context of a shared communication. Therefore, we can expect more vigilance will be demanded of us as we wrestle with communications from other cultures and timelines.

So, as I try to complete Mark nine for the sake of continuity, I am careful to ask the right questions rather than to simply, in a cavalier spirit, accept what I read at face value. Please follow with me as I seek the definitions that will facilitate the acquisition of truth. Let us closely attend the verses 30 through 50. These amount to simple conversational tidbits that are often not lingered over. Let us, together, ask the right questions while we are here.

Jesus did not want everyone to know where he was going on this particular trip as he passed with his disciples through the regions of Galilee. This part is plainly seen in Mark 9:30. Perhaps they arose in the hours before dawn so they might leave without the multitudes following them. I see them not drawing attention to themselves. I also see something more than the usual circuit of the ministry. I see them passing through Galilee with a definite destination in mind. It is as if they made a straight line for Capernaum, a fishing village that was central to both Jesus' ministry and his disciples' home-life.

Once there, the expression in 'the' house is used in verse 33. That seems a more definite reference than in 'a' house – at least it does to me. Capernaum is thought to be the hometown of Peter and his older brother Andrew, as well as the sons of Zebedee James the greater and John. The tax collector Matthew also made his home there. Since Jesus was already acquainted with the house of Peter, having healed Peters' mother-in-law, I can see him resorting there once more.

Since Peter had a mother-in-law, it is safe to assume that Peter had a wife and possibly children. If Andrew also lived in the house, he also may have had a wife and children present. Archaeologists pretty much agree that they have uncovered the first-century house of Peter and Andrew, a dwelling connected to two courtyards and having, at least, one room large enough to seat all the disciples at once.

Having the expression 'the' house instead of 'a' house makes perfect sense in this regard. These were all ordinary people with lives and families. It seems only reasonable that there were times within the ministry of Christ when a break was called for. So, Jesus and his disciples took a quiet trip home. When they arrived, some issues came up for discussion.

During their quiet trip, Jesus had discussed his approaching fate with the authorities. The disciples couldn't quite get their heads around the concept that Jesus, a man of miraculous powers, could possibly come to such a despicable end. They seemed fearful to ask for clarification – instead, they argued over which of them might end up as the apostolic top dog.

The in-house rebuttal took shape along the lines of reversal, which was one of Christs' preferred teaching techniques. In this, Christ usually taught that the things which men desired were exactly opposite of what God desired. He taught that the same was true for the things that men expected to happen as a natural consequence. Such were the lines of reversal: if a man lifted something up, God rejected it. The predispositions of men are always contrary to the truth of a spiritual God. So, in the house, in a room large enough to fit all the disciples, Christ sits down with a child in his arms, and preaches lowly humility. In other words, the first is last and servant to all. They believe with simple innocent joy like a child. Who was the child Jesus held? Was it one of Peters' children? Was it a child of Andrews wife?

The in-house preaching of Mark 9:37 covered the communication that binds all to one another. If a man receives the Son of God, he receives God. If a man receives the message, he receives the messenger. If a man receives the preaching of the apostles of Christ, he receives Christ. It is the communication that makes us one – that is to say that the mind of God, the Holy Spirit of Truth, is communicated. Therefore, all of us must exercise caution in who we reject, for it just might be that in rejecting someone we think of as just another person, we end up rejecting God.

All of us have a reward, we find that in verse 41 – that is, of course, if we do not reject it simply because it comes to us in the face of a person who is a challenge to our self-will and pride. Even the simplest act, as in giving a glass of water to a thirsty person, not because they are thirsty so much, but because it is what Christ would do, will ensure the reward that is ours. And let me just add, there have been many times in my life, when totally amazed at my steps along the precipice, I say to myself, “Man, I sure am glad I didn't mess that up!”

Some people take the child in Christs' arms to mean literal children, especially when Christ says that thing about offending one of the little ones. I too am dead set against anyone who harms or mishandles a small child but let us stop in all honesty and admit that there is an addendum to that charge made by Christ. There is a qualifier attached to the little one. It is not just any child, but it is exactly as Christ says, “one of these little ones that believe in me.”

It is faith alone that will make one acceptable to God. It is faith alone that will lead one to be the first by way of being servant to all. It is faith that will receive the child, and it is faith alone that will receive the communication of God even through a person we cannot consider as superior enough, or valid enough to stand before us and teach. Only faith will ensure the reward that is ours.

We are considering the right questions, as a traveler considers which shoes will be most comfortable and last the longest as we traverse uncertain roads. We would not find ourselves unshod with the roughest roads still ahead. Anyone who strives toward a goal must necessarily equip for the task. If you want to see the moon, you don't equip with a microscope. So hopefully, we ask the right questions as we seek the real meaning of the communication.

The chapter concludes in discussion about technique. Just how should one approach the task at hand? The discussion covers certain physical actions which many people have taken literally – which in turn has caused many to approach the task at hand ill-equipped. Christ told us that flesh is flesh and spirit is spirit, so why would anyone really think to enter heaven as a physical being? To make the transition from physical to spiritual, one must leave behind the body, even if it has only one eye or one hand.

To equip for such a transition, a person needs to stop thinking physically and find a way to approach reality in a spiritual manner. While the successful scenario is not covered, the scenario of failure is repeated three times for emphasis. If one fails to approach spiritual reality on spiritual grounds, one is left only with the certainty of physical decomposition.