Two Small Parables

To continue from the previous study, I look to Mark 13:26-37. Here, we find two small parables with a huge amount of information. Read the parables first.

Mark 13:28 says, “Now learn a parable of the fig tree; when her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near: so ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors.”

Mark 13:34 says, “For the Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch.”

We immediately form two pertinent questions regarding Mark 13:26-27. When will it be seen and Who are 'they'? By 'it', I refer to Christ's statement from verse 26, “And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.” This event is the 'it' that 'they' see.

Since it follows on the heels of the powers of heaven being shaken and the stars falling from on high, I will make the leap and assume that the event occurs directly after the tribulation. Further, I will assume that the ones who see their nemesis coming and marshaling his forces for their destruction are none other than the stars that fall.

Reading Mark 13:30-31 leads us to yet another question. Jesus affirms the immutable truth of his prophecy, in that “Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away,” and tells his disciples that all these events will be witnessed by their generation. Our question, then, is this: How long can a generation last?

Here, we must not confuse a generational lifespan with a generational type. When Christ said “this generation,” he obviously meant something more far-reaching than mere physical age. Christ often couched spiritual meaning in common expressions. As a type, a generation can be viewed in the light of its defining characteristics. I speak of characteristics that unite all of a type's constituents, regardless of time or epoch. Here, I can suggest characteristics such as 'born again', 'redeemed', 'elect'.

Mark 13:32-33 speaks of spiritual preparedness and sleep (or spiritual inactivity.) We are told that no one knows the exact time of the prophecied event except God, himself, yet, we are instructed to remain spiritually prepared for it. We are told to “watch and pray.” We are told to give this point special attention for the very reason that we do not know when the event will occur. We are instructed to take upon ourselves the nature of the porter.

Mark 13:34. Who is the porter? In the sense of this particular application, a porter is a gatekeeper, or in the broader sense, one whose business it is to look for the return of the Master – to usher the Master into what is his own and into the company of his servants. It is impossible that any one individual can remain vigilant around the clock. It is here that we think of a porter-collective – a porterhood. The flame of vigilance is passed in turn between one porter and another – at every shift change, or changing of the guard.

We find in Mark 13:35-36 a list of possible times that the Master could suddenly show up. The purpose of the porter, his calling, you might say, is to be spiritually alert, spiritually active, spiritually looking down the road and straining to see any indication of the coming of the Master. It is not a matter of when the Master is likely to find the porter asleep, but that spiritual vigilance, in any watch, has not been provided for. All the servants will want to be alerted to the Master's coming, so they might prepare to greet him – it is one of the porter's duties to make the call that gathers the servants to their Master's joyful return.

Spiritual vigilance is the defining key to these verses. The final verse, 37, unites all of us as a generational type. Christ gives his command to every one of us from the disciples of the first century AD to the porters of the 21st century. It is as if Christ turns and looks into my own eyes and says to me personally, “Watch.”

Powers and the Elect

As I scanned forward for another parable, my eyes fell upon two words: 'powers' and 'elect'. See for yourself in Mark 13:22-27. This is the part where Christ speaks about the times during and after the tribulation. In verse 23 he states, “Behold, I have foretold you all things.” So, this is what we can expect for the end of the old and beginning of the new.

Many have been the sermons on this topic; many church hours have been overcharged pounding the doom and gloom of judgment into wide-eyed, head-shaking congregations. What I see, and what I wonder if others see, is a definition that towers above the topic of judgment.

Two things stand out in this stretch of scripture. First is the very end of the tribulation and second is the coming of Christ to establish the new age. Jesus told his disciples that in the end, and this certainly began in their lifetimes, there would be false Christs and false prophets who would be able to display “signs and wonders.”

In the Bible, we have seen real prophets and Christ, himself, display real signs and wonders, real eye-openers. Diseases have been cured, the dead have been raised, strange sights have been seen from the shining face of Moses to the glory of Christ standing with Moses and Elijah. To pick up on the cue, the signs and wonders of false Christs and false prophets will be nothing more than false signs and wonders. They may dazzle the eye, but they are only smoke and mirrors.

To be sure, the rise of these actors is possible only because the curtains are drawn on an empty stage. In other words, there is a void to be filled. There is a yearning audience willing to pay dearly for the show. It is the cravings of a certain type of people that is directly responsible for the emergence of such entrepreneurs. This type of people does not represent all types, however. This type can be deceived because of their own inclination toward an easy path. These will be grouped with the unbelievers as those who have chosen the wrong direction and spiritual inactivity.

There is only one type of person who will successfully navigate the treacherous end times. I speak of the elect. Who are the elect? One dictionary puts them as the 'carefully selected.' It is a type of person who has been singled out through circumstances that are not applicable to the common, or run-of-the-mill. It is a type of person, who by his very nature of being the opposite of those who are deceived, will do his own spiritual legwork – someone who stands apart from the bleating throngs, and as such, has the elbow room to seek and find the truth on his own spiritual legs.

It is said that in the coming, this type of person will be gathered from all the world for the purpose of establishing the new age. A better world will be manned by just this type. They are gathered from the “four winds.” They will be found in every nation and every tongue and every social order. They will be alike regardless of race, creed, or religion, and will sync perfectly because they are spiritually advanced.

The elect will not be fooled by the false prophets. There will be no false Christs for the elect; they already know the true Christ. They will be everywhere despite the world's ongoing anti-spiritual spirit. They will be rejected and stand alone, but I believe they will find each other – and while the warmongers war, while the mega-churches spiral out of control and while the non-believers and believers in blue elephants get swept along in the wake, The elect will find their place and ready themselves for the new age.

The mind of the common world is flawed. It hungrily seeks and accepts a common but easy state. It does not strive to be exceptional. Scientific facts and measurements aside, the common world is a pig at home in its mud sty, for it cannot tell its slop apart from its own filth. The mind of the world is an anti-spirit spirit. To be sure, it is the prevailing spirit of the world and has been set on a pretty high pedestal.

Which brings me to 'powers' . . . as the New American Standard version of Ephesians 6:12 states, “Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.” Christ said plainly in Mark 13:25, “the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken.” This makes it quite obvious that there are evil powers in heaven. They are wicked spiritual forces and world forces of this present darkness.

If I have seen one constant in my studies, it is that spirit and mind are the same. The spirit of the world is the mind of the world. Wicked spirits in heaven are wicked minds in the highest places of authority. They are mindsets, philosophies, precepts and protocols that seek to be written in stone. The real Christ will shake that all around and the powers, who are superstars in their own minds, will fall from heaven. The elect will see this.

As a closing thought, I want to touch briefly on timelines. When we think of the tribulation, we think of the final days. We think of some unnamed, unset time in the future (another common comfort of the common world mind.) But, what if the future is now? Christ said that the elect would be gathered from the “uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.” That is a range from the lowest to the highest to be sure, but since the word 'earth' is specifically used, and not 'world', I think it safe to assume the far end of that spectrum would place the elect somewhere out in space. This is just a thought, but, as far as timelines go, we are in the space age.

When We Speak

When we speak, this is what we assume goes on: a neuron fires, then the mouth makes words. Another way to think of this process is: a thought forms in the mind, which activates the physical brain so that mental concepts may be expressed, or transmitted, via physical sounds produced by the mouth. What we assume is the we have a thought and then we speak.

This is going to be a short study. It deals with a concept transmitted physically through Mark 13:11. In the latter portion of the statement which the only begotten son of God put forth, we find this explicitly expressed: “it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.”

Read that again. It is a concept connected to disciple-specific possibilities, but which in no way depends upon those particular events for its own measure. It is a concept that is fully able to stand on its own two feet. The examination of the latter part of the statement, I guarantee, in no way takes the concept out of context.

Let us examine the concept as it stands. “it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.” I have long affirmed that mind and spirit are one and the same; this has been a central tenet throughout my writings. Think about it. The mind, while connected to the physical brain, is in no way bound to it. Medical science accepts that the mind can continue to function after the physical death of the brain.

So, we think it is within ourselves that thoughts and concepts originate, but, the son of God says that is not true. Spirit is the realm of God; no thought can ever be hidden from him. While we may be allowed some elbow room to freely organize and express, we do not own, we do not rent, we merely have been granted access. The mind is the spirit; the spirit is the mind of God, who is Holy and Reverend.

Spontaneity is called to mind by the statement found in Mark 13:11. That would be interpreted as thoughts or concepts that are not forced into the mold of preconception. Our free thoughts are not our own. Our minds are not our own. We have been granted access to the Holy mind of God – the Holy Spirit of Truth – which agrees in one, joining the spiritual father to the physical son.

Christ is the Truth, being imbued with the Holy Ghost. His mind is the spirit of truth, making him one with the father. Like father like son, after all. The son expressed to all potential children of God, via the Holy Ghost, that he would see us be one together with the father and son, as we find in John 17:21, “That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us.”

Think of your mind, or spirit, as one and the same with God and Christ. 1 Corinthians 2:16 tells us, in the plainest of all words that, “we have the mind of Christ.”

The Test

A teacher might well know, beforehand, whether a student will pass or fail a test. The signs are always there. The teacher will know the character of each student and will be aware of their habits and patterns. It was not idle chin-stroking when Jesus said that a tree is known by its fruit. What we do or say the most, that is what we are all about.

In this examination, we turn our eye toward Mark 12:38-40. It is here that Jesus explains the standard by which we may put the spirit of a person to the test. To those around him at the time, Jesus exposed the scribes, but this handy trick works as well with any man behind any pulpit, or any man on any soapbox.

He said, “Beware of the scribes.” He told them to take a good long look, to be aware. Let us take that long look and be aware, not only of who scribes are but also of what they do. For those in Jesus day, the definition of a scribe was 'an ancient Jewish record-keeper or, later, a professional theologian and jurist.' Got that off the internet. So, discounting the record keepers with no authority, what we are looking at is the professional – not only the title, not only the tier within society but the mindset and attitude.

I believe it was the attitude, the pride concurrent with that mindset, that Jesus warned of. We are aware that all words and actions must, necessarily, stem from that root, just as the fruit of a tree has its origin in its own root. Just as a salesman's every word may be seen to stem from his drive toward, desire for and anticipation of the dollar, so too, the veneer of the scribe is stripped away by the list that Jesus attributes to them.

He said this of them: “which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces, and the chief seats in the synagogues, and the uppermost rooms at feasts: which devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayers.”

If they 'love' to be seen in their office garb and 'love' public acknowledgments, then they may be seen in their labors toward such. They may be seen actually trying to accomplish these ends. They will make their long-winded prayers quite public. They do these things to maintain their station and advantage in society. The coffers must remain filled, even if the widow is turned out for the expected tithes.

Seems pretty damning. Is it any wonder they sought his life? And, we may learn from this list; we may make our own lists. This test is equally applicable to modern day preachers and politicians. I have made my lists, and I must say that the preachers and politicians look almost identical. You've got your love for public accolades and some seriously attention-grabbing expensive suits. The neckties are gaudy, the wristwatches are flashy, and the Florsheim shoes are shiny. The bellies are often large and the public message never fails to touch upon funding.

The apple never falls far from the tree and the bad apple always harbors a gnawing worm within. Jesus concluded about the scribes that they would receive, not the usual, average, or run-of-the-mill damnation, but “greater” damnation. Some will try and fall short while others will fail spectacularly. Be like the teacher who knows the student. Apply this simple test before the final exam. One might even be so daring as to apply the test to oneself.

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.

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?