The Sunday lectionary gospel reading for Trinity 18 in this Year B is Mark 9.38–50. It is a rather unusual reading; it completes the collection of sayings that we began last week, and there is some continuity across the two passages; and it does belong (as we noted last week) to a section of teachings of Jesus in between narrative sections. But within the passage itself, there is a distinct lack of continuity; we find here none of the careful narrative composition that we have seen elsewhere in Mark as we have gone through the lectionary year.
Instead, the links between different sayings (which come in quite different places in Luke and Matthew, where they do occur) depend on repetition of words, even when these words signify something slightly different from one saying to the next. This kind of linking might seem rather odd to us; it is probably the best way to understand the shape of the Letter of James, which overall also lacks a clear sense of progression, but moves from one subject to the next by means of such word links. We do see it, though, in the contemporary example of some stand-up comics, particularly those who specialise in one-liners. Sections of their set will often have no logical continuity, but depend on word links as they move from one subject to the next. Can we think of this as Jesus (at least in the mind’s eye of Mark) doing a stand-up set on the importance of the kingdom?!
If there is a theme, perhaps it is this: the business of the kingdom is serious, and should be taken seriously. This should not lead to an anxious or controlling concern for tight boundaries around community identity, but rather the opposite. We need to take seriously even the beginning signs of fragile faith in Jesus, nurturing and protecting it in ourselves and in others because it is so important and so precious.
These [trials of many kinds] have come so that your faith—of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire—may be proved genuine and may result in praise, glory and honour when Jesus Christ is revealed (1 Peter 1.7).
The first unit of text comprises verses 38 to 40, and concerns the response to a rival exorcist. This is the only place in this gospel—or, as far as I can see, any gospel—where John acts or is referred to alone. And it does not look good. Perhaps his impetuous and defensive behaviour is the reason that Jesus gives him (with his brother) the nick-name ‘Son of Thunder’ (Mark 3.17).
Although the subject matter has shifted, the connection with the previous passage is in the phrase ‘in my/your name’ (verses 37, 38, 39). Near contemporary sources to the New Testament tell us about the practice of exorcism in both Jewish and pagan contexts—though the frequency and extent of this does not match what is recorded in the gospels of Jesus. It seems to be a distinctive practice of his in relation the coming of the kingdom, to which it is nearly always related.
There is a fascinating dynamic in John’s objection, as he relates it to Jesus. On the one hand, the man appears to be acting ‘in Jesus’ name’, and therefore drawing on his authority. On the other, John complains that ‘he was not following us’. The verb here, akoloutheo, (from which we get the term ‘acolyte’ for one who follows) is consistently used of discipleship—indeed, it is the key term in that pivotal passage in Mark 8.34. But it is otherwise only ever used of Jesus; he alone is the one to be followed, and John has made the mistake of thinking that following Jesus is about belonging to a particular group, even when that group is closely identified with Jesus himself.
The phrase in Jesus’ reply is interesting and unexpected, being framed as a double negative. Anyone who exercises spiritual power in Jesus’ name will not be able to speak negatively of Jesus. It reminds me of Paul’s identification of the presence of the of the Spirit with the affirmation of Jesus’ lordship (1 Cor 12.3), not least because exorcism is one of the works of power effected by the presence of the Spirit (Matt 12.28).
Jesus’ rejection of John’s objection is a standing rebuke to anyone who would replace loyalty to Jesus with identification with a particular group or institution. It cuts the theological ground from under the whole notion of ‘denomination’; the ekklesia of God consists of those who follow Jesus, no more and no less.
Characteristically, Jesus concludes a discussion and explanation with a summary apothegm, something worth bearing in mind in our own preaching. In most English versions it is expressed as a direct parallelism: ‘Whoever is not against us is for us’, but in Greek Jesus inverts the second phrase, forming an even more memorable chiasm: ‘For whoever is not against us, for us is’. (I think it is rendered this way in the Bible According to Yoda…)
Much has been made of the apparent contradiction between this and the logically opposite saying in Matt 12.30 ‘Whoever is not with me is against me’. ‘Each excludes any middle ground, but the Matthean formula sounds exclusive and dismissive, the Marcan inclusive and welcoming’ (France, NIGTC, p 377). France notes that both sayings are paralleled in Cicero’s words to Caesar (Pro Ligario 11[32]): ‘We have often heard you say that while we reckon everyone as enemies except those who are with us, you yourself count all those who are not against you as on your side.’ There is some pastoral wisdom in reflecting which saying fits our attitude most accurately…
But the context of the two sayings is quite different. In Matthew, Jesus’ own ministry of exorcism is attributed to Satan; those who oppose Jesus’ own ministry are opposed to God’s purposes and put themselves beyond the possibility of forgiveness. By contrast, this man is acting in Jesus’ name, and is drawing on his power. Although the one occurs in Mark, and the other in Matthew, Luke includes them both (Luke 9.49; Luke 11.23) so clearly did not think them contradictory.
Jesus’ second apothegm, which closes this section, is fascinating for several reasons. In contemporary culture, to offer someone a cup of cold water is an act of basic kindness, especially in hot weather, though we might want to offer something more substantial if we were really concerned about them. But in first century Israel, cold water was not on tap; to find it, you would need a well, a stream, or a cistern. Offering cold water required a deliberate dedication of time and effort. Simple acts of kindness reveal the disposition of our heart.
This is the only place in the gospel where Jesus uses the title ‘Christ’ to refer to himself. We might conclude that this is Mark recasting Jesus’ words in a way more relevant to his own audience—though Jesus does use the term ‘objectively’ in Mark 12.35 and 13.21, and has accepted Peter’s attribution of it to him a chapter earlier, so it is not completely out of place.
But the real challenge is what it says about those who are sympathetic to the disciples because of their identification with Jesus. It follows the same logic as the ‘parable’ of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25, where those who respond to ‘the least of these my brethren’ (the disciples, who because of their faithfulness to Jesus will often be hungry, thirsty, sick and imprisoned, strangers and in need of welcome and succour) are, by proxy, responding to Jesus himself. This saying is thus another way of expressing the previous maxim ‘Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me; and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me’; and if people’s standing before God is, in some way, determined by their response to us as disciples of Jesus, we had better start looking more like Jesus.
The next collection of sayings begins by linking the previous two sections. The phrase ‘these little ones’ immediately refers back to those sympathisers identifying with the disciples, but looks further back to the language of the child, a literal ‘little one’, in verses 36–37. This is Marks’ only use of mikroi to denote the disciples, though Matthew uses it repeatedly, and includes the two sayings (receiving a child, causing little ones to sin) in one combination saying in Matt 18.5–6.
It is curious that English translations render the phrase here, ’causes one of these…to sin’, harmonising it with the verses that follow on from this saying in Luke 17.3. The term here is in fact skandalizo, which has much more of a sense of stumbling or taking offence—and the same term is repeated in the following verse, directed not at causing others, but at things that cause us to stumble. It is the term used of the disciples’ failure in Mark 14.27 and 29.
The active use in the present context is best understood of one who causes such a failure on the part of others, who trips or disables another’s discipleship (France, NIGTC, p 380).
So the question here is: what might we do to cause others to fail to be faithful? What am I doing to weaken my own walk with the Lord? ‘Danger comes to the disciple not only from outside but from within’ (France).
In all these examples, Jesus is deploying characteristic hyperbole. The ‘millstone’ is a μύλος ὀνικος, a ‘millstone of a donkey’, that is, the large flat stones turned by a donkey pulling it around, rather than the smaller ones that can be turned by hand. The idea of lifting it and slinging it around someone’s neck is off course absurd—as is the idea of amputating part of our bodies in order to avoid stumbling. The power of the metaphor is to note that our walk of discipleship is both costly and precious; there are many things we might need to sacrifice in order to ‘seek first’, above all these other things, the kingdom of God.
(This verse was gruesomely taken literally in the 1963 schlock horror movie The Man with X-ray Eyes, in which the main character could not bear to see the evil all around him once he could see into people’s lives.)
Jesus’ mention of γέεννα, Gehenna or Ge Hinnom, misleadingly translated ‘hell’, is an allusion to the rubbish dump outside the walls of Jerusalem, on the southern side, where rubbish would smoulder in the hot summers of the Middle East. Rubbish there would also decompose, which might give rise to the mention of ‘their worm does not die’—though the pairing of fire with worms more likely derives from the judgement scene in Is 66.24.
Christians who disparage ‘hell-fire preaching’ must face the awkward fact that Mark’s Jesus (and still more Matthew’s and Luke’s) envisaged an ultimate separation between life and γέεννα which demanded the most drastic renunciation in order to avoid the unquenchable fire, and that he did not regard even his disciples as immune from the need to examine themselves and take appropriate action (France, NIGTC, 383).
The final section of our readings consists of three sayings which appear unrelated, except for the verbal links. The first of these picks up the previous language of fire, and adds salt; we then have the saying about disciples being ‘salty’, parallel with Matt 5.13 but stripped of its wider context; and finally a saying about salty relationships within the community.
The brief and enigmatic four-word saying (Πᾶς γαρ πυρι ἁλισθήσεται) occurs nowhere in the other gospels. The difficulty with its interpretation lies in the wide range of meanings of salt in ancient culture. Perhaps the best reading comes from noting the connection between salt and sacrifice, together with ritual and moral purity, found in Lev 2.13, Ezra 6.9, 7.22, and Ezek 43.24. To follow Jesus is to live a life of sacrificial purity following his own example.
The idea of salt ‘losing its saltiness’ seems rather odd to modern ears, since we are accustomed to using pure salt. Most salt in the ancient world—such as that quarried from the Dead Sea—was in fact a mixture of minerals, with salt being only one. Thus it would be possible for the salt to have been dissolved out, leaving only other mineral particles which offer none of benefits of salt. But, as someone has commented, Jesus is here wanting to give us a lesson on discipleship, not a lesson on chemistry! The absurdity of salt not being salty is only surpassed by the absurdity of a disciple of Jesus who no longer offers a distinctive, appealing and life-enhancing contribution to the world around him or her.
Part of our purity and sacrifice carries over into relationships within the body. Are we concerned to keep short accounts? Will we sacrifice for the sake of others in order to maintain the unity of the body in the bond of peace? Salt can symbolise a covenant commitment (Lev 2.13, Num 18.19, 2 Chron 13.5), perhaps because of its value. Are we willing to invest in relationships with our sisters in brothers in Christ, even if they are very different from us, because of the precious covenant that is ours in Jesus?
In preaching on all these issues, the challenge for us is to make these demanding sayings a word of grace. And we need to return to the opening lesson: the value of faith and the demands of the life of discipleship mean that we need to include all those on the periphery, to draw them into fellowship, rather than erecting unnecessary barriers. What matters is not whether anyone is following us, but whether we and they together are following Jesus.
(This week’s video will follow in the next post.)
I think there might be more continuity than suggested between Mark 9:38-41 and the preceding discussion about who was the greatest – the latter being about rank within the group and the former about who was in the group and who not. That the two passages belong together seems clear from the parallel account in Luke, where John’s words are said to be in answer to what Jesus had just said (Luke 9:49). To paraphrase, “Even if we cannot say that any of us is greater than any other, at least we are all your followers.” “Don’t be so sure,” Jesus says.
I also wonder whether there is not a little pique in the observation that someone is successfully casting out demons when most of the disciples could not (9:18). John was with Jesus on the mountain at the time, but he probably recognised that he would have been no more successful than his associates.
There is good manuscript authority for ‘and every sacrifice will be salted with salt’ immediately after v. 49, consistent with the connection between salt and sacrifice already noted (above). The sense seems to be: no one will enter the kingdom of God in a perfect state; every one will need to be purified. Indeed, whatever we offer up to God now remains tainted unless he purifies it. There is a similar idea in Rev 8:3 where the prayers of the saints are mixed with much incense before they go up to God.
Paul refers to the fire that we shall all have to pass through in I Cor 3:12-15.
How do you reconcile this with Jesus saying to others who were apparently doing great things in his name, including exorcising demons, depart from me you evil doers?
@ PC1
Apparently” being the operative adverb. What He said was:
Jesus is warning His listeners that not all of those who claim to believe in Him will be saved. Although they call Him “Lord” and perform wondrous deeds in his name, they haven’t truly repented/had a change of heart and followed the will of the Father.
Well said Jack. Evidence (especially Biblical evidence ) scores every time over suppositions.
A very sobering qualification to things that go under the name of “church”. The power of self-deception and self-justification is very strong.
HJ,
Do all religions lead to God?
What does Jesus say?
‘Anyone who exercises spiritual power in Jesus’ name will not be able to speak negatively of Jesus. It reminds me of Paul’s identification of the presence of the of the Spirit with the affirmation of Jesus’ lordship (1 Cor 12.3), not least because exorcism is one of the works of power effected by the presence of the Spirit (Matt 12.28).’
How do you reconcile Ian’s understanding with what you have said?
That was borne out in Acts where the reality was the Lord’s name was used for their own selfish purposes and glory, mixed with ostentatious, public pretence, resulting in dire consequences.
It seems that God’s overt opposition to the misuse of the Lord’s name brought many to believe.
Is that not the distinguishing and decisive point; the furtherance or hindrance/stumbling of belief in Jesus as Lord.
For an excellent paper on the biblical understanding of the spiritual significance of Salt; I recomend /thebiblicalnutritionist.com/salt-in-the-bible/
Such is the declension of our churches that few now preach the Gospel of Christ or of the Kingdom.
The modus operandi of the early Church was to warn the people to flee from the coming wrath.
Jesus himself spoke of Hell more than anyone else in the Bible.
Heb 12:25 See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven:
Salt that has lost its savour [and all that means] is rightly fit to be trampled underfoot of mankind and of no value to God.
Does anyone have any idea what ‘casting out demons’ means? At the time of the ministry of Jesus, it seems that (a) some people were possessed of demons and (b) (importantly) this was generally recognised (i.e. they knew that the basic problem was demon possession without Jesus or the disciples having to tell them this).
Is there anything remotely equivalent around today? There doesn’t seem to be. And if not, then when did demon possession die out?
Interesting question. I think of it like this: if the Sword of 5he Spirit penetrator deep enough then you’ll see ‘manifestations’.
When I talk to people I feel as if my S×S is more like a foam lightsabre; easily dodged and harmless.
Sometimes I feel the Word penetrates like a comb finding a matted lump in a dishevelled dog. Most of the time I’m brushing a messed up dog’s coat with a soft brush.
Try discerning the Spirit as you grasp a dog . Get in there..It’s more satisfying than intellectual Kruft work.
Hi Jock
I think theyre still around today. Too many people have had experiences of the demonic to dismiss it. I know you dont really like the charismatic church (understandable sometimes!) but I think demonisation is quite possible and happens. The debate is more whether the demonic can affect believers or just non-believers. I tend to think they can. More afflict rather than ‘possess’.
Of course we should remember that in Jesus’ day some odd behaviours, like living in a graveyard, was probably viewed as connected with the demonic but today would often be associated with mental health only. But the person reacted in specific ways when confronted by Jesus, indicating the demonic. I think that still happens today when they are confronted by Jesus in the Spirit.
Ive found the writings of the likes of the late John White (psychiatrist) and Jack Deere (formerly OT professor) useful regarding healing, the demonic etc.
Peter
No evil spirits around today?
So the spirit in everyone is good?
And is single not plural every time?
And is in line with the person as they are created and always were: no different?
Many is the time when the real individual has been taken over by another personality. I often hear the biblical words in the back of my mind when I see it (‘Now there was a man who was possessed of a demon…’).
Christopher – the question isn’t whether or not there are evil spirits around today – the question is how to know whether ‘evil spirit’ is the correct diagnosis.
In the time of Jesus everybody knew – this includes both his followers and his detractors.
Watchman Nee used to say of prospective missionaries to China
“If you do not know how to cast out demons here in China you will have very little effect.”
Paul says of Godless worship [idols] that they who worship them worship demons and preach the doctrines of demons.
One of the gifts mentioned by Paul along with prophesy is the gift of discernment of spirits; aka Jesus, asking about the disciples conversation about greatness. It was not a spirit of evil but a wrong spirit that needed to be dealt with [even exorsized]
and a right spirit renewed in them.
Witness also “Get thee behind me Satan”thou savourest not the things that be of God. There is a bad smell about somethings that people do or say,it is not the savour, fragrance of God.
The satanic spirit I find is one that casts doubt on the words/teachings of Jesus or as in the begining on the words of God.
In that other place discussion has centered around Discernment and the savour seems unsavoury lacking in a right spirit
May God have mercy upon us to deliver us from evil.
Alan – and how did Watchman Nee know when the problem that somebody had was demon possession? I mean, surely he didn’t have to wait until the person started preaching – and then jalouse that he was listening to the doctrines of demons? If we put that as the criterion, then many of those who contribute here are possessed of demons, which surely we should try to exorcise?
Jock
In the passage before us the disciples had experienced their inability to cast out demons and here “one who is “not of us” was casting out demons!
The Pulpit Commentary has this: –
Justin Martyr, in his ‘Dialogue with Trypho the Jew,’ states that while exorcism, as practiced by the Jews, often failed when it was attempted to be exercised “by the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” was eminently successful when administered “by the name of the Son of God, who was born of a virgin and crucified under Pontius Pilate” (c. 85).
That spirit has power over spirit in many mysterious ways is one of those truths which science has not yet been able to explain (see Dr. Morison on St. Mark, in loc.). To return, however, to the instance here alluded to by St. John, it should be observed that they who acted thus had faith in Christ; and that by thus acting with him and for him, though not amongst his recognized followers, they contributed towards his honor who, by means of though imperfect instruments, carried out the great purpose of his manifestation, namely,” to destroy the works of the devil.” Then further, the disciples forbade them not out of envy or hatred, but out of zeal for Christ, as though they were thus serving his cause and upholding his honor. But this was” a zeal, not according to knowledge.” They had forbidden them, without having first taken counsel of their Master. Mark 9:38
God is well able to correct the foolish through a donkey if required [Baalam]
I think we should learn from this that God does not run on our tramlines.
From the beginning the promise of Salvation was announced as a warfare between man and Satan
True we as his called church are often hindered in our walk with a bruised heal ,on one good leg and one deformed disabled leg,
it will ever be so.
However, the promise of Salvation from the beginning is that God as man will crush the head of Satan, only He does, can and will
do it.
Or as Paul ROM.16:20 And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly.
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.
Alan – sure, but I’m still completely unclear on how, when faced with someone with a problem, one is supposed to recognise when the problem stems from demon possession rather than something else. It seems that this was completely clear – not only to Jesus and his disciples, but also to the detractors of Jesus (for example – those who wanted Jesus to leave when he cast the demon out of a person and sent it into the herd of swine). Back then, nobody needed to exercise any sort of discernment or diagnosis – demon possession, when it happened and when it was the root cause of the problem, was completely clear to them.
Jock,
This is all becoming a bit complicated.
Your emphasis seems to me to be on the casting out of demons and how people can discern who is “possessed.”
My emphasis is on discernment of spirits [a ministry of the Holy Spirit mentioned by Paul]
There are very few incidents of demonic “possession” in both OT and NTs
So it is not that common today, never the less it is still present.
I am not sure but I think that the CofE has some form of ritual for exorcisms.
Dr. Sinclair Ferguson. http://www.ligonier.org/podcasts/ask-ligonier/can-christians-cast-out-demons has some interesting views that might be helpful, although he does say that he has not had experience of anyone “possessed;” and is not a very comprehensive treatment in my view.
Jesus could discern spirits for example
Mat 22:18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
Mark 2:8 And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts?
Luke 20:23 But he perceived their craftiness, and said unto them, Why tempt ye me?
John 6:15 When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone
Acts 8:23ff. For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity.
Many years ago I was helping during an Alter call, a young man stood beside me quite agitated, he suddenly turned to face the church and shouted “I hate you!”repeatedly, and collapsed;
some of us prayed for him and no doubt the rest of the church. Perhaps “this kind goes not forth but by much prayer and fasting”
Was he mentally disturbed or under the influence of demonic spirits?
The following weekend whilst preaching with a team in the Bullring in Birmingham
He came along and one of my fellows was able to lead him to faith in Christ.
There appeared no evidence of mental disturbance.
Hope this is of some help.Shalom.
.
CofE…
https://d3hgrlq6yacptf.cloudfront.net/5f20800211eb6/content/pages/documents/deliverance-ministry-toolkit-for-clergy.pdf
Ian – thanks – very interesting. I’m intrigued by the sentence in bold face ‘Know that exorcism is rare and needs to be authorised by the Bishop’. If spouting strange doctrines is a sign of demon possession, then the bishops are the ones who need the exorcism.
Postscript
How did the disciples drive out demons, if not by prayer?
/hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/50837/how-did-the-disciples-drive-out-demons-if-not-by-prayer. Has some interesting insights