Mark Chapter 9
First verse really belongs back in Chapter 8. This is the reference - per MSB - to the transfiguration.
2022 - See notes in Mark 8 on this first verse. Quite a few notes there.
2022b - It occurs to me today, that Mark's wording might give us yet another clue here:
"1 And he said to them, "Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power."" [Mar 9:1 ESV]. Perhaps his use of the kingdom coming with power is in fact a reference to the day of Pentecost, and not to the transfiguration? Many who were alive when Jesus said these things were still alive in Acts, it wasn't that far away. That outpouring of power on the day of Pentecost surely signaled a beginning - and we would understand the church age and the kingdom age as beginning simultaneously. However, there were no angels there on the day of Pentecost. There verses:
"30 Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." [Mat 24:30 ESV]
"27 And then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory." [Luk 21:27 ESV]
"49 And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high."" [Luk 24:49 ESV]
Matt and Luke are speaking of the return of the Son of Man. In a cloud. A cloud overshadows them at the transfiguration, but you couldn't say that Jesus arrived on clouds. So this is about either the rapture (I would say probably the rapture). The reference in Luke is the one I'd use to argue that the kingdom comes with power on Pentecost. What we are really talking about is the coming of the Holy Spirit, as promised. But the Holy Spirit is the power of the church. When it came, many could heal and preach and prophesy and speak in tongues. It surely seems more palatable to me to read these passages as referring first to the second advent, pre-millennial and the judgment there, and secondly - the some standing here part - referring to Pentecost. I need to go back to Mark 8 and see if this interpretation fits with what is said by the other authors.
vs 2 starts just like Mt 17:1, with "after six days". The events are recounted here very much as Matthew recounts them. There is this verse that adds a little more information:
10 So they kept the matter to themselves, questioning what this rising from the dead might mean. [Mar 9:10 ESV]
This was not the first time that Jesus told them about events that were to take place. Yet still they don't understand. Perhaps they had grasped that Jesus would die, but they still don't get that he will come back. Perhaps this is why they were all in a room mourning his death after the crucifixion, and didn't get excited when they heard he had risen. Maybe it was only then that they put everything together. Had they understood before, surely they would have been out at the tomb, waiting for him to come out?
2020-Mark's gospel is believed to be a collection of the things that Peter told Mark about his time with Jesus. So this is second hand, where Matthew was first hand...except that Peter was actually up there when all this happened, and we don't know who Matthew heard it from. Mark tells us that Peter suggested the three tents because he had no idea what else to do. How many times in the OT did they build an altar when there was a heavenly appearance? The first one to my mind is Jacob's Ladder, and Jacob builds an altar there. This happened many times. So Peter's suggestion is not really "out of keeping" with tradition. Then the voice from heaven. Mark doesn't mention that they all fell down terrified. God's own voice had affirmed the authority, position, and power of Jesus at his baptism first, and now here. Different people present both times. But two. Witnesses to both events, and two times meant it was real. So why is the next question about Elijah? Looked at MSB notes. Elijah had just appeared to them on the mountain. They had just seen him. This verse: 1 "Behold, I send my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me. And the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight, behold, he is coming, says the LORD of hosts. [Mal 3:1 ESV]. And this one: 5 "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and awesome day of the LORD comes. [Mal 4:5 ESV]. They knew these verses. They knew what the appearance of Elijah foretold. And he had just appeared. Jesus tries to explain to them that John was the messenger - one like Elijah - and as I read it now, Elijah will appear as one of the witnesses in Revelation and restore all things at that time. So it should have been clear at this point that the two prophecies are about two different epiphanies!!! One, with John the Baptist, is the Messiah as Suffering Servant, and the second, with Elijah himself, is Messiah as Conquering King. So Jesus had just told them he was going to die and be resurrected. They couldn't figure the dying part, because they knew what it said in Malachi, but didn't understand that two events were prophesied. Their question was, "How can you die, when what you're supposed to do after Elijah comes is restore Israel and the promises?" In this context, Jesus two part answer fits with the two part prophecy of Elijah's appearance. Wow. All these years and I finally understand this conversation.
2025 - And here is another one I am finally reading correctly:
12 And he said to them, "Elijah does come first to restore all things. And how is it written of the Son of Man that he should suffer many things and be treated with contempt? 13 But I tell you that Elijah has come, and they did to him whatever they pleased, as it is written of him." [Mar 9:12-13 ESV]. Jesus is referring first to the coming of Elijah in Revelation. Yes, Elijah WILL come then and restore all things. We see Elijah's purpose at that time in these verses:
3 And I will grant authority to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days, clothed in sackcloth." 4 These are the two olive trees and the two lampstands that stand before the Lord of the earth. 5 And if anyone would harm them, fire pours from their mouth and consumes their foes. If anyone would harm them, this is how he is doomed to be killed. [Rev 11:3-5 ESV].
The witnesses will have great authority, even to calling down fire. Israel - via its prophets - will be immune to the powers of Satan's followers. They will be utterly unable to prevent the testimony of these witnesses. That is part 1, the restoration.
Part 2, which actually comes first, is that Elijah HAS COME, past tense. Jesus says the Son of Man is the one who will be treated with contempt. He is showing them in so many words that this advent is NOT the one where all things are restored, but that a different prophecy is being fulfilled - where "he should suffer many things". Elijah HAS COME was about John the Baptist, and they were doing whatever they please not to John, but to Jesus. The pronouns are confusing, but Jesus meant that this Elijah (John) was about the first advent, and the brutal death that would be suffered by the Son of Man. How can one miss such perfection in the scriptures for so long?
vs 14 says this:
14 And when they came to the disciples, they saw a great crowd around them, and scribes arguing with them. [Mar 9:14 ESV]
Here is a good example of how Mark, at least, uses disciples for those who follow Jesus in general as contrasted with the 12, also called apostles. So the ones that couldn't cast out the demon from the boy were disciples. Not part of the 12...in my opinion.
Mark's account of Jesus casting out the demon has a lot more detail and information than Matthew's account. Once again, it may be that Peter, who was there, had a very good recollection of the details of this encounter, while Matthew heard it later when they all got back together. Peter's eye witness account, as told directly to Mark, as opposed to Matthew's "everyone talking at once" version of the story.
As Mark tells it, as Jesus and the three came down from the transfiguration, they encounter a crowd of Jesus disciples arguing with some scribes. Jesus asks what the argument is about, and the possessed boy's father tells Jesus that his disciples failed at casting out the demon, and now they're arguing about it. So likely the Scribes were saying that their failure to cast it out proved that Jesus was not the Messiah. So with this extra information, it seems like Jesus was upset at his disciples for relying on their own "power", instead of on God, and they were having a demon casting out contest with the scribes. So they were all pretty much down in the gutter with each other about it, and not much concerned with the sad state of the boy the demon had hold of in the first place. They were missing the point on so many levels. Jesus might also have been angry with the Scribes who used the lack of faith of Jesus' disciples to discredit and deny Jesus himself. And they're all standing out in the street shouting at each other about it, instead of caring for the young man with the demon. Truly a perverse situation. And Jesus used the phrase "this generation" because both his disciples AND the religious elite that had things so messed up were both involved in the dispute. It was all of them, the whole generation!
More information here about the symptoms the boy had. Many of the symptoms show up in "The Exorcist". Note that when Jesus sent it out, he added that the demon was never to enter him again. I don't recall Jesus ever giving this order before. But I do remember the story about how if a demon is put out of the house, it wanders about alone, and at some point decides home was better, and comes back with seven others, so that the state of the home is worse after than it was before. Are all demons like this, or just these really nasty ones? I don't want to get distracted with the accounts of demons in the NT. But there seems to be so much more here than we ever discuss. Even that sermon of John Mac's that I found was from 1973, and it was the only one I found. I'm betting he caught no end of flack over that, and has never preached on it again.
When this demon is expelled, the crowd thinks it has left the boy dead. But Jesus takes the boy by the hand and lifts him up. Perhaps he was dead, and Jesus raised him? This would be a pretty powerful demon.
As in Matthew, after this incident, the disciples ask why they couldn't do it. Jesus says:
29 And he said to them, "This kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer." [Mar 9:29 ESV]
"This kind..." There are many kinds of demons. If they are fallen angels, then the more powerful the angel, the more powerful the demon. We know of cherubim, seraphim, and archangels on the good side. Likely they also have "rank" on the bad side. But we don't know much about that.
2020-Note also that at least part of the verse that ESV wouldn't include in Matthew's account of this event shows up here in Mark's account without reservation. But it only mentions prayer, not fasting. Still, this may be the reason that some manuscripts include this extra information - because it is in Mark, and casting out demons is serious business, and should be done right.
As they journey to Capernaum, Jesus tells them about his coming death and resurrection. They don't understand, and Mark adds that they were afraid to ask him about it.
2022 - This verse:
"31 for he was teaching his disciples, saying to them, "The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him. And when he is killed, after three days he will rise."" [Mar 9:31 ESV]
What they didn't understand was "rise". We know now that he meant "come back from the dead" or "rise from the grave". But here is the definition of the word:
ἀνίστημιanístēmi, an-is'-tay-mee; from G303 and G2476; to stand up (literal or figurative, transitive or intransitive):—arise, lift up, raise up (again), rise (again), stand up(-right).
There really isn't anything there to connect this with coming back from the dead. They may have thought he meant he would come to power. He would rise in popularity, fame, authority, and earthly power. They didn't know how he was going to do that. There are some references to a resurrection of the saints in the OT, but not very many, and they aren't very clear about when. Perhaps they thought he was referring back to those, and they didn't really understand them, and were afraid to "show him their ignorance"...as if he didn't already know about that! We have hindsight, and so we tend to think they were quite dense, but when you look at the Greek word...it just means to "stand up". No real wonder they didn't understand that he was talking about a very miraculous and unprecedented event. In this verse...
"9 As Jesus passed on from there, he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, "Follow me." And he rose and followed him." [Mat 9:9 ESV], Matthew rose. But not from the dead. This kind of "rise" is what the word commonly meant. So let's cut them a little slack.
Compare this verse:
"23 The same day Sadducees came to him, who say that there is no resurrection, and they asked him a question," [Mat 22:23 ESV]. The word used here for resurrection - which refers directly to a rising from the dead, is a completely different Greek word than Jesus used. Why wouldn't he use this word when talking to his apostles? The only answer can be that they were not to understand it yet, it was not meant for them to understand. So Jesus uses a word that will make sense to them (and to us) after the fact, but was a little vague before the fact. With all this information, their confusion makes perfect sense. They were neither dense nor stupid. This word was not specific, because Jesus didn't want it to be specific.
This little section is here and in the same spot in Matthew's gospel. Jesus knows they were confused by the transfiguration, and that they still don't understand that there will be two advents of Christ. He tells them again. They still don't understand. And why would they? They'd lived a long time being told there was only one appearance of Messiah. And one of Elijah, and that they sort of went together. So how do you fit "Messiah dies" into the context of what they knew? We shouldn't be so hard on them. Like when Einstein showed that Newton was wrong. There must have been a LOT of resistance to that also! We see it all the time. What doesn't fit into our preconceived ideas is rejected out of hand. Square peg, round hole.
Also on the way, the disciples are discussing who among themselves is greatest. When they get to town, Jesus asks them what they were talking about on the way. Mark says he called the 12 to him, implying that he was traveling with more than just the 12. He calls them apart here to teach them about greatness. And he tells them just the opposite of what the world was telling them. The principal is that receiving those who have no possibility of increasing our own greatness as pay back for what we do for them, these are the ones we should do things for. Heaven rewards generosity to the helpless, giving to those who cannot repay, loving those who do not love us. Heaven's rewards are exactly in contrast to earthly rewards. This is why we need to keep any "good deeds" secret. If we tell of them, we are seeking accolades on earth. We might get them, but that's all we will ever get. If we keep these things secret until heaven, then we receive heavenly rewards for them.
2022 - Here it is again! Look at this verse:
"37 "Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me."" [Mar 9:37 ESV]. Another reference to the sheep and goat judgment! Jesus talks about this judgment over and over and over. Once you know what to look for, and once you are actively searching it out, it is here repeatedly! These verses from sheep and goat:
"35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,
36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.'
37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? ...
40 And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'" [Mat 25:35-37, 40 ESV]
I mean, come on! These are about the same thing! And when does this happen? Here is the verse, and it fits very neatly into the end of Mark 8/first of 9:
"31 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne."
It happens when he comes with his angels. Back to Mark 8 for verses on that one, we have already "established" that this is about the second advent. That is the ONLY time he comes with his armies/angels. This does not happen at the GWT, and it does not happen at the bema if indeed the bema is in heaven rather than on earth. He comes in his glory, with the angels, and he sits on his "glorious" throne. This is Pre-Millennial stuff here. And Jesus just keeps talking about it.
It is inextricably linked to the kingdom - which is his real subject. The kingdom will come with power, yes, spiritually, and then later will come physically. Both "kingdoms" are ruled over by Christ. Today he rules from his throne at the right hand of God, at the second advent he will rule from his glorious throne on earth - in Israel, in Jerusalem. Wow! That is the link between the sheep and goat judgment and "some standing here". It is one continuous kingdom in two forms.
39 But Jesus said, "Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. 40 For the one who is not against us is for us. 41 For truly, I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ will by no means lose his reward. [Mar 9:39-41 ESV]
Who is not against us is for us. There is an implication that those who do good things in Christ's name, even though they are not fully committed to him, will still receive a reward for it. BUT THIS IS WRONG!!! John, the one who tells the story, was feeling guilty about having rebuked this person who was casting out demons. If it is true, as Jesus said, that a house divided, etc, then the one doing the casting out was in fact a true believer. The person was perhaps not part of the crowd following Jesus, perhaps didn't even openly declare his position, but only true believers cast out demons. John was realizing this, and felt bad about rebuking him. This comes right after the talk about who is greatest also. Maybe John felt that only Jesus' immediate followers "deserved" recognition for casting out demons. He saw this person as a usurper, as competition. So when Jesus talked about being least, John felt bad. Think of the lessons here for the modern church. We compete with other denominations, other preachers, other leaders in the church...What if we all took this view? Is there a FB post here? Surely there is a website post.
2022 - Look at vs 41! A cup of water. This is about the sheep and goat judgment. This says that there will be rewards at the sheep and goat judgment. But how can we say that only those alive at the second coming will receive these rewards? The implication is that since Jesus doesn't know when the second coming will be, it is possible that it will be in the lifetime of this guy casting out demons, and he will receive a reward at that judgment. That is the only way we can understand these words AND maintain that only those alive at the time will receive a reward at the sheep and goat. And we have to put the bema rewards in heaven. We could say that Jesus means that bema judgment, but the reference to the cup of water pretty clearly ties it to the sheep and goat.
Jesus talks about how it is better to die than to mislead the little ones. Better to be maimed than to hang on to a hand that sins perpetually. We need to be supremely cautious about our witness, our testimony, our behavior.
2022 - Here is the reason for wanting to protect little children from pornography, from gender transitions, from R rated movies, from Satanic teachings of all kinds, from profanity. ANYTHING that causes a child to sin - in word, deed, or thought - is abhorred by God:
"42 "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea." [Mar 9:42 ESV]
Possible FB post here, certainly, and a very timely one also.
And whatever we have in our lives that pulls us toward sin, we need to get rid of. It is not really about our physical bodies. It is about what we "cherish" and hold close to us that also distracts us. Alcohol that gives us the hangover that keeps us from church or Bible reading or even from smiling at other people in the grocery store. Fishing on Sunday, athletic teams, and so on. None of these are inherently bad, it is the priority that we put on them. If we cannot keep them in the proper perspective, then they must go, because they have power over us that only God should have. It all ends with these two verses:
49 For everyone will be salted with fire. 50 Salt is good, but if the salt has lost its saltiness, how will you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another." [Mar 9:49-50 ESV]
Looked at the MSB notes here. Even John Mac says 49 is a difficult verse, but he does give an OT reference that ties salt to the sacrifices offered. Lv 2:13, 13 You shall season all your grain offerings with salt. You shall not let the salt of the covenant with your God be missing from your grain offering; with all your offerings you shall offer salt. [Lev 2:13 ESV]. This is another reference, I believe, to the covenant of salt. I have other notes about it, but can't seem to recall them right now. I think this is about keeping the covenant. Jesus is referring to the loss of the Sinai covenant that they are living through, lost because the religious elite had taken God out of the covenant and made it about the rules. The food was there, but it was unsalted, bland, and ephemeral. He was telling them to keep the covenant of his blood and body, of repentance, and of commitment without the law that they were so used to. Keep the food savory, keep the flavor of the covenant. I think that other place I found this was just as profound as this one. In fact, I think this one explains it even better. 2020 - Don't let the new covenant lose it's savor and become nothing but ritual and requirement like the Mosaic Covenant has. Go to church expectantly, not routinely. Look for something to happen that is not in the bulletin! This too is a good post, and should go right after the one above, just like it does here in Mark!
2022 - Couple of things from vss 42-50:
Note that Jesus himself describes hell as a place with "unquenchable fire", vs 44, and in vs 48, a place where "the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched". The fires of hell don't kill, but they burn. Eternal suffering is in view. The suffering is in the form of fire, not starvation, not drowning forever, not acid baths, but fire. This is the most severe punishment that God can give. He made fire "the worst thing". Perhaps that's why they burned Christians at the stake, because of the irony of killing believers - who would never feel the fires of hell - with the thing believers ought not have to worry about. How cruel.
Then this whole salt thing comes in. In the OT, bulls, rams, sheep, and goats were offered as a sweet savor, and as a "food offering" to the Lord. Here is one of many places where that phrase is used in the OT:
"6 besides the burnt offering of the new moon, and its grain offering, and the regular burnt offering and its grain offering, and their drink offering, according to the rule for them, for a pleasing aroma, a food offering to the LORD." [Num 29:6 ESV]
Food needs salt. If the sacrifice was meant to honor God by giving him food, then to be proper, it would need salt. The offering was also burned. Non-believers are burned. But there is no salt with unbelievers, their salt has lost it's savor. They are NOT an honorable sacrifice, but a sacrifice that has no salt to make it flavorful. I have never seen hell as a picture of "strange sacrifice". It is a sacrifice that God will not accept, will not honor, and therefore though the punishment is eternal, it is never sufficient. Because those burned have no salt - no good thing - associated with them.
Then this verse:
"49 For everyone will be salted with fire." [Mar 9:49 ESV]
What can this mean? The salt has been changed to fire. The fire IS the salt in this verse. If we look at the rest of these verses...could it be that fire refers to "testing", and our response to the testing determines whether our salt will have savor or not? Will the testing make us "better", more acceptable as sacrifices, more wholly dedicated perhaps? Really don't know. This one is pretty difficult.