The Gospel of Mark, rightly Divided Mark 9:38-50 | Session 36 | Mark Rightly Divided

For a downloadable pdf: https://humble-sidecar-837.notion.site/Mark-9-38-50-Session-36-Mark-Rightly-Divided-e66d4faa63ed4d1d9c71943299228392?pvs=4

The One Not Against Us | Mark 9:38-40

Verse 38

This verse introduces several intriguing issues. First, it reveals that the name of Jesus was being used to cast out demons. The use of a powerful figure's name in exorcisms was a common practice in the cultural and religious context of the time. Both Jewish tradition and broader Greco-Roman practices involved invoking the names of deities or authoritative figures in rituals, including exorcism. This indicates a seemingly widespread recognition of Jesus' authority over demonic forces.

John's statement, "we forbade him, because he followeth not us," suggests that the apostles perceived a certain level of apostolic authority over the use of messianic powers. Interestingly, Jesus does not rebuke them for exercising such authority, implying that they might have been taught to assume this role. This perspective aligns with our understanding of the responsibilities and roles of the twelve apostles within the early Christian movement.

In rightly dividing the book of Mark, it is essential to acknowledge that we do not live under the same apostolic authority today, except for the authority of Paul, who is our apostle as stated in 1 Corinthians 11:1. Even within the context of Mark, it is also important to note that Jesus appears to moderate their exercise of authority.

Verses 39-40 -

Jesus' response to the apostles is deeply insightful. He does not rebuke them for asserting an authority that they didn't have. Their authority was indeed genuine as it was given by Jesus Himself (Mark 3:14-15, "And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils:"). However, He guides them on how that authority should be wielded. Jesus says, "Forbid him not." This implies that the man was indeed performing exorcisms in the name of Jesus, and thus he was honoring the name of Jesus and was unlikely to disparage Jesus.

In verse 40, Jesus makes a profound statement: "For he that is not against us is [for us]." This statement, often quoted in reverse as in Matthew 12:30, later became widely used in the western world in various non-religious scenarios.

Jesus' words, taken in their historical and dispensational context, reveal a reality of extremes during His ministry at the time: people either loved Him or hated Him, with little middle ground. Given this, His statement, "For he that is not against us is for us," can be understood as a reflection of these polarized reactions. It's important to remember that Jesus had already made it clear that those who wished to follow Him should take up their cross.

However, these words have often been extrapolated to the extreme, especially within the context of the church and ecumenicism, implying a universal spirit of unity among all Christian denominations. This interpretation might be a misapplication of Jesus' words taken out of their original context.

Instead, it might be more accurate to interpret Jesus' words dispensationally, considering His unique position and the specific circumstances of His ministry. If we do this, we understand that Jesus was not necessarily promoting a general ecumenical spirit. Rather, He was acknowledging the reality of the time and providing guidance to His followers within that specific context.

To demonstrate this dispensationally based application rather than a universal one, simply consider the case of the seven sons of Sceva in Acts 19:13-16. These men were doing the same thing that the man John was referring to was doing: casting out demons in the name of Jesus. Yet, after a confrontation with Paul, the outcome was very different. The seven sons of Sceva fled out of the house naked and wounded, having been attacked by the very demons they sought to exorcise.

It's crucial to be careful when using specific historical accounts from the Bible as a basis for doctrine. Both the inclusive nature of Jesus' words in Mark 9 and the exclusive nature of the experience with Paul in Acts 19 provide valuable insights, but they should not be taken out of their historical and situational context. As I often say, "don't make a doctrine out of an historical account." This means that while these passages can inform our understanding, we should avoid "cherry-picking" specific verses to support a particular viewpoint without considering the overall teachings of the Bible.

Kingdom Preparation | Mark 9:41-50

Verse 41 -

Verse 41 introduces a phrase that has become common in Western society: "giving a cup of cold water in Jesus' name." Jesus uses this metaphor to teach about selfless acts of kindness. The act of giving a cup of cold water represents performing a kind deed without expecting anything in return.

Jesus discusses the potential loss of reward, which is mitigated by such acts of kindness. Given that the Bible does not mention the concept of instant rewards, it appears that He refers to kingdom rewards. This interpretation that will further supported by the verses that follow. This conversation illustrates the Jewish belief in a reward-based system to earn future benefits in the kingdom, a belief that can be supported by Jewish texts.

Often, in Christianity, there has been a tendency to intermingle texts focused on Jewish audiences with those pertaining to the body of Christ. As a result, a doctrine of rewards has been developed based on this fusion. However, it's crucial to understand that this approach is not entirely appropriate. The Jews and the body of Christ, while both important components of God's plan, are distinct entities with different roles and promises attached to them. Hence, a doctrine built by combining these distinct elements can lead to a skewed understanding. It is always essential to interpret the scriptures in their correct context, taking into account to whom the text is speaking and in what dispensation.

In Luke 17:20-21, which presumably took place shortly after the events in Capernaum but within the same political context of Jesus' messianic ministry, Jesus stated, "The kingdom of God is within you." Many have interpreted this to mean that the kingdom was spiritual, not physical. However, in Mark 9:41, Jesus discusses the potential loss of future rewards. There is no indication that the concept of the kingdom changed between this concern about the loss of rewards and Jesus' statement that the "kingdom is within you." Therefore, the potential loss of reward seems to support the idea that a future, reward-giving kingdom was still expected and unrealized at that time.

Verse 42 -

As Jesus continues, He introduces a vivid image that has permeated Western society due to the influence of the King James Version. He warns about the severe consequences that await anyone who causes one of the "little ones who believe in me" to stumble. The metaphor of a millstone hung around the neck highlights the gravity of such an offense.

A millstone, used in grinding grain, is a large, heavy object. Using this image, Jesus is essentially saying that causing a believer to fall into sin is a grave offense that would be better off being drowned in the sea with a millstone around their neck.

In verse 42, Jesus continues his teaching by using the "flip side" of rewards mentioned in verse 41. He presents a works-based salvation and the potential loss of salvation. However, it's important to remember the dispensational context of Jesus' ministry. He was a minister to the circumcision, focusing on the Jewish audience (Romans 15:8).

This teaching of Jesus has been misconstrued when people have mingled the dispensation in which Jesus lived with the dispensation in which we live. This misunderstanding has led to the warning of destruction being interpreted as a warning against losing salvation or, if having less fidelity to the text, to a loss of rewards.

Understanding the dispensational divisions is crucial. Paul, our apostle, brought a new pattern of salvation by grace through faith, not works (1 Corinthians 11:1, 1 Timothy 1:5). Therefore, the warnings in these verses are not directly applicable to believers today. We should not interpret them out of their original dispensational context.

Verses 43-46

In this well-known passage, Jesus continues to speak metaphorically. He discusses the concept of cutting off an offensive hand (v. 43) or foot (v. 45). This passage is often used by critics who question the validity of the Scriptures, facetiously asking, "have you seen any Christians cutting off their hands?" The implication is that if Christians are not literally cutting off their hands and feet, they are not taking the Bible seriously.

However, a serious student of the Word recognizes the use of metaphors in literature and also recognizes the dispensational distinction: that we, as Christians in the age of grace, are not worried that our hands or feet will cause us to enter hell, for we are saved by grace.

Another issue of interest that arises here is the apparent doctrine held by the Jews at the time, though scholarship often denies that first century Jews held such a belief. This doctrine revolves around the belief in an ultimate life-beyond, which would be into "life" or into a "fire that never shall be quenched" (vv. 43, 45). Jesus brings up these doctrines without elaboration, suggesting that these beliefs were fairly standard during that time.

Finally, verses 44-46 contain the words that match verse 48, elaborating on "hell" by describing it as a place, "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." Once again, we see Jesus speaking metaphorically but communicating Himself clearly.

What is of interest is that modern translations of scripture either skip the passage in totality (as in the ESV) or put it in brackets (as in the NASB). The doctrine does not change in this account, since the words are uncontested in verse 48. However, removing these words takes away a cadence that seems natural and fits other examples of Hebrew repetition found in scripture.

An example of this Hebrew repetition can be found in Isaiah 6:3, where the seraphim proclaim, in triplets, "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of His glory." This repetition emphasizes the importance and intensity of the message. In the case of Mark 9:44-46, the repeated warning about the unquenchable fire in hell underscores its significance and the severity of the consequences, thus making a stronger impression on the audience.

Whenever a specific minority text is preferred over the majority, an honest evaluation should include the degree of variance that the text contains. It should also explain why, if applicable, all variants of that text have not been adopted as "the word of God." Sadly, the world of textual criticism is not forthcoming in this matter.

Verses 47-48

This is the famous "eye plucking" passage of Jesus. It is very clearly connected with the instruction on how to "enter into the kingdom of God" (v. 47). Once again, Jesus uses metaphor. Actual kingdom doctrine holds to a renewed and restored kingdom body. However, Jesus is not talking specifics of kingdom bodies, but rather the sacrifices needed to enter the kingdom. As with the entire passage, this should not be used to explain sacrifices needed in the Christian life, for this is simply not in the context.

Verse 49

The metaphorical language continues with "every one shall be salted with fire." This phrase is unique, found only in this specific verse and presumably refers to impending judgment.

The verse goes on to say "every sacrifice shall be salted with salt." However, like verses 44 and 46, this part of the verse is missing in modern translations, largely due to its absence in the Codex Sinaiticus, a disputed text which has been widely accepted without contest by modern Textual Criticism. The phrase is a direct quotation from Leviticus 2:13, referred to as "the salt of the covenant of thy God," and the salt’s absence is prohibited in sacrifice.

This phrase, erroneously omitted by textual critics, concludes the verse's thought and clarifies the context. That is to say, with judgment looming, the one to be judged should bring their sacrifices, salted under the covenant's terms, to make an ideal offering to the Judge. In the entire text's context (vv. 41-50), it is better to make an acceptable sacrifice to God now than to have to make an eternal sacrifice later.

About this episode