Reflecting on Mark's Gospel - Mark 13:28-37

The warnings continue, as does the call for watchfulness. The fig tree is used as an example, but in a different way from the previous encounter that Jesus and the disciples had with a fig tree. This time the appearance of leaves on the branches of the fig tree is cited as an indication of the proximity of summer.

The main message is that of a call for alertness. We should not be trying to work out what are sometimes called the ‘signs of the times’, not least because we are almost bound to get it wrong. We are not called to predict the future, but we are called to live in the right way, so that we can respond appropriately to whatever may happen. The image is of one who is not ready, or who misses things, because of being asleep; and that is contrasted with the person who is alert and awake, ready for whatever may happen.

I wonder if there are things to which we are not as alert as we should be.

As Eduard Schweizer (The Good News according to Mark) says of this section – “it summons us to wakefulness” looking for the person who “always stands accountable before the coming Lord … being ready for the Lord at all times.”

The point is to be prepared and ready for what God asks of us.

Reflecting on Mark's Gospel - Mark 13:14-27

The pictures of disaster and alarm continue. The descriptions are of events that, as Morna Hooker (The Gospel according to Saint Mark) puts it, bring – “terrible suffering for those involved” but are “like many other disasters which have taken place in the course of history”.

The risk with such passages is that we apply them to current events and draw conclusions that are neither needed nor appropriate. I am writing these notes at a time of pandemic and many are wondering what are the implications, both short and long term, of the current situation as we talk about a ‘new normal’, but at a point where it has not arrived as things are still some distance from settling down. History is full of difficult stuff that hurts people and, in some ways, this is simply stating that. As Christians we rightly assert that all things are in God’s hands, but it is invariably unhelpful to try and find hidden meanings or make predictions around what particular events imply. It is good to be alert. It is good to look for what we should be doing and saying, but that should not include attempting to predict the course of history.

The reference to the coming of the Son of Man is a way of promising God’s care. Mark here addresses his readers, originally the members of the relatively early church, very likely facing the possibility of persecution and, as Hooker says – “this passage is an assurance that, whatever sufferings they may have to endure, their faithfulness to Jesus will be rewarded on the Last Day, when they are acknowledged by the Son of Man.” We all sometimes go through periods of distress but, come what may, God is with us.

Reflecting on Mark's Gospel - Mark 13:1-13

Mark 13 is often banded the ‘little apocalypse’ as it contains a number of alarming predictions. In the first section Jesus foretells the destruction of the temple, something that is later linked to the fall of Jerusalem and the destroying of the temple in 70CE. The disciples’ view of the temple, with its large stones, is contrasted with the devastating picture of these being broken up and knocked down. The description is of a time of chaos and fear. (This may reflect some of the persecution experienced by the early church.)

This is a difficult chapter, engaging with concepts that tend to be far from our experience. However, if nothing else, it reminds us, as Douglas Hare (Mark) puts it, that – “Christians are to be constantly on guard against whatever might distract them from being faithful to Jesus, and are to proclaim his gospel everywhere.”

The essential challenge is to stand up for what is right, no matter the threats, opposition or persecution that have to be faced. There will be difficult things to confront, but God’s people should not be alarmed.

People will make all sorts of claims, Disasters will take place, both natural and those provoked by our inhumanity to each other. These difficulties are not something that can be avoided. As Hare says – “preaching the good news will not protect Jesus’ followers against the world’s hatred.”

But it is worth standing firm through all of this, and it is possible. The one who endures to the end will be saved. I wonder what are the things that make us feel threatened. I wonder if we turn to God as we should.

Luke 22:24-30

The disciples are again arguing about which of them should be regarded as the greatest.  And again the normal status system is rejected.  They need to learn that the leader should become like the servant.  They need to learn that the greatest should have no more honour than the least.  They have still not learned this lesson about service being the path to greatness.  They are still looking for power and supremacy, rather than simply taking their place and doing what they can to serve.  It is one of the saddest things in the Gospel story that the disciples could argue about who should be recognised as most important in the very shadow of the Cross.  What did it matter who exactly had which place?  And yet, though it is easy for us to condemn them, it is equally easy for us to do the same kind of thing.  We want our place, our position, our status.

Service is so important that it is of the essence of the Kingdom.  When we get caught up in thoughts and arguments about greatness, not only do we fail to serve as we ought, but we do God a grave disservice by letting him down and discarding his priorities.

The world needs service, and the world knows it.  A garage once claimed: we will crawl under your car oftener and get ourselves dirtier than any of our competitors.  One of the strange facts of life is that one place where there are often arguments about place and status is the church.  The world needs, and recognises, service.  Sometimes the church messes up by just arguing.  Let’s try and avoid that.

We might put it this way.  We can focus on giving.  Or we can focus on getting.  But the strange thing is that, if we do focus on getting, there are so many important and valuable things that we will miss out on.  There are different ways in which we can explain this, but they include what Jesus said in Luke 9:24/5 – For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will save it.  What good is it for you to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit your very self?

Jesus, as you would expect, does not approve of the arguments about greatness.  He tries to point through and beyond them.  He points out that the greatest must be like the youngest and the leader must be the servant.  Jesus calls us to perfection, even though he knows we won’t make it.  But that’s the aim.  Who really is the greatest?  Where is true greatness?  God may well surprise us as we grapple with that question.  But what matters for us is not a call to greatness, but a call to service.

Reflecting on Mark's Gospel - Mark 12:41-44

Watching people make their offerings might today be considered an invasion of privacy, but that is exactly what Jesus does here. In something more reminiscent of my African experience when, in both Zimbabwe and Zambia, I have watched, and joined in, as everyone dances their way to the front and to the offertory plate, though the amount given tends to be relatively private. Here Jesus notices many rich people putting in large sums. Presumably there were also many whose offerings were more moderate in line with their means. But then the spotlight is turned on a poor widow who is only able to contribute a tiny amount. In monetary terms her offering is of very little value, but the gift is all she has, and so actually amounts to the most sacrificial giving possible. She has frequently been commended for her amazing generosity.

But is the point that Jesus is making rather different? Is this, in fact, a further attack on the demands of the Temple system? Is this, as Ched Myers (Binding the Strong Man)  suggests – a story of a widow being impoverished by her obligations to the temple cultus”? Myers further suggests that this has been “long mishandled as a quaint vignette about the superior piety of the poor.”

On this reading, the suggestion is that nobody should be put in such an unacceptable position. God surely cannot want this lady to give away the tiny and inadequate means of survival that she possesses. I wonder if there are situations in which we have unreasonable expectations of some others.

Her sacrifice may appear commendable, but it could rather be seen as foolhardy, and, whichever of those is the case, surely there is something deeply flawed in a system which requires this donation from such an impoverished widow. Perhaps Jesus is actually returning to the points he was trying to make when he chased away those who were selling and buying in the temple precincts and overturned the tables of the moneychangers. Perhaps this story is not about generosity, but about exploitation. As Myers points out – “the temple has robbed this woman of her very means of livelihood. Like the scribal class, it no longer protects widows, but exploits them.” I wonder if there are places where we should be challenging exploitation.

Reflecting on Mark's Gospel - Mark 12:38-40

Here, as Leith Fisher (Will you follow me?) puts it – “Jesus goes on to complain that scribal piety is a cloak for the oppression of widows and the powerless of the land.”

The promotion of justice, and in particular the matter of looking out for the widow and the orphan, is a strong element within the Biblical tradition. That is Jesus’ concern here. It seems likely that the background to this outburst is that customarily the scribes would be those who would look out for the vulnerable in society and ensure that their rights were protected. They were trusted figures as part of the religious leadership. Jesus’ claim is that they use this aspect of their role for their own financial advantage. A commission would be payable and appropriate, but too easily inflated. Very possibly this is part of Jesus’ broader questioning of religious custom and whether it is truly in line with what God seeks.

The scribes, with their long robes and lengthy prayers, put on the appearance of being excellent models of religious practice. However, the outward show can disguise a use of the position for personal advantage. The trusted individual too easily abuses that trust. As Fisher describes it – “scribal piety is being attacked and debunked as a thin veil for economic opportunism and exploitation. The fat cats of the Temple system are scathingly exposed.” This is to be condemned, and that is exactly what Jesus does.

I wonder where we might see position or role being used in a way that does not really seek the best for those who are allegedly being helped. I wonder where we would identify as the main places where we see power being abused.

Reflecting on Mark's Gospel - Mark 12:35-37

The direct questioning has stopped for the moment, but Jesus continues to address some of the key issues that are relevant to the kind of things that have been discussed. The question on which he comments here is as to whether the Messiah is the son of David. One of the commonest titles for the expected Messiah was indeed son of David. The people were looking for a deliverer believing this person  would come from David’s line, and be in David’s mould. David was a great warrior king and, particularly at the time of Jesus when they were under Roman occupation, it is not surprising that the hope was for a military Messiah who would overthrow Roman rule.

Jesus here asks how the Messiah can be David’s son on the grounds that David calls him Lord, which is not how one normally refers to a son. However, perhaps this should be seen at a deeper level, and as an indication that Jesus’ Messiahship is not going to fit the conventional mould. After all, a Messiah who gets captured and killed is a contradiction in terms. As William Barclay (Daily Study Bible – The Gospel of Mark) says – “what Jesus is doing is this – he is not denying that the Messiah is the son of David, nor is he saying that he is not the son of David. What he is saying is that he is the son of David – and far more. The Coming One was not only David’s Son – he was David’s Lord.” This issue is not, as in other matters, that Jesus rejects what has been stated, but that he reinterprets it, as tradition has taken things in the wrong direction.

I wonder if we are caught up in any traditions that have gained unintended meanings or unintended consequences.

Reflecting on Mark's Gospel - Mark 12:28-34

Theological dialogue continues as yet another question is put to Jesus. This time the questioner is identified as one of the scribes, and it is stated that he was impressed by Jesus’ answers. Therefore, we can suppose that this was a genuine question rather than, as has been the case with several others, an attempt to trip up Jesus and get him to incriminate himself by saying something unacceptable.

The question is about the commandments, one of the fundamentals of the faith. Which commandment is the first of all? Jesus begins with the Shema. This prayer quotes Deuteronomy 6:4-5 and is one of the fundamental expressions of Jewish belief. Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God, the Lord alone. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might. This was recited by every Jew as part of both morning and evening prayers.

But Jesus then proceeds to answer a question that, arguably, has not been asked as he identifies the second commandment. In doing this he cites Leviticus 19:18 – you shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any of your people, but you shall love your neighbour as yourself: I am the Lord.

Surely the point is that these two are inseparable. Megan McKenna (On Your Mark: Reading Mark in the Shadow of the Cross) summarises this – “Jesus’ proclamation states clearly that love of God and love of others cannot be separated. Indifference to others in need is indifference to God. Because of the incarnation, Jesus becoming one of us, all human beings are one in the sacrament of obedience to God. What we do or don’t do for others, we do or don’t do for God.”

The scribe recognises the truth of Jesus’ answer and says so. He can see the importance of these two and that they are linked, but also that they are more important than all the details of religious practice that can become the priority of those who claim to be entirely committed to God. In brief, loving your neighbour is more important than offering the prescribed sacrifice. Jesus, in turn, recognises that this man is well on track towards a proper understanding of God’s Kingdom values. I wonder how we identify those who are our neighbour and how we engage with them.

Now, for the moment, there are no more questions for Jesus.

Reflecting on Mark's Gospel - Mark 12:18-27

Awkward questions continue as Jesus is confronted with a rather unlikely scenario by one of the groups of religious leaders, those known as the Sadducees. Indeed, we could say that they try to involve Jesus in significant theological debate.

This particular group held that there was no resurrection and so, as we might expect, that is the issue which they tackle in their dialogue with Jesus. They pick on the custom that held that in the case of a married man who died, leaving a wife but no child, his brother, assuming he had one, should marry the widow and raise any children as though they belonged to the deceased brother. They imagine a situation in which seven brothers are each, in turn, faced with this situation; and they wonder whose wife the woman will be in the resurrection as she has been married to all seven.

Jesus’ response effectively suggests that it is the wrong question. He points out that resurrection life will be very different and that it will not include a human institution like marriage. He thus closes down the debate, though also mentioning that God is concerned with the living, not with the dead. Resurrection is, by definition, part of the sphere of the living but we cannot know, and do not need to worry, exactly how things will be.

Jesus refers to the patriarchs and to God’s identification as their God when he spoke with Moses from the burning bush. The point is that God is God of all, and, by inference, we may suggest that there is not a great deal to be gained by worrying about tiny details. As Morna Hooker (The Gospel according to Saint Mark) says – “if God is the God of the patriarchs (and of those who came after them), he does not cease to be their God at their death; experience of fellowship with God demands belief in some kind of continuing relationship with him.”

Reflecting on Mark's Gospel - Mark 12:13-17

The series of mutually challenging conversations with religious leaders continues as a group of them try to put Jesus in a difficult position with respect to what he says on the matter of paying taxes. The record of this encounter describes how they make an approach to Jesus in which they flatter him. Perhaps this was for the sake of the crowd. We have already been told that they are concerned about a likely adverse reaction from the people in the event that they make any attempt to prevent Jesus from continuing his ministry and teaching.

Now the tactic appears to be that they should commend him, appearing to recognise the good things he is doing and saying, but then undermine him by asking a question which will provoke him to say something that loses the sympathy of the crowd. They will then be able to move against him without the same fear of retribution.

Jesus, however, beats them at their own game with his careful and appropriate answer. He first prepares the ground by requesting a coin, a denarius. He asks whose image is on the coin and so is able to draw the conclusion that the coin belongs to the emperor whose image it bears. Of course, God has priority, but that does not mean that we have no other obligations and Jesus carefully and powerfully makes that point. Give to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s.

I wonder how easily we judge our obligations to the state and to civic authorities. I wonder what bases we use to determine our attitude to the difficult issues of our day. (Jesus’ contemporaries were unhappy about having to pay taxes to the occupying Romans, which gives this incident added significance.)

In this encounter Jesus’ opponents try to force him to make a political comment, hoping that will be damaging to him. They succeed in the former aim, but not the latter. As Denis McBride (The Gospel of Mark: A Reflective Commentary) notes – “in his reply Jesus gives his own teaching, in line with traditional Judaism: it is for people to evaluate whether in demanding the poll tax, Caesar is reflecting the things of God. That evaluation, which is always a complex one, continues in every age.” I wonder how we decide what are the things on which we need to speak up or even, in some cases, engage in some form of practical action.

Reflecting on Mark's Gospel - Mark 12:1-12

Jesus, as so often, speaks with a parable, but this one is clearly pitched against the religious leaders, and they realise that is so, but take no action out of fear as to how the crowd will respond.

The story is about a man who has planted a vineyard and leased it to tenants. He sends a succession of agents, or slaves, to collect the rent, but the tenants, unwilling to pay, engage in a mix of beating up and killing the rent collectors. In complete frustration, and probably something more, the vineyard owner sends his son, convinced that this time the tenants will respect their visitor. However, on the contrary, they see their opportunity to eliminate the one who would inherit the vineyard, and kill the son. The parable ends with Jesus posing a question as to what the owner will do, and juxtaposing that with a quotation from Scripture, specifically Psalm 118, verses 22 and 23.

In the repeated attempts to resolve the issue we see, as Brendan Byrne  (A Costly Freedom) points out – “the extreme patience and long-suffering of God who, in the face of repeated rejection reaches out … against the evil calculation of the tenants.”

However, the parable ends with the situation completely unresolved and indeed plunged into trauma and tragedy. However, as Byrne points out – “still outstanding, is the truth that, as far as God was concerned, the rejection and brutal death of the Son was not the last word.”

The quotation from Psalm 118 takes us where we need to be, reminding us that God’s values do not fit the expected standards of the world. The critical point is that the approach is transformational and fundamentally different. The rejected stone is actually the cornerstone. In a sense, this is the psalmist’s version of Jesus’ comment about the last being first, and vice versa. But even that does not complete what needs to be said, because we must include the next comment on the psalmist about this being God’s doing and the fact that we see it as amazing. I wonder whether we pause often enough to consider all that God has done for us, and just how marvellous it is.

The religious leaders recognise that this is an attack on them, and they want to resist it, but, for the moment, they dare not do so because they are afraid of the crowd. So, they leave him be and go away.

Reflecting on Mark's Gospel - Mark 11:27-33

It sounds as though opposition is building. Jesus is back in Jerusalem and back in the temple when he is challenged by a group of fairly significant people. It is the leaders within the community who come to challenge Jesus. They raise the question as to where he gains his authorisation. How legitimate are his claims? How is he to be viewed? As Warren Carter (Mark) notes – “The questions about authority and authorizing perceptively raise the central matter of Jesus’ identity.”

Jesus replies to the challenge with a question about John’s baptism. This is a ‘no win’ question for them. If they speak up in favour of John’s baptism, that raises the question as to why they have not accepted John’s ministry and also poses a problem because of the links between Jesus and John. On the other hand, if they reject John’s ministry in what they say, they will incur the wrath of the crowd who would support John. Therefore, they are non-committal, and say that they do not know. Jesus’s response is that if they will not answer his question, then he is not going to answer theirs. So, there is an impasse and, as Carter notes, Jesus – “wins the manly rhetorical skirmish by exposing their rejection of him and thereby discloses that they are not aligned with God’s purposes.”

Jesus does not completely refuse to answer their questions, but he will only do so if they respond to the points he raises. I wonder how we really see Jesus, and whether our understanding of who he was, and is, has reached the point that it should.

Reflecting on Mark's Gospel - Mark 11:20-25

Passing the fig tree the next day, the disciples notice that it has withered and, unsurprisingly, this provokes some conversation. This supports the idea of the encounter with the fig tree, if one can encounter a tree, as being a parable, as Jesus uses what has happened to illustrate some big things about faith and prayer.

Peter, as so often, is the spokesperson and comments on the fate of the tree. Jesus responds by pointing out the large effect that faith can have. He talks about the potential for faith to move a mountain into the sea. This is a strong statement of the power of God, and what is therefore possible through faith in God. However, the comment has added significance because Jesus does not just talk about this as a principle with reference to any mountain. He talks about telling this mountain to remove itself to the sea. Given where they were, the mountain to which Jesus refers must be either the Mount of Olives or the mountain on which the Temple is situated and, given what happened the previous day, we might assume that it is the Temple Mount. Jesus is therefore saying that, if there is faith, the Temple Mount can be thrown into the sea.

So, as Kim Huat Tan (Mark) asks – “if the Temple becomes obsolete when there is faith, how does one approach God to make requests and offer sacrifice for atonement of sins?”

The answer to that is also voiced by Tan – “In fact when prayers are made in faith, even when that important national institution is removed, those prayers will still be heard and answered.”

The value of the fig tree thus shifts from the provision of figs to satisfy hunger to the huge lessons it can teach about faith and prayer. Jesus reminds the disciples of the abundance of God. God can provide anything they need – though that should not be translated into a belief that God will provide everything we need. In the end, the critical thing is the relationship that we can have with God, and that is expressed through prayer. That operates as it should when our approach is right and rooted in a spirit of forgiveness. There is an echo of the pattern prayer with the comment that God will forgive us if we forgive others. I wonder how forgiving we really are. I wonder if we have learned the lessons of faith and prayer that this fig tree provides. Certainly, as Tan points out – “the story of the fig tree is not about ethics but about theology.”

Reflecting on Mark's Gospel - Mark 11:15-19

In our terms this is a mini riot. Jesus enters the temple courts and causes disruption, overturning tables and creating chaos as, presumably, money went flying and animals started running around. The temple operation needed these traders. Worshippers required the right kind of money and animals and birds suitable for sacrifice. Jesus, however, sees this commercial operation as damaging the true purpose of the temple, which is that it should be a house of prayer.

However, this sort of support trading was a long- and well-established part of religious life. It was necessary in order for the people to fulfil their religious duties. Of course, it was not without its problems, and elements of cheating and extortion, but we might wonder why the ordinary business of the temple provoked such a strong reaction on this occasion. As Ched Myers (Binding the Strong Man) comments – “many rabbis were concerned with the fairness of temple-oriented commerce, and often worked to prevent the inevitable racketeering. Jesus’ indignation could hardly be attributed to a discovery of the existence of temple trading per se.”

This action is an important statement of Kingdom values. It indicates the transformation that Jesus has come to bring. He has already stated that he is there for the sinners, they being the ones who need him, and, as Myers comments – “Jesus’ action here is fully consistent with his first direct action campaign to discredit the socio-symbolic apparati that discriminated against the “weak” and the “sinners” (2:17).”

The religious authorities recognise the challenge. As Myers says – “Jesus’ point is understood loud and clear by the high priests and scribes.” In the end this is a stark and powerful symbol. Two significant things result. In the first place, the religious authorities seriously began to plot his demise. They are afraid of what he represents and what he will do next. He is an influence against the conventional way of doing things, and needs to be eliminated. The second thing is that, having caused this chaos, Jesus then initiates a teaching session and the crowd are spellbound by what he is saying. Evening comes, and Jesus and the disciples leave Jerusalem.

I wonder how often we are spellbound by the things of God, in particular by our own exploration of the teaching of Jesus. I wonder if there are structures and conventions that we ought to disrupt.

Reflecting on Mark's Gospel - Mark 11:12-14

We do not expect Jesus to curse fig trees, or indeed anything else. However, the day after being cheered into Jerusalem, having gone back to Bethany overnight, Jesus is returning to Jerusalem. He is hungry and, seeing the fig tree up ahead, hopes he might be able to satisfy his hunger. However, when he reaches the tree, he discovers that it only has leaves and no fruit, although that is not surprising as it is not the season for figs. But Jesus states that this tree will not bear fruit in future.

It is interesting that it is noted that his disciples heard what he said. That suggests that this is not what they expected to hear.

In many ways, this is one of the strangest episodes in the Gospel story. However, one viable explanation is that this was an acted parable, and that Jesus is using the fig tree to try and explain what is happening. It is certainly true that the fig tree was sometimes used as a symbol of Israel. As Donald English (The Message of Mark) points out – “Shortly Jesus would enter the temple and find much to disappoint him, as he had with the fig tree.”

It may be that Jesus’ words are simply a statement of fact rather than, as has sometimes been assumed, a curse, and it may be that the important thing is the parallel with what is going to happen to Jerusalem, and he uses this tree to tell the story for the moment. As English suggests it may be that we should take this story and see – “in its starkness and destructiveness a solemn warning of what was in fact to happen in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.” Shortly, in verses 20-25, an explanation will be offered, but not yet.

Reflecting on Mark's Gospel - Mark 11:1-11

Mark’s version of what we know as Palm Sunday emphasises the preparatory task of finding the animal on which Jesus would ride as he entered Jerusalem. As Douglas Hare (Mark) points out – “Mark relates with considerable detail how Jesus instructed two disciples to locate a colt in a certain village (we are not told which one), to untie it, and to respond to objectors with the statement, “The Lord needs it and will send it back here immediately.”

Jesus, with the disciples, is approaching Jerusalem. They are located as being near Bethphage and Bethany. As they come to the Mount of Olives, they are getting close to Jerusalem, and all that means for them at that time. Because we know what is going to happen, we can imagine that there is a feeling of tension. But, before the traumatic events that are to unfold begin, there is to be a moment of celebration.

Traditionally we have understood that Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey, and that is most likely the case. However, the instruction to two unnamed disciples is to find a colt, and that term would more often be used of a young horse. Still, what matters is that it has not been ridden previously. Both the facts that Jesus can apparently requisition this animal and that it needs to not have been ridden, imply a claim to royalty. This is recognising Jesus as king. It is surely the case that, as Hare puts it – “Jesus’ decision to ride into Jerusalem is not a casual one. Because it was customary for pilgrims to walk into the holy city, this choice sets him apart.”

The animal is claimed, and Jesus, riding on this colt, enters Jerusalem amid shouts of acclamation. Cloaks are thrown over the animal, and also on the road. Branches are also spread on the road to form a carpet. It is said that these branches are cut from the fields, not from trees at the roadside, and there is no specific mention here of palm branches. However, there is clearly a celebratory procession with Jesus somewhere in the middle. The crowd shout words that seem to come from Psalm 118 – Hosanna! Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord! Blessed is the coming kingdom of our ancestor David! Hosanna in the highest heaven!

In this way Jesus enters Jerusalem. He goes to the Temple, an obvious and frequent first port of call for anyone arriving in Jerusalem. There, he looks round, but it’s late, and he simply leaves the city and returns to Bethany with the twelve.

We know what’s coming; but I wonder just what we would have made of that first Palm Sunday (if I can stick with that title in referring to an account that has no mention of palms), had we been there.

Reflecting on Mark's Gospel - Mark 10:46-52

Many of the people whom Jesus healed are not named, but here is one whose identity we know. Bartimaeus was a blind beggar living in Jericho. He used to sit at the side of the road near to the entrance to the town, presumably a good place to attract the attention, and hopefully, generosity of travellers either leaving or arriving at Jericho. This is one of those occasions when there is a large group moving along the road, listening to what Jesus is saying and watching out as to what he might do.

I am guessing that many of these were taking a last chance to see something of Jesus before he left Jericho, and that the majority would not continue along the road away from the city. It certainly seems that Jesus’ reputation was alive and well in Jericho, which would explain the crowd, as Bartimaeus, despite his disability, knows who this is and that he might be able to help.

With his loss of sight, Bartimaeus is not able to approach Jesus, but he can shout to him, and that is exactly what he does. It may be that Jesus is talking and those around, avidly listening, do not want this to be interrupted. It may be that they saw Bartimaeus as someone who should stay at the margins. Whatever the reasons, attempts are made to quieten him, but without success. I wonder what would make us shout out to Jesus, and what we would say.

But Jesus is not one to go with the crowd. He stops. Bartimaeus is called to go to Jesus. Presumably, with everyone stopping and being able to hear Jesus’ voice, his lack of sight now does not prevent him from approaching Jesus. He comes to Jesus, and is asked by Jesus – what do you want me to do for you? I wonder how we would answer that question.

Bartimaeus may feel that he is now being asked to state the obvious. There is just one thing he wants, but he is more than happy to name it. Let me see again. Faith, once again, comes into play; and Bartimaeus is healed. I wonder what part faith plays in how we live.

So, Bartimaeus, it would seem, becomes a disciple as he now follows Jesus on the way.

This encounter describes Jesus meeting with a blind man but, as Donahue and Harrington (The Gospel of Mark) point out, it – “illustrates a clear-sighted faith in Jesus the Son of David as the agent of God’s healing power and the enthusiastic and wholehearted response that he evokes from people of faith. More important than the restoration of Bartimaeus’ physical sight is his spiritual insight into the person of Jesus.”

Reflecting on Mark's Gospel - Mark 10:35-45

So, James and John make a bid for the top seats in the Kingdom. How, we ask, could they have so misunderstood the priorities that Jesus sets? They are looking to push themselves forward, and need to learn that this is not the way of the Kingdom. Jesus challenges them on that by asking two rhetorical questions, one as to whether they can drink the same cup as him and the other as to whether they can be baptised with the same baptism. As Ched Myers (Binding the Strong Man) comments – “having just completed teaching on the renunciation of social power, we can almost feel Jesus’ weariness and exasperation as he listens to the request of the Zebedees.”

In a sense it is irrelevant as the seats that they request are not available anyway, but it is worth their hearing the challenge as that will, hopefully, contribute to their understanding of what they are mistakenly asking. Maybe they will finally see something of the true values of the Kingdom.

Certainly, they are not courting popularity within the group as the others are clearly annoyed by the request from the brothers. This could have initiated a season of squabbling. Was it that James and John were trying to beat the others to the question? However, Jesus intervenes and points out where the path of true greatness lies. The person in search of greatness needs to take on the role of a servant. The person who wants to be number one must self-identify as a slave. This all goes against conventional expectation, then as now, but is an important reminder of the very different standards of the Kingdom, which, quite simply, turn things upside down.

Leadership is important, but the style of Kingdom leadership does not conform with conventional expectation. As Myers says – “Jesus here does not repudiate the vocation of leadership, but rather insists that it is not transferred executively. Leadership belongs only to those who learn and follow the way of nonviolence – who are “prepared” not to dominate but to serve and to suffer at Jesus’ side.”

Reflecting on Mark's Gospel - Mark 10:32-34

Jesus and his disciples are on the road. It would seem that they were not alone as we are told that Jesus took the disciples aside. People would often join a group of others when travelling, for safety reasons, so that is not surprising. However, we might wonder as to the direction the conversation took, as we are told of those who were there being both amazed and afraid.

Was it that they saw, or talked, around something of the great things that Jesus was saying and doing? Was that what caused the amazement? Was it that the sense of tension and conflict was building? Was that the source of the fear? Jesus is leading from the front, walking ahead. It is difficult to know how this might have happened on the road, but Jesus takes the twelve disciples that form the core group aside for what amounts to a private chat. Maybe they just fell into a group and got ahead as can happen when a large group is out walking. Maybe they stopped, perhaps for lunch, while everyone else carried on.

Jesus is described as telling the twelve something of what is going to happen. He talks of suffering and death, and even of resurrection. This suggests that tension was indeed building and gives some explanation of the feeling of fear that has been expressed. However, as we will discover, the disciples still do not ‘get’ it, even though this is the third reported such conversation. But I wonder what we would have made of what Jesus was saying in that situation?

Of course, we do need to remember that Mark is writing this down long after the event, and so, inevitably, in the light of all that happened. Like the other gospels, this is not written as either a diary or a news report. It is a proclamation of the good news of Jesus. As Morna Hooker (The Gospel according to Saint Mark) suggests – “Mark’s three passion predictions serve to remind his readers not only that Jesus’ death and resurrection were part of God’s purpose, but that Jesus himself was totally obedient to God’s will.”

Reflecting on Mark's Gospel - Mark 10:23-31

You can imagine that there were would be times when something would happen between Jesus and someone who had approached him and that, after the person had gone, Jesus and the disciples would continue a conversation about what had just happened.

This was one such occasion, and Mark reports something of the continuing conversation. Unsurprisingly, it is about wealth and the attitude of those who have it to what they possess. But, even more so, it is about entering the Kingdom and about following Jesus. In the first part of the conversation Jesus talks about the barrier that wealth can create. It easily becomes a major purpose in life. However, the difficulty is mitigated by the statement that all things are possible for God.

Nevertheless, it is important to understand what Jesus is saying, not to diminish the thought that riches can be a significant barrier, but to recognise that the main point being made by Jesus is absolutely about what God can do. As Edwin Broadhead (Readings: A New Biblical Commentary – Mark) comments with respect to the question of entering the Kingdom – “the answer by Jesus places the whole scene in theological perspective; none can, except by the grace of God.”

It would seem that Peter then looks at how this might be applied to the group. He comments about what they have left behind in order to follow Jesus. Jesus accepts what Peter states but, as so often, intensifies things with his answer. They have given up a lot but, in so doing, they are lined for extremely worthwhile rewards, though those rewards, in themselves, are not without challenges. Broadhead comments – “the disciples will receive back what they gave up – and more” but “a part of the ‘more’ is persecution (10.30).” The real point is that the things of God operate on an entirely different, and on normal standards unconventional, level. Things are unexpectedly reversed. As Broadhead reminds us – “many who are first will be last, and many last will be first. Thus, discipleship cannot be measured out upon a scale of sacrifice and reward.”

Reflecting on Mark's Gospel - Mark 10:17-22

Here Jesus is approached with what we can regard as a basic Kingdom question. What must I do to inherit eternal life? What must I do to enter the Kingdom? What must I do to get myself on God’s way?

The man who asks the question begins with an appropriate recognition of Jesus, addressing him as good teacher. Indeed, even before that, we can note the way in which he arrives. He runs up, indicating that he is in a hurry and that he does not want to miss Jesus. Then, he kneels before Jesus, surely a recognition that Jesus is someone special.

As so often, Jesus responds to a question with a question, only on this occasion he adds in a comment. Also, Jesus’ question is about the way in which the man has addressed him, rather than being an immediate response to the topic that has been raised. Why do you call me good? Jesus asks his question, adding the important theological point that, no one is good but God alone.

The statement connects with the ‘Shema’, the Jewish creed that confesses one God. The Shema, frequently prayed by Jews, (Deuteronomy 6:4-9) begins with the statement the Lord is our God, the Lord alone, and proceeds to make a link with keeping the commandments, which are summarised in terms of a right relationship with God.

This link makes this discussions interestingly important. As Kim Huat Tan (Mark) notes – “this heightens the status of the discussion, and suggests the following: if only God is good as the Shema requires, by calling Jesus good is the young man putting him on that level?”

Jesus identifies the commandments as the standard. They are what is required. However, as Tan points out – “the commandments Jesus cites exhibit a peculiar order. He begins with the sixth to the ninth commandments. He then follows with “do not defraud” before moving back to the fifth commandment. What is interesting is the command of “do not defraud”. This is not found in the Ten Commandments, unless we think of it as a loose application of the tenth commandment. If it is not, we may wonder why the tenth commandment is left out, along with those which relate principally to God (commandments one to four).”

The man replies unhesitatingly that he has kept the commandments, and that he has always done so. Jesus suggests that he then just lacks one thing, though actually he asks three things. He asks him to sell his possessions. He asks him to give the proceeds to the poor. Then, having done that, he asks him to come and follow him. For this man, in order to be a disciple, he needs to get rid of his wealth. Is this how Jesus brings in the tenth commandment, and identifies it as the one that is being broken?

It is important that we are told that Jesus loved this man. It is a reminder that God loves us no matter how we behave. But the story ends on a sad note as the man in question finds himself unable to do what is asked, and goes away. The tenth commandment covers the issue of ‘wanting more stuff’, what is sometimes described as ‘coveting’. The problem for this man, as Tan describes it, is that – “his loyalty is not really to the commandments but to his own opulent welfare. For him, obeying God’s commandments may be done as long as one’s preferred lifestyle is not compromised.” I wonder what things, for us, get in the way of following Jesus and being his disciples.

Reflecting on Mark's Gospel - Mark 10:13-16

Jesus does not necessarily meet the expectations of others, including the disciples. Indeed, the Kingdom message that he proclaims frequently turns things upside down. In the society of Jesus’ time children did not play a prominent role. They would be there, but very much in the background. So, when some of the people started bringing their children to Jesus, presumably for a blessing, the disciples told them, in no uncertain terms, to go away.

How dare these parents encroach upon Jesus in this way! The disciples spoke sternly to them. But Jesus takes a very different view. He is always open to those whom society thinks should stay away. But, actually, it is the little ones, the marginalised, and the outcasts who are the frontrunners for being Kingdom people. Jesus wants to engage with the children for precisely that reason.

As Joseph O’Hanlon (Mark My Words) points out – “The child is, for would-be disciples, a model, an image of what a disciple should be. To be where the will of God is, to be in the realm of God, is not something to be grasped; it is not a possession which can be acquired. It is a gift. A child is a gift. … To be like a child in the ancient world was to have nothing, to be nothing. To be a disciple in the kingdom is, at once, to lose everything and to gain everything, to die and to live.”

I wonder what are our greatest expectations in terms of how God wants us to live. I wonder whether we are able and willing to see things as differently as God does.

Jesus gladly receives the little children because he sees them as leaders. They show the way to the Kingdom. They are blessed and Jesus emphasises that as he blesses them. I wonder what childlike qualities we need to rediscover in order to get a better idea of the Kingdom and the kind of behaviour that will help us glimpse it, and even enter it.

Reflecting on Mark's Gospel - Mark 10:1-12

As so often, Jesus here gets into a confrontation with the Pharisees. He is speaking with the people, teaching and preaching, when some Pharisees arrive with their awkward questions. The implication is that this is not a genuine inquiry, but an attempt to wrongfoot Jesus. The Pharisees, or most of them, were convinced that there was something amiss with his teaching and they attempted to prove the point by asking questions designed to make him say things that they could then critique in a way that showed him to be adrift of what most people knew as the proper religious teaching.

Here the specific issue is that of marriage and divorce. The context is important. Marriages would be arranged and within the context of a patriarchal society. Women had few rights and would be treated as possessions. Jesus affirms marriage but does so as a way of responding to the suggestion that a man can just get rid of his wife at will. As Leith Fisher (Will you follow me?) points out – “Jesus refuses the nit-picking of legal debate. Instead, he points out how exclusive male rights have skewed and distorted the original purpose of the creation of male and female for each other, He argues that it is for no one to drive a wedge into that God-willed unity and equality.”

What matters is that we treat each other fairly. Marriage and relationships have gone through many phases. However, the problem is always the matter of dealing with abusive relationships. Jesus here emphasises the principles of mutuality and inclusivity, and that is a good model. As society changes, the detail of the questions mirrors the change, but the broad principles of equality and respect remain vital.

It is those who depart from that who are criticised by Jesus. Here, as in so many instances, Jesus brings a Kingdom which, as Fisher describes it, is one – “in which the old relationships of status and hierarchy, which disempower and exclude, are challenged and dethroned by a revolution from below. A new community is being built which finds a welcoming place for the excluded and a security for the poor and the powerless.” I wonder in what ways this challenges our view of relationships, however we define and describe them.

Reflecting on Mark's Gospel - Mark 9:49-50

Salt is one of those things that is very significant in so many ways. Here we have an echo of Jesus saying that his followers are to be like salt, bringing flavour to the world (Matthew 5:13). Here there is a comment about salt losing its saltiness. It then loses its ability to fulfil its main purpose which is to season. The implication is that we are to make a real difference to the contexts in which we are set in just the same way as salt transforms the taste of food.

This is linked to a comment about peace, our being at peace with one another being what we might hope for in a society that comes even remotely near to reflecting the Kingdom of God.

This little section is not the easiest part of Mark’s writing to understand, but we can, at least, see both salt and peace as measures of how things should be, and that makes particular sense when we identify salt as in indicator of purity. As William Barclay (Daily Study Bible – The Gospel of Mark) points out – “The ancients declared that there was nothing in the world purer than salt because it came from the two purest things, the sun and the sea.” Barclay goes on to suggest that we may see this passage as saying something like – “Be purified from selfishness and self-seeking, from bitterness and anger and grudge-bearing. Be cleansed from irritation and moodiness and self-centredness, and then, and then only, you will be able to live in peace.” I wonder what kind of ‘flavour’ we add to the circles in which we move. I wonder to what extent we are peacemakers.

Reflecting on Mark's Gospel - Mark 9:42-48

Whatever we do, we should not push others in the wrong direction. Here is a strong encouragement to avoid doing damage to others, but especially those who might be designated as little ones. As Vincent Taylor (The Gospel according to St. Mark) points out – “the ‘little ones’ are the humblest members of the community.” I wonder who are the little ones in our communities, and whether we take enough notice of them.

A dire warning is offered to those who might be considering doing things that would cause these folk to stumble. I think, as Taylor suggests – “actual mutilation is not counselled, but in the strongest possible manner the costliest sacrifice.” If we put this thought against the backdrop of the early church and the persecution it suffered, then we have an interestingly different perspective as Christians were going to their death in the Roman arena. Losing a hand or an eye rather than taking a false path becomes a reasonable challenge. As Taylor puts it – “This teaching must have been greatly esteemed in the Roman Church during the days of the Neronian persecution.”

The picture is stark, but it is clear that God’s Kingdom trumps all. A millstone round the neck would mean the end. The essential point is that no obstacle should be allowed to prevent the growth of the Kingdom. Anything that does that is simply not worth it. I wonder what are the obstacles that get in our way, and what we do about them; but I also wonder what obstacles we place in the way of others, and what we do about those. Jesus here has something stark to say about that.

Reflecting on Mark's Gospel - Mark 9:38-41

Here the disciples’ prejudices come to the fore and are contrasted with Jesus’ openness and inclusivity. There is a problem. One of the things for which Jesus has become known is the practice of exorcism, the ‘casting out’ of demons. People with ‘significant issues’ were regarded as demon possessed and bringing healing to them was, no doubt, greatly valued by family and friends, and indeed wider society. On occasion, as in  Mark 6:13, Jesus had shared this aspect of ministry with the disciples. However, there was also at least one occasion when some of the disciples had failed in an attempt to offer this ministry (Mark 9:18).

Maybe that is why they were so unhappy at seeing someone else offering this ministry in the name of Jesus. The problem is that they have discovered someone else, not part of the disciple group, who is casting out demons in Jesus’ name. They have tried to put a stop to this person’s work because the one concerned is not part of their group. Jesus, however, takes a different view. He welcomes the support of one who is doing good work in his name. In short, it does not matter that the person concerned is not a signed-up member of the band of disciples. Jesus puts it succinctly – whoever is not against us is for us.

Morna Hooker (The Gospel according to Saint Mark) comments – “the disciples are rebuked for their exclusive attitude, and the strange exorcist is vindicated” adding, “it may well reflect disputes within the early community in which some leaders tried to exercise a monopoly in certain gifts.”

This account reminds us that Jesus reaches out to all who are ready to seek a link with him. He is not interested in exclusivism or looking for reasons to create barriers between himself and others. As Hooker points out – “Jesus’ reply suggests that the real issue is not whether the exorcist is using his name without believing in him, but whether the disciples are falling into the danger of cliquishness which sets more store on whether someone belongs to the right party than whether he acknowledges Jesus as lord.”

I wonder in which areas we fail to be inclusive, choosing rather to emphasise our differences from others.