Chapter # 3 Paragraph # 6 Study # 2
January 7, 2020
Moss Bluff, Louisiana
(Download Audio)
(131)
Thesis: The "problem" of "divided loyalties" is its elimination of the human capacity for "faith", and the consequent displeasure of God, and the consequent lack of any experience of His "Life".
Introduction: In our studies of the Gospel of Mark, we have come into that section which was written to address the absolute cruciality of the "settled" decisions which were made in regard to Jesus of Nazareth. In this section, following hard on the heels of Mark's presentation of a series of "conflict stories" so that his readers would have a basis for understanding the intense opposition to Jesus by "the accepted authorities", Mark presents the only possible responses that anyone can give. Either Jesus of Nazareth actually
is the "beloved Son of God with Whom God is well-pleased" as Mark declares in
1:11, or He is not. In this response section, there is a group, identified as "those whom He wanted" (
3:13), that Mark uses to represent the first of the possible responses men can give to his "Gospel of Jesus Christ". For these, Jesus
is the "beloved Son of God with Whom God is well-pleased". Then, to deal with the "option" of saying that Jesus is
not the "beloved Son of God with Whom God is well-pleased", Mark set forth the first of the two remaining "options": the settled determination proclaimed by the scribes who came down from Jerusalem that Jesus of Nazareth was operating in league with Satan to deceitfully oppose the Creation-Plan of the Creator of all that exists as "creation". Then, to cover the rest of the "bases", in regard to the issue of response, Mark presented the decision of Jesus' "blood family" that He was "significantly mentally disturbed".
As we have already seen in our initial studies of this "decision", this is not an "honest" decision. This "family of Jesus by blood" was caught in what we call a situation of "being between a rock and a hard place". They could clearly see that Jesus was on a head-on, collision course, with the established "T"heology/theology of first century Judaism, and they shrank back from their "scenarios of disaster" should He be allowed to continue on this course. Thus, they determined to try to "take Him under their dominion" and remove Him from the public eye until He could see the "sense" in their approach to the brewing clash.
One of the problems here, as we have seen, is the fact that their "sense" was "nonsense": it is readily apparent to all but the most seriously deficient of all reason that Jesus' abilities to "heal" and "cast out demons" did not arise from some form of mental instability.
One of the other problems here, as we shall see this evening, is that Jesus flatly disallows "dishonest decisions" that are of the "wanting both to have the cake and to eat it" kind. Being "between a rock (the desire to "have their cake") and a hard place (the desire to eat that cake)" is a human invention that James defines as being "two-souled" (James 1:8) with the result of living under the displeasure of God ("...let not that man think that he shall receive anything of the Lord..."; 1:7).
This is the focus of our study this evening.
- I. Mark's Presentation of Jesus' Response to "Nonsense".
- A. He deliberately chose to use the "blood family" of Jesus as his "illustration" of what Jesus thinks of people who are willing to live with "nonsense" so that they can "live" between the rock and hard place.
- 1. A major part of the "reason" for Mark's deliberation is the place "blood family" typically has in the mindset of the vast majority of people.
- a. Within the large issue of Mark's record (people wanting a position of status with others) is the critical smaller issue of which of those "others" is the most important: most people think in terms of "blood family".
- 1) This shows up in multiple ways.
- a) In grief studies, the conclusion is that the death of the most critical part of the "blood family" relationships is at the top of the heap in terms of the grief impact the death creates.
- b) In family abuse situations, the root cause of the abuse is typically the breakdown of the "special status" that is expected within the family.
- c) In respect to the "joy" factor that results from harmony in the family, even the Bible supports the idea of "great joy" through reconciliation (prodigal son story, et. al.).
- 2) Mark's record plainly reveals that the "crowd" expects Jesus to yield to the expectations of His "blood family".
- a) That "crowd", which has its own expectations, is a major part of the "Problem".
- i. In respect to parallels within Mark's record, there are three particulars that we have already seen in the earlier text of 2:1-12.
- i) The problematic nature of the "crowd" (people that want to get to Jesus, cannot get to Jesus...2:4).
- ii) The tie-in to those "sitting" around Jesus in 2:6.
- iii) The heavily influencing issue of the presence of "scribes" who do not like Jesus in 2:7.
- ii. This "crowd" is the best "setting" for expressing a dominating "cultural attitude".
- i) They apparently expect Jesus to bow to the reality of the expectations of "blood family".
- ii) None of them would have blamed Him if He had chosen to go out to His "blood family".
- b) That "crowd" has a very large mirror-image in our culture today with all the talk about "God, family, and country" in our day.
- 2. Thus, Mark is simply drawing the issue of "decision time" down to the most potent influence issues: family and scenarios of disaster to come.
- B. He frankly presents Jesus as having no regard for "human inventions" that are used to stymie the processes of "faith".
- 1. In general terms, James (as mentioned in brief above) makes his readers clearly aware that anyone who rejects "faith" because of split-loyalties can "expect nothing good from God".
- a. This is not a strange concept in the Word of God regarding "loyalties".
- 1) Jesus says "lukewarmness" triggers His vomit-reflex (Revelation 3:16).
- 2) Moses records Abraham being forced by God to "choose" between Him and his highest "blood family" link (Genesis 22:2).
- 3) Jesus taught that anyone who put "blood family" above loyalty to Him was incapable of being His "disciple" (Luke 14:26).
- 4) Paul even taught that a person was better off if he/she did not have the tightest of "blood family" ties; a spouse (1 Corinthians 7:32-34).
- b. Those who ignore this plain doctrine of the Scriptures fall into the "nonsense" segment of those reacting to divine revelation.
- 2. In specific terms, Mark presents Jesus as flatly rejecting both the response of His "blood family" as well as the "culture's" expectation that He would not do that.
- II. Mark's "Point".
- A. Is not to destroy the concepts of "family" pull.
- 1. Jesus is presented as wanting His disciples to see God as a "Father".
- 2. The New Testament letters deliberately use the term "brethren" to establish some "pull" by "family".
- 3. Even the highly important doctrine of "church discipline" has its roots in the "pull" that the family of God has upon its members.
- B. Is to destroy the concept of "blood family" as having priority over "loyalty to God" issues.
- 1. The "family" is redefined; eliminating "blood" ties.
- 2. Illustration from YouTube of the baby buried alive by his birth-mother and declaring 20 years later that it is not "blood" that makes "family", but "Love".
- C. Is not to present God as a "Loyalty Hound" as if His loss of our loyalty was relationally devastating to His soul.
- 1. God's interests have never been His own gain.
- 2. Everywhere in the Scriptures God's interests have always been the gain of others.
- 3. Loyalty to God is not "for God's sake"; it is for ours, because "Life" is ours when we embrace an unimpeachable loyalty to God as the Author of Life for those who believe.
- 4. The cross was not about our loyalty to God; it was about His loyalty to us: but, this makes "loyalty" one of the highest of all characteristics of benefit.
