Exodus 27; John 6; Proverbs 3; Galatians 2

Listen to John 6

After Jesus feeds the 5,000 (John 6:1-13), the crowds rightly think of Moses (14). After all, here they are being fed with bread (and fish) from one who claims to be from heaven. But the name “the Prophet” signifies that they think he’s something greater - he’s THE Prophet - something akin to Moses and Elijah, wrapped into one. On this they are also correct. After all, where Moses fed them “manna,” this Jesus - just as he did with the wedding wine at Cana (John 2:10) - produces something superior.

At this point we might be tempted to criticize the people, since Jesus says they only want to follow Jesus because their bellies were full (26). Thus they bum-rush Jesus to make him their king, so aggressively that he must duck away (15). But in this impulse the people are not wrong, only misinformed. Jesus intended to make superior wine and bread. For his kingdom is superior to the old. And He is and will be enthroned as their King. And the Psalmist commands us to “taste and see that the Lord is GOOD!” (Psalm 34:8).

So Jesus explains the meaning of his feeding them the loaves and fishes, because, well, they don’t know it. The manna in the wilderness was not given by Moses; it was given by Jesus’ Father (32). His feeding them the loaves and fishes were a sign for what’s happening right before their eyes, and they need to see the symmetry of it. While it’s understandable that they would see Jesus as a greater Moses, that’s not what’s happening. Jesus is the greater manna. The bread he just fed them is its own sign, pointing to Jesus.

While the manna was given from heaven, it had to be eaten that day and then again the next day. Yet having eaten the manna, the Exodus generation still eventually died (49). But this Bread, if anyone “eats” of it, he will never die (50). To the point:

51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.

The imagery is graphic: we are to “eat” Jesus’ “flesh.” Yet by this Jesus means “faith.” A man eats food for two reasons: because there is pleasure in it and because he trusts that it will bring him nourishment to live. So too with this faith in Jesus: the life he gives is mere life, victory over death. And yet it is purely pleasurable, overflowing life - resurrection with him, forever (55-56).

For now, the disciples don’t get it (60). But at Pentecost, they will (62-63).

Exodus 19; Luke 22; Job 37; 2 Corinthians 7

Listen to Luke 22

Matthew, Mark and Luke all record the first “Lord’s Supper” or “Communion.” Luke’s recounting (22:7-20) emphasizes that Jesus “earnestly desired” to share this meal (15). There are at least four reasons why.

First, because it’s the Passover, which remembered when God delivered His people from Egypt. Each family prepared and ate a meal of unleavened bread and a lamb. The lamb’s blood was placed on the doorpost of their house so that the avenging angel would see it and “pass over” that household (Exodus 12).

After passing through the Red Sea, God gathered Israel to Mount Sinai and entered into a covenant with them. A covenant is a solemn oath or agreement, with stipulations of blessing or wrath for obedience or disobedience (Exodus 19-24).

All of this rich history was gathered and celebrated at the Passover.

The second reason Jesus earnestly desires to eat it is that he will not enjoy it again until the kingdom is fulfilled (16, 18). It sounds as though this will be a long time.

Then comes the words that the church has argued over through the centuries: “This is my body.” Yet we can make a few universal deductions. The first is that Jesus sees the bread in every Passover meal before this as anticipating Jesus’ own body, soon to be broken for us, for the forgiveness of our sins.

Secondly, the wine enjoyed in every Passover meal before this anticipated his blood, his life that would be given over on a gory Roman cross, again, for us, for our sins.

And thirdly, what Jesus will do on the cross will create a new covenant, one that’s better than the old.

Thus Jesus desired this meal (thirdly) because it pictures the cross. He sees that even the Exodus itself prefigured a greater, deeper Exodus to come, in him. No wonder Luke records earlier that Moses and Elijah, on the Mount of Transfiguration, only want to talk with Jesus about his Exodus (9:31; see ESV footnote there).

The fourth reason Jesus earnestly desires this Supper is to institute it as a remembrance for all time - for us. He wants us to come back to the cross, again and again. For we humans are a most forgetful race. We forget the gospel before we leave the parking lot.

Francis Schaeffer said in 1981 that “The basic problem of the Christians in this country in the last eighty years or so, in regard to society and in regard to government, is that they have seen things in bits and pieces instead of totals.”

I don’t think it is a coincidence that this happened at the same time that Communion became less and less important in worship.

Exodus 7; Luke 10; Job 24; 1 Corinthians 11

Listen to Exodus 7

Whatever we say about free will, most people say this arrangement comes from God. Yet what God gives, God can take away.

This Pharoah had forgotten about Joseph, and he was treating the people of Jacob poorly. Moreover, he claims for himself the role of G/god. So God judges him, in the form of his heart being hardened (3). God sovereignly changed Pharoah’s heart, so that he would not listen to Moses or respond the way he should respond to God’s words and actions.

This is not a one-off in Scripture. In Romans 1:18, Paul says that God’s wrath is already being poured out on mankind. It’s doesn’t just arrive at the end. How?

Romans 1:24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves . . .

Pride Month and hook-up culture are because God handed us over to that. Why would He do this? Because of an upstream sin, that Pharoah too committed:

21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Thus it is no coincidence that Moses’s first sign before Pharoah is with a “creeping thing” (10-13). Pharoah - and all of us - know that God exists, but we suppress that truth and instead hallow the created things, beginning with ourselves.

So God pours out His judgment upon us by essentially saying, “Ok. Have it your way,” which is the worst thing anyone can hear from God. The de-godding of God has always been the devil’s game plan, and the result is that, in our “free will,” we are left to ourselves to grope around in dark, christless chaos. Our free will, it turns out, is our greatest liability, because our hearts bend away from God.

This is why Paul says in Ephesians 2:1-2 that, before God, we were “dead in our trespasses and sins” - spiritual corpses, walking like the living dead in the way of the dragon.

Thus salvation is not God giving us the choice to choose Him but new hearts, finally enabled and willing to choose Him at all. God loves us too much to leave it to us. Thus even our faith is a gift from God, that no one may boast (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Now we better understand the last request of the Lord’s Prayer: “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil” (Matthew 6:13).

Genesis 50; Luke 3; Job 16–17; 1 Corinthians 4

Listen to Genesis 50

The final chapter of Genesis is, without the main actors realizing it, a pitch-perfect picture of the pathetic position of all people, and at the same time, of the pure power of the Prince of Peace.

First we see the pathetic position of all people. Jacob has died and been buried (49:33-50:14). Now that dad is gone, Joseph’s brothers fear that he will hate them and seek vengeance on them for selling him into slavery (15). On this, Carson remarks: “Were they merely projecting onto Joseph what they would have done had they been in his place?” Based on their history, it’s probable. So they make up a lie in order to manipulate their brother into showing them mercy (16-17).

Joseph here is a picture of the Christ to come, and the brothers are a pitch-perfect picture of the pathetic position of all people. All of us are guilty before our King. And in our guilt, we all project upon him what wewould do, if we were him. We would smite and smack-down sinners as if the whole world were a WWE ring. And so all that is left is to plead with God and try to manipulate him in affirming us. We make deals with him: “If you let me off the hook this once, I’ll never do that again.” “If I can just become a good enough person - better at least than so-and-so - then surely He will accept me.”

But Joseph sees through these pathetic ploys, and he weeps (17b), like the One who will come later and weep at the true consequences of all our pathetic ploys (John 10:35). Then Joseph speaks a truth that will runs like a red thread through the rest of history, terminating at a bloody Roman cross.

That truth is that when Joseph’s brothers committed the grave evil of selling him into slavery out of spite and jealousy, they were not the only party acting in that moment. Somehow, another Party was acting in their acting - God Himself:

Genesis 50:20 (ESV): 20 As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.

God is sovereignly controlling all events, to His good ends, even sin. He is not the Author of sin, but He ordains it, for the best of ends.

This is a hard truth for some to receive, or at least to comprehend. But it is this truth upon which our entire faith hangs. For the cross of Jesus was the ultimate fulfillment of what happened to Joseph. Evil men, out of spite and jealousy, committed Jesus to death, though he had no fault within Him, and though He was the Beloved of his Father, just as Joseph was of Jacob.

Yet the Bible says that God put Jesus there, through the evil of man (note the balance of Peter in Acts 2:23). And God would raise him up, just as He did with Joseph. That was so that He might not condemn us but welcome us in grace, as Joseph welcomes his brothers (21). In the pure power of the Prince of Peace, people in the pathetic position of condemnation instead find welcome, forgiveness, and rest.

Genesis 46; Mark 16; Job 12; Romans 16

Listen to Mark 16

Throughout the Gospel accounts, Jesus is continually misunderstood, especially by his own ethnic countrymen and even by those closest to him. When Jesus told his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things and die and be raised, it was his closest follower who poo-pooed that kind of talk.

This is why Mary Magdalene’s story is so worth paying attention to. I wonder if C.S. Lewis fashioned Lucy Pevensie’s character after her. Probably not - after all, Lucy was never a demon-infested prostitute. Yet at every point Lucy is the one who sees and believes in Aslan, just as at every point in the narrative, it’s Mary Magdalene of all people who seems to understand the most about what Jesus is there to do.

Freed by Jesus from demons; released from her guilt of being a high-priced call girl; following Jesus and providing for him and his disciples out of her wealth; sitting at his feet and listening to him teach (see February 11); anointing him for his crucifixion and burial; loyally staying near at his death . . . And now, here she comes with burial spices.

Of course, the burial spices are a mistake; Jesus is risen. If Mary had anointed Jesus twice (earlier in Luke) that too might have been a mistake in judging Jesus’ timeline. Here she is alarmed; this too is a mistake. Yet these are all exquisitely beautiful mistakes, borne out of a grateful loyalty to her King. And for that reason, in God’s economy, they just don’t matter. God does not require theological precision as much as he desires a childlike following of Christ. He will take care of the rest.

So it is - I’m convinced - no coincidence of history that the resurrection is announced to Mary first and that she is its first proclaimer. This is not - as so many modern feminists claim - an affirmation of womanhood but an affirmation of childlike faith in Jesus. It matters not what we have done: you can even be a demon-possessed prostitute for the Jeffrey Epstein’s of your generation, and God’s grace is greater.

So I invite you, for this season of Lent (which, at the time I write this, starts today) to go back through the gospels and watch this woman. Watch her faith and watch where her faith takes her. Then emulate her.

For Peter would need to do this. The angel’s phrasing is intentional (7):

“But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee.”

Peter is mentioned separately from the others because he betrayed his Lord and needs to be restored. And that will happen, by faith like Mary’s.

Genesis 45; Mark 15; Job 11; Romans 15

Listen to Mark 15

Jesus’ sham trial before the Sanhedrin, the Jewish council, is over. Now they hand Jesus over to Pilate, the Roman governor. Pilate expresses pitch-perfect sarcasm and disdain when he asks, “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus unsettlingly replies: “You have said so.”

Pilate is equally skeptical of the truthfulness of the Sanhedrin, so he gives Jesus another chance to speak. But this time Jesus is silent. After all, he had said to them all he needed to the night before (14:62). Isaiah 53:7 is fulfilled.

As a sign of Roman benevolence, it was Pilate’s custom to release a prisoner during the Passover. Pilate must play it straight, yet he cannot help but register his skepticism of Jesus’ guilt in how he announces him: “Do you want me to release for the King of the Jews?” He knows Jesus is innocent.

Furthermore, Pilate correctly observes just what is driving the entire affair, at least at the level of the fallen humans involved: “For he perceived that it was out of envy...” (10)

The Jewish leaders then prod the crowd, and the mob yells for Barabbas to be released, not Jesus. It was not difficult for the Jews to manipulate them this way. Barabbas was a violent insurrectionist, just the kind of fellow that they were looking for against Rome. So spineless, pragmatic Pilate, “wishing to satisfy the crowd,” delivers up Jesus to be crucified.

Now, this point in the narrative is a checkpoint for you and I, the readers. We moderns are tempted to huff and say, “If I were there, I would not have yelled with the crowd.” Yet the Bible’s stories are recorded a) because they happened, and b) for us to understand what stories we are living right now.

Every generation lives the passion narrative. We too are manipulated by many voices to treat Jesus strictly by human categories and to release ourselves from our tyrants strictly by human means. Behind these voices is an old dragon, who seeks to whip humanity into chaos driven by “mimetic envy” - Rene Girard’s term for how we imitate each others’ self-centered lusts. This produces chaos, as sin always does. If we break the first and tenth commandments, we will break the rest.

Then at the moment people start to ask, “Hey, where does all this envious chaos come from?”, the devil manipulates the crowd to satiate itself on a sacrificial lamb. The “problem” - for the dragon - is that this Sacrificial Lamb takes all our sin and guilt upon himself and replaces it with forgiveness and therefore peace with God. By his cross he absorbs all the energy for our envy and chaos, breaking the mimetic cycle.

Genesis 44; Mark 14; Job 10; Romans 14

Listen to Mark 14

The meal at Simon the Leper’s house is also recorded by Matthew (26:6-13) and John (12:1-8). Luke records a moment with many similar details, only it clearly happens earlier. What do we make of this?

John mentions that the anointing woman is a prostitute, and then right after he introduces Mary Magdalene. In Mark’s version, in the sentence before, Martha and her brother Lazarus are mentioned. Then, “Therefore, Mary . . .” The most likely interpretation is that Mary Magdalene is the same as Mary of Bethany, sister of Martha and Lazarus. She is a woman of means, formerly a high-priced call-girl, released from seven demons.

Judas is always mentioned next. He is “the son of Simon Iscariot,” (John 13:26) Iscariot meaning “from Kerioth,” which is a town in Judah. And now Jesus is eating with one Simon, in Bethany, which is in Judah. The coincidences are piling up. Again, dealing in likelihoods: Simon the Leper is most likely Judas’ father. They’re eating at Judas’ dad’s house.

If all this is true, it is likely that the Iscariot family and Mary, Martha and Lazarus knew each other already.

What about the similar incident recorded in Luke, but having happened earlier? The best conclusion is that Mary anointed Jesus twice.

Why twice? We don’t know. Perhaps it was gratitude that covered the two locations where her life was lived, once where she plied her trade (Magdala, Galilee) and once where she lived with her family (Bethany, Judah). More likely in my view is that she understood better than anyone what Jesus was going to do and why, but she just didn’t have the timeline down right (like everyone else). She was beautifully mistaken, and so as Jesus came closer to the moment, she felt the need to do it again, closer to his sacrifice.

Judas felt that moment coming, too. Douglas Wilson does well to point out a likely reason why Judas betrays Jesus after this moment (Mark 13:10-11).1 Judas is convinced that only he understands what needs to happen, which is to force Jesus’ hand into a confrontation with the authorities, where Jesus will have no choice but to use his awesome power to wipe the threshing floor clean and establish his kingdom.

But by the end of the story, Jesus is led like a lamb to the slaughter, Judas is hanging from a tree, and Mary is the first to be told of the resurrection. By the end we understand why Jesus told Peter to “get behind me Satan.” We can be mistaken on this detail or that like Mary, but we must not take Jesus by entirely human categories. He came to die to first give us forgiveness.

Genesis 43; Mark 13; Job 9; Romans 13

Listen to Mark 13

It is no coincidence that this chapter on the temple and the “end times” comes after Jesus’ cleansing of the temple (chapter 11) and his parable of the tenants (chapter 12). Both of those accounts portray Jesus as the authoritative king and Great High Priest who is shutting down the old temple. Now Jesus reiterates this message (2): no stone of the temple will be left unturned.

When? And what will there be a warning sign of this catastrophe (3-4)? Jesus’ prophecy about the stones of the temple would be fulfilled in 70 A.D., when General Titus’ army leveled Jerusalem. Yet Jesus’ answer has two horizons: that of his initial hearers (the disciples) and us, as well. I can only take space to remark on a few points:

The phrase in v. 14 about the “abomination of desolation” - “let the reader understand” - has often been used by liberals to point out the untrustworthiness of the Bible. But Jesus is not referring to Mark’s writing, but to the writing of Daniel (end of chapter 9) before him, where he gets this phrase from.

Good Christians differ on what this paragraph is referring to, often within the same church. But a few clear truths can be discerned:

The first is that Christians will go through tribulations (20). Yet God is sovereign over their length and depth. Secondly, there will be false Christs along the way, claiming to be the returned Jesus. (The implication that Jesus would go away was also not yet comprehended by the disciples.) So Christians should be “on guard” and should not be taken by surprise by these things (23).

Now, back to Jesus’ cursing of the fig tree (see comments on February 8 from Mark 11). Jesus cursed a fruitless fig tree from every producing fruit again, as a picture of fruitless ethnic Israel. Yet here Jesus refers back to that and asks us to learn another lesson from it. Though cursed, that fig free will again blossom. I interpret this teaching using the principle of letting clearer passages inform less clear passages. In Romans 11, Paul clearly speaks of ethnic Israel being enfolded back into God’s people at the end. Thus Paul and Jesus are using different metaphors to describe the same future: before the end a mass evangelization of ethnic Jews will happen, to Christ through the gospel.

Until then, Christians’ relationship with Jews will have a strange bipolarity. On the one hand, they will be our enemies, persecuting us out of their unbelief in the gospel. Yet we are to still treat them as beloved of God, since God’s promises are irrevocable (Romans 11:28-29).

Therefore, Christian: be on guard. Stay awake. Endure to the end.

Genesis 42; Mark 12; Job 8; Romans 12

Listen to Mark 12

The parable of tenants (1-12) left Jesus’ opponents seething, for they knew - and the people knew - that Jesus was talking about them. In response, God will come and take away the vineyard from them and give it to others (the Gentiles) (9). So just like their father the dragon, they want to kill him. But they can’t directly, not without losing the people (12), so they try to entrap Jesus instead.

The trap is hidden under a layer of sweet flattery: “We know that you do not care about anyone’s opinion” (14). Then the trap is sprung: “Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? Should we pay them, or should we not?”

Notice the two ditches that Jesus might fall into. If he says, “Yes,” then he will lose the affection of the people, who suffered under the taxation of Rome. But if he said, “No,” then the Herodians present could easily and justly report him as a seditionist and have him executed. Jesus is walking on a knife’s edge.

Jesus’ response is to be studied in detail by all Christians.

First, he is not naive. He notices their hypocrisy (15a) and bares their true motives: to entrap him (15b). They are hypocrites because they themselves cared very much what the people thought, and they themselves had no intention of learning Jesus’ answer. So why do they test him? They simply want him dead.

Nevertheless, Jesus answers: “Bring me a denarius, and let me look at it.” Then Jesus first asks a question he already knows the answer to: “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” There is a tinge of holy swagger here, because after all this is the king of kings and lord of lords speaking - the King of Caesar.

So they answer: Caesar.

And Jesus responds, with the wisdom of the ages: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (17). Note first that Jesus does not buy the assumption buried in their question: that there are only two options, that we only pay taxes or we don’t. Jesus instead states clearly that there are some things that God has ordained that belong to Caesar, and those should be given to him. Paul reiterates this in Romans 13:7: if Caesar is owed honor or taxes, pay them.

But then, if not, don’t. There is a righteous limit to what God allows Caesar to demand. As for honor, no Christian can worship a king, but only the King. What about taxes? There is debate - I think the Old Testament tithe is the limit.12 Regardless, Jesus’ point: Caesar is both appointed by God (Romans 13:2) and limited by Him.

Genesis 41; Mark 11; Job 7; Romans 11

Listen to Mark 11

We have seen Mark use the sandwich technique before (see Mark 3 and comments on February 3). In Mark 11 Jesus has just entered Jerusalem. In other gospels, the Triumphal Entry leads immediately to Jesus’ cleansing of the temple (see for instance Matthew 21). But here, Mark inserts the detail that Jesus went home and returned the next morning.

On the way he notices a fig tree that was not producing fruit. Jesus curses it, forbidding it from ever producing figs again (14). Why did he do this seemingly arbitrary thing?

Enter the cleansing of the temple (15-19). People had to travel from long distances to make their temple sacrifices , and the distance prevented them from bringing their sacrifices with them. They needed to purchase them on arrival. Furthermore, they brought local currency, and the Jews running the temple would not accept it. They required the worshiper’s money to be changed into Jerusalem currency - and charged a tidy fee for the privilege.

More than that, the moneychangers were occupying the largest part of the temple grounds: the court of the Gentiles, which was reserved for all the rest of the nations to gather and worship Yahweh. But all of it was taken up by religious extortionists.

Now, Jesus had already cleansed the temple once, recorded for us in John 2:13-22. Keen readers of the Old Testament will note that this follows the pattern of the inspections done by the priest when corruption - “disease” - was found in a house. The house would be cleansed and then inspected by the priest. Then the priest would return later to see if the corruption had been removed (Leviticus 14:33-53). If the corruption persisted, the house was to be torn down and taken outside the city as unclean.

The passage Jesus quotes - Isaiah 56:6-8 - speaks of God’s house being a place of prayer for ALL the peoples. But the corruption remains, so the Great High Priest condemns the house.

The temple cleansing now explains the cursed fig tree. Israel had not produced the fruit desired by its Creator. So it is cursed, never to produce fruit again. But when the disciples answer, Jesus’ answer is bent towards hope. It’s not that there will be no temple. It’s that the location of the dwelling of God’s Spirit will move, from the building, to God’s people.

Thus Jesus’ disciples will walk by faith, and that faith will move mountains and nations. They won’t need to go to a temple to pray; the Spirit in them will be enough. When forgiveness is necessary, no temple sacrifice will be needed. This transfer of the Spirit’s home will happen at Pentecost.

Genesis 40; Mark 10; Job 6; Romans 10

Listen to Mark 10

The Pharisees and scribes try to trap Jesus with the question:

“Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” (2)

Jesus responds by asking what Moses commanded them. He already knows what Moses said. He’s uncovering what they heard Moses say. Their answer: you can just send your wife away with a certificate, and that is that. Now, before we consider Jesus’ answer, I invite you to pause and go read Deuteronomy 24:1-4 for yourself. What is Moses’ overriding point? (I’ll wait.)

Jesus’ reply: this command was given the way that it was because of their hardness of heart (5), demonstrated by their practice of as easy divorce as ours today. This was an accommodation for their sinfulness, not a timeless change to God’s law. Moses was actually trying to prevent rampant adultery from spiraling from a prior sin.

When the Romans conquered Britannia, one reported back that “...they do not cultivate the land but share their wives with family members...” It seems that wherever laws about marriage were lax in the ancient world, such practices were common, and Moses “inherited” such a people out of Egypt. Thus he is abolishing the practice. And if we were able to institute an entirely Christian nation today, would not our new laws have to accommodate - at least for a time - some of the debauched practices that came before?

But what is the standard for marriage? According to Jesus, it’s Genesis 1 and 2.

First, marriage is between a male and a female (6). By those terms Jesus means what everyone else has meant up until about 10 minutes ago - the two genders that God created “from creation.”

Secondly, marriage has two parts. First, there is an exclusive covenant relationship (7). Each person’s relationship to everyone else in the world now changes. There is relational exclusivity. Secondly, that relationship is enacted in exclusive, faithful sexual union (8).

Now, envisioned marriage in creation. So when anyone enters into marriage, they’re entering into God’s invention and design. Therefore, modern evangelical church: let no one break it apart (9).

To do so is adultery, whether you initiated the divorce or were the one cast off (11-12) - if you enter into another union with another person. A mere paper at the courthouse or legislature cannot break or change God’s covenant. The problem is when a new union is created.

Now, at that time men initiated most divorces. Today it’s usually women. Either way, our generation has devolved back to the pagan norms the Bible meant to correct. We are awash in adultery. May God again grant us repentance and a new love for the standard from Genesis.

Genesis 39; Mark 9; Job 5; Romans 9

Listen to Mark 9

This chapter as a whole portrays Jesus much differently than the effete, Jesus-is-my-boyfriend of modern evangelicalism. It begins with the Transfiguration (2-13). Jesus and the inner three disciples climb to the top of a mountain. From various geographic hints, I think it’s Mount Hermon. This is important because Mt. Hermon was the geographic center of all the giant activity in the Old Testament - yes, those giants, who descended from the Nephilim of Genesis 6. This detail will become more important in a moment.

For now, Jesus is robed in radiant, intense light (3). He is then somehow visited by Moses and Elijah, and they chat (4). Luke’s version tells us that they wanted to talk about Jesus’ “exodus” (Luke 9:28-36). Peter is filled with fear and talks nonsense to compensate. Then a cloud overtakes them. Whenever this happens in the Old Testament, it is a sign of three things: God’s glory, His presence and His pleasure. It is usually related to the temple - see 1 Kings 8:10-13. And so it is here: God has built a new temple in his Son, and Moses and Elijah are here for its “christening.”

These two are apt representatives for all the Law and the Prophets. The entire Old Testament looked forward to Christ. The temples looked forward to him, the new temple. All the priests looked forward to this one Great High Priest. And all the sacrifices looked forward to him. Perhaps that’s what Elijah and Moses want to talk about, like Isaac to his father Abraham: but where’s the lamb?

So what will this king of glory do?

It is no coincidence that the in the next scene Jesus releases a boy from an “unclean spirit” (14-29) because his followers are unable, even by invoking his name. This story is unique in that Jesus diagnoses the kind of spirit by asking the father how long it’s been happening. Since childhood, he says. It’s as if Jesus knows the spirits and their kinds from of old.

As I said above, it is my view that the “unclean spirits” are the spirits of the offspring of the unholy union between defecting angels and human women, again in Genesis 6. Thus it seems no coincidence that when the spirit sees water and fire (22), it convulses and wants to destroy the boy. After all, they were destroyed in the flood and their destination is Hades.

No wonder it convulses at the sight of Jesus. He is their conqueror. So how do we respond to him? We must relate to this great King with the faith of child (35-37), remembering that he oversees us with a jealous, vengeful love (47). A lifestyle of repentance is required 47-48).

Genesis 38; Mark 8; Job 4; Romans 8

Listen to Mark 8

When Jesus speaks of Satan, it’s best to take him very literally, very straightforwardly. The context here is his teaching that he - the “Son of Man” - must suffer many things, be rejected and killed by the religious authorities, and three days later rise again (31).

Which was was the exact opposite of everyone’s expectations - everyone who had not connected the dots that the Suffering Servant of Isaiah (see especially Isaiah 53) would be that same Savior. So Peter, being the leader and closest to Jesus, took him aside and rebuked him (32) on behalf of them all. So Jesus looked at them all and rebuked Peter:

“Get behind me, Satan! For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”

It is Peter that Jesus rebukes; it’s Peter who is wrong. But we must realize that Jesus does not call him “Satan” simply as an emotional outburst. In the thinking of Peter, Jesus sees the very real working of Satan. It’s not that Peter has become Satan or is possessed by Satan - not at all. But nevertheless Jesus sees that Peter has come into Satan’s wheelhouse, so that his attitude and actions are indistinguishable from Satan’s. The question is why?

Peter is setting his mind on the things of man - the way things normally work in the world - and not the things of God (33). This is “Satan” because the ways things normally work are routinely and profoundly influenced by Satan. In particular, he rouses societies such that it’s every man against each other. The period of the Judges is an example of his template - or the summer of 2020.

Then when everyone is at everyone else’s throat, and it seems everything will fall apart . . . and right when someone is about to ask, “Hey, what force is driving all this?” - right when Satan’s influence will be exposed, he “escapes” by setting everyone upon a scapegoat. He “hides” himself in the scapegoat - think Derek Chauvin. Then everyone imitates everyone else and agrees that that person is Satan. They set their zealous hatred upon that one sacrificial lamb. And when the lamb is sacrificed, the mob is satisfied - and Satan escapes.

But Jesus turns this on its head. Jesus “hijacks” the way of Satan by becoming the sacrificial lamb himself, absorbing all our guilt and setting us free from this world’s cycles of mob lust. Thus we must follow him on his way, which flips every script:

“For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it. (50)

Genesis 37; Mark 7; Job 3; Romans 7

Listen to Mark 7

Mark 7 begins with those who are “in,” the Pharisees and scribes (the religious leaders of the day). They criticize Jesus’ disciples for not following their traditions. Jesus responds by condemning their traditions, which

“13 …[make] void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.” (13)

Tradition itself is neutral. Every family has very benign holiday traditions. Moreover, Paul in several places commands us to follow closely the traditions he handed down (2 Thessalonians 2:15). But that’s because Paul’s traditions upheld the commands of God, rather than undermining them. What makes a tradition good or bad is whether it aligns with the Word - or not.

For whether we wash our hands or do this or that tradition does not defile. What defiles a person is what comes out of his heart (15). As I write this the United States government is releasing the “Epstein Files” from businessman, blackmailer and child abuser Jeffrey Epstein. In these files he speaks glowingly of being a Jew. The problem is that he was defiled - verses 21-23 are a pitch-perfect summary of his life. He proudly held to his “insider” status as a Jew but was just as much a child of the devil as Hitler.

Mark leaves us thinking about this and then - as is his habit - jumps quickly to another person Jesus encounters as he travels through another district. And we are meant to compare and contrast with the “insiders” above.

She is a Syrophoenician woman. The Syrophoenicians were mixed-race descendants of seafaring peoples - outsiders. And this one is inconvenient. Jesus wants to be alone, but she’s not having it. She (probably) interrupts dinner and asks him to cast out a demon from her daughter (26-27). She begs for his help.

Jesus’ reply is rather shocking: “Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” Now, it was true that Jesus’ first goal was to go to the Jews first. Paul would follow this plan later. But why call her a “dog”? It seems Jesus is playfully testing this plucky woman by calling her the name the Jews would have used. And it perfectly fit the dinner table moment.

But the woman’s reply reminds us that God tells the best stories: “Yes, Lord; yet even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.” Remarkably, this is the only time in Mark’s gospel that Jesus is addressed as “Lord.” What comes out of her heart is faith in the goodness and generosity of God. For this, Jesus rewards her. For she shares the faith of Abraham. Reflect on Romans 2:28-29.

Genesis 35–36; Mark 6; Job 2; Romans 6

Listen to Genesis 36

Within the list of descendants of Esau here there is a name which may provide helpful light on an entirely different book of the Bible. Esau is the firstborn son of Isaac, the grandson of Abraham, the “patriarchs.”

Esau married Canaanite women that Jacob’s mother detested (Genesis 27:46-47). Esau and Jacob each became numerous and prosperous, with Esau becoming a great nation called Edom (36:8). So then, like their grandfather and uncle Lot before them, they had to separate. Prosperity does that (7). So Esau took his people to the hill country, a land already occupied by a people called the Horites. It’s very possible that the worship of Yahweh was then “infused” and diluted by this pagan religion.

Because Jacob swindled Esau of his birthright, the rest of the Bible’s narrative will continue through Jacob, whom God renames Israel (Genesis 32:24-30). And Edom will serve as spoiler and enemy to Israel from here on. When the people of God return after the Exodus, Edom will refuse them passage (Numbers 20:14-21). Later the prophet Balaam will prophecy that Israel will conquer Edom (Numbers 24:18).

When Israel conquered the Promised Land, the land apportioned to the tribes went right up to the borders of Edom (Joshua 15:1). Saul fought against Edom (1 Samuel 14:47), and David would fulfill Balaam’s prophecy and conquer them (2 Samuel 8:13-14).

Now, back to Genesis 36, verse 33. One “Jobab” is named who was a king of Edom, “before any king reigned over the Israelites.” Does that remind you of another biblical name? Is this the same “Job” of the book of Job?

The timeline fits. So does the fact that Job’s situation seems to exist outside the main storyline of the Bible, yet still in the same “universe.” It also would explain more of what’s happening in that story. It would especially explain why Job’s friends are so interested in figuring just what he had done wrong to invite God’s ugly wrath.

For if Job is not just a successful businessman but the king of Edom, then their fortunes rise and fall with his. Yet something of the old faith of Abraham must have stuck and been transmitted through Esau. For Job knows this God lives and is good.

Yet He does not always tell us the reasons for His actions. So we must walk by humble, enduring faith in Him:

“For I know that my Redeemer lives, and at the last he will stand upon the earth. And after my skin has been thus destroyed, yet in my flesh I shall see God, whom I shall see for myself, and my eyes shall behold, and not another. My heart faints within me!” Job 19:25-27

Genesis 34; Mark 5; Job 1; Romans 5

Listen to Mark 5

Jesus is confronted by perhaps thousands of demons (or “unclean spirits”) in this account, so I would like to elaborate on the origin of demons and the background.

First, what are demons? My opinion is that they are the disembodied spirits of the Nephilim, the giants of old who themselves are the offspring of “sons of God” - angels - who defected from God and mated with human women in Genesis 6:1-4. This view makes sense of several other questions, not least of which is, “Why the Flood?” It’s because not only were humans in flagrant defection from God but so were the heavenly beings. The entire cosmos was inverted, in rebellious chaos. So many (all?) of the Nephilim were destroyed in the Flood.

This leaves questions. If the Flood destroyed everyone else, did Noah’s wife herself carry Nephilim blood and extend their line? Possibly, but that’s for another time. Regardless the connections to the Flood and the giants in Mark 5 are fascinating:

First, the demon-possessed man lives among tombs. This area is filled with stony, rocky, dry tombs. Matthew 12:43 says that demons seek “waterless places.” Is this because of the Flood?

Second, this man is said to possess incredible strength, as do other demon-possessed men (see Acts 19:11-20 for a funny example). In other words, this man possesses a strength of someone much larger than him - a giant.

Third, the demon begs Jesus not to cast him out of this region, which just so happens to be where most encounters with giants happened in the Old Testament. Moreover this area is likely where John the Baptist was baptizing - and therefore where Jesus was baptized.

Perhaps this demon was there, which would explain why it knows exactly who Jesus is (7). But demons cannot be redeemed, so this “Legion” cannot combine that acknowledgement with faith - they can only beg to not be tormented. So Jesus agrees to allow the demons to enter a herd of pigs nearby - unclean animals for unclean spirits (12). But this backfires, and the herd runs off a cliff and into the sea (13). They experience the same end as their “forefathers”: they go down to their watery prison (cf. 1 Peter 3:19). The same waters that Jesus came out of alive in his baptism brought these enemies of God down to Sheol.

Mark makes clear what we should do with this information. Some will say it is all too spooky, and like the townsfolk, will want nothing to do with Jesus (17). But others, like the man freed, will want to be with him (18). But not yet. Instead, for now, we proclaim his powerful mercies (19-20).1

Genesis 33; Mark 4; Esther 9–10; Romans 4

Listen to Mark 4

The parables of Mark 4 can be understood fairly straightforwardly because Jesus tells us their meaning (10-20). The problem is that we don’t want to believe what we read. Just as toys come “some assembly required,” so the gospel of Mark comes to us, “Some childlike submission required.”

Jesus begins his explanation of the parable of the soils (1-9) with a most surprising explanation. Jesus teaches in parables because, while God scatters the seed of the gospel everywhere, God does NOT want everyone to understand (12). As much as we might not like this, it is the only way to understand what Jesus says here. The only doctrinal conclusion we can make is that for some, judgment for our sins begins now, in this life, as God withholds a person’s understanding of the gospel.

Then verses 16-18 give us another difficult doctrine: that some will at first present as though they are saved, but they will not endure to the end. They will “fall away.” It might have been Sproul who said it, but regardless the saying is true: God’s people are saved, being saved, and will be saved. The true disciple does not just voice a one-time prayer but perseveres (however imperfectly) in faith to the end.

While this might leave us sobered (and it should), Jesus’ full teaching is meant to leave in a state of optimistic faith. The good soil produces an abundant harvest (20). The light will shine (22). Just uncover it.

Therefore, we should sow seeds with optimism, regardless of what place in the farming process we are called to. Because the harvest willcome (26-29). For the kingdom is like the tiny mustard seed (30-32). Such a small thing to speak the gospel to someone, yet that small moment can grow into a tree largest enough for all the nations to find refuge.

An example is “Alcoholics Anonymous.” This worldwide program for freeing people from addictions - probably the most successful in history - sprang out of the friend of its founder attending a Bible study and becoming a Christian. And look around you - the Western world is inexplicable without understanding Christianity and the gospel as its seed.

But what might ground the disciples’ faith and propel it forward? When the storm comes (35-41), the waves are crashing over the side of their boat, but Jesus is asleep on a cushion at the stern. This only exasperates the fearful disciples.

So Jesus: “Peace, be still.” And the sea obeyed.

Jesus asked them and our anxious generation, too: “Why are you so afraid?” (40) The sea had the good sense to find peace by obeying his words. So must we.

Genesis 32; Mark 3; Esther 8; Romans 3

Listen to Mark 3

Mark 3 contains another “Markan Sandwich” (see also yesterday’s entry). Mark introduces someone who reacts to Jesus in a certain way that is defective and needs correcting. That’s the first piece of “bread.” The “meat” of the sandwich is some seemingly unrelated person or event that nevertheless shines light on how the first person must correct their view of Jesus. Finally, the second piece of “bread” returns to the first person and provides that completion or correction.

In verses 13-19 Jesus appoints his twelve apostles. It was at this time that the crowds began to swell to unmanageable, amazing numbers, such that they could not even eat (20). In a culture that valued hospitality over almost every other value, this was bordering on scandalous. So then:

21 And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for they were saying, “He is out of his mind.”

You read that right: Jesus’ own family thought he was crazy for harboring this scene, this undignified situation.

Then the meat of the sandwich. Religious leaders come down from HQ - Jerusalem - to say something very similar about Jesus, that he’s possessed by the devil (22). Jesus rebuffs them with tight logic. Then he leaves them with a very direct warning:

29 …whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin.

Jesus tells them this because they don’t realize what they’re doing. He’s not saying that they have committed this sin. He’s saying, “Watch out - you’re coming perilously close to the point of no return. For you are viewing the work of God in entirely human terms and attributing it to the devil. Your interpretation of things has nearly become perfectly inverted. So turn back.”

Then the action from the first part of the sandwich continues, with an extra, very controversial detail added. When Mark mentioned Jesus’ family above, we now learn in verse 31 that this included Mary, his own mother. If you’ve ever been misunderstood by your family for following Jesus, so was he. So then, Mary and Jesus’ brothers arrive and try to take Jesus home. But Jesus responds by asking,

33 “Who are my mother and my brothers?” 34 And looking about at those who sat around him, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! 35 For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother.”

Jesus is not renouncing his mother and family. But he is gently rebuking his them. For Mary too must not view Jesus in entirely human terms. She too must instead sit at his feet as his disciple, submitting to His Word. Let us learn the same lesson.

Genesis 31; Mark 2; Esther 7; Romans 2

Listen to Mark 30

In Mark 2 we come to the first of many of Mark’s “sandwiches.” This is the term scholars have given to the structure Mark often gives to his narrative. He will put a person in the middle of two situations, like a sandwich, and the two situations have some bearing on how that person in the middle of the sandwich must respond to their situation, fears or sins.

In chapter 2 the person is Levi the tax collector, otherwise known as Matthew (of the first gospel). At this time the land was owned by Rome, and they received their taxes through local, Jewish tax collectors who would extort higher taxes from the people and then keep the extra for themselves. They were pariahs, turncoats, treasonous leeches. Levi was hated, and in his fear of man he would have sought refuge in the authority that even ill-gotten wealth provides.

But then Jesus comes along and calls Levi to follow him instead (14). How would he resolve his fear of man, if not through wealth? The stories on either side of this moment give him instruction.

The story before Levi recounts the dramatic moment when friends of a paralytic lower him down to Jesus by cutting a hole in the roof. And Jesus responds not by healing him but by pronouncing that his sins are forgiven - to which the authorities are aghast. Who can forgive sins except God? (7) Yes, exactly. So Jesus, to prove the point, heals the man.

Then on the other side of Levi’s calling, Jesus encounters much criticism about his eating and drinking, and that of his followers. Jesus eats with tax collectors, prostitutes and other miscreants (13-16). Moreover, unlike John the Baptist’s disciples, Jesus’ disciples do not fast (which was one of the three big religious habits of the Jews). Instead they ate and drank and had a good time (18). These two habits would comprise the main criticism of Jesus (see Luke 7:34.)

So now here is a moment where the fear of man would have come on strong for Levi. His wealth would have gotten him respect, but he must leave that. Now he will look even more disreputable to those who sat at the cool kids’ table of the day.

But Jesus makes clear that he and his words are more authoritative. The Son of Man came like a doctor to heal the sick, not those who think they have no sin (17). And while he’s here, should his people not celebrate? After all, the kingdom of God has come (19-22)! We overcome being controlled by the fear of man by letting Jesus and his words be the most authoritative.

Genesis 30; Mark 1; Esther 6; Romans 1

Listen to Mark 1

Mark is sometimes thought of as the “Action Figure Jesus” gospel, since the action moves at a quick clip. After all, in only the first chapter, Mark records John the Baptist’s ministry, Jesus’ baptism and temptation, the beginning of his ministry and calling his disciples, healing, preaching and more healing.

We also see his repeated use of the word “immediately.” “And immediately he . . .” When we say this word, we mean “Two seconds after that . . .” But it’s likely Mark means something more ambiguous, like, “Then” or “After that . . .” As you read Mark, imagine someone telling you a dramatic (true) story around the campfire with energetic fervor . . . And whenever Mark says “Immediately,” it’s like the storyteller saying, “And AFTER THAT - Can you believe it? - he . . .”

Now, because Mark moves at such a quick clip, it’s important to ask, “What does the entire picture of this chapter portray about Jesus?” He is greater than John the Baptist and baptizes with a superior power (8). He is the lord or authority over temptation - which is amazing enough (12) - and also over men (16-20), the spiritual realm and its beings (21-28), and the diseases of the human body (29-34). He is full of authority, which he wields for our good.

Thus he teaches with authority. Like today, people then had no shortage of teachers and influencers. Technology only increases the number of voices. And like today what they did not have was authoritative teachers. This sets Jesus apart and causes his fame to spread (27-28).

But Jesus knew his mission, and it was not to become famous. Fame would only be a by-product and a hindrance. Thus Jesus’ wants to keep things a secret (44), which fickle humans cannot abide (45), making his mission more difficult.

So what was Jesus’ mission? Mark does not tell us that yet. But there are hints. Jesus’ teaching can be summarized as:

“The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”

A kingdom is the sphere of authority of the king, for the good or ill of his people. The proper time has passed, and now the king is come to man to establish his kingdom, the sphere of his authority. And that sphere of authority is good: it frees and brings life and healing. The way into that kingdom is to turn from one’s old way of living (repent) and shift the weight of one’s faith from oneself or anything else onto the story of this king - the “gospel,” or “good news.” Indeed it is good news that someone with this kind of authority has come for us, to give us his kingdom.