John Mark Hicks

Within the narrative of Mark, Jesus now leaves Galilee (Capernaum–the upper purple region on the map) and begins his journey to Jerusalem (10:1, 32). His route takes him into Perea (the lower purple region), the region “beyond the Jordan, on the eastern side of the river.” This is particularly significant since Jesus, though having left Galilee, is still in the jurisdiction of Herod Antipas, the one who beheaded John the Baptist (Mark 6:14-29). John the Baptist was beheaded in Perea. If Jesus had gone to Judea and stayed he would have fallen under the jurisdiction of Pilate and out of the reach of Herod. This geographical note contextualizes the question Jesus is asked.

Apparently in no rush to get to Jerusalem, Jesus stays in Perea for an uncertain amount of time. As in Galilee, so here, his ministry attracts a crowd and he continues his teaching ministry. Some from Perea had earlier travelled to Galilee to hear Jesus (Mark 3:8) which means that Jesus was already known in the region.

Given his geographical location, the Pharisees seized the opportunity to “test” Jesus. The Pharisees and Herodians had a common interest in the demise, even death, of Jesus (Mark 3:6; 12:13). The intent of the question is hostile and was probably an attempt at entrapment. The Pharisees (and probably the Herodians as well) hoped Jesus might say something that would get him into the same trouble that John the Baptist had fallen. The theological question had a political purpose. Divorce was not only a “hot” theological topic debated among the rabbis but its condemnation was also a form of political protest.

Jesus answered their question—“is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”—with a question: “What did Moses command you?” This tactic commits them to an answer before he does. Moses permits divorce, they answer, but only if one provides a certificate of divorce. The Pharisees provided the standard response based on Deuteronomy 24:1-4. But the only command Moses articulated was that man should not remarry the wife he divorced. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 regulates (and thereby permits) divorce but does it in such a way that it protects the woman from ongoing abusive relationships (as would happen if for economic reasons if a woman had to go back to a former husband or, worse, go back and forth between several husbands).

While most think this is the text Jesus had in mind, I think it is more likely that when Jesus asked the question he had in mind Genesis 1-2. The Pharisees answer the question about command with Mosaic permission, but that was not the question. Jesus acknowledges Mosaic permission, “but”—Jesus says—this is not the most pertinent text. The Mosaic imperative, embedded in the Genesis narration of creation, calls husbands and wives to the permanency of their covenant as a mirror image of God’s own life.

Thus, while Moses permitted divorce, God intended union. Jesus draws on Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24. God created two—male and female. The language of “from (apo) the beginning” suggests intentionality and purpose as well as a sense of idealism. Male and female are intentionally diverse but at the same time intended for mutual bonding. The two are to become one; more specifically, “one flesh” which assumes a sexual union. Humanity was created male and female as a bonding mechanism—a mutual attraction to create a oneness that reflects both the diversity and unity of God’s own Triune life.

Jesus concludes (“therefore”) that this union is a permanent one. This is the ideal. No human agenda should disrupt this oneness. God created male and female, and God married or united (“joined together”) them as male and female. This is the divine ideal. It is the intention of creation and it functions as a divine imperative.

As has happened so often in the Gospel of Mark, the disciples inquire further. Jesus’ statement is insufficient or problematic to them. They have questions, and once they are with Jesus privately they ask them.

Privately, Jesus restates the ideal in negative terms. Genesis 1-2 offers a positive model but human brokenness fosters chaos within God’s good creation. While the positive vision of the ideal promotes intimacy and relationship, the negative vision condemns divorce and remarriage. More specifically, Jesus condemns the proactive decision to divorce one and marry another—perhaps even to divorce one in order to marry another. And—uniquely here in Mark among the Gospels—this is true of both men and women.

Whoever divorces their spouse and marries another sins (commits adultery). It is an adulterous act. It adulterates the previous union. Mark states that the adultery is committed against the former spouse (“commits adultery against her”). When anyone divorces and remarries, they sin against the former spouse. In effect, they treat the former spouse as unworthy of union. Adultery is a metaphorical picture of this act of betrayal and disunion. They have adulterated the former union since it cannot be renewed because Deuteronomy 24:1-4 forbids remarriage.

This is where the geographical setting comes into play again. Herodias had divorced her husband Philip in order to marry Herod Antipas—something quite rare for a Jewish woman but not totally unknown. The explicit comment by Jesus—unique to Mark—that even if a woman divorces her husband and marries another she sins is said against the political backdrop of that public scandal which ultimately cost John the Baptist his head. In private Jesus states his disapproval of Herod and Herodias and sides with John the Baptist. Publically, he only offered a positive vision while conceding Moses gave permission for divorce.

While Moses permitted divorce, this was not God’s ideal. Divorce is a divine concession to human frailty, brokenness and weakness. God hates divorce—and so does everyone who has ever experienced one. Yet, though God hates it, God permits it. Jesus does not countermand Moses’ permission.

The divine ideal, however,  is still in play. God yearns for the emotional, spiritual and physical union of husbands and wives that they might experience the joy of intimacy and relationship that mirrors God’s own life. But chaos often reigns; sin often breaks trust; and humans have a tendency to abuse and use each other rather than love each other. God still permits divorce; it is God’s concession—as in the days of Moses, so even now—to the hardness of human hearts and the brokenness of human lives.

Mark has no exception clause as Matthew does (Matthew 19:9). Nor does Mark discuss particular circumstances that might justify divorce as both the Torah (Exodus 21:10-11) and Paul do (1 Corinthians 7:12-15). This is not Mark’s interest. Mark focuses simply on the ideal, the divine intent. Nevertheless, even in stating the ideal, Jesus concedes that divorce is permitted as even Moses legislated. Mark does not deny exceptions or permissions; his purpose is to reinforce the ideal.

Divorce is an ugly reality in human culture. It was pervasive in Jewish and Greco-Roman cultures just as it is in ours. Jesus hates divorce and calls his disciples to embrace the ideal embedded in the creation narratives of Genesis. It is our goal too, though we often fall short.

It may sound rather strange to some ears, but at the turn of the 20th century there was some debate among Churches of Christ whether the Sermon on the Mount was intended for Christians. For example, Lipscomb was asked on one occasion whether he could “show that it s a Christian duty to try to obey everything taught by Christ in the sermon recorded in Matthew 5-7 and in Luke 6?” Giving away their own heremeneutical perspective, the querist further asked, “Should not Christians in this age go to the Epistles, rather, for teaching as to their duty?” (See Shepherd, ed, Queries and Answers [Cincinnati: F. L. Rowe, 1918], 384.)

James A. Harding, who shared Lipscomb’s convictions on this point, contended that the Sermon of the Mount is kingdom ethics against those who would deny its applicability to Christians (see, for example,“To Whom Was the Sermon on the Mount Addressed?  A Reply to Dr. Holloway,” Christian Leader and the Way 20.14 [3 April 1906], 8-9, “Bro. Devore’s Criticism and My Reply,” Christian Leader and the Way 21.8 [19 February 1907], 8-9 and “A Reply to Bro. Miller’s View Concerning the Sermon on the Mount,” Christian Leader and the Way 21.11 [12 March 1907], 8-9). It seems that the undermining of the Sermon of Mount as belonging either the Jewish dispensation or only applicable to the apostles was not too rare among Churches of Christ at the beginning of the 20th century.

While there is legitimate concern that some are devaluing Paul in order to exalt the Gospels in our own day, our history within Churches of Christ is one that exalts Paul over the Gospels. It is part of our original DNA as Alexander Campbell taught that “neither are the statutes and laws of the Christian kingdom to be sought for in the Jewish scriptures, nor antecedent to the day of Pentecost; except so far as our Lord himself, during his lifetime propounded the doctrine of his reign” (Christian System, p. 123). The exceptions quickly disappeared among some, and so much so that even the Sermon on the Mount was thought to only apply to the twelve or were versions of kingdom ethics for Jews or disciples prior to Pentecost.

Lipscomb responded, in part, that “the Sermon on the Mount is the summing up, the announcement of the great principles that were to govern in his kingdom. The Epistles and all the teachings of the apostles are a reiteration of his teachings and the application of them to the affairs of life as they arose.”

“So the Sermon on the Mount is the presentation of the great fundamental principles of the Christian dispensation, and the Epistles are the application of these principle to the conditions of life by the Holy Spirit. Then there is not a single principle taught in the Sermon on the Mount but what is reiterated and applied in the Epistles…these teachings of Christ were to make men like God, that they might be fitted to dwell with him. Do not all Christians need to be trained into a fitness to dwell with God as much as the apostles did?” (Queries and Answers, p. 384).

The Gospels are foundational and the Epistles are applications. Lipscomb is thinking about ethics, I surmise. I wonder if we should not think this way in terms of the Christian faith itself. The Gospels describe our faith as following Jesus, that is, participating in the ministry of Jesus. The Epistles (e.g., Paul) illustrate and apply how to do that in a Greco-Roman context. The Gospels lay the foundation and the Epistles guide our way.  There is no need to choose one over the other. Instead, we hold both together and correlate their theological function.

Theologically, we might put it this way: the Gospels are foundational exhortations to participate in the story and the Epistles are concrete applications for concrete situations rooted in the ministry and work of Christ.

I think Lipscomb would have agreed to some extent.  He writes: “One can find the principles and duties of life presented in the Epistles; he can find these principles much more concisely and connectedly set forth in the Sermon on the Mount. It is like a lawyer taking the laws, and then searching the decisions of the courts construing and applying the laws. The Sermon on the Mount is a presentation fo the principles that prevail in heaven. They are given that man may practice them here and by this fit himself to live in heaven.”

The centrality of the Sermon on the Mount is at the heart of Lipscomb’s political and ethical orientation.  Here are a couple of other examples from Civil Government (pp. 57-58 and 133).

     Christ having resisted successfully these tempting offers of the devil, and having shown his true loyalty to God, the angels of God came and ministered unto him. He then lays down the principles that must govern in his kingdom. They are epitomized in 5th, 6th, and 7th chapters of Matthew. These principles are diverse from and antagonistic to the principles that have obtained and must ever obtain in all human governments. No human government can possibly be maintained and conducted on these principles laid down for the government of Christ’s subjects in his kingdom. The spirit that prompts the practice of the principles is opposed to the spirit needful for the maintenance of human governments. The two spirits cannot dwell in the same heart, nor the same temple, or institution. A man cannot be gentle, forgiving, doing good for evil, turning the other cheek when one is smitten, praying “for them that despitefully use and persecute” him, and at the same time execute wrath and vengeance on the evil-doer, as the human government is ordained to do, and as it must do to sustain its authority and maintain its existence.

      The sermon on the Mount, embraced in the fifth, sixth and seventh chapters of Matthew, certainly contain the living and essential principles of the religion the Savior came to establish, those which must pervade and control the hearts and lives of men, without which no man can be a Christian.

Moses Lard, as Randall noted in a comment on my previous post, was a premillennialist. So, when did he think the earth would be renewed? Further, would the renewed earth be the eternal home of the saints or only one for 1000 years (as many contemporary premillennialists think)?

Here is Lard’s answer. This is take from the closing paragraphs of his “A Theory of the Millennium,” Lard’s Quarterly 2 (October 1864), 21.   After quoting Revelation 21:1-5 where the New Jerusalem descends from heaven to the new earth, he writes:

It appears, then, that no charge will take place in the earth at the commencement of the millennium; nor any at its end, until that last great battle is fought, and the judgment ended, and the wicked cast away. Then no one will be left sleeping in teh earth, nor the dust of any lying on it. Every grave will be empty. This, therefore, seems a fitting time to renew both earth and heaven. Where the saints shall be during this event we can not say. Caught up, it may be, to meet the Lord in the air, as he now descends from the throne of judgment, to dwell with his people forever. Be this, however, as it may, they are safe; and the moment has come when the old earth, like the old body, must be changed, andthe last stain of sin be blotted out forever.

In an instant, then, as we conceive, consuming no more space thant it takes to produce the spiritual body–in an instant, we say, like the explosion of a vast magazine, will the earth be wrapped in a sheet of flame; and in an instant more, all will pass away. The new earth now lies beneath the smiles of God, decked in light and loveliness such as the unfallen only know. Over it hangs the bright, glorious, outspeading heavns resplendent as the throne of the Eternal. And now to this earth, thus refitted up, the saints return to dwell forever and forever. This is to be their eternal home, their everlasting habitation. Then will be realized the truth of the Saviour’s beatitude: “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.” This will be a promise till that moment, then a sublime fact in the fruition of God’s children. The saints have never owned the earth, and never will, till then.

The notion, so very prevalent, that the Christian’s future home lies away in some immeasurably distant region, is only a vulgar error. No foundation whatever exists for it. God built this earth for man, and he does not intend to be defeated inhis purpose. Nothing can be weaker than to suppose that the Saviour will rebuild, out of the old material, a new earth, and then leave it to float in space without an occupant. Such will not be the case. The earth in its renewed form will be man’s everlasting dwelling-place. On it will stand the New Jerusalem, the true city of the Great King, and the home of God’s ransomed children. Here amid the splendors of that grand fane shall they spend the cycles of eternity.

What does it mean for the creation to wait with earnest expectation for the revelation of the children of God in which it will be delivered from its own bondage of decay so as to experience the freedom of the redeemed and resurrected children of God?  Romans 8:19-23

Moses Lard (1818-1880), the conservative editor of Lard’s Quarterly and the Apostolic Times, answered this question in his Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Romans (1875). Here is his answer in part (pp. 269-273). The word “creation”

includes so much of all creation as fell under the original curse on account of Adam’s sin. Under that curse the earth certainly fell; for God cursed it directly and in so many words. The earth, then, I conclude, is among the things to be “delivered.” From every disability under which it now lies in consequence of sin it will be freed. Not only so, but it will be “translated” into a state of more than pristine newness and glory. It will undergo a change analogous to that which the bodies of the redeemed are to undergo. It will not become absolutely new; but it will be the old earth renewed; and as the change which the body is to undergo will render it a better body than Adam’s was before the fall,  so, I conclude the earth will be incomparably better than it ever was. As far as it now is inferior to what it was previous to sin, so far, when renewed, will it excel what it then was…..

….If the brute of the filed browsed on the pastures of Eden, and birds of the air sang in its bowers, why not in the new earth? God made them all to be companions of man at the first, and they were “very good;” why not do so again?….

The expression “glorious freedom of the children of God” comprehends not only complete release from “sufferings of this present time,” but also that fullness of honor and bliss with which the redeemed are to be invested. It exhausts the blessedness of the “spiritual body,” of the “everlasting kingdom,” and of the “new earth.” There is nothing which awaits the ransomed at the “coming” of Christ which it does not include.

….God originally intended this earth for man; and he will never be defeated in his purpose. It is still to be his inheritance forever; but it will be remolded and adapted to him, and made worthy of him in his highest exaltation.

That is a beautiful, hopeful picture of what is to come. God’s earth is not a temporary dwelling place but humanity’s inheritance under the reign of God. The meek, Jesus said, will inherit the earth. And so shall it be.

Today I attended the funeral of Ty Osman in Nashville, TN. Ty, a Harding student, was killed in a car accident last week while on Spring Break. The rehersal of his life, his hope and his character was moving, inspirational and hopeful.

As I sat in the lobby I could not see but I could hear. The whole experience was triggering for me. I remembered Joshua’s funeral. I remembered my grief journey over the past 250 months. I remembered Joshua. I felt sad but at the same time hopeful. I can lament and praise at the same time, and usually in that order just like many of the Psalms.

Since coming home I have reflected on the personal history of some of my favorite Stone-Campbell spiritual forebearers.

Alexander Campbell.  On September 4, 1847, Campbell’s ten-year old son–Wickilffe–died in a drowning accident while Alexander was travelling in the British Isles. But this was not his only loss. Of fourteen children, nine had died by 1848–three of them in infancy. Here is most immediate reflection on the death of Wickliffe (Millennial Harbinger [December 1848], 679):

My emotions may be by a few more easily imagined than I could express them. But God’s ways cannot be traced. As it was when he led Israel out of Egypt, so it is still, concerning which teh Psalmist of Israel has said, ‘Thy way was in the sea, and they path in the great waters and thy foosteps were not perceived.” Ps. lxxvii.19….I was never afraid of evil tidings. But in this case he thought good to take to himself the choicest lamb from my flock, and has not revealed to me the reason why. But he is too wise to err, and too kind causelessly to afflict the children of men. May our affections never be unduly placed on any thing on earth; but as those we love both in the flesh and in the Lord are taken to himself, may our affections be more placed on things above and less on things on earth!

James A. Harding.  He outlived five of his nine children as well as his first wife–two of his children died before their first birthday. On August 11, 1906 his youngest living son David, at the age of thirteen, died of some kind of heart damage after playing baseball one afternoon. This death was particularly difficult for Harding since David dreamed of becoming a Bible School president one day, just like his father (Sears, Eyes of Jehovah, pp. 213-214).  The Sunday before his death they had sung “Anywhere with Jesus,” and now Harding thought–agreeing with his wife–that God had “taken him to heaven to teach and train these little ones” (“David Allen Harding,” Christian Leader and the Way 20.34 [21 August 1906], 8-9).  After David’s death, Harding wrote several articles on where the souls of God’s children go in death and whether they are conscious. He concluded that it was “very clear that God’s child, when he leaves the body, goes home to the Lord,” and he then commented, “This is a thought full of sweetness and delight to me” (“Death and Life,” Christian Leader and the Way 22.42 [20 October 1908], 8-9). Despite his sufferings, he still counseled people to pray in this way:

We should pray to God to give us whatever is best for us, wealth or poverty, honor or humiliation, health or sickness, life or death; being sure that whatever he gives to his dutiful child will be a blessing; resting in the faith that for all that we sacrifice or suffer for him we may expect a hundredfold reward, even in this present time.

David Lipscomb. Zellner Lipscomb was born to David and Magret on September 23, 1863 but lived only nine months on June 26, 1864.  His father and mother, living in Nashville, crossed the North/South battle lines to bury him in Maury County (see the story in Robert E. Hooper, Crying in the Wilderness, pp. 83-84).  The Lipscombs never had any other children. David had “hoped to rasie [Zellner] up to work for the Lord,” he once remarked to T. B. Larimore, and now he would “have to work all the harder” (T. B. Larimore, “David Lipscomb,” Christian Standard 54 [22 December 1917], 391). The hurt ran deep and even thirty years later Lipscomb was known to display public grief at the thought of Zellner’s death. Despite this grief and the ravages of a worn-torn Middle Tennessee where Lipscomb lost 2/3 of his possessions, Lipscomb’s trust in God’s providence shaped his understanding of life and death (“Providence–Special and General,” Gospel Advocate 10 [21 January 1869], 49-50):

All the events connected witht our lives are more completely under his guidance and direction, and are more fully controlled and overruled by him than were those of any other people in the world…The failure to recognize God’s hand in the events that befall us, causes us to complain, whine, repine over the misfortunes–as we consider them–of life, and to indulge in bitter, wicked, envious thoughts toward others, and to live in anxiety and dread as to the prsent and the future.

One may not agree with all the language that these spiritual ancestors employ, but one must respect their faith, trust and commitment. They are witness to the endurance and power of faith.

May God have mercy.

This comes from David Lipscomb’s Civil Government (pp. 134-135). Given our political season in this nation, perhaps the words of one our spiritual forefathers have some relevant advice.  He wrote:

“THESE sayings of mine, refer to the sayings presented in this sermon [on the mount] of Jesus, which constitute the laws that must control the lives of his subjects, and must rule in his kingdom. They are given as principles to be practices, without which we are not and cannot be children of our Father which is in heaven. Yet the religious world of to-day both Protestant and Romish, believes these principles not applicable at the present day. The laws and the spirit of civil government are more looked to, to guide the church and regulate the lives of its members, than the teaching of the Bible. Indeed it is usually regarded that the church member may do any thing the civil law allows and what it allows is not to be prohibited in the church. This comes from the members of the church going into the civil governments, imbibing their spirit, adopting their morality and bringing them both into the church of Christ. A man cannot cherish in his heart two spirits, one to rule his religious life, the other to rule his civil life. He cannot adopt two standards of morality, one for his church life, the other for his political life.

“A man cannot serve two masters, he will love the one, and hate the other, or he will cleave to one and despise the other.”

“That the political affairs, and the standard of general morality may be elevated by the affiliation, is possible, but the true spiritual life is destroyed by the affiliation.

“The antagonism between the principles laid down by Christ and those of civil government is so marked that in history, the statement, that they regulate their conduct by the sermon on the Mount, is equal to saying they take no part in civil affairs.

“The only people who claim to make the “sermon upon //135// the Mount” their rule of life, are the small religious bodies, who take no part in civil affairs. Some bodies of Quakers, Mennonites, Nazarenes and Dunkards, and individuals among the larger brotherhoods.

“But who can study the New Testament, the life of Christ, his teaching through his mission, the admonitions of the Holy Spirit speaking through the apostles and for a moment doubt, that Christ specially gave this sermon to regulate the hearts and lives of his followers. He gave it at the beginning of his ministry that all might understand the life, to which they were specifically called.”

The Woodmont Hills Family of God has suffered some difficult losses in the past months and in this past week the family suffered the loss of one of its youth. Ty Osman, an eighteen year old freshman at Harding University, was killed in a car accident while on Spring Break.

Added to other recent losses–and the ongoing struggles of marriages, economics, parenting and leadership–this moment has created season of grief for the Woodmont Hills Family of God.

On Sunday, Dean Barham spoke from his heart to the church. It was a needed pause in the roller-coaster ride of life for the church. His lesson is posted on the Woodmont site (3/4/12).

Just before he spoke Dean asked me to lead a prayer at the end of his lesson. I have provided that prayer below–it was delivered extemporaneously and without much forethought. It came from the heart.  I have provided here as it was delivered. The audio of this prayer is available at the end of Dean’s podcast.

May God bless; may God have mercy on us all.

God of heaven,

Why do you sometimes seem so far away? Why does it sometimes seem like you don’t listen and you don’t answer? God, why don’t you take your hands out of your pockets and do something?

We feel this, Father. Your saints of old have felt many times as well.

In our hurt we ask you, “How long?” How long must we carry this sorrow in our heart every day? How long, Father? How long before you will bring all the pain to an end? When will you act, God?

Those are our feelings, Father. You know our hearts. You know our hurts. You know our questions and our doubts. They are real to us. We confess them to you. We are grateful that you hear us, that you love us.

For, Father, even with our hurts, our questions,

we still confess that you are the maker of heaven and earth;

we still confess that your Son was born of a virgin, born of a woman, and that he lived, he suffered, and he died;

we still confess, Father, that you raised him from the dead;

and we confess that he is coming again to renew this world, to rid us of the pain and the suffering, to wipe away our tears. Lord, come quickly.

So we are grateful, Father, that you know our pain—that you experience it along with us. And you know all the different sorts of pain that are in this room this morning: the grief over the loss of a young life, the grief of families hurting—suffering economically, suffering with disease, suffering from spiritual dislocation, suffering in their marriages.

God, you know our hurts. And we lay them before you right now. And we speak the truth that it hurts. And we have questions. And, yes, we even have doubts.

But we also confess. For, Father, there is no one else to whom we can turn. Who else can hear our pains? Who else can heal our diseases? Who else can raise the dead? You are God. And we trust you.

Father, in this moment, we ask you to pour your Spirit upon this church, to pour your Spirit upon this leadership, the shepherds and the ministers, the volunteers—all those who involved in serving this community and leading this community. You know, Father, that it is difficult to lead in times of grief.

Give our shepherds strength. Give them a passion for you and passion for their flock. Give them the Spirit that only you can provide, that can shed abroad your love in our hearts. For you are the God of hope and the God of comfort, and we pray that you will pour out your Spirit upon us that we might know your hope, know your comfort.

Dry up our tears, O God. Use your servants in this place to be a comfort for the people.

You do seem so far away sometimes, God. But we confess that you came near and that you know what a cross is. But you also know what victory is. Give us your presence. Give us your peace. And give us the hope of your victory in the world.

In the name of Jesus, we pray. Amen.

I would say that it is wrong to encourage sectarianism in any way, if we can tell which are sectarians. But my observation is that it takes a sectarian to ferret out a sectarian, just as “it takes a rogue to catch a rogue.” Unfortunately, all the sectarians are not in sectarian churches; and I hope that some in sectarian churches are not sectarians. Things get badly mixed in this world.  Sometimes people who wish to obey God are born and reared in sectarian influences. A man who loves party more than he loves God is a sectarian. A man who divides the church of God for a theory or teaching not required by God is a sectarian. A person who pushes an idea or practice not required by God, to the disturbance of the peace of that church, or that exalts a human opinion or practice to an equality with the commands of God, is a sectarian and a heretic.

There are some in nonsectarian churches who are sectarians, who violate the laws of God in order to oppose sectarians. There are some in sectarian churches who will obey God and follow him in spite of the sectarianism of the churches in which they find themselves. As examples, there are persons in the Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian Churches who were baptized to obey God rather than to please the sects. In this they rise above the sectarian spirit, despite the parties in which they find themselves. They ought to get out of the sectarian churches, but they see so much sectarianism in the nonsectarian churches that they think they are all alike.

Peter and John, Paul and Barnabas, all met with the sectarian Jews at their times and places of worship and participated with them, that they might find an opportunity to speak a word for the truth. I do not think it hurts any man, sectarian or sinner, to read the Bible anywhere at any time. I do not think it hurts any one to heart the Bible read by sectarian or sinner at any time or place. The great end is to be true and faithful to the truth and at the same time kind and sympathetic with those in error. The nearer we can do these two things, the more like Jesus we will be and the more sinners and sectarians we will save.

From Queries and Answers, ed. by J. W. Shepherd (Cincinnati: F. L. Rowe, 1918), pp. 381-2.

Lipscomb was asked: “What are the times of restoration and the all things spoken of by the prophets in Acts 3:20,21?”

According to J. W. Shepherd’s Queries and Answers (published by F. L. Rowe, 1918), Lipscomb responded in this way (p. 360):

Jesus had been to earth and returned to heaven. Heaven must receive him until “the times of restoration of all things.” Then “the times of restoration of all things” must be when Jesus returns again to earth–the restoration of all things to their original relation to God. The relation which the world originally sustained to God was boken and destroyed when man, the ruler, rebelled against God. That destruction of the world’s relation to God was more far-reaching and destructive than we realize. The whole material creation shared in the evil. Briers, thistles, thorns grew in the material world, as in the spiritual. Sickness, death, mortality afflicted the material world. When man rebelled against his Maker, the under creation rebelled against man. The laws of the natural world were disordered. The germs of vegetation put forth; biting frosts or burning heat destroys them. Disorder in the laws of the material world came as the result of man’s sin against his Maker. When Jesus comes again, the will of God will be done on earth as it is in heaven, and all things in the world will be restored to harmonious relations with God, the Supreme Ruler of the Universe.

There are, at least, two interesting points in this brief answer.  First, Jesus will return to earth and when he returns to earth it will involve the full harmony of God, humanity and creation as the will of God will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

Second, Lipscomb recognizes a strong connection between human evil and disorder (chaos) within creation. Whether or not one thinks of this in terms of Adam & Eve or one thinks about it in terms of the interconnectedness of created reality, moral evil has ecological effects (cf. Hosea 4:1-3). The restoration of all things includes redemption for God’s creation and the final defeat of chaos within the creation.

While many have treated this section of Mark as a series of isolated sayings that follow a passion prediction, the thread that runs through it carries a powerful punch if we hear it as one continuous exchange between Jesus and his disciples. This thread directly connects with the prediction. Just as Jesus would serve others by suffering, so the disciples must learn to serve others as well.

Mark situates these “sayings” between “they came to [his home base in] Capernaum” (9:33) and “Jesus left that place” to go to Judea (10:1). The narrative offers this as one integrated segment—a teaching moment for the disciples. The section begins with a dispute over who is the greatest (9:33) and ends with Jesus’ imperative to live in peace with each other (9:50).

This teaching moment is occasioned by the disciples’ own self-interestedness, pride and envy. As they travelled to Capernaum, they had argued over the question “who was the greatest?” This sets the tone and theme of this pericope. Jesus understood what the argument was about—who is first? How will each of the twelve rank in the kingdom of God? Disciples wondered and debated where each would fall in the coming kingdom. Who would be first?

The narrative is deliberate here. When no one would confess the topic of their argument, Jesus sat down and called the twelve together. This enhances the point and signals how significant this section is to the narrator. Jesus then articulates the theme that will run through the rest of his conversation with the disciples: “you must be last and servant of all if you want to be first.”

This is a radical reorientation for the disciples. They imagined that they would be rulers in the coming kingdom. They imagined that as the twelve, specially empowered by Jesus, that they would have “firsts” in the kingdom and that even one of them would be at the right hand of King Jesus–the “greatest” besides Jesus. Now they hear that they must serve others as “lasts” in the kingdom rather than “firsts.” No doubt they had a difficult time fathoming what that meant.

Jesus then enacts a parable to explain his meaning. He places a child in the middle of the twelve and then enwraps the child in his arms. Both acts are symbolic. The child reminds them of the focus of their mission and how others are the center of attention rather than themselves. When Jesus hugs the child, it symbolizes how Jesus welcomes the “little ones” and loves them.

The task of the disciples is to welcome “little ones” in the name of Jesus because this is to welcome Jesus himself. Moreover, it is to welcome God who sent Jesus. When we love our neighbor—welcome the little ones—we love God in our neighbor. The disciples are reminded that their ministry is not self-aggrandizement, power or wealth but to welcome others in the name of Jesus.

At this point John interrupts Jesus to announce how the disciples stood up for the integrity of Jesus’s ministry. This is apparently something that they took great pride in doing. They had hindered the ministry of another—someone who was exorcizing demons in the name of Jesus—“because he did not follow us” (literal translation). The disciples seemed to have reasoned that because this person was not one of the twelve or not attached to their entourage that he should not be “doing good” in the name of Jesus. That privilege, they thought, belonged to them. They were the ones who were with Jesus and empowered by him to do miracles. This other person’s ministry threatened their status and potential role in the kingdom. He did not “follow us.” And the emphasis is on “us.”

Jesus must have been incredulous. His immediate response is an imperative: “don’t stop him!” We can feel the exasperation in Jesus’ language. Anyone who does anything good in the name of Jesus is for “us” and not against “us,” he said. Just because they do not “follow us” (in the language of the disciples) does not mean that they are not “for us.” The “us” is larger than the disciples imagined. They thought of their discipleship as an exclusive group but Jesus enlarges it. Indeed, anyone who offers a cup of cold water (a small act of kindness) in the name of Jesus should be welcomed rather than excluded. God will welcome them; God will reward them. And the community of faith—the Twelve in this case—must welcome them too.

It is important to link the next section to the previous one. What the disciples did to this exorcist was scandalous. They failed to welcome a “little one;” they failed to welcome another who was doing good in the name of Jesus. Now they must hear Jesus’s rebuke.

What the disciples did to this exorcist, this “little one,” endangered their life in the kingdom. They had scandalized (“cause to sin” in the NIV) him by hindering and discouraging him. The disciples would have been better off if they had thrown themselves into the sea with a heavy weight. The hyperbole has a point. If anyone’s hand, foot or eye scandalizes another, it is better to remove them than to injure yourselves or others.

The hyperbole points to the seriousness with which Jesus regarded the actions of the disciples. Because of their pride and kingdom power-seeking (they wanted to be “first”), they had scandalized one of Jesus’s “little ones”—a person who was doing good in the name of Jesus. This approach to kingdom life and the scandals it creates leads to ghenna (hell). It is a path that leads to destruction. It is better to remove all obstacles to authentic kingdom life than it is to live comfortably (with hands, feet, and eyes) in a way that leads to hell. “It is better,” Jesus says, “to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell.”

Jesus reminds them that hell is destruction. It is not a way of life but a way of death. Kingdom living gives life but prideful self-exaltation is the way of death, the way of hell. He underscores the destructive end of such a life by quoting Isaiah 66:24. Hell is the place where the worms do not die (where worm feed on dead bodies) and the fire is unquenchable (that is, a place where the fire accomplishes its purpose). Isaiah envisions a field of unbuired corpses where worms and fire destroy life and confirm death. It is a picture of shame rather than pain; it is a picture of destruction.

The most difficult aspect of this text is whether Mark 9:49 is a comment on the Isaianic text (linked by the word “fire”) or whether it belongs with the final saying of Jesus in the chapter in Mark 9:50 (linked by the word “salt”). The majority understanding is that Jesus is alluding to the practice of salting sacrifices in the Levitical system (Leviticus 2:13). In other words, a life dedicated to God is like a salted sacrifice that is purified by fire. Others—a minority report—suggest that it is an image of destruction that more naturally goes with Isaiah’s description. When a city was burned, the victors would sometimes sprinkle salt on the ground to render it uninhabitable (Judges 9:45). Thus, the meaning would be that everyone who is thrown into hell will be destroyed by fire. Whichever is the case, either meaning contributes to the thread of the text as scandalizers will be destroyed (salted) or disciples will be tried (salted) by fire.

The final saying in this section, like the first thematic one in Mark 9:35, summarizes the proper orientation of kingdom living. Kingdom people are salt, that is, they are ministers of good in the world. Scandalizing the “little ones” or seeking preeminence in the kingdom corrupts that salt so that it is no longer any good. Instead, disciples must continue as salt so that they might live in peace with each other.

The final imperative, live in peace with each other, unites the narrative. In the light of their previous argument about who was the greatest, Jesus insists that they live in peace—not only with themselves, but with the “little ones” as well. When God reigns, peace reigns, but when pride reigns, we find ourselves on a path to hell.

Radical kingdom reorientation saturates this text. Disciples are “servants of all.” Disciples welcome others; they welcome “little ones” even when it appears a threat to their own status. Disciples would rather cut off their own hand than scandalize another who is doing good in the name of Jesus. Disciples live in peace because they love the kingdom more than their own lives.

Where can we find disciples like that?