The Presence of the Kingdom — Mark 1:21-28

Introduction

After Jesus’ Baptism and Desert Temptation Jesus begin his ministry by announcing,

15  The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent and believe the Gospel.

For the hearers of the time, shaped as they were be the Old Testament, this announcement would have been met by an expectation that God would establish His kingdom by displacing Kingdoms that oppressed His people. After all, the purpose of the Kingdom was now to include salvation and blessing for His people and the defeat of Israel’s enemies.

Much of what is to follow then in the Gospel accounts then is a chronicling of how Christ was ushering in the Kingdom of God.

Keep in mind that as this Kingdom of God comes the consequence is that other Kingdoms are displaced. These other Kingdoms that are being overthrown are Kingdoms that raise protest over being displaced.

Given the truth of all this we should expect that the ministry of Jesus is going to be characterized by conflict. He is bringing in a Kingdom that is going to destroy previous strongholds. The clash of Kingdoms that was first promised in Genesis 3:15 becomes center stage in the life of Christ.

15 I will also put enmity between [a]thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed. He shall break thine [b]head, and thou shalt [c]bruise his heel.

And this is what we find in this passages in Mark 1:21-28. Like an old Western where a new Marshall rides into town to clean it up of assorted villains, the Lord Christ is demonstrating, via His ministry, that there is a new authority in the Cosmos. This kind of drama where demons are cast out, nature is tamed, and the disfigured, diseased and even dead are healed is what would have been expected given all the teaching of the Old Testament on the coming of God’s Messiah.

All of this reminds us that with the coming of the Kingdom in the ministry of Christ we have something more than just sweet nice Jesus giving moral instruction. No … the Kingdom of God comes as with power and authority.

I.) The Authority of the Lord Christ Demonstrates the Kingdom has Arrived

A.) Jesus and his authority (21-22)

“Exousia” describes first the freedom of God to act. The Greek word is exousia and that word is related to a verb meaning “it is free” or “it is permitted.”  When it is noted that Jesus has “authority” what is being communicated is that He has the “sovereign freedom” of one who acts without question or hindrance. This is seen as something different from the Scribes and Pharisees perhaps because they were taken up with Talmudic tradition.

Jesus comes and  teaches and his teaching strips off the accretions of traditions and takes the people back to the bare word itself. Another way of saying this is that Jesus taught as giving God’s original intent and not as the current Teachers of Israel who were forever citing what amounts to the Case law of Talmudic traditions.

This issue of Jesus and His authority will come up again in the next Chapter (Mark 2). In Mark 2 however it is Jesus who is talking about His authority to heal and forgive.

10 But that ye may know, that the Son of man hath authority in earth to forgive sins, he said unto the sick of the palsy,

So as we would expect of someone who is bringing in the Kingdom of God Jesus is one vested with authority and in this account this unique authority is noted by those observing. Jesus teaches with an independent authority–or rather, on the authority of God (cf. 11:28-33).

Mark 11:28 And said unto him, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority, that thou shouldest do these things? 29 Then Jesus answered, and said unto them, I will also ask you a certain thing, and answer ye me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things. 30 The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? answer me. 31 And they thought with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven, he will say, Why then did ye not believe him? 32 [a]But if we say, Of men, we fear the people: for all men counted John that he was a Prophet indeed. 33 Then they answered, and said unto Jesus, We cannot tell. And Jesus answered, and said unto them, Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.

Whereas the scribes are bound to tradition, and so are not authoritative in their teaching as Jesus is, the Lord Christ is  free–free in the way that only one who lives directly from and to God’s authority is free.

Mark does not give us the content of Jesus’ teaching, but we can find examples of the difference between Jesus’ teaching and the teaching of the scribes elsewhere in the gospel tradition. For example, in Mark 12:35-37, Jesus asks why the scribes say the Messiah is the Son of David when Scripture indicates that David called the Messiah “Lord.” Scripture itself suggests that the scribes’ traditional interpretation is inadequate. Jesus is suggesting that who or what the Messiah is may break the traditional Jewish mold. Again, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus does not hesitate to suggest that the traditional interpretation of the commandments is inadequate. What God demands of us goes far beyond what the scribes require (cf. Matthew 5:20).

So Jesus comes with the Authority of God. His teaching is new only inasmuch as it is not laden with the mistakes of the Talmud and wrong headed traditions.

Ill. — Someone coming who goes back to the Constitution dismissing the case law and doing so convincingly.

B.) They were astonished

This astonishment over Jesus authority is carefully chronicled throughout the synoptic Gospel account. The presence of this astonishment is one of the markers of the ministry of Christ.

Mark 2:12, 4:41, 7:37, 10:24  // Matthew – 13;54, 15:31 22:22, 33 //  Luke – 2:47-48, 4:22, 36, 8:25

C.) Cite examples of the authority of Christ

1.) Authority over Demons

Jesus tells him to “hold thy peace.”

Why? — the Lord Christ does not desire demonic heralds.

Interesting sidelight — the usage of the pronouns — back and forth singular to plural to singular

2.) Authority over Nature

(Mark 4:37-41)  37 [a]And there arose a great storm of wind, and the waves dashed into the ship, so that it was now full.38 And he was in the stern asleep on a pillow: and they awoke him, and said to him, Master, carest thou not that we perish? 39 And he arose up, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, and be still. So the wind ceased, and it was a great calm. 40 Then he said unto them, [b]Why are ye so fearful? how is it that ye have no faith?41 And they feared exceedingly, and said one to another, Who is this, that both the wind and sea obey him?

It is interesting the parallels this account of the casting out of the Demon has to the story of the stilling of the storm (Mark 4:35-41). Here Jesus’ rebukes (epetimēsen) the spirit with the command to “be silent” (phimōthēti). This is  parallel to Jesus’ rebuke (epetimēsen) of the wind and the command to “be still” (pephimōso) in 4:39. The response of the crowd in 1:27, “what is this (ti estin touto)…he commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey (hypakouousin) him,” is parallel to the response of the disciples in 4:41: “Who then is this (tis ara houtos estin), that even the wind and the sea obey (hypakouei) him?” These similarities suggest that, for the early Christians who formulated and transmitted these stories, the exorcism and the stilling of the storm illustrate a similar point: Jesus has authority over both the natural world (winds and sea) and the supernatural world (demons).

So, lets summarize briefly here,

In Mark 1:21f we have the record of the Lord Christ casting out a demon accompanied by the amazement of the people regarding Jesus Authority. What we dare not miss here is that this casting out of the Demon is one demonstration that with the coming of God’s King God’s eschatological Kingdom itself has arrived. Mark is interested in placarding this authority of the great King and so in Mark’s Gospel we find the Lord Christ putting on an authority display over competing Kingdoms. With the Demoniac here Christ is showing his authority over Satan’s Kingdom. In the casting out of the Demon He is binding Satan and dispossessing him of his belongings (Mark 3:27). The King has come. Later, in Mark 4 Christ demonstrates his authority over the Kingdom of Nature by instructing the winds and the waves, much as He instructed the demon in Mark 1, to “be still.” The King has come. In Mark 1:30f Christ demonstrates his authority over Illness and disease. The King has come.

Mark wants us to know that Christ Himself is the King, Kingdom, and re-creation. Further Mark is interested that the work of Jesus is the work of binding the strongman.

In what is recorded here we see the fulfillment of what was called for in Isaiah 61

1 The Spirit of the Lord God is [a]upon me, therefore hath the Lord anointed me: he hath sent me to preach good tidings unto the poor, to bind up the [b]broken hearted, to preach liberty to the [c]captives, and to them that are bound, the opening of the prison, 

So what we are learning is that outside of Christ’s authority there is only demon possession, untamed Nature, and disease. and we are forced to ask whose authority are we under?

3.) Authority over Illness and Disease — Mark 1:29

Another component of this authority of Jesus is his healing ministry. This is so significant as proof that the Kingdom of God has come that Jesus appeals to it as evidence against John the Baptist’s doubt as to whether Jesus was bringing in the Kingdom.

20 And when the men were come unto him, they said, John Baptist hath sent us unto thee, saying, Art thou he that should come, or shall we wait for another? 21 And [e]at that time, he cured many of their sicknesses, and plagues, and of evil spirits, and unto many blind men he gave sight freely. 22 And Jesus answered, and said unto them, Go your ways and show John, what things ye have seen and heard, that the blind see, the halt go, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor receive the Gospel.

So Christ has come. The Kingdom of God — that promised “age to come” —  is rolling back this present wicked age. And the consequence is that Christ is seen as having Mastery over all.

II.) The Actions of the Lord Christ Demonstrate the Kingdom has Arrived

Devout Jews expected the Davidic Messiah to cast out demons and heal the blind, the deaf and the mute (see Isaiah 29:18; 35:5-6; 42:7,16).

18 And in that day shall the deaf hear the words of the book, and the eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity, and out of darkness.

5 Then shall the eyes of the [a]blind be lightened, and the ears of the deaf be opened.  Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the dumb man’s tongue shall sing: for in the [b]wilderness shall waters break out, and rivers in the desert.

7 That thou mayest open the eyes of the blind, and bring out the prisoners from the prison: and them that sit in darkness, out of the prison house…. 16 ¶ And I will bring the [a]blind by a way, that they knew not, and lead them by paths that they have not known: I will make darkness light before them, and crooked things straight. These things will I do unto them, and not forsake them.

This expectation of the casting out of Demons by the Messiah may find its origins with the power of David’s harp playing to exorcise the demons plaguing King Saul (see I Samuel 16:14-23). In traditions attested both in and outside the Bible (see Wisdom 7:20), David’s son, Solomon, also received power over demons and infirmities (see Josephus, The Antitquities of the Jews, Book 8, Chapter 2, no. 5).

Josephus — God also enabled him (Solomon) to learn that skill which expels demons: (6) which is a science useful, and sanative to men.

And now a greater than both David and Solomon is here and the expectation is that if David’s and Solomon’s greater Son is present bringing in the Kingdom He will do greater works of those who previously came and so He also will cast out demons.

III.) The Consequence of this Arrived Kingdom is the dismantling of all other Kingdoms

Satan’s Kingdom — (This incident demonstrates the Jesus has bound the Strong man and is dispossessing him — (Mark 3)

Scribes & Pharisees Kingdom — (This incident demonstrates the Jesus is overthrowing the Talmudic order)

His teaching as “one with authority” is quite possibly a testimony that He is not concerned with Talmudic traditions or case Law. Instead He is going back to the original Torah and is fulfilling it and bringing forth its meaning.

A couple observations

Spiritual vs. Corporeal

There is in some of the Church this idea that Spiritual matters are divorced from Corporeal matters. Here we see in Jesus’ work that the Spiritual and Corporeal intersect. Jesus is dealing with the Spiritual world by casting out a Demon but the effect is on a real live corporeal person. Similarly with His healing ministry Jesus is dealing with Spiritual problems but in his triumph over the spiritual problems physical maladies are healed.

Now / Not Yet

Obviously what we have with the coming of Christ is the NOW of the Kingdom presented to us.  Jesus is triumphing and the Kingdom to come is present. There is, of course a Not Yet to the Kingdom. We still contend with those realities that will only finally be finished once for all upon our entrance into the new Jerusalem.

We live in that time when the Kingdom is both “Now and Not Yet.” We have been delivered but we await to be delivered. We have been set free we await being set free.

I think there is a tendency to forget the Nowness of the Kingdom in favor of the Not Yetness of the Kingdom. We have needs to keep before us that the Lord Christ has triumphed and in principle has brought His Kingdom. This Kingdom reality then progressively rolls forward so that eventually the Kingdoms of nations will become the Kingdoms of our Lord.

Conclusion

How does this account of a 1st century Demoniac being healed bear upon us today? Especially in light of the fact that there are so many that dismiss the supernatural. For those of us who are God’s people, we must dismiss those who dismiss the supernatural and acknowledge and embrace again the truth that the Kingdom of God — the authority and power of Jesus Christ — has come and so is present. We must live in terms of His authority and move in the confidence that His Kingdom has come. We must not recoil in fear against those powers and Kingdoms that have already been defeated.

The fact that the Kingdom has come bears on our eschatology. If we really believe that the Lord Christ brought His Kingdom and has been Ascended and seated as King of Kings then it is difficult to see how we can avoid some kind of optimistic eschatology. If we really believe that we are now living in the age to come because of Christ’s victory over the Kingdoms that resisted his Kingdom then how can we not be convinced that we go from victory unto victory in Christ?

Confidence in Christ’s Kingdom word strongly works towards demanding of us confidence that His already arrived Kingdom is going to become that mustard seed that grows into the largest of trees.

 

Considering Rev. Bordow’s Defense of R2K #2

Rev Bordow writes,

“An objection often arises: if the gospel call includes a calling to people to repent of specific sins, wouldn’t that include a call to repentance for civil authorities who allow or approve of abortion and gay marriage? To answer that objection, one can first examine the New Testament for such examples of public policy rebuke, but find none. The Apostles never once condemn a policy of the Roman government, although there were an abundance of opportunities to do so by highlighting certain evil policies of the  government.”
Bret responds,1.) Actually there is a rebuke in the New Testament of a Magistrate, if not for public policy, at least for scandalous public behavior.

Matthew 14:3 For Herod had taken John, and bound him, and put him in prison for Herodias’ sake, his brother Philip’s wife.4 For John said unto him, It is not lawful for thee to have her.

Here we find clear precedent for speaking to the Magistrate against their sins, whether in public behavior or in public policy. But, as R2K, what Rev. Bordow will offer is that John the Baptist was the last of the OT prophets and so his example can not be counted because the Intrusion Ethic was not yet completed at this time. How convenient.

2.) Also there is this rebuke of public policy by St. Paul,

Acts 16:35  And when it was day, the governors sent the sergeants, saying, Let those men go. 36 Then the keeper of the prison told these words unto Paul, saying, The governors have sent to loose you: now therefore get you hence, and go in peace. 37  Then said Paul unto them, After that they have beaten us openly uncondemned, which are Romans, they have cast us into prison, and now would they put us out privily? nay verily: but let them come and bring us out.38 And the sergeants told these words unto the governors, who feared when they heard that they were Romans.

The Magistrates had pursued a public policy that was not just and here St. Paul rebukes them. Rev. Bordow is just wrong in his assertion.

The Rotting Cancer of Equalitarianism

Isn’t your philosophy authoritarian?

Accusations of authoritarianism follows from an equalitarian ideology which assumes the equality of all men so that no man is worth listening to more than another, no idea is more valuable than another, no child wiser than its parents, no code higher or more authoritative than another.

But it happens that in the course of human history much has occurred and much has been learned which constitutes a fund of experience we disregard at our peril. All of us are not as wise as our ancestors. We can become wiser only by listening to their experience before going on to add our own, just as a child must first listen to his parents before he can safely lead a life of his own.

What is more serious, the destruction by the equalitarian virus of this proper and necessary kind of authority also destroys proper and necessary discipline. Lack of it in the home is, in my opinion, far more often the cause of juvenile delinquency among both rich and poor than the so-called exclusion from family or community groups which today obsesses psychiatrists and sociologists.

Perhaps an ideology which offers ice cream to soothe mutinous convicts, and which condones murder and robbery among backward peoples under the guise of “freedom,” should not be expected to create respect for duly constituted authority in the home. Yet all children, and especially delinquents, need to be taught respect for and obedience to parental authority if we are ever to have law and order in the adult world.

Interestingly enough, the delinquent who is capable of being saved wants the voice of authority to rebuke and guide him more than he wants pity and tears. Parents are usually to blame both in failing to set an example that can be respected and in failing to speak with the tone of command. Men or nations that have been told often enough that in spite of all their training, experience and wisdom they are no better than the untrained, inexperienced and ignorant child or race will come in time to believe it, and consequently to lose the force and assurance which generates obedience.

Finally, by a series of insidious steps the equalitarian virus produces that most disastrous of all diseases, the complete appeasement of evil. At some point, all ability to discriminate is lost, all resistance to wrong ceases, all indignation dies, all evil is met with sobbing pleas which evil most naturally greets with contemptuous laughter, and the red death of a Godless communism settles on the earth.

I cannot protest too strongly against the tendency of the equalitarian virus to undermine all authority in our society from the home through the school on into our attitude toward international affairs.

Carleton Putnam

Considering Rev. Bordow’s Defense of R2K

I’m reading a longish paper by Rev. Bordow that is an apologetic for R2K. I started reading it in light of an article I came across recently,

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/29/inside-the-sick-secret-world-of-online-bestiality-forums/

The reason a bestiality article reminded me of Rev. Bordow is a statement he once made.

““Not being a theonomist or theocrat, I do not believe it is the state’s role to enforce religion or Christian morality. So allowing something legally is not the same as endorsing it morally. I don’t want the state punishing people for practicing homosexuality. Other Christians disagree. Fine. That’s allowed. That is the distinction. Another example – beastiality (sic) is a grotesque sin and obviously if a professing member engages in it he is subject to church discipline. But as one who leans libertarian in my politics, I would see problems with the state trying to enforce it; not wanting the state involved at all in such personal practices; I’m content to let the Lord judge it when he returns. A fellow church member might advocate for beastiality (sic) laws. Neither would be in sin whatever the side of the debate. Now if the lines are blurry in these disctinctions,(sic) that is always true in pastoral ministry dealing with real people in real cases in this fallen world.”

It is easy to see why the article would remind me of Rev. Bordow’s quote. This prompted to look at his defense of R2K and I thought I would post some of that defense here and interact with it. After all, as Rev. Bordow quoted me in the paper in question it is the least I can do to interact with the paper.

Rev. Bordow writes,

“I will begin with the accusation that my position allows believers to sit by quietly allowing the state and culture to perpetuate evil. The SOTC position is not escapist. The Bible is clear that Christians are to do good to all (Gal 6:10) and be good neighbors to those in need, whether locally or nationally. So Christians are not commanded to withdraw from culture and politics, but to do what they can to help others, according to their consciences and abilities. That may mean getting involved in a Crisis Pregnancy Center, it may mean becoming a political supporter of a candidate they think will do the most good, or it may mean simply helping his neighbor when he is sick.
But that calling for individual Christians to seek temporary good for others must be distinguished from the mandate Jesus gave his church as an institution, summarized in Luke 24:46&47: “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.” There is no other mandate in the New Testament given to the visible church concerning unbelievers besides preaching the gospel to them.”
Bret responds,1.) This sounds pious until one begins to scratch the surface. What Rev. Bordow is not telling us is that while Christians “can get involved to help others, according to consciences and abilities,” what he isn’t telling you is that this position, practically speaking, makes the Christian autonomous in their decision making. For example, some Church members, according to Rev. Bordow’s reasoning, might conclude that it is a help to others to champion the cause of removing all Bestiality laws. Alternately, some Christian might conclude that it is a help to others to become the campaign manager for Joseph Stalin. What would the Church say to such members in Rev. Bordow’s worldview?Absolutely Nothing.

You see, in Rev. Bordow’s worldview the Church has no role to speak into believers lives as to what they support or do not support in the common square. That is entirely up to their consciences and abilities. So, while Rev. Bordow does allow for Christians to be involved in the common square for the help of others he allows “help” to be defined by any standard.  So you see, the R2K position of Rev. Bordow does have all the potential to perpetuate evil.

2.) Note also that in his last sentence Rev. Bordow has largely dispensationalized the Old Testament. The Old Testament is gone away because of the R2K “Intrusion Ethic.” Jesus died so that we would not apply God’s Law to the Nations.

3.) It’s just not true that the only mandate the NT gives the Church for unbelievers is to preach the Gospel to them. To say such a thing is to suggest that the Church does not have a mandate to champion the politicus usus of God’s law.

 

Michael Scott Horton and Roger Williams Agree On The Idea Of Christendom

Throughout the Middle Ages, the national covenant that Israel made with God at Sinai was regularly invoked as an allegory for Christendom. Crusades against “the infidel” (often Muslims) were declared by popes with the promise of immediate entrance into paradise for martyrs. Kings fancied themselves as king David, leading the armies of the Lord in cleansing the Holy Land. The very idea of a Christian empire or a Christian nation was a serious confusion of these two cities. It was against this confusion of Christ’s kingdom with Israel’s theocracy that Luther and Calvin launched their retrieval of Augustine’s “two kingdoms.”

Michael Horton
A Tale of Two Kingdoms
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/tale-two-kingdoms/

Consider now the words of Roger Williams’ (he of Anabaptist fame) to the reformed Westminster Assembly:

Since the Law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ…We Querie, where you now find one footstep, print or pattern in this doctrine of the Son of God for a national holy covenant… If you repaire to Moses… we ask, are you Moses or Christ’s followers? Or do you yet expect the coming of the Son of God to set up the Christian Israel, the holy nation, the particular congregation of Christian worshippers, in all parts of the world? (1 Pet 2. Heb 12, etc) (Querie VII)

Roger Williams
“‘Queries of Highest Consideration,’ presented to the Dissenting Brethren, and the Westminster Assembly“

1.) I have been insisting for quite some time that R2K is a return to anabaptist thought. This symbiosis between Horton and Williams aids in demonstrating my contention.

2.) Horton is just wrong — seriously wrong — in his reading of Augustine’s Two Cities (kingdoms). It is amazing that a “scholar” like Horton could make this kind of mistake. He is also in error to say that Calvin and Luther were reviving his (Horton’s) misreading of Augustine’s Two Kingdoms. Another humongous error on his part.

Augustine’s two Kingdom certainly were not equal to Horton’s notions of the realm of grace and the realm of the world. Augustine’s two Kingdoms included the idea of a realm consisting of those who are animated by the spirit of Anti-Christ as that realm was juxtaposed with those, living cheek by jowl with Christ’s enemies, who instead were animated by the Spirit of Christ.