Paul's true citizenship

2 Samuel 19:24-43; Acts 24:24-25:2; Mark 12:35-44


Paul's appeal to Caesar, after two years in custody, closes the circle which opened in Acts 22:25, when Paul identified himself as a Roman citizen and demanded his rights as such. Only a Roman citizen could appeal to Caesar and Paul had been waiting, presumably, for the proper time to make his request. Felix, the previous proconsul, had summoned Paul numerous times but had apparently been frightened by the Apostle's talk "about righteousness and self-control and the coming judgment." The "proper time" never seemed to come for him to respond to Paul's reasoning about faith in Jesus Christ.

When Festus, the new proconsul, arrived, some Jews from Jerusalem were still looking for an opportunity to kill Paul (Some had taken a vow two years earlier not to eat or drink until they had killed Paul. They must have been quite hungry by this time.). Festus, however, refused to bring Paul to Jerusalem, insisting instead that his accusers come with him to Caesarea.

Once again before the Roman tribune, Paul saw the opportunity had arrived to move on to Rome. Earlier, the Lord had assured him that he would have such an opportunity, appearing to him one night in the barracks and saying, "Take courage, for as you have testified tot he facts about me in Jerusalem, so you must testify also in Rome" (Acts 23:11).

Thus is seen the great plan and purpose of God in choosing Paul, a Roman citizen, to be his apostle to the Gentiles. No one but a Roman citizen could make an appeal to Caesar. Now, that appeal would be Paul's ticket to Rome and his opportunity to witness about Christ int he greatest city of the ancient world. Throughout his ordeal, Paul kept all this in perspective. His persecutions, imprisonments, beatings, and threats to his life were all part of God's plan to bring him to this moment. In the context of redemption, there is no such thing as meaningless suffering. Paul's trials and tribulations were preparing him for greater service. He was on his way to the capital of the ancient world. But, more importantly, he was on his way to the heavenly city where his true citizenship resided.

Out with the old, in with the new

2 Samuel 18:9-18; Acts 23:12-24; Mark 11:27-12:12


Mark notes twice that the religious leaders "feared the people." Such fear restrained them, first, from answering Jesus's question concerning John the Baptist and, second, from arresting Jesus after perceiving "that he had told the parable [of the tenants] against them." They were correct, of course, in their perception but, as always, they could only respond with indignation. The parable had the sting of truth and "the chief priests and the scribes and the elders" would only have proven this had they acted on their desire to arrest Jesus.

The fact that Jesus did tell the parable against these religious elites is significant. The "new tenants" to whom the vineyard would be leased was not a reference, as some surmise, to the Gentiles. The new Israel, like the old, was to begin with the Jews. The "wicked tenants" cast out of the vineyard were those elite religious leaders who had treated God's vineyard as though it were their own private possession. They had mistreated and driven away the prophets and other messengers who came to remind them that they were accountable to the Owner of the vineyard.

The religious leaders would not have "feared the people" if they perceived that Jesus had told this parable against the Jews in general. If that had been the case, "the people," likewise, would have been outraged. However, within apostate Israel there was yet a faithful remnant, the first fruits of the new covenant community centered around Jesus himself, the stone the builders rejected who had become the chief cornerstone.

The inadequate fig tree

2 Samuel 17:24-18:8; Acts 22:30-23:11; Mark 11:12-26

On the way to Jerusalem, Jesus had spoken in parables as a means of calling out the true remnant of Israel. Those who understood, who had ears to hear, were the true chosen people of God, the first fruits of the new order being gathered around the true Messiah. The stage was being set for the overthrow of the old order, the sacrificial system centered around the Temple under the corrupt leadership of the religious elites. These elites could perceive Jesus was speaking his parables against them, but they could only respond with anger and indignation. It was, after all, their system that was about to be rendered obsolete. The cursing of the fig tree and the cleansing of the Temple were two enacted parables which drove this point home even more emphatically.

The fig tree had long been a symbol of the nation of Israel. It had been a sobering symbol, at best. From the beginning, its provision had been known to be inadequate. Adam and Eve tried to cover their nakedness with its leaves, but were unable to cover their sin. The fig tree should have stood as a reminder to Israel that the provision God had made for them through the Old Covenant of the law and its Temple rituals was only temporary. It pointed to a more  perfect embodiment of God's plan for redemption who, in the fullness of time, would come to gather his people from the ends of the earth.

When Jesus came, however, he found Israel complacent and faithless, unable to recognize the time of its visitation. Like the fig tree out of season, Israel was a fruitless branch. In cursing the fig tree, Jesus pronounced judgment on this fruitless, faithless Israel in the shadow of the very mountain on which stood the symbol of its apostasy. The Temple was supposed to be "a house of prayer for all the nations," but under its corrupt leadership, it had become "a den of robbers."

As the fig tree withered at Jesus's word, so the Temple, and the corrupt system it had come to represent, would be made to pass away as Jesus brought the Word of God to its perfect fulfillment. Within a generation, the Temple would become a smoldering ash heap; its temporary provision exposed for the inadequate covering it was. From its ruins would spring forth a new tree, the ever fruitful tree of life that is the cross of Jesus Christ.

Redemption for the "man of blood"

2 Samuel 16.1-23; Acts 22.17-29; Mark 1.1-11


When Jesus entered Jerusalem, the crowd greeted him by invoking the memory of David, Israel's greatest king and the one from whose line the Messiah would come. "Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David!" was an acclamation reserved only for the One who would sit on David's throne and reign forever.

David was the archetype of Israel's coming king. But, as we have already seen, he was not the perfect embodiment of the character of God's kingdom. His own son, Absalom, led a rebellion against him and drove him out of Jerusalem. Israel was plunged into a bloody civil war. David was forgiven for his transgression with Bathsheba, but Absalom's rebellion was a consequence of that moral failure. David was well aware of this, and that was why he took the curses hurled at him by Shimei in stride.

"Get out, get out, you man of blood, you worthless man!" is a far cry from "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!" The Messiah's great ancestor, whose name was given to the throne of his eternal kingdom, was cursed by a deadbeat hanger-on from the disgraced house of Saul. Yet David insisted that Shimei be allowed to continue cursing him, even acknowledging the possibility that God had raised him up for that purpose.

David was well aware of his own sins. He knew that much of what he had, though given to him by God, had come at the cost of many human lives. He would have wished to be a man of peace, but that was not to be. He would be remembered as Israel's greatest king, but his record would be far from spotless. His deeds would be recalled throughout history -- the good, the bad, and the downright ugly.

The true heir to David's throne, however, was to be everything David himself wished to be. The blood he would shed to inaugurate his kingdom would be his own. By so doing, he would redeem Israel's less than perfect history and extend its borders to the ends of the earth.

Two directions, one Gospel

2 Samuel 2:1-11; Acts 15:36-16:5; Mark 6:14-29

Paul and Barnabas, although best of friends, could not come to agreement on the suitability of one "John called Mark" as a companion on their missionary journey. Barnabas, perhaps influenced by family ties (Mark was his cousin), wanted to bring him along after Paul suggested a return visit to "every city where [they] proclaimed the word of the Lord." Mark had not made a good impression on Paul, however, and he "thought it best not to take with them one who had withdrawn from them in Pamphylia and had not gone with them to the work."

Disagreements among church leaders so often involve non-essential matters. This was a dispute between the two greatest missionaries of the early church, and it involved a personality, not a doctrinal question. It was a dispute so sharp that Paul and Barnabas ended up separating. They teamed up with their respective proteges (Barnabas with Mark; Paul with Silas) and went in different directions. Wherever they went, however, they proclaimed the same Gospel.

Paul, Silas, and their new partner Timothy continued to spread the Gospel throughout the Roman Empire. Luke devotes the bulk of the remaining chapters of Acts to their ministry.

Barnabas and Mark, however, also did their part. From his letters, we know that Paul eventually came to accept Mark as a fellow worker. The Gospel that bears his name endures as a testimony to how this scared young man, once judged unfit for missionary service by the church's greatest missionary, was transformed into one of the church's greatest evangelists. The breakup of Paul and Barnabas was used by God for a good purpose. They went in different directions but never stopped proclaiming the same life-transforming Gospel.

The right man at the right time

2 Samuel 1:1-16; Acts 15:22-35; Mark 6:1-13

Saul's death is not received as good news by David, even though it means he is now free to claim the throne in Israel. For one thing, Israel is, at that moment, a defeated and humiliated nation. Who would want to be king at such a time? But David's reaction to Saul's death illustrates why he is exactly the kind of king Israel needs at this moment in its history.

Rather than rejoicing over the downfall of an enemy, David and his men tear their clothes and mourn, weep, and fast until evening. Executing the Amalekite who brought him the news seems a harsh thing to do, but moreso than following an established custom, David once again demonstrates his respect for Saul who, although flawed and far from God at the time of his death, was nevertheless "the LORD's anointed." God himself would be the final judge of Saul, but no mere man could take matters into his own hands, even if Saul had asked to be taken out of his misery.

David, unlike Saul, will remain in God's favor throughout his reign, even though his own record will be far from spotless. David has what Saul lacks: a heart that is right toward God. Although he will do many things which displease God, his heart will never stray from him. It is a character we see displayed in his reaction to the news of Saul's death. He does not rejoice, but mourns. He does not honor the man who inflicted the fatal blow, but has him put to death. His reaction, in every way, reflects his character. It may seem, to our present-day sensibilities, over the top and irrational, but it is, for its time, appropriate and measured. If anything, it is beyond what might be expected of the one upon whom the burden of leadership for a nation now falls. For that very reason, David is the right man at the right time for Israel.

A desperate hope

1 Samuel 31:1-13; Acts 15:12-21; Mark 5:21-43

Death itself must flee at Jesus's word. He raises Jairus's daughter by simply saying, "Talith cumi," which means, "Little girl, I say to you, arise." Words are not necessary, however, for the woman with the discharge of blood. In faith, she reaches out to touch the hem of Jesus's garment, knowing that this is sufficient for her healing. The depth of her faith is all the more astounding considering the fact that she "had suffered much under many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was no better but rather grew worse." What reason did she have to believe Jesus would be any different? She had tried everything else.

Was it desperation or hope which caused this woman to seek out Jesus and touch the hem of his garment? Perhaps it was a little of both; a desperate hope that, at long last, she would find in Jesus the healing that had so long eluded her. What she did, however, was no mere lark. The closer she got to Jesus, the stronger her faith became. A person of lesser faith would have given up. The crowd was pressing in Jesus himself was otherwise pre-occupied with Jairus. Still, this woman persevered. Perhaps that is what made the biggest impression on Jesus. This woman never abandoned hope. She continued to trust that God would heal her despite twelve long years of one setback after another. Now, in Jesus, God had finally rewarded her perseverance. All she had to do was touch the hem of his garment and be healed.

There remained the final comforting word from Jesus that confirms the woman's faith. Knowing "that power had gone out from him," Jesus asked who touched him. The woman "in fear and trembling," came forward and told him "the whole truth." Jesus spoke his word of comfort and healing to her, commending her faith and sending her away healed. It was the woman's faith which healed her. But it was Jesus's word of assurance that made her whole.

The Jerusalem Council: Through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ

1 Samuel 28:3-20; Acts 15:1-11; Mark 5:1-20

The first dispute in the early church was over the distribution of food. The Greek-speaking Jews complained that their widows were being left out of the daily distribution. This matter was settled with the appointment of the seven deacons. But as the church continued to grow and reach well beyond Jerusalem, not only to Jews but, even moreso, to Gentiles, a more complicated dispute was bound to emerge. Such was the case when, after Paul and Barnabas had brought many Gentiles to the faith with their message of salvation by grace, a group from Judea came down and began proclaiming a different message; a "gospel" with a distinctly Jewish flavor which required Gentile converts to be "circumcised according to the custom of Moses" in order to be "saved."

Paul and Barnabas wanted nothing to do with this legalistic aberration. They "had no small dissension and debate with" these Judaizers. To settle the matter, a delegation including Paul and Barnabas was sent to Jerusalem. For the first time, there would be a church council involving the apostles and elders. On the matter of whether or not the Gentiles should be required to observe the Jewish law, there were strong opinions on both sides. Paul and Barnabas, no doubt, argued strongly for salvation by grace through faith. But there were also some "who belonged to the party of the Pharisees" who "rose up and said, 'It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.'"

However, it was Peter, the senior apostle himself, who made the argument that carried the day. Requiring the Gentiles to submit to the law would not only be superfluous, but blasphemous, Peter said. "Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test," he asked, "by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?"

God had opened a new door to allow a new people to be brought in. Jew and Gentile alike would be saved in the same way. Peter stated it succinctly, "But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, just as they will."

The kingdom is for those who have ears to hear

1 Samuel 25:1-22; Acts 14:1-18; Mark 4:21-34

It takes discernment to understand the parables with which Jesus describes the kingdom of God. That is why he says, "If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear." The parables are not secret messages with hidden meanings. Their message and meaning are obvious to those with ears to hear. That is, for those who are citizens of the true Israel, the parables make perfect sense, but to those who have been masquerading as Israel, namely the religious establishment for whom God and the covenant had become private possessions, the meaning was indiscernible due to their spiritual blindness and deafness.

Depending on one's perspective, the parables are either the beginning of something new or the end of something old. For those with ears to hear, the seed of the kingdom of God was being planted. In Jesus, the glorious reign of God was being inaugurated. It would take root and grow from humble beginnings to bring renewal and restoration to the whole created order. For those who were set in their ways and valued things as they were, however, the parables were messages of doom and destruction. The world they so valued, the world in which they were first and everyone else was last, was coming to an end. The last were about to become first, and the first were about to become last.

In utilizing parables to communicate the Gospel of the kingdom, Jesus was not so much describing what that kingdom would be like when it finally came in all its fullness. Rather, he was announcing its arrival in language that could only be understood and received by those who had truly been longing for it. To those with ears to hear, the parables were a message of hope and a promise of better things to come. For those invested in the kingdom of this world, they were a stinging rebuke which portended the ultimate dismantling of their world of privilege, power, and self-congratulation.

The kingdom of God is for those who have ears to hear the clear and life-changing message of Jesus above all the self-exalting voices of this world.

Sowing the Word

1 Samuel 24:1-22; Acts 13:44-52; Mark 4:1-20

The Word of God will not always fall on fertile soil. The sower who sows the Word should be prepared for more disappointment than success, for there will be many who, for various reasons, will not receive it or, after having received it, will not come to the fullness of the faith before falling away.

As Paul and Barnabas went about sowing the Word, they found many who received it with joy, especially among the Gentiles. This, however, aroused jealousy among the Jews. In Antioch of Pisidia, Paul and Barnabas followed their regular pattern of going first tot he local synagogue and preaching to the Jews. When the Jews turned hostile toward them and the Gospel, they turned to the Gentiles, further infuriating the Jews who "incited the devout women of high standing and the leading men of the city, stirred up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and drove them out of the district."

Such a hostile reaction was common in those days. Paul and Barnabas would experience similar expressions of anger and jealousy throughout their travels. Along the way, however, there would be those who received their message with great joy in every town and, like the Gentiles in Antioch, would begin "rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord."

In every town, there were those who were "appointed to eternal life." Wherever the seed of the Gospel was planted, however, it would inevitably elicit a hostile reaction from detractors as it took root and began to grow.

Whenever the Word of God begins to effect transformation, its enemies will arise and try to snuff it out. The Word, however, is resilient. Once the seed is planted, it can only take root and grow. There may be more who reject it than receive it, but those who do receive it will do so with joy, and will quickly multiply.

Jesus and David: Mark's careful connections

1 Samuel 22:1-23; Acts 13:26-43; Mark 3:19b-35

The Gospel writers intentionally structure their accounts to parallel many events in the Old Testament. As Jesus is the long-awaited Messiah from the line of David, much of his life parallels that of David. When the Pharisees rebuked his disciples for plucking heads of grain on the Sabbath, Jesus invoked the memory of David eating the Bread of the Presence in the house of Abiathar the priest. In today's readings, we see a clear parallel between David and Jesus. David's family comes after him after he has feigned insanity in front of the Philistines. Jesus's family comes after him after he has begun attracting huge crowds, believing him to be "out of his mind."

Without a familiarity with the whole biblical story, it would be difficult to see the similarities in these two accounts. Mark, like all the Gospel writers, presents Jesus in such a way that his original readers will understand him to be the fulfillment of Israel's Messianic expectations. Although he did not stick around for the duration of Paul and Barnabas's first missionary journey, he no doubt was with them on occasions similar to the one in the synagogue in Antioch of Pisidia. There, Paul and Barnabas proclaimed Jesus as the Messiah by recounting the history of Israel and proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the long-awaited King from the line of David.

Unfortunately, Mark would be at the center of one of the first major disagreements in the church. Paul and Barnabas would eventually separate over a dispute concerning Mark's fitness to rejoin them on their missionary journeys. His failure to persevere during their first journey did not sit well with Paul. But there would eventually be reconciliation and Mark would go on to write his account of Jesus's life and ministry, taking great care to demonstrate the vital connection between Jesus and his great ancestor David, proving him to be the Messiah, just as his mentors int he faith had done.