A Ransom for Many | Mark 10:32-45
In Leviticus 16, which is the very heart of the Pentateuch, the instructions for the Day of Atonement were given. This was the only day that the high priest was allowed to enter into the most holy place, which contained the ark of the covenant, for it was the day where the high priest would make a sacrifice to atone for the sins of Israel. Indeed, one goat was slaughtered before the LORD on that day; however, another goat was sent into the wild. Just as the sacrificed goat was meant to be a substitution for the rightful death that Israel’s sin had earned, the other goat was meant to carry the sins of the Israelites away into the wilderness, never to be seen again. This is the origin of the term scapegoat. Being delivered into the hands of the Gentiles is a foretelling that Christ’s death would be the great atonement of which both goats were only signs and shadows. Jesus would not only shed His blood for the forgiveness of sins, but He would do so outside the covenantal community, into the Gentile wilderness.
And they were on the road, going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was walking ahead of them. And they were amazed, and those who followed were afraid. And taking the twelve again, he began to tell them what was to happen to him, saying, “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death and deliver him over to the Gentiles. And they will mock him and spit on him, and flog him and kill him. And after three days he will rise.”
And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came up to him and said to him, “Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you.” And he said to them, “What do you want me to do for you?” And they said to him, “Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory.” Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” And they said to him, “We are able.” And Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink you will drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized, but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.” And when the ten heard it, they began to be indignant at James and John. And Jesus called them to him and said to them, “You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Mark 10:32-45 ESV
The story of Elijah’s ascent to heaven has always intrigued me. Elijah clearly chose Elisha to be his successor because he knew that his prophetic ministry was coming to an end. And though we tend to think of Elijah’s direct trip to heaven via fiery chariots as being one of the most fascinating stories in the Bible, the whole account reads with a significant amount of heaviness. Elijah is going to be with the LORD, yes, but where will that leave Israel? Who is bold enough in the Spirit to call fire down from heaven to consume God’s adversaries?
Indeed, as they make the long journey, Elisha is greeted by prophets along the way, asking if he knows that his master is being taken from him. Elisha simply says, “yes, I know it; keep quiet” (2 Kings 2:3, 5). As Elijah crossed the Jordan and prepared to be taken up, he asked Elisha if he had one final request. “Please let there be a double portion of your spirit on me.” Elijah answered, “You have asked a hard thing; yet, if you see me as I am being taken from you, it shall be so for you, but if you do not see me, it shall not be so” (2 Kings 2:9-10).
Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem is marked by a far greater heaviness, for he was going not to be taken back to the Father but to be crushed by the Father. Although the prophets knew of Elijah’s departure, even the very wisest could not bring themselves to understand the plain plan that Jesus revealed to them. And in our text today, John and James make a request that seems reminiscent of Elisha’s so long before. Elisha’s request was granted so long as he had eyes to see Elijah’s departure, and while Jesus states that only the Father can grant the request that James and John desire, they will indeed become more like Him than they presently knew. Yes, they would reign with Him in His kingdom, but first they would share the cup of His suffering.
The Third Prediction // Verses 32-34
With this third prediction, Mark tells us explicitly for the first time that Jesus is going to Jerusalem. The Son of David, heir to that eternal throne, will be killed in the city from which He ought to rule. As He was walking, we read that the disciples followed behind in amazement, and those who walked behind the disciples were afraid. R. C. Sproul writes:
I believe Mark gives us this curious detail because of the resolute determination that the disciples saw in Jesus to go to His destiny. He had set His face like flint (Isa. 50:7) to go to Jerusalem, for He knew He was called to give Himself over to His enemies there, and He had taught his disciples what would happen to Him on more than one occasion (8:31-33; 9:30-32). Now, as He approached Jerusalem, Jesus did not linger. He moved quickly, keeping ahead of His disciples, going to His death with a firm step. Most of us, if we knew we were going to our deaths, would drag our feet. Not Jesus. He was prepared to obey the Father to the utmost end. The disciples could not get over it. They were amazed by His resolution and were terrified at what might befall Him at Jerusalem.[1]
Pulling the twelve aside a third time, Jesus gave them the most explicit and detailed foretelling yet:
See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death and deliver him over to the Gentiles. And they will mock him and spit on him, and flog him and kill him. And after three days he will rise.
While our eyes may be drawn to the details of mocking, spitting, and flogging, the disciples would have likely found the being delivered over to the Gentiles the most shocking portion to hear. I think that Sproul is right to see an allusion to the Day of Atonement here.
In Leviticus 16, which is the very heart of the Pentateuch, the instructions for the Day of Atonement were given. This was the only day that the high priest was allowed to enter into the most holy place, which contained the ark of the covenant, for it was the day where the high priest would make a sacrifice to atone for the sins of Israel. Indeed, one goat was slaughtered before the LORD on that day; however, another goat was sent into the wild. Just as the sacrificed goat was meant to be a substitution for the rightful death that Israel’s sin had earned, the other goat was meant to carry the sins of the Israelites away into the wilderness, never to be seen again. This is the origin of the term scapegoat.
The Bold Request of James & John // Verses 35-40
And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came up to him and said to him, “Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you.” Mark does not tell us whether this happened immediately after Jesus’ final prediction of His death and resurrection, but under the leading of the Spirit, he has clearly intended to set the request of James and John against that backdrop. What exactly was their request? Let us read it as well as Jesus’ reply.
And he said to them, “What do you want me to do for you?” And they said to him, “Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory.” Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” And they said to him, “We are able.” And Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink you will drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized, but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.”
Tim Keller summarizes this scene well:
To them, “in your glory” means “when you are seated on your throne,” in which case the people on the right and the left are like the prime minister and the chief of staff. John and James are saying, “When you take power, we would like the top places in your cabinet.” Here’s the irony of their request. What was Jesus’s moment of greatest glory? Where does Jesus most show forth the glory of God’s justice? And where does he reveal most profoundly the glory of God’s love? On the cross.
When Jesus is at the actual moment of his greatest glory, there will be somebody on the right and left, but they will be criminals being crucified. Jesus says to John and James: You have no idea what you’re asking.[2]
Christ’s triumphant and conquering glory will come through His horrific and brutal humiliation, through Him being delivered into the hands of the Gentiles to be mocked, spit on, and flogged. Notice the two images that Jesus uses to convey His imminent suffering: a cup and a baptism.
The cup is common image of God’s wrath within in the Old Testament.
-
The Dangerous Logic of Hate Crimes
Written by Carl R. Trueman |
Tuesday, April 16, 2024
The problem here is that today “reasonable” has no real content. Indeed, the legislation uses the adjective “reasonable” again and again as the essential criterion in judging whether an act or statement is a crime, but it offers no definition. That is surely a worrying lacuna. We should remember that this is a world where J.K. Rowling’s (to me perfectly reasonable) claim that we don’t need to talk about “people who menstruate” because we have the term “women” can be described by GLAAD as “dangerous.”Yesterday, April 1, Scotland’s Hate Crime and Public Order Act 2021 went into effect. The date may amuse some, but this new law is unlikely to prove very funny in the long run. It abolishes the common law offense of blasphemy, a law that has not been invoked in practice since the mid-19th century. At the same time, it consolidates previous laws dealing with, for example, expressions of racism, while extending their scope to include stirring up hate against someone or some group on the grounds of age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, and transgender identity.
Religious leaders, politicians, and lawyers pushed back against the legislation in 2021 and this version of the law is modified to include new protections. Indeed, the law makes clear that discussion of certain matters, including both religion and transgender identity, is protected.
But there is a problem here: Who decides what counts as hatred? I have always found the idea of hate crimes in general to be somewhat perplexing, especially when applied to acts of physical violence as a reason for escalating penalties.
Read More
Related Posts: -
An Alternative to Winsomeness
The irony is that it is only when our virtue is recognized as commendable by unbelievers that we stand to win them to our faith or compel them to regard us favorably. Aspiring to be winsome will not likely gain their approval or conversion; but demonstrated virtue sometimes does. That being so, why not strive for virtue, which is pleasing to God (2 Pet. 1:11) and good for our fellow man, and lay aside all concern about being regarded as winsome?
For some time now many among us have been extolling winsomeness as a trait to which we should all aspire. It is an understandable effort, as many in the Reformed world have a tendency to be contentious and ungracious. But winsomeness is not the proper response to their incivility; indeed, I daresay that what is needed in many cases is a dose of blunt rebuke. The problem with winsomeness, as I have tried to show elsewhere (here and here), is that it is not a scriptural concept but a cultural one, the state of being perceived by others as charming, likable, and pleasant. No one who is faithful in emulating Christ and declaring his truth is likely to be perceived as winsome by the world – in his words, “you will be hated by all nations for my name’s sake” (Matt. 24:9) – and the danger is that we will compromise our message in the probably vain hope of being perceived as winsome by unbelievers.
There is an alternative ideal to which we might aspire, however, and unlike winsomeness it is reliably within our power to achieve. In addressing the conflict-troubled church at Philipi Paul instructs his audience about a way of living that is pleasing to God:
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. (Phil. 4:8, ESV)
Peter does similarly in his second epistle:
His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire. For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. (2 Pet. 1:3-7, ESV)
In each case several desirable traits are presented. In the interests of simplicity I shall sum them up with the term virtue. This is the word that many English translations use for the Greek ἀρετῇ/ἀρετήν (areté/aretén) in 2 Pet. 1:5, but it has a variety of meanings, and I use it here in its widest, most general sense to mean simply moral excellence. That broad category includes within it the various particulars mentioned by both Peter and Paul: virtue is the general principle and disposition of character that issues as such particular traits as purity and godliness.
The virtuous person is the one who has this principle of moral excellence implanted in his or her person, and who thinks, speaks, and acts in light of it. As the wicked and foolish act in accord with their basic natures (Prov. 10:14; Isa. 32:6), so also do the virtuous and the wise (Prov. 10:23; 14:5). It is this fact of having a basic character disposition and acting in light of it that is presupposed by verses such as Rev. 22:11 (“Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy.”)
Virtue has its source in God, for it is he “who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil. 2:11). It arises because of our new nature in Christ. Having been born again (1 Jn. 2:29), we have a new life that is hostile to sin and which is characterized by the fear of the Lord (Eph. 4:17-24). This life is marked by union with Christ (2 Cor. 5:15; Gal. 2:20) and guidance by the Spirit (Rom. 8:1-17), and while it can never be lost or extinguished (Eph. 1:13-14; 4:30), like our physical life it needs to be diligently guarded and nourished (2 Tim. 1:6-7, 14). It is because it can be developed and strengthened that Paul and Peter tell us to do so in the passages above.
Virtue is present also in the lives of many unbelievers. Experience attests that some of them attain to a high degree of moral uprightness. Yet there is a difference in that in believers virtue arises because of God’s saving grace that has been manifested in their new birth and sanctification (2 Cor. 5:17; 1 Pet. 1:3-5, 23), while in unbelievers virtue is a result of God’s common grace. Where believers attain to a righteousness that is well-pleasing to God because they have been justified (Rom 3:22-28; 5:1) and their good works are God’s work within them (Eph. 2:10), the unbeliever attains to a merely civil righteousness. His uprightness is frequently marred by self-interest (such as the desire for praise) or is counteracted by other faults. Cicero’s honesty and courage are undermined by his arrogance; Cato’s opposition to the power hungry by his suicide at the end of the Roman Republic. God in his providence has been pleased to use virtue among unbelievers to restrain evil from fully dominating human affairs (as happened before the flood, Gen. 6:5), but their virtue does not reconcile them to God, nor release them from sin’s dominion (Rom. 3:9-19). Only faith in Christ suffices to do that (Gal. 5:5-6; Heb. 11:6).
There is a curious practical consequence of God causing virtue in unbelievers. It creates a state of affairs in which, because virtue is esteemed, the virtue of believers may impress unbelievers and commend our faith to them. This is far from certain or automatic, but it is a real possibility to which experience attests and which forms the basis of some of scripture’s practical injunctions (Matt. 5:16; Titus 2:7-8; 1 Pet. 2:12, 15; 3:1-2, 16). The irony is that it is only when our virtue is recognized as commendable by unbelievers that we stand to win them to our faith or compel them to regard us favorably. Aspiring to be winsome will not likely gain their approval or conversion; but demonstrated virtue sometimes does. That being so, why not strive for virtue, which is pleasing to God (2 Pet. 1:11) and good for our fellow man, and lay aside all concern about being regarded as winsome?
Tom Hervey is a member of Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Simpsonville, S.C.Related Posts:
-
Before the Son of Man Comes (Matthew 10:23)
This passage belongs to the coming of the kingdom, but it is emphasizing a certain aspect of this kingdom that comes in various stages. And part of this kingdom is judgment, particularly judgment upon Jerusalem and the nation of Israel. In light of this, the most plausible understanding of this passage is that it is a reference to Jesus coming in a form of judgment upon Israel—specifically in AD 70. Jesus repeatedly foretold the judgment that would befall Israel in the Gospel of Matthew (21:1-22; 21:28–22:14; 23:29-36; 23:37–24:1),[21] and it seems that this fits that theme. Jesus is referring to the fact that He would come and bring destruction upon the nation that rejected Him.
One of the more challenging passages in the New Testament is Matthew 10:23, where Jesus tells His disciples:
When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes. (ESV)
This verse is rooted in the context of Jesus sending out the twelve. So the question arises—to what time was Jesus referring? There have been a variety of exegetical conclusions made about this passage, and the purpose of this article will be to look at the different understandings and provide our own analysis of the text.
Contextual Background
Matthew 10:23 places us in the middle of Jesus’ Galilean ministry. In the beginning of chapter 10, Jesus commissions the twelve disciples and sends them out by twos to minister without Him. They are given instructions not to go outside of Galilee or the Jewish people (Matthew 10:5-6).[1] The purpose for the restriction to only the Jewish people, the “house of Israel” (οἶκου Ἰσραήλ), seems to be redemptive-historical.[2] Jesus limited the disciples’ mission for a time, but He Himself went deliberately to the Gentile areas in order to prepare His disciples for their later universal mission.[3]
The content of the disciples’ message was the proclamation of the kingdom of heaven by which they would call men to repentance and confirm their message by various signs and wonders (Matthew 10:8). They were to be supported by those to whom they ministered, and they were not required to bring additional provisions for their journey. Jesus instructed them to bless the houses that welcomed them but to shake the dust off their feet when they were rejected. Those who would reject them were unworthy of the gospel of the kingdom, and the disciples did not have to cast their pearls before such swine.[4]
In Matthew 10:16-23, Jesus expands His discussion not only to the immediate mission, but to the universal mission of the church. In this text, He prophetically warns His followers of the severe opposition and rejection they will face. They will be delivered over to the courts, flogged in the synagogues, and dragged before governors and kings to bear “witness before them and the Gentiles” (10:18). These prophetic warnings were amply fulfilled in sacred church history (Acts 4:1-22; 5:17-41; 6:12-8:3; 12:1-19; 16:19-40; 21:27-28:31), as well as later church history. Jesus encouraged the disciples to not worry in those times because He would give them the Holy Spirit who would speak through them. They would not be left without a comforter and guide. The Spirit of God would empower them to proclaim the gospel boldly. Jesus’ discussion on division within families (Matthew 10:21-22) describes a scene where things get progressively worse, where followers of Christ will be pressured from all sides to deny the Christ. And it is here in this immediate context that we come upon this peculiar text where Jesus tells his disciples that they will not finish going through the towns of Israel until He comes (10:23).
Different Interpretations of Matthew 10:23
In his commentary on Matthew, D. A. Carson lists at least seven different interpretations of this passage. It is not our purpose here to interact with all of them but to briefly survey some of the most popular views.
First, there are some who have advocated that Jesus is simply telling the disciples that they would not go through all of the cities until He came back to them. In other words, Jesus was referring to the moment that He would rejoin them after the immediate mission.[5] However, this view is problematic at least for two reasons. First, although Jesus discusses the immediate mission of the disciples in 10:6-15, verses 16-22 discuss a broader scope of mission. These verses include persecution and other themes that suggest a time beyond the immediate mission of the twelve. To place verse 23 back into the discussion of the immediate mission is to misplace it contextually. Second, to follow this line of reasoning (that verse 23 is a reference to Jesus’ rejoining the disciples after the immediate mission), then it is hard to see how verses 16-22 of chapter 10 are fulfilled. There is little, if any, evidence to suggest that the disciples faced extreme persecution during that mission.[6] The flow of the context, and the fact that no indication of persecution took place during this time, renders this view unlikely.
Second, others have interpreted this “coming of the Son of Man” as a reference to Jesus’ public identification as the Messiah at the resurrection. John Calvin connected Jesus’ coming to His aiding the disciples in their mission to Judea by the power of the Holy Spirit.[7] It is true that Jesus does discuss His “coming” through the work and power of the Holy Spirit—particularly in the Gospel of John (see John 14:18; 16:16, 22). However, this view does not seem to be the best interpretation. It does consider the persecution to some degree, but it fails to address the urgency in the text—“truly I say to you” (ἀμήν γάρ λέγω). In addition, the Holy Spirit came upon the disciples at Pentecost, which occurred before much of the persecution of the disciples took place—effectively arguing for the opposite of what Matthew 10:23 says, that persecution would come first and then the Son of Man would come. Finally, it is important to note that the person of the Holy Spirit is not a major theme in the Gospel of Matthew, thus making this interpretation less likely to be correct.[8]
A third and prominent view of this passage is to look at it from a future eschatological perspective, so that in some way Jesus was referring to His second coming. Some advocates would actually see a double fulfillment, in that Jesus was speaking in a form of prophetic shorthand. There is certainly some warrant for this interpretation because we have numerous examples in the Old Testament prophets of this kind of prophecy.[9] However, just because there are examples of double fulfillment does not mean that every passage in question must be viewed in this way. It is difficult to infer that this is the case here. For one thing, Jesus is speaking to the disciples and their experience when they are enduring persecution.
Read More
Related Posts:
