Sun Oct 18th, thoughts going in...

Mark 10:35-45

Jesus has several problems on his hand. The first seems to be that NOBODY seems to be listening. In the narrative, this passage follows immediately after a passion prediction. Vs 33 says: “When we get to Jerusalem,” he told them, “the Son of Man will be betrayed to the leading priests and the teachers of religious law. They will sentence him to die and hand him over to the Romans. 34 They will mock him, spit on him, beat him with their whips, and kill him, but after three days he will rise again.”

No sooner does he finish saying that, and in the story we read:
35 Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came over and spoke to him. “Teacher,” they said, “we want you to do us a favor.”

Did they miss that whole suffer & die part? Or maybe they caught it, but rushed right past it because they thought that "rising again" might be a metaphor for the inauguration of the earthly Messianic kingdom.

Of course there's nothing new/different/strange in their request. The cultural milieu of the day was based on 'patronage.' Patrons--people with power, authority, wealth, influence, assured themselves of loyal followers through the issuance of favors. Likewise, those seeking to raise their status in life showed 'initiative' by seeking such patronage. James & John were using the accepted means of the day for "getting ahead" in life. When vs 41 reports that the other 10 disciples were "indignant," there's at least half a chance that their feelings arise from jealousy that THEY hadn't thought to ask for this themselves!

It causes one to pause and reflect concerning just what their EXPECTATIONS must have been at this juncture. They're on the way to Jerusalem, the seat of power and authority in the Jewish world. Their own numbers are few, but they're following a mighty prophet, a sage, a holy man, a combination of Moses, Elijah, and maybe a little King David all rolled into one. No doubt they expect a battle, even an ostensibly lop-sided battle, but it also seems clear that they expect some sort of Divine assistance--for the outcome they envision is a glorious victory for their side.

Ironically, the Gospels all portray the cross as a "glorious victory" but never in the sense in which the Disciples are thinking before the fact.

Regardless, with the request of James and John Jesus now has another problem on his hands, he has the outbreak of factionalism within his group. It's like having a bunch of kids who all want to be quarterback, and nobody wants to block. Instead of wasting a lot of time telling each of them that they have specific talents etc. etc., he points to HIMSELF. He re-centers their thinking on the sort of leader HE IS. He says that he came not to be served, but to serve, and that this is the definition of leadership in HIS GROUP.

Application questions for us to consider:

1. Are we still plagued with the problem of "selective hearing" in the church? And isn't there a certain balance that needs to be sought? After all, we want our children to learn to pray and we want them to trust that God hears their prayers, and yet so much of the Christian faith is wrapped up in learning how to cope when God seemingly doesn't answer our prayers, or answers with a resounding "no." So what are we supposed to 'hear?' Are we supposed to hear that God is for us, on our side, protecting us, helping us.....(all of which sounds good & glorious).....or are we supposed to hear that the road of faith leads through valleys of the shadow of death; through cross after cross; through apparent abandonment from God?

2. Does this text distinguish between life in general and life in the Kingdom of God's grace? As a parent I hope my children are successful in life and I would like to encourage them to pray that God would bless their efforts. Jesus clearly defines success in terms of servanthood. Is he speaking only within the context of the Church? Or is there perhaps a melding of ideas here.....that within a distinctively christian ethos the greatest "successes" are those who undertake careers/professions that are helping/service oriented. There is certainly a great tradition for this thinking in the history of the church.

3. How and in what way in vs 45 does Jesus give his life as a "ransom for many?" Bruce Malina brings out: "Why would anyone take one person as a 'ransom' for others? It would happen only if the person being accepted as ransom were of higher honor status than those being set free....for example, in ransom value, a king, although a single person, is worth a whole kingdom of other individuals even millions of persons." That sentiment alone says a lot as to the royal status of Jesus, but a nagging question is just WHO or WHAT is holding the people captive in the first place? To whom/what does Jesus offer his life as ransom? This question has plagued theologians down through the centuries, with answers going something like this:
(a) Jesus offers his life as ransom to the Heavenly Father. Specifically, it is the Father's unyielding sense of holiness that is offended by humanity's sin, and this holiness demands satisfaction. Jesus, the perfect/sinless one, is uniquely able to offer himself as ransom.
(b) Jesus offers his life as ransom to the Law. This is roughly the same idea as option A, the only difference that it de-personalizes the 'captor.' Instead of it being God, it's God's Law.....the law that demands perfection/holiness, but "all have sinned".....so all are to some degree held captive by the law's demands (death).
(c) Jesus offers his life as a ransom to the Devil. This theory has the benefit of removing God from the equation, (it's easy for God to come off sounding like a wicked tyrant in options a & b), yet at the same time this option also unduly elevates the Devil to near-divine status--as if God, backed into a corner, now has no other choice than to sacrifice his own son to placate the Devil.
In the end, each of these theories has weaknesses and there is no perfect explanation.
As others have suggested, perhaps instead of concentrating on the WHO behind the ransom, we should concentrate on the HOW. In many ways, we could say that Jesus voluntarily becomes the world's greatest/biggest "scapegoat" (2cor 5:21). In this sense, the 'ransom' is that Jesus goes into "captivity" as the ultimate scapegoat, while we go free. He agrees to take the blame. Whose fault is it that there is genocide? Whose fault is it that there is corporate greed? Whose fault is it that there are wars, injustices, hatred, and intolerance? IT'S JESUS' FAULT. No, not really, ......but he's agreed to take the blame for it all.....he wants to be blamed for it all.....and YEP....we punished him for it, when we drove those nails into his hands & feet.

That means 2 things: (1) We're free to stop holding the sins & weaknesses of others against them (just as we hope they stop holding our sins/weaknesses against us). The idea behind the old revival hymn "Jesus paid it all" applies here. He paid it **ALL**. Even though it shatters our sense of justice/blame, that means the greatest sinner in the world is forgiven. In Mark 10:45 language, the greatest sinner in the world has been REPLACED BY/WITH JESUS. (2) When we fall back into our old cycle of blame/grudge-holding, what we're actually doing is trying to un-ransom Jesus with someone else. We're saying that ether Jesus isn't qualified to stand in place of others, or his offer/sacrifice isn't "good enough."

Hmmmmm, think about that one!


cheers,

TM