Why Jesus Died

This season of the year is traditionally a time when Christians contemplate the message of the cross. That is what Jesus wanted his disciples to do. As he and his men made their way to Jerusalem, he gave them a prophecy of what would happen to him there. In fact, he repeatedly told them he was going to die and then be raised from the dead. And he told them why.

“‘We are going up to Jerusalem,’ he said, ‘and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will rise'” (Mark 10:33-34). This is the third preview of his death which Jesus gave his disciples which is recorded in Mark’s gospel.

One cannot help but notice the explicit detail: Jerusalem, religious leaders, Gentiles (Roman government and army), mocking, flogging, spitting, killing. These details are intended to drive home, to a group of men who were in a state of denial, the reality of what was about to happen.. Mark says they were astonished and afraid (v. 32).

Mark had introduced Jesus as the Son of God (Mark 1:1). But the title Jesus used most often was Son of Man. Why is this? Jesus’ hearers knew what he meant: he was claiming to be the Messiah, God’s anointed king.

The Lord Jesus was referring to the prophecy of Daniel 7:13-14 and applying it, without hesitation, to himself. According to the prophecy, the Son of Man will receive reverence belonging only to God. He will reign as a universal king, and all nations, peoples and languages will worship him.

In using this title for himself, Jesus was also identifying with the human race. Son of Man was a Hebrew idiom for humanity (Numbers 23:19). He is THE Son of Man, the representative man, the ideal human being. He identified himself with us in every way, except for sin.

Instead of asking for clarification or showing any interest at all in these momentous announcements, Jesus’ disciples persisted in denial and unbelief. They tried to change the subject to the power and prestige they associated with the kingdom (Mark10:35-41). In answer, the Lord Jesus contrasted their appetite for honor, security, and earthly power with his humble servanthood. “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve” (Mark 10:45).

He expected his disciples to follow him in humble service, not in ostentatious displays of power. “Whoever wants to be greatest among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all” (Mark 10:43-44).

D.L. Moody once said that the measure of a man is not how many servants he has, but how many people he serves. The word “servant” Jesus used for himself and his disciples, was the common word for a household slave. How many of Jesus’ 21st century  followers see themselves in this way? Someone has said that the test of whether a Christian has the attitude of a servant is how he acts if he is treated like one.

Then the Lord returned to the theme of death. His dying would be the payment of a ransom. “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). This is a further expansion of his predictions of his death and resurrection. It tells us the purpose for which he would die and rise from the dead.

“‘Ransom’ was a familiar idea in Jewish, Roman, and Greek cultures,” wrote Donald English. “It was the price paid to liberate a slave, a prisoner of war, or a condemned person. The paying of the price cleaned the slate. To set a person free like this was known as ‘redemption.'”

The rest of the New Testament develops this theme. In their letters, Peter and Paul, and other apostles use this terminology of the marketplace to describe the great redemption payment that was made as Jesus gave his life as a sacrifice for our sins (Titus 2:14, 1 Peter 1:18-19, Hebrews 9:12). The ransom was the price paid to secure freedom for the captive or the slave. Jesus’ ransom secures forgiveness and freedom from sin’s penalty for all those who believe in him.

During this season, as we prepare for Holy Week and Easter, let’s remember that Jesus paid the ransom so that we could be set free. He was judged so that we might be acquitted. He was forsaken, so that we might be accepted. He refused to save himself, so that we might be saved. He died so that we might live.

Pastor Randy Faulkner

Jesus Prophesied His Death

Jesus was a prophet. In fact he was the “prophet like me” whom Moses said would arise from among the people of Israel. God would put his words in the prophet’s mouth and the people were to listen to him. He would speak with the authority of God (Deuteronomy 18:15-19). Many who heard Jesus applied Moses’ words to him (John 5:46, 6:14, 7:40, Acts 3:22-24, 7:37).

As a prophet, Jesus foretold his own death and resurrection. This is one of the evidences for his divine nature. Mark’s gospel records three instances in which the Lord Jesus spoke plainly about what was going to happen when he went to Jerusalem. The second of these accounts reads as follows: “He was teaching his disciples, saying to them, ‘The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him. And when he is killed, after three days, he will rise'” (Mark 9:30-32 ESV).

Jesus had been in seclusion, outside of the borders of Israel (Mark 7:24, 8:27), trying not to draw a crowd. This was so he could spend time with his disciples in intense preparation for what was to come. Travelling incognito, they were now passing through Galilee on the way to Jerusalem (Mark 9:30, Luke 9:51). He was a peripatetic teacher, instructing the disciples continuously as they went along.

He was radically revising their preconceived understanding of what Messiah should be and do. Yes, the title “Son of Man” was indeed a reference to the messianic king they envisioned (Daniel 7:13-14). But what they did not yet understand was that before he would rule as messianic king, he must die for the sins of the world. The double reference to being killed implies a violent death at the hands of men.

He told the disciples he would be “delivered up” to be killed. This could refer to the betrayal by Judas, (reflected in the NIV translation). Or it could be interpreted as a reference to the Jewish officials handing him over to Pilate. Or of Pilate delivering him into the hands of the Roman soldiers for them to carry out the crucifixion.

We must not overlook the fact that the Holy Spirit inspired the apostle Peter later to preach that it was God himself who delivered up Jesus to die for sinners on the cross. He said that Jesus was “delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23 ESV). The apostle Paul agreed, writing that Jesus “was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification” (Romans 4:25 ESV). 

The disciples did not yet understand. The idea that Messiah could be killed in this way was unthinkable and repugnant. In fact they were overcome with grief (Matthew 17:22). They certainly did not comprehend the resurrection. As the prophet spoken of by Moses, Jesus predicted these events and he was preparing his disciples. This was divine foreknowledge.

There are skeptics who deny this. They say that Jesus the man could not possibly have foreseen the future. But to deny his ability to prophesy coming events is to deny the portrait we have of Jesus throughout the gospels. If he was the divine Son of God this would be consistent with his nature.

There are skeptics who call attention to the fact that Jesus never claimed to be divine in Mark’s gospel. They say that Mark emphasized Jesus’ humanity. True enough, on both counts. Even without an explicit claim to deity such as we find in the gospel of John, Mark seems to be saying, “Look at the evidence and draw your own conclusion.”

Jesus forgave people’s sins. His enemies spoke the truth when, shocked by this they said, “He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (Mark 2:5-7). He declared himself to be Lord of the Jewish sabbath (Mark 2:23-28). He raised the dead (Mark 5:35-41). Over and over he demonstrated his power over demons, diseases, and over the forces of nature. He accepted the worship of people. If he was not divine, this would indeed be blasphemy (Mark 11:9-10).

When the officials of Israel asked him directly, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” he answered, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Mark 14:61-62). So upon reading the description of Jesus in Mark, it it no great surprise to hear him foretelling the future in detail (Mark 13:1-36). He was indeed the prophet.

Mark’s purpose is evangelistic. He magnifies the message of the cross. His style is direct, unadorned, and vivid. His gospel is a witness, an invitation to his readers to believe in Jesus, the Son of God who died on the cross, knowing he was accomplishing God’s plan of salvation.

Pastor Randy Faulkner

 

What if I Had Been There?

What if I had been there? What if you had been there? What if we had heard his words? Would our response have been any different? Would we have understood? Would we have believed him?

“There” was an area about 25 miles north of the Sea of Galilee, near the city of Caesarea Philippi, at the base of Mount Hermon. Since the time of the ancient Canaanites the region had been  known as a center for pagan idolatry. Both the Greeks and the Romans had developed it as a center for the worship of their gods.

I have visited the ruins of this ancient site. I have seen the cave which housed a shrine dedicated to the worship of Baal, a Canaanite fertility god. I have  seen the niches carved in the rocky cliffside which once held statues of Greek and Roman deities.

Jesus was there with his disciples because he wanted to instruct them and prepare them more fully for what was coming. This was the training of the twelve for their further mission. They had withdrawn from the crowds in Galilee to have time together for this purpose.

It was in this milieu of spiritual darkness, that the apostle Peter made his great declaration that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. This is a shining witness in contrast to the dark superstition of the place. The Lord Jesus did not deny this statement of Peter’s. Rather he commended him for speaking the truth as it was revealed to him by God above (Matthew 16:16-17).

What happened next is what prompted my original question. Jesus startled his men by talking about his impending death. He told his disciples that, “The Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again” (Mark 8:31).

Jesus was specific and clear about how all this would occur. “He spoke plainly about this” (Mark 8:32). He said he would suffer. He foresaw the physical sufferings that were ahead. Then there were the emotional sufferings of his agonized prayers in the Garden of Gethsemane, hearing his countrymen screaming “crucify him,” the denial of Peter, the betrayal by Judas, and his own cry of ultimate dereliction: “My God, my God why have you forsaken me?”

He told them that the officials of the Jewish religion would officially and categorically reject their Messiah (the Son of Man, Daniel 7:13-14). He said that he would be subjected to a violent death. This would be followed by his resurrection after three days.

His words were a shocking disruption to their thinking. They had no categories by which to process what the Lord was saying to them. They simply didn’t understand. Peter filled the awkward silence with words of his own. He spoke for the other disciples and himself when he began to protest. The whole idea was inconceivable.

If Jesus was the Messiah, as Peter had just declared him to be, such an ignominious death did not match their ideas about what Messiah would be. The image of Messiahship Peter had in mind was more in line with Jewish nationalism and political power.

Jesus wheeled around and rebuked Peter sharply. “You do not have in mind the things of God but the things of men” (Mark 8:33). To understand how seriously wrong Peter was to contradict what Jesus had been saying, we have only to meditate on his words to Peter, “Get behind me Satan!”

Jesus wanted to revise the disciples’ understanding of what his Messiahship really meant: “The Son of Man must suffer . . . and be killed . . . and rise again.” This was inevitable  and necessary because it was God’s will and Jesus was determined to fulfill his Father’s will.

What if we had been there? Would our response have been any different than that of the disciples? Would we have understood? Would we have believed him?

The question is moot because from our historical perspective we have three advantages those disciples did not have at that time. We have the completed New Testament (which they wrote) to give us the full story. We have the church, the assembly of God’s people, to be a repository and declarer of the gospel. We have the Holy Spirit who has now been sent to every believer as an instructor and guide in the truth (John 7:39, 14:26).

By these means of grace we are now able to understand that this was the first of three previews of his coming death which are recorded in the gospel of Mark. Jesus was preparing his disciples for what was coming. In doing so he was giving them the gospel and laying the foundation for their future ministry to us.

Pastor Randy Faulkner

 

A Healing Puzzlement

Reading about the travels and earthly works of Jesus in the gospel of Mark has me puzzling over several details. Why did the Lord Jesus tell people not to spread the word about his healing miracles? Why did he heal comparatively few people when there were so many more who desired healing? Why did he compel his disciples to get into a boat to cross the Lake of Galilee when he knew perfectly well that a dangerous storm was brewing? What happened to the demons he cast out of people?

There are good answers to these questions, and some of them may be found in commentaries. But it is noteworthy that sometime the scholars skip right over the questions I would ask.

One such question occurred to me recently as I read Mark 7:33.  Jesus was asked to attend to the needs of a man who was deaf and speech-impaired. The verse says that Jesus took him aside. I get that. He was showing this disabled man that he had the Lord’s undivided attention. He cared about the individual.

Then the verse says he put his fingers into the man’s ears. Well, that makes sense too. The Lord was using physical touch to convey his awareness of where the problem lay and that he was doing something about it.

He sighed deeply. I don’t think this implies he had any difficulty healing the man. It shows that he was moved with compassion and empathy for the man’s predicament.

Then Jesus looked up toward heaven. This must have been a signal to the man that he was invoking the power of God. God had created this man and God knew about his problem. Jesus’ upward look was an indication to the patient that his help was from the Lord, who made heaven and earth.

Jesus spoke the healing word: “Ephphatha!” It was a command in the Aramaic language to the man’s senses to “to be opened!” Verse 34 says, “At this, the man’s ears were opened and his tongue was loosened and he began to speak plainly.” 

But there is another detail, one that I do not fully understand. (Apparently the scholars do not either because many of them prefer to leave it unmentioned.) We read that Jesus did a strange thing. “He spit and touched the man’s tongue.” Spit? What did this have to do with healing?

Any suggestion I might give is speculative. Did the Lord want to impart something from his human DNA? This physical manifestation certainly undermines the Gnostic denial of our Lord’s full humanity.

Was he demonstrating that he, and he alone, was the one doing the healing? This healing came only through him, by the power of God. He, the Lord Jesus, transferred spittle from his own tongue to the tongue of the speechless man. Did this physical gesture signify that a physical healing was about to happen?

Another possibility has been suggested. Spittle was considered in ancient times to have healing properties. Now the Lord was certainly not imitating the practices of Egyptian and Babylonian sorcerers! But could it be that he was so fully entering the man’s cultural context that he was willing to use a means that was not unexpected in that day and time, because it had meaning for the patient himself?

This is not the only time Jesus used spit in a healing. In Mark 8:23 he put his spittle on the eyes of a blind man as he healed him. In John 9:6 he made a paste with mud and spittle and applied it as a poultice to the eyes of a blind man. What seems strange and unfamiliar to us, may have been familiar to the people of Jesus’ day. I remain puzzled.

Of these facts I am more certain. Jesus really did heal the man. The circumstances of the healing reveal his compassion, his power, his willingness, and his humility. The story also reveals to us one more convincing evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah sent from God. The prophet Isaiah wrote about the coming of Messiah:

“Then will the eyes of the blind be opened and ears of the deaf unstopped. Then will the lame leap like a deer, and the mute tongue shout for joy” (Isaiah 35:5-6).

Pastor Randy Faulkner