In the Background
Commentary
Perhaps you have someone in your family or friend group who is fond of photobombing. You know the drill. Someone is trying to take a picture of someone else, and a playful, uninvited third party suddenly pops into the frame. You probably catch it at the time. But if the photobomber was clever, then you may not notice him or her until you go back and look at the picture, only to discover the extra person there in the background.
The three passages assigned to us this week have something of a photobomber. In this case, however, it’s not playful. It’s more sinister and diabolical.
The Deuteronomy passage offers us a picture of a promised prophet, and his role among God’s people. The 1 Corinthians passage offers a picture of a congregation struggling with a certain kind of ethical issue. And the Mark passage offers a picture of Jesus and his authority. Yet lurking in the background of each picture, there is the enemy.
In Deuteronomy, Moses is expressing to the people of his generation the divine guarantee that God will provide another prophet, like him, to be God’s mouthpiece in their midst. It’s a good promise and a lovely hope. Yet in that otherwise promising scene, we have this unhappy caveat: “But any prophet who speaks in the name of other gods...”
In 1 Corinthians, Paul is eager that the prevailing wind should be love. From first to last — from God’s love for us in Christ to our lived-out love for one another — Paul’s theology and ethics are love. Yet the presenting issue at this moment is the worship of idols. Once again, you see, the specter of other gods.
And then, in Mark, the central figure is rightly Jesus. Mark is eager for us to see and to recognize his authority. Yet one of the contexts in which that authority is demonstrated is in his prerogative to command demons.
In a sense, of course, this pattern is evident from the very beginning of scripture. Genesis paints a picture for us that is manifestly good, and yet... lurking in the background, seeking to ruin the picture, there is the serpent. And the character who inserts himself into Eden also intrudes into each of the pictures presented to us in this week’s lections.
Deuteronomy 18:15-20
I wonder how much of an introduction to the very notion of “prophet” and “prophecy” in scripture many of our people may need? In the vernacular of our day, “prophet” is jocularly ascribed to anyone who manages to guess correctly some occurrence prior to its happening. But in most circles, both secular and sacred, “prophet” is not taken seriously as a present reality of God’s work. And, in my experience, what folks dismiss in the present they tend also to discount in the past.
Yet prophets and prophecy are major themes throughout the pages of Scripture. Major figures from Moses to Nathan to Elijah to Isaiah to Ezekiel are all identified as prophets. In the Hebrew Bible’s conception of our Old Testament, a surprising percentage of the books are identified as “prophets.” Books that people today tend to label as “history” books (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings) are known instead as the “former prophets.” And the significant volume of material running from Isaiah through Malachi (minus Lamentations and Daniel) are known as the “latter prophets.”
When we get to the New Testament, the crowds that take seriously both John the Baptist and Jesus call them prophets. The daughters of Philip are heralded as prophetesses. And the Apostle Paul lists prophets prominently (just after apostles) in his hierarchy of gifted roles within the body of Christ.
It is in that large context, then, that our people need to hear Moses’ words to the people of his day. “Prophet” was a serious business. Indeed, as the Old Testament story unfolds, we could make the case that the prophet was the highest-ranking position in Israel, inasmuch as prophets are authorized by God to correct both kings and priests.
Meanwhile, the Book of Deuteronomy is presented to us as a compendium of Moses’ farewell words to the children of Israel before his death and before they cross over into the Promised Land under their new leader, Joshua. The prospect of losing Moses’ presence and leadership, therefore, must have been prominent on the minds of the people. And so Moses assures them that “God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people.”
As we move through the passage, we see the necessity of a prophet. Moses recalls the occasion at Sinai when the expressed attitude of the people: “If I hear the voice of the LORD my God any more, or ever again see this great fire, I will die.” The people knew that they needed to hear from God, yet they wanted Moses to act as a go-between, for they were overwhelmed by the prospect of encountering God more directly.
Typically, of course, we would think of the priest as the go-between figure in so many cultural conceptions of people’s relationship with God. Yet the context referenced in Deuteronomy 18 is somewhat more specific. The issue at hand is how God will speak to his people. At Sinai, the people demonstrated that they were overawed by the Lord speaking to them directly. And so the prophet serves as the divine mouthpiece. “I will put my words in the mouth of the prophet,” the Lord explains, and he “shall speak to (the people) everything that I command.”
As the agent of God’s word, then, the presence and pronouncements of the prophet become the point of judgment for the people. How they respond to the prophet, you see, becomes a proxy for how they respond to God. And they will be judged accordingly.
Meanwhile, the prophet himself or herself also faces a sober accountability. Reminiscent of James’ cautionary word: “Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.” (James 3:1 NIV) So it is that the prophet who misrepresents God by his or her words “— that prophet shall die.”
Inasmuch as the passage from Deuteronomy makes reference to “any prophet,” we may take the scope of the promises, warnings, and applications to be rather broad. Nevertheless, the comparatively narrow sound of Moses’ words earlier in the passage — “God will raise up for you a prophet” — gave rise to an expectation of one particular prophet. And we see evidence of this singular expectation in the New Testament with reference to both John the Baptist (John 1:21-25) and Jesus (John 7:40).
1 Corinthians 8:1-13
If “prophet” and “prophecy” require some introduction, how much more the theme of food offered to idols! But even before that, our people may profit from hearing a little introduction to the larger context. Let us begin, therefore, with a brief word about the first letter of Paul to the Corinthians.
Early in the letter, Paul writes, “I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe's people...” (1 Corinthians 1:11 NASB) We don’t know precisely who Chloe or her people were, but we surmise that some representatives from the Corinthian church had visited Paul with personal reports about what was happening in their church back home. Chloe’s people, therefore, may also account for Paul saying, “It is actually reported...” (1 Corinthians 5:1 NASB) and “I hear that...” (1 Corinthians 11:18 NASB).
Meanwhile, Paul begins chapter 7 saying, “Now concerning the things about which you wrote...” (1 Corinthians 7:1 NASB). That suggests that, in addition to a report, he has also received a letter from the Corinthian church. And four additional times in 1 Corinthians, Paul begins a section with the expression “Now concerning” (7:25, 8:1, 12:1, 16:1). It seems as though Paul has before him a list of subjects he wants to cover with these people. He is systematically working his way through the things he has heard about them and heard from them. He is addressing their problems and answering their questions. And at least one of their questions involves this issue of food offered to idols. “Now concerning food sacrificed to idols...”
While it seems that Jerusalem and the land of Palestine itself were mostly kept free of idolatrous worship during the New Testament era, the Jews and Christians who were spread out across the larger Mediterranean world were surrounded by pagan altars, shrines, temples, and idols. We get a glimpse of that especially during Paul’s visit to Athens, for example (see Acts 17:16, 22-23). The Jews had permission to be Jews in the Roman Empire, and although there was a prohibition on new religions, Christians may have been regarded as a sect of Judaism during the early years. It was entirely possible, therefore, for those earnest monotheists to steer clear of pagan worship themselves. What could not be so easily avoided, however, was the meat that was produced by that pagan worship.
Just as not all animals offered on the altar in the temple were entirely burned, but rather generated meat for the worshippers and/or priests, the animals sacrificed on pagan altars also generated meat to be eaten. That meat was not necessarily all consumed, however, at the place of worship. Some of it was retained by the people who had offered it. Some of it was made available through local butchers.
The ethical crisis for Jews and Christians, then, was whether it was acceptable to dine on meat that had been used in the worship of some idol. And, if not, what measures should an individual take to ensure that he or she was not eating such meat? When a guest in someone else’s home, for example, should you inquire about the source of the meat being provided?
It’s clear from Paul’s treatment of the issue in our selected passage that not all earnest people were of the same mind on this issue. Some argued that a Christian should have nothing to do with anything connected to pagan worship. To eat such meat was a sort of vicarious participation in idolatry, and as such it should be religiously avoided. Others argued, however, that idols are nothing, and therefore they can add nothing to or take nothing from the meat. It was a non-issue because the idols were non-entities.
While all of this seems quite distant and foreign to a 21st-century American audience, the chapter is really quite helpful. For while we no longer wrestle with what to do with meat offered to idols, American Christians are divided over a variety of other issues — behaviors and circumstances where one group says, “A follower of Christ should have nothing to do with that,” while another group argues that there is no wrong in it, at all. And so, while the particulars of the Corinthians’ problem are unrelated to us, Paul’s method for dealing with that type of controversial issue is very relevant to our day.
Paul shares with the Christians in Corinth a helpful line of reasoning about knowledge, freedom, and different kinds of consciences. But the bottom line conclusion — appropriate to the letter that contains what we refer to as “the love chapter” — is that our guiding principle and rationale in such matters must be love. “Therefore, if food is a cause of their falling,” Paul concludes, “I will never eat meat, so that I may not cause one of them to fall.”
This is a difficult word for us to receive — or, at any rate, a difficult one for us to implement when the rubber meets the road. Our natural impulse in controversy, after all, is to insist and to prove that we’re right. We are prone to think that being correct is the final word on the matter. And we may fall into the trap of being content in our correctness, dismissive of how it impacts our brothers and sisters in Christ.
Paul, however, invites us to something higher than just being right. Reminiscent of his earlier word to the Corinthians about their internal lawsuits — “The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?” (1 Corinthians 6:7 NIV) — Paul encourages them to sacrifice being arguably “in the right” for the sake of being loving. And while the question of meat offered to idols is a million miles removed from us, the question of how to handle debates within the church surely is not.
Mark 1:21-28
Mark moves faster than Matthew or Luke. He is already telling us stories in his first chapter that his synoptic partners do not reach until much later. In the case of this particular episode, Luke records his version in chapter 4.
Throughout the synoptics, we discover that Capernaum is a center of activity for Jesus’ Galilean ministry. And the themes of his activity on the sabbath and in the synagogue are also not limited to this pericope. And so it is that we read here in Mark 1 of Jesus teaching and healing in the Capernaum synagogue on the sabbath.
Within the selected passage itself, we observe three or four “characters.” Jesus is the central figure. Then there is the synagogue crowd. And, finally, there is the demon-possessed man — though it’s hard to tell who is the character with whom we are actually dealing. On the one hand, Jesus heals the man, on the other hand, he speaks to the demons.
The crowd is characterized by amazement. First, “they were astounded at his teaching.” And later, after the healing, “they were all amazed.” One can imagine the looks being exchanged as Jesus teaches. Friends catch each other’s eyes and mouth “Wow” to one another. And, after the healing, we envision the mouths hanging open, as folks struggle to come to terms with what they have just witnessed.
The songwriter exclaimed, “I stand amazed in the presence of Jesus the Nazarene.” (Charles H. Gabriel, “I Stand Amazed In The Presence,” UMH #371) Indeed! And that singer is just one member of an enormous crowd that stretches back through the centuries to that Capernaum synagogue. Indeed, it stretches back still further, all the way to the manger and Bethlehem, where shepherds and magi were likewise amazed.
We don’t get much sense for the man who was healed. What we can surmise about him is that he was a genuinely tortured soul, for the demonic voice that spoke through him spoke in the first-person plural: “What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us?” The implication is that the man was beset by some number of demons.
Those demons, meanwhile, offer a sort of unwelcome witness. They know that Jesus is “the Holy One of God.” It is a somber reminder that the demons do not lack a knowledge of the truth. So it is that James remarks, “You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder” (James 2:19 NIV). And we are reminded, likewise, of Paul’s affirmation that “at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Philippians 2:10-11 NIV). The acknowledgement of Jesus, you see, will be universal, not merely a minority declaration by the believers.
In the end, of course, the gospel writers do not report these stories with the primary purpose of telling us about the crowds or the demons or even about the individuals who are healed by Jesus. No, the gospel writers pass along these stories to tell us about Jesus. And taken all together in this case, the teaching, the healing, the crowd, the man, and the demons all reveal the authority of Jesus.
Authority is a prominent theme in Mark’s gospel, with the word occurring ten times in Mark’s sixteen chapters. More importantly, though, authority is an essential truth to apprehend when considering the person and work of Christ. And this, of course, is what makes the theme important to Mark.
In our selected passage, the crowds observe that Jesus “taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.” The common practice was to teach by citing authorities. Jesus’ teaching, though, was not predicated on citing other authorities, but “as one having authority.”
And what the crowds perceived in Jesus’ teaching became apparent in Jesus’ actions. His ability to command demons is a certain proof of his authority, for authority in almost any situation is demonstrated by words. The person who moves a sofa by picking it up and carrying it moves it by his strength. The person who moves it by hiring a moving company moves it by his money. But the person who says to the sofa, “Move,” and it moves, moves it by his authority. He demonstrates that he has authority over the sofa.
We expect to see authority in operation in certain kinds of settings and relationships; teacher and student, parent and child, coach and player, officer and enlisted personnel, employer and employee. Authority does not surprise us in those settings. Authority over a sofa, on the other hand, would surprise us. And so it was that the people in the synagogue that day were surprised to see that Jesus had authority over demons — that he was able to move them with his word.
Application
Gregory of Nyssa, a fourth-century bishop and saint, made a direct connection between idols and demons. “Who does not know,” he wrote, “that the deceit of demons filled every corner of the world and held sway over human life by the madness of idolatry?”1 Indeed, it is a connection made by both Moses and Paul in books from which our passages are taken. From later in Deuteronomy than our selected text, Moses said that the people had made God “jealous with their foreign gods and angered him with their detestable idols. They sacrificed to demons, which are not God— gods they had not known, gods that recently appeared, gods your fathers did not fear” (Deuteronomy 32:16 NIV). And, similarly, a few chapters later than our excerpt from 1 Corinthians, Paul wrote, “What do I mean then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons” (1 Corinthians 10:19-20 NASB).
This unpleasant theme, then, becomes a common strain that runs through all three of our passages this week. Other gods are alluded to in the Deuteronomy excerpt; idols are at issue in the 1 Corinthians passage; and demons factor into the story from Mark. But what shall we say to a 21st-century audience about such ancient concerns as other gods, idols, and demons?
First, while some percentage of our population is likely to be dismissive of all three of these concerns, minimizing them as primitive superstitions, I would hasten to observe that the Bible takes all of these things seriously. Does that make the Bible a prisoner of its ancient context? It’s an arguable point. But I am reminded of the fact that, when Jesus’ disciples proposed their primitive misunderstanding of how a man was born blind, Jesus was quick to correct it (see John 9:1-3). In other words, Jesus did not cater to prevailing untruths, yet his words and actions clearly confirm the existence of demons.
Second, we should note that the people who were worshipping other gods and sacrificing to idols were not consciously serving demons. Demon worship was not their conscious and deliberate intent. Yet Moses and Paul suggest it was their de facto practice. The demons, you see, were in the background. They insinuated themselves and their influence into people’s lives without those people being aware of it.
Consequently, the Mark episode stands in contrast to the other two passages. In Mark, the demons are more high-profile — everyone in the story knows and recognizes that the poor soul whom Jesus healed had been demon-possessed. In the references to other gods and idols, however, the presence and influence of demons was perhaps undetected by most.
And that brings us to the sober message for our day. If we take Jesus at his word, then demons are part of the reality of our fallen world. And if we regard scripture as a reliable guide, then we should recognize the likelihood that demons are “in the background.” Perhaps in some lives, their torturous, destructive behavior is manifest in a high-profile way. But more commonly — and more diabolically — they are likely behind-the-scenes in the practices and habits of people who would never consciously choose to be engaged with demonic forces.
Is there good news in the midst of all of this dark talk? Certainly, for the Lord does not leave his people in the dark! His prophets and apostles lead us into truth. And the Christ, to whom we belong, has authority over the very fiends that would deceive and trap and destroy us.
Alternative Application(s)
Deuteronomy 18:15-20 — “Carrier in Contempt”
I feel less related to our mail carrier today than I did when I was a child. Our current situation features a neighborhood where the mailboxes are at the end of the driveways, and so the mail carrier just drives down the road, and we rarely see her face except for behind the windshield. When I was a boy, however, our mailbox was near our front door, and so the mail carrier walked right up to the house each day. And that pedestrian approach meant that we often crossed paths and exchanged pleasantries.
So let us imagine a setting in which the mail carrier is familiar, but disliked. Here is a resident on his route who feels a real disdain for the postal worker. So much so that one day the homeowner rejects the mail carrier altogether. He prohibits him from even coming onto his property, and refuses to take any of the items that the carrier is scheduled to deliver.
The hypothetical is ridiculous, of course, but it serves to illustrate an important principle. Imagine what crucial messages or even valuable pieces of mail that the resident might miss simply because he refuses to take anything that the carrier brings. It demonstrates the possible risk involved with rejecting a messenger.
In the Lord’s word to the people of Moses’ day, he warns, “Anyone who does not heed the words that the prophet shall speak in my name, I myself will hold accountable.” The words that the prophet speaks in the Lord’s name, you see, are understood to be a message from the Lord himself. And if people don’t take delivery on a message simply because they reject the messenger, they do so at their own expense.
This is, of course, part of some larger themes in scripture. We know, for example, that the Lord’s manifest preference is to use human beings as instruments of his work. Accordingly, he uses human spokespersons again and again. Additionally, we are reminded of the theme of responsibility for the message one has heard (e.g., Ezekiel 3:17-19). And, finally, the obligation to heed the Lord’s messenger recalls the theme of agency that we see at numerous places in scripture (e.g., Matthew 10:40-42).
Taken all together, then, the mandate is clear. The carrier who has been sent by the Lord brings messages from him. And that, in turn, dictates how people ought to respond to the carrier.
1 Gregory of Nyssa, Address on Religion Instruction 18, quoted in Ancient Christian Devotional, ed. by Thomas C. Oden and Cindy Crosby (Downers Grove: IVP Books, 2007), p. 34
The three passages assigned to us this week have something of a photobomber. In this case, however, it’s not playful. It’s more sinister and diabolical.
The Deuteronomy passage offers us a picture of a promised prophet, and his role among God’s people. The 1 Corinthians passage offers a picture of a congregation struggling with a certain kind of ethical issue. And the Mark passage offers a picture of Jesus and his authority. Yet lurking in the background of each picture, there is the enemy.
In Deuteronomy, Moses is expressing to the people of his generation the divine guarantee that God will provide another prophet, like him, to be God’s mouthpiece in their midst. It’s a good promise and a lovely hope. Yet in that otherwise promising scene, we have this unhappy caveat: “But any prophet who speaks in the name of other gods...”
In 1 Corinthians, Paul is eager that the prevailing wind should be love. From first to last — from God’s love for us in Christ to our lived-out love for one another — Paul’s theology and ethics are love. Yet the presenting issue at this moment is the worship of idols. Once again, you see, the specter of other gods.
And then, in Mark, the central figure is rightly Jesus. Mark is eager for us to see and to recognize his authority. Yet one of the contexts in which that authority is demonstrated is in his prerogative to command demons.
In a sense, of course, this pattern is evident from the very beginning of scripture. Genesis paints a picture for us that is manifestly good, and yet... lurking in the background, seeking to ruin the picture, there is the serpent. And the character who inserts himself into Eden also intrudes into each of the pictures presented to us in this week’s lections.
Deuteronomy 18:15-20
I wonder how much of an introduction to the very notion of “prophet” and “prophecy” in scripture many of our people may need? In the vernacular of our day, “prophet” is jocularly ascribed to anyone who manages to guess correctly some occurrence prior to its happening. But in most circles, both secular and sacred, “prophet” is not taken seriously as a present reality of God’s work. And, in my experience, what folks dismiss in the present they tend also to discount in the past.
Yet prophets and prophecy are major themes throughout the pages of Scripture. Major figures from Moses to Nathan to Elijah to Isaiah to Ezekiel are all identified as prophets. In the Hebrew Bible’s conception of our Old Testament, a surprising percentage of the books are identified as “prophets.” Books that people today tend to label as “history” books (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings) are known instead as the “former prophets.” And the significant volume of material running from Isaiah through Malachi (minus Lamentations and Daniel) are known as the “latter prophets.”
When we get to the New Testament, the crowds that take seriously both John the Baptist and Jesus call them prophets. The daughters of Philip are heralded as prophetesses. And the Apostle Paul lists prophets prominently (just after apostles) in his hierarchy of gifted roles within the body of Christ.
It is in that large context, then, that our people need to hear Moses’ words to the people of his day. “Prophet” was a serious business. Indeed, as the Old Testament story unfolds, we could make the case that the prophet was the highest-ranking position in Israel, inasmuch as prophets are authorized by God to correct both kings and priests.
Meanwhile, the Book of Deuteronomy is presented to us as a compendium of Moses’ farewell words to the children of Israel before his death and before they cross over into the Promised Land under their new leader, Joshua. The prospect of losing Moses’ presence and leadership, therefore, must have been prominent on the minds of the people. And so Moses assures them that “God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people.”
As we move through the passage, we see the necessity of a prophet. Moses recalls the occasion at Sinai when the expressed attitude of the people: “If I hear the voice of the LORD my God any more, or ever again see this great fire, I will die.” The people knew that they needed to hear from God, yet they wanted Moses to act as a go-between, for they were overwhelmed by the prospect of encountering God more directly.
Typically, of course, we would think of the priest as the go-between figure in so many cultural conceptions of people’s relationship with God. Yet the context referenced in Deuteronomy 18 is somewhat more specific. The issue at hand is how God will speak to his people. At Sinai, the people demonstrated that they were overawed by the Lord speaking to them directly. And so the prophet serves as the divine mouthpiece. “I will put my words in the mouth of the prophet,” the Lord explains, and he “shall speak to (the people) everything that I command.”
As the agent of God’s word, then, the presence and pronouncements of the prophet become the point of judgment for the people. How they respond to the prophet, you see, becomes a proxy for how they respond to God. And they will be judged accordingly.
Meanwhile, the prophet himself or herself also faces a sober accountability. Reminiscent of James’ cautionary word: “Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.” (James 3:1 NIV) So it is that the prophet who misrepresents God by his or her words “— that prophet shall die.”
Inasmuch as the passage from Deuteronomy makes reference to “any prophet,” we may take the scope of the promises, warnings, and applications to be rather broad. Nevertheless, the comparatively narrow sound of Moses’ words earlier in the passage — “God will raise up for you a prophet” — gave rise to an expectation of one particular prophet. And we see evidence of this singular expectation in the New Testament with reference to both John the Baptist (John 1:21-25) and Jesus (John 7:40).
1 Corinthians 8:1-13
If “prophet” and “prophecy” require some introduction, how much more the theme of food offered to idols! But even before that, our people may profit from hearing a little introduction to the larger context. Let us begin, therefore, with a brief word about the first letter of Paul to the Corinthians.
Early in the letter, Paul writes, “I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe's people...” (1 Corinthians 1:11 NASB) We don’t know precisely who Chloe or her people were, but we surmise that some representatives from the Corinthian church had visited Paul with personal reports about what was happening in their church back home. Chloe’s people, therefore, may also account for Paul saying, “It is actually reported...” (1 Corinthians 5:1 NASB) and “I hear that...” (1 Corinthians 11:18 NASB).
Meanwhile, Paul begins chapter 7 saying, “Now concerning the things about which you wrote...” (1 Corinthians 7:1 NASB). That suggests that, in addition to a report, he has also received a letter from the Corinthian church. And four additional times in 1 Corinthians, Paul begins a section with the expression “Now concerning” (7:25, 8:1, 12:1, 16:1). It seems as though Paul has before him a list of subjects he wants to cover with these people. He is systematically working his way through the things he has heard about them and heard from them. He is addressing their problems and answering their questions. And at least one of their questions involves this issue of food offered to idols. “Now concerning food sacrificed to idols...”
While it seems that Jerusalem and the land of Palestine itself were mostly kept free of idolatrous worship during the New Testament era, the Jews and Christians who were spread out across the larger Mediterranean world were surrounded by pagan altars, shrines, temples, and idols. We get a glimpse of that especially during Paul’s visit to Athens, for example (see Acts 17:16, 22-23). The Jews had permission to be Jews in the Roman Empire, and although there was a prohibition on new religions, Christians may have been regarded as a sect of Judaism during the early years. It was entirely possible, therefore, for those earnest monotheists to steer clear of pagan worship themselves. What could not be so easily avoided, however, was the meat that was produced by that pagan worship.
Just as not all animals offered on the altar in the temple were entirely burned, but rather generated meat for the worshippers and/or priests, the animals sacrificed on pagan altars also generated meat to be eaten. That meat was not necessarily all consumed, however, at the place of worship. Some of it was retained by the people who had offered it. Some of it was made available through local butchers.
The ethical crisis for Jews and Christians, then, was whether it was acceptable to dine on meat that had been used in the worship of some idol. And, if not, what measures should an individual take to ensure that he or she was not eating such meat? When a guest in someone else’s home, for example, should you inquire about the source of the meat being provided?
It’s clear from Paul’s treatment of the issue in our selected passage that not all earnest people were of the same mind on this issue. Some argued that a Christian should have nothing to do with anything connected to pagan worship. To eat such meat was a sort of vicarious participation in idolatry, and as such it should be religiously avoided. Others argued, however, that idols are nothing, and therefore they can add nothing to or take nothing from the meat. It was a non-issue because the idols were non-entities.
While all of this seems quite distant and foreign to a 21st-century American audience, the chapter is really quite helpful. For while we no longer wrestle with what to do with meat offered to idols, American Christians are divided over a variety of other issues — behaviors and circumstances where one group says, “A follower of Christ should have nothing to do with that,” while another group argues that there is no wrong in it, at all. And so, while the particulars of the Corinthians’ problem are unrelated to us, Paul’s method for dealing with that type of controversial issue is very relevant to our day.
Paul shares with the Christians in Corinth a helpful line of reasoning about knowledge, freedom, and different kinds of consciences. But the bottom line conclusion — appropriate to the letter that contains what we refer to as “the love chapter” — is that our guiding principle and rationale in such matters must be love. “Therefore, if food is a cause of their falling,” Paul concludes, “I will never eat meat, so that I may not cause one of them to fall.”
This is a difficult word for us to receive — or, at any rate, a difficult one for us to implement when the rubber meets the road. Our natural impulse in controversy, after all, is to insist and to prove that we’re right. We are prone to think that being correct is the final word on the matter. And we may fall into the trap of being content in our correctness, dismissive of how it impacts our brothers and sisters in Christ.
Paul, however, invites us to something higher than just being right. Reminiscent of his earlier word to the Corinthians about their internal lawsuits — “The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?” (1 Corinthians 6:7 NIV) — Paul encourages them to sacrifice being arguably “in the right” for the sake of being loving. And while the question of meat offered to idols is a million miles removed from us, the question of how to handle debates within the church surely is not.
Mark 1:21-28
Mark moves faster than Matthew or Luke. He is already telling us stories in his first chapter that his synoptic partners do not reach until much later. In the case of this particular episode, Luke records his version in chapter 4.
Throughout the synoptics, we discover that Capernaum is a center of activity for Jesus’ Galilean ministry. And the themes of his activity on the sabbath and in the synagogue are also not limited to this pericope. And so it is that we read here in Mark 1 of Jesus teaching and healing in the Capernaum synagogue on the sabbath.
Within the selected passage itself, we observe three or four “characters.” Jesus is the central figure. Then there is the synagogue crowd. And, finally, there is the demon-possessed man — though it’s hard to tell who is the character with whom we are actually dealing. On the one hand, Jesus heals the man, on the other hand, he speaks to the demons.
The crowd is characterized by amazement. First, “they were astounded at his teaching.” And later, after the healing, “they were all amazed.” One can imagine the looks being exchanged as Jesus teaches. Friends catch each other’s eyes and mouth “Wow” to one another. And, after the healing, we envision the mouths hanging open, as folks struggle to come to terms with what they have just witnessed.
The songwriter exclaimed, “I stand amazed in the presence of Jesus the Nazarene.” (Charles H. Gabriel, “I Stand Amazed In The Presence,” UMH #371) Indeed! And that singer is just one member of an enormous crowd that stretches back through the centuries to that Capernaum synagogue. Indeed, it stretches back still further, all the way to the manger and Bethlehem, where shepherds and magi were likewise amazed.
We don’t get much sense for the man who was healed. What we can surmise about him is that he was a genuinely tortured soul, for the demonic voice that spoke through him spoke in the first-person plural: “What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us?” The implication is that the man was beset by some number of demons.
Those demons, meanwhile, offer a sort of unwelcome witness. They know that Jesus is “the Holy One of God.” It is a somber reminder that the demons do not lack a knowledge of the truth. So it is that James remarks, “You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder” (James 2:19 NIV). And we are reminded, likewise, of Paul’s affirmation that “at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Philippians 2:10-11 NIV). The acknowledgement of Jesus, you see, will be universal, not merely a minority declaration by the believers.
In the end, of course, the gospel writers do not report these stories with the primary purpose of telling us about the crowds or the demons or even about the individuals who are healed by Jesus. No, the gospel writers pass along these stories to tell us about Jesus. And taken all together in this case, the teaching, the healing, the crowd, the man, and the demons all reveal the authority of Jesus.
Authority is a prominent theme in Mark’s gospel, with the word occurring ten times in Mark’s sixteen chapters. More importantly, though, authority is an essential truth to apprehend when considering the person and work of Christ. And this, of course, is what makes the theme important to Mark.
In our selected passage, the crowds observe that Jesus “taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.” The common practice was to teach by citing authorities. Jesus’ teaching, though, was not predicated on citing other authorities, but “as one having authority.”
And what the crowds perceived in Jesus’ teaching became apparent in Jesus’ actions. His ability to command demons is a certain proof of his authority, for authority in almost any situation is demonstrated by words. The person who moves a sofa by picking it up and carrying it moves it by his strength. The person who moves it by hiring a moving company moves it by his money. But the person who says to the sofa, “Move,” and it moves, moves it by his authority. He demonstrates that he has authority over the sofa.
We expect to see authority in operation in certain kinds of settings and relationships; teacher and student, parent and child, coach and player, officer and enlisted personnel, employer and employee. Authority does not surprise us in those settings. Authority over a sofa, on the other hand, would surprise us. And so it was that the people in the synagogue that day were surprised to see that Jesus had authority over demons — that he was able to move them with his word.
Application
Gregory of Nyssa, a fourth-century bishop and saint, made a direct connection between idols and demons. “Who does not know,” he wrote, “that the deceit of demons filled every corner of the world and held sway over human life by the madness of idolatry?”1 Indeed, it is a connection made by both Moses and Paul in books from which our passages are taken. From later in Deuteronomy than our selected text, Moses said that the people had made God “jealous with their foreign gods and angered him with their detestable idols. They sacrificed to demons, which are not God— gods they had not known, gods that recently appeared, gods your fathers did not fear” (Deuteronomy 32:16 NIV). And, similarly, a few chapters later than our excerpt from 1 Corinthians, Paul wrote, “What do I mean then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons” (1 Corinthians 10:19-20 NASB).
This unpleasant theme, then, becomes a common strain that runs through all three of our passages this week. Other gods are alluded to in the Deuteronomy excerpt; idols are at issue in the 1 Corinthians passage; and demons factor into the story from Mark. But what shall we say to a 21st-century audience about such ancient concerns as other gods, idols, and demons?
First, while some percentage of our population is likely to be dismissive of all three of these concerns, minimizing them as primitive superstitions, I would hasten to observe that the Bible takes all of these things seriously. Does that make the Bible a prisoner of its ancient context? It’s an arguable point. But I am reminded of the fact that, when Jesus’ disciples proposed their primitive misunderstanding of how a man was born blind, Jesus was quick to correct it (see John 9:1-3). In other words, Jesus did not cater to prevailing untruths, yet his words and actions clearly confirm the existence of demons.
Second, we should note that the people who were worshipping other gods and sacrificing to idols were not consciously serving demons. Demon worship was not their conscious and deliberate intent. Yet Moses and Paul suggest it was their de facto practice. The demons, you see, were in the background. They insinuated themselves and their influence into people’s lives without those people being aware of it.
Consequently, the Mark episode stands in contrast to the other two passages. In Mark, the demons are more high-profile — everyone in the story knows and recognizes that the poor soul whom Jesus healed had been demon-possessed. In the references to other gods and idols, however, the presence and influence of demons was perhaps undetected by most.
And that brings us to the sober message for our day. If we take Jesus at his word, then demons are part of the reality of our fallen world. And if we regard scripture as a reliable guide, then we should recognize the likelihood that demons are “in the background.” Perhaps in some lives, their torturous, destructive behavior is manifest in a high-profile way. But more commonly — and more diabolically — they are likely behind-the-scenes in the practices and habits of people who would never consciously choose to be engaged with demonic forces.
Is there good news in the midst of all of this dark talk? Certainly, for the Lord does not leave his people in the dark! His prophets and apostles lead us into truth. And the Christ, to whom we belong, has authority over the very fiends that would deceive and trap and destroy us.
Alternative Application(s)
Deuteronomy 18:15-20 — “Carrier in Contempt”
I feel less related to our mail carrier today than I did when I was a child. Our current situation features a neighborhood where the mailboxes are at the end of the driveways, and so the mail carrier just drives down the road, and we rarely see her face except for behind the windshield. When I was a boy, however, our mailbox was near our front door, and so the mail carrier walked right up to the house each day. And that pedestrian approach meant that we often crossed paths and exchanged pleasantries.
So let us imagine a setting in which the mail carrier is familiar, but disliked. Here is a resident on his route who feels a real disdain for the postal worker. So much so that one day the homeowner rejects the mail carrier altogether. He prohibits him from even coming onto his property, and refuses to take any of the items that the carrier is scheduled to deliver.
The hypothetical is ridiculous, of course, but it serves to illustrate an important principle. Imagine what crucial messages or even valuable pieces of mail that the resident might miss simply because he refuses to take anything that the carrier brings. It demonstrates the possible risk involved with rejecting a messenger.
In the Lord’s word to the people of Moses’ day, he warns, “Anyone who does not heed the words that the prophet shall speak in my name, I myself will hold accountable.” The words that the prophet speaks in the Lord’s name, you see, are understood to be a message from the Lord himself. And if people don’t take delivery on a message simply because they reject the messenger, they do so at their own expense.
This is, of course, part of some larger themes in scripture. We know, for example, that the Lord’s manifest preference is to use human beings as instruments of his work. Accordingly, he uses human spokespersons again and again. Additionally, we are reminded of the theme of responsibility for the message one has heard (e.g., Ezekiel 3:17-19). And, finally, the obligation to heed the Lord’s messenger recalls the theme of agency that we see at numerous places in scripture (e.g., Matthew 10:40-42).
Taken all together, then, the mandate is clear. The carrier who has been sent by the Lord brings messages from him. And that, in turn, dictates how people ought to respond to the carrier.
1 Gregory of Nyssa, Address on Religion Instruction 18, quoted in Ancient Christian Devotional, ed. by Thomas C. Oden and Cindy Crosby (Downers Grove: IVP Books, 2007), p. 34
