Mark Study 26
The Sent Out
Mark Study #26 by Michael Spencer
Step into the study, pour yourself a cup of coffee, get comfortable and let's enjoy the Gospel of Mark.
Our scripture this week is Mark 6:7-13.
7 Calling the Twelve to him, he sent them out two by two and gave them authority over evil spirits.
8 These were his instructions: "Take nothing for the journey except a staff--no bread, no bag, no money in your belts.
9 Wear sandals but not an extra tunic.
10 Whenever you enter a house, stay there until you leave that town.
11 And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave, as a testimony against them."
12 They went out and preached that people should repent.
13 They drove out many demons and anointed many sick people with oil and healed them.
The importance of this small passage of scripture can't be overemphasized. The very nature of Christianity is defined by its missionary and evangelistic calling. Perhaps nothing is more offensive about the message of Jesus as his intention that it be proclaimed throughout the world until every human being was given an opportunity to hear and respond. While we live in a time when the underpinnings of the missionary movement are under attack from universalistic tendencies within the church, vital and alive Christianity has a missionary heartbeat. Where Jesus is truly living in His church, the "sent ones" are still taking his message and authority into the world. Think how much would be different if Jesus had never sent his apostles out into a world that did not know or believe their message? This passage describes the "seed" beginnings of what has become a "great tree." (Mark 4:30ff)
All the synoptics contain this mission, but Matthew expands greatly upon Mark and Luke. The most striking difference is Matthew's addition of Matthew 10:5-6. 5 "These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel." I will leave to those who study Matthew the major discussion on this question, but certainly there is nothing in Mark that would flatly contradict the possibility that the original mission of the apostles was to Jews only. It does not, however, seem to fit easily with the picture of Jesus drawn in the synoptics, a picture where Jesus seems open to those who have faith regardless of their ethnicity. Many scholars- of diverse theological backgrounds- seem persuaded that Matthew is recording the tone of Jesus' entire early ministry- a mission to the Jews only. I find this hard to accept, and prefer to interpret Matthew 10:5-6 as a mission to Jews with a message that was implicitly and explicitly for everyone, though clothed in the language of the Jewish hope of a Messiah.
It is reasonable to ask how Mark relates this passage to the previous rejection of Jesus in Nazareth. The connection could be the simple language of Mark 6:6, where Jesus goes on a teaching "circuit" in the surrounding villages. (Evidence Jesus was, in fact, a Methodist!) There is also a connection in the experience of rejection, which Jesus prepares his apostles for in verse 11: Just as Jesus was rejected, expect to be rejected as well. Luke places the mission immediately after the raising of Jairus' daughter and the healing of the woman with bleeding. Matthew places it after that as well, though he mentions two other miracles as well and makes a transition with a beautiful verse about Jesus' compassion. (Matthew 9:36) So there is some evidence that Mark may be recalling that with the ominous rumblings of Nazareth's rejection of their son, Jesus moved his ministry to another level, involving his disciples in a way he had not before, preparing them for the time they would be without him.
It is very significant for me that Jesus empowers his disciples with his own authority, and specifically gives them power over "unclean spirits." Jesus' first miracle, according to Mark, was an exorcism, and the battle with the forces of darkness is never far from Mark's focus. But this passage must be considered in the subject of whether spiritual gifts and ministries continue today, or did they cease when the "apostolic age" came to an end? This issue is a major split among evangelicals and has been a major issue in my own life and ministry. Without getting on a personal soapbox, I can say that issues such as "Are tongues for today?", "Does God heal today?" and "Should Christians cast out demons today?" have occupied hours and days of my own study and consideration. Is the Bible actually that confusing on these issues? I really don't think so. In fact, the cessationist position (that all these gifts and experiences ceased with the apostles) may be well intentioned, but it has robbed the church of what Jesus clearly intended to give to his followers.
In the simple words, "he gave them power," Mark communicates that Jesus intended for his followers to walk in all the power he ministered in and he intended to share his authority with his followers for the purpose of compassionate Kingdom ministry to the oppressed. When cessationists make the apostles into a special group honored by Jesus above other Christians by giving them power and authority, they go well beyond what scripture teaches. It is true that the apostles are mentioned in passages such as Revelation 21:14 and Ephesians 2:20 -"...built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone"- in a way that gives them importance within the body of Christ, but these scriptures point to the faithful testimony of the apostles as witnesses of Jesus and the conveyers of the Gospel. Certainly, the New Testament is "Apostolic" in the sense of being written within the circle of the apostles and upon their teaching. Paul mentions the "signs of an apostle" in 2 Corinthians 12:12, but where is the sense that these were exclusive to the apostles or would cease? Paul himself refutes such an idea in I Corinthians 12:4-11, where the manifestation of the Spirit is clearly given to all the body of Christ, as the Lord himself desires. In fact, how does the idea of supernatural ministry being the exclusive domain of the apostles square with I Corinthians 12:28, where miracles and healings are intentionally placed after the ministry of apostles?
Every cessationist I know is frightened by the excesses of the charismatic/pentecostal/third wave movements. Certainly we ought to be concerned with excess, for it is the work of the devil, discrediting the real. But we ought to be more concerned about a kind of theology that tells the church supernatural means are not available to encounter the powers of evil and the results of sin. Cessationism is the primary culprit in turning the church towards secular and worldly means of doing everything from church growth to pastoral counseling. In some seminaries, secular psychology is accepted with little question, despite its corrupt worldview and self-defining methodology. In many churches, laying on of hands for the sick, anointing with oil or praying against the demonic would get the pastor fired or the church split. Yet, here we have Jesus entrusting his own power and authority to twelve disciples who would hardly be impressive today for their spiritual maturity or wisdom. They simply have faith and are, therefore, empowered for ministry. May God quickly send the day when this will not need to be explained.
The instructions Jesus gives to his apostles appear to some scholars to be among the oldest words preserved in the Gospels. This assumes a "fiery apocalyptic" Jesus is the most primitive Jesus. Such speculation seems to operate more on presuppositions than on evidence. But before Jesus' words of judgment are some extremely practical words- what to take and not to take. (The thought of Jesus telling his disciples what to pack has to bring a smile to anyone.) Just why these details are added is mysterious, especially when we compare the three accounts. Luke and Matthew say take nothing; Mark says take sandals and one tunic. Some have mentioned that Exodus 12:11- the description of how to dress when celebrating Passover- sounds somewhat similar. The best explanation of all these details is to go on the mission visibly dependent on God. Take nothing that would hinder you from trusting him; nothing that would distract from the work of the Kingdom. In this there is a simple and obvious lesson much ignored by evangelicalism.
The extent to which Jesus advises mandatory poverty for his servants is much explained away by American Christians. The typical prosperous church will not long tolerate a minister who presses too hard on the economics of Christian discipleship. Talk of how much God has "blessed" believers is more common than examination of Jesus' command to not be ruled by money or to live free from the love of material things. There is no question that Jesus did not require the renouncing of possessions as a condition of faith, but a serious follower of Jesus, confronted with his own poverty, the overwhelming needs of frontier missionary work and the compassionate ministry to the poor seen in the early church, will have no problem applying scripture to his/her life. We ought to be living in the spirit of Jesus' commands to his disciples in this passage. Yet, few of us go because we cannot afford to let go. Rather than look at these verses as a sort of quaint little detail, why not ask "What is the Spirit saying to the churches?"
A very practical word was to accept the hospitality offered in any village and not change from accommodation to accommodation. The tradition of hospitality was strong in the ancient middle east and missionaries are always to be open to the kindness of the culture where they minister. Jesus does not want his followers to stand outside and over against culture to the point that they cannot share the simple kindnesses and friendly relationships that are part of any setting. I have observed street preachers on college campuses imitating John the Baptist more than Jesus at this point; confronting without concern for relationships or even common courtesy. It is significant that Jesus wants his followers to live out the Kingdom in a way that those who invite Christians into their home will see and be attracted to the light, not repelled by it. We should never compromise with culture in proclaiming the gospel, but missionaries could teach many of us a bit of wisdom at this point. Kindness, given and accepted, speaks loudly of God and his Son. (It is interesting that the Didache, a document written about 100 A.D., counsels the church to be wary of traveling preachers who stay more than two weeks, assuming they are interested in a free lunch and not the Kingdom!)
The instructions on proclaiming judgment sound prophetic, but I cannot find a similar statement in the Old Testament. The image of shaking dust from feet was similar to a ritual pious Jews would perform when coming from a foreign land in order to not defile the land of Israel. Such an action might say that a village that rejected the Kingdom was not part of the "true" Israel. Lane calls it "Symbolic realism" and a demonstration that a village was considered pagan. More important than this symbol is the reality- whole villages will reject you. It is the clearest connection of all to the preceding rejection in Nazareth and to the future reality that wherever the Gospel goes there will be both hearers and despisers. The power of the Spirit in the ministry of the apostles would never guarantee that anyone would believe. Demons must obey, but men will rebel. The apostles are given a dose of realism by Jesus, and we know that the apostles took this literally. (Acts 13:51, 18:6)
There is something here that many of us can't quite grasp. In all our emphasis on showing the love of God to unbelievers, we are uncomfortable with a command to let unbelievers know that the judgment of God is their choice by rejecting the message of the Kingdom. We have painted a picture of Jesus weeping over Jerusalem and generalized it too much; causing us to forget that a clear articulation of the wrath of God is part of the Gospel. Jesus was a preacher of judgment and Paul starts with the wrath of God in Romans. Read II Thessalonians 1 and ask where is the kind of understanding of God, the Gospel and the unbeliever that can preach this to lost people. We are being told that judgment should never be announced to the lost; it's considered rude and put-offish. Would Jesus agree? Why did he tell the apostles to make a public demonstration of the certainty of judgment and the seriousness of rejecting the King and his merciful Kingdom. In a cosmic war, refusal to surrender brings the certainty of destruction. The Psalmists could say "Your judgments are righteous O Lord." Revelation tells us the saints in heaven will praise God's destruction of the world system, including those who trust in it. Could you praise God today for His just judgment?
Finally, we should note that the apostles ministered exactly as Jesus had ministered. Preaching and teaching came first and emphasized repentance. I disagree with those Third-Wave scholars who insist that "power encounters" normally preceded the proclamation of the Gospels. The proclamation of the Kingdom is the priority of Jesus. The miracles point to the truths of the proclamation. The Kingdom is here in Jesus and his Kingdom message. I have no doubt that in many cases throughout the spread of Christianity, miraculous encounters did open doors for the proclamation of the message. But to say this is a normative pattern that should dominate our approach to worship and evangelism is simply going overboard. The message of repentance was clearly proclaimed. This was the message of the prophets, of John the Baptist and of Jesus. Strangely, it is not the message of most Christians today.
Evil spirits are expelled because the message of the Kingdom carries the authority of the Kingdom on this rebel planet. Not every problem is demonic in origin, but we are far less than true to Jesus if we do not believe that the demonic is a part of every kind of spiritual bondage and many other kinds of problems. We need to admit that we have bought a secular view of many human problems ("low self-esteem") rather than see human beings through a Biblical lens. The sick are healed as the apostles anoint with oil- a simple custom- and prayed for with authority. The apostles were "Jesus imitators" as they ministered. They recognized mind, spirit and body are all in need of God's compassionate power. They followed Jesus in loving whole people as God loved them.
We have no way to know how the apostles reacted to this particular mission. Yet Luke, in his report of the mission of the seventy-two says "The seventy-two returned with joy and said, "Lord, even the demons submit to us in your name." It is a joyous thing to experience the power of Jesus. It is exciting to know and see the victory of our Lord come into the lives of hurting and wounded people. It should be our prayer that Jesus would fill us with his spirit and send us out as well. But as you look at what God has given you as a believer and look at the opportunities that surround us in this global village we live in, what keeps you from going now? You and I are sent by Jesus as surely as were the twelve; into the same world and with the same power.
Questions
What would you have if Christianity were not missionary and evangelistic?
Many vigorously object to Christianity's determination to convert the world. How can we defend what seems so rude?
Can you really respect people if you think they will goto hell for disagreeing with you?
It appears that Jesus may have first sent his disciples to the jews only. What might have been his reason for this?
What about Jesus' experience in Nazareth would have prompted this mission for the apostles?
All believers have the same authority as Jesus. Do we really believe this?
Why do most Christians feel so powerless?
Michael believes cessationism has left a legacy of secularism in the church. What do you think?
Have you wrestled with the question of should we minister like Jesus did? In what ways and situations?.
Michael refutes the claim that the apostles were "special" in doing the supernatural. Do you see any dangers in making the apostles different from the rest of us?
Should we be concerned more by excesses among believers or a lack of spiritual power among believers?
Mark often portrays the disciples as slow to catch on, yet Jesus gives them his own power. What does this tell us?
Why did Jesus want the apostles to accept local hospitality? How far should Christians go to "fit in" with unbelievers? Should we, for example, go to a bar or club with a lost friend?
Jesus told his disciples to take virtually nothing with them. What lessons does this have for us? Should missionaries keep their American lifestyle in a poverty-filled culture?
Should Christians be moving into the inner-city rather than out?
Some missionary organizations say that Americans should stay home and finance nationals in their own countries because Americans are too expensive to support. What do you think?
How do we balance telling people that God loves them and a wrathful judgment is certain for the lost?
To what extent should we imitate Jesus in our style of ministry?