For the person whose mind has the fire of the Spirit comes to maturity, since the senses have been trained to distinguish that which is good from that which is evil, and that person is spiritual.

Comment on Revelation 3:14-22 in Commentary on the Apocalypse by Oecumenius (Translated by William C. Weinrich)

Just as those who received the disciples received Christ in and through them, so we today in receiving their written words also receive Christ, and with him also the Father. In addition to Christ and Scripture, [Karl] Barth also thinks of the proclamation as a form of the Word of God. The church’s preaching today is the concrete means of God revealing himself and of men receiving the Word of God. In practice these three forms of the Word of God are inseparable. There is no revelation apart from Christ, but no knowledge of Christ apart from the Scriptures. In practice we know Christ and the Scriptures through the proclamation of the church, but we must test that proclamation by Scripture.

“Revelation in Contemporary Theology” by C. Brown in The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol. 3, 326.

Whether a man ought to look to the good government of his house is a question beyond all doubt. He is the highest in the family, and has both authority over all, and the responsibility of all is committed to him. . . . That the wife also ought to be a help to him there, is very evident, for the apostle makes it plainly their responsibility that they govern the house (1 Tim. 5:14). Would the wise man have so highly commended a wife for well governing her husband’s house if it had not applied to her (Prov. 31)?

William Gouge, Building a Godly Home, Vol. 2: A Holy Vision for a Happy Marriage, 88.

Yet there remains one thing more about which husbands and wives ought to manifest a mutual provident care over each other, and that is about the goods of this world. Though the husband, while he lives with his wife, has the truest property in them, and the greatest title to them, yet I refer this to those mutual duties which husband and wife owe to each other, in three respects. First, because in conscience they pertain to the use of the wife, as well as the of the husband. Secondly, because the wife is appointed by God’s providence a joint governor with the husband of the family, and in that respect ought to be a help in providing such a sufficiency of the goods of this world, as are needed for that state where God has set them, and for that responsibility which God has committed to them. Thirdly, because the wife, if she survives the husband, ought to have such a portion of those goods, as are fitting for her status and responsibility.

In these respects we see it required, even a binding duty, that husband and wife, in a mutual regard for one another, be as thoughtful and diligent as they can be with a good conscience in getting, keeping, and using sufficient goods and riches for the mutual good of one another.

William Gouge, Building a Godly Home, Vol. 2: A Holy Vision for a Happy Marriage, 82.

Though in outward compliments [husband and wife] may seem very kind, and in the outward things of this world, very generous, yet if they pray not for one another, they are neither kind nor generous. Hearty, fervent, frequent prayer is the greatest token of kindness and best part of giving to each other that can be.

William Gouge, Building a Godly Home, Vol. 2: A Holy Vision for a Happy Marriage, 65.

Where love abounds, there all duties will readily and cheerfully be performed. Where love is lacking, there every duty will either be altogether neglected, or so carelessly performed, that it might as well not be performed at all.

William Gouge, Building a Godly Home, Vol. 2: A Holy Vision for a Happy Marriage, 49.

The Westminster Confession, to which libertarian and authoritarian American Presbyterians profess allegiance, has a chapter on the liberty of conscience, one of the only Reformed creeds to devote an entire section to this subject. Because of the Whiggish reading of Calvinism that has gained so wide a hearing in the church and academy, many readers would expect to see in this chapter some evidence that directly connects liberty of conscience to civil liberty. But the authors of the Westminster Confession clearly assert that the Chrisian idea of liberty of conscience may not be used for any kind of political liberty. On the one hand, Christian liberty pertains exclusively to the liberation from the bondage of sin and the penalty of death through the merits of Christ. On the other hand, the confession teaches that any who “upon pretense of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God” and may be “proceeded against by the censures of the church, and by the power of the civil magistrate” (original Westminster Confession of Faith, 20.4). This clear differentiation between civil and spiritual liberty was unremarkable among sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Reformed theologians and creeds. Only after the Enlightenment and the American framers’ idea of a “new science of politics” did Calvinists begin to blur that distinction. . . .

As the experience of American Presbyterianism shows, to rally behind the liberties promoted in the American founding, ministers and theologians in the mainstream denominations needed a version of the Westminster Confession that had been gutted of the idea that the state holds responsibility for the health of the church. Conversely, American Presbyterians who still clung to the politics that had informed the writing of the Westminster standards, namely, the Covenanters, took a different and non-Whiggish view of the American experiment. These Calvinists were law abiding and recognized the legitimacy of the United States, while they also refused to become involved in the affairs of the nation that would compromise the kingship of Christ over both the church and the state.

“Implausible: Calvinism and American Politics” by D. G. Hart in John Calvin’s American Legacy, ed. Thomas J. Davies, 84-85.

The Gospel According to Mark[1]

The Gospel according to Mark is one of the four New Testament Gospels that collectively “exhibit both unity and diversity” while also “bearing witness to the same Jesus.”[2] Though technically anonymous, the Gospel of Mark’s English title, “The Gospel According to Mark,” is drawn from the Greek title/heading — KATA MAPKON — found in our earliest majuscule manuscripts of the New Testament canonical texts.[3] Early church authors also attribute authorship to New Testament character John Mark.[4]

Plot and Purpose of Mark

 With its introduction, “The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (NRSV Mark 1:1a), the Gospel of Mark begins by way of an abrupt beginning. As Mark L. Strauss explains, “The reader is plunged “immediately” into the ministry of Jesus. Jesus appears on the scene abruptly, taking the Galilean countryside by storm.”[5] The Gospel of Mark leads with this storm of a plot because “The purpose of Mark’s high-speed narrative is to portray Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God of power and authority, a theme which dominates the first half of the Gospel.”[6] This “authority” of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is a major Markan theme, which we will consider in what follows.

Markan Theme: Authority

The “authority” (ἐξουσία) of Jesus is a major Markan theme.  How does the Gospel of Mark portray the “authority” of Jesus Christ, the Son of God? The “authority” of Jesus is demonstrated through his words and deeds.[7] On the one hand, “Through his words and deeds, the reign of God is being actualized,” but, on the other hand, the “purpose of these miracles is not to gain popularity but to demonstrate that he is acting and speaking with the authority of God.”[8] That is to say, the authority and power inherent to Jesus’ words and deeds reveals that he is the Messiah of God. Eventually the Messiahship of Jesus is confessed (Mark 8:26). The Messianic recognition of Jesus is followed up by Jesus’ explicit passion predictions (Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:33).[9] Jesus’ authority will be definitively demonstrated in the suffering of the Son of God: “For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). The disciples do not understand Jesus’ instruction or passion predictions, and their “failure to grasp the point” then “sets the stage for Jesus’ teaching on discipleship (8:32-38; 9:32-10:31; 10:34-35).”[10] In what follows, we will discuss this other Markan theme.

Markan Theme: Discipleship

In the Gospel of Mark, there is a key shift from the narrative demonstrating the authority of Jesus (Mark 1:1-8:26) to the subsequent narrative predicting the final test of his authority and power (Mark 8:27-16:8). This narrative development buttresses the overarching purpose of the Gospel of Mark that was identified and discussed above. As R. A. Guelich explains, “The final part of Mark’s story (8:27-16:8) clearly focuses on the death of Jesus Messiah, Son of God.”[11] The “beginning of the gospel of Jesus Messiah, Son of God” is a story with only one conclusion: Jesus Messiah’s predicted crucifixion and resurrection.

In this final part of the Gospel of Mark, Jesus does not exercise power and authority as the world commonly does, or as his followers expect him to, e.g., with the type of power indicative of a sword, but rather, Jesus reigns with power and authority that is deeper than any mere human power and authority. Jesus reigns with the authority of the cross. Jesus reigns with the power of God. As Paul explained, “the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power (δύναμις) of God” (1 Cor. 1:18).[12]

The suffering of Jesus is central to the Gospel of Mark’s emphasis on discipleship. As stated above, the disciples failed to understand Jesus’ predictions and explanation about the nature of the power and authority indicative of his Messiahship. This failure, going forward, sets the stage for Jesus’ instruction on the nature of discipleship. They failed to understand suffering was central to the Messiah’s mission. Going forward, Jesus clarifies the nature, the suffering connotations, of discipleship. In a word, a disciple of Jesus Messiah must be willing to suffer.

Brief Reflection

 I can’t help but ask, Am I like the disciples? Have I failed to understand Jesus? Have I failed to understand his words and deeds? Do I understand and can I submit to the implications of Jesus Messiah’s authority being definitively demonstrated in his suffering? Jesus Messiah’s words are ringing in my ears: “For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). In reflection, I am reminded of an author’s recent musings: “I’ve had the wrong picture of Christianity for a long time. It’s quite possible I still do. . . . Whatever the case—and I know it sounds cliché—I can give it all to Jesus and know that somehow it’s going to work out.”[13] However, Mark 10:45 isn’t the only thing ringing in my ears. I also hear, “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me” (Mark 8:34). Have I failed to understand? Have I failed to take up the cross and follow him? Have I failed to willingly suffer? If so, I have trust it will somehow work out because I am following “Jesus Christ, the Son of God.”

[1] For a survey and bibliography of the Gospel according to Mark, see “Gospel of Mark” by R. A. Guelich in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, eds. Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 512-525. In addition, Mark L. Strauss provides an insightful introduction and bibliography for Gospel of Mark in Four Portraits, One Jesus: A Survey of Jesus and the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 170-211.

[2] Mark L. Strauss, Four Portraits, One Jesus: A Survey of Jesus and the Gospels, 24.

[3] See title/heading for text of Gospel of Mark in ancient manuscripts Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. Free access to facsimile images is available at www.csntm.org/Manuscript. For descriptions of these important fourth century manuscripts of the Greek New Testament, see Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament, translated by Erroll F. Rhodes (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995), 107-109.

[4] See discussion on authorship in Mark L. Strauss, Four Portraits, One Jesus: A Survey of Jesus and the Gospels, 201-202. Strauss mentions several prominent early church leaders who attributed authorship to Mark: Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origin, Jerome, and Eusebius, who quotes second century church leader, Papias.

[5] Mark L. Strauss, Four Portraits, One Jesus, 178.

[6] Mark L. Strauss, Four Portraits, One Jesus, 179.

[7] See lexical entry for ἐξουσία in Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3^rd ed.,revised and edited by Fredrick William Danker (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000), 352-353. Regarding Jesus’ authoritative words and deeds: Jesus teaches with authority: “They were astounded at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes” (Mark 1:22); Jesus commands and controls unclean spirits: “They were all amazed, and they kept on asking one another, “What is this? A new teaching—with authority! He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him”” (Mark 1:27); Jesus has authority to forgive sins: “But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins—he said to the paralytic—I say to you, stand up, take your mat and go to your home” (Mark 2:10-11); Jesus appoints twelve apostles to “have authority to cast out demons” (Mark 3:15), and during his ministry he commissioned and sent “them out two by two, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits” (Mark 6:7); Jesus has power over nature: Jesus commands and controls a storm, and the disciples wonder who he is (Mark 4:4).

[8] Mark L. Strauss, Four Portraits, One Jesus, 179-180.

[9] Regarding the development of these three passion predictions: “The three major Markan predictions (8:31; 9:31; 10:32-34) are most conspicuously placed within their narrative context. Mark 8:27-32 denotes a clear change of focus from chronicling the demonstration of Jesus’ exousia (“power”) to the final test of his exousia. Furthermore, Mark 8:27-32 leads to the first instruction of the disciples that the Son of man must die and rise after three days. Mark 10:32-34, on the other hand, is placed immediately prior to the entry into Jerusalem via Jericho. Mark clearly presents a climatic development beginning with the first prediction focusing on rejection, to the theme of being delivered into human hands and finally to humiliation and death in the third prediction” (“Predictions of Jesus’ Passion and Resurrection” by H. F. Bayer in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 631).

[10] “Gospel of Mark” by R. A. Guelich in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 517.

[11] “Gospel of Mark” by R. A. Guelich in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 517.

[12] δύναμις and ἐξουσία are different words. Thematically, however, they frequently overlap. See lexical entry for δύναμις in Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 261-262.

[13] Matt Johnson, Getting Jesus Wrong: Giving Up Spiritual Vitamins and Checklist Christianity (Greensboro: New Growth Press, 2017), 130.

The Apocalypse of St. John is a work which we cannot neglect. It is difficult to understand, its sub-divisions are almost too intricate to follow or to harmonize, but it is certainly not a fairy-tale. It does not seem to be a succinct history of events to come, but presents a series of visions which seem partly to overlap. . . .

I am not, however, concerned with the interpretation of the Book, but, in my capacity as a textual critic and student, I wish to present to others the proper foundations upon which they can build.

Textual study must always be the forerunner of any interpretation. The solution of any textual difficulties must precede any final and authoritative explanation of the text.

From the “Prolegomena” in H. C. Hoskier’s Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse: Collation of All Existing Available Greek Documents with the Standard Text of Stephen’s Third Edition Together with the Testimony of Versions, Commentaries and Fathers.

The most obvious difference from other parts of the New Testament is that there are no lectionaries, for the simple reason that Revelation has never been a part of the Greek lectionary. . . . It is also striking that there are a larger number of manuscripts of Revelation from the late Byzantine and early Ottoman period than is the case in the rest of the New Testament . . . The fall of the Byzantine Empire, with the ensuing Ottoman rule, was a traumatic period for the Greek world. The Book of Revelation, with its coded message of Christian endurance in a hostile world, become a valuable text, as may be seen from a number of commentaries produced in the early centuries of Ottoman rule. The fact that printing Greek books was tightly controlled by the new regime ensured that the manuscript copying continued. This is partly why Revelation, so scant in copies from every century but the fourth and fifth, seems — if the numbers of extant manuscripts is a guide — to have grown in favour slightly from the tenth century, more strongly from the fourteenth. Many of the later manuscripts contain a commentary, providing either a traditional interpretation if it was one of the three older commentaries [Oecumenius, Andreas the Archbishop of Caesarea, Arethas of Caesarea] or a veiled application of the text to the present circumstances if it was one of the new commentaries produced in the early Ottoman period.

D. C. Parker, An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and Their Texts, 233-234.