Mk 2:23-3:12

Just as Mk 2:21-22 serves to illustrate not only the "old wineskins" thinking of 2:7, and the fact that the people "have never seen anything like this" (2:12)  illustrates the "new wine" (and "new wineskins"), those two verses illustrate the "old wineskins" bursting in 2:23-28 and 3:1-12.

What is it that a) prevented the Pharisees from rejoicing in the healing of Mk 3:5? b) caused the Pharisees to be critical of the disciples' behavior on the Sabbath (2:24)?

Jesus answers both questions. Notice, first, that the Phrarisees were "saying to Him" (2:24) what the disciples were doing, during the Sabbath, as an airtight case with Dt 19:15 backing against working on the Sabbath.

But does Jesus say that what the disciples did was lawful for them?  Does He not recount a story and comment that both David "and his companions ... ate the consecrated bread, which is not lawful for anyone to eat except the priests..."  (2:25-26)?  Most certainly, Jesus is defending what the disciples did, but how? 

Wouldn't that defense, by recounting a story in David's life, sound fishy to the Pharisees?  Wouldn't they retort that a person can't violate the Sabbath simply because David and his disciples were recorded as eating bread unlawful to eat except by the priests? How would that be relevant? they would retort.

It was relevant because David's need of the consecrated bread took precedence over the consecration of the bread to the priests (1 Sam 21:1ff).  Jesus asks the Pharisees, "have you never read" this?  In other words, to read it is to understand how David correctly resolved the matter, and how to correctly judge this one.  The local priest had already decided in favor of David on the eating issue, and only checked their fitness according to whether "the young men have kept themselves from women." (1 Sam 21:4).  The priest judged David's authority rightly.  The incident should have taught the Pharisees the principle that the greater thing, David's authority, allowed the priest to overrule the consecration of the bread to priests.

That is also how Jesus answers the Pharisees in Mk 2:27.  If, during David's time, a priest saw correctly that David and his companions in their case could eat bread consecrated for priests, then they, surely in reading that, could tell that "the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath" (2:27).

Notice that it is from that story that Jesus concludes the relationship of the Sabbath to ... man! But not only that! From that, He concludes His own relationship to the Sabbath.  If the needs of David overruled the rule about consecrated bread, then the Sabbath was made for man.  But if a priest can overrule the use of consecrated bread for priests, this proves the Son of Man, is Lord of the Sabbath.  How?  Since the law for priests could be correctly overruled by a priest, the Sabbath law which is made for man can be overruled by the Son of Man.  He is Lord of the Sabbath. 

So the answer to why the Pharisees were critical of the disciples in Mk 2:24 is that they didn't understand that David's needs overruled the consecration of the bread to priests, which implied that the Sabbath also was made for man, which implied that Jesus, the Son of Man, is Lord (even!) of the Sabbath.  They didn't understand things within the "old wine" they carried.

Acts 4:5-28

Peter spoke, but both Peter and John had confidence (Acts 4:13), each enough to be noticed by the group in 4:5ff.  This interaction between Peter and John and those in 4:5-6 was clearly a situation in which Peter and John were outnumbered, so much so that it is surprising that the greater-in-number group did not intimidate the lesser.

They tried.  They "commanded" (4:18).  They "threatened" (4:21).  They said lots of things (4:23) to Peter and John, which Peter and John shared with their own (4:23).  But this group, Peter and John's companions, arrived at a conclusion about what had happened using an argument from the greatest confrontation with rulers in their Bible -- Psalm 2 (Acts 4:25-26).  Peter and John used the prophecy to explain their lesser confrontation, as we shell see in the next section. 

Galatians 3

Of all the correctives that need to be used upon ourselves, Galatians 3 is the most timely for us, all over the world.  And indeed, Paul is not speaking about a local custom of limited scope here.

In order for something to be a corrective, then we will have had to first be  incorrect at some point.  Paul says "you foolish Galatians!  Who has bewitched you ..." (3:1)?  That's why 3:2 is a rhetorical question.  He's not asking for information, but for them to confess what they all know, that they received the Spirit by the hearing of faith (3:2).  This should be a corrective for them.  And he proceeds in 3:3 from there.  They have "begun by the Spirit."  Then the next rhetorical question is given; again, he is not asking them for information, but telling them what they already know, that they are NOT being perfected by the flesh (3:3).
   What a shock this must be to the congruentialist, who makes no distinction between the results of "the works of the Law" and the results of "the hearing of faith," as if they are interchangeable in their effects!  One does NOT result in the receiving of the Spirit, and one does!  They couldn't be more different in what they result in!  But isn't this some subtle point, about which Christians can and do differ?  No.  They do, but they can't.  Paul attributes it to some inconceivable bewitchment, that they would consider the works of the Law to result in what the hearing of faith resulted in!  Part of the factual proof of their foolishness is that they know the answers to Paul's questions immediately upon hearing them.

Next, Paul takes up the objection that things are like that ("hearing of faith") at the start, but are superseded by works of the Law.  He asks "does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?" (3:5)  This is about ongoing things.  Not only did they receive the Spirit at the beginning, but the Spirit is provided by God on an ongoing basis.  Does God do that, which is ongoing, by the works of the Law?  Or by hearing with faith!  It is also the same with the miracles among them!  In conclusion, he claims not merely that they started with faith, but that they have a permanent state because of it:  "Therefore, know that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham" (3:7). From the origin of it, to the current state of those who originated that way.  That is how you recognize a Christian among other religious people.

Mt 4:17-5:19

There is the same summary language for the initial preaching of Jesus (4:17) as John the Baptist's initial preaching in 3:2. Does that imply a connection between the content of their preaching:  Of course it does! Both men characteristically preached "repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near." In characteristic form, from conclusion to support for it, it is less understandable to our ears immediately.  We prefer the premise stated first, then, the conclusion?  OK.  1)  The kingdom of heaven has come near.  2)  So, repent!

So let's ask each other:  Of all the things you've heard said about   their sermons, have you heard that they preached that the kingdom of heaven has come near as much as you've heard that they preached repentance?  Not nearly so much.  We've often heard that John the Baptist preached repentance, and that Jesus did too, but very seldom heard their premise for it!  This cannot be explained in an excusable way.  Is the fact that the kingdom of heaven has come near of no consequence, either for anything else, or especially, for repentance?  It is very much of consequence.

1 Tim 4:1-5:2

It is always disheartening among those deeply interested in the truth of Christianity, that two things must be dealt with, having espoused it: the existence of the mundane (by comparison to the truth of Christianity), and the existence of opposition to the truth of Christianity from within the group.

Having a brand new shirt, we are stuck with having to launder it; it seems so unfair to deal with the grimy dirt, in something so brilliantly new.  But let's not complain that the task has no interest: having just read from the sublime expressions of 1 Tim 3:16, 1 Tim 4:1 is not an anti-climax, but an application: part of being in a group is dealing with "some" (4:1), although the reason for this group is hard for the Christian leader to stomach -- until we realize that one of the blessings of learning from the life of Jesus is the way he dealt with those whose disagreement was at this level, coming from "deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars" (4:1-2).  But have things really changed since Galatia?  Did not the early Paul ask them who bewitched them?

In grimy dirt example #1 in the first paragraph, there is an asceticism based on foods and the state of some sort of chaste singlehood (4:1-5).  In number 2, it is failling into "worldly fables fit for old women" -- some kind of fictional stories of idealized people and their feats could fill that bill.  Rather than fables about people, looking to ourselves -- "discipline yourself for the purpose of godliness" -- be the hero yourself!  Don't single out the Saviorhood of God, only applying it to some stylized, idolized people.  

Luke 2:8-40

Let's not miss the irony between the generalism and hubris of the Roman announcement ("all the inhabited earth") in 2:1, and the particularism and greatness of 2:14, "and on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased."  There would be two things that might make us miss this: first, an anachronism which the ASV mg saves us from in 2:11, "Savior, who is anointed Lord."  On the on hand, earlier described was "Caesar Augustus," Latin for the august king, the Romans thinking of him as Lord over everything inhabited, but "in those days" (2:1), born in an out-of-the-way corner of the empire "a Savior who is [the] Anointed Lord." We'd miss that if we think of Christ as merely part of His name.

The second anachronism is to worry about election in the theologically disputed sense when reading 2:14.  To counteract that, we can ask ourselves the question: which had greater scope, the reign of Caesar Augustus over all the inhabited earth so-thought, or the "news of great joy which will be for all the people ... glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased..."?  Who's in the highest?  Caesar counting his subjects, or the Savior come among those same subjects?  Which had greater scope at the time?  the pax Romana over the "inhabited" portion, or the peace that the angels invoked "on earth"?  Which had greater glory upon it?  Caesar's glory, or the "glory to God"?

Rm 3:21-4:25

Leon Morris calls Rm 3:21-31 "possibly the most important paragraph ever written."  Certainly I agree with that!

1 Peter 3

The difficulties with the soteriological statements at the end of this chapter are no greater than some perhaps with the exhortations near the beginning.  And Peter ties them both together with 3:18, the statement that Christ also died for sins once for all.  By this Peter means to explain better both the previous suffering of 3:17 and the future salvation of 3:21.

Jn 2:13-3:8

When John says in 2:25 that Jesus "knew what was in man," the reader supplies the contrast to the end of the litotes, "and it's not good."  That certainly allows a smooth segue to the ideas in 3:3.

We should hold the universal common idea of Protestantism, the idea of being born again, just a little bit behind our back in our hearing Jesus speak to Nicodemus of it "the first time."  Jesus was not alluding to "just like they say in the hymns, born again...." but stating it for the first time.  It touched Nicodemus that way too.  And doing that a little, we may notice that being born again is preparation for something in the future, the seeing of the kingdom of God (3:3), and the entering of the kingdom of God (3:6).  It is preparation of the most necessary kind, a "sine qua non" preparation, a "without which, none" preparation.

Notice the gentleness of the argument Jesus makes toward Nicodemus.  It is the Lord's response to Nicodemus' attempt at deference in 3:2.  Jesus is teaching him what he needs to know, and we know from reading about Nicodemus later, that it had fruition in him.  Jesus first speaks of it in the third person, which is a teacher's way not to inflame resentment at feeling insulted.  Then he cautions Nicodemus even as he applies it to him, don't marvel.  Don't get your dander up.  A model of teachers' patience.

Mk 2:6-22

A good question to see if we have heard the point Jesus makes in Mk 2:9-10 is this: does the fact that Jesus says to the man to pick up his pallet, and go home, enough to convince them (and us) that Jesus has the authority on earth to forgive sins (and us)?  If we were there, would we have not gotten it (2:8)?

Similarly, in Mk 2:14.  We're "kind of" aware, especially if we were brought up on Genesis 1, that God does things by fiat: that is, that He speaks, and it occurs.  But we don't apply it much to other things.  (That's a good thing, in general!  Awful difficult to cause things by fiat!)  So, when Jesus says to Levi "follow Me!" does it occur to us that Jesus is doing anything by fiat?  Or, do we just say that it was the normal command / obedience instance, or maybe invitation / response, or opportunity / enlistment?  But notice the verbal parallel Mark "sneaks" in to 2:14.  What did Levi do?  He "got up and followed Him."  What did the paralytic in the previous story do?  "He got up and immediately picked up the pallet and went out in the sight of everyone."  Hmm.  In 2:17, Jesus uses the word "call" -- we must remember, that God uses "calls" for things like that (Is 45:4), forming, and causing, and doing (Is 45:7).

Acts 3:1-4:4

In the same way that it was not because of a calculation or strategy of his own divising that Peter "raised his voice" to preach in Acts 2, but Peter was responding to what God done, because God "has poured forth this which you both see and hear" (Ac 2:33), so Peter did not set up a platform for his sermon in Acts 3:11, but denied anything about the healing  of "the man who had been lame from his mother's womb" (3:2) to be due to "our own power or piety" (3:12), when the man began walking and leaping and praising God and clinging to Peter and John,  and caused a crowd to come to the portico of Solomon (3:9,11).  Luke is giving a distinct flavor to the initial growth of the movement, that it was not originating in a human push.  But Peter and John certainly do things here in Acts 3!

The combination of God's working and man's actions is thus not a problem for Luke: here in the healing, God's power is used by Peter, and Peter does nothing by his own power or piety.  But that is just one way in which Luke describes the working of God in events. In the sermon of our current chapter, Peter gets very bold, once again, in assigning sinful actions and responsibility for them to men: "you disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked for a murderer ..." (3:14).   But when explaining that further, Peter says that "you acted in ignorance, just as your rulers did also" (3:17).  (Now you have to know your Old Testament Levitical laws to know that acting in ignorance was no "excuse").   Therefore Peter is very proper to say both that God "has thus fulfilled" ... "the things ... announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Christ would suffer" (3:19), and to tell them "therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away" ... including the very sins he has just mentioned (3:19).

So, here we have an example, first, of God working powerfully in a healing, and second, of Peter describing God working to fulfill prior things announced, in the sins done in ignorance mentioned in 3:13-15.  

Next, in 3:19-20, Peter exhorts them to do something for the purpose of God causing something, three things actually, to come about.  The people were to "repent and return so that [1] your sins may be wiped away, [2] in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, [3] and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you."  So does Peter have a doctrine that God and man have no interactivity?  No.

Gal 2:11-21

The depth of the drama between Paul and seems-like-everybody at Antioch (Peter, men from James, the rest of the Jews, Barnabas) can probably not be decided since we don't know if Paul spoke 2:15-21 on that occasion.  But this drama is practically the drama that defines how the newness of the New Testament was fought for by Paul.

"They were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel" (2:14).  The truth of the gospel makes it wrong and false to "compel the Gentiles to live like Jews" (2:14).    Paul tells Peter "in the presence of all" -- all these groups at Antioch above -- "you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews."  Peter's two acts were: 1) holding himself aloof, beginning to withdraw (2:12), though he "used to eat with the Gentiles" (2:12); 2) compelling the Gentiles to live like Jews (2:14).

Notice the movement: from eating with, to not eating with.  Paul calls this "compelling the Gentiles to live like Jews."  What?  Just eating separately from Gentiles when the Jewish brothers came?  Doesn't that come under "hospitality"?  Why not?

Paul says Peter "stood condemned" in his actions.  The Galatians get a letter, but Peter got it from Paul's face.

Mt 3:7-4:16

In Mt 3:7, John the Baptist tells "many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism" what to do because they are fleeing from the wrath to come, not what to do, because they are not.

This is the great principle of God's way of fruitfulness: first the good root, then the good fruit.   As Jesus says later, "there is no good tree which produces bad fruit, nor, again, a bad tree which produces good fruit " (Lk 6:43; cf. Mt 12:33).

Mt 3:8, similarly, is forward-looking, not backward-looking.  In other words, it's not an accusation, but a direction for them to go.  As was the baptism of John itself.  The baptism of John was not backward-looking, either as accusation or commendation.  The baptism of John was not for the righteous, but for those "as they confessed their sins," including the "brood of vipers" -- many of the Pharisees and Sadducees he saw.

To man, that doesn't sell.  You don't sell many books on diet, if the pictures that go in the books are only of those needing to diet.  But God is not judging ... yet.  In the same breath John categorizes them by their past sins, with "brood of vipers" (3:7), he tells them that God has warned them to flee the wrath to come.  He then, with a rhetorical question, asks them who warned them, and therefore to keep going. As if to say "who warned you?  God?  Tremendous, take heart from that, and bring forth fruit in keeping with it.  Keep going, don't set back."

1 Tim 3

This chapter is another chapter in which Paul is considered to not be characteristic of himself.  However this chapter, along with chapter 2, are excellent illustrations of how Paul does ethics given the general statements Paul makes in 1:8-9 about what is appropriate or not, "for a righteous person."

In chapter 2 we looked at how Paul was giving personal instructions and expressing his ways of leadership.  In this chapter Paul continues with the ethical statements regarding the office of overseer, but reminds us of an amazing foundation for all godliness (reminding us of just who it is who is writing these things!), at the end, in 3:16.

As mentioned, people have a hard time with Paul here.  If "an overseer ... must be above reproach, ... prudent, respectable, ... have a good reputation with those outside" then where is there room for "blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me."  (1 Tim 3:1; Mt 5:11)?  The ethics seem to be "less" than brought forth in the teachings of Christ.  Is there a place for "respectable" in the church?

Of course.  There is a place.  There came to be a place.  There always has been a place.  It is a localized place, not a be-all and end-all of ethics.

Lk 1:57-2:7

The very religiosity of the gospels should not blind us to the fact that Mary and Elizabeth were relatives; and thus John the Baptist and the Lord Jesus were also relatives.  It puts some extra "oomph" into John the Baptist's statement in Jn 1:30-31, where John the Baptist is saying of his own relative Jesus, "After me comes a man ... I did not recognize Him, but so that He might be manifested to Israel, I came baptizing in water."  A historian reading these documents for the first time might say, "ah yes, a movement started by perhaps two cousins, one giving way to another."  It has that kind of "things happen all the time like this" feel: relatives who think alike, start movements, all through history.  Fair enough.

But how about Luke?  He documents, in great detail, the theologies of their mothers!  Here it is the 24th day of the year, and we've proceeded already to the call of the disciples and preaching in Galilee in Mk and Jn, but in Luke, we're still thoroughly researching and discovering the background of the mothers involved!  A true historian's heart!

We can take Lk 1:57 in this vein, that Luke is emphasizing the normalcy of what happened to Elizabeth when John the Baptist was born.  These beginnings were not solely for their miracles.  They were historical-miracle stories.  They didn't happen in Oz.  Not everything they did was involving the miraculous and unexplainable.  Elizabeth and Mary, both pregnant: the one who was so miraculously, stayed three months with her relative whose birth was naturally caused: although Luke records that the relatives to Elizabeth were very happy for her, saying the Lord had magnified His mercy toward her (1:58), just like relatives say; although the father had been unable to speak for the last nine months, just like the neighbors say.  After Zecharias's voice returned, the neighbors' say was multiplied (1:65).  And so was Zecharias's (1:67ff.).

Keep in mind, as Luke is writing this, and the readers, including ourselves, are reading this, we already know -- as Mary knew, as Elizabeth knew, having both known together -- that the Lord Jesus was related to them as their Lord.  Elizabeth had surmised this during her pregnancy! -- ("How has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord would come to me?" she asked in 1:43)-- but Luke is recording the stir regarding John the Baptist, who he'd be.  The gospel of John does this a little bit too.  We've seen that the first player whose historical actions he mentions is John the Baptist, even in the middle of the cosmic language about the Word! (Jn 1:6).  The darkness did not comprehend the light, and a man came, sent from God!  This wasn't a plot device.  Luke, in such a magnificent way, totally independently of John, writes the history, and it sounds like history, not a plot device.  It is the history of the Incarnation, not a plot device.

So did Zecharias really say this, as Luke records in 1:67-79?  Almost as if Luke knew some would ask that question, he prefaces it by saying "and his father Zecharias was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied, saying ...." (1:67).  No wiggle room.

Why is it that we would demur?  If we invent theories like "priests don't know Greek that well," or "priests don't rhyme" there are lots of  smart bilingual priests, and lots of theology already laid down in the Old Testament as poetry.  But why are we trying to put a lid on what Luke says was unique: "Zechariah was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied."?    Let the facts clobber your presuppositions, OK?  How otherwise could the excellence of 1:68-79 be explained?  I could be considered out of my mind for saying it this way, but in the middle of the prophecy, Protestantism is prophesied!  Did Luke's eloquence concoct that?  (1:77).  Had Luke already written a systematic theological treatise to explain that the Protestant understanding of salvation being of God alone (1:78) would need to be put into Zechariah's mouth for future generations to see it, or was Zechariah filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied, "saying ..." (1:67)? 

If Luke 2:1 reflects an external urgency upon Joseph and Mary to travel during the final days of her expectation of giving birth, this was a different kind of explanation for the location of the major event -- the birth of Christ -- than the announcement to Zecharias, to Mary, the visit of Mary to Elizabeth, the birth of John, the loosing of Zecharias's tongue, and his prophecy.  Even the visit of Mary to Elizabeth had a divinely-guided aspect to it (1:36), and some of its detail (1:43).  In other words, things going properly, according to divine announcements and revelation.  Here, the external circumstances show that God is the God over difficulty as well.  It was not easy to travel in the final days of her expectation, and certainly not a feeling of fulfilling prophecy, to travel for a census.   

Rm 2:25-3:20

Paul continues with a prime example of a false argument he deals with, an argument about doing well at something in the Law, some aspect or  part of the Law by which they, as far as keeping the covenant, actually thought of themselves as actually keeping the the covenant, because of their keeping an entering into keeping covenant.  Paul is dealing here with an "I've gotten in the door" argument..

Circumcision is an undisputed example of their idea of that door.  Isn't going through the entrance point,  namely, circumcision, of value?  His answer is 2:25.  Again, we might tend to think Paul is saying that he agrees that circumcision is an entrance point, and that  Paul either has better entrance points, new entrance points, or cares only about exits.  We will see.  But the truth is that here, Paul denies that circumcision is anything but a possibly temporary entrance point before God.  He does so in 2:26-27.  Circumcision, far from being a permanent entrance point, is only so if subsequently, one abides inside!  It is something that, if someone "keeps the requirements of the Law" (2:26), or "if he keeps the Law" (2:27) without that one thing, will be regarded -- by God! -- as having been circumcised, as having entered!

This has got to befuddle those who "rely upon the Law" (2:17).  If you imagine the Law as a city, and circumcision as a gateway into it, Paul is saying that getting in, becomes the same as being outside, if when you're in, you violate the rules of the city (2:25).  Those in the city, who don't violate the rules of the city, will be regarded as having come in(2:26).

1 Peter 2:11-25

Peter is not stylistically the same as Paul, who loves to collect exhortations after describing things that are true of us in Christ, such as in Romans and Ephesians.  In our section, having just stated in 2:10 what is true of us in Christ, Peter immediately exhorts us to do something directly because of it in 2:11.

Another difference between many of Peter's and many of Paul's exhortations is that Paul will state things in a way that any Christian, even one who has just begun or recently failed, can apply immediately in any case, and Peter will say things that Christians who have succeeded at some kind of behavior can apply.  We saw that in the last section, in 1:22.  There, he built a three-storey building: bottom floor was they had been born again of seed which is imperishable.  Second floor is they have in obedience to the truth purified their souls for a sincere love of the brethren, and the third floor to be built was "fervently love one another from the heart!" (1:22-23).

Peter teaches similarly in 2:12.  They had been displaying excellence?  Well, Peter says "keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles."  Someone may well ask at that point, "really Peter, is that worth saying?"  But what does Peter then say?   What does Peter envision the result might possibly be, so that they would determine to do so?

In very compact language, Peter starts with the fact that the Gentiles had been slandering his readers as evildoers (2:12), about some item, some "thing in which they slander you."  A good person is often confronted with this fact, that although they've done something good, it has been responded to with evil deeds.  The temptation to the good person is to stop it!  After all, the response (so far) is, to be called an evildoer.  But Peter says "keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles" for a reason.  Gentiles had observed them.  Yes.  Gentiles had slandered them.  Yes.  Peter has the future in his mind, and talks about "the day of visitation" -- that's the day Christ returns.  Something the Christians do now will be, possibly, according to the purpose of it, something resulting in these very same Gentiles who are now doing one thing, doing the exact opposite and even more.

Peter doesn't explain how that would come about.  But he brings it up, not because it is out of the question, but because it what he says their keeping of their behavior excellent is for.

The next two or three paragraphs (2:13-25) are some of the most difficult in the New Testament to understand in the history of ethics.  In order to see the difficulty, compare what is said here with a paragraph like Luke 22:35-38.  There is no doubt in that paragraph, that Jesus was comparing His own instructions to the disciples for a time past, with instructions for another time which was then immediately upon them.  The instructions were mutually exclusive.

We can explore this in stages, perhaps tagged with questions.  1) Is there conceivably a situation that can arise for the Christian, in which the Christian is specifically not going to be prepared ahead of time what to do?  Mk 13:11 // Mt 13:19 // Lk 21:14.  This is such an odd question for ethics, since ethics is the study beforehand of "what to do" (Lk 21:14), and to "do what is right" (1 Peter 2:20), yet the Christian in this case is told to "make up your mind beforehand not to prepare to defend yourselves ...." in this case.

2) Is there an actual situation scripturally in which the commands which are binding upon us as Christians, must be restricted to not apply in all contexts?  Mt 5:22 is binding upon us.  But compare Galatians 3:1.  This is an ancient problem for ethicists, as evidenced, with light toward a resolution, by Solomon in Eccl 7:15-18.

Taking a clue from the previous passage, 3) are there principles that govern sword versus no sword, and accusation versus non-accusation, action versus non-action?  If so, the council of submission to "every human institution" in 2:13 need not rule out the American Revolution, for example, or whistleblowing the actions of evil bosses to others, for another.  The Supreme Court just this week had to make a ruling affirming this.  The employee was unjustly terminated, the court said, for revealing the actions of his bosses.  John the Baptist can tell Herod the king, that it is unlawful for him to have the woman he had (Mt 14:4), and not violate "submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king or ...." (2:13).  Put another way, "submit yourselves" has multiple and various applications.

The pragmatic reader might well assess the situations Peter brings up, about being submissive to one's masters, and suffering unjustly, and suffering in response to a single instance of doing right (2:18,19,20), and count up the cost versus benefit.  After bringing up the fact that Christ left us an example (of Himself) "for you to follow in His steps" (2:21), Peter gives yet another reason that is not as obvious to us if we're only thinking in aggregate quantities.  Let's draw this out....

First, Peter brings up instances of Christ doing things, not just the general category, but events one by one (2:23) ... remember, Peter personally witnessed this in standing outside.  He probably remembered the evening of Christ's arrest and being taken away more than we can fathom, but here, Peter goes through it like a news story: He was reviled, but "He did not revile in return."  While suffering, "He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting to Him who judges righteously."  And finally, what we look at as one thing, Peter allows us to see as having a multiplicity to it: consider the word "sins" (lit.) in 2:24.  It occurs twice.  He bore our "sins," plural. so that we might die "to sins" (lit.).

It's one thing to have died with Christ, and to have been raised with Him, as Paul states in Romans 6:11.  Peter looks at this is a single event in saying "by His wound you were healed" at the end of 2:24.  But before that, Peter says that He bore our "sins," plural, for a reason, that we might die to "sins."  Plural.

Any person who has been wounded, and been healed, can testify to the fact that a healed person can take part in individual actions again.  To die to "sins" is to do so, sin by sin.  Just as Christ's death was also a bearing of our "sins," we, as healed once, have been purposed to die to "sins," plural.  Instance by instance, because as persons, we are those having been healed of them.  That is, we will not die from them, and deal with them as healed persons do of what wounds us.

Jn 1:43-2:12

Have you noticed the connected story from Jn 1:19 all the way through 2:12, the way it is connected with days-between markers? "The next day" (1:29; 1:35: 1:43), and finally,  2:1, "on the third day"?  The earliest days of Jesus's ministry, coming complete with a pericope from prior family life and travels in Jn 2:1,12.

These early days of discipleship confirm an informal model of entry to discipleship to the Lord.  In John, there is that time of convincing and being convinced that way may or not miss in the other three gospels.  Yes, Peter had a brother Andrew who talked to him as you would talk normally about any discovery, about finding the Messiah.  The implied "follow me" of (1:39) is merely Jesus' invitation to Andrew to come see where Jesus is staying.  The next day Philip is found by Jesus (1:45), and Jesus says to him "follow Me"; however, Philip  instead goes and talks to his brother Nathanael first, and brings Nathanael with him.

In both cases the second of the two sets of brothers are addressed individually by Jesus Himself, who says things that solidify the whole thing, the whole issue, for them.  The first, we only get one side of, Jesus telling Simon "You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas" (1:44).  In the second case, we see how deeply what Jesus says (1:47) reaches Nathanael.  The easiest explanation is that Jesus tells Nathanael something about his prior whereabouts or thoughts or characteristic routines that only God could have revealed to him.  And Jesus, again speaking engagingly and informally, has something very important to say about Nathanael: "because I said to you that I saw you under the fig tree, do you believe?  You will see greater things than these ... Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see the heavens opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man."

If this phraseology seems totally strange, you hadn't seen a parallel with 1:32-33;  the Holy Spirit descending out of heaven and remaining upon Christ: John saw that.  Jesus predicts Nathanael will see the angels descending and ascending upon him, "the Son of Man."

Many leaders, at the outset of their ministries, promise their followers dazzling things, but no leader promised that!

In the ensuing chapter, the turning of water to wine brings together the Lord's family life and the informal discipleship that had just begun days earlier.  Much has been written about the Lord's relationship to his mother in this event.  We can see that Mary is used to directing Jesus, as any mother is, and, at the same time, leaving things to Him to do as He wishes (2:5).  The last verse in our section expresses the pivoting transition point perfectly.

Mk 1:35-2:5

At the beginning of Mark, regarding the activities of Jesus, so many things have to do with the Holy Spirit, and often in conflict with the powers of evil (1:8, 10, 12, 13).   We would have thought the gathering of disciples in 1:16ff would send the ministry off in a different direction, but no: the next story is not about disciples, but about an "unclean spirit" (1:23), and it coming out of a person.  The crowd was amazed at the teaching (1:22), calling it "a new teaching with authority" precisely because of Jesus commanding the unclean spirits to obey Him (1:27).

This is not inconsistent with what Jesus says in calling the first disciples.  To become "fishers of men," what better thing than to witness the Lord's work in fishing men out of the most severe of things: illnesses, and being possessed by unclean spirits?  Both of these aspects of the human condition are characterized by the helplessness of the human being.

And yet Christ's work is also addressed to the normal Galilean, to whom Christ preached the gospel of God (1:14), preached in the synagogue on Saturday, with great authority, "and not as the scribes" (1:22).  The summary in 1:39 is "preaching and casting out the demons," to such an extent that Jesus "could no longer publicly enter a city" (1:45).    

In the next section, 2:1-5, it is often ignored, what Jesus actually said, in itself, to the paralytic, after seeing the faith (2:5) of those who let down his palette after removing the roof where Jesus was "speaking the word" to a group packed inside: "Child, your sins are forgiven."

This is a pronouncement.  An act.  Not a perception or discovery by Jesus, but an act that forgives the man's sins.  We know this because of the explanation Jesus gives of it: "the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (2:11).

It is important not to water this story down to the demonstration that Jesus "could" forgive sins, but to remember that He did, and why.  "Jesus, seeing their faith said to the paralytic, 'Child, your sins are forgiven.'"

Do we have an "opening" in our thinking for this?  What does the faith of those who had dug an opening in the roof have to do with this man's sins? his sins, their faith, Christ forgiving his sins in a moment in time. 

Christ saw their faith.  Is this metonymy for Christ seeing the effects of their faith?  It may not matter, since subsequently Mark shows that Jesus was also "aware in His spirit" what some of the scribes were "reasoning in their hearts about" (2:8).  In any case, Christ saw "their" faith.  Can another's faith be a reason that Christ forgives someone else's sin?  It must be so.  Here is a story from the earliest days of Christ's ministry, that has yet to be well integrated into so much theology!  Why?  Because of our presupposition that "my" forgiveness must be because of what is true of "me."  Not so.  For two reasons in this story, that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins just as He did here, and that the faith of others can be a reason that Christ forgives someone else's sin.

Acts 2:22-47

The many details in later theology notwithstanding, how would Peter's sermon have come across to his hearers the first time?  Would they be having questions about whether what the Father "poured forth that which you both see and hear" was a necessary accompaniment, or a one-time accompaniment of "the promise of the Holy Spirit" (2:33)?  Isn't it more striking, instead, that Peter addresses his audience in the tone he does ... at ... all?

Here's what Peter says about them: 1.  "men of Israel" (22); 2.  "this Man ... you nailed to a cross by the hands of men without the Law and put Him to death (23); "whom you crucified" (36).

Here's what Peter says to them: 1.  "Brethren" (29); 2.  "repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.  For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself"; (38-39).

Here's what happened: "those who had received his word were baptized, and that day there were added about three thousand souls" (41).

As an original hearer, to be stricken by what Peter said about you, and amazed that "the promise is for you ..." despite what Peter said about you is to go beyond academic interest in what is necessary, to what is necessary for the soul.