Jesus Came to Divide!

JESUS DID NOT COME FOR THE RIGHTEOUS

And hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners” (Mark 2:17); ¹¹ When the Pharisees saw this, they said to His disciples, “Why is your Teacher eating with the tax collectors and sinners?” ¹² But when Jesus heard this, He said, “It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick. ¹³ But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire compassion, and not sacrifice,’ for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners” (Matthew 9:11-13); ³¹ And Jesus answered and said to them, “It is not those who are well who need a physician, but those who are sick. ³² I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance” (Luke 5:31-32)

The Pharisees, who were teachers and guardians of the Law (at least, this is their own self-estimation), were upset at Jesus because he dined with tax collectors and sinners (prostitutes). In response to the bitter Pharisees, Jesus quoted Hosea 6:6 and said that God desired mercy and not sacrifice. The Pharisees were kings of straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel. They were blind leaders leading the blind (Matt.23:24). To the legalistic, unmerciful, unloving Pharisees, Jesus asserted that he did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance. The sinners (tax collectors and prostitutes) recognized that they were ill and in need of a spiritual physician. The Jews in general did not, for they were taught by the blind and spiritually ‘whole’ Pharisees. It is plain, therefore, that Jesus did come to call certain ones. However, he did not come to call others. This was not incidental, as some writers imply, as if to say that Jesus really came to call all people, but some reject him, and this is merely a reaction to his proper job of calling everyone. The texts are plain: Jesus did not come for everyone, for he called only some- the unrighteous, the sick.

JESUS CAME TO BRING DIVISION

Jesus rephrases the same teaching to say that he came to divide families and to bring war on earth:

³⁴ “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. ³⁵ For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; ³⁶ and a man’s enemies will be” (Matt.10:34-36); ⁴⁹ “I have come to cast fire upon the earth; and how I wish it were already kindled! ⁵⁰ But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished! ⁵¹ Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; ⁵² for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. ⁵³ They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law” (Luke 12:49-53)

The “sword” of the Gospel divides humanity into two groups: those who follow Christ and those who do not. Jesus is adamant that this is not incidental or accidental: “For I came to set…”; “I have come to cast fire…”; “do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division….” His purpose was to divide humanity, even to the point of dividing within families. CAN JESUS BE ANY MORE SPECIFIC? His Gospel deliberately saves and deliberately condemns. He deliberately saved and deliberately condemned. Both aspects were part of his calling in preaching the Gospel.

            Salvation and condemnation were both original aspects of Jesus’ ministry because that was the will of the Father:

²⁵ At that time Jesus said, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. ²⁶ Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight. ²⁷ All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him (Matt.11:25-27).

The “wise and intelligent” were the Jews and the Pharisees who taught them. It was the Father, not merely the Son, who hid the truth about Christ from the Jews. However, it was the Father who also revealed the truth about the Son to “infants”, that is, to those who spiritually heard. This division was “well-pleasing” in the Father’s sight, to the One who was watching closely the outworking of HIS will. Indeed, Jesus could not do anything- save or condemn; reveal or hide- unless the Father had first given him the command and authority to do so. The only way to know the Father is to know the Son; but you cannot come to know the Son unless he will to reveal himself to you. And he will not reveal himself to you if you are “wise and intelligent”; he will reveal himself to you if you are an “infant”.

           

THIS DIVISION WAS PRE-PLANNED

¹⁰ As soon as He was alone, His followers, along with the twelve, began asking Him about the parables. ¹¹ And He was saying to them, “To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but those who are outside get everything in parables, ¹² in order that while seeing, they may see and not perceive, and while hearing, they may hear and not understand, otherwise they might return and be forgiven” (Mark 4:10-12); ¹⁰ And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?” ¹¹ Jesus answered them, “To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted. ¹² For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him. ¹³ Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. ¹⁴ In their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says,

‘You will keep on hearing, but will not understand;
You will keep on seeing, but will not perceive;
¹⁵ For the heart of this people has become dull,
With their ears they scarcely hear,
And they have closed their eyes,
Otherwise they would see with their eyes,
Hear with their ears,
And understand with their heart and return,
And I would heal them.’

¹⁶ But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear. ¹⁷ For truly I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it. (Matt.13:10-17); These things Jesus spoke, and He went away and hid Himself from them. ³⁷ But though He had performed so many signs before them, yet they were not believing in Him. ³⁸ This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet which he spoke: “Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” ³⁹ For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, ⁴⁰ “He has blinded their eyes and He hardened their heart, so that they would not see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and be converted and I heal them.” ⁴¹ These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and he spoke of Him. ⁴² Nevertheless many even of the rulers believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they were not confessing Him, for fear that they would be put out of the synagogue; ⁴³ for they loved the approval of men rather than the approval of God (John 12:36-43).

Mark 4:10-12 causes embarrassment for many commentators. Mark Stein concludes that the hina clause (“so that”) and mepote (“otherwise”) in verse 12 cannot mean that Jesus intentionally taught the parables to prevent some from repenting and believing. Now, Stein does not deny that a plain reading of the Greek text does indeed imply that Jesus’ parables had the effect of making it impossible for some to repent. However, by the time of the first century, although the verse gave the impression that some were prevented from repenting by Jesus’ parables, in actual fact, the only reason some did not repent was because they did not understand the truth in the parable, and therefore they did not repent. In scholarly terms, the difference is between a hina clause of purpose as opposed to result:

Jesus taught in parables, but some did not believe his message, so that they did not repent.

                                                                        Vs

Jesus taught in parables in order that some would not perceive and believe and be forgiven.

Stein continues, adding that if Mark had meant a predestinarian interpretation, he would not have excluded a crucial part of Isaiah 6:10 that said, “  “Render the hearts of this people insensitive, their ears dull, and their eyes dim” ”. Also, “some of Jesus’ parables were meant to be understood by those outside (Luke 15:1-2) and that some were in fact understood very well (Mark 12:12).”[1]

Inconsistent

Stein’s exegesis taught:

·         on the face of it, as to pure grammar, Mark 4:12 does teach that the parables were deliberately used by Jesus to prevent some from believing.

·         that Isaiah 6:9-10 implied predestination.

-If Isaiah 6:9-10 is predestinarian, what did that predestinarian theology look like and imply in the context of Isaiah 6?

-Why would God disallow predestinarian teaching in Mark 4:12 but permit it in Isaiah 6:9-10?

-If Isaiah 6:9-10 is predestinarian and Mark 4:12, when read at face value, does indicate a predestinarian emphasis, surely this implies that the whole- Mark 4:10-12- is predestinarian in nature.

The Missing Text

Stein, of course, says that a truly predestinarian meaning would necessitate the presence of the phrase, “ “Render the hearts of this people insensitive, their ears dull, and their eyes dim” ”. Why does Jesus have to include this portion? If, as Stein admits, the partial citation that Mark uses is predestinarian in its original context of Isaiah, and even when used in Mark is to be read in a predestinarian manner when taken at face value, surely Mark’s summary is sufficient in itself and does not need, “ “Render the hearts….” ” If you were Mark, how would you say, in Greek, that parables were taught in order to prevent some from repenting? And, if you were Mark, how would you achieve this goal using Isaiah 6:9-10? And, if you were Mark, how would you achieve these aims in summary form?

Either/Or?

Stein is missing the larger point. Whether it is “so that” or “in order that” does not entirely matter. Jesus came to bring a division: between those who hear and those who do not. This division is not incidental to his preaching the Gospel. In Mark 4:10-12 the division appears this way: the followers of Christ are given the mysteries of the kingdom of God; those who are “outside”, who are not followers, get taught in parables. That is, the outsiders are taught in parables because they are outside and are not followers. Whenever Jesus was followed by crowds, he preached in parables (Mark 3:22-23; 4:1-2; 7:17; 11:27-12:1, 12). However, he would explain the parables to his followers, his disciples, giving to them the true meaning- the mystery of the Gospel.

            Stein maintains, however, that some from outside did understand the parables (Luke 15:1-2; Mark 12:12). I’m not sure why Stein cites Luke 15:1-2. I take Jesus’ words at face value, “but those who are outside get everything in parables”. The fact that they are taught in parables does not prevent them from understanding their superficial teaching. The issue is not that of learning with the ear, but of learning with the spiritual ear, “ ‘while seeing, they may see and not perceive, and while hearing, they may hear and not understand’ ”. The disciples of Christ also heard with the human ear, but only to them was revealed their spiritual mystery. Stein’s problem issues from an unwillingness to accept that parables were taught to condemn the outsiders. Yet, isn’t that what Mark 12:12 teaches, “for they understood that He spoke the parable against them”? Of course he did!

            In similar fashion, Paul writes that tongues were given as a sign to unbelievers (1 Cor.14:22). In verse 21, Paul then cites Isaiah 28:11-12. It is a warning to Israel that God will bring judgment upon Israel for its sin. God will cause foreign armies, with their babbling languages, to fall in judgment upon the nation of Israel and subdue it. The preaching of the Gospel in languages (Acts 2) was a sign that God had officially judged Israel, removing from it his glory and that he was giving his glory and Gospel to his church.

           

Predestinarian

What Stein never does is define what he means by predestination. It was the plan of God, through his Son, that only some would be given mysteries but the rest would be given parables. This plan was outlined in Isaiah 6:9-10. In other words, Jesus is not citing Isaiah 6:9-10 just because, as a text, it kind of fits the reaction of the stubborn Jews. Although, this is what Stein’s view implies. Old Testament Scripture is never used in that way in Mark’s Gospel. Rather, the Old Testament Scriptures are fulfilled by Jesus’ teaching and ministry, entailing that the entirety of the Old Testament was created as a plan indicating the manner of the life and ministry of the Messiah. Simply put, who the Messiah was, what he would do, who would receive him, who would reject him, was already put forward as a ‘plan’ in the Old Testament. Why would Stein object to this?

Divine Hardening

Stein said Mark 4:12 is a first-century phenomenon that interprets predestinarian language in a regular, non-predestinarian fashion; and that, Mark 4:12 misses the most predestinarian part of Isaiah 6:9-10. But Stein has nothing to say about John 12:40, “ “ ‘He has blinded their eyes and He hardened their heart, so that they would not see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and be converted and I heal them.’ ” ” One can hardly put it in stronger language stating that God was the cause of Israel’s unrepentance. Now, as in Isaiah and John 12, Israel was already unbelieving, already against God. Yet, confronted with God’s message and power, Israel doubled-down on its unbelief, “ “Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” ” Israel hardened itself. As a consequence, God hardened Israel. He did not, as so many Calvinists say, merely confirm, or seal, Israel’s own hardness. The language is perfectly plain: GOD blinded their eyes; GOD hardened their hearts. But how can one blind those already blind? Again, we must pay attention to the main theme: it is a response to God’s revelation, a revelation that is seen and heard. Israel saw this revelation but rejected it. God had had enough and made their blindness permanent: he hardened their hardness! He did not merely finalize their own hardness, but he brought his own, particular, form of hardness. In the context of John 12, this divine reaction of hardening the hardened, of blinding the blind, is marked by the preaching of parables. This was solely the act of God, the act of Jesus Christ, the final judgment (as to the divine divorce) against Israel.

---

[1] Robert H. Stein, Mark (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 210-211.