Is God’s Word Frozen? Studies in Mark, Pt. 63

In the Gospel of Mark, there is just something about Jesus’ words. Some people attribute power and authority to His words while others consider them blasphemous and troubling. It is this tension that keeps Mark’s drama interesting. The reader/listener is drawn into the story because they want to see what else Jesus has to say and how certain persons will react to His words.

So, while Jesus Himself is the centerpiece of Mark’s account, Jesus’ words, in all reality, probably assume the same, if not, in some ways, a greater role. If Jesus had never spoken, Mark would hardly have a story. Therefore, everything hinges on what Jesus says—His words. This got me thinking about Jesus’ statement in 13.30 that “Heaven and earth will pass by but my words will not pass by”. (If you are interested in why I translate “pareleusontai” as “pass by” instead of “pass away”, see study #62 in this series.) What does Jesus mean when He says this? Are His words frozen in time? Are His words static? How are we to make sense of this phrase?

Well, to get a better understanding of this, we should consider Mark’s story thus far. For example, we need to take into consideration the tension, as I mentioned above, that from the beginning of the story, has some people liking Jesus and some disliking Him. After His first exorcism and teaching session in chapter 1, the people marvel at Jesus and attribute authority to His words. In chapter 2 however, after Jesus heals an ill man and basically refers to Himself as God, some people subscribe and some get ticked. It is not long after this that the Pharisees and Herodians plot to kill Jesus (3. 6). So, with this group, Jesus’ words have gotten Him in trouble. At various junctures throughout the rest of the story, the religio-political leaders will try to “trap” or “catch” Jesus in His words so that they can arrest, try and kill Him.

Thus, there is that aspect of Jesus’ words and then there is another aspect. I’m speaking now of Jesus’ claims about His identity as the Messiah (e.g. Son of David, Messiah/Christ, Lord, etc.). In chapter 12, Jesus refers to David’s “speaking in the Spirit” when he wrote Psalm 110. I have argued elsewhere that this “speaking in the Spirit” means, not tongue-speaking, but rather speaking truth about the Messiah. Of course, David didn’t know that Jesus would be the Messiah. However, what David said, did reveal truth about the Messiah’s identity. Similarly, in chapter 12, Jesus says that when His disciples are arrested and taken to court, they will be given words to speak. These are not just any words and the Spirit is not giving them wisdom to get out of the situation. Instead, what Jesus means is that the Spirit will enable the disciples to speak truth about the Messiah’s identity before the religious and political leaders. This leads me to another point.

All throughout Mark’s Gospel, the disciples have had trouble understanding Jesus’ claims about Himself. They’ve also had questions about His teachings and some of His wonders. In many ways, Jesus’ words seem to have just passed the disciples by; in one ear and out the other, so to speak. But Jesus will say in 13.31 that before too long, His words will no longer “pass by” the disciples as they have been; sometime soon, it will all make sense to them.

So, there are those out to get Jesus because of His words, there are those who attribute authority to Jesus’ words and there are those that will be given words by the Holy Spirit that will align with Jesus’ own words about His identity as the Messiah. Now, when we get to Mk. 13.31, when Jesus says that His words will not “pass by”, He’s referring to two things: 1) His words about His Messianic identity, at some point, will finally make sense to the disciples, and 2) The words He has spoken concerning the Temple will also make sense (the disciples, like others, had a hard time understanding Jesus’ comments about the Temple being destroyed).

Really, in the end, Jesus’ words are what get Him killed; Jesus’ words are a central piece of Mark’s story. However, Jesus’ words are neither frozen nor static. As I have shown above, His statement is not that His words will “never pass away” but rather that His words will “not pass by” (the word “never” isn’t in the text!) without being acknowledged. In this way, then, Jesus could very well be drawing on Isaianic tradition, for, in Isaiah 55.11 (see also: Isa. 40.8), the text says: “…the word that goes from my mouth will not return void”. As we know, what Jesus spoke of certainly came to pass. I would hope that when we read verses such as Mk. 13.31 (and those in Isaiah), we would not attempt to formulate doctrines of Scripture on them (e.g. Inerrancy, Infallibility, etc.) because that’s not at all what is being spoken of. What can be adapted and adopted from such passages, however, is that our confession of Jesus as Messiah is just as truthful today as it was then and as such, Jesus Himself yields authority over our lives. In realizing this, we actually move from being part of Mark's audience to being part of Mark's, and thus Jesus', story.

Heaven And Earth Will Pass Away? Really? Studies in Mark, Pt. 62

While Mk. 13 certainly sounds apocalyptic (many have dubbed it the “Little Apocalypse; e.g. Colani, Wiffenbach) and quite eschatological (many have suggested it is about the End Times), and while I will most certainly be seen as something as a nuisance for saying what I am about to, I wish to share a different view. I do not think Jesus is being overtly apocalyptic or eschatological in Mk. 13. Yes, there are some statements Jesus makes that seem apocalyptic in nature but in the end, I am wholly unconvinced that what Jesus is saying is meant to be taken in the sense of apocalyptic.

If we go by the SBL definition of apocalyptic, building on the work of T. R. Hatina, I can come up with over 15 reasons as to why Mk. 13 doesn’t fit the bill as apocalyptic (e.g. no revelation given from an otherworldly being, no transcendent/supernatural world mentioned, Jesus says the “end is not yet” – something contrary to apocalyptic lit., etc.). So, I do not believe that Jesus is being overtly apocalyptic in Mk. 13. (Neither is Mark himself.) By the same token, neither Jesus nor Mark are being incredibly eschatological. Jesus is not speaking of the end of the world in Mk. 13 but rather the destruction of the Temple.

Many try to pull a switcharoo and argue that in the first few verses Jesus is talking about the Temple’s destruction but somewhere around the 24th verse, He begins talking about the end of the world. This is just patently incorrect and makes no sense. It just ruins and interrupts the story to take it that way. So, if Jesus is not being apocalyptic or eschatological, what are we to make of Mk. 13? Some have suggested that it is a farewell discourse. I am not too convinced by that answer either. Perhaps what we need to do with Mk. 13 is to stop trying to fit it into some specific literary category. We do not single any other chapters out of Mk. and force them to be their own category, why should we do it to this one? In my opinion, the best thing to do is to read Mk. 13 as a continuation of Mark’s narrative.

If we read it this way, then it all makes much more sense. In chapters 11 and 12, Jesus has been railing against the Temple and its authorities. In chapter 13, Jesus leaves the Temple, talks to His disciples about its destruction and then gives some pointers as to when that destruction will occur (though, He doesn’t give a specific date; more on this in another post).

Also, if we read chapter 13 as a continuation of the overall narrative, we can make sense out of Jesus’ statement, “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near (eggus). Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that it is near (eggus), right at the gate. Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away (parelthei) until all these things have happened. Heaven and earth will pass away (pareleusontai) but my words will never pass away (pareleusontai)” (13.28-31). Let me point out a few exegetical items here.

First, notice that Jesus, in verse 28, brings up the fig trees and how they’re supposed to bear fruit. Back in chapter 11, the fig tree was representative of the Temple and its authorities; the same is true here (thus, He’s still referring to the Temple). Also, in verses 28 and 29, Jesus uses the term “eggus” which means “near”. This is a temporal phrase or a phrase that denotes time. The term “near” must be related to the term “pareleusontai" from "parerchomai” and its correlate which is used three times in verses 30 and 31. Parerchomai can mean “to pass away” but it can also mean “to avert”, “to neglect” or “to pass by”. Traditionally it is always rendered “to pass away”. However, there is good reason to question this translation. In chapter 8, where parerchomai is used, Jesus is not “passing away” when He walks on the water towards the disciples in the boat. No, Jesus is going to “pass by” them. In other words, He’s going to go right past them and they won’t even recognize or understand that it was Him.

That’s how the term should be taken in 13.30-31, as “pass by”. So, we can translate the passage as: “Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass by until all these things have happened. Heaven and earth will pass by but my words will never pass by.” This makes so much more sense, especially when taken with Jesus’ “gate” analogy. In verse 29 Jesus says that the disciples will know the Temple’s destruction is close because these things will be right at the “gate”. Jesus picks back up on this analogy a few verses later in 32-6. Now, we should ask here, Why the gate analogy? What’s the significance of the gate?

Well, a gate is something that people use to bypass something or rather, to pass by something. So, Jesus is saying, “This generation (time period) is not going to pass by (as usual) until all these things have happened to the Temple.” He is also saying, “Heaven and earth are going to pass by (as usual) but my words will not pass by (as usual).” So, there will be famines, wars, rumors of wars, earthquakes—which were all common in that day (just as they are now)—and things heaven and earth will pass by as usual. However, Jesus’ words will not pass by as usual. What does this mean? I take it to be a contrast to the disciples’ continual lack of understanding Jesus throughout Jesus’ ministry. Many times, the disciples misunderstand Jesus and what He does or says. Many times they ask Him to clarify Himself in private. Many times they just don’t get it; just like on the boat, Jesus can pass by and they have no idea what He’s doing. Here, Jesus is saying, “No longer will my words pass by you like they have been passing by you. When you see these things happen, you will take note of what I’m saying and it will all make sense.” (Of course, the disciples, like everyone else, must have been confused about Jesus’ statements about the destruction of the Temple.)

Then, Jesus returns to the gate analogy. The gatekeeper will stand at the gate and when someone familiar and usual arrives, he’ll let them pass by—just like people will let heaven and earth as usual pass by. However, when the Temple is destroyed, something unusual, people will pause, just as a gatekeeper would pause when an unfamiliar face tried to pass by. Jesus is making the point: “Don’t be alarmed by unusual things, just be ready. Don’t get anxious and don’t start making predictions and don’t join the prophecy club, just be ready, just be prepared.”

One last thing, Jesus says that His words will not pass by (perhaps more on this in another post too). I take this to refer not only His statements about the Temple, but also His statements about His own identity as the Messiah. Just as the disciples will be tried in the courts and given words by the Spirit to speak truth about the Messiah’s identity, Jesus is saying that, via the Spirit in God’s people, His words about His identity as Messiah will be understood once all of these things that He’s talking about happen.

So, this chapter is not a little apocalypse. In fact, it is not really that apocalyptic at all (though some apocalyptic language may be hinted at). By the same token, it is not eschatological. So, we should not read Mk. 13 either of those ways. What we should do is read it as a continuation of Mark’s story thus far. To do anything else, I think, is to do the text injustice. Just as well, we should translate verses 30 and 31 with “pass by” instead of “pass away”. This makes much better sense of the gate analogy, Mark’s own use of the term “pareleusontia / parerchomai” and the Temple discourse. Jesus is not saying that heaven and earth will pass away. I mean, think about it, What sense does it make for heaven and earth to pass away but His words still remain? It is quite illogical (even if heaven and earth are replaced with something else). Jesus is saying that His words will no longer pass by His disciples, misunderstood, as usual. A generation will pass by and heaven and earth will pass by as usual, but not Jesus words about His identity as Messiah and not Jesus’ words about the impending fate of the Temple.

We must stop attempting, in our applicatory endeavors, to make this story about people beyond the first century. Moreover, we must stop trying to make it about us today. It fits neither of those categories (what it does come strikingly close to, however, is Amos 9, give that a read). When it comes to application, what we can glean from this text is that, in the face of trials, we can do a few things: 1) Endure, 2) Continue to speak truth about Jesus’ identity as the Messiah, and 3) Be receptive to the Holy Spirit’s desire to work in us as individuals and as the community of God.

A 5-Man Conversation Pregnant With Meaning: Studies in Mark, Pt. 59

As a male, I would find it incredibly odd if I walked into a room and five of my buddies were talking about how painful giving birth is. For starters, I would wonder what got them talking about it. Then, I would raise the question as to how they know what it is like. Now, if a woman were to walk in on this dialogue, she might have some questions too: 1) Do you guys have a clue what you’re talking about? 2) Do you really think you can understand what it’s like to expel another human from your body? 3) And why do you focus on the pain at the expense of the joy that follows, anyway?

Now, roll back the script about 2,000 years to a scene on Mount Olivet in Jerusalem. In Mark’s Gospel, we are told that Jesus, in a conversation with Peter, James, Andrew and John, talks about birth pains (or “pangs” if you like). As I kept reading chapter 13 over and over, verse 8 kept sticking out like a sore thumb to me. Why did Jesus use the imagery of “pregnancy” and “birth pains” here when talking to a group of men? I mean, could they really understand? Could they really relate? Does this just reveal Jesus’ patriarchal culture, a culture where the suffering of women meant very little to men? What is going on here?

Of course, many Markan commentators gloss over this issue while others say nothing at all. Those who do say something tend to focus on how this is a redacted statement or they focus on its role in rabbinic tradition and interpretation. Gempf, in his study on birth pangs in the NT, makes a convincing suggest that in Mk. 13, Jesus is saying, “Guys, do you know how when a woman goes into labor and she has the first pain and then another, then another, then another, etc. that’s what you’re going to face. When the time to give birth comes, the woman has experienced many escalating hardships. That’s what’s going to happen to you.”

I agree, partially with Gempf’s analysis. However, I don’t think he goes far enough. I think what Jesus is saying in Mk. 13.8 also has to do with what happens after and even as a result of the birth pains: something new. I would argue, unlike any other Markan scholar, that Jesus’ statement is hearkening back to Isaiah 66. In the first few verses of that chapter, Isaiah is talking about how the presence of God is going to move from the temple to a human. As the chapter progresses, a birth pangs analogy is used and so is one about a child feeding from it’s mother’s breasts (thus, correlating with Mk. 13.17). Actually, there are tons of parallels between Mk. 13 and Isa. 66 (I’m not going to list them all here).

I should also note an interesting article by E. C. Webster on Isa. 66. There, he points out that these verses are, in a rhetorical sense, a riddle—and yes, the riddle has an answer. I would contend that something similar is taking place around Mk. 13.8. In Isa. 66 (you can read it for yourself), the answer would be as follows: “In the years of her desolation Zion neither travailed nor brought forth but with the return of the exiles she was inhabited in one day, in one moment. Will not the Lord who brought this about see that her people
increase and prosper?” Now, let me put this together so we can make some sense of out Jesus, a male, using maternal imagery in Mk. 13.8.

What Jesus is saying, in drawing on Isa. 66 is essentially this: “Just as there is an escalation of pains when a woman goes into labor, so too, will you my followers, experience a wave of pains and sufferings. Recall the history of your ancestors: Right in the middle of the pain and suffering, the Lord inhabited Zion and brought forth increase. In the same, way, when the travails come upon you, wave after wave, don’t be caught sleeping, remain awake. For, God, the Holy Spirit, will inhabit you and cause His people to increase. If you endure, you will be saved and not only that, but new life will be brought forth.”

Taking these things into consideration, we see that Jesus wasn’t using the imagery of birth pangs just because it sounded witty or because it seemed like a good analogy. Jesus was drawing on Isaianic tradition; He was comparing God’s inhabiting of Zion with the Spirit’s inhabiting of His followers (e.g. God would leave the Temple and inhabit the people) and just as well, He was imploring His followers to endure, just as their ancestors did. Again, I could say much more about this conversation between 5 guys that is simply pregnant with meaning but for now, I guess I’ll spare you the pain.

Was Jesus' Eschatological Clock Out Of Sync? Studies in Mark, Pt. 58

For those who have even a simple understanding of how to read and interpret the Scriptures, it should go without saying that Mk. 13 is not about the end of the world. Yet, many act as if—and quite persistently—that it is indeed about the end of all things. The truth of the matter is, what Jesus says in Mk. 13 has nothing to do with what would happen thousands of years later (and maybe thousands of years from now). Jesus is not being terribly futuristic here. What is going on in Mk. 13 is that Jesus is talking about what was getting ready to happen to those He was talking to as well as—and this is often overlooked!—to Himself. To be certain—and it seems rather clear to me—everything Jesus says in Mk. 13 is quite temporal and correlates with the rest of Mark’s account, even if rather loosely at some points.

We might insist, as some have done, that Jesus’ predictions were wrong. Many people have argued that Jesus believed the end of the world was immanent (most recentlly Ehrman) but in reality, it wasn’t and thus, Jesus got it all wrong. I disagree with this view (not least because Jesus Himself, in chapter 13, goes on to say that even He does not know specific times!). I don’t disagree with this to try to force some theological presupposition upon Jesus either. I disagree with it because everything Jesus says in Mk. 13 actually plays out, to some degree, in the next three chapters (and this “playing out” is even clearer when the other Gospel accounts and the historical background are accessed; see for example the statements made in Mk. 13.8):

Chapter 13 / Fulfillment
13.2......in.....15.38
13.5-13.......in.....14.9, 45, 53-72
13.21-3....in.....14.61-4
13.26......in.....14.62
13.34-5....in.....14.37-40
13.36......in.....14.37-8
In 13.2, Jesus speaks of the Temple’s impeding destruction. In 15.38, the Temple curtain (at the heart of the Temple) is destroyed from top to bottom. In 13.9-13, numerous things come to pass. Jesus makes another reference to the Gospel being preached in the world, two of Jesus’ own betray Him, Jesus Himself is brought before the courts and it was denied by the religious leaders (and the people) that Jesus was the Messiah. In 13.26 Jesus speaks about coming on the clouds (=judgment on the wicked/Temple, which plays out in the curtain’s tearing as well as Jesus’ own receiving the kingdom) and in 14.62, Jesus affirms, “I am” and that indeed, He is the one to come on the clouds (this also rails against the “I am” statements of others). In 13.34-5, Jesus tells the disciples to keep watch and not fall asleep as things will happen suddenly; in 14.37-40, the disciples fall asleep, do not keep watch, are not avid gatekeepers and things transpire quite rapidly (in the narrative).

We have to keep in mind that Mark’s account is a story. He does not have every detail of every one of Jesus’ words or every detail of every moment of Jesus’ life. So, where the correlates occur even loosely, they should still be acknowledged. Some, however, are strong fulfillments and give us no reason for pause. The point is: Jesus is speaking of things that were about ready to happen and eventually, they did. So, He didn’t get the end of the world thing wrong because He was never ever trying to talk about the end of the world. By the same token, His eschatalogical clock was not out of sync because it was never really set! What Jesus said, however, according to Mark, He certainly got right as Mark’s story (understood in context) shows us.

Blessed Are The Barren: Studies in Mark, Pt. 56 & Thoughts On Adoption, Pt. 8

At present, I have three growing interests in the field of biblical studies and in this post, two of those have come together: the Gospel of Mark and Barrenness/Infertility issues (from a biblical-theological standpoint). I noted in an earlier post that when one facing sterility/infertility struggles reads the Bible, there seems to be little hope and much condemnation (read this post too). However, as I continue to read Mark’s Gospel, I am beginning to find a lot of hope in some of the images and words that Jesus uses, as well as in His actions. For the barren Christian couple, there is hope.

Take Mk. 13.17-9 for instance, that passage says: “How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! Pray that this will not take place in winter, because those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now—and never to be equaled again.” We find the parallel to this passage in Luke’s account at verse 23 and following: “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. For the days are surely coming...”

In both of these works, Jesus’ admonition is found in an eschatological discourse. What I mean by “eschatological discourse” here is this: eschatology is the study of the end of something, often thought of as the study of the end of the world (but not always, and certainly not in either of these passage) and discourse is meant to denote a speech or conversation here. So, Jesus is giving a talk here about the end of something, particularly, the end of God’s people being mistreated and taken advantage of by a corrupt political and religious system. Jesus could be looking ahead to the battle that took place in 70 AD that led to the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple (and by relation, the sinful practices that were taking place in the Temple).

In Mark’s account, emphasis is placed on Jesus’ statement about mothers who are nursing their children. In Luke’s account, emphasis is placed on women whose breasts are dry or to put it differently, barren women. Jesus is saying that as the fight draws near, women are going to be threatened, mistreated, taken from their homes, forced to flee, etc. It is going to be a tough time. But it is going to be much harder for women who have children than it will women who do not. Why? Because women with children will have to see their children suffer. Women who have no children will not have to deal with that. Thus, as B. Pitre has shown, in an interesting twist, Jesus is saying here that the women without children should consider that a blessing.

That Jesus blessed barren women runs counter to much of the mentality of the Old Testament. There, it appears over and over that barren women are cursed by God and do not have His favor. The psalmist’s admonition that children are a gift from God is true but as Jesus points out, context is crucial. In the impending context, the demise of Jerusalem, it is actually going to seem like a curse for a parent to have to see their child endure such harsh cruelties and realities. So, Jesus blesses the barren women and warns those with child or carrying child.

We are prone to overlooking the fact that Jesus blessed the barren because in our society today, we still act as if women with children are better than those without. For Jesus, this is just not the case. For Jesus, the context of one’s life situation has a lot to do with whether or not the situation of a birth is a blessing or hardship. Certainly, there are many barren women, especially godly barren women, who are much more deserving of a child than others. Certainly there are barren women who are much more fit to raise a child than an irresponsible teenager who can get pregnant and have a child. Certainly there are situations that are good for a child and a parent and there are situations that are not.

The fact remains, however, we must read Jesus’ words here as a qualification of all of those stories in the Hebrew Scriptures where it appears that women who are barren are under a heavy curse. Just as well, we might acknowledge that today, suffering is brought on to children whose parents are not ready to raise them. In other words, instead of helping eradicate the world struggle of starving, homeless and struggling children, many irresponsible people continue to have kids. It seems to me that Jesus might say to such people, “Be warned; woe to you.” It also seems to me that Jesus might say to those who are responsible (and perhaps barren): “Do what you can to fix the situation, to help alleviate the struggle and to ensure that these kids never have to face a day of direness and dread.”

This is where adoption comes to mind. While adoption in antiquity was often done to extend the male’s lineage, it seems to me that there are certainly cases where adoption (even if that particular word wasn’t used to describe the situation) where compassion came into play (e.g. I’m thinking here of Moses’ story, etc.). So, for those of you who are sterile or barren, there is hope for you. Perhaps, while you are struggling with barrenness, you are alleviated from bigger, worse struggles. Perhaps, also, you might begin to think about adoption--choosing to love a child! Either way, remember this: Jesus loves you and indeed, blesses you.

Speaking In The Spirit: Studies in Mark, Pt. 54

One of the most intriguing verses of all of Mark’s Gospel is tucked away in chapter 12. In verse 36, Jesus makes the comment that King David, in Psalm 110.1, spoke “in the Holy Spirit”. Of course, Psalm 110 makes no comment that David is speaking in the Spirit. Just as well, it offers no definition on what is meant by “speaking in the Spirit” here. (Certainly, it is not referring to glossalalia or tongue speaking!)

To understand what Jesus means here, we first have to understand Mark’s view of Jesus’ relationship with the Spirit. In chapter one, what some consider to be a prologue, the Spirit enters “into” Jesus when He arises from the waters of baptism. Just before this, John the Baptizer said that the same would happen to Jesus’ followers (e.g. He would baptize them in the Spirit). So, Jesus gets Spirit-filled and this endows Him with the authority of God the Father (1.27) and the power of God the Spirit (1.21-8).

In 3.1, the religious and political leaders from Jerusalem accuse Jesus of driving out demons by the power of Beelzebul. Jesus accuses them of blaspheming the Holy Spirit when they do this. I should digress here and note that there is a difference between denying the Holy Spirit and blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Denying the Spirit is closer to what we find being spoken of in the Johannine epistles. Blaspheming the Spirit, as is done here in Mk., is connecting He who is Holy (the Spirit) to that which is vain or unholy (Beelzebul/demons). On a smaller scale, that’s what blasphemy is: attaching something holy to something vain (and thereby rendering that which is holy, unholy).

So, in chapters 1-3 of Mk., we see that Jesus is filled with the Spirit, empowered by the Spirit (to defeat satan), endowed with power and authority and intimately connected to the Holy Spirit—not vain spirits, such as demons! In chapter 12, when Jesus is arguing with the Sadducees about resurrection, He accuses them of knowing neither the Scriptures or the “power of God”. Hooker is surely right here that the phrase “power of God” is synonymous with “Holy Spirit”. So, the Sadducees neither know the Scriptures or the Holy Spirit. If they had known the Holy Spirit, according to Jesus, their understanding and interpretation of the Scriptures would be correct.

Now, don’t take that last sentence wrongly. What I mean when I say that is, if they knew the Holy Spirit, they would be able to understand who the Messiah is and what His role is. According to Jesus, the Messiah, the role is to return and raise His own from the grave. It is critical to grasp that point. Therefore, in Mk. 12.36, Jesus is saying that David was full of the Spirit because he made a credible statement about the Messiah: Though the Messiah will be of David’s house, He will be greater than David. So, for Jesus in Mark’s Gospel, speaking “in the Spirit” entails speaking a truthful word about the Messiah—perhaps even a Scriptural word (OT of course).

This is critical for understanding what Jesus says in Mk. 13.10-11: “And the Good News must first be preached to all nations. Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given to you at the time, for you will be speaking in the Holy Spirit.” Notice that the Good News/Gospel and speaking in the Spirit are connected here. What Jesus means in this statement is that when His disciples are standing before the courts, the Spirit will enable them to speak a true, credible word about the Messiah. Moreover, they will be enabled to do this via the Holy Spirit—just like David did. (*Note: This may be why the disciples have so much trouble understanding Jesus and His teachings--they don't have the Spirit "in" them yet. Instead, we see Jesus saying things like "get behind me satan" to Peter.)

Further, notice that in chapter 14 when Jesus is on trial, He is asked numerous questions about the people’s testimonies not adding up. He never answers those questions; He remains silent. The only time He speaks is when He is asked a question about His messianic identity. The reader is meant to take this as Jesus being enabled by the Spirit to speak such truth about the Messiah.

So, from a practical standpoint today, do not read verses like Mk. 13.10-11 as if God will give you words to say when you’re in court for any old reason or like He will just give you words whenever. Jesus’ point is that when you need to say something befitting of the Messiah, the Spirit will provide such words. This is evidence that you have the Spirit working in your life. Just as well, we shouldn’t try to prooftext Mk. 12.36 as a passage that allows us to build a doctrine of inerrancy. The point is not that the OT is inerrant. The point is that in Psalm 110, David was inspired by the Spirit to make a true assertion about the Messiah. Therefore, in the end, speaking in the Spirit according to Mark’s Gospel (and the Jesus in Mark’s Gospel) means something different than what Paul has in mind in 1 Corinthians. What it means is speaking an accurate and honest word about Jesus the Messiah!