"Parables Begin" - Mark 3:23-27 (March 8, 2026)

[Carbon]

Last week's sermon at my church. The Trinity Reformed Church of Northwest Connecticut.

 

[Josheb]

That was enjoyable. I'm typically reluctant (if not loathe) to listen to sermons in discussion boards but I enjoyed that both for its content and length. I particularly enjoyed that comment about "fundamentalist meanies." His definition of a parable was good, although I think I would have added a qualifying comment about a parable being applicable to the immediate audience and/or circumstances, but the pastor may have considered that covered with his "context, context, context," and "unpack the pronouns" stipulations. It was astute to observe the specific context of Jesus being accused of being in league with Satan and his contrasting divinity and hold that point all the way through his exposition. I think it also worth noting (at the risk of majoring in a minor) that Israel was divided, and the house of the Sadducees was divided. I'm not sure every parable is about judgment but Mark 2's certainly are.

I hope you'll post the entire series.

 

[Carbon]

That was enjoyable. I'm typically reluctant (if not loathe) to listen to sermons in discussion boards but I enjoyed that both for its content and length. I particularly enjoyed that comment about "fundamentalist meanies." His definition of a parable was good, although I think I would have added a qualifying comment about a parable being applicable to the immediate audience and/or circumstances, but the pastor may have considered that covered with his "context, context, context," and "unpack the pronouns" stipulations. It was astute to observe the specific context of Jesus being accused of being in league with Satan and his contrasting divinity and hold that point all the way through his exposition. I think it also worth noting (at the risk of majoring in a minor) that Israel was divided, and the house of the Sadducees was divided. I'm not sure every parable is about judgment but Mark 2's certainly are.

I hope you'll post the entire series.

I am really glad you enjoyed it. I really enjoyed it myself. I do plan to post the whole series.
This past Sunday was pretty awesome.

 

[Carbon]

Here is the second sermon on the parables in the series. Hope you enjoy

 

[Josheb]

I am really glad you enjoyed it. I really enjoyed it myself. I do plan to post the whole series.
This past Sunday was pretty awesome.

I wonder if Pastor Aldrich considers any of Luke 15's parables to be about judgment (as opposed to salvation) and, if so, would he make an adjustment in his message accordingly. How will/does he contrast and compare the parable of the wandering sheep with that of the ungrateful and unmerciful servant (Matthew 18)? Will he observe a subtle change in Jesus' use of parable (from salvation to judgment) as he approaches Jerusalem for the last time in Matthew's gospel? To what degree will the distinctions between any real or perceived temporal versus soteriological judgment be observed. I've imagined how different this sermon would be in the mind and mouth of a Dispensationalist or a turn-or-burner. Beginning with Mark's gospel, rather than Matthew's, was an interesting choice and I'm encouraged to see the exposition Matthew 13:10-17 is next in the series .

 

[Carbon]

I wonder if Pastor Aldrich considers any of Luke 15's parables to be about judgment (as opposed to salvation) and, if so, would he make an adjustment in his message accordingly.

I’ll mention that if I remember at Bible study tonight.

How will/does he contrast and compare the parable of the wandering sheep with that of the ungrateful and unmerciful servant (Matthew 18)? Will he observe a subtle change in Jesus' use of parable (from salvation to judgment) as he approaches Jerusalem for the last time in Matthew's gospel? To what degree will the distinctions between any real or perceived temporal versus soteriological judgment be observed. I've imagined how different this sermon would be in the mind and mouth of a Dispensationalist or a turn-or-burner. Beginning with Mark's gospel, rather than Matthew's, was an interesting choice and I'm encouraged to see the exposition Matthew 13:10-17 is next in the series .

 

[Josheb]

I’ll mention that if I remember at Bible study tonight.

I don't want to cause trouble (or you to cause trouble due to me) . The thoughts and inquiries about the parables were just some of the critiqual (not critical) thoughts I had as I was listening. The acknowledgement and adjustment of the teaching is just something I wonder about no matter who's preaching. I am blessed to discuss scripture with many different pastors after having heard them preach. Most acknowledge new information when received, some are even grateful of the reminder or the new input. Unless the topic if eschatology (the stories I could tell about those conversation ), most pastors consider the facts of scripture. I don't expect them to get up to the podium the following week and say, "I made a mistake and taught you something I shouldn't have taught................." That's not what the wondering was about.

Given the excellence of the first sermon, I trust Pastor Aldrich. He sounds like he understands the significance of the parables and applies it. He commendably avoided the most common errors . Of course, you're the one who has to live with him, not me . LOL!

 

[Josheb]

Here is the second sermon on the parables in the series. Hope you enjoy

Another well-done sermon. Several astute observations in the beginning. I'm not sure his take on Mark 3:13 is correct (Jesus' comment could simply imply the sower parable is easy to grasp - especially for someone to whom the keys of the kingdom had been given). He could have been clearer regarding the mysteries. The mysteries are God incarnate, the foreshadowed prophecies come true, the overcoming of sin, death, and wrath by the means of Christ's sacrifice, and the true identity of the qahal/ecclesia. What was a mystery to the disciples in the gospel era was known fact in the Post-Calvary/Pentecost era (the era of the epistolary). His following through on the pronouns with Isaiah 6 is excellent.. Isaiah 6 causes trouble for a lot of believers (pastor and congregant) especially the non-Reformed. The determinism of prophecy fulfilled is intolerable for some, and so it is often avoided. Imause that "moth behind a jet engine" analogy. Had me laughing heartily. Aldrich isn't shy about the mis-handler of scripture, is he? The Assyrian/Babylonian conquests = the kingdom/house divided...... and conquered; and the temple destroyed. This is the audience to whom the parables were spoken without hope of understanding, while it was the disciples who would be given understanding (the keys to the kingdom), so now his starting with Mark 3 makes greater sense.




Fodder for another thread:

• Did the apostles write down everything they knew and understood (is their knowledge and understanding less than ours, who have a Bible, the consolidated revelation they were inspired to write down)?
• Is there a correlation between Isaiah 6:13 and Romans 11:5?
• How about a correlation between Isaih 6:13 and Galatians 3:16?

.

 

[makesends]

Last week's sermon at my church. The Trinity Reformed Church of Northwest Connecticut.

I've noticed in several threads, the construction, "God cannot [do this or that]", even quoted from the Bible. I've typically argued that the meaning, as applied to God in those cases, is that of, "it is illogical (or silly, etc) to think that God would do such a thing". Here, the Lord says, '“How can Satan drive out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26 And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come.' Notice the construction of the first sentence. It says, "How can Satan drive out Satan?". Pretty obviously, Jesus is not saying that Satan is not in charge of his unruly minions; he's not saying that Satan lacks the power to throw his own demons out. It is not that Satan can't. It's that it would not serve Satan's purposes to do so.

For years, I've thought that construction doesn't make sense. If Satan wanted to deceive people I have no doubt he could replicate this particular ability to "cast out demons". Jesus' explanation bears me out. It is not that Satan can't, but, rhetorically, that if he did it would not help him.

What the preacher here says, is what brought it to mind, as I agree and tend to say, parables are for a main point and sometimes include secondary points (sometimes delivered sarcastically ) but (in this case) are not to teach about how Satan does things. Anyhow, what he said helped me understand a little better the way that Christ was not speaking to Satan's ability, but the foolishness of Satan doing such a thing, and that, rhetorically, and toward the larger point.

In modern day speech/writing, when one might retort to another (me) saying that God is not limited, with "NOT LIMITED! ARE YOU STUPID??? HE CANNOT LIE —IT SAYS SO RIGHT HERE!!!" And, or course, my answer is, "That does not limit God; it's saying that it is an impossible (self-contradictory) construction, to suppose that God WOULD lie."

 

[Josheb]

I've noticed in several threads, the construction, "God cannot [do this or that]", even quoted from the Bible. I've typically argued that the meaning, as applied to God in those cases, is that of, "it is illogical (or silly, etc) to think that God would do such a thing". Here, the Lord says, '“How can Satan drive out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26 And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come.' Notice the construction of the first sentence. It says, "How can Satan drive out Satan?". Pretty obviously, Jesus is not saying that Satan is not in charge of his unruly minions; he's not saying that Satan lacks the power to throw his own demons out. It is not that Satan can't. It's that it would not serve Satan's purposes to do so.

For years, I've thought that construction doesn't make sense. If Satan wanted to deceive people I have no doubt he could replicate this particular ability to "cast out demons". Jesus' explanation bears me out. It is not that Satan can't, but, rhetorically, that if he did it would not help him.

What the preacher here says, is what brought it to mind, as I agree and tend to say, parables are for a main point and sometimes include secondary points (sometimes delivered sarcastically ) but (in this case) are not to teach about how Satan does things. Anyhow, what he said helped me understand a little better the way that Christ was not speaking to Satan's ability, but the foolishness of Satan doing such a thing, and that, rhetorically, and toward the larger point.

In modern day speech/writing, when one might retort to another (me) saying that God is not limited, with "NOT LIMITED! ARE YOU STUPID??? HE CANNOT LIE —IT SAYS SO RIGHT HERE!!!" And, or course, my answer is, "That does not limit God; it's saying that it is an impossible (self-contradictory) construction, to suppose that God WOULD lie."

Do you think Satan has ever sinned? If so, do you think Romans 6:23 applies to him? How about Romans 1:21? If so, then what does the application of these verses to Satan say about his ability to control anything?

Romans 7:5-11 (excerpted to highlight the point)
For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were brought to light by the Law, were at work in the parts of our body to bear fruit for death................ I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "You shall not covet." But sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin came to life, and I died; and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me; for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me, and through it, killed me.

Remember the parable is not real. Jesus' words should not be construed to say Satan has his house together in the first place. Satan is a created creature. If the tradition describing Satan as a rebellious angel stripped of his glory is true, then that had happened long before Jesus spoke the Mark 3 parable. If true, then Satan was created to minister to those who would inherit salvation. His failure to do so goes at least as far back as Genesis 3:4. Just how much is a lying murderer in control of anything?


As far as God's purported inability it should be remembered much of the "He cannots" are antitheses of void. Sin isn't a thing; it is the absence of a thing. The conditions of creation are just that: created, and they are always limitations. These "God cannot...." claims are existential when applied to God. Aside from the propensity for these claims to be anthropomorphic, they boil down to "God cannot not exist," because to assert positions like "God cannot sin" is to assert the antithesis of righteousness; a nothingness over a somethingness. To say, "God cannot not be righteous," or "God cannot not be holy," is to make a meaningless statement. God cannot not be God. What remains among the God-cannots tend to be paradoxes. God cannot make a rock so heavy He can't lift it simply means the rock's wait is infinite and, therefore, not a limitation.

 

[makesends]

Do you think Satan has ever sinned? If so, do you think Romans 6:23 applies to him? How about Romans 1:21? If so, then what does the application of these verses to Satan say about his ability to control anything?

Romans 7:5-11 (excerpted to highlight the point)
For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were brought to light by the Law, were at work in the parts of our body to bear fruit for death................ I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "You shall not covet." But sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin came to life, and I died; and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me; for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me, and through it, killed me.

Remember the parable is not real. Jesus' words should not be construed to say Satan has his house together in the first place. Satan is a created creature. If the tradition describing Satan as a rebellious angel stripped of his glory is true, then that had happened long before Jesus spoke the Mark 3 parable. If true, then Satan was created to minister to those who would inherit salvation. His failure to do so goes at least as far back as Genesis 3:4. Just how much is a lying murderer in control of anything?

Did I say anything about Satan able to do anything at all apart from God having ordained it? Do you think a human can be ever be demon-possessed apart from God having decreed it? What has that to do with whether Satan can or cannot order lesser demons about?

As far as God's purported inability it should be remembered much of the "He cannots" are antitheses of void. Sin isn't a thing; it is the absence of a thing. The conditions of creation are just that: created, and they are always limitations. These "God cannot...." claims are existential when applied to God. Aside from the propensity for these claims to be anthropomorphic, they boil down to "God cannot not exist," because to assert positions like "God cannot sin" is to assert the antithesis of righteousness; a nothingness over a somethingness. To say, "God cannot not be righteous," or "God cannot not be holy," is to make a meaningless statement. God cannot not be God. What remains among the God-cannots tend to be paradoxes. God cannot make a rock so heavy He can't lift it simply means the rock's wait is infinite and, therefore, not a limitation.

Sure. As you have demonstrated, and as I said, "cannot" (concerning God) means it is a logically bogus construction. It does not limit him except in our mental calisthenics.

 

[Josheb]

Did I say anything about Satan able to do anything at all apart from God having ordained it? Do you think a human can be ever be demon-possessed apart from God having decreed it? What has that to do with whether Satan can or cannot order lesser demons about?

Please re-read Post 10. Then, after re-reading Post 10, re-read Post 11.

Note nothing in Post 10 says you said or did not say anything. It simply asks a few questions with clarifying commentary and supporting scripture included to show the relevance to Post 9 and the op. Note none of the questions asked in Post 10 were answered Post 11. The question "Did I say.....?" is non sequitur. The thread is not about the possibility of humans being possessed by demons. That too is non sequitur.

• Has Satan ever sinned?
• If so, then does Romans 6:23 apply to Satan?
• Does Romans 1:21 then also apply to Satan?

Those are all yes or no questions. The answers to these inquries are useful in understanding the nature of Satan's figurative "house" relevant to the parable. Assuming the questions are genuinely asked, I will be happy to answer the questions asked in Post 11 once I know the answers to Post 10's inquiries.

Sure. As you have demonstrated, and as I said, "cannot" (concerning God) means it is a logically bogus construction. It does not limit him except in our mental calisthenics.

I'm delighted we agree. I do not hear or read either sermon asserting any "logically bogus constructions" or God-limiting "mental calisthenics."

 

[makesends]

Post 10 begins:

Do you think Satan has ever sinned? If so, do you think Romans 6:23 applies to him? How about Romans 1:21? If so, then what does the application of these verses to Satan say about his ability to control anything?

Why did you ask this, if not to debate whether my claims are valid concerning Satan having minions to do his bidding?

Then you follow that with this, which sounds like a [rhetorical question] statement that Satan has no control over anything.

Remember the parable is not real. Jesus' words should not be construed to say Satan has his house together in the first place. Satan is a created creature. If the tradition describing Satan as a rebellious angel stripped of his glory is true, then that had happened long before Jesus spoke the Mark 3 parable. If true, then Satan was created to minister to those who would inherit salvation. His failure to do so goes at least as far back as Genesis 3:4. Just how much is a lying murderer in control of anything?

Please re-read Post 10. Then, after re-reading Post 10, re-read Post 11.

Note nothing in Post 10 says you said or did not say anything. It simply asks a few questions with clarifying commentary and supporting scripture included to show the relevance to Post 9 and the op. Note none of the questions asked in Post 10 were answered Post 11. The question "Did I say.....?" is non sequitur. The thread is not about the possibility of humans being possessed by demons. That too is non sequitur.

• Has Satan ever sinned?
• If so, then does Romans 6:23 apply to Satan?
• Does Romans 1:21 then also apply to Satan?

Those are all yes or no questions. The answers to these inquries are useful in understanding the nature of Satan's figurative "house" relevant to the parable. Assuming the questions are genuinely asked, I will be happy to answer the questions asked in Post 11 once I know the answers to Post 10's inquiries.

I'm delighted we agree. I do not hear or read either sermon asserting any "logically bogus constructions" or God-limiting "mental calisthenics."

Yes, this is a dismissive, "Whatever...". I did not suggest that either sermon asserted any "logically bogus constructions" or "God-limiting calisthenics". I only said that his way of looking at that one parable brought something to mind for me, and I made an attempt to describe it.

 

[Josheb]

Post 10 begins:

Why did you ask this, if not to debate whether my claims are valid concerning Satan having minions to do his bidding?

To reason with you through the scriptures.