« October 2006 | Main | December 2006 »
November 30, 2006
Gospel of Mark - Part 1
Mark, of course, is the second book of the New Testament. It is a gospel, meaning on the surface it is a history of Jesus' ministry. I say "on the surface" because there seems be more going on than a simple recounting of events. Also, almost certainly the gospel was intended for a specific audience which had its own questions and concerns, and which Mark works to address. There are four gospels; Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Two recount events from about the time of Jesus' birth (Matthew and Luke). Mark is the shortest of the four. It covers events from just before the launch of Jesus' ministry to his death. Most scholars think it was the first of the four to be written.
My goal is to figure out what's going on in this text by itself, rather than finding consistencies and connections with the other gospels. My plan is to approach Mark in three ways. First, I'll read it and note my impressions. In theory I will wipe my mind clean and read with a totally fresh perspective. That's hard to do. Second, I'll write a reprise of an excellent class on Mark that I audited at Christian Theological Seminary. Third, I'll test Mark against assumptions Christians routinely make. For example liberal Protestants regard Jesus as a great teacher of ethics. Catholics think he came to found the church (my apologies to Catholics if I misunderstand). Fundamentalists believe Jesus' ministry is all about sacrificing his life to pay for our sins. Marxist Christians (there are such people) find Marxist concepts on most every page of the gospels. And so on. I'll see if Mark fits those preplanned storylines.
In this blog entry I will cover the frist of the three approaches, my impressions from reading the text. This is an appropriate first step for studying a biblical text, and I encourage you to do it yourself then perhaps compare your impressions with mine.
I found a paperback in which the gospel was presented in prose form, without verses. [Mark As Story An Introduction to the Narrative of the Gospel by David Rhoads et al] I don't recommend you buy it, but it helped me approach the text as ordinary reading, to help shed preconceptions and sense the flow of the text. I figure it's okay to do that, after all verse and chapter markings were not part of the original text.
Theme of authority
My first impression, and this is my personal impression, is the story is about Jesus' authority. This first struck me when Jesus taught on the sabbath at Capernaum, "and they were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one who had authority, and not as the scribes." (1:22) What struck me was, nothing was mentioned about the content of his teaching. His authority, rather than the content, was what mattered. Jesus is somebody important, and he is an authority on topics covered in sabbath meeting teachings.
Immediately following in the narrative Jesus casts an unclean spirit out of a man. The response of the crowd is, "... with authority he commands even the unclean spirits and they obey him." (1:27) To the author of Mark there is a spiritual dimension to reality, and in that dimension Jesus has great authority.
Next Jesus heals Simon's mother-in-law and that evening, "he healed many who were sick or possessed with demons." (1:32) Jesus has power to heal human illness.
After a brief recounting of the healing of a leper, there is the scene where so many people are coming to Jesus' house to be healed that friends of a paralytic, whom they want to be healed, must bring him to Jesus through the roof, tearing a hole in the process. Jesus says to the man, "My son, your sins are forgiven." (2:5) Next he commands the man to get up and walk, which he does. Mark must be telling us Jesus has the authority to forgive sins, and that there is a connection between the man's condition (paralysis) and his relationship with God (a sinner).
An opposing theme
At this point a related theme begins; opposition to Jesus' authority. The opponents are the religious establishment, in this case scribes. They are shocked by the forgiving of sins. "Why does this man speak thus? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" (2:7) From the reader's perspective it would be blasphemy if anyone but Jesus had done it. Through the rest of the gospel the religious establishment refuses to recognize Jesus' authority. That is the source of conflict and of much of the story line.
Where did Jesus get his great authority? In the first verse of the gospel there is reference to "Jesus Christ, the Son of God." Christ is not a last name or family name, rather it is a title. Christ is a transliteration of the Greek word for anointed. In English a better translation would be "the anointed one." In Hebrew he is the messiah (same meaning). In the Old Testament, God, or his representative, anointed people for very important responsibilities or undertakings, for example Samuel anointed David to be king of Israel.
Messiah also has a connotation of expectation, of a person God will send to do his will, save his people, and punish their enemies. This sense of expectation and fulfullment of prophecy is reinforced by the quote from Isaiah in Mark 1:2-3 and by John the Baptist's proclamation.
The twin themes of God's anointing and of Jesus as the son of God are repeated in chapter 1, when after Jesus' baptism the spirit descends on Jesus like a dove, and the voice from heaven says, "Thou art my beloved son..." (1:10-11) Surely Jesus' authority comes from God.
An additional theme
Demonstrations of authority continue, but I should note a second major theme I see; building a following. Like the theme of authority this theme also has challenges and opposition. Immediately after beginning his ministry Jesus calls Simon, James and John as disciples. Soon after healing the paralytic he calls Levi. Expanding the numbers of followers seems to closely follow demonstrations of power and authority.
Jesus eats with tax collectors and sinners, and for this he is criticized by the religious establishment. Jesus responds, "I came not to call righteous people, but sinners." (2:17) He deliberately expands his following among ordinary folk.
Jesus claims a further extent of his authority in the realm of religious tradition. His disciples pick grain on the sabbath to eat while they are traveling. The Pharisees criticize this violation of religious law and Jesus replies, "...the son of man [Jesus' title for himself] is lord over the sabbath." (2:27) Whether Jesus overrules one of Moses commandments is discussed later, but he clearly claims to be a higher authority than the man-made religious laws expanding on Moses' principles.
Next in the narrative Jesus heals a man with a withered hand on the sabbath. The Pharisees plot "how they might destroy him." (3:6)
The interwoven themes continue - Jesus demonstrates his authority in ever expanding scope with the related subthemes of growing opposition from the religious establishment, and Jesus building his following. There will be subthemes and countercurrents to that as well.
In 3:14 Jesus appoints the twelve apostles. He creates some organization to his first rank of followers so he can send them out, to proclaim and drive out demons.
An aside on a spiritual issue
At this point in the narrative there is a discussion of something quite important. The (human) opponents of Jesus attribute his power to the devil. The religious legal experts from Jerusalem say, "He is possessed by beelzebul [evidently another name for the devil]. He drives out the demons by authority of the ruler of demons." (3:22) In the gospel of Mark there is no question that Jesus operates with powerful spiritual authority, and no question that there is a spiritual dimension to reality in which powerful forces contend and greatly affect human life. The only issue is, which side of the spiritual conflict is Jesus on.
In the first chapter Mark has made it clear Jesus has the spirit of God upon him. It descended on him "like a dove" after Jesus' baptism. We know he is God's agent, anointed to usher in the kingdom of God. We know his actions are good and in fulfullment of prophecy. Furthermore we can follow Jesus' reasoning that satan is not going to attack or cast out his own agents. (3:23-27) But the religious establishment was so wedded to their own rules and so seduced by the power and status they held, they could not see this.
In effect they were calling God satan. They imply satan is God. This is the worst; Jesus says, "Truly I tell you, people will be forgiven for their sins and whatever blasphemies they utter, but whoever blashphemes the Holy Spirit can never have forgiveness..." (3:28-29)
Parables
Jesus talks to the crowd in parables (one translator calls them riddles) and explains the parables privately to his disciples. The parables are about the kingdom of God (some translations say rule, or reign of God). I had wondered about the content of Jesus' teaching when Mark made an issue of authority without disclosing the content. The kingdom of God was what was proclaimed. It's the subject of Jesus' parables, and the very topic he raised at the beginning of his ministry, at its launch. (1:15)
The parables - of the sower, of the growth of seeds, and of the mustard tree - are about the beginning and growth of the kingdom. Some may respond positively when they hear of it, some may not, but in any event it will start small and grow fruitfully in a way only God really understands. Since so many parables are on this topic, it must have been hard for is listeners to grasp and contrary to their expectations.
Authority, faith and power
Jesus commands a storm to stop, frees a man possessed by a legion of demons, heals a woman afflicted for years by an issue of blood, and raises a little girl from the dead. He demonstrates authoirty over nature, spirits, health and sickness, and even life and death. Along with the demonstrations of authority there are lessons about faith. The woman with the issue of blood did not ask for healing; she just touched Jesus' clothing. She believed if she did she would be healed. And she was. When she was healed Jesus sensed power going out from him.
In contrast, shortly thereafter Jesus goes to his home town where he grew up. People did not accept him as God's anointed agent. "He was amazed at their lack of faith" and "he could do no work of power there" (6:5-6). So to receive Jesus' blessing, faith on the part of the follower has an important role.
The interwoven themes continue to be developed. Jesus sends out his disciples two by two and they do what he does, driving out demons and healing people. After the tragic story of John the baptist's beheading, miracles continue with the feeding of the five thousand, walking on water, and more healings.
The opposition continues to grow as well. Jesus is confronted by religious legal experts from Jerusalem. He condemns them to their face for hypocrisy and tells them they place their traditons over God's laws. He even pronounces all foods clean - contrary to dietary laws - saying it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles people, not what goes in. (7:19-23) The break with the religious establishment grows wider.
Jesus extends his spiritual reign, if you will, beyond the Jewish people, healing a Syro-Phoenician woman's daughter near Tyre and a deaf and dumb man beyond the Sea of Galilee. Once again he miraculously feeds a crowd, this time four thousand people, and he heals a blind man. At this point he confers privately with his disciples.
A turning point in the narrative
My impression is that the narrative reaches a high point when Peter recognizes that Jesus is the messiah, the christ, the annointed one. It occurs near the middle of the gospel. We have read of repeated demonstrations of Jesus' authority and power, until finally his followers recognize he is the one commissioned by God to intervene in the world and change everything in accordance with God's will.
Conventional wisdom of the time would expect the messiah to become the greatest king and conqueror of the ages, ready to go from one triumph to the next. In spiritual terms that may be the case with Jesus, but the disciples were of a more secular mindset. They expected a glorious earthly reign to begin.
Jesus amazes and confuses them, saying he will be rejected and put to death - and in three days, rise. (8:31) Peter can't take it. This is not what is expected of a king and conqueror. But Jesus stops him saying "Get thee behiind me satan, because you are not thinking in God's terms but in human terms." (8:33)
Shortly later Jesus talks to a crowd of followers. He tells them in order to continue following him they have to renounce themselves and take up their cross. God's great intervention in history is turning out very differently from anticipated. For the balance of the book two major themes are the growing opposition to Jesus ending in his crucifixion, and the failings of his followers.
At this point in the narrative is the transfiguration when, on a high mountain, Jesus' clothes become dazzling white and he talks with Moses and Elijah, two great figures in Jewish history. The three leading disciples, Peter, James and John, who Jesus brought up the mountain with him, are frightened and don't know what to say. Then the voice from heaven affirms, "This is my beloved son..." (9:7)
I don't understand the passage. Evidently Moses and Elijah were sent from heaven to talk with Jesus, but it was the meeting that was important, not the content of the talk, which was not disclosed. I don't know why these two appeared rather than other Old Testament heroes, although perhaps it is related to the fact that no one knew where Moses was buried, and Elijah was taken up in a whirlwind, so in a sense they would still be "out there" someplace. In any event the passage exalts Jesus as a great figure in history, a figure operating at a divine level, and a man whom God affirms as his son. This is very reassuring after Jesus prophesies his own rejection and death.
Perhaps the role of the transfiguration passage can be understood in light of the organization of the book; the structure of Mark's gospel. I claim the first half leads up to Peter's recognition of Jesus as messiah, and the second half has Jesus moving toward Jerusalem and to crucifixion. It begins with Jesus prophesying his own death (8:29-31). As in the beginning of the gospel, early in the second half we find the voice of the God affirming Jesus is his son (9:7 compare with 1:11). The first comes immediately in connection with Jesus' baptism and anointing with the spirit, the second comes immediately in connection with the transfiguration. Perhaps as the first half of the book leads up to the recognition of Jesus as the anointed one, the second half all leads up to Jesus becoming a resurrected being, moving to a very high place, transcending time, history, and this world.
But as Jesus said, the path to his glory will involve suffering and death. It will involve conflict with adversaries and even the mundane. Coming down from the mountain Jesus encounters problems with faith. It is ambiguous if the probelm is with the disciples or with the many followers and crowd. In any event they cannot heal a boy with symptoms similar to epilepsy. Jesus arrives and the father of the boy requests, "If you are able..." Jesus points out the doubt inherent in his request and the father exclaims, "I believe; help my unbelief!" (9:24) I can identify with that.
We recall when Jesus prophesied his death, Peter rebuked him. In fact three times Jesus foretells his death. James and John, who have witnessed everything, demonstrate their utter lack of understanding of what it means to be God's annointed. They ask to sit at Jesus' right and left hand "in your glory" (10:37) presumably anticipating an earthly kingdom. Jesus says that is not his to grant but they settle for drinking "the cup he is about to drink." Surely they did not imagine he was talking of martyrdom.
With James and John as a teaching point Jesus explains to the twelve that in the kingdom of God, the greatest will be servants of others. There is more teaching and healing, and Jesus comes to Jerusalem.
In the afternoon he has a triumphal entry. His first act is to cleanse the temple, driving out the sellers who did business there. The chief priests were outraged and wanted to kill him, but dared to do nothing because of the crowd. Jesus then retires for the night. The next day the religious hierarchy begins its attack (11:27&f).
A second opinion on the plot
Before discussing this key confrontation I want to bring in the perspective of the book I mentioned early in this essay, Mark As Story. I have described my impression of the gospel as being about two themes; Jesus' authority and opposition to it, and building up a body of followers and transferring some of his authority to them. Mark As Story sees one metatheme. In a subsection entitled "The unity of Mark's plot" (page 73) it says, "Mark's story is unified around one overall goal: Jesus struggles to establish the rule of God in the face of obstacles and opposition." Looking back on the 11 or so chapters I have covered so far, that seems to be a superior way of describing all the elements of the story.
The confrontation
Much in this passage (11:27-33) is reminiscent of the beginning of the gospel. It's all about authority. And it's about the rule of God. The religious hierarchy asks, "By what authority are you doing these things? Who gave you the authority to do them?" Now we see how shocking and offensive the cleansing of the temple the afternoon before really was. It was more than a person of faith being offended by venal commercial activity in a holy place, and taking action. In a temple-centered theocracy it struck at the heart of who could speak for God, who was God's agent (and thus truly legitimate), who should properly be in a position of power and authority.
This key passage harkens back to the beginning of the gospel; it goes back to John the Baptist. Jesus says he'll answer their question if they first answer one of his, "Was the baptism of John from heaven or of human origin?" (11:30) The gospel reports the religious leaders argued among themselves. If they deny John's baptism was from heaven the crowd may attack them, because John was regarded as a true prophet. But if they admit it, Jesus will respond, "Why did you not believe him?"
The final point is intriguing. We need to think for a moment. The way believing John leads to accepting Jesus' authority is, John foretold the coming of a very powerful religious leader who would baptize with the holy spirit (1:7-8.) The religious leaders knew Jesus was the man John prophesied about, anointed to inaugurate the new reign or rule of God.
I say new reign or rule of God because the temple system claimed to be and probably once was a form of God's reign on the earth. But the temple leaders do not now serve God, nor carry out his rule. This is the point of the parable of the wicked tenants, 12:1-11, which immediately follows the account of the confrontation.
Attacks from all sides
A number of constituencies make up the power structure of the Jewish theocracy, and at this point in the narrative all try to attack him and / or justify themselves.
The next attack, by Pharisees and Herodians, is an effort to entangle Jesus in secular politics. Jesus gets the question about paying taxes to the emperor. Authority has been the burning topic up to this point in the narrative, so it is natural to ask, to what extent do you recognize the authority of the emperor? Jesus answer, "Render unto caesar what is caesar's and unto God what is God's" (12:17) This shows the realms are separate. Jesus came deal with spiritaul matters, the things of God, and did not come to contest secular authority.
Another confrontation is by the Sadducees, who believe there is no resurrection. Jesus refutes them, saying they lack understanding.
Next a scribe, an expert in the Jewish scriptures, asks what is the greatest commandment. Jesus recites the schema, the requirement to love God with all your heart, and Jesus adds that the second commandment is to love your neighbor. The scribe is impressed and agrees with Jesus. Jesus then says to him, "You are not far from the rule of God" (12:34).
The balance of chapter 12 contains three short sections which make the point that, notwithstanding this good scribe, scribes generally are not that close to the Kingdom of God. First Jesus quotes a section of Psalm 110 in which the author, understood to be King David, calls the messiah his lord. The messiah was to be a descendant of David, and ancestors are greater than their descendants. How can the quote be true? The crowd loved it, but presumably the scribes could not answer.
For people in the kingdom, like us Christians who have the benefit of hindsight, it is not so difficult. The messiah is indeed of royal lineage, but the reign of God which he inaugurates is far greater than David's kingdom, and he is a far more important figure in God's plan than David ever was.
Next Jesus denounces the scribes for their hypocrisy. This would have surprised the listeners in that day becuase the tendency in that culture was to esteem people for their scriptural learning and their status in the theological hierarchy.
The story of the widow's offering contrasts to the scribes. She is utterly faithful and sincere, and God looks at her heart rather than the amount of her small gift.
An apocalyptic chapter
Chapter 13 interrupts the flow of the narrative. In chapters 11 and 12 Jesus deals with challenges from representatives of all the Jewish power groups. Chapter 14 starts with the plot to kill Jesus. Yet chapter 13 is peaceful, with Jesus talking with his disciples as he walks near the temple and later as they are sitting on the Mount of Olives. The settings are peaceful but the topic of conversation is anything but; Jesus talks of the end times.
Chapter 13 stands apart from the rest of the book because it does not directly fit the storyline, "Jesus struggles to establish the rule of God in the face of obstacles and opposition." It is about the future, about calamities and evil in the world after Jesus' death and resurrection, and it is also about the second coming.
First Jesus prophesies the destruction of the temple (13:2). That is shocking to the disciples not only because the temple is a large, stable stone structure but also because it is in the heart of Jerusalem. The nation and its capital city would have to be vanquished before the temple is attacked.
The disciples ask, when will this happen? Their question brings forth a long talk by Jesus about the future. There are a number of phrases which obviously meant something to the disciples but which require explanation for the modern reader (although readers with a strong church background may already understand). Some of those phrases are, "the end is still to come", "the beginning of the birth pangs", "good news must first be proclaimed to all nations", "the one who endures to the end will be saved", "desolating sacrilege", "false messiahs ... false prophets", "the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory", "heaven and earth will pass away but my words will not pass away", "you do not know when the time will come..."
Those with a knowledge of Jewish theology and the history of Judea at the time of Christ discern that Jesus is talking about two events rolled into one; the destruction of Jerusalem (circa 70 AD) and the end of the world when the Messiah comes with power. Although he cautions that we cannot know the timing of the events, Jesus talks about the two as one event. In fact they are separated in time (by millennia). Scholars call this prophetic perspective and it occurs with other prophets in the Bible. God gives the prophet a view of things in the future, but the prophet cannot discern the temporal distance between various events in the future, and tends to see them as one transaction.
The destruction of Jerusalem would have been a devasting event for Jews, including the ethnically Jewish followers of Jesus for whom Mark's gospel was written (and who still considered themselves good Jews). Starvation and mass murder would have accompanied the siege and conquest, with pagan troops reaching the temple and desecrating the inner sanctuary. Jews throughout the world would experience shock and terrible sadness as organized Jewish presence in the holy land, dating back to the time of Moses and Joshua, ended. It was a horrible blow, but Mark's original audience would be somewhat comforted by Jesus' foreknowledge and the knowledge that it all fit into God's plan.
The end of the world, in contemporaneous Jewish theology, accompanied the coming of the Messiah. For Christians, it would occur at the Messiah's second coming, when Jesus (the Son of Man) would come with great power. Until this event there would be persecution and great suffering (the birth pangs) and the gospel would have to be preached to the whole world.
Later in this paper I will review the graduate level course I audited on Mark at Christian Theological Seminary. Chapter 13 should alert us that the mind-set, the perspective, the assumptions and the concerns of the original target audience for this book were very different from ours today.
The narrative continues
We return to the story line at the start of chapter 14 with the chief priests plotting to kill Jesus. They want to do it by stealth, and as the plot unfolds they use bribery, betrayal, purjury, and most everything they do happens at night.
"The anointing at Bethany" (14:3-9) is one of a few stories that appears in all four gospels. Jesus remarks that what the woman has done for him will be remembered wherever the good news is proclaimed, which is probably why all the gospel writers take care to include it in their texts. A low status, unnamed woman among Jesus' followers anoints him with costly ointment. Evidently this was similar to what was done with dead bodies before burial, and the text characterizes the anointing as preparing Jesus for burial, i.e. for his coming crucifixion. In context this unnamed follower is assisting Jesus in his life work.
Her action contrasts with Judas, who is seen in the immediately following verses, agreeing to betray Jesus. No explanation of Judas' motivation is given. Misunderstanding and self-interest on the part of the disciples is a major obstacle to establishment of God's reign, and Judas' betrayal is the worst example.
The passage describing the last supper and the institution of what protestants call communion is 14:12-25. In the Middle East culture at that time sharing a meal indicated close friendship, mutual commitment, and bonds of loyalty. Judas' betrayal is all the more heinous as Jesus describes it during the meal they share.
Peter's denial is also foretold that same evening, after the meal. Peter at first swears his loyalty, but Jesus prophesies the near future, saying Peter will deny him before the cock crows (14:30). Jesus predicting future events, as well as fulfillment of other predictions, such as the way the disciples found the room for the supper (14:12-16), show that Jesus is in control and following God's plan in spite of the terrible events about to unfold.
Communion is a religious ceremony practiced by all groups of Christians, but its meaning or theological significance is explained differently by different traditions. In Mark the statements are brief, leaving room for later interpretation. Regarding the bread, Jesus says, "Take, this is my body." Regarding the wine he says, "This is my blood of the new covenanent which is poured out for many. Truly I tell you I will never again drink the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God." (14:22-25)
If a theologian were to confine him or herself to this text as the foundation for a theology of the last supper, the text is limited, for example there is no mention of sin or atonement for sin. From its placement in the narrative the story surely relates to Jesus' death. I guess the first question is whether Jesus is speaking literally or symbolically. I think it's symbolic, otherwise how could they actually eat and drink? The taste and texture would be repugnant. Symbolically disciples are supposed to take Jesus into themselves, and his sacrifice is made for their benefit, to sustain their lives - can I say that much? The only real foothold for theology is the reference to blood of the covenant, and some scholarship is required to learn how Jesus' followers understood that reference 2000 years ago in Judea. Also, any theory must include Jesus' reference to his future life in the kingdom of God.
Jesus prays in the Garden of Gethsemane and his disciples show how difficult it is for men to do what Jesus asks of them; they fall asleep three times after Jesus tells them to stay awake and pray. Jesus prays earnestly asking not to face crucifixion and death, but in contrast to the disciples and with full knowledge of the consequences, he seeks God's will above his own.
Judas comes at night, with representatives of the religious establishment to arrest Jesus, and betrays him with a kiss. This treachery and acting in darkness shows the religious establishment to be utterly illegitimate, in spite of their claim to be God's agents and their rejection of Jesus' legitimate position as God's agent.
14:51 describing the young man who followed, was caught, and escaped, is an odd passage. I have not come across any explanation of its theological significance or of how it contributes to the story line. It does not appear in the other three gospels. The best explanation I have heard is that it really happened and that's why Mark included it, but other gospels which were written later discarded the brief story because it added nothing to the narrative or their message.
The trials
At this point Jesus was subjected to a farce of a trial before the high priests. It took place at night because, metaphorically, the light of day might reveal truth. I say farce because the Jewish leaders knew the verdict they wanted before evidence was heard; they "were looking for testimony against Jesus to put him to death." (14:55) But credible evidence was not offered. Then Jesus, after remaining silent for some time, decided to answer the high priest's question, "Are you the Messiah, the son of the Blessed One?"
"I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power, and 'coming with the clouds of heaven' " Jesus responds.
Jesus speaks the truth, but his claim is so extraordinary that the high priest is shocked and screams "blasphemy"! How are we to understand the words and references? First, Jews were hesitant (out of respect) to refer to God directly. They never said His name and rarely said "Lord" so the Blessed One and the Power are references to God. God's name, YHWH or Yahweh (the Hebrew alphabet lacks vowels) is related to an archaic form of the verb "to be." YHWH can be understood in Hebrew to mean "I am" or "I will be". The first two words of Jesus' answer ("I am") are not an express claim of divinity, but they imply it.
Son of Man has a bulit-in ambiguity. It is how Jesus has often referred to himself and it can mean just a human being. But there is a passage in the Old Testament widely accepted as a prophecy or prediction of the coming of the Messiah, Daniel 7:13, "I saw in the night visions and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and kingdoms..." Jesus' reference to "clouds of heaven" makes it clear he was claiming to be the one prophesied in Daniel 7.
[By the way your translation may just say "a human being". Political correctness with regard to gender has resulted in poor translation and loss of meaning.]
In juxtaposition to Jesus' honest answer to the high priest with knowledge of the awful consequences, next in the narrative we have Peter's denial. Human weakness is again illustrated as an obstacle to establishment of the reign of God.
Jesus is brought before Pilate, the Roman governor, in the light of morning. Pilate listens to all the accusations by the Jewish leaders and sees through their charges ("he realized that it was out of jealousy that the chief priests had handed him over" 15:10). Pilate wants to release Jesus but the crowd threatens to get out of control, so Pilate sends Jesus to his death.
It appears the core of the chief priests' accusation was that Jesus claimed to be "the King of the Jews." The phrase, applied to Jesus, appears six times in chapter 15. It has not occured previously in the gospel. There is no indication Jesus used the phrase. He did admit in his "trial" that he was the messiah. The priests could logically infer that he would be king of the Jews because the messiah was prophesied to be of the lineage of David and would occupy David's throne. Also the messiah, as God's agent on earth, naturally would rule over God's chosen people.
Jesus, however, did not say he was king of the Jews because the phrase could be so easily misunderstood (as the chief priests did deliberately). He was not a political leader, but rather a spiritual leader. We learned that from his response to the question about paying taxes to caesar. Jesus was careful to avoid the very claim that the chief priests accuse him of; grasping for political power in opposition to Roman rule.
Mark is using irony. Jesus really is the king of the Jews from God's perspective. The chief priests don't believe it - they don't believe he is the messiah - and they just made up the accusation to force Pilate to act. Pilate doesn't believe it because he sees, accurately, that Jesus does not seek political power (which is all that would matter to the Roman governor).
Death and resurrection
The description of Jesus' crucifixion, 15:16-41, has a number of details which would be meaningful to the Jewish Christian audience for whom the gospel was written. "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" is a quote from Psalm 22:1. Dividing his garments, those passing by looking scornfully, and offering him vinegar to drink are all references to the Psalms. Many Bibles have footnotes showing references to Old Testament passages, so you can look up the references.
These echoes of the Jewish scripture, I believe, are intended to show Jesus' life was a fulfillment of prophecy, and God is in control working out His preordained plan, even in Jesus' death.
The resurrection is described in chapter 16. The first 8 verses tell the story of the women going to the tomb, finding it empty, and encountering an angel who tells them Jesus has been raised. The angel instructs them to tell the disciples, but they are afraid, they flee, and tell no one.
At this point, in the book Mark As Story, the gospel ends. My NRSV (New Revised Standard Version) offers two additional passages in the alternative. The shorter one says the women did tell the disciples and and Jesus went out among many disciples. The longer version recounts Jesus appearing to various disciples, commissioning the disciples to "go into all the world and proclaim the good news," and ascending into heaven.
I don't know what to make of the 3 possible endings. Obviously there are several ancient manuscripts of the gospel extant, and scholars cannot be certain which one is authoritative. There are various possible explanations; the original author may have sent his gospel to more than one church community and he could have modified the ending when he copied by hand, or additions could have been made at later times when the text was copied. We don't know.
Posted by rob at 01:07 PM | Comments (0)