1

A Study of the First Gospel by Mark

Mark’s Gospel was probably the first to be written around the middle of the first century in the city of Rome, the center of power for the Roman Empire where at least one million people lived. Its citizens and visitors came from all over the Mediterranean world. Consequently, there was a mixture of several cultures, cults, and religions that organized the people into ‘ethnic ghettos’ within the city. There is no direct evidence that Mark relied on an earlier narrative but some scholar’s hypothesis that he used a written narrative (called source Q) which he combined with the oral tradition that was available to him. Some church fathers in the second century, wrote that Peter’s preaching and instruction were Mark’s primary source. His audience would have been both Jewish and Gentile. Mark was careful to explain Jewish festivals and customs that would have been unknown to non Jews. (See 7:2ff; 14:12; 15:42) His Gospel is full of action with less emphasis on Jesus’ teaching than either Matthew or Luke. Eighteen miracles, including seven exorcisms, are mentioned but only five parables and four of these are placed together in chapter four. (1:23-27, 32-34; 3:11, 22-27; 5:1-20; 7:25-30; 9:17-29) Great attention is given to the last week of Jesus’ earthly ministry since forty percent of his writing concerns this time period. Matthew and Luke follow this pattern as well. Christianity, one religion among many, took its place as a tiny minority. No one knows for sure how the Gospel was brought to Rome but early converts must have taken the message there during the beginning of the first century. The Pauline Epistles tell us that this movement took root mostly in those of the lowest socio-economic groups. Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of the world and the despised things – and the thinks that are not – to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. (1 Corinthians 1:26-29) By the time the Gospel reached Rome there were already more Jews living outside Palestine (the Diaspora) than within but many never gave up their dream for the re-establishment of the nation of Israel. Characteristically, many of them resisted assimilation with pagan cultures so there was hostility between Diaspora Jews and the Gentile community which occasionally led to anti-Semitic riots. The social and religious barrier that existed is between these two groups is the

2

reason Mark takes care to show that Jesus’ kingdom is intended for Gentiles as well as Jews. By the time the Gospel was announced in Rome, fifty thousand Jews lived there in a particular section of the city where there were at least thirteen different synagogues. From Judea, the early believers brought the news that God had sent a deliverer who had been crucified in the Holy City. Claudius, the Roman emperor, made efforts to expel these evangelists but he failed. At least five house churches were established; some were entirely Gentile; some were Jewish and some were mixed. Interestingly, women sometimes provided the leadership which Paul recognizes in his letter to the Romans. (Chapter 16) These individual churches had serious growing pains that threatened their success from the very beginning. Gentile and Jewish followers experienced problems getting along because of their differing attitude towards Jewish tradition. (See Romans 14-15 for a discussion of some of these issues which had the potential to destroy the early church if they were not resolved.) Thus, the church was threatened from without and within and this fact Mark would have known as he committed his Gospel to writing. Clearly, the historical, sociological, and religious conditions were hardly fertile ground on which to ‘plant’ the church. Mark, fully aware of these hostile conditions through his own experience, must have written his Gospel for the purpose of dealing with all the negative internal and external forces that, from a human perspective, could doom the church. The message of Jesus had to be set down before it became seriously distorted. Mark wrote with the purpose of bearing witness to the meaning of Jesus’ life as well as the nature of the kingdom announced by him. We know very little of Mark except that he was a fellow worker of Peter and Paul and that he ministered to a church tormented by persecution, inward division and a shortage of leadership caused by Nero’s persecution. (Many church leaders had been executed.) Here is a brief summary of what is known of Mark.

1. He was a member of the church during a period of war between the Romans and the Jews which ended in 70 CE with the capture and destruction of Rome by the Roman army.

2. He was a native of Jerusalem who had joined the movement early on. 3. He was closely associated with Peter and Paul. 4. He had visited many churches and had traveled widely. 5. He had been imprisoned and experienced the loss of many friends at the

hands of Rome. 6. He was a religiously literate Jew.

3

7. His evangelism brought him into close association with Gentile believers. 8. “In about A.D 320, Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, wrote in a Greek history

of the Church. Eusebius reports that Papias, who was bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor in about A.D. 130, had recorded a tradition that Mark’s Gospel was a translation into Greek of the teaching which the apostle Peter had given in Rome. Peter himself, then, presumably used Hebrew, or Aramaic (a language similar to Hebrew) and addressed groups of Jews who used these languages It is generally assumed that the Mark who wrote the Gospel was the young man called John Mark in Acts (12:12, 25; 15: 37, 39), who was indeed a companion of the apostles. This identification is not inevitable – Marcus was not an uncommon name – and the degree of the Gospels attachment to the body of traditional information about Peter has been questioned. But parts of it do, in fact, read like a direct, eyewitness account; and a recently discovered copy of what seems to be a genuine letter of Clement of Alexandria (about A.D. 190), also speaks definitely of Peter’s notes as forming part of Mark’s material.” (The Gospel of Mark, C.F.D. Moule, page 4-5)

It is widely believed, therefore, that the Gospel was written within one generation of the events it describes based on eyewitness accounts. We cannot explain all Mark’s reasons for writing but surely the most important one was to record the events he knew and explain their significance before distortions appeared because of the passing of time.

1. The Beginning (1:1-13) A New Beginning (1:1) Mark announces the beginning, calling his message the Gospel about Jesus Christ, (euangelion) which literally means ‘great news’. In the Greek world this term was used in reference to military victory. Mark believed that something had taken place that guaranteed a great victory. By calling his account the Gospel about Jesus Christ, he had let his readers know that the event of Jesus life, teaching, death, and resurrection had life changing significance for all who read and believed what he written. His story goes on to say that mankind is saved by the person of Jesus. The early Jewish readers would have associated ‘Gospel’ with Isaiah 61:1-4 where the prophet declared an anointing whereby he had been called to heal the broken hearted, free the captives, release prisoners, declare God’s judgment on injustice, comfort the grieving and replace mourning with praise. By associating Jesus with this promise, Mark is presenting him as the one who inaugurates the messianic age. Exactly what Mark meant by the term ‘the Christ’ (Greek translation of Messiah meaning anointed one) is difficult to say since the title was used in so many

4

different ways during the first century. At the very least, he understood Jesus as the anointed one who inaugurated God’s kingdom by serving his people as their King in order to deliver them from Satan’s grasp. The means of this deliverance was Jesus’ death and resurrection; his earthly actions and teaching were meant to draw people in and lead them to repentant faith. Mark uses another ambivalent term by calling Jesus “the Son of God.” This title probably meant that he did the will of God in perfect obedience. Marks reference to ‘the beginning’ means more than simply the beginning of the story he was telling. ‘The beginning’ would remind his Jewish readers of Genesis 1:1 where God fashioned a new creation. Christ, therefore, was the beginning of a new creation whereby Satan’s rule would be over turned and a new humanity formed. John Prepares the Way (1:2-8) God is God only as He is faithful to past promises. For this reason, Mark connects the Gospel with the promise of the past. He attributes his quotation to Isaiah but as a matter of fact the words are a compellation of two different texts, one from Isaiah and one from Malachi. The text in Malachi speaks of a time when God would bring His irresistible judgment and set the world right. This judgment was to be preceded by a man who would prepare Israel for this event. (Malachi 3:1-5) Mark identifies John as the forerunner mentioned by the prophet Malachi. (4:-6) The passage in Isaiah connects John’s ministry with the hope of forgiveness. (Isaiah 40:1-5) Mark saw John the Baptist as the first step in the fulfillment of the promise contained in the prophets. His emergence had continuity with all that God had done through His encounter with Israel as he called the people to repentance as a necessary condition for the fulfillment of the promise. John’s voice came from a most unexpected place – the wilderness. This detail may have theological a significance. The city is associated with human culture, political institutions, religious leadership and tradition. John, therefore, was the forerunner of a Kingdom that was not the product of human culture or history; it came as a radical break from those in possession of religious power and authority. The wilderness, as a source of revelation, fits the pattern of Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians.

Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble

birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things – and the things that are not – to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. (1 Corinthians 1:26-29)

5

Luke and Matthew tell more about the actual content of John’s preaching than Mark does. The Baptist’s audience, according to Matthew, was the Pharisees and the Sadducees (Mathew 3:7-10) whereas Luke uses the term ‘multitudes’. (Luke 3:7-9) However, the message John delivered was identical in both Gospels.

1. John refers to them as a “brood of vipers” whose relationship to Abraham was of no advantage.

2. The only proper response was repentance. 3. A time of judgment was imminent and unavoidable. 4. Refusal to repent would bring disastrous consequences. (Mathew3:7-10;

Luke 3:7-9) The rite of baptism was practiced by Israel only as a means of conversion to Judaism so John’s call would have been met with surprise. Jews were never baptized although bathing was used for the purpose of ritual cleansing at some point in Jewish history. In modern times a ‘mikvah’ is used for this purpose. So why does John insist on baptism? Paul S. Minear writes: “John not only spoke but he acted. His action was itself a dramatic sign of a new day, a sign in which both the prophet and the people declared their faith. Multitudes came from great distances to confess their guilt and to throw themselves on God’s mercy, praying for the day of redemption. Their journey to the Jordan showed their willingness to leave the old world and its entangled complexities, and to plunge into the fire of God’s righteous judgment. More than this, it was a symbolic repetition of that earlier crossing of the Jordan under the leadership of Joshua, when God had led into the Promise Land those emigrants who were willing to venture all on his leading. Now again God was calling for a new decision and was opening up a new Land of Promise. John established the Jordan as the frontier between old and new. Those who crossed this frontier were pledging themselves to place God’s will above all earthly securities and ambitions. When they descended together into the water, this was no conventional gesture, but a radical self-renunciation and an equally reliance on God. They sought to cross the boundary between a cursed past and a blessed future. When Paul spoke of baptism as being “buried” with Christ, he showed how radical was this act. (Romans 6:3-4) But John’s demand on those who heard him preach was no less rigorous and ruthless. This baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins was nothing casual or trivial; it was sober and revolutionary. Otherwise Jesus would not have reckoned it as the work of the promised Elijah.” (Mark, Paul S. Minear, page 49) Concerning the meaning of baptism as repentance Eduard Schweizer has written the following: “Therefore, it is not the changing of the characteristics and actions that is emphasized, but the transformation of the total direction of his life, that is, of his relationship to God. This, of course, includes every aspect of his inner and outer behaviour. It has importance, however, only as an expression of such a new

6

direction, and not as an achievement which may be separate from it – just as no amount of extra exertion will help the runner who is running in the wrong direction, so long as no one turns him around.” (The Good News According to Mark, Eduard Schweizer, page 32) John realized that the call he made was only a humble beginning. A greater work would follow when Jesus baptized with “the Holy Spirit”. (Mark 1:7-8) The Baptism of Jesus: (1:9-11) All three synoptic Gospels narrate Jesus’ baptism differing somewhat in their details and emphasis.

Matthew Mark Luke 1. Jesus comes from Galilee to

John to be baptized. 2. The Jordan is mentioned. 3. John tries to prevent Jesus’

baptism. 4. Jesus insists in order to

fulfill “all righteousness”. 5. John consents. 6. As soon as he leaves the

water the heavens open and the Spirit of God descends like a dove and alighted on Jesus. (See Isaiah 42:1)

7. God speaks using allusions to and Isaiah 42:1 and 44:2. The words are addressed to the crowd, suggesting that they heard.

8. The event is reported as an objective rather than rather a purely subjective experience.

1. Same as Matthew. 2. Jordan mentioned. 3. John’s objection is

unmentioned. 4. There is no need for Jesus

to insist on his baptism. 5. There is no need for John to

give consent since there is no controversy.

6. The same as Matthew. 7. Almost the same as

Matthew except for a minor change in God’s words. Only Jesus hears and sees. The words are spoken to him, not the crowd.

8. The event is reported as Jesus’ subjective experience.

1. The event takes place only after all the people are baptized.

2. Jordan not mentioned. 3. Jesus is praying as the

heavens open. 4. The text does not

specifically say that only Jesus saw and heard.

5. God’s words are identical with Mark’s.

6. Only Jesus heard and saw. God’s words are directed to him so again the event may have been entirely subjective.

The reader has no way to know whether Matthew’s objective (The voice was heard publicly) account is the result of the tradition he received or the result of his own editing. The same can be said for Mark and Luke who report the event as a subjective (Only Jesus heard the voice.) experience. Matthew may have told the story as he did in order to add weight to Jesus’ inner conviction that his ministry was perfectly in line with the will and purpose of God. Those present could bear witness that God’s confirmation did, in fact, take place. The account given by Mark and Luke under scores the fact that Jesus’ self understanding that he was the Messiah was present from the very beginning; his Messianic consciousness did not develop as a natural process of self discovery. Whether or not the words spoken at Jesus’ Baptism were heard by those present or not matters little in the end. Either way, it was a ‘real’ event in which Jesus received the affirmation from his Father that the work he was about to do was confirmed by God.

7

Apparently, Mark (unlike Matthew) saw no difficulty in Jesus’ baptism even though it was a baptism of repentance. “The heavens opened” takes the reader back to creation when the Spirit of God brooded over the waters (Genesis 1:2) and the dove is reminiscent of the good news brought to Noah by a dove. (Genesis 8) The meaning of this symbolism is quite apparent; a new creation was beginning as God promised to withhold judgment and offer forgiveness. Furthermore, the reference to Isaiah suggests that the one who John baptizes would bring redemption through his suffering. Jesus insisted on his own baptism in order to identify himself with sinful humanity. Mark, who was writing from a post resurrection perspective, also saw Jesus’ baptism as an anticipation of the cross and resurrection. The going down and coming up are symbols of his death and resurrection. Mark’s Gospel presents Jesus as the one who will confront evil and establish the reign of God. The Western world has always recognized, however vaguely, the existence of evil but western thinkers have tended to believe that it can be dealt with from within the historical and political process. Their belief is that the world is constantly moving towards a better, fuller, and more perfect state by means of a series of events (dialectic) that overturns the effects of evil. Concerning this notion the Anglican scholar, N.T. Wright has written, “We envision a steady march toward freedom and justice, conceived often in terms of the slow but sure triumph of Western- style liberal democracy and soft socialism.” (N.T. Wright, Evil and the Justice of God, page 22) However, Jesus’ baptism declares a new reality. Evil can be confronted and defeated only from outside human history by the God who is present in his Messiah. Jesus insisted on being baptized as a sign that he accepted the task given to him by God because he knew that no human institution was capable of defeating Satan’s rule. The voice from heaven was confirmation that God’s purpose was being fulfilled in the Son. “Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased.” (1:11) Jesus’ baptism is the sign that God will deal with the effects of Adam’s fall from outside human history. Jesus’ Temptation: (1:12-13) (See also Isaiah 11:6f and Psalm 91:11-13) Mark’s account of Jesus’ temptation is decidedly the shortest. Matthew devoted 11 verses to the story and Luke 13. These two longer accounts are almost identical except for the fact that the temptations are given a different order. Both Matthew and Luke were interested in the nature of the temptations as well as the fact that Jesus resisted to them. The brevity of Mark’s account suggests that he was primarily concerned with showing Jesus’ victory over Satan. No other details were required to make this point. He added urgency by using his favourite adverb, “immediately”, a word used at least twenty five times in his Gospel. Mark underlined the importance and intensity of the confrontation between Jesus and Satan when he wrote that he was ‘driven’ into the wilderness. Other Gospel writers used a softer word. (led) The Greek word anago actually means to throw or hurl. The connotation of this

8

verb suggests that Jesus’ wilderness experience was essential to his role as the Messiah who would confront and defeat Satan. The fact that he experienced temptation revealed that he was truly human person who experienced temptation without saying ‘no’ to God. (The notion that sin was an impossible for Jesus makes the temptation experience pointless and it reduces Jesus’ humanity to mere illusion.) The details of verse 13 may be explained by an ancient Jewish tradition known to Mark and his readers. The tradition taught that the conflict with wild animals began with Adam’s sin in the garden. Previously, he was lord over them and the angels roasted the meat and made wine in his honour. If Mark told this event with this in mind, then he saw Jesus’ victory as a reversal of Adam’s sin, a concept taken up and developed further by Paul. (See Romans 5:12-21) The setting of the wilderness also recalls the sojourn of the children of Israel as God led them to the Promise Land so that they could carry forward the plan of God to redeem the world. However, their constant disobedience prevented them from fulfilling their mission to live as a counter culture under the rule of God. As Mark looked back on Jesus’ encounter with Satan, he saw that Jesus had taken on Israel’s mission by resisting Satan’s idolatrous invitation. Jesus’ obedience countered the disobedience of the chosen people and it was the indication that he was the means by which God would ultimately defeat the reign of Satan and establish the Kingdom of God.

2. The Authority of Jesus and the Blindness of the Pharisees (1:14-3:6)

After the Arrest of John, Jesus begins His Ministry: (1:14-15) All three synoptic writers reported the beginning of Jesus’ ministry but Luke did not link it with Old Testament expectations nor with the death of John. Luke’s concern was to indicate the welcome reception he received by the Jewish people who “glorified” him as he spoke in the synagogues. Matthew and Mark, however, connected the start of Jesus’ ministry with John’s death and the prophets’ expectations. Matthew, by quoting Isaiah, added more specific details that are only implied in Mark’s narrative. (Mark 1:15) Additionally, Luke did not mention the need for repentance. (metanoia) The coming of the Kingdom is not dependent on the actions of men and women but it does lay claim to their thoughts and deeds. It can be entered into only through repentance defined by a whole hearted commitment to the “Good News” contained in Jesus life and teaching.

9

The Call of the Disciples: (Mark 1:16-20) The beginning of Jesus’ ministry was immediately followed by the calling of the disciples as representatives of the new humanity. Matthew and Mark report this event in almost identical terms but it is not mentioned by Luke until chapter five of his Gospel. Here, it receives a more detailed and richer treatment. (Luke 5:1-11) The call of the disciples functions as a concrete example of what believing in the Gospel really means. The relationship between the disciples and Jesus differed significantly from the normal relationship between a rabbi and his disciples in the first century. Traditionally, a rabbi was sought after by the students in the hope that their learning would allow them to become better than the teacher. The main feature of rabbinical teaching was debate but Jesus did not debate with his disciples as a rabbi normally would. This difference underlines the radical nature of Jesus’ call to repent, believe, and obey. Mark relates call of the disciples in order to establish the following:

1. Jesus seeks out and calls the disciples, not the other way around. 2. They are allowed no time to prepare and they may not have even heard

Jesus’ teaching before he called them. 3. They are called in the midst of a real life situation, not a religious setting. 4. They are given no time for reflection in order to overcome objections.

They must respond immediately. 5. Their response is to a person rather than to an ethical system a set of

religious propositions. A Brief Discussion of the Meaning of Jesus’ Exorcisms Mark recorded eighteen miracle stories in his Gospel and several of these involved the casting out of demons. (There are twenty eight in the synoptic Gospels) The negative light in which his family is placed tends to authenticate the historicity of the exorcisms. Jesus’ family was aware of the negative reaction towards these demonstrations of power and for this reason they tried to restrain him. (Mark 3:20-35) It is very unlikely that the Gospel writers would invent stories that had no basis in historical fact when they had the potential to embarrass the early church by showing that even Jesus’ own family misunderstood him. In short, these accounts are not the product of pious imagination designed to impress; they are an intrinsic aspect of Jesus proclamation of the rule of God that he initiated. Jesus announced the kingdom as the beginning of Satan’s collapse whereby men and women were enabled to repent and embrace the new reality. With him, the kingdom advanced at the expense of Satan’s rule. This notion would have been easily understood by his contemporaries because it had already been made

10

popular in a fictional work called the Testament of Moses, written in Palestine around 30 C.E.

And then God’s kingdom will appear in his whole creation. And then the Devil will have an end,

And sorrow will be led away with him. (Testament of Moses 10:1)

Jesus never claimed that he possessed a magical power and he always made sure to distance himself from this superstition. When some observers accused him of being Satan’s partner, he countered with a saying about “the finger of God” to indicate that his Father was the real source of his power rather than magic.

But if I drive out demons by the finger of God, Then the kingdom of God has come to you. (Luke 11:20)

The expression“by the finger of God” was a reference to Exodus 7-8 where a contest took place between Moses and Pharaoh’s magicians; the passage explains why the magicians could not duplicate what Moses and Aaron did. They performed their miracles by the power of God while Pharaoh’s magicians used only magic.

The magicians tried by their secret arts to bring forth gnats, but they could not. So there were gnats on man and beast. And the magicians said to Pharaoh,

“This is the finger of God.” (Exodus 8:18-19) This phrase was used by Jesus to underline the fact that he did not cast out demons by gimmickry or magic. His power to exorcise demons came from the same source as that used by Moses and Aaron and it was a sign that Satan was being defeated by him with each exorcism. A Demon Hits the Dust: (1:21-28) This entire incident is primarily concerned with Jesus’ authority. Traditionally, a rabbi would teach by entering into a debate with the disciples that had sought him out in the hope that they could become superior to their teacher. The rabbi’s authority was always derivative; the sayings and teachings of wiser rabbis were quoted. Rabbis, who were contemporaries of Jesus, said nothing without the backing of the rabbinical oral tradition which they had to be able to quote profusely from memory. They taught using a ‘case study’ approach that relied on precedence. Apparently, what impressed the worshippers was not so much the content of Jesus’ teaching, but the fact that he required no support from any written or oral tradition. He possessed an easily recognizable, self evident personal authority that made him a figure greater that Moses.

11

Jesus’ first miracle, in the form of an exorcism, occurred in the synagogue on the Sabbath. (Healing on the Sabbath was regarded as a transgression of the Torah) There is no doubt that the first century mind was willing to explain a variety of illnesses (those that led to a loss of self control) according to its belief in demon possession. However, modernity may regard some aspects of this belief as nothing more than superstition that is better explained as a form of mental illness. In any case, the illness was beyond anyone’s ability to cure. If the reader desires a more detailed discussion of what first century people believed about demons, they need only refer to William Barclay’s treatment in his commentary on Mark Gospel (See The Daily Study Bible, page 34-36) or G.B. Caird’s commentary on Luke. (Page 88-89) Immediately, Jesus sermon was followed by the unclean spirit crying out, “What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God.” (1:24) The effect of the exorcism on the crowd is the point of the incident. They were so amazed when confronted with the authority of the healer that his reputation traveled widely. The soldiers in Satan’s army were powerless in the face of Jesus’ command. Again, Mark saw Jesus as victorious over Satan and all his ill effects. Because miraculous events led to wonder and not to belief, Jesus rejected them as a primary method of persuasion. A Brief Discussion of Miracles The miracle stories function as a sign that Jesus’ ministry was of God and that it fulfilled ancient prophecy. They were not done simply to impress the crowds and silence critics. When John heard of Jesus’ deeds he sent out one of his disciples to ask: “Are you he is to come, or shall we look for another?” Jesus answered by saying,

“Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and

the poor have good news preached to them. And blessed is he who takes no offense at me.” (Matthew 11:2-6; Luke 7:18-23)

The answer Jesus provided John’s disciples had allusions to Isaiah26:19, 35:5-6, and 61:1. John recognized that the association Jesus made between himself and the prophet meant that the messianic era had come and that Jesus was Israel’s Messiah. The fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy is seen by the Gospel writers as proof that Jesus was the Messiah of God and that he possessed the authority to forgive sin. In chapter four Mark tells the miracle story of the calming of the sea and he uses the language of Psalm 107:23-29 as his vehicle. Originally, the Psalm refered to the mighty deeds of God himself so he used the Psalm as an indication that Jesus’ actions were identical with the saving acts of God.

12

Finally, the Gospel writers were careful to make a distinction between Jesus’ wondrous acts and those of other men. Josephus, the first century Jewish historian, wrote about Eleazar, an exorcist, who used a boiling pot, a smoldering root, a special ring, the name of Solomon, and a series of incantations handed down to him in order to perform his exorcisms. It is probably him Jesus had in mind in Luke 11:19.

Now if I drive out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your followers drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. But if I drive out demons by the finger of

God, then the kingdom of God has come to you. (Luke 11:19-20)

Jesus behaviour was importantly different; he did not pray to bring about healing, he never bargained with God, he made no incantations, nor did he use paraphernalia. In contrast, Jesus simply touched, spoke a command, and the exorcism took place. This is the reason why the crowds said, “What is this? A new teaching! With authority he commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him.” (Mark 1:22 and 27) Some scholars have attempted to explain the miracles in natural terms while others have simply taken the position that they are fabrications of the early church. However, the distinctiveness of the miracles indicates that they were told as actual historical events and understood as a sign of the messianic era. The conclusion to be drawn from all of this is that Jesus was known as a popular healer and that his powerful deeds gave support to his claim that he was inaugurating the rule of God in a new way. Furthermore, they are told as actual events, not as myths fabricated by the early church. The Healing of Peter’s Mother-In-Law: (1:29-31) The healing of Peter’s mother-in-law is the second in a series of miracle healings that continues into Chapter 2. It was quite natural for Jesus to accompany Peter to his home since the Sabbath meal would have been served after the service followed by a period of rest. All three synoptic writers told the story with differences in detail which have little impact on the meaning of the miracle. Matthew 8:14-15 Mark 1:29-31 Luke 4:38-39

1. Jesus notices that she is sick with a fever.

2. He says nothing. 3. He takes her hand and she

is instantly healed. 4. She gets up and serves Jesus

without saying a word.

1. Jesus is told that the woman is sick with a fever.

2. He says nothing. 3. He takes her hand and lifts

her up. 4. The fever left her. 5. She serves Jesus without

speaking.

1. Jesus is told that the woman is sick with a fever.

2. Jesus stands over her. 3. He spoke to rebuke the

fever. 4. She rose and served Jesus.

The first miracle resulted in amazement but we are not told whether or not the demon possessed man came to faith in Jesus. However, the second miracle produced faith in Peter’s home when, once again, Jesus was victorious over

13

sickness and disease. Mark’s Jewish readers would read this incident as a Messianic claim because they believed that the Messianic age would bring with it the healing of the sick. “Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we consider him stricken by God, smitten by Him, and afflicted.” (Isaiah 53:4)

A Healing Convention Takes Place: (1:32-34)

Matthew 8:16-17 Mark 1:32-34 Luke 4:40-41 1. In the evening 2. Many brought. Only demon

possession is mentioned. 3. They are cast out with only

words. 4. All were healed. 5. Matthew sees the healings

as a fulfillment of prophecy. (Isaiah 53:4)

1. In the evening 2. Many brought. Some are

sick and some demon possessed.

3. The whole city was there. 4. He healed many. 5. Demons were not permitted

to speak because they knew who Jesus was.

1. In the evening 2. The sick had various

diseases. 3. Jesus touched them. 4. The demons identified

Jesus so he rebuked them a prevented them from speaking again.

The time of day is mentioned to account for the number of people who brought the sick to Jesus. The Sabbath was over so it was not unlawful for them to carry the sick. Matthew says that all the sick were demon possessed while the other two writers make a distinction between the ill and the demon possessed. Mark also underlines the power of Jesus’ words by saying that he healed simply by commanding while Luke adds a more human touch with his reference to Jesus’ physical contact. Matthew’s primary concern is the Messianic claim contained in the healings so he quotes Isaiah 53:4. Mark and Luke focus on the fact that the demons (members of Satan’s army) know with whom they are doing battle. Neither writer explains the reason for Jesus’ censure of them but there are at least three possibilities.

1. The anti Roman revolutionary movement may have used the demon’s insight to associate Jesus with their military and political goals.

2. Jesus knew that his miracles produced popularity but not faith so he discouraged claims made about him based on the supernatural.

3. Including this detail might be a way of saying that the true nature and purpose of Jesus’ Messiahship can only be understood after the crucifixion, resurrection followed by the outpouring of the Spirit.

Jesus Cannot Escape His Growing Popularity: (1:35-39) Mark emphasizes Jesus need to pray after a period of high activity by saying that he got up “a great while before day” (35) but Luke implies that it was later in the morning. Both say that Jesus desired to be alone but only Mark gives the reason why– he needed to pray. “Now Jesus knew well that he could not live without God; that if he was to be forever giving out, he must be, at least sometimes taking in; that if he was going to spend himself for others, he must ever and again

14

summon spiritual resources to his aid. He knew he could not live without prayer.” (William Barclay, The Gospel of Mark, page 41) Because of what he had done, Jesus experienced a season of popularity but his notoriety was an impediment to the essential task of preaching his message to a wider audience. His mission was to call people to repentance and membership in the Kingdom, rather than to gain acceptance by displays of miraculous power. For this reason, he left Capernaum where he preached in many synagogues and cast out demons. The Healing of the Leper: (1: 40-45) Of the three synoptic writers, it is Luke who calls attention to the leper’s desperate plight by saying that he was “full of leprosy” and that he “fell on his face”. A leper, in the first century was totally ostracized from human community because he was considered both physically and spiritually unclean. Coming in contact with one meant non participation in Jewish life and ritual but Jesus touched him anyway, something no rabbis would have done in the first century; they viewed a leper as a living corpse. According to Jewish Law, the leper must warn people that he is near by crying out “unclean, unclean.” (Leviticus 13:45) The leper’s approach to Jesus is revealing. There is no reason to believe that he had knowledge of Jesus in any theological sense but he was willing to approach with complete dependence on him; he trusted Jesus’ power to do what no one else could – bring healing. After the leper was healed Jesus instructed him to follow the law and have himself declared clean. (Leviticus 13:49; 14:2ff) Again, Jesus’ reputation as a wondrous healer spread and prevented him from entering cities as he wished.

Chapter Two The Healing of the Paralytic: (2:1-12) Mark begins his account by pointing out the intensity of Jesus’ popularity while Luke sets his readers up to expect a confrontation; he writes that the critics were out in full force. Both writers underline the faith of the paralytic’s friends who, despite of the difficulty presented by the crowd, found away to get to Jesus. He immediately acknowledged their determination and faith as the reason for the miracle. This is the first time Jesus combined the offer of forgiveness with a physical healing. Interestingly, “My son, your sins are forgiven” was not preceded by any words of repentance from the paralytic. All three writers see Jesus’ words as response to the faith of those who carried the man which does not necessarily mean that he (the paralytic) was without faith or expectation. Why Jesus began with a pronouncement of forgiveness instead of healing the paralysis is an interesting question. Perhaps it was a way of inviting his critics to

15

accuse him of blasphemy thereby providing the opportunity for him to make plain the essential nature of his ministry was to offer forgiveness. People of the first century, including the paralytic, thought of illness as a consequence of sin so Jesus dealt with that issue first. Some commentators have explained the order of events by suggesting that the paralysis was psychosomatic but even if his illness was psychosomatic, it was no less real. Divine power was required no matter the cause. All three writers emphasize the reaction to Jesus’ offer of forgiveness. They accused him of blasphemy because he had exercised a prerogative that was God’s alone. Jesus’ response is quite enigmatic. “Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, your sins are forgiven, or to say, rise, take up your pallet and walk.” In verse 10, Jesus explained that his miraculous act was a sign of his authority to forgive sins. As the man got up from his bed, visible evidence was presented for Jesus’ authority that was not visible for the act of forgiving. The fact that Jesus demonstrated his right to forgive by performing a miracle takes for granted his critics’ assumption that personal sin was the reason for the man’s paralysis. This being the case, they would draw the conclusion that the man got up because his sin was forgiven. Jesus never entered into a discussion about the relationship of physical illness to sin but we know that he rejected the notion that the two are necessarily related. (See John 9:1-34) Matthew ends his account by saying that the crowd recognized Jesus’ authority even though their response fell short of out and out faith in him as the Messiah of Israel. The Call of Levi: (2:13-17) This incident followed naturally from the previous one because it involved a confrontation between Jesus and his opponents who, having already objected to the offer of forgiveness, found further fault with the company he kept – the most despised and ritually unclean. All three narrators tell the story as an answer to this critique and to shed light on the nature of the kingdom; those least expected to receive an invitation were invited first. The focus of all three writers is on the murmurings of the religious establishment and Jesus’ response to their complaint. All three accounts end similarly except Matthew adds “Go and learn what this means, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.” (Matthew 9:13) The event began with the calling of Levi or Matthew, (see Matthew 9:9) a much despised tax collector. Some scholars have argued that the difference in the name results from the fact that they are different versions of the same name. If this is not the case then the difference is inexplicable but ultimately inconsequential because the critical point of agreement is that he was a tax collector. The reason

16

for Levi’s positive response is unexplained and there is no indication that he had heard the message of Jesus before (although he may have). None of the writers are interested in Levi’s state of mind before Jesus called him and they do not attempt to establish a reason for his positive response other than Jesus’ unique presence. The power of the invitation is emphasized by each writer. Levi was chosen as a sign that the kingdom is one in which men and women are invited on the basis of pure grace; membership in Jesus’ kingdom is given and accepted by those who know they are without merit and say ‘yes’ only because of their encounter with the one who offers it. “The calling of a tax collector was a sign of the Gospel– that God does not demand any righteousness according to the Law, but gives the kingdom to those who have no righteousness of their own.” (J.C. Fenton, Saint Matthew, page 137) Like the others who were called, Levi responded immediately without raising a discussion about terms and conditions; Jesus’ command was enough! The call of Levi was followed immediately by an invitation for dinner. It was a sign of his acceptance of Jesus and an indication that he desired to follow him obediently. Luke describes the meal as a great feast so that his Jewish readers would associate the meal with the notion of a Messianic Feast. All three writers understand that with Jesus, the messianic age had arrived bringing with it an invitation to enter into a relationship with God apart from the works of the law. The religious establishment was present and they objected vigorously to Jesus’ associated with those considered to be religiously unclean and unqualified. He overheard their critique. “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?” (2:16) His response is somewhat mysterious. “Those who have no need for a physician, but those who are sick are sick; I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” (2:17) The point being made was not there are those who are in possession of a righteous that renders them without the need of a physician. In this context, the righteous are those who mistakenly see themselves as meriting membership in the kingdom. Even though all people are sinners without distinction, they can never be beyond the call of God. For this reason, Jesus was at home with tax collectors and sinners. Unlike the Pharisees, they were willing to accept his invitation as a pure and undeserved gift. Only Matthew included the quotation from Hosea 6:6. “For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.” It is reasonable to assume that this was a well known text to his critics and they would have been able to understand how it added to the meaning of Jesus’ words. The modern reader, less familiar with the quotation from the prophet, needs to consider the original context in order to understand why Matthew included this Old Testament passage.

17

Hosea was especially concerned with Israel’s idolatry. He portrayed their unfaithfulness to his own troubled marriage where his wife, Gomer, had been unfaithful to him just as the Jewish people had been unfaithful to God. Israel, like Gomer, deserved divine judgment but just as Hosea was encouraged to win back his wife, so God was determined to win back his people and restore their relationship with him. In this sense, God is more interested in mercy than he is judgment. Jesus was at home with tax collectors and sinners because the mercy of God resided in him. Controversy About Fasting: (2:18-22) Criticism of Jesus and his followers continued. Both the disciples of John and the Pharisees fasted regularly but Jesus’ followers did not. Judaism required only one day of fasting on the Day of Atonement as an expression of sorrow. The entire nation confessed its sins in the belief that they would be forgiven. More observant Jews, however, developed the practice of fasting twice a week from 6:00 am until 6:00 pm. (Modern observant Jews fast five or six times a year during the most sacred holy days.) Some Pharisees used this practice to display their heightened religiosity. They whitened their faces and wore disheveled clothing to make their piety conspicuous. Teaching people to observe the ceremonial law, as they did, was their primary task so Jesus’ ‘poor’ example did not sit well with them. He answered their criticisms using the illustration of a Jewish wedding. (The technical term for these sayings is apophthegm.) No event in the first century Judaism deserved a greater celebration than a wedding. The bride, groom and invited quests celebrated for an entire week. The party was so important that anyone in attendance was relieved of all religious obligations while the wedding took place. A rabbi would even abandon his Torah teaching if he was invited to a wedding. Expecting his disciples to fast like John’s disciples made no more sense than fasting during a wedding. Just as a wedding was a time of celebration, so the inauguration of the kingdom required celebration rather than mourning. An ominous note sounded in this illustration; Jesus anticipated his death. There will come a time when “the bridegroom is taken away”. (1:15) While the wedding feast illustration pointed out the inappropriateness of fasting on this particular occasion, (Jesus was not against fasting in principle. He fasted himself.) the second two illustrations functioned as criticisms of traditional religion that is not able to embrace a new reality. Trying to understand the Messiah in terms of one’s preconceived ideas was like using a new piece of cloth to patch an old garment. When it shrunk the new patch would tear away and rip the clothing. In the same way, if new wine was put into old wine skins the bag tore because the old skins were unable to expand. Elasticity was essential because new wine ferments and produces gas that requires the wine skin to expand. Old skins would simply burst and waste the wine. In other words, the

18

old and the new are incompatible. “…. Jesus was introducing something so absolutely new and revolutionary that he could not be expected to try to accommodate it to the standard religious practices of the Jews.” (The Gospel According to Mark, C.F.D. Moule, page 27) The basis of this entire confrontation was the unwillingness and inability of the most religious to comprehend that the kingdom could not be understood or contained by their deeply held religious traditions. The tax collectors and sinners provided a contrast because they were willing to accept what Jesus offered on its own terms. They did not insist that his teaching conform to their preconceived ideas.

Picking Corn on the Sabbath: (2:23-28) Nothing was more important to Jesus’ Jewish contemporaries than obeying the Sabbath commandment. Observant Jews in modern times, still go to great lengths to observe it. This commandment is found in Deuteronomy 5:12 and Exodus 20:8. In both Old Testament passages the people are instructed not to work on this day in order to keep it holy. In its original context, the commandment seems to demand that men and women stop doing those daily tasks that are part of their day to day survival. The commandment effects every person, both Jew and Gentile, and animals as well. However, the original command does not provide a clear definition of what work means. Gradually, a rabbinical oral tradition developed to add precession to the command by defining, in detail, what was and was not allowed on the Sabbath. Exodus and Deuteronomy give a different rational for the commandment. Exodus states the command as recognition that God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh because the creative process was complete and the results were entirely consistent with His will and purpose. Keeping the Sabbath was a means for Israel to remember the perfection of God’s creation and that He alone is its creator. Deuteronomy provides an entirely different rational; keeping the Sabbath is a recognition that God had rescued Israel from slavery and forced labour. Resting on the Sabbath gave Israel a way of expressing gratitude to God for freeing them from the oppression that prevented them from entering the Promise Land. The ancient rabbis felt that the fifth commandment lacked specificity so an oral tradition eventually developed a subset of thirty nine specific laws that defined exactly what was forbidden on the Sabbath. Picking corn and rubbing it between one’s hands (Luke 6:1 only) was an offense and this act provided the evidence that Jesus discouraged his followers from following the specific details of the Jewish Law. This was just what they were looking to prove he was anti-Torah. Matthew, Mark, and Luke narrate the incident similarly but Matthew includes some material not found in the other two Gospels.

19

Matthew 12:18 Mark 2:23-28 Luke 6:1-5 1. Jesus and the disciples are

in a grain field on the Sabbath and they are hungry.

2. The pluck ears of corn. 3. They are accused of

breaking the Sabbath Law. 4. Jesus answers with a

reference to a precedent set by David when he entered the temple and ate the bread that was left there by the priest.

5. Eating this bread was considered unlawful except for the priests.

6. He shared it with his soldiers.

7. Jesus’ justified his actions by saying, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath; so the Son of man is lord even of the Sabbath.

8. Matthew adds: “Or have you not read in the law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the temple, and are guiltless? I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. And if you know what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. (12:5-8)

1. Jesus and the disciples are in a grain field on the Sabbath and they are hungry.

2. The pluck ears of corn. 3. They are accused of

breaking the Sabbath Law. 4. Jesus answers with a

reference to a precedent set by David when he entered the temple and ate the bread that was left there by the priest.

5. Eating this bread was considered unlawful except for the priests.

6. He shared it with his soldiers.

7. Jesus’ justified his actions by saying, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath; so the Son of man is lord even of the Sabbath. (2:27-28)

1. Jesus and the disciples are in a grain field on the Sabbath and they are hungry.

2. The pluck ears of corn. Luke adds that the disciples rubbed the grain in their hands.

3. They are accused of breaking the Sabbath Law.

4. Jesus answers with a reference to a precedent set by David when he entered the temple and ate the bread that was left there by the priest.

5. Eating this bread was considered unlawful except for the priests.

6. He shared it with his soldiers.

7. Jesus’ justified his actions by saying, “The Son of man is lord of the Sabbath.” (6:5) Note: The first part of Jesus’ words is not present in Luke’s account.

Jesus defended his disciples by recalling what their hero had done many years before. David broke the law because it was ‘trumped’ by a greater need; his soldiers were hungry and they needed to eat. If what David did found favour with the Pharisees then Jesus’ disciples were also undeserving of criticism as well. He underscored his argument by enunciating a general principle. “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” This statement is rather enigmatic but he must mean that the law was given for mans’ benefit, not as a burden to be followed legalistically. In other words, his disciples were allowed to pick corn on the Sabbath because of their hunger; the law was never intended as a burden that denies basic human needs. To the precedent of David, Matthew added one provided by the temple priests. (12:5-7) He drew his critics’ attention to Leviticus 24:5-8 and used it as an analogy. This passage instructed the Temple priests on how to prepare the bread and place it in the temple as a sacrifice “Sabbath after Sabbath, on behalf of Israel, as a lasting covenant.” (Leviticus 24:8b) Strictly speaking, the work was in breach of the Sabbath Law but the priests were not disobedient because Temple requirements took precedence over the Sabbath Law. When Jesus claimed that “something greater than the Temple is here” he meant that God was beginning to rule the world through the Son, therefore the Sabbath Laws must give way in the

20

face of his coming. The disciples were guiltless because they were following a kingdom that values mercy above the rigors of law keeping; they plucked the corn as a sign and demonstration of this new reality.

Chapter Three

The Straw that Breaks the Monkey’s Back: (3:1-6) The three synoptic writers record this incident with the same purpose in mind; to explain why Jesus’ attitude towards the law found such disfavour with the establishment. The Pharisees watched Jesus carefully to observe his infractions because each incident did damage to their sense of law and order. In their minds, Jesus and his disciples acted with a reckless freedom that undermined the religion of Israel by encouraging disobedience to the rigors of the Jewish law. This was the encounter that finally drove his enemies to conspire against him. Some interesting but differences in the three texts can be noted.

Matthew 12:9-14 Mark 3:1-6 Luke 6:6-11 1. Jesus went to the synagogue

where there was a man with a withered hand.

2. The Pharisees asked Jesus if it was lawful to heal on the Sabbath.

3. They were looking to accuse him,

4. Jesus asked them what they would do if one of their sheep fell into a pit and he assumes that they would rescue the sheep.

5. Jesus reminded them that a man is of more value than a sheep. His question is rhetorical one and that the answer is self evident.

6. Jesus logic forces a reluctant conclusion; it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.

7. Jesus asked the man to stretch out his hand. It was fully restored.

8. The Pharisees decided to find a way to destroy Jesus.

1. Jesus went into the synagogue where there was a man with a withered hand.

2. He is watched to see if he heals on the Sabbath. They did not ask a question.

3. They were looking to accuse him.

4. Jesus asked the man to come close to him.

5. He then asked them whether or not doing good on the Sabbath is permitted.

6. They reacted in silence which caused Jesus to grieve over their hard heartedness.

7. Jesus healed the man. 8. The Pharisees left to meet

with the Herodians to devise a plan to destroy Jesus. Note: Mark does not include any references to animals that need saving.

1. Jesus went into the temple to teach. A man was there with a withered right hand.

2. He is watched to see if he heals on the Sabbath. No questions were asked.

3. They were looking to accuse him.

4. Jesus knew their thoughts. 5. He called the man to come

to him 6. Jesus asked them what they

would do if an ass fell into a pit on the Sabbath.

7. Jesus reminded them that a man is more valuable than an ass. His question was rhetorical and the answer is self evident.

8. His answer forces a reluctant conclusion; it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.

9. The man’s hand was fully restored.

10. The Pharisees were full of anger so they discussed what they might do to Jesus.

It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of keeping the Sabbath amongst observant Jews in the first century. Giving medical attention was lawful only when it was needed to save a life, other wise it was delayed until the next day. Whether or not a man could carry a handkerchief on the Sabbath was even disputed since it involved carrying a burden. If it was tied around an arm, it became an item of clothing. In this way the law was observed. The Sabbath law even prevented Israel from defending itself. Josephus, the Jewish historian, recorded that during Israel’s war with the Maccabees, some

21

Jewish rebels took refuge in a cave when the Syrians pursued them. They were given a chance to surrender but were attacked when they refused. The Jews did not try to block the entrance to the cave nor did they attempt to defend themselves because it was the Sabbath. All were massacred. Healing the man with a withered arm did not rise to the level of saving his life, so in the mind of the Pharisee, it was law breaking. The Gospel according to the Hebrews (only a fragment remains) says that the man was a stone mason who was unable to do his work because of his injury. If correct, this detail suggests that his withered hand may have been a recent development. He, like Jesus, would have known that the Sanhedrin was always represented in the synagogue diligently watching and listening for heresy so it must have taken considerable courage for him to stand and approach Jesus. Jesus, aware of their judgmental stares, reduced their question to a straight forward case of either/or. The argument he presented was that a legalistic interpretation of the law prevented the doing of good and it is logically identical with doing evil. When good ought to be done, there is no neutral ground; doing nothing is, in itself, an evil act. “There is no escape, nor is there any justification for a legalism which merely for the sake of orthodoxy fails to do the good and therefore produces evil.” (The Good News of Mark, Eduard Schweizer, page 75) Matthew and Luke make the argument easier to follow because they included the case study involving a trapped animal. (See Matthew 12:9-14 and Luke 6:6-11) The Pharisees’ stubborn unwillingness to see any justification for the healing was met with a strong judgment. The expression “their hardness of heart” suggests cruelty or callousness to us but to the Hebrew it referred to a person who stood in opposition God’s purpose in the world. Only Mark writes that the Pharisees entered into discussions with the Herodians about how to destroy Jesus. Normally, the Pharisee would have had nothing to do with them because they held their power by being in cahoots with the Romans. The Pharisees’ willingness to form such a union shows the depth of their fear and hatred of Jesus.

22

3. Jesus’ Ministry in Parables and Signs and the Blindness of the World (3:7-6:6a)

Jesus Withdraws but the Multitudes Follow: (3:7-12)

Matthew 12:15-21 Mark 3:7-12 Luke 6:17-19 1. Jesus withdraws because of

the hostility of his enemies. 2. He is followed by great

crowds. 3. He healed them all. 4. He ordered them not to

make him known. 5. Jesus’ order is explained

with an allusion to Isaiah 42:14.

6. The quotation establishes that Jesus has been chosen by God to bring justice to the Gentiles.

7. He has no desire to attract attention until he brings victory.

1. Jesus with drew to the sea because of the hostility directed towards him.

2. Crowds from everywhere follow him.

3. He requested a boat to avoid the crush of the crowd.

4. He healed many. 5. Those with disease pushed

forward in their attempt to touch Jesus.

6. The unclean spirits declare him to be the “Son of God”.

7. He ordered them (the spirits) to not to make him known.

1. He withdrew for the same reasons given by Matthew and Mark.

2. A great crowd of disciples and common people followed him.

3. They came to be taught and to be healed.

4. He casts out demons. 5. Everyone wanted to touch

him in an effort to experience his healing power.

6. This event is followed by an extended period of teaching known as the ‘Sermon on the Plain’.

This incident represents, for all three narrators, Jesus’ final break with the religious leaders who, inspite of their Biblical literacy, could not accept him as the one anticipated by their own prophets. Although official Jewry had repudiated him, Jesus ministry was welcomed and vindicated by the common people who were looked upon as religiously uninformed. (a common pattern in the New Testament) Both Mark and Luke mention from where the people had come in order to point out that the crowd was both Jewish and Gentile. It is their way of displaying the universal appeal of Jesus and the fact that his kingdom was an inclusive one. (for Jew and Gentile alike) Both writers also emphasize the crowd’s desire to be in close proximity to the healer. “…. the text proclaims that in Jesus we are confronted by God who transforms everything, and that we will not be helped in any way if all we do is simply adopt this doctrine of the divine sonship of Jesus.” (Schweizer, page 80) There is an interesting contrast in the story. The demons’ clear insight concerning Jesus resulted in fear. The crowd, on the other hand, made every effort to take advantage of his healing power even though their minds must have been full of any number superstitions and misunderstandings. They were healed anyway. In Matthew’s Gospel, the people were commanded by Jesus “not to make him known” (12:16) but in Mark’s Gospels it was the demons who received this command. (Mark 3:12) Luke does not make reference to the ‘messianic secret’ on this occasion although he had in a previous passage. (4:41) The text does not explain the reasons for this censorship. Perhaps Jesus believed that true and lasting faith required a new vision that was not yet possible. The people needed

23

the perspective of the cross and resurrection before they could truly understand the true nature of the kingdom. Without this perspective they were locked into expectations that were inconsistent with his true nature as God’s son. Time was needed for the people to discover what faith in him actually meant by watching his deeds and listening to his teaching. For the present, their enthusiasm was largely based on his miraculous power and he knew that faith, on this ground, was entirely inadequate, misleading, and short lived. Jesus knew that his self understanding bore no resemblance to the popular idea. His Messiahship involved sacrifice, service, and suffering but the common belief was that the messiah would organize a mighty army, conquer the Romans, and establish Israel as a world power once and for all. He knew that a ministry based on miraculous power could only feed into this commonly held and dangerous misunderstanding. Only Matthew summarized the nature of Jesus and his kingdom by quoting loosely from Isaiah. (42:1-4) Interestingly, this passage in its original context was not a description of Israel’s messiah even though Matthew quotes it as if it was. William Barclay points out that the passage was originally applied to Cyrus, the Persian king. Barclay writes, “The original point of the quotation was this. Cyrus was sweeping onwards in his conquests and the prophet saw those victories as within the deliberate and definite plan of God. Although he did not know it, Cyrus, the Persian, was the instrument of God. Further, the prophet saw Cyrus as the gentle conqueror, as indeed he was. But although the original words refer to Cyrus, the fulfillment of the prophecy undoubtedly came in Jesus Christ. In his day the Persian king mastered the eastern world, but the true master of all the world is Jesus Christ.” (Gospel of Matthew, William Barclay, page 36) Jesus Appoints the Twelve: (3:13-19) The list of apostles in the New Testament does not entirely correspond. John lists Nathaniel as one of the twelve but this name is not found in the synoptic Gospels. The actual names, except for the leading apostles, were probably far less important than the number. Twelve were chosen to represent the beginning of the new Israel into which all men and women were called. Mark and Luke add a geographic detail that has theological significance; Jesus spent the night in a high place as a symbol of special revelation. Only Luke mentions that Jesus spent the night praying which indicates the importance he placed on the choosing of the twelve. They were appointed to preach the news of God’s Kingdom with an authority made visible by casting out demons and healing. (not mentioned by Luke) The men he chose fits the pattern found everywhere in the New Testament. They are ordinary, uneducated, and not a part of the religious establishment. The list includes a person from the most despised class (a tax collector) and a political hot head bend on the violent overthrow of Rome.

24

It is quite possible that Mark had Isaiah 43 in mind when he recorded this event to show that the calling of the twelve was continuous with God’s plan to redeem the world. In Isaiah 43 the Lord called Jacob and Israel by name because each belonged to Him. (43:1) He promised to be with them when they passed through trouble waters (43:2) gathering sons and daughters from the ends of the earth. (43:6) Similarly, the disciples’ task was to gather people into Christ’s kingdom (43:10) even when their message was rejected by those who were spiritually blind. (43:8 and 10) The twelve were not chosen so that they alone could enjoy an exclusive fellowship with Jesus. Their task was to invite both Jew and Gentile into membership. Jesus is Accused of Being in League with the Devil: (Mark 3:20-30) All the Synoptic writers report this event but with interesting differences in detail and emphasis.

Mathew 12:22-37 Mark 3:19-30 Luke 11:14-23

1. No specific setting is given except that he has withdrawn to from the synagogue because the hostility directed towards him.

2. The blind and dumb man is brought to him and he is healed.

3. All are amazed and ask, “Can this be the Son of David?”

4. The Pharisees say that he is in league with the devil.

5. Jesus knows what they are thinking and he answers them in several ways. The first is that Satan cannot be divided against himself. Secondly, he refers a precedent in their history. Thirdly, he attacks their logic with a saying about plundering.

6. He says that a person is either with him or against him.

7. Sinning against the Holy Spirit is unforgivable.

8. The results of his action confirm who he really is. (33)

1. The setting is Jesus’ home. 2. There are so many people

there that Jesus cannot eat. 3. His friends try to ‘shut him

down’ because they believe he has lost his mind.

4. The scribes accuse him of being a partner of the Devil.

5. He answers them with a teaching about a divided kingdom which led him to point out the absurdity of the accusation against him. Satan cannot be divided against himself.

6. He gives the illustration about binding the strong man before his house is entered.

7. He mentions the sin against the Holy Spirit.

8. His critics were unconvinced. “He has an unclean spirit.” (30)

1. No specific setting is provided.

2. He healed a speechless man by casting out a demon.

3. The man spoke and the people marveled.

4. There were two reactions. One group accused Jesus of being the devil’s partner. The others want to investigate further.

5. Jesus’ response follows the other writers.

6. He says the saying about being for or against him

7. The sin against the Holy Spirit is not mentioned in this context. (see Luke 12:10)

The theme that runs through all three accounts is that two kingdoms are colliding; war had broken out that will not end with a truce of any kind and no person can declare himself a neutral non combatant. Everyone must choose sides.

25

This is incident seems to be the same one as told by Matthew and Luke but in Mark’s version there is no reference to a healing. (Although the reader can justifiably assume that Mark assumes a connection between Jesus’ popularity and his miraculous powers.) The confrontation, according to Mark, took place in Jesus’ home where his extreme popularity made it impossible for everyone to eat. Mark suggests that his popularity was the reason his friends tried to save him. They thought that he was crazy and in danger of embarrassing them. In any case, the entire incident shows that the misunderstanding of Jesus was universal; it involved even his closest friends and family, not just the religious establishment. His family found his work socially embarrassing while the establishment thought of it as heretical and politically dangerous. Matthew and Luke narrate two reactions to Jesus; the people are amazed and curious but the scribes accuse him of being an associate of Beelzebub. Mark makes no mention of the miracle recorded by Matthew and Luke but, like them, he records the accusation of the scribes. ‘Beelzebub’ eventually came to mean Satan but in this context it probably meant the prince of demons who was in command of all Satan’s legions. Jesus defended himself by giving a two fold answer intended to demonstrate the absurdity of their logic. His first argument was that Satan would never cast out his own soldiers for doing so would only weaken his kingdom. (23-26) Secondly, he showed that by his command, men were released from the power of evil spirits. Such a fruitful outcome could hardly be sought by one of Satan’s generals. If that were the case, Satan would be illogically working against himself. The second response is contained in the parable of the strong man which has clear allegorical elements that the listener is required to grasp before Jesus’ meaning can be understood. The strong man is Satan and his house represents all that he possesses. (individuals as well as society) His ‘goods’, according to the logic of the parable, could not be taken from him unless he was first defeated or bound up. By implication, this is exactly what Jesus had done; he had wrestled the strong man to the ground and taken his goods by first defeating him. (casting out demons) Jesus power was far from being demonic as the scribes said. His victory over the demons was proof that Satan was being evicted from his home within men and society. (27) The next two verses (28-29) are two of the most misunderstood in all of scripture so they require a careful exegesis. Blaspheming the Holy Spirit means to deny that God lacks the power to defeat Satan and it is an out and out denial that He can provide a means by which sin is forgiven. Such a denial bars the door to forgiveness and makes reconciliation to God impossible by rejecting the efficacy of Jesus’ death on the cross. Eduard Schweizer defines this sin as declaring war on God. “This is not done in weakness and doubt, but by one who has been overcome by the Holy Spirit and

26

who knows very well on whom he is declaring war. For that very reason, those whose consciences are troubled for fear they might have committed this sin are not the ones to whom this saying applies. It is meant for that antichrist who is as hard as steel, who does not desire God’s grace, and who makes himself God.” (The Good News of Mark, Eduard Schweizer, page 87) The person who rejects the Gospel, even though they believe it to be true by the witness of the Holy Spirit, have committed the unforgivable sin because they have said no to the offer of forgiveness itself. Interestingly, Jesus never said that his critics were guilty of this sin. Their accusations against him had not yet risen to this level. “Who Are My Brothers and Sisters? (3:31-35) This surprising event is told by all three writers. The climax is the question, “Who are my brothers and sisters?” (33) The question is a stunning one considering the importance Israel placed on the human family. A person’s primary obligation, according to Jewish law, was to his family and no relationship was more important than this one. In the context of the first century, Jesus would have been expected to give preference to his family when they asked to see him so his question, “Who are my mother and brothers?” must have left them stunned and incredulous. He answered his own question as he stretched out his hand and pointed to the entire crowd. (Matthew 12:49) Mark reports that Jesus simply looked at “those who sat around him”. (Mark 3:34) Each writer recorded Jesus’ words with some verbal difference but the meaning is the same in each case.

Matthew 12:50 Mark 3:34b-35 Luke 8:19-21 “Here are my mother and brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother, and sister, and mother.”

“Here are my mother and brothers! For whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother.”

“My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it.”

Consistently, Jesus taught that earthly relationship is no advantage in being spiritually related to him because the kingdom produced a new kind of kinship. Those who willingly accept the gift he offers are his true family and the evidence of their acceptance is willingness to obey, not mere intellectual affirmation of his teaching. Luke makes this most clear. He reported Jesus to have said, “Hear the word of God and do it.” It is entirely possible that Jesus critics, if they were listening and thinking carefully, would have heard a severe criticism of their preconceived notion that their relatedness to Abraham gave them automatic membership in the kingdom.

27

Clearly, Jesus put an end this notion; membership is on the basis of obedience to the God who is disclosed in him. The Parable of the Sower: (4:1-9) This is the first of four parables recounted by Mark. It is told by all the synoptic writers with some differences but in general its meaning is the same in all three versions. (For a careful study of how the Gospel accounts differ see ‘The Parables of Jesus’ by Arland J. Hultgren, page 183-189.) Some scholars insist that parables are not allegories even though Jesus interpreted this parable as one. Many commentators believe that this explanation is actually a product of the early church as they sought to explain it years later in an effort to find encouragement in its message. However, other scholars have not dismissed the possibility that Jesus did interpret his parable in an allegorical manner. By the time the parable was told parable, he had chosen his disciples and experienced much hostility and rejection. He knew that his own experience of suffering would be duplicated by his disciples in the future. They too would be met by hostility, indifference, and superficial acceptance so he told the parable to give them a true picture of what they would actually experience while, at the same time, offering encouragement. The parable was told with a focus on the seed, not the environment into which it fell. The seed has an allegorical meaning; it represents the message of the kingdom and the content of Jesus’ preaching. This word will be out rightly rejected by some and accepted superficially by others. The church’s task in proclaiming the message will involve abject failure as well as remarkable success because an abundant harvest is guaranteed. The parable portrayed the sowing as difficult and disappointing but the abundance of the harvest brings a compensating glory. As Jesus completed his story, all three writers report him as saying, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.” His words are an allusion to Ezekiel 3:27 where the prophet said, “But when I speak to you, I will open your mouth and you shall say to them, “This is what the Sovereign Lord says. Whoever will listen let him listen, and whoever will refuse let him refuse; for they are a rebellious house.” What he taught deserved active listening and a willingness to search the heart. Refusal to listen carefully was a sign of rebellion. Another warning sounds as well. “The constant peril facing the believing Christian is the temptation to apply the Word of God to others, without applying it first of all to himself.” (The Gospel According to Mark, Alan Cole, page 90)

28

The Disciples Ask for an Explanation: (4:10-12) The chart below shows the differences in how this conversation is reported. Matthew and Luke have it as a conversation between Jesus and the twelve whereas Mark wrote that more than the twelve were present. Matthew says that the disciples wanted Jesus to explain why he used parables but in Luke they asked about the parable’s meaning. Mark’s language is vaguer; they ask ‘concerning the parables’. Here their question is generic; they want to know about parables in general even though only one parable is mentioned. Jesus’ response is one of the most enigmatic in scripture. His answer is longer in Matthew because he is the only writer to include the quotation from Isaiah. However, the mystery of faith is the common theme that runs through each of the three versions.

Matthew 13:10-15 Mark 4:10-12 Luke 8:9-10 1. The disciples asked, “Why

do you speak to them in parables?”

2. Jesus answered, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to him who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.”

3. Jesus then quoted Isaiah 6:9-10

1. When Jesus was alone, the crowd, not just the disciples asked him “concerning the parables”.

2. Jesus answered, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables; so that they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand; lest they should turn again, and be forgiven.”

1. Only the disciples ask what the parable meant.

2. He answered, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God; but for the others they are in parables, so that seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand.”

The difficulty presented by this text results from the fact that it is written in Greek which presupposes Hebrew logic and grammar. A feature of the Hebrew language is that it customarily uses ‘purpose’ clauses to express ‘result’. For example, “I went to the store and found a penny” would be written as “I went to the store in order to find a penny.” The meaning actually intended is “I went to the store and happened to find a penny.” In Isaiah and Mark, the text tells us that a word is spoken so that people won’t understand when of course the whole purpose of the speech was so they would. Their non- understanding was not the desired result although the text in English makes it sound as if it was. The logic of Hebrew is operating here. It is obvious that the desired intention of Jesus’ parables was that people would understand the nature of the kingdom and respond. Some hearers, however, closed their hearts and so what was meant to promote comprehension confirmed them in their non – understanding. The result was the opposite of the intention. Therefore, one affect of Jesus’ parables was that it produced ‘insiders’ and

29

‘outsiders’ according to how they reacted to the parable. Inevitably, Jesus’ teaching caused division as it does now because it demands a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response. When these words are taken literally (because of the linguistic problem) without keeping in mind the context of the Gospel as a whole, Jesus seems to be saying that he deliberately spoke in parables to hide his message from his listeners. This is obviously absurd. Generally, we recognize that his parables brought the invisible truths of God to light because they invited the listener to compare what he/she already knew of the world to the narrative contained in the parable. In other words, the listener was invited to discover its meaning by identifying the point(s) of comparison between the story and his/her ordinary human experience. Jesus expected the listener to be actively engaged as he/she listened so they could make a serendipitous discovery concerning the kingdom of God. Therefore, the text cannot mean what it literally says. Since Mark has already established that God’s Kingdom brought with it a universal invitation to repent and turn towards God, it could not be Jesus’ intention to say that some of his listeners were destined to permanent unbelief. Belief was also possible for them when they were willing to listen with hearts and minds unencumbered by the weight of their religious tradition and preconceptions. They were ‘outsiders’ only as long their resistance closed the door on his offer of forgiveness. The difference between the meaning of the word ‘mystery’ (munterion) in terms of today’s understanding and its use in the New Testament needs to be recognized as well. In modern usage, a mystery refers to something hidden that may be solved by the application of human wisdom or intelligence. Its meaning in scripture is quite different. The Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words by W.E. Vine provides the following definition: “In the N.T. it denotes, not the mysterious, but that which, being outside the range of unassisted natural apprehension, can be made known only by Divine revelation, and is made known in a manner and at a time appointed by God, and to those illuminated by His Spirit.” (page 97) Now the modern reader can begin to understand that Jesus was teaching his followers to take no credit for their understanding; it had been revealed to them by the action of God’s Spirit upon them. All knowledge of God is pure gift and miracle. Whenever the disciples were able to understand a parable, it was because of the will of God, not because they clever or unusually insightful. Just because God was the author of their insight does mean, however, that the disciples were instructed to adopt a passive attitude. Matthew included some additional words in his account which are not found in either Mark or Luke. Matthew reported Jesus to have also said’, “For him who has more will be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away.” (Matthew13:12) In modern times we might say, “Use it or lose it!”

30

Here, Jesus was saying something we intuitively know to be true. He is merely recognizing that there is a spiritual atrophy just like there is a muscular one. Unbelief produces greater unbelief whereas belief produces more belief. Jesus Explains the Parable: (4:13-20) The first three Gospel writers similarly recount Jesus’ explanation of the parable (as an allegory) with some differences in the wording. However, the explanation given is the same. Interestingly, the parable itself focused on the sowing of the seed whereas the explanation employs another angle of vision. Jesus explanation was from the perspective of the receiving process, not the sowing. His exegesis focused on the circumstances that caused the seed to die or germinate successfully. Four different receptions are mentioned.

1. The seed sown by the path is taken by birds before it can be productive. This circumstance represents those who hear the word but it is stolen by Satan. The analogy is between a person and the type of soil. (4:15)

2. The seeds that fall on rocky ground are unable to endure because the roots have no top soil in which to grow. This represents persons who hear the word, rejoice in it but fall away because of persecution. Here, the analogy is between persons and plants that are unable to grow. (4:16-17)

3. Some seeds fall into fields with thorns that choke the plant. People who hear the word but do not believe because of their love of the world are represented. The analogy is between a person and a field with thorns that choke the plant. (4:18-19)

4. Lastly, Jesus compared persons with fertile soil. They hear the word, rejoice in it, and bear abundant fruit. (4:20)

Both the parable and the explanation are sources of encouragement as well as warning. The sowing meets difficulties but an abundant harvest can be counted on. In the same way, the word (seed) will be met with a variety of responses but at least one kind will bear much fruit. The parable enabled the church to sow (preach) with a confident faith that its message would eventually produce ‘fruit’. Secondly, it challenged every follower to ask which kind of soil they were. Lamps, Bushels, Beds, and Stands: (4:21-25)

Mark 4:21-25 Luke 8:16-18 “Is a lamp brought in to be put under a bushel, or under a bed, and not on a stand? For there is nothing hid, except to be made manifest; nor is anything secret, except to come to light. If any man has ears to hear, let him hear.” And he said to them, “Take heed what you hear; the measure you give will be the measure you get, and still more will be given to you. For to him who has will more be given; and from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away.”

“No one after lighting a lamp covers it with a vessel, or puts it under a bed, but puts it on a stand, that those who enter may see the light. For nothing is hid that shall not be made manifest, nor anything secret that shall not be known and come to light.” “Take heed then how you hear; for to him who has will more be given, and from him who has not, even what he thinks that he has will be taken away.”

Both writers have placed these sayings after Jesus’ explanation of the Parable of the Sower because they want the reader to interpret them within this context.

31

Mark’s version has Jesus asking a rhetorical question that expects a ‘no’ answer. Then he provides the reason for the ‘no’ answer with a severe warning added on. Luke, on the other hand, turns Mark’s rhetorical question into an assertion that is followed by another statement that functions as an explanation. Both narrators end the passage with the same warning but with some differences in the wording. How is the reader to understand the meaning of this passage of scripture and in what way is it related to the parable about sowing? Seeing the connection is crucial to a proper interpretation. The disciples had just listened to Jesus tell a parable in which much seed was wasted so they may have wondered about the necessity of casting the seed (metaphorically speaking) so wide and far. (Remember that Jewish believers would still naturally assume that their message was primarily for fellow Jews, not Gentiles as Paul believed) Like good marketers, they may have preferred to sow in a more strategic fashion and avoid waste. Careful planning might allow them to experience less frustration and enjoy a greater sense of accomplishment by sowing only where there was the kind of soil that guaranteed an abundant harvest. His teaching made clear the absurdity of sowing selectively. Jesus’ parables were told with the intention of inviting everyone into the kingdom. The fact that many responded with eyes unwilling to see and ears unwilling to hear, was no reason to declare his message only to the most eager. The good news the disciples had been given demanded a willingness to announce it without prejudging the audience. Doing so made no more sense than lighting a lamp and placing it where its light is unable to do its natural work. Mark’s version of Jesus’ warning in verse 24-25 contains a phrase not present in Luke’s account. “Take heed what you hear; the measure you give will be the measure you get, and still more will be given to you.” The depth with which the disciples heard was proportional to their giving. Moreover, the faith produced by Jesus’ teaching, was not for their private use alone. Unwillingness to put the light where it belonged would inevitably result in the diminishing of their faith because it grows through sharing. Just as Israel had been called to be a light to the Gentiles, (Isaiah 49:6) so they had been called to bear witness to the light brought by Jesus’ life and teaching. The Parable of the Seed Growing Secretly: (4:26-29) Altogether, Mark has only five parables; three of them are agricultural in nature and each, in some way, involves a mystery. This one and the one that follows are related directly to the kingdom of God. ‘The Parable of the Seed Growing Secretly’ is the only parable that is unique to Mark and its brevity shows an astonishingly literary brilliance. Mark has just recorded Jesus’ explanation of a parable that was treated as an allegory but this one resists allegorical treatment. If an allegory, who does the farmer represent? He can hardly be God or Jesus when all he does is sleep and rise. The farmer cannot be the church because he is so uninvolved, passive and seemingly lazy.

32

The narrative takes up but four verses and it involves only one character who sleeps and rises but says and does absolutely nothing until the very end. The farmer is portrayed as rather stupid and lacking in the initiative that one would normally associate with farmers who are known for their hard long hours of back breaking labour. The plot is structured around three events. The farmer scatters the seed (1) and time passes as the seed grows (2) while the farmer does nothing. Finally, there is an act of harvest. (3) The first part requires only seven words, the third uses thirteen, but the middle part demands thirty one words. The length of the middle section may suggest that this is where Jesus wanted his listeners to linger as they mulled over the story. (This parable does not read as if its meaning would necessarily be obvious after one hearing. Reflecting on it later must have caused the first hearers to see more depth in the teaching.) If this was his intention, then it is reasonable to assume that the key to unlocking the intended meaning(s) is to pay careful attention to the longer middle section. When the parable is read several times more than one meaning may emerge in the reader’s mind. Some scholars like Joachim Jeremias, have argued that a parable has one fundamental meaning that is intended to strike the listener like the blow of a hammer. (The meaning is grasped by comparing the parable with its setting in life.) Paul S. Duke disagrees. He wrote that this particular parable easily invites more than one single meaning; the following questions are possible as keys to unlocking its meaning. (Paul S. Duke, The Great Texts, page 23)

1. Is Jesus declaring that the reign of God is presently hidden but will one day be made manifest?

2. Does it mean that the kingdom was once hidden but now it is visible” 3. Is Jesus giving comfort to those who see no signs that they kingdom really

exists? 4. Is he warning those who think that they can bring it about by human

effort? 5. Is he asking us to be patient? 6. Is he asking us to be prepared? 7. Is he asking us to celebrate that which is a great mystery?

If the reader gives the greatest emphasis to the middle section, as Duke suggests, then Arland Hultgren is probably correct in his interpretation of the parable. “The essential meaning of the parable is generally agreed upon amongst interpreters. This is that the kingdom of God, inaugurated by God himself, is inexorably coming into being, even apart from human efforts to bring it about or oppose it. The man’s sowing is not the main thing. There is no accent at all upon his working the soil or tending the plants as they come up. Quite the opposite. He simply sows, and waits. The focus is directed instead on the growth and fruition of the seed that was sown. That process takes place apart from human

33

effort. So the coming of the kingdom of God can be expected as a certainty.” (The Parables of Jesus, page 388) The Parable of the Mustard Seed: (4:30-34)

Matthew 13:31-32 Mark 4:30-32 Luke 13:18-19 Another parable he put before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed which a man took and sowed in a field; it is the smallest of all the seeds, but when it has grown it is the greatest of shrubs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches.”

And he said, “With what can we compare with the kingdom of God, or what parable shall we use for it? It is like a grain of mustard seed , which, when sown upon the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth; yet when it is sown it grows up and becomes the greatest of all shrubs, and puts forth large branches, so that the birds of the air can make nests in its shade.”

He said therefore, “What is the kingdom of God like? It is like a grain of mustard seed which a man took and sowed in his garden; and it grew and became a tree, and the birds of the air made nests in its branches.”

This parable sheds light on the nature and scope of the kingdom of God by comparing it to something known in the natural world. It is brief because it contains no full blown narrative like the more extended parables. For this reason, it has been categorized as a ‘similitude’. The substance of the parable is the same in all three cases but some differences in the wording are present. Each author retells the parable so that their audience will understand the intended meaning. Each writer introduces the parable differently but it is obvious that they all understand it as a statement about the kingdom. Both Matthew and Mark emphasize the contrast between the size of the seed and what it finally produces. Luke mentions only the kind of seed that is planted so the contrast, so evident in the other writers, is merely implied. Matthew’s seed first becomes a great shrub and then a tree. Mark’s seed becomes the largest shrub. The seed becomes a tree in Luke’s version and its size is not mentioned. All three bring the parable to its conclusion with a similar image. Matthew and Luke write that the birds make nests in the tree’s branches but Mark has the birds making their nests in the shade the tree provides, not in its branches. His image creates a more restful and protective feeling. How can these differences be accounted for even though they do not rise to the level of contradiction? The modern reader needs to keep in mind that the Gospel writers used a variety of oral sources that were available to them. The oral tradition was based on eye witness accounts. If Mark was the first to write an account, then he provided a written source for the other two which they added to by using the oral traditions that came to them. The interrelationship of the three Gospels is known as the ‘Synoptic Problem’ so the interested reader can become better informed by reading any scholarly commentary that deals with this issue. It must be understood that these writers wrote after Pentecost when the Spirit of God brought understanding concerning the meaning of the events witnessed by the early church. Contemporary newspaper reporters use various devices to write

34

down exactly what a particular person said because they want to avoid being interpretive; they are only interested in the facts. The Gospel writers, on the other hand, are primarily interested in portraying the theological meaning and significance of Jesus’ actions and teaching. They wrote from a theological perspective. The differences in the retelling of this parable may be a reflection of each writer’s desire to communicate with their particular audience. Like all able writers, they wrote so that their readers would easily understand. The mustard seed is only 0.075 inches in diameter yet it produces a plant that can be as tall as 15 feet so the contrast between the beginning and the final result is startling. The most important feature of the parable is that no mention is made of the process of growth. There is no gradual development. Something miniscule simply becomes enormously large. The picture of the tree in which birds nest would have been understood by Jewish listeners as an eschatological image suggestive of the incorporation of Gentiles into Israel. (See Ezekiel 17: 23; 31:6) What then is the teaching of the parable concerning the kingdom of God? It points out the certainty that the kingdom was already present in Jesus’ teaching although its signs were still difficult for ‘the naked eye to see’ and just as a small seed resulted in an enormous tree, so the final completion of the kingdom was guaranteed. It will be fulfilled and gather in to itself, all people. The early church faced much persecution so it would have found comfort in this parable. They would have also recognized the revolutionary idea that the kingdom was not intended for Israel alone. All men and women were invited into this kingdom. It began subtly with signs difficult to see but the final result will be beyond what anyone could logically expect given the nature of its beginning. No growth process is mentioned because the final result cannot be hurried up by anything the church does or says. God alone is the cause. Jesus Taught in Parables Only: (4:33-34) He says that Jesus spoke to the people only in parables and that he recognized their limited capacity to understand. His disciples, however, were on a different level so he explained everything to them. Matthew is interested in the fact that Jesus’ method of instruction was a fulfillment of prophecy. (Psalm 78:2) A parable leads the listener to a place of discovery and it recognizes the fact that God cannot be explained directly, philosophically, or propositionally. Therefore, He has to be spoken of and grasped by the use of metaphor which draws the listener into an encounter with Jesus himself. The disciples too, needed help but the level of their fellowship with Jesus made greater understanding possible. This is Mark’s way of saying that the kingdom of God cannot be known by human reason alone; understanding requires the presence of Jesus. Only those willing to live in close proximity to him are able to grasp its real nature.

35

Jesus’ Authority Over the Storm: (4:35-41) With this passage, Mark introduces a whole new claim for Jesus. He has shown him to be in control of demons and disease. He has forgiven sins, confronted Satan and won a victory over him. Now Mark gives an even bigger vision; Jesus has authority over all of creation as he stills the storm and removes from the disciples their incapacitating fear. Doubtless, this is Marks way of pointing out the divinity of Jesus as he exercises what any Jew would understand as the prerogative of God. The symbolic significance of this incident is not readily apparent to the modern reader but it was to the first believers. This miracle story had tremendous importance for them because it is reported by all three writers. Mark subtly points out its universal significance by including the detail that there were other boats besides the one Jesus and the disciples were in. In Matthew’s and Luke’s account this detail is missing. It was Jesus who gave the order to travel to the other side of the lake. When the storm arose it must have troubled the disciples even more because it was Jesus’ idea in the first place. Their experience as sailors did not prevent the ferocity of the storm from overwhelming them. The story can be understood on several levels because it has elements of allegory. The boat, for example, became a symbol for the church. Its natural place is in the sea where all the forces that are allied against God reside. The church, therefore, cannot expect only ‘clear sailing’ because it will be constantly confronted by evil. During the church’s experience of persecution in 70 C.E., they must have found comfort and reason for hope in this nature miracle. They identified with the situation of the disciples because they too were surrounded by hostility and persecution that threatened their very existence. Just as the Lord was in the boat with the disciples, so too was he present for them in a way that guaranteed that eventually they would ‘reach their true destination’. Having Jesus ‘on board’ did not guarantee peaceful passage but it did provide them with a means ‘to keep sailing’ with the words of Jesus in their ears. “Peace! Be still!” The story also indicates that the God who had promised salvation in the Old Testament was now being confirmed in Jesus because he fulfilled the promise of Isaiah. “Fear not, for I have redeemed you; I have summoned you by name; you are mine. When you pass through the waters, I will be with you; and when you pass through the rivers, they will not sweep over you.” (Isaiah 43:1b-2a) The story concludes as Jesus rebuked them for being afraid because of their lack of faith. They were filled with awe but still they ask the question, “Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him.” Once again, the power of the miracle is unable to produce in them the understanding that came after

36

Pentecost. Only then would they truly understand who Jesus was as they reflected back on all he had done. Like us, they required the inner witness of the Spirit of God in order to understand the meaning of Jesus’ actions and teaching. The wonder they felt fell short of a faith that can truly save.

Chapter Five

A Brief Discussion of the Reality of Evil N.T. Wright offers a profound discussion of evil in his book, “Evil and the Justice of God”. He begins by pointing out that the Biblical story is one in which the reality of evil is confronted by God with the promise that it will ultimately be defeated by him. One day, in God’s own time, the Kingdom of God will supplant Satan’s rule in the world but in the mean time, Satan is being opposed by the not yet fully inaugurated kingdom brought by and embodied in Jesus of Nazareth. Evil, therefore, remains a destructive factor in human experience for all mankind individually and corporately. Wright maintains that though evil can be restrained by human institutions, it cannot be defeated by political or military means. He rejects the western notion of ‘inevitable progress’ which says that the events of human history push society gradually towards a better more perfect world in which evil’s effects are limited and eventually obliterated. He admits that democracy is the preferred means of governing people but he argues that the proliferation of the democratic ideal throughout the world cannot successfully win the battle over evil because democracy itself is flawed and imperfect.

What I am pleading for is recognition that simply waving a flag called “Western Democracy” doesn’t actually solve the problem of evil as it presents itself in our

corporate and social environment. (Evil and the Justice of God, page 36)

Secondly, he argues against a notion of evil that is completely psychological. (ie. within man) He tells the story of the famous American psychotherapist M. Scott Peck who came to realize that the behaviour of some of his patients could not be accounted for on the grounds that their thinking was simply muddled or misguided. “He was forced to come to terms with a larger, darker power, for which the only word was evil.” (page 36) His conclusion means that it is entirely possible for humans to be taken over by evil in some form or other. Scott now believes that evil is a supra-personal, supra human force that is able to invade both individuals and entire societies. (Exactly what Paul meant by the principalities and powers in Ephesians 6:12) Evil, understood in this way, is the reality that ‘demon possession’ expresses. Wright’s last insight is that evil, in its various forms, runs through every individual even though it is expressed more catastrophically in some than in others.

37

Jesus’ Authority Over Demons: (5:1-20) The healing of the demoniac is reported by each writer but Mark’s is the longest and the most detailed. There are some differences in the way the story is told. Mark and Luke give more attention to the man’s desperate state by their inclusion of a detailed description of the setting, his appearance, and behaviour. They describe him as being overwhelmed by evil and completely out of his mind. Matthew seems more interested in getting to the end of the story because the crowd’s rejection to Jesus seems to be his focus.

Mark and Luke, more than Matthew, contrast the grateful response of the demoniac with the people’s request that Jesus leave them alone by getting out of town. Whereas the demoniac’s faith had been stirred by an act of mercy that restored him to society, the crowd had only witnessed a miraculous event which brought about no change in them because, as yet, they saw no need for mercy. Their lack of perceived need made them observers, not participants. Modernity may see this as a difficult story to accept as completely historical because it is full of first century superstition when mental illness was explained by demon possession. Perhaps it is now possible to account for the man’s behaviour with psychological theories more acceptable to our contemporary understanding but in no way does a psychological explanation diminish the fact that the man’s mind was completely restored. Previously, all attempts to heal or even control him had failed miserably. Some readers may insist that the story demands a naive superstition that is no longer acceptable but is it less naïve to reject evil as a real force within creation that is able to take possession of a person and render them ill beyond anyone’s ability to heal except for God Himself?

Matthew 8:28-34 Mark 5:1-20 Luke 8:26-39 1. Jesus travels to the

Gadarenes. 2. He is met by two demoniacs

who come out of the tombs. 3. They are so fierce that no

one goes near them. 4. They cry out, “What have

you to do with us, O Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?”

5. The demons ask to be sent into the swine.

6. They enter the swine and rush into the sea where they perish.

7. The herdsmen fled and told everyone what happened.

8. The entire city came to see Jesus.

9. They beg Jesus to leave their neighbourhood.

10. While Jesus is speaking to them a ruler comes to beg Jesus to bring his daughter back to life.

1. Jesus travels to Gerasenes. 2. He is met by a man who is

living amongst the tombs. 3. The man has an unclean

spirit. 4. He is uncontrollable and

has been able to break the chains he has been bound with. No one is strong enough to control him.

5. He cries out continually and punishes himself with stones.

6. When he saw Jesus, he worshipped him and said, “What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the most high God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me.”

7. These words were said in response to Jesus command, “Come out of the man, you unclean spirit!”

8. Jesus asks his name and it is Legion, meaning that he is many.

9. The man begs Jesus not to send them out of the

1. Jesus travels to Gerasenes. 2. He is met by a demon

possessed man from the city.

3. He wore no clothes and lived amongst the tombs.

4. He saw Jesus and fell down and cried out, “What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the most high God? I beseech you, do not torment me.”

5. He said this in response to Jesus’ command for the unclean spirits to leave him.

6. He had been kept under guard and bound with chains which he broke. The demons had driven him into the desert.

7. Jesus asked for his name. He answered Legion because there were many demons.

8. The demons begged Jesus not to send them into the abyss.

9. They asked to be sent into

38

country. 10. The demons ask to be sent

into the swine. 11. The demons enter the swine

and the herd of two thousand rushes into the sea and are drowned.

12. The herdsmen report the story widely and crowds come to see for themselves what happened.

13. They find the demoniac sitting there and in his right mind. He is fully clothed.

14. The crowd announces the news of the miracle.

15. They ask Jesus to leave their neighbourhood.

16. Jesus got back into the boat and the healed man asks if he can go with Jesus.

17. Jesus says no and tells him to tell his friends about the Lord has done and how mercy has been given to him.

18. He did exactly what he was told and everybody marveled at the news.

the swine. 10. They came out of the man,

entered the pigs and ran into the sea where they drowned.

11. The herdsmen fled and told

everyone about what had happened.

12. Crowds came and found the man completely healed sitting at Jesus’ feet.

13. They told others what had happened.

14. They asked Jesus to leave which he did.

15. The healed man asked if he could stay with Jesus.

16. He is told to return to his home and tell everyone what God had don e.

17. He did as he was asked.

Mark and Luke both report that the man ran and worshipped Jesus after seeing him from afar even though he had been totally taken over by the forces of evil. Jesus asked for his name which was a more significant request than it would be today. Jesus was asking the man to disclose his fundamental nature and to reveal the true state of his inner being. The answer given was, “My name is Legion; for we are many,” indicating that his personality had completed disintegrated. (5:9b) Jesus had already cast out one demon from a person and on another occasion he cast out seven. This time it was six thousand, the size of a Roman legion. At this point an interesting question is raised. How was it that the mere sight of Jesus, even at a distance, moved him to fall at Jesus’ feet even though he was already under the control of demons. Surely, this is Mark’s way of saying that the man responded with an act of worship because of the irresistible effect of Jesus’ presence. The evil that had over taken him was no match for the unmerited grace of God. The man knew who Jesus was but this knowledge resulted in his asking Jesus not to torment him. The demons were not willing to leave without a fight so the healing required two commands from Jesus as well as observable proof that the demons had left him. The swine provided the evidence. The demons asked not to be sent away so Jesus drove them into the swine instead were their ultimate fate was to be cast into the sea where they belonged. Admittedly, this part of the story is difficult for the modern reader. Some commentators have suggested that, in actual fact, the swine were frightened by the man’s screams which caused them to plunge to their death. To some readers, this explanation may seem nothing more than an accommodation to modernity’s

39

unwillingness to take the story literally but for Mark and Luke it was the proof that the demons did, indeed, leave the man even if they were not completely destroyed. He was later observed to be in his right mind and this recovery was evidence that the demons had been cast out. The people were not moved to faith so they asked Jesus to leave the territory. It may be the reason for their fear was that his continuing presence would lead to more financial loss. Neither Mark nor Luke explain this reaction but they do point out that Jesus honoured their request because the he did not want to remain where was unwelcome. His kingdom was not one which imposed itself on those who fear it and align themselves against it. The people asked Jesus to leave and he said ‘yes’ but when the healed person asked to remain permanently in Jesus company, the answer was a resounding ‘no’. This is an ironic contrast. In the past, Jesus, after exorcizing a demon, asked that it be kept a secret but in this case he said, “Go home to your friends and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and how he has had mercy on you.” (5:19) Jesus was leaving the area so he wanted to leave behind at least one person who could provide the personal witness that Jesus had healed and restored him to society. We might wonder if the man had sufficient understanding for the task but one thing he knew for sure; Jesus, with an act of unexpected mercy, had done for him what no one else could do. In the end, this was the most convincing testimony of all. From the very beginning, he had recognized the Son of God but he was able only to state a theological truth. Now, after mercy was given to him, he could witness to a personal reality. Jesus had rescued him and he knew it. The narrative provides Mark’s definition of a disciple. He is anyone able to tell the world what Jesus has done for him. The Healing of Jairus’ Daughter/The Woman in the Crowd: (5:21-43) This section of scripture is a story within a story. It begins with a member of the religious establishment coming to Jesus out of love for his daughter but the story is interrupted by a nameless woman from the other side of the social and religious divide who touches Jesus’ garment and is healed. After a brief but important encounter with her, Jesus continues on his way to the home of Jairus where some professional mourners are grieving his daughter’s death. Flutes were being played because its sound was associated with death, sadness, and mourning. Each of these stories will be discussed individually beginning with the woman in the crowd. (5:25-34) This woman’s situation could not have been worse because her illness ostracized her both socially and religiously. (See Leviticus 15:25-27) Her bleeding made her ritually unclean and therefore disqualified from all corporate religious activity so important in the Jewish community. Her constant bleeding had the potential to cost others their ritual purity if they came into contact with her, even

40

accidentally. Extreme social and religious isolation was the result. It is difficult to find her counter part in today’s society but the pedophile or the person with aids may come close in their experience of social rejection. The three synoptic Gospels all mention that she had experienced her medical problem for twelve years. Luke adds that no one had been able to heal her but Mark includes a great deal more detail. She had suffered much, spent all she had seeking a cure, but was now worse than ever. This is Mark’s way of saying that her situation, though as desperate as the demoniac’s, was not beyond the reach of Jesus’ compassion and saving action. Mark is the only writer to account for her presence in the crowd; she had heard reports of Jesus. (Obviously of his healing power) Matthew and Mark both report that she spoke words of faith as she touched Jesus’ garment but Luke does not mention what she said. All three writers emphasize that she was healed immediately and that her healing caused Jesus to feel a loss of power. Matthew does not record that Jesus sought her out but this observation receives important emphasis in Mark and Luke. Mark’s account is the most detailed because he reports Jesus’ brief encounter with the disciples as he sought to find out who touched him. Only Mark and Luke mention the fact that Jesus’ discovery of her resulted in fear. She came close to Jesus trembling as she fell down at his feet. Mark alone remembered the beautiful detail that she “told him the whole truth.” (5:33b) The last thing Jesus did was to commend her for her faith and pronounce her forgiven.

Matthew 9:22 Mark 5:34 Luke 8:48 “Take heart daughter; your faith has made you well.”

“Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace and be healed of your disease.”

“Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace.”

Throughout the story, the reader never learns her name and no more is said of her in any of the Gospels because the healing and what it revealed about Jesus is the point of the story. The text says that she came because of “the reports about Jesus.” (5:27) Exactly who she understood Jesus to be is unexplained but it is quite unlikely that her faith went beyond a belief that he was the only answer to her problem. She knew that her illness was beyond the reach of anyone else and this fact compelled her to reach out to him. Her desperate need was accompanied by a confidence that he could and would heal her if she simply touched the hem of his garment. The social and religious conventions that would normally have prevent her from touching a man or appearing in public was trumped by her faith and desire to be whole. Even the density of the crowd could not hold her back.

41

It is impossible that her faith consisted of a full blown theological understanding of the incarnation, justification by faith, or any other Christian doctrine later proclaimed in the New Testament. It was enough that she was willing to come near to Jesus based on the simple understanding that he alone could make her whole and restore her to physical and social wellness. Mark told the story in order to point out a profound and wonderful truth; faith is the desire to encounter Jesus and as such, it is more than affirmation of theological propositions even though these are ultimately important to every believer and follower of Jesus. She was immediately healed even before Jesus knew of her. He felt his power transfer to someone so he asked, “Who touched my garments?” The disciples heard this question and were incredulous because it could have been anyone; after all, they were in the middle of a pressing crowd. Jesus wanted to know who had touched him but it was the woman who announced herself to him. Once again, the God present in Jesus is portrayed as a seeking God whose compassion for individual need is made transparent by him. Faith, often absent in the religiously literate, was found in a most unlikely place - a desperate woman seeking Jesus. Why did Jesus want to speak to her even though she had been healed? Mark says that she told Jesus “the whole truth”. What she said is unreported but it is likely that she simply told Jesus the entire truth about herself in the form of a sincere confession which allowed him to do the most important work of all. He wanted to give the woman a greater blessing so confession was required to lead her into a personal encounter that resulted in her reconciliation to God. Restoring her physically and socially was not enough; she needed to know that she had encountered more than a miracle worker. Jesus wanted to assure her of salvation. His response was life changing. The word ‘peace’ in scripture means far more than subjective peace of mind; it is synonymous with salvation. “Peace” refers to a person’s objective standing before a holy God whereby they are given a proper relationship with Him. Mark ended her story by saying that she had been “made well” (saved) “…. the point is clearly made that faith comes to fulfillment only in a personal encounter with Jesus, in dialog with him. Without this there is no value in the experience of miracles which stagger the imagination, although such experience may help us to reach a proper understanding.” (The Good News according to Mark, Eduard Schweizer, page 120) Reading Mark gives the impression that people ‘at the bottom of the heap’ were the only ones willing to receive from Jesus. Jairus fell at Jesus’ feet and pleaded for help but he was certainly not a member of the lower class; he was a man with a reputation and therefore not expected to do what he did. This story provides a balance by pointing out that a person’s religious tradition was not necessarily an impenetrable barrier for Jesus. His reputation as a healer moved Jairus to cast aside his prejudices and seek help in the only place it could be found. It led him to

42

a deeper experience of faith just as it did for the woman in the crowd. (5:21-24; 34-43) Jairus was ruler of the synagogue according to Matthew and Luke but Mark says that he was one of the rulers. In any case, he was a man of prominence and significant social stature with a reputation to maintain. As administrative head of the synagogue, he was responsible for its management including the conduct of services. Although his role did not require him to actually lead services, he did allocate duties amongst the other board members. Jairus’ role as president made him a man to be respected so it is noteworthy that he courageously and publicly approached Jesus, unlike Nicodemus whose night time visit may have been an effort to avoid criticism. (John 3:1-2) Jairus represents the kind of person who is willing to encounter Jesus even when it damages his reputation in the community. Both Matthew and Mark tell the substance of Jairus’ request. He believed that Jesus’ touch would heal his daughter. Neither writer attempts to explain the source of his confidence but it is obvious that he was aware of the miraculous cures that had already taken place. Luke heightens the man’s desperation by pointing out that it was his only daughter. The pressing crowd and the interruption brought by the bleeding woman delayed Jesus’ arrival at house. By they time they arrived, the twelve year old girl had already died. The news was announced by the mourners and to this they added a concern that Jesus’ time was being wasted. They may have anticipated an angry response for bring him there for no good reason. What he said is critical. “Do not fear, only believe.” (36b) Was he asking the man to crank his faith up a notch as if belief is nothing more than an act of will? Does Mark understand faith as a pure human construct available to those with a certain ‘religious’ capacity? In this case, as in every other, faith was awakened (created) because Jesus’ words were accompanied by his presence. These things worked together and provide Jairus with the faith that was required. His faith did not come because he gritted his teeth in determination to give Jesus wanted he wanted. Rather, Jairus gave to Jesus the faith aroused by the master’s command and merciful presence. Jairus did not find faith; faith found him. God requires only what He first gives. Some commentators have suggested that the girl was not actually dead but only in a coma and that was the reason Jesus said that she was only ‘sleeping’. His words, however, require another more believable explanation. (39b) The fact that the mourners had already arrived meant that the girl had died during the considerable time that had elapsed. Mark himself clearly believed that she was dead by now. It is also true that in Hebrew thought, the word ‘sleep’ is used as a euphemism for death. Jesus did not use this word to indicate that she was not dead; he meant that she really was. Furthermore, the girl’s death was not trivialized because Jesus referred to her as sleeping. He spoke in this way because he knew that even death had no defense against his mighty power. Here,

43

Jesus was acting in anticipation of his own resurrection when death would finally lose its sting because Satan’s momentary rule in creation had ended. Matthew says that only Jesus entered the room where the little girl was but Mark and Luke give pathos to the scene. They add that Jesus entered the house accompanied by the parents and an inner circle of Peter, James, and John. All three writers say that Jesus ignored the expected protocol and touched her but Mark alone adds the wonderful detail of Jesus words in Aramaic, “Talitha cumi” which means, “Little girl, I say to you arise.” (41) Immediately, she got up, walked, and had something to eat. (Luke 8:55; Mark 5:43) The result of all this activity was amazement but not mature understanding so once again Jesus repeated the ‘messianic secret’ – tell no one.

4. Jesus’ Ministry to the Gentiles and the Blindness of the Disciples (6:6a-8:26)

Chapter Six

A Prophet Without Honour: (6:1-6a) Mark and Matthew give almost identical accounts of this event in Jesus’ life but only Mark says that it happened on the Sabbath. Jesus has returned to his home town to find that the people have been astounded with what he had said and done but they are incredulous at the same time. Their lack of faith Jesus explains by including himself in the experience of the prophets. There have been occasions when he was met with great faith but here his own neighbours prevent him from doing more wondrous works because of their unbelief. Their reaction reminds the reader of John’s words. “The Word was in the world, and though God made the world through him, yet the world did not recognize him. He came to his own country, but his people did not receive him. (John 1:10-11; Good News Bible) The crowd heard in Jesus’ teaching an inexplicable note of authority which could not be accommodated with their earthly knowledge of him as the son of a carpenter. Apparently, it was both the content of his teaching as well as his authoritative voice that gave rise to their doubt. Clearly, they had heard of his acts of miraculous power which apparently they did not doubt. They had knowledge of Jesus’ past but their historical understanding was incapable of embracing or explaining his words and deeds. The hometown crowd is not unlike those today who cannot accept the church’s claim that he is both human and divine. The doctrine of the incarnation has been attacked from the very beginning when Greek philosophy (Gnosticism) threatened the church. Both John and Paul wrote vigorously to ensure that the early church did not succumb to the heresy which continues today.

44

His family is mentioned and the fact that he had brothers and sisters removes from scripture the notion that Mary was perpetually a virgin. The New Testament has very little interest in Jesus’ family except for the fact that James eventually became an important leader in the early church. They are frequently seen as having no more understanding of him than anyone else. Jesus never saw his family as having any special advantage or insight. Those who follow him obediently are his family. Jesus found their rejection of him as part of an historical pattern. He shared the experience of the prophets whose warnings were also ignored by the very people they were intended to help. Many of Paul’s sermons in the book of Acts take up this same theme when he addressed his fellow Jews. Their overwhelming and negative reaction was not anticipated by Jesus. “And he marveled because of their unbelief.” (6) For this reason, many of his countrymen did not benefit from his ability to heal the sick with the exception of a few because unbelief, as over whelming as theirs, could not totally extinguish his power or desire to bring healing to the sick and demon possessed. The reason why he healed so few was probably because his miraculous acts had so little possibility of leading to the saving encounter he ultimately desired. Two by Two: (6:6b-13) Once again Jesus was on the move, traveling to as many villages and cities as possible according to Matthew’s account. Matthew also reports that he taught in the synagogues. Mark does not mention this fact but it can be assumed because that was the pattern of Jesus’ ministry. The rise in popularity along with the growing hostility of the religious establishment threatened Jesus’ mobility so he decided to involve the twelve in the proclamation of the kingdom. Furthermore, those called into the kingdom were to be active participants in the proclamation of the good news, not just casual observers. Only Mark mentions that the disciples were sent out two by two. (6:7b) Jesus may have simply realized that the task, because it was a difficult one, required each disciple to encourage his partner but there is perhaps another reason having to do with Jewish law. In Deuteronomy 17 Moses gave instruction to his people concerning the administration of justice. The passage is concerned with the proper response to news that the covenant has been broken because of idolatrous worship. When such a report is heard it must be investigated because such worship brings evil into Israel’s life. Those responsible for such acts received a severe judgment. Because this judgment was so catastrophic, its fairness had to be guaranteed by at least two witnesses. (Deuteronomy 17:6) The message which the disciples announced caused division because it demanded a yes or no answer. When a no answer was given, the disciples were instructed to leave immediately. Their decision to shake the dust from their feet was a judgment so severe that it required two witnesses. Matthew adds weight to this circumstance by including

45

Jesus’ instructions to “find out who is worthy.” (Matthew 13:11) Worthiness is demonstrated by one’s response to the message; it is not a pre-existing condition. The disciples were told to travel light. No bread, no bag, and no money were to be taken. Mark’s report allows them to take a staff (a symbol of authority) but the other writers record that even this was not to be taken. Only sandals were to be worn and only one tunic was allowed. These instructions underline the urgency of the journey and encouraged the disciples to rely on the hospitality of their audience. Willingness to support the disciples was a sign of positive response to their message. Lastly, the lack of material possessions drew attention to the disciple’s character and sincerity. The modern reader may wonder what, if any, is the application of this teaching today. Perhaps it can be read as a warning for the modern church to preach the Gospel unencumbered by the baggage of church tradition or denominational preferences that may distort the message of Jesus and prevent the church from reaching out to the wider society. The disciples were told to leave when the Gospel was resisted because any effort to impose the Gospel on the unwilling is a contradiction of its very nature. The message of Jesus requires no forceful imposition because it contains the power to convince those willing to listen. The twelve were also instructed to shake the dust from their feet as they left. This is a difficult saying that refers to the practice of Jews who removed dust from their sandals whenever they were forced to travel in Gentile territory. In this case, it was a sign of judgment brought about by a refusal to welcome the twelve and their message. The passage is brought to an end as Mark provides the greatest amount of detail describing all that the disciples did. Their ministry was identical with Jesus’. Herod and the Death of John the Baptist: (6:14-29)

The three synoptic writers give an account of the perceived threat Jesus’ ministry presented to Herod’s power. Mark takes twenty seven verses to tell the entire story but Matthew abbreviates the account and uses only twelve. Matthew omits the other opinions of Jesus that were being spread around and his retelling of the party contains less detail than can be found in Mark. Matthew reports that it was Herod who wanted to kill John but didn’t because of his popularity. Mark, on the other hand, maintains that Herodias was the prime mover. Herod did not have John killed, according to Mark, because he believed that he was a holy and righteous person. Herod feared Jesus. He believed that he could be the catalyst for a Jewish revolt against Rome that could cost him his power and privilege. Worse still, he

46

recognized Jesus’ power but was unable to explain it. Interestingly, Herod conceded the possibility that a resurrection had occurred. According to Mark and Luke, three possibilities were given to Herod. Jesus was John raised from the dead and that was the reason for his power. Others said that he was Elijah or some other ancient prophet. Herod, however, was convinced that Jesus was John raised from the dead and this belief must have added greatly to his fear. After a short introduction, Matthew and Mark continue by recounting the murder of John but Luke ends his narration at this point. This incident is told in the form of a flashback and it explains why John had been executed by Herod. It is the only story in Mark’s Gospel that does not directly involve Jesus. The issue that led to John’s execution was his refusal to give consent for Herod to marry Herodias, his brother’s wife. This angered Herodias and she wanted to have John eliminated but couldn’t because of John’s impeccable reputation. The party scene is described in greater detail by Mark but the two accounts relate the same story. Herod was impressed with the dancing of Herodias’ daughter so he offered her any extravagant reward she desired and unexpectedly she asked for the head of John on a plate. Herod was caught short by her request but he reluctantly agreed, preferring to be a murderer than lose face in front of the party people. The deed was done and John was buried by his disciples. This event, when told to Jesus, was understood as an important signal that brought to him a new sense of urgency and foreboding right at the height of his Galilean ministry. Most likely, Mark has included the story as a sign of the world’s ever increasing blindness to Christ’s kingdom and that his popularity was not necessarily a precedent for faith. The Return of the Twelve and the Feeding of Five Thousand: (6:30-44) The plan to murder John the Baptist was formulated during a party so it is interesting that Mark follows his previous story with a story of another banquet. Matthew explicitly accounts for the disciples’ withdrawal as a response to the news of John’s death. He seems to understand that this action was taken in anticipation of growing hostility and danger. Both Mark and Luke remembered it as an attempt to find respite after an exhausting period of travel and witness. (6:31) As usual, Mark’s telling is the longest and most detailed of the three. After their return to Jesus, Mark says that the twelve reviewed with Jesus what they had done and taught but Luke mentions only what they had done. It seems that both writers give emphasis to what the disciples did rather than what they taught but such a conclusion may involve reading into the text what is not intended. It is rather stunning that the disciples did not tell Jesus how they were

47

received as they traveled from place to place. (Perhaps they did but this was simply not reported by the three writers.) The lonely place was soon invaded by scores of people wanting to hear what Jesus had to say. The crowds hurriedly came from everywhere, not even stopping to plan what they were going to eat. The implication is that the teaching of Jesus was so unusual and powerful that it caused the crowd to put aside their need to pack a lunch. Some scholars have argued that this entire episode is nothing more than a fable. Their evidence is that it echoes other pre-existing stories that are found outside the Biblical text and in the Old Testament as well. (See 1Kings 17:1-16) However, it is just as reasonable to suggest that Mark related the story using these pre-existing stories as a literary form in which to relate the miracle. For this writer, the idea that it is a product of the early church’s imagination is problematic because it forces the reader to accept the notion that this event contains theological truth without being grounded in a real event. It raises another problem as well. How is the reader to know what is intended as factual and what is myth? Why can’t the same logic be applied to the resurrection so that it to becomes a myth as well? Other writers, like William Barclay, attempt to rid the story of its miraculous elements by suggesting that the some members of the crowd were moved to compassion and generosity by Jesus’ teaching so they shared their food. Such a reading strains the logic of the details that Mark includes. Clearly, all the writers understood the event as a miracle story where Jesus was able to feed the crowd with only five loaves and two fish. The reaction of the disciples when they were asked to feed the crowd is indicative of the fact that there was not enough food to feed them by natural means. (36-37) This story is told as a miracle story and it was told by Mark as a real, not imagined event. On a logical basis, any reader unable to accept these miracle stories as real must also deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus on the same grounds even though the Gospels and the Pauline epistles insist that the Christian proclamation collapses if a physical resurrection is denied. Those who deny the supernatural nature of the miracle stories but accept the New Testament claim for the empty tomb lack intellectual consistency. To use a metaphor fashioned by C.S. Lewis, accepting the resurrection but denying the miracles is analogous ‘to swallowing an elephant and choking on a fern seed’. The story demonstrates Jesus’ compassion but it may have a deeper significance than even this. Exactly, what Mark expected his readers to understand by this story is some what speculative but there are at least three distinct possibilities that are worth considering. Mark may have told the story with two Old Testament passages in mind as well as other messianic expectations held by first century Jews. Since he is writing to an audience that included Jewish believers, he may have expected them to ‘connect the dots’.

48

The passage in 2 Kings concerns a time of famine when two miracles occurred that resulted in sufficient provision for Elisha and a group of prophets. A man gave to Elisha twenty loaves of grain and he instructed his servant to feed everyone. The servant pointed out that there was not enough to feed even one hundred men. Unperturbed, Elisha ordered the servant to proceed in the belief that the Lord would provide. They ate and food was left over. (2 Kings 4:42-44) If Mark told this miracle expecting his readers to recall Elisha’s story, he may have intended to make an obvious comparison; just as God had been a source of provision in the past, He was now making a new provision of which the miracle is a sign. He may also have been thinking of Exodus 16 when the Israelites complained to Moses saying that they were better off as slaves in Egypt when they had enough food to eat even if they were slaves. Hearing their complaints, God caused food to rain down upon them as a reminder that He had rescued them from slavery in Egypt. If Mark wanted his readers to make this connection then the feeding of the five thousand takes on another meaning. As Mark remembered the miracle he saw it as a reminder that God in Christ was rescuing the world just as He rescued Israel. Satan was being defeated and they were being given a new place in which to dwell. Whereas the children of Israel were brought to a new land, they were gaining entry, by repentance, into the kingdom of God. The Exodus story is also one where Israel was tested to see if it would follow God’s specific instructions. In the same manner, Jesus’ miracle was also a test in the sense that it presented men and women with the opportunity to accept Jesus as Messiah, embrace his offer of forgiveness, and obey his teaching. There is evidence that many Jews, during the first century, believed that the arrival of the Messiah would be announced by a repetition of the miraculous feeding that occurred during the Exodus. A first century Jewish writer wrote, “And it shall come to pass at that self- same time that the treasury of manna shall again descend from on high, and they will eat of it in those years, because these are they who have come to the consummation of time.” (i.e. the messianic age) (2 Baruch 29:8) (This book was written after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 C.E. Baruch is messianic in its expectations and it imagines a future better than the present when resurrection will occur. Those who are resurrected will recognize each another but appearances will be altered following a judgment. The wicked become worse and suffer torment; the exalted are perfected and live in total obedience to God from then on.) Mark wrote his Gospel before the writer of Baruch wrote his so he did not have access to it in its written form. However, the notion of a messianic banquet probably existed before it was written down so he may have told the story with this messianic expectation in the background. If this is the case, then the feeding of the five thousand was told by Mark as a claim that, with Jesus, the messianic age had come.

49

It might be impossible to know all the Christian interpretations that can rightly be applied to this story but at the very least it must mean that Jesus was a prophet even greater than Moses and that he brought the new food of eternal life as a sign that the age to come was now being inaugurated by Jesus. Jesus Walks On Water: (6:45-52) The Hebrew understanding of the sea lies in the background of this passage. For them, the sea was part of God’s creation and both the land and animals came out of it. The sea, as part of God’s creation, was declared to be good in Genesis 1 but by chapter 6 the rising waters in the Noah story posed a serious threat to the entire creation because of God’s disappointment in what it had become. He used the waters as an instrument of judgment but complete destruction did not occur because God, by his grace, decided to rescue it through Noah’s obedience. The flood was a sign of God’s judgment but it also led to a promise that he would never destroy the earth inspite of man’s continual disoberience. In the Old Testament, the sea was not again a threat nor a sign of judgment until the children of Israel stood before the Red Sea as they fled from their Egyptian captors. God used the sea to rescue them and judge their oppressors. As Israel’s poets looked back on this incident they envisaged their God as King over the floods.

The Lord sits enthroned over the flood; the Lord is enthroned as King forever. (Psalm 29:10)

God’s power is further described as the waters retreat because of his the presence.

The waters saw you, O God, the waters saw you and writhed;

the very depths were convulsed. (Psalm 77:16)

In Psalm 69, the writer described his despair by saying that he was up to his neck in deep water but he took comfort in the fact that his God was the ruler of the threatening water. He pleaded that God would rescue him from everything that threatened and he was confidence that Yahweh was able to carry out a successful rescue mission on his behalf.

Rescue me from the mire, do not let me sink; Deliver me from those who hate me,

from the deep waters.

Do not let the flood waters engulf me or the depths swallow me up

or the pit close its mouth over me. (Psalm 69:14-15)

50

The vision of Daniel 7 brought another darker image of the sea because the monsters who made war on the saints were from the sea.

The fourth beast is the fourth kingdom that will appear on the earth. It will be different than all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth,

trampling down and devouring it. (Daniel 7:23) Thus, the sea was seen as a frightening place from which evil emerged to threaten the people of God and as such it became a symbol of chaos and evil power that might do to God’s people what the flood had done to the world and the Red Sea to the Egyptian soldiers. Mark told the story of the calming of the storm with the understanding that the evil inhabited the waters. At the same time, he realized that the power of these forces was no match for the Lord of the sea. Therefore, the story of the calming of the sea was told by Mark with the expectation that his readers understanding would be informed by the poet’s confidence as well as Daniels vision.

This was not the first time that Jesus’ disciples had to travel by boat but on this occasion there was a difference. Jesus had no intention of getting in the boat with them and he didn’t invite their consent; he demanded that they get in. “Immediately, he made his disciples get into the boat and go before him to the other side, to Bethsaida, while he dismissed the crowd. (6:45) This incident is told by Matthew and Mark only. They recount it similarly but Matthew’s version is enriched by the inclusion of the conversation between Jesus and Peter. (Matthew 14:28-31) Previously, their journeys had begun with Jesus in the boat as it cast off from shore but this time the disciples were commanded to leave on their own with the assumption that he would eventually meet them on the other side. Mark’s text is rich enough that it does not require the contemporary reader to glean from it what is not there but in this case the symbolism is irresistible. Assuming that the boat is a symbol for the church and the sea a symbol for all the evil forces opposed to God, then Jesus’ command for them to get into the boat has a meaning that is not immediately obvious. The reader must bear in mind Mark’s perspective as he remembers and records this incident. The church was experiencing the intense persecution that Jesus anticipated and, for this reason, it needed to be reminded of the task it had been given. With his command, Jesus sent his followers into a confrontation with the evil powers present in all of creation. Even though the demise of Satan’s power was an ultimate certainty, the church was called upon to enter into a struggle against evil forces as an expression of its membership in the kingdom of God. Obedience to God required the knowledge that Christ’s followers are those willing to identify with his cause and do battle with the forces opposed to Him. This theme the apostle Paul picks up in his letter to the Ephesians where he writes, “For we are not fighting against human beings but against the wicked spiritual forces in the heavenly world, the

51

rulers, authorities, and cosmic powers of this dark age.” (Ephesians 6:12; Good News Bible) After the boat left, Jesus went to pray but he soon noticed that the disciples were unable to row effectively because of the head wind so he went to them. Mark emphasizes Jesus concern by saying that He spoke to them even though his original plan was to “pass them by”. (6:48) Matthew makes no mention of this. The climax of the incident occurs in verse 50b were Jesus says, “Take heart, it is I; have no fear”. As Mark reflected on this incident, he saw reason for great optimism inspite of the extreme persecution faced by the early church. He understood the significance of Jesus’ words when he said, “Take heart, it is I; have no fear.” (6:50b) Mark saw that the experience of hostility is the occasion when the church discovers that evil forces (represented by the wind) can never completely overwhelm faith in the living Lord because he is present in every circumstance. The apostle Paul stated the same truth more explicitly.

Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? No, in all these things

we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the

future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus

our Lord. (Romans 8:35; 37-39) The church’s faith can never be refined as long as the ‘boat’ remains safely tied to shore. It becomes stronger only when it is tested by the hostile winds that will inevitably blow as soon as the boat is launched. Only Matthew recounts Peter’s reaction to Jesus’ presence; he asked to join him on the water. (14:28) There is no more revealing passage of Peter’s personality than this one. His momentary enthusiasm and personal confidence led him to go where Jesus was but this aspect of his personality was not able to sustain him. As soon as he noticed the wind an overwhelming fear took possession of him so he did the only thing he could. Peter cried out, “Lord save me.” (14:30b) Matthew offers no description of the return of Peter’s confidence but it is clear that this is what eventually happened. Matthew has presented this disciple as a representative figure. He stands for those who believe they are in possession of resources adequate to meet the demands of discipleship but eventually discover that only the master is able to provide what is required by his sustaining presence.

52

Matthew and Mark bring the event to a conclusion differently.

Matthew 14:32 Mark 6:51 And when they got into the boat, the wind ceased. And those in the boat worshipped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”

And he got into the boat with them and the wind ceased. And they were utterly astounded, for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened.

Matthew uses this incident to make an implicit statement of Christology. (i.e. the nature of Jesus) The most serious sin for a Jew was idolatry and the disciples were Jewish. Worshipping what is not God was intolerable. Idolatry was Israel most serious threat and it demanded a severe response. Still, the disciples worshipped Jesus and announced him as God’s Son. By this, Matthew is claiming Jesus as the incarnate Son without explicitly using the language of incarnation found elsewhere in the New Testament. He has made a theological statement in the form of a narrative and his proclamation is no less definitive than those made by John and Paul. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.” (John 1:1-3) “Who, being in the very nature of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, …..” (Philippians 2:6) “He is the image of the invisible God, the first born over all creation. For by him all things were created.” (Colossians 1:15-16a) Mark would not disagree with Matthew but here he draws a different conclusion. Mark connects this story with the previous one and he says that the disciples were astounded because “they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened.” (6:52) Inspite of all that the disciples had seen and experienced, they did not yet truly understand because of their lack of spiritual perceptivity. Mark has pictured faith as something not natural to men and women and for this reason it develops slowly. He also knew that the disciples’ faith in Jesus would only come to maturity after Pentecost when “….. the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” (John 14:26) Many Healings At Gennesaret: (6:53-56) This brief cameo sets up the confrontation that is about to occur as the Pharisees and the scribes come from Jerusalem to find fault with Jesus and the disciples over their failure to abide by the law. By way of contrast, the common people bring the sick to Jesus unlike the religious establishment who are interested only in discrediting him. News of Jesus’ healing powers are so well known that only the hem of his garment needs to be touched in order for healing to take place. As

53

impressive as this fact is, there is no reason to believe the crowd saw Jesus as any more than a miraculous healer.

Chapter Seven

A Question About the Law: (7:1-23) Jesus’ opposition was concerned about his growing popularity so they continued to pursue him relentlessly in an effort to prove him unfaithful to the Jewish law. Previously, they confronted him over picking corn on the Sabbath and now they have come up with a new issue. The disciples, they said, were ignoring an important tradition of the elders because they were not washing their hands before eating. (7:3) Mark seems to have a non Jewish audience in mind because he explains their complaint in detail, unlike Matthew who assumes his readers will understand without being given a more extensive background. The tradition to which Jesus’ critics referred was a ‘tradition of the elders’ because it was not a practice that came from the Pentateuch. (the first five books in the Old Testament) Sometime during the fourth and fifth century B.C.E., a class of legal experts arose in Israel that wanted to add specificity to the laws and moral principles contained in the Torah in order to preserve its identity while living in Babylon. It is quite possible that without this emphasis on the details of the Torah, Israel’s faith could have been compromised by its assimilation into a foreign culture, leaving little for Jesus to criticize. Showing how the law was to be applied in every possible situation was their goal so the law of Sabbath keeping was front and center. Eventually, they produced thirty nine sub laws that defined what work was and was not as it related to Sabbath observance. In other words, these laws defined work in very specific and concrete terms. Today, they are known as the rabbinical tradition but in Jesus time they were called the tradition of the elders. This oral tradition, now known as the Mishnah, was written down well after the first century. Therefore, when the Scribes and Pharisees accused the disciples of not washing their hands, they were pointing to a regulation that was part of this oral tradition. The practice was not justified as a health issue; it had to do with ritual cleanliness so very specific instructions had to be followed. The hands had to be free of any substance before they were washed and the water used had to be kept in special jars or pots used only for this purpose. First, the hands were held with fingers pointing upward. Water was poured over them so it could run down to the wrists at a very minimum and at least one and a half egg shells full of water had to be used. The fist was placed inside the other hand as the method of washing. Lastly, the hand was turned in exactly the reverse position and water was poured over it again starting at the wrist and running down to the fingers. A person was unclean in the sight of God if they did not follow this procedure religiously and bread, eaten with unwashed hands, was considered to be no better than human waste. This was the issue the Scribes and the Pharisees placed before Jesus.

54

Today, Pharisees are thought of in very negative terms but this was not the case in the first century because they were devout in all aspects of Torah observance, including ritual obedience. According to the Roman historian Josephus, Pharisees were universally admired for their personal piety. Not only did they obey the law, they went beyond what was actually required in an effort to avoid compromise with the surrounding culture. (Pharisee means ‘separated one) They paid a tithe on everything that came into their home in case the original owner had not paid it. Strictly speaking, they were compelled to tithe only on what they earned themselves. Gaining recognition for their personal piety was one of their chief motivations. They placed great value on being approved by others and for this reason they are representative of a universal human condition portrayed by Jesus in the parable about the Pharisee and the tax collector. (Luke 18:10-14) Jesus was critical of them because he saw in their ‘observance’ an effort to advertise their personal piety and establish superiority over other men by focusing on the external rather than on the heart. Both writers clearly record the accusation. “Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with hands defiled?” (7:5) In Matthews record, Jesus responded with a counter claim in which he uncovered their fundamental hypocrisy followed by a quotation from Isaiah which illustrated the criticism he made. Mark has it the other way around; his critique illustrated the meaning of the prophet’s words. Either way the message is the same. Jesus made no effort to defend his disciples directly. Instead, he went on the offensive in order to disqualify them as credible critics. He made the point that their law keeping had little to do with God because their laws were nothing more than human constructs that allowed them to justify their own selfishness. He quoted Isaiah to show that this universal flaw in the human heart was recognized by one more important than the tradition of the elders – the prophet Isaiah. (Isaiah 29:13) After quoting the prophet, Jesus went on to say that their traditions were actually symptomatic of their disobedience to God. In them, piety masqueraded as righteousness. The center of Jewish life was the Ten Commandments which required a Jew to honour his mother and father. If a parent was in dire need of something, the son was obligated to give to the parent the thing they needed but it was at this point that their hypocrisy was revealed. Another law allowed a person to dedicate some thing to God by declaring it ‘Corban’. This meant that it could not be given to anyone else. Jesus accused them of using one law to free themselves from the obligations of the other. By this means, a lack of simple generosity towards their parents was masked by the misapplication of second law. Therefore, Jesus’ argument was that they were using religious observance as an imposter for extreme self centered living. On another occasion, he called the Pharisees ‘white washed sepulchers’ because their external legalisms hid their arid hearts. Their

55

hypocrisy placed them in no position to criticize Jesus or his disciples because their legalism was a pseudo-holiness. It must be remembered that Jesus’ harsh accusation was directed towards The Scribes and the Pharisees, not all of Israel. Jesus saw the need for a further explanation so he called the people to him and taught them further. (7:14-16) His teaching was contrary to that of the rabbis who taught that defilement had an exterior source that defiled upon contact For them, the human heart was innately pure until it was corrupted by some external impurity. The difference in their theology and Jesus’ was irreconcilable. He taught that sinful actions are outward expressions of an inward malaise. “…. there is nothing outside a man which by going into him can defile him; but the things which come out of a man are what defile him.” (7:15-16) Characteristically, the disciples have found Jesus teaching enigmatic so they asked him the meaning of what he has said. He responded, “Then you are also without understanding?” This question is preceded by another parable in Matthew’s Gospel that is absent in Mark’s. “Every plant which my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up. Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” (Matthew 15:12-14) The saying refers to a plant that has not been planted by God but what does the plant represent? It is unlikely that Jesus was casting aside all dietary laws contained in Leviticus. He was, however, criticizing the notion that obedience to these laws was capable of producing the inner righteousness that God desires. Their misunderstanding is represented by a plant which they, not God, have planted. The ritual not practiced by the disciples, was nothing more than a human tradition practiced as a means of acquiring merit and for this reason it I was not God’s plant. The second half of the parable constitutes a warning. The Pharisees must be left alone in their blindness because following their example would result in a dire consequence. “… both will fall into a pit.” (14b) Both Matthew and Mark include Jesus’ brief biology lesson. Food, when it enters the body goes only to the stomach before it is eradicated from the digestive system. Since food never goes near the heart (the source of the problem) it is incapable of neither corrupting nor cleansing the ‘human heart’. Therefore, all food is clean in the sense that it cannot corrupt the inner life. Like any good teacher, Jesus offered a recapitulation for all he has said. He began with a general statement. “What comes out of a man is what defiles a man.” (7:20) He illustrated his teaching with a list of sample sins. (7:21-22) Some are hidden thoughts while others are overt actions but they have one thing in common; the tradition of the elders is powerless to rid the human heart of their ill effects. What Jesus taught in this encounter was not brand new territory. Moses, Israel’s great leader recognized that obedience to the Torah was no substitute for inner righteousness which he called ‘circumcision of the heart’. For this purpose, God had formed them as a nation. “Circumcise your hearts, therefore, and do not be stiff - necked any longer.” (Deuteronomy 10:16)

56

The Greek Woman, Her Little Daughter, and the Demon: (7:24-30) This incident, reported by Matthew and Luke is one of the most challenging to interpret because of the saying about children’s bread and dogs. (Matthew 15:26-27 and Mark 7:27-28) Some differences are present in the two accounts.

Matthew 15:21-28 Mark 7:24-30 1. The woman approached Jesus and said, “Have

mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely possessed by a demon.”

2. Jesus did not answer her and the disciples begged Jesus to send her away.

3. Then Jesus said, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”

4. The woman did not take no for an answer. She pleaded, “Lord, help me.”

5. Jesus then responded to her. “It is not fair to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.

6. Again the woman spoke and said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from the masters’ table.”

7. Jesus found great faith in her words and her daughter was healed immediately.

1. The woman, having heard of Jesus, fell at his feet.

2. She begged for her daughter to be healed. 3. Jesus responded to her immediately by saying,

“Let the children first be fed, for it is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” This is a slightly expanded statement when compared to Matthew.

4. Her response is essential the same as in Matthew. “Yes, Lord; yet even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.”

5. Jesus found great faith in her words and the daughter was immediately healed.

6. She returned home to find her daughter lying in bed and the demon gone.

Matthew’s version seems to indicate that Jesus was initially reluctant to act whereas he responded immediately in Mark’s account. The basis of his hesitation in Matthew was the fact that the woman was Gentile, not Jewish. (15:24) In both Gospels their conversation involves the same enigmatic language that challenges the contemporary reader because it sounds so uncharacteristically insulting of Jesus. Perhaps the best way to understand why Jesus used this seemingly harsh language is to see them as a test that was intended to verify the woman’s remarkable faith in contrast to the blindness of Jesus’ own people. If Jesus is really speaking this way for the sake of testing her then Matthew has emphasized this fact by underlining his hesitation in verse 24. Jesus could have used either one of two words for ‘dog’ as he addressed the woman. The first is kuon and the second is kunarion. The second Greek word refers to a little dog or puppy and some scholars have argued that it lessens some the harshness of Jesus’ language. In any case, he used a word that had a negative connotation for both Jew and Gentile. For the Greek, a dog was a symbol for dishonour because it meant a woman of bad reputation. Its meaning for a Jew was equally contemptuous because it was applied to Gentiles whose moral impurity excluded them from the kingdom of God. Jesus’ words gave opportunity for the woman to demonstrate her willingness to take a lowly position in order to receive healing for her daughter. By doing so, she would demonstrate that her request was grounded in the unmerited mercy of God. Mark showed that she accepted a low position without hesitation. “Yes, Lord; yet even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs”. On the other hand, the healing of her daughter made transparent the abundant mercy that was extended even to an ‘outsider’.

57

As Mark retold this story, he painted a portrait of persistence and humility in a Gentile that stood in stark contrast to that shown by the religiously literate. This woman refused to give up her request because she saw in Jesus the unmerited mercy of God. As Mark remembered this miracle and reflected upon it, he was reminded that the point of entry for the kingdom is a person’s desire for God’s unmerited mercy and a confidence that he can do for them what they cannot do for themselves. It was also apparent to him that all people, including this Gentile woman, were being offered the gift of membership. The apostle Paul came to the same conclusion. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28) The Healing of the Deaf Mute: (7:31-37) Matthew 15:29-31 is considered to be the parallel passage to Mark 7:31-37 even though it is a far more generalized report. Matthew does mention the healing of the dumb along with many other illnesses but the encounter with a particular deaf and dumb man is omitted. Perhaps, for some reason, he chose to leave it out but it is also possible that he had no knowledge of it. The man was not completely speechless in Mark’s account but he did have a serious speech impediment. He was brought with the expectation that Jesus would lay hands on him. Mark explains that the man was taken aside by Jesus before he healed him. This personal encounter underlines Jesus’ interest and compassion for the individual and it suggests that he was interested in offering the man a much greater gift than the miracle. The conversation they must have had is unrecorded but one must have taken place. When the reader considers the encounters already recorded by Mark, it is reasonable to assume that Jesus’ wanted the man to see him as Israel’s Messiah, not just a wonder worker. With great detail, Mark describes what Jesus did. (33-35) Immediately, the man was able to hear and speak without any impediment. As was his practice, Jesus gave instructions to tell no one but his request was counter productive. The miracle produced astonishment. “He has done all things well; he even makes the deaf to hear and the dumb to speak”. (37b) Mark has not recalled this story just because it happened. He is more than a biographer, trying to write down all the details accurately before they are lost to the passage of time. He is as much a theologian as Paul who wrote with more obvious theological language in his effort to keep the church faithful to the apostles’ proclamation. So it is with Mark but his theological frame work is contained in a narrative but he writes with the expectation that the reader will recognize its theological message. There may have been many incidences in Jesus’ life that Mark knew but didn’t write down but he chose this one because it contains an explicit claim that Jesus was Israel’s Messiah. What was the source of Mark’s belief?

58

The Old Testament, as well as other extra Biblical writing before the first century, provided Israel with a number of messianic indicators. In all of this writing, being crucified and later resurrected was not one of them so for good reason, no Jew of the first century expected the Messiah to suffer and die a substitutionary death on the cross. Such an event was hostile to Israel’s messianic expectations and understanding. Mark wrote his Gospel well after the crucifixion and this event he would not naturally have associated with a messianic claim. It must be the case, therefore, that Mark’s understanding originated with Jesus himself. Some modern scholars have argued that Jesus never saw himself as Israel’s Messiah. They believe that the church made this claim in the aftermath of the cross and resurrection even though it was not really a part of Jesus’ own self understanding. In other words, they invented it and were willing to under go extreme persecution for the sake of their invention. This notion strains logic and human nature. What then is the evidence that Jesus did, in fact, see himself as the Messiah of Israel? The word messiah in Hebrew means ‘anointed’ and it was used of priests, prophets, and kings in the Jewish Bible. However, when the New Testament uses this word it is associated with a king and descendent of David who is expected to restore the nation of Israel to its rightful place in the world. These and other messianic indicators were present in Israel’s understanding at the beginning of the first century to which Jesus appealed. The New Testament scholar, Craig A. Evans, writes that the Dead Sea Scrolls “have enriched our understanding of the messianic ideas in late antiquity”. (Craig A. Evans, Fabricating Jesus, page 43) He refers to a document now called document 521 which was discovered in cave four of Qumran. Evans quotes a particular passage in its entirety because it indicates with what the messianic age was associated. Here is a portion of that passage. “For he will honour the pious upon the throne of his eternal kingdom, setting prisoners free, opening the eyes of the blind, raising up those who are bowed down.” In Matthew 11:3 John asks Jesus, “Are you he who is to come, or shall we look for another?” Matthew’s honesty shines through here because he is willing to show that John, even though he has already baptized Jesus, was ambivalent about who he was. John’s question could not have been more straight forward. He was asking Jesus if he was, indeed, the messiah. Note Jesus’ reply as he uses prophetic language. “Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, (Isaiah 35:5-6) lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, (Isaiah 35:5) and the dead are raised up, (Isaiah 26:19) and the poor have good news preached to them.” (Isaiah 61:1) With these words, Jesus was expecting John to hear the answer in terms of his own (i.e. John’s) messianic expectations. The fact that John possessed these is attested by the scroll found in the cave at Qumran.

59

Jesus’ answer to John’s query constitutes an unambiguous indication of his self understanding that he is the one anticipated by the prophets. The wonderful things that are supposed to happen when the Messiah comes are present in his ministry. Clearly, Jesus understood himself as Messiah and he expected John to recognize the signs because they were common knowledge to every religiously literate first century Jew.

Chapter Eight

The Feeding of the Four Thousand: (8:1-10) Once again the power of Jesus’ teaching attracted an enormous crowd that gathered for three days to hang on his every word. There were at least four thousand people and they needed to eat. Mark gives this number but Matthew adds to it by saying there were four thousand men “besides women and children.” (15:38b) This miracle is obviously similar to The Feeding of the Five Thousand recorded in chapter six of Mark’s Gospel. He uses an identical pattern in his telling.

1. Jesus has a conversation with the disciples in which his compassion and

pity for the people is shown. 2. They are perplexed and wonder how the crowd can be fed with so little

food available. 3. Jesus asks for an accounting of the available resources. 4. The disciples distribute the food after a blessing is given. 5. There is plenty to eat and some food is left over. 6. Jesus dismisses them. 7. Jesus and his disciples get into the boat and leave.

Some scholars see in this repeated pattern, a reason to regard the miracle as a retelling of the previous one in chapter six. If this is the case, it is difficult to find a rational that accounts for the repetition especially since it shows the disciples in such a bad light (4) and adds no new theological insight to what Mark has already said. The conclusion that this miracle is a retelling of the former one is not unreasonable but it need not be regarded a definitive. The twentieth chapter of John’s Gospel ends with these words. “Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not recorded in this book.” (20:30) If John’s claim is taken at face value then it is obvious that Jesus performed many more miracles than the eighteen recorded by Mark and some of these could have been, and probably were, quite similar. Perhaps Mark simply used the pattern established in chapter six as a memory device that enabled him to recall a similar but distinct miracle. In the first century, there was no social and religious division more radical than the one between Jews and Gentile. It is very likely that this crowd comprised

60

both groups of disparate people who were brought together by Jesus’ presence inspite of the powerful social norm that would have otherwise kept them apart. By means of his narrative, Mark has shed light on the power of Jesus to bring people together and overcome the barrier created by their cultural and religious prejudice. The apostle Paul also recognized that, in Christ, God was reconciling all things. He wrote, “ …. to bring all things in heaven and earth together under one head, even Christ Jesus.” (Ephesians 1:10b) Later in the same letter he added, “For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one (i.e. Jew and Gentile) and he has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, …” (Ephesians 2:14) Mark is careful to point out that the miracle did not take place simply for the sake of the underlying theological truth that Jesus had inaugurated the Messianic era. The crowd is not merely acting in a divine drama that has a deeper concern than their hunger. The miracle took place because of Jesus’ compassion for them and that was the primary reason he acted. “I have compassion on the crowd, because they have been with me now three days, and have nothing to eat; and if I send them away hungry to their homes, they will faint on the way; and some of them have come along way.” (8:2-3) No mention is made of the disciple’s hunger. Their job was to serve the crowd as all followers of Jesus should. Christ’ disciples have a two fold responsibility – to witness with words accompanied by generous acts of practical service. Interestingly, Mark records Jesus’ dismissal of the crowd without mentioning whether or not any of the four thousand accepted him as the Messiah of Israel. Throughout his Gospel, Mark loves to place contrasting events side by side; the encounter that follows is one of hostility. The Pharisees came to argue and discredit his ministry. A Demand for a Sign: (8:11-13) Up until this point in Mark’s Gospel, the Pharisees have been determined to find fault with Jesus and his disciples around the issue of the law. Their contention was that he had repeatedly shown disregard for its details. Because this tactic had done little to diminish his growing popularity amongst the ‘common folk’, they chose another strategy. The hostility of their approach to Jesus is more obvious in Mark’s account. He says that they came to argue. “The Pharisees came and began to argue with him, seeking a sign from heaven, to test him.” (8:11) Matthew says that their intention was to test Jesus (Matthew 16:1) whereas Luke simply mentions that the Pharisees sought him out. (Luke 11:16) In Matthew’s account the Sadducees are also present. The depth of Jesus’ disappointment and frustration is brought out by Mark. “And he sighed deeply in his spirit …” (12) The word for ‘sigh’ used here is anastenazo and it speaks of a reaction from the deepest level within Jesus. He is more than just disappointed with their argumentative attitude; he is profoundly sorrowful in the face of such unwillingness to see him for who he is.

61

Matthew and Luke included some words of Jesus that do not appear anywhere in Mark. “When it is evening, you say, “It will be fair weather; for the sky is red.’ And in the morning, ‘It will be stormy today, for the sky is red and threatening.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times.” (Matthew 16:2-3) This statement has a good deal of irony. Jesus’ ministry has been accompanied by many events associated with the messianic age that were well known to many Jews yet they remained blind to them. Jesus’ brief lecture in meteorology was intended to point out that the signs he had already given were as plain as the weather signs they frequently observed. Red skies indicated clearly what sort of weather was coming and predicting it allowed them to prepare appropriately. In a similar way, the signs present in Jesus’ ministry were no less clear and these too should have received an appropriate response. Just as there was no excuse for them to be unprepared for bad weather, there was no reason for them to have missed the presence of the Messiah. All three writers bring the passage to an end similarly except for the fact that Mark makes no mention of Jonah.

Matthew 16:4 Matthew 12:39 Mark 8:12 Luke 11:29 “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign shall be given to it except the sign of Jonah.”

“An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign shall be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.”

“Why does this generation seek a sign? Truly, I say unto you, no sign shall be given to this generation.”

“This generation is an evil generation; it seeks a sign, but no sign shall be given to it except the sign of Jonah.”

Even though many signs have been present in Jesus’ actions and words, he refuses to give a “sign to this generation.” (Mark 8:12b) With these words, Jesus has gone to the very nature of faith itself. True faith can never be an intellectual response to visible and undeniable evidence that satisfies a set of preconditions. Faith, defined in this manner, makes human reason normative and places it were only God belongs. On the contrary, Mark has already shown that authentic faith (trust) consists of a person’s willingness to step into the boat with Jesus as it leaves the safety of the harbour. The other Gospel writers add the words “… no sign shall be given to it except the sign of Jonah.” (Matthew 16:4; Luke 11:29) The story of Jonah is one of disobedience, repentance, and mercy. One day God chose him to travel to Nineveh and speak out against the city but he believed that God would never act decisively against it. Jonah decided to board a ship and run away. A ferocious storm developed as he slept soundly below deck. The captain found him and everyone drew straws to see who would take responsibility for the dangerous situation. Jonah was chosen and he explained that he was a Hebrew running away from God. This terrified the sailors so they asked him what they should do. He told them to throw him into the sea because the storm was a sign that God was angry with him. They refused until the storm got even worse. Finally, they threw him into the sea after asking God to forgive them for taking his life. Immediately, the sea grew calm and Jonah was swallowed by a whale.

62

Inside the whale he repented for his disobedience and became resolute to do as he was asked in the first place. At last, he arrived in the city and warned the people that they would be destroyed in forty days. The people and their king repented so God changed his mind; neither the people nor their city was destroyed. Jonah was not pleased and he decided that he would be better off dead but God told him that he had no right to be angry. He camped outside the city and waited to see what would happen. At this point, God gave Jonah an object lesson by growing a plant to protect him from the hot sun and the weather but he suffered greatly when it was killed. Again Jonah decided that he would be better off dead and he felt totally justified in his anger. The story ends as God teaches him a lesson. He reminded Jonah that he had nothing to do with the plants growth and yet felt sorry for it. Finally, God appealed to his sense of justice. “How much more, then, should I have pity on Nineveh, that great city?” After all, it has more than 120 000 innocent children in it, as well as many animals. (Jonah 4:11) What then does Jesus mean by the sign of Jonah? What aspects of his ministry and message does he want them to associate with the story? Jonah was God’s messenger and he brought to the city a warning of a judgment to come. The people of Nineveh took the warning seriously, repented and God replaced His judgment with mercy. When Jesus referred to the sign of Jonah, he was encouraging them to understand that the inauguration of his kingdom followed the pattern of Jonah in as much as it included a warning of judgment, preceded by an offer of forgiveness. Just as Jonah and his message was a sign for the people of Nineveh, so Jesus was the sign to them. This was the connection he wanted the Pharisees to make. Some interpreters have suggested that Jesus wanted his hearers to associate Jonah’s three days inside the whale with his eventual crucifixion and resurrection but it is highly unlikely that he expected them to see this symbolism. But Mark saw the hidden meaning as he looked back on this encounter. After three days in the whales’ belly Jonah was able to take the warning to the city which made Nineveh’s repentance possible. So too, Jesus’ death and resurrection made forgiveness possible so long as men and women were willing to repent as the citizens of Nineveh did. Bread, Leaven, and the Pharisees: (8:14-21) Jesus and his disciples got into a boat after the feeding of the four thousand. Much food was left over but ironically the disciples got into the craft without bringing any of it with them. None of the writers mentions that they shared this fact with Jesus but he must have noticed their lack of foresight so he used it to issue a warning. All three writers report it.

63

Matthew 16:5-12 Mark 8:14-21 Luke 12:1

“Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”

“Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod.”

“Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.”

His warning went right ‘over the top of their heads’ so they continued to discuss what they were going to do for lunch even though they had just witnessed how four thousand were fed with lots left over. Jesus, aware of their discussion, expressed frustration over their lack of understanding. “Why do you discuss the fact that you have no bread? Do you not perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened? Having eyes do you not see, and having ears do you not hear? And do you not remember? When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?” (8:17-19) Mark has recorded this incident in order to show that faith is not a natural human capacity and that it does not result from the observation of Jesus’ miraculous power. He has already explained his unwillingness to provide signs other than those already present in his ministry and the disciples’ non understanding shows the reason why. At this point, Matthew has provided some important additional material. In his account, Jesus repeated what he first said to them and he made it plain that real bread was not his concern. Matthew ends the passage by saying that finally the disciples understood that his warning was related to the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. (16:12) The disciples’ partial understanding allows for a more positive ending than in Mark’s version which emphasizes the hardness of their hearts while Matthew’s report gives more attention to the warning against false teaching. There is symbolic language in Jesus’ words that would be meaning readily apparent to Jews. “Leaven” was a reference to evil and it was used as a virtual equivalent for Paul’s term original sin. This symbolic word recognized the fact that evil is endemic to human nature and it is what hinders obedience to God. Therefore, he is pointing out the evil influence of the Pharisees and the Herodians. The Herodians were the group of Jews allied with Herod and their primary interest was maintaining power over the Jews. Herod had been a ruthless fighter, a skilled negotiator, and a cunning diplomat who knew how to take advantage of every situation in order to acquire and keep power. These skills and attributes enable him to govern a people who hated him because of his close association with oppressive Rome. Mark’s warning linked together two Jewish sects which were not natural allies. What is the connection between these two groups? The Pharisees had just asked Jesus for a sign and their demand revealed that they thought of the Messiah in terms of power and conquest. In this respect, they were like the Herodians in that they coveted power even if they planned to use it differently. Jesus,

64

therefore, was disassociating his kingdom from earthly power that seeks to impose and dominate. His teaching was intended to prepare them for the cross. However, the danger of the Pharisees for Luke was their fixation on the details of the law without it having any relationship to their inner righteousness. Matthew, on the other hand, refers to the Pharisees and the Sadducees. These two groups had serious disagreements. The Sadducees ignored the rabbinic tradition so precious to the Pharisees and they also rejected the notion of a resurrection. This sect tended to consist of Jews who were ‘well healed’ and anxious to keep what they had by being politically connected. Perhaps Jesus mentioned them to make clear the fact that his kingdom must not be identified with the accumulation of wealth and social status. Mark’s description of man’s blindness concerning the things of God gives emphasis to the miracle that faith is. It is nothing less than the gift of God that arises from hearing a Gospel which draws men and women to the point of repentance and reconciliation. Here lies the very heart of the Christian Gospel. The Opening of Blind Eyes: (8:14-21) This miracle is unique. Only Mark tells it and the cure takes place in stages unlike any other healing event in the Gospels. The fact that Mark points out such a rare thing means that he is drawing his reader’s attention to this fact for good reason. It is remarkable how often sick people are brought to Jesus by others and how their faith compels them to do so. Faith is a corporate affair in as much as individual faith is encouraged by the faith of others. They begged Jesus for his touch because they were determined to have the man fully restored. As Mark described this event, he may have intended it as a picture of the church’s responsibility of bringing to Christ those who need his healing touch. The blind man was taken out of the village by Jesus before he spit on his eyes and laid hands on him. He wanted to have the intimate personal encounter that is characteristic of his healing practice. Remarkably, the healing process occurred in two stages. At first he saw only partially so Jesus repeated his touch and the man saw with twenty-twenty vision. It is unlikely that Mark believed that the healing occurred this way because the man had only partial faith; the text provides no grounds for such an assumption. Perhaps Mark wanted to underline the difficulty and magnitude of the miracle and show that God in Christ never acts in half measure as he invites people into his kingdom one by one. Once again, Jesus gave unambiguous instructions to maintain the Messianic secret; he did not want to be known solely for his healing power because it was never the basis for faith in him as Lord and Saviour. Saving faith can only come from a personal encounter with the Jesus.

65

4. Jesus Open Revelation and the Meaning of Discipleship (8:27-10:52)

Jesus Puts All His Cards On the Table and Speaks of His Future: (8:27-33) After another period of travel and prayer, according to Luke, Jesus decided to ask his disciples the critical question. Their answer will reveal the depth of understanding gained from what they had seen and heard. The question seems to come ‘out of the blue’ so their answer would necessarily be spontaneous and honest. Jesus asked them to make an observation about what other men say.

Matthew 16:13 Mark8:27b Luke 9:18 “Who do men say the Son of man is?”

“Who do men say that I am?”

“Who do the people say that I am?”

They are aware of what was being said so they told him that the people have identified him as John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah, or some other prophet raised from the dead. A second and more important question followed the first. “But who do you say I am?” Predictably, it was Peter who answered for them.

Matthew 16:16 Mark 8:29b Luke 9:20b “You are the Christ, the son of the living God.”

“You are the Christ.” “The Christ of God.”

At this point in the conversation, Matthew has included some important material that is not in either Mark or Luke. (Matthew 16:17-20) In his passage, Jesus told them that Peter’s confession had not come from his own insight; it had been revealed to him (and them) by God. Even though Jesus honoured Peter’s confession, it is quite clear that it fell short of a full understanding. The Old Testament did not foresee a suffering Messiah so Peter had no way of knowing that the Messiah would suffer until Jesus, for the first time, made this clear. (Matthew 16:21; Mark 8:31) (Jews do not read Isaiah 53 as a messianic passage that predicts the messiah’s suffering. They apply this passage to Israel itself.) Matthew 16:18-19 has been at the center of a theological storm because they are understood differently by the Protestant and Catholic traditions. The latter reads the passage as if Jesus was giving Peter special authority on which the church was to be grounded. This interpretation has led to a priestly tradition whose authority is derivative of Peter and is passed on by the laying on of hands. Furthermore, it has produced a church structure where Peter’s primary role is passed on to one particular person. He (the Pope) is expected to exercise Peter’s authority when he speaks on matters of faith. Protestants read these verses differently. For them, Peter’s confession, and all confessions like his are bedrock for all Christian believers. Therefore, the rock that builds the church is the normative confession that he is the Christ. Everyone who professes him as Lord

66

and Saviour must make the same confession. Peter’s confession was the rock to which Christ referred, not Peter himself. Peter’s answer to Jesus’ question is the corner stone for the building of the church but this word (church) must not be identified with the modern institutional church. The word Jesus used for church is quahal which is the word for ‘the congregation of Israel’ in the Old Testament. Therefore, Peter’s confession was the beginning of the new Israel where citizenship derives from the confession that Jesus is the Messiah of Israel. According to Matthew, Peter was given “the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ and he was told by Christ that he had power to bind or loose on earth and in heaven. The word for ‘key’ in Greek is kleis and in Luke 11:52 it refers to ‘key of knowledge’. “Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering.” (Luke 11:52) In this context, those who have the key are in possession of that knowledge which reveals the will of God. Such knowledge makes it possible for men and women to enter the kingdom of God. Here in lies the interpretive clue to what Peter was given. He has heard the teaching of Jesus and confessed him to be the Messiah of Israel. Peter’s confession was not to be kept as a private insight or personal possession. It was now his task to proclaim the good news that led to his confession and when it is heard men and women will either embrace or reject it. Some men and women will repent and confess Jesus as Messiah but others will refuse. Heaven and earth are loosened when confession occurs but bound when it does not. The key that Peter received was the truth of the Gospel claim that Jesus is the one expected by Israel’s prophets. It is plain and understandable that Peter’s confession did not yet embrace the notion of the Messiah’s suffering and ultimate death. Jesus predicted his suffering and resurrection but he was rebuked because Peter’s concept of Messiah did not include the cross. Jesus saw Peter’s blindness failure as the work of Satan. (8:32-33) The Great Reversal of Values and The Cost of Discipleship: (8:34-9:1) Jesus had just introduced a shocking and totally unexpected truth; the Messiah must suffer and die. Those who follow him as Saviour, and Lord are therefore called to live according to a similar patter of self denial which may or may not lead to martyrdom. Although the disciples had not yet grasped the inevitable death of Jesus on the cross, it was time for him to prepare them for the threatening times to come when they will either obey or succumb to an evil and adulterous generation. No neutral ground is available. He began his teaching by gathering together all the multitudes and the disciples. What he said was not only for ‘religious specialists’; every believer is called to follow the pattern that he established. These sayings must have had a darker and more literal meaning for the early followers because persecution and death were

67

always lurking close by. As Mark thought back on what Jesus taught, he understood these sayings less symbolically than modern western believers who live within democratic societies that protect religious freedom and human rights. Jesus’ teaching consisted of five sharp statements that are interrelated.

1. Self denial is the first characteristic of obedience and it demands a willingness to die. The life of the true follower is defined by submission to others rather than self interest. (34b)

2. The Gospel is to be valued more than life itself and herein lies the great reversal. Those who value the Gospel above life itself are the ones who save their life. (35)

3. Those whose primary concern is to possess what the world has to offer will never experience the life that God intends for them. They will achieve in the world’s eyes but the rich reward that follows obedience, will be lost forever and there is no compensation for the loss. (36-37)

4. The follower of Christ will experience ridicule because the Gospel appears foolish to the world so he is a fool for believing it. On his return, Jesus will respond with shame to those who were ashamed of him. (38)

The passage finishes with a mysterious saying. (9:1)

Matthew 16:28 Mark 9:1 Luke 9:27

“Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.”

“Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power.”

“But I tell you truly, there are4 some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.”

Two questions are raised by this saying. How did the first listeners understand it and what did Jesus actually mean? We know that many in the early church expected the parousia (the second coming of Christ) in their life time so it is highly likely that Jesus’ words were understood accordingly. However, it is unlikely that Jesus meant this. Chapter 24 of Matthew’s Gospel contains a long discussion of this very topic and it begins with a question from the disciples. They asked concerning his return, “Tell us, when will this happen, and what will be the sigh of your coming and of the end of the age?” Jesus’ answer was unequivocal. “No one knows about the day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Matthew 24:36) Given this statement, it cannot be that he was referring to his return in Mark 9:1. Furthermore, Peter had already died by the time Mark had completed his Gospel died so a literal interpretation was not possible after his death. What, then was Jesus speaking of when he said that “they will not taste death before the see the kingdom of God come with power?” (Mark 9:1) There are at

68

least four possibilities of interpretation with one that seems to be the most natural interpretation.

1. It could be a reference to the transfiguration that follows immediately in all three Gospels.

2. Christ’s atoning death on the cross, confirmed by the resurrection, could also be the event to which Jesus was referring.

3. Another possibility is the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost when the Spirit of God was given to all believers.

4. Lastly, Jesus may have been thinking ahead to the time when the blessings of the kingdom are extended to the Gentiles who are reconciled to God on the same basis as Jews.

Since the cross and resurrection are the central events of the New Testament, Jesus’ words are most likely a reference to these two events. However, all of the above are possible.

Chapter Nine

The Mount of Transfiguration: (9:2-8) This event was critically important to the early church because it is told by each of the synoptic writers. Because it is one of the most mysterious and enigmatic events in the Gospels, differences of opinion about its meaning have resulted. However, the text does provide clues that point to the meaning of the event as seen by each writer. These clues recall several events and expectations contained in the Torah and the prophetic writing as well. Mark, like the other writers, expects his readers to ‘connect the appropriate dots’ as way of understanding the significance of the story. No doubt, it was far less mysterious to them as it is to the modern reader. Three main events are presented.

1. Jesus was changed by an unusual radiance that transformed his face and clothing.

2. Elijah and Moses, who are both long dead, appear and talk with him. 3. God speaks from the cloud.

The event is told using a plethora of symbolic language known to first century Jews such as:

1. The location is a high mountain. 2. He was transfigured. 3. His garments glistened white. 4. They could not be bleached any whiter. 5. Elijah and Moses appear and talk with Jesus.

69

6. The disciples want to build three booths. One for Moses, one for Elijah, and one for Jesus.

7. A cloud came over them and God spoke from it. The following chart compares the three accounts.

Similarities Differences 1. Jesus took only Peter, James, and John to the

mountain. 2. Peter said that it was good to be there. 3. They wanted to make three booths. 4. The disciples became fearful. 5. The voice from the cloud assured them

concerning Jesus. 6. This event must be a secret until after the

resurrection.

1. Matthew omits Mark’s statement about the fuller as well as Peter’s ignorance. (Mark 9:6)

2. Matthew adds some unique material: • Jesus’ face “shone like the sun”. • The bright cloud and the words, “This is my

beloved Son with whom I am well pleased; listen to him.”

• The disciples fell on their knees. • Jesus touched them, made them rise and be

unafraid. 3. Luke adds: • Jesus was praying as his countenance changed. • Luke adds the conversation between Jesus and

the two Old Testament figures. They discuss Jesus’ coming death in Jerusalem.

• Glory was present for Jesus, Moses, and Elijah. • The disciples woke up and saw the radiance.

The context provides an important clue concerning the meaning of this mystical event. Mark wants his readers to connect Peter’s confession with the transfiguration of Jesus. Peter had just finished confessing that Jesus was the Christ (Messiah) although he had not yet grasped that suffering and death were necessarily included in Jesus’ Messiahship. The incompleteness of Peter’s confession is contrasted with that of two important Old Testament figures who confirm what Jesus had already said about the inevitability of his death in Jerusalem. The conversation that occurs in Luke’s account clearly indicates that both Moses and Elijah knew that Jesus would die in Jerusalem and (Luke 9:30-31) their ‘insider’ knowledge is confirmed by God Himself. (Luke 9:35b) The three writers must have looked back on this incident and saw in it a divine confirmation of Jesus’ self understanding. Only Peter, James, and John were taken to a high mountain. Why the others were not included is not explained by any of the narrators but it is possible that these three were taken because they had a closer and more intimate relationship with Jesus than the other nine. The location had symbolic meaning for the Jew because it was the place where Moses received the Torah and it was on a high place that Jesus delivered The Sermon on the Mount. (i.e. His teaching was divine revelation not opinion.) In Hebrew thought, the mountain is a place of divine revelation. Therefore, God was disclosing Himself through the events that took place on the mountain on all these occassions. When they arrived, the three disciples saw the dramatic change in Jesus’ appearance. His face shone (Matthew 17:2) and his garments were so white that no bleach could add to their whiteness. Dazzling whiteness had symbolic

70

meaning for a Jew. In Matthew 13:37-43, Jesus explained the Parable of the Weeds. In his interpretation, he taught that the Angels sent out by him, would eventually weed the garden of all sin. The weeds would be thrown into a fire, leaving the righteous to “shine like the sun.” (Matthew 13:43) The ‘shining of the righteous’ is a sign that the kingdom of God had finally been inaugurated and God’s rule had begun. For this very reason, Jesus’ face and garment glistened white because, in him, the kingdom of God was present, the rule of God had begun, and Satan’s defeat was inevitable. The presence of two of Israel’s heroes links Jesus’ ministry with Israel’s past. How so? Moses received the Torah from God on Mount Sinai. Israel was already in a covenantal relationship with God and had been for four hundred and thirty years before the law was given to Moses. (Galatians 3:17) The law shaped Israel’s national life and kept it faithful to the promise that was given to Abraham. The law was not merely concerned with ritual; it was to orient Israel’s inner life and produce in each individual a ‘circumcised heart’. “The Lord your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendents, so that you may love Him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live.” (The great commandment found in Deuteronomy 30:6) The conversation between Moses and Jesus binds the purpose of the law with Jesus’ ministry and death. The scene brings them together in conversation so that Jesus can be comprehended as the fulfillment of the law’s purpose and the completion of the promise given to Abraham. As Mark recorded this incident, he wanted his readers to understand that now their primary allegiance was to the Messiah and that obedience to him kept them faithful to the covenant that God established with Abraham. Moses was also the powerful leader who led the children of Israel from captivity in Egypt to the brink of the Promised Land where Israel would live as an exemplary counter culture and light to the Gentiles under the rule of God. Jesus now fulfills the same purpose; his death rescues both Jew and Gentile from the captivity of sin and allows both to become citizens in a kingdom where God rules supremely. Elijah was also there along with Moses. His attendance has everything to do with Jewish expectations concerning their Messiah and the Messianic Age. They believed that when the Messiah (anointed one) arrived the Diaspora would end and Israel would be re- established as a nation under the rule of God. They also believed that their recovery as a nation would be preceded by a ‘forerunner’. On the basis of the prophet Malachi, they thought of Elijah as this figure. “See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before the great and dreadful day of the Lord comes.” (Malachi 4:5) Elijah, the Messiah’s forerunner, was there as confirmation that Jesus was, in fact, the one hoped for and anticipated by the prophet Malachi. This is the insight Mark wants his readers to have. Peter was glad to be there so he could capture the moment by building three booths which would allow Moses and Elijah to remain. These booths were regularly built during the Feast of the Tabernacles. Perhaps Peter preferred to

71

prolong this ecstatic moment and make into a ‘church retreat’ rather than share in the Messiah’s suffering as Jesus had spoken of in chapter 8. (8:34-9:1) Mark reported that “a cloud over shadowed them.” (9:7a) The cloud was readily understood by a Jew to symbolize the presence of God. It was their dream that the cloud of God’s presence would return to the temple when the Messiah came. They would be reminded of three key passages in the second book of the Torah as they heard the account of The Transfiguration. “While Aaron was speaking to the whole Israelite community, they looked toward the dessert, and there was the glory of the Lord appearing in a cloud.” (Exodus 16:10) “The Lord said to Moses, I am going to come to you in a dense cloud, so that the people will hear me speaking with you and will always put their trust in you.” (Exodus 19:9) “As Moses went into the tent, the pillar of cloud would come down and stayed at the entrance, while the Lord spoke with Moses.” (Exodus 33:9) The appearance of the cloud would suggest to any knowledgeable Jew that the Messiah had come and Jesus was that person. The voice coming from the cloud repeated the words spoken at Jesus’ baptism and they give further confirmation that Jesus is the Messiah of Israel and for this reason he must be obeyed. All three writers end in the same way; the two men from Israel’s history disappear and “they (the disciples) no longer saw anyone with them but Jesus only.” (Mark 9:8) This is Mark’s claim that Jesus stands alone as the Messiah predicted by the law and the prophets and that he is greater than they were. A Discussion about The Son of Man Rising from the Dead: (9:9-13) After Peter’s confession, Jesus explained that he would suffer, be killed, but rise again. These facts were then repeated by Moses and Elijah during the Transfiguration. Even so, the disciples remained unconvinced and bewildered but they kept the matter to themselves because this is what Jesus demanded. His death was difficult enough but his rising again was certainly beyond anything they could be expected to believe. So they kept questioning amongst themselves “what the rising from the dead meant.” (9:10) The three were able, however, to gather ‘enough mustard’ to ask, “Why do the scribes say that first Elijah must come.” (9:11) The conversation and questioning of the disciples revealed their reluctance to accept the notion of Jesus’ death and resurrection because nothing in their Jewish background prepared them for such an idea. It was a story far too preposterous for them to make up and later be willing to die for. The only way to account for the fact that they eventually preached the resurrection with such assurance and courage was that they were eyewitnesses to this unexpected event. What they observed overturned their natural disbelief in Jesus’ death and rising. Without this kind of historical corroboration, it is impossible to find another reason why they would preach the Gospel of the risen Christ, especially since it

72

resulted in so much persecution and martyrdom. They were willing to die, but not for a lie they themselves made up. There are some interesting differences between the two accounts. Jesus command for them to remain silent is reported as direct speech in Matthew’s Gospel but Mark uses indirect speech. Matthew omits Mark’s detail that Peter, James, and John question the meaning of Christ’s rising from the dead amongst themselves. Mark includes Jesus’ more detailed discussion about the treatment Elijah received. (9:12) They received instructions to tell know one about what they had just experienced. This was not an easy request given the spectacular nature of their experience. After all, they had just witnessed a conversation between Jesus and two of their national heroes, Moses and Elijah. Keeping this secret is analogous to witnessing the landing of an extraterrestrial spacecraft and then deciding to tell no one. Neither writer tells us why Jesus said, “Tell no one the vision, until the Son of man is raised from the dead.” (Matthew 17:9b) However, the reason is quite apparent when one considers the other occasions where he warned people to remain silent about his healing powers. The most important clue is the words, “until the Son of man is raised from the dead.” The minds of the disciples are still locked into a mistaken notion of what the Messiah would accomplish when he came even though they have recognized Jesus as that person. Percolating beneath the surface of their human understanding, the concept of him as Israel’s political liberator and military conqueror was easily stimulated and brought back to life. Only after his crucifixion and resurrection would they finally comprehend that God’s purpose would not be accomplished by the unleashing of irresistible and imposing force. He has chosen to call all men and women to Himself by the condescending death of his Son on a wooden cross where he would become a curse for the sake of sinners. The modern reader can hardly grasp the radical nature of this Biblical truth. The apostle Paul put it this way. “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law (i.e. the law reveals man’s guilt before God) by becoming a curse for us, for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree’.” (Galatians 3:13) At this point, the three disciples were confused on another matter as well. They had grasped Jesus’ Messianic claim (in a limited way) but their expectations concerning Elijah needed to be reconciled with what was occurring. They believed, as Jews, that Elijah would return as a forerunner of the Messiah so it followed logically that he should have come by now since the Messiah was already present. This belief arose from the prophecy of Malachi (4:5-6)that was widely known by any first century Jew and it was supported by the rabbinic tradition, also well known by many Jews. The ancient rabbis taught the following:

1. On the first day of his return, Elijah would stand on a high place and

notice the desolation of Israel. He would then cry out for all to hear, “Peace cometh to the world.”

73

2. “Good cometh to the world.” would be the second day’s cry. 3. On day three, the world would be restored with the words, “Salvation

cometh to the world.” All human dysfunction and religious controversies would end in the wake of Israel’s purification.

Theirs was an honest question. If the Messiah had arrived in the person of Jesus, where was Elijah? Their tradition and understanding demanded an answer. Jesus answered by reviewing Elijah’s (in the person of John the Baptist) history with the Jewish people. “Elijah does come first to restore all things; and how is it written of the Son of man, that he should suffer many things and be treated with contempt? But I tell you that Elijah has come, and they did to him whatever they pleased, as it is written of him.” (9:12-13) What Jesus said here must be a reference to the imprisonment and murder of John the Baptist. Obviously, he understood John in terms of Elijah so his answer to the disciples was that Elijah had returned and the manner in which he was treated indicated Jesus’ own destiny. Just as John was killed, so will he be. Thus, the disciples are slowly being prepared by Jesus patient conversation to embrace an idea that ran at cross purposes with everything they had ever been taught or could be expected to believe. An Epileptic Boy is Healed: (9:14-29) This embarrassing event of spiritual failure is told by Matthew and Luke as well as Mark but, as usual, his is the most detailed. The incident casts the nine in a negative light because it shows the ineptitude of their faith and Jesus’ deep disappointment. “O faithless generation, how long am I to be with you? How long am I to bear with you? Bring him to me.” (9:19) Peter, James, and John were returning from the Mount of Transfiguration and during their descent, Jesus had engaged them in a theological discussion concerning Elijah as the Messiah’s forerunner. However, the intensity of their experience was about to be broken by everyday realities brought on by their close association to Jesus. The other nine were in a ‘scrum’ and they were not doing well. Peter, James, John, and Jesus arrived at the place where the other nine were waiting and found them arguing with the scribes in front of a rather large crowd. It was an embarrassing situation because they were unable to cast out a demon. Their failure was public and worse still, an opportunity was provided for the religious elites to discredit them, and by association, Jesus as well. When Jesus arrived on the scene, the crowd rushed up to him and he asked them what was going on. A man in the crowd spoke first. He had brought his son to the nine disciples for healing but they were unable to help. This conversation drew attention away from the nine ‘red faced’ disciples until Jesus expressed his profound disappointment. (9:19) His public criticism of them was no less direct that his critique of the Pharisees and scribes.

74

Mark takes time to provide his readers with a vivid description of the boy’s illness. Clearly, he suffered from epilepsy but the crowd and the father saw him as demon possessed. The serious of the disease is underlined by the fact that the boy had been sick since birth and the father had tried everything possible to make him well but all his efforts had ended in failure. (9:21-22) The father has at least enough faith to bring his son to Jesus but it is, as yet, superficial. He says, “…. if you can do anything, have pity on us and help us.” (9:22) Jesus was taken aback by what the father said so he responded by saying in effect, “What do you mean, if I can?” And to this he added, “All things are possible to him who believes.” (9:23) The disciples, standing within ear shot, must have heard these encouraging words as a devastating criticism of them. What Jesus said drove the father to both confession and petition. “I believe (confession); help my unbelief!” (petition) (9:24) At this point, the father’s encounter with Jesus brought him face to face with a profound spiritual reality. Like us, he must admit the depth of his unbelief as a condition for greater spiritual awakening that will enable him to rely totally upon God. There is a lesson here. When a person examines himself, he finds little but unbelief but when he looks towards God, confident faith is found. This truth recalls an old Gospel song. “Turn your eyes upon Jesus. Look full in his wonderful face and the things of earth will grow strangely dim in the light of his glory and grace.” Mark’s description of what took place could not be more dramatic. (9:27) Jesus commanded the evil spirit to come out but he was unwilling to do so without a struggle. For the last time, the child experiences another epileptic episode followed by a calmness that appeared to be death. Characteristically, an epileptic sleeps when the seizure is over. The boy got up as Jesus took him by the hand. As Mark wrote about this event, he may have seen in it an anticipation of Jesus’ own death and resurrection which had the power to heal all of mankind. Only Luke reports that “all were astonished at the majesty of God.” (Luke 9:43) Matthew and Mark record the disciples’ inevitable question, “Why could we not cast it out?” (Matthew 17:19; Mark 9:28) He responded, “This kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer.” (Mark 9:29) Eduard Schweizer’s comment is insightful. “… the disciples have misunderstood the story if they seek for some special method by which they can overcome the misery of their impotence. Perhaps the truth that all power is found in God and not in the inner being of the believer is stressed more emphatically by Jesus’ call to prayer than by his call to faith. There is no room whatever for human achievement; all man can do is be receptive to the action of God.” (The Good News According To Mark, Page 189) Matthew includes some words not found in Mark where Jesus explained their failure in terms of their inadequate faith. “Because of your little faith. For truly I say unto you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move hence to yonder place,’ and it will move; and nothing will be impossible for you.” (Matthew 17:20) Here, Jesus has used hyperbole and a

75

phrase commonly known by Jews in the first century. He certainly did not mean it literally. Moving mountains was a metaphor for removing difficulties. Common sense would indicate that he was speaking of removing difficulties that impede God’s purpose in the world so faith, even the size of a tiny seed, is able to aid the accomplishment of what God wills. Jesus Tries Again to Explain His Passion: (9:30-32) As Jesus and the disciples traveled through Galilee he decided to teach of his passion exclusively to his disciples. He told them again of his capture, death, and resurrection after three days. They were dumbfounded even though they had heard him speak this way before. So unready were the twelve to accept what he was saying, they decided not to ask for more explanation. Mark has carefully documented this event because he wants to point out how difficult and alien faith is to the ‘natural’ mind. Luke adds emphasis to Mark by including a further explanation. “But they did not understand this saying, and it was concealed from them, that they should not perceive it; and they were afraid to ask him about this saying.” (Luke 9:45b) Luke did not add this comment because he believed that Jesus intended to frustrate his disciples’ understanding. On the contrary, he spoke to them for this very purpose but Mark knew from his own experience that real understanding would never come until after the empty tomb and the coming of God’s Spirit at Pentecost. It was not Jesus who concealed from them the meaning of his teaching; it was their all too human and limited perspective. Who’s Number One? (9:33-37) Matthew handles this event quite differently than either Mark or Luke. He has the disciples come directly to Jesus so he can settle the dispute they were having amongst themselves. In Mark’s and Luke’s account, Jesus overheard their argument and took the initiative to approach them. Mark also shows their embarrassment when he asked about the dispute; they preferred to shroud their desire for status in a cloak of silence. However, it is clear from Mark’ text, that Jesus was not fooled by this tactic because he knew the nature of their discussion and was prepared to confront them. (9:34-35) Jesus sat down and took the traditional position of a rabbi; he was determined to teach his disciples a critical concept that they must listen to and take with the utmost seriousness. Like any skilled teacher, he chose to present them with an object lesson to accompany his words. Luke says that the child was placed by his side but the other Matthew and Mark write that the child was put “in the midst of them.” (9:36) In Mark, this act is preceded by a statement which summarizes the lesson Jesus was about to give. “If anyone one would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all.” (9:35b) He takes care to ensure that his readers have all they need to understand the meaning of what Jesus said and did so he provides more material that clearly identifies the child with the attitude of humility. However, Matthew and Luke leave it to the reader to figure out the significance of the symbolism for themselves. The particular child is not named nor described

76

because they are representative of the status of children in general within first century society. Children are powerless to pay for what they receive so they are totally dependent on the willingness of others to supply what they need.

Matthew 18:3-5 Mark 9:37 Luke 9:48 “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me.”

“Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.”

“Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.”

This incident makes apparent the radical difference between Jesus’ self understanding and that of the disciples. They, like all men, longed for greatness, power, and recognition in the new kingdom while Jesus was willing to take a position of lowliness that ultimately resulted in his death on the cross. Their desire for importance separated them from God while his meekness disclosed the very nature of God. The child was powerless and therefore anything given to him was received as pure gift. With this object lesson he taught them that the kingdom being offered was an unmerited gift which they must receive as a child receives. Matthew points out the great reversal of values that operate in the kingdom. Those who are the greatest see themselves as the least. (Mark 9:35b) Matthew adds one final truth. “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me.” (18:5) The follower of Christ, like his disciples, expresses his gratitude and humility by serving the powerless and most vulnerable. This was, of course, as hard teaching then as it is now. Who is a True Disciple: (9:38-41) Mark’s forthright honesty shines through the text. The incident began as the disciples self righteously told Jesus that they had ordered someone out of business. The mood of the text suggests that they expected a ‘pat on the back’ from him for their initiative in maintaining the ‘franchise’. “Teacher, we saw a man casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he was not following us.” (9:38) The situation is full of irony because this man was able to do what nine of them could not. (9:18) The disciples’ failure to grasp the meaning of the object lesson they had just heard is also apparent since their actions reveal a sense of superiority over the man who was healing in Jesus’ name. Pride and

77

ambition, not jealousy, was probably behind their actions since they were so open and anxious to tell him what they had done. Their master’s response was so unexpected that it must have caused a double take. “Do not forbid him.” (9:39) Jesus seems to say that the exorcisms done by this anonymous man indicated that the he was on Jesus’ side. The man was performing miracles, not in his own power, but in Jesus. He is therefore regarded as an ally whose work and words provided a witness to Jesus’ Messiahship. There was nothing negative in what the man was doing nor was there a danger that he would eventually misrepresent Jesus. “…. for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon after to speak evil of me.” (9:39) As the early church looked back on this incident they may have seen an important message; following Christ required more than ‘card carrying’ formal membership in the church. True followers show their credentials by what they do in his name. Actions, however, do not make mature theological understanding and proclamation unnecessary otherwise the apostle Paul would not have taken such pains to keep the church faithful to the teaching of the apostles. In Mark’s understanding, the church is called to proclaim a truth that is accompanied by actions done in the name of Christ. By the time Mark wrote this Gospel, Paul had already pointed out that possession of the Spirit of God was the sign of true faith. “…. no one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit.” (1 Corinthians 12:3b) Only Mark brought this section to a conclusion with words about giving a drink. Verse forty connects naturally to the man who was casting out demons. The disciples were to accept his work because of the manner in which it was carried out. The fact that the exorcism were done in Christ’s name was sufficient burden of proof that he was an authentic supporter of Jesus’ ministry even though he was not formally a member of their group. (9:40) The last statement buttresses the previous one and it tells the disciples that work done in Jesus’ name must be accepted as such. In other words, their position in the kingdom of God is not superior to those who do Christ’s work without their formal recognition. The reward Jesus promised is given when a generous act is done for Christ’s sake, not for the act of generosity itself. (9:41) Several Warnings for the Disciples: (9:42-50) The First Saying: (9:42-43) The first warning was so important that it required a grotesque consequence. The millstone mention is one so large that it had to be turned by a donkey and it was regularly used in Rome and Palestine as a means of execution. The criminal was simply tied to the stone and then both were cast into the sea. Some interpreters have drawn the conclusion that the “little ones” are the disciples but the context seems to suggest that Jesus had in mind believers who, for some reason or other, are vulnerable to temptation brought by those who are stronger. Mark has recorded this saying to teach a critical lesson; followers of Christ are called into a kingdom in which the spiritual

78

welfare of others is ‘front and center’. Every person must discern the impact of their words and actions on others in the realization that they may be held responsible for the sinful acts of those who are less able to withstand temptation. (9:42) Paul addressed this very issue in his first letter to the Corinthians. The context was that some members of the Corinthian church had come to realize that they could put aside some dietary restrictions but they did so without any concern for those who had not yet come to a similar conclusion. The specific issue was the eating of meat that had previously been offered to idols. Paul argued that eating this kind of meat was acceptable but only when it was done without offending another believer. The effect on the weaker brother was a greater consideration that the expression of the religious freedom that had resulted from the Gospel. The weaker brother was one in which a residual belief still existed that the God of the idol would be ingested if the meat was eaten. Paul knew there was no reality in this concern but it did not stop him from issuing the warning he did. At the beginning of the passage, Paul stated the general principle that governed his specific recommendations. “Everything is permissible but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissible but not everything is constructive. Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others.” (1 Corinthians 10:23-24) During the Jerusalem council, the early church decided that, for the sake of unity rather than theology, they would all agree to observe the sanction against the eating of meat that had been offered to idols. (Acts Chapter 15) As Paul wrote the words in 1 Corinthians, he may have had Jesus’ teaching at the center of his thinking. The Second, Third, and Fourth Saying: (9:43-48) These sayings all deal with the possibility of corrupting the self and there is a logical progression from the first saying that relates to the possibility of corrupting another. Common sense needs to apply because they mean something absurd if read literally. Jesus did not issue these warnings because he wanted to be served by one handed crippled blind men. The fact that he chose this language means that he viewed the possibility of self corruption as dire in its consequences. But what does he mean to say? By this teaching, Jesus was dramatically underlying the fact that obedience to God is vastly more important that anything else, even the body. He was not encouraging the practice of self mutilation as a Christian practice. Jesus was, however, teaching his disciples that they must not do anything that hinders their relationship to God. It is also a matter of common sense that he was referring to sin that is a continual practice rather than a sinful act that is not an expression of open rebellion towards God. There is yet another but not necessarily distinct interpretation. It is obvious to any believer that the world continually provides temptation and there are only two ways for a person to react to it. Either they can participate in the act the temptation leads to or they can decide to be a non-participant. Thus, Jesus was

79

teaching his disciples that when they are tempted they must decide to disengage from the temptation by not participating in sin. This is what he meant by plucking out the eye and cutting off hands and feet. The eye may represent sinful behaviour that requires only the act of watching while the hands and feet suggest more active participation. In any case, all are equally destructive. Each saying involves similar consequence for sin. Hell is described as a place where thirst is never quenched, worms never die, and fire burns unabated. The modern reader may find the concept of hell primitive and unacceptably cruel. It must be remembered, however, that Jesus was speaking of sin as a pattern that reveals total and outright rebellion against God. Satan has taken God’s place. Sin requires such a serious consequence because it prevents God from restoring sinners and because it is a contradiction of Christ’s death on the cross. The Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Sayings About Salt: (9:49-50) These sayings have been strung together by Mark because they all include the word salt. There has been wide difference of opinion amongst interpreters about their meaning so it is important that modern reader consider the various possibilities without being too rigid. It appears to this writer that the symbolic meaning of ‘salt’ is different in each saying. The fifth saying (49) is most likely a reference to the sacrificial system when meat had to be properly salted before it was used as a sacrifice. (Leviticus 2:13) One characteristic of salt is that it absorbs moisture so it is able to absorb the blood in the meat. Salting the meat was Israel’s covenantal responsibility because it made the sacrifice acceptable to God by removing the blood. Salt is associated with fire in this saying. Fire is a purifying agent. When applied to metal it has the capability of purifying it by separating the alloy from the pure metal. The meaning that Jesus’ intended may be derived by putting these two ideas (salt and fire) together in which case he is saying that sin, when it is resisted, purifies life and makes it acceptable to God. A second possibility is that ‘fire’ represents persecution. If this is the symbolism Jesus intended, he means that the disciples’ will be purified by the persecution they will inevitably experience. Perhaps, this is what James had in mind when he wrote, “Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him.” (James 1:12) The sixth saying (50a) is more difficult to interpret than the first. Salt has two useful characteristics; it flavours and preserves and this is how it was used in the ancient world. Christ’s followers, therefore, are to have an effect on society that salt has on meat. If they are unwilling to accept this responsibility then they are without usefulness just like salt that has lost its characteristic saltiness. The last saying (50b) uses an entirely different symbolism because it associates salt with peace and it is the easiest to interpret. In the ancient world, salt was understood as a symbol for loyalty and friendship. To eat a person’s salt was to

80

enter into friendship and in the Old Testament it was considered an emblem of Israel’s covenant with God. (Numbers 18:19; 2 Chronicles 13:5) The association of salt with the covenant and harmonious relationships provides a vital clue to the meaning of the saying; the disciples are to live in a manner that promotes harmonious relationship with God and other people because this is a critical aspect of the kingdom Jesus is brought.

Chapter Ten

A Question of Marriage and Divorce: (10:1-12) In this section of Mark’s Gospel, Jesus had traveled south from Galilee to Judea where he attracted his usual group of curious onlookers. Matthew says that he healed them but Mark emphasizes his teaching ministry. The Pharisees continued in their relentless pursuit to trap him by asking a devious question that was designed to test his orthodoxy. “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” (10:2) Mark recorded Jesus’ answer as providing no grounds at all for divorce but in Matthew’s version he allowed for divorce when adultery was committed by either the wife or husband. (10:11b) The fact that the wife also was allowed to divorce her husband represents a radical advancement since Jews tended to regard the wife as personal property. No Rabbi gave a women a right to divorce her husband for any reason whatsoever. Marriage was the most used metaphor for Israel’s covenant with God. There was no relationship in Jewish life that involved higher ideals and there was no topic that was more controversial. The controversy was linked to Deuteronomy 24:1. There was rigorous disagreement about the correct interpretation of this verse which said, “If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her out of his house, or if she dies, then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled.” The actual emphasis of the text seems to be its prohibition against a man remarrying a woman after she has been sent away by her second husband but by the time of Jesus, it was read to find adequate grounds for a man to divorce his wife. The controversy swirled around the meaning of “displeasing” and “indecent”. Some rabbinic tradition supported the notion that a man had a duty to get rid of a bad wife. They said that a bad wife was the equivalent of leprosy so a man had a religious duty to divorce his wife if he thought her unacceptable. The use of this question by the Pharisees was clever because it had the possibility of trapping Jesus in various ways. He had spoken on this issue and said that there was legitimate ground for divorce so there was the possibility that he could contradict himself. (Matthew 5:21) A serious political problem could also result if his answer brought him into conflict with Herod who had previously divorced his

81

wife only because he preferred another woman. Thirdly, the Pharisees hoped that Jesus’ answer would show him to be at odds with their hero Moses. He could not have been put in a more difficult and dangerous position. The answer he finally gave was both powerful and politically astute. As the conversation developed (2-5) it is interesting to note that the focus of the Pharisees is on permission. They use the word ‘allow’ on two occasions because they were seeking to soften a difficult command and gain greater freedom from a difficult obligation. Jesus attention was drawn to the idea of ‘command’, a word he used twice during the encounter. While he was interested in obedience to the will of God, they were interested in the exercise of their own rights as a means of satisfying their natural lusts. The question placed Jesus at the center of a controversy that was taking place in first century Judaism. There were two radically opposed opinions and two prominent rabbis who acted as the spokesmen for each position. Those who followed Shammai stuck to a strict interpretation that defined ‘displeasing’ and ‘indecent’ as adultery whereas others preferred Hillel; he taught that a man could send his wife away because she burnt the potatoes, over cooked the vegetables, kept a messy house, or talked with another man. In practical terms, she could be divorced simply on the whim of her husband and for trivial reasons that disregarded the sanctity of marriage. Needless to say, this liberal interpretation made marriage a highly insecure arrangement for women. Many Jewish women preferred to remain unmarried rather than face the possibility of being cast aside by her husband for trivial and selfish reasons. The liberal view was a great boon for men who sought a younger and more comely wife that could recharge his aging ‘batteries’ and stimulate his level of testosterone. Cleverly, Jesus wanted to steer away from being compared to Moses by going to a higher source. He quoted Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 as a paraphrase. These texts actually say, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created him.” (Genesis 1:27) “For this reason (refers to the fact that the woman was created from the man) (Genesis 1:23) a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24) At the beginning of the encounter, Jesus was asked to make a statement about the lawfulness of divorce and he responded with another question. “What did Moses command you?” (10:3) Jesus interpretation of Moses differed from theirs. They believed that Moses’ provision for divorce was given as license but Jesus saw Moses’ real intent. He was trying to provide restraint to the ever increasing phenomenon of divorce within the Jewish community because of its hard heartedness. Rather than be trapped in a controversy around Moses, he went back to creation itself to find God’s real intention for marriage. “What therefore God has joined together, let no man put it asunder.” (10:9)

82

Jesus was able to give the correct answer and avoid further embroilment in a controversy by going to a source greater that Moses or the two Rabbis. He showed them that inspite of Moses’ concession due to the hardness of their hearts, God intended marriage to be indissoluble. God was the authority on marriage and who can argue with him? His disciples decided to continue the discussion in private because they found Jesus’ teaching troubling and unrealistic. His teaching was straight forward; the person who initiates the divorce bears the responsibility for the adultery of their former partner. Matthew’s Gospel has the disciples introduce an entirely new question. The conclusion they made was that it was better not to marry at all rather than to obey the strict teaching they have just heard. They were wondering if the ideal for marriage was achievable. Perhaps, they thought, non marriage was the better choice. Jesus’ answered their concern with a puzzling discussion about eunuchs. (Matthew 19:10-12) First he said that “Not all men can receive this precept, but only the ones to whom it is given.” (19:11) Who are the ones to whom it is given? Jesus must have had in mind people who hear his teaching, repent, and accept him as their Lord and Messiah as the condition necessary to conform to such a high ideal. Living according to the high standard he taught required a person to enter the kingdom; otherwise the teaching was impossible. Jesus talked about three kinds of eunuchs in order to dispel the notion that all his followers should avoid marriage because it demanded life long commitment. The first eunuch has been one since birth through some accidental deformity that made him incapable of having sex. The second class was those who, for some reason, were made eunuchs by castration. This was done to some priests such as the ones who served in the Temple of Diana in Ephesus. Jesus then talked about people who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Obviously, he was speaking symbolically and his meaning is quite obvious. He was referring to those individuals who voluntarily sacrifice marriage, family, and sexual satisfaction for the sake of doing God’s work unencumbered by the many responsibilities brought on by marriage and children. It must be understood that he was not suggesting that this person had achieved a higher spiritual level nor was he recommending celibacy as a universal spiritual requirement. This kind of life is reserved for those who are uniquely called to it by God. (19:12b) The issue of celibacy dogged the early church so it was an issue that the apostle Paul was forced to deal with in the Corinthian church where some members saw it as an expression of spiritual superiority. The apostle rejected their claim with a powerful argument. Chapter seven of his letter contains the discussion. He taught the following:

1. Each person should have their own marriage partner in order to avoid sexual immorality.

83

2. Each must fulfill their sexual responsibility to the other and remember that their body is owned by their partner. (They were to be mutually submissive to one another.) This ethic applied to both sexes.

3. Sexual abstinence should occur only for a short time (like five minutes) by mutual agreement for the purpose of prayer.

4. Only some believers have the gift of celibacy. Both marriage and celibacy are equally desirable and Godly in their purpose. (1 Corinthians 7:1-7)

Paul and Jesus were in complete agreement on this matter and it is very likely that the apostle knew the Gospel tradition as he wrote his letter. Children Provide the Example for Disciples: (10:13-16) Some children were brought to Jesus so he could touch them and Matthew adds that he was expected to pray for them as well. (Matthew 19:13-15) The scene indicates the enormous popularity of Jesus as he traveled throughout the countryside. The common people came to the conclusion that their children would benefit from his prayer and touch. Many believed that he was a unique wonder worker and some held out the hope that he was the one to restore Israel and rid his people of the terrible oppression inflicted on them by Rome. Jesus had healed the young before so the crowd was confident that their children would be embraced whole heartedly. They were right. The disciples, however, had a different reaction; mistakenly they rebuked the crowd in order to keep the children away from Jesus. The reason why they did this is not apparent but it is likely that they were simply trying to protect him after such a long period of exhausting travel. Even if their motivation was right, their actions were wrong and Jesus let them know it. Mark tells us that he was ‘indignant’. (10:14) He made it clear to the disciples that the children must be welcomed joyfully because the kingdom of God was for people just like them. This admonition must have sounded strange to the disciples. The scene ends with Jesus taking the children in his arms and saying, “Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.” (10:15) The meaning that underlies this statement is the point of the entire account. Everywhere Jesus had preached the religious elites had come wishing to discredit him. They were constantly watching for opportunities to find fault with his teaching and conformity to the Jewish law. Their criticism emerged from a deep sense of entitlement and self righteousness; they assumed that their rigorous and detailed law keeping enabled them to accumulate vast amounts of credit and status. The presence of children allowed Jesus to concretely demonstrate how wrong they were. Jewish culture did not think of children sentimentally as modern culture does. They did not consider them to be innocence and pure as we do. For them, a child

84

could claim no special privileges because they were totally dependent. Their main characteristic was that they were receptive and without the means to make recompense. It is in this sense that Christ’s followers must be like children and accept the goods news of the Gospel as pure gift. The apostle Paul put it this way, “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith- and this not of yourselves, it is the gift of God- not by works, so that no one can boast.” (Ephesians 2:8) The Rich Young Ruler: (10:17-31) This encounter follows naturally from the previous one where Jesus spoke of the need for childlikeness as the point of entry to the kingdom of God. The main character is a man of wealth and high position, according to Luke 18:18. Mark does not mention the rich man’s name because he wants his readers to identify with him and his question. The man’s eagerness and sincerity is shown by the fact that he “ran up and knelt before him.” (10:17) During his life time he had managed to accumulate much wealth but his achievements had not totally satisfied him; he was unsure about his final existence in the presence of God on the other side of the grave and this lack of assurance troubled him deeply. “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” (10:17b) Mistakenly, he was under the impression that what he longed for could be achieved in the same way as his wealth – by doing something. Therefore, he needed to learn that what he desired most could be received only by faith. He would find this a difficult lesson. He addressed Jesus as “Good Teacher” but it is difficult to know whether he was flattering Jesus or recognizing that he possessed an authority he had never before witnessed. It is clear, however, that Jesus had a problem with the title because he asked an enigmatic question. “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.” (10:18) Perhaps Jesus responded in this way to show him the inappropriateness of flattery when discussing matters of such magnitude. On the other hand, the young man may have not yet made the necessary identification of Jesus as God’s Messiah as Peter did. If there was an answer to his question, it could not be given unless Jesus was more than simply a “Good Teacher”. As Mark told this story, he was pointing out the profound mystery that God is encountered in the Son. Gently, Jesus began his answer by summarizing the commandments having to do with neighbourly duty so as to induce some sense of inadequacy that would make the man aware that what he sought could not be earned as his wealth had been. (10:19) Jesus did not doubt that his questioner had, in fact, kept these commandments because he looked at him and loved him even though he lacked one thing – his law keeping was not necessarily an indication that he truly longed for the inner righteousness required for eternal life. In this respect, the rich young ruler’s self understanding stood in stark contrast to the apostle Paul who spoke before the Sanhedrin and proclaimed that he had kept the law in good conscience (Acts

85

23:1) without the sense that he had been delivered from the guilt and power of sin.

So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s Law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a

prisoner of the law of sin at work in my members. (Romans 7:21-23)

Jesus then gave an instruction that caused great sorrow. “You lack one thing; go, sell what you have, and give it to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” (10:21) It is probably unwise for the reader to interpret Jesus’ command as if meant that the denial of wealth is a universal requirement for all his followers. In this case, Jesus was asking him to cast aside the one thing in which he found security and self worth in favour of obedience to the God he was encountering in Jesus. “His countenance fell, and he went away sad” because he preferred to define for himself what was of greatest value. He wanted eternal life but only under the conditions acceptable to him. (10:22) The rich young man had come to Jesus energized by a sense of anticipation that he would find an answer his question but he walked away sorrowfully with his shoulders slumped forlornly in disappointment. (10:22) Jesus, aware that the disciples had been listening, decided to startle them with two sayings they found amazing and deeply disturbing. First he said that it is difficult for a rich man to enter heaven which he then illustrated with another saying. “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” (10:25) Even though they had given up their own worldly possessions, they still found the implication of Jesus’ teaching incredulous and alarming. “Then who can be saved?” (10:26) The disciples had realized that the conversation Jesus had with the young man went beyond him in its application and that it applied to them and all potential followers. The disciples needed to understand that just as it is impossible for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, so it is impossible for person to enter the kingdom with eyes centered on earthly life rather than on God. The disciples were correct. Were it not for God, the rich man could not enter the kingdom. He can, however, because God makes the impossible possible. (10:27) He makes discipleship possible for all men and women by an act of grace in which he chooses them. Paul had this truth in mind when he wrote: “ … but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ

the power of God and the wisdom of God. (Romans 1:23-24)

Peter stepped forward and spoke for the other eleven who, like him, had left their nets and financial security behind to answer the Master’s call. Jesus knew Peter was right so he did not rebuke him. Instead, he assured the twelve that following

86

him did not lead to poverty but to wholeness beyond anything they could imagine. However, he was careful to also point out that persecution as well as benefit would be an aspect of their discipleship. (10:29-30) The final statement was given as a summary. The kingdom is closed to those who have worldly accomplishment as their ultimate concern rather than the things of God but it is open to those who receive it without a sense of entitlement. (10:31) A person preoccupied with earthly power and success will achieve their goal but miss out on the greater rewards that are associated with the kingdom of God. (10:31) Mark was not attempting to make poverty a virtue. Rather, he was teaching his readers that true life comes to those who accept the gift that no one actually wants save for the miracle that “all things are possible with God.” The natural order of things is that men and women believe that they can do something outstanding or sacrificial as a means of discovering eternal life. The true disciple, however, realizes that no amount of exertion, self denial, or religiosity can make one a disciple; it is purely a gift of God. What men and women possess, including wealth, stands in the way of receptive faith. The rich man relies upon his wealth, the educated man trusts his knowledge, the gifted man counts on his abilities, the powerful man counts on his status as a means of making things happen, and the religious man presents his piety as the justification for his acceptance by God. The inadequacies of all these is made known only by the grace of God that is disclosed in Christ. The God he reveals compels the rich man and all of mankind to cast themselves on the mercy of God and nothing else because “It depends not upon man’s will or exertion, but upon God’s mercy.” (Romans 9:16) A person’s preconceived notions may be so firmly held that they require the powerful counter claim of the Gospel and nothing else. “No amount of exertion, not even self denial or asceticism, can make one a disciple. Discipleship is purely a gift of God.” (The Good News of Mark, Eduard Schweizer, page 215) Jesus Teaches About His Suffering for the Third Time: (10:32-34) Jesus was on the road again as he traveled towards Jerusalem where he would do the work that defined the purpose of his life. In the first century, it was common practice for a rabbi to walk ahead of his students. However, in this case, an added symbolism is intended. Jesus already knew that his journey would feature abandonment, injustice, alienation, and profound loneliness as necessary aspects of the work he must do. The disciples walked behind him because they were not yet able to share in his suffering nor understand the reason why he must die. (10:32) Some followed in amazement but others were fearful. Mark does not explain the reason for these two reactions because he wanted his readers to be drawn into the scene by seeking an answer to an obvious question. The source of their

87

amazement must have been the teaching they had just heard but not understood. On the other hand, some of them had a sense of impending tragedy that would be realized at the end of the journey. (10:32) Jesus, aware of their upset and confusion, began to teach them concerning his passion and he spoke to them with Isaiah 50 echoing in his mind. In this passage, the Prophet spoke of how God’s instruction had enabled him to remain faithful when he was mistreated by his enemies. Jesus used the language of Isaiah because he too was determined to remain obedient to God just as the prophet did.

I offered my back to those who beat me, My cheeks to those who pulled out my beard;

I did not hide my face from mocking and spitting. (Isaiah 50:6)

This was the third occasion where he announced his Passion but this time he gave more explicit details. In Jerusalem, he would be handed over to the Temple authorities, condemned to death, and delivered to the Gentiles who would mock him, spit on him, beat him, and kill him. The evil acts of men, however, would be used by his Father to defeat Satan and provide a ransom for many. “… and after three days he will rise.” (10:34b) James and John Make a Request for Greatness: (10:35-45) The request involved in this passage is ironic because it follows the most complete discussion of Jesus suffering and death. Had the disciples understood the meaning of Jesus’ prediction, it is unlikely that they would have asked him for the privilege of high position in the first place. James and John were not completely bereft of faith. They made two requests with the assumption that Jesus did possess the power to grant their wishes but on another level, they had missed the point of his prediction (10:32-34) entirely because their thinking was still deeply embedded in the notion that Israel’s nationhood was about to be gloriously reinstated with Jesus as the king. Both wanted a prominent ‘cabinet position’ in the new government and mistakenly they believed that Jesus had the desire and the mandate to give them what they wanted. This incident makes apparent the radical difference between Jesus’ self understanding and that of the disciples. They, like all men, longed for greatness, power, and recognition in the new kingdom while Jesus was willing to take a position of lowliness that ultimately resulted in his death on the cross. Their desire for importance separated them from God while his meekness disclosed the very nature of God. Their question is countered by, “You do not know what you are asking.” Then Jesus elaborated on his statement using the metaphor of the cup and the ritual of baptism. “Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or be baptized with which I am baptized?” During an ancient banquet, a king could offer his guests the

88

benefits of his life and experience by handing them his cup. This metaphor was used similarly in the Bible to speak of experience (negative or positive) given to men by God. The prophet Isaiah spoke to Jerusalem after its destruction to explain that God had judged them severely.

Awake, awake! Rise up, O Jerusalem,

you have drunk from the hand of the Lord the cup of his wrath,

you who have drained it to its dregs the goblet that makes men stagger. (Isaiah 51:17)

The disciples responded, “We are able.” Jesus did not regard their answer as completely out of hand because he knew that, in fact, their discipleship would eventually result in a shared experience of being ‘submerged’ in suffering and death. Therefore, the denial of their request was not based upon the fact that his cup and baptism were beyond their experience. On the contrary, they would eventually suffer and die for his sake. (10:39) He turned them down solely because, “to sit at my right hand or left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.” (10:40) This is the second issue over which Jesus admitted to a limitation in his authority and knowledge. When asked to predict his second coming, he said that this time was known only to God. The admission that he lacked authority and knowledge suggests a limitation to his incarnation – God is all knowing and authoritative but he is not. Doctor Victor Shepherd, professor of systematic theology at Tyndale Seminary was once asked if Jesus’ incarnation involved limitation. He answered the question with the following illustration. “Suppose you go down to the shore of Lake Ontario and fill up a bucket with water. What is in the bucket is Lake Ontario and nothing else but it is not the whole lake.” The other ten disciples were ‘indignant’ because they had not been included in the discussion and they probably were jealous that James and John had been handed a special privilege they wanted. Jesus realized that the harmony of the twelve was threatened so he called the others to teach them how the kingdom functions by an entirely different set of values. He began with a description of earthly political power and how it is exercised by those who “lord it over” the Gentiles. These rulers are interested in one thing only – achieving and maintaining political power for the sake of personal benefit. He contrasted their idea of power with his own. True greatness, he argued, is found in becoming a servant and those willing to live according to this standard will be first in the kingdom of God. (10:41-44) Jesus then summarized his teaching by pointing to the pattern of his own life where his servant hood is expressed as he offers himself as “a ransom for many.” (10:45) The apostle Paul wrote similarly:

89

Who, being in the very nature of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,

but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant,

being made in human likeness. (Philippians 2:6-7)

Bartimaeus Receives His Sight: (10:46-52)

The passage ends with the words “followed him on the way” because Mark wants his readers to understand that this incident provides a definition of discipleship. Bartimaeus was there for the express purpose of being healed of his blindness by Jesus who he addresses as “Son of David”. (10:47b) This is the only time in the Gospels where he is addressed with this messianic title. It is inadequate because of its association with the conquering King David and his use of military power. Bartimaeus’ determination is accentuated by his persistent calling out inspite of the crowds attempt to shut him up. Their rebuke only made him call out louder, “Son of David, have mercy on me!” (10:48) Jesus, ever interested in the individual, stopped and asked for him because he wanted a personal encounter that would lead to more than just physical sight. Bartimaeus responded by removing some of his clothing so he could ‘spring’ into Jesus’ presence and make his needs specifically known. “What do you want me to do for you?” (10:51a) He answered and heard the words, “Go your way; your faith has made you well.” (10:52) As verse 52 indicates, his way was now to follow Jesus with eyes opened by his newly found faith. Interestingly, a lack of theological precision did not get in the way of his healing. There was no need for him to become a theologian before becoming a disciple. The necessity for a fuller understanding would come later as a byproduct of his discipleship.

6. The Passion and the Resurrection of the Son of Man (11:1-16:8)

Chapter Eleven

Jesus Enter into Jerusalem: (11:1-11) The mission to find the colt need not be read as a miracle story. Since Jesus had been to Jerusalem before, he could have arranged for the animal to be there on a previous visit. On the other hand, the mission might well have involved the foreknowledge that it would be there as a sign that the events about to take place, had been predestined by God. The disciples were given the only authority they needed, “The Lord has need of it.” (11:3) The cloths placed on the donkey by the disciples are purely utilitarian but not so with the garments spread on the road. These were symbols of a conqueror entering a city after being victorious in battle. The crowd celebrated Jesus’ entry in the expectation (heightened by the event of Passover) that he would soon establish an earthly kingdom free from foreign influence and domination. Jesus knew of their misunderstanding but still he accepted their adoring shouts of

90

“Hosanna in the highest.” (11:10) The word they shouted is consistently misunderstood as only a word of praise but, in reality, it is a transliteration of the Hebrew word for ‘Save now’. It is used in 2 Samuel 14:4 and 2 Kings 6:26 where the people ask for protection and help from their king. This word was not shouted in praise of Jesus so much as it was a cry to God to break in and save them from the oppression of Rome. Jesus Clears the Temple: (11:12-19) The cursing of the fig tree is one of the most difficult stories in the New Testament because Jesus cursed it for having no figs even though “it was not the season for figs.” (11:13) It is hard to imagine why he would curse it just because he was hungry when previously he had refused to make bread from stones during his temptation. It seems unjust of him to kill a tree for failing to do what it could not, given the season. The best way to unpack meaning of his action is to relate it to what follows and consider the curse an ‘enacted parable’ containing a prophetic and symbolic meaning that leads naturally to the cleansing of the temple. The fig tree commonly represented Israel whose entire history was to prepare it for the arrival of the Messiah. (See Micah 7:1; Hosea 9:10; Ezekial 17:22-24) Now that he had come, his messianic role was tragically rejected by the nation’s leaders. For this reason, the nation had failed to fulfill its purpose and, like the fig tree, it was fruitless because it did not accomplish the task for which it was created. Immediately, following this incident, the judgment of the temple is recorded showing that Mark believed that Jesus was actually thinking of Israel when he pronounced the curse. “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” (11:14) The buying and selling took place in the Court of the Gentiles, an area that was neither sacred nor totally secular. The worshippers were required to purchase animals for sacrifice by using Hebrew or Tyrian currency. This meant that their foreign money had to be exchanged for that which was acceptable for use in the temple. The priests benefited financially from the exchange by adding a tax and this Jesus regarded as blasphemy. What was built as a place of prayer for Gentile, Jews, and all nations had become a secularized place where exploitative business took place. (11:15-18) Mark mentioned in verse sixteen that “he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple.” He did this to point out the fact that their law, according to the rabbinic tradition, was being ignored because profit, not faith nor worship, had become their main pursuit. The tradition said, “A man may not enter into the temple mount with his staff or his sandal or his wallet, or with the dust upon his neither feet, nor mat he make of it a short by-path.” This oral tradition was eventually written down in the Mishnah and it remains a very important book for observant Jews today. (11:15)

91

This incident represents, for all three narrators, Jesus’ final break with the religious leaders who, inspite of their Biblical literacy, could not accept him as the one anticipated by their own prophets. Although official Jewry had repudiated him, Jesus ministry was welcomed and vindicated by the common people who were looked upon as religiously uninformed. (a common pattern in the New Testament) (11:18) The Withered Fig Tree: (11:20-26) The next day, Peter saw the fig tree that Jesus had cursed and he was surprised to see its withered branches. Jesus decided to use Peter’s observation as a valuable teaching moment. Obviously, a literal interpretation of verse 23 results in absurdity. Moving mountains was commonly understood as a metaphor for removing difficulties so what Jesus said gave permission to use prayer for this purpose. He assumes that any prayer request is informed by the will of God rather than the desire for something he does not wish to grant. Furthermore, the power of prayer, even if it is done in accordance with God’s will, requires a willingness to forgive as the basic condition for its effectiveness. Furthermore, the sincerity of a person’s prayer is shown only as they grasp the enormity of the burden that has been removed from them by God’s forgiveness. Prayer is the request for something needed but not deserved and when it is uttered on this basis it is naturally preceded by a willingness to forgive others. Refusal to forgive other people implies that their sins are greater than the ones’ own so, for this reason, the door to God’s forgiveness is shut. (11:23-25) The Authority of Jesus is Questioned: (11:27-33) Jesus had entered Jerusalem triumphantly and the very next day he sent away the money changers from the temple in a fit of righteous rage. It was no wonder that several members of the Sanhedrin came with the intention of discrediting him with a trick question. Mark says that Jesus was walking around the temple as rabbis often did as they held court for those eager to hear. Their question was doubled barreled. “By what authority are you doing these things, or who gave you this authority to do them?” (11:28) If he responded by saying that he acted with God’s authority then they would charge him with blasphemy. On the other hand, an answer that referred to his own authority could be used as evidence that he lacked the authority to act as he had. The Sanhedrin would have been satisfied to hear anyone of these answers; both could be used against Jesus. Cleverly, their question was met with a counter question. “Was the baptism of John from heaven or from men? Answer me.” (11:30) His question caused the controversy Jesus intended. They realized that a trap had been set that placed them on the horns of a dilemma – neither answer was acceptable. One answer would show them to be disobedient and the other would threaten their popularity amongst the common people. They were unable to answer and this gave Jesus

92

permission to say, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.” (11:33) End of discussion! The Parable of the Tenants: (12:1-12) The parable reflects the reality of first century Palestine where large portions of real estate were owned by absentee land lords who rented the land to tenant farmers. The tenants were allowed to keep some of the crop as payment with the rest going to the owner. Sometimes the tenant farmers murdered the owner in the knowledge that they would have first claim on the land. The people listening to the parable for the first time would have been drawn into the plot because of its obvious realism. (12:1) In addition, they would have associated it with the “Song of the Vineyard” written by the prophet Isaiah.

I will sing a song for the one I love A song about his vineyard:

My loved one had a vineyard on a fertile hillside. He dug it up and cleared it of stones and planted it with the choices vines.

He built a watchtower in it And cut out a winepress as well.

The he looked for a crop of good grapes, But it yielded only bad fruit. (Isaiah 5:1-2)

and

Now I will tell you

what I am going to do to my vineyard: I will take away its hedge, and it will be destroyed;

I will break down its wall, and it will be trampled.

I will make it a wasteland, neither pruned nor cultivated,

and briers and thorns will grow there. I will command the clouds not to rain on it. (Isaiah 5:5-6)

The parable invites an allegorical interpretation.

Allegorical Details • Vineyard • The man who planted • Tenants • Servants • The beloved son • Others to whom the vineyard is given • The cornerstone

Allegorical Symbolism • Israel • God • Israel’s leaders • The prophets • Jesus • Gentiles • Jesus

93

The plot mirrors the history of Israel. God formed the nation just as he created the vineyard and he gave it to them with the understanding that they would express their national identity with his purpose in mind. Instead, they abandoned God’s purpose and when they were called back to obedience by the prophets, they beat or killed them. Finally, when the son (Jesus) was sent, he also was killed so the farmer (God) responded by giving the vineyard to someone else. (Gentiles) Jesus message was clear. He would be killed by the very people for whom he had been sent and others, living outside the covenant, would embrace him and do the work Israel was meant to do. (12:1) Given the realism of the plot and its obvious reference to Isaiah, the parable’s meaning was quickly understood by the Pharisees as a criticism of them. “ … they perceived that he had told the parable against them; so they left him and went away.” (12:12) Now their resolve to destroy Jesus was palpable. Were it not for the multitudes, they would have arrested him there and then. A Question About Taxes: (12:13-17) The Sanhedrin remained determined to find fault with Jesus anyway they could so they came once more with a political question that had the potential to trap him in a dilemma. In reality, they were not looking for enlightenment about the relationship of faith to the state. Their only interest was to show him as a traitor or a collaborator with the oppressive state Rome was. Each writer introduced the encounter differently in order to demonstrate the cunning and insincerity of Jesus’ opponents. (12:15) Their attempt to flatter Jesus was easily recognized by him for what it was. “Why put me to the test?” (12:15b) Their question was, “Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? Should we pay them or should we not?” (12:14-15) The question was clearly designed to illicit a yes or no answer. An affirmative response would show him to be a collaborator with Caesar and therefore hostile to the common people. On the other hand, a negative answer would provide them with the grounds they needed to have him charged with being an enemy of the state. Either answer would have been equally useful in providing the evidence they needed to find him guilty of something serious. A simple yes or no answer never came because Jesus knew the purpose of their strategy. He avoided answering the question by asking for a coin. “Bring me a coin and let me look at it.” (12:15b) Another question followed. “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” (12:16b) The fact that they actually had a coin showed their hypocrisy because the mere possession of one showed their recognition of Caesar as the leader of the state to which they belonged. In effect, Jesus answer indicated his belief that the Roman state was a fact of their existence and that allegiance to it was not a barrier to a higher allegiance. Caesar deserved what was his and so it was with God. (See Romans 15 for a further discussion of the secular state.)

94

The astuteness Of Jesus answer caused their jaws to drop in amazement Marriage at the Resurrection: (12:18-27) The political questioned failed to ‘stump’ Jesus so they thought a theological one could do a better job of discrediting him. The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection because they saw no evidence for it in the five books of Moses so their question was obviously contrived for the purpose of having the concept ‘laughed out of court’. Their strategy was to combine the concept of resurrection and levirate marriage and the text they had in mind was Deuteronomy 25: 5-10. This passage deals with two brothers who live together. If one died and left no son, the other was obligated to marry the wife of his dead brother. If she bore a son by her new husband, the son would be considered the son of the dead brother in order to carry on his name. The text goes on to describe the serious consequence of refusing to obey Moses’ command. Theoretically, the process of the levirate marriage could go on indefinitely. Their argument against the resurrection was that (in the case of levirate marriage) it could not be true since it could lead to an unsolvable problem created by a hypothetical absurdity. Obviously, they were not troubled by the fact that their example was so extreme, it was unlikely to ever happen. (12:18-23) Jesus takes their question at face value because it gave abundant evidence that they did not understand their own primary text. He addressed the concerns of the Pharisees first by discussing what the resurrection will be like. It was common knowledge amongst Jews that angels do not eat, drink or marry and since the dead become angels, they are not married in their resurrected life. Evidence for these beliefs can be founded in a variety of extra Biblical sources. Jesus’ reference to God’s power is important because it refers to God’s ability to create something new that the human mind cannot conceive. His point was that their question assumed a reality after death that could be understood by their present reality. Although some aspects of resurrected life can be understood, there remains a mystery that is beyond human categories and concepts. (12:24-25) The second part of Jesus’ answer was directed exclusively towards the Sadducees because they did not belief in the resurrection. His premise was based on the revelation made to Moses at the burning bush. I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not

the God of the dead, but of the living; you are quite wrong. (12:26b-27)

Gamaliel, the famous rabbi and Pharisee had used Deuteronomy to argue against the position of the Sadducees concerning the resurrection of the dead. The key passage was:

95

….. and so that you may live long in the land that the Lord swore to your forefathers to give to them and their descendants,

a land flowing with milk and honey. (Deuteronomy 11:9)

Gamaliel rightly assumed that God never reneges on his promises so he argued his case on this basis. God had promised to give the land of Canaan to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and, as a matter of fact, the land was not given until centuries later, therefore it follows logically that God would have to bring the patriarchs back to life in order to fulfill his ancient promise. Jesus’ picks up on Gamaliel’s logic in his attempt to convince the Sadducees of their error. Jesus’ first assumption was that God had made promises that no one, except him, could abrogate. His second assumption was that God never goes back on his word. Not even death can cancel God’s promise so it follows logically that God will have to raise the dead, otherwise they will never experience the fulfillment of the promise; for them, it would be null and void. The obvious conclusion Jesus wanted them to draw from his line of argument was that their must be a resurrection, otherwise death is stronger than God because it nullifies his promise. In this sense, God can only be the God of the living. (12:26-27) Admittedly, the modern reader may find Jesus’ logic less compelling than a first century mind would. His argument was that God spoke in the present tense meaning that he was still the God of these four men but he couldn’t be if they no longer existed. “He is not God of the dead, but of the living; you are quite wrong.” (Mark 12:27) What is the Greatest Commandment? (12:28-34) A scribe was so impressed with the way in which Jesus had answered his critics that he came with his own question. “Which commandment is the greatest of all?” (12:28) Matthew called him a Pharisee and Luke wrote that he was a lawyer. The tone of the encounter is much more positive than the previous three because Jesus recognized a certain degree of sincerity in the scribe’s question for he responded by saying, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” (12:34) This is the only occasion in the Gospels where a questioner received such a positive response from Jesus. Luke’s account says that lawyer was interested in knowing how eternal life could be achieved so the question revealed his theological perspective; he was of the opinion that something he possessed or something he could do was the key to finding the answer to his question. The question was a traditional one that was often asked by Jews in their desire to summarize the Mosaic Law. Within rabbinic Judaism, there was a tendency to either expand the law into hundreds and thousands of detailed rules or to gather it all up with a summary statement of some kind. Moses had received six hundred and thirteen precepts on Mount Sinai that gave shape to Israel’s obedience but several Old Testament writers attempted the kind of summary the lawyer was seeking. These are contained in the following chart. (12:28)

96

Psalm 15:1-5 (11 precepts)

Lord, who may dwell in your sanctuary? Who may live on your holy hill? He whose walk is blameless and who does what is righteous, who speaks the truth from his heart and has no slander on his tongue, who does his neighbour no wrong and casts no slur on his fellow man, who despises a vile man but honours those who fear the Lord, who keeps his oath even when it hurts, who lends his money without usury and does not accept a bribe against the innocent. He who does these things will never be shaken.

Isaiah 33:15-16a (6 precepts)

He who walks righteously and speaks what is right, who rejects gain from extortion and keeps his hand from accepting bribes, who stops his ears against plots of murder and shuts his eyes against contemplating evil- this is the man who will dwell on the heights, whose refuge will be the mountain fortress.

Micah 6:8 (3 precepts)

He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.

Isaiah 56:1 (2 precepts)

This is what the Lord says: Maintain justice and do what is right, for my salvation is close at hand and my righteousness will soon be revealed. Blessed is the man who does this, the man who holds it fast, who keeps the Sabbath without desecrating it, and keeps his hand from doing evil.

Jesus answered the question by putting together two Old Testament texts, one from Deuteronomy 6:4-5 and the other from Leviticus 19:18. The text from Deuteronomy is called the Shema and it is still the sentence with which Jewish worship begins. The Shema is contained in tiny leather boxes (phylacteries) that are worn on the forehead and the wrist of observant Jews even today. This text is also placed in a cylindrical box that is placed on the door on every Jewish home and on the door of every room as a reminder of God. Up to this time in history, no rabbi had combined these two texts as Jesus did. The scribe immediately recognized the strength and truth of Jesus’ answer and he admitted that what he did was more important than ritual sacrifice. The scribe’s understanding was not disputed and his closeness to the kingdom was honoured by Jesus. (12:34) However, it was made clear to him that his careful observance fell short as a qualification for the kingdom of God; he was close to it but not yet in it. Jesus Teaches in the Temple Concerning His Messiahship: (12:35-37a) It was now time for him to ask them a question and in the temple he did just that. “How is it that the teachers of the law say that the Christ is the son of David?” (12:35b) Reading the text now is like listening to one side of a telephone conversation where what the other side is saying must be gleaned by hearing the audible side only. There was a reason why this question was asked but Mark took no time to explain the background because he knew his original readers did not require it. Jesus answered his own question by quoting Psalm 110 and applying it to himself. The argument seems rather strange to the modern reader but it would be readily accepted as a valid methodology by the people who were in the temple that day.

97

The Lord says to my Lord: Sit at my right hand

Until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet. (Psalm 110:1) The Psalm was accepted as a description of the Messiah who David addresses as his Lord, a title greater than son. The conclusion Jesus wanted his listeners to draw was that ‘Son of David’ was an inadequate Messianic title and that he was redefining it in terms other than that of a conquering king reminiscent of their national hero David. (12:35-37) In the first century, all Jews, including Jesus assumed that all the Psalms were written by David and they accepted Psalm 110 as a messianic pronouncement. In the passage David referred to the coming one as his Lord. Israel rightly expected that the messiah would come from David’s line and this notion Jesus did not dispute. Therefore, he was not denying that he was a descendant of David. He was saying, however, that he was also David’s Lord. The implication of his argument was that his critics needed to disentangle themselves from the idea of a conquering hero who would satisfy Israel’s political and nationalistic hopes. The messianic title ‘Son of David’ was completely inadequate as a description of his Messiahship because it did not embrace the fact that his kingdom was one in which all men and women would be brought to God and enabled to live according to his reign. Jesus continued to teach in the temple and the people were glad to listen and on this day his sermon topic was the difference between true and false religion. He began with a devastating criticism of the most honoured religionists in the community – the scribes and the Pharisees. (Matthew includes them in his account. 23:1) “Beware of the scribes, who like to go about in long robes, and to have salutations in the market places and the best seats in the synagogues and the places of honour at the feasts?” (12:38-39) Jesus saved his sharpest and most negative criticism for the end of his sermon. So complete was their descent into pietism from a much more admirable past, they were willing to exploit the very people their scripture taught them to protect. They avoided the obligation to support themselves by living off the generosity of widows. Jesus saw this behaviour for what it was so he accused them of animal like behaviour that ‘devours’ the vulnerable. (12:40) Finally, he warned them unequivocally of the wrath to come. “They will receive the greater condemnation.” (12:40b) A Little is a Lot: (12:41-44) Thirteen containers called ‘The Trumpets’ were placed in the temple. The money put there was used to finance the activities vital to temple life. Jesus sat were he could observe the people offering money in support of what took place. First, he noticed the rich putting in large sums of money into the coffers and he did not deny that what they gave was considerable. Soon, a poor widow caught his

98

attention and provided a living example of what he had been teaching the worshippers. The very sort of person who was regularly exploited by the scribes and Pharisees became a living parable that taught a lesson in humility and true devotion. The coins she presented were of almost no value, being worth no more than a penny. She had only two so any thoughtful person would not have found fault with her had she kept one for herself. The widow, observed Jesus, placed both unobtrusively in the box, not caring if her gift went unnoticed. But Jesus noticed! He called his disciples over and said, “Truly, I say to you, this poor widow has put in more than all of those who are contributing to the treasury. For they all contributed out of their abundance; but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, her whole living.” (12:44) Her reckless generosity expressed an inner joy and devotion so lacking in the religious elite who gave out the abundance they were determined to keep.

Chapter Thirteen – ‘The Little Apocalypse’

The Parousia of the Son of Man: (13:1-4) This section of Mark is sometimes called ‘The Little Apocalypse’ and its subject matter is the final coming of the kingdom of God. It is probably one of the most difficult passages for modern readers to comprehend because it contains images and modes of expression unfamiliar to modern times. Jews in the first century were more able to see the meaning of the passage because of their familiarity with the language and because they had certain expectations to which it spoke. They were less likely to be captured by an inappropriate literalism that has led some to a preoccupation with prediction inspite of verse 32 which says, “But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the son, but only the Father.” (13:32) Given verse 32, it is obvious that the purpose of Christ’s preaching in this chapter is not to produce a check list of events so the disciples will be able to know, with certainty, the chronology and date of the end times. On the contrary, his intention was to prepare the church for the difficult times ahead by assuring them that the various signs are guarantees that God’s reign will be fully inaugurated at sometime in the future unknown even to him. While they sat outside the temple, the disciples asked a question that led to a more detailed discussion in which Jesus taught them about the future. (13:1) The conversation began as the disciples revealed their nationalistic pride in the temple. It had been built by Herod though it was not yet complete and never would be. Construction had begun twenty years earlier on Mount Moriah. The temple was built on top of a platform that provided the super structure. When one considers that it was constructed without the use of modern technology, the pride of the disciples is easily understood. They expected Jesus to confirm their

99

nationalism so they must have been startled at what he said. “Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.” (13:3) (In actual fact the temple was destroyed by fire in 70 C.E.) Jesus first warned the disciples that the outward sign of their religion (the temple) would be destroyed so they must prepare for the time when they would be separated from the parent body of Judaism and its institutions. They asked when the time would be using the word suntelesthai which means to be consummated. Since this expression was associated with the end of human history, they were not simply asking about the destruction of the temple, which did in fact happen in 70 C.E. In actual fact the temple was burned not ‘thrown down’. (13:4) The disciples were wondering about the end of human history. Three Warnings: (13:5-8) Jesus answered their question by giving some signs but they were not signs that enabled them to predict future events with historical accuracy. The first warning concerned the danger that they could be led astray by men with false claims. (13:5-6) Very quickly, this warning came to fruition in the early church as evidence by Paul’s discussion in 2 Thessalonians:1-12.

He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshipped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple,

proclaiming himself to be God. (2 Thessalonians 1:4)

With this first warning, Jesus was preparing his disciples to expect claims that were inviting but false. The church, Jesus warned, would face many challenges to its Gospel as it waits the culmination of God’s kingdom. Believers will be tempted by powerful but false claims embodied in people who are able to perform signs and wonders. Their miraculous powers, however, are not indicators that the message they carry is true. This knowledge was given to the disciples to prevent them from falling into apostasy and unbelief. Secondly, the disciples were told not to expect times of peace inspite of the fact that the kingdom had been inaugurated. War would continue to be a human experience but they were not to regard conflict as a sign that the end was near. Jesus was protecting them from the preoccupation of fruitless speculation that could distract them from the task of announcing the Gospel. (13:7) Whereas the previous warning related to local conflict, Jesus went on to speak of wars of world wide proportion that would bring great suffering to all of creation. Paul wrote of this very thing. (13:8)

We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. (Romans 8:22)

100

Wars and rumors of wars should not be interpreted as a sign that the end is near. The political situation will necessarily worsen but they need not be caught up in its turmoil because of their confidence that the final reign of God would come with certainty. The suffering they will experience is but the beginning so the church must be prepared for it. Their ability to remain faithful required them to understand that the hard and difficult times ahead would be intense and long lasting but they would be sustained by the knowledge that what has a beginning also has an end. “… this is but the beginning of sufferings.” (13:8) Troubles Will Surely Come: (13:9-13) Bitter persecution is the subject matter of these verses. The church, Jesus warned, will not be sequestered in an ivory tower and protected from persecution because its activities will lead inevitably to a variety of difficult experiences brought on by religious and political forces. However, the church’s persecution will result in opportunities to spread the Good News beyond Israel’s borders to the rest of the world. (13:9-10) This was but another example of how the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob uses evil to advance his redemptive purpose in the world of which the cross is the ultimate expression. Jesus promised them that they would never be bereft of what to say when they were being tried so there was no need for them to be anxious beforehand. During the trial they would be empowered by the Holy Spirit to speak effectively in their own defense and the Gospel’s as well. (13:11) Here, Jesus was speaking of a very specific circumstance; he was not suggesting the preacher or the teacher require no preparation to exercise their particular gift. The church will always require its scholars to keep the church faithful to the proclamation of the apostles and to inspire other Christian to pursue the deepest understanding of the Gospel they are capable of achieving. The section about persecution ends as Jesus further described the bitterness of the persecution they would face; even their closest natural ties would be broken. Obedience and confession would become difficult but they must endure to the end. (13:12-13) The Abomination of Desolation: (13:14-20) This section of the chapter is the most difficult for the modern reader to interpret because the meaning of the phrase “the desolating sacrifice” is ambivalent, particularly in Mark’s Gospel. Matthew related it to the prophet Daniel but look Luke, writing after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., applied it to a specific event.

101

Matthew 24:15 Mark 13:14 Luke 21:20 So when you see the desolating sacrilege spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains ….

But when you see the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains ….

But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains ….

Matthew’s reference to Daniel allowed his readers to interpret the term by connecting it with the ninth chapter where the prophet received a vision as he stood praying and confessing the sin of Israel. Gabriel appeared and told him of a time when a decree would bring righteousness to Jerusalem and restore it until the coming of the Anointed One. However, a time of trouble would follow when the city and the sanctuary would be destroyed. Offering and sacrifice would come to an end and be replaced by a pagan alter “that causes desolation”. (Daniel 9:20-27) This vision is repeated in 11:31 and 12:11 of Daniel. Jesus probably expected the disciples to connect his words with Daniel’s vision so that they would understand that something like it would come to be in their time. Forty years later, it did. The modern reader need only survey the various readings given this text by reputable scholars to realize that it is wise not to come to a definitive conclusion about its meaning. However, it is obvious that Jesus was describing the world’s increasing hostility to the church’s existence and recommending the correct response to it. William Barclay interprets the ‘abomination of the desolate’ as a reference to the fall of Jerusalem but he discusses its original meaning in terms of Daniel 9:27, 11:31, and 12:11. He writes that the phrase ought to be understood in connection with Antiocheius who attempted to stamp out the Jewish religion and replace it with Greek thought and Greek ways. Antiocheius Epiphanes (168 B.C.E.) was responsible for using pigs for sacrifice on the temple’s alter and for establishing brothels in the sacred courts in addition to placing a statue of Zeus in the sanctuary and ordering Jews to worship it. He then understands that Jesus was predicting that a similar event, according to Jesus, would happen again. If this was the case, then Jesus was warning his followers of the emergence of an evil power who would be the focal point for an all out assault against the things of God. Barclay believes that this situation culminated with the fall of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. which was described in detail by the historian Josephus. The English New Testament scholar, F.C. Fenton also relates the passage to Daniel’s vision. He believes that Jesus was referring to a new stage of development when Daniel’s vision would be realized as the church’s suffering increased beyond anything experienced previously. Eduard Scheizer’s interpretation has much in common with Barclay and Fenton but he argues that Mark, unlike Matthew and Luke, related the prophecy without referencing it to a particular historical event because he wanted to emphasize the fact that God would ultimately accomplish his objective despite of the horrific events that would inevitably be part of the church’s experience. He concludes:

102

“Thus the sketch is a call to put faith in him and his future despite every appearance to the contrary.” (The Good News According to Mark, page 274) The emphasis of the passage concerns the church’s reaction when these difficult times occur. The images suggest that the church must respond to the crisis with haste because indecision may result in disaster. “Pray that it may not happen in winter.” Escape during winter is difficult because of the condition of the roads, floods, and the unavailability of food. (13:15-18) The emphasis on decisive haste in this passage may have caused the disciples to recall the haste required by the children of Israel as they escaped from Egypt.

With the doe they had brought from Egypt, they baked cakes of unleavened bread. The dough was without yeast because they had been driven out of Egypt

and did not have time to prepare food for themselves. (Exodus 12:39) Finally, God will bring to an end this time of tribulation for the sake of those who live according to his rule. (13:20) The modern Christian may find little relevance in this teaching if it is read only as a literal historic pronouncement; it needs to be understood symbolically as a description of society between his resurrection and his final coming. Jesus offered no reason to believe in the inevitability of human progress by which evil would be confronted and defeated by human institutions. Instead, he saw a future in which false gods are placed where they do not belong by a society that provides cultural norms instead of revealed truth. Secularism, because of its Godlessness, is the ‘desolating sacrilege’ that he predicted. Therefore, the contemporary church is called to bear witness to the absolute truth of the Gospel in a society that believes in Godless relativism as the self evident reality. Some Christian denominations are consumed by what Jesus said about the end times while others speak of it only rarely. Both are wrong! It deserves our attention now without becoming so preoccupied that the present is lost to the future. After all, the followers of Christ are called to live out their faith in the world as it is rather than endlessly speculate about the future using a check list of events gleaned from an overly literal reading of the text. Christians are commissioned to live in the present energized by their anticipation of the time when God will finally destroy evil, recover his creation, and restore the original garden. False Christs and False Prophets: (13:21-23) In this section of his teaching Jesus returned to what he had already said in 13:5-6 perhaps thinking that they would recall Moses teaching concerning the worship of false Gods.

103

If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, ‘Let us follow other gods and let us worship

them’, you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him

with all your heart and with all your soul. (Deuteronomy 13:1-3)

Jesus, like Moses, did not regard wonders as proof of God’s unambiguous presence. To be forewarned is to be forearmed is his point. (13:23) The Coming of the Son of Man: (13:24-27) When reading this passage the modern reader needs to keep in mind the fact that Jesus was using picture language to speak of his second coming. Furthermore the pictures he used were familiar to Jews because they were contained within their own Biblical text and in extra Biblical writing known at the time. Daniel saw in his vision the coming of the son of man.

In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. (Daniel 7:13a)

The other images as well come from various places in the Old Testament so there is no doubt that the disciples would have known the Jesus, who called himself the Son of man, was talking about himself. Upon his return there will be a great ingathering of God’s people which includes both Jews and Gentiles. (13:27) Because his second coming affects nature and the entire universe it will be undeniable and irrefutable for all nations. The Parable of the Fig Tree: (13:28-29) Scholars are not in agreement as to the precise meaning of this short parable like saying where Jesus uses the fig tree as a familiar object lesson whereby its fruit production can be predicted by the development of its branches. (13:28) The verse that follows suggests the application of the teaching; the church can know when his second coming is about to happen by the observation of “these things” (13:29) but the meaning of “these things” is rather ambivalent in the light of the verse 32. “But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” (13:32) Therefore, Jesus could not have intended to give his disciples a ‘sure fire’ method of prediction so much as he wanted them to be in a continual stage of readiness for the day that may or may not be imminent. The Date of His Second Coming: (13:30-32) The early church must have been puzzled when, one by one, their leaders passed on before seeing the Lord’s return because they expected it to happen in their life time. Paul saw the nearness of Christ’s return as a means of encouragement for

104

the church to live faithfully according to the Gospel. For him, the nearness of the Lord’s return promoted action more than contemplation. Modern Christians, therefore, are wise to avoid preoccupation with the actual date of Christ’s return in favour of a deep concern for Christian maturity that is stimulated by ceaseless watching. (13:30) Two questions are raised by this saying. How did the first listeners understand it and what did Jesus actually mean? We know that many in the early church expected the parousia (the second coming of Christ) in their life time so it is highly likely that Jesus’ words were understood accordingly. However, it is unlikely that Jesus meant this. Chapter 24 of Matthew’s Gospel contains a long discussion of this very topic and it begins with a question from the disciples. They asked concerning his return, “Tell us, when will this happen, and what will be the sigh of your coming and of the end of the age?” Jesus’ answer was unequivocal. “No one knows about the day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Matthew 24:36) Given this statement, it cannot be that he was referring to his return. Furthermore, Peter had already died by the time Mark had completed his Gospel died so a literal interpretation was not possible after his death. (13:30-32) Keep Watching: (13:33-37) The obvious theme of this section is diligent watching where no moment is unimportant because the Lord’s return could come at anytime. According to the parable, the servant must do his work as if the Lord could return unexpectedly so he must not be found sleeping or off duty. Instead, when the lord returns after a long absence, the servant must be ready to recognize the master’s voice and open the door gladly knowing that he has done the necessary work while the Lord has been away. The tenor of the parable seems to suggest a long absence but the servant must watch diligently so as not to be lulled into a careless execution of his duties. The Conspiracy to Kill Jesus: (14:1-2) Passover fell on the 14th of ‘Nisan’ and the second feast followed, lasting for seven days. Passover was one of the three most important feasts and the Sabbath law was kept during the festival but the second festival was considered a minor one. During this seven day period, basic work was allowed but only if it was absolutely necessary. Passover, the Feast of Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles were considered compulsory so every adult male Jew within fifteen miles of Jerusalem had to make a pilgrimage to the sacred city. Careful preparations had to be made. The synagogue schools taught the meaning and importance of Passover for one month before its celebration. All roads and bridges were repaired so that people could access the city. In the first century, it was very common to bury people beside the road and if these tombs were touched ritual uncleanness resulted. The

105

ritually unclean were barred from participation. As a precaution, all roadside tombs were white washed so they could be seen and avoided. Profiteering was forbidden; lodging for pilgrims was free during Passover. The historian Josephus provided some vital information that confirms the importance of Passover during the first century. One year, 256 500 lambs were slain and there was a minimum of ten people for each lamb meaning that close to 3 000 000 people were in the city at one time. This vast increase in population was a problem for Rome because it knew that anything could happen because of the intense feelings of nationalism that arose during the festival. Jewish authorities knew that the arrest of Jesus could easily provoke a riot. His arrest and crucifixion would take place in this explosive atmosphere. It was now two days before the Passover and the feast of the Unleavened Bread.” (14:1) The final few days of Jesus’ life, Mark believed, had to be told within the context of Passover and the feast that followed when Jerusalem teemed with people from everywhere and when nationalistic feelings were intense and ready to explode against the ruling authority - Rome. Passover was a time when Rome feared open rebellion. The religious establishment desired to kill Jesus but they realized the need to act with ‘stealth’ because of his popularity with the common people. Rome needed to find a way to pacify the Jewish community while the chief priests and scribes had to find a strategy to kill Jesus without arousing the ire of the people. “Not during the feast, lest there be a tumult of the people.” (14:1-2) The Anointing of Jesus: (14:3-9) Knowledge of first century tradition is important in order to grasp the magnitude of what this anonymous woman did. Eastern tradition customarily anointed important guests with a precious ointment when he arrived at the house or immediately before the meal was served. The custom was to use only a few drops. If the guest was particularly distinguished, the glass was broken so it could not be used again for a lesser person. The woman did not follow tradition because she anointed him during the meal, broke the jar, and poured its entire contents on Jesus. (14:1-3) There was another occasion when anointing took place as well. The bodies of the dead were also anointed, after which the flask used was broken. The fragments were then placed with the body in the tomb. This second eastern tradition makes plain the fact that Mark, writing from the perspective of mid first century, saw this event as a prophetic utterance even if those present did not. So there were some who said to themselves indignantly, “Why was the ointment thus wasted?” Mark used the word enebrimonto which means that they ‘glowered at her’. They did not simply object; they were appalled. (14:4-5)

106

Matthew did not hide the fact that the objection actually came from the disciples and this sad fact indicated that they had far less understanding of Jesus’ situation than she did. (Matthew 26:8) The Lord’s attitude towards her was radically different than his disciples. Like the widows gift in the temple, the anointing was for him, a priceless gift. Whereas the world despised the widow’s gift as too small and the woman’s anointing as wasteful and unnecessary, Jesus said that she would never be forgotten for what she did. (14:6) Jesus attempted to correct the disciples and get them to see the appropriateness of the woman’s devotion by quoting from the Torah. Subtly, the quotation has the effect of anticipating his death. (14:7)

“There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be open handed toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land”.

(Deuteronomy 15:11) Then Jesus associated her anointing of him with the preparation of a body for burial. This does not necessarily mean, however, that she fully understood what was soon to happen or its meaning. Mark reported this event as a symbolic and prophetic action which helped to prepare Jesus for his suffering. (14:8) The Betrayal of Judas: (14:10-11) It is difficult to understand why a person who had been so close to Jesus for so long would take steps to betray him but that is exactly what Judas did. The normal assumption is that he did it for money but verse 11 suggests that a financial reward was not until after the conversation with the religious authorities. He may have been profoundly disappointed that Jesus did not bring about an uprising against Rome as many expected. In any case, after the conversation Judas’ path was set. (14:10-11) Preparation for the Last Supper: (14: 12-16) The date of Jesus’ final meal with his disciples has been the scholars delight as they have tried to establish its true date. Mark, Matthew and Luke wrote that the disciples received their instructions to prepare for the meal on the first day of ‘Unleavened Bread’ when the Passover Lamb was sacrificed. If this was the case, then Jesus would have been crucified on Nisan 15, the day of the Feast of Passover. However, according to John 18:28 and 19:14, the crucifixion took place on Nisan 14 when the Passover Lamb was sacrificed because John regarded Jesus as the Passover Lamb who took away the sins of the world. However, no matter the actual date, all four Gospel writers associate the event of the cross with the Passover season because they knew that his death was the act by which creation was rescued from the captivity of sin and death. (14:12) All pilgrims traveling to Jerusalem would have had to find a place in which to hold their Passover Seder so it was quite natural for the disciples to ask, “Where

107

will you have us go and prepare for you to eat the Passover?” They would need time because preparations for this meal were extensive. (14:12b) The room selected would have to be ceremoniously searched for leavened bread as a reminder that the first Passover in Egypt was eaten with unleavened bread because it had to be baked quickly leaving no time for it to rise. Additionally, Jews thought of leaven (yeast) as a symbol of corruption and uncleanness and for this reason it had to be removed. As soon as the room was selected, the disciples’ responsibility was to search for leaven using candle light. Before the search a prayer was said. (14:12)

Blessed art thou, Jehovah, our God, King of the Universe, who has sanctified us by thy commandments, and commanded us to remove the leaven.

When the search was over another one was said.

All the leaven that is in my possession, that which I have seen, be it null, be it accounted as the dust of the earth.

Then, during the afternoon before the evening of Passover, the lamb was sacrificed in the temple by the worshipper, not the priest. The priests stood in two long lines between the worshippers holding a gold or silver bowl into which the blood of the lamb went when its throat was slit. The bowl was then passed up the line where the last priest threw the blood on the altar. The entrails and fat were extracted and the carcass was given back to the worshipper and the lamb was carried home to be roasted. It could not be boiled. Nothing was allowed to touch the lamb, not even the sides of the pot into which it was placed. A spit, made of pomegranate wood, went right through the lamb. Its head, tail, and legs (unbroken) had to remain attached to the lamb’s body.

The meal required the presence of certain symbols and these would have to acquired as part of the preparations for the meal. The lamb was a reminder of the blood that protected Jewish homes from the angel of death. Unleavened bread helped each person recall the haste with which the escape had to be made. A bowl of salt water symbolized their suffering in Egypt and the taste of salt in the Red Sea as they crossed it. Slavery had been a bitter and painful experience so bitter herbs were eaten as a reminder. Paste made from apples, dates, pomegranates, and nuts represented the bricks they made in Egypt. Sticks of cinnamon were reminiscent of the straw that was also used. The paste was called Charosheth. Three parts wine were mixed with two parts of water and poured gradually into four cups. The wine was drunk in four stages during the meal to remind them of the four promises in Exodus. (14:14) Jesus’ instructions recall what he said about finding the donkey for him to ride. “Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you; follow him, and wherever he enters, say to the householder, ‘The Teacher says, where is the guest

108

room, where I am to eat the Passover with my disciples?’ And he will show you a large upper room furnished and ready; there prepare for us.” (14:13b-15) What the disciples were to look for when they arrived in the city may or may not be an indication of Jesus’ foreknowledge. It is possible that these arrangements were made during a previous visit to the city. The man could have been easy to find since it was usually women who carried water. Furthermore, water was usually carried in a leather pouch so a clay jar would stand out like an umbrella on a dry day. On the other hand, a reading of this text as an indication of Jesus’ foreknowledge cannot be dismissed since it echoes the divine foreknowledge manifest it 1 Samuel 10:1-6 when Samuel anointed Saul and gave him instructions about what he ought to do before becoming king. Jesus told the disciples to simply say that ‘the teacher’ needed the room and the use of this title may indicate that the owner knew the teacher by reputation. The two disciples followed their instructions precisely and everything turned out as it should. (14:16) Jesus Knows His Betrayer: (14:17-21) This scene could not be sadder or more dramatic. Jesus, with Psalm 41 swirling around in his mind, identified with the Psalmist as he predicted and named his betrayer. The entire scene echoes this Psalm because of the common theme of betrayal. The Psalmist complained of people who wanted only to slander him publicly and destroy his reputation. He began with the premise that God, because he favours the weak, will extend mercy towards him and frustrate the plans of his enemies. He admits his guilt and calls upon God for healing. His enemies have spread the news that he has been attacked by a vile disease (a sign that he has sinned against God) and they were so convincing that even the Psalmist’s friends turned against him. He says: (14:18)

Whenever one comes to see me, He speaks falsely, while his heart gathers slander; then he goes out

and spreads it abroad. (Psalm 41:6)

and

Even my closest friend, whom I trusted, He who shared my bread,

Has lifted up his heel against me. (Psalm 41:9)

They began to eat and Jesus, thinking about the Psalm stated the news that one of the twelve would be his betrayer.

109

The disciples were driven to ask, “It is I?” (14:19b) Their question caused Jesus to repeat that one of them would become the betrayer “as it has been written of him.” (14:21a) Even so, the betrayer would be held responsible for what he did. “It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.” (14:21b) A paradox is introduced here that none of the Gospel writers attempt to resolve. Jesus had foreknowledge of the betrayal but the disciple who was predestined to be the betrayer is still held morally responsible. (14:21) The Bread and Cup: (14:22-25) The actual Passover meal (Seder) began after sunset and it had to include at least ten people to ensure that the entire lamb was eaten. The meal took place in four stages, each beginning with a cup of wine. The first cup was accompanied by a blessing. Green herbs and the paste were served with unleavened bread. A second cup was served and the importance of the meal was explained. Then parts of Psalm 113-118 (the Hallel) were recited followed by a prayer of thanksgiving. Then the meal was served, beginning with a loaf of bread. The father of the house said a blessing, broke the bread and distributed it to the rest. The third cup of blessing followed with a table grace. (See 1 Corinthians 10:16) Lastly, the fourth cup followed by the saying of the rest of the Hallel. When Jews of the first century served a meal, a clear distinction was made between the appetizer and the actual meal. Each guest was expected to say their own blessing over the appetizers but the formal meal began when a thanksgiving was offered on everyone’s behalf. At this point, bread was broken and distributed amongst the guests. The blessing which Jesus gave was probably the formal beginning of the meal but this time the blessing was startlingly different as he spoke of the bread they were sharing. “Take; this is my body.” (14:22) We have no way of knowing what the disciples understood as the purpose and meaning of these words but afterwards they must have associated them with eating of the Passover lamb. (Interestingly, no mention is made of an actual lamb at the meal by any of the Gospel writers.) At the conclusion of the meal Jesus took a cup, (It must have been the fourth cup.) shared the wine, and pronounced a benediction by saying, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.” (14:23-24) Notice that the disciples drank first so any notion that Jesus’ words changed the wine is uncalled for but the cup did have a special character in as much as it contained the promise that his church is established solely on the grounds of his death “which was poured out for the many.” (14:24b) This last phrase links his death with Isaiah where he speaks of the work of God’s Messiah.

…. because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered amongst the transgressors.

110

For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. (Isaiah 53:12)

The finished with Jesus making a vow like the Nazirite vow described in Numbers 6:2-4. He renounced wine until the day he would drink it in a new way after the reign of God had begun. Jesus knew that he was on the verge a death that would establish the reign of God. (14:25) The Falling Away: (14:26-31) The Seder ended traditionally with the singing of a hymn and then Jesus took his disciples to the Mount of Olives where he would tell them something they did not want to hear or believe. (14:26) The words spoken to the disciples were an allusion to the Prophet Zechariah. (14:27)

Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, against the man who is close to me!

declares the Lord almighty. Strike the shepherd,

and the sheep will be scattered, and I will turn my hands against the little ones. (Zechariah 13:7)

Jesus spoke of the disciples’ abandonment as a ‘falling away’ by using the common Greek word skandalizein. It refers to the bait used to trap animals. The bait was placed on a stick and when it was touched by the animal the trap closed, trapping it. Mistakenly, Peter responded by declaring his steadfastness over that of the other disciples. Luke added some additional words. “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.” (Matthew 22:33) Perhaps Peter was trapped by an over confidence that led him to exaggerate his inner strength and deny his own human weakness. The consequence was that he was unprepared for the accusations he would face and his naivety would cause him to fall the hardest. (14:29) Peter displayed a self understanding that he was superior to the others so Jesus became more specific in his prediction by telling him that his denial would come before the cock crowed twice. However, the foretelling made not the slightest dent in Peter’s over confidence. (14:30) Once again, the blindness of the disciples represented by Peter underlined the gulf between them and Jesus whose faithfulness was made all the more remarkable in contrast to their defection. Jesus knew that he would face his agony alone but still he promised to remain faithful to the mission to which God had called him. (14:28) Whereas the prophet spoke only of the scattering, Jesus promised that, inspite of the disciples’ falling away, he would remain faithful to them by going to Galilee where he would gather them in again. (14:28)

111

Mark reported this encounter as a way of saying that Jesus was prepared to take unto himself the consequences of human sin even when he knew his most intimate friends would abandon him and in the next scene, he experienced an even greater alienation than the loss of his followers. The Garden of Gethsemane: (14:32-42)

The Story of Gethsemane and of the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth present themselves in the New Testament as the strange, dark conclusion to the story of what God does about evil, of what happens to God’s justice when it takes human flesh, when it gets its feet muddy in the garden and its hands bloody on the cross.

(N.T. Wright, Evil and the Justice of God, page 74)

The garden of Gethsemane has provided Mark with the opportunity to give his readers a profound insight into the nature of Jesus and the work he would accomplish. His suffering, made plain for all to see, manifested his divinity because it revealed his unconditional willingness to follow a path that would do for mankind what it cannot do for itself. The suffering Son of Man gives evidence that God in Christ is for us unconditionally. (14:32) The events that took place in the garden give Jesus a very human face. He is not presented as being serenely above the temptation, agony and loneliness brought on by the anticipation of his death. Instead, the bewilderment and horror expressed in his anguished prayer was made worse because his disciples were unable to provide the support he needed. Mark shows the profundity of his distress; he asked for an escape from his divine mission. (14:35) The setting draws the reader back to the original garden where Adam disobeyed the one command he was given and began mankind’s fall from grace. Jesus, on the other hand, remained faithful in the garden and thereby provided a means for sinners to be made righteous. The apostle Paul put it this way.

For if the many died by the trespasses of the one man, (Adam) how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace and of the one man, Jesus

Christ, overflow to the many. (Romans 5:15) Usually Jews stood to pray with their hands uplifted but in on this occasion Jesus “fell to the ground” as a sign of his almost unbearable anguish. Again the divine paradox is revealed. By definition, all things are possible (dunaton) for omnipotence but it was not possible for him to be the Saviour and avoid the cup of suffering. (14:35) Jesus addressed God in a manner not usual for Jews; he used the colloquial term ‘Abba’ which had a meaning close to the English word ‘Daddy’. As far as is known, no Jew before or since has used this familiar term to address God. Jesus

112

used the term because he had a relationship to his Father that was unique. Out of this relationship, Jesus was able to ask for the removal of the cup but only if it was the Father’s will. (14:36) Luke, the doctor, is the only writer to emphasize Jesus’ agony by including the detail of his extraordinary perspiration that fell from him “like great drops of blood falling to the ground”. (Luke 22:44b) When the disciples were discovered sleeping only Peter was addressed and curiously his natural name, ‘Simon’ was used. Three times the disciples were found sleeping instead of praying because their “flesh is weak”. (14: 38b) Jesus, in his agony, was surrounded by men who made his suffering more prominent by falling asleep because they did not understand. The scene was then interrupted as the betrayer arrived. (14:42) “Rise, let us be going; see, my betrayer is at hand. (14:42) The Arrest and Betrayal: (14:43-52) It was normal in the first century for a disciple to greet his rabbi with a kiss to show respect but in this case it was a reprehensible act. The passage uses two different words for the verb ‘to kiss’. Verse forty four uses the word phileo (14:44) which was used to as a sign of Christian brotherhood that overcame social distinctions and various kinds of prejudice. In the early church slaves and masters would greet each other with the kiss ‘of the Lord’ as an indication of mutual respect. This was the kind of kiss that took place only between people of the same sex. However, verse forty five uses a different word - kataphileo. Although some scholars are reluctant to press the difference of meaning between these two words, (14:45) it is not unreasonable to assume that Mark chose this particular word for a reason. Kataphileo denotes a more fervent and intense kiss than phileo. It is the kiss of genuine devotion rather than one of simple salutation. Perhaps Mark used this word to make Judas’ kiss all the more traitorous and evil. Jesus made no attempt to defend himself nor did he raise the slightest objection when “they laid hands on him and seized him.” (14:46) His unwillingness to resist his captures was in stark contrast to the action of the onlooker who wanted to defend him. (14:47) Of all the people present, only one unnamed person was willing to raise his hand to defend the Son of God. Jesus apparent passivity was not an indication of a flaw in his character whereby he lacked the inner fortitude to defend himself. On the contrary, he understood the event as being in accordance with the will of his Father. Clearly, Jesus looked upon his death as the foreordained plan that would provide a remedy for human sin and guilt. He knew that the journey must be completed if salvation was to come to all nations. (14:49b) Mark’s readers must have wondered how a man could live so close to the master for three years and betray him in such a manner. The fact that the reason for his betrayal is never made known, adds greatly to the mystery. This is not the only

113

incident in scripture where a kiss was the sign of betrayal. The book of 2 Samuel tells the story of a murder that took place during a kiss. As Joab kissed Amasa, he plunged a dagger into him and “his intestines spilled out onto the ground”. (2 Samuel 20:1-10) However, Amasa was an unsuspecting victim; Jesus was not. Just before being taken away Jesus said, “But let the scriptures be fulfilled.” (14:49b) The text he had in mind was from the prophet Isaiah.

He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth;

he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers

so he did not open his mouth. (Isaiah 53:7)

The scene ended and the isolation of the Son of Man was absolute. One remaining follower ran right out of his cloths in fear. (14:52) Various attempts have been made to find the reason for Judas’ betrayal. Some scholars have argued that he felt betrayed because Jesus did not define himself as the one who would rescue Israel from Rome’s grip while others have suggested that he was attempting to force Jesus into performing a miraculous act around which the revolution could be organized. Mark’s idea that Judas was driven solely by greed seems also unlikely given the fact that he gave the money back out of his deep sense of guilt. We are, therefore, left with a mystery in which we can only say “he sought an opportunity to betray him.” Again, the tension between a predestined event and moral culpability is not addressed by Mark perhaps because he regarded it as an abstraction that required no explanation. A similar paradox was mentioned by Peter in his sermon to the men of Israel where he held them responsible for their rejection of Jesus even though their actions were part of God’s eternal purpose. Luke accounted for Judas’ betrayal by saying that Satan entered into him. The reader cannot be sure if Mark was aware of the great paradox raised by the brevity of his explanation. (Luke 22:3) He attempted no explanation of why Judas was held morally responsible for his betrayal even though it was a preordained event. In other words, the interplay between a predestined event and the freedom of the human will to choose was not a question Mark felt obligated to resolve. There is no doubt that Mark saw Judas’ betrayal as inevitable because he recorded Jesus as saying, “The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men. They will kill him, and after three days he will rise.” (9:31) Even so, Judas was still held culpable for what he did, otherwise the remorse he felt over the consequence of his actions makes no sense whatever. Had Matthew or Mark regarded Judas as an actor bound by a divine script which he could not rewrite, then the remorse he felt would be unnecessary and unjustified. On the contrary, the Gospel writers held the view that Judas’

114

betrayal was morally reprehensible even though it was part of a divine plan and they made no effort to solve the apparent paradox. The paradox is not limited to Judas’s betrayal because it exists also in mankind’s rebellion against God. The human race is held accountable even though the inevitability of human sin is predicted and accounted for by Adam’s disobedience in the garden. Jesus Testimony Before the Sanhedrin: (14:53-65) After his arrest Jesus was taken to face the Sanhedrin. This council contained seventy- one members drawn from the Sadducees, (including priests) the Pharisees, the scribes, and the elders. Since the Romans were the true rulers of the nation, the powers of the Sanhedrin were limited to matters of religion and they possessed no power to inflict the death penalty. In practice, the council acted as a kind of grand jury whose function it was to prepare a charge that could be taken to the Roman governor for trial. (14:53) William Barclay, in his commentary on Mark, describes the trial as being illegitimate on several grounds. (William Barclay, The Gospel of Mark, page 349-351) He points out that during the trial the Sanhedrin broke several of its own laws, contained in the Mishnah, as it attempted to justify its predetermined conclusion. Their meetings had to be held in the ‘Hall of Hewn Stone’ which was located within the Temple area, otherwise its decisions were not valid. Meetings could not be held at night or during important festivals and feasts. The testimony of witnesses had to be taken individually and conviction required one hundred percent agreement. Each of the seventy two members was required to give their verdict separately, beginning with the youngest. If the accused was convicted of a crime deserving the death penalty, the sentence could not be carried out until the next day so the court could have an opportunity to reduce the sentence in the interest of mercy. It is clear from Mark’s version of the trial that the court broke its own rules in several ways. Barclay points out the following seven abuses.

1. The court didn’t meet in its own building. 2. It met at night. 3. Verdicts were not given individually. 4. One night was not allowed for a reconsideration of the verdict. 5. The witnesses did not agree. 6. The High Priest took matters into his own hands. 7. He asked a leading question that required Jesus to incriminate himself.

Although the decision to justify the death penalty had already been decided, an attempt to find Jesus in serious breach of the Torah was still necessary as a precondition for a political charge that warranted the death penalty from Rome. At first, no charge of this magnitude could be found even though the witnesses lied profusely; even their lies contradicted each other. The charge eventually brought against Jesus was that he had threatened to destroy the temple in three days and then build it up again without the use of hands. However, the witnesses could not agree even on this charge. The trumped up nature of this accusation

115

required the witnesses to give a ludicrously literal interpretation of Jesus’ words. Common sense should have told them that he was speaking symbolically of the kingdom of God that opposed the complacent security which affirmed the temple and ritual observance as the primary means of reconciliation to God. (14:57-58) The High Priest, seeing the groundless nature of the charge and the flagrant contradiction of the witnesses, illegally took matters into his own hands by asking Jesus to provide evidence against himself; wisely he refused to co-operate and remained silent so a second charge quickly followed. “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” This question was not answered with silence. “I am; and you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” (14:62) Jesus’ answer was a clear reference to Daniel seven where the ultimate intervention of God is prophesied. He was therefore referring to his future parousia (second coming) when his Lordship over all things in heaven and earth will be universally recognized and uncontrovertibly obeyed. (14:59-62) The High Priest must have been aware of Jesus’ personal messianic claim otherwise he would not have asked if he was, indeed, the Messiah. Up to this point, Jesus had shared this fact only with those close to him because he feared that a more public announcement would energize a revolutionary movement against Rome. In the mind of the High Priest, seeing himself as the Messiah was one thing but claiming to be “the Son of the Blessed was quite another.” (14:61b) The latter assertion the High Priest saw as an intolerable blasphemy deserving of the penalty of death. The first two words Jesus spoke in response were startling. “I am” would have been recognized as claim of equality with God because of its obvious association with Exodus 3:13-14 The High Priest then tore his garment in horror of the ‘blasphemy’ he had heard and dismissed the witnesses as completely unnecessary. “What is your decision?” was a question that expected only one answer; Jesus deserved the death penalty so he was spit upon, beaten, and mocked. (14:63-65) Peter’s Denial: (14:66-72) The maid who asked Peter the critical question was a threat to his security because she was the High Priest’s maid. Her statement seems benign on the surface because it did not require him to confess his faith. Peter did not regard it as harmless, however. The ‘anti is upped’ with each accusation and by the third denial Peter’s moral and spiritual defeat was complete and at that point he remembered Jesus’ prediction. “Before the cock crows, you will deny me three times.” (14:72) Ultimately, Mark knew that the hopelessness of the situation could only be over turned by the empty tomb and the outpouring of the Spirit that restored Peter and made him a powerful proclaimer of the Good News. (14:66)

116

Some writers, such as William Barclay, have attempted to minimize the sinfulness of Peter’s denial by pointing out the occasions where he had been courageous. The modern reader ought not to stand in judgment of Peter without seeing in him one’s own weaknesses but if we do not recognize the stench of sin in Peter’s denial then we will be unable to understand the depth of his remorse, the sincerity of his repentance, the seriousness of our own sin, and the sweet fragrance of Christ’s forgiveness. Accepting the awful nature of his fall (and ours) is much more important that finding an explanation for it. Any attempt to explain away the heinousness of Peter’s denial provides us with an excuse for sin and it robs the cross of its glory.

Chapter Fifteen The Trial Before Pilate: (15:2-15) Early the next day the council met to confirm the previous day’s decision. No reason to change their minds was found so Jesus was taken to Pilate. Only Luke provided the substance of their accusations against him. The governor was told that Jesus was guilty of perverting the nation, encouraging civil disobedience, and promoting himself as a king and as such he could become a threat to his authority. Of course, none of these political charges were actually true. (Luke 23:2) (Mark 15:1) The trial took place at a dangerous time. Passover was the occasion when Jewish anti-Rome sentiments ran high so the odor of revolution often hung in the air. Pilate may have taken the last charge seriously for fear of a Jewish revolt. For this reason, he asked, “Are you the King of the Jews?” (15:2) On the other hand, he may have already reached the conclusion that the charges were fabricated and that the real issue was theological and therefore not relevant for him. His question may have originated from the fear that Jesus was a political threat but the more likely reason was that he wished to placate the Sanhedrin as a means of encouraging their continued cooperation. Pilate’s question was no less than an accusation of political insurrection against Rome. In actuality, there was no longer a Jewish king, only a tetrarch, (King Herod- 6:14) whose rule was subject to Roman authority but he was still called king because of tradition. Jesus’ answer seems strange and non committal. “You have said so.” (15:2b) Had he responded with an unequivocal ‘yes’, his answer would have been interpreted as having a dangerous nationalistic intention. On the other hand, he could not deny that he was, by faith, Israel’s king since the purpose of his mission was to inaugurate the kingdom of God. Pilate was unable to understand Jesus’ silence in the face of so many charges. The tone of the passage suggests that he realized the inadequacy of the evidence. It seems that Pilate wanted to give Jesus every opportunity to provide him with a reason to pronounce him innocent. Had Jesus been willing to argue his

117

innocence effectively, Pilate would have been relieved from making a decision he did not want to make. (15:5) Matthew and Mark tell their readers about the Passover tradition whereby one prisoner was given his release and set free. On this occasion, Barrabas was chosen. He is described by Mark as a well known rebel and murderer whose crimes had been committed during an insurrection. It is obvious that the crowd had come hoping to see the release of Barrabas rather than Jesus. Since the trial had been held in secret, it is quite possible that this crowd was not the one that had welcomed Jesus into Jerusalem a few days earlier; they were there to throw their support Barrabas’ way. (15:6) The crowd was prepared to allow Pilate to select the prisoner for release until they were stirred up by the chief priests who, because of their envy, wanted Barrabas selected over Jesus. Pilate took the opportunity to give others the responsibility for implementing the death penalty against Jesus even though he knew that it was not really justified. The crowd asked for a crucifixion and Pilate said, “Why, what evil has he done?” (15:14) Unable to act according to his conviction, Pilate decided to give in to the crowd’s wishes because he wanted to please the priests and he valued the crowd’s approval and popularity more than simple justice. As a representative of Rome, Pilate was certainly not obligated to ask a subject people what he ought to do with a convicted criminal. (15:8-15) It is difficult to understand the crowd’s demand for crucifixion without assuming that the priests had done their best to stir up enough irrational frenzy for a crowd psychology to take over. Normally, Rome executed its own citizens by beheading them whereas foreigners and slaves were crucified. The traditional Jewish form of capital punishment was stoning. After stoning, the body was displayed on a stake until evening. (Deuteronomy 21:22-23) The body was placed in a public place to show that the person had died under the wrath and curse of God. This practice provides the background for Paul’s statement in Galatians where he writes the following: Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us for it is

written: ‘Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree’. (Galatians 3:13) A Brief Discussion Concerning the Historicity of Mark’s Account of Jesus’ Trial Craig Evans has written extensively concerning the historicity of Mark’s account of Jesus’ trial as it relates to the actions of Pilate. He mentions the fact that several scholars have called into question the willingness of the Pilate to release Jesus because he was uncertain of his guilt. Instead, it has been argued by other scholars that Pilate was attracted to violence and unconcerned with justice in general. For this reason, he would never have been tempted to proclaim Jesus innocent nor would he have been willing to release him under any conditions.

118

The more negative attitude towards Pilate is based on the writings of Philo of Alexandria and Josephus. Evans suggests that Philo’s description of Pilate as a cruel person was politically motivated and therefore unreliable. Josephus records two events when Roman authorities did much to offend the Jewish people without much protest from Pilate. When the people protested, Pilate had them beaten and killed. Scholars have used these episodes to present a picture of him as different than that of the Gospel writers but Evans argues that Pilate’s record is not as bloody as some scholars suggest. He presents his reason in his book “Fabricating Jesus”, pages 169-179. According to Evans, Pilate was motivated by politics at Jesus’ trial. He was faced with what he believed was a dangerous situation which would be exacerbated by the execution of a popular preacher during Passover for the simple reason that he had angered an aristocratic priesthood despised by the common people who admired Jesus. Pilate interpreted Jesus’ silence as a de facto admission that he was Israel’s king. This claim was dangerous because it offended the ruling priests whose support Pilate required. He decided on a strategy that shifted the blame from him to the priests and declared, “I am innocent of this man’s blood.” (Matthew 27:24) During the trial, the Gospel writers present Pilate as a man who is desperate to maintain his position by conforming to the wishes of an envious priesthood. Evans believes that Mark’s picture of Pilate is a more reliable than the one presented by Philo and Josephus. Ridiculing Jesus: (15:16-20a) The one charge the soldiers cared about was the prisoner had claimed to be the king. Therefore, he had been a potential threat to Caesar for whom they had blind loyalty. In the soldiers’ minds, Jesus deserved to be dressed in the clothing of a Roman cavalry man and given other items that signified royalty as preparation for their mockery of him. The entire scene shows the humility of Christ in the face of injustice brought by Jewish nationalism and suffering caused by Roman cruelty. (15:16-17) As usual, the prophet Isaiah stands in the background of Mark’s writing.

He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.

Like one from whom men hide their faces He was despised, and we esteemed him not. (Isaiah 53:3)

Some scholars have questioned the historicity of Mark’s account of the soldiers’ mockery of Jesus. They claim that the account is contrived and that it is without precedence in the first century. However, Craig Evans has found an abundance of extra Biblical evidence that Mark’s details are consistent with common practice. The mockery of Jesus has a parallel in the writing of Philo. During the visit of King Agrippa to Alexandria the people seized a lunatic named Carabas and

119

mocked him in the same way as Jesus was. There is another account of a similar mocking that took place in 69 C.E. when the emperor Vitellius was mocked by the Roman soldiers during his removal as monarch. Plutarch, writing in 100 C.E., told of the mocking of a man who had falsely claimed Roman citizenship. On the basis of these ancient documents Evans concludes:

Fair and careful study of Josephus, Philo, and other sources from late antiquity shows that the New Testament Gospels offer accurate and plausible accounts of actions of historical figures like Pontius Pilate. There are no compelling reasons to view the New Testament Gospel narratives as theologically or apologetically

driven fictions that either misrepresent Pilate or vilify the ruling priests. Indeed, the narratives of the New Testament Gospels supplement in important ways our

knowledge of first century Palestine. (Craig A. Evans, Fabricating Jesus, page 178-179)

The beating Jesus received from the soldiers after his trial probably weakened him sufficiently so that he needed help to carry the cross. The soldiers had the authority to solicit help from anyone they chose; they selected Simon of Cyrene. The details Mark included about this man show that his involved in the event placed his name in the history of the church and his memory may have drawn them to Jesus’ teaching about discipleship. (15:21)

If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. (Mark 8:34)

The Crucifixion: (15:22-32) The synoptic writers all chose to tell the story of the crucifixion with a minimum of words in order to avoid superficial sentimentality, sympathy and hatred. They knew that faith in Christ is not aroused by feeling sorry for him nor is it encouraged by hating those who were directly responsible for his death. Furthermore, the Gospel writers understood that the sins of mankind led to the suffering of the cross so they wanted to avoid the notion that Christ’s death was primarily the responsibility of particular men in the first century. Like Paul, Mark realized that the sin revealed in the actions of Jesus’ accusers is shared universally by all of mankind. The routine of the crucifixion was well established by the time of Jesus. The criminal was required to carry only the cross piece because the entire structure was too heavy for one person. A soldier carried a placard in front of the accused with writing that explained the capital offense that had been committed. The route taken to the place of execution was intentionally long so as many as possible could witness the event and be deterred from committing similar crimes. When the journey ended, the cross was laid on the ground so the prisoner could be placed on it. His hands were nailed to the cross piece but his feet were loosely tied to the upright. A ledge was placed between the legs to support the weight of the person otherwise the nails would have ripped through his hands. The cross,

120

which was not very tall, was then lifted into place. Scholars are not in agreement about how long it took for death to occur but it could have taken as long as one week. If this is the case, Jesus’ death came remarkably quickly. Golgotha was known as the place of the skull because it was a smooth rounded hill devoid of vegetation and thus it had the appearance of a bald head or skull. At a later time, a legend arose that Adam’s skull was buried there. (15:22) The drink offered Jesus was intended to as an anesthetic but it was refused so that he could be fully conscious during his suffering. (15:23)

They put gall in my food and gave me vinegar for my thirst. (Psalm 69:21) Mark made no explicit reference to prophecy as he described the soldiers casting lots for Jesus clothing but clearly he had Psalm 22:18 in the back of his mind. (15:24)

They divide my garments among them and casts lots for my clothing. (Psalm 22:18)

Mark did not describe Jesus’ physical suffering as he was placed on the cross because his real suffering was the alienation he experienced, particularly from his Father. (15:25) The placing of the charge on a placard was common practice in the first century and in this case it contained the additional intent to mock Jesus one final time. (15:26) Matthew, Mark, and Luke alluded to their own scripture (Psalm 22 and 69) to show that what took place at Golgotha was in accordance with the will and nature of God from the very beginning and that Jesus’ suffering was undertaken for the purpose of man’s redemption. They believed that by means of the cross and its suffering, God did his greatest work at the point of his greatest weakness. Jesus cross was placed between two robbers and Luke reported the words, “Father’ forgive them; for they know not what they do.” (Luke 23:34) He did not curse as he suffered unlike the Jewish martyrs who, while being tortured, called down God’s vengeance on their killers and warned them of the judgment to come. (2 Maccabees 7) This prayer can be read as referring either to the Roman soldiers, to all those responsible for the crucifixion, or to mankind in general whose sins have placed Jesus on the cross. Luke leaves no doubt that Jesus thought of his death as providing a means by which sinners can be forgiven. (15:28) The derision of the crowd assumes that Jesus’ primary concern was to save his own life and that if he really was able to rebuild the temple he could easily save himself. Jesus knew, by past experience, that such a display of power would not

121

lead to a confession of faith in him as Israel’s king. His descent from the cross was not a physical impossibility but it was a spiritual one because, by coming down, he would cease to be the Passover lamb that absorbs the world’s sin as a ransom for many. (15:29-32) The Death of Jesus: (15:33-41) The New Testament writers present Jesus as God’s answer to the reality of evil. In him, God encounters and defeats the effects of Satan in individuals, institutions, and in the larger context of creation itself. As Jesus was on the verge of his last earthly breath “there was darkness over the whole land” because of the sweeping significance of his death; the entire created order was impacted. (15:33) This is the all encompassing purpose of God Paul spoke of in his letter to the Ephesians.

And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure which he purposed in Christ to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment – to bring all things in heaven and earth

together under one head, even Christ. (Ephesians 1:9-10)

The cry of Jesus was an expression of his suffering; he had to bear the experience of being abandoned by his followers and also his Father whom he had previously called “Abba”. The first two words of his cry indicate his unwillingness to let go of God even though he had forsaken the son for the sake of mankind. Jesus used the words of Psalm 22:1 to express the depth of his suffering and alienation from all that he loved. (15:35) One of the bystanders misunderstood Jesus’ cry; they thought that he had called out for Elijah to help him. (15:35) This misunderstanding was based on a popular myth that Elijah would come to the aid of Godly people under duress. The offering of the drink was a final act of mockery by one identified as a soldier by Luke. (Luke 23: 36-37) This brief incident alludes to Psalm 69:21. An act of mockery gave Jesus enough strength for one final loud cry. Neither Mark nor Matthew recorded what Jesus said but Luke did. “Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit!” (Luke 23:46) The reason Matthew and Mark left out the specific words of Jesus’ cry is impossible to know but their absence underlines the reality that Jesus suffered up to the moment of his last breath. Mark did not want to paint a sentimental picture of Jesus death because he wanted to emphasize the intensity of his suffering. (15:37) The effect of Jesus’ death was understood symbolically by all three writers. “And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from the top to the bottom.” (15:38) The curtain referred to was one which shut off the Holy of Holies. Previously, only the High Priest could go in once a year on the Day of Atonement. The Holy of Holies was the place where the very essence of God dwelt but now, with the death of Jesus, the curtain which hid his face, was dismantled so that ordinary

122

men and women could gain access to God unencumbered by the religious tradition of the past. In particular, it meant that the cross had affected the abolishment of the barrier between Jew and Gentile. This fact, described in the Acts of the Apostles, was gradually embraced by the early church with the passing of time. The apostle Paul saw this reconciliation after his experience on the Damascus road. He came to understand that the Gospel eradicated the ethnic, gender, and religious barriers he had formerly considered significant. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male or female, for you are all one

in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)

and For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its

commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of two, thus making peace, and in his one body to reconcile both of them

to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. (Ephesians 2:14-16)

The meaning of the previous verse is confirmed as a Gentile was the first person to really comprehend what had taken place. He had come to this conclusion as his comrades gambled. He called Jesus the Son of God and by so doing he was saying more than he understood at that moment. (15:39) At this point in Mark’s narrative, the male disciples were no where to be found and it is remarkable that women, who traditionally had a low position in Jewish and even lower in the larger society, were the ones who prepared Jesus’ body for burial. (15:40-41) The Burial of Jesus: (15:42-47) Often the bodies of criminals remained unburied. Their bodies were often taken down and left for the vultures to do their work. This makes Joseph’s actions all the more significant; he must have seen Jesus as more than a common criminal. It was important that the body be removed from the cross before the beginning of the Sabbath which began in the evening. (In the Jewish tradition the day begins at sunset and ends at sunset the following day.) Joseph was likely a respected member of the Sanhedrin so his interest in preparing Jesus’ body for burial suggests that the outright rejection of Jesus as Israel’s king was not universal. It seems that Joseph was motivated by his desire to find the kingdom of God and in him there was a sliver of belief that Jesus might be the one in whom the kingdom is found. He went to Pilate for permission to remove the body because he knew that Jesus’ death needed to be confirmed. Pilate was amazed that Jesus had dies so quickly. Jews buried a person twice. First they were placed in a tomb until the body completely decayed at which point the bones were placed in an ossuary. Mark

123

told the details of how Jesus’ body was prepared for the tomb and he had no doubt that Jesus was dead. (15:42-47) The Empty Tomb: (16:1-8) All four Gospel writers report the bodily resurrection of Jesus. After Pentecost, they came to understand that the empty tomb fulfilled ancient prophecy and confirmed Jesus’ death as an atonement for sin. None disagreed on this point. It is radiantly clear from letters of the apostle Paul and the apostles’ sermons in the Acts of the Apostles that the bodily resurrection of Jesus was the central truth of early Christian preaching. It is difficult to imagine that this would be the case if they were not totally confident in the variety of eye witnesses who reported that the tomb was empty and that they did, indeed, see Jesus after his resurrection. The suggestion that the early church made up the story stretches credulity beyond a reasonable limit. Many of the early Christian preachers were martyred for their preaching and it is impossible to imagine that they were willing to endure such hardship for what they knew to be a fabricated story. The reports of the resurrection contain some minor differences which do not rise to the level of contradiction nor do they call into question the historicity of the church’s proclamation of the empty tomb. Had the early church hired a public relations company to improve the marketability of their written documents, adjustments would have been made to ‘smooth over’ the differences in the resurrection reports. These differences may have been eliminated all together in an effort to gain public support for the church’s message. However, the Gospel writers were far too honest to accept such a practice because they preferred to report the resurrection event as it was reported to them because they were confident that it was true. The fact that these differences exist enhances the credibility of the reports because it eliminates the possibility of conspiracy through collaboration to hide the inevitable differences that occur when any event is reported by more than one observer. Just as differences in the report of a car accident by several witnesses does not mean that an accident never occurred, so it is with the Gospel accounts; they do not cast doubt on Jesus’ resurrection as an observed fact. Any attempt to treat the resurrection of Jesus symbolically or as an invented myth results logically in the total collapse of the New Testament as a coherent message. The resurrection is the confirmation that God has accepted Jesus’ death as a ransom for many and it is the guarantee that Satan’s rule will surely end when God’s kingdom becomes fully inaugurated.

124

The differences in the accounts of Jesus’ resurrection are summarized in the chart that follows.

Matthew 28:1-10

Mary and the other Mary went to the tomb. They met an angel of the Lord and he told them that Jesus had risen. After that Jesus appeared to women who “took hold of his feet and worshipped him”. The risen Jesus repeated the instructions of the angel. Later, he appears to all the apostles and commissions them to make new disciples.

Mark 16:1-8

Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome went to the tomb and found it empty. They met a mysterious person who told them that Jesus was risen. They reported this information to Peter.

Luke 24:1-11

Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women visited the tomb and found it empty. They met two men dressed in dazzling apparel. They told them to report the resurrection to the disciples. They did not find the report credible. Luke adds the report of the appearance of Jesus to the two men on the road to Emmaus. They found the eleven remaining apostles and the apostles told the two men that the Lord had risen and appeared to Peter. Luke also describes Jesus’ farewell to his disciples.

John 20:1-18

Only Mary Magdalene went to the tomb. She found the stone rolled back and the tomb empty. This she reported to Peter and John. They ran to the tomb and found what Mary had described. Later, Mary returned to the tomb thinking the body missing and she met the risen Jesus. He said not to hold him. Mary returned to the disciples and told them that Jesus had risen.

I Corinthians 15:3-8

Christ was buried and was raised on the third day. He appeared to Peter and then to the other apostles. Later, he also appeared to five hundred people and these people were still alive as Paul wrote. Then Jesus appeared to James and all the other apostles and lastly to Paul himself.

Inspite of the interesting differences that can be noted, here are the points on which the New Testament writers agree.

1. Women, especially Mary, were the first to observe the empty tomb. 2. Mary Magdalene was the first to see the empty tomb. 3. Peter was the first apostle to see the risen Jesus. 4. All the disciples saw the risen Jesus and some other people as well.

The resurrection and nothing else transformed, energized, and gave the early church its sense of mission. In addition, it allowed the followers of Jesus to understand who Jesus was in his ministry and teaching. The empty tomb enabled them to see the atoning significance of his death as a means of reconciling the entire world and to proclaim it confidently in the face of extraordinary hardship and persecution. To this I want to add something critically important from the American scholar George Eldon Ladd lest faith is comprehended as merely the rational conclusion concerning certain historical facts.

125

“I believe in the living God because I met him through the living witness of the Holy Spirit. In the end, I accept the biblical witness to the resurrection not because of logical reasoning, but because of an inner quality of the gospel, namely its truthfulness. It so over powers me that I am rendered willing to stake the rest of my life on that message and live in accordance with it. My faith is not a faith in history but faith in God who acts in history. It is faith in God who has revealed himself to me in the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth, and in his resurrection, who continues to speak to me through the prophetic word of the Bible.” (I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus, George Eldon Ladd, page 140)

Completed Saturday August 4, 2007

126

127

128

.

129