020-The Meaning of the Christ

Seeking stability and security through agencies and powers
of this world is demonic.

• Discussion Outline
• Discussion Audio (1 hour 6 minutes)
• Text: Mark 8:31-9:1

Possibly the harshest rebuke that comes out from Jesus’ mouth is directed toward Peter (and implicitly to the rest of the disciples). Just as Jesus has earlier rebuked demons and storms, Jesus rebukes Peter. He calls Peter an agent of Satan. Why is this? Because Peter’s version of the Messiah, the Christ, has no room for rejection by the powers of this world, and humiliation and suffering through them. Peter saw Christ as the means through which he could personally achieve prosperity, stability, and obtain security; and Christ as a means by which the Jewish people and nation could achieve the same.

In other words, Peter had a prosperity gospel of his own, based upon worldly standards, not heavenly ones. He associated righteousness with power and privilege. He believed wealth and social status were synonymous with piety and sanctification. Unfortunately, Peter failed to see the inconsistency between his personal political theology and his personal social situation: if he were a true disciple, why was he poor? This is a very human error even today. Furthermore, Peter was selfish. He focus was on what might accrue to him as a disciple of Jesus when Jesus came into power. Peter possessed an insight about Jesus’ true identity, but he failed to place his own hubris in check.^[1]

In other words, Peter was encouraging Jesus to take another route to messiahship, one that was easier, more comfortable, and possibly less demanding. It is in that spirit that Jesus rebuked Peter, as a public witness to his steady faith in God’s way and will for his life.^[2]

Lest we be too harsh, however, we need to recognize that none of the followers of Jesus could have possibly understood that the Christ would bring about a new kingdom through the means of suffering, humiliation, death, and resurrection. It would be like trying to explain the color blue to someone who is blind from birth. It could only happen after her blindness cured and her brain begin to be wired to recognize sight. It would be like trying to explain music to someone who has never heard harmony and rhythm. It could be learned, but only through experience and repeated hearings of musical elements.

We must understand that in ancient Judaism there was no concept that the Messiah would suffer the sort of horrible fate that Jesus describes in 8:31. Thus Peter's response in 8:32 is in one sense fully understandable.^[3]

Likewise the disciples see and hear; but their blindness and deafness are only partially cured. They recognize now that Jesus is the Christ, but they do not have the language nor the experience to comprehend what that means. For Peter, the language of rejection and suffering meant failure; for Jesus, it meant success.

This formal rejection of Jesus would have meant for Peter and the Twelve that Jesus' mission was a failure. The reason why Peter takes Jesus in hand to rebuke him is Peter's conviction that Jesus is the Christ means that God is with him and that he cannot fail.^[4]

Peter, again representing the disciples as a group, rejects Jesus' reinterpretation of Messiahship. He "rebukes" Jesus as arrogantly as he and his fellows "rebuke" the parents of the children in 10:13… The refusal to accept the necessity of the Messiah's death is the program of Satan, Jesus 'cosmic opponent (1:13; 3:22- 27).^[5]

In Mark’s telling of the gospel, Jesus must be rejected and suffer humiliation, be killed, and then be resurrected before the meaning of the Christ can be fully comprehended by the disciples. And as the ending of the gospel account reveals, even then it was not immediately understood.

---

[1] Feasting: Mark, location 8551.

[2] Feasting: Mark, location 8598.

[3] UBC: Mark, 8:31-9:1.

[4] UBC: Mark, 8:31-9:1.

[5] Reading Mark, 8:31-9:29.

019-Beginning to See

A correct declaration of faith is
not the same as having faith.

• Discussion Outline
• Discussion Audio (1 hour 19 minutes)
• Text: Mark 8:22-30

There is nothing random or haphazard about the placement of the stories and teachings in Mark. The two pericopes discussed here are no exception.

Leading up to these verses we’ve seen Jesus defying the cultural and religious traditions regarding the Messiah, of Jesus breaking down boundaries and traditions, and of the people wondering who Jesus is. We have seen how the individuals and groups in power and exercising authority – represented by Herod and the Pharisees – trying to force Jesus to fit into their schemes.

We have heard Jesus warn his disciples about the “leaven of Herod and of the Pharisees,” and we have heard Jesus call the disciples blind and deaf. It is in this context that the next verses are to be read and interpreted.

(From Discussion Outline, First Thoughts)

Mark 8:27-33 are seen by most scholars and commentators as the very center of the Markan gospel account. These verses provide a climax to the first half of the account and function as a hinge to tie the second half to the first. The text for this session includes a part of this critical, central passage. We leave the remainder for next time.

A bumbled healing

The first pericope is a narrative in which Jesus appears to have some difficulties in fully healing a blind man. It is the only such case in the entire corpus of all the gospel accounts. This story is itself appears to be an illustration of the entire Markan account. At the halfway point, the disciples have a vague understanding of who Jesus is, but they do not see clearly. More healing must take place. However, at least in Mark’s account, the disciples never see clearly.

Jesus is the Messiah that to these disciples looks like a tree walking around. Even more disturbing is the fact that they never achieve clear sight or understanding—not in Mark’s narrative. Commentators like to say that the resurrection was the moment that full sight came for the disciples—but not in Mark… This inability of the disciples in Mark to achieve sight is a source of tension. It is the same tension that Mark’s nonending creates. The rhetorical function of Mark’s ending forces the reader to exclaim in horror, “No! It cannot end that way! The good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, cannot, must not end in fleeing, fear, and silence!^[1]

There are other considerations for this story:

• Relation to two other key healing episodes in 7:31-37 and 10:46-52, both in rhetoric and in theme.
• Relation to Isaiah 35, particularly vv. 5-6 and the overall context of the chapter.
• That perhaps Mark intentionally depicts Jesus as “weak” in contrast to the disciples’, Herod’s, the Pharisees’, and the crowd’s expectations.^[2]

A correct declaration

This next section (vv.27-30) is the first half of the critical centerpiece of the gospel account. This takes place “on the way” to Caesarea Philippi.

The geographic context for this story is significant. Jesus had just been in Bethsaida, the northeast fishing town on the Sea of Galilee that belonged to Philip’s tetrarchy. Caesarea Philippi was further north in this territory and was to be distinguished from the much larger coastal city of Caesarea Maritima. Herod the Great had named this inland Caesarea in honor of Augustus. He also had a temple of white marble built and dedicated to Augustus in the city (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 15.10.3). The imperial overtones underlying the geographic location of the story are clear. Mark has Jesus identified as the Christ, the anointed one, the Messiah, indeed a royal figure, precisely here in a city dedicated to another king, and from Mark’s perspective a lesser, earthly king. The eventual irony of the charges against Jesus, that he was the “King of the Jews” (15:26), is already anticipated in 8:27-30.^[3]

The phrase “on the way” will eventually be revealed as “code” for “the way to Jerusalem and the cross.”

For the first time since 1:1, Mark uses the title, Christ. It is in the most politically charged setting that its second use appears. To declare Jesus as Christ is to disavow all other claims of power as less than Jesus. He makes the disciples declare this openly, yet commands them (as he did with the demons) to keep silent about it. It is all strange and bizarre.

A part of the interpretation of this text surely has to do with its original Roman audience. They too, were facing the question of who Jesus is, and what does it mean to declare him as Lord (against Caesar). This story is provided to give the audience comfort and encouragement that the first disciples had to decide who Jesus was and where Jesus fit in the hierarchy of powers, and that they confessed the dangerous declaration.

On the other hand is the command to keep silent. This will have to wait until next time. This is the reason why Mark’s second half exists. In the second half the disciples (and the audience) learn what “Christ” really means, as opposed to what they expected.

Peter’s “correct confession” is deceptive. It points out an important reality: we can have what appears to be everything in order—words, actions, and so on—and still have it very wrong.

Correct confession can be deceptive. It can mask false discipleship, idolatry, and even a perspective that Jesus attributes to Satan. A perfectly correct mission statement does not reveal the true discipleship of either the pastoral staff or the congregation that appears to follow it to a tee.^[4]

---

[1] Feasting: Mark, locations 8291, 8295.

[2] Feasting: Mark, location 8269. “In this episode of the healing of the blind man, Mark makes Jesus appear weak, in order to say something important about who Jesus is, who the disciples are, and what Jesus is doing to form them into the kind of followers and leaders they need to be… Jesus’ apparent weakness is a vehicle for Mark to convey something that is at the heart of true discipleship.”

[3] Feasting: Mark, location 8425.

[4] Feasting: Mark, location 8489.

018C-Bread and Boat, Again and Again

The greatest temptation for the Church:
Fitting Jesus into a box.

• Discussion Outline
• Discussion Audio (42 minutes)
• Text: Mark 8:1-21

We finally complete study #18 which was supposed to be a single study, but ended up taking three sessions. This session takes up the puzzling statement Jesus makes about “beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod” (8:15 ESV).

It is not too difficult to see that the leaven (or yeast) has something to do with the corrupting influence of the Pharisees and Herod. But why are the disciples being warned about it, and what precisely are the corrupting influences? Finding the solutions to these questions requires taking in (once more) a much broader context – this time far back to at least chapter 3 and looking forward into the next chapters. This reveals something about the warning: Mark probably didn’t intend his audience to figure it out right when the statement was made, but rather to have something in the back of their minds to ponder as they read and hear the rest of the gospel text. For our purposes, because we are modern Westerns and we like answers, so I attempt to provide at least some closure to these questions.

For both Pharisees and Herod, the gospels have shown that their primary question is “Who is Jesus?” and they have some ideas about who he is. For the Pharisees, Jesus is a wonder-worker whose source of power is uncertain (thus the request for a “sign” in 8:11-13). The Pharisees had earlier attributed Jesus’ power to demons (3:22). Herod was certain that Jesus was John the Baptist, returned to torment him (6:16). Between these two were Jesus’ family who though he was mentally unstable (3:21) and the people who adored his words and acts, but really didn’t know much beyond that. In a little while the disciples will be asked the same question, “Who am I?” by Jesus.

The picture that is developing in the Markan account is that every person has an idea about who Jesus is. If Jesus doesn’t fit into their “box” of the description of the Messiah, they find ways to explain Jesus in some other way. Throughout this unit (chapters 6-8) Mark is describing how Jesus defies categorizations, boundaries, and expectations.

So why the warning? I think Mark includes it as something vital for the Church to understand. The Church, and the Christians who compose it, desperately want Jesus to fit into our expectations, boundaries, and categories. We form creeds, doctrines, and statements of faith to make concrete the mysteries of Christ and God. Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but then we use those to define the boundaries of what is orthodox vs. what is not; and we use that to determine who is inside and who is outside (the boundaries of grace, even). We form committees, congregations, councils, and denominations to enforce the boundaries. We play into the human games of power and tradition.

Hence Mark’s inclusion of Jesus’ warning against the leaven of the Pharisees and of Herod. Jesus broke boundaries, he diminished the importance of traditions, he spoke against establishments of power, he went where no one expected him to go, he offered healing and salvation to those least likely seen as “deserving.” The Church is supposed to continue in Jesus’ footsteps. But instead, for much of history, the Church has been in pursuit of power and of establishing traditions to conserve what it has attained

018B–Bread and Boat, Again and Again

Miracles are ambiguous.

• Discussion Outline
• Discussion Audio (1 hour 4 minutes)
• Text: Mark 8:1-21

We continue our discussion in Mark chapter 8. This session we get through another quarter or so of the originally planned material. Specifically we discuss vv. 11-13. The remainder will be picked up next time.

This is a short passage that seems to be almost randomly placed, interrupting the main flow of the narrative in chapter 8; which consists of the feeding of the four-thousand followed by multiple boat trips across Lake Gennesaret (Sea of Galilee), and miracles on either side of the boat journeys. But we’ve been seeing that Mark’s crafting and placement of text is quite intentional. The two sections on either side of vv.11-13 deal with the nature of bread and feeding. Thus 8:1-21 might be yet another example of Mark’s “sandwich rhetoric” where vv.11-13 is the filling. If so, there is something here that is quite vital to the understanding of the entirety of the “sandwich.”

The key to interpretation and understanding is found in verse 11:

The Pharisees came and began to argue with him, seeking from him a sign from heaven to test him. (ESV)

The New International Commentary: Mark explains the phrase “sign from heaven”:

The concept of a sign is intelligible from the OT and later Jewish literature. It signifies a token which guarantees the truthfulness of an utterance or the legitimacy of an action…

The recognition that a sign is primarily an evidence of trustworthiness, not of power, sheds light on this verse. It indicates that the demand for a sign is not a request for a miracle. Jesus' miracles are never designated as signs in Mark's Gospel, nor were they considered to be signs by the Pharisees. They regard Jesus' miracles as ambiguous actions whose meaning must be confirmed by a sign. They had witnessed his mighty works but had concluded they were of demonic agency (Ch. 3:22–30). That is why the Pharisees demand a sign in spite of Jesus' deeds. The request for a sign is a demand that he demonstrate the legitimacy of his actions.^[1]

One of the key allusions of a “sign from heaven” is likely to Elijah on Mt. Carmel calling down fire from heaven to vindicate YHWH over the powers of Baal and his prophets. Jesus could perform all the miracles he wanted, but in Jewish tradition even infinite miracles were insufficient to “prove” the agency of the power and motivation behind the miracles. Miraculous works and workers were a dime a dozen in those days (or at least the reports of miracles…). Healing the sick and multiplying food didn’t prove anything significant, or so they believed.

The opponents of Jesus wanted him to prove that his power came from God by something only God could do, at least according to their traditions. And this Jesus would not do. He refused. Why did he refuse? The answer is not as obvious as we may have been commonly led to believe. It hinges on the word “test” which is the same word used in the account of the wilderness temptation. It means “to tempt.”

The problem with the wilderness temptation was not entirely that if Jesus had succumbed, he would have sinned. A key element of the temptation account (the details which are in Matthew and Luke) is that by succumbing to the temptations, Jesus would have allowed himself to fit into the people’s expectations of the Messiah; he would have allowed himself to be defined by religious and cultural traditions and expectations. This he could not do, because God and his purposes cannot be defined by humans.

When the Pharisees come to “test” Jesus, the same dynamic is at work. They are there to approve or disapprove of Jesus’ claims and works. If he gives a sign, he falls into the very temptation that Satan had tempted Jesus with initially.

In Reading Mark its author writes,

If Jesus were to accede to their demand, he would be implicitly acknowledging their right as the religious establishment to define and categorize him according to their standards of legitimation (Waetjen 1989, 140). This, of course, he will not do.^[2]

The New International Commentary states a similar interpretation,

Jesus' refusal of a sign has important historical and theological significance. Historically, the demand for a sign expressed the desire to judge Jesus according to norms defined by scribal interpretation… He had already pronounced the scribal norms decayed and sterile (Ch. 7:1–23) and he now rejects their pretentiousness categorically. Theologically, the demand for unmistakable proof that God is at work in Jesus' ministry is an expression of unbelief. It represents the attempt to understand the person of Jesus within categories which were wholly inadequate to contain his reality.^[3]

The question for us is, how are we Christians like Pharisees today? In what ways are we demanding that Jesus and God fit into boxes of our making? Boxes of our doctrine and traditions? In what ways have God’s failure to meet our expectations and desires of him led us to doubt and unbelief? And perhaps more pointedly in the context of Mark chapter 8, how is God’s seeming over-inclusiveness been a source of stumbling to us? In what ways have we tried to demand that other people seeking Jesus first fit into particular boxes?

---

[1] NICNT: Mark, 8:11.

[2] Reading Mark, 8:10-26.

[3] NICNT: Mark, 8:12.

018A-Bread and Boat, Again and Again

Jesus came to meet people where they are.

• Discussion Outline
• Discussion Audio (1 hour 20 minutes)
• Text: Mark 8:1-21

First off, we only managed to get through the first third (feeding of the 4,000) of the study during this session. We will finish off the remainder next time.

When the story of the feeding of the 4,000 is read in its literary context, it reveals much more than simply another miraculous feeding by Jesus. There are some key differences and similarities between this feeding and the earlier one in chapter 6. These point to what Mark intended for his readers to understand.

The key message is that the gospel is not just for the Jews, but for the entire world. This story illustrates the “riddle” that the Syrophoenician woman brilliantly answered in 7:24-30. This feeding illustrates both Jews and Gentiles eating together (literally) in the kingdom of God, that all are fed simultaneously, and that all are fed until satisfied.

So the Syrophoenician woman turns out to be right after all. The Gentile "dogs" eat from the provisions of Abraham's descendants, and the disciples are not deprived in the least. They collect enough leftovers to fill seven baskets, each large enough to hold a man (spuris, 8:8b; Acts 9:25). At the eschatological banquet that this meal prefigures, everyone has a place at the table, everyone eats at the same time, and everyone has enough (echortasthesan, 8:8a).^[1]

In view of the mixed population of the area, however, it is probable that both Jews and Gentiles sat down together in meal fellowship on this occasion, and this prefigured Jesus' intention for the Church. This seems to be a more realistic approach to the historical situation than the desire to find an exclusively Gentile audience in Ch. 8:1–9.^[2]

This story and the differences with the earlier feeding story also provide us with some principles of mission. In the earlier story Jesus (and Mark) allude to a number of Old Testament passages and metaphors (such as the Good Shepherd, Psalm 23). Jesus is also shown as primarily teaching. But in the current story, Jesus’ concern is with primarily with the physical needs of the people, and there are no allusions to the Jewish scriptures. In addition Jesus gives thanks for both the bread and fish, a detail not found in the earlier story where it could be assumed that the Jews already understood that giving thanks for the bread was indicative of God’s supplying of all needs, but where the gentile audience would not have necessarily known.

We see that Jesus tailors his methods and message to the people; something that Paul will later be shown to do. Mission work begins with the missionary integrating herself or himself into the society and culture of those to whom her/his compassion has led. It begins with listening and understanding. When actions are taken and words are spoken, it begins with the immediate needs and understandings of the people. This is something that American Christians need to take to heart, especially as we attempt to communicate the gospel to those around us. We cannot assume prior biblical knowledge or spiritual foundations of those that we encounter. Our first step should not be to try to correct errors or misunderstandings, but to listen and understand, to build up and affirm, to discover what it is that they find valuable and life-giving already, and then build from there.

---

^[1] Reading Mark, 7:24-8:9.

^[2] NICNT: Mark, 8:8-10.