Mark - The First Gospel

Thursday, March 26, 2015

019-Beginning to See

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

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.

Monday, March 16, 2015

018C-Bread and Boat, Again and Again

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

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

Monday, March 9, 2015

018B–Bread and Boat, Again and Again

Miracles are ambiguous.

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.

Monday, February 23, 2015

018A-Bread and Boat, Again and Again

Jesus came to meet people where they are.

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.

Tuesday, February 17, 2015

Reblog: The Gospel of Mark as a Manifesto of Political and Religious Defiance

Christian Piatt writes in his blog at Patheos Progressive Christian Channel:

“All human laws bow at the feet of the authority of God, which is not a rule of law, but rather a subversive, paradigm-shifting ‘from the bottom, up’ rule of love and compassion for others, first and foremost. Period.”

Read the entire post at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/christianpiatt/2015/02/the-gospel-of-mark-as-a-manifesto-of-political-and-religious-defiance/

Friday, February 6, 2015

017-Did Jesus Really Say That?

The kingdom of God is not about maintaining purity and exclusivity but about finding as many as possible to bring into it.

In the two miracle stories found in the last half of Mark chapter 7, we are given a peek into Jesus redefining the kingdom of God to include everyone, Jews and Gentiles, male and female, privileged as well as the outcast.

The unit 7:1–37 radically expands the inclusiveness of the kingdom of God. It includes a redefinition of cleanliness, a major value in the Jewish and Greco-Roman worlds, breaks out of the boundary of Galilee into Gentile lands, and crosses boundaries between male and female, even showing Jesus’ honor being challenged by a witty Syrophoenician woman. If we miss all this boundary breaking and the inclusiveness of the kingdom, we miss the gospel’s essence.^[1]

We encounter two puzzling statements from Jesus:

The first story includes a saying that can be interpreted as a racial slur (calling the Gentiles a “dog”).
The second story continues Jesus commanding people to remain silent, but in the context that he has just enabled a mute man to speak, it seems particularly puzzling.

The study outline and the accompanying group discussion explores what Mark might have intended his audience to hear and understand. This outline includes extensive footnotes with commentary excerpts to help us see the different ways in which these stories could be read and interpreted.

So while both of these stories anticipate and justify a Gentile mission, they both indicate the great boundary that had to be crossed to start that mission. Often forgetting that Jesus crossed that boundary for our sake, we Gentile Christians institute new boundaries between us and them. Mark intends the kingdom as radically inclusive; we often reconstitute it as exclusive… The story of the Syrophoenician makes explicit one more boundary that had to be crossed: she was a woman… Even more, Jesus, as a Jewish male of honor, must give up some of that honor to meet the woman’s request. The first must become the last and slave of all (9:35).^[2]

[1] Feasting: Mark, location 7651.

[2] Feasting: Mark, location 7444.

Thursday, January 22, 2015

016-Bad Traditions

Jesus speaks out against laws and traditions that divide people.
He reinterprets and creates new laws and traditions that promote
positive social connections.

It’s been a while since we last studied Mark – since before the Advent season. And then there were people out and illnesses and such so that we didn’t return to it. We are finally back, though it looks like we will skip this next week again due to some people going out of town.

This next bit is from the study outline and provides the introduction for the current passage:

Mark chapter 7 is at the center of the unit that goes from chapter 6 to 8. Chapter 6 opened with Jesus’ rejection in Nazareth and his sending out of the apostles. This story was interrupted by the account of John the Baptist’s execution which asked the question, Who is Jesus? Upon their return the feeding of the five-thousand (in Jewish territory) occurs. Chapter 8 closes the unit with the feeding of the four-thousand (in Gentile territory) and Jesus asking his disciples, Who am I?
Chapter 7 in the center discusses traditions surrounding Jewish ritual purity and a story about Gentile woman. This entire unit serves to reveal what purity (or holiness) means and who is included in God’s kingdom.
We must be careful when reading today’s passage. It has sometimes been used to justify anti-Semitism, or at the very least denigrate Judaism. It has been used by “low-church” Christians to unfairly attack Christians who value and practice much more ritualized forms of Christianity. It has been used by one Christian group to criticize other groups who don’t belong for beliefs and practices that the first don’t believe or practice.
Here are some questions then that we ought to keep in mind as we study this text:

Are all “traditions” bad? And what does Jesus/Mark mean by the term?
What is Jesus/Mark attempting to communicate about purity and holiness?
What did Jesus/Mark mean when he writes, “Thus he declared all foods clean” (v.19b)?

Some of the key points from the discussion are:

Religious/theological context: The Jews (Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Jesus, and more) were all invested in the proper interpretation of the Law/Torah and with purity/holiness. The point of contention between them all were the specifics of what it meant. This was an internal debate within Judaism. It was not a Christians vs. Jews debate about legalism/tradition vs. grace/salvation. Many Jews believed that a proper observance of the Law was a necessary prerequisite to the arrival of the Messiah. For a self-proclaimed rabbi (Jesus) to speak out against popular beliefs and observances about Law and tradition was unthinkable – it would have been seen as deliberately placing an obstacle to the Messiah’s arrival.
The problem with the Pharisaic/scribal tradition was that they placed observance of the Law and traditions above promoting good social relationships. According to the scribal traditions, the plain-reading of the Law could be violated if a person could show that God could be reverenced, worshiped and honored more through ignoring the Law. What Jesus appears to be implying by his rebuttals is that one cannot honor God if human relationships suffer as a result of such “honoring.” Paul seems to follow this line of thought in Romans 13:8-10 when he writes that all the Law (including worship and honor of God) is fulfilled by promoting good human relationships (love).
The Law of Moses encourages separation to attain purity/holiness. Jesus says that genuine purity and holiness comes from associating with the unclean and defiled; to encounter and touch them in order to transmit healing and holiness to the suffering and downtrodden. Relationships must never become slaves to rigid applications of laws and traditions. It is in this light that Jesus (Mark’s interpretation) dismisses Jewish food laws regarding the clean and unclean. As long as this law remains, the future of the Jesus movement will never go beyond Jews. As long as table-fellowship is segregated, the full picture of God’s inclusiveness will remain hidden. God’s holiness compelled him to become human, to take on defilement, in order that the defiled might become holy.

Though baptism has long been associated with cleansing and forgiveness of sin, it has for just as long been associated with the deeply unclean death of Jesus. When we are baptized, we are joined to Jesus’ death as well as his resurrection (Rom. 6:3–5). Thus, baptism does not remove us from the stains of the world, but joins us to blood, dirt, and anguish, and to all those whom the world regards as unclean.^[1]

[1] Feasting: Mark, location 7140.

Pages