Although the Gospel of Mark frequently refers to Jesus teaching the people, the Gospel contains only two extended passages presenting the content of that teaching--chapter 4 (parables) and chapter 13 (the coming destruction and end of history). Both of these chapters are very puzzling to modern readers, but they are probably the keys to unlocking Mark's central purposes for writing this Gospel.
Chapter 4 begins with Jesus sitting in a boat teaching the crowds who are assembled on the shore. He may be in a boat so that the crowd does not overwhelm him, or perhaps because the water will magnify his voice. (Greek ampitheaters often had a pool of water in front of the stage for this purpose.)
Mark says Jesus taught many things in parables. When he uses the word "parables" he means any kind of speech that uses metaphorical or figurative language. For instance, re-read 3:23-27. Mark calls this figurative language about a divided house, and about a strong man, "parables." But when we use the word "parables," we are refering more specifically to a brief fictional story. Jesus' teaching, according to Mark, consists of both of these ways of speaking--figuratively and in stories.
The teaching begins with a story-parable--the most famous and, at least for Mark, the most important of all of Jesus' parables. Not only is this parable found in Matthew and Luke, but also in a second century document called "The Gospel of Thomas."
When we read this parable we can't help but automatically interpret it the way Mark does (or Jesus does) in verses 14-20. In this interpretation, the parable is an allegory--the various elements in the parable are symbolic of other things. The seed is the word of God (or hearers of the word), the birds are Satan, the rocky ground is persecution, the thorns are the cares of the world, etc. Read this way, the parable is a warning to future missionaries and potential believers that the Christian message can be subverted by many forces, and that many hearers will not believe, or will stay committed for only a short time. However, when the Christian message takes root in a truly committed person, the results will be unimaginably fruitful. Such an interpretation was very useful to the early church--serving as both a warning and an encouragement. Mark's church probably faced anguished persecution, and many defections, and the real possibility of becoming extinguished.
Interestingly, the disciples are depicted as not understanding this parable (or his other parables). Jesus tells them that he is going to let them in on the "secret of the kingdom of God" and explain the hidden meaning of the parables, but the outsiders are just going to get puzzles. He quotes Isaiah to explain why the crowd gets only puzzling parables--so that they will not understand, repent, and be forgiven!
Obviously, this is very troubling for us. First of all, it makes no sense. Jesus' message from the very beginning is for people to repent and get ready for belonging to the coming kingdom of God (1:15). Surely he wants people to repent! Second, is this really the function of parables and figurative speech--to make things not understandable?! Why then would Jesus command, "Let anyone with ears to hear listen!"?
Matthew and Luke were also uncomfortable with how Mark quotes Jesus, so they make slight changes in the wording. As many scholars have suggested, maybe Mark (or Jesus) didn't literally mean that the parables were meant to keep people from understanding and repenting, but rather that the (unexplained) parables force the hearers to get actively involved. Many don't--so it's their own fault that they don't understand and repent.
But there's perhaps a better explanation. Mark is writing from the standpoint of his own church around the year A.D. 70. For him, Jesus is already risen, and it is now realized that Jesus was the Messiah, but a very unexpected Messiah--a crucified, self-giving, servant Messiah. This is the "secret" of the kingdom of God. During Jesus' ministry it was virtually impossible for anyone to truly understand this. (The disciples will fail to understand repeatedly in Mark.) Only after the resurrection will the secret of the kingdom be revealed. So for Mark, the parables are a way for Jesus to talk about the kingdom, but it is not truly understandable yet.
In addition, Mark knows that most of Jesus' hearers did indeed reject him; and even after the resurrection, most Jews and gentiles continued to not accept the Christian message of Jesus' messiahship. This must have been very embarrassing to the early church. So perhaps Mark relieves that embarrassment by saying that this rejection was all planned and fore-ordained by God; the parables tell the truth, giving people no excuse for not repenting--but they also obscure, because that was God's plan.
For us that makes no logical or moral sense, but several biblical writers are able to hold together both of these ideas--that God makes our hearts hard, AND that we are responsible for not responding to the message (think of the story in Exodus about God hardening pharaoh's heart, but still making him responsible for not letting the Israelites go). Also, this is how Isaiah himself probably understood the rejection of his own message. He tried to get his people to repent; they didn't; so he concluded that God had sent him to preach to them, but that God had also closed their ears so that the message would condemn them.
Although this may be Mark's understanding of why Jesus spoke in parables, it is highly unlikely that this was Jesus' own purpose. His parables were not meant to be confusing and keep people from repenting; rather, his parables were meant to be an imaginative way for people to experience the coming of the kingdom of God.
Most scholars believe that the interpretation of this first parable, given in verses 14-20, comes from the early church, not Jesus. There are several reasons: the allegory is not consistent (is the seed supposed to be the word, or the hearers?), the parable can be easily translated back into Aramaic (Jesus' own language), but the interpretation cannot, and the interpretation clearly applies to the early church--not Jesus' listeners. Most scholars conclude that Jesus probably did not interpret his parables--that would be like explaining a joke; and that his parables were not allegories--instead they were stories in which the story as a whole (not the parts) has meaning.
If we read this first parable without the later interpretation, and if we read it without any allegorizing, a somewhat different meaning emerges. It's a story about a farmer who broadcasts his seed in various directions. Most of the time the seed fails to produce a crop. But when it lands in just the right conditions, it is capable of producing far in excess of all the lost seed. If this is an illustration of the kingdom of God, perhaps Jesus is suggesting that even the kingdom of God fails most of the time--not taking root; but when it does, it will grow and multiply in ways we can hardly imagine. Perhaps Jesus was wanting to give hope to the peasants that, as bad and hopeless as life is, God's kingdom will indeed come and transform everything.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Monday, March 22, 2010
Mark 3:7-35
Following a summary statement about the popularity and success of Jesus' ministry (so popular that Jesus has a boat ready just in case he needs to make a quick escape!), Mark presents a section contrasting real disciples from Jesus' critics and even his family.
Jesus picks out, from among his many followers, an inner circle of twelve who will be with him all the time and become his primary missionaries. The list of twelve disciples given by Mark does not precisely agree with the lists recorded in Matthew, Luke, or John. It may be that "the twelve" was not always exactly the same group of people--that a few came in and out. What was important was the number twelve itself (so important that in the Acts of the Apostles, the disciples replace Judas Iscariot so the number will still equal twelve). Why is the number twelve so important? Probably, these twelve disciples are meant to represent the twelve tribes of Israel. In Jesus' day, most of the tribes of Israel had disappeared; but Jesus seems to be symbolically reconstituting the tribes. In other words, his little band of disciples are meant to represent a restored Israel--another sign that the kingdom of God is dawning.
A continuous group of disciples is also important in order to model a new community. The twelve, along with Jesus, show the rest of the world a new way of being a community, based on absolute trust in God. The kingdom of God is not an individual experience--each person having their own private relationship with God and Jesus; rather, the kingdom of God is a social experience and a social reality.
Jesus gives Simon the nickname "Rock" ("Peter" in Greek/English), probably because Peter was seen as the most reliable and the natural leader. The nickname stuck, and Simon was always known after this as Peter. The brothers James and John are given the nickname "Sons of Thunder," perhaps because they were loud and quick-tempered, or because Jesus also viewed them as natural, powerful leaders for his kingdom movement. "Simon the Cananaean" was probably a zealot--a person in favor of rebellion against the Roman Empire (that's what "Cananaen" probably means). If Jesus' disciples included a tax collector (Levi in 2:14) and a zealot, then somehow Jesus was holding together the opposite ends of the political spectrum. A zealot would have wanted to kill a collaborating tax collector! But Jesus' vision of the dawning kingdom of God managed to cut across the strongest social and politcal barriers.
Last on the list is Judas Iscariot. "Iscariot" has three possible meanings: it could mean "dagger-man" (which means Judas was an assassin who worked with the zealots), or it could mean "man of Kerioth," a village in Judah (making Judas perhaps the only "southerner" among the twelve, coming from outside Galilee), or it could mean "man of the city" (a reference to Jerusalem, which may explain why he was more prone to betray Jesus to the Jerusalem authorities).
In the next story, Jesus' family thinks he has become mentally unhinged because of the reports they hear about his ministry. (It wasn't "people" who were saying he was out of his mind, but his own family--that's how the original Greek manuscripts should be translated most naturally.) The scribes (the educated elite) have another explanation for Jesus' outrageous behavior and healings--not that he's crazy, but that he's demon-possessed by Satan himself! But Jesus rejects their claim by pointing out that Satan cannot be working against Satan; in other words, if people are genuinely being healed and good is resulting, then it cannot be coming from evil. (We would do well to remember this logic whenever we criticize people or groups that are accomplishing some genuine good.)
In the previous conflict stories, Jesus was accused of uttering blasphemy; but now he tells his critics what real blasphemy is: claiming that good (the work of God's Spirit) is evil. If we think that the good done by God's Spirit is evil, then we have no moral compass at all. But modern Christians get too worried about what is "the unforgiveable sin." Jesus' overall point is for us to live in grace not fear--indeed, he tells his audience that all their sins and stupid and irreligious statements will be forgiven!
Jesus' mother and brothers now show up, outside the crowded house, wanting to drag their crazy family member home. But Jesus' won't come out. He says that those who follow him and do God's will are his real family. For his mother and brothers, this must have sounded like a very harsh statement. Family relationships were the most sacred relationships in Jesus' culture. Respect for family was an absolute value. But Jesus' radical claim is that, in the end, even one's biological family has to take second place to doing God's will. And doing God's will creates a new family of mutual love and support and meaning.
We know from other New Testament documents that at least some of Jesus' family eventually became his followers. His brother James became the main leader of the Jerusalem church. His mother also joined the movement.
Jesus picks out, from among his many followers, an inner circle of twelve who will be with him all the time and become his primary missionaries. The list of twelve disciples given by Mark does not precisely agree with the lists recorded in Matthew, Luke, or John. It may be that "the twelve" was not always exactly the same group of people--that a few came in and out. What was important was the number twelve itself (so important that in the Acts of the Apostles, the disciples replace Judas Iscariot so the number will still equal twelve). Why is the number twelve so important? Probably, these twelve disciples are meant to represent the twelve tribes of Israel. In Jesus' day, most of the tribes of Israel had disappeared; but Jesus seems to be symbolically reconstituting the tribes. In other words, his little band of disciples are meant to represent a restored Israel--another sign that the kingdom of God is dawning.
A continuous group of disciples is also important in order to model a new community. The twelve, along with Jesus, show the rest of the world a new way of being a community, based on absolute trust in God. The kingdom of God is not an individual experience--each person having their own private relationship with God and Jesus; rather, the kingdom of God is a social experience and a social reality.
Jesus gives Simon the nickname "Rock" ("Peter" in Greek/English), probably because Peter was seen as the most reliable and the natural leader. The nickname stuck, and Simon was always known after this as Peter. The brothers James and John are given the nickname "Sons of Thunder," perhaps because they were loud and quick-tempered, or because Jesus also viewed them as natural, powerful leaders for his kingdom movement. "Simon the Cananaean" was probably a zealot--a person in favor of rebellion against the Roman Empire (that's what "Cananaen" probably means). If Jesus' disciples included a tax collector (Levi in 2:14) and a zealot, then somehow Jesus was holding together the opposite ends of the political spectrum. A zealot would have wanted to kill a collaborating tax collector! But Jesus' vision of the dawning kingdom of God managed to cut across the strongest social and politcal barriers.
Last on the list is Judas Iscariot. "Iscariot" has three possible meanings: it could mean "dagger-man" (which means Judas was an assassin who worked with the zealots), or it could mean "man of Kerioth," a village in Judah (making Judas perhaps the only "southerner" among the twelve, coming from outside Galilee), or it could mean "man of the city" (a reference to Jerusalem, which may explain why he was more prone to betray Jesus to the Jerusalem authorities).
In the next story, Jesus' family thinks he has become mentally unhinged because of the reports they hear about his ministry. (It wasn't "people" who were saying he was out of his mind, but his own family--that's how the original Greek manuscripts should be translated most naturally.) The scribes (the educated elite) have another explanation for Jesus' outrageous behavior and healings--not that he's crazy, but that he's demon-possessed by Satan himself! But Jesus rejects their claim by pointing out that Satan cannot be working against Satan; in other words, if people are genuinely being healed and good is resulting, then it cannot be coming from evil. (We would do well to remember this logic whenever we criticize people or groups that are accomplishing some genuine good.)
In the previous conflict stories, Jesus was accused of uttering blasphemy; but now he tells his critics what real blasphemy is: claiming that good (the work of God's Spirit) is evil. If we think that the good done by God's Spirit is evil, then we have no moral compass at all. But modern Christians get too worried about what is "the unforgiveable sin." Jesus' overall point is for us to live in grace not fear--indeed, he tells his audience that all their sins and stupid and irreligious statements will be forgiven!
Jesus' mother and brothers now show up, outside the crowded house, wanting to drag their crazy family member home. But Jesus' won't come out. He says that those who follow him and do God's will are his real family. For his mother and brothers, this must have sounded like a very harsh statement. Family relationships were the most sacred relationships in Jesus' culture. Respect for family was an absolute value. But Jesus' radical claim is that, in the end, even one's biological family has to take second place to doing God's will. And doing God's will creates a new family of mutual love and support and meaning.
We know from other New Testament documents that at least some of Jesus' family eventually became his followers. His brother James became the main leader of the Jerusalem church. His mother also joined the movement.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Mark 2:18-3:6
The conflicts with Jesus that began in 2:1 now continue through three more incidents. The first is a conflict over fasting.
Fasting is a way of demonstrating repentance: an attitude of sorrow for sin, letting go of self-centeredness, and making oneself humbly available to God. Although the Old Testament only requires one day of fasting each year (for the Day of Atonement), at the time of Jesus it was typical for those serious about their faith to fast on two days every week. Indeed, fasting--along with strict observance of God's laws--was a way of preparing for the kingdom of God to come. The more faithfully people fasted and observed God's laws, the quicker would come God's reign on earth.
So, people were curious (and apparently concerned) when they noticed that the disciples of Jesus (unlike the followers of John the Baptist and the Pharisees) never fast. Don't they want to show proper repentance? Don't they want to quicken the coming of God's reign on earth?
Jesus' response is absolutely startling: You don't fast at a wedding, do you? Well the wedding party has begun and the bridegroom is here!
Jesus is implying that what they are waiting for--the kingdom of God--has already begun! He is implying that he is the Messiah (though he never says so explicitly) who brings about the party of God's kingdom. The casting out of demons, the healings, the pronouncements of forgiveness, and the inclusive table fellowship--all of these are enactments or signs that the kingdom of God has already been inaugurated on earth! (Is the kingdom of God fully present--come in all its glory? No, but it has still been initiated and can be seen--and its king is here.)
Jesus is saying a new time has begun. It is so different that old ways no longer apply--just as one would not put new wine (still fermenting) in an old, brittle wineskin; or use a new cloth to patch an old garment. This is the fundamental reason why Jesus acts so differently and with such outrageous authority. But Jesus also acknowledges that when he is taken away (not physically present on earth), fasting will once again make sense--because his followers will be waiting for his return and the completion of the kingdom of God on earth.
The next conflict is about Jesus' disciples plucking grain on the sabbath. The Pharisees accuse them of performing work--a violation of sabbath law. Sabbath law is no trivial matter--it is central to creation and God's character. The sabbath completed creation, and even God rested on the sabbath! The Ten Commandments--the heart of Moses' laws--require honoring the sabbath, and many other laws elaborate how to rest on this day. Observing the sabbath was crucial to the existence of God's people, to their faithfulness and to their identity. And, like fasting, keeping the sabbath was a way of quickening the coming of God's kingdom, because God's kingdom (in heaven) is a perpetual sabbath. So the concern of the Pharisees seems completely justified.
Jesus gives two arguments to allow for this work on the sabbath, and both have to do with a combination of responding to human need and to his personal authority. First, he gives as an example a time when King David, because he was hungry, violated the law. Jesus seems to be implying that satisfying hunger justifies work on the sabbath--particularly if one has the kind of authority David had. Second, Jesus argues that the intent of the sabbath is to serve human needs, not undermine those needs, and that he (the Son of Man) has the authority to determine how to best fulfill the intent of the sabbath.
To the Pharisees this must have sounded like an utterly outrageous claim! Like his pronouncement of forgiveness, he is presuming to speak for God (without consulting others) on matters of the greatest importance! Again he is implying (without actually saying it) that he is the Messiah--the one with more authority on earth than any other human being.
(As a side note, Jesus--or Mark--makes two historical mistakes in this story. First of all, Ahimelech, not Abiathar, was high priest when David took the bread of the Presence. Second, David did not share the bread with his companions--he was lying to Ahimelech and took the bread all for himself. For those who believe the Bible cannot contain any errors, this story presents a problem. Clearly Mark or Jesus has misremembered and misinterpreted the original story. Does that matter? Can Mark--or Jesus--be limited by his cultural knowledge?)
The final conflict involves a healing on the sabbath. The Pharisees are waiting to see if Jesus will heal on the sabbath so they can make a formal accusation against him. The law allows working on the sabbath if it's an emergency situation of life or death, but the man with the whithered hand can certainly wait a few more hours until the sabbath is over to be healed. But Jesus doesn't wait. He purposely heals on the sabbath, implying that doing good is not a violation of the intent of sabbath. Jesus is by no means setting aside the sabbath or the laws of Moses. He is interpreting how best to fulfill them in light of a new fact: the kingdom of God is dawning, and he is the one bringing it.
But from the standpoint of the Pharisees, he is simply a dangerous, deluded fanatic who has flagrantly disregarded one of the most important laws. So they seek to impose the death penalty (as Moses' law commands for violating the sabbath), but they don't have the authority to carry it out (the Pharisees were a religious renewal movement, not a judicial group). So they collude with the government of Herod Antipas, the regional king, to try to get him executed.
Fasting is a way of demonstrating repentance: an attitude of sorrow for sin, letting go of self-centeredness, and making oneself humbly available to God. Although the Old Testament only requires one day of fasting each year (for the Day of Atonement), at the time of Jesus it was typical for those serious about their faith to fast on two days every week. Indeed, fasting--along with strict observance of God's laws--was a way of preparing for the kingdom of God to come. The more faithfully people fasted and observed God's laws, the quicker would come God's reign on earth.
So, people were curious (and apparently concerned) when they noticed that the disciples of Jesus (unlike the followers of John the Baptist and the Pharisees) never fast. Don't they want to show proper repentance? Don't they want to quicken the coming of God's reign on earth?
Jesus' response is absolutely startling: You don't fast at a wedding, do you? Well the wedding party has begun and the bridegroom is here!
Jesus is implying that what they are waiting for--the kingdom of God--has already begun! He is implying that he is the Messiah (though he never says so explicitly) who brings about the party of God's kingdom. The casting out of demons, the healings, the pronouncements of forgiveness, and the inclusive table fellowship--all of these are enactments or signs that the kingdom of God has already been inaugurated on earth! (Is the kingdom of God fully present--come in all its glory? No, but it has still been initiated and can be seen--and its king is here.)
Jesus is saying a new time has begun. It is so different that old ways no longer apply--just as one would not put new wine (still fermenting) in an old, brittle wineskin; or use a new cloth to patch an old garment. This is the fundamental reason why Jesus acts so differently and with such outrageous authority. But Jesus also acknowledges that when he is taken away (not physically present on earth), fasting will once again make sense--because his followers will be waiting for his return and the completion of the kingdom of God on earth.
The next conflict is about Jesus' disciples plucking grain on the sabbath. The Pharisees accuse them of performing work--a violation of sabbath law. Sabbath law is no trivial matter--it is central to creation and God's character. The sabbath completed creation, and even God rested on the sabbath! The Ten Commandments--the heart of Moses' laws--require honoring the sabbath, and many other laws elaborate how to rest on this day. Observing the sabbath was crucial to the existence of God's people, to their faithfulness and to their identity. And, like fasting, keeping the sabbath was a way of quickening the coming of God's kingdom, because God's kingdom (in heaven) is a perpetual sabbath. So the concern of the Pharisees seems completely justified.
Jesus gives two arguments to allow for this work on the sabbath, and both have to do with a combination of responding to human need and to his personal authority. First, he gives as an example a time when King David, because he was hungry, violated the law. Jesus seems to be implying that satisfying hunger justifies work on the sabbath--particularly if one has the kind of authority David had. Second, Jesus argues that the intent of the sabbath is to serve human needs, not undermine those needs, and that he (the Son of Man) has the authority to determine how to best fulfill the intent of the sabbath.
To the Pharisees this must have sounded like an utterly outrageous claim! Like his pronouncement of forgiveness, he is presuming to speak for God (without consulting others) on matters of the greatest importance! Again he is implying (without actually saying it) that he is the Messiah--the one with more authority on earth than any other human being.
(As a side note, Jesus--or Mark--makes two historical mistakes in this story. First of all, Ahimelech, not Abiathar, was high priest when David took the bread of the Presence. Second, David did not share the bread with his companions--he was lying to Ahimelech and took the bread all for himself. For those who believe the Bible cannot contain any errors, this story presents a problem. Clearly Mark or Jesus has misremembered and misinterpreted the original story. Does that matter? Can Mark--or Jesus--be limited by his cultural knowledge?)
The final conflict involves a healing on the sabbath. The Pharisees are waiting to see if Jesus will heal on the sabbath so they can make a formal accusation against him. The law allows working on the sabbath if it's an emergency situation of life or death, but the man with the whithered hand can certainly wait a few more hours until the sabbath is over to be healed. But Jesus doesn't wait. He purposely heals on the sabbath, implying that doing good is not a violation of the intent of sabbath. Jesus is by no means setting aside the sabbath or the laws of Moses. He is interpreting how best to fulfill them in light of a new fact: the kingdom of God is dawning, and he is the one bringing it.
But from the standpoint of the Pharisees, he is simply a dangerous, deluded fanatic who has flagrantly disregarded one of the most important laws. So they seek to impose the death penalty (as Moses' law commands for violating the sabbath), but they don't have the authority to carry it out (the Pharisees were a religious renewal movement, not a judicial group). So they collude with the government of Herod Antipas, the regional king, to try to get him executed.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Mark 2:1-17
This section of Mark's Gospel begins with two stories that illustrate Jesus' authority to forgive sins and reconcile people to God. In the first story, four men dig through a thatched roof and lower their paralyzed friend to Jesus, in the midst of a crowded house, for healing. (In Luke's version of this story, the men remove tiles from the roof; Luke apparently comes from an urbanized Roman environment and is not as familiar with how peasant homes in Galilee are constructed.) Jesus is impressed with their faith--their willingness to do something outrageous and risky because of their trust that Jesus will be able to help. We expect Jesus to heal the man. Instead, Jesus announces that the man is forgiven. Mark seems to be making the point that central to Jesus' ministry is reconciling people to God--removing all obstacles of sin, guilt, shame, or ritual impurity--so that God's kingdom can be entered into and enjoyed by all.
The scribes, the educated readers and interpreters of scripture and religious law, are offended that Jesus pronounces forgiveness on this man. Only God can forgive, so Jesus is presuming to speak for God! Who does he think he is--a great prophet?! Besides, forgiveness must be mediated by a priest after one has offered the proper sacrifice; or at the very least, as the prophets of the Old Testament demanded, the man must demonstrate sincere repentance before forgiveness is obtained. But this paralyzed man has neither offered sacrifices nor repented.
Jesus is saying, in effect, that God is not stingy with forgiveness; it is not difficult to obtain; even the faith of one's friends can bring us to forgiveness. God's kingdom is breaking into our world and God's forgiveness is readily available.
But does Jesus really have this authority to announce God's generous forgiveness? To demonstrate that he does, Jesus heals the paralytic. Physical healing becomes a symbol for spiritual healing. Jesus did not heal people primarily for humanitarian reasons, merely to relieve physical suffering, but as a way of enacting and making real God's spiritual healing and presence in our lives. The Gospel of Mark is not saying that illness is caused by sin, but that physical healing and spiritual healing are fundamentally connected--each represents the kingdom of Satan being defeated by the kingdom of God.
For the first time, Jesus calls himself "the Son of Man." This title can simply mean "human being" or it can refer to the figure in Daniel 7:13 who comes on clouds of glory to establish the kingdom of God on earth. So in verse 10 Jesus is either saying that (all) human beings have the authority to pronounce God's forgiveness, or--more likely--he is saying he has the authority to do this because he is God's exalted ruler of the kingdom of God. Much later in Mark, Jesus will turn "the Son of Man" expectations on their head by telling his disciples the Son of Man must suffer, be rejected, and die.
The second story about reconciliation concerns a tax collector, Levi, who follows Jesus and throws a banquet for Jesus which includes many of Levi's unsavory friends. Again the scribes are offended--this time because Jesus is eating with "tax collectors and sinners." What is Jesus supposedly doing wrong?
Tax collectors were among the most despised people in Jesus' day. They collected money for a puppet government (King Herod's) run by the Romans. Tax collectors grew rich collecting taxes because they got a piece of the proceeds. From the standpoint of poor Jewish peasants, nothing could be more galling than a fellow Jew getting rich by oppressing the poor and working for an illegitimate govenment. Ancient rabbis said there were two kinds of people it was acceptable to lie to: robbers and tax collectors.
And so it is astonishing that Jesus calls a tax collector to follow him--and that the tax collector does! Jesus should not be eating with him for two reasons: Levi is ritually impure (because he interacts with Gentiles), and Levi is a moral outcast. To eat with a person (in Jesus' culture) is to symbolically accept them. So again, Jesus is implying an offer of forgiveness to one who does not deserve it.
The issue of eating with those who do not follow Moses' laws was a controversial issue in the early church as well. In Galatians 2 we can see how the issue of eating with Gentiles nearly tore apart the church in Antioch, and--at least for a time--caused a split between Paul and Peter. So this story of Jesus' table fellowship with tax collectors and other ritually and morally impure people must have been of crucial importance to Mark.
Jesus defends his table fellowship with the ritually and morally impure by saying he is, in effect, a doctor. He is here to cure (just as he cured/forgave the paralytic); so he will go where the sick are and offer them healing. This makes perfect sense, and yet for those of us who take pride in our goodness, it is galling to have God's representative spending time with the undeserving and giving them so freely what they don't deserve.
The scribes, the educated readers and interpreters of scripture and religious law, are offended that Jesus pronounces forgiveness on this man. Only God can forgive, so Jesus is presuming to speak for God! Who does he think he is--a great prophet?! Besides, forgiveness must be mediated by a priest after one has offered the proper sacrifice; or at the very least, as the prophets of the Old Testament demanded, the man must demonstrate sincere repentance before forgiveness is obtained. But this paralyzed man has neither offered sacrifices nor repented.
Jesus is saying, in effect, that God is not stingy with forgiveness; it is not difficult to obtain; even the faith of one's friends can bring us to forgiveness. God's kingdom is breaking into our world and God's forgiveness is readily available.
But does Jesus really have this authority to announce God's generous forgiveness? To demonstrate that he does, Jesus heals the paralytic. Physical healing becomes a symbol for spiritual healing. Jesus did not heal people primarily for humanitarian reasons, merely to relieve physical suffering, but as a way of enacting and making real God's spiritual healing and presence in our lives. The Gospel of Mark is not saying that illness is caused by sin, but that physical healing and spiritual healing are fundamentally connected--each represents the kingdom of Satan being defeated by the kingdom of God.
For the first time, Jesus calls himself "the Son of Man." This title can simply mean "human being" or it can refer to the figure in Daniel 7:13 who comes on clouds of glory to establish the kingdom of God on earth. So in verse 10 Jesus is either saying that (all) human beings have the authority to pronounce God's forgiveness, or--more likely--he is saying he has the authority to do this because he is God's exalted ruler of the kingdom of God. Much later in Mark, Jesus will turn "the Son of Man" expectations on their head by telling his disciples the Son of Man must suffer, be rejected, and die.
The second story about reconciliation concerns a tax collector, Levi, who follows Jesus and throws a banquet for Jesus which includes many of Levi's unsavory friends. Again the scribes are offended--this time because Jesus is eating with "tax collectors and sinners." What is Jesus supposedly doing wrong?
Tax collectors were among the most despised people in Jesus' day. They collected money for a puppet government (King Herod's) run by the Romans. Tax collectors grew rich collecting taxes because they got a piece of the proceeds. From the standpoint of poor Jewish peasants, nothing could be more galling than a fellow Jew getting rich by oppressing the poor and working for an illegitimate govenment. Ancient rabbis said there were two kinds of people it was acceptable to lie to: robbers and tax collectors.
And so it is astonishing that Jesus calls a tax collector to follow him--and that the tax collector does! Jesus should not be eating with him for two reasons: Levi is ritually impure (because he interacts with Gentiles), and Levi is a moral outcast. To eat with a person (in Jesus' culture) is to symbolically accept them. So again, Jesus is implying an offer of forgiveness to one who does not deserve it.
The issue of eating with those who do not follow Moses' laws was a controversial issue in the early church as well. In Galatians 2 we can see how the issue of eating with Gentiles nearly tore apart the church in Antioch, and--at least for a time--caused a split between Paul and Peter. So this story of Jesus' table fellowship with tax collectors and other ritually and morally impure people must have been of crucial importance to Mark.
Jesus defends his table fellowship with the ritually and morally impure by saying he is, in effect, a doctor. He is here to cure (just as he cured/forgave the paralytic); so he will go where the sick are and offer them healing. This makes perfect sense, and yet for those of us who take pride in our goodness, it is galling to have God's representative spending time with the undeserving and giving them so freely what they don't deserve.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Mark 1:35-45
Verses 35-39 complete the "day in the ministry of Jesus" begun in verse 21. It starts out by telling us something very important about Jesus: he prayed. Mark doesn't say what Jesus prayed, or even why Jesus went out early to pray. The significant fact is simply that he prayed. Why is that significant? Because in the preceding accounts of Jesus preaching with unparalleled authority, casting out demons and healing people, the reader could easily get the impression that Jesus is doing this by his own power--that he is a divine being, a god. But the fact that Jesus prays shows that this is not his own power; he is a human being in a dependent relationship to God. Yes, he has been given unique authority and power as the Son of God, but it is God's authority and power, not his own. He is not God.
These verses also anticipate the structure of the Gospel of Mark as a whole. In the first half of Mark, Jesus is a powerful wonder-worker who is invading the kingdom of Satan and replacing it with the kingdom of God. But in the second half of Mark, Jesus is a servant of others who will suffer and be humiliated and die. Jesus, as Messiah, is both the Strong One, and the Weak One. His time in prayer, following a time of miracles, is a reminder of his weakness--an essential part of his being the Messiah.
The early morning being described is Sunday morning (the Sabbath was the day before). Jesus rises early, while it is still dark; the disciples are distressed by his absence and try to find him. Sound familiar? It may be that Mark is purposely anticipating Easter morning in this story. The Gospel of Mark is not simply a historical account; it is a deeply spiritual (and symbolic) story shaped by the tellings and retellings of the faith community. There is always more meaning under the surface.
The story of the healing of the leper also makes an important point: Jesus is not against the laws of Moses and the legitimate ministries of the priests in the temple. The next section of Mark (2:1-3:6) is going to show Jesus in strong conflict with religious authorities over the interpretation and application of Moses' laws. Indeed, Jesus will be crucified partly because of his tension-filled relationship with religious authorities. But Mark wants to let the reader know, beforehand, that Jesus was not against Moses' laws or the proper temple system. The leper is instructed to show himself to the priest, and to make the prescribed offerings found in Moses' laws.
Most English translations say that Jesus was "moved with pity" by the leper, but some of the oldest manuscripts say he was angry! This is supported by his equally rough response in verse 43 in which he "sternly warns" (the original Greek is stronger than this) and "immediately throws him out" (which is what the Greek literally says). Why is Jesus so angry and rough? Probably, he is not angry with the man, but with the leprosy, which is treated as an almost demonic illness which must be confronted and thrown out. The Gospel of Mark often uses rough language--not only for Jesus' actions but also for the disciples' actions (verse 36 literally says in Greek that the disciples "tracked him down"). Matthew and Luke are often uncomfortable with Mark's language and so they use toned down words in their own Gospels. But for Mark, Jesus is not "meek and mild." Jesus is a man brimming with divine power who acts decisively and who provokes strong emotions from others.
After healing the man, Jesus tells him quite strongly not to tell anyone. Why? This is often called by scholars "the Messianic secret." It is an unusal feature in the Gospel of Mark. At this point, it is a mystery the reader is meant to ponder: why would Jesus want his healing ministry to be secret? Perhaps the Gospel will reveal the answer later. In the meantime, the man violates Jesus' instructions and tells all about what Jesus has done. As a result, so many people want to see Jesus, he finds it impossible to even enter towns, and has to stay in the countryside. But if Jesus is so intent on taking his message to all the towns of Galilee (verse 38), why would he want to avoid the crowds? Perhaps he can preach to more people in the natural "amphitheaters" of the countryside than in the tiny homes and narrow streets of a village?
These verses also anticipate the structure of the Gospel of Mark as a whole. In the first half of Mark, Jesus is a powerful wonder-worker who is invading the kingdom of Satan and replacing it with the kingdom of God. But in the second half of Mark, Jesus is a servant of others who will suffer and be humiliated and die. Jesus, as Messiah, is both the Strong One, and the Weak One. His time in prayer, following a time of miracles, is a reminder of his weakness--an essential part of his being the Messiah.
The early morning being described is Sunday morning (the Sabbath was the day before). Jesus rises early, while it is still dark; the disciples are distressed by his absence and try to find him. Sound familiar? It may be that Mark is purposely anticipating Easter morning in this story. The Gospel of Mark is not simply a historical account; it is a deeply spiritual (and symbolic) story shaped by the tellings and retellings of the faith community. There is always more meaning under the surface.
The story of the healing of the leper also makes an important point: Jesus is not against the laws of Moses and the legitimate ministries of the priests in the temple. The next section of Mark (2:1-3:6) is going to show Jesus in strong conflict with religious authorities over the interpretation and application of Moses' laws. Indeed, Jesus will be crucified partly because of his tension-filled relationship with religious authorities. But Mark wants to let the reader know, beforehand, that Jesus was not against Moses' laws or the proper temple system. The leper is instructed to show himself to the priest, and to make the prescribed offerings found in Moses' laws.
Most English translations say that Jesus was "moved with pity" by the leper, but some of the oldest manuscripts say he was angry! This is supported by his equally rough response in verse 43 in which he "sternly warns" (the original Greek is stronger than this) and "immediately throws him out" (which is what the Greek literally says). Why is Jesus so angry and rough? Probably, he is not angry with the man, but with the leprosy, which is treated as an almost demonic illness which must be confronted and thrown out. The Gospel of Mark often uses rough language--not only for Jesus' actions but also for the disciples' actions (verse 36 literally says in Greek that the disciples "tracked him down"). Matthew and Luke are often uncomfortable with Mark's language and so they use toned down words in their own Gospels. But for Mark, Jesus is not "meek and mild." Jesus is a man brimming with divine power who acts decisively and who provokes strong emotions from others.
After healing the man, Jesus tells him quite strongly not to tell anyone. Why? This is often called by scholars "the Messianic secret." It is an unusal feature in the Gospel of Mark. At this point, it is a mystery the reader is meant to ponder: why would Jesus want his healing ministry to be secret? Perhaps the Gospel will reveal the answer later. In the meantime, the man violates Jesus' instructions and tells all about what Jesus has done. As a result, so many people want to see Jesus, he finds it impossible to even enter towns, and has to stay in the countryside. But if Jesus is so intent on taking his message to all the towns of Galilee (verse 38), why would he want to avoid the crowds? Perhaps he can preach to more people in the natural "amphitheaters" of the countryside than in the tiny homes and narrow streets of a village?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)