In Academic discussion about the gospel of Mark much ink is spilt over Mark’s supposed geographical ignorance. While many scarf a case can be made for the reliability of mark and explanation given mark’s geographic descriptions. Among scholars the most frequently cited is 7:31, “And having departed from the regions of Tyre, he again came to the Sea of Galilee by way of Sidon and through the middle of the Decapolis.”
If one draws a line from Tyre to Sidon to the Sea of Galilee to the Decapolis, this involves a strange journey indeed. It would look something like the last spaghetti noodle on a plate. A comparable trip (in direction, not distance) would be to travel from Portland to Denver via Seattle and the Great Plains. Such a trip envisions leaving Tyre and proceeding 22 miles north to Sidon, then southeast from Sidon to the Decapolis, and then northwest to the Sea of Galilee.
A similar alleged error in geography is found in Mark 11:1. Here the journey from Jericho (10:46–52) to Jerusalem, Bethphage, and Bethany, if understood as occurring in that order, would be strange indeed, for if one proceeds from Jericho, the order of progression is Bethany (the eastern side of the Mount of Olives), Bethphage (the summit of the Mount of Olives), and Jerusalem (west of the Mount of Olives).
Some suggest, the order in both these instances, however, reflects not an ignorance of Palestinian or Judean geography, but rather Mark's desire to list the ultimate goal of the journey from Tyre (i.e., the Sea of Galilee) and Jericho (i.e., Jerusalem) first and the intervening places next (Sidon and the Decapolis; Bethpage, Bethany; see 7:31 and 11:1).
Some scholars have suggested, Bethphage is probably mentioned before Bethany because it is closer to Jerusalem and may reflect the order of the journey from Jerusalem through Bethphage to Bethany in 11:11. Other Scholars argues that the ancient road from Jericho to Jerusalem passed through Bethphage before Bethany.
Another supposed geographical error in Mark is found in 10:1. Here again, however, we have the place of departure mentioned first (“there,” i.e., Capernaum [9:33]), the ultimate goal second (“the regions of Judea”), and the intervening route last (“across the Jordan”). See 10:1. Consequently, these alleged geographical errors found in the Second Gospel are not evidence of Mark's ignorance of Palestinian geography but rather reflect various critics' misunderstanding of the Markan style used to describe such journeys.
Note: Much of the content for this post was adapted from Robert H. Stein, Mark in Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament, Eds. Robert Yarbrough and Robert Stein, (Grand Rapids, Baker Academic, 2008) 6-7
Jesus’ Approach to Discipleship
The theme of discipleship is all over Mark. Mark teaches his readers about discipleship in three ways. 1.) recounting Jesus’s teaching on the subject, 2.) narrating different accounts in which Jesus invites various individuals to follow him. 3.) retelling the example of Christ. Jesus’ style of life reveals the content of discipleship. What discipleship demands, Jesus himself lived out. Jesus’ followers are to reflect his character, especially in self-denying, cross-bearing discipleship (8:34–38). Jesus knew the cost and yet denied himself in order to fulfill God's will (14:36, 39). Our Lord modeled in every way what we are to be and do. He serves in humility without regard to self, and even in suffering so too must his disciples (10:42–45; 8:34). In Mark, discipleship looks like an apprentice relationship with Jesus. Two observations of Jesus' discipleship method in Mark.
(1.) An apprentice is called to be with a master so that they may hear, see and follow the way of the master. An apprentice spends his days helping the master in the skill the apprentice wants to learn. Mark draws a straight line between the ministry of Jesus and that of his disciples, expressing a causal relationship between the two. In short, they are to be with Jesus. As Jesus is with the Father, so his disciples are to be with him (3:13). Discipleship is associated with, if not defined by, simply being with Jesus (3:13, 3:34; 4:10). It is life on life discipleship within the community Jesus was forming around himself. The disciples were to be hearing him (4:1–20), and following him “on the way” (1:16–20; 10:52). The simple but all-important act of hearing and following Jesus in apprenticeship precedes the disciples' complete understanding of him. Thus, being with Him was more important than disciples' complete understanding of him.
(2.) An apprentice learns a skill by learning to be like the master of the skill. In doing what the master does with the masters helpful insight often after a failure, the apprentice gains the experience necessary to skillfully do the job before him. An apprentice does the stuff before they fully know what they are doing. The disciples are shown to possess a lack of understanding, yet this does not compromise their discipleship. In spite of it, Jesus empowers the disciples to undertake his own ministry of proclamation and power over the forces of evil (3:14; 6:7–13). Jesus is willing to let them do the stuff so that they may learn from their mistakes as well as from their successes. This creates an atmosphere of trial and error learning that promotes skillful learning of a task rather than just proficiency in a task. Jesus was making Christians (christ-like people), not just informing them on a subject matter. Jesus‘ willingness to send them out on mission even while they lacked understanding and even though they showed hardness of heart (8:14–26) gives evidence of the apprentice model.
What Jesus has to teach can only be taught in an apprentice relationship, which necessitates the disciples' being with him, learning to do the stuff, more than their full understanding of him. Jesus knew the understanding would come. He would even oversee the implementation of that understanding himself for 40 days after the resurrection. The closing words to Albert Schweitzer’s monumental work The Quest of the Historical Jesus is indicative of Mark's view of discipleship.
“He comes to us as One unknown, without a name, as of old, by the lake- side, He came to those men who knew Him not. He speaks to us the same word: ‘Follow thou me!’ and sets us to the tasks which he has to fulfill in our time. He commands. And to those who obey Him, whether they be wise or simple, He will reveal Himself in the toils, the conflicts, the sufferings which they shall pass through in His fellowship, and, as an ineffable mystery, they shall learn in their own experience Who He is.” (1)
Footnote
(1) Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus (trans. W. Montgomery; New York: Macmillan, 1950), 403.
To get at the Cost of Discipleship in Mark we will look at a few texts in Mark. First Mark 1:16-20 and we will key in on verse 17 and Second Mark 8:34-38.
Mark 1:16-20 has much to teach us about discipleship. Jesus gives a command, and a promise that inform what is meant by discipleship in Mark. A key verse on this issue is, Mark 1:17 “And Jesus said to them, “Follow me, and I will make you become fishers of men.”
Discipleship is a Divine Call on our Lives.
Jesus gives a command to follow. “Follow me” is not a suggestion but a command. The calling of these first disciples shows that one must not only repent and believe the gospel (1:15) but also follow Jesus. The calling is an act of grace that also exerts an enormous demand. The command to follow for these disciples explodes their everyday world, for the call is ultimately, as Bonhoeffer accurately noted, “a call to come and die”.
Discipleship is ultimately Christ’s work in us. “I will make you”
In his call he gives a promises, “I will make you”. Jesus is the one who will mold them act according to his purposes. They will not make themselves. Also, we are not inactive for, effort is not opposed to grace. Grace is opposed to merit. We see this also in the fact that before Jesus issues any ethical instructions, Jesus proclaims the necessity of repentance, faith, and following him (1:14–20). Mark uses the order intentionally, he wants to make it clear that any ethical progress, any character development, any good thing in us, is the result of and not the requirement for, a relationship with Jesus. Radical obedience is an outworking of one’s relationship with God. Our ethical obedience is grounded in the nearness of the kingdom of God. He makes us. It is not up to us to make ourselves and thus win his acceptance and approval. He already gives his acceptance and from such a relationship we seek to gratefully do what's right.
In his book, The Cost of Discipleship, Dietrich Bonhoeffer makes it clear: While God's grace is always bestowed freely, it is never bestowed cheaply. Bonhoeffer writes,
"Cheap grace is the deadly enemy of our church ...Cheap grace means grace as a doctrine, a principle, a system. It means forgiveness of sins proclaimed as a general truth, the love of God taught as the Christian 'conception' of God ... Cheap grace means the justification of sin without the justification of the sinner ... Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession ... Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate." (Pp. 45-47)
Bonhoeffer would have us know, grace is free, but it's anything but cheap. It comes at the price of God's only begotten son, and it leads us to surrender our lives to God in gratitude and faithful obedience. Bonhoeffer calls this, "costly grace." He writes,
"Costly grace is the treasure hidden in the field, for the sake of it a man will gladly go and sell all that he has. It is the pearl of great price for which the merchant will sell all his goods. It is the kingly rule of Christ, for whose sake a man will pluck out the eye which causes him to stumble; it is the call of Jesus Christ at which the disciple leaves his nets and follows him." (P. 47)
God's grace is a free gift, but it costs our rebel's heart, its autonomous freedom. Nowhere is this stated more clearly than in chapter 8 of Mark. Mark makes this cost most clearly at the end of chapter 8.
Three observations from Mark 8:34-38
1. A disciple of Jesus will personally relive what Jesus did.
2. This will mean the disciple is to live a life of self-renunciation. In classical theology, What is asked of a Christian in Mark 8:34, the command to come and die, is often referred to as self-renunciation.
3. The whole of 8:34-38 makes a chiasm with the disciple giving up control over the safety and security of their life in order to follow Christ. The text expresses self-renunciation in all its aspects and shades of meaning.
A. You must die to self 8:34-37
B. You must die to the self-centered life. 8:34
C. You must die to the safe life. 8:35
B. You must die to the self-serving life. 8:36-37
A. You must declare the Son. 8:38
What Christianity calls self-renunciation involves precisely a double-danger. The purely human conception of self-renunciation is this: give up your selfish desires, longings, and plans – and then you will become appreciated and honored and loved as a righteous person. The Christian conception of self-renunciation, however, is to give up your selfish desires and longings, give up your arbitrary plans and purposes – and then submit to being treated as a criminal, scorned and ridiculed for this very reason. Christian self-renunciation knows in advance that this will happen and chooses it freely. It does not let the Christian get by at half-price. - Søren Kierkegaard
Do we want to end the era of cheep grace in the church?
Do we want a dead church or a church dying to live?
J. Heinrich Arnold summarizes the choice before the church today.
It is important for us to decide whether we want only a nice church with Jesus as its king or the way of the cross. - J. Heinrich Arnold
Mark teaches his readers about discipleship in two ways. First way is by recounting Jesus's general teaching on the subject. Including Mark’s choice of examples that illustrate discipleship for his readers. He retells different accounts in which Jesus invites various individuals to follow him and their response. The second way is by narrating how Jesus disciples people. We look at the overall approach Jesus takes in disciplining others, highlighting how Jesus interacted with his disciples in Mark. These interactions reveal Jesus’ method of discipleship.
In this blog we will look at the first of the two ways. Mark teaches about discipleship. But first a few general point on discipleship in Mark.
A. General Character of discipleship in Mark
B. The general Logic of obligation in Mark
I. Jesus’ teaching on discipleship in Mark
A special connection exists between the cross and discipleship in Mark. It can been seen in the way Mark connects Jesus’ passion predictions to discipleship. In light of this, special attention should be to the times Jesus teaching on discipleship arise from Jesus’ predictions of his passion. The passages are Mark 8:34–9:1; 9:35–10:31; 10:42–45.
The clearest example Jesus teaching in this a issue is found in 8:34–38. Here the general invitation to follow Jesus is extended to “anyone” (note the reference to the crowd in 8:34a) and involves three requirements: 1.) denying oneself, 2.) taking up one's cross, and 3.) following Jesus.
1.) The first involves not just denying oneself of things, such as giving up something for a season, but denying oneself as the determiner of one's goals and purposes in life. It is to deny mastery over one's life and ambitions and place oneself under the lordship of Jesus. That this involves denying various things is evident from the examples of Jesus and of those who chose or chose not to follow him but these “things” are simply the consequences of denying oneself. Denying oneself refers to an initial act of commitment (an aorist imperative). It is a negative command involving an inner decision, and it functions much like the command to repent (1:4, 15; 6:12). At it’s core, Self denial implies renouncing self-rule, no longer making oneself the center of one’s life and actions. This requires an essential reorientation of life in which God is at the center.
2.) “to take up one's cross,” is a figurative expression. Mark understands this as giving a specific example of what “denying oneself” might entail. Mark’s Gospel is not generically portraying hardship in life. Rather, it portrays a condemned man carrying His cross to the execution site, as Jesus did. To “take up one's cross” recalls Jesus denying himself (14:36–39) and committing himself to fulfill God's will even to death (8:35; 13:12–13). For Jesus's hearers, Mark's readers, and present-day readers, the figurative nature of this expression was/is self-evident. The command does not require actual martyrdom for all who choose to follow Jesus. Luke makes this clear by adding “daily” to this command (9:23). The expression refers rather to a total commitment to follow Jesus that accepts even the possibility of martyrdom.
3.) In contrast to other two requirements, the command “to follow Jesus” is a present imperative and refers to a continuing action. This expression is a popular one in Mark to describe being a Christian, or “follower” of Jesus (1:18; 2:14–15; 9:38; 10:21, 28, 52; 15:41). It emphasizes outward, continual actions and refers to the living out of Jesus's teachings and example. We live out a particular style of life as we follow Jesus in community with others following Jesus.
This cross centered style of life involves
II. Examples
1.) Mark also reveals what discipleship consists of through various examples. These examples show us how this style of life is expressed in the ambiguity and uncertainty of real life. Marks gives both positive and negative examples making for a well rounded picture.
A.) The greatest example is Jesus. What discipleship demands, Jesus himself lived out. From the beginning he was aware of his forthcoming passion and denied himself in order to fulfill God's will (14:36, 39). He modeled a life of prayer (1:35; 6:46; 14:32–39) and served as the supreme example of what it means to be a servant of all (10:43–44) by giving his life as a ransom for many (10:45).
B.) The disciples also modeled what discipleship involves by denying themselves, by their leaving their “nets” or livelihood (1:18) and family (1:20;10:28–30). Despite their many failures in Mark they continued to follow and it is in the simple determination to continue to follow through it all that they demonstrate what it means to follow Jesus. They follow not perfectly or triumphantly but step by step by the grace of God. For this group, faith developed slowly, even laboriously, by repeatedly hearing, receiving, and finally bearing fruit (4:10–20). The disciples only see ‘in part’ but still they press in for a second touch. And, like the blind man at Bethsaida, they too begin to see clearly, but only out of the sustained interaction and repeated “touch” of Jesus (8:14–26).
C.) Negative examples
Eduard Schweizer explains that the disciples' failure never affected Jesus gracious response:
“So man's continued inability to understand is contrasted with Jesus' promise to go before them and accomplish what human hearts cannot do; despite every failure he would call the disciples again to discipleship and would encounter them in a way that would enable them to see him.”(1)
The point Schweizer gets at is as simple as it is profound. Even in all the disciples failures Jesus never failed them. Such a truth should bring our hearts to worship.
Footnote
(1) Eduard Schweizer, The Good News according to Mark (trans. Donald H. Madvig; Atlanta: John Knox, 1970), 373
.
Mark 1:41-44a
Jesus, moved with compassion, stretched out His hand and touched him, and said to him, “I am willing; be cleansed.” As soon as He had spoken, immediately the leprosy left him, and he was cleansed. And He strictly warned him and sent him away at once, and said to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone
Mark 5:40b-43
[Jesus] entered where the child was lying. Then He took the child by the hand, and said to her, …. “Little girl, I say to you, arise.” Immediately the girl arose and walked, for she was twelve years of age. And they were overcome with great amazement. But He commanded them strictly that no one should know it.
In the first passage above Jesus healed a leper and the second He rose a girl from the dead. In both he did something odd, instructing people to not publicize what he had done. Who would not want such free TRUE publicity. Who turns down all that free press? Well, Jesus did. The "Messianic Secret" is what scholars have labeled this practice of Jesus. On numerous occasions in Mark, Jesus told those who revealed his identity to "zip it, and Tell no one”. In the first half of Mark, for some reason, Jesus try’s to keep his identity a secret. Here are a few examples.
Many scholars see this as examples that Mark is not much of a historical account. Others calm it shows Mark is more an example of revisionist historian. Other scholars understand the practice to be selections of real events, Mark uses to make a theological point. My personal favorite was from an online message board user name Theo-theLeo78, 'He told people to Shush and keep the secret because he did not have those Dope 'Clark Kent' glasses"
While I truly appreciate Theo-TheLeo78 outside the box thinking. Yet i don't think he is right. I believe the best explanation is the simplest. Jesus knew what he was doing. A hint comes from the way people misunderstood Jesus’ identity in Mark. In light of this a few reason can be given as to why he would keep his identity a secret.
Why did Jesus want to keep His identity as the Messiah a secret?
A few possible reasons
The practice continues until chapter 8. In Mark 8:29 Peter’s confession of Christ identity.
Ethical consideration of the messianic secret
As we have seen, Jesus had good reasons to keep things quite. So the "secret" is not as much a literary 'tell' as some scholar's think. His behavior makes sense within the cultural and historical outlook of the first century. Yet Jesus' actions do give us insight but of an ethical nature. When reading the gospels, it is to be assumed that Jesus operated with integrity. This means, Jesus' character can be seen in his behavior (when understood contextually and historically). Jesus actions reveal the shape of his heart. So behaviors like, Jesus' mistrust of the crowd, his aversion toward spectacle or his attempts to not have his miracles 'go viral', reveal something of Jesus' values, worldview and ethical disposition. They reveal an often obscured aspect of Jesus' character. Below is my ethical considerations:
Mark took a handful of moments as a way to highlight an aspect of Jesus character that was needed due to the cultural values common in the first century. Values that have had something of a cultural revival today.
You see, Mark’s readers would have seen Jesus actions as odd. Roman culture embraced the praise of men. Humility and being unassuming was thought of as a bad thing. Jesus was showing basic 'Beta' behavior and in no way would he ever be 'Alpha' material. Roman 'Alpha' leaders did not shy away from free publicity… especially if it was true. They capitalized on every opportunity. The same mentality was true of the Jewish religious leadership, only political power was replaced by religious influence. Such twisted values were common among the elites of the first century.
First century readers would think, Jesus was awful at self-promotion. He would not play into those cultural values which had likely made inroads into Jesus’ context, as much as they had in Mark’s audience. Mark wanted his readers to see Jesus acted in a contrary way to these culturally accepted behaviors. After reading about Jesus healing a blind man then telling him to 'zip it' and 'keep it on the DL', Mark’s first readers would have thought that Jesus needed a PR team and maybe a round of Testosterone shots. Yet Jesus was awful at it because his character was on point. His power was under control for he was meek at heart and sure of who he was. He would not play into those cultural values for his own gain. He knew such gain was actually loss. He waited on the Lord’s timing and did not take every opportunity of making much of himself.
The “messianic secret” reveals Jesus preferred to follow God’s ways over man’s ‘methods’. He did not shy away from shutting down storms or opening blind eyes. He did not hesitate to evict a legion of demons. All the while, Jesus loved people enough not to cheapen their experience by making it a tool for self-promotion. One sign of godly character is caring about people in the little things even when the only one who sees is God, and the only one who takes the hit is you.
He chose to wait on the Lord’s timing and not take every opportunity of making much of himself. The messianic secret, shows Jesus valued doing things God's way above all. He understood the value of following God's ways over the efficient shortcuts of man’s practical measures.
In your reading as you come upon such passages, see Jesus’ character on display. Let the passage reveal the shape of Jesus’ humble servant heart. See Jesus choosing God’s ways and not man’s self-promoting methods. See Jesus trusting God’s timing for advancing the kingdom, and not someone opportunistically capitalizing on every opportunity as if his livelihood depended on it.
The short answer: Gospels are written in genre of Roman biographies.
A Few Academic Voice on the Issue
Craig Keener: “Most Gospels scholars today view the Gospels as belonging to the genre of ancient biography. Both supporters and detractors now recognize this general consensus…. Arguments concerning the biographical character of the Gospels have thus come full circle: the Gospels, long viewed as biographies of some sort until the early twentieth century, now are widely viewed as biographies again.” (1)
Philip Stadter: “Philosophical biography brought out the moral character of its subjects and the relation of their teachings to their lives. Aristoxenus, a pupil of Aristotle, wrote on Pythagoras, Archytas, Socrates, and Plato; Hermippus in the third century wrote Lives of many philosophers, as well as lawgivers and other figures. Diogenes Laertius’ extant Lives of the Philosophers continues the tradition. Since such lives are usually heavy in sayings, as in Lucian’s Demonax, they may be difficult to distinguish from apophthegm collections. The Gospels also belong to this category, as does Philostratus’ novelistic Life of Apollonius of Tyana.” (2)
David Aune: “ancient readers of Greek and Latin biographies from the period of the early Roman Empire (e.g., Cornelius Nepos, Plutarch, Suetonius, and Tacitus) had the same expectation as those who read the Gospels, expecting them to preserve the gist of what their subjects had actually said and done.” (3)
Graham Stanton: “…the gospels are now widely considered to be a sub-set of the broad ancient literary genre of biographies.”(4)
Regarding Mark
R.T. France: “[f]ifty years ago we were drilled in the critical orthodoxy of the form-critical school which insisted that the gospels were not to be seen as biographies, but since then there has been a massive swing in scholarly opinion on this point, and increasingly sophisticated study of the nature of biographical writing in the ancient world has led to a general recognition that, for all the distinctiveness of its Christian content and orientation, in terms of literary form Mark’s book (and those of Matthew, Luke and John) would have seemed to an educated reader in the first century to fall into roughly the same category as the lives of famous men pioneered by Cornelius Nepos and soon to reach their most famous expression in the ‘Parallel Lives’ of Plutarch’.” (5)
Footnote
1. Craig Keener, Christobiography (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2019), 41, 43.
2. Philip Stadter “Biography and History” in A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography vol. 2 Edt. John Marincola (Oxford, Blackwell pub 2007), 528, 530.
3. Quoted in Craig Keener, Christobiography, 3.
4. Graham Stanton, Jesus and Gospel (Cambridge, Cambridge press, 2004), 192.
5. R.T. France The Gospel of Mark: a commentary on the Greek text (NIGTC, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2002), 5
“Son” language in Mark
Mark uses “son” language to speak of Christ; the most common is “Son of Man”. Except for the personal name “Jesus,” the theological title “Son of Man” is the most frequent phrase used to refer to Jesus in Mark.
1. What “Son of Man” Means
a. Jesus use of Son of Man
The way Jesus taught about himself
If you listen to Jesus’ own words in Mark’s Gospel, he did not teach morals. The main thing Jesus taught about was himself. Yet Jesus taught about himself in a very round about way. It was a way that would have been clear to those who knew Old Testament but likely sounds odd to us today.
Jesus used the phrase “Son of Man” to refer to himself.
In Mark, When Jesus referred to himself as the Son of Man he often spoke in second person. We can be sure Jesus is speaking of himself by looking to the same passages in other gospels. In Mark 10:45, Mark uses the phrase “Son of Man” to refer to Jesus’ coming to serve, Luke uses “I” in an equivalent phrase (Luke 22:27).
But why would he speak that way? Answer: Likely, Jesus was being deliberately evasive so as to avoid being accused of blaming messianic status before it is His time. Jesus wants his disciples to connect the dots for themselves.
Jesus was not saying, “I’m nobody special. I’m just another run-of-the-mill guy.” The “Son of Man” title in Mark is more than that It has a strong connection to the messianic and eschatological figure in Dan 7 who will judge the world. (particularly, Dan. 7:13-14).
b. He pulls from Old Testament Passage
The Son of man language in Mark may not be what it appears. On the surface, it appears to speak of Christ’s humanity yet that might not be the discussion being had in Galilee during Jesus time.
Son of Man has connection to the Apocalyptic Worldview of second temple Judaism. Given the use of eschatological material in Mark, the title may reflect an apocalyptic background, with its roots in books like Daniel and 1 Enoch. (1)
Jesus’ use of the title hints at Jesus’ self-identification as the figure from Daniel 7. Messianic figure who’s divinity is hinted at in the text by him doing things only reserve for God. Many now see, Jesus is making an allusion to his divinity not his humanity unlike some earlier scholars that has noted in connecting the use of the title in Ezekiel.
Jesus calls attention to the title as used in Daniel’s vision of the representative of God’s people. In Daniel, the figure is worshiped like God and ascends in clouds to receive an eternal kingdom (8:28; 13:26; 14:62; Dan. 7:9– 14).
Jesus also makes some interesting comments on the Son of Man’s purpose (10:45; 8:31; 9:12, 31) with illusions to the Suffering servant of Isaiah 53.
Jesus may appeals to the Son of Man title may point to this expectation in his context, of a coming “Divine / Messianic figure” who will exhibit a comprehensive presence through the kingdom of God, this is one aspect of the Son of Man in second temple thought. The Son of Man will judge the world and through his work God’s kingdom will spread to cover the earth, so that shalom is restored to the world.
Shalom is used here to means more than just “peace”. Shalom is the right rhythm of creation before the fall. It is the wholeness of creation in its “orderliness” and “fittedness” of all things. In Jewish thought, Shalom was lost but at the eschaton the Son of Man will bring in the restoration of it by the rightly admonition of justice and righteousness. To reiterate, shalom is the harmonious movement of the created order which bring flourishing, fruitfulness, and fullness of life.
2. What does Jesus teach the Son of Man came to do?
1.) Bear authority.
2.) Suffer.
“that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again.” 8:31
“The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men. They will kill him, and after three days he will rise.” 9:31
“the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will rise.” 10:33-34
3.) Return to judge.
Footnote
1. The availability of this title to Jesus in his Galilean context is discussed. In a monograph entitled, Parables of Enoch: A Paradigm Shift. Eds. James Charlesworth and Darrell Bock (New York: Bloomsbury, 2013) The monograph put forth that the Son of Man title was very much a topic for reflection in first-century Galilee.
Smell can be a powerful sense. The right smell can bring back old memories, you haven't thought about for decades. In the same way having a good literary sense about a text can unfold truths hidden in plain sight. It all begins by knowing a little something about an author's style of writing. Mark is about as stylish as Elton John and twice as obvious. In other words, when you know what Mark is doing, you can't help but see it.
One of the earliest references in the Church Father's to Mark's gospel claimed it was based on the preaching and testimony of Peter making note to add that Mark did not structure the work in a strict historical chronology. Some stories were organized for thematic purposes. A comparison of Mark with the other Gospels reveal that he employs the sandwich technique in a unique and pronounced manner. This technique was used to underscore the major themes of the Gospel.
What is the Sandwich Technique?
The Sandwich Technique is a way of ordering stories, it this way the author helps interrupt a story by inserting a second, seemingly unrelated, story into it. In Mark the sandwich technique occur around nine times ( 3:20–35; 4:1–20; 5:21–43; 6:7–30; 11:12–21; 14:1–11; 14:17–31; 14:53–72; 15:40– 16:8.) The Technique highlights themes like discipleship, bearing witness, or the dangers of apostasy.
Sandwiches are thus literary conventions with theological purposes. These “sandwiches” serve theological purposes by inviting readers to reflect on the similarity between the pairs of stories. Each sandwich unit consists of an A1-B-A2 sequence, with the B-component functioning as the theological key to the story it is between.
Like in Mark 11:12-21, The fig tree that withers in keeping with Jesus’ curse symbolizes Israel and the corrupt worship being offered in its temple, which demanded purging by the Messiah who is jealous for God’s glory among the nations. The sin of the Temple brings a cures.
A Few Examples:
A Few more Examples:
In most of these sections, the movement from the “frame story” to the inserted narrative naturally reflects the flow of historical events (this is not true of Mark 6:7–30). Mark was not concerned with historical chronological order as much as making theological connections between real historical events.
.
God-man of action
From start to finish, Jesus is the uncontested subject of the Gospel of Mark, and he is portrayed as a man of action. The action of the Gospel is all-important to the meaning of the Gospel, for we learn who Jesus is not so much from what he says as from what he does. In this respect, Mark writes with a paintbrush.
Although Jesus is often referred to as a teacher, when compared to Matthew or Luke, Mark is not focused on the content of his teaching as much his actions. It is quickly apparent that the person of the 'teacher' is Mark's aim. He wishes to to hold up as important
In his book, A Theology of Mark’s Gospel, Theologian David Garland, thinks Mark as presenting Jesus “as the Messiah and the Son of God and to show that his shameful death on a cross was part of God’s plan for the redemption of humanity.”(1)
Garland considers the Christology of mark To be an Enacted Christology. “Mark developed his Christology through narrative. That is, the audience learns Jesus’ identity and significance for their lives through story.”(2)
In Mark, we discover Jesus as Messiah, Son of God, through his actions and deeds. Mark gives a consistent balanced christology, describing Jesus with divine and human characteristics. But it is through the whole narrative from beginning to end that Mark describes Christ in high definition to add clarity to the portrait of Jesus, he is presenting.
Jesus the Authoritative Son of God
Mark’s Jesus is authoritative: He calls disciples and they follow him; people are amazed and listen attentively when he speaks; even unclean spirits obey his commands. In the opening chapters His authority is clearly on display.
Jesus the controversial Son of God
According to Mark, the religious leadership opposed Jesus. In chapter 2, Mark gives four stories about the controversy Jesus stirred up. The religious leaders were offended by his confrontation of their self-righteousness, ethnocentrism and the correction he brought to their misinterpretation of the Torah. Despite this animosity, Jesus never opposed Judaism as a religion. Jesus as the Jewish messiah. He came to be the fulfillment of it.
Jesus the Misunderstood Son of God
In the first half of the Gospel, only five individuals or groups know Jesus’ identity: 1.) God, 2.) Jesus, 3.) the evil spirits, 4.) the author, and 5.) the reader. Not even his family or closest disciples understand who he is. It is not until the middle of the Gospel that his disciples begin to realize that Jesus is the Son of God. And this they know, in part, at best.
Jesus the Suffering Son of God
Mark portrayed Jesus as the suffering servant of Isaiah’s servant songs. Jesus even predicts his death three times in this Gospel, and the latter part of Mark’s Gospel focuses exclusively on Jesus’ the events leading up to the crucifixion. Mark explains that it is precisely because Jesus is the messiah that he must die: His death will serve as “a ransom for many” (10:45). The narrative continues with Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem, teaching at the Temple, arrest, and trials before the Sanhedrin and Pilate.
Jesus the Crucified Son of God
Even at the end, Jesus’ disciples do not understand his identity and mission. Judas hands him over, Peter denies him, and the others scatter to avoid arrest. Jesus is left to die alone. Though he was alone, He would not die in vain. What was accomplished in those three hours changed everything. Mark uses two events at Jesus’ death to illustrate the reality of what Jesus has done for sinful broken humanity. First, when Jesus dies, the curtain into the Holy of Holies is torn from top to bottom. Not a bottom up work but a top down act of Grace signifying open access. Through this story, Mark implies that after Jesus’ sacrificial death, all people, not just the high priest, have full access to God. Second, and even more striking, is the Roman centurion at the cross who confesses that Jesus is God’s Son. The man who killed Jesus, recognizes Jesus as God’s son. Throughout the Gospel, all of the Jews, including Jesus’ closest followers, fail to recognize Jesus for who he is. Ironically, and deeply consistent with the Scope of Christ’s work, it is a Gentile with Christ’s blood on his hands, who first confesses this truth. Taken Together, the two points form a profound truth, on the grounds of Jesus’ work on the cross that (1) their is open access for all, (2) access to God only comes through Jesus.
Footnotes
1. David E. Garland, A Theology of Mark’s Gospel: Good News about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 2015) 25
2. David E. Garland, A Theology of Mark’s Gospel: Good News about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 2015) 262
Over the coming weeks, I am going to release additional material on the gospel of Mark. We will look at background, themes, theology and and the interesting style of mark’s gospel. This week we will look at the authorship of Mark and the evidence supporting John Mark as the author of the gospel.
Evidence for Authorship
Internal evidence: In the gospel no author is given. It is Anonymous.
External evidence: we have a first-century tradition claiming that John Mark is the author. John Mark was a companion of Paul (4:10) and later of Peter (1 Peter 5:13). Below is a selection of the evidence from the church Fathers. The evidence comes from the writings of the early church Fathers. Two second century sources uphold this position.
The Papias Tradition (c. 100–140)
The most important reference comes from Papias, (c. 100–140). Papias was the "Bishop of Hierapolis" which is near ancient Colossae, in modern day Turkey. The quote below is from Papias’ work, Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord, a commentary on the gospels written by Papias around 110 AD. The complete work has been lost but we have quotes from later church writers.(1) The references to Papias, come by way of Eusebius who quotes him in his work on the history of the church (c. 325).
As to the authorship of Mark Eusebius quotes Papias as teaching:
“The Presbyter used to say this also: “Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote down accurately, but not in order, all that he remembered of the things said and done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord or been one of his followers, but later, as I said, a follower of Peter. Peter used to teach as the occasion demanded, without giving systematic arrangement to the Lord’s sayings, so that Mark did not err in writing down some things just as he recalled them. For he had one overriding purpose: to omit nothing that he had heard and to make no false statements in his account.” (2)
The importance of Papias’ quote is his connection to the apostolic witness. Eusebius notes the connection.
“Papias thus admits that he learned the words of the apostles from their followers but says that he personally heard Aristion and John the presbyter. He often quotes them by name and includes their traditions in his writings” (3)
Eusebius goes on to shows that though Papias did not himself know the apostles personally, he was in direct contact with those who had sat under them, including Aristion, Polycarp, and the daughters of Philip the Evangelist.
So here We have a first-century tradition claiming that Mark accurately interpreted (or translated) Peter’s eyewitness accounts, turning Peter’s anecdotal stories into a connected narrative, though not necessarily in chronological order.(4)
Anti-Marcionite Prologue (160-180)
A second-century sources also make similar claims. The Anti-Marcionite Prologue to Mark (c. 160 –180) identifies Mark as the author and links him to Peter:
“Mark . . . who was called ‘stump-fingered’ because for the size of the rest of his body he had fingers that were too short. He was Peter’s interpreter. After the departure [or ‘death’] of Peter himself, the same man wrote his Gospel in the regions of Italy.”(5)
Now, the date of the Anti-Marcionite prologues is disputed, with some scholars placing them in the third century but a majority date the writings to around 160-180 AD.
The odd statement about Mark’s ‘Vienna sausage’ like fingers may point to a reliable tradition, for only people who really know you get to call you “stubby fingers” and get away with it. (6) Or looked at another way, We may have here the first instance of a Christian inside joke, given Mark’s Gospel is short and little stubby fingers can only write so long. We get a short gospel (but that’s me just wildly speculating). In ether case, since someone who did not know him is unlikely to have invented let alone written such a solid smack of a remark. An “over share” such as that supports the authenticity of the tradition. The comment points to a reliable tradition given only good friends give nicknames like “stubby fingers” and then affirm the writing.
Next to corroborating the Papias tradition, we also find here are two additional pieces of information: that Mark wrote after Peter’s death and that he wrote from Italy.
If written after Peter’s death, which has traditionally thought to have happened during Nero’s persecution of the church around 67-68 AD. Then the gospel was likely written around 67-69 AD. If it was written from Italy, likely Rome, then it was at the epicenter of persecution during the 60s AD. It can be concluded that it was written during a time of intense persecution. Following this line of thought it is reasonable to assume given time and place that it’s reason for being written involved the preservation of Peter’s apostolic witness and to encourage the church to be faithful disciples in persecution. (ie calling them to follow Jesus, and carry their cross to the end of the line, just like their Lord).
Further Testimony of the early church Fathers
Justin Martyr (ca A.D. 150) makes an indirectly connection to Peter as author of Mark’s Gospel. When he refers to Mark 3:16–17 where Jesus’ naming of Simon as “Peter,” and James and John as “Sons of Thunder” Justin even quotes a part of Mk 3:17 and cites his source as the memoirs of Peter. (Dialogue with Trypho 106).
Irenaeus (A.D. 170) notes Mark recorded some of Peter’s messages after his death. "And after the death of these Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also transmitted to us in writing the things preached by Peter." (Against Heresies 3.1.2)
Interestingly to this point, the Content of Mark's Gospel closely follows the content of Peter’s preaching. Parallels can be found between Peter’s sermon in Acts 10:36-41 and Mark’s Gospel.
Clement of Alexandria writing around, A.D. 180, about the same time as Irenaeus wrote something very similar except he states the Mark wrote before Peter’s death. "When Peter had publicly preached the word at Rome, and by the Spirit had proclaimed the Gospel, that those present, who were many, exhorted Mark, as one who had followed him for a long time and remembered what had been spoken, to make a record of what was said; and that he did this, and distributed the Gospel among those that asked him. And that when the matter came to Peter's knowledge he neither strongly forbade it nor urged it forward." (Quoted in Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 4.14.6-7).
Origen (ca. A.D. 200) "Secondly, that according to Mark, who wrote it in accordance with Peter's instructions, who also Peter acknowledged as his son in the catholic epistle, speaking in these terms: 'She that is in Babylon, elect together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Mark my son.'" (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 6.25.5),
Tertullian (ca. A.D. 200), "That gospel which Mark edited may be affirmed to be of Peter, whose interpreter Mark was.” (Against Marcion 4.5)
Jerome (ca. A.D. 400), "Mark, the interpreter of the apostle Peter, and the first bishop of the church of Alexandria, who himself had not seen the Lord, the very Saviour, ..[Mark] published a gospel; but he narrated those things he had heard his master preaching more in accordance with the trustworthiness of the things performed than in order." (Jerome, Commentary on Matthew)
The consensus from Papias through Jerome, makes at least five important claims about Mark’s gospel:
1. Mark authored the gospel.
2. Mark was not an eyewitness.
3. Mark’s gospel obtained information from Peter likely his testimony and teachings.
4. Mark wrote after Peter’s death. Thus, sometime after 64 AD.
5. Mark wrote from Italy, likely Rome (during a time of intense persecution).
Conclusion: it is likely Mark in the pen (author) Peter is the eyewitness (Authority), the gospel was written to a persecuted people (audience) to encourage their faith by presenting the good news of their Crucified King enthroned on a cross (application).
Footnote
1. Sadly his complete work has been lost. Today we only have scant fragments of Papias’s work from quotation made by church fathers. Sidenote: a reconstructed of those fragments has been compiled now called the fragments of papias. See ‘Fragments of Papias,’ in Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., Ante-Nicene Fathers vol. 1. (1885; repr. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004)
2. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.15 (translation from P. Maier, Eusebius: The Church History (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999), 129 – 30.
3. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.7; trans. Maier, Eusebius, 127, cf. Acts 21:8 – 9)
4. For strong defenses of the authenticity of the Papias tradition, see Robert H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 1026-45.
5. Cited by C. Black, Mark: Images of an Apostolic Interpreter (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1994), 119.
6. The same description is found in Hippolytus, Haer. 7.30.1 (see Black, Mark, 115 – 18).
.