With this post, we finish my series of general thoughts on the Gospel of Mark. Here is the complete series:
Mark 1:1-13
Mark 1:14-15
Mark 1:16-45
Mark 2
Mark 3
Mark 4:1-34
Mark 4:35-5:43
Mark 6
Mark 7
Mark 8
Mark 9
This post
Mark 11:1-11 (Palm Sunday)
Mark 11:12-25 (Temple Monday)
Mark 11:26-12:44 (Debate Tuesday)
Mark 13 (Temple Prediction)
Mark 14:1-52 (Last Supper)
Mark 14:53-15:47 (Good Friday)
Mark 16 (The Resurrection)
_______________________
1. Jesus heads south. In Mark, this is the first time. It is the same in Matthew and Luke. Given the symbolic nature of John, it is at least possible that the three Passovers there are symbolic of the three days that Jesus was in the grave. If all we had were Matthew, Mark, and Luke, we would no doubt think Jesus' full ministry was only for part of a year.
The chapter begins with questions about divorce from "some Pharisees." Is it permitted, they ask him. This was a well-known rabbinic debate among various schools of Pharisees. The school of Hillel allowed divorce for a wide range of reasons, including trivial ones such as a wife burning a meal. [1] The school of Shammai took a stricter view, permitting divorce only in cases of serious indecency or unfaithfulness.
In Mark, Jesus sounds stricter even than the school of Shammai, since he gives no exception. However, Matthew adds "except for sexual immorality," thus aligning Jesus' position with that of Shammai. My seminary professor Bob Lyon felt like Jesus would not have startled anyone if he had historically given the exception and thus was inclined to believe that the historical Jesus made no exceptions.
2. It is quite hermeneutically instructive that Jesus overrides Moses. Rather than considering the teaching of Deuteronomy 24 to be timeless, exceptionless law, he indicates that there are teachings in Scripture that are less than ideal. In effect, Jesus says that God accommodated the hardness of Israel's heart when he allowed for divorce. This is quite striking.
Jesus then goes back to Genesis 2. A husband and wife become one flesh and thus are joined together by God. ("One flesh" here does not precisely correlate sex and marriage. Paul indicates that a person becomes one flesh with a prostitute in 1 Cor. 6, but he does not see that as a marriage).
Groups have often made the teaching here into a legalism of its own, which is ironic given Jesus' strong avoidance of legalisms. Bruce Malina has argued that, in the normal sense of adultery at the time, a man could not actually commit adultery against his wife because adultery was culturally understood to be the shaming of a man by sleeping with his wife. It didn't work the other way around because her honor was entirely embedded in his. [2]
Jesus is thus being radically countercultural when he suggests a man could actually commit adultery against his wife. This would have been shocking. It also hints at the underlying reasoning. Far from setting down a legalistic view of marriage, Jesus is laying down protection for wives who were easily discarded in that world. He is forbidding it.
The additional note in 10:12 about a woman not divorcing her husband is likely a Markan addition to balance out the instruction for a broader Roman world. In Israel, a wife was not typically able to divorce her husband, making the command unlikely to come directly from Jesus historically. Rather, it is likely Mark applying Jesus' teaching to a braoder audience.
3. The middle part of Mark 10 implicitly contrasts the attitude of children with that of the rich. At first, the disciples rebuke people bringing children to him. It is another example of them not getting it, of the disciples' lack of understanding. We cannot enter the kingdom of God unless we receive it like a child.
The next story then contrasts. It is almost impossible for the rich to enter the kingdom of God. Far from the attitude of a child, it is hard for them to surrender everything to God and be completely dependent on him.
A rich man asks Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life. Jesus reminds him of the Ten Commandments. He has kept all of those from his youth. But Jesus says that he lacks one thing. Jesus instructs him to sell everything he has and give to the poor. He goes away sorrowful because he has many possessions.
If we look back at the commands that Jesus mentions first, they are not to murder, commit adultery, steal, bare false witness. Honoring parents and not defrauding others are also mentioned. Defraud here seems to relate to coveting the things of others and cheating them in order to get them. We note that the Sabbath command is. not mentioned, which in Gentile Christian circles may not have been a central concern (cf. Rom. 14:5). We remember that Mark's audience may be primarily Gentile.
What else is missing from this list? The central command -- to love God with one's whole heart, not to have any other gods before Yahweh. It is often pointed out that Jesus does not make this command to everyone. I have heard it used often of a "one time" command of Jesus that was needed especially by a specific individual at a particular time.
I think this is ultimately the right application of the passage, but we probably let ourselves off the hook a little too easily. The Christian culture of today too easily throws away Jesus' frequent negativity toward the rich and his warnings about wealth. We have sanctified capitalism and made it part of godliness. The Parable of the Talents -- which appears right before the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats in Matthew 25 -- is made into a parable of monetary investment while the context suggests it is investment in others, especially those who are in need.
Similarly, there was apparently an apocalyptic urgency to Jesus' earthly ministry. While we are looking back at two thousand years, Jesus' ministry modeled the immanency of the kingdom's arrival. Having possessions in such a context is irrelevant. What is important is Jesus' mission. All else falls away.
If God has blessed you with wealth, Jesus indicates that you have no part in the kingdom if it is more important to you than he is. If you would not joyfully surrender every last bit for the sake of God, then it is as if you have not kept any of the commandments. It is our faith that indicates our belonging, not our rule-keeping.
"How hard it is for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God," Jesus says (10:23). It is harder than to get a camel through the eye of a needle. There was no "Camel Gate" or any other folk tale explanation attempt. In the saying, a camel is a camel, and a needle is a needle. It is hyperbole for sure, but the statement means what it seems to mean -- it would have been almost impossible for a wealthy person in Jesus' context to be part of the kingdom of God.
In the coming age, those who are first now will be last, and those who are last now will be first then. The receiving of houses and lands and brothers and sisters and mothers now is not referring to a prosperity gospel but to becoming part of the family of God. Other people's mothers become your mothers. Their houses become your houses. Their land becomes your land. It is a communal dimension to the Christian family that Jesus has in mind here.
Again, he calls the disciples children, and Peter reminds Jesus that they have left everything to follow him. This hearkens back to what Jesus said about the children coming to him.
4. When the young man comes to Jesus, he calls him a "good teacher." Jesus deflects the word good as a descriptor. "Why do you call me good?" he says. "Only one is good -- God."
It is a fascinating reaction in several respects. On the one hand, there are those who take this as a straightforward indication by Jesus that he did not consider himself to be God. Then there are others who would say that Jesus' point specifically is to hint that he is God. This is probably the way most Christian interpreters throughout the centuries have taken the exchange.
In either case, there is a clear allusion to the Shema in Deuteronomy 6:4 -- "Hear, O Israel, Yahweh our God, Yahweh is one." The original sense of the Shema was probably, "Yahweh is our God, Yahweh alone."
Then there is the question of whether a human can be good. As Christians, we certainly believe Jesus was (and is) good. This pushes us again toward an ironic reading of Jesus' statement, one that hints at something more than it says.
It is also possible, however, that Jesus is trying to lower the rich man's opinion of himself. Perhaps the young man thinks he is good beyond what he actually is. Thus Jesus reminds him that God is the One who is truly good. We humans are creatures of sin, and our goodness is only by God's gracious empowerment.
4. The next part of the chapter presents the third time that Jesus predicts his death. Even in Mark, the three times may allude symbolically to the three days that Jesus was in the ground. This time it is James and John who show that the disciples do not understand. They do not get the fact that it is Jesus' suffering that will most clearly indicate that he is the Messiah.
They are still thinking of the Messiah in victorious political terms. They want seats of privilege at Jesus' right and left hand. The contrast with the fact that Jesus has just told them he was going to Jerusalem to die is stark. They don't get it.
Jesus asks if they can drink from the cup he is about to drink. Obliviously, they say yes. Jesus says that they will indeed. Although the tradition is that John did not die a martyr's death, this exchange suggests that John the son of Zebedee did indeed die a martyr. James would die fairly early on in the early forties at the hands of Herod Agrippa I. Mark seems to imply that John would also die by the early 70s.
The other ten are annoyed that James and John would try to get in line ahead of them. Jesus thus uses the moment as a teaching opportunity. In the Gentile world, leaders love power. They love to show off their authority. Frankly, this is human nature in general.
But it is not the way of the kingdom. Those who would be in leadership must be servants, not just in name but in reality. The first among them must behave like a servant.
Then we get the only explicit statement in Mark on the meaning of Jesus' death. Jesus -- the Son of Man -- did not come to be served (10:45). He came to serve. And he came to lay down his life as a ransom for many. Jesus' death would provide a means of freedom from bondage for those who trust in him.
5. The chapter ends with the healing of blind Bartimaeus leaving Jericho. This is the final event before the triumphal entry and the beginning of Passion week. It happens here in Mark as Jesus is leaving Jericho to head west toward Bethany and Jerusalem. In Matthew, there are two unnamed blind men. In Luke, it is a blind man as Jesus enters the city. These differences are a reminder that we are not getting a video tape of Jesus' ministry.
The fact that he is named suggests that he remained known within the early Christian community. We even know his father's name. It is also part of a cumulative case that Mark is the earliest of the gospels we have.
The blind man calls Jesus "Son of David," which of course suggests he is the Davidic king. He is the first and only one to call Jesus this in Mark. He is blind, but he clearly sees.
Some of Jesus' followers rebuke him for thinking he is significant enough to be seen by Jesus. Jesus does not explicitly rebuke them, but the text implies a rebuke. As with the children, their priorities aren't in order, and they don't understand Jesus.
Jesus asks what the man wants him to do for him. It may be obvious, but it's important for the man to articulate. He wants his sight. In a sense, Jesus isn't the one who gives it. Rather, it is the man's faith (10:52).
[1] Mishnah Gittin 9:10
[2] Bruce J. Malina, The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology, 3rd ed. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), pp. 146–147.
No comments:
Post a Comment