The End of Envy--Jesus' Death! : Studies in Mark, Pt. 65

Perhaps more than any other scholar, Jerome Neyrey has researched envy and its role within the Gospel of Mark. In a thought-provoking essay, Neyrey surveys Mark’s work with an eye towards elucidating the meaning of Mk. 10.15: “It was ‘out of envy’ (dia phthonon) that they handed Jesus over.” Of course, the “they” here refers to the religious leaders who had been plotting to kill Jesus since the early days of His ministry (Mk. 3.6) and repeatedly trying to trap Him in His words and actions throughout the entirety of His ministry so that such plans might come to fruition (e.g. Mk. 10.2, 11.32, 12.12, 12.14-5, 14.1-2, 14.1-11, etc. *basically all of chapters 11-14).

Of course, envy was a serious matter and was even considered a vice in antiquity. Affiliated with the evil eye (Mk. 722), envy was a way to bring shame, harm, disaster, etc. on one’s opponents. Just as well, in a limited good culture where honor was a most precious commodity, when one gained honor, that meant others lost it. So, when someone like Jesus gained honor, others lost it and thus became envious. Of course, some didn’t react negatively (enviously) but rather sought to emulate Jesus—emulation was the converse of envy in antiquity. So, when we read Mk. 10.15 and run across the statement about Jesus being handed over out of envy, if we allow the ancient cultural matrix to be our guide, one point we will glean is that some who were handing Jesus over probably felt their own honor at stake; to get Jesus out of the picture is to reclaim that honor!

But I want to go another direction with this (one Neyrey doesn't touch on). If we dwell on the social aspect of envy and it being the reason that Mark says Jesus was handed over, we must ask a question about prophecy (in the sense of foretelling). I have argued earlier in this series that Jesus didn’t predict His death (here). Instead, Jesus, having been made aware that people were plotting to take His life from the beginning of His ministry, knew that if He kept it up, the logical consequence would be His death. So, He wasn’t predicting His death in an I’m omniscience, I know the future, super-spiritual sort of way. Instead, as an astute human, He put two and two together and drew a conclusion.

This is the lens through which we should read passages like Mk. 15.10. Jesus knew, as a social personage, as a participant of His limited-good, honor-based society, that the more honor He accrued combined with the religious and political leaders losing honor, would result in them envying Him. The outcome of such envy would be their attempt to regain their honor the only way they knew how—by murdering Jesus. The end of envy was Jesus' death. Jesus knew it was coming and so did others, even if they were reticent to admit it (I’m thinking of people like Peter here, see Mk. 8). Some knew it however, and kept following Him “on the way” (a Markan catch phrase which, to some degree, informs the reader/hearer that people are well aware of what both they and Jesus have gotten themselves into).

So, once again, we see that when Jesus is placed in His ancient cultural milieu, He fits in well; He knows the ins and outs of His society, He knows the limited good, honor versus shame mindsets. Just as well, He knows the powerful role that envy plays. And it is for that reason that we can have greater insight into Jesus, the texts about Him, the world in which He lived and the social, political and group dynamics at work in those days. It is also for that reason that we can choose to subscribe to the Jesus Movement and be emulators instead of enviers. The author of John’s Gospel said it well when he wrote, “I must decrease and He must increase.” Can we say the same (and mean the same thing)? Think on these things!

“What Comes Out of You is What Defiles You” : Studies in Mark, Pt. 24

In Mk. 7.20, a scene where the religious leaders had just challenged Jesus on food regulations, Jesus teaches the crowds and His disciples that, “all foods are clean.” Now, the immediate context of this scene and of Jesus’ words has to do with food. However, there is a general, ancient principle underlying His statement: “What comes out of you is what defiles you” (7.21). Let me give an example.

Right after His statement in 7.21a, Jesus, in 7.21b-22 gives a laundry list of sins that originate from within. One of those sins that He mentions is “envy.” Actually, in the language of the New Testament that term is “οφθαλμος πονηρος,” which literally means “eye of evil” or “evil eye.” In the times of Jesus, the evil eye was a serious issue. One of the ways to bring disaster or misfortune on your enemies was to cast the evil eye on them. Now, to most Westerners, the evil eye sounds more like a superstition than anything. But lest we act like cultural imperialists or elitists, we should remember that to Jesus, in His culture, this was no small issue.

I should note that there are still cultures in the world today that believe strongly in the evil eye. Many Hispanic cultures adhere deeply to the evil eye principle. Because most Western Christians will never travel over to the Mediterranean, they are not likely to realize that even today, the evil eye is still a cultural phenomenon there. No matter where you go in Turkey, you will see the evil eye. In the pictures I have posted (below) from my trip to Turkey last January, you can see that our bus driver had one on his dashboard and that a restaurant owner placed one over the door frame of his store; they had done this for protection.

The blue and white medallion is thought to be a type of reflective charm. That is, if someone casts the evil eye on your (e.g. on your bus or on your business), the charm will act as a mirror and reflect the evil eye back on the one casting it. Thus, in the end, they have cursed themselves. One way to block or deflect the evil eye was to spit at the one casting the evil eye (hence the story where Jesus spits and heals the man’s eyes) or to strive to prevent persons from becoming envious of you. David Fiensy points out that, in the Talmud, there is a passage concerning the evil eye that says:

“If anyone is going up into a town and is afraid fo the evil eye, let him take the thumb of his right hand in his left hand and the thumb of his left hand in his right hand and say, “I, so-and-so, the son of so-and-so, am the offspring of Joseph and the evil eye has no power over us…If he is afraid of his own evil eye, he should look at the side of his left nostril” (Beracot 55b).

Again, we should not downplay this belief just because we do not practice it. Evidently, Jesus Himself understood it to be an issue of paramount importance; He did not want people to cast the evil eye on others—it was representative of wishing evil or disaster on someone.

So, what does this all have to do with Jesus’ statement that “What comes out of you is what defiles you”? Well, it actually has a lot to do with it. In the ancient world, there were four ideas about how the eye worked—none of them like our medical theories today. However, there was one prevailing theory, one that was the most common among those who lived in the ancient Mediterranean world. Plutarch, in one of his works, mentions this view: “Indeed, I said, you yourself are on the right track of the cause (of the effectiveness of the evil eye) when you come to the emanations of the bodies…and by far living things are more likely to give out such things because of their warmth and movement…and probably these (emanations) are especially given out through the eyes” [Moralia V.7,680). In the next verse of this work, Plutarch talks about how the emanations from a jaundiced eye can kill flowers and cause great harm.

Elsewhere, Plutarch records, “Man both experiences and produces many effects through his eyes; he is possessed and governed by either pleasure or displeasure exactly in proportion to what he sees” (Quaestionum convivialium 5.7). Aristotle wrote that “Sight is made from fire and hearing from air” (Problems 31, 960a), “Vision is fire” (Problems 31, 959b) and “in shame the eyes are chilled” (Problems 31, 957b). Scores of other evil eye citations could be given but that is unnecessary here. So, we can see that the common thought was that evil could emanate or come out of the eye. In other words, the evil came from within and went out through the eye. Thus, while Jesus is in the main speaking about food rules in Mk. 7.1-20, the underlying principle that He purports (“What goes out of you is what defiles you”) also applies to the moral topos that makes up Mk. 7.21-3.

One of the items in the topos, as we have seen, is the evil eye—a glance of envy that by its powerful emanations could bring disaster on those one held ill feelings towards. One of the points I wanted to make by writing this study was to show just how easy it is to read the Scriptures and to miss their ancient context. And when we miss the context, we ultimately misinterpret and from time-to-time lead others or ourselves astray. Context, then, is incredibly important. Another thing this reminds us of is that when we read the Scriptures, we cannot be cultural imperialists. We cannot act as though our culture because we have different understandings and beliefs, is better than the ancient Mediterranean culture was. No, we need to acknowledge the differences and take them for what they are. Sometimes we can accept ancient understandings but sometimes we must move past them so that we are not confined to ancient cultural norms. It is not an all or nothing approach to the Bible. We constantly need to be reminded that reading and interpreting the Bible is hard work and it must be done with sensitivity, open-mindedness and to the best of our abilities, accuracy.