Rethinking Jesus’ Suffering: Studies in Mark, Pt. 60

So, this is my 60th “study” on Mark. I think that’s pretty cool. I’ve enjoyed writing on Mark’s Gospel so far and hopefully there will be many, many more posts on it.

In this post, I want us to think about a phrase that occurs twice in Mark’s Gospel: “The Son of Man must suffer…” (8.31; 9.12). Typically, this phrase is read through the lens of divine determinism: “God the Father made evil things happen so that Jesus would undergo suffering and redeem humanity.” However, there is another way to think through such passages.

For instance, if we read the Gospel narratives closely, we see that at the beginning of His ministry, Jesus is aware that the religious and political leaders are plotting to take His life (see: Mk. 3.6 and especially, its parallel Mt. 12.14-5). In both Mk. and Mt., Jesus knows that His neck is on the line. Even so, He continues on in His ministry (e.g. teaching, healing, miracles/wonders, etc.). Thus, we might read the passages that say “The Son of Man must suffer” not as divinely determined statements but as socially and historically shaped ones—Jesus was aware that He was being hunted and He also knew that if He continued to do the things He was doing, He was going to suffer and be killed.

What this means is that Jesus chose to endure suffering for the sake of humanity and the sake of the Gospel. He was not “divinely abused” nor was He drawing on some leftover omniscience He had saved up for precisely these moments. Jesus is stating a matter of social fact and historical reality: “If I keep on with this, I’m going to suffer.” And to His followers He’s making the point: “If you keep on with me, you too will suffer.” He’s not attempting to be predictive here; He’s stating a mater of fact.

Two things we can take from this are: 1) Jesus chose to suffer for righteousness sake, and 2) Jesus’ disciples also chose to suffer for righteousness. We might conclude from these to points that in situations of abuse, neglect, mistreatment, etc. today, people are not called, as Christ-followers, to just take the beatings. That is not suffering for righteousness sake; this is not the same type of suffering that a martyr endures! Perhaps it’s time to rethink Jesus’ suffering so that the vicious cycles of violence and hate that are alive and well today, disappear from our lives.

Rebuking the Idea of Resurrection : Studies in Mark, Pt. 32

The story of Jesus rebuking Peter has always been one of the most attention getting narratives of the Synoptics. Among commentators, one or two things are usually emphasized: 1) Peter rebukes Jesus’ “failure” mentality (that is, Peter believes that Jesus’ vision is too shortsighted), or 2) Jesus rebukes Peter for being possessed by or in-league with the devil, that is, satan. While other views exist (usually just a nuanced view of these two points), these are certainly the ones that dominate literature on Mark. It is my contention, though, that there is a better way to read and understand this story.

A few posts ago, I argued that in chapter 8 of Mark’s work, Jesus is essentially taking stock of His ministry. He asks many question to gauge precisely where His disciples are and what they think about Him. He also wants to know what others think about Him. One of the questions Jesus asks is, “Who do people…and who do you, say that I am?” Peter replies, “You are the Messiah.”

Certainly, Peter got the answer right (Mark refers to Jesus as the Messiah in his opening verses). Yet, Jesus saw right through Peter’s answer. It is like being the teacher of a children’s Church school class. Every time you ask a question, the inevitable answer is “Jesus”. The kids say “Jesus” (and sometimes it is the right answer) but they hardly understand the full ramifications of what they’re saying. So, even though Peter mouthed the right answer, he did not really know what He was saying. This is proven by the fact that as soon as Peter speaks, the reader becomes aware that Mark is portraying Jesus in teacher mode.

As a wise teacher, Jesus wants to see if Peter really understands the answer he gave, so, Jesus presses the issue further. It is akin to Him saying, “Okay, Peter, you say that I am the Messiah but do you really know what that means?” Jesus then says, “I, the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and be killed and after three days, be raised” (Mk. 8.31). Upon hearing this, Peter is floored; he is taken aback. What else can he do but pull Jesus aside and lay into Him?

Mark tells us that Peter “rebuked” Jesus. The Greek word “epitimao” implies an incredibly strong rebuke (the same word is used when Jesus rebukes demons as well as the wind and waves). We would love to know exactly how that entire conversation went but we just don’t have it. Yet, the term “rebuked” is not our only clue as to what Peter might have said to Jesus. Indeed, in verse 33, Jesus says to Peter, “Get behind me, satan.” The word “satan” here can be taken as the nomenclature, satan, that is, the devil. However, it can also be taken as its base meaning: accuser (thus, “satan” literally means “accuser”). Therefore, the statement reads, “Get behind me, accuser.” In my view, this fits really well with the overall context of the passage. For example, if Peter had been in-league with satan, as some have pointed out, it would have made more sense of Jesus to say in His next sentence, “You have in mind the things of evil” or “You have in mind the things of satan,” not just “You have in mind the things of men.” Thus, Jesus is not rebuking Peter for being in-league with the prince of darkness. So, this leads us to ask the question, then, “What did Peter accuse Jesus of?”

Well, from the text, we know that the discussion between Peter and Jesus concerned Jesus’ comments about dying and being raised (8.31). We also know that, unlike His usual tendency to speak in parables, Jesus spoke plainly about dying and being raised (8.32). Yet, we find out in 9.9-10, after Jesus has told them again that He will be killed and raised, that Peter and company are “debating what rising from the dead meant.” The word “debating” (suzeteo) should not be softened to “discussing” or any such word. It is used in the following story a number of times and has the connotation of debating there as well. What this passage shows us is that the disciples did not have trouble with Jesus’ comments about His crucifixion or death but rather with His statements concerning resurrection.

Evidently there were different viewpoints as to what “rising from the dead” meant. Were some trying to understand this parabolically? Figuratively? Needless to say, the disciples were arguing about it, which shows that they didn’t really understand it (or at the least, they had not come to a consensus on it). Now, this is where things get really intriguing and actually, here is where I think most commentators (every one that I’ve read anyways), miss a very important point. Typically, the rebuke scenes are read in such a way that the death and crucifixion are taken to be the focus. Put differently, these verses are usually read as Peter being uneasy about the death of Jesus. However, in context, it appears that the story can be read differently. In fact, it seems that as in 9.9-10, Peter is more perturbed by Jesus’ resurrection statements than His crucifixion ones; it is the resurrection statements that he just cannot wrap his mind around.

It is probably bad enough for Peter that Jesus would associate Himself with a vile Roman cross, an association that directly falls upon those who travel with Jesus. Just as well, Peter was probably hot and bothered that the professed “Messiah” would ever be killed by Rome, much less via crucifixion. But that was only the starting point, to make matters worse for Peter, Jesus says that He is going to rise again. Of course, Peter, a good Jewish man, believed that resurrection from the dead was possible (when he previously saw Jairus’ daughter raised, he probably thought “resuscitation”). However, Peter believed in a common or general resurrection, not a single-person event. Therefore, when Peter hears Jesus say this, He pulls Him aside and rebukes and accuses Him.

Peter rebukes Jesus for the words He has spoken and Peter accuses Jesus for misunderstanding the resurrection. Peter was waiting for the vindication of all of Israel, including her deceased, not just the raising of one man. In short, Peter had merely human concerns; Peter did not have in mind the things that Jesus had in mind—that through a one-man death and resurrection, not only Israel but all of creation—would be vindicated and restored. (*Note: It only makes sense that Peter would misunderstand a resurrection, as opposed to misunderstandng a crucifixion!)

After speaking plainly about this, Jesus returns to riddler mode and tries to explain the concept of a one-man death and resurrection and what it means for all creation. He says things like, “Those who give or lose their lives for me will find life” and “You can’t gain the world by giving it your soul but you can gain it by giving your soul to me.” He also says, “If you are unashamed of me in this life, I will be unashamed of you forever.” Jesus’ statements bespeak crucifixion (e.g. cross) and resurrection, death and life. There will be a one-man crucifixion and resurrection via Christ and all those events extend “life” to all persons. Some may die while following Christ and others may not. However, in living or dying for Christ, one partakes of the death and resurrection of Christ. Jesus even said that some standing there listening to Him would see the Kingdom of God come in power (I take this as a reference to the resurrection). Thus, as Jesus pauses in chapter 8 to take stock of His ministry, He realizes that this is what He needs to teach. This is what the people need to know and hear. More needs to be said about the resurrection!

Before leaving this episode, I should make one last point. One of the reasons this story is so often misread is because it is seen through the lens of the later story where Peter defends Jesus when the soldiers come to take Him away (Mk. 14.43-51, etc.). But we should not read it this way! This story in Mk. 8 comes first and should be read on its own (after discussing this with my wife she pointed out to me that, if anything, from a narrative perspective, Mk. 14 should probably be read in terms of Mk. 8). It should also be noted that in Mark's account, in chapter 14, Peter is not mentioned as the one who defends Jesus! To get this, you have to go to the other Gospel accounts! In other words, you have to read Matthew or Luke's account onto Mark's to know this about Peter. This, I submit, is something that we should be cautious of doing! Let's take this story on its own and let's take it in context.

The Quest for the Questioning Jesus: Studies in Mark, Pt. 29

Jesus, according to my count, asks 66 questions in Mark’s Gospel. I’ve categorized the questions, broadly, into three groups (realizing that sometimes a question may overlap between categories). Here are my findings and categorizations:

+Interrogative - (2.8, 5.9, 7.18a, 8.12, 8.17a, 8.18a, 8.27, 8.29, 9.12, 9.23, 10.8, 11.30, 12.11, 12.15, 14.6)

+Rhetorical – [when a specific answer is expected or given afterwards, sometimes even in the form of another question] - (2.9, 3.4, 3.23, 3.33, 4.13a, 4.21a, 4.21b, 5.39, 8.17b, 8.17c, 8.36, 8.37, 9.19a, 9.19b, 9.50, 10.3, 10.38, 11.17, 12.9, 12.16a, 12.16b, 12.24, 12.26, 12.36, 12.37, 13.2, 14.37a, 14.41a, 14.48)

+Genuine – (2.25, 4.13b, 5.30, 6.38, 7.18b, 8.5, 8.18b, 8.19, 8.20, 8.21, 8.23, 9.16, 9.21, 9.33, 10.36, 10.51, 14.37b, 15.34)

For my purposes here, I want to reflect on category number three. In fact, I would suggest that this category is, in some ways, the hardest for many Christians to deal with—it is probably safe to say that the first two categories pose no problems for people. Moving on, many hold the view that Jesus was omniscient—I do not. I believe that as part of the Godhead, when Jesus the man showed up on the earthly scene, He put the omnis on-hold (however one defines “omni”). Paul, in the Philippian hymn, seems to hold this view as well (Php. 2.6-11).

Thus, I think that Jesus, as one who was fully human, asked “genuine” questions seeking sincere answers—answers that He did not know. And while there is an itch to talk about Christological issues at this juncture, I am going to abstain from that conversation so that I can entertain a different one. The issue I want to think on has to do more than anything else, with how interpreting some of Jesus’ questions as “genuine”, can influence our interpretations of entire stories. I will limit myself on examples here.

Take, for instance, Mark 8.22-6. There, Jesus, after rubbing spittle on a blind man’s eyes, asks Him, “Do you see anything?” If we use my categories, I think that this question best fits that of “genuine.” There might be an interrogative sense to Jesus’ question but usually, Jesus asks interrogative types of questions when He wants His audience to look deep within themselves and reflect on a certain issue. That’s not going on here. The question is not rhetorical because there is not one specific answer expected afterwards—the answer can be either “yes” or “no” here. This leaves me to take the question as a genuine. Jesus wants to genuinely know if the man can see.

Now, this is quite interesting. Jesus the healer, standing right in front of the man, asks him if he can see anything. Evidently, Jesus cannot tell just by looking at the fellow. Just as well, He does not employ some divine power so that He just knows. Instead, Jesus does not know if the man can see and so, He asks in order to get an informative answer. I am not inclined to argue, as some do, that, in the ancient world healing blindness was the hardest of all healings and that is why Mark includes Jesus having to give it two tries—though proponents of this view might still see Jesus as asking a genuine or sincere question.

Okay, I want to leave this story for a moment and address the one immediately prior to it. In that story, Jesus and the disciples are on a boat, the disciples have forgotten to stock up on bread and they are worried that Jesus is upset with them for it. Jesus, hearing their chatter, proceeds to ask seven questions in a row. In my opinion, in these seven questions, Jesus employs all three types of questions (that is, if 17b & 17c are not Genuine):

17a - Interrogative
17b - Rhetorical (possibly Genuine)
17c – Rhetorical (possibly Genuine)
18a - Interrogative
18b - Genuine
19 – Genuine
20 – Genuine

Such a reading suggests a number of things. First of all, this suggests that we should not just lump all of Jesus’ questions into one category. Instead, we should take each one on its own terms. Secondly, when reading these passages aloud (these were oral-oriented documents!), one can add tonality or inflection to each of them. In my opinion, when one does this, my categorizations fit well. Thirdly, this suggests that Jesus is not reaming the disciples here. Every commentator I’ve read makes this argument. I wonder, though, if such a reading misses some things?

If the last three questions are taken as genuine ones, then this passage does not reveal Jesus as angry with the disciples but rather being a sincere teacher who wants to know if His students are catching on yet or not. Jesus, as a good teacher, might be asking these questions for pedagogical purposes. Could He be attempting to gauge where His students are? When He asks if they still do not understand, what if He is asking out of sincerity instead of rebuke? This really puts a different spin on the passage.

From a literary standpoint, most scholars have suggested that the “seeing” theme runs through a number of surrounding stories (e.g. 7.31-7, 8.11-3, 8.14-21, 8.22-6, 8.27-33, 9.42-50 and even 10.46-52). Whereas many scholars try to develop some kind of Markan outline through these stories, I am more reticent to do so. I also question the notion that by asking the disciples if they have “eyes but fail to see” in 8.17 and 18, Mark has set himself up to make a contrast with the next story (8.22-6) where the blind man sees. Actually, at first, the blind man does not see!

Just as well, I am not sure that the double-healing attempt (partial sight to full sight) is meant to “parallel” the supposed misunderstanding and then enlightenment that occurs in 8.27-33. Indeed, even after Peter makes his confession Jesus rebukes him. Evidently, he was not totally enlightened! Evidently, Peter did not have "total" insight in to the work and person of Jesus! In my view, the parallels are stretches. That said, the “sight” theme does have merit to it.

Something that has been overlooked, though, is how Jesus’ questions shape these various pericopies. Furthermore, I would contend that in these verses we get a very human picture of Jesus. Here, we see Jesus asking genuine, sincere questions. Jesus, at this point, then, is trying to gauge where His ministry is at. Have His followers caught on? Sure, the crowds often flock to Him but what do the people really think of Him? How effective are His healings and miracles? (I should point out here, that, previously in 6.5, Mark has said, “He could not do any miracles there, except lay His hands on a few sick people and heal them.” One gets the sense that Jesus tried but had limited success. Perhaps we get an inkling of that in 8.22-6.)

Moreover, if the bulk of chapter 8 is meant to show Jesus attempting to gauge where His ministry stands, then the end of chapter 8, which seems rather disconnected to some, makes a lot of sense. There, Jesus issues the call for those who desire to follow Him, and says that they must take up their crosses. Furthermore, they must leave fleshly, worldly desires behind. This is how Jesus wants His ministry to be characterized; this is what He wants it to be gauged by. Where better to locate such a statement than at the end of chapter 8, a chapter where Jesus is repeatedly asking genuine questions about Himself, His ministry, His followers and His crowds? Where better to locate such a statement than after a passage where Peter has just been reprimanded for misinterpreting Jesus and His work?

In my opinion, there is no better place to locate such a statement! In fact, it seems to me that Mark’s ingenuity shines through here as he shows Jesus taking stock of His ministry (which is one, if not "the" main point of chapter 8) thus far so that He is more prepared as He is starting “on the way” to Jerusalem! Better to know where He stands than not. May we be more open and inclined to seeing a genuine Jesus in these verses than we have up to this point!

Miracles Or Mere Distractions? : Studies in Mark, Pt. 27

When approaching the subject of miracles, there is the potential for many questions to arise: 1. What is the definition of a miracle? 2. Did they really happen? 3. Can we use science to understand miracles? 4. Why did the Jesus do miracles? 5. Why did the Bible writers include miracle accounts in their writings? Etc.

All of those questions are legitimate but not all of them are as helpful for formulating a Scriptural theology of miracles. In my opinion, and since we are focusing on Mark, the most helpful question to center on is: Why did Mark include miracle stories in his writings? The reason I believe this is the most helpful question to pursue is because all of the others do not get to the heart of the discussion. Even if one presupposes that miracles really did happen and that Jesus really did do them (as I believe), one is still left with the question: What was/is meant by them? But even that question does not get to the heart of the matter.

It does not get to the heart of the matter because the miracle accounts that we have were the testimonies of persons. Furthermore, those testimonies are all interpretations. For example, the way that Matthew understands Jesus’ feeding miracle is different than the meaning Luke gets from it. Moreover, Mark’s interpretation of this event yields a different meaning than both Matthew’s and Luke’s. Besides this, one only needs to read the Gospel accounts to see that when Jesus did miraculous things, persons in the crowds interpreted them very differently. For instance, sometimes people believed and sometimes they didn’t, and we must acknowledge that these two interpretations of the same event, are at once, polar opposites.

Thus, what we have in Mark’s Gospel account is but “one” interpretation of those events. Therefore, to get to the heart of the matter, we have to ask: What was Mark’s theology of miracles or again, Why did Mark include these accounts in his writings and what did he mean by them? In turn, do these accounts have any meaning for us and if so, what?

Here, we might move away for a second, from the issue of how "we" define a miracle and ask: What was Mark’s definition of a miracle? Actually, Mark has a couple of words that he uses to denote a miracle. The most straightforward term is terata, which means ‘wonder’ or ‘miracle’ (e.g. 13.22). The second, more ambiguous term is dunamin, which means ‘power’ or ‘ability’ (e.g. 9.39). In addition, Mark seems to be aware of another term, semeion, which means ‘sign’ (e.g. 8.11-2, 13.4, 22). This is where things get really interesting. The only time that the word ‘miracle’ per se, appears in Mark’s account is in 13.22 (terata) and only then, in connection with false prophets who perform signs and miracles. (Keep in mind that this is Jesus saying this: Jesus affirms, then, that there are other miracle workers!)

This (and much more could be said about this but oddly not much has been) suggests that Mark believed—and so did Jesus—that persons other than Jesus had the capabilities to perform signs and miracles. And while this may make some queasy, it is a fact. According to Mark, Jesus was not the only miracle-worker in the ancient world. And this comports well with scores of other miracle accounts found in ancient works. (See: CK Barrett’s “The New Testament Background” and Cartlidge & Dungan’s “Documents for the Study of the Gospels” for examples of this.) Therefore, this leads us back to the question: Why did Mark include Jesus’ miracle accounts in his work?

What this suggests is that Mark believed that Jesus’ miracles were not central to understanding who Jesus really was and what He was all about. Now, the question arises, So, why would Mark include so many of them if they were not central to his Christology? My answer is: When Mark includes the miracle stories, He does not do so to make Jesus out to be some great figure or a miracle-worker; that is just not that important to him (if this bothers you, then you should recognize that Paul’s works, which encompass two-thirds of the New Testament, never once mention a single miracle that Jesus performed—like Mark, Jesus’ miracles were not central to Paul’s understanding of who Jesus was). In fact and ironically, Mark includes the miracles to underscore the fact that it is not the miracles in and of themselves that are important but rather how people interpret them that is most important. To put it differently and succinctly: Mark’s miracle accounts are meant to illustrate how people think about and interpret Jesus, not to exalt Jesus or set Him apart from others (remember, Mark is not hesitant to say that other miracle-workers exist).

I think this point is seen very clearly in Mark chapter 8. In verses 11-13 the Pharisees want a sign from Jesus, however, He does not give it to them. He does not give it to them because as it stands, even if He were to give it to them, they would misinterpret it (just like they did in 3.20-35 where they attributed Jesus’ work to Beelzebub). I think that the main point of 8.11-13 focuses on interpretation. The Pharisees come to Jesus thinking that they and they alone, have the authority to interpret whether or not something is of God. Yet, to ask for a sign from God when Jesus/God is in their midst, reveals that they cannot correctly interpret what is and is not from God. Again, 3.20-35 is a great example of this. So, Jesus does not give them a sign.

But no sooner than the next story, Mark shows that the disciples were not “amazed” by Jesus’ miracles, indeed, they hadn’t even paid enough attention to even remember them. Yet, that was not Jesus’ beef with them—though it seems like it on the surface. Instead, Jesus’ beef with them is that they failed to interpret the events in any meaningful way. Thus, the disciples are operating out of a hermeneutic similar to that of the Pharisees, a hermeneutic that skews their view of the God. In short, they fail to realize that God is in their midst. This is not proven by signs or wonders but simply by His proclamation that He is God in the flesh and that His Kingdom has come into their midst.

Mark’s work is not an apologetic for miracles. For Mark, it is not the wonders or signs that are important but rather the hermeneutic through which people interpret “everything” that Jesus says and does. From this point-of-view then, Jesus’ deeds (miraculous or not) are no more important than His regular words or perhaps even more significantly, they are no more important than Him just being there, among the people. The point of Mark recounting Jesus’ deeds is not to show the deeds themselves. Similarly, the point of Mark recounting Jesus’ words is not to show the words themselves. The point of Mark retelling Jesus’ deeds and words is to show how people correctly or incorrectly interpreted them. As readers, then, Mark forces us, through the deeds and words of Jesus, to ask: Is my hermeneutic leading me to interpret or misinterpret who God is?

So, when we pray for miracles today (however we define “miracle”) whether they come to fruition or not should not affect how we understand God. The real point (and question) is: Either way, how are we going to interpret God and His actions (or inactions)? For me, I hope to have a life-hermeneutic that, no matter if the outcome I desire takes place or not, the interpretive result will be the same: God is still a good, relational, Triune God. And the whole reason Mark includes miracle accounts is so that people will have this same mindset. Mark gives his readers examples of people correctly interpreting and also misinterpreting God’s actions or inactions. Yet, what Mark wants from his readers more than anything else is a consistent hermeneutic that values God not for something “miraculous” that He does, but by the simple fact that He is in their midst. To view miracles any differently or any other way is to, in my opinion, do nothing more than make them into mere distractions. I submit that this is, at least in part, why many have such a skewed view of God and how He works in the world, today.

The Mes-Sigh-ah : Studies in Mark, Pt. 26

In back-to-back stories in Mark’s Gospel, it is recorded that Jesus “sighs deeply” (from στεναζω). Mark 7.34 reads: “…and Jesus looked up to heaven, sighed deeply and said…” Mark 8.11-12 says: “And the Pharisees came forth and began to question Him, seeking a sign from heaven from Him, trying Him and He sighed deeply in His spirit and said…” When studying these two passages, I could not help but notice the similarities between them. Both are prefaced with a remark about heaven, both include Jesus sighing deeply and both have Jesus saying something immediately after the deep sigh. For my part, I do not think this is mere coincidence, not least because these two stories are side-by-side. So, what is the point?

Actually, I think that in locating these stories in such close proximity and by telling them in such similar ways, Mark was trying to be humorous. I’m not sure that many people would agree with this and it may seem rather simplistic but it does make sense. Besides, can’t the Gospels be comical? The comedy or better yet, irony, I think lies in the fact that Mark was juxtaposing these two scenes. In one, Jesus looks to heaven, sighs deeply and speaks a healing word. In the other, the Pharisees want Jesus to look to heaven but He doesn’t, He sighs deeply and in speaks an exhortative word. In other words, what Mark has done here is set the reader up for a laugh.

It would be expected that, as in the first instance, once Jesus sighed (an ancient mannerism that was typical of healers or miracle-workers just before they did their thing; there are other accounts of other persons doing this), the crowd expected Him to do something miraculous. However, Jesus sighs and does nothing except offer a rebuke. In short, Jesus sets the people up for thinking that He’s going to do something amazing but He doesn’t. To be rather colloquial, it’s as if Jesus was just messing with these guys. They thought He was going to do something but He didn’t. Why He didn’t, well, that is an answer for another post on another day—perhaps some day quite soon.

Anyways, I couldn’t help but laugh once I realized what was going on here. Sadly, I know of no other commentator who makes such a suggestion—perhaps I’m just way off base—but either way, I had a good laugh with this. And I'm not too bothered if some of you think that I’m crazy and you are just sitting there, well, sighing!