1) Final Thoughts:
Now that we have come to the end of the Gospel of Mark, it
is time to consider the Gospel as a whole.
I have presented the Gospel as a dramatic narrative, a play divided into
six acts, in which the drama moves inexorably to an ending that has been
foreshadowed throughout the story yet still surprises as we come to its end.
Instead of escaping his destiny, the Messiah transforms it into victory, not
just for him but all humanity. It is a victory not over human enemies, but over
the forces of evil, symbolized by unclean spirits who represent the forces of
sin and death. It is true that Mark
presents human beings who array their forces against Jesus, such as Pilate and
the soldiers under his command, the Herodians, and the Pharisees and Sadducees,
as opposition, but Mark demonstrates that their opposition stems from missing the point of Jesus’ kingdom,
the reign of God, which he proclaims from the beginning of his ministry. They
see it either as a challenge to their political or religious authority, while
Jesus desires it as the fulfillment of all human hopes not their destruction.
If the human foes of Jesus miss the point, it is no surprise,
for even those closest to Jesus continue to misconstrue and misunderstand his
words and actions. Those closest to him desire that Jesus destroy human enemies
and empires and establish his kingdom by force. After each of his Passion Predictions, his apostles show that their minds are on human hopes and dreams
and not divine fulfillment. They desire
might and power, but the kingdom will be established by the offering of Jesus
himself to death in order to free all people from the chains of false utopias.
This kingdom is for all people. The mission to the gentiles
has been subtly woven by Mark into his narrative, based upon the hopes of the
prophets that when the twelve tribes were restored, so, too, would all the
nations be welcomed into the covenant. The fact that Jesus’ desire transcends
the hopes of both his own apostles and his opponents is one of the ways Mark
has asked us to align ourselves with Jesus as we read the narrative. The other
manner in which we have been asked to align ourselves with Jesus is his care
for the outsiders, the marginalized and the weak: Jesus troubles the powerful,
but heals the demonically possessed, the paralyzed, and the blind and presents
children as model disciples. Weakness is the new power for it is open to God in
all situations and dependent upon faith in God not the ability to impose,
coerce or force its way.
Though the characters in the story cannot see his grand
scheme for establishing the kingdom, even when it is explained openly or in
parables, we have become privy to it as we share the knowledge of the narrator.
The questions asked of the apostles and opponents, we are also being asked to
answer along with them. This does not mean the questions are simple or their
meaning transparent – “Do you not yet understand?” is not a rhetorical question. Yet we know that
while Jesus’ ways are not always clear, we are given enough demonstrations of
his alliance with God through miraculous deeds and prophetic foreknowledge to
know that the necessary response to Jesus is faith, even when complete
understanding is lacking.
This lack of understanding Jesus’ mission and kingdom is
what leads to Judas’ betrayal, his own apostles deserting him, and the powerful
bringing him to his death. While Jesus
might not be the Messiah his followers and opponents expected, he is the one
who fulfills human hopes by transcending and confounding them. He has power and
might and glory, but chooses to go willingly to a humiliating death in which he is “poured out
for many.” He follows the desire of God the father in obedience to the cross in
order to take on the sins of the world, create a new covenant with the world
and to conquer death. Even when he rises from the dead, as he said he would –
and where the Gospel of Mark ends, at 16:8, 16:8b, or 16:20 does not change
this reality – those who were his apostles could not comprehend it initially,
even after the women reported it to them.
That the apostles finally do comprehend Jesus’ resurrection
and its meaning for them rests on the reality of the Gospel itself. The fact
that Mark has written a Gospel indicates that the story was indeed passed on by
his disciples, including the twelve and the women who ran from his tomb in
fear. Faith ultimately did conquer them and their fear. It is the constant
comparison throughout this Gospel: let faith conquer fear; trust in God, not in
your ways, plans or power.
The Gospel ends,
therefore, as it began, with Mark’s simple presentation of the ministry and
person of Jesus, including his resurrection. Jesus has come to proclaim the kingdom of God
and Mark has presented this account of Jesus in a manner that that asks us not
just to follow Jesus and the disciples on their journey to Jerusalem, but to participate
in that journey. We are asked to identify with Jesus not as disinterested observers,
but as disciples. And if we are confused as to the why, as to the how, as to the
when, if we are tempted to deny Jesus and walk away, Mark has demonstrated that
none of this excludes us from being a disciple of Jesus, rather it makes us all
potential disciples. The story of Jesus is not about what eliminates us from consideration as disciples,
but that in Jesus’ conquering of sin and death we have all been included in the
story. In fact, it is now our story: regardless
of our human weakness, and regardless of our particular stations in life, we
are able to participate in Jesus’ power and the glory simply through faith.
2) Technical Matters:
All the Gospels are technically anonymous in that the
authors don't tell us who they are. From
within a few decades at most after they were written, however, the Gospels were
associated with the figures whose names they now bear. “Mark” is according to tradition named after
John Mark (mentioned in 1 Peter 5:13 and a few other times in the NT). The
ancient tradition regarding the Gospel of Mark is fairly straightforward. Mark
was the “amanuensis” (scribe or secretary) for the Apostle Peter, who dictated
the stories about Jesus life, death and resurrection to him. This tradition is
found in an account by Papias, an ancient Bishop of Hierapolis (in Asia Minor,
modern day Turkey), preserved in the writings of the Church historian Eusebius.
And the presbyter said this. Mark
having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he
remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds
of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards,
as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the
necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular
narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing
some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took special care, not
to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the
statements. [This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark (Eusebius, HE,
III.39).
Papias states that Peter passed on to Mark all that Jesus
said and did, but not in order, and that Mark wrote it down as best he could. This
early Church tradition is discounted by many modern scholars, but I think it
ranks as a high possibility, particularly because the Gospel of Mark has a
strong oral dimension – the plot moves quickly, like an action story, from one event
to another, rarely pausing to take a –figurative – breath, and using the words
“and” and “immediately” to connect the dramatic narrative. The Gospel also was
accepted quickly in the early Church, even though Mark was not an Apostle, and this
indicates to me an Apostle lies behind the traditions. As well, Papias does not
make outrageous claims on behalf of how Mark preserved these accounts
(“wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered
them”; “it was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds
of Christ”). Papias’ claims strike me as believable.
It should be noted, too, that if Peter is the authority
behind this Gospel then we must date the Gospel to the early to mid-60’s, as
Peter was martyred by the Emperor Nero between 64-67 A.D. Interestingly, this
is the date that scholars come to for this Gospel, even if they discount
that Peter’s oral tradition lies behind it. On of the reasons for doing so with
many modern scholars is that they do not believe Mark accurately narrates the
destruction of Jerusalem predicted by Jesus in Mark 13. As a result, they say,
Mark must have written before the actual destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans
in 70 A.D. Nevertheless, the date for this Gospel is generally given as prior
to 70 A.D. by whatever means scholars arrive there.
As to the location, ancient tradition and modern scholarship
meet again: both claim that the Gospel emerges from Rome, either because of
ancient traditions regarding Peter, or because of the “Roman” character of the
Gospel, such as the Latin loanwords in the Gospel which are untranslated.
John W. Martens
Follow me on Twitter @Biblejunkies
0 comments:
Post a Comment