JESUS, The Suffering Son of God

The Gospel according to Mark

Actiones nostras,

quaesumus Domine,

aspirando praeveni et adiuvando

prosequere: ut cuncta nostra

oratio et operatio a te semper

incipiat et per te coepta finiatur. Per Christum

Dominum nostrum. Amen.

Oremus!

Sancte Iohannes Baptista de La Salle!

Ora pro nobis!

Vivat Iesus in cordibus nostris,

in aeternum!

JESUS, The Suffering Son of God

The Holy Gospel according to Mark

Mark's story of Jesus' ministry is action oriented. Recounting little extended teaching of Jesus, Mark shifts scenes rapidly (eÙqÚj) [euthys], "immediately," is almost a standard linking word in Mark). Jesus is constantly on the move, healing, exorcising demons, confronting opponents, and instructing the disciples.

Contents & Outline

This fast-paced narrative is punctuated by six transitional paragraphs or statements, which divide Mark's account into seven basic sections.

• Preliminaries to the ministries (1:1-13)• First part of the Galilean ministry

(1:16-3:6)• Second part of the Galilean ministry

(3:13-5:43)• The concluding phase of the Galilean

ministry (6:7-8:26)• The way of glory and suffering (8:27-

10:52)• Final ministry in Jerusalem (11:1-

13:37)• The passion and empty-tomb

narratives (15:1-16:8)

Like the other three gospels, Mark is anonymous. The title, "According to Mark" (Kata' Markon), was probably added when the canonical gospels were collected and there was need to distinguish Mark's version of the gospel from the others.

The gospel titles are generally thought to have been added in the second century but may have been added much earlier. Certainly we may say that the title indicates that by A.D. 125 or so an important segment of the early church thought that a person named Mark wrote the second gospel.

Mark's connection with the second gospel is asserted or assumed by many early Christian writers. Perhaps the earliest (and certainly the most important) of the testimonies is that of Papias, who was bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia of Asia Minor until about A.D. 130. His statement about the second gospel is recorded in Eusebius's , written in 325.

"Mark became Peter's interpreter and wrote accurately all that he

remembered, not indeed, in order, of the things said or done by the Lord. For he had not heard the

Lord, nor had he followed him, but later on, as I said, followed Peter,

who used to give teaching as necessity demanded but not

making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lord's oracles, so that Mark did nothing wrong in writing down single points as he remembered them. For to one

thing he gave attention, to leave out nothing of what he had heard

and to make no false statements in them.”

Three important claims about the second gospel emerge from this statement:1.Mark wrote the gospel that, in Eusebius's day, was identified

with this name.2.Mark was not an eyewitness but obtained his information

from Peter.3.Mark's gospel lacks "order," reflecting the occasional

nature of Peter's preaching.The importance of these claims is magnified when we realize that the presbyter Papias is quoting is the presbyter John, probably the apostle John himself. If Papias is to be trusted, the identification of Mark as the author of the second gospel goes back to the first generation of Christians.

PROVENANCE

Early tradition is not unanimous about the place where Mark wrote his gospel, but it favors Rome.

The anti-Marcionite prologue to Mark (late second century?) claims that Mark wrote the gospel "in the regions of Italy." Both Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria (according to Eusebius) suggest the same thing.

Several considerations are said to confirm a Roman provenance: (1) the large number of Latinisms in the gospel;(2) the incidental mention of Simon of Cyrene's sons, Alexander

and Rufus, at least one of whom may have been known to Mark in Rome (when writing to the Roman church, Paul greets a Rufus [16:13]);

(3) the apparently Gentile audience of the gospel; (4) the many allusions to suffering, which would be appropriate if

the gospel was written under the shadow of persecutions of the church in Rome;

(5) the fact that 1 Peter 5:13 locates Mark in Rome with Peter in the early sixties; and

(6) the connection with an important early center of Christianity, which would have explained the gospel's quick acceptance.

DATE

Mark has been dated in four different decades: the 40s, the 50s, the 60s, and the 70s.

A Date in the 40s

on the basis of historical and papyro logical considerations.

that Mark's "abomination that causes desolation" (13:14) is a reference to the attempt in A.D. 40 of the Emperor Caligula to have his image set up in the Jerusalem temple

Peter may have journeyed to Rome in the 40s after being freed from prison (see Acts 12:17) and that Mark may have written the gospel at that time.

But so early a date for Mark's gospel makes it hard to explain the silence of Paul and other New Testament writers about it, and it does not perhaps allow sufficient time for the development of the tradition behind Mark.

A Date in the 50s

there is evidence that Peter was in Rome in the mid-50s, making it possible to date Mark in the later 50s without contradicting the well-established tradition of the origin of the gospel.

From the relationship of Mark to Luke-Acts. The argument assumes that Acts ends where it does, with Paul languishing in a Roman prison, because Luke published the book of Acts at that time (about A.D. 62). This would require that the gospel of Luke, the first volume of Luke's literary effort, be dated at about the same time or slightly earlier. If we then accept the prevailing scholarly opinion that Luke used the canonical Mark as one of his key sources, Mark must have been written at the latest in the late 50s (to allow time for the gospel to circulate).

This argument is based on two key assumptions: that Acts is to be dated in about A.D. 62, and that Luke has used canonical Mark. The latter may be granted; but the former is not so clear.

A Date in the 60s

The majority of contemporary scholars date Mark in the middle to late 60s for three reasons.

First, the earliest traditions favor a date for Mark after the death of Peter.

A Date in the 60s

Second, and perhaps more important for most, the internal evidence of Mark is said to favor a date during, or shortly after, the onset of persecution in Rome.

Mark has much to say about the importance of disciples' following the "road to the cross" walked by our Lord. This emphasis best fits a situation when Christians were facing the grim prospect of martyrdom, a setting that would have obtained in Rome at the time of, or after, Nero's famous persecution of Christians in A.D. 65.

A Date in the 60s

Third, Mark 13 is said to reflect the situation in Palestine during the Jewish revolt and just before the Roman entrance into the city, and thus it must be dated between 67 and 69. None of these points is decisive. The tradition about the date of Mark is neither especially early nor widespread, and other traditions place the writing of Mark during Peter's life- time.

A Date in the 70s

The main argument for dating Mark as late as the 70s rests on the assumption that Mark 13 reflects the actual experience of the sacking of Jerusalem by the Romans. But the argument is seriously flawed. As several scholars have shown, Mark 13 shows very little evidence of being influenced by the course of events in A.D. 70.

Conclusion

A decision between a date in the 50s and one in the 60s is impossible to make. We must be content with dating Mark sometime in the late 50s or the 60s.

AUDIENCE AND PURPOSE

Mark is a self-effacing narrator. He tells his story with a minimum of editorial comments and says nothing about his purpose or his intended audience. We must depend, then, on the early testimonies about Mark and on the character of the gospel itself for information about his readers and his purpose.

AudienceThe extrabiblical sources point to a Gentile Christian audience, probably in Rome. The Roman destination of Mark's gospel is simply an inference from its Roman provenance. If Mark wrote in Rome, he probably wrote to Romans.

Mark writes to Gentiles seems clear from his translation of Aramaic expressions, his explanation of Jewish customs such as the washing of hands before eating (7:3 - 4), and, in the few texts he includes on the subject, his interest in the cessation of the ritual elements in the Mosaic law (see 7:1-23, esp. v. 19; 12:32-34).

It is also worth reminding ourselves that Mark's "audience" was almost certainly just that: Christians listening to Mark's gospel being read aloud to them.

PURPOSE

Mark's purpose is much harder to determine. Redaction critics typically stress theological purposes in the writing of the gospels, and this has certainly been the case with respect to Mark.

However, the dominant view that Mark was the first gospel to be written always made redaction-critical study of Mark something of an uncertain enterprise.

PURPOSE

There are four representative interpretations, the first focusing on eschatology, the second on Christology, the third on apologetics, and the fourth on politics

Willi Marxsen • Mark wanted to prepare Christians for Jesus' imminent

parousia in Galilee.• He argued that Mark focuses on Galilee as the place

where Jesus meets with his disciples at the expense of Jerusalem, where Jesus is rejected and killed. Jesus' command to his disciples to meet him in Galilee (14:28; cf. 16:7) was taken by Marxsen as a prediction to Mark's community of Jesus' glorious return to them. But the meeting with Jesus to which these verses refer is clearly a post-resurrection meeting, not the parousia.

• Moreover, the geographic contrast that Marxsen (and some before him) discerns is much better explained as a reflection of the actual course of Jesus' ministry than as a theologically motivated invention of Mark's.

Theodore Weeden • found in Mark a polemic against a "divine man"

Christology, a way of viewing Jesus that saw him as a wonder-working hero but denied or neglected his suffering and death.

• Mark wrote a gospel that emphasized the humanity and suffering of Jesus.

• Mark a focus on Jesus' suffering, but he goes too far in identifying Mark's opponents as people who held to a divine-man Christology.

• For one thing, evidence for a polemical stance in Mark is not at all clear - he probably does not have any opponents in view at all. For another, the very existence of a Hellenistic divine-man concept as a category into which early Christians would have put Jesus is open to question.

S. G. F. Brandon

• Mark as apologetic.• He thought that Mark had attempted to mask the political

implications of Jesus' life – and especially his death. • Jesus was a sympathizer with the Jewish revolutionaries,

the Zealots. For this reason he was crucified by the Romans, a method of execution generally reserved for political criminals. By branding Jesus as a rebel against Rome, his crucifixion made it very difficult for Christians to win a hearing from the Roman public-particularly in the aftermath of the Jewish revolt in Palestine, when, according to Brandon, Mark wrote his gospel.

• To overcome this difficulty, Mark transferred as much of the blame for Jesus' death from the Romans to the Jews as he could, a process revealed by the many manifestly unhistorical features in the Sanhedrin and Roman trials.

Richard Horsley

• argues that the major purpose of Mark is to present Jesus as arguing for a particular social-political program. Opposition between Jesus and Jewish leaders in the gospel has to do with competing visions of Israel's restoration and kingdom programs, not religious issues per se.

• justified in his claim that Christian interpreters have too often ignored the political dimension of the gospel. But his political categories appear to be imposed on a gospel that self- evidently speaks in religious categories.

• His criticism of interpreters for reading into the gospel a Christian theological agenda sounds a bit ironic in light of the similarity between his understanding of Mark and contemporary "liberation" theologies.

These four specific suggestions about Mark's purpose represent only a sampling of recent proposals, but they share with many others the fault of being overly specific and based on only a selection of the data. Any attempt to determine Mark's purpose must take into account the gospel as a whole and refrain from arguing beyond the evidence.

The Beginning of the Gospel: Jesus The Messiah,

The Son of God who

fulfills Scriptures

The Beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ” (1:1)

- Greco-Roman world would not recognize “Christ” as a name.

- not even meaningful for most.- Christ was a title in Jewish

circles- - Greek equivalent of the

Hebrew word “messiah”- Mark then is a book about

Jesus the messiah.

MESSIAH – two major meaning for 1° century Jews

1. Future King of Israel, delivers God’s people from their oppressor and established a sovereign state of Israel thru God’s power.

MESSIAH – two major meaning for 1° century Jews

2. Cosmic deliverer from heaven, would engage in supernatural welfare with the enemies of the Jews and bring divine victory over their oppressors.

Jesus did not conform to either of the general conceptions of this title. He neither overthrew the Romans in battle nor arrived on the clouds of heaven in judgement. Instread he was unceremoniously executed for treason against the state. WHAT IN THE WORLD COULD IT MEAN TO CALL HIM A MESSIAH?

The Gospel begins by describing the forerunner of Jesus, The Son of God and the miraculous proclamation of his own Sonship.- Greco-Roman world- Jewish Circles - Son of God – referred to

someone who had a particularly intimate relationship with God, who was chosen by God to perform a task, and who thereby mediated God’s will to people on earth

However there are plenty of “sons of God” in the Jewish circles even during the time of Jesus.

What does Mark mean by beginning his account with the declaration, by God himself, that Jesus is his son?

JESUS THE AUTHORITATIVE

SON OF GOD

Jesus is an authoritative leader, who he speaks people obey. (1:16-20)

Jesus is an authoritative teacher; when he gives instruction, people hang on to his word (1:22)

Jesus is an authoritative healer; when he commands the forces of evil, they listen and obey (1:24, 27, 29-31, 32-34)

This portray as an authoritative Son of God sets as the stage for the rest of the Gospel.

Despite Jesus fame, amasses, the amazing teachings, and miraculous deeds, Jesus, this authoritative Son of God, is almost universally misunderstood by those with whom he comes in closest contact.

He is opposed and misunderstood Son of God.

JESUS THE OPPOSED SON OF

GOD

A good deal of Marks’s Gospel shows that despite Jesus’ fantastic deeds the leaders of his people opposed him from the onset; and theit antagonism escalates until the very end.

-Mark does not portray Jesus as standing in opposition to the religion of Judaism.- Jesus scarcely bent on subverting the jewish religion.

Who opposes Jesus?• JEWISH SCRIBES – the literate elite and

study the sacred traditions of Israel & teach them to others.

• PHARISEES – who were strongly committed to maintaining the purity laws in the Torah.

• THE HERODIANS – group of Jews but Mark didnt identify them. Maybe collaborationist i.e. supporters of Herod.

• SADDUCEES – upper class Jews who were closely connected with and strong advocates for the Temple cults in Jerusalem. In charge with the Sanhedrin (Council to the High Priest)

• CHIEF PRIEST – upper class Jews priest who operated the Temple and oversaw the sacrifices

Even from the beginning (3:6) the opening stories of conflict, Jewish authorities are constantly on the attack and in the end, the chief priest triumph, convincing the Roman governor that Jesus has to die.

But why, ultimately, they do so?

They find Jesus threathening because if his popularity and find his words against their Temple cult offensive (11:18)

But the Jewish authorities do not see Jesus’ death merely because they are jealous or because they disagree with him over legal theological & cultic matters.

They opposed him because he is God’s unique representative on earth – God’s authoritative Son – and they , cannot understand who he is or what he say.

JESUS THE MISUNDERSTOOD

SON OF GOD

Who then realizes that Jesus is the Son of God?

-God knows that Jesus is His Son for he declares it at the Baptism (1:11).

- Evil demons recognized Jesus as the Son of God (3:11; 1:24)

-Who else knows? Only two other persons: the author of the Gospel and the us the Readers.

No one recognizes Jesus’ identity!First half of the Gospel…1. Those closest to him. His own family

thinks he was crazy (3:21)2. Jesus’ own towns people. He is a

mere carpenter knowing his family (6:1-6). They refused to accept his divine source of power (2:7) and claims to come from Beelzebul (3:22)

3. Jesus’ own disciples even though he chose them to follow him (3:13-19) & gave them private instruction (4:10-20)

The disciples question was genuine: “Who then is this, that even wind and sea obey him?” (4:41)

Jesus walking on water: “for they did not understand… but their hearts are hardened.” (6:51-52)

Jesus expresses his own exasperation: “Do you not yet understand?” (8:21)

Midpoint of the Gospel where the have an inkling who he is.

JESUS THE ACKNOWLEDGE

SON OF GOD

Key understanding for Mark’s portrayal of Jesus lies in the story of a blind man who regains his sight (8:22-26).

Jesus does not perform the miracle immediately and effortlessly. A gradual healing of the blind man.

Symbolism can be understood in the immediate context as the gradual understanding of the disciples of Jesus.

Starts with Jesus’ question:

“Who do people say that I am?” (8:27)

“But who do you say that I am?” (8:29)

Peter replies: “You are the Christ.”

Up to this point Jesus was misunderstood by everyone, by family, neighbors, religious leaders and followers & now finally someone realizes who he is, at least in part.

Readers knows Peter’s confession is correct.

Mark did not reject or repudate rather orders the disciples not to spread the word: “And he sternly ordered them not to tell anyone about him.” (8:30)

This is what we call: The Messianic Secret in Mark

THE MESSIANIC SECRET

-He refuses to let the demon speak “because they knew him”. (1:34, 3:12)

-Healing of the Leper: “…say nothing to any one.” (1:43).

- Young girl raised from the dead. “…that no one should know this.” (5:43)

THE MESSIANIC SECRET Why does Jesus not want anyone to know that He is the Messiah, the Son of God?

William Wrede - Since the Historical Jesus himself never urged secrecy at all he did not actually see himself as the messiah. After his death, however, his followers begun to proclaim that he had been the Messiah.

THE MESSIANIC SECRET

Wrede explains that the early Christian community invented the idea that Jesus tried to keep his identity under wraps. They then fabricated the stories of Jesus’ commands to silence to show that a messianic Jesus did not proclaim himself to be the messiah.

The Markan Jesus does not want people to have the wrong idea about him, thinking that he was the kind of messiah they were anticipating.

Still, Peter’s identification of Jesus as a Messiah is correct only in part.

Jesus begins to teach that he (8:31) “must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and the chief priest and the scribes, and be killed, abd after three days rise from the dead.”

Jesus is the Messiah, but he is the Messiah who has to suffer and die to bring salvation to the world.

Peter rebukes and reject because of his different view of Jesus’ messiahship. Peter’s failure to percieve this truth forces Jesus to turn the rebuke back on him: “Get behind me Satan! For you are setting your mind not on the divine thing but on human things.” (8:33)

Peter clearly has begun to see, but not yet clearly; like the blind man who was gained sight gradually.

For Mark, however, Jesus is the suffering Son of God

JESUS THE SUFFERING

SON OF GOD

Early portion of the Markan Gospel indicates that Jesus will die (2:20; 3:6)

After Peter’s confession Jesus three times predicts his impending passion & death in Jerusalem and strikingly after each “passion prediction” the disciples never do understand what Jesus is talking about.

First Prediction (8:31-32)

Jesus declares that he must be rejected and killed, Peter, who just declared Jesus as Messiah, not understanding fully, takes him aside and rebuke him.

Jesus turns the rebuke on Peter and begun teaching that suffering is not only his but his followers as well: “Whoever would come after me must take up the cross and follow me.”

Being a disciple means affliction and pain, not power and prestige; it means giving up one’s life in order to gain the world. (8:34-38)

Second Prediction (9:2-13; 30-34)

Happend after Jesus transfiguration.

Jesus predicts his coming death and Mark states that the disciples do not know what he means (9:30-31)

Afterwards the disciples were arguuing who is the greatest (9:33-34) and Jesus tells them that being a disciple means a life of lowly service rather than grand eminnence.

Final Prediction (10:33-34)

James and John, two of the closest disciples request position of prominence when jesus enters his glory.

Jesus tells them that following him means certain death and that if they want to be great they must become the slaves of all.

“For the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve, and give his life a ransom for many (10:45)

From this point Mark narrates the “Passion Narratives”

Jesus enters to Jerusalem (11:1-10)

He enters the Temple and drives the bussiness there occuring opposition from the Jewish leaders (11:15-19).

He teaches in the temple again making conflicts with the leaders and stirring the crowds to be against him ( 11:28-12:40)

Jesus launches a lengthy discription of the imminent destruction of the Temple (13:1-36)

Finally the passion account itself.

- He was annointed by an unknown woman, the only person who knows what will happen to Jesus (14:1-9).

- Celebrates the last supper with his disciples (14:12-26)

- Goes to the garden of Gethsemane to pray that he not be required to suffer the eminent ordeal (14:26-42)

- Jesus was arrest (14:43-52)

- Trial before the Sanhedrin, confronting the witnesses who accused him of opposing the Temple (14:53-65)

- Peter’s deny him three times as predicted (14:66-72)

Finally Jesus was asked directly by the high priest concerning his identity: “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?”

Jesus confesses his identity and predicts that the “Son of Man”, the cosmic judge from heaven, will soon arrive on the clouds of heaven (14:61-62).

Sanhedrin charges him of blasphemy and finds him worthy of death.

Next morning they delivered him over to Pilate who tries him on the charge of claiming to be the King of the Jews (15:1-15)

Jesus refuses to answer his accuser, Pilates condemns him to execution for treason against Rome.

Pilate gave the Jewish crowd an option to free the insurgent Barabas or Jesus. (15:6-15)They prefer Barabbas. Jesus was flogged, mocked and beaten. They take him off and crucify him at 9:00 a.m. (15:25)

JESUS’ DEATH AS THE SON OF GOD

It is clear for Mark’s Gospel that Jesus’ disciples never do come to understand who he is.

Betrayed to the Jewish leaders by Judas, one of his followers, denied three times by his closest disciple Peter and all others scattered.

Marks wants his Readers to understand that the disciples were shock when their hopes concerning Jesus as messiah were totally dashed. For which of course is misplaced.

So until the very end, when Jesus was actually crucified, there was nobody in the Godpel who fully understands this.

In Mark’s narrative may even intimate that at the end Jesus himslef was in doubt.

In Gethsemane, he prayed three times not to undergo his fate which he finally accepts with yet more uncertainty.

Desert, rejected, publicly humilated, beaten, spat, flogged, nailed, mocked and crucified along two criminals.

Jesus suffered this entire ordeal in silence, until the very end, when he cries out in Words of Scripture: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (15:34)He then utters a loud cry and dies.

Is this a genuine question of the dying Jesus? Does he truly feel forsaken in the end even by God? Does he not fully understand the reason for his death?

Readers may disagree with this, one point however, there can be no disagreement. Even though that no one in the Gospel appears to know the significance os Jesus’ death, the reader knows.

Mark reveals it by narrating two events that transpire immediately after Jesus breathes his last: the curtain in the Temple is torn in half from top to bottom (15:38) and the Roman centurion confesses Jesus to be the Son of God (15:39).

The curtain in the Temple is in the area of the Holy of Holies, which separates the presence of God from the outside world was torn in half.

It signifies that God is no longer removed from his people; his holiness is now available to all.

No longer do his people need to rely on the Jewish high priest and his sacrifice for their sins on the Day of Atonement.

The ultimate sacrifice has been made, voiding the necessity of all other. Jesus, the Son of God, has “given his life as a ransom for many” (10:45) People now have direct access to God, who comes to them in the death of Jesus.

Another equally significant is Mark’s citation of the Roman centurion who precided his crucifixion.

This Pagan soldier, seeing Jesus die, proclaims, “Surely this man was God’s son” (15:39).

This brings the recognition of Jesus’ true identity full circle. It was proclaimed at his baptism at the beginning of the Gospel (from heaven); it is now proclaimed at his crucifixion at the end (on earth).

Significantly to be noted is the one who made the proclamation: A PAGAN SOLDIER, one who has not been Jesus follower.

Mark points out that the proclamation will not find fertile soil among Jews, either those who had known Jesus or those who had not.

Embraced principally by those outside Judaism, by Gentile as represented by the Roman centurion.

Jesus the Son of God, rejected by his own people but acknowledge by the Gentiles and it is this confession of the suffering and death of the Son of God, Mark reveals, that has brought salvation to the world.

JESUS THE VINDICATED

SON OF GOD

A fascinating aspect of Mark’s Gospel is the way in which he chose to conclude it.

He was buried by a respected leader among the Jews, Joseph of Arimathea (indicating, perhaps that not all Jews were bound to reject him (15:42-47)

Two woman see where he is place and the next day is the Sabbath.

The early morning after the Sabbath, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome come to provide a more decent burial and discovers that the stone before the tomb has been rolled away.

Inside the find a young man in a white robe who tells them that Jesus has risen.

He instruct them to tell the disciples and Peter that Jesus is going ahead of them in Galilee and that they have to go there to see him (16:1-7)

Then the breathtaking conclusion: The women flee the tomb and tell nobody anything, “for they were afraid” (16:8)

The ending left readers in time immemorial shocked and dismayed.

Put off by the ending that some copyist of the Gospel added an ending of their own, appending twelve additional verses that describe some of Jesus’ appearances to his disciples, though the ending is considered now as secondary.

Other propose that some copies of the ending of the Gospel got lost.

However, Mark’s ending is unnecessary.

Mark devoted considerable effort to demostrating that the disciples could never understand what Jesus meant when he talked about dying and rising again.

They never do understand, to the very end. Mark’s reader, however, understand.