Gospel in Year B – John 1:43-51, Mark 1:14- 2:22
Introduction to Mark
The external evidence for Mark being the author and Peter as the source of Mark’s information is strong in the tradition. The New Testament makes several references to Mark.
Colossians 4:10 (NRSV)
10 Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, as does Mark the cousin of Barnabas, concerning whom you have received instructions—if he comes to you, welcome him.
Acts 12:12 (NRSV)
12 As soon as he realized this, he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John whose other name was Mark, where many had gathered and were praying.
Acts 12:25 (NRSV)
25 Then after completing their mission Barnabas and Saul returned to Jerusalem and brought with them John, whose other name was Mark.
Acts 13:13 (NRSV)
13 Then Paul and his companions set sail from Paphos and came to Perga in Pamphylia. John, however, left them and returned to Jerusalem;
Philemon 24 (NRSV)
24 and so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my fellow workers.
2 Timothy 4:11 (NRSV)
11 Only Luke is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful in my ministry.
1 Peter 5:13 (NRSV)
13 Your sister church in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark.
Note that Mark was a cousin of Barnabas. He was the occasion of a division between Paul and Barnabas in Acts. However, both Colossians and II Timothy suggest that Mark later fell within the friendship sphere of Paul later in his life. The home of the mother of Mark, Mary, which was in Jerusalem, became a center for early Christian meetings. Mark also became a friend of Peter. Most scholars today discuss the community of Mark and consider the authorship uncertain.
Some commentaries will discuss sources for Mark, but the process at this point is highly conjectural.
It would be fair to say that most scholars consider Mark to reflect Gentile and Roman concerns, due to the explanations of Palestinian customs throughout the gospel. This is about all one can say. For this reason, the place of the writing is most likely Rome. Mann, as a minority opinion, disagrees with this. He argues that Mark is condensation of Matthew, which in his mind was written around 55 AD, written after his most recent visit to Jerusalem, but before 70 AD.
The book is written in the language of everyday life, when compared with papyrus and inscriptions. There is a Semitic background to the gospel. Some would argue for a translation from an Aramaic original. Mann agrees it is translation Greek. He does not believe Mark was first written in Aramaic. Rather, it is near the Semitic tradition. This lends some validity to the gospel from the historical point of view.
The basic idea is that of comparison. A metaphor connected with the affairs of daily life is used as an illustration of moral and spiritual truths, on the assumption that what applies in the one sphere is relevant also in the others. The allegory gives significance to every detail, while in the parable the details are insignificant in comparison to the point of the story. The intent is to throw light upon truth, even if the application is not immediately apparent. They are meant to stimulate thought, provoke reflection, and lead to a decision.
The Gospel of Mark has the purpose of meeting the urgent needs of the Palestinian community, on the verge of a Jewish-Roman war. The suffering of the Christians, pressured by Jews and Romans, made urgency ad conflict even more central. Thus, his gospel shortness material, focuses on events, and arises out of the suffering of the people. He faced a community that doubted, wondering about its own legitimacy and the ability of Jesus to save.
Theodore J. Weeden suggests that Mark has the purpose of combating triumphalist Christology that had arisen in the community of Mark. These false Christ's have created a problem, and the approach of Mark is to present a divine man Christology until the first prediction of the suffering in chapter 8, in which the triumphalist understanding gives way to the image of Jesus as one his way to suffering and death and calling followers to adopt the way of the cross. Werner Kelber suggests that the disciples represent Jerusalem Christianity. In writing in Galilee shortly after the destruction of the Temple, he explains how such an event could happen. The disciples themselves sowed the seeds of this disaster. The gospel rejects both the Twelve and the Jerusalem church as failures and hints that the Galilean community is the authentic heart of the Christian movement. Jews and Gentiles have some unity in Galilee, and the disciples refuse to accept that unity.
The theological themes Mark raises have some implications for the theological reflection of the church today.
Beginning with 8:27, the focus becomes the cross. The cross revealed the kind of Messiah Jesus would be. The text tells the reader that suffering and death must occur as part of the plan of God. We should note that a non-messianic gospel is unthinkable in the sense that every presentation of the gospel connects to who Christ is.
The center of the gospel is the confession by Peter that Jesus is the Christ. The moral universe of the gospel is divided between insiders and outsiders. Insiders are those who believe in the reign of God Jesus preached. The outsiders are those who do not believe or see the presence of the reign of God. An interesting dimension of this is that the disciples do not see, lack understanding, and do not exhibit characteristics of people of faith. He emphasizes that people can enter the rule of God now, meaning to live under the rule or influence of God, whether now or in the future. The distinctive aspect of the preaching of Jesus lays in the present aspect of the kingdom. The rule of God is already making its appearance in his life and ministry. At present, the reign of God is hidden and only faith can perceive it. The hidden reign of God will be revealed in power, and on that day, everyone will acknowledge the rule of God. To enter the sphere of the rule of God, one must receive this reign with childlike faith, and guard against temptations and attachment to possessions that distract one for the rule of God.
Mark structures his gospel so that one can perceive the strangeness of affirming the Messiah is crucified. Thus, while the reader is aware at the beginning that this story about the Son of God, we do not find the phrase again until on the lips of the outsider Roman soldier at the foot of the cross. The first part of the gospel has Jesus arriving on the scene doing wonderful works like healing and casting out demons, feeding multitudes, and so on. The disciples simply do not understand, even in the presence of such mighty deeds. Mark invites the reader to identify with the struggle of the disciples at this point, vicariously experiencing failure through them, receiving forgiveness, and receiving encouragement to act faithfully. The failure of the disciples to comprehend even amid such mighty deeds ought to cause us to re-evaluate power. Power alone does not bring divine authenticity. Mary Ann Tolbert suggests that as a narrative, it arouses emotions on behalf of Jesus. The narrative also offers powerful encouragement to Christians facing persecution.
The secret is that this Messiah will be crucified, rather than revealed in power. The way of Jesus is the way of suffering, rejection, and death. How can this be good news? The way of following is the way of the cross. Faith describes the moral and ethical life of those who embrace the reign of God. Faith is perceiving and understanding, whereas the lack of faith is blindness and incomprehension. Those who believe, perceive, and understand, what Jesus says and does can see the presence of the reign of God in his ministry, even though the manifestation of the reign of God is presently hidden and insignificant. Some minor characters have faith: the paralytic and those who bring him Jesus for healing in 2:5, the woman with a hemorrhage in 5:34, Jairus in 5:36, the father of a boy possessed in 9:24, and Bartimaeus in 10:52. The disciples are a more complicated example in that their faith is weak and faltering. The religious leaders are examples of non-belief. Faith leads people to see the hidden presence of the reign of God already active in the ministry of Jesus. Considering the reign of God, those who believe find the power to adopt the divine point of view. The disciples argue over who is the greatest, while Mark lifts up the vision of Jesus that they live as a community of disciples in which the greatest is servant and slave of all. Mark provides the reader with a sobering account of human weakness. The closest followers of Jesus fall away at the time of trial.
Mark raises several Christological questions. The Christology of Mark is complex. Is Mark a conservative reaction to Paul's Christology? "Son of God," at 1:1. "Sonship" is at the baptism. "Son of Man" is usually connected with suffering. Mann believes Jesus used it of himself and understood it considering suffering. He would have gotten this from the Essenes. Note that Jewish literature separated Son of Man from kingdom. It could mean either an ideal man or a representation of the community. Thus, the community did not create the title. Jesus avoids the title Messiah, probably because Jesus preferred Son of Man. Paul reverses this, using Christ far more.
Jesus regarded his own ministry as identified with the totality of Israel and its mission. That role stretches beyond to an identification with humanity. He mentions a variety of approaches in dealing with the quest for the historical Jesus.
The gospels portray Jesus as an historical figure and the church cannot accept the view that there is no relationship between the Jesus of history and Christ of faith. In any case, the first nine chapters occur in Galilee and contain a theme of the hidden nature of Jesus as Messiah. The demons recognize who Jesus is, but Jesus forbids them from saying anything. People on the receiving end of healing and exorcism are not to tell others. The disciples do not understand. The confession by Peter and the accompanying predictions of the passion begins a turn toward the cross. Chapter 11 to the end is his ministry in Jerusalem. In Jerusalem, Jesus becomes increasingly clear in his confrontation with authorities. He declares clearly who he is in the trial. The Roman soldier declares him to be the Son of God. This theme is an important theological contribution by Mark.
With the kingdom in Mark, the reader is to view miracles as sacramental signs of the kingdom, which is dawning but invisible. Healings on the Sabbath are new creation activity. Jesus challenges the entrenched power of evil in the healing and exorcisms.
Parables in general are for those outside the inner circle, while explanations are for the disciples. The kingdom of God in Mark is viewed as: 1) arriving in the ministry of Jesus; 2) hidden in the community; 3) promised for future revelation. The gospel raises discipleship issues, in which it calls people to suffer. The community is terrified, so he ends his gospel in that way. The ending calls for self-examination by the reader.
Mark also contributes to moral reflection. The ethical challenge Jesus presents is to repent and believe because the hidden reign of God is already present in the ministry of Jesus and will soon be obvious to all as it comes in power. The response of faith presupposes the comprehensive break with the past and the reorientation of life in both its ethical and religious dimensions connoted by repentance as in changing one's ways. Faith completes the work begun by repentance. Faith is repentant faith.
Mark juxtaposes the announcement of the theme of the preaching of Jesus as the soon arrival of the reign of God with the call of the disciples, who then give up their former way of life to follow Jesus. In this sense, the disciples become models of what following Jesus is about. However, their repentance and faith are far from complete. The disciples are cowardly, lacking comprehension, concerned for social status, and disloyal to Jesus at the crucial time of arrest and trial. If the purpose of Mark is to encourage Christians to remain faithful during the time of trial, his gospel does not hold out much hope that this will happen, for not even the disciples can remain faithful.
To be a disciple is to adopt a new way of thinking concerning what one values. Peter simply could not get this, as after his confession that Jesus is the Messiah in Mark 8, he is also called a Satan for his failure to understand what it means that Jesus is the Son of Man who must suffer. Jesus is not interested in saving his life (as Peter is), but in surrendering his life. Jesus is not interested in being the first or great in the eyes of others, but rather willingly becomes last of all, the servant and slave of all. Peter can see things from only a human perspective, and he needs to understand the perspective that God has on these matters.
The soon arrival of the reign of God radicalizes the demand for discipleship, leaves little room for compromise, relativizes Torah, and the church will need to live out its own suffering in union with the suffering Jesus experienced. Those in privileged positions of religious authority do not accept the message. Even the disciples accept it only to a degree and continue to struggle. Suffering reflects the end-time suffering of those who follow Jesus, suggesting that power needs to be re-evaluated in the light of the suffering and death of the cross. An ironic dimension appears in that those who think they have the will of God firmly in hand because of Torah are blinding themselves from the will of God as shown in Jesus. The gospel closes with fear on the part of the disciples, inviting the reader to respond either with fear or with witness.
Mark portrays Jesus as in debate concerning Torah with religious leaders. Mark notes that all foods are clean. Jesus does not go into extended critique of the sacrificial system. He appears to distinguish between the purity code of Torah and the moral code of Torah. We find in Mark 2:1-3:6 the opposition of the religious leaders to Jesus, standing in sharp contrast to the response of the crowds. There is no explicit mention of the law in these controversies over forgiveness of sin, the table fellowship of Jesus with tax collectors and sinners, his lack of fasting, and the Sabbath law. Yet, the question of Torah is behind these controversies. Mark recognizes that Jesus relativizes the claim of Torah considering the arrival of the reign of God in his ministry. A provocative way of saying this is that obedience to Torah no longer automatically reflects faithfulness to God and may in fact reflect lack of obedience to the will of God considering the new situation introduced by Jesus. One might suggest that, from the perspective of Mark, both what Jesus says about himself is wonderfully true and demands allegiance, or he is terribly arrogant. We see another purity debate in Mark 7. Jesus says that the traditions of the rabbis are not binding upon people and that purity laws concerning foods are no longer binding, leaving open the possibility of table fellowship with Gentiles and others. Jesus has fed both in his table fellowship, so one can no longer separate them. Jesus makes extraordinary demands upon his disciples considering the soon arrival of the reign of God, including becoming like children, selling possessions, and that divorce is not permitted. The dialogue concerning the coin with the image of Caesar, Jesus suggests that everything belongs to God, whereas all Caesar receives is the coin. Since Jesus envisions a time without temple, land, or Torah, the love of God and neighbor as guiding norms for the followers of Jesus becomes increasingly urgent.
The motivation for moral conduct is the will of God. He also describes a system of rewards and punishments. One is now part of the family of God as defined by Jesus. His ethics is teleological in that Mark calls people to act today considering a specific goal or end. Disciples who do the will of God now will receive vindication in the final judgment God brings to the world. Jesus becomes a model of moral behavior in his doing of the will of God, in his faithfulness to God during trial, and in his compassion.
Mann notes that the gospels are primarily theological documents, not lives of Jesus. Behind the gospels is a series of traditions, a transmission of oral and written tradition. Some believe the motivation for writing a gospel is disappointment in the failure of Jesus to return soon. Jewish-Christians wrote the gospels. The oral tradition of rabbinic Pharisaism must cause us to take seriously the oral tradition of the gospels. Midrash may be the background of much of this material. He believes more attention must be given to the worship context of the gospels. Some believe there is a lectionary origin to Mark’s gospel. He believes Christianity is dead if it cannot speak about the life of Jesus. The early decades of this century witnessed skepticism about that possibility. There was with Bultmann an almost total divorce between the faith of the New Testament and the preaching of Jesus. Though a biography is not possible, it is possible to tell if there is a radical shift away from the person of Jesus and his own proclamation of the kingdom. Thus, he rejects form criticism’s view that nothing genuine can be regained and that there is only an existential encounter with a message of salvation proclaimed by Jesus’ followers. He also rejects the notion of a principle of discontinuity between Jesus and Judaism. He believes Jesus’ speech was Aramaic, though he may have used Hebrew at times. We do have the right to give a principle of reliability to the recorded words of Jesus and their events. Mann battles the view that Mark is prior to the other gospels and the existence of the Q document. He rejects B. H. Streeter in favor of the Griesbach and Farmer’s views. Mann leans toward Matthew being prior, coming from a Jewish-Christian school before 65 A.D. Luke was written with Matthew available to him, as well as his own unique material. Mark is a conflation of both gospels. He believes the two-document hypothesis fit in with 19th century liberalism developmental view, with Mark being a simple theological statement and Matthew and Luke more developed. His question to the two-document hypothesis is, in terms of order, why do Matthew and Luke depart from Mark? This is explainable if Mark is simply choosing one order over the other. He also disagrees that the minor agreements of Matthew and Luke are indeed minor. In using Stendall, The School of St. Matthew, Mann shows that Matthew is a manual of instruction for teachers and church leaders using a midrashic pesher method common to the Essenes which focus on fulfilled prophecy.
According to Mann, Mark envisions a three-fold development, the first period identifying Jesus closely with John the Baptist and the soon coming of the kingdom, the second period when Jesus believed the kingdom was begun in his own ministry, and the third period when he viewed himself as the suffering servant and representative of Israel.
Sources: Vincent Taylor. C. S. Mann. Gerd Luedemann, The Resurrection of Jesus, 1994. Raymond Brown, The Death of the Messiah, 1994. E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 1985. Russell Pregeant, Engaging the New Testament: An Interdisciplinary Introduction, 1995. Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics, 1996 and Frank J. Matera, New Testament Ethics: The Legacies of Jesus and Paul, 1996.
Theological reflection on the gospel lesson:
John relates how Philip and Nathaniel come to Jesus (John 1:43-51, Year B Epiphany 2). Early in the Gospel of John, an informal network of people tells news about Jesus. Each new member of the network understands who Jesus is. Each encounter reveals more about Jesus. This theme of accepting or rejecting Jesus occupies a place of significance in the Gospel of John, where the situations in which people encounter Jesus provoke them to make a judgment about him. They must decide for him or against him. John has little tolerance for refusal or unwillingness to decide. The challenge to readers, of course, is whether they will see Jesus with Nathaniel’s initial skepticism or with his eventual eyes of faith. Truly, in the words of the praise song, “Open the eyes of my heart, Lord, I want to see you, high and lifted up, shining in the light of your glory.”
From the Prologue (vv. 1-18) through the conclusion of this selection, the first chapter of the gospel of John focuses on two themes: the identity of Jesus and the way to become a follower of Jesus. The opening establishes for the gospel reader the identity of Jesus of Nazareth as the “Word made flesh.” Even the original listeners to this text needed a fuller explanation of what this might mean. The remainder of this first chapter, then, describes how the initial followers of Jesus identified him. John the Baptist identifies him as “pre-existent” (v. 30) “Lamb of God” (v. 29), on whom the Spirit descended and who will baptize with the Spirit (v. 32-33) and sends two of his disciples to follow Jesus (v. 37). One of them, Andrew, then tells his brother Simon that he has “found” Jesus, whom Andrew identifies as “Rabbi” (v. 38) and “Messiah” (v. 41).
Jesus decided to go to Galilee, finds Phillip, and invites Philip to follow him. He is from Bethsaida, a city that had become heavily Gentile, and the city of Andrew and Peter. The “call” of Philip is not a spectacular call story. It has simplicity in it. In this call, Jesus acts in a relational way, rather than in a legalistic or dogmatic way. He did not ask any of the disciples to subscribe to a set of theological propositions, to feel a certain way, or to live in a legalistically prescribed way. He asked them to follow, to decide to get up from what they were doing and go with him. Like us, they would have liked more certainty. Yet, the hunger for certainty, the struggle with vocation, and the longing for certainty, are all hints of our longing for the reality of God.
45 Philip found Nathanael, a Jewish name, establishing a pattern of witness and missionary activity by the Christian community. Once Jesus has found us, we want to draw others into the fold. Nathanael receives mention only in this Gospel. We can also the willingness to cross cultural and social boundaries to unite them within the circle around Jesus. Philip said to him, “We have found, while in truth, Jesus found him, John as a writer further reinforces the theme of discovery. We have found him about whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, (John continues the theme of various titles that help us identify who Jesus is) Jesus son of Joseph from Nazareth.” With this identification, Philip misses the mark. 46 Nathanael said to him, asking one of the most memorable questions in the Bible, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” Why does he denigrate Nazareth? We learn in 21:2 that his hometown is Cana, so it could be rivalry. He may wonder about the possibility of any significant person coming from the little village. Josephus refers to Judas of Galilee, who inspired people to revolt against Rome, a fact Luke mentions in Acts 5:37 as well. Philip said to him, “Come and see.” Philip's invitation to come and see is an invitation to discover that Jesus really comes not from Nazareth but from God. This invitation is a simple template for evangelism. It was a part of Jesus’ initial recruitment of disciples. As such, it is not a bad idea to emulate the formula that he used. There are two action verbs in this three-word invitation: “come” and “see.” “Come” to a house of worship, or to my home. “See” a Christian in a natural environment.
Philip makes no effort to clear away the misgivings of Nathaniel. Rather, he leads him to Jesus immediately. 47 When Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him, he said of him, “Here is truly an Israelite in whom there is no deceit!” The statement has some irony in that the name “Israel” comes from the Patriarch Jacob, who was a deceiver. The statement also shows the supernatural knowledge Jesus possesses. Superficially, this power to read hearts recalls the Hellenistic demigods. However, for John, this knowledge arises from the intimate union between Jesus and his Father and because his Messianic vocation makes him insightful. What Jesus knows about him is important. He is a man with no deceit, guile, pretention, or need to cover up his actions. The contrast between honesty and deceit has been fertile ground for humor. Mark Twain said that if you tell the truth, you do not have to remember anything. Comedian George Burns said that sincerity is the key. If you can fake that, you have it made. Comedian George Carlin once observed that if the honesty is the best policy, then, by the process of elimination, dishonesty must be the second-best policy. Most of us learn that second-best policy quite well. An antonym for guile, for example, is one used in Genesis 3:1 to describe the serpent as crafty. Most of us learn to be crafty with who we are and what our agenda might be. Yet, with Nathanael, except for the normal need for discretion and modesty, he is transparent. What you see is what you get. More, he is willing and eager to know the truth, and to make the necessary changes and adjustments that such truth would require of him. He is humble enough to accept things as they are, never bending them to make the pieces fit his own ideas. We immediately feel good every time we meet such persons. They always exude such welcome and wholesome aura about themselves despite their imperfections. They contribute to making society more at peace and in harmony. President John Adams wrote to his sons of such matters.
Nathanael embodies the ordinary person who, despite warts and all, still has that basic, irreducible trait of exposing his heart, no matter how defective, to the truth. He does not run away nor hide from it. Frankness without charity is never the truth, just as charity without the truth is never charity. The way people think and the way they bond have a curious connection. If you to think of the issues of life in a black and white way, you will meet the challenges, twists, and turns of life in a way that lacks resiliency. That which binds one to others will become chains. On the other hand, if one approaches life recognizing its ambiguity and even appreciating it, one broadens the possible approach to the challenges of a human life. It will also mean bonding with people in a way that leads to freedom.[1] We need to remember Nathanael for his simplicity of heart and sincerity. Before we look for truth, God, who is truth, has already looked for us.
Jesus knew and found Nathanael before Nathanael came to see Jesus. The initiative in conversion remains with Jesus. 49 Nathanael replied, “Rabbi, (the first title) you are (the second title) the Son of God! You are (the third title) the King of Israel!” The order seems odd to a believer today. Yet, in popular first-century Jewish thought, these two titles were synonymous, as the “Son of God” was a title of Israel’s kings (II Samuel 7:14; Psalm 2:7).[2] We also have an insight into the notion of conversion in John, where conversion (recognizing and acknowledging who Jesus is) occurs when the person (Nathaniel or Simon) has a personal encounter with Jesus.[3]
51And he said to him, “Very truly, I tell you, you will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.” The segment concludes with what some scholars think of as a detached Son of Man saying that John uses here. Son of Man is a title Jesus most uses when he refers to himself. Ezekiel uses it a hundred times to refer to a human being. Daniel 7:13 uses the term to refer to a more than human person. In the progression of titles, one would think of the final title, given by Jesus, would be the most important. It may unite the human and divine titles already given. Thus, the last two verses provide yet another title, or image of the identity of Jesus. Throughout the gospel, John shows how Jesus reinterprets the festivals of first-century Judaism. Thus, the Passover in John becomes a time to celebrate service. In addition, therefore, Jesus changes the understanding of the term “Son of God,” so that it takes on the more elevated sense of the only-begotten offspring of God.[4] However, the unfolding of that understanding has yet to come and it leaves the believing reader unsatisfied: No title in this segment yet captures Jesus as characters had identified him earlier.
John has clarified the identity of Jesus in what later theology would call the Incarnation. The Incarnation is simply a divine surrender to the axiom that “seeing is believing.” So, God decides that robing divinity in fleshly form is not only a good thing, but an absolute necessity. People need to be able to see and touch the Divine. And so, they do. Even the author of this gospel reports in 1 John that those who were with Jesus saw and believed: “We declare to you what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life — this life was revealed, and we have seen it and testify to it, and declare to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us— we declare to you what we have seen and heard so that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ” (I John 1:1-3).
Jesus begins his Galilean ministry, which is by far the longest section of the Gospel of Mark (Mark 1:14-20, Year B Epiphany 3). In Mark, the rule of God is a reality of the near or immediate future. Indeed, the appearance Jesus and the appearance of the rule of God are the same. Mark rarely defines the content of the preaching of Jesus. Where Mark specifies the message of Jesus precisely, it is the announcement of the rule of God. The tangible power of the rule of God is also apparent from the way others react to Jesus and his message.
The time of John the Baptist is past, signaled by his arrest. The end of his ministry anticipates the end of the ministry of Jesus as well. With that arrest, Jesus left the wilderness and came to Galilee. The ministry of Jesus will be among the cities and towns of Galilee rather than in the wilderness. He will make Bethsaida, Chorazin, and Capernaum the center of his public activity.
Mark describes the message of Jesus as proclaiming (κηρύσσων) the gospel or good news (εὐαγγέλιον) of God, which may explain why the early church used the term “gospel” for the comprehensive presentations of the Jesus tradition.[5]
The content of Jesus' proclamation is fourfold in Mark 1: 15. For some context, this summary of the content of the preaching of Jesus is like Isaiah 52:7. The prophet writes of the beauty of those who bring good tidings, who publishes peace, who brings good tidings of good, and who says to Zion, “Your God reigns.”
The first part of the summary is that in the arrival of Jesus, we find Jesus proclaiming 15 and saying, “The time (καιρὸς) is fulfilled (Πεπλήρωται). God is the one fulfilling time in this way. Mark is not referring to chronos (extended time), but kairos (the right time for something to happen). According to Mark, the right time is after the arrest of John and the right place is the moment of the arrival of Jesus in Galilee. At this time, God steps into human history in a unique and decisive way. The time of John the prophet is over; the time of Jesus and fulfillment has begun. John predicted the coming of the One who would baptize with the Spirit. If the arrival of Jesus fulfills the time, it indicates that the ministry of Jesus will bring about the age of salvation anticipated by the prophecy of John. “Fulfilled” refers to a completion of the past, and thus a keen sense of continuity. Scripture, Law, and the purpose of the old covenant find their fulfillment in Christ. “The time you have been waiting for, the time announced by the prophets, is finally here! The glorious new day of the rule of God has just dawned!" We can see here a partial basis for saying that Jesus is Lord of time. In Matthew 13:16-17, this generation receives so much blessing from God because it has seen and heard Jesus. In Galatians 4:4, Paul refers to the fullness of time as being the moment when the Father sent the Son into the world. Ephesians 1:10 says that in the fullness of time, God is summing up all things in Christ. The promises and prophecies of the Old Testament find their fulfillment in the arrival of Jesus. If the time finds its fulfillment, the fulfillment comes in a moment, an event, in the arrival of Jesus. This real event occurs as a particular event and a particular time, a center around which all other times will revolve. The time before has moved toward Christ. The time after Jesus moves away from this event. Humanity has time because Jesus had his time. We have the fullness of our time because we orient ourselves to and live considering the time Jesus has. The purpose of our time after this decisive event is to allow space before the rule of God to repent and believe. Those who do believe have as their primary purpose to make known this event. They too must wait expectantly, even as the universe waits, for this last event.[6]
The second piece of the proclamation of Jesus: and the kingdom or rule of God has come near (ἤγγικεν). Jesus spoke of the rule of God as close or already present but hidden, and thus in a way that frustrates ordinary expectations. The central content of the message is the dawning of the reign of God, indeed in the sense that God has already entered upon that reign. Note the similarity of this message to the central theme of Jesus as identified by this verse, although in relation to its future Jesus saw the divine reign as still in the process of dawning.[7] It implies the irruption of the reign of God into history is imminent. Even if we translate that the rule of God “has come,” it would refer to God revealing it in moments like the resurrection. Until the full revelation to all persons comes, we can only pray for the coming rule of God. Yet, we can see the subtle notion of the presence of God when Jesus says that he casts out devils by the Spirit of God, then the rule of God has come upon them (Matthew 12:28). The salvation promised for the end is a present reality in the healings and exorcisms of Jesus. The rule of God is in their midst (Luke 17:21). Jesus even sees Satan falling (Matthew 11:12).[8] Scholars debate what this summary says. Does it mean the reign of God is about to arrive or that it is already here? These passages suggest the answer could be both. For Mark, the rule of God has both present and future dimensions. We have already seen this in John the Baptist's message. John announces Jesus' imminent arrival, and Jesus appears. As Jesus begins his public ministry, the rule of God lay in the immediate future. As the story of Mark's gospel unfolds, those who encounter the power of God through the words and works of Jesus experience the rule of God as present yet hidden; the fullness of the rule of God remains the object of prayer and expectant waiting but is mysteriously present in the ministry of Jesus.
The third piece of Jesus' proclamation is the same message John preached - the call for people to repent (μετανοεῖτε). The prophetic theme of conversion is not prominent in the message of Jesus, even though this passage brings it to the fore as a theme of the preaching of Jesus. Yet, one could say that the summons to subordinate all concerns to seeking the reign of God in human life naturally implies very strongly a conversion to God. Conversion, for Jesus is not a precondition of participation in the reign of God. At the center of his message is the imminence and presence of the rule of God for believers.[9] To repent does not mean merely to turn away from a specific sin but turning toward God in faith and obedience. Repentance meant a complete about-face, a turning around of the mind, a changing of life and lifestyle, the taking of a radical new direction. The primary theme of the preaching of Jesus is that the rule of God has come near. This theme naturally leads into the call to hearers to turn around, to shift the direction of their lives, to look, listen and give their full attention to the arrival of the rule of God. Such repentance means complete re-orientation, both inward and outward, of the whole person to the God who truly has turned to humanity in time.[10] Such repentance implies genuine knowledge of oneself that includes our participation in sin.[11]
The final piece of the summary of the proclamation of Jesus is the call to believe (πιστεύετε) in the good news (εὐαγγελίῳ). In Mark, belief is trusting in the coming rule of God. It involves a letting go of the things to which we cling to for security and identity. Believe the good news that the rule of God is arriving. Where Jesus is, there the rule of God is actively at work. However, this truth is not self-evident. For one to see it, one must believe it. It involves a letting go of the things to which we cling to for security and identity. The call to believe is not an intellectual exercise, but a call to trust. To believe in the good news means to wager one's future on the reality of God's involvement in the world through the person and ministry of Jesus Christ, despite the skepticism of the modern worldview. In the work of Jesus, the call for conversion rests on the message of the inbreaking of the future of God in the coming of Jesus and for those who accept the summons in faith. The proclaiming of the presence of the rule of God and its salvation in those who in faith rely on its all-determinative future is now a motive for conversion to God on the part of the hearers.[12] Faith means the unquestioning trust in this God that is the positive side of this re-orientation; the new life that is the only possible life after this event in the time that follows it.[13]
While these two "hinge" verses may appear at first to form a straightforward gate into the next phase of Jesus' ministry, in many ways they reflect the paradox that Jesus' own human/divine identity embodied. The fact that the "time" is both "fulfilled," and yet not proclaimed as "here and now" but as "come near," highlights the tension that accompanies the arrival of the rule of God. It is both "now" and "not yet." The content and the consequences of the message of Jesus also seem to be at odds. On the one hand, Mark describes the proclamation of Jesus as "good news," yet, at the same time, this "good news" is such that it demands all hearing it to "repent." Indeed, the call to repentance precedes the call to faith, to "believe." The content of this "good news," therefore, would appear to be not all that "good" to most of us. John the Baptist's call to repentance was in anticipation of the arrival of God's messenger. The call of Jesus to repentance is more urgent. His declaration that the "time is fulfilled" makes repentance an immediate requirement, not some distant goal. The "Good News" of the reign of God thus demands that the hearers accept the "bad news" about their current condition and "repent" accordingly.
Mark 1:16-20 is a story about Jesus involving the call of the first disciples. The source is Mark, which Matthew 4:18-22 duplicates. Many scholars consider this story “ideal,” in that it shows true discipleship as hearing the invitation of Jesus and leaving behind a former way of life to follow Jesus. The image of fishing for people is one that “fits” only some of the disciples, for the disciples came from a variety of professions. Some scholars think Jesus had no institutional goals, for his life was primarily that of an itinerant sage or teacher of wisdom. In what way does the episode have typical significance? Following on the part of the disciples does not distinguish them from the people who are sympathetic to Jesus, but the people, by following, belong together with the disciples. These features try to bring out the authority of the command and the completeness of obedience. The story is "ideal" in that it embodies a truth in a metaphorical situation. It condenses into one symbolic moment. Though it may not be "historical," it presents the impact of the call upon their lives by Jesus. The imagery of fishing derives from Jeremiah 16:14-16, where the image refers specifically to God's restoring the scattered Israelites to their land (albeit with punishing recompense for their misdeeds). The image is far less benign than the more common image of shepherding (even though the outcome for both types of animals, hunted or husbanded, is ominous for the animal), and one should not press the imagery too hard. Mark intended the focus of his statement to be on the dramatic difference between the old lives of the disciples as those consumed with worldly pursuits, and their new life as his followers engaged in the supremely important business of joining Jesus in proclaiming the good news of God. In other words, the important word in the verse is the noun "people," not the verb "fish." The basis for the account is I Kings 19:19-21, where Elijah found Elisha plowing the field and invited him to be his successor, who left the oxen, but Elijah allowed him to return to his parents and had a meal with them of the slaughtered oxen, thereby altering the course of his life as he became a servant of Elijah. The gospels continually emphasize the theme of renunciation. Jesus issues an authoritative call. Then, the person responds to the call Jesus issues without hesitation. Some people read this text as a contrast between the worldly occupation of catching fish and the spiritual occupation of fishing for people. Nothing suggests this contrast. Nothing suggests faith or understanding of the mission of Jesus. Responding to Jesus provides the disciples with no answers for their life struggles. If anything, their response will introduce new questions. Their response provides them with no security, but with rejection and even danger. The text demonstrates how even the simplest, most ordinary people could perceive the presence of the divine rule in the being of Jesus and change their lives through the encounter. As common as these anglers are, and in contrast to those in political and religious authority, they readily perceive the invitation from Jesus as one full of power and promise. Based exclusively on the power of Jesus’ personality and message, these first four disciples turn their lives around.
The call Jesus extends first to Simon and Andrew is that he will make, which we might think of shape or train, them into those who fish for people. Clearly, this invitation to discipleship entails more than merely sitting at the feet of the rabbi/master and passively absorbing his wisdom. "Fishing" is demanding work. It can be both tedious and exhausting. Even today, commercial fishing ranks high on the list of "most hazardous" jobs. Boats, weather, water, equipment‑‑all can either aid the fisher or be instruments of harm, even death. Because the message he must spread is so important and the time for action has grown so short, Jesus calls these first disciples to a new, fully engaged, and consuming form of discipleship. This invitation to discipleship, to "fishing," is no less than a call to participate in the mission of Jesus. Instead of offering his disciples a place at his feet, Jesus offers them a place at his side, joining with him to proclaim the good news of the kingdom that is both present and yet‑to‑come. Even so, the response is immediate and radical: 18 And immediately they left their nets and followed him. Peter and Andrew leave not only their daily work, but completely abandon their established livelihoods.
We are to imagine that Jesus continues walking along the sea. 19 As he went a little farther, he saw James son of Zebedee and his brother John, who were in their boat mending the nets. On analogy with the previous invitation, I like to imagine Jesus saying something like, “Follow me, and I will make you one who mends souls.” 20 Immediately he called them; and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired men, and followed him. James and John not only leave the security of their vocation, but they walk away from the safety of their family ties and support structures. The ancient household, with the father at the top of the hierarchy, the wife playing a key role at the top, children, and servants/slaves and their families, as well as those too old to work, could be a large unit, such as 15-40 persons. Sons were important for the continuation of the household. For sons to depart in this way represented a dramatic break with their anticipated future. Making this decision without securing the permission of the father was a violation of the cultural code, not to mention an act that could put the welfare of the whole family at risk. For Jesus, however, the urgency of the rule of God means people must put aside normal expectations. We clearly see the disruptive nature of the call of Jesus. While the call or command to "follow" proceeds entirely from Jesus, the action it inspires is impressively dramatic. The call of Jesus is so imperative that it demands no delays.
Considering the matter of Jesus calling people, we read of Jesus calling another disciple, Levi or Matthew. We can assume that Jesus called all the other disciples as well. I wonder if he tailored his call to the situation of each of them. To Simon the zealot, he might have said, “Follow me, and I will make you zealous for the rule of God, instead of a political and religious party.” In Mark, their calling has a direct connection with the beginning of the public proclamation by Jesus in Galilee. Jesus will need witnesses to see and hear. He will need some who have responded positively to his announcement of the nearness of divine rule. He will need some who repent and believe. They will accompany Jesus on his way through Galilee and later to Jerusalem. We discover they will lack understanding many times. Yet, they still accompany him. His calling suggests their commission to future speech and action in the name of Jesus. They attach themselves to him. Jesus noticed them from among the many and selected them. With no disrespect to what they had had been doing, they must surrender it all to follow him. Jesus calls them to follow him, but their calling to him includes a calling to bring the message of Jesus to other people. Their basic calling is to win people for Christ, although this calling will not have full clarity until after the risen Lord commissions them.[14]
The literal meaning of "follow me" is "come (plural) after me." This nuance is important because it points to Jesus and not to the disciples. Jesus does not call these four anglers to save the world by their heroic performance, but to show subordination to Jesus and to bear witness to him. Likewise, Jesus does not call them into this service as individuals, but as a group. When we think of fishing, we think hook and line, but here Jesus is talking about net fishing. Although some small nets were thrown and retrieved by individuals, fishing was a team effort, not a solo venture. Jesus is calling followers to work together to capture people for the kingdom. Effective evangelism is a shared enterprise.
Cecil Frances Alexander (1852) wrote a wonderful hymn that builds on this text. “Jesus calls us” over the tumult of the wild sea of our lives with a sweet voice, saying, “Christian, follow me.” She refers to our worship of this world, from which Jesus calls us, “Christian, love me more.” She invites Christians to hear the call and serve and love Him best of all. Fanny J. Crosby (1875) wrote, “All the way my Savior leads me.” Through my life, he has been my guide. From the perspective of eternity, we will look back and see that Jesus led us all the way. Mary Louise Bringle (2004) wrote that from the nets of our labors, the noise and confusion of city or seashore, Jesus summons us all. Its refrain is the encouragement that we will rise and follow, Christ before and beside us, loving pattern to guide us as we answer the call. We may be weary. We see the stranger and the neighbor. We hear words of hatred that cry out for challenge. We have moments of courage and see the need for justice. Like disciples before us, risking selfless compassion, Jesus summons us. Cesareo Gabarain (1936-1991) wrote that the Lord has come to the lakeshore, looking for neither wealthy nor wise, but only that I humbly follow. Chris Tomlin wrote the praise song, “I will follow,” suggesting that if Jesus goes or stays, I will follow. Finally, the chorus “I have decided to follow Jesus,” says that there is no turning back. If none goes with me, I will follow. The world is behind me, the cross is before me, no turning back.
Jesus continues his ministry with his disciples in Galilee by going to Capernaum, an important first-century city at the northern end of the Sea of Galilee, the center of the Galilean fishing industry and the probable home of several of anglers whom Jesus called to be disciples, a detachment of Roman soldiers garrisoned there, as Jesus astonished people gathered at the synagogue with his teaching, and becoming an exorcist in liberating a man with an unclean (ἀκαθάρτῳ) spirit on the Sabbath (Mark 1:21-28, Year B Epiphany 4). Luke 4:31-37 is a duplication of this story. Jesus is against the forces of evil. Within a space of 12 verses John has baptized Jesus (vv. 9-11), Satan has tempted him (vv.12-13), he began preaching (vv.14-15), and he called his disciples (vv.16-20). Now there is at least a temporary halt to the rushing movement of Mark's gospel. No doubt, Mark intends for the reader to take a break, too, and pay particular attention to the details of the first occasion for Jesus to teach in a synagogue with the permission of the president of the synagogue and perform an unplanned exorcism. Mark wants to make clear that the will and purpose of God is present in Jesus. He also wants to make clear that the will and purpose of evil is present by holding individuals in bondage. The story shows that Jesus was a religious man in that he attended synagogue. His disciples will continue the practice after he dies. Mark offers no synopsis of what Jesus said in his homily. The service of the Jewish community of the first century consisted of praise and blessings, prayers, the reading of the Law and the Prophets, accompanied by an exposition of the lesson. On occasion, the president would invite a visiting adult male Israelite to teach. None of the gospels offers any description of the formal training of Jesus or his background. However, that the president invited Jesus to speak in the synagogue indicates that he invited him to present a homily on the text, which in turn suggests that people already knew him as a man skilled in Torah interpretation. Scripture reading, study, prayer, and exhortation became the shape of Jewish worship from this time on, replacing sacrifice as the primary act of devotion. With the destruction of the first temple in 587/6 B.C., the synagogue assumed vital importance in Jewish religious and civic life, serving not only as a location for worship, but also as a social center for activities that formed integral parts of Jewish identity (such as communal meals, reception of religious visitors and legal proceedings). Jesus' teaching in a Galilean synagogue on the Sabbath represents the fruition of centuries of the gradual democratization of teaching and sacerdotal authority in the religion of biblical Israel, a development fraught with both opportunity and conflict. The evangelists' report of the crowd's reaction to Jesus' teaching captures both aspects of this religious development. Mark seeks to highlight the authority Jesus in answering the main question of his work: Who is Jesus? In this scene in the synagogue of Capernaum, Mark shows Jesus to be one to teach with an authority that the religious leaders lack. There is no indication that the amazement of the audience was due to the orthodoxy or lack thereof of the teaching Jesus presented. Rather, the suggestion is that he possessed an authority previously unheard. Mark contrasts the authority with which Jesus taught was not as the scribes.Note that the authority of Jesus has limits. Jesus wields no authority over people. Jesus has divine authority to serve people, whereas the scribes have human authority and lord over people. The whole Gospel unpacks the contrast between these two notions of authority. Scribes refers to all those who are professional interpreters of Torah. The interpretations of the professional scholars became part of the "tradition" of the elders that sought to proscribe faithful living in every circumstance. Jesus, in contrast, seems to give witness to the present initiative of God to act in a new way. With the coming of Jesus, the moment of the overthrow of the demonic has arrived. This scene describes the first significant act of Jesus. Being ritually unclean would prohibit him from being part of the congregation. Think of the misery of this man. We do not know how long he lived such and isolated and miserable life, unable to participate in the religious community that was central to the lives of so many. His situation was that he was so close to misery that his only hope was a miracle.[15]Mark sets the scene in this way to suggest that just as the Jews do not recognize who Jesus is, neither do they recognize an unclean spirit when one is in their midst. In short, to Mark, Judaism has lost its ability to speak with authority and to act with power. Jesus does both, and hence the Gospel and its present power to act supersedes the Torah and its tradition to explain. The recognition of who Jesus was by an unclean spirit indicates the obtuseness of Judaism, according to Mark. The presence of Jesus is a danger to the unclean spirit. The plural references by the unclean spirit suggest he speaks for all unclean spirits. It was common in exorcism to name the spirit to control it. The unclean spirit seeks to control Jesus by naming him. However, 25Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Be silent, he told the unclean spirit to shut up, and come out of him!” He does not use the magical manipulation, which would have been typical of Jewish and Hellenistic exorcist literature.Then, 26 the unclean spirit, convulsing him and crying with a loud voice, came out of him. Exorcism demonstrates the power and authority of Jesus. We can see this in that the conflict between Jesus and the demon is loud and violent. Jesus has power over the unclean spirit, which sets him apart even further. The ability to control the demons differentiates John the Baptist from Jesus. Jesus stands alone. 27 The response of the people was amazement. They kept on asking one another, “What is this? A new teaching (διδαχὴ). Mark makes no separation between the subjective act of teaching and the content of teaching.[16] In particular, Jesus offers the new teaching with authority! He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him.” The audience echoes the opinion of Mark of the difference between Jesus and the Judaism of the day. The Gospel writers treat the healings, exorcisms, and miracles of Jesus as acts that raise questions about whom he is and whose power he employs. What makes this event important stems from the teaching of Jesus and the issue of authority rather than from the exorcism alone. Most miracle stories, including exorcisms, conclude with a demonstration of the effectiveness of the cure and the response of those who have observed it. The story culminates, then, in a kind of question. The earlier question, “What is this?” calls up another profound question, “Who is this?” Miracles demonstrate power, but power can come from a variety of sources. As with every aspect of Jesus’ ministry, the miracles, and the teaching raise as many questions as they provide answers. Mark lingers on the exorcism. This act of controlling the demons is even more important than the teaching. Again, this story is an indication of the intention of Mark. Jesus is a man of action. The revelation of God is in deeds of transforming power rather than interpretation of texts. This fact lies behind the audience's reaction that Jesus does not teach as the scribes.
There are three incidents in Galilee as Jesus heals the mother-in-law of Simon (1:29-31, Matthew 8:14-15, Luke 4:38-39), heals of diseases, exorcises demons (1:32-34, Matthew 8:16 with a citation regarding the fulfillment of scripture, and Luke 4:40-41), and arises early to pray, and says his mission is to proclaim the message in neighboring villages in Galilee (1:35-39, Luke 4:42-43) (Mark 1:29-39, Year B Epiphany 5). Luke 4:38-43 records all three incidents while Matthew 8:14-16 record only the first two. In context, Mark uses the various settings in 1:29-39 to highlight the private and public implications of the coming of the reign of God. We have three episodes in a row that have many nuances and illuminating pieces of information about the ministry of Jesus. The first is the private healing of a relative of one of his disciples, the second offers a general statement about Jesus as a healer and exorcist, and the third is about the first preaching tour of Jesus in Galilee.
Mark 1:29-31 (Matthew 8:14-15, Luke 4:38-39) is a story about the private healing of the mother-in-law of Peter. Mark outlines in this little story what will turn out to be the standard elements for a physical healing: the diagnosing of the illness, a request for help, a healing action, and the effect on the sick person. This healing says little about the faith of the woman or the others. It also shows that Jesus does not need a large audience to do this work. The healing occurs on the Sabbath. This is an early indication that Jesus does not seem to have a problem with curing on the Sabbath. Later, in the reaction of the opponents of Jesus, when Jesus again heals on the Sabbath (Mark 3:1-6), the opponents of Jesus regard healing as ample reason to seek to get rid of Jesus. The home of Simon and Andrew may have been a rendezvous for Jesus and his disciples at an early stage. The New Testament gives little information about the family situation of the disciples. The mention of a mother-in-law infers that Simon had or has a wife, although the New Testament makes no mention of children. Paul offers additional mention of the wife of Simon/Cephas (I Corinthians 9:5).[17] It may be that his wife accompanied him on his journeys. Further, Mark does not share any of the details of this illness. People in those times connected a "fever" to many diseases for which there were few know courses of action that would result in a cure (compare John 4:52). 31 He came, took her by the hand and lifted her up. Although the gospels consistently take considerable pains to focus the attention of stories about the healings of Jesus on their religious and theological -- as opposed to their ritual or mechanical -- aspects, the healing account of the mother-in-law of Peter is noteworthy for its absence of ceremony. The healing power of Jesus works here through a gesture, not through the popular magic that the Talmud describes for curing a burning fever. It could not be more unpretentious. Jesus foregoes such gestures as laying his hands on the sufferer (as in Matthew 9:29 or Mark 6:5) or employing such auxiliary substances as saliva and dirt (as in John 9:6). In fact, Jesus does not even speak to the ailing woman, as he does in most other healings, including his raising of the daughter of Jairus (Mark 5:21-43 and parallels), which the present account most closely resembles. Mark will refer to the gesture of Jesus taking the ailing one by the hand again in Mark 9:27 (the account of the boy with an unclean spirit). Then the fever left her, and, giving evidence of her cure, she began to serve them, able to fulfill the cultural expectations of hospitality toward guests. The theological point is that she has received complete mental and physical recovery by this healing act of Jesus. Jesus helps her, and then she goes about helping the others. Now, a very private healing, as opposed to the prior, very public exorcism, occurs. One operates in the realm of demon possession, and the other in the realm of physical illness. Mark tells the synagogue healing in dramatic terms with loud cries and authoritative commands, but this one is not dramatic. In general, Mark uses the healing genre to communicate the unique power and authority Jesus wields in his travels and teachings. Jesus speaks as one with unquestionable authority. The new teaching of Jesus is, in fact, that he comes with a divine power and an authentic authority never seen before.
Mark 1:32-34 (Matthew 8:16 with a citation regarding the fulfillment of scripture, and Luke 4:40-41) is a summary of healings in the evening. The action and the teaching of Jesus will be their own authentication. It suggests the incident occurs at the conclusion of the sabbath and the fame of Jesus. Those who need help with sickness or the bondage to demons seek him. The compassionate healings of Jesus underscore Mark’s interpretation of the reign of God coming near through Jesus. Given the inappropriate witness of a demon, Jesus does not permit them to speak. Such an order from Jesus is part of the scholarly “messianic secret” theme we find in this gospel. The identity of Jesus is clear to the reader and even to demons. However, the identity of Jesus is not clear to the disciples, the crowds, or his opposition. Mark intended the secrecy to protect Jesus from the overwhelming crowds (see 7:24) or hostile opponents (see 9:30-32). Not unrelated to the latter concern was the well-known proliferation at the time of Jesus of "divine men," miraculous wonderworkers and healers who turned out, with disappointing frequency, to be notorious frauds, such as Alexander the false prophet, satirized in the second century B.C. by Lucian of Samosata.[18] It would be entirely understandable if Jesus wished to dissociate himself from such publicity-seeking charlatans. Sometimes, Jesus demands the silence due to the conflict between the demon and Jesus, showing that Jesus has more authority because he can command silence (1:25). At other points, the command for silence may have to do with the timing of revelation. An early declaration of the identity and mission Jesus would not allow him to complete fully all he desired to do. Finally, this timing of revelation concerns how much the people in the gospel can understand. The disciples and the crowds will always struggle to understand what Jesus has to do with them (1:24) and with others. The lack of understanding on the part of the disciples becomes particularly clear in Mark 8:14-20 and 8:27-33. Nevertheless, Mark 1:1 has carefully illuminated any misunderstanding for the readers of Mark, where he is writing the good news or gospel of Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God. The identity of Jesus as Son, the good news, becomes clear with the risen Lord and not with demons.
A discovery in Rihab, Jordan by archaeologists in that city is significant. It occurred as they were working on St. Georgeous, a Christian church from the 3rd century. Noticing a hollow-sounding spot in the floor, they dug down about two feet and uncovered an old airshaft that opened into a subterranean compartment. Further excavation revealed a series of rooms hollowed out from a cave as well as a tunnel from the cave that leads to a cistern. Some of the rooms were living quarters, and the cistern would have been a source of water for anyone dwelling down there. However, one room was a chapel, containing an altar surrounded by stone seats. The archaeologists also found evidence, including some crosses made of iron, that the worship that took place there was Christian worship. An inscription in the floor of the church above the cistern refers to the “70 beloved by God and the divine.” Coins and other items found in the rooms indicate that the underground area dates from A.D. 33 to 70. It suggests that Christians fleeing Jerusalem to escape Roman persecution create it. They were meeting in secret locations for worship. Such an underground room was a hiding place for some disciples of Jesus. The discovery reminds us of the persecution of Christians in the first century. There have been times and places when invisibility and secrecy have been the order of the day. To a large degree, the secrecy part of the history of the church has been for survival reasons, both for the survival of individual Christians and for the survival of the faith itself. Looking at it this way, we are Christians today not only because someone openly proclaimed the faith to us, but also because quiet venues kept the faith alive through worship in the catacombs, in secret meetings in private homes, in low-profile gatherings in hidden groves and in subterranean meeting places. Through openness when possible and secrecy when necessary, the faithful have found ways to keep the faith vital so that they could pass it on to others.
Mark 1:35-39 (Luke 4:42-43) is the story of the departure of Jesus to a lonely place. Is Jesus seeking solitude to "rest up" from the crowds of the previous day, or do they serve the function of preparing him for the work that is to come? Such "retreats" from the public will continue to be a theme in Mark's gospel (1:45; 6:31-32). Jesus may have often withdrawn from the crowds to pray. In that sense, the story is an ideal story. He desires to reorient himself to the will of God in prayer. Rather than stay in Capernaum, he wants to go to the neighboring towns, so that I may proclaim the message (κηρύξω or preach) there also. The focus of Jesus is on his mission, and his desire is to extend his proclamation of the rule of God through the rest of Galilee. 39 He went throughout Galilee, proclaiming the message in their synagogues, Mark giving us a model of the ministry of Jesus in the region of Galilee with its growing expectations of what may happen. At this point, we find no tension between Jesus and the synagogues or those who serve as their leaders. The later hostility would be between Jesus and the temple authorities, but for the moment Jesus is merely a missionary proclaiming throughout Galilee his message of the rule of God.
A story about Jesus includes the incident of healing and a pronouncement concerning the leper (Mark 1:40-45, Year B Epiphany 6). The story is also in Matthew 8:1-4, who excludes the command for silence and the expansion of the new about him, and Luke 5:12-15. The distressing skin disease characterized by bright white spots on the skin and white hair and the spreading of the scab made one ritually unclean. The most interesting parallel to the plea of the leper for cleansing, however, is from the father of an epileptic, demon-possessed child (9:14-29). In this passage, the father cries, “if you are able … help us!” (9:22). The difference between questioning the ability of Jesus, as the father does (9:22), and offering him the choice, as the leper does (1:40), is the difference between the immediate pity of Jesus (1:40) and exhorting Jesus to have pity (9:22). Even though “[a]ll things can be done for the one who believes” (9:23), the responses of Jesus, dependent on the emotions Mark describes, seem strikingly different in each interaction. Immediately after the leper begs Jesus to heal him, Mark tells us that Jesus was 41 moved with pity[19] (σπλαγχνισθεὶς or compassion), recognizing that only rarely does Mark describe the emotions of Jesus or his reaction to persons.It indicates a strong depth of positive feeling, which Jesus has for the crowds in the gospel of Mark (cf. 6:34; 8:2), and to which the father of the epileptic boy exhorts him (9:22). The focus for us readers belongs here. At the same time, this pity is not the only emotion of Jesus that Mark describes in this narrative. Thus, out of compassion, Jesus ignored the sad rule regarding lepers and did something no one else would have considered doing. Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, Mark taking special interest in Jesus touching those who suffer. This touch is particularly significant due to the skin disease the man had and his unclean status. This person may well have sought the declaration from Jesus that he was clean, rather than traveling to the priest in Jerusalem. 42 Immediately, the leprosy left him, and he received cleansing. This distinction between cleansing and healing is significant, particularly based on where the passage concludes, appealing to “what Moses commanded”. Since the issue is “cleansing,” it must relate to regulations concerning purity, found in Leviticus 13-14 (for leprosy, in particular). While “leprosy” is a term that could relate to a variety of skin diseases in the ancient world, scriptural texts agree that there is no cure for it, except God’s healing (cf. II Kings 5:7). The leper’s interactions with others would have been severely restricted because of the contagious nature of the disease, and its impurity. Thus, the leper seeks cleansing, not just healing, so that he may enter public society again. The stern warning to be silent about the healing is a bit surprising, particularly in the context of the deep pity that moved Jesus to heal the man originally. The stern warning fits, however, in the context of purity laws. One ought not to isolate this command to silence from the charge to show himself to the priest. In this case, one can explain the command to silence by Jesus’ withdrawal from Capernaum and his desire to devote himself to preaching ministry.[20] According to Mark, Jesus tried to stop people from talking about his deeds or magnifying his person. Jesus commands go, show yourself to the priest, which may mean that the incident occurred in Judea,[21] and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, as a testimony to them.” What Jesus tells him is important for reintegration into the community, as in Leviticus 14. Here, he upholds the regulations of Moses, acknowledging the authority of the priest to verify the cleansing. The story indicates that Jesus recognizes the validity of the Mosaic Law. Again, the fact that Jesus was a religious man is on full display. Despite the stern warning, the man proclaims the news, which before him, only John the Baptist and Jesus have done. The disciples will join in this proclamation only after Jesus’ commission, in 3:14. Later, the cleansed leper has more “healed” company who also proclaim the action of God: the man who was possessed by a legion of demons (5:20); the crowds who witnessed the healing of a deaf-mute man (7:36); and the future promise that people will proclaim the good news to “all the nations” (13:9-10; cf. 14:9). Mark pairs these wide proclamations with his striking emphasis on the secrecy of Jesus (cf. 1:34), which sometimes others follow his command and in other, as here, they do not. The result is that Jesus could no longer go into a town openly, but stayed out in the country; and people came to him from every quarter. The consequence of the cleansed leper breaking the secrecy of this healing, however, is ironic. While before his healing, the leper could not enter towns, now, Jesus cannot enter the towns. While the man can proclaim “freely,” Jesus cannot go about “openly” (1:45; cf. 4:22). Nevertheless, unlike Jesus’ previous experiences in the wilderness or in “deserted places” (1:12-13, 35), he is not alone. People are coming to him.
A story about Jesus includes the incident in Capernaum of the healing and pronouncement concerning a paralytic through the faith of his friends and a conflict story of Jesus as a forgiver of sin (Mark 2:1-12, Year B Epiphany 7). The duplication of the story in Matthew 8:1-8 and Luke 5:17-26, as its similarity with John 5:1-9 and Acts 3:1-10 is suggestive of its power. Jesus heals, he knows the inner hearts of people, and he forgives sin. It acts a transition in that it has a healing story (v 1-5, 11-12) providing the framework for a conflict (v 6-10), the next stories related to controversies being 2:13-17; 2:18-22; 2:23-28; and 3:1-6. By the time of Jesus, Capernaum covered an area of 15 acres, and had a population not more than one thousand people, a significant, although not large, village in the region. Capernaum played a significant role in the initial stages of Jesus' public ministry in Galilee, with the house of Simon Peter and Andrew serving as a borrowed base of operations (1:29). Capernaum was the site of Jesus' first healing (an exorcism in the synagogue, Mark 1:21-28). People reported that he was at home. Jesus emphasizes his own property-less lifestyle (e.g., "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head," Matthew 8:20, paralleled in Luke 9:58). Jesus also offered frequent warnings against the capacity of possessions to enslave (e.g., Matthew 19:21; Luke 12:15, 33; 14:33). Therefore, the statement that Jesus was “at home” in Capernaum is not clear. Matthew also reports that Jesus "made his home" at Capernaum (4:13; 9:1), but apart from those passages, we have no other reports in the gospels of Jesus as a householder, and the expression used here occurs nowhere else in the gospels referring to Jesus. Jesus was speaking the word (4:33) to them. The expression may be a shortened form of the fuller expression "the word of God" (as found, e.g., at Matthew 15:6), or, by abbreviation in form, it may have acquired a richer meaning. We learn that four people carried him. The four friends heard the whisper of God in the suffering of their friend, which is why they took the drastic action they did. Since they could gain access to Jesus because of the crown, they removed the roof above him; and after having dug through it, they let down the mat on which the paralytic lay. Access to the roof would have been by an outside stairway. the men have such a desire to see Jesus that they take off the roof of a house. Their passion for Jesus is no doubt an attribute that Mark would find worthy in any follower of Jesus. When the foursome dug through the roof, Jesus looked up at their dusty faces and 5Jesus saw their faith. Through it all, Jesus saw their faith shine through. As elsewhere in healing stories in Mark (e.g., 5:34, 36; 9:23-34; 10:52) – faith has little or nothing to do with explicitly religious or theological matters but consists of an attitude of assertive trust in Jesus' ability to heal. That trust can be the trust of the afflicted individual (e.g., a leper in Mark 1:40-42, a woman suffering from hemorrhages in 5:34), or, as here (and in the case of Jairus' daughter, 5:21-24, 36, and the centurion's servant, Matthew 8:5-13), the trust of those who cared for the one in need. The latter principle of vicarious faith forms the theological basis of intercessory prayer, an idea deeply rooted in Israelite religion (see, for example, Genesis 18:16-33; 20:7; Job 1:5; and especially Exodus 32:7-14, where Moses, Israel's mediator par excellence, saves the Israelites from God's wrath). This passage is unique among all the reports of Jesus' healing ministry because Mark does not tell us of the faith of the paralytic.5Then Jesus said to the paralytic, “Son” an affectionate and familiar form of address used nowhere else by Jesus. The affectionate usage appears also in I Peter 5:13 (where Peter describes Mark "my son"), but nowhere else in the New Testament. In that time, people commonly used the term to describe the relationship of a teacher to a disciple, but writers in the New Testament did not deploy this usage. Its use here is conspicuous. Jesus says to him, “your sins are forgiven,” a declaration that comes surprisingly and suddenly.Forgiveness of sins and salvation suggests that those who accept the message are no longer outcasts. They share in the salvation of the rule of God. The presence of salvation relates to the removal of the barrier that separates from God. One can have no doubt that the rule of God and participation in its salvation includes remission of sins and overcoming of that which separates us from God.[22] Clearly, however, the pronouncing the remission of sins originated with Jesus, and he imparted that authority to all his disciples.[23] Mark will say that a main point of contention was his claim to forgive sins as an expression of the presence of the salvation of divine rule. Such a statement implied that with him and by him, the future of the rule of God is already present.[24] As such, one can understand the pronouncing of forgiveness may well be a summary of the saving effect of the message of Jesus. However, that is true only if we consider the presupposition as well for this in the proclamation of Jesus of the rule of God and see the pronouncement of the forgiveness of sin in its original context.[25] We learn early in Mark that when it comes to the sinner, God does not stand still, open wide the arms of God, and invites us to come. Rather, God stands and waits in the manner of the father of the lost son. More precisely, God does not so much wait as moves forth to seek, as the shepherd sought the lost sheep and as the woman sought the lost coin. God has gone infinitely further in becoming one of us in the divine search for sinners.[26]
The conflict story embedded in the healing story marks one of the first hostile encounters with the religious authorities who will be his primary opponents throughout his life and ministry. That opposition has an intimate relation to sin, healing, forgiveness and Jesus' identity and mission. Mark again juxtaposes Jesus and his authority with the authority of the scribes. Yet, Mark has raised the stakes in the comparison. The opposition does not raise the question of the power of Jesus to heal. Rather, they question his claim to forgive sins. Both Jesus and the scribes would agree that only God could forgive sins. The controversy concerns the self-proclaimed right Jesus to act in God's stead in bestowing forgiveness. It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” The scribal antagonists raise the more crucial issue. The sin of blasphemy was a capital offense to the orthodox Jew of the day. This charge became central to the prosecution's case against Jesus at his trial (14:64). It involved the deliberate dishonoring of God's name (Exodus 20:7; Leviticus 24:16), and was a capital offense (Leviticus 24:10-16; Matthew 26:65-66). The dishonor in this case (as in Jesus' eschatological pronouncements in Matthew 26:64 and parallels) is the equality between Jesus and God implied in Jesus' declaration of forgiveness, a prerogative traditionally reserved exclusively to God (Exodus 34:6-7; Isaiah 43:25). The charge of blasphemy occurs in the context of the ambivalence that accompanied the ministry of Jesus, in this context, of claiming the right to forgive sin.[27] Of course to Mark, Jesus is not guilty of hubris. He leaves the reader to make the logical leap to Jesus' identity: He is God's Messiah, the Christ, and the Anointed One. From Mark's perspective, the forgiveness of sins is far more significant. The fact that Jesus healed the man means that releasing someone from spiritual captivity is far more difficult. The miraculous healing, as all Jesus' miracles did, pointed beyond itself to a deeper significance, namely, the identity of Jesus and the spiritual purpose of his mission. 10 However, so that you may know that the Son of Man (first time Mark uses this title) has authority on earth to forgive sins.” Mark uses the term “Son of Man” 14 times, always coming from the mouth of Jesus himself. Though most occurrences have to do with future events, in chapter 2, Jesus proclaims himself as the Son of Man who, in the present time, can forgive sins and rule over the Sabbath. Mark uses the term to show that Jesus is the divine Messiah, but in a way that must include suffering and death before a final triumph.
Finally, returning to the man in need of healing, Jesus said[28] to the paralytic— 11 “I say to you, stand up, take your mat and go to your home.” 12 He stood up, and immediately took the mat and went out before all of them. This time, the healed and forgiven man is silent, but the people gathered at the home were all amazed and glorified God, saying, “We have never seen anything like this!” Mark throughout his gospel refrains from explicit pronouncements concerning the identity of Jesus. Yet, his identity is clear in the way Mark presents the power of Jesus.
A story about Jesus relates the call of Levi (in Mark & Luke 5:27-29) / Matthew (in Matthew 9:9-10), a pronouncement story on Jesus eating with sinners (Matthew 9:11-13 & Luke 5:30-32), and sayings regarding fasting (Matthew 9:14-17 & Luke 5:33-38) (Mark 2:13-22, Year B Epiphany 8).
Mark 2:13-14 (Matthew 9:9-10 & Luke 5:27-29) is a story about Jesus involving call of Levi, one who collected taxes. The response is immediate. The point is to provide to the reader a typical or ideal Christian response. Jewish contemporaries viewed tax collectors as crooked and unclean since they were the intermediaries of the Roman taxation system. Levi, as an occupant of a tax office, would have been a bottom feeder within this system. As such, he would not have profited like Zacchaeus from a taxation franchise but would have been a mere employee within such an operation. In this sense, Levi is in social double jeopardy. He is too low in the tax system to benefit from its graft. Yet, he receives the taint on his life and character by his association with it. To just such an outsider the invitation of Jesus to follow comes.
Mark 2:15-17 (Matthew 9:11-13 & Luke 5:30-32) is a pronouncement story concerning eating with sinners. We read of how the disciple gathering by Jesus contributes to the controversy he will have with religious authorities. It may even seem like a mundane thing, yet the company Jesus keeps generates controversy. 15 As Jesus sat at dinner in Levi’s house, suggesting Levi made the invitation to dinner soon after his response to the call of Jesus, many tax collectors and sinners were also sitting with Jesus and his disciples—for there were many who followed him. The importance of the inclusion of tax gatherers and sinners in the table fellowship is that this fellowship guarantees participation in eschatological salvation. The participation is from God. It means the rescuing of the lost. Those who accept the message are no longer outcasts. They share in the salvation of the rule of God. The presence of salvation also relates to the removal of the barrier that separates from God.[29] 16 When the scribes of the Pharisees saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors, they said to his disciples, “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?” Historically, the Pharisees were interested in Jesus because their group had much in common with his mission. Both were reform movements within Judaism that challenged the temple system and the ways in which that system had served to confine the expression of their faith. As a domestically based tradition, Pharisaism was very much concerned with table practice, the serving of meals and the extension of hospitality. Mark Twain called it “being good in the worst sense of the word.” Jesus invites us to be understanding with others and the issues with which they struggle. We all have them. He invites us to be an example of accepting love, so that others may wish to be like us. We can note again that his table fellowship with tax collectors and sinners was part of what surrounded the ministry of Jesus with ambivalence that led to rejection and offense of his person.[30] 17 When Jesus heard this, he said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. This saying is a secular proverb that Jesus uses here to instruct the religious people of his day. There is a parallel in Gospel Fragment 1224 5:2, which says, “Those in good health don’t need a doctor.” Some scholars think it may reflect an earlier version of the saying than we find in Mark. I have come to call not the righteous but sinners.” Jesus does not categorically deny the validity of the Pharisees' faith. Indeed, he refers to them as "the righteous." They are not outside the project of the rule of God. In fact, Jesus characterizes them as already inside. Therefore, he is not concerned with them. His concern is to broaden the circle to include those whom the Pharisees have placed outside, to expand the table, and to call more folks to live in the present reality of the rule of God. Yes, Jesus came to seek and save the lost (Luke 19:10) and Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners (I Timothy 1:15). Jesus wants his contemporaries to see that the reality of the rule of God is near and among them, especially in those religious authorities have labeled as outsiders. We can see the rule of God in those with whom we associate around food, friends, and family. He wants his righteous contemporaries to see, know, and taste the goodness of the rule of God among us. Yet, Jesus gave offense due to those included in his table fellowship. The meals Jesus held or shared characterized his coming and the conduct of his disciples. When he accepted invitations from others, he made known his readiness to grant fellowship with him to those who issued the invitation. Others felt this to be especially scandalous in some cases because by his participation the table fellowship that he granted or accepted became a sign of the presence of the reign of God that he proclaimed and a sign of the acceptance of the other participants into the future community of salvation. The granting of acceptance of table fellowship by Jesus removed everything that separated people from God and his salvation. It meant the forgiveness of sins, so that table fellowship was a real symbol of fellowship with God and of participation in the future of the reign of God.[31] The matter of table fellowship remained a struggle within the early church, for even Cephas, who had come to Antioch, ate with Gentiles until representatives from James came into the city. He withdrew table fellowship out of his fear of those parts of the early church who thought that circumcision should still be an important Christian rite (Galatians 2:11-12).[32]
Mark 2:18-22 (Matthew 9:14-17 & Luke 5:33-38) is a pronouncement and other sayings concerning fasting. The chronology may not be right since the question suggests a time later in the ministry of Jesus. 18 Now, John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting; and people came and said to him, “Why do John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?” This distinguishing between the disciples of John and Jesus is interesting. the criticism of the disciples of Jesus is a way to offer implied criticism of Jesus. 19 Jesus said, in a proverbial saying, to them, “The wedding guests cannot fast while the bridegroom is with them, can they? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. Fasting and a wedding are incompatible. Guests do not fast, at least if the celebration is going on. Tasty food, appropriate dress, and adequate wine ordinarily go with a wedding celebration. Jesus enjoyed eating, drinking, and participating in weddings. Jesus and his disciples did not fast, in contrast to the disciples of John and the Pharisees. This verse speaks of the rule of God as present. The question theologically is how such a saying relates to other sayings that suggest the rule of God is yet to come.[33] The time of his presence with his disciples is a time of eschatological joy.[34] 20 The days will come when the bridegroom is no longer among them, and then they will fast on that day. The saying may not understand Jesus as the groom who has departed. Yet, as the faithful read it after Easter, it suggests Jesus is the Messianic bridegroom. It becomes like apocalyptic sayings regarding the Son of Man. The rule of God promised in apocalyptic has at least proleptically arrived in Jesus. We can read the saying, at least post-Easter, considering the eschatological understanding of the Christ event. Jesus calls people to see the rule of God as near and among them. We can see the reality of that rule even in the mundane and trivial matter of food. We will see it in how we live. Thus, if Jesus is present, fasting is not appropriate. Yet, the saying permits the return of fasting into the lives of those that follow Jesus. Mark then includes two secular proverbs from Jesus. 21 “No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old cloak; otherwise, the patch pulls away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear is made. 22 And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise, the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost, and so are the skins; but one puts new wine into fresh wineskins.” Jesus is inviting his contemporaries to see the reality of the rule of God among them. They can see it in the way they live. They can see, know, and taste the goodness of the rule of God. The old is Judaism, incompatible with what Jesus brings. Note that Thomas 47:3 values the old, and Luke 5:39 says, “Aged wine is fine.” Thus, we unduly limit the saying when we use it only to contrast Judaism and Christianity. These sayings about old and new serve to challenge Christians to always review their faith, and make sure that it serves its true goal, namely the following of Jesus. Such a posture demands humility and openness. It is to just such a posture to which Jesus calls the people of God. Through it, the risen Lord promises that there is ample room for all to feast at the table of the grace and goodness of God.
[1] Edwin H. Friedman, Friedman's Fables (Guilford Press, 2014), 112.
[2] (Francis J. Moloney, The Gospel of John [Sacra Pagina. Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 1998], 56).
[3] (Sandra M. Schneiders, The Revelatory Text: Interpreting the New Testament as Sacred Scripture [Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 1999], 193)
[4] (Raymond J. Brown, The Gospel of John v. 2 [Anchor Bible Library. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966], 1060).
[5] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 455.
[6] Barth (Church Dogmatics III.2 [47], p. 459-461)
[7] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 456.
[8] Barth (Church Dogmatics III.2 [47], p. 459-461)
[9] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 311.
[10] Barth (Church Dogmatics, III.2, [47], 461)
[11] John Wesley gives a long description of this self-knowledge in sermons 14 and 15.
[12] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 245.
[13] Barth (Church Dogmatics, III.2 [47], 461)
[14] Barth (Church Dogmatics, IV.3 [71], 588-9)
[15] (C. S. Lewis, Miracles: A Preliminary Study [New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1947], pp. 173-174.)
[16] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 1, 17.
[17] “Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?” (1 Corinthians 9:5) Another reference to family members in Mark 10:23-30 is a general response, not a response targeted only at the disciples.
[18] see David R. Cartlidge and David L. Dungan, Documents for the Study of the Gospels [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980], 293-298).
[19] As the NRSV text note to verse 41 indicates, some manuscripts write, “moved with anger,” instead of “[m]oved with pity.” While the former reading would be the more difficult text, and thus possibly the more original text (e.g., it is difficult to imagine a scribe changing the text to “anger” over “pity”), the latter reading is more consistently supported by a variety of manuscripts. Therefore, the best reading, particularly given the context of this passage, describes Jesus as being “[m]oved with pity.” From Lindsey Pherigo, in his article, “The Gospel According to Mark,” in The Interpreters One Volume Commentary to Mark, (Alberhouse: Staten Island, NY, 1968) William Willimon got the insight on Mark’s use of the word anger. Vincent Taylor, in his The Gospel According to St. Mark (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1966) began his speculation on the motives and reasons for Jesus’ anger. Taylor tells us that this word anger also can mean “snorts” or “boils over.” Willimon loves that image of Jesus snorting and boiling over at seeing the effects of this illness upon this poor man. He thinks Jesus was filled with anger, but not at the breaking of the ancient law, or because of the way this sick man approached him. Rather, he was angry because of the man’s sickness, because of what this sickness had done to the man, ravaging his body so, and because of the way his illness had isolated him from the warmth of human community.
[20] Vincent Taylor, Mark.
[21] Vincent Taylor, Mark.
[22] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 332.
[23] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 366, note 812 as well.
[24] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 336.
[25] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 82-3.
[26] (Soren Kierkegaard, Either-Or.)
[27] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 336, 337.
[28] The Jesus Seminar says that given the three sources for this saying, the statement about getting up, picking up the mat, and walking, may be close to something Jesus said.
[29] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 332.
[30] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 335-6.
[31] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 284-5.
[32] Galatians 2:11-12 11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned; 12for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction.
[33] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 328.
[34] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 331.
No comments:
Post a Comment