Bible Studies Jeanie C. Crain http://crain.english.missouriwestern.edu
The Gospel of Mark: A Study Based on the Old Testament
Bible Studies Jeanie C. Crain http://crain.english.missouriwestern.edu
The Gospel of Mark: A Study Based on the Old Testament
|
|
|
Servant of God: A Study of Mark
Copyright© May 1999, Jeanie C. Crain,
Professor
crain@griffon.missouriwestern.edu
Missouri Western State College
Introduction
Mark, as the earliest gospel, should be read carefully as the foundational knowledge for the person of Christ. This gospel begins with the baptism and the life of Jesus in Galilee (chapters 1-9); following the transfiguration, we follow Jesus and his disciples from Galilee to Jerusalem, concluding with his entry into t hat holy city (chapter 11); the final section is the story of Jesus' passion (chapters 14 and 15). Chapter thirteen is apocalyptic and addresses the end of time; the final chapter contains the resurrection. As the first gospel, Mark is dated about 64-72 CE. This would be just prior to the decisive Roman destruction of the temple in 70 CE. The Romans, as we will recall, conquered this Jewish nation in 63 BCE. The Christian movement began in an era of violence and national upheaval. From a conquered nation came the person Jesus, usually said to have been born about 8 to 4 BCE; he is said to have died between 27 and 33 CE. Paul's death in 64 CE puts him as having written before the cataclysmic Roman temple destruction. Importantly, the other gospels are post-70 CE, as are, arguably, Acts, the books of Timothy, Titus, Peter, Jude, James and John, and, of course, Revelation. In social context, Jesus was born a Jew into a Jewish world. After 70 CE, the survival of the Jews meant survival through scripture simply because the nation, holy city, temple and priesthood had been destroyed. This is, of course, the time of the writing of the later gospels. Up until 70 CE, Jerusalem could be peopled with those who compromised with the Romans (Saduccees), resisted through a conservative interpretation of their scripture (Pharisees) or violence (Zealots), while still others simply withdrew (Gnostics). With the temple destruction, the Jews essentially lost their identity. With Massada in 73 CE, Jewish resistance ended with suicide. The only possession left for wandering Jews was their Torah. Christianity, born within Jewish synagogues and interpreting Christ as a new revelation of God, separated itself from its Jewish origin after 70 CE and became more Gentile in nature. Before 70 CE, Christians and Jews co-existed with a tension between Torah as full revelation of God and Jesus as new revelation. After 70 CE, Christians clearly began to go their own way, reinterpreting all of the existing scriptures in light of the new revelation. In the 80s, Jews no longer allowed anything other than strict orthodoxy within their synagogues and actually ex-communicated Jewish Christians. This schism between Jew and Gentile lends a peculiarly misguided hard-headedness about the recognition of their common ancestry. This study will attempt to read Mark as closely related to its Jewish background.
Chapter 1 1: The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of
God; Interpretation Summary Jesus continues his mission in Galilee, controversy following him; this chapter opens in Capernaum, a city on the northern coast of the Sea of Galilee, a fishing village of not more than one thousand in the first century. He creates controversy by healing a paralytic and telling him his sins are forgiven. The scribes accuse him of blasphemy. He calls the tax collector Levi, son of Alphaeus, to follow him, again causing the scribes to cite him for the offense of eating with sinners. Next, the people generally see that Jesus and his disciples are not fasting like his predecessor John the Baptist and followers, and they want to know why; Jesus replies in the parables of the bridegroom and new wine in old wineskins. His disciples again cause offense when they pluck from corn on the Sabbath and eat. This time, Jesus responds by telling his critics that the Sabbath is made for humankind, not humankind for the Sabbath. He bases himself authoritatively in scripture, citing I Samuel 21.1-6 and the example of David and his companions eating from the bread of Presence. Largely, the controversies in Galilee mark Jesus knowledgeable of scriptural traditions but resisting the current pious and legal interpretations. He is in Capernaum, his home town. Characteristically, people have crowded around him, in this case so many that the small house has no room for them and not even when they crowd at the front door. Determined, some seeking aid for a paralytic dig through the roof and lower the man whom Jesus, on seeing their faith, says "your sins are forgiven." Scribes in the gathered turn to each other, whispering among themselves that he has blasphemed in indicating he can forgive sins. Dwelling houses in Palestine usually had a flight of stone steps built on the outside and leading to the roof, which was flat and made probably of sticks and packed earth (ON). Apparently, the scribes see Jesus as claiming divine prerogative. Jesus perceived in his spirit what the whispering was about and confronted them openly by asking them why they raised such questions in their hearts. Is it easier, he asked, to say your sins are forgiven or to tell the paralytic to take up his mat and walk? He continues by referring to himself as the Son of Man and telling the paralytic to take up his mat, to walk, and go home. Characteristically, those gathered marvel once again relative to the marvelous results they behold. Jesus is clear: "the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins." Concerning the title, Oxford notes delineates at least two meanings: Son of Man, a title which Jesus used of himself, probably seemed to his listeners to carry either of two meanings: (a) that Jesus called himself a typical human being in accordance with the common meaning of son of (see Matthew 5.45 n.); or (b) that Jesus (contrary to the humble conditions of his daily life) linked himself to the prophesied figure of Daniel 7.13–14 who was popularly regarded as the coming Messiah (see Acts 7.56 n.). Jesus nowhere fully discloses his own understanding of the term (but see Mark 8.32 n.). However, each meaning by itself, as well as both together (see Matthew 25.29 n.), could have appealed to him. It was also characteristic of him to speak in such a way as to oblige his hearers to determine their own personal attitudes toward him as part of the process of understanding his words (see Matthew 13.3 n.). The verses alluded to in Daniel describe the Son of Man in the following way: 13 "As I watched in the night visions, I saw one like a human being coming with the clouds of heaven. And he came to the Ancient One and was presented before him. 14 To him was given dominion and glory and kingship, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away, and his kingship is one that shall never be destroyed."
Tax collectors in Jesus' day were no more liked than tax collector today:
Both Greek states and Rome had only a rudimentary civil service and budgeting process. Hence minor taxes were regularly sold to a private company, which would pay the agreed price to the treasury and collect (in principle, at the fixed rate) from the taxpayers. These tel¿nai¿nai had long been known and disliked in the Greek East (an Alexandrian comic poet calls them "birds of prey"). Roman publicani, while they always performed this service, had an essentially different origin. They were state contractors who would buy at auction both performance contracts (e.g., building contracts or contracts for army supplies) and collection contracts (as for taxes or the revenues of mines or ponds or forests). During the age of Roman expansion and public building, in the Middle Republic, they made most of their money from the former and, as Polybius tells us, they widely distributed prosperity among Roman citizens. This changed when the reformer Gaius Gracchus in 123 bce entrusted them with the collection of the principal tax (the tithe on produce) of the province of Asia, which Rome had just acquired, and also with staffing the criminal courts, which tried senators for maladministration and, in due course, for other crimes. This vastly increased the scale of their undertakings, and made them a major power in the state, though they always narrowly defended their economic interests. Their power in the courts was temporarily removed by Sulla (81 bce), but was soon essentially restored. As a result, governors and their staffs, instead of regulating their activities, tended to become their partners—often in collusion with the provincial upper class, which could pass the burden on to those below—in grossly exploiting the provinces, especially in the east, where Pompey introduced the Asian system to all the new provinces he organized, including Syria (OC) In the late Republic, the power of the publicani led to major abuses, which we know from Cicero’s speeches. Illegal extra charges were widely added, and permitted by the governor, and violence was used to extort compliance. Although there was more control under Augustus, this is the background to what we find in Judea. The Jews soon hated the Roman occupation even more than they had hated Archelaus, whose deposition they had demanded. Native collectors of taxes were now seen as collaborators with the oppressor, using his backing for their illegal profits. The problem was apparently worse in Judea than elsewhere, presumably because of the religious element in the national resistance; it is interesting that the "publicans" appear only in the Gospels, not in the rest of the New Testament, even though they were of course active in all the provinces. They are regularly coupled with sinners (note that where Matthew 5.46 has "publicans" Luke 6.32 has "sinners"), with prostitutes, and with gentiles (OC) Jesus clearly is not worried about his social reputation when he befriends Levi and makes him a follower. On this occasion, when questioned by the scribes, he replies "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I have come to call not the righteous but sinners." By his act, though, he sets himself apart from the accepted social order and pointedly positions himself with the lower class.
Jesus next calls attention to himself and his disciples by not fasting; John the Baptist and his followers had managed to escape this level of social scrutiny by fasting in the accepted tradition. Fasting in connection with prayer, penitence, and preparation for new ventures has been practiced from early times in many cultures and religions. The Bible recognizes it as regular in mourning for the dead (1 Samuel 31.13), expressions of penitence (Nehemiah 9.1), intercession (2 Samuel 12.16), and prayer for God’s aid (Judges 20.26). Fasting was undertaken for personal reasons (Psalm 25.13), as a national act in the face of calamity (Joel 2.15), or as a periodic liturgical observance (Zechariah 8.19); normally it involved abstinence from all food to show dependence on God and submission to his will. The great national and liturgical fast was that of the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16.29–34), but fasting was generally recognized, especially after the exile, as a meritorious pious practice and as a potent aid to prayer (Tobit 12.8; Luke 2.37). Later, the author of Isaiah 58 claimed that if fasting was to be of value, it must be accompanied by compassion and a concern for social justice (ON). The Pharisees fasted on Mondays and Thursdays. Jesus reminds them that scripturally, not fasting can sometimes be sound: his disciples have him with them; he uses the metaphor of the bridegroom, signifying a time when joy is the appropriate expression. He also remains firmly aware of his mission to move beyond the current religious observances: his "new wine" cannot be poured into old wineskins, which would burst from the fermentation.
The Pharisees next observe Jesus' disciples eating corn in the fields on the Sabbath and attack Jesus through their act. Jesus demonstrates superior scriptural knowledge and reminds the Pharisees that David himself had suspended the rules and eaten from the bread of the Presence. Jesus clearly does not ascribe to any rules ethic where the rule always holds regardless of circumstance; he clearly sides with the act and reminds his critics that the Sabbath is for humankind, not humankind for the Sabbath. Jesus uses, it would seem, the
process of civil disobedience. He knows the law and traditions and
sees in them the purpose of serving the greater needs of humankind. He is
clearly opposed to a purely legalistic keeping of laws. In the face
of the religious establishment, however, he seems clearly defiant.
It should not be overlooked that these religious leaders are indeed pious; for
Jesus, though, something more than piety is necessary. One must go beyond
the mere law in meeting the contingencies of a pressing humanity.
Chapter 2 1: And again he entered into Capernaum after some days; and it was noised
that he was in the house. Interpretation 2 Summary The Pharisees conspire with the Herodians against Jesus because he heals a man's withered hand on the Sabbath. Questioning their legal and ritualistic piety, Jesus challenges them: "Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save life or to kill?" The fame of Jesus has apparently grown because Mark next records him as being surrounded by a throng near the Sea of Galilee; because the press of the crowd is so great, he asks his disciples to take him out upon the sea in a boat. Unclean spirits fell down before him and proclaimed "You are the Son of God!" Jesus admonished those healed not to make him known. From the sea, Jesus goes up into the mountains where he appoints the twelve: 16 So he appointed the twelve: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter); 17 James son of Zebedee and John the brother of James (to whom he gave the name Boanerges, that is, Sons of Thunder); 18 and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean, 19 and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him. He next returns home with a crowd following him. His family describes Jesus as having gone mad; the scribes say he has been infected by Beelzebul and demons. Jesus points out to the scribes that it is illogical that he would be infected by Beelzebul at the same time that he is casting out Satan; a divided kingdom, Jesus reminds them, is a kingdom which will not stand. This section concludes with a warning about blasphemy of the Holy Spirit: 28 "Truly I tell you, people will be forgiven for their sins and whatever blasphemies they utter; 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit can never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin"— 30 for they had said, "He has an unclean spirit." This chapter concludes with word that Jesus' mother and brothers are asking for him; Jesus responds by saying that everyone gathered there are his brothers and sisters: "Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother." In this chapter, as everywhere in Mark, Jesus is active: a favorite word in Mark is the Greek word meaning immediately or at once or then, which occurs about forty times in sixteen chapters. On the other hand, Mark records fewer words of Jesus than does any of the other Gospels; it contains one collection of sayings in the form of a discourse (Mark 13) and a few parables (e.g. Mark 4). Oxford Handbook Jesus continues teaching, preaching, and healing in Galilee, and in going about his work, he continues to tangle with the religious establishment. The first controversy is over the Sabbath, with the Pharisees conspiring with the Herodians. We will recall that what is done on the Sabbath has already been an issue in the second chapter of Mark: The Pharisees observed Jesus' disciples eating corn in the fields on the Sabbath and attacked Jesus through their act. Jesus demonstrated superior scriptural knowledge and reminded the Pharisees that David himself had suspended the rules and eaten from the bread of the Presence. Jesus clearly did not ascribe to any rules ethic where the rule always holds regardless of circumstance; he clearly sided with the act and reminded his critics that the Sabbath is for humankind, not humankind for the Sabbath. In this round, Jesus asks, "Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save life or to kill?" His critics are silent. Jesus is clearly doing good by healing the withered hand. Jesus, acting by the principle stated in Mark 2.27, equates acts to meet human need with acts lawful . . . on the sabbath (Oxford Annotated).
With a multitude now pressing about him, Jesus seeks solitude and distance in a boat on the Sea of Galilee. He has done the good work of healing many with diseases and unclean spirits:
"Spirit" translates words that in both Hebrew and Greek mean "wind" (Genesis 8.1; cf. Genesis 1.1) or "breath" (Genesis 6.17; Ezekiel 37.5), as well as vital essence. Biblical writers do not normally combine the two terms to designate the totality of human nature. The body/soul dichotomy that so fascinated Greek philosophy is not generally presupposed, even when the two terms occur in close proximity; thus, Matthew 26.41 is not a real exception to this rule (Oxford Companion). The unclean spirits recognize the one casting them out as the "Son of God." Jesus rebukes them not to make him known, reminding the reader once again that Jesus sees his mission as different from that of the expected Messiah; he is the servant walking among and healing humankind, reaching out with a gentle touch, a caring heart. Next, Jesus appoints the twelve: 13 He went up the mountain and called to him those whom he wanted, and they came to him. 14 And he appointed twelve, whom he also named apostles, † to be with him, and to be sent out to proclaim the message, 15 and to have authority to cast out demons. 16 So he appointed the twelve: † Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter); 17 James son of Zebedee and John the brother of James (to whom he gave the name Boanerges, that is, Sons of Thunder); 18 and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean, 19 and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him. Concerning his disciples, Oxford Companion reminds us of their humanity:
The somewhat amorphous group called disciples constitutes a vital feature of all the Gospel narratives, but the authors used the term to communicate different aspects of being a follower of Jesus. In Mark the disciples are agents of instruction for the author, but as negative examples. They teach the audience or readers, but mostly through the things they do wrong or fail to understand. The constant questions and concerns of the disciples, particularly in the central section of Mark’s gospel, provide an opportunity for the author to explain the purpose of Jesus’ mission and the hidden meanings of his teaching. Discipleship in Mark involves fear, doubt, and suffering, as Mark 8.31, Mark 9.31, and Mark 10.33 make explicit; nowhere is this more poignantly captured than in the character of Simon Peter. The disciples in Mark, whomever this broad term may include, never fully understand and never quite overcome their fear and apprehensions. There is actually the hint in Mark that the disciples’ fear is in some sense the beginning of wisdom.
A question asked by Oxford Companion is significant: Did Jesus consciously act as if he were establishing the new Israel by selecting twelve representatives? The symbolic significance of the number twelve is difficult to miss. Readers will want to look at the complete number symbolism described in the Oxford Companion; concerning twelve, it says the following:
Twelve, like seven, is a number of completeness and perfection. This number in particular must not always be taken literally. Israel always comprised more tribes than the twelve that were actually counted, and the counting of the twelve was not always uniform (Genesis 49; Joshua 13–19; Revelation 7.7–8), but the twelve meant "all Israel." It was regarded as important that there were twelve apostles and that their number should be complete, but the lists do not quite tally (See Twelve, The). The twenty-four elders (Revelation 4.4) clearly represent all Israel and the whole church. The twelve cornerstones and gates of the new Jerusalem not only link the city with the tribes of Israel and the apostles, but also signify its divine perfection, as do its measurements of 12,000 stadia square and its walls of 144 cubits. The 144,000 of Revelation 7 and Revelation 14 in each case mean that the number is complete and not one of the elect is lost; in Revelation 7 John hears the 144,000 from Israel (all Israel) being counted, but sees "a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages" (the redeemed gentiles). These twelve live intimately with Jesus, adopt his mission and his way of life. In this chapter's final section, Jesus reveals the cost of his mission. His mother and brothers, concerned for his safety given the intense emotions which have been aroused around him, also begin to fear for his sanity. The Pharisees have previously recognized his powers but attributed them to Beelzebul or Satanic forces. The Phoenician god at Ekron consulted by King Ahaziah (2 Kings 1.2–18). The name in Hebrew means "Lord of Flies," but no evidence exists for a Philistine god who either drove off flies or gave oracles through their buzzing. The Hebrew form is probably a derogatory transformation of Baal-zebul, which appears in Ugaritic texts meaning "Lord Baal," but could also be understood as "Master of the Heavenly House" (cf Matthew 10.25). In Aramaic, Beel-zebul may have been construed as "Lord of Dung," Beel-zebub possibly as "Enemy." During the Greco-Roman period, Beel-zebul came to be used for a leader among the demons opposed to God. Jesus denies that he casts out demons by authority of Beelzebul, the ruler of demons (Matthew 12.24–27 par.). Some translations employ Beelzebub in the New Testament passages, following the text of 2 Kings. Christian interpreters identified Beelzebul with Satan on the basis of the Gospel passages (Oxford Companion). Jesus,
aware of his mission to humankind as more pressing than his family's concern,
replies "Who are my mother and my brothers?" 34
And
looking at those who sat around him, he said, "Here are my mother and my
brothers! 35
Whoever
does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother." Relevant Information: Jewish Sects Taken from Exploring the New Testament World by Albert A. Bell (Thomas Nelson Inc., 1998) Sadducees The Sadducees claimed their descent from David's high priest Zadok (2 Sam. 8.17; I Kings 2.35), or perhaps from the word meaning righteous. They were ultra-conservatives, recognizing only the authority of the Torah, refusing any notion not taught therein. They did not deny angels, which appear in the Torah, but they were cool to elaborate beliefs about angels and demons. Such beliefs flourished in the period after the Babylonaian exile. They rejected belief in the resurrection because they saw no evidence of it in the Torah. In Mark 12:18-27, the Sadducees questions Jesus about the woman married to seven brothers; one could hear them snickering as they posed the problem; they probably regarded their question as reducing to absurdity the whole issue of resurrection. Jesus answers from the book of Moses, the only book they recognize, telling them the dead raised are like angels, who don't marry. In Acts 4. 1-3, 5.17, the Pharisees attack the apostles of Jesus for preaching "that in Jesus there is resurrection of the dead." Paul creates dissention between the Sadducees and Pharisees when whe voices his belief in the hope of the resurrection (Acts 23.6-8). The Sadducees had little contact with the ordinary people of Judea and no concern with popularity. They demonstrated a rather harsh spirit, being rude even among themselves. They had the support of the rich but no following among the masses. They were aristocratic, high-priestly people, concerned almost exclusively with running the temple. After the temple’s destruction in 70 CE, the Sadducees disappeared from history, unable to adapt to the changed circumstances in which Judaism found itself. Oxford Companion says the following about this failure to adapt: In their development of an oral tradition of
legal interpretation, the Pharisees and Sages were in one way doing no more than
what had been done throughout Jewish history, that is, adapting their legal
traditions to changing circumstance. Why should the Sadducees oppose this?
Possibly because the written Law reinforced their control over the Temple;
possibly too because the Pharisees were attempting to undermine that position by
transferring some of the priestly rituals and practices away from Jerusalem to
the towns and villages outside. Certainly the Sadducees were concerned
principally to uphold the Temple and its sacrifices: for them it was the proper
observance of Temple ritual that maintained the covenant relationship between
Israel and God. Rejection of belief in the resurrection again
indicates a traditionalist stance. Jews had long believed that so long as Israel
obeyed the Law then God would rule over them and reward the righteous and punish
the wicked in this life. Belief in the resurrection, on the other hand, was
linked to beliefs that the present age was in the grip of dark powers, so that
in this life the righteous would suffer, although God would ultimately vindicate
them. Those who had died would be raised so that they too could receive their
due rewards (Daniel 12.2). To reject belief in the resurrection and,
indeed, possibly also in demonic powers who controlled this world in the present
age, was then also to reject the belief that this present age was radically
corrupted; in fact, from the Sadducees’ point of view, those who argued the
contrary view may have appeared to deny the continued existence of the covenant
between God and Israel. This may also explain their denial of fate. They
believed that Jews were free to influence their destiny; if they obeyed the Law
and repented and made due restitution when they sinned, then all would be well.
The darker views of the world associated with belief in the resurrection also
entailed beliefs in the pervasiveness of the power of sin (see Romans
5.12–21,
which may owe more than a little to Paul’s Pharisaic background, although such
beliefs should not be thought of as specifically Pharisaic), such that men and
women were no longer in control of their fate. It is such views that the
Sadducees rejected. This may suggest a further reason why the Sadducees disappeared after 70 ce. Not only was their position as the Temple aristocracy fundamentally destroyed; their belief that the maintenance of the Temple cult would suffice to stave off real disaster for Israel had also been proven false. Pharisees/Scribes Most knowledge about the Pharisees has to be based on information gleaned from Christians and Sadducees, their opponents. They weren't priests, and the term rabbi was not commonly used; they were teachers and interpreters of the Torah, a scholar class devoted to the Written and the Unwritten Law. Even their name is debated: perhaps a corruption of Persian, an allusion to the theological doctrines--resurrection, angels and demons--which they were accused of picking up from the East. Another possible origin is Semitic, deriving the name from "heretic" or "separated ones." The term Pharisee was at first used in a derogatory way. Another possible origin of the name is from the word meaning "to specify" or to "be exact." They were concerned with the fine points of the law. The name is used only once in the Talmud, with the Pharisees otherwise being called "sages" or "scribes." Scribes existed in Judaism probably since the time of Ezra. Ezra, it will be recalled, led the people of Israel back to a strict observance of the Law after their return from the Babylonian exile in 538 BCE. Scribes were copyists of the Law and regarded themselves as preservers and protectors rather than interpreters. These scribes were known as soferim. By the late second century BCE, sofer had taken on the sense of one who "seeks out wisdom of all the ancients." By this time, sofer had also come to include interpretation: an intellectual, not a scribe; a scholar, not a copyist. The Greeks still translated the word as grammateus. The Pharisees are in the New Testament, "those skilled in the law," and "teachers of the law." The Pharisees were considered the most authoritative in their explanations of the Law and were esteemed as a leading sect. Jesus said they "sit on Moses' seat" (Matthew 23.2-3), and he urged people to follow their teaching. Part of the negative reputation of the Pharisees may come from the Herodians; since the Pharisees opposed Herod bitterly, his followers are less than objective in reporting about them. The Pharisees were liberals. They accepted the books of the prophets, as well as the Torah, as authoritative Scripture. Still, they were not ready to canonize the Writings. The Pharisees also stressed a continuing oral interpretation of the Scriptures as conditions changed or new insights were achieved. The body of oral law eventually became known as the Mishnah. The Pharisees welcomed new rituals, including the celebration of the Hanukkah, established in 164 BCE to commemorate the cleaning of the temple from defilement under King Antiochus IV Epiphanes; also, the Purim, the joyous re-enactment of the Jews' rescue by Esther. The practice of baptizing proselytes is pharisaic, as is much of the Jewish doctrine about angels, demons, theMessiah, and bodily resurrection. Both the Sadducees and Pharisees developed out of the Maccabean period (160s BCE). The Pharisees seem to have come from a group known as the Hasidim or the "Pure Ones." The term is used, also, of a Jewish mystic group who refused to break the Law by fighting on the Sabbath. Not many survived the war; those remaining liberalized their beliefs somewhat. The Pharisees themselves were divided in their own day. The Hillel group took a lenient view of the Law and conciliatory stance in most controversies, whether with Gentiles or Jews. Hillel formulated the negative golden rule: do not do unto others what you would not have them do onto you. Gamaliel, who advised the Sanhedrine, posed the rule, consider carefully what you propose to do to these men; he was a follower of Hillel, who was a minority at the time. Paul was a student of Gamaliel. The second group was led by Shammai, who advocated a stricter interpretation of the Mosaic Law in opposition to the Roman government; he was less tolerant of Gentiles. His party won control of the Sanhedrin during Jesus' lifetime. Only after 70 did the moderateviews of Hillel become dominant. After 70 CE, the terms Pharisee and scribe drop out of common usage, to be replaced by "rabbi." After the destruction of the temple, all Jews became concerned with survival of the faith. The Pharisaic movement may be seen largely as an attempt to free Judaism from the domineering priesthood and the restrictions of the temple or as an attempt to provide an alternative mode of Judaism. Oxford Companion says the following about the history of these people: The Pharisees’ origin lie in the period of the Maccabean revolt (166–159 bce), where we hear of the emergence of a group of Jews zealous for the Law, the Hasideans (1 Maccabees 2.42), who opposed the way in which the high priests were accommodating to the intrusion of Hellenistic ways into Judaism. This renewal movement spawned not only the Pharisees but also the Essenes. It is likely that the Pharisees saw the establishment of the Hasmonean monarchy (140 bce) as an opportunity for national renewal and the restoration of true observance of the Law. Certainly, unlike the Essenes, they remained in Jerusalem after the usurpation of the high priesthood by the Hasmoneans (152 bce). They probably shared the popular enthusiasm for the successful campaign for Jewish independence, recorded in 1 Maccabees 14.27–49, when a great synagogue of the Jews conferred the kingship and the high priesthood on Simon. Interestingly there is no sanction for such a synagogue, or assembly, in the Pentateuch, and this may have been justified by the oral tradition of the elders that the Pharisees cultivated. The Pharisees thus have their origins in a popular movement based on scribal traditions for interpreting the Law. They legitimated the Hasmonean monarchy by allowing it to control the Temple and subsequently sought to influence the monarchy both at court and in the Sanhedrin, the council in Jerusalem that was the continuation of the great synagogue. In this they were by no means always successful, falling foul of John Hyrcanus (134–104) and Alexander Jannaeus (103–76) but being restored to favor by Salome Alexandra (76–67). As their authority at the royal court diminished they sought to influence the people through the local courts and synagogues where they enjoyed considerable success. They were not a uniform movement; over the years different schools of interpretation of the Law grew up around different teachers, notably Hillel and Shammai. After the First Jewish Revolt (66–70 ce) they emerged as the leaders, under Jonathan ben Zakkai, of the academy at Jamnia, which laid the foundation of rabbinic Judaism. The Herodians This group was considerably political in its influence. They were a party favoring the restoration of one of Herod's descendents to the throne. Herod's sons were Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee during Jesus' lifetime, and Philip, ruling Ituraea and Trachonitis (east of Galilee). The Pharisees seemed to have initiated contact with the Herodians in an attempt to gain political allies in their campaign against Jesus. Herod Antipas was deeply concerned about Jesus due to his connection with John the Baptis, whom he beheaded (Mark 6.16). Luke is the only Gospel to relate that Pilate sent Jesus to Herod Antipas during the deliberations over his fate. Herod's grandson Agrippa I was made king of Judea in 41 by his friend, theemperor Claudius. Agrippa died in 44, and the province reverted to being governed by a Roman prefect. Agrippa II eventually ruled over northern territories, including Galilee, but Judea remained under direct Roman control. Essenes The Essenes were devout individuals who lived in sequestered groups or towns. Their theology was heavily apocalyptic, and their lifestyle was self-disciplined and ascetic. John the Baptis had strong overtones of Essene thought in his preaching and appearance. Some also think that Jesus' forty days in the wilderness (Mark 1.12-13) might have been spent at an Essene community or that he had been in previous contact with such a group and was accustomed to spending time alone in the desert. Oxford Companions describes the Essenes as follows:
References to the Essenes occur in a number of
ancient sources: in Josephus (War 2.8.119–61; Ant. 13.5.171–2;
15.10.371–9; 18.1.11, 18–22), Philo (Quod omnis probus 12–13
[75–91]; Hypothetica, in Eusebius, Praeparatio evangelica
11.1–18), and Pliny the Elder (Natural History 5.15.73). What Josephus
and Philo describe is a quite widespread group in Palestine living in
communities in towns or villages and distinguished by their love for each other,
their simplicity of life, and their strict adherence to the Law. Pliny by
contrast describes a community living in the desert by the Dead Sea. Josephus
also describes their strict examination of initiates, their ritual baths and
meals, their strict observance of the Sabbath, their common ownership of
property, and a number of other customs. It is widely accepted that the Essenes referred
to by these ancient authors were part of the same movement whose library and the
ruins of whose buildings were discovered at Khirbet Qumran on the Dead Sea in
the late 1940s and early 1950s. The name Essenes itself is obscure and does not
occur in the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is said by Philo to refer to their holiness;
another view suggests that the name reflects their reputation as healers. The origins of the Essenes are not clear but
probably lie in the group of Hasideans, who sought to renew the Law at the time
of the Maccabean revolt (166–59 bce; see 1 Maccabees 2.42). It was not, however, until twenty years
later, according to the Damascus Document (I.10–11), that they emerged as a
separate group under the leadership of the Teacher of Righteousness. The
occasion of this split within the movement was probably the usurpation of the
high priesthood by the Maccabean king, Jonathan (152 bce). The buildings at
Qumran date from this time. They were occupied, possibly with a short
interruption after an earthquake in 31 bce, until their destruction in the First
Jewish Revolt in 68 ce. The Essene communities were tightly structured.
Each group had a leader who controlled membership, administered the common goods
and property, and ruled in matters of law (see CD 13–14; 1QS 6; the leader of
the community is spoken of both as a priest and a guardian, but it is not always
clear whether this refers to one or two persons). The community at Qumran had a
council into which members were admitted only after long schooling in the ways
of the community (1QS 6–9). Ultimate authority in the community lay with the
priests (1QS 6.8). The community saw itself as administering the true
understanding of the Law that had been entrusted by revelation to the Teacher of
Righteousness (CD 3.13–15). Only the men of the community possessed such an
understanding, and as such they, and only they, were the true men of the
covenant of God and Israel. They were the "sons of light"; all others,
including all other Jews, were "sons of darkness" (1QS 3.13–4.26).
Chapter 3 1: And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which
had a withered hand.
Chapter 4 1: And he began again to teach by the sea side: and there was gathered unto
him a great multitude, so that he entered into a ship, and sat in the sea; and
the whole multitude was by the sea on the land. Interpretation 4 Summary In chapter four of Mark, Jesus speaks in parables: the parable of the sower, the lamp under the bushel basket, the parable of the growing seed, and the parable of the mustard seed. The chapter concludes with a word about the use of parables and a demonstration of Jesus' authority over natural forces. Recall Matthew thirteen concerning the use of parables: 10 Then the disciples came and asked him, "Why do you speak to them in parables?" 11 He answered, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12 For to those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away. 13 The reason I speak to them in parables is that ‘seeing they do not perceive, and hearing they do not listen, nor do they understand.’ Here, clearly, the purpose of parables has to do with the kingdom of heaven. Mark records a similar purpose: 10 When he was alone, those who were around him along with the twelve asked him about the parables. 11 And he said to them, "To you has been given the secret † of the kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything comes in parables; 12 in order that ‘they may indeed look, but not perceive, and may indeed listen, but not understand; so that they may not turn again and be forgiven.’ " In a later section in this chapter of Mark, the explanation is added: 33 With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear it; 34 he did not speak to them except in parables, but he explained everything in private to his disciples. Readers need simply to recall that the teachings of Jesus in Galilee have been accompanied by controversy. Parables in picturesque images use analogy to refer to a similar but different reality. Jesus used parables to illustrate truth with daily life; although drawn from daily life, they may be exaggerated. The parables of Jesus are generally used to illustrate; here in Mark, however, they seem to be used to conceal. One rightfully asks why Jesus would want to conceal and why he would not desire that people "turn again and be forgiven." The following general uses of parables are cited in Oxford Companion: Parables served a useful purpose in concealing Jesus’ message from those hostile to him: by his parables he could publicly teach about the kingdom of God, but the representatives of the Roman empire could find nothing in them that was seditious. A third reason Jesus taught in parables was to disarm his listeners and allow the truth of the divine message to penetrate their resistance. Often hearers could be challenged to pass judgment on a story before discovering that in so doing they had in fact condemned themselves (cf. 2 Samuel 12.1–4; Matthew 21.28–31; Luke 7.36–50). A fourth reason for the use of parables was to aid memory: since Jesus’ listeners preserved his teachings by memorizing them, the memorable quality of the parables proved useful. Since Jesus in proclaiming that the Kingdom of God is near at hand has everywhere faced challenge and opposition, it would seem appropriate to think that, perhaps, he does have in mind here a softening of the seditious. He teaches about the Kingdom of God publicly without arousing overt anger or suspicion of his motives. The first parable provided is that of the sower. 3 "Listen! A sower went out to sow. 4
And as he
sowed, some seed fell on the path, and the birds came and ate it up. 5
Other seed
fell on rocky ground, where it did not have much soil, and it sprang up quickly,
since it had no depth of soil. 6 And when the sun rose, it was scorched; and since it had no root,
it withered away. 7 Other seed fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked it,
and it yielded no grain. 8 Other seed fell into good soil and brought forth grain, growing up
and increasing and yielding thirty and sixty and a hundredfold." 9
And he said,
"Let anyone with ears to hear listen!" In this case, Jesus himself interprets the parable for his disciples; we need to note that he is alone with the twelve and other believers: 13 And he said to them, "Do you not
understand this parable? Then how will you understand all the parables? 14
The sower
sows the word. 15
These are
the ones on the path where the word is sown: when they hear, Satan immediately
comes and takes away the word that is sown in them. 16 And these are the ones sown on rocky ground: when
they hear the word, they immediately receive it with joy. 17
But they
have no root, and endure only for a while; then, when trouble or persecution
arises on account of the word, immediately they fall away. † 18 And others are those sown among the thorns: these are the ones who
hear the word, 19 but the cares of the world, and the lure of wealth, and the desire
for other things come in and choke the word, and it yields nothing. 20
And these
are the ones sown on the good soil: they hear the word and accept it and bear
fruit, thirty and sixty and a hundredfold." Jesus is about the work of instructing his followers. There is clearly here the sense of those inside and those outside: truth is revealed but comprehended only by those initiated. On the heels of Jesus' words about mystery and those initiated into truth revealed comes the next parable: 21 He said to them, "Is a lamp brought in to be put under the bushel basket, or under the bed, and not on the lampstand? 22 For there is nothing hidden, except to be disclosed; nor is anything secret, except to come to light. 23 Let anyone with ears to hear listen!" 24 And he said to them, "Pay attention to what you hear; the measure you give will be the measure you get, and still more will be given you. 25 For to those who have, more will be given; and from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away." If this is applied to the previous parable, it would seem to suggest that Jesus is not in the business of hiding light: what is hidden will be disclosed; what is secret will come to light. These lines suggest the mystery exists relative to timing: hidden now, will be disclosed; what is secret now, will come to light. The obstruction to understanding is, ironically, the very means of understanding: the mental structure of time. Little wonder that Jesus should say, "Pay attention." He goes on to speak even more directly: what you give, you will get; those having will get more, and those without anything will discover even that taken. If one begins with possessing truth revealed, then more will be gotten; if one begins without revealed truth, even what he has will be taken. How simple! The parable works on two levels--the invisible kingdom coming into being and the existing, but disappearing temporal kingdom. Jesus, still speaking of the Kingdom of God turns to the parable of the growing seed: 26 He also said, "The kingdom of God is as if someone would scatter seed on the ground, 27 and would sleep and rise night and day, and the seed would sprout and grow, he does not know how. 28 The earth produces of itself, first the stalk, then the head, then the full grain in the head. 29 But when the grain is ripe, at once he goes in with his sickle, because the harvest has come." He's direct here in talking about the Kingdom of God and the mystery of its growth--the point is that "how it [the kingdom] grows," one does not know. Even organic life is not understood in impulse, but only in manifest result: the stalk, the head, the full grain. These parables are not unrelated: Jesus began by talking about a sower, then talked about parables as not being anything more than a "timed" disclosure, and moves now to the idea of the germinating seed or the invisible made visible in time. The Kingdom of God, if one credits the connected argument, begins with twelve and a few followers, a very small number. This time, the figurative image is the mustard seed. Thus, in addition to fertility, abundance, and continuity, plants are used to represent life’s frailty, brevity, and transitory nature (Isaiah 40.6–8; Job 14.2; Psalm 90.6; 1 Peter 1.24). Biblical symbolism draws also on the characteristics of individual plants, such as the great height and longevity of the cedar tree (Psalm 92.12; see similarly the parable of Jotham, Judges 9.8–15, and the parable of the mustard seed, Matthew 13.31–32). The New Testament is replete with agricultural imagery; see, for example, Mark 4.3–8; Mark 4.26–29; Matthew 9.37–38; Luke 13.6–9. (Oxford Companion) The mustard seed grows very quickly, in a matter of weeks, from the smallest of seeds into a ten to twelve foot bush. As the mustard seed becomes the greatest bush, so will the Kingdom of God become the greatest kingdom. Having used details from nature in these parables, it's not surprising to find this argument logically culminating in a demonstration of Jesus' authority or control over the natural or temporal world: 35 On that day, when evening had come, he said to them, "Let us go across to the other side." 36 And leaving the crowd behind, they took him with them in the boat, just as he was. Other boats were with him. 37 A great windstorm arose, and the waves beat into the boat, so that the boat was already being swamped. 38 But he was in the stern, asleep on the cushion; and they woke him up and said to him, "Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?" 39 He woke up and rebuked the wind, and said to the sea, "Peace! Be still!" Then the wind ceased, and there was a dead calm. 40 He said to them, "Why are you afraid? Have you still no faith?" 41 And they were filled with great awe and said to one another, "Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?" I'm struck by the very
human cry, "Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?"
This is the mortal cry in all days and all ages. Jesus responds, as he has
throughout Mark, by acting, "He woke up and rebuked the wind, and said to
the sea, 'Peace! Be still." What follows is dead calm.
The disciples are probably even more afraid now; at first, they had been
confronted only by natural and temporal powers; now, they are in the presence of
the spiritual manifest, and they are afraid and filled with awe.
They ask, even though Mark has answered this in the beginning and will continue
to answer it through the passion and resurrection. "Who then is this, that
even the wind and the sea obey him?" The answer, though not supplied here,
is simple: he is the Son of God, and the Kingdom of God is even now being
revealed among humankind.
Chapter 5 1: And when they came nigh to Jerusalem, unto Bethphage and Bethany, at the
mount of Olives, he sendeth forth two of his disciples, Interpretation 5 Summary Jesus, coming from the direction of Bethany on the east side of the Mount of Olives, prepares to enter Jerusalem; the entry is clearly staged as the accomplishment of an act and certainly the end of a journey. The disciples are sent to bring a colt upon which Jesus will ride into the city: he is proclaimed Lord in the tradition of the "coming kingdom of David." On first entering Jerusalem, he enters the temple, looks around and leaves. He is next reported as cursing a fig tree which has leaves but not fruit. This is followed by a return to and cleansing of the temple. After this cleansing, the narration returns to the fig tree and the reason for the curse, emphasizing the power of God over faith. In Jerusalem, Jesus is now confronted by Pharisees, scribes, and elders questioning his authority. Jesus deflects this question to one about whether John the Baptist had been authorized by heaven or by men. What does one make of the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, coming in the eleventh chapter of Mark, signaling the end of the opening events and journey into the Holy City? Jesus’ Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem 11 When they were approaching Jerusalem, at
Bethphage and Bethany, near the Mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples 2
and said to
them, "Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately as you enter it,
you will find tied there a colt that has never been ridden; untie it and bring
it. 3 If
anyone says to you, ‘Why are you doing this?’ just say this, ‘The Lord
needs it and will send it back here immediately.’ " 4 They went away and found a colt tied near a door, outside in the
street. As they were untying it, 5 some of the bystanders said to them, "What
are you doing, untying the colt?" 6 They told them what Jesus had said; and they
allowed them to take it. 7 Then they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks on it;
and he sat on it. 8 Many people spread their cloaks on the road, and others spread
leafy branches that they had cut in the fields. 9 Then those who went ahead and those who followed
were shouting, "Hosanna! Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the
Lord! 10 Blessed is the coming kingdom of our ancestor
David! Hosanna in the highest heaven!" 11 Then he entered Jerusalem and went into the temple; and when he had looked around at everything, as it was already late, he went out to Bethany with the twelve. Remember, Jesus has just been proclaimed Messiah in the tradition of David. Now, suddenly, he sends his disciples to find a colt that has never been ridden and instructs them to untie it and bring it to him. This event, of course, signals for Christians the last week in the life of Christ. For Jews, this events continues the lead-in to the celebration of Passover. What is one to expect? Advocates of tradition go back to Zechariah 9:9: 9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter Jerusalem! Lo, your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey. When was Zechariah written? codified? Almost everyone recognizes it as post-exile (after the Babylonian captivity). Let's look at the Oxford annotation: Zechariah, whose prophecies date from 520 to 518
b.c. and are found in Zechariah 1–8, was contemporary with Haggai (Ezra
5.1; Ezra
6.14). He
shared Haggai’s zeal for a rebuilt temple, a purified community, and the
coming of the messianic age (see "Introduction to Haggai"). Like Haggai also, Zechariah forms a link
between earlier prophecy (especially Ezekiel) and mature apocalyptic thought (Daniel
7–12). But
Zechariah differs from his contemporary in the form and presentation of his
message, employing the literary style of night visions and dialogues between
God, seer, and interpreting angel. With him, therefore, both the form and
imagery of Jewish apocalyptic thought are significantly developed. Zechariah 9–14, which nowhere claims to be from Zechariah, portrays nothing of the early Persian period but speaks rather of the Greeks (Zechariah 9.13). Instead of Joshua and Zerubbabel, unnamed shepherds lead the community. Instead of peace and rebuilding, there are expectations of universal warfare and the siege of Jerusalem. Style, vocabulary, and theological ideas differentiate these chapters from Zechariah’s work. Although they may contain some earlier bits, they were written during the Greek period, principally in the fourth and third centuries b.c., by unknown authors. Since the eschatological and messianic themes found in the first section are here further elaborated, the authors are spiritual disciples of Zechariah. The pictures of the messianic Prince of Peace and the Good Shepherd smitten for the flock are used in the New Testament in order to describe the person and work of Jesus Christ. In the Greek period, the fourth and third centuries BCE, eschatology and Messianism have intensified. Jesus is now placed in this tradition of expectation: as Prince of Peace and Good Shepherd. His own understanding and prediction of the Passion has been that he will be smitten for the flock. The Romans, by the era of Jesus, have replaced the Greeks; not being particularly religious, they have accepted hellenized religion. Multiple gods are familiar; they often seem to be humans made into gods. They symbolize forces of nature, and the ordinary mortal procedure is to sacrifice and pray to them in order to incur favorable human outcomes. The Romans in this era are generally tolerant of the religions but suspect anything which is contrary to political allegiance. Only when religion calls attention to itself as being in opposition to current rule is there likely to be a political backlash which includes overt overriding of rebellious cults. To be proclaimed, even symbolically, as involved in any overthrow of contemporary rule in Jerusalem is judged to be in opposition to the established hegemony. So, here comes Jesus riding into Jerusalem on a colt. The outcome is expected, although it is not immediate. Jesus simply journeys into Jerusalem, ends up in the temple, and walks out.
Next, Mark records Jesus as again entering into the temple and acting immediately to clean it up: 15 Then they came to Jerusalem. And he entered
the temple and began to drive out those who were selling and those who were
buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the
seats of those who sold doves; 16 and he would not allow anyone to carry anything
through the temple. 17 He was teaching and saying, "Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for
all the nations’? But you have made it a den of robbers." 18 And when the chief priests and the scribes heard it, they kept looking for a way to kill him; for they were afraid of him, because the whole crowd was spellbound by his teaching. 19 And when evening came, Jesus and his disciples went out of the city. It needs to be clear here that the temple is permitting the Jewish obligatory shekel a year (from every male adult) to be used for taxes. The Greek and Roman money must be changed into Tyrian currency Additionally, the last part of verse fifteen indicates people are carrying baggage from their pilgrimage into the temple's outer court. Jesus is, also, fulfilling scripture; the first scripture alluded to is Isaiah 56: 6 And the foreigners who join themselves to the
Lord, to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord,
and to be his servants, all who keep the Sabbath, and do not profane it, and hold fast my covenant— 7 these I will bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer; their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples. 8 Thus says the Lord God, who gathers the outcasts of Israel, I will gather others to them besides those already gathered This reference also clearly indicates that Gentiles are coming to the temple and finding it to be used for business rather than prayer. The next reference if from Jeremiah, but to understand the implications clearly, one needs to recognize that Jeremiah is prophesying the destruction of the temple. The Oxford annotation makes clear the connection between the apostasy of Judah and the destruction of the temple: 7.10–12: As Shiloh (Jeremiah 7.12, eighteen miles north of Jerusalem), the earlier central shrine, was destroyed (around 1050 b.c. in the days of Samuel; compare 1 Samuel 4–6; Psalm 78.56–72), so also this house, desecrated by idolatry, will be destroyed (Jeremiah 7.10; Jeremiah 7.11; compare Matthew 21.13). Immediately following this sermon, Jeremiah was arrested (see Jeremiah 26.8). Now, read the entire section from Jeremiah: 7 The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord: 2
Stand in the
gate of the Lord’s house, and proclaim there this word, and say, Hear the word
of the Lord, all you people of Judah, you that enter these gates to worship the
Lord. 3 Thus
says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Amend your ways and your doings, and
let me dwell with you
† in this
place. 4 Do
not trust in these deceptive words: "This is † the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the
Lord." 5 For if you truly amend your ways and your
doings, if you truly act justly one with another, 6
if you do
not oppress the alien, the orphan, and the widow, or shed innocent blood in this
place, and if you do not go after other gods to your own hurt, 7
then I will
dwell with you in this place, in the land that I gave of old to your ancestors
forever and ever. |
