Friends, today's post is an assignment for my New Testament class. Enjoy! I might actually do something similar for the other gospels, so let me know if that is appealing or appalling.
When you think about the gospels, do you differentiate much
among them? What does it mean to you that we have four different versions of
Jesus’ story? I’m finishing up my first semester of New Testament in seminary,
and even after reading them many times on my own, I am amazed at how different
the gospels are. Mark stands out as particularly divergent from what we might
think of as Christ’s story if we are familiar with it. There are several ways
Mark has shocked me during this class.
First, the beginning and ending are
shortened basically not there, at least not in the forms we find in
other gospels. Mark has no birth narrative (meaning this time of year no one
wants to read it!). No mention that Mary was a virgin, no shepherds, no barn
full of animals, no wise men/kings, no angels. The story starts with a brief
introduction of John the Baptizer, and Jesus first appears when he comes to him
to be baptized, as an adult. The ending, too, is abrupt and seems to leave out
a lot if you expect a resurrected Jesus to appear. Even if I hadn’t been
studying the history of the gospels, I think it would be pretty easy to see why
people think Mark was written first. It’s a very basic, straightforward version
of the story. It feels like there’s no time for details—even if the writer
believed there were angels and a virgin birth and such, which is doubtful, he
deemed them non-essential and decided to make his point without them.
Second, as
you may have discerned from the lack of birth narrative, Jesus is remarkably non-divine
in Mark. God does say, “You are my beloved son. I delighted choosing you.” But
the idea of being a son in this story is not supposed to mean Jesus is godlike.
It means Jesus gets God, understands what God is trying to do, and wants to
help God do it, presumably more than anyone else. It’s like on The West Wing when Jed Bartlet refers to
Josh Lyman as his son (in the episode “Two Cathedrals”). Not a blood thing, but
a sense that in his gut, Josh understands Jed’s purpose just as well as Jed
himself does, and he is all in, willing to go anywhere with him to pursue it. The
idea that being God’s son makes Jesus divine came later, as Matthew and Luke
built on Mark.
A third
mind-bending trick of Mark is not necessarily intrinsic to the text itself but
is a compelling reading I found in Mark As Story by David Rhoads, Joanna Dewey, and Donald Michie. The authors say
Mark, like other gospels, is often read as a story of Jesus’ execution (at the
end) with a whole heck of a lot of exposition, introductory material. They
choose to read it instead as a story of God’s rule breaking into the
established world (at the beginning), with a lot of dénouement. They make a
really convincing argument for it, and I recommend the book to anyone who’s
interested in this stuff. Much of what I say in this post comes from it.
Anyway, it’s Jesus’ baptism, just a few verses into chapter 1, that inaugurates
the rule of God, and the rest is the story of how that plays out. This reading
changes how we pay attention to the story. If we think the important part is at
the end, we’re likely to rush through a lot of the scenes and just get the gist
so we can move on. If we think the main part happened at the very beginning, we
have new eyes with which to read the rest. So we can see Jesus perhaps not as a
doomed, tragic figure but as a person—as we established earlier, not a divine
character—whose faith in God is so central to his life that he overcomes fear
and pain because he believes his death will serve God and others. Still pretty
tragic in some ways, but for me there’s an awe in this second reading that isn’t
there in the first, as well as a loud and clear call of encouragement and challenge
to the original listeners.
That brings me to a fourth point,
the way the context shaped the meaning. Those who listened as Mark’s gospel was
performed, at least some of them, would have been facing persecution and death
not just because they followed Jesus but because they wanted what we would now
call social and economic justice, and they believed in power that is expressed
not in force but in service. Sometimes I think it’s not hard to picture how
threatening this was to the people who had power at the time, because it’s
still so threatening now. But then I think about how much worse it was. They had
no such thing as political correctness and not even a reason to appear to care about people. It was
pretty acceptable, as I understand it, to look out for yourself and your
friends and act in your own interests. That definitely still happens, but when
it does, other people sometimes find out and speak out. At the time this was
written, there was no accountability like that. Mark came soon after the
Roman-Judean war in 66-70. It was a peasant rebellion against Roman and Judean
elites, and boy, did it not end well. The Romans destroyed towns and farms
throughout the whole area of Galilee and Judea, and they burned the temple in
Jerusalem. That’s what happened when you tried to speak out against anything powerful
people were doing. Sometimes I’m angry with congress or other people in
control, but I don’t run the risk of having my entire city destroyed if I say
something. The people this story was written for felt like they had to choose
between doing what was right and saving their own lives. Jesus’ story no doubt
gave them something to cling to.
Alongside the potential
encouragement in the story, there is an unmistakable challenge, point #5. As I
studied that abrupt, unresolved ending, I kept thinking of the parable that is
often called the story of the prodigal son. It doesn’t appear in Mark, so it’s
not entirely academically appropriate of me to mention it here, but the
connection is this: the parable ends with the father telling his older son that
his brother’s return is something to celebrate. The gospel of Mark ends with
three women fleeing from Jesus’ tomb. In both cases, the story acts as a
question to the listener or reader. When something is left unresolved like
that, we get to be the decider and think about how we want to respond, how we will respond. In the parable, we think
about the older brother’s options. In the gospel, ideally, we see ourselves as
the ones who now have the opportunity to tell what the women didn’t tell at the
time. Especially in the original context, that ending was an invitation to pick
up where they left off.
That’s it for now. Hit me with
comments. What do you think of all this?