1:And he
left there
and went to the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan, and crowds
gathered
to him again; and again, as his custom was, he taught them. 2: And
Pharisees
came up and in order to test him asked, "Is it lawful for a man to
divorce
his wife?" 3: He answered them, "What did Moses command you?" 4: They
said,
"Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to put her
away." 5: But Jesus said to them, "For your hardness of heart he wrote
you this commandment. 6: But from the beginning of creation, `God made
them
male and
female.' 7: `For
this reason
a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8:
and
the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one
flesh.
9: What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."
10:
And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. 11:
And
he said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another,
commits
adultery against her; 12: and if she divorces her husband and marries
another,
she commits adultery."
NOTES
1:
And he left there
and went
to the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan, and crowds gathered to
him
again; and again, as his custom was, he taught them.
v1:
Markan redaction. The text is unstable
here
as the Greek actually says "the region of Judea beyond the Jordan." But
all of Judea lies west of the Jordan. Hence the RSV's translation,
which
eliminates this serious geographical error by translating it away.
v1:
Theissen and Merz (1998, p178), argue that Mark 10:1 has Jesus going to
Jerusalem by way of Perea, to avoid setting foot in non-Jewish
territory.
2:
And Pharisees
came up and
in order to test him asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his
wife?"
v2:
The Pharisees appear here, and then disappear from the pericope.
In many manuscripts the reference to "Pharisees" is not present, and
some
exegetes argue the text has been assimilated to Matthew (Donahue and
Harrington
2002, p292).
3: He answered them,
"What did
Moses command you?"
v3:
Moses never left a command on divorce. In Deut 24:1-4 the right
of divorce is already recognized; the text (the only one in the Torah
referring
to the topic) deals with the arcane problem of a man who wants to
remarry
a wife he previously divorced and who married another and then was
divorced:
Deut
24:1 If a man marries a woman who becomes
displeasing
to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her
a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house,
2 and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another
man,
3 and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of
divorce,
gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, 4 then her
first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again
after
she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the LORD
. Do not bring sin upon the land the LORD your God is giving you as an
inheritance. (NIV)
4:
They said, "Moses
allowed
a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to put her away." 5: But Jesus said to them, "For your hardness of heart he
wrote
you this commandment.
v4-5: Progressive interpreters of Mark
like Schussler Fiorenza and Myers have seen this as a criticism of
patriarchical control of marriage, for Jewish marriage law permitted
the man to put away his wife, but did not give equal power to the
woman.
v4:
refers to Deuteronomy 24 (v3). Such
certificates
of divorce are known from the Dead Sea Scrolls.
v5: Compare 10:5 with Paul's argument
in Galatians 3:
10:
5: But Jesus said to them, "For your hardness of heart he
wrote
you this commandment.(RSV)
Gal 3:19: What, then, was the
purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the
Seed to whom the promise referred had come. (NIV)
6:
But from the beginning of creation, `God made them male and female.'
v6-8:
refer to Genesis 1:27, 2:24:
1: 27 So
God created man in
his
own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he
created
them. (NIV)
2:24 For this reason a man will
leave his father and
mother
and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. (NIV)
Genesis 2:24 is cited by Paul in 1 Cor 2:24.
7: `For this reason
a man shall
leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife,
v7:
"and be joined to be his wife" is missing from many manuscripts.
The argument could go either way. See review in Gundry (1993, p530-1).
9: What therefore
God has joined
together, let not man put asunder."
v9:
perhaps "man" is meant in the sense of "all mortals;" perhaps "a
man" is meant because only men could initiate divorce.
v9: Mack
(1995, p315) identifies the chreia that forms the core of this
pericope, in which Jesus is challenged: What does the Law say? and responds
What does God say?
10: And in the house
the disciples
asked him again about this matter.
v10-12:
gives us Jesus instructing the
disciples
in a house, a common redactional feature, as well as an explanation for
the disciples, another redactional feature.
12:
and if she
divorces her
husband and marries another, she commits adultery."
v12:
is widely seen as an anachronism in that a Jewish woman could
not
divorce her husband. Instead, the husband had to do the divorcing. This
usually seen as a later insertion aimed at Gentile populations which
had
different divorce rules (Tomson 2001, p258-9). The same issue is
brought
up in 1 Cor 7. Against this two scrolls from Qumran, Damascus Document
and the Temple Scroll, challenge the view that this was unknown
in Judaism, for they appear to support this same rule. However, they
also appear to apply it only to kings.
v12:
Once again, Jesus's remarks appear to re-order Jewish understandings of
Jewish
law, but no one challenges him on this for the remainder of the gospel.
Historical Commentary
Dean-Otting and Robbins (1993) show how this
passage is a product of rhetorical construction using citations of
authoritative sources, including a citation of the Bible, to dismiss
Mosaic Law and substitute a new formulation of divorce. The pericope
pivots around a chreia organized as a simple ABBA chiasm:
A: But from the beginning
of creation, `God made them male
and female.' `
B: For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother
and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.'
B': So they
are no longer two but one flesh.
A:' What therefore God has joined
together, let not man put asunder."
The structure of the pericope itself is unusually and consists of two
small chiasms:
A
and he left there and went to the region
of Judea and beyond the
Jordan, and crowds gathered to him again;
B
and again, as his custom was,
he taught them.
C
And Pharisees came up and in order to
test him asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
D
He answered them,
"What did Moses command
you?"
D
They said, "Moses
allowed a man to write
a certificate of divorce, and to put her away."
C
But Jesus said to them, "For your
hardness of heart he wrote you this
commandment.
B
But from the beginning of creation, `God
made them male
and female.' `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother
and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' So they
are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined
together, let not man put asunder."
A
And in the house the disciples
asked him again about this matter.
B
And he said to them, "Whoever divorces
his wife and marries another,
commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and
marries another, she commits adultery."
A
And they were bringing children to him,
that he might touch them.
The
pericope shows the Pharisees testing Jesus, a common
formulation in Mark. The writer
cites the OT in v 4,6,7 and 8, while v5 gives us an attack on Jews that
is widely seen as a post-Easter construction. A typical chreia informs
the climax of the sequence v2-9, while the underlying chiastic
structure focuses attention on Jesus' conflict with the Pharisees. v12
is a clear anachronism.
There is no support for historicity in this pericope.
Mark 10:13-16
13: And
they were bringing
children to him, that he might touch them; and the disciples rebuked
them.
14: But when Jesus saw it he was indignant, and said to them, "Let the
children come to me, do not hinder them; for to such belongs the
kingdom
of God.
15: Truly,
I say to
you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not
enter it." 16: And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying
his
hands upon them.
NOTES
13:
And they were
bringing children
to him, that he might touch them; and the disciples rebuked them.
v13:
some translations have "threatened" for
"rebuked."
Historical Commentary
A pericope about children following a
pericope
about marriage indicates a larger structural design. The pericope is a
redactional construction of Mark around the saying in v15. Crossan sees
it as a parallel to 9:35-6 (1991, p268). The pericope is actually a
chreia form, in which the disciples function as challengers by rebuking
the children for bothering Jesus, which triggers a retort that
effectively states "Bothering me? They ARE the Kingdom!"
A chiasm structures this pericope.
A
And they were bringing children to him,
that he might touch them;
B
and the disciples rebuked them.
C
But when Jesus saw
it he was indignant, and said to them, "Let the
children come to me, do not hinder them; for to such belongs the
kingdom of God.
C
Truly, I say to you,
whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not
enter it."
B
And he took them in his arms and blessed
them, laying his hands upon them.
A
And as he was setting out on his journey,
a man ran up and knelt before
him, and asked him, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal
life?"
In the usual fashion of the writer, the A brackets contain movement.
The B brackets oppose the rebuking of the disciples with the blessings
of Jesus. The C brackets contain the chreia structure.
The
typical features of Markan construction indicate that there is no
support for historicity from this pericope.
Mark 10:17-31
17: And as
he was setting
out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him,
"Good
Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" 18: And Jesus said to
him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. 19: You
know
the commandments: `Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal,
Do
not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.'"
20: And he said to him, "Teacher, all these I have observed from my
youth."
21: And Jesus looking upon him, loved him, and said to him, "You lack
one
thing; go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have
treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." 22: At that saying his
countenance
fell, and he went away sorrowful; for he had great possessions. 23: And
Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it will be for
those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God!"
24: And the
disciples
were amazed at his words. But Jesus said to them again, "Children, how
hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25: It is easier for a camel to
go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom
of God." 26: And they were exceedingly astonished, and said to him,
"Then
who can be saved?" 27: Jesus looked at them and said, "With men it is
impossible,
but not with God; for all things are possible with God." 28: Peter
began
to say to him, "Lo, we have left everything and followed you." 29:
Jesus
said, "Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or
brothers
or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and
for
the gospel, 30: who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time,
houses
and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with
persecutions,
and in the age to come eternal life. 31: But many that are first will
be
last, and the last first."
NOTES
17: And as he was
setting out
on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, "Good
Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
v17-21:
is a creation of Mark whose purpose is
to reach v21. Note that the man has no name and other than being rich,
the writer shows no interest in him.
v17: This
occurs as Jesus is setting out on his journey. Jesus is now
turning toward Jerusalem to die.
18: And Jesus said
to him, "Why
do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.
v18:
this text Neyrey (1998) reads
sociologically
as Jesus deflecting a compliment, to prevent people from envying him
(note
that later Pilate comes to understand that it is out of envy that the
chief
priests and scribes seek Jesus' death). Other exegetes see a tension
here: the man has handed out a rare compliment -- 'Good Teacher' -- and
may expect similar flattery in return.
v18:
this verse endured much tinkering and rewriting in the manuscript
tradition, for it appears to categorically deny that Jesus is God. Luke
and Matt both made adjustments.
19: You know the
commandments:
`Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false
witness,
Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.'"
v19:
Jesus commits a famous error: "defraud"
is
not a commandment. This verse cannot be historical, for everyone
standing
there would have laughed themselves silly at such ignorance. The
textual
tradition is unstable at this point as well; many manuscripts omit "Do
not defraud" as do Matthew and Luke, perhaps to eliminate the error. A
number of manuscripts also place adultery before murder in the list. Myers
(1988, p272) points out that the Greek for "defraud" refers to the
practice of keeping back the wages of an employee in the Greek Bible,
whereas in Classical Greek it refers to failure to return money left
with another for safekeeping. The "error" may well relate to the apechei
in Mark 14:40, where the bill is paid in full, pointing to
Jesus own sacrifice of himself.
20: And he said to
him, "Teacher,
all these I have observed from my youth."
v20:
Yuri Kuchinsky (2003) points out:
"It
is interesting that, if one reads only the
Markan
and the Lukan versions of this story, it is not at all clear that this
man is really "young". In Luke, he's identified as a "ruler" (arcwn;
pronounced
as "arkhon"), which is not really consistent with him being so very
young.
Also, in both Mark and Luke, the man says that he had observed the
commandments
"from his youth". Again, this seems to imply that he's of an older age."
23: And Jesus looked
around
and said to his disciples, "How hard it will be for those who have
riches
to enter the kingdom of God!"
v23-7:
are Markan redaction. The function,
explanation,
is redactional, and they feature the usual Markan portrayal of clueless
disciples (v24). However, Koester (1990, p276-7) argues that because
v23-24
are not paralleled in either Matthew or Luke, they are probably later
additions
to the text. Note that v24 repeats v23, but without the reference to
riches.
Further, the verb for "amazement" is found only in Mark (1990, p284).
v23-7: in the ancient lampoon of
marketplace philosophers, Philosophies
for Sale, the author Lucian complains of wandering philosophers
who talk incessantly about the unimportance of money, but are always
asking for it.
26: And they were
exceedingly astonished, and
said to him,
"Then
who can be saved?"
v26:
The disciples are portrayed as worldly and clueless again. Even
though Jesus has just pointed out who will be saved (children, those
who act in Jesus' name, and those who are like children) the disciples
still imagine that one must be rich and powerful to enter the kingdom.
v26: In
many places in the OT wealth and material goods are considered a sign
of God's favor (Job 1:10; Psalm 128:1-2; Isaiah 3:10). That is why the
disciples are so astonished that the weathy cannot enter the Kingdom.
27: Jesus looked at them and said, "With
men it is
impossible,
but not with God; for all things are possible with God."
v27:
Taken from Zechariah 8:6 (LXX).
28: Peter
began
to say to him, "Lo, we have left everything and followed you." 29:
Jesus
said, "Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or
brothers
or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and
for
the gospel, 30: who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time,
houses
and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with
persecutions,
and in the age to come eternal life.
v28-30:
yet another Markan creation. The
reference
to persecutions is a clear anachronism. Some see them as later
insertions.
But v30 the doublet "now..in this time" is a classic Markan
construction.
Wilker (2004, p267-8) argues that the additional "houses and
brothers
and sisters and mothers and children" in v30 is an early textual
corruption.
v30:
Donahue and Harrington (2002, p40) argue that the word "houses" here
refers to house churches of the kind common in primitive Christianity,
with brothers, sisters, mothers, and children, but significantly, no
"father," or centralized authority. They link this back to Paul's
description of this structure in Romans 16:1-16 (although 16:1-7 is
sometimes seen as an interpolation).
31:
But many that
are first
will be last, and the last first."
v31:
Some exegetes have seen this as an exhortation to service, or a
prediction of who will be in the Kingdom (the least), or simply as an uncontextualized saying tacked onto
the
end of the pericope. Reading this against the writer's constant
denigration on the disciples, I see this as a prediction of their
future behavior. But
many that
are first on the list of the
Twelve in Mark 3 will be last to fall away when the tribulation
comes, culminating in Peter, the very first name on the list, and the
last disciple to deny him, and the last, Judas, will be the first to betray me." Read
that way, the final line is then in context with the previous several
verses, especially as "the hundredfold" in v30 takes the reader back to
the Parable of the Sower, and thence to the typology that identifies
the role of the disciples in the Gospel of Mark.
Historical Commentary
The underlying literary
structure is a typical sandwich structure, whose theme is the blindness
of the disciples. Two episodes about receiving children, 9:36-7 and
10:13-16, open and close sequences involving marginal types who will
enter the Kingdom of Heaven. The disciples still do not get the
message, and discourage the children from coming to see Jesus. Jesus
then closes out the sequence with the pericope of 10:17-31, when he
announces that the rich are far from the Kingdom, confounding the
disciple's expectations (Tolbert 1989, p210). The entire sequence is
literary construction that follows the typology erected in the Parable
of the Sower back in Mark 4. The unit closes with a prediction about
the disciples' future behavior.
Although the various sayings are often seen as going back to Jesus, a
minority of scholars points out that they can be seen as attempts to
set the boundaries of the early communities and may thus have been
generated in them (Fun et al 1997, p92). In fact this looks like yet
another version of the insider/outsider dichotomies that are a key
theme of the writer of Mark.
The sequence with the rich man is a typical chreia in which the
disciples function as challengers: Will
the Rich enter the Kingdom? to which Jesus wittily replies: Sure, when a camel goes through the eye of
a needle! The sequence that terminates the pericope may
also offer the chreia structure, with Peter complaining We've given up everything! and
Jesus responding with a wink: Some
of you who think you are first will be last, Petey.
This pericope is a chiasm as follows:
A
And as he was setting out on his journey,
a man ran up and knelt before
him, and asked him, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal
life?"
B
And
Jesus said to
him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.You
know
the commandments: `Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal,
Do
not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.'"
C
And
he said to him, "Teacher, all these I have observed from my
youth."
D
And
Jesus looking upon him, loved
him, and said to him, "You lack
one
thing; go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have
treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."
E
A
And
Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it will be for
those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God!"
B
And
the
disciples
were amazed
at his words.
E
A
But
Jesus said to them again,
"Children, how
hard it is to enter the kingdom of
God! It is easier for a camel to
go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom
of God.
B
And they were exceedingly
astonished,
and
said to him,
"Then
who can be saved?"
D
Jesus
looked at them and said,
"With men it is
impossible,
but not with God; for all things are possible with God.
C
Peter
began
to say to him, "Lo, we have left everything and followed you."
B
Jesus
said, "Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or
brothers
or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and
for
the gospel, 30:
who will not receive a hundredfold
now in this time,
houses
and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with
persecutions,
and in the age to come eternal life. But many
that are first will
be
last, and the last first."
A'
32:
And
they were on
the road, going up to Jerusalem, Jesus was walking ahead of them;
The many signals of literary contrivance
indicate that historicity is not supported in this pericope.
Mark 10:32-34
32: And
they were on
the road, going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was walking ahead of them;
and
they were amazed, and those who followed were afraid. And taking the
twelve
again, he began to tell them what was to happen to him, 33: saying,
"Behold,
we are going up to
Jerusalem;
and the Son of man will be delivered to
the
chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death, and
deliver him to the Gentiles; 34: and they will mock him, and spit upon
him, and scourge him, and kill him; and after three days he will
rise."
NOTES
32: And they were on
the road,
going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was walking ahead of them; and they
were
amazed, and those who followed were afraid. And taking the twelve
again,
he began to tell them what was to happen to him,
v32:
Extremely enigmatic. Who are 'they?"
Locals?
Other disciples? Who is amazed, and why?
34: and they will
mock him,
and spit upon him, and scourge him, and kill him; and after three days
he will rise."
v34: It is here that the forger of Secret
Mark placed his gospel event.
Historical Commentary
The pericope appears to be entirely a
composition from the hand of the author of Mark. Historicity is not
supported in this pericope, not the least because it is so enigmatic,
but also because it contains a supernatural prediction of Jesus' own
death. The chiastic structure is laid out in the next pericope. Here
the gospel of Mark is clearly wrongly pericoped.
Mark 10:35-45
35: And
James and John,
the sons of Zeb'edee, came forward to him, and said to him, "Teacher,
we
want you to do for us whatever we ask of you." 36: And he said to them,
"What do you want me to do for you?" 37: And they said to him, "Grant
us
to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory."
38:
But Jesus said to them, "You do not know what you are asking. Are you
able
to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with
which I am baptized?" 39: And they said to him, "We are able." And
Jesus
said to them, "The cup that I drink you will drink; and with the
baptism
with which I am baptized, you will be baptized;
40: but to
sit at my
right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for
whom it has been prepared." 41: And when the ten heard it, they began
to
be indignant at James and John. 42: And Jesus called them to him and
said
to them, "You know that those who are supposed to rule over the
Gentiles
lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them.
43:
But it shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you
must be your servant, 44: and whoever would be first among you must be
slave of all.45: For the Son of man also came not to be served but to
serve,
and to give his life as a ransom for many."
NOTES
35:
And James and
John, the
sons of Zeb'edee, came forward to him, and said to him, "Teacher, we
want
you to do for us whatever we ask of you." 36: And he said to them,
"What do you want me to do for you?" 37: And they said to him, "Grant
us
to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory.
v35-37:
may well reflect back to Paul's
claim
in 1 Cor 6:1-3 that believers shall judge the world, even judging
angels.
If any of you has a
dispute with another, dare he take it
before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? Do you
not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge
the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not
know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!
(NIV)
v35-37:
Ched Myers (1988, p279) sees an allusion to Psalm 110 in the first two
verses:
1 The LORD says to my
Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I
make your enemies a footstool for your feet." 2 The LORD will extend
your mighty scepter from Zion; you will rule in the midst of your
enemies.(NIV)
In Psalm 110:6 the Lord sits in judgment on his
enemies,
just as James and John ask for here. In Mk
12:35 this same passage becomes the basis for a
discussion of Jesus'
Davidic relationship.
v35-37: Myers
(1988, p280-1) argues that against the request for power and authority
of men, Mark opposes an ethic of servant and slavehood, one reserved
for females.
38: But Jesus said
to them,
"You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup
that
I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?"
v38:
contains a probable later insertion into
the text, "and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be
baptized"
(Koester 1990, p 278).
v38:
with its reference to the later martyrdom
of James, is clearly unhistorical, for it is either an anachronism or
supernatural
prophecy.
v38: The
OT offers at least one example of a cup of death, in Psalm 11:
5: The LORD tests
the righteous and the wicked, and his soul hates him that loves
violence. 6: On the wicked he will rain coals of fire and
brimstone; a scorching wind shall be
the portion of their cup. 7: For the LORD is righteous,
he loves righteous deeds; the upright shall behold his face. (RSV)
42: And Jesus called
them to
him and said to them, "You know that those who are supposed to rule
over
the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority
over them.
v42:
C.F Stone (2002) notes that there is an allusion to Isaiah
11:10
(LXX) here, and argues that Isaiah 11 stands behind 10:42-45
45: For the Son of
man also
came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom
for
many."
v45:
the title "Son of Man" appears in all three passion predictions
in Mark 8, 9 and 10. Thematically it probably connects to Mark 14:62.
v45:
Related to the Septaugint Isaiah, according to Adella Yarbro
Collins
(1997):
"According
to the Septuagint version of Isa 53:11,
the
servant of the Lord is a just man who serves many well."
In a footnote Collins adds:
"The antithetical structure of
Mark 10:45 and its
meaning
are strikingly similar to a saying that Dio Cassius attributed to Otho:
"I shall free myself [that is, take my own life], that all may learn
from
the deed that you chose for your emperor one who would not give you up
to save himself, but rather himself to save you."
v45: Bultman
(1958) identified this verse as "a
Hellenistic
variation
of an older saying."
v45: "to
give his life as a ransom
for
many." The Roman armies are said to
have
had a practice called devotio
in which a single individual offered up their life to the gods during a
battle. The sacrifice was made to both friendly and enemy gods, in the
hope of impressing them and gaining their favor. Decius Mus was
the most famous example. Examples of life-offerings as ransom from
Jewish history are also known.
v45:
"ransom" Fletcher-Louis (2003, p27) points out that the Greek word here
always refers to an object, never a person, given as ransom.
v45:
Seeley (1993) points out that the sequence of ruler, service, and
sacrifice is not known in intertestamental Judaism. He identifies this
as stemming from Cynic and Hellenistic concepts of how a good king
should behave. According to Seeley, the writings of the philosopher Dio
Chrysostom (40-112 CE) on Kingship say that a good king receives his
position from Zeus, with the condition that he work for the welfare of
his people. The good loves what is good, and cares for all. Seeley
notes;
"In
his third Discourse on kingship, Dio concludes that the best
illustration of the office is the sun, for though the latter is a god,
he "does not grow weary in ministering ... to us and doing everything
to promote our welfare."...(3.73). one might even say that the sun
"endures a servitude... most exacting...."(3.75)"(p236)
The idea that the true ruler is the servant of his subjects is also
found in Plato and Xenophon. Seeley also gives other examples from
Hellenistic thought of how the true philosopher, kingly in his ways,
remains unmarried and serves the people. There are also Cynic examples
of those who share kingship with the deity and engage in service. In
Cynicism devotion of others can result in suffering and even death.
Seeley concludes:
"In Epictetus' comments on the Cynic, we
thus see a figure who is both ruler and servant, and whose service can
include physical suffering and even death. This is the pattern we
traced in Mark 10:41-5."(p245)
The key difference between the two is that in Cynicism the death of the
philosopher functions as an example for other Cynics, whereas in Mark
Jesus' death is substitutionary. Seeley reads that as a Markan
development from Paul.
Historical Commentary
The larger structural features indicate
literary
creation. "Hardly has Jesus ended his third announcement of the passion
and resurrection when there is again a misunderstanding in the circle
of
disciples" (Ludemann 2001, p71). Goodspeed notes that "Zebedee's sons
are
so oblivious of his mood that they actually ask for the leading places
in his coming triumph" (1937, p143).
The writer offers another chreia here,
delineated by Mack (1995, p316) as a challenge offered by the
disciples: We want the power!
and Jesus putting them in their place by replying Those who have the power first must serve.
The writer interweaves different themes from the Gospel,
including the sequence in which he compares Jesus to Simon Maccabaeus,
his portrayal of the disciples as ignorant, self-aggrandizing clods,
predictions of Jesus' Passion and death, allusions to the future of
persecution of Jesus' followers, and the chreia format. Stein (1999)
identifies the underlying structure of the sequence that runs from 8:27
on:
Passion
Saying
Disciples
Err
Theme
of Discipleship
Mark 8:31-2
Mark 8:33 (Peter
errs)
Mark 8:34-9:1
Discipleship means suffering like Christ.
Mark 9:30-2
Mark 9:34 (the
Twelve Err)
Mark 9:33-7
Discipleship involves serving like Christ
Mark 10:32-34
Mark 10:35 (James
and John err)
Mark 10:42-5
(Discipleship involves serving like Christ)
(adapted
from Stein 1999, p46)
The structure
is a chiasm that extends back to the previous pericope, and contains an
ABBA structure.
A
And they were on the road, going up to
Jerusalem, and Jesus was walking
ahead of them; and they were amazed, and those who followed were
afraid.
B
And taking the twelve again, he began to
tell them what was to happen
to him, saying, "Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem; and the Son of
man will be delivered to the chief priests and the scribes, and they
will condemn him to death, and deliver him to the Gentiles; and they
will mock him, and spit upon him, and scourge him, and kill him; and
after three days he will rise."
C
And James and John, the sons of Zeb'edee,
came forward to him, and said
to him, "Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you."
D
And he said to them, "What do you want me
to do for you?"
E
A
And they said to
him, "Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in
your glory."
B
But Jesus said to
them, "You do not know what you are asking. Are you
able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism
with which I am baptized?"
E
A
And they said to
him, "We are able."
B
And Jesus said to
them, "The cup that I drink you will drink; and with
the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized; but to sit
at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for
those for whom it has been prepared."
D
And when the ten heard it, they began to
be indignant at James and John.
C
And Jesus called them to him and said to
them, "You know that those who
are supposed to rule over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their
great men exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among
you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and
whoever would be first among you must be slave of all.
B
For the Son of man also came not to be
served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
A
And they came to Jericho;
The A brackets contain the usual
geographic shifts. The B brackets oppose predictions of Jesus' death.
The C brackets oppose the request of James and John "whatever we
ask of you" to the ideal of service. The D
brackets oppose Jesus' question to the disciples' indignation. The E
brackets offer an ABBA chiasm whose structure should be obvious.
The vintage
Markan themes, the literary structures, and the awareness of subsequent
traditions of persecution signal that there is no support for
historicity in this pericope.
Mark 10:46-52
46: And
they came to
Jericho; and as he was leaving Jericho with his disciples and a great
multitude,
Bartimae'us, a blind beggar, the son of Timae'us, was sitting by the
roadside.
47: And when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry
out
and say, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!" 48: And many rebuked
him, telling him to be silent; but he cried out all the more, "Son of
David,
have mercy on me!"
49: And
Jesus stopped
and said, "Call him." And they called the blind man, saying to him,
"Take
heart; rise, he is calling you." 50: And throwing off his mantle he
sprang
up and came to Jesus. 51: And Jesus said to him, "What do you want me
to
do for you?" And the blind man said to him, "Master, let me receive my
sight." 52: And Jesus said to him, "Go your way; your faith has made
you
well." And immediately he received his sight and followed him on the
way.
NOTES
46:
And they came to
Jericho;
and as he was leaving Jericho with his disciples and a great multitude,
Bartimae'us, a blind beggar, the son of Timae'us, was sitting by the
roadside.
v46a:
Although many exegetes have seen a
deletion
here. D. Brown (2003, p107) argued:
"It seems no less reasonable,
then,
to suppose that only the bare fact of Jesus' arrival in Jericho is
mentioned
in 10:46a because the road from Jericho is where Mark wished to locate
the healing of Bartimaeus: Jesus had to enter Jericho before Mark could
describe him leaving it."
However, the chiastic structure I have reconstructed shows that indeed
material has been removed here.
v46b:
"Bartimaeus" the name itself means "son
of Timaeus." It is typical of the author of Mark to use this type of
dual
construction. "The two-step progression is one of the most pervasive
patterns
of repetition in Mark's Gospel. It occurs in phrases, clauses, pairs of
sentences, and the structure of episodes" (Rhoads et al 1999, p49).
This
redactive pattern suggests that the name itself is probably invention.
"Bar-teymah" means "son of poverty" in Aramaic (Price 2003, p148), or
"son of the unclean" (Myers 1988, p282),
another
name that like "Jairus," echoes the meaning of the event.
47: And when he
heard that it
was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry out and say, "Jesus, Son of
David,
have mercy on me!"
v47: the
Greek says Nazarene
not Nazareth.
v47:
Donahue and Harrington (2002,317) observe
that the Son of David "par excellence" is Solomon, who in the NT
period
had a widespread reputation in Jewish tradition as a healer. Meier
(1994,
p737n48) points out that one of the manuscripts of the Testament of
Solomon has "King Solomon, Son of David, have mercy on me!" at
20:1.
However, the Testament of Solomon has been heavily
Christianized.
51: And Jesus said
to him, "What
do you want me to do for you?" And the blind man said to him, "Master,
let me receive my sight."
v51: The
term rabbi probably had not
yet
become a technical term for "teacher" at the time Mark's gospel is
ordinarily
considered to have been written (Donahue and Harrington 2002, p318).
v51:
Gundry notes the strong association of healing of the blind
with
the day of salvation in Isaiah (1993, p600).
Isaiah 29:18
In that day the deaf will hear the
words of the scroll,
and out of gloom and darkness the eyes of the blind will see. (NIV)
Isaiah 35:5-6
5 Then will the eyes of the blind be
opened and the
ears
of the deaf unstopped. 6 Then will the lame leap like a deer, and the
mute
tongue shout for joy. Water will gush forth in the wilderness and
streams
in the desert. (NIV)
Isaiah 61:1 (LXX)
The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on
me, because the
LORD has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to
bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and
release
from darkness the blind, (NIV)
52: And Jesus said
to him, "Go your
way; your faith has made
you
well." And immediately he received his sight and followed him on the
way.
v52:
this pericope links back to the healing of the bleeding woman in Mk
5:21-43. First, the crowd hinders both suppliants. Second, they are
commended for their faith which has healed them (the Greek of 5:34 and
10:52 is identical: hepistis sou
sesoken se). Finally, in both cases there is the problem of
impurity, bleeding by the woman, and the blind beggar's name, which may
mean "son of the unclean."
v52: One
is reminded of Paul's comment in 2 Cor 4:4
In their case the god of
this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from
seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the
likeness of God. (RSV)
v52:
Stephen Smith (1996) describes the situation:
"The irony of the
situation is rich indeed, for it involves a reversal of roles.
Bartimaeus takes the stage as a blind outsider on the periphery of the
crowd, but after his encounter with Jesus he not only sees physically,
but metaphorically as well, and follows his master."(p527)
Historical
Commentary
Timaeus is the name of a well-known
dialog of Plato. In this
dialog, Socrates -- who will be executed -- sits down with three of his
friends, Critias, Timaeus, and Hermocrates. The dialog involves a
discussion
of why and how the universe was created:
"When the father creator
saw the
creature which he had made moving and living, the created image of the
eternal gods, he rejoiced..."(Jowett
translation)
Plato's Timaeus also contains a long
discussion about the eye and vision:
"And
of the organs they first contrived the eyes to give light, and the
principle according to which they were inserted was as follows: So much
of fire as would not burn, but gave a gentle light, they formed into a
substance akin to the light of every-day life; and the pure fire which
is within us and related thereto they made to flow through the eyes in
a stream smooth and dense, compressing the whole eye, and especially
the centre part, so that it kept out everything of a coarser nature,
and allowed to pass only this pure element. When the light of day
surrounds the stream of vision, then like falls upon like, and they
coalesce, and one body is formed by natural affinity in the line of
vision, wherever the light that falls from within meets with an
external object. And the whole stream of vision, being similarly
affected in virtue of similarity, diffuses the motions of what it
touches or what touches it over the whole body, until they reach the
soul, causing that perception which we call sight. But when night comes
on and the external and kindred fire departs, then the stream of vision
is cut off; for going forth to an unlike element it is changed and
extinguished, being no longer of one nature with the surrounding
atmosphere which is now deprived of fire: and so the eye no longer
sees, and we feel disposed to sleep." (Jowett
translation)
It is not difficult to see the parallel
between
Jesus -- about to be executed -- and Socrates, as well as Peter, James,
and
John,
and Socrates' three friends. Socrates, like Jesus, is a tekton.
Bar-Timaeus is blind, and Timaeus has a discussion of optics and the
physics of the eye. Like Jesus, Socrates will enlighten his companions
as to the truth. The parallel may be pushed further, but that would
take us outside our
task here. The name stinks of literary invention, and this would make
it the only pericope in Mark with an origin in Plato or other
Hellenistic literature. All in all, considering the odd structure (see
below), this pericope is probably not from the hand of the original
writer of Mark.
Bar-Timaeus also recalls the blind seer
Tiresias,
the famous Greek prophet, who sees truth though blind, just as
Bar-Timaeus
knows the truth that the King, the Son of David, is passing by, though
he is blind. Although the text implies that Bartimaeus becomes a
follower
of Jesus, he disappears from the story after this incident.
Most exegetes relate this to the previous pericope, relating
the blindness of Bar-Timaeus to the blindness of the disciples. Note
how Jesus greets the beggar with the same words he met the disciples'
request in Mk
10:36: "What do you want me to do for you?" But disciples' lack of
understand is met with scorn, while the faith of the beggar, the
fertile ground of Tolbert's analysis, is met with healing and a will to
followership.
In Mary Tolbert's (1989) analysis of Mark, this pericope is
the last of the first half.
The chiastic structure of this pericope is clear and quite
beautiful, almost suspiciously so. The center of the chiasm seems
somewhat unMarkan. Also unMarkan is the lack of saying that can be
unplugged from its context. Note the double geographic reference to
Jericho. The
chiastic structure lends support to the idea that a pericope has been
removed in v46.
A
And they came to Jericho; and as he was
leaving Jericho with his
disciples and a great multitude, Bartimae'us, a blind beggar, the son
of Timae'us, was sitting by the roadside.
B
And when he heard that it was Jesus of
Nazareth, he began to cry out and say, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy
on me!"
C
And many rebuked him, telling him to be
silent;
D
but he cried out all the more, "Son of
David, have mercy on me!"
E
And Jesus stopped and said, "Call him."
F
And they called the
blind man, saying to him, "Take heart; rise, he is calling you."
F
And throwing off his
mantle he sprang up and came to Jesus.
E
And Jesus said to him, "What do you want
me to do for you?"
D
And the blind man said to him, "Master,
let me receive my sight."
C
And Jesus said to him, "Go your way; your
faith has made you well."
B
And immediately he received his sight and
followed him on the way.
A
And when
they drew near to Jerusalem, to Beth'phage and Bethany, at the Mount of
Olives, he sent two of his disciples, and said to them, "Go into the
village opposite you, and immediately as
you enter it you will find a colt tied, on which no one has ever sat;
untie it and bring it. If any one says to you, `Why are you doing
this?' say, `The Lord has need of it and will send it back here
immediately.'"
The presence of Markan creation, OT
construction
and the supernatural indicate that there is no support for historicity
in this pericope.
Excursus: Did
the Gospel of Mark know the Pauline Corpus?
"...despite
the near-total absence of synoptic Jesus tradition in Paul’s letters,
his story-grounded preaching marks a point on a historical trajectory
towards the composition of written narratives.” R.B. Hays.
Imagine if we went back to the OT to search for more
sources
of Mark's gospel, and we came across the following passage in Psalm 151:
Or don't
you know that all
of us who were baptized into him were baptized into his death? We were
therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that,
just as he was raised from the dead through the glory of YHWH, we too
may live a new life.
What if, a few passages later in that same Psalm, we
chanced
upon this text:
because
those who are led
by the Spirit of the Lord are sons of YHWH. For you
did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you
received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.” The
Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are YHWH's children.
Now if we are children, then we are heirs, if indeed we share in his
sufferings in order that we may also
share in his glory.
We might begin to suspect that we had found the source of
the
baptism story in Mark
1:9-11. After all, the same themes appear there. For example, Psalm
151 uses "baptism" as a metaphor for death, just as Mark
10:38-39 does:
Psalm
151: Or don't you
know that all of us who were baptized into him were baptized into his
death?
38:
But Jesus said to them, "You do not know what you are asking. Are you
able
to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with
which I am baptized?" 39: And they said to him, "We are able." And
Jesus
said to them, "The cup that I drink you will drink; and with the
baptism
with which I am baptized, you will be baptized; (RSV)
In this passage the spirit of God descends on the
baptized
one, as we see in Mark
1:10:
Psalm
151: For you
did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you
received the Spirit of sonship. (NIV)
1:10: And when he came
up out
of the water, immediately he saw the heavens opened and the Spirit
descending
upon him like a dove; (RSV)
There too, in this passage, we find the idea that those
baptized are the sons of God. Recall that the Christology of Mark is
Adoptionist, that is, the writer presents Jesus as a person adopted as
the Son of God. In that light, compare Psalm 151 and Mark
1:11:
because
those who are led
by the Spirit of the Lord are sons of YHWH.
1:11:
and a voice came
from heaven,
"Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased." (RSV)
In Psalm 151 "The
Spirit himself testifies with our spirit" that the believer is God's
son.
There's another idea in Psalm 151 that we also see in Mark. One verse
reminds us of the Garden
of Gethsemane:
And by
him we cry, “Abba,
Father.” (NIV)
14:36: And he said,
"Abba, Father,
all things are possible to thee; remove this cup from me; yet not what
I will, but what thou wilt." (RSV)
Clearly, given all the affinities between the OT and Mark that scholars
have postulated, frequently on much slimmer grounds, we would be quite
justified in seeing Psalm 151 as a potential source of the Baptism
scene. The only problem with this thesis is that there is no Psalm
151. These passages are not from the Old Testament. They are from
Paul's
Letter to the Romans.
* *
* * * * * *
Scholars have often been reluctant to see connections between the
writer of Mark and Paul, although a tradition of Pauline influence on
Mark remains among many conservatives and scholars on the conservative
side of the mainstream, including most recently Donohue and
Harrington's very fine commentary on Mark for the Sacra Pagina series.
Against this, Aichele (2003, p14) points out:
"As a
result, the
scholarly arguments that Paul’s use of “gospel” have
influenced the text of Mark may better suggest that Pauline thought has
influenced the scholarly hermeneutic. If we read Mark as a Pauline
text, perhaps it is because we are Pauline readers."
A dominant view is that concordances
between the Pauline Corpus and Mark stem from commonalities in the
traditions of early Christianity or perhaps were transmitted through
oral routes. From time to time a scholar has put forth the thesis that
Mark knew the Pauline letters somehow, most recently in Joel Marcus' in
"Mark - Interpreter of
Paul"(New Testament Studies
46/4 (2000): pp. 473-487). This issue refuses to die because, as
Donahue and Harrington (2002, p40) put
it, there are some "intriguing contacts between the Gospel of Mark and
Paul or the Pauline tradition." Indeed, as I pointed out above, if we
assume for a moment the direct use of Paul by the writer of Mark, we
see the same patterns that characterize the writer's use of the Old
Testament: direct citations, allusions, echoes, and conceptual
parallels.
Let's explore this possible
relationship by looking at verses in Mark that appear to echo Pauline
thought.
* *
* * * * * *
A Stir of
Echoes
Here are just a few of the many concordances between Paul and Mark:
Mk
1:1: The phrase “the
beginning of the gospel” (arch. tou
euaggeliou),
appears in Philippians 4:15, where it denotes the beginning of Paul's
missionary activity. In both Paul and Mark arch. tou
euaggeliou denotes a beginning.
Mk
1:11: As Paul noted in
Romans 8:14-17 and again in Gal 3:26, believers were the adopted sons
of God.
Mk
1:14,: "Gospel of God."
The phrase also occurs in Romans 1:1 and 15:16, as well as 1 Thess 2:2
and 2:9.
Mk
1:29-31: 1 Cor 9:5
implies that
Peter
was married:
Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do
the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?
Mk 2:16:
Jesus eats with
sinners and tax collectors, just as Paul in Gal 2:11 complained that
Peter was violating the spirit of Jesus, who "ate with sinners and
tax-collectors."
Mk
4:9-20: These verses
contain vocabulary found nowhere else in the Synoptic gospels, but
present in other NT writings. These include "sow" as a metaphor for
preaching (1 Cor. 9:11), "root" as a metaphor for inner steadfastness
(Col 2:7, Eph. 3:17) and above all, the "word" which grows and spreads,
found in many places in 1 & 2 Thess, II Tim, and other early
Christian writings (Ludemann 2001, p 27). Note also that the
Parable refers to the casting of seed, and Paul in Galatians 3:19
refers to Jesus as "Seed" which he implies was sent.
Mk
6:3: Compare Jesus'
profession of tekton with 1
Cor 1:20:
where [is] the wise? where the scribe? where a disputer of this age?
did not God make foolish the wisdom of this world? (YLT).
Another affinity between Mark and 1 Cor is also found in the word
"offense," from the Greek skandalon,
also a key idea of 1 Cor, found in 1 Cor 1:24.
Mk
6:7: The theme of paired
missionary work is also present in 1 Corinthians:
1 Cor 9:2-6
2Even though I may not be an apostle to others, surely I am to you! For
you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. 3This is my defense to
those who sit in judgment on me. 4Don't we have the right to food and
drink? 5Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us,
as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas? 6Or is it
only I and Barnabas who must work for a living? (NIV)
Mk
7:15: The discussion of
food issues echos Romans. Mark 7:15 is similar to Romans 14:14 and
14:20.
14: 14: As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced
that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as
unclean, then for him it is unclean.(NIV)
14:20: Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is
clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone
else to stumble. (NIV)
Mk
7:19 The
explanatory aside here, "(Thus he declared all foods clean.)" seems to
strongly indicate a situation addressing later community issues over
food laws and Gentiles. Again the flavor of this whole passage on food
is strongly pro-Pauline.
Mk
7:20-23: A triple hit on
the three most common letters. Similar lists exist in 1 Cor 6:9-10, Rom
1:29-31, and Gal 5:19-21:
1 Cor 6: 9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the
kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor
idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers
will inherit the kingdom of God.(NIV)
Rom 1: 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil,
greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and
malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant
and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their
parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. (NIV)
Gal 5: 19 The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual
immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred,
discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions,
factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as
I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the
kingdom of God. (NIV)
"Let
the children first be
fed." Here in the episode with the Syro-Phoenician woman Jesus says the
children of Israel are to fed first, perhaps an echo of Romans 1:16,
where Paul argues "to the Jews first" (Donahue and Harrington 2002,
p40).
Mk 8:12: Note that Paul says in 1 Corinthians
1:22-23:
22 Since also Jews ask
a sign,
and
Greeks
seek wisdom, 23 also we -- we preach Christ crucified, to Jews,
indeed,
a stumbling-block, and to Greeks foolishness, (NIV)
Mk 8:15:
Paul warns against the leaven of evil and malice, just as Jesus warns
against the leaven of the Pharisees and the Herodians.
1 Cor 2:9 But as it is written, "Things which an eye didn't see,
and an ear didn't hear, which didn't enter into the heart of man, these
God has prepared for those who love him."
Mk 9:42:
"to sin." The
Greek verb skandalise (literally closer to to offend rather than to
sin) is used here, echoing Paul in several places in 1 Corinthians,
including the famous passage in 1:23, as well as 8:13. The appendix to
McCracken (1994) lists this word and its appearances in the NT,
including 8 times in Mark (4:17, 6:3, 9:42, 9:43, 9:45, 9:47, 14:27,
and 14:29). The verb means both "to stumble" (fall away from the right)
and "to offend." In the Septaugint translation of the OT, it is used to
translate the Hebrew word for "snare."
Mk
9:43-47: recalls Paul's
construction in 1 Cor 12 as a community with hands, eye, and feet. This
is a common metaphor in all cultures, however.
Mk
9:43-47: Cutting off
may link back to Paul's crudely sarcastic remark about "cutting off'
certain parts of his opponents. The verb for "cutting off" is the same
in both cases. But of course the idea of "cutting off" occurs in Daniel
9:26, in the famous passage about Onias III, and in some of the Jewish
literature, where demonic agents are "cut off."
Mk
10:5: Compare 10:5 with
Paul's argument in Galatians 3:
10: 5: But Jesus said to them, "For your hardness of heart he wrote you
this commandment.(RSV)
Gal 3:19: What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because
of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come.
(NIV)
Jesus and Paul explain the Law in the same way.
Mk
10:12: is widely seen as
an anachronism in that a Jewish woman could not divorce her husband.
Instead, the husband had to do the divorcing. This usually seen as a
later insertion aimed at Gentile populations which had different
divorce rules (Tomson 2001, p258-9). The same issue is brought up in 1
Cor 7.
10:30:
Donahue and
Harrington (2002, p40) argue that the word "houses" here refers to
house churches of the kind common in primitive Christianity, with
brothers, sisters, mothers, and children, but significantly, no
"father," or centralized authority. They link this back to Paul's
description of this structure in Romans 16:1-16 (although 16:1-7 is
sometimes seen as an interpolation).
Mk
10:35-37: where James and
John request to sit at Jesus' right hand, may well reflect back to
Paul's claim in 1 Cor 6:1-3 that believers shall judge the world, even
judging angels.
If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the
ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? Do you not know that
the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are
you not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will
judge angels? How much more the things of this life! (NIV)
If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all
knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not
love, I am nothing.
Mk
12:17: The view of the state here is read by some to echo Romans
13:1-7.
Mk
12:25:
perhaps a reference to 1 Cor 15:35-50, where Paul describes the
resurrection bodies.
Mk
12:33: Donahue and Harrington (2002, p40) note that just as in
Romans 13:1-7 and 13:8-10, in Mark 12:13-17 and 12:28-34, a command to
love follows an injunction to obey the governing authorities.
Mk
12:36: Here Jesus quotes Psalm 110 (109 LXX). The Psalm
appears to have been used in a coronation ritual for the kings of
Israel
(Donahue and Harrington 2002, p359). It was widely used in early
Christian
circles in the NT period and is cited in Acts 2:34-5, 1 Cor 15:25-6, and
Heb 1:13.
Mk
14:22-24: The similar passage in 1 Cor 11:23-25.
Mk
14:36: perhaps "cup" is a reference to 1 Cor 10:16, although the
"cup of death" symbol was widespread in the Mediterranean.
Mk
15:25: 1 Cor 5:7
refers to Jesus as the Paschal Lamb.
Mk
16:2: 1 Cor 15 has Jesus raised on the third day.
Mk
16:8: The term "the disciples and Peter" may recall the passage in
1 Cor where "Cephas and the disciples" see the Risen Jesus.
No doubt many of these concordances are weak. Some may be coincidental.
Some may
be due to commonalities of tradition. Many of these ideas are found in
other texts that the writer of Mark could have known. It's not always
easy to pin down the relationships between the texts in the New
Testament canon.
* *
* * * * * *
What
are the Scriptures?
But let's take a look at an interesting feature of Mark 12. It
contains fascinating little chiasm......
Mark
12 opens with the
Parable of the Tenants. Four pericopes then follow:
Please note: I have temporarily removed 12:24 and the related verses,
and set them aside, to
provide the heat for this dish. We'll plug them back in in one
moment. Let's now take a look at what brackets this section from 12:13
to 12:37:
Mk
12:10-11 Citation of
Psalm 118
Mk
12:12 They feared
to arrest him
Mk
12:35-7 Citation of
Psalm 110 "why do scribes say....???"
Mk
12:38 'Ware
the scribes!
Psalms 118 and 110 both relate to Simon Maccabaeus, the great Jewish
leader. Psalm 118 celebrates Simon's entry into Jerusalem, while Psalm
110 contains his name as an acrostic in Hebrew. The latter parts of
these verses refer to the enemies of Jesus.
By now, the reader will have become alert: a sixfold discourse with
bookends of parallel items signals that we're looking at another
chiastic structure. Let's display it.
A
Mk
12:10-11 Citation of Psalm 118 and warning that they want to
kill Jesus
Mk
12:35-7 Citation of Psalm 110 and warning to beware of scribes
Now I know you're all scratching your heads, because there doesn't seem
to be a chiasm there. "Render Unto Caesar" just doesn't seem to have an
obvious relation to a "Commandment to Love." The relationship is there,
but the chiasm is not about the
Gospel of Mark. Nor is it about the Old Testament. It is about another
set of writings entirely.
Let's step back a moment. Donahue and Harrington (2002, p40) note that
just as in
Romans 13:1-7 and 13:8-10, in Mark 12:13-17 and 12:28-34, a command to
love follows an injunction to obey the governing authorities. Suppose
we toss that into our chiasm.
A
Mk
12:10-11 Citation of Psalm 118 and warning that the scribes want to
kill Jesus)
B
Romans
13:1-7 Obey your government = (Mk
12:13-17 Render
unto Caesar what is Caesar's)
Romans
13:8-10 (Love is fulfillment of the Law) = (Mk
12:28-34 Commandment to Love)
A'
Mk
12:35-7 Citation of Psalm 110 and warning to beware of scribes
Interesting. The passages from Romans appear to bracket the C' portion
of this Chiasm. We've already seen in the list above that Mark
12:25-27 has the same theme as 1 Cor 15:35-50, a discussion of what
bodies will be like in heaven. Now that's interesting, because just
prior to that in 1 Cor 15, there is a discussion of those who deny the
Resurrection -- just like the Sadduccees, whom the writer of Mark explicitly avers deny
the Resurrection (note that of Jesus' opponents only the Sadduccees get
a description of their beliefs, yet they only appear once). That gives
us two blocks of
material here that relate Mark and Paul. What happens if we stick 1 Cor
15 in there?
A
Mk
12:10-11 Citation of Psalm 118 and warning that the scribes want to
kill Jesus
B
Romans
13:1-7 Obey your government = (Mk
12:13-17 Render
unto Caesar what is Caesar's)
C
1
Corinthians 15:12-14(What
if there is no resurrection?) = (Mk
12:18-23 Sadduccees deny resurrection)
C'
1
Corinthians 15:35-50 (What is the resurrection body like?) = (Mk
12:25-27 Like Angels in Heaven)
B'
Romans
13:8-10 (Love is fulfillment of the Law) = (Mk
12:28-34 Commandment to Love)
A'
Mk
12:35-7 Citation of Psalm 110 and warning to beware of scribes
The B and C sections are both related to Paul!
A fascinating picture. Why? Because is we go to 1 Corinthians 15, we
find that there is the same citation of Psalm
110 that the writer of Mark uses. Further, it is located right between the two
blocs of material that the writer of Mark is echoing. This
yields:
A
Mk
12:10-11 Citation of Psalm 118 and warning that the scribes want to
kill Jesus
B
Romans
13:1-7 Obey your government = (Mk
12:13-17 Render
unto Caesar what is Caesar's)
C
1
Corinthians 15:12-14(What
if there is no resurrection?) = (Mk
12:18-23 Sadduccees deny resurrection)
C'
1
Corinthians 15:35-50 (What is the resurrection body like?) = (Mk
12:25-27 Like Angels in Heaven)
B'
Romans
13:8-10 (Love is fulfillment of the Law) = (Mk
12:28-34 Commandment to Love)
A'
1
Corinthians 15:25-26 cites samepassage from Psalm
110 as (Mk
12:35-7 Citation of Psalm 110 and warning to beware of scribes)
All that is needed to complete the chiasm is a citation of Psalm 118 in
Romans. Sure enough, there is one in Romans 8. Thus, our complete
chiasm is:
A
Romans 8:31
cites Psalm 118:6 (Mk
12:10-11 Citation of Psalm 118 and warning that the scribes want to
kill Jesus)
B
Romans
13:1-7 Obey your government = (Mk
12:13-17 Render
unto Caesar what is Caesar's)
C
1
Corinthians 15:12-14(What
if there is no resurrection?) = (Mk
12:18-23 Sadduccees deny resurrection)
C'
1
Corinthians 15:35-50 (What is the resurrection body like?) = (Mk
12:25-27 Like Angels in Heaven)
B'
Romans
13:8-10 (Love is fulfillment of the Law) = (Mk
12:28-34 Commandment to Love)
A'
1
Corinthians 15:25-26 cites samepassage from
Psalm
110 as (Mk
12:35-7 Citation of Psalm 110 and warning to beware of scribes)
To make this simpler, our chiasm in Mark is:
A
Romans 8:31
B
Romans
13:1-7
C
1
Corinthians 15:12-14
C'
1
Corinthians 15:35-50
B'
Romans
13:8-10
A'
1
Corinthians 15:25-26
Looking at the texts inside the A-A' brackets, we see that the two
texts in C and C' are:
Block C
1
Cor 15:12-14
Mark
12
12:
Now if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no
resurrection of the dead?13: But if there is no
resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; 14:
if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your
faith is in vain. 15: We are even found to be misrepresenting
God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ, whom he did not
raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16: For if
the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised.(RSV)
18:And Sad'ducees came
to him, who say that there is no resurrection; and they asked
him a question, saying, 19: "Teacher, Moses wrote for us that
if a man's brother dies and leaves a wife, but leaves no child, the man
must take the wife, and raise up children for his brother. 20:
There were seven brothers; the first took a wife, and when he died left
no children; 21: and the second took her, and died, leaving no
children; and the third likewise; 22: and the seven left no
children. Last of all the woman also died. 23: In the
resurrection whose wife will she be? For the seven had her as wife."
(RSV)
and C' parallels:
Block C'
1
Cor 15:35-50
Mark
12
35: But some one will ask, "How are the dead
raised? With what kind of body do they come?" 36: You
foolish man! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37:
And what you sow is not the body which is to be, but a bare kernel,
perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. 38: But God gives it a
body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. 39:
For not all flesh is alike, but there is one kind for men, another for
animals, another for birds, and another for fish. 40:
There are celestial bodies and there are terrestrial bodies; but the
glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is
another. (RSV)
25:
For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in
marriage, but are like angels in heaven.(RSV)
To save space I have eliminated some of the lengthy discussions in the
Pauline passages. Looking at the texts from Romans and Mark in the B
and B' blocs, we see:
Block B
Romans
13:1-7
Mark
12
1: Let every
person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no
authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by
God. 2: Therefore he who resists the authorities
resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur
judgment. 3: For rulers are not a terror to good
conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority?
Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4: for
he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for
he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute
his wrath on the wrongdoer. 5: Therefore one must be subject, not only to
avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6: For
the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers
of God, attending to this very thing. 7: Pay all of them their dues, taxes to whom
taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect
is due, honor to whom honor is due. (RSV)
13:
And they sent to him some of the Pharisees and some of the Hero'di-ans,
to entrap him in his talk. 14: And they came and said to him,
"Teacher, we know that you are true, and care for no man; for you do
not regard the position of men, but truly teach the way of God. Is it
lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? 15: Should we pay them,
or should we not?" But knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, "Why
put me to the test? Bring me a coin, and let me look at it." 16:
And they brought one. And he said to them, "Whose likeness and
inscription is this?" They said to him, "Caesar's." 17: Jesus
said to them, "Render to Caesar the
things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."
And they were amazed at him. (RSV)
While B' parallels:
Block B'
Romans
13:8-10
Mark
12
8: Owe no one anything, except to love one
another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. 9:The commandments,
"You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not
steal, You shall not covet," and any other commandment, are summed up
in this sentence, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."10:
Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of
the law. (RSV)
28:
And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one
another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, "Which
commandment is the first of all?" 29: Jesus answered, "The
first is, `Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one; 30:
and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all
your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' 31:The second is this,
`You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other
commandment greater than these."32: And the scribe said
to him, "You are right, Teacher; you have truly said that he is one,
and there is no other but he; 33: and to love him with all the
heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the strength, and
to love one's neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt
offerings and sacrifices." 34: And when Jesus saw that he
answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of
God." And after that no one dared to ask him any question. (RSV)
Remember, Mark 12:24 and its related verses have been set aside and
retained for later use.
Let's now restore them to their rightful place in the center of the
chiasm.
For good measure we'll toss in the chreia that the writer shoehorned
into this structure as well.
Let's look at some of the features of this chiasm.
It refers to two complete blocks of
material from Paul,
Romans 13:1-10, and 1 Corinthians 15:12-50.
It is bracketed by two Psalms written
for Simon
Maccabaeus, Psalm 118 and Psalm 110. Each of these two Psalms is cited
in Pauline letters
referenced in the passage. One of the Psalms is cited within the passage that the writer
of Mark has drawn on, 1 Cor 15, sitting between the sections of Paul
that Mark is paralleling.
It contains the only mention in Mark of
the Sadduccees,
who were famous for denying the Resurrection. The writer calls
attention to that trait by explicitly describing it. 12:18:
And Sad'ducees came to
him,
who say that
there is no resurrection; (RSV)
The chiasm centers on a remark about
the Scriptures -- but save
for the citation from Ex 3:6, the texts paralleled are Pauline letters.
It is -- I must add -- exceptionally beautiful.
Mark 12:24 contains a jibe from Jesus that refers to the
"Scriptures."
It sits in the center of a chiasm formed by passages arguably derived
from the Pauline Corpus, bracketed by citations
of two Psalms about Simon Maccabaeus that are cited in both the Pauline
letters and the Gospel of Mark that are referenced in the chiasm.
Its hard to
see this as anything other than a signal from the author of Mark that
when he uses the "Scriptures" in a way that does not seem to refer to
the Old Testament, he is referring
to the Pauline Corpus. Perhaps it is the writer of Mark laughing
at his
reader: you don't know the Scriptures.
If you did, you'd spot that they included Paul. And since nobody has
since then, it is hard to argue that he was wrong.
But let's look at this more closely, because there is still another structure here. The importance of
the theme of "scripture" here cannot be overestimated. The
fact is
that this chiasm is draped over a ping-pong match about scripture
between Jesus and various discussants. Consider the following:
(Jesus) 12:10: Have you
not read this scripture:
(Discussant)
12:19:
"Teacher, Moses wrote:
(Jesus) 12:24: Jesus said to them,
"Is not this why you are wrong, that
you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God?
(Jesus) 12:26: And as for the dead
being raised, have you not read in
the book of Moses
(Discussant)
12:28: And
one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one
another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, "Which
commandment is the first of all?"
(Jesus) 12:35-6: And as Jesus taught
in the temple, he said, "How can
the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David? 36: David
himself, inspired by the Holy Spirit, declared,
Look how Jesus' actions and Markan keywords structure this sequence.
Jesus cites Scripture and identifies it four times. Each time
when Jesus names and cites Scripture, he is sandwiching something about
scripture being asked or
quoted at him by someone else. The keywords that tie together the
sequence are clear even in the English translation: scribe, writing, and scripture are keywords throughout
the sequence. And yet, underneath this, the scripture being
cited is Paul. And in case you still didn't get what the writer
is trying to tell you, this isthe
first time in the Gospel that the word "scripture" appears. And
there it is, on Jesus' lips, citing a "scripture" that occurs in both
Paul and Mark, in a section which consists of discussions of what scripture says, that is filled
with parallels to Pauline thought.
This structure explains why the Sadduccees appear here, and only here,
in the Gospel of Mark. Their most conspicuous trait is a disbelief in
the Resurrection, as the writer of Mark deliberately reminds us at the
beginning of the pericope. In the Gospel of Mark, when something
appears once, it is a pointer to something. Here the Sadduccees may
point us toward the idea of those who deny the Resurrection back in
Paul, just as similar passages elsewhere in Mark point us back to
passages in the OT that the writer used to create his gospel.
To reiterate, the basic structure is:
A Romans 8 =
Mark 12:10
B Romans 13 = Mark 12:13-7
C 1 Cor 15 = Mark 12:18
C' 1 Cor 15 = Mark 12:25
B Romans 13 = Mark 12:28-34
A 1 Cor 15 = Mark12:35-7
The complete structure, without the parallel scripture cites, is
A ..B ....C ......D-A ......D---B ....C' ......D---B' ......D-A' ..B'
A'
How did I find this thing? I only "found" one of these connections, the
discussion of the angel bodies. What actually happened was that I was
reviewing Pauline influences on Mark after someone rubbished Paul-Mark
connections in a web debate, and implied that I was stupid for
imagining that some of the items in the list above reflected Mark's use
of Paul. So in the mood of "I'll show that so-and-so" I went back
through my references to pile up some more. I was reading Donahue and
Harrington (Sacra Pagina Mark) and saw that they had pointed out that a
solid block of Romans (13:1-10) is reproduced in Mark in two pericopes
that are separated by another pericope. That set off an alarm -- why
the separation? In my notes from somewhere else I saw that the middle
pericope, with the discussion of the resurrection, was also connected
to Paul, to 1 Cor 15. Both of those letters seem to appear routinely in
Mark. I
smelled something, but didn't know what. Then I saw the scribes and
Psalm 118 on one side, and the scribes and Psalm 110 on the other. Both
118 and 110 are about Simon Maccabaeus -- the thematic links between
12:10 and 12:35-7 are clear in Mark, where Jesus is compared to Simon
in both their roles as King, High Priest, and implicitly, Messiah.
Suspicion turned to certainty when I remembered that the same citation
of Psalm 110 also occurs in the 1 Cor 15. I dug through Romans, and
sure enough, there was the citation of Psalm 118 I had been looking
for.
I now had the brackets, the A-A' section, and the B-B' section, but
what was the C? I read 1 Cor 15:12-14 and realized that it linked
perfectly to the angel bodies Jesus was discussing. That gave me C-C'.
Mark
12:24 proved stickier, part of a complex interior structure that took a
little longer to elucidate. The writer of Mark has even snuck in a
Cynic chreia, answering Well? Whose
wife is she? with You
yammerheads! He's the God of the living, not the dead! which
only complicates things further.
At that point I had a citation of Psalm 110 at the end that also occurs
in 1 Cor
15, right between the paralleled passages. I had outsiders, scholars,
who had recognized all the parts of this chiasm
except the "angel bodies" discussion, but had never stitched it
together.
The connections weren't in my imagination. The chiasm then emerges
perfectly. Looking at that, it is hard to argue that the writer of Mark
didn't know and use Paul.
* *
* * * * * *
Historical Alternatives?
Assume for the nonce that the writer of Mark was
familiar with Paul's letters, most probably Galatians, 1 Corinthians,
Romans, and Philippians. What narrative items does that enable us to
assign to the writer's knowledge of Paul? Here's a few:
Jesus was designated, not born, the Son of
God
Philippians
2:6-11
Jesus was of Davidic Descent
Romans
1:3
Jesus was handed over (betrayed)
1
Cor 11:23
Importance
of Peter, James and John
Galatians
2:9
James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars,....
Indeed, Peter only appears in Galatians and 1 Corinthians, the two most
commonly echoed letters in Mark.
Pharisees
hate Jesus
Philippians
3:5-6 ...circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of
Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the
law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for
legalistic righteousness, faultless.
Peter
= Cephas
Several
places in the Paulines, including 1 Cor 9:5 in some manuscripts
Peter
is married and has a mother-in-law
1
Cor 9: 5
Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do
the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas? (the Greek
actually says "sister-wife")
Abba,
Father
Galatians
4:6
Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts,
the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.”
Divorce
in Mark 10:12
1
Cor 7
Extensive discussion on divorce
Last
Supper
1
Cor 11:23-5
Jesus Raised on the Third Day
1
Cor 15:4
Interpretation
It is widely argued that the Gospel of Mark is about discipleship, and
that an important aspect of it is imitating Jesus.. "If any man would come after
me,
let
him
deny himself and take up his cross and follow me."
Possible
Source: 1 Cor 4:15-6
Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have
many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the
gospel. Therefore I urge you to
imitate me.
"Food" and "eating" as a metaphor for the
message of Jesus and its reception.
1
Cor 10:1-4
1: I want you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all
under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2: and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and
in the sea, 3: and all ate the same supernatural food 4: and all drank the same supernatural drink. For
they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock
was Christ.
* *
* * * * * *
Conclusion
Did the writer of Mark know the Pauline letters? In this
Excursus we've
reviewed a portion of the evidence, and suggested a new and powerful
piece of evidence for the writer's use of Paul. Here's another way to
think about it.. With reference to
Gal 3:1-4:11, Richard B. Hays (2002) has
argued that “A story about Jesus Christ is presupposed by Paul’s
argument in Galatians, and his theological reflection attempts to
articulate the meaning of that story.”
Galatians
3
O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes
Jesus
Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? Let me ask you only this:
Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law, or by hearing with
faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun with the Spirit, are you now
ending with the flesh? Did you experience so many things in vain? -- if
it really is in vain. Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works
miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith?
Thus Abraham "believed God, and it was reckoned to him as
righteousness.": So you see that it is men of faith who are the sons of
Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the
Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying,
"In you shall all the nations be blessed." So then, those who are men
of faith are blessed with Abraham who had faith. For all who rely on
works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be every
one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law,
and do them." Now it is evident that no man is justified before God by
the law; for "He who through faith is righteous shall live"; but the
law does not rest on faith, for "He who does them shall live by them."
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for
us -- for it is written, "Cursed be every one who hangs on a tree" --
that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come upon the
Gentiles, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through
faith. To give a human example, brethren: no one annuls even a man's
will, or adds to it, once it has been ratified. Now the promises were
made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, "And to
offsprings," referring to many; but, referring to one, "And to your
offspring," which is Christ. This is what I mean: the law, which came
four hundred and thirty years afterward, does not annul a covenant
previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void.For if the
inheritance is by the law, it is no longer by promise; but God gave it
to Abraham by a promise.Why then the law? It was added because of
transgressions, till the offspring should come to whom the promise had
been made; and it was ordained by angels through an intermediary.Now an
intermediary implies more than one; but God is one. Is the law then
against the promises of God? Certainly not; for if a
law had been given which could make alive, then righteousness would
indeed be by the law.But the scripture consigned all things to sin,
that what was promised to faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those
who believe. Now before faith came, we were confined under the law,
kept under restraint until faith should be revealed. So that the law
was our custodian until Christ came, that we might be justified by
faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a custodian;
for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many
of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is
neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is
neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.And if you
are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to
promise.I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no better
than a slave, though he is the owner of all the estate; but he is under
guardians and trustees until the date set by the father. So with us;
when we were children, we were slaves to the elemental spirits of the
universe. But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son,
born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the
law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are
sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying,
"Abba! Father!" So through God you are no longer a slave but a son, and
if a son then an heir.Formerly, when you did not know God, you were in
bondage to beings that by nature are no gods; but now that you have
come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back
again to the weak and beggarly elemental spirits, whose slaves you want
to be once more? You observe days, and months, and seasons, and years!
I am afraid I have labored over you in vain. (RSV)
Read this carefully. Can you see any themes and ideas
from the Gospel of Mark in it?
Notes:
The citations in the fake Psalm 151 at the beginning of the essay are
from the NIV version of Romans. I have modified them to fit the
context. The R.B. Hays quote is from The Faith of Jesus Christ
(2002,
p93), cited in Just (1993). A
related version of this article may be found on my blog.