 |
|
     |
|
|
|
Writer of Fancy: The Playful Piety of Jane Austen
1 & 2 Kings
Brazos Theological Commentary
The Promise Of His Appearing: An Exposition Of Second Peter
A Great Mystery: Fourteen Wedding Sermons
Deep Comedy: Trinity, Tragedy, And Hope In Western Literature
Miniatures & Morals: The Christian Novels of Jane Austen
The Priesthood of the Plebs: A Theology of Baptism
A Son To Me: An Exposition of 1 & 2 Samuel
From Silence to Song: The Davidic Liturgical Revolution
Ascent to Love: A Guide to Dante's Divine Comedy
Blessed Are the Hungry: Meditations on the Lord's Supper
A House For My Name: A Survey of the Old Testament
Heroes of the City of Man: A Christian Guide to Select Ancient Literature
Brightest Heaven of Invention: A Christian Guide To Six Shakespeare Plays
Wise Words: Family Stories That Bring the Proverbs to Life
The Kingdom and the Power: Rediscovering the Centrality of the Church
Joel Marcus has an intriguing article on the Markan crucifixion account in JBL (2006). He points out that Mark reserves the title “king” until chapter 15, where Jesus is called king six times. As in the other gospels, Mark presents the crucifixion as an exaltation.
Old news, that. Where Marcus shines is in showing that the connection between crucifixion and exaltation predates Christianity. Crucifixion was reserved for criminals who had tried to “exalt” themselves, to lift themselves up to a place they didn’t deserve, to sit in a seat they had not earned. Crucifixion was a “penal liturgy” parodying the pretensions of rebels against Rome.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Monday, September 22, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Mark 8:7 says that Jesus “blessed” the fish before distributing them to the 4000. As my colleague Toby Sumpter points out, this is the verb of the sea creatures in Gen 1:27, where Yahweh tells them to be fruitful and multiply. Jesus too, the Creator incarnate, blesses fish to multiply in order to feed his Gentile crowd.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Monday, September 15, 2008 at 11:53 am
Jesus tells the Pharisees who accuse Him of casting out demons by the power of Satan that, on the contrary, He is the stronger man who binds the strong man and comes to plunder the “vessels” of his house (Mark 3). The only other place where Mark uses the word “vessel” is in chapter 11, during Jesus temple action. The house Jesus is plundering is the temple, which has become infested with demons.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 2:06 pm
NT Wright suggests that Jesus’ response to the Pharisees’ complaint about his disciples “harvesting” on the Sabbath puts them in the role of Doeg the Edomite, who watched David get showbread from the priests at Nob (end of Mark 2). A student points out that the Edomite theme is still there in the Sabbath incident in Mark 3:1-6: After all the Pharisees go out from the synagogue to plot against Jesus with the Herodians, supporters of the Idumean/Edomite Herod Antipas.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 2:04 pm
The structure of Mark 3:1-6 seems to be basically chiastic:
A. Jesus’ entry to synagogue
B. man with withered hand
C. heal on Sabbath?
D. Jesus to man
E. Jesus to Pharisees
F. Silence
E’. Jesus angry and grieved at Pharisees
D’. Jesus to man
C’. ??
B’. restored hand
A’. Pharisees consult with Herodians about how to destroy him
Two observations: First, the Pharisees’ silence seem to be central, the turning point of the story and one of a series of important turning points in the gospel. Jesus reacts to their silence with the beginnings of eschatological wrath and grief. Second, the fact that the text doesn’t return to the Sabbath issue is noteworthy. The Pharisees are very interested in learning whether Jesus will break the Sabbath, but by the end of the story their Sabbatarianism is just dropped, as they go out to plot a murder. As they forget the Sabbath, Mark leaves an open space in the story where we would expect another Sabbath reference.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 2:01 pm
In a 1984 JBL article, Elizabeth Struthers Malbon suggested that the boat in Mark’s gospel represents a “mediator” between sea and land, and pointed out that Jesus treats the sea as if it were land (walking on it, showing no concern for the unsteadiness of the waves, etc.).
If we link this to the OT symbolism of sea=Gentiles and land=Israel, we can see the indications of the Pauline theme that Jesus combines Jew and Gentile into one new man. And, the fact that Jesus teaches from a boat shoved out in the sea perhaps gives us an image of the church - the church is a little ark, a little bit of Israel, tossed about on the sea of nations. But there’s no danger, because the Lord of the church walks on the sea as dry land.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Saturday, May 3, 2008 at 2:16 pm
I am convinced by N. T. Wright and others that Jesus is not attacking the temple for financial impropriety. At the same time, economic abuses are certainly part of the evil that Jesus condemns. Jesus final scenes in the temple in Mark are framed by His condemnation of the temple as a “den of brigands” (11:17) and the widow putting her two coins in the temple treasury (12:41-44). Jesus leaves the temple in 13:1, never to return, and describes its destruction in the Olivet Discourse.
The widow is pious, of course, but in context the point of the story is that the temple authorities devour widows’ houses (12:40, just before the scene with the widow). Jesus condemns the temple, among other things, because instead of providing food for widows and orphans (as the festival laws of Deuteronomy require), the temple authorities suck the life from widows, devouring the weak instead of feeding them.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Sunday, March 16, 2008 at 6:31 am
The following is drawn largely from David Garland’s commentary on Mark.
Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem changes everything in His ministry. He has been moving about in secret, teaching in private, refusing to draw attention to Himself, speaking in coded parables. He cleanses a leper but then sternly warns him, “See that you say nothing to anyone” (1:44). He raises a little girl from the dead, but then “gave them strict orders that no one should know about this” (5:43). He heals deaf and mute man by touching and spitting, and then “gave them orders not to tell anyone” (7:35). He heals the blind man at Bethsaida, but then tells him to go home and not even enter the village where he was healed (8:26). Peter confesses that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, but Jesus warns Him “to tell no one about it” (8:30), and after the transfiguration he “gave them orders not to relate to anyone what they had seen, until the Son of Man should rise from the dead” (9:9).
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Sunday, March 16, 2008 at 6:24 am
Mark 11:9-10: Then those who went before and those who followed cried out, saying: “ Hosanna! ‘ Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD!’ Blessed is the kingdom of our father David that comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!”
As Jesus arrives in Jerusalem, the crowds acclaim Him as the Davidic king, come to claim his throne in the name of the Lord. Jesus arrives with an entourage that precedes and follows Him, and celebrates His coming. “Hoshana,” they shout; “Save!” The people celebrate Jesus’ coming as a deliverer and conqueror.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Sunday, March 16, 2008 at 5:52 am
The story of Palm Sunday is oddly anticlimatic. Jesus enters Jerusalem surrounded by an enthusiastic crowd that acclaims Him as the Son of David.
We expect something to happen. Jesus will perform some stunning miracle that will finally convince His enemies. He will defeat them in debate and they will slink back to the holes they came from. He will take over the temple and turn it into a house of prayer for all nations. Instead, He enters the temple, looks around, and leaves.
What’s going on? Continue reading…
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Sunday, March 16, 2008 at 5:40 am
In his NIV Application commentary on Mark, David Garland interprets Jesus’ statement about the temple as a “house of prayer for all nations” as a condemnation of the separation of Gentiles in the temple: “During his entire ministry Jesus has been gathering in the impure outcasts and the physically maimed, and has even reached out to the Gentiles. He expects the temple to embody this inclusive love. The various purity barriers in the temple, however, have been preventing that. Gentiles were not allowed entry into the temple proper. Would Jesus have envisioned the nations gathered in Mount Zion and then forced to cool their heels in the outer court? Would he have condoned segregation - separate and unequal - in God’s temple? What kind of beacon is it that would draw the nations to Jerusalem only to partition them from the main body of worshipers in the temple?”
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Friday, March 14, 2008 at 6:06 am
INTRODUCTION
On the day we call Palm Sunday, Jesus arrives in Jerusalem after a long journey. As He enters the city, the people proclaim Him as King. He is the King, the King come to inspect His house and declare judgment against it.
THE TEXT
“Now when they drew near Jerusalem, to Bethphage and Bethany, at the Mount of Olives, He sent two of His disciples; and He said to them, ‘Go into the village opposite you; and as soon as you have entered it you will find a colt tied, on which no one has sat. Loose it and bring it. . . .’” (Mark 11:1-26).
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 at 11:17 am
Davies and Allison point out in their commentary on Matthew that Mark uses the verb DIAKONEIN in 1:13 to describe the angel’s ministry to Jesus after His temptation. The word connotes “table service,” and they suggest that Jesus, hungered by fasting, feeds on the bread of angels, as Israel had done before Him. Having defeated Satan, He tames the beasts, and enjoys a foretaste of the Messianic banquet.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Saturday, August 4, 2007 at 11:42 am
What is the cross? For Mark, the cross is not so much Jesus’ passive suffering as His last great act of power.
While Matthew shows Jesus as the great teacher of Israel, Mark shows Jesus as a man of action. In the first verse of his gospel, he identifies Jesus by the royal title “Son of God,” and as Son of God Jesus moves immediately from place to place conquering and to conquer. He casts out a demon from a man in a synagogue and a legion of demons from the Gadarene demoniac. He is the stronger Man come to bind the strong man.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Sunday, April 9, 2006 at 8:18 am
The Romans were deeply anti-semitic, as a number of studies have shown. So, when they dress Jesus up in purple, press a crown of thorns on his head, genuflect before Him, they are mocking the Jews as much as they are mocking Jesus: Here’s the best that the Jews can offer, the King of the Jews.
Oddly, this is all lost on the Jews. They play right along, as if Pilate is in earnest when he says “What? Shall I crucify your king?”
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Monday, February 20, 2006 at 10:44 am
A number of students point out the contrast between Simon of Cyrene, who takes up Jesus’ cross and follows Him, and Simon Peter, who denies Jesus out of fear. The Gentile Simon proves a more faithful disciple, in this moment of crisis, than the Jewish Simon.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Monday, February 20, 2006 at 10:32 am
I’m sure the point has been made elsewhere, perhaps by Wright, but the substitution of Jesus for Barabbas is not only a sign of a generalized substitutionary atonement (though it is that); it is also a sign that Jesus is specifically substituting for Israel. He is the true faithful Israelite giving Himself for Israel, the “son of the Father” (Bar-abbas) that has turned brigand.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Monday, February 20, 2006 at 10:28 am
Some thoughts inspired by student papers on Mark 15:
The most obvious Markan irony in chapter 15 is the fact that the Roman soldiers mock Jesus for being king of the Jews when He in fact is the king of the Jews. God has the last laugh; God is not mocked, even when He’s mocked.
But there are more subtle ironies at work.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Saturday, February 18, 2006 at 4:34 pm
Mark is known for the understated irony of his gospel, but there is a large-scale irony overarching the book that is worthy of Sophocles. Readers know from the first verse of the gospel that Jesus is Son of God, and that title is used periodically through the gospel by the Father and by demons. But no human beings recognize Jesus as Son until the centurion at the cross.
There is the ironic distance between our knowledge and the knowledge of the characters in the story. But that irony is eventually doubled back on the reader: Would we recognize Jesus as Son of God while He’s dying in anguish?
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 at 8:45 am
Rikki Watts offers some other dimensions to the quotation from Mark 1:1. He notes that Mark is quoting not only from Isaiah 40, but also from Exodus 23 and Malachi 3, and shows how these three texts overlay each other in Mark’s presentation. Exodus 23 is a warning to Israel about the need to obey the “angel” or “messenger” of Yahweh who will lead them to the promised land, at which point Yahweh Himself will take over as the divine warrior who conquers the land and drives out the Canaanites. In Mark, the reference to Exodus 23 highlights Israel’s hope for a second exodus, and a new conquest, but this hope is given an ironic twist in Malachi 3.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 at 7:52 am
Permission is given to use material on this site, provided the source is cited, blog entries are republished in full, and the author is notified in advance.
