Palm Sunday, the Way of the Lord

Tags

Mark 11.1-11, Palm Sunday

For Palm Sunday, I will draw some reflections from my Mark commentary coming out in Chinese next year.  The story of Jesus moving towards Jerusalem comes to its climax.  This portion is long and occupies close to half of Mark’s Gospel.  The destination in Mark has always been Jerusalem.  Even as early as Mk. 1.5, Jerusalem appears.  Now Jesus came full circle.  Mark was concerned to put Jesus within certain vicinity to show the extensive ministry of Jesus.  Mark did so by including a place Jesus had never likely gone to, Bethphage, in Mk. 11.1. The narrative then was not merely about historical situation, but is about conflicting powers.

The symbolic significance of Jerusalem in this case stands out.  Jerusalem was where Israel’s kings resided.  Jesus entered it as the Lord.  The first thing Jesus did was to ask for His two disciples to get a colt from a village in Mk. 11.2.  If anyone was to ask, Jesus advised the disciples to say that “the lord” needed it.  The word for “lord” actually means “master.”

What did Jesus claim?  Most likely, He was not saying that He was just like any other master.  Otherwise, no one would give him a colt.  He must have had some reputation.  Thus, when He used the word “master,” it had kingly connotation.  Jesus’ audacity must have been outrageous because to say that He was the master or king offended not one but several fronts.  First, He could offend Herod Antipas who was king at the time over the Jews. Second, He could offend Caesar directly because He lived in the Roman Empire.  Third, He could offend the religious leaders because He certainly did not fit the image of the king.  Yet, contrary to normal expectations, the people let the disciples have the colt when the disciples claimed that the master needed the colt in Mk. 11.6.

The entry into Jerusalem on Passover had political overtone.  Jerusalem at this time was full of pilgrims.  Passover was a national holiday for the Jews.  It was through this festival that YHWH had established the nation of Israel.  It would be best to reestablish independence from the Romans at this time.  Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem would be just like any other peasant.  However, He was no mere Galilean peasant.  He was also no self-proclaimed leader only.  He was much accepted by the people, creating even greater danger for the Romans who were probably on alert for any subversive activity.

We must examine why people would even accept Jesus as king to begin with.  Besides general miracles, Jesus did things that the empire could not.  Mark recorded two feedings: feeding of the five thousand and of the four thousand.  These two events alone showed more than any other that Jesus deserved the kingly office.  Jesus was doing something Herod, Caesar or any other religious leader could not.  In some ways, He looked a bit like Moses in the wilderness feeding the motley crew of Israelites, only the religious leaders largely did not recognize the similarity.

The reaction of the crowd is overwhelming positive in Mk. 11.7-10.  Popular preachers like to say that the same crowd wanted to crucify Jesus just shortly after. I’m unsure if this is a fair interpretation of Mark.  The crowd of people in Mark is quite broad.  The opinions were varied (Mk. 8.27-28).  They had to be insane to believe Jesus to be the resurrected John the Baptist or Elijah one day and then wanted to kill Him the next.  We can only gather that the opinions and agenda of the crowd varied.  They only had probably one thing in common: they did not fully understand Jesus.

The reaction was overwhelming much like the way a king ought to be welcomed.  They shouted Ps. 118.25-26.  The Psalm is a long song talking about the trials and triumph of the Psalmist.  It also confessed faith in the God of Israel.  This happy Psalm was sung for many generations in Israel as a confession of faith.  More significant is the quotation they cited because it was a prayer to Israel’s God.  Whether the quote was part of a casual or intentional remarks, such shouts show that people recognized Jesus, rightly or wrongly, as God’s agent of change.  In such recognition, they prayed to Israel’s God for a hope of a ruler like David.

The next part is quite interesting because Jesus actually entered Jerusalem and went to the temple in Mk. 11.11 but since the day was late, He decided to go to nearby Bethany.  Mark wrote this in order to build up a climax.  Jesus was up to something.  Mark focused not only on the location but on the timing.  The time was already late.  Mark made that note in order to show that certain time was better than other times.  Better for what?  For the cross of course.

The traffic that led to Jerusalem would be one that triggered other events.  As a good Jew, Jesus went to Jerusalem many times, much more than this one time.  Thus this story is not about some one-time Jerusalem journey.  Instead, this story speaks of the most unique journey to Jerusalem among many journeys of Jesus.  This way of the Lord (i.e. Mk. 1.1-3) leads to Jerusalem.  The way of the Lord leads to the cross!

---

[1] Chapman, “Locating,” 33.

The Third Sunday of Lent: Reflecting on Mark’s Call to Discipleship

Tags

commitment, Mark 8.31-9.1, The Third Sunday of Lent

The passage of Mark 8.31-9.1 is a turning point of Mark.  It denotes Jesus’ rebuke against Peter followed by a call to discipleship.  Once more, Peter, after much insight, had put his foot in his mouth because he did not understand the implications of his insight.

I find Jesus’ rebuke of Peter fascinating in that Jesus didn’t only harshly call Peter “Satan” but also that Peter did not have in mind “the things of God.” What things was Jesus talking about?  Usually, preachers end there with some sentimental saying.  The opposition of the interest of Satan and the “things of God” seem to be more specific than our sentimental interpretation.

The call which follows in Mk. 8.34 has been preached so much that it has become cliché.  I believe the “things of God” Jesus referred to were the call to discipleship, to follow Jesus on the road to the cross.  In Mk. 8.34, Jesus gave three indispensible prerequisites to following Him using three commands: self-denial, take up cross, and follow.  The first two commands, denying of the self and taking up the cross, are Greek tense aorist imperatives, showing a sense of immediacy.  The final command is to “follow” in the Greek tense present imperative.  The last exhortation shows a continuous following process during Jesus’ time.

Popular preachers usually use this passage to rile up the emotions of the congregation in old-time revival meetings.  Our popular preaching is so much less than the real madness of Jesus’ proclamation.  We don’t often notice the circumstance Mark was describing; Jesus had not yet gone to the cross!  In the Greco-Roman world, the crucified were the political rebels.  According to Josephus (Vit. 420), many rebels were crucified for opposing the Romans.  The crucified were the rebels in the eyes of the empire.  To follow Jesus might land one in such hot water that the follower would appear to be the hated social deviant.  Thus, before carrying the cross, the disciples would have already been deemed socially marginal people who lived a life of lowliness and died a death of painful humiliation.

Now, back to Satan!  If the things of God has to do with being a Christ-centered rebel who would be socially marginalized, then the very opposite, being Satan’s channel would be to live the easy life of conformist.  This very conformity and comfort would prevent a disciple from fulfilling the real goal.  It would, in fact, prevent Jesus from fulfilling his real goal.  What does this have to do with us?

We have to take note that Mark was not addressing the society in general but addressing the faith community in particular.  Every Jew was born into Judaism in Jesus’ day.  There was no conversion.  In other words, Jesus’ call to the faith community was radical in this way.  Those who had the faith did not always live out the radical edge of that faith because of risks.  Those who did not live out that faith were essentially doing as badly as those who did Satan’s work.  Hardly any teacher in Jesus’ day could suggest such a radical call or rebuke.  In comparison, our faith today in the West looks more like a respectable garden party or a walk in the park than Jesus’ call.

The Second Sunday of Lent: The Paradox of Parody

Tags

exaltation of Jesus, king of the Jews, the cross, The Second Sunday of Lent

When I lead seminars, people often ask me why we need to read the Synoptics without immediately harmonizing the historical content.  Mark would be one place that illustrates the reason.  Each Gospel has its own uniqueness and must be read as such.  Unlike all the other Gospels, Mark withheld the description of Jesus as the king until His trial (e.g. Mk. 15.2).  This alone should raise interest.

NT scholar Joel Marcus has pointed this aspect out very well in his article written for Journal of Biblical Literature called “Crucifixion as Parodic Exaltation.”  This insight explains a lot about Mark, especially when the disciples did not recognize who Jesus was in many misunderstood passages.  Jesus’ true kingly position became most apparent when it was least humanly apparent.  How did a criminal get exalted on the cross?  Marcus suggests that he got exalted precisely because he had risen above his lot in life, thus making the cross a kind of social parody.  Whether Marcus is ultimately correct or not, there was something quite mocking about the whole usage of kingly vocabulary in the mockeries of the passion story.  None of this makes any human sense.  In creating this paradoxical parody of mockery, Mark was encouraging all his readers not to be stuck in their understanding about God.  By portraying Jesus as a brigand while simultaneously putting “king of the Jews” in various characters’ mouths, Mark demonstrated the alien strangeness of the cross.

Back in Mark’s day, the cross was a shame to the Christian faith. Yet, the social shame that it suffered became the empowerment for Jesus’ work.  If His followers wanted to be faithful, they too should not be stuck in the worldly value system and definitions.  We cannot explain all aspects of the faith using the world’s vocabulary and logic.  It does not mean we should not try, but Mark encouraged us to move above and beyond.  Was Jesus the king?  The answer depends on what you believe about Easter.  If the empty tomb of Easter shows resurrection, then Easter is God’s way of mocking His mockers.

The First Sunday of Lent: Mark 6.30-44 and 8.1-13 – No Mere Mediterranean Peasant

Tags

Mark 6.30-44, Mark 8.1-13

It has become in vogue for many NT scholars to read Jesus’ life in terms of historical “facts”.  Some see him as an ordinary peasant.  Others see him as part of a fringe group and so on.  I would say that “facts” are both selective and interpretive.  I’m going to select one fact to discuss in this blog: the number of people Jesus fed in Mark 6.30-44 and 8.1-13.  People usually cast some doubts as to how Jesus had been able to feed so many and so on.  I’m not going to dwell on the possibility, but want to focus on what Mark was trying to portray in his message about Jesus in terms of the historical “facts” we do know from someone like Josephus.

Let me say a few words more about the historical Jesus here in light of historical data of the area or any other city around that area.   This, of course, is common knowledge in those days, but not so much today.  We simply can’t read the number of people fed in terms of our modern football game or rock concerts because the area of Galilee (and possibly Decapolis per Mk. 7.31) was much less populate then.   Let us, for the moment, suppose that Mark was telling the truth based on historical facts about the two feedings.  Jesus had accomplished something that most leaders of his day did not.

Jesus was extraordinary just by the sheer number of people he attracted.  If the 5000 fed were men, and if entire families were there, the figure could easily double.  The same goes for the 4000 feeding.  According to research of the Galilean area, some big cities such as Sopphoris or Tiberias (both intentionally developed and urbanized by the Romans) numbered about ten thousand in population.[1]  We are unsure where Jesus was exactly when he did the feedings. We can assume that Jesus did it in the countryside.  In other words, people had to come out from different areas to listen to him and he ended up gathering an audience population of a sizeable Galilee city.  Jesus was no ordinary peasant.  No wonder he attracted the attention of the Pharisees and quite possibly the Romans.  Josephus’ account shows Josephus to be a powerful leader who could summon several thousand men to defend his cause, but this educated and powerful man, Josephus, was no match for Jesus.  Jesus did not get involved in Jewish or Roman politics, but stood outside of it while critiquing both.  No ordinary peasant could do that.

---

[1] Jonathan Reed, “Instability in Jesus’ Galilee,” JBL 129 (2010): 315.

Ash Wednesday: Mark 5.21-43 – The Purifying Work of Christ

Tags

healing of a woman with blood disorder, Jesus and purity laws, Mark 5.21-43, New Testament purity laws

Last Wednesday was Ash Wednesday.  It marks the 40-day period of reflection (excluding the Sundays) the church goes through in anticipation of Easter.  These next few Sundays, I want to blog in the Gospel according to Mark, drawing spiritual lessons and reflections from an upcoming theological interpretation commentary I’ve written in Chinese.  I hope to use these reflections to focus fellow believers through Lent, we all attempt to walk through the Markan Jesus’ journey to the cross.  Please feel free to follow and share this blog journey with anyone who might find something helpful in this series.  After this series, I will begin to blog about my new book using the title “the Making of Right Texts, Wrong Meanings (the name of my book).”  Meanwhile, let’s begin our journey.

A frequent advice we give to children is to wash their hands before the meal.  When I lived in the populated city of Hong Kong, disease transmission is especially rampant, not because Hong Kongers are especially dirty but because of the close contact people had through public transport.  In our lives, we like to keep things clean and neat and disease-free.  For one reason or another, Mark’s world was very similar to ours.

In the Jewish world of Jesus, cleanliness was part of everyday life not for the sake of health only but also for a reminder that God was in every part of His believers’ lives.  Ritual purity was an important part of Jewish life.

The passage Mark 7.1-21 has Jesus condemning the keeping of traditions of the elders while neglecting the most important elements of ethics and morality.  It would seem that Jesus was against rituals.  A careful reader will see that Jesus was not explicitly against rituals as much as making a comparison about the essence of religious life.  What exactly would Jesus do with the rituals? I suggest we can look at a most unlikely pair of stories in Mark 5.21-43.

In church tradition, the story of the woman with the blood disorder and the dead girl is considered a miracle story.  I wish to look at the story purely from a ritual point of view.  The woman with the blood disease, in Jesus’ day, was considered unclean (Lev. 15.19-30) and dead bodies would definitely be unclean.  We notice that the woman with the blood disease was able to hide among the ritual-sensitive crowd to get close to Jesus.  An unclean person could hide in a crowd of clean people.  Quite often, being in the crowd cannot rid her of her social alienation.  When she touched Jesus, she was healed.  Her touch of Jesus affected her rather than Jesus.  Jesus then went into the synagogue ruler Jairus’ house to touch a dead girl and raised her from the dead.  The Jewish setting is unmistakable. What exactly did Jesus do?

Based on what Jesus did here, Jesus overcame the impurity in the needy by healing and then healed another based on faith of Jairus.   This story was not Jesus doing away with impurity codes altogether.  There would be others like this woman who would be separated for ritual reason, but that whoever encountered Jesus could potentially be liberated from this alienation.  Thus, the emphasis was the presence of Jesus and the faith of the healed.

The coming of Jesus is the preview of a new age that would progressively come upon this world until all things unclean, repulsive and harmful would be rid off.  Jesus’ mission then shows the kind of path His followers would follow, to do away with all that would be impure (especially ethically) to make the world a better place in anticipation of that new age.