For those of you who pop by the Bible Junkies blog, regularly, intermittently, or just stumbled across it, it might go silent for a week, or two, or three...I am not certain actually, as tomorrow I have back surgery, lumbar fusion, and how able and ready I will be to write depends on the surgery and my recovery. I will be reading the BIble, though, so I hope to be back with you as soon as possible! In the meantime, explore the site, the podcasts, the series, the Gospel of Mark commentary. Prayers for me, my family, Dr. Jerone Kennedy and his team at United Hospital warmly and gratefully requested. Talk to you soon!
John W, Martens
Follow me on Twitter @BibleJunkies
Monday, June 18, 2012
Sunday, June 17, 2012
WE WALK BY FAITH AND NOT BY SIGHT
This is a guest post from Father Paul Jarvis, of the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis, who is currently serving as a summer relief priest in Bermuda. Fr. Jarvis posted this on his Facebook page and I asked Fr. Paul if I could share it with the blog readers, to which he agreed. Please enjoy and Happy Father's Day.
(This Sunday's second reading, Eleventh Sunday of Ordinary Time 2012)
2 Corinthians 5:6-10
Brothers and sisters:
We are always courageous,
although we know that while we are at home in the body
we are away from the Lord,
for we walk by faith, not by sight.
Yet we are courageous,
and we would rather leave the body and go home to the Lord.
Therefore, we aspire to please him,
whether we are at home or away.
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ,
so that each may receive recompense,
according to what he did in the body, whether good or evil.
Some common understandings that are not helpful.
Faith = belief (Not a type of belief)
Faith is opposed to reason
Let’s go over some of these terms, and see if we can make some sense of them, and of what Catholic Christian thought is on it.
We are an aware species. That is, we do more than simply react to our surroundings. We can KNOW and remember things about our surroundings, about others, about ourselves. We can perceive reality. The account of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, eating of the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil can be thought of as highlighting that we are a God-created creature that can know.
But how do we KNOW what we perceive? How do we make sense of what we perceive? How do we know what IS the case? How do we come to believe in anything? That there is a candle over there? Or that God is love?
It is not true that belief is equal to faith. Or that belief is in opposition to reason. Actually, belief is a knowing about what IS through various means. Over history, people establish a belief about a situation through various means of evidence.
Three very common ways today of establishing a belief about a situation or person is either through evidence, through reasoning, through a trust in authority.
Roughly speaking: the Enlightenment held up believing in some thing through the empirical method and through logical analysis. A is greater than B, and B is greater than C. We therefore know that A is greater than C. Christians trust in, have faith in Jesus Christ, his work and his teaching … but they too rely on evidence. The Bible is replete with evidence, with testimony, with witnessing to what people experienced of Jesus and in living out his teachings.
Don’t let anyone tell you that our faith doesn’t come from some evidence … it does. Yes, we do indeed receive doctrinal teachings from authorities like Pope John Paul II in his encyclicals, but if you read his encyclicals, you will notice that he is continually establishing his teachings through reference to what we can know through observation and reasoning, as well as reference to Scripture…which again is testimony, it is evidence of an important sort.
Christian gathering of evidence of what was seen and heard of Jesus, and of his teachings’ efficacy is simply following tradition … the tradition of ancient Jews, who had a particular way of establishing the facts of a situation, of establishing a belief about a situation. They followed a juridical approach to establishing a belief of something: by drawing eyewitnesses. The only problem is that only men could give testimony. And it often did come down to who the judge believed more, who had more credibility in terms of evidence.
The enlightenment, again, encouraged the use of evidence through empirical and repeated observation and testing. These folks largely rejected any other way of establishing a belief about a situation: including trust in a person and his teachings (whether that is Jesus or Buddha or some other teacher), or trust in one’s feeling, or one’s intuition. Most of us can appreciate how the latter forms of believing have their challenges.
The Catholic understanding of coming to believe about something, about someone, about reality is found in today’s reading from Paul’s second extant letter to the new Christians of Corinth.
He says this loaded statement: We come by faith and not by sight.
At first glance, and certainly to our enlightenment friends, this seems to be putting sight (or an evidentiary way of establishing a belief about something through observation, through the normal way of seeing and perceiving the world) in opposition to faith. Again, popularly felt as belief that is unsubstantiated. But remember, faith is a belief in something or someone (in our case Jesus and his teachings) that has indeed come from evidence.
Our understanding isn’t that faith and normal observation and perception are in opposition. Because, remember, faith is established from experience: the experience of eye witnesses. The early disciples, that is.
It’s that the early experience of Jesus in the disciples (related in scripture) and the experience of actually implementing His teachings gives a new sight. The eyes of faith. It is with the eyes of the world, if you will, that sees one of “them” and tries to distance oneself from “them,” for example. But in reading of the teachings of Jesus – handed down by the Church through the Bible, and extrapolated upon in church doctrine – and actually implementing them again and again and again…you see not “them”. But you see your “neighbor” who you are to respect. Maybe not like or have affection for. But at the very least, accord respect.
This is living by faith, and much more than by sight…which we of course are going to continue to do everyday. You don’t need to prepare a meal with eyes of faith. Sight … especially in referencing a recipe book … is required for that. BUT eyes of faith will allow you to appreciate how many people in the world do not have enough. Eyes of faith will perhaps urge you to share a meal with a lonely person in a nursing home. Eyes of faith will prompt you to eat healthy so you don’t get diabetes. See what I mean?
Faith allows us to see even more than what is possible with eyes of normal human sight or perception. And contrary to what you may think, faith is established through evidence. That is, evidence from scripture…from personal implementation of Jesus’ teaching…from the experience and wisdom of others (for example, Pope John Paul II’s encyclicals)…and through insight developed through faith in Jesus. And God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. In fact, it is such faith-developed sight that allows you to be open to how God is using you. How God is guiding you. And events around you.
This past has been an amazing week for me. When a tourist comes to Bermuda or any other new vacation place, it’s frankly expected that someone will bring their normal sight to things. And not see God’s hands in things. But we Christians have developed and are developing this sight-by-faith. We mostly see this in retrospect, when we look back. Whereas the normal human thing to do is to simply bop from experience to experience, not reflecting at all on the past, or reflecting on God’s hand in it.
Sometimes God’s hand is just too obvious. A couple days back, I went to the Maritime Museum with Stanley Wells. While at the ticket counter, Stanley mentioned that if I had not been a priest, I would have wanted to become an archeologist. This intrigued the ticket seller, and she proceeded to call up to the museum director’s office, and asked if I could stop by and see him. WOW! That would never happen in the States.
Stan and I went up, and lo and behold, the director, Dr. Edward Harris (widely known and loved as Doc) had time to talk with us. And it didn’t seem like a token conversation. He really appreciated our coming by. I mentioned that last time I was in Bermuda, I, an archeologist-wannabe, promised myself that I would explore the casemates. Well, he pointed out how we could sort of explore them, and so we did. The next day, I went to explore something else I had earlier promised myself on a return trip: I went to the assembly house.
After being informed that it was closed, I headed out…and bumped into a woman coming to the building. In conversation, she explained that she was a psychiatric nurse, and is a lay magistrate. She was heading in to watch a trial proceeding of a young teen who had been in a police chase from Hamilton to Southampton, with gun shots being fired. It was serious. I agreed to go in, and before my eyes, I saw what was only seen earlier in movies. Attorneys and a judge wearing British law court wigs, with very interesting dialogue and jury selection decisions. It was amazing. But sad…because with eyes of faith, I knew the teen’s life was likely ruined for the rest of his life.
Upon leaving, I headed down to Front Street, saw a sign advertising African sculptures, and went in. An hour later, I left with an invitation to dinner at the proprietor’s home to see his African art collection. Like I, he was once in the communications field.
The next morning, I got up early to go to a 7:15 am Rotary Club meeting. I gave a presentation, after which Charlie Jeffers, who seems to know everyone on the island, asked me to join him on his radio program. I said yes, and talked to Bermudians over the radio. After which Charlie and I went to his beautiful home, and then to his church—the Church of God led by Bishop Lambe, related through marriage to Charlie. I couldn’t believe I was meeting Rev. Lambe, someone frequently brought up in conversations with me as Bermuda was explained to me by folks.
At first, Lambe was suspicious of me. A foreigner and Catholic. But after two hours of conversation with him, an office staffer came in and gave me a big hug. She was a Rotarian I had just met a week earlier near St. George. It was a happy reunion; she was a happy person. We all marveled at the connection of things … connections seen with eyes of faith. Later on that night, when dining with the African art retailer (after attending an art exhibit opening), he mentioned how Charlie was a very good friend of his.
All the seeming connections. All the seeming coincidences. With normal human sight, there are none. Relying on empirical belief-establishment, they were simply scattered unrelated events. Even intuition might miss it. But with eyes of faith, seeing God at least working graced experiences in good times and bad…it makes sense.
If one only opens oneself up to it. If one only opens one’s faith-eyes to it all. To the evidence coming to you, in retrospect, and moving forward trusting and believing that even more evidence will come your way.
Believe. Through normal evidence of human perception…with eyes. But don’t stop there.
Believe. Through empirical evidence. But don’t stop there.
Believe. Through reading early disciples’ witness and testimony, scriptural evidence if you will. And through authoritative development of scriptural evidence and from encounters with God and experience of practicing Jesus’ teachings.
And with such belief, such faith and trust…watch for the connections. Further evidence, if you will. And let such growing trust in God lead you to be open to what else God has in store for you.
~Paul, believer through faith in Jesus and His teachings
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Gospel of Mark Commentary Act 3. Scene 3
This is the seventeenth installment, comprising Act 3. Scene 3, in the online commentary on the Gospel of Mark, which I am blogging on throughout the liturgical year. Please see the sixteenth installment here. Links to the entire series are available in one spot at The Complete Gospel of Mark Online Commentary.
This is my division of the Gospel:
Prologue, 1:1-13;
Act 1, 1:14-3:6;
Act 2, 3:7-6:6;
Act 3, 6:7-8:26;
Act 4, 8:27-10:52;
Act 5, 11:1-13:37;
Act 6, 14:1-16:8(20).
Scene 3:
30 The apostles gathered around Jesus, and told him all that they had done and taught. 31 He said to them, "Come away to a deserted place all by yourselves and rest a while." For many were coming and going, and they had no leisure even to eat. 32 And they went away in the boat to a deserted place by themselves. 33 Now many saw them going and recognized them, and they hurried there on foot from all the towns and arrived ahead of them. 34 As he went ashore, he saw a great crowd; and he had compassion for them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd; and he began to teach them many things. 35 When it grew late, his disciples came to him and said, "This is a deserted place, and the hour is now very late; 36 send them away so that they may go into the surrounding country and villages and buy something for themselves to eat." 37 But he answered them, "You give them something to eat." They said to him, "Are we to go and buy two hundred denarii worth of bread, and give it to them to eat?" 38 And he said to them, "How many loaves have you? Go and see." When they had found out, they said, "Five, and two fish." 39 Then he ordered them to get all the people to sit down in groups on the green grass. 40 So they sat down in groups of hundreds and of fifties. 41 Taking the five loaves and the two fish, he looked up to heaven, and blessed and broke the loaves, and gave them to his disciples to set before the people; and he divided the two fish among them all. 42 And all ate and were filled; 43 and they took up twelve baskets full of broken pieces and of the fish. 44 Those who had eaten the loaves numbered five thousand men. 45 Immediately he made his disciples get into the boat and go on ahead to the other side, to Bethsaida, while he dismissed the crowd. (NRSV)
The first few verses in Act 3, Scene 3 (vv.30-32) end the A-B-A narrative sandwich, or rather, the first of the nested A-B-A sandwiches, as the disciples who have been sent out (A1; Act 3, Scene 1) return to Jesus to explain their ministry (A2). In between, the story of John the Baptist’s death and his disciples claiming the body and bringing it to a tomb has been inserted (B; Act 3, Scene 2). A smooth transition is now made which ends the A-B-A structure in which Mark has Jesus take them to a “deserted” place, to rest, eat and perhaps report on their mission, but they are overwhelmed by people coming to see, hear and be healed by Jesus. This, I would argue is the end of the first narrative sandwich and the beginning of a massive A-B-A sandwich, in which the two feeding miracles as a whole - A1 (6:30-56) and A2 (8:1-21) – form a sandwich around the whole of chapter 7 (B = 7:1-37) and in which chapter 7, as well as the feeding miracles, are only completely explicable in light of each other.
The disciples get no time to be alone with Jesus, even though he recognizes their need for it, and even as he takes time for himself whenever possible. The people are aware of who they are– “now many saw them going and recognized them, and they hurried there on foot from all the towns and arrived ahead of them” (6:33) – and note that it is they, including the apostles, and not just Jesus alone. The apostles are becoming the equivalent of ancient Jewish rock stars – known by all and with crowds all around desirous to get close to them. We have just seen in Act 3, Scene 2 that danger lurks for the apostles of the teacher Jesus, just like it did for the disciples of John the Baptist, partly because the people are responding to Jesus’ message and deeds, in which the apostles now participate. It must be heady stuff, and with adoring crowds, does the danger from the authorities even register for them at this time? Mark has alerted us to the danger, the auditors, the viewers, through the omnipresence of the narrator. But whatever they know, or whatever they remain ignorant to, still, they want time to relax and recuperate. It will not come now.
Though Jesus encouraged the apostles to go and be alone, when Jesus “went ashore, he saw a great crowd; and he had compassion for them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd; and he began to teach them many things” (6:34). Jesus’ compassion for the crowd trumps personal needs, for him or his apostles, and so he begins to teach the people. The next two verses reveal a practical reality, and perhaps tension, and the apostles’ raising the issue with Jesus could point either to their concern for the crowd or their desire to be rid of them finally (or a mix of both):
35 When it grew late, his disciples came to him and said, "This is a deserted place, and the hour is now very late; 36 send them away so that they may go into the surrounding country and villages and buy something for themselves to eat."
Jesus, whose compassion was what has kept the crowd with him late into the night, has yet another thing to teach the apostles: "You give them something to eat" (6:37). The apostles, again focused on the practical not the possible, at least not the possible with Jesus, answer him as directly as he has challenged them: "Are we to go and buy two hundred denarii worth of bread, and give it to them to eat?" (6:37). Jesus’ teaching though is sometimes with words and sometimes with actions (or a mix of both) and so he asked them how much food they had with them, which amounts to only five loaves and two fish (6: 38). Jesus instructed his apostles to have the people sit on the grass and fed them all with the limited food he had been given (6:39-40). The people are sitting, though, in groups of fifties and hundreds, so when we are told at the end of the passage that 5,000 men had been fed (not counting women and children; 6:44), the exact number might be a surprise, but not that there was a huge crowd. How can they be fed with five fish and two loaves?
Mark does not explain Jesus’ action in detail except to say that “taking the five loaves and the two fish, he looked up to heaven, and blessed and broke the loaves, and gave them to his disciples to set before the people; and he divided the two fish among them all. And all ate and were filled; and they took up twelve baskets full of broken pieces and of the fish” (6:41-43). The blessing and the breaking of the bread reproduce later Christian liturgical language, particularly that of the Eucharist as celebrated in the early Church, but there is no reason to doubt that Jesus’ spiritual blessing was at the heart of the feeding miracle. It is not just that all were fed, though this is central, but that twelve baskets full of bread and fish remained after everyone ate their fill. This detail will become important when the whole of Scene 3 is pieced together, but for now it is important to point out only that the number 12 is the number of Tribes of Israel, the number of Apostles and the number associated with the woman with a hemorrhage and Jairus’ daughter.
After feeding the crowd, Jesus “made his disciples get into the boat and go on ahead to the other side, to Bethsaida, while he dismissed the crowd” (6:45). We have ended one chapter abruptly only to have started a new chapter in the narrative as abruptly, but again the questions answered pale in comparison to the questions remaining: what will the apostles ask Jesus about the feeding? Should they have known he could do it? Or were they expected to do it themselves? What is the impact of this action for the apostles? For those who were fed? Why did Jesus send the apostles away before dismissing the crowd? Was it simply to get a head start on much needed time alone? Or are they to reflect and discuss what just took place? And what is next in their education, in the revelation of Jesus and his ministry, and in the trajectory of the ministry in general?
John W. Martens
Follow me on Twitter @BibleJunkies
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Gospel of Mark Commentary Act 3. Scene 2
This is the sixteenth installment, comprising Act 3. Scene 2, in the online commentary on the Gospel of Mark, which I am blogging on throughout the liturgical year. Please see the fifteenth installment here. Links to the entire series are available in one spot at The Complete Gospel of Mark Online Commentary.
This is my division of the Gospel:
Prologue, 1:1-13;
Act 1, 1:14-3:6;
Act 2, 3:7-6:6;
Act 3, 6:7-8:26;
Act 4, 8:27-10:52;
Act 5, 11:1-13:37;
Act 6, 14:1-16:8(20).
Scene 2:
14 King Herod heard of it, for Jesus' name had become known. Some were saying, "John the baptizer has been raised from the dead; and for this reason these powers are at work in him." 15 But others said, "It is Elijah." And others said, "It is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old." 16 But when Herod heard of it, he said, "John, whom I beheaded, has been raised." 17 For Herod himself had sent men who arrested John, bound him, and put him in prison on account of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife, because Herod had married her. 18 For John had been telling Herod, "It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife." 19 And Herodias had a grudge against him, and wanted to kill him. But she could not, 20 for Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and he protected him. When he heard him, he was greatly perplexed; and yet he liked to listen to him. 21 But an opportunity came when Herod on his birthday gave a banquet for his courtiers and officers and for the leaders of Galilee. 22 When his daughter Herodias came in and danced, she pleased Herod and his guests; and the king said to the girl, "Ask me for whatever you wish, and I will give it." 23 And he solemnly swore to her, "Whatever you ask me, I will give you, even half of my kingdom." 24 She went out and said to her mother, "What should I ask for?" She replied, "The head of John the baptizer." 25 Immediately she rushed back to the king and requested, "I want you to give me at once the head of John the Baptist on a platter." 26 The king was deeply grieved; yet out of regard for his oaths and for the guests, he did not want to refuse her. 27 Immediately the king sent a soldier of the guard with orders to bring John's head. He went and beheaded him in the prison, 28 brought his head on a platter, and gave it to the girl. Then the girl gave it to her mother. 29 When his disciples heard about it, they came and took his body, and laid it in a tomb. (NRSV)
In the entry for Act , Scene 1, I ended the post writing, “The scene ends here, in a sense, for as we move on through this Act, I will argue that the whole of Act 3 is intricately interwoven as one extended Scene, in which it is difficult to pull out any one thread, or move the camera. The whole of this Act functions as a lengthy A-B-A narrative sandwich, or better yet, a number of nesting A-B-A sandwiches in which each Scene explains the previous Scene and the one still to come. In addition, many themes which have been hinted at in the first two Acts will come to, if not resolution, greater clarity in this Act 3.”
This is the first of these nesting A-B-A sandwiches that are a part of the larger A-B-A narrative that comprises Act 3. The apostles have been sent out by Jesus to participate in his ministry in concrete ways established by his own words and deeds (A1), and they will report back to Jesus in 6:30 on their mission when they return (A2). But between their going and coming, Mark has inserted this chilling tale of John the Baptist’s demise at the hands of Herod Antipas. Mark transitions to this scene in a smooth yet revealing manner, telling us that Herod was aware of the activity taking place with Jesus and his disciples because Antipas was the one who had caused John the Baptist’s death and was worried Jesus might be John returned from the dead (6:14-16). In these three verses, Mark presents us the backstory and reveals Herod’s tormented state of mind: "John, whom I beheaded, has been raised" (6:16). This is not a question as presented in Mark, but a statement of fact.
Mark then describes the demise of John the Baptist, who, we find out, had criticized Herod Antipas’ marriage to his brother’s wife Herodias as illicit (6:17-18; Josephus also supplies a reference to John the Baptist’s death by Herod Antipas in Jewish Antiquities Book XVIII, 5.2). In Mark’s account, Herod finds it impossible to kill John the Baptist initially.
19 And Herodias had a grudge against him, and wanted to kill him. But she could not, 20 for Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and he protected him. When he heard him, he was greatly perplexed; and yet he liked to listen to him.
This is a psychologically persuasive scene: John is a worry for Herod, as a politician to whom John might pose a threat and as an individual, whose marriage has been denounced, yet there is a strange appeal in this odd prophet from the desert and “he liked to listen to him.”
The chance to do away with John the problem comes in the guise of trickery, a classic scene in history and drama, which in a number of forms makes its way into movies and plays today, either directly or indirectly. The one who promises something he cannot or does not want to deliver, without knowing he has even made the promise, is a classic dramatic dilemma. It is not simply trickery, though, which leads to the dilemma, it is Herod’s own hubris and rashness. In the midst of a great birthday party for Herod, his daughter – technically his stepdaughter and grandniece – dances and Herod promises to give her “whatever you wish” (6:22) and "whatever you ask me, I will give you, even half of my kingdom" (6:23). What his stepdaughter wants, though, he did not imagine: John the Baptist’s head. The daughter had consulted with the mother and she wanted John out of the way, his criticisms of her and her marriage silenced.
So when the daughter, also called Herodias by Mark, asks "I want you to give me at once the head of John the Baptist on a platter" (6:25), Mark describes Herod Antipas as “deeply grieved” (6:26) yet in a bind because he did not want to disappoint the girl, or embarrass himself in front of his guests. The scene ends in a practical and descriptive manner: a soldier beheaded John; the soldier brought John’s head on a platter which Herod gave to the girl; the girl gave it to her mother (6:27-28). Following this mundane telling, we are given one more mundane fact: “When his disciples heard about it, they came and took his body, and laid it in a tomb” (6:29). End scene. Story over.
In fact, this last, mundane statement is where the charge of electricity is poured into the account. Why does Mark tell this story at all? Why does he insert it here? It is inserted into the midst of Jesus’ own disciples being sent into the mission field to carry on Jesus’ ministry but before they return. What can religious leaders expect from politicians if they cross them, if they catch their attention? What can disciples expect to occur to the one they follow? Mark is foreshadowing not just Jesus’ death at the hands of political leaders, remember he has already done this in 3:6, but the fact that when the teacher or prophet dies, or is murdered, the disciples are left with one final task: you put your teacher in the tomb. End of story. This is how religious thorns in the side end their lives, right? Disciples need to prepare for the end.
John W. Martens
Follow me on Twitter @johnwmartens
Thursday, June 7, 2012
Princes of the Church?
I do understand the notion of development in the Church - I am all for it, and all for Blessed John Henry Newman's understanding of development - but what is able to change in the Church - develop - and what is not able to change? Most discussions in the Church today, and I say "discussions" with my tongue in cheek, regarding development have to do with issues related to sex and gender; realistically, these are not discussions but battles in the culture wars, with the Church claiming unbroken tradition regarding proper sexual behavior and acts and others within the Church, theologians such as Sr. Margaret Farley, ordinary lay people and even some within the clergy, claiming that we must carefully consider development in our understanding of the role, place and purposes of sex for the faithful within the Church. After introducing this topic, though, I want to put it aside, for arguments for or against development in the understanding of licit sexual behavior and who might be married sometimes threatens to swallow whole Catholic theology. The Church hierarchy has been quite clear: it is not budging on this issue, just as it budges on no other issue concerning the truth.
So, when I was reading a short post, yet another one, on leaks within the Vatican - VatiLeaks! - I came across a line that genuinely shocked me and it had nothing to do with the nature or content of the leaks. This shock might be due to my tender sensibilities, or the fact that I am a naive biblical scholar, but when I read this Catholic News Service report I was a little taken aback:
The first shock was the "inequality before the Law" that the Vatican maintains for Cardinals, in the sense that some members of the Vatican are "more equal" than others. But the second, larger, more significant shock was that there are "Princes of the Church." I am just beginning in my Gospel of Mark Online Commentary to discuss the emergence of the Church, through the appointing and sending out of the Apostles. It is a task they are called to share with Jesus and this is what I wrote:
The role of the Church is to carry on Jesus' ministry - that is its only task. Jesus made it clear later in the Gospel of Mark that this task was not easy and certainly not one of luxury or ease:
35 James and John, the sons of Zebedee, 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 is it 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 be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?" 39 They replied, "We are able." Then 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 When the ten heard this, they began to be angry with James and John. 42 So Jesus called them and said to them, "You know that among the Gentiles those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. 43 But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant, 44 and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all. 45 For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many." (NRSV)
This is a packed pericope, but starting at 10:42 the precise question of Church authority and leadership arises. Jesus speaks of Gentile rulers as "lording" over their subjects and their megaloi - great ones - wielding"power" over them, that is, there is a clear relationship of subservience for the ruled: they are less than, not equal to, their rulers. Jesus quite clearly says to his apostles, though, "this is not so amongst you," that is, this is not the way you are to govern those in your care. Instead, leaders of the Church if they want to be mega - great - must be a diakonos, servant; if they want to be "first," they must be a doulos, a slave. Why? Because this is the model Jesus has set for the Church as a whole and the leadership particularly and it is seen perfectly accomplished in his offering of his life on behalf of the world.
This is not, by the way, an argument against "authority" in the Church, especially not apostolic authority or succession, or against the development of the manner in which that authority manifests itself. It is a question of the nature of development and how "far" development in belief and practice can grow and still claim to be in tune with the directives of Jesus when his teaching seems at odds with the stated development. Can the Church utilize the notion of the superiority of its rulers and the language of "Princes of the Church" and still remain connected to the clear teaching of Jesus in Mark 10:42-45 about how the apostles and their successors are to manifest authority and power as servants and slaves "to all"?
John W. Martens
Follow me on Twitter @BibleJunkies
Monday, June 4, 2012
Gospel of Mark Commentary Act 3. Scene 1
This is the fifteenth installment, comprising Act 3. Scene 1, in the online commentary on the Gospel of Mark, which I am blogging on throughout the liturgical year. Please see the fourteenth installment here. Links to the entire series are available in one spot at The Complete Gospel of Mark Online Commentary.
This is my division of the Gospel:
Prologue, 1:1-13;
Act 1, 1:14-3:6;
Act 2, 3:7-6:6;
Act 3, 6:7-8:26;
Act 4, 8:27-10:52;
Act 5, 11:1-13:37;
Act 6, 14:1-16:8(20).
Scene 1:
7 He called the twelve and began to send them out two by two, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits. 8 He ordered them to take nothing for their journey except a staff; no bread, no bag, no money in their belts; 9 but to wear sandals and not to put on two tunics. 10 He said to them, "Wherever you enter a house, stay there until you leave the place. 11 If any place will not welcome you and they refuse to hear you, as you leave, shake off the dust that is on your feet as a testimony against them." 12 So they went out and proclaimed that all should repent. 13 They cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many who were sick and cured them. (NRSV)
The beginning of Act 3 sees the next stage in the development of Jesus’ ministry by the establishment, in a nascent sense, of the Church. In Act 1, Jesus called disciples to follow him; in Act 2, he appoints twelve of his disciples as apostles; in Act 3, Jesus assigns a share of his ministry to his apostles. No longer will they simply be hearers, or students, but they will participate in the tasks of the teacher, the Messiah. Are they ready for the tasks? There is nothing, frankly, which has indicated their great learning, knowledge or power; beyond being there, what are their accomplishments? This might be part of Mark’s point: following Jesus faithfully, even if fitfully at times, without complete understanding, creates a disciple ready for his ministry.
Mark notes only one precise task for the Apostles initially, unlike Matthew and Luke, and that is the “authority over the unclean spirits” (6:7). The primary enemy of Jesus, as we saw in Act 1, Scene 2, is not human but demonic, the forces of evil. Jesus’ task is to conquer sin and evil and he passes on this job as the order of first importance to his Apostles. In order to accomplish this task, they are sent out “two by two” without any but the basic material necessities, a staff, sandals and one tunic; there will be no provisions such as money or food (6:7-8). It seems clear that the reason for such directions is to increase their reliance – trust or faith - on God and neighbor, and it is a dual reliance. Often the need of the apostles to rely on the kindness of strangers, even if of the same tribe(s), is overlooked.
Their task is to combat the forces of evil, but combined with this task Mark tells us is the proclamation with which Jesus announced the coming of the kingdom of God at the beginning of the Gospel. We are told that they were to proclaim “that all should repent” (6:12). The twin tasks of the Messiah, then, have been shared with his disciples. Embedded in the call, though, is the cost of rejection. The apostles themselves might be rejected, but this is ephemeral: the sending of the apostles indicates that those who do not repent upon hearing the message of repentance bear a burden: “If any place will not welcome you and they refuse to hear you, as you leave, shake off the dust that is on your feet as a testimony against them” (6:11). The shaking of the dust indicates both that the message has been preached and that it has been rejected by those who heard it. The response has not been one of faith.
As with Jesus, though, the apostles have been active in sharing the message of repentance. Mark adds this interesting note at the end of the scene: “they cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many who were sick and cured them” (6:13). Mark has introduced tasks bit by bit as he unfurls the sending out of the apostles: they are to combat evil; they are to preach repentance; and then at the end, we find that they did cast out demons, but as with Jesus, they also cured many who were sick. They are partners in the ministry.
The scene ends here, in a sense, for as we move on through this Act, I will argue that the whole of Act 3 is intricately interwoven as one extended Scene, in which it is difficult to pull out any one thread, or move the camera without missing a part of the action. The whole of this Act functions as a lengthy A-B-A narrative sandwich, or better yet, a number of nesting A-B-A sandwiches in which each Scene explains the previous Scene and the one still to come. In addition, many themes which have been hinted at in the first two Acts will come to, if not resolution, greater clarity in this Act 3. Jesus' mission, and that of the Church, will come into greater focus, but that will not necessarily please everyone, or make much sense, even to his disciples.
John W. Martens
Follow me on Twitter @johnwmartens