The Gospel of Mark will be the focus of the sermon next Sunday, August 21st.
This is what we know about the Gospel of Mark.
It was written about 70 AD or about 40 years after Jesus' death on the cross. It was written at the time the Romans had become aggressive and had destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem.
Mark was the first Gospel written and it was the first narrative story of Jesus ' life and teaching. Mark saw Jesus as unsure of himself and of his mission.
When the disciples made claims about him he invoke them to secrecy. He proposed a Jesus who was no threat to the state.
He suggested that the Romans were not enemies of the Christian Church and that the Christian fellowship was not a part of the Jewish faith. At the end of Mark it is the Roman soldier who claims Jesus as the Son of God.
The writers of Matthew and Luke had the Gospel of Mark and they rewrote portions of it and cast it into a new meaning through their interpretation. For example, Mark wrote that Jesus was crucified and it was a part of a plan. Matthew and Luke had a different view of that; feeling that the arrest was contrived, the charges were false, and Judas was a villain.
In Mark's Gospel Jesus is unclear of his role. He was unsure what he was put on this earth to do.
Do you think he knew? Do you think he understood his responsibility of he just kind of fell into it?
Do you like the Gospel of Mark; giving us a timid Jesus who wondered the earth looking for his position in life?
What do you think? Write me at charlesschuster@fcfumc.net. If you are willing to share your thoughts with the readers of the blog click on the 'comments' box below.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Charles Schuster
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Does Mark really portray a timid and uncertain Jesus? Or is that some of the scholars’ interpretation?
From Mark I see Jesus as one who knew that what the people of this world would want from Him was not what He had to do. Miracle healings and messianic proclamations would bring great crowds whose expectations would be for physical and political deliverance. Ultimately, that was not what his mission was about.
I see Mark’s Jesus as one who knew His time to get the point across to His followers was limited. While healing and preaching to crowds might be a part of it, I think Jesus saw that the message of God’s love and covenant would get lost in the high drama associated with public displays. There were times it was necessary to avoid crowds and avoid fueling mass emotional responses that would detract from God’s message. Matthew and Luke also cited times when Jesus admonished that His works and His identity as Messiah be kept quiet. I see all these actions as consistent with the stories of His desert temptations prior to launching His ministry. That it was not about providing bread alone, nor seeking power. Ultimately, Jesus would have to face and recognize the worst that humanity could offer without divine protection.
So yes, I like Marks’ portrayal of Jesus. To me it was of one who knew that His position in life was not what the crowds might want, and certainly would not be the easy path to take. It’s not a timid man that can do that no matter what some of the scholars might say.
Ken;
I think you are reading Mark with Nicolai eyes. The scholars try to approach a text without a bias and, as you write, may not be successful all the time. The timid part of which they speak goes to the secrecy motif. Most frequently, Mark has Jesus telling a story and asking the disciples not to tell anyone what they heard. Sometimes the disciples don’t get it. In Mark Jesus is very alone.
The task he has it to suffer and die so that he can be raised again from the dead. Mark justifies the crucifixion as a necessary part of salvation history.
But I think the scholars can make the point that there is a timidity in Mark’s Gospel that is in contrast with the certainty in John’s Gospel.
Thanks for your input.
Charles
Post a Comment