Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Edgy Conversations of a Vulnerable Christ

Mark 9:30-37

Mark 9:30-37

Below is my rough translation (bold), parsing of verbs, and comments (blue) for the Gospel reading for September 23, 2012. I invite your comments below and hope you feel free to engage in this study together.

Many Bibles subhead this text as the 2nd “prediction” or “foretelling” by Jesus of his death. As such, it supposedly fits within a pattern of “Jesus predicts; the disciples misunderstand in some way.” I agree that on all three occasions that Jesus discloses his impending death the disciples (or some of them) respond inappropriately. However, the “prediction/misunderstanding” model seems a bit ill-fitted to me. In both the first disclosure (8:27-38; see last week’s post) and this one, Jesus is edgy with the disciples before they misunderstand. In last week’s story, Jesus “rebukes” the disciples when Peter responds “You are the Christ.” In this week’s story, the disciples are afraid to admit their lack of understanding and Jesus “interrogates” (the verb seems stronger than simply “asks”) them about their conversation on the road. 

For that reason, I am approaching this text as one with a serious edge to it. Prior to our text, Jesus had just come down from the mountain with Peter, James, and John, on which he had been transfigured. What awaited him when he descended was a large crowd where some disciples were arguing with some Scribes over the disciples’ failed attempt to help a boy tormented with a demon. Jesus says, during that story, “You faithless generation! How much longer must I be among you? How much longer must I put up with you?” It is not clear whether he is despairing over his time with the crowd, with folks oppressed by demons, with Scribes and disciples who argue when there is someone in a crisis at hand, or over disciples who do not seem to have enough faith to participate in the kind of liberating activity that the Reign of God brings. I’m going to go with the latter and read our present story as one that takes place with an atmosphere of tension between Jesus and the disciples. Again, I don’t know if this is correct, but it is plausible and I think it will be a suggestive way of reading some of the parts of this story that don’t seem to fit easily within a “prediction/misunderstanding” pattern.

I’d love to hear from you whether this kind of edgy reading seems plausible or not. And, if so, what does that imply for preaching this text today?

30 Κἀκεῖθεν ἐξελθόντες παρεπορεύοντο διὰ τῆς Γαλιλαίας, καὶ οὐκ ἤθελεν ἵνα τις γνοῖ:
And leaving from there they passed through Galilee, and he was not wanting that anyone might know;
ἐξελθόντες: AAPart npm, ἐξέρχομαι, 1) to go or come forth of  1a) with mention of the place out of which one goes, or the  point from which he departs
παρεπορεύοντο: IMI 3p, παραπορεύομαι, to proceed at the side, go past, pass by 
ἤθελεν: IAI 3s, θέλω, 1) to will, have in mind, intend 
γνοῖ: AASubj 3s, γινώσκω, 1) to learn to know, come to know, get a knowledge of perceive, feel
1. This story follows immediately an exorcism story, during which Mark mentions the crowd several times. Jesus seems to act – perhaps hurriedly – because an even bigger crowd was forming. I don’t know if those remarks explain the desire for anonymity in this story, but they seem related.

31 ἐδίδασκεν γὰρ τοὺς μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς ὅτι Ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου παραδίδοται εἰς χεῖρας ἀνθρώπων, καὶ ἀποκτενοῦσιν αὐτόν, καὶ ἀποκτανθεὶς μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας ἀναστήσεται.
for he was teaching his disciples and saying to them, “The son of man is being handed over into human hands, and they will kill him, and having been killed after three days he will be raised.
ἐδίδασκεν: IAI, 3s, διδάσκω, 1) to teach
παραδίδοται: PPI 3s, παραδίδωμι, 1) to give into the hands (of another)  2) to give over into (one's) power or use  2a) to deliver to one something to keep, use,  take care of, manage  ἀποκτενοῦσιν: FAI 3p, ἀποκτείνω, 1) to kill in any way 1a) to destroy, to allow to perish 
ἀποκτανθεὶς: APPart nms ἀποκτείνω, 1) to kill in any way 1a) to destroy, to allow to perish 
ἀναστήσεται: FMI 3s, ἀνίστημι, 1) to cause to rise up, raise up
1. The “for” (γὰρ) implies that Jesus’ teaching (not “prediction” as many subheadings suggest) about his impending death is the reason why he is trying to avoid the crowd. However, in 8:32, when Jesus first discloses his impending death, Mark notes that “he said all of this quite openly.” My sense is that Jesus’ desire for anonymity is more about dealing with the disciples’ fear/ignorance/misapprehension than keeping his death a secret.

 32οἱ δὲ ἠγνόουν τὸ ῥῆμα, καὶ ἐφοβοῦντο αὐτὸν ἐπερωτῆσαι.
But they were not understanding the word, and were fearing to ask him.
ἠγνόουν : IAI 3p, ἀγνοέω, 1) to be ignorant, not to know  2) not to understand, unknown  3) to err or sin through mistake, to be wrong 
ἐφοβοῦντο: IMI 3p, φοβέω to strike with fear, scare, frighten. Middle or passive as here, to be put in fear, take fright
ἐπερωτῆσαι: AAInf ἐπερωτάω, 1) to accost one with an enquiry, put a question to, enquiry of,  ask, interrogate  2) to address one with a request or demand  2a) to ask of or demand of one 
1. We often think of Jesus and the disciples as cozy buds, traveling together, eating together, and generally getting along rather well. Werner Kelber argues that, for Mark, the disciples failed in their calling to follow Jesus (Mark’s Story of Jesus). The comment that the disciples were not understanding Jesus’ words fits within the typical paradigm of the “messianic secret” and “disciple’s misapprehension.” But, the comment that they were fearing to ask Jesus about it suggests that there is more than a comprehension issue here. Perhaps they were still reeling from the comment in v.19 about the “faithless generation.” For whatever reason, this scene does not feel like cozy pals on a road trip, but as a tension-filled master/disciple occasion.

33Καὶ ἦλθον εἰς Καφαρναούμ. καὶ ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ γενόμενος ἐπηρώτα αὐτούς, Τί ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ διελογίζεσθε;
And they came into Capernaum.  And beginning in the house he was interrogating them, “What were you deliberating on the road?” 
ἦλθον: AAI 3p, ἔρχομαι, 1) to come  1a) of persons  1a1) to come from one place to another, and used both of  persons arriving and of those returning
γενόμενος: AMPart nms, γίνομαι, 1) to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be
ἐπηρώτα: IAI 3s, ἐπερωτάω, 1) to accost one with an enquiry, put a question to, enquiry of,  ask, interrogate 
διελογίζεσθε: IMI 2p, διαλογίζομαι, 1) to bring together different reasons, to reckon up the  reasons, to reason, revolve in one's mind, deliberate
1. Like last week, I feel that “interrogate” is a better translation of ἐπερωτάω than simply “ask.”

 34οἱ δὲ ἐσιώπων, πρὸς ἀλλήλους γὰρ διελέχθησαν ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ τίς μείζων.
But they were being silent, for they were discussing with each other along the road who [is] greatest. 
ἐσιώπων: IAI 3p, σιωπάω, 1) to be silent, hold one's peace
διελέχθησαν: API 3p, διαλέγομαι, 1) to think different things with one's self, mingle thought with thought  1a) to ponder, revolve in mind  2) to converse, discourse with one, argue, discuss 
1. I am not sure whether the related verbs διαλογίζομαι and διαλέγομαι ought to be translated as implying discussions or arguments. They seem related to the English term “dialogue,” but perhaps the context determines whether they are conversational inquiries or heated arguments.
2. The content of the argument is not very well given in this verse. The phrase τίς μείζων has no verb. It could be an indefinite article with an adjective “Who [is the] greatest” or something else. It might be that they were discussing “What is greatness,” or something like that. Most translations go with “who [is] the greatest” because of the next verse.

 35καὶ καθίσας ἐφώνησεν τοὺς δώδεκα καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς, Εἴ τις θέλει πρῶτος εἶναι ἔσται πάντων ἔσχατος καὶ πάντων διάκονος.
And having sat down he called the twelve and is saying to them, “If any wants to be first that one will be last of all and servant of all.
καθίσας: AAPart nsm, καθίζω, 1) to make to sit down  1a) to set, appoint, to confer a kingdom on one  2) intransitively  2a) to sit down 
ἐφώνησεν: AAI 3s, φωνέω, 1) to sound, emit a sound, to speak   1a) of a cock: to crow   1b) of men: to cry, cry out, cry aloud, speak with a loud voice   2) to call, to call one's self, either by one's own voice or   though another
λέγει: PAI 3s, λέγω 1) to say, to speak
θέλει: PAI 3s, θέλω, 1) to will, have in mind, intend 
εἶναι: PAInf, εἰμί, 1) to be, to exist, to happen, to be present 
ἔσται: FMI, εἰμί, 1) to be, to exist, to happen, to be present 
1. The incidental comment in this verse – that Jesus called the twelve – seems odd. Presumably, he is in the middle of a conversation with the twelve. Now, he sits and calls the twelve. What does this add and why does it seem so ill-fitted to the ongoing action?
2. The verb φωνέω is also different from the verb καλέω, which we usually hear in “call stories” (Mk. 1:20). It is more of a summons and is used to describe the rooster’s crow.

36καὶ λαβὼν παιδίον ἔστησεν αὐτὸ ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῶν καὶ ἐναγκαλισάμενος αὐτὸ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς,
And taking a child, he placed her in their midst and embracing her he said to them,
λαβὼν: AAPart nsm, λαμβάνω, 1) to take  1a) to take with the hand, lay hold of, any person or thing  in order to use it
ἔστησεν: AAI 3s, ἵστημι, 1) to cause or make to stand, to place, put, set
ἐναγκαλίζομαι,  AMPart, nms 1) to take into one's arms, embrace 
εἶπεν: AAI 3s, λέγω 1) to say, to speak
1. There is an interesting connection – I think there is, anyway, since I’m not entirely sure what the connection is – between Jesus’ act of embracing this child and the words that follow regarding ‘holding’ or ‘welcoming’ one such child. The verb in this sentence and the verbs in the next are different, but the point seems to be that Jesus is demonstrating first what he declares second.

 37 Ὃς ἂν ἓν τῶν τοιούτων παιδίων δέξηται ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματί μου, ἐμὲ δέχεται: καὶ ὃς ἂν ἐμὲ δέχηται, οὐκ ἐμὲ δέχεται ἀλλὰ τὸν ἀποστείλαντά με.
“Whoever would hold one of these children in my name holds me; and whoever holds me, does not hold me but the one who sent me.” 
δέξηται: AMS 3s, δέχομαι, 1) to take with the hand  1a) to take hold of, take up  2) to take up, receive  2a) used of a place receiving one
δέχεται (2x): PMI 3s, δέχομαι, 1) to take with the hand  1a) to take hold of, take up  2) to take up, receive  2a) used of a place receiving one
δέχηται: PMS 3s, δέχομαι, 1) to take with the hand  1a) to take hold of, take up  2) to take up, receive  2a) used of a place receiving one
ἀποστείλαντά: AAPart asm, ἀποστέλλω, 1) to order (one) to go to a place appointed
1. The first interpretive question would be “What does ‘holding’ (or welcoming) one of these children imply? Many folks find it very easy to embrace a child. But, this teaching is in response to the question of greatness. If, for example, vulnerability is the point, it would seem that greatness is a matter of embracing the most vulnerable ones.  Jesus may be addressing children once more in this chapter, in v.42, when the stakes are higher: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea.”
2. This declaration shows a radical identification between any child and Jesus and God. The act of holding/welcoming a child is, at the same time, an act of holding/welcoming Jesus. If the point of holding a child is because children are vulnerable, then this declaration is very similar to Matthew’s parable of sheep and goats, where Jesus says, “Inasmuch as you have done this (fed, clothed, etc.) the least of these, you have done so to me.
3. Perhaps this is the most scandalous of scandals in Mark’s gospel. By identifying so radically with a child, by embracing the road to rejection, suffering, dying and being raised, Jesus is re-defining both greatness and Godness. It is not in the glory and honor of the Caesars, but in the vulnerability of a child that we encounter God.
4. If this scene is as edgy as I am suggesting it might be, then it could be that the disciples’ willingness or unwillingness to embrace the vulnerable God is the point at which Jesus finds them to be true disciples or not.

"After Three Days" in Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:34: Subordinating Jesus' Resurrection in the Second Gospel
Mark Proctor Houston Baptist University, Houston TX

Regarding “on the third day”:  It is attested in Matt 27:62-64, Luke 24:5-7,45-46, 1 Cor 15:4, Acts 10:39b-40, Matt 12:40; 16:21; 17:22-23; 20:18-19; 26:60b-61?; 27:39-40?; Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:32-34; 14:57-58?; 15:29-30?; Luke 9:21-22; 13:32-33?; 18:31-33; 24:21; John 2:19-22.  The Narrative accounts of the resurrection, however, actually only account for when the empty tomb was discovered, without saying exactly when the resurrection itself occurred.

The Greek expressions for "today," "tomorrow," and "the day after tomorrow," were σήμερον, αΰριον, and τη τρίτη ήμερα respectfully (See Frederick Field, Notes on Select Passages of the Greek Testament: Chiefly with Reference to Recent English Versions [Oxford: E. Pickard Hall, 1881], 8-9). A narrative oddity emerges in Mark's account at this point; for the precise nature of the temporal markers in 16:1-2 perhaps suggests Jesus' resurrection took place sometime prior to the dawn of the first day of the week (i.e., before the beginning of the third day). In these verses Mark states the women went to anoint Jesus' body "very early on the first day of the week" (λίαν πρωί τη μια των σαββάτων) and just after sunrise (άνατείλαντος του ήλιου). The evangelist's word choice leaves the reader with two interpretive options: (1) either the women barely miss witnessing Jesus' emergence from the tomb, or else (2) the resurrection occurred at some unspecified time between Joseph's deposition of the corpse during the closing minutes of the day of Preparation (see 15:42-47) and dawn on Sunday. For other uses of λίαν and/or πρωί in the Second Gospel see Mark 1:35; 6:51; 9:3; 11:20; 13:35; 15:1.

In "A Suggestion Concerning the Meaning of I Cor XV.4b," Bruce Metzger asks "whether it is necessary to take κατά τας γραφάς as qualifying the entire preceding statement, έγήγερται τη ήμερα τη τρίτη, or whether it is not possible to understand that the two phrases (τη ήμερα τη τρίτη and κατά τας γραφάς) are co-ordinate and separately qualify the verb έγήγερται" (JTS 8 [1957]: 120). If such were the case, the scriptural necessity Paul alludes to would only apply to the resurrection itself and not its temporal qualifier. Metzger offers this argument as a means of simplifying the academic task of uncovering precisely what "Scriptures" satisfy one or both of the claims Paul makes in v. 4b (a task that admits of no simple resolution). The obvious problem with Metzger's hypothesis stems from the parallel expression κατά τας γραφάς in v. 3b, where it is clear that the scriptural necessity Paul speaks of applies to the entirety of the thoughts preceding the phrase. Not only did Christ "die" (άπέθανεν) in accordance with the Scriptures, but he "died^/or our sins" (άπέθανεν υπέρ των αμαρτιών ημών) in accordance with the Scriptures.

Yet when one compares the wording of Jesus' passion predictions in Mark 8:31, 9:31, and 10:33-34 with the importance Paul and others attributed to the "third day resurrection" motif, a distinct peculiarity presents itself. Whereas the primitive gospel claimed the Lord arose "on the third day" (τη ημέρα τη τρίτη), Mark has Jesus predict on three separate occasions he would rise μετά τρεις ημέρας (i.e., "after three days" or "on the fourth day"). Not only does Mark's wording disagree with prevailing tradition about the precise timing of Jesus' resurrection, it does not harmonize with the final events of his narrative; for when the women go to anoint the corpse early on the first day of the week (i.e., "on the third day" following his death), the tomb is already vacant. So what are Mark's readers to do? Should they regard the evangelist's phraseology as a technical blunder resulting from his lack of editorial skill, or else try to detect some theological purpose at work in the story? In the interest of preserving the Second Gospel's narrative integrity, I select option 2 and argue Mark's use of μετά τρέίς ημέρας in 8:31, 9:31, and 10:34 constitutes his deliberate attempt to de-prioritize traditional teaching about the resurrection by (a) robbing Jesus' passion predictions of their numerical precision as a means of (b) subordinating the resurrection motif to the impending account of Jesus' tragic death. Rather than parrot church tradition's specificity with regard to the timing of Christ's emergence from the tomb, Mark has Jesus himself minimize the significance of the events of Easter Sunday morning by saying only that his resurrection will occur "an indeterminate amount of time" after his death. The circumstances surrounding Jesus' crucifixion, by way of contrast, gain in detail with the proclamation of each consecutive prediction and fundamentally agree with the events of the passion narrative. In this way, Mark makes Jesus' traditional passion statements as passion-centered as possible.

The phrase ό υιός του ανθρώπου, which Jesus uses to describe himself in all three predictions, echoes the story of the enigmatic figure of Daniel 7. According to Evans, "what makes us think of Dan 7, besides the obvious verbal parallel of the epithet itself, is the thematic coherence between the scene in Dan 7 and the elements found in some of Jesus' son-of-man sayings." Evans then adds "the suffering of the 'son of man,' the point that Jesus makes here in 8:31, also coheres with Dan 7's depiction of the great struggle between the saints and the forces of evil."  The ironic image of the suffering Son of Man in 8:31 thus stands in narrative tension with Peter's identification of Jesus as the Christ in 8:29, but Mark surely did not invent this theological juxtaposition all by himself. Rather, he found much needed assistance in OT apocalyptic literature and in the theology of a community struggling to reconcile the shameful nature of their leader's demise with their identification of Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah.


  1. I have to tell you I think this is very edgy! Specially in light of what preceded in lieu of Jesus taking Peter aside, and putting his understanding of what the Messiah is on its head. As well, the idea that one must deny oneself, is about the way we think -- not from our perspective -- but God's!!!!! That's the challenge of being a disciple! Bless you!!! It's great!!!

  2. Mark, what do you make of the passive in vs. 31...and the use of "human" hands. So far, Mark hasn't hesitated to name groups specifically...e.g. 8:31. This verse strikes me as claiming something larger is going on. The Son of Man is being handed over by "something" other than human hands into human hands...and it is human hands (read "all of humanity") that kills him. Then having been killed by humanity, this something other raises him up.

    I'm not claiming that I like this direction or that it lends itself well to my theology. I'm just curious about the passive "is being handed over". (Already has been - and continues to be - handed over into human hands?)


  3. These are very helpful notes on the gospel for this coming Sunday. Thank you. I am struck by the tactile elements of the passage--handed into human hands--taking the child into his arms--and the implications of flesh and vulnerability here and elsewhere in the gospel.

  4. Kirsten, the passive verbs in v.31 are remarkable.
    First, "is being handed over" παραδίδοται is a key verb in the gospels, often connected with death (either Jesus, John the Baptist, or disciples in the future.) Then, the verb "will be raised" ἀναστήσεται is in the middle voice, since the dead cannot raise themselves (so far as I know.)
    The actual agent of who will hand the Son of Man over is not given. Is it the religious leadership in Jerusalem who will hand Jesus over? Is it God? Is it both?
    Likewise, who will raise? We assume that one is God, since we don't think of others as capable of raising the dead, generally.
    Likewise, it is the human hands that will kill Jesus.
    Theologically, I've always wondered if the gospel writers are trying to stake out a middle position - It is God's plan (per the prayer in Mk.14) that Jesus takes the road that leads to suffering, death, and rising. But, that does not exclude both the agency and responsibility of those who reject and kill.
    I like the possibilities of thinking both thoughts simultaneously.

  5. I should have been clearer. The human hands that will kill Jesus are signified by an active verb, "they will kill him," with 'human hands' as the antecedent of the implied agent. That part does not seem ambiguous at all, like the agency of the passive and middle voices.

  6. Deirdre,
    I too found the notion of embracing or holding to be very endearing and gentle terms, quite different from what I feel in the 'handed over to human hands' and 'kill' terms. This story has words that are tactile in both the gentle and violent senses.
    Thanks for the note.

  7. I was referring to the Jewish Annotated New Testament, and its comment on this passage adds to the edginess. It ties the child reference to the servant reference in vs. 35. The commentary indicates that the child does not represent innocence (as we tend to interpret it) but a secondary status as a lesser human, saying "Symbolically, accepting a child 'in my name', as a true human representative, is analogous to receiving Jesus as sent from God." This would tend to emphasize the radical idea of servant to those who think they are somehow set apart for greater things.

  8. Great, great work. Edgy if you mean the Christ is edgy. Not if you mean that you are pushing the interpretive boundary. You have definitely hit the middle of this text.

    Thank you for your work, tonight and every week.

  9. 'Son of Man' has a different take in Ezekiel vs. Daniel. The Daniel read is the 'coming in the clouds with glory' while Ezekiel seems more the one hostile to and attacked by the religious leadership. How do you read this?


If you want to leave a comment using only your name, please click the name/url option. I don't believe you have to sign in or anything like that by using that option. You may also use the 'anonymous' option if you want. Just be nice.

Blog Archive