Messianic Secret? 1.26.2023

    One of the critical issues often discussed by scholars of the Gospel of Mark is the so-called “Messianic Secret.” In short, critical scholars following William Wrede noticed that Jesus repeatedly advised disciples, auditors, and recipients of miracles to not widely spread the idea that He was the Messiah. Wrede’s widely repeated thesis was that this was because Jesus did not claim to be the Messiah and Mark contoured his story in such a way to first disguise this omission and then to “sneak it in” for what it actually was, a claim of the early Church not derived from the teaching of Jesus.

    I have personally been studying the Gospels with a focused intent beyond the needs of yearly preaching for three decades. I have read and reread such claims, considered the rebuttals, and weighed the options. If Mark was trying to keep a secret regarding the Messianic mission and statements of Jesus, he did a singularly lousy job. The very first miracle Mark details finds a demon confessing Jesus as the “Holy One of God.” He may not have used the term “Christ”, but Jesus is certainly identified as more than a mere prophet. At the end of that first section detailing a day of ministry Mark makes this summary statement:

“And he healed many who were sick with various diseases, and cast out many demons. And he would not permit the demons to speak, because they knew him.” (Mark 1:34 ESV)

    This seems to indicate that the identification that demons were able to make regarding Jesus was not just a degree of difference between Jesus and other spiritual figures, it indicates that both the demons (and Mark as well) understood that there was a difference in Kind as well. 

    We can multiply these examples many times just in the opening chapters. In Mark 2 Jesus is presented with an opportunity to heal a paralytic. He first pronounces the man’s sins forgiven, prompting negative rumination in some of the audience. His response?

 Why do you question these things in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise, take up your bed and walk’? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he said to the paralytic— “I say to you, rise, pick up your bed, and go home.”” (Mark 2:8–11 ESV)

    Jesus does not claim a Messianic title here, nor does Mark give Him one, but Jesus does claim divine prerogatives that do not belong to a merely human prophet, priest, or king. This goes on throughout the early chapters of Mark and comes to an abrupt stop when Jesus asks His famous question regarding what the disciples think of Him, and Peter provides his famous answer.

“And he asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered him, “You are the Christ.” And he strictly charged them to tell no one about him.” (Mark 8:29–30 ESV)

    Here we have a prime test of Wrede’s argument for the “Messianic Secret.” If Peter is correct, and if Jesus has disclosed His Messianic identity to them why does Jesus tell them to keep His identity close to the vest? The answer comes in the very next pericope. 

“And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again. And he said this plainly. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. But turning and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said, “Get behind me, Satan! For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man” And calling the crowd to him with his disciples, he said to them, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it.” (Mark 8:31–35 ESV)

    The issue is not whether Jesus is the Messiah. And the secrecy is not concocted by Mark to hide some nefarious truth about Jesus. Jesus knew from His time with the Twelve, the larger group of disciples, and the common crowds that most people did not have a correct understanding of what this Messiah they were expecting was going to accomplish. Peter himself upbraids Jesus at the first mention of the cross because it did not correspond to formative Judaism’s various expressions of the Messianic office. Jesus would spend a lot of time explaining the issue to the Twelve, and Mark would dutifully record Peter’s (guilt-ridden and dramatic) recollections of this time in Jesus’ ministry. His enemies may have gotten their way and nailed Jesus to the Cross, but His friends did not exactly help matters by being so recalcitrant in misunderstanding His message. It will not be until after the Resurrection that the Apostles will fully understand how this wonderworking, sin-forgiving, suffering-savior fulfills the Messianic expectation.

    We keep secrets too. We read the texts that describe the work of Jesus, often repeating the same misunderstandings and committing the same gaffes as the Twelve. We too want an all-powerful Jesus, magnificent in His glory who delivers us from the uncomfortable realities of telling the Kingdom story in a fallen, uncomprehending world. We want to have our enemies conquered, our comforts restored, our feelings salved, and our desires granted. The heart of Mark’s Gospel is not a “Messianic Secret” but an old, rugged cross. One for Jesus. One for each of us. We wish it were otherwise but “them’s the facts.” 

    I have simplified the technical arguments surrounding the Messianic Secret, which after more than a century is still around in many different guises. I wanted to discuss it while neither minimizing nor emphasizing Wrede’s old theory. Ultimately, I think that this, like so many critical theories, is not an orderly search for truth but a flight from the requirements of faith, at best it is a red herring to be quickly disposed of during one’s study. The gambit is not intellectual but spiritual. If Mark was deceptive, and Jesus was not Christ, then obedience is optional! So, the real secret is not what Jesus claimed, nor what Mark wrote, but what I choose to believe and obey. The secret we all hold, and all must conquer is the secret fear of the reality of the cross which awaits all who would follow Christ.

 

That’s Just Capital! Empire and Kingdom 1.19.2023

 

From the very first words he wrote, Mark faithfully communicated that Kingdom and Empire would be in constant competition with one another. The conflict is as ageless and timeless as the doomed construction project on the plains of Shinar when men thought they could undo the fall by building towers into the sky. Babel may have failed, but the spirit of Empire only grew from there. Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, and beyond. 

Empire’s goal is to organize all human behaviors (religious, political, social, and cultural structures, economics) without deference to God. Empire subordinates even seemingly spiritual and emotional functions beneath a single-minded pursuit of power. Or to use the phrase found in Genesis 3, “…to be like God.”

God in general has opposed all Imperial projects. Jesus specifically founded and focused His Kingdom to expose the deceptions of Empire and to liberate its victims. Mark introduces his story of Jesus by laying out the Empire defying nature of the project with his very first words.   

“The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1 ESV) 

To our way of thinking, formed upon the basic premise of the Lordship of Christ these words do not read like the challenge that they are. In his environment, with those specific words, Mark pokes the serpent of Empire with the stick of Gospel. That is what we are going to look at this week. 

In our preaching we want to usher people “inside” the text. We want them to see, feel, hear, and smell the environment. Thus, background information is essential to good preaching. At the same time, we don’t want to overwhelm our listeners with detail. Background information sets the Stage for the text but should not replace the text.  First let’s look at a couple of background matters, then we’ll look a little deeper at Mark’s seemingly innocuous opening line. 

Environment

The most trustworthy traditions regarding Marks Gospel locate its composition in Rome. At the time Mark was listening to Peter’s preaching and gathering the eyewitness materials for his gospel the Neronian persecution was beginning to unfold. Thought there were cultural, social, economic, political, and religious pressures confronting the Church, Mark had the moxie to faithfully tell the story of Jesus’ Kingdom message. A message designed to question every Roman Imperial ambition.  Even in Galilee where no Roman soldiers were stationed cities had been named after Tiberias Caesar and Caesar Augustus. Jesus and His disciples may have lived at the edge of the Empire, but Caesar still collected the taxes, and the local politicians bowed the knee to the fortune of Rome. 

Time

Mark’s story is set in Imperial Roman Galilee and Judea. The ministry of Jesus ended with His passion around 30-35 A.D. It would take three hundred years for the Kingdom of the Galilean to finally bring the Empire to its knees. The victory was short-lived, the Church, beholding the power of Empire, became what it beheld.

Yet Mark and his colleague Evangelists preserved the vision of Kingdom that Jesus preached so that despite compromise, God could continue to work remaking the world through Jesus. So, when we read Mark there are several timelines we want to keep in mind.

1. The original proclamation of Jesus. 
2. The preaching by Peter of the proclamation of Jesu.
3. The preserved message of Mark of Peter’s preaching of the proclamation of Jesus.  
4. The present preaching of Mark (and the other Gospels), which bears witness to the preaching of     Peter and the earliest Church, proclaiming the Kingdom of Jesus. 

This full process began, as far as Marks’ Gospel is concerned with the following words:

“Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”” (Mark 1:14–15 ESV)

Audience

The Audience(s) for Mark’s Gospel roughly correspond to the four chronological settings. 

            1. The audience(s) of Jesus

              2. The audience(s) of Peter

              3. The original audience(s) of Mark’s Gospel

              4. The contemporary audience of Mark’s Gospel.

Capital Crisis

With that little bit of background let’s get to my primary concern. The opening line of Mark’s Gospel, whether it functions as a title or as a summary that proceeded and set up the story, is designed to be provocative. Specifically, Mark alerts the Empire that, with the appearance of Jesus, God has inaugurated His Kingdom. The verse includes three “objects”: Gospel, Jesus Christ, Son of God. Each of these three descriptors is a specific challenge to the claimed privileges of Empire. 

The Caesars, in mid-first century were accruing to themselves ever greater “divine honors.” They began to see themselves less as benevolent dictators and more as entitled demi-gods. Good old-fashioned Republican Romans did not really like this development yet seemed to be powerless to stop what was a power-driven strategy. 

The personal name “Jesus” signified the saving purposes of God with Christ functioning as the title He bears signifying His status as God’s chosen regent over His creation. The Caesars also claimed to exercise both sovereign and saving power over the inhabitants of their Empire.  The choice Jesus offers is the choice between a power-hungry and empty salvation by Caesar or an actual life-affirming salvation in Christ. The Empire would spend three centuries seeking to stamp out Jesus’ antidote this arrogant Imperial claim. 

Good news was what Caesar proclaimed when he paraded and proclaimed his military victories and economic subjugation of the world. The irony is that most of those who heard the glad tidings of Caesar’s greatness were not liberated but enslaved by the political, social, military, economic, and religious policies of Empire. Caesar’s good news was mostly good news—for him.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ God’s Son was a shot across the bow of Caesar’s Imperial ambitions. Jesus signaled that He had come to tell a tale of salvation that was as universal as the known world and as particular as otherwise nameless individuals who first beheld the authoritative teaching presence of Jesus. This was a capital crisis for Rome because Jesus did not recruit soldiers but servants, and preached love not hatred. The very focus and fuel of Empire was exactly what Jesus rejected. And it seemed recklessly impotent until the very moment that the women were told

  “…Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him.  But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.”” (Mark 16:6–7 ESV)

The Roman Governor, the Roman army, the Roman cross; the whole apparatus of Rome’s will to power did not stand a chance before the King of Kings, the grandeur of His Kingdom, and the good news He told and taught to others.

Quick (1.10 2023)

 Normally I would not write a blog which focuses on a single word. However, with reference to the Gospel of Mark, there is one term that seems to embody Mark’s style. As I discussed last week determining whether it was Mark the recorder or Peter the preacher driving this dynamic is, at least for me, an open question. It was likely a bit of both. The word, of course, is εὐθέως. Rendered into English as illustrated in the first graph. The second graph shows its frequency in the entire New Testament, and the third graph narrows it down to Mark's usage alone. 

    For all intents and purposes, 1/2 of the uses of this term in the New Testament are Marks. I don’t want to get too deeply into the weeds on this but clearly, Mark wants to tell the story of Jesus as dynamically as possible. This prompts one of the central exegetical questions we need to ask while working through a text. “Why?” Why this word, this way, in these contexts? The sister words εὐθὺς and εὐθέως are adverbs. In his great book On Writing, Stephen King admonishes writers to eliminate all adverbs. Talk about not getting the memo! Mark’s gospel seems to be an extreme example of how to make a point. He does not use the “content carrying” words (nouns), nor the “action defining” words (verbs) to drive the action but a modifier. So, for Mark, the “why” question gets a “how” answer. He wrote this way to create a specific effect. 

    Matthew and Luke are clearly telling the same story, and their plotlines are similar. The most graphic difference (other than length) is the dynamism of Mark’s story and that is largely due to the use of these adverbial modifiers primarily, εὐθέως.

    You might be thinking “I thought you said that you weren’t going to get too deeply into the weeds?” I don’t think I have and now I will try and draw this together to show how this kind of information is vital for forming judgments about Mark’s story of Jesus and how you and I can do a better job of preaching it. 

    I’ve read quite a bit about Mark in the last 8 weeks, but as far as I can remember (which is to say there is nothing in my notes about this) the following is pretty much my assessment. 

1. Mark had to know the whole story, before writing his version. Like a chef examining a recipe he looks at it and says “this sounds good! How can I spice it up? Perhaps some white pepper, or ginger, or a pinch of thyme?” To make those changes the chef needs to have an idea of how the overall recipe works—the whole recipe—or minimal changes risk damaging it rather than enhancing it. Similarly, Mark is able (likely due to interaction with the other synoptic Evangelists in print or person) to gauge the entire “recipe” and concludes “I can spice it up without changing the story by modifying the pace of the action.” That is what εὐθέως does in Mark. The subjects and objects of the Gospel are the same. Mark surfaces the character of Peter’s preaching creating an arresting approach to the story. The story remains the same, as does the action predicated. Mark just makes it spicier.

2. This is (or should be) the reason we preach from one Gospel at a time and not a generic, conflated “story of Jesus.” There may be times when it might be necessary to point out a parallel between Mark and Luke, Mark and Matthew, or even Mark and John. But in so doing you and I usurp the editorial and authorial role of each Evangelist who was prompted to tell the story of Jesus “According to…” Matthew Mark, Luke, or John. 

3. The shape of preaching needs to be determined by the shape of the text. In this case, we can substitute the word “pace” for “shape.” Because for Mark; pace is shape or gives shape to His telling of the story. Much of the academic literature on the Synoptics and the Synoptic Problem discusses “changes” made by the respective evangelists (as if Luke a Gentle, located his version of the story in Greece). It is more accurate to talk about not how the Evangelists change the story but how they tell the story. Changing the story implies altering content, which clearly, they don’t do. Telling the story is a matter of context, specifically the audience and environment in which the story is told. 

    In preparing sermons from Mark, we need to make clear distinctions between the words and deeds of Jesus and the frenetic pace of Mark’s storytelling. The message is the same, the story is unchanged. What does Mark do? He inflames a sense of urgency. It might be a good idea to shape our messages from Mark with similar urgency. 

    Many of us first began to study the Biblical languages with the romantic idea that they were “magic meaning beans”, silver bullets which slew the beasts of unbelief with arguments invisible to those who did not know the code. Well, “this ain’t that movie bro.” Faithful exegesis has few or no shortcuts. Some of the work is now automated and simplified. I sure am glad that Accordance has fast searches and readily made graphs. People recognized much of Mark’s method long before these tools were available. Discovering or better, recovering, (even better recovering for yourself) this information is only the first step. Sharing the factoid that Mark seems to have fallen in love with εὐθέως, at the beginning of a Sermon series and then not exegeting every passage with Mark's torrid narrative pace in mind is just showing off. What we need to do is keep this fact in our back pocket, and keep doing the hard, invisible work of exegesis. No one in the pew should care, and they certainly should not see how you unravel the consequences of this linguistic factoid. But every sermon from Mark should be informed by the suddenness, the quickness, the nearness, the now-ness with which Mark seasoned the old, old story of Jesus.

 

Peter’s Preaching (1.5.2023)

    The primary means of Christian communication is preaching. I realize that in some circles, the whole enterprise of homiletics based upon theologically sound Biblical exegesis has fallen out of favor. In an age filled with discussions of the exodus of younger generations from the Church, going so far as coining the phrase “none’s” to describe this phenomenon perhaps it is time for us to examine how many of the Postmodern assumptions driving the contemporary Church are, not only wrong, but unbiblical and, ultimately, unwise. 

    Every generation, considering itself more gifted than those who went before, tries to reinvent the wheel. Within the Church, this has sometimes been driven by practical considerations and other times by theological motives. One of the jobs of Pastors; be they preachers, elders, or even deacons is to go through a process of regular self-reflection and personal assessment. Why do we do what we do? What are the models we are following and from what disciplines are they derived? Are we changing things up for the sake of greater effectiveness or simply to “shake things up. “And here’s a biggy. How much influence should contemporary culture (any contemporary culture) have over the doctrine and practice of the Church? 

    There has never been a time when the Church has not wrestled with these issues. Asides from the theft and deception of Ananias and Saphira, the first hint of internal controversy in the Jerusalem Church was cultural, between Hellenistic and Hebraic cliques of widows in Acts chapter 6. At that juncture the Apostles made a significant decision, concluding that Biblical and cultural practice can be accommodated but that the former always dictates the terms to the latter. We have forgotten this. 

    In an age driven by transformative, even revolutionary communications technologies the Biblical content of preaching should always be the primary focus. The shape of scripture should determine both the form and content of what we take into the pulpit. Sadly, many of us, have borne witness throughout our entire ministry careers, to the abandonment of this bedrock position of the great tradition. Forsaking the pattern of the Gospel is always to our detriment. The “none’s” have decided that they are not buying what we are selling, but for broad swaths of the Christian community, the product we are selling is not the Gospel. It may be that reaching the “none’s”, the spiritually curious, and the casualties of our culture will only be accomplished when we reengage with scripture, recalibrate our theology, and recover the shape and substance of Biblical preaching. 

    All of that, then, leads me to Peter and his preaching, which forms the framework for Mark’s Gospel. Virtually all readers of the Gospels are aware of the striking similarities of the Synoptic Gospels. A significant percentage of working New Testament scholars dedicate their lives to addressing the “Synoptic Problem” in ever-increasing detail. One of the issues I tried to keep in mind during 6 weeks of detailed investigation of Mark is the fact that the normative expression for the early Church was preaching. Before there were Gospels, before Paul wrote Epistles, and prior to the history found in the book of Acts, the Church told the story of Jesus. The telling of this story is the foundation of Christian preaching and the very heart of our Gospel. 

    Mark’s gospel moves quickly from episode to episode in a fashion that is abrupt, dramatic, and arresting. Much of that energy comes from Peter’s own personality. One of Mark's signature successes was weaving Peter’s episodic preaching into a more continuous narrative that communicates the full story of Jesus from the beginning of His ministry to His death, burial, and resurrection. It is this story--the story of Jesus which energized the early Church and provided the creative focus that allowed Kingdom to triumph over Empire. To rob John of an apocalyptic analogy; you don’t defeat dragons by becoming a dragon, but by following the Lamb. Mark’s Gospel shows us what it was like to follow Jesus in those early days in which Jesus established, with the Twelve the parameters of discipleship. 

    Grasping the proclamatory origin and essence of our Gospel should help us to clarify what we do,  or more pointedly, say on Sunday morning. While it is important for preachers to provide a well-rounded menu of Biblical instruction to their flocks, all our preaching should ultimately be rooted in the story of Jesus, which is the entrusted apostolic tradition that is the very essence of Good News. This central fact should guide us in determining what we mean by success or failure in the preaching process and what formal techniques we should use in preparing and presenting our messages.

    What is the goal of preaching? Is it experiential, emotional, or intellectual? What is the relationship between individual and community before, during, and after preaching? How do the elements of worship; social, liturgical, musical, and preaching relate to one another, and does our configuration of public worship reflect the priorities of scripture? Because, if the purpose of the Bible is to involve individuals in the communal body of Christ by inviting them into the story of the Gospel, and we have decided to particularize and psychologize the process into addressing the “felt” needs of individuals, we have missed the point and lost the ancient narrative thread which began by a lake with two pairs of brothers, called to become fishers for men. 

    Peter's voice is the unseen influence behind Mark’s Gospel. His presence, only hinted at, is a fitting reminder that the only character in the Gospel story is Jesus. The only spotlight is reserved for the Master as He calls us, leads us, teaches us, dies for our salvation, and rises for our justification. This is the story at the heart of the Christian faith. It is both universal and particular. The story of Jesus is the story of God’s beloved, coming to redeem what belongs to the Father.  Peter went first. Now it is our turn. How we tell the story, largely becomes the story. This is our legacy, our burden, our joy.