He went up the mountain and called to him those whom he wanted, and they came to him. And he appointed twelve, whom he also named apostles, to be with him, and to be sent out to proclaim the message, and to have authority to cast out demons. So he appointed the twelve: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter); James son of Zebedee and John the brother of James (to whom he gave the name Boanerges, that is, Sons of Thunder); and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him. (Mark 3: 13-18)
The Gospel of Mark is interesting as much for what it does not relate as for the urgency with which the story is told. In Matthew and Luke the appointment of the twelve is closely associated in sequence with the Sermon on the Mount or the Beatitudes. There is nothing comparable in Mark.
What many consider the core teaching of Jesus is simply absent. The Jesus of Mark is a healer, an exorcist, a story-teller, a provocateur, and a kind of prophet. But this Jesus is not a teacher. Mark's narrative can be compared to a life of Lincoln that does not quote from any of the public speeches.
Perhaps Mark was confident his audience already knew the teachings, but needed to know more about the context. Mark is very attentive to the secret aspects of his hero's life. Like a modern celebrity journalist the author's purpose may be precisely to communicate the private side of the public ministry. Is Mark the Kitty Kelley of the evangelists?
At the very least the fast-paced, action-packed, but somewhat superficial treatment of Mark highlights the value of multiple perspectives. We can give thanks that four gospels survived. I give thanks that for the first time in 1500 years our understanding can also be informed by other writings of the early church long-lost.
The gospel of Mark encourages a recognition that I seldom know the whole story. Even when I do know most of the story I may choose to focus on elements of the story that miss the main point. I expect God is often amazed at how quickly and confidently I can learn the wrong lesson.
The Gospel of Mark is interesting as much for what it does not relate as for the urgency with which the story is told. In Matthew and Luke the appointment of the twelve is closely associated in sequence with the Sermon on the Mount or the Beatitudes. There is nothing comparable in Mark.
What many consider the core teaching of Jesus is simply absent. The Jesus of Mark is a healer, an exorcist, a story-teller, a provocateur, and a kind of prophet. But this Jesus is not a teacher. Mark's narrative can be compared to a life of Lincoln that does not quote from any of the public speeches.
Perhaps Mark was confident his audience already knew the teachings, but needed to know more about the context. Mark is very attentive to the secret aspects of his hero's life. Like a modern celebrity journalist the author's purpose may be precisely to communicate the private side of the public ministry. Is Mark the Kitty Kelley of the evangelists?
At the very least the fast-paced, action-packed, but somewhat superficial treatment of Mark highlights the value of multiple perspectives. We can give thanks that four gospels survived. I give thanks that for the first time in 1500 years our understanding can also be informed by other writings of the early church long-lost.
The gospel of Mark encourages a recognition that I seldom know the whole story. Even when I do know most of the story I may choose to focus on elements of the story that miss the main point. I expect God is often amazed at how quickly and confidently I can learn the wrong lesson.
posted by Didymus | 5:17 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home