Who Is the Prodigal Son?

“Return of the Lost Son” Esteban Murillo, 1670.

On the surface, this story appears rather self-explanatory. A younger son takes his father’s inheritance and squanders it. His father deems him lost, yet the young son eventually returns to his father. As the father states when the son returns, “for this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found” (Lk 15:24).

It would seem fairly obvious that the young son is like the sinner being welcomed back into the arms of God. As a side note, each of the three parables in Luke 15 (“The Lost Sheep,” “The Lost Coin,” “The Prodigal Son”), taken together, go to great lengths to characterize a particular aspect of God’s nature. They highlight God’s love and mercy as being among the most important of God the Father’s dynamic qualities.

In some respects, this parable seems to parallel the account of the laborers in the vineyard (Mt 20: 1-16), each of whom is paid the same wage regardless as to whether they start their duties in the morning, or later in the day. In both accounts the father or owner of the vineyard is very generous towards those who serve him or return to him, regardless as to the length of their service.

The Prodigal Son (or daughter!) further emphasizes that the “father” forgives those who are disobedient or who stray, as long as they eventually return and seek forgiveness. At the same time, the parable warns readers not to behave like the resentful older brother, who does not understand why his father should be so overjoyed at the return of the spendthrift son, when the older son had remained faithful all the while.

Another Possibility: Jesus Identifies with the Prodigal Son

Why does Jesus reference the envious “older son” in this parable, and why is the “older son” a necessary antagonist in the story? Chapter 15 of Luke, from which this story is drawn, opens by telling us that Jesus turns his attention to the Pharisees. Jesus takes note of their impertinent jab, this man (Jesus) welcomes sinners and eats with them. The account of the Prodigal Son, in particular, is a reminder that the self-righteous, and those who regard themselves as holier-than-thou, have no monopoly on the Kingdom of Heaven.

Does Jesus identify himself, in this parable, with the Prodigal Son? As Saint Paul tells us, God: “for our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin” (2 Cor 5:21). Jesus, like the prodigal son, left his father’s house to work among ‘pigs in a field:’ to work in a place that is marred and made unclean by sin.

The Kernel of the Story

The central passage in the story of the Lost or Prodigal Son is the following passage:

But when he came to himself he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have bread enough and to spare, but I perish here with hunger!  I will arise and go to my father, and I will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you;  I am no longer worthy to be called your son; treat me as one of your hired servants.”‘ And he arose and came to his father. But while he was yet at a distance, his father saw him and had compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him.

The passage says the son will arise. In fact, in order to emphasize this point, Luke repeats the term twice. In Greek, the term used is anastasis. Anastasis is the technical term in Greek that refers to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. So who is Jesus talking about in this story? Sinners? Or himself?

The Double Meaning

Jesus, when he tells this story, appears to keep the answer to this question deliberately ambiguous. The Prodigal Son returns to his Father and says, “I have sinned against you.” Jesus sinned against no one, but he did take up the sins of others. In the account of the Prodigal Son, the father says his son “was dead but is alive again;” this statement is suggestive of the Resurrection. And like the Prodigal Son dressed in fine robes, Jesus returns to his father and is acknowledged as a king.

There is further irony because the older son accuses the younger son of associating with sinners – so much so that the insinuation is that the younger, lost, son lived in sin. Yet the story never says that. The account says the lost son spread his wealth about wastefully and liberally – not that he lived in sin. It only the envious older brother who thinks evil, imagining that the younger brother’s lifestyle is one of sin. As a side note, the older brother is so self-absorbed that he never refers to his father as “father!”

Jesus certainly sees a parallel between the Prodigal Son and himself. The difference between the Prodigal Son as “sinner” and the Prodigal Son as a “Christ,” is that Jesus voluntarily took up the Passion and the cross to redeem us. But in so doing, he had to experience the same suffering that we experience when we sin, and he had to experience death in order to win our salvation. In that sense, Jesus most certainly is like the Prodigal Son – a man alienated from the Father, who offered himself in atonement for the sins of others, who was once “dead” but is now “alive,” and who returned to the Father as a king.

]]> http://kingofages.com/2013/03/10/lk-15-1-32/feed/ 0 clericus17fp0glx MURILLO-RETURN OF THE-PRODIGAL SON-bartolome-ESTEBAN MURILLO-1670 http://kingofages.com/2013/02/03/the-quest-for-mark-the-evangelist/ http://kingofages.com/2013/02/03/the-quest-for-mark-the-evangelist/#comments Sun, 03 Feb 2013 23:40:09 +0000 clericus17fp0glx http://kingofages.com/?p=5849 ]]> Those who have been following my blog for a few years know where I stand on the historicity of the Gospels. Recently, I presented to my class the matter of the authorship of Mark’s Gospel. The question as to “Who wrote Mark?” is rather interesting. On the one hand, Mark is not an Apostle. On the other hand, numerous patristic sources attest that Mark was an associate of Peter the Apostle.

Mark’s Gospel is unique in that we have internal and external evidence suggesting, indirectly, that Mark was as associate of Peter’s in Rome. By internal evidence we mean textual evidence. By external evidence, we mean the commentary of others.

External Evidence

In Mark’s case, the external evidence relies on five different commentators, cited in three separate documents written in three different centuries. It is well-known that Eusebius (263-339) attributes authorship of Mark’s Gospel to John Mark, mentioned in Acts. Based on his understanding of the historical record, Eusebius asserts that Mark heard the preaching of Peter in Rome; that Mark wrote a Gospel based upon the preaching of Peter; and that the “Mark” cited in 1 Peter 13 refers to the author of Mark’s Gospel (see H.E. 2.15.2).

Some scholars have discounted the reliability of Eusebius as a historian. These scholars argue that Eusebius fawned over Constantine in his biography of the emperor. However, post-modern scholarship acknowledges that Eusebius has made a serious contribution to our understanding of the early Christian epoch. Eusebius is often the sole or primary source for events transpiring over the first three centuries of church history. He also reports on disputes within the church (see Inowlocki’s Reconsidering Eusebius, or Barnes’ Constantine and Eusebius). Eusebius also tells us about the early scholarship of Origen (and in Origen’s case, the testimony of Eusebius is treated as reliable). 

Eusebius objectivity is, in this case, irrelevant because his work is corroborated.  The Fathers of the early church are virtually of the same mind on this matter: the author of Mark’s Gospel was an associate of Peter the Apostle. Full stop. According to Eusebius (Historiae Ecclesiasticae 3.39.15), Mark recorded the preaching of Peter, with no consideration for the chronological accuracy of the Gospel. Eusebius, playing the role of historian, quotes Papias in this regard. We are told in the same paragraph that Mark’s Gospel is not in chronological order (at least, the accounts before the Passion) because Mark gave priority to writing down what Peter said in an authentic manner, rather than prioritizing the order of the events.

“Mark Preaching in Alexandria.” Bellini, 1507.

The Dissent

Daniel Harrington, SJ, a biblical scholar over at Boston College, wrote a few decades ago that we can’t be sure about Eusebius’ testimony. Harrington’s essay on Mark, in the New Jerome Biblical Commentary, reflects a “party view” among historical-critical scholars. This very biased view posits that we can never really be sure if the early church Fathers are ever accurate. Their are many scholars who don’t agree with this position: for example, R. T. France, A. Kostenberger, Mary Healey.

Now, I don’t know if Harrington still shares this view. In addition, he does not say “John Mark did not write Mark’s Gospel.” He simply argues in favor of an abundance of caution. More recent commentaries, especially those published in the past ten years, are not as skeptical or cautious. Curtis Mitch and Edward Sri (the latter having a doctorate from the Gregorian University) have pointed out that the tendency to reject the testimony of the Church Fathers based on the internal evidence of the Gospel is problematic.  Fortunately, the academic trend in Scripture Scholarship has shifted away from a total hostility towards patristic sources and towards a more balanced view.

The Other External Evidence

Eusebius cites multiple sources that argues that an associate of Saint Peter wrote the Gospel of Mark in Rome. In  Historiae Ecclesiasticae 6.14.6, Eusebius discusses the work of Clement of Alexandria. Clement writes that Mark knew the preaching of Peter the apostle well, and that Mark was asked to record the preaching of Peter by the people of the church. Clement also says that Mark was written after Mathew and Luke. Eusebius does not necessarily agree with Clement on this point, he simply records what Clement wrote.

In Historiae Ecclestiasticae 6.25.5, Eusebius quotes an even more prominent patristic source: Origen. According to Eusebius, Origen was an extremely well-trained Scripture scholar. He was known to track down the most obscure sources in order to enhance his understanding of Scripture.  Origen is one of the earliest writers to assert that Matthew wrote first, Mark second, and Luke third. According to Origen, Mark wrote a Gospel according to the instruction of Peter. Note that both Clement and Origen agree that Mark’s Gospel is rooted in the preaching of Peter. According to Origen, the “Mark” cited in 1 Peter 13, refers to the author of Mark’s Gospel.

Eusebius, Clement and Origen are not the only patristic sources to argue that the author of Mark’s Gospel was an associate of Peter’s. Tertullian (160-225), in Against Marcion 4.5,  also argues that Mark based his Gospel on the preaching of Peter.  Irenaeus concurs in Against Heresies 3.1, stating that Mark “handed down to us what had been preached by Peter.” We can see from several sources that even second-century writers considered Mark’s Gospel to be a) written by an associate of Peter the apostle, and b) part of a four-gospel canon.

The Dilemma Posed by Mark

The challenge for modern scholars is not so much the assertion that Mark knew of Peter’s preaching and recorded it. The difficulty is that two patristic sources – Clement and Origen – argue in favor of the priority of Matthew’s gospel. As Daniel Harrington has suggested, this poses serious difficulties for modern scholars who are invested in the Q hypothesis.

While scholars can argue about whether Mark or Matthew wrote first, the tendency to reject the testimony that Mark recorded Peter’s preaching is foolish. It is a tradition recorded and accepted by Origen, Clement, Eusebius, Tertullian and Irenaeus. Really, what modern scholars should say is that “the modern hypothesis completely disagrees with entirety of patristic testimony” when it comes to the authorship of Mark’s Gospel. I can’t side with the modern thesis on this issue. Far more evidence is required to throw out the highly sensible and logical premise that Mark, the author of the Gospel,  was an associate of Peter.

The Internal Evidence

Mark’s association with Peter in Rome  is further strengthened by the testimony of the Gospel itself. Mark’s Gospel has a high frequency of Latin loan-words, incorporated into the Greek text without a translation. With a tip to Dr. Rod Decker, the Latin loan words are:

census (κῆνσος, “census tax,” 2778, in verse 12:14), centurio (κεντυρίων, “centurion,” 2760, 15:39, 44, 45), denarius (δηνάριον, a Roman coin, 12:15), legio (λεγιών, “legion,” 5:9, 15), modius (μόδιος, “peck measure,” 3426, 4:21), praetorium (πραιτώριον, “governor’s official residence,” 15:16), quadrans (κοδράντης, a Roman coin, 2835, 12:42), sextarius (ξέστης, “quart measure,” or “pitcher,” 3582, 7:4), speculator (σπεκουλάτωρ, “executioner,” 6:27), and flagellum (φραγελλόω, “to flog,” 5417, 15:15).

Perhaps of greatest interest to the general reader is that Mark uses western, Roman vocabulary to describe money throughout his Gospel. Mark uses the words quadrans and denarius. Matthew and Luke, by contrast, employ vocabulary more commonly used in the eastern half of the empire. The assarion, for instance, is a Greek corruption of the Latin coin known as an “as.” Mark also uses Latin geographic terms, such as Syro-Phoencian (a Phoenician from Syria) to describe the woman from Canaan in Mark 7:25. Matthew the Apostle simply calls her “a Canaanite.”

Mark is not simply a scribe that Peter hired, either in Greece or Rome, to record the Gospels. He is, on the contrary, a trusted confidant – someone who hailed from Judea. What evidence is there that Mark was himself spoke Aramaic and hailed from Judea?  We might consider the Aramaic terms that Mark uses, and then defines, in his Gospel: “boanerges,” “talitha koum,” “q’rban,” “ephphatha,” “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani.”

The Testimony in Acts and  Paul’s Epistles

Who is this “John Mark” that Eusebius speaks of? He is a Jewish Christian mentioned in Acts 12:12 and 12:25. His mother owned a home in Jerusalem, possibly the place where the Last Supper was held. John Mark was the cousin or nephew of Barnabas (Col 4:10).

A Conclusion

The circumstantial evidence that an assistant to Peter wrote the Gospel of Markis actually quite strong. This testimony comes from Eusebius, Clement, Origen, Tertullian and Irenaeus. In addition, Mark’s Gospel has Latin loan words and deliberate Aramaic phrases. Thus, the Gospel seems to locate itself as being the product of a Judean writer who went to Rome and adapted the account for a gentile audience – by working in Latin loan words and then defining foreign Aramaic terms. This certainly compliments the testimony of Eusebius. Thus we have corroborating historical evidence. No, it is not absolute, but the preponderance of evidence – both external and internal – suggests that an associate of Peter’s, possibly John Mark, wrote Mark’s Gospel.

Jesus, Isaiah and Malachi speak of the forerunners: Elijah and John the Baptist

“Preaching of John the Baptist.” Mattia Preti, 1665. San Francisco.

The role of John the Baptist is anticipated in the Book of Isaiah. Isaiah, whose preaching is often times messianic, has this to say about the coming of the Lord in Isaiah 40: 3-5:

A voice cries: “In the wilderness prepare the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God. Every valley shall be lifted up, and every mountain and hill be made low; the uneven ground shall become level, and the rough places a plain. And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together, for the mouth of the LORD has spoken.”

And it is Malachi the minor prophet who attributes to Elijah to role of anticipating the coming of the Lord. To quote Malachi 4:5, Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of the LORD comes. Matthew’s Gospel (17:10-13) completes the circle, telling us that “John the Baptist is Elijah,”

The disciples asked him, “Why then do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?“ Jesus replied, “To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things. But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands.” Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist.

Luke’s Account

Luke’s account of the ministry and preaching of John the Baptist varies slightly from the other Synoptic accounts. The Baptist’s choice of phraseology - prepare the way of the lord (Mt 3:3, Mk 1:3), and one mightier than I is coming (Mt 3:11, Mk 1:7) – is common to the Synoptics. However, in Luke’s Gospel, the Baptist takes it upon himself to give advice as to how to make a highway for the Lord.  He tells the prosperous to share what they have, the tax collectors not to over-charge, and the soldiers not to grumble about their wages.

John the Baptist Heralds the Good News

When Christians speak of the Good News we can speak either of the Resurrection of Jesus, or more generally, the Gospels (which speak of the death and Resurrection of Jesus). The Gospels of Mark and Luke use the term Good News in the more general sense. Mark (verse 1:1) uses the Good News to describe his own Gospel account of the story of Jesus Christ – the great victory of Christ over death. In doing so, Mark borrows from an Imperial Roman usage of the Greek term eu-aggelion (Good News).

In Luke’s Gospel, it is John the Baptist who announces the Good News – the coming of the Messiah. John the Baptist preaches salvation and judgment. The Baptist tells us, in his own inimitable style, that the coming Messiah has taken the winnowing fan into his hand, and will gather the wheat into his barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.

Luke’s passage about John the Baptist is not the most obvious Advent reading, since the tone is somewhat eschatological. However, two factors argue in support of this reading as an Advent reading. First, it is currently year C, which obliges the editors of the Lectionary to select a passage about John the Baptist from a Lucan source. In choosing this passage for an Advent reading, the editors of the Lectionary emphasize the symmetry of the Incarnation, the Resurrection and the return of Jesus Christ. Without the Incarnation, the subsequent events are not possible. As John of Nazianzus writes of Jesus Christ and our own salvation, What has not been assumed cannot be restored; it is what is united with God that is saved.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, John the Baptist is the key Gospel figure who links together or establishes continuity between Old Testament prophecy on the one hand, and the Incarnation and the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, on the other.

Secondly,

Luke 3:10-18

The crowds asked John the Baptist,
“What should we do?”
He said to them in reply,
“Whoever has two cloaks
should share with the person who has none.
And whoever has food should do likewise.”
Even tax collectors came to be baptized and they said to him,
“Teacher, what should we do?”
He answered them,
“Stop collecting more than what is prescribed.”
Soldiers also asked him,
“And what is it that we should do?”
He told them,
“Do not practice extortion,
do not falsely accuse anyone,
and be satisfied with your wages.”

Now the people were filled with expectation,
and all were asking in their hearts
whether John might be the Christ.
John answered them all, saying,
“I am baptizing you with water,
but one mightier than I is coming.
I am not worthy to loosen the thongs of his sandals.
He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
His winnowing fan is in his hand to clear his threshing floor
and to gather the wheat into his barn,
but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”
Exhorting them in many other ways,
he preached good news to the people.

Reblogged from ROLAND'S GOSPEL COMMENTARY:

• 

Pardon the interruption while we jump into the story of Santa Claus, or more properly, Saint Nicholas.  The American tradition of a bearded man in a red suit distributing gifts is a custom borrowed from the Feast of Saint Nicholas, celebrated since medieval times in the low countries of Belgium and Holland.

In these countries, the tradition was to exchange gifts not on the 25th of December, but three weeks before hand.  

Read more… 767 more words

Elizabeth’s Baby Leaps for Joy

The Visitation. Ghirandaio, 1491. The Louvre, Paris.

When Mary encounter’s Elizabeth, the infant in Elizabeth’s womb “leaps for joy.” This incident parallels the conduct of King David in 2 Samuel 6:14-15,

Then David came dancing before the LORD with abandon, girt with a linen ephod. David and all the house of Israel were bringing up the ark of the LORD with shouts of joy and sound of horn.

It is most ironic that David dances before the Ark of the Lord, in much the same way that John the Baptist leaps in the presence of Mary – a first century ark of the Lord. 

Oh Highly Favored Mary… or Blessed?

Elizabeth, the cousin of Mary, greets Mary with the compliment, Blessed are you among women (NAB, KJV), or highly favored are you among women (NIV). In Greek, the phrase is expressed  εὐλογημένη  σὺ  ἐν  γυναιξὶν (eulogeme su en gunaixin). The literal, and incorrect, translation might be, you are “highly-spoken of among women.”

The reader should take note that while the literal translation of the verb eulogein is “to speak well of,” that is not the intended meaning in the original language. Those fluent in Spanish and Italian know, for instance, that the literal translation of benedire in Italian and bendecir in Spanish is “to speak well of.” Yet these terms mean “to bless” in both languages.

We have the same situation in Greek, where eulogein literally means “to speak well of” yet is used almost exclusively to signify “to bless.” For instance, the Gospel authors chose eulogein when they spoke of Jesus blessing bread (Mark 6:41, Matthew 14:19). Jesus did not speak well of bread – he extended a blessing upon it. Many Protestant translations of the Gospels (Tyndale 1526, King James 1611, Webster Bible 1833, ASV 1901, RSV 1946, New Century 1987, NLT 1996) are in agreement with the NAB: Mary is blessed among women.

The Mother of My Lord

Elizabeth also awards Mary another totally unexpected title in this passage: she calls Mary the mother of my Lord. One might suggest that Elizabeth is simply flattering or extending a further compliment to Mary. However, it is socially out-of-place, and even inappropriate for a woman to call her cousin’s unborn infant “my lord” over and above her own husband or her husband’s son. In Scripture, “Lord” can obviously refer to the Messiah or to YHWH. It is also used by a son when speaking of his father, by a citizen when addressing a judge, or as a term reserved for a person of distinction. In order to understand what Elizabeth means, we need to look at the context in which it is said.

Elizabeth’s Testimony of Faith

Luke’s account of the Visitation gives us an indication as to who exactly, the child of Mary is destined to become. The Gospel author Luke does not editorialize. Rather he recounts the experience of Elizabeth so that we can understand how Elizabeth perceives her encounter with Mary, who is with child.

In the presence of Mary, Elizabeth’s baby leaps for joy like King David before the Ark of the Lord. Elizabeth calls Mary “blessed” and her unborn son “Lord.” We infer that Elizabeth understands the child of Mary may be destined to be the Messiah. And Luke makes it especially clear that Elizabeth infers this on her own, with no help from Mary.

Is the child of Mary destined to be the Messiah? At this point in Luke’s Gospel, Elizabeth’s faith experience leads us to that possibility – a possibility that can only be confirmed as the ministry of Jesus unfolds. Elizabeth’s prophetic testimony about Jesus and Mary is, indeed, a testimony of faith. As the passage states, she was filled with the Holy Spirit.

“Do Not Prevent Him”

“John the Apostle” Titian, 1542.

The scene is set as John the Apostle tells Jesus that he and some other disciples tried to discourage a stranger from working in Jesus’ name. Confronted by this matter, Jesus tells John not to prevent strangers from trying to do good in the name of Christ.

Oddly, there are other accounts in the Book of Acts (19:13-16) where strangers are taken to task for similarly working in Jesus’ name. So why does Jesus dismiss John’s concern here? Perhaps because John is both young and a favorite of Jesus. Jesus does not view John, who is about fifteen, as someone who ought to confront his peers. But on a more theological level, the timing for a confrontation is bad. As Jesus progresses towards Jerusalem and his date with destiny, there is no need for a disciple to pick a fight with a stranger. Jesus could use all the friends and supporters he can muster. As Jesus tells John, for whoever is not against us is for us.

Good Works Emphasized

Today’s passage contains a reference to good works and faith. If one reads this section closely, it is actually quite fascinating to see what Jesus is trying to do. Consider first Mark 9:39:

There is no one who performs a mighty deed in my name
who can at the same time speak ill of me.

Then look at how Jesus transitions the observation about mighty deeds in Mk 9:41:

Anyone who gives you a cup of water to drink
because you belong to Christ,
amen, I say to you, will surely not lose his reward.

Jesus explains to the Apostle John, first, that no one can perform a mighty work (such as an exorcism) who is not working on Christ’s behalf. In other words, the proof is in the success of the action. If someone accomplishes the work of Christ, then that person is simple making manifest their faith in Christ – such a person works with the de facto power or authority of Jesus. But Jesus then re-directs the message towards all of his disciples. He insinuates that “mighty works” are not something that all of us are called to bring about. Our faith, which is very important, does not have to manifest itself in mighty works. The simple act of offering another Christian a cup of water is (or can be) a worthy act of charity and grace, worthy of justification.

Why does this passage appear to be so different, theologically, from Paul’s letter to the Romans? In Paul’s letter to the Romans, Paul addresses divisions among Christians of Jewish and pagan origin. He tells the Roman Christians (of Jewish background) not to become obsessed by the works of the old law. However, in this passage, Jesus addresses two matters. First, good works are evidence of faith in Christ, and Christ rewards those who, because of their faith, labor on his behalf. Secondly, Jesus alludes to the challenge – even the danger – of publicly bearing witness to the faith. This passage is situated close to the end of the ministry of Jesus. In a very short time, it will be very difficult for the disciples to bear witness to the faith.

In chapters 13-16, we are told that the disciples abandoned Jesus as the political pressure to arrest and punish him grows. As Mark tells us in chapter 14 verse 50, then everyone deserted Jesus and fled (also Mt 26:56). Consider what Jesus says to the disciples in Mark 13:9-10,

But take heed to yourselves; for they will deliver you up to councils; and you will be beaten in synagogues; and you will stand before governors and kings for my sake, to bear testimony before them. And the gospel must first be preached to all nations.

When Jesus says that ‘anyone who provides even a cup of water to someone who belongs Christ, he will not lose his reward,’ he is encouraging the disciples to stand fast and hold firm in their faith. He is asking them to support each other during a coming time of trial. And that  - yes – such faith-driven good works are worthy of grace and justification.

Whoever Causes a Little One To Sin

As I had mentioned last week, Mark splits the story in Matthew 18:1-9 (“The Greatest in the Kingdom”) in two. In Mark 9, the discussion of the Greatest in the Kingdom begins at verse 33. It is then interrupted at verse 38 by the apostle John’s question. In verse 42, Jesus returns to theme of doing good and avoiding scandal. He warns the disciples not to scandalize the innocent or the “little ones.” More broadly, he advises us that if one wants to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, better to cut off the hand or pluck out the eye that causes one to sin, rather than lose one’s soul.

Gehenna

Jesus concludes the passage with a stark warning to his disciples. He tells them to avoid sin at any cost, as it is better to do so and go to heaven, rather than be lax about vice and go to Gehenna, where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched. In this passage, Jesus quotes the last verse of Isaiah, 66:24, nearly verbatim. Some scholars believe that the dual reference to the Valley of Hinnom suggests that it was a dump outside of Jerusalem where garbage burned continuously.

Either way, Jesus asks his disciples to be mindful of the cost of discipleship. Discipleship is not merely a personal faith in Jesus: discipleship also entails supporting each other, as well as avoiding sin and scandal.

Gospel Mk 9:38-43, 45, 47-48

The Second of Three Predictions of the Passion in Mark

In Mark’s Gospel, Jesus predicts, in three different chapters, that the Son of Man will suffer or be killed (Mk 8:31-32;  9:30-31; 10:32-34). In each of these passages, Jesus also predicts that he will rise after three days. John’s Gospel also happens to parallel Mark with the triple-prediction of the Passion. But in John’s Gospel, the prediction is worded differently. John tells us that the Son of Man will be lifted up, (John 3:14, 8:28, and 12:32. See my blog post on this topic). The Sacred Authors wish to convey that Jesus understood that the cost of his ministry would be high. Yet at the same time, he also predicts his own resurrection. In this passage, it interesting to note that the disciples can’t fathom or process the prediction of his death and resurrection. We may well imagine Peter responding to Jesus, Lord, that’s too much information!

The Disciples are Afraid

When Jesus says the Son of Man will be handed over, we should hardly be surprised the initial response of the disciples is fear. In Mark’s Gospel, we encounter the term afraid eight or nine times. In Matthew’s Gospel, it is used even more frequently – perhaps seventeen times (lexicon). The Sacred Authors tell us that fear was something the disciples experienced from time to time.  The faith experience of the disciples was anything but mundane. The preaching and works of Jesus were not always received with enthusiasm. Jesus was falsely accused by the leadership, beaten and condemned to death. Most of his disciples fled when he was arrested.

In the Old Testament, awe and fear are two typical responses to an encounter with God. But Jesus, who is also very human, often tries to reassure the disciples. The phrase, be not afraid or have no fear occurs in each of the four Gospels, approximately 12 times in total. In  this particular passage, there is no attempt to reassure the disciples, since the Passion is a reality that the disciples must learn to accept (and, in fact, to share with others through their preaching and their own witness).

The Greatest Among the Disciples

In Mark’s Gospel, there is an awkward transition to the next pericope. Mark’s account of the “greatest among the disciples” is interrupted by a digression at verses 38-41. Nevertheless, let’s look at the theology. Jesus reminds his closest disciples that they ought not seek high position or compete with each other for accolade or recognition. In fact, this sort of careerism is the very opposite of the type of service that Jesus expects of his disciples.

“Jesus and the Children.” Lucas Cranach, 1585. Wittenberg.

Jesus very astutely uses children as a teaching tool for the disciples. He reminds the disciples to be attentive to the least among them, including children. Jesus tells the apostles that to welcome young children is akin to receiving the Father in heaven. His point? Ministry is not only directed towards the powerful, the influential or the wealthy.  In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus continues and expands upon the pericope. Jesus knows that children learn by example, and he insists that the disciples set a good example for children. He warns the disciples not to scandalize the innocent with their own behavior. Jesus tells the disciples that it would be better if such a person had a millstone tied around their neck and were thrown into the sea, rather than cause a “little one” to sin.

This same sentiment is picked up in Mark’s Gospel further along in chapter 9, at verse 42. But the theology in both Matthew and Mark are the same. Jesus wants his disciples to be less converned with prestige and more concerned with the welfare of others… without taking into account the relative wealth, power or influence of those they serve. Jesus then presses the analogy, warning that the disciples that they should never scandalize the innocent,, especially children, by their own conduct.

Gospel Mk 9:30-37

Jesus and his disciples left from there and began a journey through Galilee,
but he did not wish anyone to know about it.
He was teaching his disciples and telling them,
“The Son of Man is to be handed over to men
and they will kill him,
and three days after his death the Son of Man will rise.”
But they did not understand the saying,
and they were afraid to question him.

They came to Capernaum and, once inside the house,
he began to ask them,
“What were you arguing about on the way?”
But they remained silent.
They had been discussing among themselves on the way
who was the greatest.
Then he sat down, called the Twelve, and said to them,
“If anyone wishes to be first,
he shall be the last of all and the servant of all.”
Taking a child, he placed it in the their midst,
and putting his arms around it, he said to them,
“Whoever receives one child such as this in my name, receives me;
and whoever receives me,
receives not me but the One who sent me.”

“You are the Christ”

Mark and Matthew each tell us that Peter confesses that Jesus is the Christ. In Matthew’s Gospel, Peter adds, you are the Son of the Living God. Note that when the people are asked who Jesus is, their response is not far from the mark. They call him Elijah or John the Baptist. These are the two prophets who are the heralds of the coming of the Messiah and the Kingdom of God. Malachi tells us that Elijah will announce the terrible day of the coming of the Lord. And John the Baptist, too, tells us to prepare the way of the Lord, as Isaiah predicted in Isaiah 40:1-3. Elijah and John figure so importantly in messianic literature that they are arguably characters in the Book of Revelation: the two olive trees and lamp stands, who have the power to prophecy in Revelation 11.

But it is unsurprising that Peter, spokesman of the Apostles, properly identifies Jesus. The faith of Peter is a recurring theme throughout the Gospels. In John 6:68-69, Peter similarly confesses that Jesus is the Holy One of God, but in the context of the Bread of Life discourse. In each of these instances, Peter’s confession is an expression of trust in the Lord – of pure faith.

Get Behind Me Satan

No sooner has Peter called Jesus the Christ, when Jesus corrects him with the harsh words, get behind me, Satan. Jesus reminds his readers that while even his closest associates, such as Peter, may recognize him as the Christ, not even the Apostles can see the future, nor understand, in advance, the mission of Jesus. Only Jesus understands that his destiny encompasses the humiliation of the cross, and the resurrection.

With the phrase get behind me Satan, Jesus is warning Peter and the others not to alter the destiny of Jesus (nor the church), by taking the situation into their own hands. Christ’s destiny is ordained by God himself. Some scholars read too much into this comment directed at Peter. Yet, it would indeed be the work of the devil himself, metaphorically speaking, to undo the salvific work of the cross. Jesus warns Peter not to be a victim of “good intentions,” since what is required of a good disciple is not “good intentions,” but rather sincere faith and obedience to Christ, even when things get difficult.

Take Up Your Cross and Follow Me

Jesus concludes the passage by telling his closest disciples that they must take up their own cross and follow Jesus. He refers both to the burden of discipleship, which must be borne joyfully, as well as his own death. One might imagine that the phrase “take up the cross” is not a slip by the editor, but rather a reference to a commonly known, and feared, punishment used by the Romans to impose order on non-citizens of the Empire. Jesus then doubles-down on the analogy by stating, whoever loses his life for my sake and that of the Gospel will save it. Mark likes the term “Gospel” or “Good News” (euaggellion), and uses it five times in his own Gospel. Jesus seems to reiterate to Peter and the disciples that a challenging road lies ahead, both for Jesus and the disciples.

Gospel Mk 8:27-35

It’s a pretty good article, reflecting well-worn (and declining in popularity) historical-critical scholarship. However, he rather humorously calls his position “mainstream biblical scholarship.” This is an irony, since his version of mainstream scholarship is endorsed by fewer and fewer Christians, let alone Christian denominations. Wikipedia calls him an influential voice in progressive Christianity.

The Jesus Seminar

At the very least, he might be forthright about his membership in the “Jesus Seminar” in his Huffington Post article.  The Jesus Seminar has lost considerable credibility with mainstream scholars and practicing Christians because the Jesus Seminar does silly, and non-scientific, things. They vote, verse by verse, on the accuracy of a given Gospel text by submitting a colored bead. And of course, the “Jesus Seminar” is closely associated with the published work of John Dominic Crossan, who asserts very explicitly that the crucifixion was the end of the life of Jesus.

Dr. Borg

Borg is nevertheless a formidable and well-respected scholar. His publications on the life and ministry of Jesus are major contributions to Christian scholarship, even if one does not agree with his views. Borg is one of a handful of scholars who has published a massive tome on the meaning of the life and resurrection of Jesus. Dr. Borg has drawn his own conclusions. They are scholarly, but they contribute to a multitude of views about the meaning of the ministry of Jesus. Dr. Borg’s views on the self-understanding of Jesus are also a contribution to an academic area where there are at least a half dozen or so views as to whether Jesus believed himself to be divine, and why.

These views are not “mainstream” for the simple reason that, among biblical scholars, there exists a multiplicity of views about who Jesus believed himself to be. The reader ought to be aware that some of these academic views cannot even be characterized as Christian, since some of these scholars argue that Jesus a) never understood himself to be divine, or b) if he did, he was mistaken, or c) if he understood himself to be a Son of God, that does not mean that he was any different than you or I.

Lets look at his comments in the Huff Post Article.

“The Gospels are not the Source of early Christianity but its product.”

This statement is actually self-evident, and only true if taken in context. The Gospels were not circulated two days or two weeks after Pentecost.  For most Christians, the fact that the Gospels were written twenty to fifty years after Pentecost does not alter their historicity. On the other hand, for many Christians, the Gospels are the source of the faith, since we do not claim to know much about the world behind the text. Scholars attempt to get behind that world behind the text. “Attempt” is the operative word here, since most of the written material about Jesus comes from the Gospels and the letters of Paul.

For the historical-critical scholar, the late dating means that the authors interpolated quite a bit. It means Jesus did not walk on water (an addition), that Lazarus was not raised form the dead (myth), that Peter was never metaphorically given the keys to the kingdom (a later modification), that chapter 21 of John is not even written by the same author as the rest of John. For some scholars, like John Dominic Crossan, it means Christ never rose from the dead. The resurrection was, for these scholars, a fable created by the community to “deal with” or to rationalize the drama of the ministry and Passion of Jesus.

Borg ignores another analytical problem. And that is this: while Paul’s letters may have been written before the Gospels, Saint Paul did not witness the preaching of Jesus, nor his passion! Again, the source texts for these events are not Paul’s letters but the Gospels themselves. In Borg’s article, he ignores the fact that at least two of the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses to extensive portions of the ministry of Jesus. This is the definition of apostolic authority. It is the privilege of speaking (and writing) about Jesus based on a personal knowledge of the man himself.

“Reading the Gospels in chronological order, beginning with Mark…”

As readers of my blog know, the scholarship substantiating Marcan priority is circumstantial. I’ve talked to scholars on these pages. Some feel strongly that Matthew drew from Mark. I respect that. But as I have stated before, the earliest nineteenth-century scholarship on Marcan priority is absolutely abysmal. The more recent scholarship is based purely on redaction analysis, since we have no credible archaeology or early records indicating that the Church Fathers believe Mark wrote his Gospel first. As I have argued, redaction scholarship proves little unless it can be supported by other forms of biblical research. Borg’s blithe ignorance of the growing academic skepticism towards Marcan priority tells us he is a scholar out of touch with recent trends in scriptural study.

“John’s Gospel is primarily “witness” or “testimony” to what Jesus had become in the life and thought of John’s community.”

Again, Borg’s views aren’t scholarship, they are self-serving arguments. Per Borg, John is not a witness to the events of the life of Jesus. According to Borg, the Gospel of John is witness to what “Jesus had become” to the Johannine community. Note the classic phrase, “what Jesus had become.” This is the language of the Jesus Seminar: we’ve lost the original Jesus. John’s Gospel gives us the “Johannine version” of Jesus, or what Jesus was in the popular imagination of John’s community. If this were the case, then the theology in John would contradict Matthew.

The theology in John’s Gospel does not contradict the theology in Matthew’s Gospel, because both Gospels were written by eyewitnesses. In fact, both Gospels were written (or possibly dictated, if a scribe wrote on their behalf) by apostles who had apostolic authority. That is why you see systematic organization in John and Matthew: because both authors knew Jesus and listened to him preach. The organization in Mark and Luke is less evident, because these Gospels were not written by close confidants of Jesus himself.

It’s interesting. Many scholars see the organization in Matthew and John and therefore argue these Gospels were written later, and heavily redacted or glossed. To me, the organization in both Gospels demonstrates the opposite. The authors of these Gospels were men determined to faithfully and persuasively record what they had seen themselves, men who did not want to resort to a stream-of-consciousness account on the one hand, or a strictly chronological, biographic account on the other. The Gospels of Matthew and John aren’t the works of a committee – they are the works of two great theologians. Finally, their theological greatness comes not from their imagination, it comes from their close proximity to the work of Jesus, in addition to a serious dose of inspiration from the Holy Spirit. And yes, that inspiration may have come from the community as well!

One of the problems with biblical scholarship is that while Borg may be a respected biblical scholar, his expertise in the area of theology is not so evident. That is why biblical scholars are often reduced to subjecting passages to textual analysis: because they don’t know the theology. And that may be one reason the “historical-critical scholars” are always misinterpreting Scripture, fudging the history and toying with the dating of its authorship.

If you believe what you like in the Gospels, and reject what you don’t like,  then it is not the Gospel you believe in, but yourself. – St Augustine

]]> http://kingofages.com/2012/08/31/great-scholar/feed/ 0 clericus17fp0glx http://kingofages.com/2012/08/11/john-6-60-69/ http://kingofages.com/2012/08/11/john-6-60-69/#comments Sun, 12 Aug 2012 04:34:38 +0000 clericus17fp0glx http://kingofages.com/?p=5569 ]]> Today’s reading is the final excerpt from the “Bread of Life” discourse in John chapter 6. Jesus has already fed the multitude, crossed the lake, and told the crowd that he is the “bread of life.” Jesus then stunned the crowd with the statement that unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood,you do not have life within you.

In this article, we link the Eucharistic symbolism in John 6 with John chapter 21. Additionally, we see the Sacred Author John treat the Apostle Peter very favorably, which he does not do in other passages. For further exegesis of John chapter 6, you may want to read my commentaries on the miracle of the loaves and the fish, John 6:1-15; and the commentaries on the Bread of Life Discourse in John 6, verses 24-35; 41-51; and 51-58.

A Hard Saying

“Feed My Sheep.” Rafael, 1515. London.

When Jesus says, you must eat of the flesh of the Son of Man, the disciples respond, this is a hard saying. The crowd is confused, the disciples are confused, and Jesus does not go to great lengths to explain the symbolism.

We might expect John to include the Last Supper discourse on the Eucharist to clear up any confusion. but John does not do that, as Jesus speaks of other matters at the Last Supper in the fourth Gospel. It’s fair to ask – will John (or Jesus) ever explain the “Bread of Life” discourse? Does John expect us to read the Synoptic accounts of the Last Supper for a clarification of the symbolism in John 6 ?

A Johannine Secret

Well, no. John waits until the very end of his Gospel, chapter 21, to help clarify what is going on in John chapter 6. And John is pretty sneaky about it. An astute student of John’s Gospel  will note that the author is a bit secretive about a few things in his Gospel. For instance, John never mentions his own name; he is “the Beloved Disciple,” or “a disciple” (13:23; 18:15; 19:26; 21:20; 21:24). John never mentions Mary the mother of Jesus by name; she is called “woman” (2:4; 19:26). And he never mentions the Eucharist at the Last Supper. Why is John so ambiguous? Some scholars believe that John wrote during a period of Christian persecution, and therefore his writing can be symbolic. John even hints at the martyrdom of Peter (Jn 21:18-19).

Rather than describe the Eucharist directly, and in its proper historical context (and thus betray what the Eucharist actually is to the church’s opponents), John gives us highly symbolic accounts in chapter 6, and then later in John chapter 21. John chapter 21 is the final chapter of the Gospel, and, due to its unique content, some scholars argue that it was added by a second author. One rebuttal to this thesis is that chapter 21 is contained in all early versions of John: in other words, we do not have an early manuscript of John without chapter 21.

In the closing scene of John’s Gospel, John tells us that Jesus turns to Peter. It was Peter that confessed that Jesus was the Holy one of God in the “Bread of Life” discourse in chapter 6. Now, in one of the final passages in his entire Gospel (John 21: 13-17), John introduces the conversation with a rather obvious signal – a Eucharistic parallel to the beginning of John 6. In fact, John 6, verse 11 is nearly identical to John 21, verse 13.

Here is John 21: 13-17; keep in mind chapter 6 while reading it:

Jesus came and took the bread and gave it to them, and so with the fish (see John 6:11). This was now the third time that Jesus was revealed to the disciples after he was raised from the dead.  When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”  A second time he said to him, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.”  He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.”

Note that John the Evangelist prefaces the Eucharistic discourse in chapter 6, and the charge to Peter here in chapter 21, with the symbolic feeding with bread and fish. Jesus ties together John chapter 6 (the Bread of Life Discourse) and John chapter 10 (The Good Shepherd Discourse) in this passage, with references to the feeding and tending of sheep.

Of course, we can reasonably infer, based on the references to the Resurrection, and to the ‘bread and fish’ in both chapter 6 and here, that Jesus is referring to “feeding the multitude,” with the “bread of heaven.” In other words, Peter and the apostles have been charged to maintain the tradition of the Eucharist. Voila, Jesus had managed to do this without referring to the Eucharist at the Last Supper.

Peter Comes to the Fore

John the Evangelist, at times, likes to highlight Peter’s humanity. For instance, Peter has to ask John as to which Apostle will betray Jesus at the Last Supper. After the Resurrection, John outruns Peter to reach the tomb first, though Peter goes in before him (Jn 20:8). And in the closing chapter of John, Peter inquires about John, only to be rebuffed by Jesus. John also likes to note his own proximity to Peter at key events: Peter’s calling (1:35-43), the Last Supper, the arrest of Jesus, the Resurrection. When I studied Johannine Scripture at university, I often wondered at what seemed to a be a sort-of rivalry between the young John and the far more senior Peter. It was almost as if John simultaneously looked up to Peter, and envied the unique role that Peter played as the Apostle’s spokesman.

However, in two pivotal discourses in chapters 6 and 21, John the Evangelist allows Jesus to show us that he regards Peter as the point-person for Christ’s ministry. In chapter 21, Christ asks Peter to “feed my sheep.” Returning to our passage in chapter 6, Peter confesses that Jesus has the words of eternal life (verse 68). Peter is referring to the entire Bread of Life discourse, and Christ’s mandate to eat the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die (see verses 47-58).

Jesus does concede, after the crowd has dispersed, that his discourse was symbolic, stating that it is the spirit that gives life. But Jesus uses the symbolism of John 6 to explain something. The symbolism in John 6 points to the Eucharist, and the discourse is not a stand-alone discourse. Rather, the Bread of Life discourse is the Johannine masterpiece of Eucharistic theology, which allows John the Evangelist to remove the account of the Institution of the Eucharist from the Last Supper. We cannot be certain why John wants to remove the Eucharist from the Last Supper account, but we can infer that chapters 6 and 21, in some sense, serve as intentional substitutes for the missing Eucharistic story at the Last Supper.

John 6:60-69

Many of Jesus’ disciples who were listening said,
“This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this,
he said to them, “Does this shock you?
What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending
to where he was before?
It is the spirit that gives life,
while the flesh is of no avail.
The words I have spoken to you are Spirit and life.
But there are some of you who do not believe.”
Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe
and the one who would betray him.
And he said,
“For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me
unless it is granted him by my Father.”

As a result of this,
many of his disciples returned to their former way of life
and no longer accompanied him.
Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?”
Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go?
You have the words of eternal life.
We have come to believe
and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.”