Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T07:42:42.677Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Powerlessness as Power: A Key Emphasis in the Gospel of Mark

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2009

Dorothy A. Lee-Pollard
Dorothy A. Lee-Pollard
Affiliation:
United Theological College, 420 Liverpool Road, Sydney, 2136, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In this paper the relationship between power and powerlessness in the Gospel of Mark is discussed — a theme which, though touched upon, has not been developed at any length nor traced throughout the Gospel. Yet to explore the dynamic that exists between power and powerlessness within the structure of the Gospel is essential for understanding Mark as a theologian and a story-teller. This is because in the first place, the notion of power is central to the image of ‘kingdom’ as it is generally understood — power, indeed, as a political conception, though this is often obscured by the tendency, even in modern exegesis, to interpret Mark in exclusively spiritual terms. Mark's Gospel is filled with the signs of this power and their impact on all aspects of human life cannot be underestimated. In the second place, the idea of powerlessness arises out of the recognition (now widely accepted) that at the centre of Mark's story lies a theologia cruets, a theology of Jesus' suffering and death which is not far from the Pauline kerygma of the crucified Christ (e.g. 1 Cor. 1.18ff.)

Type
Research Article
Information
Scottish Journal of Theology , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , May 1987 , pp. 173 - 188
Copyright
Copyright © Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See for example, T. J. Weeden, ‘The Cross as Power in Weakness (Mark 15.20b-41)’ and Kelber, W. H., ‘Conclusion: From Passion Narrative to Gospel’, in The Passion in Mark, ed. Kelber, W. H. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), pp. 115–134, 153–80Google Scholar; also Donahue, J. R., ‘Jesus as the Parable of God in the Gospel of Mark’, Interpretation 32(1978), pp. 385fGoogle Scholar.

2 Robinson, J. M., The Problem of History in Mark (London: SCM, 1957)Google Scholar. See also Collins, R. F., ‘The Temptation of Jesus’, Melita Theologica 26 (1974), p. 35Google Scholar, who argues that Mark records no victory in the temptation since its purpose is to set the tone of eschatological conflict for the Gospel.

3 For Mark the power of the kingdom, particularly in regard to the miracles, is summed up in the messianic statement at 7.37 ( π⋯ντα πεπo⋯ηκεν) which signifies the eschatological saving presence of Yahweh (cf. Is. 35.5f.).

4 See Fisher, K. M. and Wahlde, U. C. von, ‘The Miracles of Mark 4.35–5.43: Their Meaning and Function in the Gospel Framework’, Biblical Theology Bulletin 11 (1981), p. 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Achtemeier, P. J.,‘“He taught them many things”: Reflections on Markan Christology’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 42 (1980), pp. 472–476.Google Scholar

6 Achtemeier, op. cit., 476–548; also ‘The Origin and Function of the Pre-Markan Miracle Catenae’, Journal of Biblical Literature (1972), pp. 218f. Achtemeier believes that Mark is reacting against a wonder-worker christology; see also Weeden, T. J., Mark — Traditions in Conflict (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), pp. 56–58Google Scholar, who sees Mark as trying to combat a ‘divine man’ tradition. Holladay, C. H., Theios Aner in Hellenistic Judaism: A Critique of the Use of This Category in New Testament Christology (Montana:Scholars, 1977), pp. 237–241Google Scholar, argues against the validity of ‘divine man’ as a technical term. See also Kingsbury, J. D., The Christology of Mark's Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), especially pp. 25–45.Google Scholar

7 On the problems of ‘Son of Man’ here, see Hay, L. S., ‘The Son of Man in Mark 2.10 and 2.28’, Journal of Biblical Literature 89 (1, 1970), pp. 60–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Hooker, Morna D., The Son of Man in Mark (London: SPCK, 1967), pp. 93–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 This relates not only to the ‘tradition of the elders’ (7.13) but also to the food laws contained in the Torah (7.14–23, cf. Lev. 11 and Deut. 14) both of which Jesus rejects in his re-interpretation of the divine imperative.

9 For Mark's understanding of community particularly in relation to its apocalyptic context, see Kee, H. C., Community of the New Age: Studies in Mark's Gospel (London: SCM, 1977) especially pp. 106–116.Google Scholar

10 The power of the kingdom in Mark is not absolute or unlimited. Jesus' power to heal, for example, is dependent on human faith (2.5; 5.34, 36; 11.22–24; especially 6.5f.). See Graham, H. H., ‘The Gospel of Mark: Mystery and Ambiguity’, Anglican Theological Review, Supplement 7 (1976), p. 43.Google Scholar

11 For a helpful analysis of the five conflict stories of Mark 2.1–3.6 in terms of rhetorical criticism, see Dewey, Joanna, Markan Public Debate: Literary Technique, Concentric Structure and Theology in Mark 2.1–3.6 (SBLDS 48; Chico: Scholars, 1980).Google Scholar

12 For a study of Mark's knowledge of Jewish leadership in the time of Jesus, see Cook, Michael J., Mark's Treatment of the Jewish Leaders (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 On this passage, see Perrin, N., What is Redaction Criticism? (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969), pp. 40–63.Google Scholar

14 For the motif of the so-called ‘messianic secret’, see Wrede, W., The Messianic Secret, trans. Grieg, J. C. G. (Cambridge: James Clarke, 1971)Google Scholar; also Tuckett, C. (ed.), The Messianic Secret (Philadelphia/London: Fortress/SPCK, 1983).Google Scholar

15 For this theme, see the study by Best, E., Following Jesus: Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark (Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Supplement 4; Sheffield, 1981).Google Scholar

16 Achtemeier, P. J., ‘“And he followed him”: Miracles and Discipleship in Mark 10.46–52’, Semeia 11 (1978), pp. 115–145Google Scholar, shows that the healing of Bartimaeus is a ‘call’ story rather than a miracle story and that its purpose for Mark is to present Jesus opening the disciples' eyes to the true meaning of following him.

17 For Best, op. cit., p. 39, self-denial is simply the ‘inner attitude’ of which crossbearing is the accompanying ‘outward activity’.

18 The question of the meaning of the ransom-saying (λ⋯τρον) which is raised here is beyond the scope of this paper. Strecker, G., ‘The Passion- and Resurrection-Predictions in Mark's Gospel’, Interpretation 22 (1968), p. 439Google Scholar, argues that Mark here has in mind the exemplary nature of Jesus' death rather than the idea of atonement.

19 Bennett, W. J., ‘“The Son of Man Must”’, Novum Testamentum 17 (1975), pp. 113–129Google Scholar, shows that the word arises out of apocalyptic terminology rather than referring to any specific passage of Scripture.

20 Tannehill, R. C., ‘The Gospel of Mark as Narrative Christology’, Semeia 16 (1979), pp. 60–64, 72–75)Google Scholar sees the commission that Jesus receives from God at his baptism and at the transfiguration as central to Mark's narrative and theological intentions.

page183 note 21 Martin, R. P., Mark: Evangelist and Theologian (Exeter: Paternoster, 1979), p. 119.Google Scholar

22 Jeremias, J., New Testament Theology (Vol. 1; London, SCM, 1971), p. 67Google Scholar, points out that the term αββα is used not only by children but also by adults and expresses primarily filial love rather than childlikeness. For a different view see Grassi, J. A., ‘Abba, Father (Mark 14.36): Another Approach’, Journal ojthe American Academy of Religion 50 (3, 1982), pp. 449–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23 Best, E., The Temptation and the Passion: the Markan Soteriology (Cambridge University Press, 1965), p. 153Google Scholar, argues that the cup here and at 14.36 refers to the cup of God's wrath. However, for Martin, op. cit., p. 118, both the cup and the reference to baptism in the same verses are metaphors of suffering.

24 Tannehill, op. cit., p. 85.

25 Kelber, , ‘The Hour of the Son of Man and the Temptation of the Disciples’, in Passion, ed. Kelber, p. 44.Google Scholar

26 For a somewhat controversial interpretation of ‘Son of Man’, see Lindars, B., Jesus, Son of Man: A Fresh Examination of the Son of Man Sayings in the Gospels in the Light of Recent Research (London: SPCK, 1983)Google Scholar. Lindars proposes that the term in Aramaic (barenasha) was used by Jesus as a self-reference and only became a title with apocalyptic associations once it was translated into Greek.

27 Following Cranfield, C. E. B., The Gospel According to St Mark (Cambridge University Press, 1959), pp. 458f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who argues against the view that Jesus (or Mark) has the whole of Psalm 22 in mind here. For the opposite view, see Nineham, D. E., Saint Mark (Penguin Books, 1963), pp. 427–429Google Scholar and Matera, F. J., The Kingship of Jesus (SBLDS 66, Chico: Scholars, 1982), pp. 125–135.Google Scholar

28 Weber, H.-R., The Cross: Tradition and Interpretation (London: SPCK, 1979), p. 109.Google Scholar

29 See Moulton, J. H., A Grammar of NT Greek (Vol. 3; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963), p. 183Google Scholar, for the grammatical tendency to make predicate nouns anarthrous when they precede the verb. On theological grounds the case for supplying the article is stronger — see Bratcher, R. G., ‘A Note on Mark xv 39’, Expository Times 68 (1956), pp. 27f.Google Scholar

30 See Best, op. cit., p. 110.

31 The powerlessness to which disciples are summoned is not to be confused with the ineffectiveness of the disciples in Mark, who fail in their understanding of the kingdom (6.52) and who are also full of illusions in regard to their own power (10.39, 14.31, 14.50–52). The power of the kingdom and its call to powerlessness are of an entirely different quality from the human experience of power (self-seeking, authoritarian) and from human ineffectiveness and failure as witnessed in Mark's portrait of the disciples. On this see Tannehill, R. C., ‘The Disciples in Mark: The Function of a Narrative Role’, Journal of Religion 57 (1977) pp. 392–403.Google Scholar

32 See Juel, D., Messiah and Temple: The Trial of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark (Montana: Scholars, 1977), pp. 138f.Google Scholar, who shows how the temple charge is intended as irony by the evangelist.

33 Ibid., pp. 140–42.

34 Ibid., pp. 205f.

35 Although Mark includes the empty tomb and the message of the resurrection in his Gospel (16.1–8), there seems no developed theology of resurrection as Paul has, for example, in 1 Cor. 15. This is assuming, of course, that 16.8 is the real ending to the Gospel — see Lightfoot, R. H., The Gospel Message of St Mark (Oxford: Clarendon, 1950), pp. 80–97Google Scholar; also T. E. Boomershine/G. L. Bartholomew, ‘The Narrative Technique of Mark 16.8’, and Boomershine, T. E., ‘Mark 16.8 and the Apostolic Commission’, Journal of Biblical Literature 100 (2, 1981), pp. 213–223, 225–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Some scholars still argue for a lost ending to Mark — see, for example, Schweizer, E., The Good News According to Mark (London: SPCK, 1977), pp. 365–367, 373;Google Scholar also Trompf, G. W., ‘The First Resurrection Appearance and the Ending of Mark's Gospel’, New Testament Studies 18 (1972), pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

36 So Martin, op. cit., p. 184.