Genesis 15:1-12, 17-18; Psalm 27; Philippians 3:17-4:1; Luke 13:31-35
Again, my reflection comes from Ched Myers' Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark's Story of Jesus (20th Anniversary Edition) Orbis Books, 1988, 2008.
Again, I know that we are in the midst of Year B (which has Luke as the dominate Gospel text), but I think that Myers' reading of Mark's Gospel might shed some light on - or at least conversation with - Luke's account. Where possible, I will be referring to the parallel Markan accounts of Luke's passages.
That, said, there really isn't a parallel with Mark this week. Mark's Jesus does not lament coming into Jerusalem, as does Luke's and Matthew's Jesus. So, I'm going to instead reflect upon the reading for this Sunday in Year B: Mark 8:31-38. Keep in mind that Mark's Jesus is rather antagonistic toward Herod, and the Galilean Aristocracy as a whole, especially for the way in which they are living off of (and to the detriment of) the peasant and artisan classes, forcing many of them into the "un-status" of expendables.
Backing up to verse 27 (Mark 8:27): Jesus and the Disciples travel to Caesarea Philippi - and "on the way" he asks them, "Who do people say that I am?" Notice the "I Am" saying here - remember Moses at the burning bush asking Yahweh "Who shall I tell them sent me?" and Yahweh answers, "I am who I am" (Exodus 3)? Also notice the ties back to Mark 6:14f. in which Mark introduces his interlude concerning the events of the death of John the Baptist at the hands of Herod:
Mark's Report Disciple's Report
1. they were saying that John the Baptist .......... John the Baptist,
had risen from the dead
2. but others said that it is Elijah, .......... and others Elijah,
3. and others said a prophet like any prophet; .......... and others one of the prophets.
Do the disciples draw the same conclusion? No. Peter introduces to the story world for the first time (the reader was told at the beginning) the politically loaded term "Messiah/Christos". Not only is Jesus a great prophet, he "is a royal figure who will restore the political fortunes of Israel. The revolution, Peter is saying, is at hand" (BtSM: 242).
Not bad for a "blind" guy like Peter, the Reader thinks only then to be shocked when Jesus silences this assertion. "Wait a minute? We were told just this back in Mk 1:1!" Myers points out that Jesus uses the same strong command (epetimesen) that he used to silence the demons (1:25; 3:12); and the wind (4:39). Myers invites us to notice the dialectical interply of this verbal struggle:
Peter: Jesus is MessiahJesus introduces the first of his three "portents concerning his political fate. With the phrase "Then he began to teach them that it was necessary" (8:31), the entire story is set veering off in a new direction: the long march toward Jerusalem has begun [BtSM: 242-3].
Jesus silences Peter (8;30)
Jesus: the Human One must suffer (8:31)
Peter silences Jesus (8:32)
Jesus silences Peter (8:33)
Jesus: Peter is Satan.
The series begins with Peter's dramatic confession, but by the end this has been eclipsed by Jesus' still more remarkable double counter-confession: he is not "Messiah" but "Human One," and Peter is the mouthpiece of Satan. This shocking reference brings to mind the polarization in Jesus' war of words with the scribes in 3:22f., and reminds us of the essential war of myths, begun with Satan in the wilderness (1:13) [BtSM:244].
First, Myers draws us into the semantic field of Mark, reminding us that "Mark's audience would clearly have identified as apocalyptic" this portant of Jesus' suffering being "necessary" (BtSM:243). Myers quotes:
It is crucial to understand that this sort of deterministic statement is not made out of a generally fatalistic belief or hope. It belongs specifically to apocalypticism. ... The theological emphasis of this assertion is to strengthen the faithful in times of frightful suffering. This is the way dei is used in Mark 13:7 and also in Revelation. ... The reader is to understand that the sufferings of Jesus were a crucial part of the eschatological drama. So also were the sufferings of John before him and, as chap. 13 should make clear, so are the times of persecution and hardship through which Mark's community was passing [Bennett, W. "The Son of Man Must." NovTest, 1975:128f.]It is necessary that John/Elijah/Jesus challenge the highest powers and be executed by them, it is part of the "script."
Second, Jesus changes "Messiah" for "Human One" - Mark already shows that the Human One is someone who challenges authority (scribes and Pharisees). Myers, again, mentions that the Human One is from Daniel 7:13f: "I saw in the night visions: behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a Human One; and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and kingdoms, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him." (Also appears in 4 Ezra). "This figure ... represents true "human" government as opposed to the brutality of the "beasts" in the visions" (BtSM:243). Mark appeals to Daniel's Human One (written under the Hellenistic oppression two centuries earlier during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes IV), especially the "courtroom myth" during Jesus' second call to discipleship (Mk 8:31-34).
Third, Jesus then predicts his own death at the hands of the new political coalition (the Jerusalem authority structure), "which does in fact engineer Jesus' murder (10:33; 11:18; 14:1; 15:1, 31) [BtSM:243]. Here Mark adds two new "opponents" (the elders and high priests) by linking them to the old ones (scribes). "The word used for their "rejection" (apodokimasthenai) denotes something "thrown out after a test" by an official court" [BtSM:243].
Through this, Jesus is
challenging the accepted bounds of political discourse in the war of myths. According to the understanding of Peter, "Messiah" necessarily means royal triumph and the restoration of Israel's collective honor. Against this, Jesus argues that "Human One" necessarily means suffering. This is so because, as the advocate of true justice, the Human One as critic of the debt code and the Sabbath necessarily comes into conflict with the "elders and chief priests and scribes" (8:31). In other words, this is not the discourse of fate or fatalism, but of the political inevitability. It is in this sense that Jesus addresses his political vocation "openly" (8:32a, parresia, used only here in Mark; meaning frankly or boldly). Peter's fantasies of power must be censured by clear-eyed realism [BtSM:244].
The bitter exchange with Peter ends with a sharp opposition posited between divine and human authority, echoing the earlier conflict with Pharisaic ideology in 7:8f. The phrase "you are not on the side of God, but of men" is difficult to translate. The verb phroneis (occurring only here in Mark, but more than twenty times in Paul's writings) must be understood in terms of making a commitment or holding a conviction. The radical dualism implies that there is no middle ground - a theme indigenous to the political perspective of apocalyptic. ... Mark is serving us notice that we have arrived at the heart of the ideological conflict [BtSM:245].Then with the words: "deny yourself"; "take up your cross"; "follow me" Jesus offers a second call to discipleship, not just to the disciples but openly, inclusively, to the entire community. Here "Mark's subversive narrative bursts into the open. There can be no equivocation concerning the political semantics of this invitation. The "cross" had only one connotation in the Roman empire: upon it dissidents were executed" (BtSM:245). Mark may have been borrowing a recruiting phrase from Jewish insurgents (who, of course, would have been regularly crucified). Regardless, there is no way to read this but as a political invitation to face the consequences of daring to challenge the ultimate hegemony of imperial Rome.
Myers continues:
The true antecedent to "taking up the cross" is "self-denial." Is this, as often argued by bourgeois exegesis, indication of a spiritualizing tendency already within the text, as if Mark defines the cross as personal asceticism? Emphatically not; as has been carefully argued by [B.] van Iersel, the semantic context is one of the courtroom:The paradox of saving one's life only to loose it has similar rhetoric in Hellenistic military officer speeches before a battle: those who fight well, even though they die, die nobly and live on, whereas those who try to keep their own life by fleeing, end up dieing at the hands of their enemies. "But Mark is not goading the disciples to military heroism; he is introducing the central paradox of the Gospel. The threat to punish by death is the bottom line of the power of the state; fear of this threat keeps the dominant order intact. By resisting this fear and pursuing kingdom practice even at the cost of death, the disciple contributes to shattering the powers' reign of death in history. To concede the state's sovereignty in death is to refuse its authority in life (BtSM:247).
We are faced with an appeal to Christians who are taken to court in a situation of persecution similar to the one described in 13:9-13. They have to opt between either professing Jesus or denying him. The former requires self-denial, i.e., the risk of one's own life ["The Gospel According to Mark: Written for a Persecuted Community?" NedTehoTijd, 1980:25f.].[BtSM:246]
There is a double-jeopardy going on here. Not only is this about the "legal court" but also "economics" (the language switches from juridical to economic at 8:36). It is a "bad investment" to try to "bail out" of the legal-confessional bind at a political trial. Even if it showed a "return" there is not "profit" but rather a "dead loss." "Fidelity to Jesus simply has no price" [BtSM:247].
This section then ends with a twist: who's on trial? Not only is this a matter of honor/shame (to be "ashamed" of Jesus words brings reciprocal "shame" as in all honor/shame cultures, and with it a loss of status). With all the judicial language "it is no surprise that Mark should again allude to Daniel's mythical courtroom scene. The "judgement" of the Human One is pitted against the "judgement" of earthly courts and the tyrants who enforce them. To be acquitted by one is to be found guilty in the other. ... [This is not about future triumphalism - bear the cross to wear the crown.] ... In the story world of Mark, the "relations of power" in the myth appear to be reversed. It is the Human One in 8:31 who, in his inevitable conflict with the powers, becomes a defendant in their court, where he is tried, convicted, and sentenced to death. In this sense, Mark's Human One has more affinity with the persecuted saints ... But in the saying of 8:38f., the Human One again appears as true judge, who comes "with the angels" ... to receive the kingdom. In all of this, Mark has reproduced the "bifurcation" of reality effected by Daniel's myth. In Daniel, the prophet "sees" (Dn 7:2) oppressive rulers who appear to be prevailing in the historical moment. But if the prophet looks more deeply ("as I looked again," Dn 7:9), he sees the Human One establishing justice. Thus in Mark, the Human One represents at once both defendant and prosecutor - depending upon which court, "earthly" or "heavenly," is being considered" [BtSM:247-9].
Myers insists that his discourse is not just historical (Daniel or Jesus) but illuminates present reality whatever Christians experience. This story/myth empowers us "to choose to stand with the Human One, a choice that will in reality overthrow the highest and deepest powers (13:26f.)" [BtSM:249].
May we all have such courage.
Blessed Be
Joel
No comments:
Post a Comment