The Gospel according to Mark

The four gospels of the New Testament canon are very central to our Christian life. This is emphasised in our Liturgy by the ceremonial which accompanies the proclamation of the Gospel at the Eucharist. The life and teaching of our Lord are the foundation of our Christian lives in ways of which we are frequently perhaps only subconscious. This is a consequence of the familiarity the gospels, or at least the story they tell and some of the teaching they convey, have acquired in the lives of Christian people.

In the course of internalising the gospel, we inevitably remember not four distinct books of teaching about our Lord, but a single, coalesced. version incorporating aspects of all four. This means that the particular force, emphasis, and perspective of each tends to be lost. We have four gospels in the Canon for several reasons, and the Church has never accepted a single, collapsed, combination of the four. One of the advantages of having four different accounts of the life and teaching of Jesus is that we can learn something slightly different from each of them. For this reason the Lectionary appoints that, at the Sunday Eucharist, the Gospels be used in turn. For this year it is the Gospel of Mark which is appointed to be read.

Most scholars today believe that Mark was the first of the canonical gospels to be written. The majority date the gospel to the years AD 66-70, during the Jewish war which ended in the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, but before these events had taken place. Others date Mark a few years earlier or later. This is of course a long time - a lifetime for most people in the ancient world – after the events recorded. It is possible that Mark incorporates earlier documents, and there are scholars who date the gospel as a whole to a very much earlier period, c. AD 40, which would be very much closer to the events recorded. However, in a society in which most people are illiterate and documents and writing materials costly and scarce, memory is a very much more important function of the brain than is the case today; data is committed to memory on a scale most of use would not be able to manage, and recalled with an accuracy and efficiency which would be beyond most literate people today.

The gospel nowhere identifies its author. The traditional ascription dates from the second century, in a writing of Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in Asia, which survives only in a quotation by the fourth century church historian Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea. Papias describes Mark as the interpreter of the apostle Peter, in other words the one who recorded Peter’s account of the life and teaching of Jesus. Christian tradition has identified this Mark as the disciple who accompanies the apostles Barnabas and Paul on their missions (Acts 13-14), and is later associated with both Peter (1 Peter 5:13) and Paul (Colossians 4:10; 2 Timothy 4:11; Philemon 24). According to tradition, it was in the home of Mark’s family in Jerusalem that the Last Supper took place, and in whose “upper room” the early church met. Tradition also identifies Mark as the founder of the church in Alexandria.

Just as Mark is anonymously written, the place of writing is uncertain. Traditions identifying the author as an associate of Peter locate the writing in Rome, where, according to tradition, Peter met a martyr’s death in the persecution of the church by the emperor Nero in AD 64. Many scholars support this view, irrespective of the historicity of the traditions. At the same time, Mark reflects knowledge of the geography of Judaea and of Galilee in particular. Some scholars accordingly argue that the gospel, or earlier material incorporated into it, originated in Palestine.

1: 1

The opening sentence of the gospel is crucial, as it sets the agenda for the entire book, rather like the title page would do in a modern book. The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the son of God. Familiarity may blind us to the novelty these words contain. The word rendered gospel means good news, but was not in common use in the Greek of the period. In Christian usage it came to mean specifically the life, ministry, and teaching of Jesus, as it is used here. Only later did it come to refer to the book in which the account of Jesus' life, ministry, and teaching was recorded. We need to remember that the gospel is a living entity, not an historical record.

Whereas Jesus is a name, and not an uncommon one among Jews, Christ was originally a title, or rather a description of the state of having been anointed, which later became the title of the one chosen by God to be the definitive agent of God's redeeming work in the world. In popular Jewish belief of the time the title had acquired royal and military connotations associated with David, the founder of the royal dynasty, who had liberated Israel from the Philistines and established the monarchy in Jerusalem. It was expected that a christ, or messiah to use the Hebrew term, would arise to liberate the Jews from Roman rule. But by the time Mark was written Jesus the Christ (or Messiah) had already become simply Jesus Christ, and the title functioning in effect as a name. Modern Christian usage tends not to reflect consciousness of the derivation of the term, but for the original recipients of the gospel, the connotations of anointment would still have been clear.

We tend to think of Jesus as son of God in terms of the nativity accounts in Matthew and Luke. But these are nowhere mentioned in Mark, and Jesus enters the narrative as an adult. The meaning of divine sonship is to be found rather in the Old Testament. Sonship of God is not a biological or genetic concept, but is defined by doing the work for which one has been set apart by God. Kings, priests, and prophets, as well as angels and other heavenly beings, are called sons of God. Jesus as son of God, doing the work to which God has called him, is an immensely important theme in the gospel of Mark, as we shall see.

1: 2-8

The gospel begins with an account of the ministry of John the Baptist. The citation of Malachi 3:1 identifies John as the messenger who would prepare for the coming of the Lord. Tradition had long associated this figure with Elijah, the prophet who had been assumed into Heaven and who was expected to return as the final messenger of God's definitive saving act in the world. In order to prepare the people of Israel for this event, John preached repentance and offered baptism as a ritual which symbolised forgiveness. He also announced the coming of one who would baptise with the Holy Spirit. This points forward to the time when those baptised in the name of Jesus would receive the Holy Spirit, but the full significance of John's statement would have been apparent neither to those who heard him preach nor to those who heard this passage read to them for the first time.

1: 9-11

That Jesus should have submitted to a baptism of repentance may seem surprising to us, and even shocking. But in Mark's narrative there is no need of any explanation. Jesus was a member of the nation of Israel, and, irrespective of his own moral standing, he could not abdicate responsibility for the state of the nation. He accordingly identifies with the sinfulness of Israel, and undergoes John's baptism as a sign of repentance, i.e. turning away from that sinfulness.

We are told that, as he emerged from the waters of the Jordan, he [viz. Jesus] saw the Spirit descending upon him like a dove, and a voice came from heaven: "You are my beloved son. With you I am well pleased." It is clear that Jesus alone experienced the vision, a profound mystical experience in which he was made aware of his empowerment by God’s Spirit. This is a secret disclosure to Jesus, rather than public acknowledgement. We should probably understand Jesus alone similarly to have received the audition identifying him as God’s beloved son, as there is no reported response of witnesses, including John, to this disclosure. However, readers and hearers of the gospel are given an insight into the full significance of the story which is about to unfold.

It is important that we recognise that the ministry of Jesus originates within the movement of John, a figure of very considerable importance in the Judaism of his day. The late first century Jewish historian Josephus provides an account of John substantially consistent with what we read in the gospels, and in the book of Acts we find mention of John’s disciples as far afield as Ephesus.

1: 12-13

Jesus' withdrawal into the wilderness is a direct response to the Holy Spirit which had come upon him at his baptism. The forty days correspond to the forty years the nation of Israel, the children of God in the Old Testament, spent in the wilderness preparing for their entry into the promised land. Satan functions in Jewish cosmology as the heavenly being who tests the endurance of the righteous, as is illustrated most graphically in the book of Job. Satan later came to be identified as the personification of evil, a rival to God’s dominance in the cosmos. This is not overt in this passage, though it may be implied. What is more important here is that, whereas Israel had failed God on numerous occasions, and a whole generation died out in the wilderness, Jesus endured the testing and was accordingly able to begin his ministry as God's son.

1: 14-15

Mark sums up Jesus' proclamation: The kingdom of God has drawn near. Repent, and believe the good news. By the kingdom of God is not meant any geographically defined territory, but God's rule in the world. Jesus expresses an expectation that God would intervene in human history to establish God's rule in the world, and that the moment was significantly more imminent than might seem apparent. How this would take place is less important than that people should prepare themselves to participate in this event. Many Jewish movements awaited a military uprising against the Roman occupation, assisted by the power of God, and some expected that heavenly armies too would engage in the cosmic battle. Turning away from sinfulness and receiving Jesus' preaching are the response called for in preparation for God's impending action. It is important that we recognise that Jesus’ message is essentially in continuity with that of John.

1: 16-20

The call of the first disciples is in a sense the beginning of the Church. It is noteworthy that Jesus expresses the call, and defines the work to which the disciples are called, in terms of their current labour, fishing, and therefore as not totally unfamiliar to them. It would appear that Simon and Andrew cast their net from the shore, while Zebedee and his sons, and their servants, operate from a boat, suggesting a larger and more prosperous business. This may be a factor in relationships among the disciples as the course of Jesus’ ministry unfolds.

1: 21-45

Jesus' public proclamation is located in the gathering of the fishing community of Capernaum for worship. Two reactions are recorded. It is noted that Jesus preaches and teaches without continuously quoting previous Jewish teachers by name: his own authority is sufficient, and he does not need to cite other experts. As well as the human response, there is the spiritual reaction to Jesus. A recurring theme in Mark is that spiritual beings possessing people recognise Jesus' true identity and are threatened by it. Jesus asserts his authority as God’s son to overcome, silence, and expel the evil spirits. The first exorcism leads to a succession of healings, of a variety of ailments, some of which we might regard as psychiatric or psychosomatic, others physical; the descriptions of the symptoms provided in the text do not enable reliable diagnosis in terms of modern medical knowledge. The last of these healings concerns a contagious skin disease incurring ritual impurity, commonly rendered leprosy, for which the Law prescribed that healing was to be certified by a priest before the person cleansed could re-enter society. Jesus’ reputation is very quickly established, but fame is not an asset. Jesus needs to take steps to ensure time for solitude and prayer, and his freedom of movement is inhibited by the crowds which gathered whenever he appeared.

2: 1-3: 6

This section is widely believed to be a very ancient compilation of teaching by and narrative about Jesus, which Mark has incorporated into the gospel. This illustrates mounting opposition to Jesus in Galilee, which escalates to the point where established authority figures plot his death. The Herodians are retainers of the dynasty represented by Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea during the time of Jesus, and vassal of the Romans. The Pharisees are one of the more prominent schools of thought within Judaism of the period, renowned for their quest to apply the Law of Moses to all aspects of daily life, developing a tradition of rules and observances to ensure their own holiness, but which could be onerous for people living in poverty. As the Herodians shared no such concern for observance of the Law, any alliance the Pharisees entered with them to liquidate Jesus would have been motivated by expediency rather than common values.

2: 1-12 The conflict begins with another healing, dramatically set as Jesus is teaching in a crowded house. Four men, carrying a paralysed man on a stretcher, are unable to penetrate the crowd, so instead climb onto the roof and create a hole through which they lower the stretcher to where Jesus is seated. Jesus effects the healing, but prefaces this with pronouncing forgiveness of the man’s sins. In this, Jesus bypasses the established ritual channels whereby forgiveness was to be obtained in Judaism, viz. the sacrificial cult of the temple in Jerusalem. The same was of course also true of John the Baptist, but Jesus at this stage substitutes no ritual for that of the temple. Jesus' authority to forgive is vindicated by his power to heal. He addresses the man as My son, indicating a relationship not only with himself but with God.

2: 13-17 The conflict escalates when Jesus accepts hospitality from a customs officer, Levi, whom he has called to discipleship. Jesus dines in Levi’s house, in the company of people considered ritually and morally impure and socially unacceptable. Table fellowship implies acceptance of, and some measure of identification with, those with whom food and company is shared. The Pharisees enter the story for the first time, and there follows through the gospel a succession of disputes concerning interpretation of the Law of Moses, the defining rule of Jewish life found in what are now the first five books of the Old Testament. Jesus emphasises healing and inclusion, not an endless quest for perfection through separation, exclusivity, and judgmentalism.

2: 18-22 The ethos of Jesus’ ministry is clarified further when he is questioned about the practice of fasting. This was a known observance in Judaism, practised by the Pharisees and movement associated with John the Baptist amongst many other groups. The voluntary and temporary renunciation of food by those who had plenty could be a gesture or it could be a meaningful spiritual discipline, but for those who were destitute, not having food was a matter of deprivation rather than renunciation. Jesus describes his ministry, by analogy to a wedding, as a time of festivity, requiring celebration rather than renunciation, but also points forward to a time when the festivities would be over and normal spiritual disciplines would resume. Jesus defines his mission as radically new, incompatible with the attempts of the other groups to reform Israel through proverbial patchwork on a worn garment. The old system cannot contain what Jesus is bringing about, by analogy with old wineskins unable to contain wine that has yet to ferment.

2: 24-28 The issue of sabbath observance concerns one of the central tenets of Jewish religious life. The fourth commandment in the Decalogue forbids work on the seventh day, commemorating God’s work of creation in six days and resting on the seventh. The issue is not what constitutes work, and what activities are permitted and what forbidden, questions which vexed Pharisees and other Jews, as well as Christian groups which emphasise Sabbath observance. For Jesus the point is that he is bringing about a new work of creation, not regimenting commemoration of the old. The injunction to rest on the sabbath is for the benefit of human beings, and what is beneficial is therefore permitted. This is of course a dispute over the interpretation of the fourth of the ten commandments, but ends with Jesus' claim to sovereignty not merely in matters of sabbath observance, but throughout the created order which the sabbath celebrates.

3: 1-6 A healing in a synagogue on a sabbath brings this section to a climax. The various threads of the escalating conflict are brought together. A dispute, or rather a challenge by Jesus to his opponents’ interpretation of the Law of Moses, leads to their conspiracy to kill him. Jesus suggests that the sabbath is an occasion for doing good, to be observed positively in bringing about the wholeness of creation, rather than negatively, as abstaining from certain activities. Whether or not the particular healing, or anything Jesus said or did to accomplish, could be construed as a violation of the Sabbath is beside the point. Pharisees and Herodians, religious and political movements with disparate and even incompatible objectives, find common purpose in seeking to bringing about the death of the son of God.

3: 7-19a

Mark reports that, despite the hostility of the religious and political leaders of the Jews, Jesus attracted an enormous following in his home area of Galilee and the surrounding districts. His teaching ministry is accompanied by healing and exorcism. His true identity is detected only by evil spirits he has overpowered, and is otherwise kept secret.

The twelve are not Jesus’ only disciples, but those whom he chose to form the nucleus of his movement, the number twelve symbolic of the twelve tribes of ancient Israel, and another indication of the new, creative, work which God is bringing about through Jesus. The twelve are called to a particularly demanding life of discipleship, in which they are taught by Jesus and prepared for their role in his ministry. Even at this early stage in the narrative, they are given authority to preach and to exorcise, and sent out to carry further Jesus’ message. Other disciples remain in the background, and even those named scarcely feature as individuals in the narrative. The disciples appear primarily as a body, rather than as a group of individuals.

3: 19b-35

As the crowds gather around Jesus, opposition escalates. Scribes from Jerusalem represent the teaching and juristic authority vested in the temple hierarchy. Their allegation that Jesus is exorcising those possessed by evil spirits by the power of Be`elzebul (a name given to the prince of demons in some strands of ancient Jewish mythology) is not merely exposed as ridiculous, suggesting that an evil power would work to destroy itself, but condemned as blasphemy against the spirit of God. Failure to recognise the power of God at work in Jesus has very serious consequences indeed: the one sin declared unforgivable. It was one matter not to recognise Jesus’ true status, but quite another to deny that God’s spirit was operating through him.

Jesus’ family reacts to his growing reputation by seeking to take charge of him, presumably to remove him from public view. Jesus’ ministry was arousing controversy, and, however enthusiastic the crowds who gathered around him, their response would not have been representative of the populace as a whole. In a world in which stability and security are precarious, most people are likely to shun any activity which could destabilise society and jeopardise the economy and their survival. Jesus’ family would have been associated with him through kinship, irrespective of their personal opinions or sympathy or lack thereof with his ministry and teaching. Jesus’ mother and brothers are mentioned; the most likely explanation for their being no mention of his father would be that he had by this time died, or was too frail to undertake the journey from Nazareth to Capernaum. Jesus responds to the summons from his mother and brothers by defining a new family, those who respond to his teaching.

4: 1-20

The parable of the sower has long been understood as an allegory of the proclamation of the gospel and the different ways in which people respond to the same message. This may seem a wasteful method of sowing, but extravagant generosity is a frequent symbol of God's love in Jesus' parables. What is perhaps rather more difficult for us to understand is the enigmatic response Jesus gives to the disciples, as to why he teaches through parables. The familiarity Jesus’ parables have acquired through regular reading and telling, and the accompanying transition of received traditions of interpretation, may make the meanings seem very obvious to us. However, there is the accompanying danger that, in simply absorbing the received tradition, we limit our understanding to a very narrow tradition of interpretation, and can overlook other meanings and other, potentially more challenging and more illuminating, ways of interpretation. Those who heard Jesus teach of course did not bring a legacy of interpretation to what they were hearing for the first time. When Jesus used parables and other forms of imagery, the audience could potentially understand what Jesus was saying in some variety of ways, and this would not necessarily always have been contrary to Jesus’ intentions, or the consequence of misunderstanding what he had said. The use of parables is intentionally provocative, and the audience are called to respond by thinking through the imagery and the story to discover how it applies to their lives, as well as to their understanding of the faith of Israel. While the disciples are given privileged insight into Jesus’ teaching on account of the role they are to play in the establishment of God’s kingdom, this does not imply that Jesus’ intention is to alienate and exclude others. But, for those who have not yet made the decision to follow Jesus, there is no “short cut” to insight and understanding before they have digested Jesus’ teaching and discovered its meaning for their lives.

4: 21-34

The parables of the kingdom compare the kingdom of God which Jesus announces with objects and events in everyday life. Sometimes the imagery seems obvious and universal, as in the case of light, but we need always to be alert to connotations which may be unique to the social, economic, and cultural context of Jesus’ ministry. Agrarian life in Galilee would in most respects have been essentially similar to the lives and circumstances of peasant farmers and artisans anywhere else before the invention and introduction of modern technology. Nevertheless, Jewish religious beliefs and observances would have made the context of Jesus’ ministry unique, not least in the expectation that God, the creator of the world, would establish a just kingdom where his people could live in security. The revelation of secrets and retributive judgement are regular themes associated with the kingdom of God. But perhaps the most interesting is the parable of the mustard seed. The establishment of God's kingdom in the world has small beginnings in Jesus' ministry in an obscure and insignificant district at the periphery of the Roman empire, but will nonetheless be cosmic in its scope.

4: 35-41

This incident is located in Peraea, the part of Antipas’s tetrarchy that lay to the east of the river Jordan. As was customary among Galilean Jews, Jesus and his disciples avoided travelling through Samaria. Along with Jews from further east, they approached Jerusalem by crossing the Jordan near Jericho, the place at which Joshua had led Israel into the promised land after their forty years’ wandering in the wilderness.

The question about divorce is far from innocent. Antipas’s divorce of his first wife had led him into war, in which he was defeated by his former father in law. John the Baptist had been imprisoned for criticising the incestuous nature of Antipas’s subsequent marriage, and ultimately been put to death. If Jesus were to suggest that divorce was not lawful, this would have had consequences beyond disputes over the interpretation of the Pentateuch.

The Law of Moses quite explicitly permits a man to divorce his wife, but not a woman her husband. It was the grounds on which divorce was permissible that were at issue, and which were debated among the legal schools of the period. While some permitted divorce for the most trivial of reasons, others argued that infidelity was the only legitimate grounds for divorce, and there were undoubtedly numerous intervening positions. Jesus responds by reaffirming God’s intention, as reflected in the creation narrative, that marriage should be indissoluble. Provision for divorce was a concession to human sinfulness, not an unqualified liberty.

Jesus taught during a period when marriages were not voluntarily entered, especially by women, but the consequence of agreements reached between family elders. The sentiments and preferences of the couple were of little consequence, and their future relationship would not depend on the personal bonding and affection taken for granted in contemporary marriages.

10: 13-16

Jesus’ acceptance of the children reaffirms the principle he had expounded a little earlier in the narrative. We are not told why the disciples were preventing people from approaching Jesus, and there may have been reasons beyond the prevailing culture, in terms of which children were marginal to society and not deemed worthy of attention in a public place. Whether or not the disciples were being protective, Jesus emphasises his unconditional acceptance of the vulnerable and dependent. Furthermore, the dependence and vulnerability of children, and their inability to reciprocate any favour bestowed on them, is the model for human beings to approach God. No honour or worship offered to God, and no material gift, can reciprocate God’s love and gifts to humanity.

10: 17-31

The most scrupulous observance of the commandments in the Law of Moses cannot earn salvation, as every Jew of the period knew. Salvation was dependent on God’s grace, and the question as to how a person could receive that grace was not unreasonable. Jesus does not give a simple answer, in terms either of good deeds to be undertaken or guarantees and assurances upon which he could depend. Jesus calls the man to a life of discipleship. He discerns that the man’s wealth is an obstacle to his becoming a disciple, and therefore calls upon him to give away his possessions. Jesus had earlier taught that self-denial is the first step towards discipleship. The disciples, for their part, discern that their and most people's lack of wealth in no way of itself guaranteed salvation, and the obstacle faced by the wealthy man applied to others also. Whether Jesus refers literally to a camel, or to camel’s hair thread, passing through the eye of a needle, he reflects a widespread perception that the wealthy seldom share the piety of the poor, righteousness is less costly for them, and generosity to the hungry and homeless does not jeopardise their own security.

When Peter draws attention to the self-renunciation with which the disciples had begun to follow Jesus, Jesus promises recompense in the fellowship of the church and in the kingdom of God. Those who had given up the comfort and security of family life, as well as the honour in the community associated therewith, and adopted the liminal and at least moderately disreputable way of life of an itinerant movement on the fringes of society, are promised both that the community they were forming around Jesus would become a family for them, along with the persecutions to which they would be liable, but also eternal life in God’s kingdom. The reversal of status would more than restore the honour they had forfeited through following Jesus.

10: 32-45

Jesus has crossed the Jordan and begun the arduous ascent to Jerusalem. He is now very much more explicit about what will happen in Jerusalem. It is far from surprising that the disciples are apprehensive.

The request of James and John for special privileges in the kingdom of God may, with the benefit of hindsight, strike us as singularly crass and inappropriate, given the gruesome death which Jesus was facing. However, the brothers presumably regarded their request as entirely reasonable. They had been among the disciples closest to Jesus throughout his ministry, and might have regarded the expectation as not at all presumptuous. The time of crisis was clearly approaching, which would have influenced their timing. We have also noted that their family seems to have owned a larger and more prosperous fishing business than that of Peter and Andrew. Zebedee may have provided financial support for Jesus’ ministry in a way which would have been beyond the means of other disciples. And James and John may have felt that their higher status in society entitled them to higher status in God’s kingdom. None of these attitudes is at all unique in the history of Christianity, so it is not surprising that there should have been such aspirations among the disciples of Jesus.

Jesus’ response to James and John is to test their resolve, their willingness and commitment to undergoing the suffering that Jesus would undergo in the coming days. Jesus had spelled out what lay ahead in graphic detail, so the bravado of the brothers’ response is not uninformed. Nor was it at all unlikely that Jesus’ disciples would be arrested with him, and subjected to the same treatment. Jesus does not at this point challenge their willingness to die with him, but neither does he promise what they sought.

The reaction of the other disciples is of course far from disinterested. Jesus, however, focuses on the true meaning of discipleship, with service and self-denial, and inversion of the criteria of status and power by which the world was governed, being of the essence of greatness in the community Jesus is establishing.

The word translated ransom is capable of some variety of meaning, denoting transactions in which payment of some kind is substituted for another which may be due. It is used in the Greek translations of the Law of Moses for cultic terms denoting sacrifices offered in expiation for sin, and in other contexts where the life of a person or animal is saved by substituting another animal or payment of equivalent value. The idea is that Jesus’ death would enable others to live, who would otherwise die.

10: 46-52

Not for the first time, an account of the disciples’ inability to comprehend Jesus and his mission is followed in Mark’s narrative by a healing miracle. Bartimaeus recognises Jesus as son of David, by implication heir to the throne of Israel and the one who would liberate the Jews from Roman rule. This is not the concept of messiahship which Jesus has been teaching his disciples, with some difficulty, but Jesus nonetheless recognises the appeal of Bartimaeus for mercy, a royal quality, as faith, and grants him his sight. Bartimaeus is one of the few named recipients of healing or teaching in the gospel, which suggests that he remained a figure of some importance in the memory of the community. Perhaps the closing sentence of this section suggests that Bartimaeus became a disciple; instead of going on his (own) way, he followed Jesus on his way.

11: 1-11

The dramatic scene, which has become familiar to us in the Palm Sunday liturgy, is replete with symbolism which the crowds recognise immediately, but which we may either overlook or subconsciously take for granted. It is difficult for us to recognise just how shocking Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem would have been.

Pilgrims to Jerusalem customarily walked into the city. Most people had no animals or other means of transport anyway, but even those who had dismounted to enter the holy city in the same way as anyone else. Entering the city on a donkey was a sign of kingship. Mark makes no explicit reference to Zechariah, but is clearly aware of aware of the expectation that the king, commonly understood as the messiah who would restore David’s dynasty, would enter Jerusalem riding a donkey. A donkey may seem to us a cumbersome animal, but to the Jews it was the animal for peacetime riding even for royalty. The horse was an animal of warfare, and only a foreign conqueror would enter Jerusalem on horseback. It is quite probable that the Roman Prefect. Pontius Pilate, had done precisely this very recently, as he brought reinforcements to Jerusalem to maintain order during the Passover festival. Jesus’ entry on a donkey is therefore in clear contrast to the militaristic entry of an oppressive foreign ruler into the city.

The symbolism of Jesus’ actions is not lost on the crowds, whether they be residents of Jerusalem or pilgrims from elsewhere. This was the prelude to the restoration of the Davidic kingdom, and Jesus is the messiah, the son of David, who would expel the Romans and restore the kingdom of Israel.

11: 12-26

The temple was a place where worship was offered primarily through the offering of animal sacrifices. The availability of animals for sacrifice was therefore essential to the operation of the temple. Money changers exchanged coins from the many and scattered places where Jews had settled for the official currency of the temple, with which the temple tax could be paid. Dealers sold caged doves for sacrifice in the outer court of the temple precincts, alongside the currency dealers. The sale of sheep, cattle, and goats took place outside the city, for practical reasons, and so is not directly involved in the incident reported.

This incident is commonly but mistakenly called the "cleansing" of the temple, as though it was the principle of trade in a holy place to which Jesus objected. The trade was essential to the functioning of the temple, and the outer court was strictly speaking not part of the temple. But it is nevertheless closely associated with the temple, and Jesus’ words apply to the temple itself. Both the currency exchange and the sale of animals were undoubtedly conducted at highly profitable rates, from which the high priest would have benefited substantially. But Jesus is not simply condemning corruption and exploitation either.

Gentiles were not permitted to enter the temple proper, but only the outer court. The activities Jesus attacked in no way obstructed such access as gentiles were granted, and very few would have chosen to travel to Jerusalem in order to worship there anyway.

The full force of Jesus’ action becomes clear when we take into account the story of the fig tree which flanks this account. The fruitless tree is condemned, and its withering is a sign of judgement. The tree is a symbol of the temple, which has also become fruitless, and is under condemnation. This becomes clearer as the narrative unfolds. It is for this reason that it is now the chief priests themselves who seek Jesus’ death.

The combination of faith and prayer, which had empowered Jesus to effect judgement on the tree, is available to the disciples also. There is no suggestion that we should reorder the geography of our neighbourhoods, and Jesus cautions against using such power to exact revenge in situations which require forgiveness. But the power of prayer is affirmed.

11: 27-12: 12

Jesus’ authority to teach and to pronounce God’s judgement on the temple is challenged by the chief priests and their retainers. Their own legitimacy depends upon the denial of Jesus’ authority, and their objective is to discredit him in public, and to gather evidence that could be used to bring Jesus to trial. Jesus’ response is to challenge them in return with another question. If John the Baptist’s pronouncements of judgement and call to repentance, and ritual of forgiveness outside the temple, were of God, then the chief priests would have defied God’s call to repentance, and the temple system and its hierarchy would have failed as custodians of the covenant between God and Israel. Of course the chief priests did not believe that John had been a prophet called and inspired by God, but to have said so in the presence of the crowds gathered in the temple court at the time of a pilgrim festival would have made any negative pronouncement about John potentially inflammatory. Jesus is accordingly able to evade their attempted entrapment.

Jesus responds further with the parable of the vineyard. The vineyard is a common metaphor of Israel in the Old Testament, and one which would have been readily understood. It would not have taken a great deal of intuition for the chief priests to recognise themselves, and their record as the cultic and moral guardians of Israel, as the target of Jesus’ attack in the parable. The end of their custodianship over God’s covenant relationship with Israel would be the consequence of killing God's son. The appended citation from Psalm 118, using rather different imagery, speaks of Jesus’ vindication following his rejection.

12: 13-27

Three distinct groups attempt to entrap Jesus, undoubtedly with the intention of bringing about the end desired by the chief priests.

The Pharisees and Herodians had been conniving together since early in the gospel narrative. Their disparate objectives and loyalties were united in the desire to bring about the end of someone perceived to be a threat to both their vested interests. The question of imperial taxation would have appeared ideal for their purposes. Payment of taxes signified acquiescence in the rule of the power levying the taxes. If Jesus approved of payment of taxes to the Romans, he would violate the principle that the land of Israel belonged to God, and that the nation of Israel was given the benefits of inhabiting it by God. If, on the other hand, Jesus condemned the payment of imperial taxes, he would be a political subversive whom the Romans would happily and speedily liquidate. Jesus’ rejoinder entraps those who sought to entrap him. In producing a coin with the image of the emperor, they were shown to be in possession of an object bearing a graven image. Human images on coins were considered to violate the prohibition on graven images in the Decalogue. Irrespective of whether the inscription on the coin claimed divine status for the emperor, the coin was therefore an idolatrous object. Jesus’ answer that Caesar should be given what is Caesar’s does not imply the legitimacy of Roman rule in Judaea: that issue, which would have divided the Pharisees and Herodians, is returned unanswered from whence it came. God’s sovereignty in all creation is implied in the concluding statement.

The Sadducees pose a question as ludicrous as it is hypothetical. The Law of Moses made provision for men to marry their brothers’ childless widows. This dispensation from what would otherwise have been considered incest was intended to ensure not only the security of the widow, but also the perpetuation of families and to avoid the alienation of family property. Whether or not such marriages remained customary during the Roman period, the Sadducees are attempting not merely to entrap Jesus, but to ridicule the notion of resurrection. Jesus in his response exposes the futility of belief in God without belief in the resurrection of the dead.

12: 28-34

The question concerning the greatest commandment is very uncontroversial compared with the encounters which precede it. No Jewish teacher of the period would have given a significantly different answer. The covenantal obligations of love of God and love of neighbour are complementary throughout the Hebrew tradition. This encounter shows that there remain, despite the hostile questioning which has preceded, those learned in the Jewish law who respect and are sympathetic to Jesus, even if not his disciples.

12: 35-44

Jesus turns the proverbial tables on those who have been questioning him. The question he poses directly concerns his own status. He has been acclaimed as the messiah, the son of David, by the crowds, but points out that Scripture speaks of one who is greater than David. Messianic expectations of the period did not necessarily elevate the messiah above David, so Jesus makes the significant point that hopes which relate God’s salvation to the work of a messiah, who would be heir to David, do not grasp the extent of God’s purposes. Jesus does not elaborate this point, it underlies the fundamental difference between Jesus’ self-understanding and the ways in which he was perceived by followers and opponents alike.

Jesus proceeds to attack the scribes, the experts on the Law of Moses. The polemic is not necessarily objective, and is clearly not intended to be true of all scribes. Jesus accuses the traditional authority figures in Judaism of seeking status in the community and of flaunting their spirituality as a status symbol. But it is not their pretentiousness which Jesus attacks so much as the misplaced confidence in their teaching, and their responsibility for the impoverishment of the most vulnerable in society. The demand for offerings supposedly to God, but of which the temple authorities were the principle beneficiaries, imposed unsustainable burdens upon the pious poor.

The following incident illustrates Jesus’ point. We traditionally interpret the widow as an example of dedication to God, but this is not the point Jesus is making at all. On the contrary, incidents like this are precisely how widows' houses are consumed. The teaching which encourages people to impoverish themselves for the benefit of the temple and its already wealthy functionaries, while the wealthy endure no hardship on account of their donations, is condemned. Jesus is not against giving, but he condemns the exploitation of the poor by those who have a vested interest in the wealth of the temple.

13: 1-37

Jesus leaves the temple for the last time. In response to the disciples’ admiration for the building, Jesus pronounces its destruction. The passage commonly known as the eschatological discourse is delivered on the Mount of Olives, opposite the temple, in response to disciples’ questioning as to when Jesus’ prophecy would be fulfilled.

Jesus mentions a variety of phenomena which will precede fulfilment of his prophecy. Wars, earthquakes, and famines were not at all uncommon at the time. Claims to messiahship would have been more distinctive and less frequent, but several such figures arose in Judaea during the first century. These events were therefore far from inconceivable.

The persecution of Jesus’ disciples, both in synagogues, i.e. by their fellow Jews, and in the courts of foreign rulers, would have been a very much clearer, if less than welcome, sign that the final events were unfolding. They are promised that the Holy Spirit would empower their speech. The necessity for the gospel to be preached to all nations refers not so much to the destruction of the temple as to the establishment of God’s kingdom, which would bring these events to their climax. The break-up of their families, and hostility from their surrounding communities, are what the disciples are to expect, and could cost them their lives. Their perseverance through times of adversity would nonetheless be rewarded.

The expression abomination of desolation or desolating sacrilege refers to the desecration of the temple through the performance there of pagan rites. This is the real sign that the events of which Jesus spoke are about to unfold. Immediate and hurried flight is the response this event would require of Jesus’ disciples. In the meanwhile the crisis would precipitate further false claims to messiahship, and would be accompanied by the false assurances of false prophets.

Jesus is now speaking not of the destruction of the temple but the establishment of God's kingdom. This is to be a cosmic event, of universal scope, and not simply the re-establishment of the monarchy in Israel. The Son of Man coming on clouds with great power and glory evokes the scene of the triumph of God over earthly and cosmic enemies in Daniel. There was a great deal of speculation about the Daniel text during this period, and the allusion would have been lost neither on the disciples nor on the hearers and readers of the gospel.

The timing of these events is imminent but unknown, and will be sudden. Vigilance in anticipation of God’s action is the calling of those who are to share in the promised salvation.

This is a passage which modern Christians might well find difficult to take seriously. It employs imagery meaningful only in the cultural world in which the text was written, and addresses the destruction of a building which fell to a Roman army nearly two millennia ago. It is therefore no simple matter to connect the culmination of God’s judgement and salvation either with events of long ago or with cosmic phenomena which are extremely difficult to interpret in terms of our own culture and experience of the world. There can be little doubt that this speech was constructed by the evangelist rather than delivered verbatim by Jesus. The words of Jesus have been re-interpreted in the light of historical developments, which have caused the expectations of the first Christians to be revised, and ultimately to be understood in quite different ways. We can therefore make no reliable predictions about the future of this world on the basis of this text.

14:1-2

The time of year is indicated by the imminence of the festivals of Passover and Unleavened Bread. These festivals commemorated the deliverance of Israel from bondage in Egypt, and began the process which culminated in their occupation of the land of Canaan. As a feast of liberation, Passover inevitably aroused emotions and frequently disturbances in Roman occupied Judaea, which led to troop reinforcements being mobilised in Jerusalem at such times. It is hardly surprising that the belief arose that the messiah would appear at Passover. Heightened tension, as well as the presence of Galilean pilgrims in Jerusalem, who might be expected to be naturally sympathetic to Jesus, would give the high priest plenty of reason to avoid inflaming public unrest while securing his death.

14: 3-9

The episode in Bethany, across the Mount of Olives from Jerusalem, is located in the house of a leper. A leper, as well as suffering a physical disease, was a social outcast. The disease was highly contagious, and sufferers were accordingly excluded from their communities. We are not told whether Simon was present at the meal. If he was, Jesus and his disciples were wilfully violating Jewish purity laws. Either way, Jesus’ presence in the house of such a person denotes acceptance, despite the disease which excludes lepers from social gatherings.

The woman must have been a person of some wealth to possess the flask and the ointment it contained. If the valuation is at all accurate, the sum involved would represent a year’s income for the average family. Notwithstanding her wealth, the gesture is extravagant, and it is not surprising that it arouses disapproval from people much less well off. Jesus, however, accepts the gesture, and associates it with his burial. His impending death makes her action appropriate. It is not that the plight of the poor is to be ignored, but that self-sacrificial reverence towards Jesus is also appropriate.

14: 10-11

We are not told what motivated Judas Iscariot, and the promise of money does not answer the question. Perhaps he was disillusioned that Jesus was not bringing the political and military liberation he had expected, and he saw no value in the way of the cross. While it would have been quite apparent that the chief priests were far from sympathetic to Jesus and his teaching, Judas would not necessarily have been aware that they were actively seeking to kill him. Perhaps he thought that the chief priests would come to understand what Jesus was about if they met him personally. They would not have disclosed their intentions to a person such as Judas. Perhaps Judas hoped to broker a realignment of forces against the Romans. We just do not know. But the consequence of Judas’ actions, intended or otherwise, unfold as the narrative reaches its climax, and it is hardly surprising that Judas has always been looked upon retrospectively as a sinister figure.

14: 12-16

The clandestine arrangements for the Passover meal are presumably to ensure that Jesus’ whereabouts would not become known, and that he could share the meal with his disciples in peace, and in Jerusalem. It was unusual to the point of being unheard of for a man to carry a water job. Gender roles were strictly demarcated, and fetching and carrying water was a woman’s task. The man with the jar is providing a pre-arranged signal, and shows the disciples to a venue which has been arranged for their Passover meal.

14: 17-25

We are not told precisely who was present at the meal commonly known as the Last Supper. Jesus is describes as arriving for the meal in the company of the twelve, the inner circle of his disciples. This would have been highly unusual, as Passover was normally celebrated in families. Perhaps we should understand that Jesus and his principal disciples arrived at the place where the meal had been prepared, by other disciples, and to which a larger company including these and the families of at least some of them had already gathered.

We are not told how Jesus came to know of Judas’ actions. He simply discloses that he knows what is being planned, and continues the meal despite it. However naïve Judas may have been, Jesus knew that his death was imminent, and if the high priest was determined to have him killed he could achieve this without the assistance of Judas. The other disciples are presumably bewildered to the point of inaction. We are not told that anyone suggested escape, which would have been an option, at least for the short term. Perhaps they had come to realise that death was an essential part of Jesus’ mission.

Jesus’ identification of the broken unleavened bread with his body, and the cup of wine with his blood, interprets his impending death as a sacrifice. The Passover lamb they had just eaten was a sacrifice of the covenant which bound God and Israel. Jesus’ sacrificial death would inaugurate another covenant, and the meals at which the disciples would continue to share bread and wine would celebrate this new covenant.

14: 26-31

After the Passover meal and accompanying rituals, Jesus and his disciples depart. We should perhaps understand this to mean that the men left, so that the women and children could sleep in the place where they had eaten. They may also have sought to ensure that these would be spared any violence when Jesus was arrested. Jesus and his company leave the city, presumably unmolested, and cross the Qidron valley to the garden of Gethsemane at the foot of the mount of Olives.

Jesus predicts that his disciples would all desert him, but implies that they would be restored to fellowship with him after the resurrection. Peter clearly speaks for them all when he denies that he would desert Jesus, and pledges his willingness to die alongside him. Jesus clearly had no intention of evading the plot which was unfolding, and the fact that the disciples are still with him at this point indicates that they expect Jesus to overcome the opposition mounted against him, or that they are determined to remain with him whatever the consequences.

14: 32-51

Jesus shows the first signs of apprehension at what is about to take place. Jews normally prayed standing, so Jesus’ falling to the ground is a sign not of reverential kneeling but of distress. It is not surprising that he should have prayed that God’s will might be brought about some other way. But he remains resolved to do God’s will. The disciples’ falling asleep would not have helped Jesus’ morale, even if it is unsurprising in itself after a festival meal at which they would have eaten and drunk far more than their daily fare. However, people expecting God to act imminently and decisively will be unprepared if they fall asleep at a crucial moment.

Judas’s arrival with a detachment of temple police ends Jesus’ efforts to induce his disciples to pray in anticipation of the events which are about to unfold. How Judas expects Jesus to respond to his greeting we are not told. Perhaps he hoped that, his having precipitated the crisis, Jesus would act decisively against the Romans. Instead, Jesus is arrested and bound, with some brief armed resistance from at least one of the disciples, before they flee the scene.

Jesus challenges those arresting him over the manner in which they have done so. Instead of openly apprehending him by day in the temple court, in full view of the crowds, they have chosen a clandestine operation. Why they did not simply eliminate Jesus with a proverbial knife in his back in a dark alley, is not explained. The clandestine arrest is instead followed by an increasingly public trial and execution.

The final episode in this scene is something of a mystery. The young man is not conventionally dressed at any stage of the proceedings. Who he was, and what he was doing, are not explained. Clearly the evangelist sees some significance in this event, and perhaps it is an autobiographical allusion.

14: 53-65

Jesus is taken to the high priest, who, like his retinue, has presumably also just consumed his Passover meal with his family. Peter’s following discreetly indicates that he still expects Jesus to act decisively, but he is less confident than he was earlier as to the outcome, and far less committed to sharing Jesus’ death.

Jesus is examined in order to find grounds on which he could be handed over to the Romans for execution. The evidence that he had spoken of the destruction of the temple was undoubtedly true; this is reported earlier in the narrative. The falsity lies in the attributed claim that Jesus would himself effect this destruction. However offended the temple hierarchy may have been, this would have been of no interest to the Romans, who would if possible avoid inflaming public unrest at a volatile time in the calendar.

Eventually the high priest asks Jesus a direct question. The answer may not have been what he was expecting, but it was precisely what he needed. The political and military connotations of messiahship were more than sufficient to ensure that the Romans would eliminate Jesus and his movement before it escalated into a revolutionary uprising. The fact that Jesus speaks of a heavenly, cosmic, event rather than an attempt to establish an earthly kingdom is ignored. What he said was also not strictly blasphemous, even if the claims were false, but the evidence has been obtained to secure a conviction from the Roman court. The abuse which follows reflects contempt for a person who had been deemed a threat, but been overpowered and was now at the mercy of the rulers. The brutality also anticipates the judgement to be sought from the Prefect’s court.

14: 66-72

Peter seeks to maintain his anonymity in the courtyard of the high priest’s house. How convincing his denials are is unclear, but there seems to be little interest in arresting him. Nevertheless, Peter’s bravado dissipates, and with it presumably all the hopes and expectations he had placed in Jesus.

15: 1-15

Jesus is taken to the court of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate, the political and military governor of Judaea with the authority to pronounce sentence of death. That Pilate hears the case in person indicates its importance.

Jesus answers Pilate’s question somewhat equivocally, but refuses to answer other allegations levelled against him. Pilate is clearly not altogether convinced that Jesus is a threat to Roman order. The risk of an uprising, and the potential difficulty in suppressing it, were grounds enough to hesitate, whatever the high priest might say. The popular request for an amnesty, and the choice of a prisoner who had violently opposed Roman rule, confirm Pilate’s suspicion that Jesus posed no threat to Roman interests. Whether he was right or wrong in this, the greater popular following for Barabbas indicated also that there was little likelihood of unrest should Jesus be crucified. His relationship with the high priest was crucial to stability in Judaea, and Pilate concedes to his request.

15: 16-39

Crucifixion is preceded by ritualised abuse by Pilate’s troops. The mock coronation and homage are a demonstration of Roman power, and of the complete subjugation of the Jews. Loss of blood from the crown of thorns, and also from the scourging, mean that Jesus is no longer strong enough to carry the cross-arm to the place of execution outside the city, as was customary. A passer-by, presumably a Jewish pilgrim from north Africa, is impressed, and compelled to carry the cross for Jesus. The fact that Simon’s name is known, as are his sons’, indicate that they are known, at least by reputation, to the evangelist, and more widely in the Church. This supports the ancient tradition that Simon became a Christian.

Jesus refuses the partial anaesthetic offered to him before he is nailed through the wrists to the cross-arm and hoisted onto the vertical post, to which his feet would then have been nailed. His belongings become the property of the troops who crucify him. The charge against him is attached to the cross, in mockery not only of the one crucified but of the Jewish people as a whole, a sign of what would happen to any who resisted Roman rule. Crucifixion takes place in public not only as a deterrent to others, but also so the revulsion from the crowds can add to the punishment.

Crucifixion was a long and painful means of dying. Jesus was on the cross for six hours before a combination of loss of blood, collapse of the rib cage, strain on the heart, and exhaustion meant that he could no longer breathe. His sense of desolation is expressed in the opening words of Psalm 22. Some, mishearing his words (which would not be surprising in the circumstances), interpret this as an expectation that Elijah, the precursor of the messiah, would come to his rescue. Whether the attempt to prolong Jesus’ life with vinegar is adding to the mockery, or reflects a sense that something decisive was about to take place, we are not told.

As Jesus dies, the curtain of the temple is torn. This demarcated the inner sanctuary, which was entered only by the high priest, and only in performing the rituals of the Day of Atonement. The rituals of the temple have ceased, through the death of Jesus, to be the means whereby God’s relationship with Israel is mediated. Jesus’ condemnation of the temple is fulfilled, or at least the fulfilment anticipated, in his death.

The centurion, the commander of the troop responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus and the other victims, recognises him in his death as a son of God. To a Roman soldier this expression would not have meant what it would have meant to a Jew, or what it means to us today. But his acknowledgement of Jesus nonetheless anticipates the conversion of the gentiles to Christ.

15: 40-47

While Jesus’ male disciples have disappeared, the women disciples are witnesses to his crucifixion and death. As well as not having been caught up in Jesus’ arrest, the women would have been less likely to have been arrested themselves or otherwise harassed than would men. Women also had particular culturally ascribed roles at times of death. This is not to diminish the point that is clearly made, that the women disciples were faithful to the end, in ways that could not be said of the male disciples.

The bodies of crucified people were generally left on the cross to be eaten by scavenging animals. However. Jewish law required that victims be removed from the cross the day of their death, and buried. It was nonetheless a special dispensation that allowed Jesus to be buried in a rock tomb rather than in a common grave with the other victims. Pilate grants Joseph custody of Jesus’ body so that he can be accorded decent and honourable burial. What motivated Joseph, other than his own powerlessness when Jesus was being condemned, is unclear. While it may simply have been respect, he may also have wished to ensure that Jesus’ body was accorded such honour as was possible in the circumstances. This, it was believed, would assist the soul of the dead on its journey to the netherworld, so as to be able to await resurrection. This would not in itself imply that Joseph was a follower of Jesus, secret or otherwise, but merely that he was sufficiently sympathetic to wish Jesus the benefits of the decent and honourable burial. He would presumably have envisaged that, as was customary, Jesus’ bones would have been removed after a year, and taken to the grave of his own family, leaving his tomb vacant.

While Joseph oversaw the burial of Jesus, we should not assume that he carried this out in person. Preparing a body for burial was women’s work. He may have allowed the women disciples of Jesus to carry out this function, or deployed servants of his own household. Male servants would presumably have carried the body to the grave, and closed it.

16: 1-8

Jesus had been buried late on Friday afternoon, before the start of the sabbath at sunset. As soon as the sabbath was over, on the Saturday evening, the women disciples prepare spices to anoint the body of Jesus, as was customary but which had not been possible in the time available on the Friday. At first light on Sunday morning they go to the tomb, and, to their astonishment, find it opened. An unidentified young man, presumably an angel rather than a human being, informs them of Jesus’ resurrection, and instructs them to direct the other disciples to meet him in Galilee. The promise that they would see Jesus there is to all the disciples, including the women. But they are amazed and fearful, and unable to convey a message to anyone.

Most scholars believe that Mark originally ended at 16: 8, as the most ancient surviving manuscripts of the gospel suggest. 16: 9-20 were a later addition, intendend to make Mark more like Matthew and Luke, and using material derived from those gospels. We should therefore understand Mark as ending with the mystery of the resurrection, and the promise that the disciples would see the risen Jesus. But the mystery is such that those who found the tomb empty to express what had happened, and silence is the only possible response to their experience.I