Mark's Gospel - the Roaring Lion

 

I have been reading a great book for a course on the Synoptic Gospels. I briefly mentioned it in one of my recent posts,  How Did the Gospels Come to Be?

It's a must read for anyone who wants a better understanding of the uniqueness of the four Gospels.

 

The topic this week in Burridge’s “Four Gospels, One Jesus?” is the Roar of the Lion, Marks Jesus. This was quite an interesting read. Personally, Mark is one of the few Gospels I choose to read when I decide to read a Gospel book. It didn’t ever seem to contain the flavor of the other three Gospels. Mark seemed to get straight to the point and write in the prose of “a matter of fact” rather than a personalized approach that would touch the heart and soul of the reader. This particular chapter helped me appreciate better the style of the Evangelist. There were things Burridge pointed out in the text that I never once considered and other parts which I felt I was familiar with but now understand deeper.

Among the more interesting finds is the mathematical layout Burridge points out to the reader. The constant 1-2-1 in which Mark “sandwiches” Jesus’ parables with introduction, a middle narrative, and ending with a discussion about the meaning of the parable. These formulae continue throughout the Gospel in which all of what Mark narrates happen in threes and most seem to break up. Whereas Luke and Matthew tend to complete the parable or story, they bring up to its completion without the middle dialogue.

Getting past this interesting explanation of the “sandwich” I started to enjoy the different personable highlights of the Gospel. Mark continues in the style of the Church Fathers in the narrative of the lion. The lion who goes here and there guiding his pride and family to rest, to teach, and to watch the master at work. Again, Burridge points out the one-two-three in the shaping of a disciple, to be called, chosen, and sent. I enjoyed this because I can actually apply it to my life in a practical sense rather than an exegetical sense. Burridge is quick also to point out that the poor, slow to learn, disciples fail in threes, at the lake in the storm, in gethsemane, and Peter in the court.

Through it all, Jesus maintained an orientation toward the disciples of utter frustration when they did not grasp a concept such as the passion despite his growing detail (8:32-33, 9:32, 10:32-41). Jesus, ever patient with them still proceeds to teach them the secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven and in time they understand. Like the one who wishes to swim and see new fish in the sea, cannot do so without the proper equipment; so in time the Lord equips these men for seeing the fish and being true fishers of men. Even despite the foreknowledge of the betrayal of Judas he teaches, despite the foreknowledge of the denial of Peter, He gives the Keys to the Kingdom. Jesus did not hesitate to publically rebuke them and hang them out as mere pea brains constantly asking, “do you not understand”, “have I not told you”, and finally “will you leave me too” or, “get back you Satan.” But Jesus has to do this. Without the conviction of God speaking direction to us we cannot find these things of our own. This is why for centuries our Popes, Fathers, and Patriarchs maintain that Christianity is a religion of revelation and reason together.

The rest of the Chapter flows the same. As a critique, here is one statement that seems to be out of place. On page 50, Burridge writes, “Jesus is declared the Song of God by the Author… but by no human while He is still alive.” What about Peter’s confession? He includes this confession on the next page (51) but this doesn’t seem to help his previous statement. I might have missed the point. But the point becomes the turning point in Chapter 8 of Mark where the identity of Jesus is enhanced and revealed. From a prophet and possible messiah who has the power over the physical and spiritual world, Jesus is now the Son of God, the Son of Man – the Lion roaring His rightful title.

After this the rest of Mark is still very “matter of fact”. Leading up to Holy Week, Mark becomes enumerated all of a sudden. A twist because until now, Mark has made no mention of dates, time tables, or anything. Here toward the end of the Gospel we see the Apostle in vivid detail laying out the occurrences stapled in his mind. I had never thought of this myself, but when he points out that many have called Mark a “Passion narrative with a long introduction”, I don’t think there is any better way to put it. Most who know this Gospel know it to be centered on Holy Week. For ages, and it still happens, this whole Gospel has been read on Easter in its entirety. After reading this Chapter I realize that Mark is keeping details from us, focusing only on what contributed to the week of the Passion. Mark omits the great teachings. He leaves out the genealogy. His mission is to tell the reader about the greatest reason Jesus came to earth – to die.

When I was 11 I got a used shirt from a thrift store somewhere on base in Hawai’i. It had a picture of Jesus’ face on the front, the one where he is agonizing on the cross, bleeding, thorns and all. It read “Heavenly Divine Son” in the imitation of the Harley Davidson logo. Pretty cool, right? It read below the picture of the dying Jesus, “Born to die” instead of the “Born to Ride” one might find on a Harley Davidson shirt. Now… Some were angry with this shirt, as if it were trying to somehow imply that Jesus’ death was useless or that he had no other purpose on earth than to be mocked, ridiculed, and murdered. This could not be further from the truth. I wore it nonetheless and one day, while walking down the sidewalk that spans Waikiki a woman said, “I love your shirt.” I was relieved. Actually, until that moment I didn’t really know its meaning, but when she said it was good, I got to thinking about it. Until then it was mere words for me. It was then that I realized that the shirt was right, and this is what I believe Mark was trying to get at: that Jesus was born to die; that he came to earth not to disburse some good ideas or to heal some people or irritate Caesar on behalf of God. He was the one who came down from heaven in humility, to create a way to forgive our sins and open up heaven to the whole world. Born to die, truly.    

Theology and Philosohpy

Is Philosophy necessary for the study of Theology?

The short answer is yes, indeed. In our Christian religion we have the benefit of revelation to go along with the scientific products of study, experiment, and observation. Among these is Philosophy which is the original science. It is not the divine science, but it is among the oldest of disciplines. Philosophy means the love of wisdom. It is the study of what is: reality, truth, problems, and existence. Naturally, the theologian who studies the divine, would want to have a thing to two (understating, of course) to do with philosophy.

Many believe and trust, in error, that philosophy and theology do not belong together. Understandably there have been many philosophers and for every philosopher there is a take, an opinion, a view on things as fact and not even mere opinion. So for many, it would seem right to place conflict between the two. Thoughtfully so. However, this is not the essence of the study. It is not the heart and soul of philosophy. There may be several conclusions, but there is but one truth. We Christians, nay we Catholics, believe we have it right.

Since the days before Christ man has studied the way, the life, the bones, the material and the immaterial. Those such as Aristotle come to the conclusion of one God, the Prime Mover, although him or/and Socrates never knew the name of the Lord. Still their intellect and reason led them to these conclusions. These pagans came to the same conclusions, and the revelation of Jesus and that given in the Apostolic Era have produced a system of which we work in. This theology must include Philosophy. For the two shall never disagree. What is truth in revelation shall never contradict that of rational philosophy; dualism is its own contradiction.

Thoughts?