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?

How did the Gospels come to be?

When a biographer wants to tell the world about a special individual that author will do everything in their power to create a character for thr reader to imagine. Not just a person as a description; he had a dark beard, about 6’1”, and had laugh as bright as the sun. the biographer will instead create a different sort of picture involving stories, reactions from followers, phrases, and expressions that give a unique understanding of not just who the person was but what that person was like. The Gospels are no different. They each approach the same man, and tell the story through their own eyes. They will each tell of the same story, but might also tell it just a little different. Just as a group of people might gather around a coffin and tell stories about the deceased, the Gospel Evangelists set out to tell the world of the Jesus they knew, as accurate as possible, and as personal as possible.

Hence we come to the synoptic dilemma. Three Gospels, Matthew Mark and Luke sharing over 600 verses. Plagiarism? Common folk tales? Perhaps a bit of both. Inspired? Yes. Apostolic? Confirmed. There had to be a means of differing between the three though, and after a decade or two late than Matthew, Mark and Luke, John had to be distinguished as well.

The Gospels were written for different purposes for their intended audience but we can also tell that Christianity is the fruit of the Old Testament vine. In order to distinguish between these differing messages and tones, the early Church Fathers used symbolism in the book of the prophet Ezekiel (1:10). The four creatures we find here are also found in the book of Revelation; a post-Pentecost writing. It seemed fitting for the Fathers to use the prophetic figures in order to better communicate the characteristics of the Gospels. Matthew would be the Human Face, Mark would be the Lion, Luke would be the Ox, and John would be the Eagle. Each depicting one and the same being, but with separate features. The order was a jumbled early on thought.

Irenaeus of the second century gives a very early commentary of the use of multiple Gospels in his writing Against Heresies he provides that no one Gospel is perfect and it took four no more no less to tell the whole story. He gives poetical inference to the four corners of the world, four directions, and four covenants of God. He allocates the Ox to Luke, the Human Face to Matthew, the Lion to John, and lastly the Eagle to Mark. This order is known as the “Old Latin”, Matthew, John, Luke, Mark in order of the vision of Ezekiel.

The order we find in our bibles in the 21^st Century is obviously not that of Irenaeus. The Muratorian Canon, a fragment of the second-third Century gives Matthew, Mark, Luke, John in order, and Human, Lion, Ox, Eagle, respectively. This becomes the dominant version.

What’s the message of the Church Fathers though? How did they use this order to better communicate the Gospel? The meaning came from the opening verses in each Gospel. Mark starts with a voice calling out in the wilderness, like that of a Lion. Matthew starts with a genealogy giving reference to the human history of the newborn Jesus.  Luke mentions the priestly office in Zachariah and since the Ox is a dominant icon for sacrifice Luke becomes appropriate. For Jerome, who translates the entire bible into Latin, John is the Author who is “hurrying to the heights born aloft on eagles wings” and names John the eagle who promptly calls out Jesus’ divinity as high as the heavens themselves.

The teaching points were somewhat lost and most of us never learned these aides. We go to our Cathedrals and find depictions of the four creatures and don’t know what they represent. In each we find them clinging to a book or a scroll, a holy text they crafted and display for the world.  

EDIT: Guidance with the Gospels

Quickly, I mean to edit and improve the previous blog post with a little ditty I wrote:

Synthesis of the Major Teachings: Dei Verbum and the Document on the Pontifical Biblical Commission: INSTRUCTION CONCERNING THE HISTORICAL TRUTH OF THE GOSPELS.

Our Lord Jesus Christ entrusted His teachings to ordinary men but through His help and the Holy Spirit they became much more than men and after some time began to fully understand their purpose as well as the purposes of Jesus’ teachings and instructions to them. There are some phrases in the world which we hear throughout our lives and think of as commonplace but as soon as we discover they come from the lips of our Lord or the ink from an Apostle of Jesus, we suddenly hold those words and phrases without hesitation as immaculate and Holy. Our Lord gave us a Church that entrusted these teachings to His Apostles and indeed instructed them to teach them to others (Mt 28:20 NAB) but oddly enough never wrote a word and the Bible shows no explicit command to write. But they did.

Four of the Apostles wrote the Gospels doing their best to tell their audience about the Jesus they knew, each of them writing about the same Jesus. John, the one Jesus loved, wrote these words and the rest with a very personal feel and flow. Luke, the physician, writes in flavorful detail and diagnosis. Each of the other two have their personalities as well but they all teach of the same person, Jesus Christ.

With this our Mother Church holds steadfast on the historicity and inspiration of all four as Apostolic origin. In time the Church sorted out the accurate from the not, and assembled them in a symbolic order of the four creatures in Ezekiel and Revelation. We can trust our Church Fathers, why? Because Jesus did. We are His bride and as a perfect groom He promises to keep us from the gates of Hell (Mt 16:18 NAB), which if she fails to tell the Truth, the gates of Hades have certainly prevailed against her.

With this being said there is historical and practical value in the Gospels. The exegete, the one who critically explains the text, will need to keep in his interpretive tool box a few things in order to accurately and carefully, not to mention faithfully, execute his or her mission. First, the exegete must not rely on himself but on the Lord and the Church which is the pillar and bulwark of Truth. Next this individual must follow with the guidance of the Church and her Fathers and Doctors as to not contrive contrary teachings no matter how novel they are and to use the resources available to him/her. Finally, as the term implies, the exegete will use all means necessary to probe into the lives, the culture, and the depth to find deeper insight into the lives of those in and those who wrote the gospels in order to better discern their message and meaning.

Above all, the individual at hand must take heed to obey, observe, and offer his teachings in line with the magisterium of the Church. Let him/her not attempt novelty by straying from these teachings and Traditions for the mere sake of being novel and original. Such efforts are not of the Spirit, for the Spirit of God cannot lie and the promise from Jesus lips forbids and precludes the necessity of doing so, “The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name – he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you” (Jn 14:26 NAB) and again the Lord urges, “But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth” (Jn 16:13 NAB).

Quick Remarks on the Gospels

A short message on the teachings of the Church on the Gospels.

 

Major Teachings: Dei Verbum and the Document on the Pontifical Biblical Commission.

Our Lord Jesus Christ entrusted His teachings to ordinary men but through His help and the Holy Spirit they became much more than men and after some time began to fully understand their purpose as well as the purposes of Jesus’ teachings and instructions to them. There are some phrases in the world which we hear throughout our lives and think of as commonplace but as soon as we discover they come from the lips of our Lord or the ink from an Apostle of Jesus, we suddenly hold those words and phrases without hesitation as immaculate and Holy. Our Lord gave us a Church that entrusted these teachings to His Apostles and indeed instructed them to teach them to others (Matthew 28:20 NAB) but oddly enough never wrote a word and the Bible shows no explicit command to write. But they did.

Four of the Apostles wrote the Gospels doing their best to tell their audience about the Jesus they knew, each of them writing about the same Jesus. John, the one Jesus loved, wrote these words and the rest with a very personal feel and flow. Luke, the physician, writes in flavorful detail and diagnosis. Each of the other two have their personalities as well but they all teach of the same person, Jesus Christ. With this our Mother Church holds steadfast on the historicity and inspiration of all four as Apostolic origin (Dei Verbum, 18). In time the Church sorted out the accurate from the not, and assembled them in a symbolic order of the four creatures in Ezekiel and Revelation. We can trust our Church Fathers, why? Because Jesus did. We are His bride and as a perfect groom He promises to keep us from the gates of Hell (Matthew 16:18 NAB), which if she fails to tell the Truth, the gates of Hades have certainly prevailed against her.

A Little Ditty About Prayer

 

 

There are many things Christians do as marks of their faith and religion. Prayer is one of them. But we are not the only one. Other religions meditate, sacrifice, and acknowledge  be or a state of being that is greater than themselves. But the Abrahamic religions, those which have descended from the seed of Abraham (Judaism, Islam, and Christianity) are the ones who believe we can pray to our God. We believe we have more or less a speed dial that eclipses speed – a direct link to our creator we can use when we are scared, joyful, in need of help, or just want to know what to do with our lives.  We three have very distinct religious practices but our religions include this particular facet among many other things - this maybe being of the most overlooked commonalities.

But as Christians we pray different. As Catholics we definitely pray different. We have our Liturgical prayers that take place during the mass which as a convert took some getting used to. Other Liturgies are used at certain rites, or sacraments such as Baptism, the Rite of Election, First Communion, Confirmation, and funeral ceremonies. Others forms of prayer are more personal but also hold a more communal and corporate use such as the Rosary or the Divine Mercy Chaplet. Monks, praying the 150 psalms daily through the use of a small rope with 150 knots in it gave a desire to the laity to pray daily and to memorize some scripture. Soon there emerged a quote from Luke’s Gospel from the Annunciation scene, “Hail Mary full of grace, the lord is with you…”, and combined this with an intercessory request to “pray for us…”. We have others which we recite on our own in front of the Blessed Sacrament or others we pray before meals and still others we create for ourselves.

But all of this goes back to Jesus for us. How He prayed. When He prayed. Who He prayed to. Jesus prayed daily. Not just once a day, but throughout the day, usually starting in the morning. Mark Ch. 1 gives us this daily prayer at morning, midday, and after sunset. He did not just pray with the others but often, and in this example, went out and prayed by Himself. Mark does not tell what the prayer is, only that he did it. This remains the case up until Gethsemane where he must have been at a threshold to remember the words of the Lord when he was close to death. Jesus when praying, even when in most of need and certainly serious, calls God “Abba” being the Hebrew word for “Father.” We should do this as well because as adopted children of God, He too is our Heavenly Father and it is our privilege to call Him by that title. As I started this little writing, there are many things that separate our religions and in prayer, which we have in common, this is the distinctive element. So it is both a heresy to our separated brethren, and a privilege for us at the same time. Why do we do it though? Because we follow in the example of Jesus – hence the perfect title of the “Our Father.” Let us follow Jesus’ example: let us pray many times per day, let us pray when troubled and happy,  let us call Him “Father”.

Know why you are Christian – know what distinguishes you from the rest – and exploit and develop those differences.

How does one follow Jesus?

Look, a cute baby:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now for the lesson (you can look at babies when you are done, I promise):

 

How does one follow Jesus? There are many ways, many perfect ways in which one can live their life as a follower of Jesus. Catholics have a good number of orders such as Franciscans, Dominicans, and others. These are disciplined and orderly successions of priests and laity following in the footsteps of their founders. One thing on common with all of these is discipleship.

In the Gospel of Mark there is a clear message of discipleship as Jesus recruits the Apostles. What we see when Jesus offers the Apostles the opportunity to follow Him is the perfect way in which one responds to the call of Jesus to discipleship.

As Jesus approaches and seeks out the first, being Simon and Andrew (1:16-18), James and John (1:19-20), we notice four distinct interactions: Jesus passing by, Jesus offering with “follow me”, the new disciples immediately responding leaving their nets, and following. The seeking, the offering, the leaving, and the following; four elements for discipleship in Christ. Notice Jesus, the Son of God seeking out individuals for His own discipleship. The same man that said if he is lifted up he will draw the whole world to Himself, sets out in the region to find the Apostles. They refer to Him as their rabbi. The usual rabbi would sit, Jesus would stand. The usual custom is for disciples to stand and listen, while the disciples of Jesus sat and asked questions if necessary. Perhaps this is one contributing reason to people thinking of Jesus approach as “a new teaching” or “one who teaching with His own authority.” Certainly following Jesus is not like following other teachers.

So the disciples respond in perfection: they immediately leave everything behind. But their leaving is not meaningless and Mark is gracious enough to supplement this for us. They leave for the purpose of following. Leaving with a purpose, following with faith. There is an Old Testament parallel to this scene. In 1 Kings 19 we see Elijah passing Elisha by, and offering discipleship in the manner of “throwing his mantle over him.” Elisha responds by catching up to Elijah (probably a little surprised by the gesture) and informing the prophet that he will say goodbye to his family and then will come and follow. Acceptable? I think so.  I mean, Jesus tells us to “count the cost” before following. Faith moves and if it moves fast, fine. If it moves with carefulness, fine. There is only one Peter, and he even needed some proof when His brother told him he believed he had found the messiah.

G.K. Chesterton says “no one comes to conversion at the same angle”. Mark the Evangelist is not recording this account like a journalist by leaving out some teaching or agenda. Instead he gives two accounts (1:16-18, 1:19-20) with the same pattern as if to say “look, this is the right way to do it!” Response to Jesus is a daily task in the truest meaning – and it can be one to be taken with some consideration – but the perfect disciple stands firm, saying “your will be done” or in the words of the Mother of God, “let it be done to me according to your will.”