La Pasión y Resurrección en Marcos

8/10/2019 La Pasin y Resurreccin en Marcos

1/19

The Passion and Resurrection in MarkR. Alan Culpepper

It was not easy to preach a crucified savior to people who had witnessedcrucifixions. Death on a cross was an ignomy usually reserved for slaves andtraitors 1 For Jews, crucifixion defiled the land and was evidence of God'scurse on the crucified (Deut. 21:23); for Gentiles, the idea that a divine manor an immortal could be crucified was foolishness (I Cor. 1:19); and for Markand his church, proclamation of the crucified Messiah would have beenexceedingly difficult during or just after the war of A.D. 66-70, especially ifthey were in Rome. On the other hand, Mark did not write about the deathof Jesus because he could not deny that Jesus was crucified but because thecrucifixion and ensuing resurrection were central to his faith. If we are tointerpret the Second Gospel faithfully, therefore, we will need to answer thequestion: What did the death and resurrection of Jesus mean to Mark?

The question is important, but it is probably not the question mostreaders bring to the Gospel. Most students of Mark come to the text withthe question: What happened? Mark was interested in what happened, but itwould not have been sufficient to describe the death of Jesus withoutproviding some clues in the passion narrative itself (Mk. 14-16) as to whythis particular crucifixion had special meaning. Mark, therefore, wrote thestory in such a way that he shapes the reader's appreciation of the meaningof the events he narrates. The place to begin is not with a quest for theevents by comparing Mark with the other Gospels or by attempting toseparate tradition from Mark's own work. That quest is important, but the

place to begin is with an attempt to understand what the death andresurrection of Jesus meant to Mark. This understanding in turn will be ofvalue both for the one who preaches the New Testament as inspired andauthoritative and for the one who studies the origin and development of thepassion traditions.

How can one learn what the death and resurrection meant to Mark? Ingeneral terms the answer is: by listening to the text and allowing Mark tointerpret himself. Since we invariably approach the text with our own biases,confessional "blicks," twentieth-century perspectives, and a predisposition tofind certain answers; listening to the text is not an easy task. The task may

be facilitated, however, by identifying the interpretive devices planted in itby its writer. The verses which concern us most directly are Mark 15:21-16:8 but they can hardly be considered apart from the rest of the Gospel.


2/19

Close examination of the Gospel of Mark shows that the shadow of the crossfalls across the entire Gospel so that every pericope points ahead to the crossand must be understood in its light/ Conversely, the passion narrative canbe understood only in the light of the themes developed in the rest of theGospel which reach their climax in it. The approach followed below,therefore, is to examine each of the interpretive devices Mark used innarrating the death and resurrection of Jesus: 1) the structure of Mark15:21-16:8, 2) the phenomena which accompany Jesus' death, 3) the themeswhich reach a climax or resolution in this section, and 4) Mark's use of theOld Testament in these verses. 3

The structure of the passion narrative in Mark becomes apparent whenone notices that following the trial before the high priest, the narrativedescribes three key events, each of which is followed by the response of someparticipant(s) in the drama. The three responses do not advance the action;they comment on the preceding event. Mark 15:1-39, therefore, develops inthree acts:

Act I. Event: Jesus is tried (15:1-15).

Response: The soldiers mock him (15:16-20).Act II. Event: Jesus is crucified (15:21-27).

Response: The spectators mock him (15:29-32).Act III. Event: Jesus dies (15:33-37).

Response: The veil is rent and the centurion confesses(15:38-39).

Mark is fond of groups of three. He gives three passion predictions (8:31;9:31; 10:32-34), measures Jesus' time on the cross with references to thethird hour (15:25), the sixth hour (15:33), and the ninth hour (15:34); andpresents three groups of mockers in 15:29-32: the passers-by, the chiefpriests and scribes, and the two crucified with Jesus. 4 The structure of threeevents and three responses is further supported by the use of "mock"(empaizo) in 15:20 and 15:31 to describe the action of those scenes. The onlyother occurrence of this word in Mark is in the passion prediction in Mark10:32-34. It is commonly agreed that this prediction, the longest and mostdetailed of the three, has been expanded by Mark. The centurion's confession in the third act provides a dramatic contrast to the two scenes ofmocking which precede it. The structure of the passion in Mark, therefore,points emphatically to the third and final act, i.e. the phenomena whichaccompany and interpret Jesus' death: the darkness (15:33), the cry ofdereliction (15:34-37), the rending of the veil (15:38), and the centurion's

confession (15:39). These events hold the key to Mark's understanding of thedeath of Jesus.


3/19

The Passion and Resurrection in MarkReview and Expositor

The use of accompanying phenomena to interpret the crucifixion isconfirmed by the increasing use of this device in the later canonical andapocryphal gospels (e.g. Gospel of Peter 15 27; Gospel of the Nazoreans,frag. 21 ). 5 Matthew, for example, adds:

. . . and the earth shook, and the rocks were split; the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many (Mt. 27:51b 53).

In Mark, however, the four phenomena do not simply heighten themiraculous nature of the event, as they do in the apocryphal gospels; theyinterpret its meaning.

The DarknessMark 15:33

Mark states that from the sixth hour (noon) until the ninth (3:00 p.m.)darkness came upon the whole earth. Some interpreters speculate that thedarkness was caused by a black sirocco, or duststorm; others maintain thatthe parallel in Luke 23:45 implies that the darkness was the result of an

eclipse; still others assert that it is legendary. The cause of the darkness isirrelevant for understanding Mark! The proper question is: What significancedid the darkness have for Mark? The Gospel gives us few clues. The word skotos does not appear anywhere else in Mark, and the verb form(skotizomai) appears only in the quotation in Mark 13:24. Mark does notinterpret the darkness. One can only observe th at it is tied to his three hourtime periods, that the darkness was present during the time of Jesus' suf-fering, and that it apparently ended at the time of the cry of dereliction andhis death. The most one can say from the evidence is th at Mark associatedthe darkness with Jesus' suffering.

Passages in the Old Testament indicate th at the darkening of the sun was a sign of judgment. As such, it could express God's displeasure towardother peoples (Ex. 10:15, 21 23; Ezek. 30:18 19; 32:7 8). God's judgmentupon Israel in the day of the Lord would also be expressed by darkness uponthe land (g = eretz) (Amos 5:18, 20; Joel 2:2, 10, 31; 3:15; Jer . 15:6, 9;Isa. 13:9-10; 50:2-3; Lam. 3:1-2; Zeph. 1:15; cf. Wisdom 17:20-18:4). Inparticular, darkness will come upon the false prophets and rulers of Israel(Mie: 3:6). The closest parallel to Mark 15:33, however, is Amos 8:9.

' O n that day," says the Lord God,"I will make the sun go down at noon,and darken the earth in broad daylight."

The darkness in Mark, therefore, probably should be understood as acosmic, eschatological sign of God's judgment upon Israel and perhaps uponher rulers in particular 7


4/19

Gentile readers would also understand the darkness as a cosmic signwhich often accompanied the death of great men and kings:

. . . the Sun will give you signs. Who dare say the Sun is false?Nay, he oft warns us that dark uprisings threaten, that treacheryand hidden wars are ups welling. Nay, he had pity for Rome when,after Caesar sank from sight, he veiled his shining face in duskygloom, and a godless age feared everlasting night.

Vergil, Georgics I.463f.Similarly, Philo wrote that ". . . eclipses announce the death of kings andthe destruction of cities (De Providentia IL 50; cf. Plutarch Pelopidas xxxi.2-3; Diogenes Laertius IV. 64). The significance of the darkness at noonshould not be underestimated, but an overly precise or restricted interpretation of its meaning would also be unwise. The following understandings all have some merit: a sign of God's judgment upon Israel(esp. its leaders), an indication that the death of Jesus was linked with theday of the Lord and the coming of the Son of Man (cf. Mk. 13:24), evidenceof the cosmic significance of Jesus' death (esp. if "all the earth" is taken tomean more than the land of Israel 8), and divine confirmation of Jesus'kingship (cf. the references from Vergil and Philo quoted above and Mk.15:2, 9, 12, 18, 26, 32). From all these associations the reader understandsthat God was at work in the event and that His purposes would not be thwarted: The sun would shine again on Easter morning (Mk. 16:1).

The Cry of Dereliction-Mark 15:34-37The "cry of dereliction," as it is usually called, is the most enigmatic

word from the cross. Discussion of this saying has generally revolved aroundthree issues: 1) Did Jesus say anything articulate? 2) What did he say? and3) What did it mean? The first issue is concerned with whether the saying is

authentic or merely an interpretation of the great cry Jesus uttered at hisdeath (15:37). The second issue relates to both the original language of thequotation (Aramaic or Hebrew?) and the extent of the quotation from Psalm22 (Did he recite more than the first words of the Psalm?). Finally, what didthe saying mean, both to Jesus and to Mark? Was it a "cry of dereliction"or "the prayer of a righteous sufferer"? Did Jesus merely feel abandoned byGod or was he really abandoned? Although these issues cannot be dealt withat length, it may be helpful to review the discussion that has developedaround them before proceeding to suggest an interpretation of the sayingbased on the Markan themes which find their climax in it.

R. Bultmann challenged the authenticity of the saying with theassertion, "Clearly v. 34 is a secondary interpretation of the cry of Jesus inv. 37 (palin is missing in v. 37 though Matthew adds it!) on the basis of Ps.


5/19


21 2 ." 9 This judgment has been followed by many subsequent interpreters. 10

English-language commentaries, however, generally continue to regard thesaying as authentic. 11 The presence of the Aramaic words in the text ofMark is a strong argument for authenticity as is the difficulty of thinkingthat the church attributed to Jesus such a stark and hostile saying. 12 Inaddition, Matthew, who often omits or re-casts sayings which reflectnegatively on Jesus, does not do so here. Had he some reason we do not

have to believe the saying was authentic? On the other hand, the fact that itcomes from one of the passion psalms from which the church drew heavily ininterpreting Christ's death and the possibility that the saying is a doubletgiving meaning to the original, inarticulate cry in 15:37 both preclude affirming the authenticity of 15:34 with much confidence.

Whether the saying is authentic or not, its meaning rests in part onwhether the quotation of Psalm 22:1 is meant to be understood apart fromthe rest of the Psalm 13 or as the "title" which should evoke the remainder ofthe Psalm. 14 The reaction of the bystanders (15:35-36) militates against thepossibility that Mark wished his readers to understand that Jesus recited theentire Psalm in his last moments. 15 Nevertheless, the quotation has beenunderstood both as a "cry of dereliction" 16 and as a prayer which even in thedarkness of rejection and suffering began "My God . . . " and evoked thetriumphal ending of Psalm 22 as well as its beginning 17 But, Mark provideslittle evidence in support of the latter interpretation, and the former is oftenrelated to the view, derived more from Paul (e.g. II Cor. 5:21) than fromMark, that Jesus in some undefined way became sin or absorbed the sin ofthe world into himself and therefore had to be abandoned by God. 18 Mark,however, gives little support for such an interpretation of the death of Jesus.Mark 10:45, which has been used to support a substitutionary theology ofatonement, provides no evidence that Jesus thought he would assume the

sin of the world; the saying deals with the importance of service and affirmsthe redemptive power of self-denial. This understanding of the passage isgiven strong support by its position at the end of the section beginning with8:31, since this section of the Gospel emphasizes the necessity pf Jesus'suffering and offers it as a model for the status-seeking disciples. 20 Sin, infact, is mentioned in only two passages in Mark (1:4-5; 2:5-10). Neitherpassage is directly related to the death of Jesus and neither gives anysupport for the contention that the death of Jesus was the necessaryprerequisite for the forgiveness of sins. On the contrary, Mark affirms thatthe forgiveness of sins through the grace of God was proclaimed by John(1:4-5) and mediated by Jesus prior to his death (2:5-10).

J. Moltmann has made some fresh contributions to the discussion of themeaning of Mark 15:34 He accepts it as the church's interpretation of the


6/19

dying cry of Jesus, but asserts that it "seems to be as near as possible tothe historical reality of the death of Jesus." 21 The cause of Jesus was solinked with his person and the proclamation of the nearness and grace ofGod that Jesus' death marked also the death of his cause. Therefore, thecry, interpreted by the opening words of Psalm 22, inquires not only "Whyhast thou forsaken me?" but also "Why hast thou forsaken thyself?" 22 It isthe cry of the Son to his Father, so the abandonment reflects an enmity

between God and God which "requires a * revolution in the concept ofGod'."* 23 The theology of the cross which Moltmann develops asserts notonly the suffering of the Son, who laid down his life in obedience, but alsothe suffering of the Father, who allowed his Son to die, and the suffering ofthe Spirit of love and self-surrender. The nature of God, the Trinity, istherefore revealed in the cross: "The unity of this account of Father, Son,and Spirit on the cross can then a posteriori be termed "God." The word"God" means an event, precisely this event." 24

The "cry" may be an impenetrable mystery. Certainly the precisemeaning it had for Jesus, assuming its authenticity, is irrecoverable. We

have a better chance of understanding its meaning for Mark, however. Inkeeping with our pursuit of the meaning of Jesus' death for Mark, I willsuggest an interpretation of Mark 15:34 which derives from the Markanthemes which culminate in it: 1) the abandonment of Jesus, the righteoussufferer, and 2) the assurance of God's (and the risen Lord's) presence withthe persecuted community. Each of these themes must be traced briefly.

In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus is gradually abandoned by all his supporters. The religious and political leaders, who never supported him, plothis death early on (3:6). His family apparently does not understand hisministry (3:31-35). His home town rejects him (6:1-6), and even his disciplesdo not understand him (4:40; 6:52; 8:17; 21; 29-33; 9:32). They seek glory,while he is on his way to suffering (9:33-37; 10:28; 35-45); and they fail himwhen he needs them (14:32-42). Ultimately, Judas betrays him (14:43ff.), thedisciples all flee (14:50), and even Peter denies him (14:66-72). The crowdcomes after him with swords and clubs (14:43), and Pilate, desiring to pleasethe crowd, hands Jesus over to be crucified (15:15). The soldiers mode him(15:16-20), the spectators blaspheme him (15:29-30), and the two thievesrevile him (15:32b). Even the women who stood by the cross and watchedthe burial fail to carry out the angelic commission in the end (16:8). Jesus'abandonment by his Father, therefore, fits the pattern of progressivebetrayal and abandonment which pervades the Gospel of Mark. This

abandonment heightens Mark's emphasis on the significance of suffering,but the abandonment by God proves not to be the last word.


7/19


Mark is especially interested in affirming that the struggling churchshould expect to suffer and should accept suffering as an opportunity forexpressing its commitment to Christ and his kingdom. John the Baptistsuffered and died (1:14; 6:14-29); Jesus suffered and died (cf. 8:31; 9:31;10:32-34; 12:6-8): the disciples should therefore expect to suffer as well (4:17;8:34-38; 10:29-30; 13:9, 11-13). They should not interpret their suffering asabandonment by God, however. The Lord will come to the believers in themidst of their turmoil, as he came to the disciples in the midst of the storm(6:45-51). Persecution and distress are necessary, but the Son of Man willcome quickly to deliver the oppressed believers (13:14-27). The suffering ofMark's community may have been heightened by the feeling that they hadbeen abandoned by their Lord, but Mark reminds them that Jesus had feltabandoned in his suffering as well, and God, just as he was not acting toprevent their suffering, had not acted to prevent Jesus' death. The sufferingwould not be the end. Beyond the suffering of the obedient Jesus there wasthe vindicating action of God. Beyond death there was resurrection. If thecommunity could identify with the suffering of its Lord, it could also draw

assurance from his resurrection. The Lord had not abandoned the persecutedcommunity; just as the Father had not abandoned His Son, although he hadfelt abandoned.

God would accomplish through the suffering of Jesus and the distress ofthe Christian community what he could achieve in no other way: thedisclosure of His nature as suffering love and the redemption of mankind,which could come only through the power of that disclosure. The "cry ofdereliction," therefore, reveals the depth of suffering in both the Son and theFather. It was the moment of Jesus' greatest agony. For Mark it was themoment of the supreme disclosure of God's nature.

The Rending of the VeilMark 15:38Immediately following the death of Jesus, Mark notes: "and the curtain

of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom" (15:38). The way inwhich this verse intrudes between verses 37 and 39 strongly suggests that ithas been placed here by Mark and is perhaps "a Markan supplement to thefoundation narrative." 2" Even apart from the question of Mark's sources, itsintrusion in his narrative indicates the importance of verse 38 for Mark'sunderstanding of Jesus' death. Both the use of the passive voice and thedirection of the tear, i.e., from the top down, imply that this was God'saction. The reader of the Gospel understands that God has vindicated Jesus'

judgment on the temple. Nevertheless, the precise meaning of this verse issurprisingly elusive. Progress in understanding it is best achieved by noting


8/19

From chapter 11 on, Jesus' opposition to the temple is a major concernin Mark. 26 From the Mount of Olives 27 Jesus entered the Holy City and thetemple; its evening had come (11:11). The cleansing of the temple on thenext day is sandwiched in typical Markan fashion between two noticesconcerning the cursing of the fig tree; the two events interpret one another.Jesus cursed the fig tree even though it was not time for fruit. This referenceto the time of the year has theological overtones. It was not yet the time for

the inclusion of the Gentiles, since Jesus had not yet died; it was not yet thetime for judgment, since the eschaton had not yet arrived. The cleansing ofthe temple was a prophetic sign of its eventual destruction. When, later,Peter saw the withered fig tree, he remembered and observed that Jesus'curse had been fulfilled. Likewise, one is to understand, when one sees thedestruction of the temple, he should remember the words of Jesus. Those

words are significant. Jesus quoted Isaiah 56:7 and alluded to Jeremiah7:11; both passages deal with the temple. Jesus' opposition to the templerooted thus in both its failure to be a house of prayer and its exclusion of theGentiles. As will be shown later, Mark was intensely interested in the in-clusion of the Gentiles in the Christian community. While the temple culteffectively excluded Gentiles from the worship of God by allowing commercein "their" court, the church would be "a house of prayer for all nations." 28

Jesus also charged that the temple had become a "den of robbers." Thethieving money changers and merchants would find no asylum from their sinin the sanctuary. 29 The reference probably also relates to the events of A.D. 6870, when the temple was occupied by zealots and brigands. 30 Thecleansing of the temple thus intensifies the opposition to Jesus and leads onestep further toward the cross.

The parable of the wicked husbandmen is related to the temple motif inthat the "tenants" are the religious leaders, who know that Jesus told theparable about them (12:12). Because they killed his "beloved son" (11:6), theLord of the vineyard will take it away from the "tenants" and will give it toothers (11:9). Thereafter, Jesus agrees with the scribes' judgment on thelesser value of the sacrifices in relation to love for one's neighbor (12:3334)and prophesies the destruction of the temple (13:2; cf. 13:14).

The most difficult development in the temple theme comes in the trial.False witnesses testify: "We heard him say, will destroy this temple thatis made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made withhands.' Yet not even so did their testimony agree" (14:57 59). The versespresent a tangle of problems which have yet to yield a very satisfactorysolution. Foremost is the question, "Why is the charge presented as false?"Does Mark mean for his readers to understand it as false or as ironically or


9/19


partially true? Probably the latter. 31 Up to this point Mark has consistentlyused the term hieron (11:11, 15, 16, 27, 12:35; 13:1, 3; 14:49). Here and inthe two succeeding references (15:29, 38) he uses naos; he does not use hieron again. Apart from the question of whether there is any difference inthe meaning of the two words, the pattern of Mark's usage suggests that hedid not intend them to mean the same thing. 32 A partial solution to theperplexities of these verses emerges from observing that: 1) the witness isfalse because Jesus had not said that he would destroy the templehis wasnot a revolutionary movement; and 2) his declarations and prophetic actionshad concerned the hieron, not the naos Jesus would not destroy the naos,the sanctuary of God's presence; his death would open it to the Gentiles. Onthe other hand, the hieron, the temple structure and cult, was condemnedand would soon be destroyed; at the cross it became obsolete. The templemade with hands would be replaced by one not made with hands, i.e., thechurch, Mark's church. 33

Mark takes up the temple theme at the trial (14:58), the second mocking(15:29), and the death of Jesus (15:38), because the significance of Jesus'death cannot be understood apart from it. The rending of the veil indicatesthat God confirmed Jesus' judgment on the temple. Its destruction wassealed; so attention should focus on the church, the temple not made withhands (cf. Jn. 2:19-21).

The rending of the veil also means that all now have access to God.Interpreters are rather evenly divided on the question of whether the veil inquestion was the inner veil concealing the holy of holies or the veil betweenthe forecourt and the sanctuary. 34 Generally, those who choose the formerfind the symbolism to indicate that now the way to the presence of Godthrough Jesus is open for all; those who choose the latter find a sign of the

destruction of the temple. Mark does not make it clear which curtain ismeant, nor does he give any indication that the meaning of the sign isrelated to understanding which curtain was affected. Hence, while we wouldlike to know which curtain he had in mindassuming he knew of the twocurtainsthe information is not necessary for understanding the verse. Thesplitting of the curtain may convey both of the meanings that have beenclaimed for it: the destruction of the temple and access to God's mercy forall peoples.

The vineyard had been given to others (12:9) and the temple hadbecome a house of prayer for all nations (11:17); it was appropriate for the

christological high point of the Gospel to follow immediately and to comefrom a Gentile: "Truly this man was the Son of God" (15:39). Like thebreaking down of the "dividing wall of hostility" (Eph. 2:14-15), the rending


10/19

of the veil opened the way for the inclusion of Gentiles in the community ofbelievers. 35

The Centurion's ConfessionMark 15:39The centurion's confession, "truly this man was the Son of God," 36 is

the last interpretive element in Mark which defines and finally reveals thesignificance of Jesus' death. As noted above, 37 verse 39 connects with verse

37, and verse 38 disrupts the flow of the narrative. It was the manner ofJesus' death, and specifically his last (victorious?) cry which prompted thecenturion's confession. Mark is precise about the position of the centurionrelative to the cross (literally, "he stands by over against Jesus" 38 ), but hedoes not indicate why Jesus' cry led to the confession. The reader is wellaware, however, that he has reached the climax of Mark's revelation ofJesus' identity. As we have noted, 39 the crucifixion in Mark unfolds in three

acts, each of which presents both an event and the response to it. Theresponse to both Jesus' sentencing and his crucifixion was mockery (15:16-20a and 15:29-32). What the mockers say is important because Mark intendsfor the reader to understand that the vindication of Jesus by the phenomenawhich accompany his death and by his resurrection shows that he in factwas that which the unbelieving accomplices in his death refused to believeabout him. He was the king of the Jews (15:18), the one worthy of worship(15:19), the one who would build a new temple and destroy the old (15:29),the one who was able to save (15:31), and the Christ, the King of Israel( 15:32). 40 Ju st as the denial by Peter (predicted by Jesus in 14:30) confirmedat the trial that Jesus was in fact a prophet in spite of the mockery (14:65),so here the manner of Jesus' death and his ensuing resurrection confirm thatas the centurion said, "he was the Son of God." Mark underscores this pointby bringing the christological titles into the narrative at both the trial andthe mockings, just as he inserted the temple theme in both passages. 41 Thechief priest asked: "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed [a circumlocution for "Son of God"]" (14:61), and the chief priests mocked him bycalling him "the Christ, the King of Israel" (15:32). Finally, the Gentilecenturion sees what the chief priests, the religious leaders of Israel, wereunable to see: He was the Son of God! This is the disclosure, the "messianicsecret" Mark has been disclosing from the start. It was announced by Markin the opening verse of the Gospel, 42 partially revealed by Peter at CaesareaPhilippi after Jesus' teaching on the kingdom and his miracles, 43 revealed byJesus before the high priest (14:61-62), recognized by the centurion (15:39),and confirmed by the demons (3:11; 5:7), and by God at the baptism of

Jesus (1:10) and at the transfiguration (9:7). It is clear, therefore, tha t thecenturion's confession of Jesus as the Son of God is the christological high


11/19


point of the Gospel. The meaning of the confession, however, must bedefined by tracing its association with the "Son of Man" title in Mark, theGentile theme, and the emphasis on suffering.

Throughout the Gospel of Mark, the "Son of God" title seems to bewaiting in the wings for its moment on center stage. 44 That moment arrivesat the confession of the centurion, but it arrives only after the reader hasbeen carefully prepared to understand the significance of the title. Up to thispoint, the title has appeared only obliquely: in the superscription, in utterances of demons who are immediately silenced, and in epiphanic momentswhich point ahead to the full disclosure of Jesus' identity. Jesus himselfavoided the title, consistently preferring "Son of Man." 45 Even when askeddirectly if he were the "Son of the Blessed" (14:61), Jesus answered in termsof his role as the Son of Man (14:62). It was only in the light of his death onthe cross that his identity as the Son of God could be revealed without beingmisunderstood. Mark, therefore, kept the title waiting in the wings until thereader understood the significance of Jesus' suffering and the way in whichhis power was disclosed in weakness (II Cor. 12:9). There could now be nopossibility that the Gospel could be used to foster a christology of glorywhich allowed its adherents to avoid suffering. 46

Mark emphasized the significance of Jesus' suffering and its necessity.Immediately following Peter's confession, "You are the Christ" (8:29), Markstructured three units in which Jesus predicts his suffering, the disciplesmisunderstand and seek glory instead of suffering, and Jesus teaches thatself-denial and suffering are essential to true discipleship. 47 The suffering ofthe righteous Son of God is redemptive. Therefore, ironically, he could notsave himself if he were going to save others (15:31). The message to anyonewho desires to follow Jesus and enter into the coming kingdom is thatfollowing Jesus means following in the way of the cross. It means self-denial(8:34), the loss of property and family relationships (10:28-30), conflict withoppressive power structures and institutional, religious authorities (13:9),and faithful witness to "the gospel" in the midst of adversity (13:10-11). Thespecific implications of Mark's message regarding what it meant to followthe Messiah who had been executed by the Jewish and Roman authoritieswould have been very clear to Mark's church when it read his Gospel duringor just after the war of A. D. 66-70. They are still clear today.

One other aspect of Mark 15:39 must be given due attention: It is notby accident that the first person to confess that Jesus is the Son of God is aGentile. The text does not state that the centurion was a Gentile, but we

may safely assume that he probably was and that Mark's audience wouldhave understood him as such. He was a representative of the "Gentiles" to


12/19

whom Jesus was delivered (10:33), but he was also a representative of theGentiles to whom the gospel must be preached before the parousia (13:10)and who would have a place in the new temple not made with hands (cf.11:17). Just as the shadow of the cross falls back across the entire Gospel,so the echoes of the centurion's confession can be heard throughout it. Theassociations with the Son of God title and the teachings on suffering havebeen traced. Associations with Jesus' acceptance of Gentiles into his newcommunity can also be seen.

48

The references to Gentiles in Mark indicate that he understood thatJesus by his example had himself launched the Gentile mission of the earlychurch. In an extensive Markan summary section (3:7-12) we find that Jesusdrew followers "from Idumea, and across the Jordan, and around Tyre andSidon" (3:8). After exorcising the demon legion from the Gerasene demoniac,Jesus broke his pattern of commanding the ones he healed or exorcised to"tell no one" (1:24-25, 34, 44; 3:12, 5:43; but also 7:36 [in the Decapolis])and commanded the man to go to his house and his people and to tell themwhat the Lord had done for him. Thereafter, the man preached in the

Decapolis, a primarily Gentile area (5:20). Mark stops short of lauding thesuccess of the ministry in the Decapolis, but notes that "all were marveling"(5:20). According to Mark, when Jesus sent the twelve out on mission he didnot send them only to Israel (6:6b-13); Mark's silence at this point may besignificant in view of Matthew 10:5-6, which states that the disciples werenot to go to the Gentiles or Samaritans but to Israel only. Then, justfollowing his account of Jesus' rejection of the traditions of the elders in 7:1-23, Mark tells how in Tyre the Syrophoenician woman, a Gentile, persistedin her faith in Jesus and received healing for her daughter (7:24-30). Thispericope in turn introduces a period of ministry in Sidon and the area of theDecapolis (7:31). Following the transitional story of the healing of the deafmute (7:31-37), which Mark may have intended to be illustrative of the wayin which Jesus was able to awaken faith in Gentiles; Mark adds the accountof the feeding of the four thousand (8:1-10). This feeding took place in aGentile area (cf. 7:31), and various references suggest that it was primarily afeeding of Gentiles: four thousand who had come from afar (Gentiles fromeach of the four corners of the earth), and seven baskets left over (a reference to the seven deacons of Acts 6 who were appointed, initially at least, tofeed the widows of the Hellenists?). 49 Again, Mark probably understood the"others" to whom the vineyard would be given (12:9) to include GentileChristians. Finally, the reference to the Gentile mission is explicit in 13:10.This command is reminiscent of the words from the risen Lord elsewhere(Mt. 28:19-20; Lk. 24:47; Acts 1:8; and in the second-century, longer endingof Mark16:15). Mark may well have included this word of the risen Lord


13/19


here since it was important to him; yet he did not plan to give an account ofa post-resurrection appearance in which it could be placed. These referencesindicate clearly the importance to Mark of the inclusion of Gentiles in thefellowship of the church. He took pains to be sure the readers of his Gospelwould see that their inclusion was ordained by Jesus himself. Hence, thefirst person to perceive the true identity of Jesus was the Gentile centurion.

The centurion's confession stands as the climax of Mark's Gospel,because it is the culmination of his revelation of the hidden identity of Jesusas the Son of God. That revelation takes place only at his death, in thecontext of his suffering; and it is a Gentile who first understands who Jesuswas, and is therefore in a position to begin true discipleship to him.

The Meaning of Jesus' Death in MarkOur survey of the structure, accompanying phenomena, Markan themes,

and use of the Old Testament in the third act of Mark 15 has revealed therich significance Jesus' death had for Mark. Above all, the death of Jesusrevealed his identity as the Son of God and the nature of God as sufferinglove. Only in his abandonment and agony was his divine nature clearlyrevealed. Hence, the primary significance of the cross for Mark wasrevelatory! This revelation carried with it several important consequences: Itdemonstrated that Israel had been judged; the temple was condemned; andthe "way" was open for the gathering of a new community, a new temple"not made with hands," i.e. the church. This community would be definedby its faith in Jesus as the Son of God, its appropriation of the way ofsuffering love in response to God's suffering love, and its inclusion ofGentiles (all peoples) in its experience of God's mercy. The death of Jesuswas a moment of cosmic significance, for it revealed the nature of God andcharted the path for the future of those who were able to grasp itssignificance. It assured the believing community which would gather inresponse to its signal revelation that the Son of God would be with them andvindicate them in the end in spite of their present sufferings. Jesus, the Sonof God, was none other than the Son of Man who would come in the future!

The Meaning of the Empty Tomb in MarkAfter defining the meaning of Jesus' death for Mark, the question

naturally arises: What did the resurrection of Jesus mean to Mark? Why didhe end his Gospel with an account of the discovery of the empty tomb?Space allows only a cursory discussion, but again study of the interpretive

devices planted in the narrative by its author yields suggestive insights. Oneis struck by two impressions: 1) the narrative seems to be much lessdeveloped than the narrative of Jesus' death and 2) it serves only to


14/19

confirm and make explicit the message already conveyed by Mark's accountof Jesus' crucifixion. The resurrection is God's answer to the cry ofdereliction. Like the darkness and the rending of the veil, it is God's vindication of Jesus and his ministry.

The disciples failed utterly and abandoned Jesus (14:50). The Gentilecenturion and a Jewish councilor arranged for Jesus' burial (15:43-45), whilethe women watched with concern. From such persons as these the newcommunity could be formed. It would be a community in which failurescould find forgiveness; the disciples and even Peter would be reconciled tothe risen Lord (16:7). The invitation to reconciliation, however, carried withit an implicit commission, for Galilee is probably to be understood here bothliterally and symbolically. It represents the place of the mission to bothJews and Gentiles, the place of proclamation of the gospel, the place wherethe new community would be formed. 50

The young man (or angel) who appears at the tomb is the most obviousinterpretive device in Mark 16. The statement that he was "seated on theright hand dressed in a white robe" (16:5) is not a casual reference. By his

dress and location the young man indicates that Jesus has left behind thegrave and the linen grave clothes, 51 just as the young man left behind hislinen garment when he eluded would-be captors in the garden (cf. "linen" [sindon] in 14:51-52; 15:46, and "white robe" in 9:3; 16:5). 52 Similarly, thereference suggests that by his suffering Jesus had attained the seat at theright hand of power which his disciples had coveted (cf. 10:37; 12:36; 14:62).The tomb was empty, for Jesus had ascended. 53 But, he would appear againto his disciples in "Galilee" and set them about the tasks for which he hadprepared them, and the events alluded to in chapter 13 would all take placebefore his parousia as the Son of Man. 54

The ending of Mark's Gospel is shocking.55

Why would anyone end sucha narrative with the words of Mark 16:8? The women's fear is not so puzzling; in Mark "fear" is the typical response of individuals who witness therevelation of the Lord's power (cf. 4:41; 5:15, 33, 36; 6:50; 10:32). But whydoes Mark say that they told no one? The question has perplexed everyinterpreter of Mark, so any suggestion must be tentative. Associations withearlier passages in Mark offer two possibilities. First, the women, like thedisciples, have failed to carry out the terms of their discipleship. The themeof discipleship failure is therefore completed; 56 every disciple stands in needof grace. Second, as we have noted, Jesus often commanded those who hadwitnessed the disclosure of his power in a mighty act to tell no one. Here,for the first time, ironically, the command is obeyed. The supreme revelationof the identity of Jesus as the Son of God remains the moment of his death,

t th i g f hi ti Th f th i L d t


15/19


remain veiled in his suffering death. Still, the reader is shocked; how couldthe women who had witnessed the death of Jesus (15:40) and who couldtestify to the kernel of the kerygma, "He is risen" (16:6), go and not tellanyone? Mark was a skillful writer. Perhaps shock and surprise were thereactions he intended for the church to have, for now it knew everything thewomen knew. So, the question comes home to haunt those who hear Mark'sGospel. How could they, how can we, hear these words, go, and tell no one?

1 M. Hengel, Crucifixion (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), gathers references fromprimary sources, which demonstrate the brutality of crucifixion and illuminate what it wouldhave meant to preach a crucified savior in the first century.

2 Cf. J. R. Donahue, Are You the Christ? "Society of Biblical Literature DissertationSeries," 10 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 173), pp. 190-191.

3 Space and time have not allowed me to present an adequate treatment of Mark's use ofthe Old Testament in Mark 15:21-16:8. See H. C. Kee, "Scripture Quotations and Allusions inMark 11-16," The Society of Biblical Literature One Hundred Seventh Annual MeetingSeminar Papers (1971), II, 475-502.

4 P. F. Ellis, "Patterns and Structures in Mark's Gospel," Biblical Studies in Con-

temporary Thought, d. M. Ward (Somerville, Mass.: Greene, Hadden, & Co., 1975), p. 100,cities other triads in Mark's Gospel and claims that Mark had a propensity for "thinkingthree. "

8 See E. Hennecke, New Testament Apocrypha, ed. W. Schneemelcher, trans. R. McL.Wilson (Philadelphia: Wesminster Press, 1963), I, 150, 184-185.

Cf. Gospel of Peter 22.7 Mark repeatedly points an accusing finger at the powerful, especially the leaders of

Israel (3:6; 8:15, 31; 10:23 25, 33; 11:18; 12:13; 14:43, 53; 15:1, 31) and affirms the powerless(a leper, 1:4044; a paralytic, 2:510; tax collectors and sinners, 2:1517; little ones, 9:42; a widow, 12:4244; a woman, 14:69).

* Cf. Gospel of Peter 15; "Now it was midday and a darkness covered all Judaea. 1* (Italicsmine).

9 R. Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, trans. J. Marsh (Rev. ed.; New York: Harper & Row, 1963), p. 273.

10 E. Schweizer, The Good News according to Mark, trans. D. H. Madvig (Atlanta: JohnKnox Press, 1970), p. 351; Donahue, Are You the Christ? p. 193; E. Linnemann, Studien zurPassionsgeschichte (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970), pp. 148-153; L. Schenke, Dergekreuzigte Christus: Versuch einer literarkritischen und traditionsgeschichtlichen Bestimmung

der vormarkinischen Passionsgeschichte, "Stuttgarten Bibelstudien," 69 (Stuttgart: KBWVerlag, 1974), pp. 96-100; W. Schenk, Der Passionsbericht nach Markus (Gtersloh: CterdMohn, 1974), pp. 55-56; J. Schreiber, Theologie des Vertrauens: Eine radaktionsgeschichtUcheUntersuchung des Markusevangeliums (Hamburg: Furche-Verlag, 1967), p. 25; G. Schneider,

Die Passion Jesu nach den drei alteren Evangelien, "Biblische Handbibliothek," Bd. XI(Munich: Kosel-Verlag, 1973), pp. 123-124; J. H. Reumann, "Psalm 22 at the Cross: Lamentand Thanksgiving for Jesus Christ," Interpretation, XXVIII (January 1974), 57: "In short,

we find the evidence and arguments for genuineness in the logion of Mark 15:34 to fall short of definite proof that Jesus said it" (Reumann's italics).n V. Taylor, The Gospel according to St. Mark (London: Macmillan & Co., 1952), p. 594;


16/19

Rapids: Wm. . Eerdmans, 1974), pp. 572 573; C. E. B. Cranfieki, The Gospel according toSaint Mark, "The Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary" (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1959), p. 458: "The view of Bultmann . . . is most improbable; for the earlyChurch is not likely to have invented Jesus' quotation of such words. . . We are on thefirmest historical ground here." H. Anderson, The Gospel of Mark, "New Century Bible(London: Oliphants, 1976), p. 345, hedges on the point: "We should accordingly approach thisreport [vss. 33 39] less with an eye to exact historical reconstruction than to its major con-tribution to the theological meaning for the Church of the event of the cross."

12 The latter argument was propounded by F. N. Schmieden It is rejected by D. E.Nineham, The Gospel of Saint Mark, "The Pelican Gospel Commentaries" (Baltimore: PenguinBooks, 1963), p. 428; and Reumann, "Psalm 22 at the Cross," p. 57.

13 Lane, Mark, p. 572.14 J. Blinzler, Der Prozess Jesu (4 Aufl.; Regensburg: F. Pustet, 1969), p. 373 . 64;

Nineham, Mark, p. 428.16 Cf. J. Jeremas, New Testament Theology (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1971),

p. 189.16 E. Best, The Temptation and the Passion: The Markan Soteriohgy, "Society for New

Testament Studies Monograph Series," 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965), p.100; Anderson, Mark, p. 346; Cranfield, Mark, p. 458; Lane, Mark, p. 573.

17 The quotation affirms Jesus' faith in his vindication: Nineham, Mark, pp. 427-428;Schreiber, Theologie des Vertrauens, p. 163. R. Pesch, Das Markusevangelium, "Herderstheologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament" (Freiburg: Herder, 1977), II, 494-495,emphasizes that the cry is a prayer which expresses Jesus' faith even in his most extremeneed.

18 H. C. Read, "The Cry of Dereliction," Expository Times, LXVIII (1975), 260-262;Cranfield, Mark, p. 458. Taylor, Mark, p. 594, responds that Jesus was not actually abandoned but merely felt abandoned: " . . . Jesus felt the horror of sin so deeply that for a timethe closeness of His communion with the Father was obscured."

19 For various interpretations of this verse see: C. K. Barrett, "The Background of Mark10:45," New Testament Essays: Studies in Memory of T. W. Manson, ed. A. J. B. Higgins(Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1959), pp. 1-18; Anderson, Mark, pp. 256-258;Cranfield, Mark, pp. 342-344; Nineham, Mark, pp. 280-281.

20 Cf. R. C. Tannehill, "The Disciples in Mark: The Function of a Narrative Role," Journal of Religion, LVII (1977), 400-401.

21

J. Moltmann, The Crucified God: The Cross of Christ as the Foundation and Criticism of Christian Theology (New York: Harper & Row, 1974), p. 147; cf. p. 149.22 Ibid., p. 151.23 Ibid., p. 152.24 J. Moltmann, "The 'Crucified God': A Trinitarian Theology of the Cross," Inter-

pretation, XXVI (1972), 295.25 Taylor, Mark, p. 597.2e For recent discussions of the anti-temple theme in Mark, see: W. Kelber, ed., The

Passion in Mark (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976), pp. 121-129, 168-172.27 For the eschatological significance of the Mount of Olives, see Zech. 14:1-9; Ezek. 43:2-

9; cf. Lane, Mark, p. 394.28 Mark emphasizes Jesus' teachings on prayer (9:29; 11:24-25; 12:40; 13:33; 14:38) and

presents Jesus as an example for the disciples, i.e. Mark's church (1:35; 6:46; 14:32, 35, 39).Cf. D. Juel, Messiah and Temple: The Trial of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark, "Society ofBiblical Literature Dissertation Series," 31 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977), p. 135.


17/19


29 P. J. Achtemeier, Mark, "Proclamation Commentaries" (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,1975), p. 24: "The brunt of the accusation thus concerns the use to which the temple is put:people think so long as the temple services are continued, they may retreat there, no matterhow they have acted outside its walls, and still find forgiveness and fellowship with God."

30 Juel, Messiah and Temple, p. 134 n. 22; G. W. Buchanan, "Mark 11.15-19: Brigands inthe Temple," Hebrew Union College Annual, XXX (1959), 177.

81 Cf. Donahue, Are You the Christ? pp. 72-77; Juel, Messiah and Temple, p. 121.32Cf. Juel, Messiah and Temple, p. 128; against O. Michel, "Naos," Theological Dic-

tionary of the New Testament, d. G. Kittel (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1967), IV,882.

38 Cf. Juel, Messiah and Temple, pp. 138-139, 143-157; Best, The Temptation and the Passion, p. 99.

34 Inner veil: Anderson, Mark, p. 347; T. A. Burkill, "St. Mark's Philosophy of thePassion," Novum Testamentum, II (1957-1958), 268 n. 1; Cranfield, Mark, pp. 459-460; C.Schneider, "Katapetasma," Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, III, 629-630;Taylor, Mark, p. 596; H. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament ausTalmud und Midrasch (Munich: Beck, 1922), I, 1045. Outer veil: Donahue, Are You theChrist? pp. 202-203; Juel, Messiah and Temple, pp. 140-142; Lane, Mark, pp. 574-575. Cf.Testament of Levi 10:3-4; Testament of Benjamin 9:4.

38 See Nineham, Mark, p. 430; Best, The Temptation and the Passion, p. 99.

" The translation "a son of God" in the Jerusalem Bible and the New English Bible isunfortunate. The absence of the definite article does not necessarily mean that the constructionis indefinite. See E. C. Colwell, "A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek NewTestament," Journal of Biblical Literature, LII (1933), 12-21.

"See above, p. 589.38 Taylor, Mark, p. 597.39See above, p. 584.40 Cf. Best, The Temptation and the Passion, pp. 96-97.41 Juel, Messiah and Temple, p. 72.42 For a defence of the authenticity of "Son of God" in Mk. 1:1, see Cranfield, Mark, p.

38.43 Mark's use of "Christ" in the Mk. 1:1 indicates that Peter's confession, while

inadequate, was not entirely wrong.44

For recent studies of the title and its use in Mark, see: M. Hengel, The Son of God(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976); Juel, Messiah and Temple, pp. 77-83, 108-114; H. C.Kee, Community of the New Age: Studies in Mark's Gospel (Philadelphia: Westminster Press,1977), pp. 121-124.

46 See N. Perrin, "The Creative Use of the Son of Man Traditions by Mark," UnionSeminary Quarterly Review, XXIII (1968), 357-365; Juel, Messiah and Temple, pp. 85-95;Kee, Community of the New Age, pp. 129-139.

46 See T. J. Weeden, "The Cross as Power in Weakness," in The Passion in Mark, pp.116-121, and his earlier monograph, MarkTraditions in Conflict (Philadelphia: FortressPress, 1971).

47See the outline of Mark, pp. 619-622.48 See Kee, Community of the New Age, pp. 92-97; and W. Kelber, The Kingdom in

Mark: A New Place and a New Time (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974), pp. 57-65, fordiscussions of the Gentiles in Mark. Mark's interest in the Gentile mission is all the moreinteresting if in fact the evangelist is John Mark and if John Mark withdrew from Paul's firstmissionary journey because of the conversion of Gentiles as I have argued elsewhere ["Paul's


18/19

49 Cf. Lane, Mark, pp. 274 275.60 For the impact and subsequent qualifications of the theses of E. Lohmeyer and R. H.

Light foot, see: G. H. Boobyer, "Galilee and Galileans in St. Mark's Gospel, " Bulletin of theJohn Rylands Library, XXXV (1953), 334 348; C. F. Evans, " I Will Go Before You intoGalilee," Journal of Theological Studies, V (1954), 3 18; Kelber, The Kingdom in Mark, esp.p. 11; N. Perrin, The Resurrection according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Philadelphia:Fortress Press, 1977), pp. 26 27; and G. Stemberger, "GalileeLand of Salvation?" in W. D.Davies, The Gospel and the Land (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974), pp. 409

438. 61 Cf. J. D. Crossan, "Empty Tomb and Absent Lord," in The Passion in Mark, p. 148.52 For a suggestive alternative interpretation, see Tannehill, "The Disciples in Mark," p.

403.63 See C. H. Talbert, What is a Gospel? The Genre of the Canonical Gospels (Philadelphia:

Fortress Press, 1977), p. 42.54 For convincing responses to the thesis that Mk. 16:7 points to the parousia rather than

a resurrection appearance, see: R. H. Stein, "A Short Note on Mark xiv. 28 and xvi. 7," NewTestament Studies, XX (July 1974), 445462; N. R. Petersen, Literary Criticism for NewTestament Critics (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978), pp. 76 77.

55 For a helpful synopsis of the various theses which have been advanced regarding theinterpretation of Mark 16:1 8, see J. E. Alsup, The Post Resurrection Appearance Stories ofthe Gospel Tradition (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1975), pp. 88 89 . 266.

56 Perrin, The Resurrection according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, pp. 27 32.


19/19

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual useaccording to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and asotherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without thecopyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be aviolation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permissionfrom the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journaltypically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specificwork for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or coveredby your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding thecopyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previouslypublished religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAScollection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the AmericanTheological Library Association.

La Pasión y Resurrección en Marcos

Documents

Transcript of La Pasión y Resurrección en Marcos