Mark 14:22-24 Even as a Bible-believing Christian, I have trouble taking these verses literally. However, I know that Roman Catholics do understand them in this way. Aren't they taking the Bible more seriously here than Protestants do?
The first thing to point out is the confusion in thinking that the literal understanding of a passage in the Bible is always the intended meaning. Here are three simple tests to see if a given verse or set of verses should be taken in a figurative sense instead:
1. Would a literal understanding lead to an absurdity? When Jesus spoke these words at the Last Supper, he obviously had all his blood in him and did not cut off pieces of his body to eat.
2. Would it contradict known scientific or historical facts? The Eucharist has none of the physical properties of flesh and blood.
3. Would it lead to committing an immoral act? Cannibalism is forbidden in all cultures today, but especially by the Jews who held that even animal blood was sacred and should not to be ingested.
4. Christ died once for all (I Peter 3:18; Romans 6:9-10) unlike the Catholic teaching that Christ is sacrificed over again each time the Eucharist is performed. Would it lead to a contradiction with doctrinal teachings in the Bible?
Even though this passage and its parallel in Matthew 26:26-29 have “this is my blood of the covenant,” Luke 22:17-20 and I Corinthians 11:23-26 use a slightly different figure of speech: “This cup is the new covenant (will or agreement) (written) in my blood.” Here the wine is obviously not Jesus' blood at all.
The similar passage in John 6:31-65 is used by Catholics to prove the importance of Communion observance in order to stay in grace. However, this passage is typical of others in John where the people totally misunderstood Jesus by taking him literally instead of figuratively. Jesus explains in verse 63: “It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”
John 6:53 quotes Jesus as saying, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” This takes the similar form as another statement in John's Gospel that almost no one understands literally: “If I do not wash you, you have no part in me. (John 13:9b).”
Actually, John's Gospel is organized around seven metaphorical “I am” statements of Jesus. It would be absurd to take most of these teachings in a woodenly literal manner:
1. The bread of life (6:35)
2. The light of the world (8:12)
3. The door of the sheep (10:7)
4. The good shepherd (10:11)
5. The resurrection and the life (11:25)
6. The way, and the truth, and the life (14:6)
7. The true vine (15:1)
Lastly, the doctrine of transubstantiation was a relatively recent development within the Catholic tradition.
1. Augustine (4th century): Taking it literally would seem to be advocating a crime or vice; “It is therefore a figure, bidding us communicate in the sufferings of our Lord, and secretly and profitably treasure in our hearts the fact that his flesh was crucified and pierced for us.” “Believe, and thou hast eaten.”
2. Bernard of Clairvaux (12th century): It means ”he who reflects on my death and mortifies his [body]...has eternal life.”
3. Pope Innocent III proclaimed the doctrine of transubstantiation only in AD 1215.
Mark 14:30-72 (Matthew 26:58-75; Luke 22:54-72; John 18:15-27) I read somewhere that Peter denied knowing Jesus six times instead of two. Where did they get that idea from?
The problem begins with Jesus' warning in Mark 14:30, which differs from that in the other gospels.
Mark: “Before the cock crows two times, you shall deny me three times.”
Other gospels: “Before the cock crows (at all), you shall deny me three times.”
Next look at the differences in the denials found in the four parallel accounts:
Matthew
A. To a maid: “I do not know what you are saying.”
B. To another maid: “I know not the man” (with an oath).
C. “I know not the man.” (with cursing and swearing) (Cock crows.)
Mark
D. To a maid: “I neither know nor understand what you are saying.” (Cock crows.)
E. To the same maid: (He again denied it.)
F. “I know not this man of whom you speak.” (with cursing and swearing) (Cock crows again.)
Luke
G. To a maid: Woman, I know him not.
H. Man, I am not (one of them).
I. Man, I know not what you are saying. (Cock crows.)
John
J. To a maid: I am not (one of his disciples).
K. I am not (one of the disciples).
L. (Peter denied that he was in the garden with Jesus.) (Cock crows.)
The explanation you heard probably came from The Life of Christ in Stereo by Johnston Cheney. The author calls his approach the “Principle of Minute Supplementation.” Critics would call it a case of “Extreme Harmonization.” According to that point of view, each of the Gospels is literally accurate, even down to the smallest detail, and all apparent differences between parallel Gospel accounts completely disappear when one understands them properly.
Thus, this approach starts out by explaining that obviously Peter was warned two times, once before leaving the Last Supper (as in Luke and John) and once after leaving (Matthew and Mark).
Next is the fact that there were actually six denials, three before each cockcrow.
1. J
2. K
3. A = D = G (First cockcrow)
4. B = H
5. E
6. C = F = I = L (Second cockcrow)
Problems with this approach:
1. It doesn't really account for the discrepancy in the number of cock crows in Matthew and Luke.
2. It is more than a little strange that each of the four accounts would for some reason leave out three of the denials.
3. It appears like a very forced explanation: You need to group together several accusations and several denials in order to make it work.
4. Even that approach fails to give an exactly literal agreement in all details. For example, one of the stated accusations in Matthew says, “This man, too, was with Jesus of Nazarene,” but the supposedly same account in Luke says “...with him.”
By contrast, most evangelical Christians don't demand exact correspondence between the four gospels and are quite willing to live with a little ambiguity as far as the exact details (especially since in this case, no major theological truths are at stake). The minor differences actually demonstrate that there are at least four witnesses who attest independently to the events taking place. That should give us more confidence in the facts than if all four accounts followed one another word for word. A close parallel can be found in the court of law. When separate witnesses parrot one another's testimony down to the letter, there is the strong suspicion that they have all been carefully coached ahead of time and are lying.
Additionally, by insisting on six denials rather than three (as all four accounts attest), it robs all of the meaning out of Jesus' three-fold question to Peter at the end of John's Gospel: “Do you love me?” Jesus is allowing Peter to completely atone for his earlier three-fold denials in order that he can serve Christ in the future without further guilt.
Mark 14:51-52: Why is this unusual story included in the Bible? It must have some hidden meaning that I can't figure out.
This strange account of an anonymous young man who loses his clothes while escaping is found only in Mark's Gospel. It is obscure for at least two reasons:
1. It doesn't seem to convey any useful historical or theological purpose that would warrant its inclusion, especially in such a stripped-down gospel as Mark's.
2. Jesus and his apostles had come from the Last Supper to the Garden of Gethsemane alone and it was night time. So where did this follower come from?
One possibility was that the young man was John Mark himself, as others have proposed. There are several lines of reasoning that lead to this possibility, but it must be admitted that it is only speculation based on circumstantial evidence.
Consider John's Gospel, for example. Even though John himself figured in most of the events that took place during Jesus' ministry, neither John's name nor that of his brother James is found in his own Gospel account. Most scholars believe that John is obviously the anonymous Beloved Disciple who appears only in John's narrative. Although it has been felt that this would have been bragging on John's part to call himself that, the opposite is probably true – out of modesty, he did not want to call attention to himself by name.
So here in Mark's Gospel we have another anonymous follower, who could again be the author of the account in which he is featured. But the reason for inclusion might have been different in this case. It could simply be a subtle way for the author to insert himself into his own story. This would be the equivalent of Alfred Hitchcock's practice of using himself as an anonymous bit player in the movies he directed.
Or there may have been a deeper motive. These two verses certainly don't cast the young man in a favorable light at all. When Mark sat down to write his account, he may have reflected on his own repeated pattern of fleeing whenever things got too rough (read Acts 15:37-38). His including this embarrassing account of his desertion may have been one way for him to demonstrate his recognition of, and repentance for, past failures.
So far I have attempted to deal with the question involving the reason for these verses in the first place, but what about the second, and greater, problem? How can we possibly place the John Mark who figures in the Book of Acts at the night scene of the arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane? It is actually quite easy to do so by piecing together two events found in the New Testament.
In making arrangements for the Passover Meal with his disciples, Jesus gives secret instructions to Peter and John telling them how to locate the owner of the upper room where they will be meeting. It involves recognizing their contact man by the fact that he will be carrying a water jar. He would have been easy to identify since only women carried water in jars in those days. The need for secrecy was obvious since that way even Judas would not have known the location until it was too late to alert the authorities who were out to arrest Jesus.
This secrecy would also eliminate any danger to the owner of the house, who was probably a follower of Jesus. The likelihood of this last point can be seen from the historical fact that at Passover, Jerusalem was crowded with thousands of pilgrims who not only needed places to stay in town but somewhere to celebrate their Passover meal. Any type of lodging was at a premium at this time so Jesus must have had a lot of “pull” to carry it off (unless one simply wants to write it off as a miracle).
So what does this have to do with the problem verse? It demonstrates that whoever followed Jesus and the apostles out of the house and to the Garden of Gethsemane was most likely a member of the household where they held the Last Supper. The most logical candidate for the hosts of that meal and owners of the house were John Mark's parents since it is at their house in Jerusalem where we find the apostles hiding after Peter's imprisonment (Acts 12:12). This was probably also the same apostles' hiding place mentioned in John 20:19 and the upper room of Acts 1:13. If this dwelling was where Mark lived, then it would mean that he had first-hand contact with Jesus during one of the most crucial moments in his life, and with the apostles right before the Crucifixion.
Mark 15:40 Mark notes some women were watching from a distance and specifically names “Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome.” At first I thought the name Joses was a typo and should have been “Jesus,” as Jesus’ mother was Mary and his younger brother James. However, other Bibles have the same name. The detail seems to imply the audience may have been familiar with James the younger and Joses. What do we know about these three, including Mary their the mother? Also Salome was the name of the daughter who danced for Herod and asked for John the Baptist’s head on a platter. I assume this is not the same Salome?
This a case where a more detailed comparison of different biblical accounts may lead to additional insights. There are actually several listings of the women in the crucifixion accounts. All have Mary Magdalene present, with the others being:
Mark 15:40 Mary (the mother of James the younger and of Joses) and Salome
Matt. 27:56 Mary (the mother of James and Joseph) and the mother of the sons of Zebedee
John 19:25 Mary (Jesus' mother), her sister, and Mary (wife of Clopas)
Piecing these together, it is most likely that Mary the mother of James the younger and Joses (a Greek variation of the name Joseph) is the same as Mary the mother of Jesus. The James mentioned is thus our author of the Epistle of James. As for Joses/Joseph, we know nothing specifically about him other than the general references in the Gospels to the brothers of Jesus. Mary is probably designated as the mother of James and Joses in Matthew and Mark's accounts because of their prominence in the early Jerusalem church at the time of the writings.
Assuming that there were three women present at the cross besides Mary Magdalene, we can now tentatively identify Salome as being the sister of Mary (the mother of Jesus), the wife of Zebedee, and the mother of the apostles James and John. That would make James and John the earthly cousins of Jesus. Also, it would identify Salome as the woman who asked that her sons sit on Jesus' side in his kingdom (Matthew 20:20-23) and might explain why she had the temerity to do so, in light of the family connection. The fourth woman is then Mary the wife of Clopas (who could possibly be the Cleopas who met the resurrected Jesus on the road to Emmaus). Other than her husband's name, we know nothing else about her, except that she should certainly not be identified with the infamous Salome of the John the Baptist story.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments