 Miracles as parables: evidential language of the in-breaking of God’s reign Miracles are obviously important to Mark, for they occupy a significant amount of space throughout his narrative. Twenty-seven percent of his Gospel is associated with miracles. If the passion segment is not included, forty percent of the verses reference miracles.[1] The emphasis on miracles in Mark’s summaries also indicates their central role in his plot development (1:32–34, 39; 3:10–12; 6:5, 53–56).[2] The inclusion of multiple miracle stories in this Gospel means more than simply an apologetic for Jesus’ deity. Instead, Mark leverages Jesus’ miracles as an integral part of his Gospel narrative as he develops the plot and the story unfolds, particularly within the Galilean ministry that focuses on “casting” as a central miracle (1:23–27, 32–34, 39; 3:11, 22–27). While most critics of the Gospels recognize that the parables and much of the teachings of Jesus were original, what is overlooked, however, is that the parables and the miracles attributed to Jesus are strikingly parallel in function.[3] Many recognize that miracles in the Gospel are deed-parables,[4] which not only have implications for the authenticity of Gospel miracle stories, but are also important for determining the significance of miracles for developing authoritative, analogous application. For Mark, miracles function as “another mode of language” to communicate the nature of the gospel of God (1:14). They, like the parables, are emplotted in the narrative as a means of teaching about “the mystery of God’s action in the world.”[5] As with Jesus’ teaching and parables, the crowds reacted with awed at his miracles (1:22, 27; 2:12; 5:20, 42; 6:2, 51; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 11:18; 12:17). This programmatic similarity between teaching/parable and miracle is made clear at Jesus’ inaugural ministry-event in which the gathered crowd was “amazed” at Jesus’ authority over an unclean spirit that is referred to as a “new teaching” (2:27). Also, miracles reveal and conceal the mysterious nature of Jesus and his ministry. The kingdom is veiled and disclosed through miracles, making them similar to the function of parables in revealing the nature and inaugural presence of God’s kingdom.[6] Miracles in Mark’s Gospel provide a “parabolic” key to his ministry and reveal “the in-breaking of the power of God’s reign.”[7] This is particularly noticeable with regards to casting episodes, for they indicate his authority to destroy Satan-the strongman’s house and to plunder his dominion—a visible and demonstrable action (with outcomes) indicating the presence of God’s kingdom. Additionally, the “transactions of the characters”[8] in the plot underscore the significance of the miracle-parables to the reader/listener on this side of the text. After Jesus presented the parable of the Sower who sowed (4:1–8), his followers began asking him about the parables (v. 10). Jesus replied, To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but those who are outside get everything in parables (4:11b). He then asks his followers, Do you not understand this parable? How will you understand all the parables [v. 13]? Later, the disciples dangerously showed lack of insight into Jesus miracles (Mark 6:52; 7:18; 8:14–21). Interestingly, the words that Jesus said to the disciples after the feeding miracle (Mark 8:18) were similar to those he used to explain the parables (4:12); both draw from the Isaiah 6 idolatry-taunt―seeing but not perceiving . . . hearing but not understanding. The miracles have the same outsider-insider effect as do parables, implying that they, too, reveal (i.e., proclaim) the mystery of the kingdom. As the parables reveal the presence of the kingdom, the miracles function in a similar manner. This challenges even fisher-followers to recognize that such deed-parables proclaim and demonstrate the arrival of God’s dominion. Finally, the Mark 3 sandwich and Beelzebul episode (3:20–35) also suggests the importance of recognizing the role of “casting” miracles in the narrative plot. When the Jerusalem leadership accused Jesus of being demon possessed and in league with Satan (3:22), Jesus defended his mission through parables that indicated the presence of the Stronger Man confirms the destruction of Satan-the strongman’s reign over the affairs of humankind (vv. 23–27). The Mark 3 Beelzebul episode directs the attention of the reader/listener to the attributes of outsiders and insiders (as do the parables and other miracles). The activity of “casting” as a deed-parable gives evidence of the arrival of the kingdom of God, the purpose and meaning of the Mark 3 commission: fisher-followers are insiders who are true family and do the will of God (3:35) by revealing the inaugural presence of God’s kingdom through the language of action/deed (3:15). [1] Note Mark 1:23–27, 32–34, 39; 3:11; 5:2–8, 13; 6:13; 7:26–30; 9:14–29, 38–41; cf. 3:22–27; 6:7, 13; 8:33. [2] Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus, 139. [3] Blomberg, “Miracles as Parables,” 327. [4] Blomberg, “The Miracles as Parables,” 327; also note Achtemeier, “Origin and Function,” 198–221; Achtemeier, “Toward the Isolation,” 265–91; Beavis, Mark’s Audience, 157ff.; Boucher, Mysterious Parables, 79–83; Donahue, “Jesus as the Parable of God,” 369–86; Hawkin, “Symbolism and Structure,” 98–110; Marshall, Faith as a Theme, 60ff.; Fuller, Mission and Achievement of Jesus, 73; Richardson, Miracle Stories of the Gospels, 48–49. [5] Blomberg, “The Miracles as Parables,” 342. [6] Ibid., 341–42. [7] Ibid., 329. [8] See Kuruvilla, Text to Praxis, 72–75.
0 Comments
 The Narrative and Programmatic Significance of to Have Authority to Cast Mark indicates that Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God (1:14), then offers a summary of the content of that preaching--The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel (1:15)—and thus, by implication, the assumed content of the Mark 3 commission to preach (3:14c). We will turn to the importance of the Mark 1:14–15 mission summary later in this section, however it should be noted here that the summary implies that “the gospel” preached (v. 14) is related more fully to the eschatological significance of the kingdom’s arrival—that is, the content of the “preaching” is that God’s reign and rule has invaded the realms of humankind—and not solely about the personal application of Jesus’ sacrificial death on the cross. The kingdom as the content of the gospel to be preached is supported by Mark’s narrative, particularly as the story and plot unfold to reveal Jesus’ authority to cast out demons. The programmatic relationship that links “preaching the gospel of God” (1:14c), its inaugural-kingdom content (v. 15), and its narrative implications extends the significance of the mission summary (1:14–15) to the Mark 3 commission, which have a similar pattern. This section will concentrate on the narrative and programmatic significance of to have authority to cast out the demons (3:15) in order to decipher the significance of the Mark 3 commission to the Christian community on this side of the text. The difficulty of applying the “casting” texts The problem of application is plainly evident in our attempts to apply or “make practical” the biblical texts that reference miracles. How do we apply and demonstrate obedience to the creation story (Gen 1), Moses’s rod turned into a snake (Exod 4:2–4), the parting of the sea at the Exodus (Exod 14), the stricken rock that gushed water (Exod 17:6), the talking donkey of Balaam (Numb 22:22–35), the fire called down from the sky by Elijah (1 Kgs 18), or the surviving of the fire-pit and the lion’s den in the Book of Daniel (Dan 3, 6)? As evangelicals, we tend to treasure the miraculous in the Bible, but we are not sure what to do with it. Although most evangelicals believe miracles actually happened as described in the Bible, many are, nonetheless, skeptical how they are supposed to work today in application. Some affirm that miracles take place today and that is how they are applied. Some affirm the “potential” of miracles and/or simply spiritualize them for their personal meaning to the individual. Miraculous events and stories are often too easily “applied” without much consideration for why the stories were told in first place, that is, their literary role in the narrative plot. On the other hand, rather than apply, many use the casting and other miracles in the gospels as apologetic “proof-texts” for Jesus’ deity and/or to affirm that the disciples had authority from God. Miracles, to some, are used as evidence that the gospel is true—even if that evidence took place long ago in the days of Jesus and the early church. Utilized in this way, miracles are merely turned into cognitive-based instruction, apologetic proofs, or evangelistic tools, rather than for their literary or narrative significance. The “casting” episodes in Mark’s Gospel fall prey to the same approaches and are often reduced to mere information about the gospel or about Jesus, rather than deciphering the meaning implied by their emplotted use in the narrative. The reader/listener should ask, What role does Mark intend the casting to play in his story? In other words, how does casting out demons contribute to “the sequence of events emplotted”[1] in the narrative? What is the relationship between to have authority and to cast out demons in determining the significance of the Mark 3 commission for the church today? In order to apply more accurately the Mark 3 commission, the emplotted significance of to have authority to cast out the demons (v. 15) must be deciphered. “To have authority to cast” is the mission The centrality of casting out demons and unclean spirits in Mark cannot be overstated (1:23–27, 32–34, 39; 3:11; 5:2–8, 13; 6:13; 7:26–30; 9:14–29, 38–41; cf. cf. 3:22–27; 6:7, 13; 8:33; cf. 16:9). Jesus’ authority over demons is “the single hallmark of his activity.”[2] This fits the introductory and programmatic content of the Gospel, which is first initiated in the desert confrontation between Jesus and Satan (1:12–13) and, then, confirmed through multiple casting-events that reveal Jesus-the Stronger Man overtaking Satan-the strongman’s dominion/house (cf. 3:23–27).[3] Jesus’ authority to cast out demons reveals in deed (i.e., in action) the reality of what has been initiated through his appearance as God’s Messiah-King (1:1): the rule and reign of God (his kingdom/house) has been inaugurated (cf. 1:14–15; 3:27). This sets the underlying framework for the narrative plot that explains and corresponds to the Mark 3 commission to have authority to cast out the demons (3:15; cf. 6:7, 13). The commission in Mark 3, however, is not to cast, but to have authority to cast (v. 15). This is important, for applying “the casting” is not simply the replication or exhibition of exorcism, but is the dynamic association between Jesus’ authority as God’s premiere agent who has appeared to inaugurate his kingdom (1:9–10; 1:14–15) and his created fisher-followers who are to have the same task: as Jesus had authority to cast out demons, so, also, his fisher-followers were commissioned to have authority to cast out the demons (3:15). Mark’s Gospel associates Jesus’ authority with his activity of “casting.” This is seen first at Jesus’ inaugural ministry-event in which it was observed that he had cast out an unclean spirit (1:25) with authority (exousian, v. 27c). The centrality of Jesus’ authority is also in contrast to the religious/political leadership, first at the inaugural ministry-event (He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as the scribes, 1:22b) and, then, later when Jesus was challenged by the temple leadership who asked, “By what authority [exousia] are You doing these things . . . ?” (11:28b). This “authority” for fisher-followers, first commissioned in 3:15 and, then, granted in 6:7, was confirmed later in the parable that Jesus used to explain the role of his faithful followers as they persevere through the eschatological conclusion of history: Jesus, like a man away on a journey, who upon leaving his house, gives his slaves authority, assigning to each one his task (13:34, author’s translation). So, as fisher-followers who are to be God’s agents for inaugurating his kingdom (the meaning of the Mark 1:17 fisher-promise), Jesus gave them authority to cast out demons (6:7; cf. Matt 10:1; Luke 9:1) in order that they, too, would demonstrate the undoing of Satan’s kingdom/house over the realms of humankind. This is, at least in part, the meaning behind Jesus creating his fisher-followers to be with him (3:14b), for the intimate relationship is also one of imitation—the mission of fisher-followers is the mission of Jesus. [1] Refer back to Kuruvilla, Text to Praxis, 72–75. [2] Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus, 154, also note p. 145. [3] Ibid., 146; also Watts, referring to R. Leivestad, underscores that “each exorcism” was “an instance of binding and plundering” (Christ the Conqueror, 46ff.).
 The narrative significance of “to preach” As displayed in the previous section, not only is it grammatically and syntactically allowable to view the authority to cast (3:15) as the content of the commission to preach (14c), this reading also makes contextual sense of Mark’s narrative. The Mark 3 commission is both preceded and followed by episodes and summaries describing Jesus casting out demons or unclean spirits (1:23–27, 32–34, 39; 3:11; 5:2–13; 6:13; 7:25–30; 9:25–29, 38; note 3:22–27). Jesus’ first public ministry, launched at the onset of the Galilean mission, depicts him teaching in a synagogue and opposing an unclean spirit that he rebukes and casts out (Mark 1:21–28)—a pattern foreshadowing the Mark 3 commission. Those who witnessed the event recognized the casting out of the unclean spirit (1:26) as a new teaching (v. 27); namely, Jesus, with authority, commands Satan’s minions and they obey (v. 27). The question that follows the casting (What is this?, 1:27) implies one reference (touto, this, is singular), signifying a seamless thought between “teaching” and the “casting.” Also, the closest referent for their amazement (v. 27) is Jesus’ rebuke and his casting out the unclean spirit (vv. 25–27). The parallel between Mark 1:22 and 1:27 suggests that Jesus’ authoritative teaching includes the authority he had to command the unclean spirit (vv. 23, 26). In both verses the onlookers were amazed at his teaching; both verses indicate that the teaching was with authority.
While the content of Jesus’ teaching is not indicated in the text (v. 22), the narrative implies that the teaching with authority (v. 27) includes (and possibly is) the authority to command (i.e., to rebuke and cast out) the unclean spirit (cf. vv. 22b, 27b)—the very activity Jesus commissions the created twelve to do (3:15; 6:7). The absence of referenced content (i.e., what is taught) at the inaugural ministry-event focuses the attention of the readers/listeners on the activity of “casting” as the teaching with authority (v. 27b), particularly its programmatic link in the narrative to the arrival of the kingdom (1:15; note 4:11, 26, 30). First, this is suggested by the initial Jesus vs. Satan encounter in the desert (1:12–13). Second, the unclean spirit recognized the confrontation with Jesus as an eschatological battle, for the demon cites Jesus’ name (the Holy One of God, 1:24c), which indicates an attempt to have “mastery over” him.[2] Third, the terminology used, “I know who you are” (v. 24; note 3:11), also suggests a battle context, for this was a common OT formula “within the context of combat or judgment.”[3] The significance of the episode not only discloses Jesus’ authority, the exorcism also indicates an eschatological event had occurred, affirming the appearance of God’s rule as indicated in the mission summary (1:14–15) and, later, as portrayed by Jesus in the Beelzebul episode parables (3:23–27). The defeat of an unclean spirit is “the first of Jesus’ actions to be reported” and, thus, it becomes programmatic for the whole of Mark’s Gospel.[4] The first ministry-event presents what the Mark 1:14–15 mission summary affirms, namely Jesus’ public ministry focuses on the eschatological implications of the appearance of the kingdom. Perhaps this is the reason for the narrative juxtaposition of the Jesus vs. Satan encounter in 1:13 with the mission summary in 1:14–15. Later, immediately after the Mark 3 commission, Jesus refers to his activity as the Stronger Man who had arrived to overtake and destroy Satan-the strongman’s kingdom (3:23–27). This is confirmed, first in the initial confrontation in the desert between Jesus-the Stronger Man and Satan-the strongman (1:7, 13) and, then, affirmed by multiple casting-events throughout the narrative (1:21–28, 32; 5:1–20; 7:26–30; 9:14–29, 38–41; cf. 6:7, 13; 8:33; cf. 16:9).[5] Mark 1:21–28 is the “mission” of Jesus, characterized by his confrontation with Satan’s kingdom through casting out a demon. It seems apparent that the inaugural ministry-event offers a programmatic framework for both the following confrontations with Jewish leaders (2:1—3:6)[6]and, as well, the Mark 3 commission. Mark presents a two-phase commission (3:13–15; 6:7–13). In Mark 3 the twelve are created to be with him and to be sent to preach and to have authority to cast out the demons. However, it is not until chapter 6 that Jesus actually gives the created twelve that authority for the casting component (And He summoned the twelve and began to send them out in pairs, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits, 6:7c). In fact, the to preach component is not repeated, suggesting that the Mark 6 re-commission affirms that the authority to cast is the content of the “preaching.” This is further confirmed when Mark describes the ministry of the twice-commissioned twelve, then, with the authority to fulfill the casting component: they were casting out many demons (6:13a).[7] “Preaching” and “casting” in the general gospel tradition The other synoptic Gospels present similar commissioning paradigms and activities that suggest the content of “proclamation” in the general gospel tradition included the authority to confront the kingdom of Satan through the casting out of demons. Although the other synoptic writers did not use “create” (poieo) to describe the formation of the twelve, there is agreement regarding the relationship between “the preaching” and “the authority to cast.” Matthew’s account focuses on the authority that Jesus gave to the twelve for casting and healing:
Luke, as well, offered a similar commission scene: And He called the twelve together, and gave them power and authority over all the demons and to heal diseases (Luke 9:1). Jesus is depicted granting the twelve the power and authority to overrule demons and disease, which corresponds with the Mark 3 commission and, as well, the chapter 6 re-commission. Earlier in Luke, Jesus’ own commission for ministry links proclamation of the Good News to actions (beyond mere verbal- and cognitive-based activities) that are the content of his preaching: release for captives, recovery of sight to the blind, and freedom for the oppressed (4:18–19). Later, after the seventy returned from their multi-city mission (10:1), Luke notes they rejoiced that “even the demons are subject to us in Your [Jesus’] name” (10:17). Jesus then declares, “I saw Satan fall like lightening from heaven” (v. 18). The “proclamation” of the kingdom directly affects Satan’s position of authority. The advance of the kingdom of God constantly causes Satan to fall from heaven,[8] as seen repeatedly through the multiple casting-events throughout the Gospel narratives. The narrative significance of the to preach component of the Mark 3 commission is directly linked to Jesus’ activity of “casting out demons,” indicating that to have authority to cast should be understood as the content of “the preaching” (that is, what is preached). At this point in the study, the interpretive summary (II) below gives this understanding of the Mark 3 commission:
[1] Mark uses a wide range of awe-related words to describe the various reactions to Jesus’ ministry (1:22, 27; also note 6:2; 7:37; 10:24, 32; 10:26; 11:18). [2] Edwards, Gospel According to Mark, 57; Marcus, Mark 1–8, 193. [3] Lane (Mark, 73) observes the use in the LXX: Judg 11:12; 2 Sam 16:10; 19:22; 1 Kgs 17:18; 2 Kgs 3:13; 2 Chr 35:21; Isa 3:15; 22:1; Jer 2:18; Hos 14:9; also Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus, 154. [4] Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus, 155; note Kee, Miracle in the Early Christian World, 161; also Iwe, Jesus in the Synagogue of Capernaum, 323. [5] Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus, 146. [6] See chapter 4, “A Prelude to Judgment,” for a fuller discussion on the conflict-thread between Jesus and Jewish leaders. [7] The addition of healing (6:13c) for the activities of the re-commissioned twelve (6:13b) mirrors the ministry of Jesus (i.e., that they would be with him, 3:14b), as does the casting; also, healing and demonic activity were clearly associated together in the NT world. [8] I want to thank my New England School of Theology colleague, Dr. Ray Pennoyer, for this observation.
 Rereading the Mark 3 commission text Three main verbs related to Jesus govern the establishment of the twelve whom he commissioned: he went up(avabainei, v. 13a), he summoned (proskaleitai, v. 13b), and he created (epoiesen, v 14a). The force and combination of all three verbal expressions stress Jesus’ authority, which aligns with Mark’s narrative plotline.[1] Additionally, these actions focus on his unique authority for establishing God’s kingdom through a ministry outside of Jewish temple leadership (i.e., a new Moses and a new exodus) and for the creation of a people (a new twelve, 3:13–19; a new family, 3:33–35), who are to reflect the kingdom-outcomes associated with his appearance. These elements have been the emphasis of the plot (i.e., the “sequence of events emplotted in the text”) so far, indicating that Mark continues to follow his established programmatic content that defines the nature of the gospel. The Mark 3 commission (vv.14–15) for the created twelve not only forms (and informs) their fisher-ministry (i.e., the application that will reflect their faithful obedience to the gospel), it also provides a paradigm for all fisher-followers; namely, those who believe in the gospel (1:14–15) and follow after Jesus (1:17) are those who demonstrate (through actions and outcomes) the inauguration of God’s kingdom. A typical reading of Mark 3:14–15 understands that the twelve are commissioned for two distinct tasks: “to preach” and “to cast out demons.” This heightens the tendency to view the “to preach” component as solely the verbal proclamation of the Good News that Jesus died for our sins. Although a very important component of the Good News, this aspect of the gospel is appropriated from other NT documents and texts and, then, “applied” here. As a result, for many “preaching” is “evangelism” that is applied as various verbal- and cognitive-based activities (e.g., preaching, teaching, witnessing, etc.) about the personal, redemptive implications of Jesus’ death on the cross with someone’s conversion as the hopeful outcome. When the text is viewed in this way, application is separated into two distinct components that disconnect the Mark 3 commission from the narrative plot. A reading that separates the two components without syntactical or narrative consideration can limit the inferred evangelistic significance for those standing on this side of Mark’s Gospel story, which, then, can result in narrow, misdirected, and, even, non-authoritative application. However, the Mark 3 commission suggests, not two distinct tasks, but interrelated aspects that are associated with the sequence of events emplotted in Mark’s narrative. A re-examination of the commission text (specifically vv. 14–15) will show another potential reading that better aligns with Mark’s narrative, the programmatic nature of the gospel, and Jesus’ kingdom-inaugurating ministry. A syntactical analysis[2] of Mark 3:14–15 can aid in reading the text more effectively: And he [Jesus] created twelve (epoiesen dodeka), so that (hina) they would be with him and (kai, conjunction) so that (hina) he would send them forth to preach (kepyssein) namely (that is) (kai, epexegetical) to have authority to cast out (echein exousian ekballein) the demons. This display of syntactical relationships helps to visualize how Mark crafted the commission together, offering a potentially different, yet legitimate, reading of the commission. My translation below reflects the syntactical relationship between the two components to preach and to have authority to cast And he [Jesus] created twelve, so that they would be with him and so that he would send them forth to preach, namely (that is) to have authority to cast out the demons [author’s translation].[3] In contrast to the typically understood cognitive-based definition for evangelism, this reading of the commission, which the text allows, suggests a different direction regarding its significance for fisher-followers on this side of the text. As a result, it opens a wider range for potentially relevant and appropriate evangelistic activities and outcomes that should be adopted by the church. After “summoning” those whom He Himself wanted (v. 13b), Jesus created twelve (v. 14a) so that they (i.e., the created twelve) would be with Him (v. 14b) and so that he would send them forth with a commission (v. 14c–15). The two hina (so that) clauses indicate two resulting purposes that align with Mark’s narrative.[4] The first hina clause (so that they would be with him, v. 14b) suggests an intentional relationship between Jesus and the created twelve. Certainly being “with Him” has many implications and means more than just “tagging along with Jesus.” While “being with Jesus” is set in motion at the initial calls in Mark’s first chapter (see vv. 16–20), the results are given content (definition) throughout the narrative before Jesus actually grants the twelve the authority to cast in 6:7. At the narrative level being “with Him” (3:14b) means that the created fisher-followers are insiders who do “the will of God” (3:35), who receive direct teaching and insight concerning the kingdom (4:10–11), and who witness his divine power (4:35–41) and the inaugural increase of God’s kingdom (5:1—6:6). Additionally, the twelve fisher-followers, who were created to be with Him (3:14b), experienced the spread of the seed/word/gospel, not solely through verbal- and cognitive-based activities (e.g., Jesus’ preaching, teaching, parables), but primarily through Jesus’ deeds (e.g., casting, healing, and other miracles).[5] The created twelve are also “sent forth” to preach (v. 14c) and to have authority to cast (v. 15). It should be noted there is no object (i.e., the content) for the “preaching” component (v. 14c). This provokes many to supply “the gospel” for what is preached. It is fair, perhaps, to suggest supplying the unwritten “Good News,” but it is unnecessary. An assumption is made of the text, namely that the “and” (kai) between the two infinitive clauses functions as a simple conjunction, inferring, then, two distinct tasks: preaching and casting. This, too, is not necessary. Also, note that the commission component after the “and” (kai) is actually, not “to cast out the demons,” but to have authority to cast out the demons (v. 15). The syntactical analysis displayed above indicates that the conjunction “and” (kai) should be understood epexegetically, that is, offering a fuller explanation and the content of to preach. I have, therefore, rendered the “and” (kai) as “namely (that is)”: so that he would send them [the created twelve] forth to preach, namely (that is) to have authority to cast out the demons. In other words, the content of the “preaching” is the authority to cast out the demons. [1] See chapter 4, “A Prelude to Judgment,” for a discussion regarding the centrality of Jesus’ authority in the Mark 1:21—3:6 conflict thread, which is an integral part of Mark’s plotline. [2] A syntactical analysis helps to show how the parts of grammar relate to each other, indicating the relationships of subjects, main verbs, direct and indirect objects, and subordinate and explanatory clauses. The syntactical analysis here informs and reflects the author’s translation of the text. See Kaiser, Toward an Exegetical Theology (pp. 87–104) for an explanation of the syntactical analysis as a component of exegesis. [3] The following references to Mark 3:14–15 reflect my translation. [4] Hina (so that) may express purpose, result, or content depending on the context. In a few cases it may even express other (related) relationships such as an imperative or a generic-specific relationship. I have chosen “resulting purpose” intentionally to indicate a fine line between the two. Jesus creates twelve for a purpose that results in “being with him” and “being sent forth.” See Arndt and Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon, 376–78. [5] See Mark 1:21—6:6.
 First, Reread the Mark 3 Commission and Its Components--to Preach and to Cast In order to obey the Mark 3 commission and, thus, show faithfulness to the gospel of God (1:14), we need to think more deeply about the significance of the Mark 3 commission and its application; then, we should seek activities and measurable outcomes that indicate obedience and faithfulness to the gospel. To do this it is necessary to reread the Mark 3 commission more effectively. This will be accomplished by seeking to understand the narrative relationship between the two commissioning components--to preach (v. 14c) and to have authority to cast out the demons (v. 15)—within the “sequence of events emplotted” in Mark’s Gospel.[1] The Mark 3 commission and the fisher-promise—the inaugural connection In chapter 3, “You Will Appear as Fishers,” I demonstrated that the Mark 1:17 fisher-promise finds its inaugural fulfillment in the Mark 3 creation and commission of the twelve (vv. 13–15). Some of those observations and connections bear repeating as we begin to reread the Mark 3 commission. The link between the fisher-promise and the commission can be seen in how Mark introduces the promise (1:17) and, then, how he presents the creation of the twelve (3:13–15):
An obvious promise-fulfillment (I will create/He creates) is crafted into Mark’s narrative regarding the call and creation of the fishers. In Mark 1, the eschatological characters (i.e., Jesus, John the Baptist, the Spirit, and fisher-followers)[3] that play a role in inaugurating the gospel of Jesus Christ are introduced (vv. 4–17). After the mission summary (1:14–15), there is an invitation to become followers (1:17) that includes a promise: “I will make [poieso] you to become fishers of men.” This promise, then, is fulfilled when Jesus creates (epoiesen) the twelve in the Mark 3 commission episode (3:14a). There is a narrative relationship between the call and promise in 1:17 and the summons and commission in 3:13–15, specifically discernible by the repeated use of poieo (create/make), which is often translated appointed, ordained, chose that can mask the reference back to the fisher-promise. The other synoptic Gospel writers did not use poieo (make/create) to characterize the establishment of the twelve, making it more likely that Mark wanted his readers/listeners to make the narrative connection between the fisher-promise (1:17) and its inaugural fulfillment in the commissioning of the twelve (3:14–15). The fisher metaphor and the role of the created twelve indicate that fisher-followers are to be inaugurators of the kingdom (1:17; 3:13–15; 6:7–13)—that is, presenting its demands (1:14–15), expanding (sowing/harvesting) the gospel (4:1–5:43), and imitating Jesus’ ministry (Mark 1:21—6:13). It follows, then, that the content of the commission (vv. 14c–15) is the nature and activity of the created fisher-followers: those who are with Him (v. 14b) are also sent forth to preach and to have authority to cast out the demons (v. 15). At this point, and in light of the Mark 1:17 fisher-promise discussed in chapter 3 (“You Will Appear as Fishers”), the following interpretive summary (I) gives a sense of the meaning of the Mark 3 commission:
[1] Ibid. [2] The author’s translation of Mark 1:17 and Mark 3:13–15. [3] See chapter 3, “You Will Appear as Fishers,” for an elaboration of these characters (from Mark’s introduction) as inaugurators of the kingdom. [4] After each section I present an interpretative summary of the Mark 3 commission in order to show the development of the text’s significance to the reader/listener; as the study expands, the interpretative summary develops.
 Authority for application: narrative intention and antecedent authority The process from exegesis to application is characteristically discussed within the context of sermon preparation or homiletics.[1] Typically there is detailed discussion regarding the need to discover the “significance of a text,” that is the time and cultural gaps between the Bible’s historical and cultural settings and the now of the reader/listener. This process is labeled under various titles: contextualization (Osborne), transferring the message (Greidanus), fusion of horizons (Gadamer; Thiselton), and principlization (Kaiser; Virkler).[2] Developing the significance of a text, however, is not simply about seeking the universal truth behind the text and its historical context, or attempting to link the ancient cultural value or historical situation to something similar in the contemporary so it may be “applied.” It should also establish the relationship of the text’s meaning to those in front of the text. Put another way, we need to decipher the significance of the biblical author’s original meaning to the contemporary reader/listener and church community beforedetermining application. Also, simply attaching an “application” to a text, or even a text to an “application,” is not enough; application should be built on reasonable authority.[3] It must produce analogous and relevant obedience reflective of the text. Obedience (i.e., application) ought to correspond in-kind to Mark’s narrative. There needs to be a reasonable association between Mark’s understanding of the gospel and faithful obedience to that gospel. When application is detached and/or dissimilar from his narrative (in this case the Mark 3 commission and his overall Gospel narrative), then there is no authority for that application. In fact, it might not be obedience at all. Application on the contemporary side of the text should find support by analogous associations and applications made by the original author. When application is based on the consequence or result of a text’s meaning, then it carries the weight of biblical authority, which leads to relevant faithful obedience.[4] Abraham Kuruvilla offers a helpful set of principles for developing the significance and range of potential application from a biblical narrative such as Mark’s Gospel. Kuruvilla proposed what he calls “the two rules” for establishing the significance of the text to the readers/listeners, that is, their relationship to the text:1) the Rule of Plot“prepares the interpreter of biblical narrative to attend to the structured sequence of events emplotted in the text, in order to apprehend the world projected by that text” and 2) the Rule of Interaction that “directs the interpreter of biblical narrative to attend to the interpersonal transactions of the characters as represented therein, in order to apprehend the world projected by the text.”[5] Thus, our move here toward application will seek its underlying authority from Mark’s surrounding plot and the role and responsibilities of the characters in the story (i.e., the fisher-followers who are sent forth to preach and to have authority to cast out the demons, 3:14c–15). [1] See Greidanus, Modern Preacher, 157; and, Osborne, Hermeneutical Spiral, 318. [2] Osborne, Hermeneutical Spiral; Greidanus, Modern Preacher; Gadamer, Truth and Method; Thiselton, Two Horizons; Kaiser, Toward an Exegetical Theology; Virkler, Hermeneutics. [3] Kaiser, “Inner Biblical Exegesis,” 33–46. [4] Ibid. [5] Kuruvilla, Text to Praxis, 73. The word “emplot” or “emplotted” is not found in the Oxford English Dictionary or in any dictionary to my knowledge. Kuruvilla, in the context of his “two rules,” refers to “a plot” as “a sequence of causally related events” (Text to Praxis, 73), therefore I take the word and use it here and throughout the chapter to mean em-plotted, or to embed material into a plot; more specifically to assemble together historical events and place them strategically into a narrative in order to create a plot (i.e., a storyline).
 Pay Attention to Significance—Think Deeply About Application Walter Kaiser reminds us, “Exegesis is never an end in itself.”[1] In Toward an Exegetical Theology, he rightly points out that the ultimate purpose of exegesis is “never fully realized until it begins to take into account the problems of transferring what has been learned from the text over to the waiting Church.”[2] Obedience to the biblical text is essential to the Christian life and is, as well, defining for the life of the church. This should be the goal of the mindful Christian and what faithful leadership should intentionally foster in a church community (Mark 3:35). This is why developing appropriate, not just “relevant,” application is important. Yet, applying the Bible can offer its own set of problems and difficulties. If we move too quickly to application, it is quite possible to miss the obedience implied by the text (any text for that matter) and, as well, the gospel. Before examining the Mark 3 commission, specifically vv. 14–15, it is worth considering the problem of application. The problem of application In their book, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart point out that many Christians start with “the here and now” and “read into texts meanings that were not originally there.” They rightly affirm that Christians “want to know what the Bible means for us,” and “legitimately so.” However, we cannot make the Bible or the gospel or any text for that matter “mean anything that pleases us and then give the Holy Spirit ‘credit’ for it.”[3] Fee and Stuart hit the mark as it relates to the problem of interpretation: the step of good study and exegesis to decipher the original author’s intention is too often skipped or undertaken lightly, with readers/listeners jumping straight-away to “the here and now.” This actually confuses interpretation with application. Although Fee and Stuart’s point concerns interpretation of the text, the same problem occurs when the “here and now” of contemporary application is read back into the text. We cannot make any application we want from any text, give the Holy Spirit credit, and then call it obedience. Application can often be read into a text, again, confusing interpretation with application. A fixation on the practical does not inevitably lead to obedience of the biblical text. In view of these present set of studies, application, as evangelism is typically understood, might not necessarily indicate faithfulness to the gospel of Jesus Christ (Mark 1:1). This can be a problem with application—that is, application is not always obedience. Moving from meaning to significance, then to application Understanding what the biblical author (in this case, Mark) meant is certainly the first step necessary for seeking faithful obedience to the gospel of Jesus Christ (1:1). The previous five chapters have sought to do just that. Yet, bridging the gap from the then to the now demands thoughtful attention. In order to think more deeply and thoroughly about application, three basic steps are essential to the process:
Meaning is that which is represented by the text, that is, what the biblical author intended by the words, syntactical and contextual relationships, and use of antecedent biblical material and contexts. Significance establishes the relationship between the original meaning and the person, persons, place, or situation (or “anything imaginable”) on this side of the text.[4] The meaning of the text does not change, but its significance to those on this side of the text (who, when, where, etc.) does change and can be relevant in different ways.[5] Application, on the other hand, is the least rigid of the three elements for determining faithfulness to the gospel and can take multiple forms to reflect obedience. Still, application needs to flow from significance and be an appropriate action that reflects the obedience implied by the text (e.g., the Mark 3 commission) or biblical concept (e.g., the gospel). For example, the meaning of the Mark 3 commission is determined by exegesis (an analysis of the text and surrounding narrative). The significance of that meaning is deciphered by the text’s relationship and its implications to those on this side the text. In other words the reader/listener should ask, What is the significance of the Mark 3 commission to me, to my church, and to the community where I live? Application, then, is the appropriate and analogous actions, behaviors, and/or attitudes that produce or indicate faithful obedience to the text. If Mark intended his audience to understand that those who follow after Jesus will be created fishers of men who have a role in inaugurating the kingdom that has arrived in the appearance of God’s Messiah-King (1:1, 14–15, 17),[6] then it is important to discern the significance of the commission components to preach and to have authority to cast out the demons (3:14–15) for today’s readers/listeners. Application, then, requires a determination of what appropriate and analogous actions correspond to thatsignificance. [1] Kaiser, Toward an Exegetical Theology, 149. [2] Ibid. [3] Fee and Stuart, How to Read the Bible, 26. [4] Hirsch, Validity in Interpretation, 8. [5] Ibid., 255. [6] See chapter 3, “You will Appear as Fishers,” for the background of this interpretation.
And he appointed twelve (whom he also named apostles) so that they might be with him and he might send them out to preach and have authority to cast out demons (Mark 3:14-15).
 “You need to be more practical.” These are the dreaded words no preacher or Bible teacher wants to hear, particularly if he or she wants to be considered effective and well-liked in modern, contemporary church circles. I am among the unfortunate who have been admonished and, even, scolded with these words more often than I’d like to admit. Yet, I am not ready to yield to the tyranny of the practical. As modern Christians, particularly evangelicals, we often measure biblical information (teaching, preaching, sermons, commentary, Bible studies, etc.) by its immediate practical value. The up-side—Christians want to be obedient to Scripture. This is a good thing. The down-side—a preoccupation with the “practical” can too often dissuade us from thinking deeply about the significance of a text, the kind of reflection needed for developing well-thought through application, which ought to be based on an appropriate and authoritative reading (i.e., an exegesis) of the text. The path to application can be too quickly made and too frequently unconnected to the original intention of the biblical author. Wasted Evangelism is not intended to be “practical.” However, I have worked hard throughout the last five chapters to uncover the meaning of the Markan texts under consideration, ending each study with the significance of these texts for church communities, for church leaders, and for those who call themselves Christian. Each chapter unfolded more fully the nature and content of the gospel we are to believe (Mark 1:1, 14–15), seeking to answer the question, How should my faith, our church, our discipleship, our evangelism be informed and formed by the narrative of Mark’s Gospel? I mentioned early in this book that chapters 1 through 5 were originally papers presented at meetings of the Evangelical Theological Society between 2006 and 2012.[1] At the conclusion of my paper on the Mark 1:17 “fishers of men” text (chapter 3 in this volume), I made this assertion: The fisher metaphor is appropriate, not just narrowly for individual, private salvation, but more broadly for applications, activities, and outcomes of social action and justice, as well. I offered this deduction based on the antecedent OT meaning of the fisher concept and on my conclusion that the Mark 3 commission (vv. 13–15)[2] was the inaugural fulfillment of the Mark 1:17 promise that Jesus would create his followers to become fishers of men. After I finished presenting the paper, during the Q&A, a very nice gentleman (a pastor I believe) asked a reasonable follow-up question: “Does that mean ‘casting out demons’ is social action?” Without hesitation I responded, “Yes, it does.” As a result of my overly confident off-the-cuff response, I began crafting a longer answer. This chapter, in part, is that longer answer: In light of the promise to be created fishers, what is the significance of the Mark 3 commission for Christians and church communities on this side of the text? This final chapter is a far cry from any “how to” regarding specific, practical application. Although there is a measure of exegetical investigation regarding the Mark 3 commission, this chapter, more so, offers a model for deciphering the significance of the text. Here, I will focus on the process for developing application that reflects obedience to the text and a legitimate range of potential outcomes, which I posit can be related to social action that addresses the issues of poverty that surround local congregations. This will be as practical as I get! The Gospel, Deep Enough to Include God’s Concern for the PoorThe previous five chapters have been a series of in-depth exegetical arguments, demonstrating that Mark’s programmatic content links the gospel and evangelism to social action.[3] Thus, social action falls legitimately within the realm of evangelism. I have endeavored to show that a narrow, proclamation-centered definition of evangelism based exclusively on word-studies and isolated proof-texts does not match the narrative meaning of the gospel, particularly as Mark presents the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God (1:1). Clearly a mere verbal- and cognitive-based definition of evangelism solely related to the etymology of the word “evangelize” is too narrow and devoid of much of the biblical content that Mark gives his Gospel narrative. As the previous studies have shown, Mark relies on OT backgrounds and contexts (e.g., 1:2–3) to fill the gospel of Jesus Christ (1:1) with defining and programmatic content. Typically, it is accepted that the gospel is defined by incorporating various OT motifs and concepts such as God’s dominion, the Exodus, exile, redemption, and even sacrificial propitiation and forgiveness. The previous chapters have shown that the same OT contexts that Mark harnesses to give programmatic definition to the gospel also clearly contain correspondences and direct references regarding socio-economic relationships and community responsibilities toward the economically vulnerable and the poor.[4] As the five previous studies have demonstrated, social action, therefore, can be evangelism. In chapter 3, “You Will Appear as Fishers,” an examination of Mark 1:17, I concluded that the promise to be created “fishers of men” finds its inaugural fulfillment and premiere “application” in the Mark 3 commission; namely, fishers are those who are with Jesus and who, then, will be sent out to preach and to have authority to cast out the demons. Through the Markan context and antecedent OT background, I showed that the “fisher metaphor is appropriate for applications, activities, and outcomes of social action and justice”([x-ref]).[3] This implies that the Mark 3 commission to preach (v. 14c) and to have authority to cast out the demons (v. 15) can be associated with social action and, thus, can be legitimate obedience to Jesus-Messiah and faithful application of the gospel. Close examinations of Mark’s programmatic understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ (1:1–3), the fisher-promise (1:17), the Mark 3 sandwich and Beelzebul episode (3:20–35), the Mark 4 parable of the Sower who Sows, and the account of the widow vs. duplicitous scribes in Mark 12 all have shown that the gospel itself is defined broadly and deeply enough to include God’s concern for the poor. Fisher-followers of Jesus, the Messiah-King (1:1, 17), are commissioned to demonstrate the presence of God’s kingdom (3:14–15), which is the gospel of God (1:14–15). As part of the application process (that is, thinking deeply and more thoroughly about application), the following seeks to show that the significance of “preaching” and “casting” (3:14–15) provides a basis for building social action outcomes into a church’s evangelistic activities. [1] This chapter was originally, in part, presented at the annual meeting of the Northeast Region of the Evangelical Theological Society, which met at the Alliance Theological School, Nyack, NY, April 2013. [2] The full text encompasses vv. 13–19, which includes the list of the twelve in vv. 16–19; however this study more specifically will focus on vv. 14–15, the Mark 3 commission component. [2] My working definition for biblical social action: a means to ensure that the blessings and benefits of living in society reach to the poor (see the Introduction for an extended explanation). [3] All the previous studies/chapters in this volume address the wide range of OT texts related to the poor; see chapter 5, “Idolatry and Poverty,” specifically for a list of OT texts and contexts Mark utilizes in his Gospel which refer to the economically vulnerable and issues of justice. [4] See chapter 3, “You will Appear as Fishers” for the full exegetical argument.
 Sermon trailer . . . from my upcoming Easter Morning (4/4/21) Sermon this coming Sunday . . . It is Easter morning. It is a day of hope. It is also a good day for Christians, for churches, to remember the seriousness of the resurrection and, as church, their place in this world, their place in their community. Our place in this community. So, while we can and should receive this beautiful hope that Easter brings to our minds—resurrection, life after death, a hope for eternal life—I also want to provoke some seriousness into our imagination, an Easter imagination. My big question this morning will be, “How do others know it’s true, that Jesus is resurrection from the dead?” Gordon Fee, a professor at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, where I did graduate school, once said: “When will we get Easter messages that proclaim the meaning and reality of the resurrection for the church and not repeated sermons on ‘proving the resurrection’ to Christians over and over again?” This is the view I will be taking this morning on the resurrection as we remember that first Easter. What does it mean—what is the reality of the resurrection for us, for CPC in The Hill, today . . . I plan here to give at least one meanings . . . a whole series could be done on the various implications of the resurrection . . . I will only focus on one . . . a rather significant one at that. Imagine the early church—they would never be meeting around supper tables with strangers and unequals, committing treason and promoting social and cultural disorder, erasing boundaries and redefining—restoring, actually—the concept of humanity unless it--unless the resurrection was true. Meeting together was crazy. Social and cultural suicide. Life threatening as a penalty of law--both Jewish and Roman. Treasonous. Potentially an offense that could wind them up shunned at the least from the community, by their families, and worse, as entertainment in the gladiatorial arena or on crosses to be set ablaze as night-lights for the streets of Rome. The resurrection was so very real to these early house churches. Simply had to be. These house churches were the proof of the Resurrection. How did Jews and Gentiles, elite-Greeks and barbarians, the educated and the uneducated know it’s all true—that Jesus rose from the dead, that all the rumors and excuses for an empty tomb were, indeed, fake news; that Jesus, truly, was risen from the dead? And not just those first few thousand that came to believe, but how did those out-there, in the wider empire, 10, 20, 50, 100, 300 years later know that Jesus was raised from the dead the 3rd Day? It was those gatherings of strangers and unequals around a supper table in homes and workshops and back rooms and catacombs that were the proof. It is with all my heart and mind, that I find in the pages of the New Testament, that the proof of the resurrection of Jesus is the local, gathered church.
 How did the first church gatherings prove that Jesus was raised from the death?
At supper-tables, in homes and workshops across the empire, where believers, men, women, children, slaves (free and bound) from multi-ethnic and multi-demographic and multi-economic backgrounds (aka, strangers and unequals) ate together and lifted a cup to the resurrected traitor Jesus Christ, listened to apostolic teaching, and joined in a weak, yet unconquerable fellowship in the face of danger behind every social interaction with those outside that table fellowship. This is how they proved Jesus was resurrected and now sat at the right of God. This was their apologetics. Extra: How did the early church succeed in outlasting many Caesars and an Empire? |
AuthorChip M. Anderson, advocate for biblical social action; pastor of an urban church plant in the Hill neighborhood of New Haven, CT; husband, father, author, former Greek & NT professor; and, 19 years involved with social action. Archives
February 2022
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed