Mark 4: The Church as the Kingdom of God

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Stefan Kristensen
Posts: 261
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 1:54 am
Location: Denmark

Mark 4: The Church as the Kingdom of God

Post by Stefan Kristensen »

I think Mark 4 must be understood in a wider extra-Markan context as well as the wider Marken context. The Markan context I regard as the whole section 1:35-4:34. This section is in two part according to the scheme 'rejection-->acceptance' or 'old covenant-->new covenant' or 'Israel-->the Church':



(A) 1:35-3:6
In this part we see how Israel rejects the fulfilment of the promise to them by God. It is the promise to Abraham concerning the promised land. In the Christian scheme of things (or Markan at least) this means the setting up of the true order of creation. God as the mighty patron of all creation, giving blessing to all his servants: the humans, nature and the heavenly beings. They all receive the life-force from God flowing unhindered, because they are loyal servants serving him in perfect obedience according to his will and nature, which is justice and goodness. This obedience means that God is the ruler of all, and his various servants perform their duties as vice-rulers in the great hierarchy of creation. So the humans fulfil their intended role as rulers over all creatures, Gen 1:26-28, having become spiritual beings like the angels, over whom they also rule.

So the old promise to Abraham concerning Israel entering the geographical area of Palestine and ruling as God's chosen servant nation over all the other obedient nations of humanity on behalf of God, has been reinterpreted as the people of the church ruling and constituting a hierarchy within all of creation that has been transformed to a spiritual realm. This transformation to a new spiritual mode of existence comes with judgement day and the resurrection of the dead, and so everyone lives eternally, serving God perfectly with offerings of love, prayer and praise, like the spiritual beings in heaven are doing now. There will be no other rulers who rule by their own will, which is a theme that especially the Book of Daniel treats, but it will be a cosmic hierarchy all under the rule of God according to his will and spiritual nature of goodness and justice. It is what Mark terms the "kingdom of God" as opposed to the present human kingdoms.

So the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham entails a bodily transformation of the human constitution which will make God's human servant and vice-ruler able to be in accordance with his nature, his will. This transformation is described variously by the prophets as the humans (Israel) getting a "new heart" and a "new spirit" or God's spirit, and in one instance also as a new covenant, Jer 31:31ff. Moses also refers to such an idea when he tells the Israelites that in the final gathering they will be “circumcised at heart” (Deut 30). In another place the transformation is described as a bodliy resurrection of Israel, Ezek 37.

All motifs found in Scripture of God's future redemption of the exiled Israel is thus connected to this eschatological event of the gathering of God's people, judgement day and the resurrection into the new state of being in the "kingdom of God". As deutero-Isaiah uses the exodus imagery for his descipription of Judah's return from the Babylonian exile, so is the exodus story a paradigm for this eschatological event.

In this way Mark places the enemies of Jesus in his narrative in the role of the disobedient desert generation of the exodus story. The unfaithful generation with hardened hearts (meaning unable to learn and understand). They were given all the signs by God, that he was with them, so as to make them realise who he really was, their great benefactor and patron of all creation. But they had no 'ears to hear' (Deut 29:3), so they would stay disobedient to their lord, even as they were chosen by him as his special "holy nation" (Ex 19), set apart among the nations of humanity as a kind of priest among nations and given the special insight into the unfathomable mind and will of the creator, the Law, so as to exist in the proper mode according to God's goodness.

The Sinai covenant is to be understood in this context as their job of serving God. In the image of Mark, borrowed from Isaiah's parable, Israel are the tenants of God's vineyard. And the physical manifestation of their special service to the lord and ruler of creation was the temple complex in Jerusalem. This was a bodily representation of their covenant service. But since they had no 'ears to hear' they never fully served him properly, and with the new covenant comes also a new temple, in spiritual form in accordance with the eschatological mode of existence. The new temple will also have a bodily manifestation, but it is the body of Christ, which is the community of the Church, who are “in Christ”, as Paul puts it. The Church is the resurrected, spiritual body of Jesus.

The new covenant is thus the new, and final, agreement between the lord and his servant, where the servant becomes of the same spiritual nature as his lord, and therefore the flesh is no longer any occasion for disobedience. The new temple has the same function as in the old covenant, but this time it is not in a physical building in Jerusalem, this time it is where the spirit of God is, namely within the humans. And just like Solomon, the son of David and the son of God (2 Sam 7), built the temple under the old covenant, so shall Jesus, also the son of David and son of God, build the new temple, constituted by the people in whom God's presence dwells, his spirit, the Christians of the Church.

The new covenant is the new service to God, in which the same functions are to be fulfilled. It is a classic lord/servant relationship, an extension of the social reality of the Mediterranean world, where the loyal, grateful servant is the beneficiary of his lord's power and wealth in return for loyal services, gifts and public praise of his lord's name to increase his honor. The services and gifts offered to the lord God is neighbourly love and good deeds and prayers, which are spiritual offerings. These are the “fruits” of the “fig tree” (Mark 11), the yield of the “vineyard” (Mark 12:1-12).

Everything concerning the new service to God under the new covenant is determined by love and justice. Therefore it is crucial that the corruptible flesh be disposed of. With the coming of John and Jesus, God's promise is being fulfilled, the kingdom of God is near, and the transformation at the eschaton is already available in part, through the baptism of repentance and the receiving of the spirit that comes with accepting the word. Thereby an inner transformation takes place in the human body, giving birth to a new version of the person, an inner spiritual version, but still in the flesh, whereby the individual can take part in a battle against Satan operating through the flesh, with its desires and fears of pain and death.

So the transformation of the resurrection, which takes place partially in conversion and inclusion into the new covenant, is a process within each individual, and each person has the responsibility to cultivate this transformation. This is where the 'growth' image used by Mark in Mark 4 comes in. It is at once an intellectual learning process, with the Christian converts becoming "students" (="disciples"), and a deeper process of a change of mind, a change of direction in one's heart, a new inclination where one becomes naturally more directed towards "the things of God" and away from "the things of man" (Mark 8:33). One gradually transfoms to a spiritual being in accord with God's will. The holy spirit thus has both a cognitive effect and a body-transforming effect. Giving the "new heart and new spirit" of the new covenant.

But Israel has no 'ears to hear', as we learned through the exodus failure. They went into the promised land, remained disobedient, and like Adam being expelled from paradise, they were exiled and scattered among the nations, where they continue to be disobedient, bringing shame upon the name of the patron, God. Through the prophets God has reavealed how he will at some point in history decide to gather Israel into the land for the fulfilment of the promise. And this happens through his son, Jesus, who acts as the leader of God's people, his true servant under the new covenant. This people will rule with God in the kingdom of God, and Jesus is the leader, having been handed the rulership by God himself.

And, like I mentioned above, this most central motif gets all other 'eschatological' motifs in Scripture connected to it, most importantly the notion of the fulfilment as a new exodus liberation. This time the liberation is from the state of sin, or Satan's kingdom on earth, and this time God takes measures to make Israel 'hear', giving them new ears to hear and a new heart to understand. But only in so for as they themselves turn and become faithful, which in Mark's scheme of things means turning to Jesus in baptism and faith, which only some few Israelites do, unfortunately, but which lots of gentiles go on to do instead.

The rejection by Israel of their promise, on the other hand, is exactly what leads to the creation of the new group serving God under the new covenant, the new 'tenants' of the new 'vineyard', a new house where Jesus himself is the 'cornerstone'. And the fulfilment of the promise, as mentioned, comes with a bodily transformation which makes the servants fully capable of serving properly, namely through the holy spirit being infused into the humans. Turning to Jesus means listening to the message from God, the gospel, that he carries with the holy spirit, and accepting this gospel message ("the Word" in Mark's terminology) is also accepting the spirit within oneself. “Repent and belive in the gospel of God”.

This acceptance of the word/spirit is termed "inviting in; receiving to oneself; etc." in the Parable of the Sower with the fourth soil, the Greek term "παραδεχομαι", as opposed to the second soil merely "receiving" the word, λαμβανω. But it is only some of those who are exposed to the word, that really hears it. They merely hear in the mundane sense, Jesus' teachings, but Mark operates also with the transposed sense of the word 'to hear', in the meaning of understanding so deeply that we are talking about getting the spirit/word inside oneself so as to make a bodily change of heart and mind. And the group of people who gradually come to form the people of the new covenant, spoken of by the prophets as the remnant of Israel, are thus given the true mind of God, in a parallel to Israel receiving God's will in the form of the Law with the Sinai covenant. God writes the Law in their hearts, as one prophet has it.



So, in the section of 1:35-3:35 Jesus comes presenting the fulfilment of the promise to Israel by demonstrating the new service to God under the new covenant. This section (or 2:1-3:6) is traditionally regarded as a series of conflict episodes, which indeed it is obviously. But I think it is meant as more or less systematic section that shows how the 'tenants' of the 'old vineyard' do not accept the coming of the new covenant, the 'new vineyard'. And that this is exactly what leads to the 'new tenants' in the next part, Mark 3:7-4:34. Their rejection of Jesus' teachings in word and deed is followed by Jesus' election of the new covenant group, in an allegorical structure that represents Jesus forming the Church upon his resurrection after he has been killed by the plot of the 'evil tenants'.

So this section, I think we should see as beginning with Jesus' rising from the bed, as it were, on sunday morning and going out in order to preach, and the episode with the leper shows something about faith (the leper feels sure that Jesus can, and asks that Jesus will) and the temple. Here the physical temple up in Jerusalm is shown to be superfluous, as we also learn in the following episode with the healing of the paralytic. No need to go to the temple in Jerusalem and through cultic sacrifice to obtain forgiveness or be cleansed, because faith is all that matters, and the new temple is within every faithful, who can now obtain forgiveness as he forgives his transgressors (Mark 11:22-25).

The next episode, the Calling of Levi, shows how the new spiritual temple is thus constituted by the Christians who are 'healed' from the Adamic fallen constitution, where the "sinners" are "called/invited" (καλεω) to serve God as the new Levites, cleansed as according to Mal 3:3, like "the sick" who need a "physician". In the new temple, the Church, it is those inwardly transformed to inner spiritual beings, i.e. the converted, who eat and have communion with God, as Jesus eats in his house having 'called/invited' the 'sinful' Levi and other sinners.

In the next episode concerning fasting we get the dichotomy of new and old, and the two last episodes in this section of conflict episodes (2:1-3:6) are also about eating in God's house, and about the humans, having been created on the sixth day themselves, being masters of the seventh day, the sabbath. The rejection by Israel, or rather by the stewards of the old service of the old covenant, is stated emphatically by the ending of this section, where they plot to have Jesus destroyed, the very personification of the new covenant.





(B) Mark 3:7-4:34
Okay, so after this section that shows Israel's typical rejection of God's gift, the narrative shifts to the next natural step concerning the Church, in the section of 3:7-4:34. Here Mark wants to tell something about the new covenant constituted by the people who "do the will of God" (3:35), those who choose to become students of the Jesus-teaching, “the Jesus Christ gospel” (1:1), i.e. the "disciples".

And this group is defined by those who have gradually grown in insight to become 'mature grain', yielding fruit to God. They have thus opened themselves to the Christian teachings, the Word, whereby they have gradually gained more and more insight into the mind of God, the true meaning of the complex teachings of the Church. I think we need to draw in some more extra-Markan context now, namely Paul in 1 Cor 2-3, where he discusses two kinds of "wisdom". The wisdom of this world and the secret wisdom of God, which seems like folly to humans. The fundamental secret is that subservience means lordship, apparent shame really means honor and glory, for those who can spiritually. The crucified Christ, the powerless superlord. The true secret of neighbourly love, the secret of God's will.

Mark doesn't go into the content of this "secret of the kingdom of God" here, but I think it means the true, full meaning of the whole Christian teachings, which is only grasped gradually, as one progresses in understanding along with one's change in behavior or direction. The true "way" to the kingdom, like Jesus' way to his death in Jerusalem is his entry into the kingdom, i.e. through the resurrection that comes as his reward for his ultimate sacrifice for the humans. This wisdom contained in the very deed of Jesus, his serving death leading to his exaltation, is folly to those who either refuse to hear more from the Christian teachings, or to those who want to hear more but fall away at some point before growing to maturity. They may understand it logically, but if they don’t walk the walk, they don’t understand in the true sense.

It is in this context Mark formulates the saying: "To you have been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but to those outside everything comes in parables".

The "you" here is the abstract notion of the 'true Christian', not including those who try.

Whether Mark's audience identifies themselves with this “you” is up to them, but of course this is a rhetorical move by Mark for exhortation. Either you grow to maturity and truly learn the mind of God that permeate the population of the coming kingdom of God, and which is now infused into the Church community, or you never fully grasp it, and the Christian teaching that communicates the mind of God remains a mystery for you.

Even though there is a thick air of predestination surrounding these teachings in Mark 4, there is also the exhortation to expend the effort, because it is also up to the insiders to fulfil their potential. This is what the saying about the measure and giving is about, Mark 4:24-25. The ones who really expend the effort are also given something additional. Whether this is to be understood as eschatological reward or as the very transformation that comes with entering into the new covenant, is one of the many things that are impossible to decide for certain in Mark 4. My suggestion is the latter. In this way the addition refers to the secret, only given to those of the fourth soil.

So, Paul teaches the Corinthians that God has now finally revealed his secret wisdom after all this time, but even though he has given it to the humans, it still remains a secret to some humans! "A scandal to the Jews, and folly to the Greeks". Mark allegorizes this curious aspect of the gospel message using the motif of parable. He has Jesus speak in parables as an allegory for the fact that the Christian teaching remains ungrasped by some people. The parables in gMark are themselves a motif, which is nothing more than an allegory for the nature of the gospel message. In the same way, for example, that Jesus' healing activities is an allegory for the conversion and transformation power of the gospel message. Or when Jesus hangs on the cross and he is mocked, it is because they don't get the 'parable' which is in front of them. But when the Christians think of the crucified Christ, they understand this 'parable', the secret contained within this image, that weakness is power.

In Mark 4 is used the motif of a hidden lamp that has "come" as an allegory (or parable) for the gospel message (in the person of Jesus, supposedly) which has been sent by God to effect the fulfilment of the promise. Because the gospel message, or "the Word" in Mark's symbolic or parabolic imagery, is indeed like a hidden lamp. This image used here is another image of the same idea as the parable-motif: There is new information to be grasped, enlightenment, but it is hidden only to be found. So, God has sent a 'hidden lamp' indeed, but as lamps go they are meant to shine. So also is God's hidden secret sent for the purpose of being understood.

Now, Mark has Jesus elect the new covenant people, who represent symbolically the people of the Church who are going to constitute the population of the coming kingdom after judgement day. The Church is thus the unfinished but growing field to be harvested eventually, and as such it is the unmature kingdom of God that is growing already in the world. Jesus chooses twelve apostles among his disciples to represent Israel among the nations. The nations are imagined in the eschatological scheme of things as becoming faithful to God, getting to "know" their creator finally, a motif found with Isaiah and other prophets. Just as Israel themselves got to "know" their lord, God, when he revealed himself through Moses (Ex 3, but also LXX Ex 2:25: "God looked at the groaning people of Israel in slavery in Egypt and he made himself known to them"). This may be the central idea behind Mark’s motif of the revelation of Jesus’ identity in his narrative. God’s revelation of himself, this time through his son, for the new Exodus redemption.

But the important thing to note here, is that Mark is operating with the notion of the ideal people of God, as I mentioned, the very group that will indeed enter the kingdom. But at the same time he also operates with the fact that this group is unknown to the humans themselves, i.e. it is not all within the Church who will enter the kingdom, only God knows who it's gonna be come judgement day. But nevertheless, he operates with the true covenant people as an abstract, ideal concept, and he represents this abstract concept symbolically in the form of the concrete group of 'insiders' in Mark 3-4, and the “disciples” in general.

He has Jesus speak to his disciples (the insiders) as the representatives of the true Church. Mark wants to treat this notion of the kingdom of God in this section, and it is the kingdom of God understood in the sense of the population of the kingdom. And this population are the ones inside the Church who will eventually turn out to be the ones who "do the will of God", even though Mark in 3:35 uses the concrete group around Jesus in Capernaum as the image of this ideal population.

This is the group within the larger group of the Church who are the fourth soil, they are the only ones who have been given the secret. All the Christians who eventually fall away have not been given the secret. So the group around Jesus in the narrative is an ideal concept, and Mark needs to treat this ideal concept for his teachings about the gospel and the fulfilment of the promise and the new covenant. Therefore he needs to create this sharply defined group in these two chapters, distinct from "those outside".

The curious motif of the private teachings of Jesus to this ideal group thus represents the gradual revealing of God's mind, i.e. the Christian teachings, to the Christians that are growing to maturity. Translated into the concrete reality of Mark's time, this private explanation of Jesus to his disciples is an allegorical image (but still historical, according to Mark) of the Christians gaining the transforming existential insight through the spirit, getting the “new heart”, as they convene in their get-together in their communities and when they pray to God in the name of Jesus and are renewed within, in mind and heart, by the holy spirit.

The private teachings is what Mark has in mind when he says that they "have been given the secret of the kingdom". It is the inside secret of the parables, the parables which are themselves an allegory for the doubleness of the gospel message, the Christian teaching, which for some leads to enlightenment and God's power of transformation, to others it remains a secret, leading to perdition.

When Jesus is frustrated with his disciples, it is only because of their slow progress, not their complete lack of progress. He knows fully well that they will at some point 'mature', but they are slow learners. The learning process in question is really that of the inner transformation with the new covenant, where one's heart changes into a new heart, the heart being the faculty of cognitive understanding and one's willful behavior.

After the part of the narrative in 1:35-3:6 where Israel rejects the gospel message which effects the fulfilment of their promise, Jesus goes on to preach widely, even to gentiles, and at the end of this 'summary' in 3:7-12 Mark brings forth the motif of hiddeness, when Jesus orders the demons to be silent concerning his identity. This could be as a preparation for the whole theme of the hiddeness of the gospel in the following episodes. Jesus first goes on to elect the 'new Israel' in Mark 3:13-19, and then Mark turns to the imagery of a house.

This house imagery is convenient in many ways to treat the various aspects of the Church/kingdom, which is his purpose now. A house can both mean a 'family', or like the "house of Israel", God's chosen servant among the human nations, or it can be a royal house representing a kingdom, in this case the kingdom of Satan. At the same time it can frame the Church as God's temple, an imagery probably used in the preceding section with the Calling of Levi.

In any case, the house divides the people into those inside and those outside. As this is symbolic imagery by Mark, we shouldn't be surprised that he continues to use the "outsiders" image when the scene changes in Mark 4 and he is apparantly on the sea.

In the Beelzebul controversy we learn that the house of the Church is defeating the house of Satan, and this happens concretely by the holy spirit, i.e. by the gospel message, the “word”, which is now being sowed in the world.



So now I think I've covered Mark 4 as whole in sort of a systematic way here, but these are my thoughts on this section that I wrote here unedited, a suggestion for a reading where we understand everything as a systematic, structured section by Mark.

A central thing in my suggested reading here, I guess, is that Mark uses the insider group, the whole group of disciples, as a representation of the 'true' Christians, but that Mark still operates with the notion of failed Christians, the ones who can't make the cut, the ones who turn out to not have ears to hear, the ones who are not given the secret of God's kingdom after all. They are just as much outsiders as those who even refuse to convert upon hearing Jesus' teachings.

But crucially, this latter group, the failed Christians, are not represented concretely by anyone in Mark's narrative.

One exception could be the Rich Man. The failing of the disciples is used to represent these pitfalls, but the disciples themselves are the true Christians.

Their failings are just student troubles, as they are obviously going to graduate in the end (as "fishers of men", supposedly). In any case, Peter is no longer a student at the end of the story (16:7: "the disciples and Peter"). Being a student that graduates means going through a learning process, like all other student. And part of this process means dealing with the same pitfalls as the students who don't graduate, the ones who never move on from the pitfalls. In this way the disciples in Mark's narrative can be the fourth soil even though the also act out the failing soils. And the two kinds of bad ‘Christian’ soil are not insiders, but, in the abstract imagination of Mark’s teaching in these verses, they are part of “those outside”.

Finally, I would paraphrase 4:33 as: ‘And in many such parables he spoke the gospel message to them, because this was how they were able to hear it.’
Last edited by Stefan Kristensen on Wed Jun 20, 2018 10:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
jude77
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 6:15 am
Location: The Beach

Re: Mark 4: The Church as the Kingdom of God

Post by jude77 »

Hello Stefan;
I'm delighted to see that you've posted a followup to your original thread on MK 4. I've just now skimmed this post and am putting together a response that I hope to have ready in a day or so.

You've done a very insightful job. Many thanks!

Jude
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Mark 4: The Church as the Kingdom of God

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Very good post, Stefan. Thank you.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Stefan Kristensen
Posts: 261
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 1:54 am
Location: Denmark

Re: Mark 4: The Church as the Kingdom of God

Post by Stefan Kristensen »

Cheers, I hope you post any thoughts and criticisms and questions and disagreements, because all these thoughts here in my post are kind of an unedited brainstorm for an article I hope to publish (in Danish), so any small thing is helpful. I don't know if I necessarily agree myself with everything I wrote, and it's not very systematic, but I just put it out there as a sort of coherent mass of ideas.
jude77
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 6:15 am
Location: The Beach

Re: Mark 4: The Church as the Kingdom of God

Post by jude77 »

Stefan:

I found Part A to be excellent. It's very well articulated and includes an outstanding exposition of the Old Testament relationship to the New via the hermeneutic of the Kingdom.

I think you are correct to read chapter 4 in context of the preceding three chapters. Mark is too finely a woven tapestry to be pulled apart into separate pericopes.

Your interpretation in Part B of the parables in chapter 4 is quite orthodox. However, in your original post you made a point concerning the relationship between the first soil, from which the seed is snatched by Satan (4:15), and Peter's refusal to embrace Jesus' declaration of being a suffering messiah, as an example of the word being “snatched” from him (see MK 8:29-32 esp. vs 32). I found that connection deeply provocative and began to wonder if the entire parable would sustain that reading. In that light I make an appeal for chapter 4 to be read from the perspective that it is a cautionary story warning the “insiders” to guard their faith and grow deeper in the “soil” of faithful discipleship, but with a word of hope should failure come. I'm sure you will recognize some of the material from your first post, and I have included it in case someone is unfamiliar with it.

As stated above, the first soil described in the explanation section of the parable (4:13b-15) is represented by Peter's refusal to “hear” that Jesus is a Messiah who will suffer and die. As soon as Jesus makes the declaration that word is “snatched” from Peter's heart. It is important to understand; however, Mark doesn't mean Peter in particular, but he is representative of everyone who will recoil at the word of the cross.

The second soil is “rocky” (4:16 “petrode”) which seems like an allusion to 3:16 where Simon is surnamed “Petron” by Jesus, indicating that Simon's heart (and all others that he typifies) is as hard as stone. Also, Mark says the seed springs up “immediately” (4:16 “euthus”), which also describes the disciples response to Jesus' call in 1:18. In addition, the explanation section adds that even though some will respond immediately to Jesus they will just as quickly “fall away” (4:17 “skandalizon”) when tribulation arises. This is what Jesus predicts in 14:27, when, speaking to the disciples on the way to Gethsemane, he says, “You will all fall away” (skandalon). So the second soil represents all disciples who collapse during tribulation.

The third soil is paradigmatic of those consumed by wealth. Mark illustrates this type of person in 10:17-22 by the rich man who runs to Jesus seeking the way to eternal life. In vs. 21 Jesus looks at the man and loves (egapesen) him, which makes this the only person in Mark that Jesus is said to love. Clearly the man would have made an excellent disciple if he had been able to overcome his worldly attachments.

So, to sum up, the first three soils are examples of discipleship failures. Soils one and two use Peter and the 11 (less Judas) as models. That becomes significant at the end of Mark's gospel because then Peter and the 11 are restored into fellowship with Jesus (MK 16:7). What I think that Mark is saying is that even after the disciples' tragic falls they still are able to be redeemed. But, what of the third soil which symbolizes the rich man? Can he too find his way back to Jesus? It seems to me that he would have to be restored to make the parable “complete” so that each “soil” both falls away and is received back into relationship with Jesus. Mark seems to do this in chapter 10 where, immediately after the rich man walks away, the disciples ask Jesus, “Who can be saved?” (10:26) implying that the rich man is lost. At that point Mark's Jesus responds, “With man it is impossible, but not with God. With God all things are possible” (10:27) thereby leaving open the possibility of the rich man's salvation. Also, and I may be stretching things too far, but I wonder if we see the rich man reflected in Joseph of Arimathea who is a “respected member of the Sanhedrin”, purchases a linen shroud for Jesus, and also secures a tomb (15:43). Are we meant to understand Joseph, with his elevated status, as a symbol of the repentant rich man pouring out his wealth at the death of Jesus?

IF this reading of Mark is correct (and I confess it may not be), then all three soil types are represented by characters in the gospel who fall away and are restored to Jesus by the conclusion of the narrative. In that light I would read the Parable of the Sower as a parable of grace and restoration. IF that is the case, then the “secret of the Kingdom” is that those who follow Jesus, even including the ones who fall away, will be reconciled to him and find a place in his glory.

IF that is true, then the Parable of the Hidden Lamp (4:21-23), in which the lamp is revealed, would be a reference to the “secret” of reconciliation, which will be only be fully revealed in chapter 16 with the young man's invitation to rejoin Jesus in Galilee. In that light the saying on the measures (vs. 24-25) is Mark telling his audience to be graceful with those who fall away because anyone can (even Peter!), and if we are harsh with those who fall, we will find that if we, ourselves, collapse during tribulation then there will be little grace for us. The Parable of the Seed Growing secretly would be a word to Mark's audience saying that there is nothing anyone can do to hurry the Kingdom and it will arrive at God's appointed time, so stand as fast as you can until then. Lastly, the Parable of the Mustard Seed reinforces that idea, and farther amplifies it, by saying that the mustard (i.e. the Kingdom) will grow into a tree large enough to shelter anyone who flocks to it, even those who have fallen away and seek forgiveness.

In conclusion, I'm not convinced of my own exegesis, but it has been immensely fruitful to me personally to think this parable through afresh. If you have the time and would offer any critique I would more than welcome it. I thank you for provoking me with your original comments which led me to reconsider this section of Mark. It's been very stimulating. Lastly, the very best of luck with your article.

All the best to you.

Jude
Stefan Kristensen
Posts: 261
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 1:54 am
Location: Denmark

Re: Mark 4: The Church as the Kingdom of God

Post by Stefan Kristensen »

Thanks, Jude, I look forward to have the time to engage with your suggested reading here. It’s a very good suggestion, and most of it I think can be contained within my own suggestion.

Just one question for now: What about the outsiders? Those who will not be forgiven? Are those the ones who fall away and won’t be reconciled? If so, what would you suggest as to why some are reconciled and others not?
Stefan Kristensen
Posts: 261
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 1:54 am
Location: Denmark

Re: Mark 4: The Church as the Kingdom of God

Post by Stefan Kristensen »

The whole concept of reconcialtion that you bring up is one I havn’t treated above directly.

Jesus says in Mark 3 that all will be forgiven the sons of men except blasphemy against the holy spirit. I suggest this means rejection of the gospel in general, in the sense of denial that the gospel is a message that has come from God. And not necessarily rejection of the gospel in a more active way, i.e. preaching against the gospel so as to make others fall away. Which is what the scribes do in Mark, and is also treated in Mark 9:38-50.

But if “blasphemy against the holy spirit” only means this latter active sense of rejecting the gospel, then of course there is much more hope. And this also means that none of the soils can necessarily be said to be “outsiders” (who will not be forgiven). I dunno, it’s diffucult!
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Mark 4: The Church as the Kingdom of God

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Stefan Kristensen wrote: Sun Jun 24, 2018 12:29 amJesus says in Mark 3 that all will be forgiven the sons of men except blasphemy against the holy spirit. I suggest this means rejection of the gospel in general, in the sense of denial that the gospel is a message that has come from God. And not necessarily rejection of the gospel in a more active way, i.e. preaching against the gospel so as to make others fall away. Which is what the scribes do in Mark, and is also treated in Mark 9:38-50.

But if “blasphemy against the holy spirit” only means this latter active sense of rejecting the gospel, then of course there is much more hope. And this also means that none of the soils can necessarily be said to be “outsiders” (who will not be forgiven). I dunno, it’s diffucult!
Hi, Stefan. This is one of those cases in which I do not necessarily expect complete coherence from Mark, because I do not think that Mark himself invented the concept of blasphemy of the holy spirit; rather, he is taking a concept that already existed in the early church and working it into his composition.

We know from several sources that early Christian gatherings often included prophetic utterances. But a crucial issue must have arisen at some point: what happens if a prophet delivers a load of nonsense? Different groups came up with different responses to this issue. For example:

Didache 11.7-12: 7 And you shall not test or judge any prophet who speaks in the spirit; for every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven. 8 But not every one who speaks in the spirit is a prophet, but he who has the ways of the Lord; by their ways they therefore shall be known, the false prophet and the prophet. 9 And every prophet who orders in the spirit that a table shall be laid, shall not eat of it himself, but if he do otherwise, he is a false prophet; 10 and every prophet who teaches the truth, if he do not what he teaches, is a false prophet; 11 and every prophet who is approved and true, and ministering in the visible mystery of the Church, but who teaches not others to do the things that he does himself, shall not be judged of you, for his judgment lies with God, for in this manner the ancient prophets also did. 12 But whoever shall say in the spirit, Give me money, or things of that kind, listen not to him; but if he should tell you concerning others that are in need, that you should give unto them, let no one judge him.

This strikes me as the obvious Sitz im Leben for the idea of the unforgivable sin.

There were other solutions to the problem:

1 John 4.1-6: 1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world. 4 You are from God, little children, and have overcome them; because greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world. 5 They are from the world; therefore they speak as from the world, and the world listens to them. 6 We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

Contrary to the injunction against blaspheming the spirit, this advice essentially invites the congregation to test prophets. It also offers an antidocetic litmus test by which to judge their prophecies.

If I am correct that the saying originated in the context of how to treat prophetic utterances in Christian gatherings, then its use in Mark as a defense on the lips of Jesus comes off as clearly secondary. Furthermore, I suspect that it has been added to that context artificially, on a purely textual level, with Mark 3.30 as an explanatory aid in its insertion:

Mark 3.20-35: 20 And He comes home, and the crowd gathers again, to such an extent that they could not even eat a meal. 21 When His own people heard of this, they went out to take custody of Him; for they were saying, "He has lost His senses." 22 The scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, "He is possessed by Beelzebul," and, "He casts out the demons by the ruler of the demons." 23 And He called them to Himself and began speaking to them in parables, "How can Satan cast out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. 26 If Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but he is finished! 27 But no one can enter the strong man’s house and plunder his property unless he first binds the strong man, and then he will plunder his house. 28 Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin" — 30 since they were saying, "He has an unclean spirit." 31 Then His mother and His brothers arrive, and standing outside they sent word to Him and called Him. 32 A crowd was sitting around Him, and they say to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are outside looking for You." 33 Answering them, He says, "Who are My mother and My brothers?" 34 Looking about at those who were sitting around Him, He says, "Behold My mother and My brothers! 35 For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother."

Notice the sudden syntactic switch between direct dialogue ("all sins shall be forgiven... guilty of an eternal sin") and narration ("since they were saying"), a transition so awkward that the most literal translations mark it off with an em dash. We find this pattern elsewhere in situations in which a source is being modified. For example:

Mark 1.43-44: 43 And Jesus sternly charged him and sent him away at once, 44 and said to him,See that you say nothing to anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, for a proof to them.

Luke 5.14: 14 And he charged him to tell no one, butgo and show yourself to the priest, and make an offering for your cleansing, as Moses commanded, for a proof to them.

On Marcan priority, it is Luke who changed Mark's direct dialogue ("say nothing to anyone") into indirect dialogue ("he charged him to tell no one") before lapsing back into direct dialogue in a sudden and awkward manner.

Another example:

Mark 9.5-6: 5 Peter says to Jesus, "Rabbi, it is good for us to be here; let us make three tabernacles, one for You, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah." 6 For he did not know what to answer; for they became terrified.

Luke 9.33: 33 And as these were leaving Him, Peter said to Jesus, "Master, it is good for us to be here; let us make three tabernacles: one for You, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah" — not realizing what he was saying.

Mark has the reason for Peter's statement as a completely new sentence, which is syntactically very straightforward, while Luke has summarized Mark's sentence as a participial phrase which can link back only to the subject, Peter, thus using the direct dialogue to divide the subject from its modifying participle in such a way that the cleanest, most literal translations (like the NASB above, or the RSV) have to use an em dash to mark the weird interplay between direct dialogue and narration.

One more example:

Mark 3.2: 2 They were watching Him to see if He would heal him on the Sabbath, so that they might accuse Him.

Matthew 12.10: 10 And a man was there whose hand was withered. And they questioned Jesus, asking, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?" — so that they might accuse Him.

This time Mark has no direct dialogue: only narration, which Matthew changes to direct dialogue at one point before returning to the narration, thus creating another seam at which the dialogue interrupts the main clause and its subordinate purpose clause. Matthew's text is not actually ungrammatical here, but it does evince that same kind of close exchange between dialogue and narration.

So it appears to me that the saying about blaspheming the holy spirit was dropped into its current context at some point. There is one more indicator that this is so: to wit, another passage which seems to have been dropped into its current context, and which deals with similar issues:

Mark 2.1-12: 1 When He had come back to Capernaum several days afterward, it was heard that He was at home. 2 And many were gathered together, so that there was no longer room, not even near the door; and He was speaking the word to them. 3 And they come, bringing to Him a paralytic, carried by four men. 4 Being unable to get to Him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above Him; and when they had dug an opening, they let down the pallet on which the paralytic was lying. 5a And Jesus seeing their faith says to the paralytic [λέγει τῶ παραλυτικῶ], 5b "Son, your sins are forgiven." 6 But some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, 7 "Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?" 8 Immediately Jesus, aware in His spirit that they were reasoning that way within themselves, says to them, "Why are you reasoning about these things in your hearts? 9 Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven’; or to say, ‘Get up, and pick up your pallet and walk’? 10 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" — He says to the paralytic [λέγει τῶ παραλυτικῶ], 11 "I say to you, get up, pick up your pallet and go home." 12 And he got up and immediately picked up the pallet and went out in the sight of everyone, so that they were all amazed and were glorifying God, saying, "We have never seen anything like this."

Note the same awkward interplay between direct dialogue and narration as we have noticed in the other examples above. In this case we also have a clear reduplication ("says to the paralytic") marking off the direct dialogue which seems to intrude. I think that the original text moved directly from verse 5a to verse 11, without the intruding dialogue and repeated phrase. It was originally just a miracle story, but now it has been pressed into service as speaking to the issue of blasphemy and sin, which is very similar to the saying about blasphemy of the spirit being the ultimate sin. There are other bits in Mark which seem to speak to similar topics (blasphemy, the spirit, sin) which may also have been added to the text in an accretional style.

So it seems to me, at any rate. YMMV.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
jude77
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 6:15 am
Location: The Beach

Re: Mark 4: The Church as the Kingdom of God

Post by jude77 »

Ben C. Smith's post (above) defining "Blasphemy Against the Spirit" and a far better, and more exhaustive effort than I could offer. I would certainly defer to it.
jude77
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 6:15 am
Location: The Beach

Re: Mark 4: The Church as the Kingdom of God

Post by jude77 »

Stefan Kristensen wrote: Sun Jun 24, 2018 12:29 am The whole concept of reconcialtion that you bring up is one I havn’t treated above directly.

Jesus says in Mark 3 that all will be forgiven the sons of men except blasphemy against the holy spirit. I suggest this means rejection of the gospel in general, in the sense of denial that the gospel is a message that has come from God. And not necessarily rejection of the gospel in a more active way, i.e. preaching against the gospel so as to make others fall away. Which is what the scribes do in Mark, and is also treated in Mark 9:38-50.

But if “blasphemy against the holy spirit” only means this latter active sense of rejecting the gospel, then of course there is much more hope. And this also means that none of the soils can necessarily be said to be “outsiders” (who will not be forgiven). I dunno, it’s diffucult!
I think Mark makes forgiveness contingent in repentance (see 1:15) and 4:12 seems to indicate that not everyone will not repent. So even though every sin can be forgiven, I think that, for Mark ,forgiveness will not occur for those on the "outside" because they will not turn.

After thinking, if I had to sum up the message of the Parable of the Soils it would be, "Examine your soul to make sure you are not one of the poor soils, and, if you are, repent and be transformed."

This whole exercise has been greatly rewarding and thought provoking. Thanks to both you and Ben C. Smith for responding.
Post Reply