Mark. Kim Huat TanЧитать онлайн книгу.
5:15)—both naturalists of the first centuries that straddle the Common Era—and Josephus (War 3:506–508) testify to its being full of fish. Many settlements arose close to its shores and gave the whole region a rather cosmopolitan character.
When understood against the first century Jewish background, Jesus’ call of disciples becomes striking. As Martin Hengel has noted, the call of Jesus to follow after him goes beyond the practice of Jewish teachers or rabbis. There are no stories of a Jewish teacher calling disciples to follow him. On the contrary, people chose to follow famous teachers on their own accord (cf. b. ‘Erub. 30a; b. Ketub. 66b). Hengel therefore proposes that Jesus’ call resembles that of a charismatic or revolutionary leader, summoning people to a revolutionary war.58 However, this notion has to be read into the narrative, as there is no explicit mention of it. Indeed, what differentiates Jesus’ call from that issued by Jewish revolutionaries is that he included a promise of transformation (v. 17). With reference to the call story of Elisha (1 Kings 19:19–21), it may be argued that the persona adopted by Jesus is that of a prophet and not a teacher. But Mark will soon describe Jesus as a teacher (1:21)! What is more important is to observe that Mark portrays Jesus’ call as absolutely authoritative, as those summoned dropped their vocational tasks “immediately.” Hence, we may conclude that while parallel call-stories offer insights into the meaning of the present story, it should not be used to limit the possibilities.
What does being made fishers of men mean (v. 17)? Jesus is possibly using a memorable word-play. Surprisingly, all the uses of this image in the OT are ominous, for they speak of divine judgment (Jer 16:16; Ezek 29:4–6; Amos 4:2; Hab 1:14–17). This does not seem to fit with the general drift of Mark’s presentation of Jesus’ ministry, especially his announcing the good news of God. Could the gospel message also entail judgment? And would the disciples help in the realization of that? Whatever the precise meaning, the summoned disciples would certainly be embarking on a new vocation that would touch the destiny of human beings.
We offer, finally, some interesting observations about the first disciples. The first named, Simon, will be given the nickname Peter later (3:16), indicating the key role he will play. His name is always mentioned first in groupings (3:16; 5:37; 9:2; 13:3; 14:33). Accordingly, he often functions as the spokesman for the disciples. We may also expect him to be the older brother of Andrew, since he is named first in that pair (v. 16). Simon, James, and John together form the inner circle, and become the privileged audience of Jesus’ special miracles and revelation (5:37; 9:2; 14:33).
Jesus’ Teaching and Miracles (1:21–34)
Mark introduces his readers to yet another important locality in Jesus’ Galilean ministry: Capernaum (v. 21). The name in Hebrew means “village of Nahum.” According to Josephus, it was prosperous and had a thriving fishing industry (War 3:516–21). This explains why a toll-booth was set up in its vicinity (2:1; 14). A detachment of Roman troops was also stationed there (cf. Matt 8:5–13), further indicating its importance. It was also Peter and Andrew’s village (1:29), and probably the center of Jesus’ Galilean ministry (see 2:1; 9:33; Matt 8:5–17 || Luke 7:1–10).
The first miracle story of Mark takes place on a Sabbath and it concerns both word and deed: these are described as being performed with unrivalled authority (vv. 22, 27). The comparison with the scribes to the latter’s detriment prepares Mark’s readers for more stories about the conflict between Jesus and the scribes later on (2:6, 16; 11:27).
The appearance of a demon-possessed man in the synagogue (v. 23) sets the stage for the introduction of one hallmark of Jesus’ ministry: his exorcistic work. Three other accounts of exorcism are given in 5:1–20; 7:24–30; and 9:14–29. Mention of such an activity is also found in summaries or general reports such as 1:32–34; 1:39; 3:11–12, and in the Beelzeboul controversy of 3:22–30. All this indicates how important the motif is. Although there was much interest in exorcism in the Mediterranean world around the time of Jesus, there were actually very few exorcistic narratives available and very few exorcists named.59 This scarcity throws into bold relief the frequent depiction of Jesus as an exorcist.
Exorcistic practices of Jesus’ day are often referred to by scholars for understanding better his exorcism. Accordingly, the mention of Jesus’ identity (v. 24) is construed as the demon’s attempt to gain power over him, and Jesus’ silencing word (v. 25) becomes his countermove to regain the initiative.60 As interesting as such parallels may be, they fail to explain what Mark is doing. In all his exorcism stories there is no power struggle but the simple giving of a command, uncluttered by techniques or incantations. The exclamation of the crowds that his teaching (i.e., shown by exorcism) is new and authoritative (v. 27), says just as much.
Jesus is addressed as “the Holy One of God” (v. 24). A similar title is used in the OT for Aaron (Ps 106:16), Elisha (2 Kings 4:9), and possibly Samson (a variant reading of Judg 16:17 in the LXX). Judging from these occurrences, the title’s meaning may simply be that a certain person has been set apart for some special ministry. But Mark’s portrayal of Jesus, while certainly containing this notion, also goes beyond it. He shows how Jesus, as the bearer of the Holy Spirit, drives out uncleanness. In this respect, it may be instructive to note the passages in the Dead Sea Scrolls that speak of the eschatological elimination of ritual impurity by “the holy Messiah” (1Q30) and by God’s holy Spirit (1QS 4:18–23). This testifies to the Jewish belief that only at the eschaton can all forms of uncleanness be rooted out of Israel by an agent of God who bears the Spirit.
There are some other significant points that bear mentioning so as to complete this Markan motif. The first is that Mark usually describes the demons as unclean (pneumata akatharta), indicating what sort of framework we are to use to understand these stories. The issue of ritual uncleanness looms large in Mark’s Gospel (1:40–45; 6:25–34; 7:1–23). Ritual uncleanness separates the affected from the corporate life of the nation of Israel. In the case of demon possession, not only is the person unclean, he is also controlled by what is antagonistic to God. Hence, being exorcised meant that he was liberated to belong to God and to participate in the corporate life of his people.
Secondly, the exorcism leads the crowd to exclaim that Jesus has taught with authority (v. 27). This signifies that Jesus’ activities of teaching and exorcism cannot be divorced from each other, as his word and deed are intimately related. His exorcism is in a profound sense also his teaching.
Thirdly, it is the exorcism that leads the crowd to introduce the adjective “new” to describe Jesus’ teaching with authority. The word “new” is significant, as it points to eschatological newness. The demons’ fear of being destroyed supports this proposal, as it shows they do not regard Jesus as any ordinary exorcist. Early Jewish and Rabbinic thought locates the destruction of demons at the eschaton (see Pesiq. R. 36:1 where the agent is the Messiah; Num. Rab. 19.8; cf. Zech 13.2). This fits in with the eschatological horizon of Jesus’ gospel proclamation (1:15), with the added implication that the kingdom of God has invaded the territories long held by demonic forces. There is therefore a Markan escalation in the two confessions of the crowds (1:22; 1:27) which incidentally forms an inclusio (bracket).
Fourthly, the authority by which Jesus performs exorcisms is absolute. This was mentioned earlier but it bears repeating. Jesus does not use formulas or incantations, or make appeal to God’s word. A simple command is issued and there is no tussle. Perhaps this is the significance of the crowd’s confession that ends the story: “He commands even the unclean spirits and they obey him” (1:27).
Fifthly, the demon reveals the true identity of Jesus. Thus far, the true identity of Jesus has not been fully revealed to or discerned by people. The voice that spoke in 1:11 was probably meant only for Jesus to hear. Indeed, Mark’s narrative has this characteristic: demonic forces know Jesus’ identity but people continue to puzzle over it.
Finally, Jesus commands silence. Why? It may be that unclean entities are not allowed to confess the identity of clean entities. More probably, it is part and parcel of an important theme in Mark: the theme of secrecy. Mark will narrate many stories hereafter exhibiting a similar phenomenon. Why this is so will be clarified only when the whole Gospel has been read.
Once the tone is set, Mark goes on to show another aspect of Jesus’ ministry: healing (vv. 29–31). Interestingly,