Knock, Knock...It's Opportunity

The Gospel of Mark is a narrative. And like all good and well written narratives, it’s best thought of as a chain and not a bulleted list. Unfortunately, in our day where we have little patience for narratives, and our pastors and preachers are under constant pressure to “boil it down” and “get to the main point”, we often miss what’s staring us in the face.

As I said, Mark’s gospel, is best thought of as a chain. One link is connected to the previous and proceeding links. But, in fact, more than a simple chain, it’s like a festoon or bib necklace – not just a simple set of links, but a matrix of interconnections all working in harmony to create an overall effect. Stories not only connect to the previous story but to several of the previous pericopes. Sometimes it’s quite obvious to see the connections. Sometimes the connections are rather difficult. However, I’ve been working on a method for interpreting Mark which is yielding positive results.

My approach to making sense of the narrative structure of Mark is, I know this is groundbreaking, to treat it as a narrative!  I begin with the presupposition that Mark is a good writer and a skilled orator – or rhetor, as his Roman sitz im leben may suggest. Since Mark is a gifted writer/ rhetor, we should expect his gospel, as a narrative to have several factors. It should have a simple vocabulary – you don’t want the audience to stop listening because they need to make sense of a rare word. Check. It needs to be euphonious – as in, it needs to beautiful to hear (it’s beyond the scope of this essay, but, take my word for it, Mark was a skilled wordsmith). Check. It should have all the classical aspects of narrative: hero, villain (s), conflict, resolution. Check. It should have easily identifiable themes. Check. It should flow naturally…here’s where I want to make my point.

If we simply read Mark at a surface level, there’s a chance we might think that his gospel is just arranged haphazardly. But Mark’s arrangement is not higgledy-piggledy. He has a clear purpose in his arrangement. And to show the connections between events, and larger bodies of events, he uses the repetition of keywords, expressions, and themes. Thus, keyword identification can show us how Mark connected thoughts and themes which are pertinent to his gospel and give us clarity on the subtext of the narrative.

In other words, if we can identify these keywords we can draw connections between pericopes which will give us a clue as to Mark’s purpose in arrangement. How will this work? Let me give an example.

So, in Mark 7 we see 2 uses, of the word family εὐκαιρ- (good-time). Mark 7 has 2 out of 2 in the Gospels! These words are only used 5 times in the NT, and twice in the Gospels and both times they are used in Mark 7. So, while this isn’t an obscure of difficult work to a Greek-speaker, it is rare for the NT. And placing these two uses so close together in 2 pericopes, especially two pericopes that are so different ought to tell us that while the events seem disconnected, narritivally, they are not.

Mark wants us to connect these two stories and see that they are connected. What are these two? First is the beheading of John the Baptist and the second is Jesus Feeding the 5,000. Now, obviously these two don’t appear to have much of a connection. But Mark says, “hey buddy, slow down a bit and read more carefully. I want you to see something. But I want to show and not tell.”

Now, to contemporary Americans we see this as obnoxious and stupid. We think, “look nature-boy, if it’s so important just say it.” And Mark says, “1) that’s a cheap-shot and 2) stories work best when they show and don’t tell!”

So, what is Mark showing us instead of telling us? Well, Herodias wanted to kill John the Baptist, but there was never an opportune time, because Herod liked him and protected him. But one say, an opportune time came. Events unfolded such that Herodias was able to get the King to murder a righteous man whom he liked. And what did it do? It demonstrated the weakness of Herod. He couldn’t control his passions (for his step-daughter niece…yucky), he couldn’t control his mouth, he realized how tenuous his power was, and he was forced to do something he didn’t want to do – at a feast.

Jesus however, after learning of John’s murder goes off to spend time private time with the disciples because they’re so busy they don’t have an opportune time to eat! Herod has time to eat. Herod has time to feast. Herodias has time to murder the righteous, but Jesus doesn’t have time to eat. But despite his efforts to get away, Jesus is still hounded by those who want Him. And what does he do? Does he pull a Herodias and do something wicked to create an “opportune time”? No. He sees that the crowds are harassed and helpless like sheep without a shepherd.

Don’t miss this. This is crucial. It’s crucial because shepherd, especially in the Easter context, were symbolic of kings. There are 5 close matches to the expression “like sheep without a shepherd” in the OT. 3 of the 5 are almost verbatim. 2 of those 3 are referring to the same event. Moses asks Yahweh to appoint a leader over Israel so they won’t be like sheep without a shepherd – and God appoints Joshua. And there is a prophecy about the death of Ahab, where the people leave the battle because Ahab dies and they are like sheep without a shepherd.

The people being sheep without a shepherd means that they have no king. But Judah has a king, right? Isn’t it Herod?

No, says Mark. Herod was the king, in title, and sure, he held power. But he wasn’t a king in the truest sense. Jesus was descended from David. A concept that Mark does not ignore, and neither does blind Bartimaeus. Jesus is the king. And he is beginning to take on his role as king.

But unlike the pervy and impotent Herod who commits murder rather than offend his dinner-guests for making an overly bold promise to his sex-pot step-daughter, Jesus will feed the multitudes. All these themes coalesce. Food and feasting, power, leadership, the right time for things, righteousness, teaching, compassion, and more.

Now, you might say, but Luke that’s a bit disorderly and complex. OK. So what? Narratives don’t have to be clean and clear and under control. They can be disorderly. They can leave logical order if it carries the message more effectively. The point of placing these narratives next to eachother is to show, as Mark does MANY TIMES, how the leadership in Judea was selfish, corrupt, weak, and ineffectual. But Jesus is not. Jesus is the one who can and should rule, both as a religious ruler and as a secular ruler.

Are we supposed to get this all consciously? No. But it’s supposed to sink in and marinade. Remember that we’ve seen Jesus have conflict with the Pharisees, then conflict with family and his hometown. Then he has conflict with the townspeople who don’t like the cost of his miracles. Mark is showing how all the social and religious and political structures in the nation were inadequate and corrupt and how adequate and righteous Jesus is.

Again, we’re not necessarily to see this, openly, and consciously. But, like a good story, it’s supposed to sink in, little by little. Especially as we read and hear Mark again and again.