Kata Markon

["Ted Weeden" <weedent AT atw.earthreach.com>]

VI. The "Snake in the Grass:" Christology

But what caused Mark to treat Peter with such rancor? The only answer I can come up with is that it must have something to do with Peter’s confession of Jesus’ christological identity vis-a-vis Jesus self-defined christology. Why do I say that? I find two things striking about Peter’s christological confession and Jesus self-defined christology. In the case of the first, as soon as Peter pronounces his christological identity of Jesus as "the Christ," Jesus silences it, as I have noted above. But when Jesus proclaims his own self-defined christological identity, Jesus does not follow it up, as in the case of Peter’s confession, with a command not to tell anyone about him. Rather, what Jesus does is turn to the disciples and a multitude that somehow suddenly appears on the scene and urges them all to embrace and live a suffering-servant discipleship which is obviously what would be expected of a disciple of one who claims for himself a suffering-servant christology (8:34-37). Furthermore, Jesus concludes his preaching to the multitude by warning them that if anyone is ashamed of him and his word– presumably what he has just revealed about himself and the type of discipleship that one must live if one is to follow him– the Son of the Human One will be ashamed of that person in the eschatological end-time (8:38 vis-a-vis 13:26). That does not sound like Jesus wants his words about his christological identity kept private and not shared with others.

Yet, even though the Markan Jesus appears to want his words shared with others but does not want Peter’s confession shared publicly, how does that prove that the issue behind the silencing of Peter’ confession is christological? On the surface it does not. But if you dig beneath the surface, I think you do find evidence that the issue between the Markan Jesus and the Markan Peter is christological. And the place to begin digging for that evidence is with the words Jesus uses to demand silence on the matter. A careful reading of the Greek text belies the meaning the English translations give to it. Take for example one of the most accurate translations, the NRSV. The NRSV translates the Greek of 8:30 thus: "And Jesus charged them [the disciples] not to tell anything to anyone." But that is neither the meaning nor the force of the Greek text. The Greek of 8:30 reads: KAI EPETIMHSEN AUTOIS hINA MNDENI LEGWSIN PERI AUTO. Notice that the Greek word which was translated into English as "charged" in the NRSV is EPETIMHSEN. Notice to that the exact same word, EPETIMHSEN, appears in 8:33 and its cognate EPITIMAN appears in 8:32. In both instances, the word is used to describe the hostile character of the verbal assaults between Peter and Jesus. And in both instances the verb EPITIMAW 8:32 and 33 is correctly translated by the NRSV as "rebuke."

Yet, in its appearance in 8:30, which is found in the same context of the dialogue between Jesus and Peter, EPITIMAW is translated "charge" and not "rebuke?" The definitions of EPITIMAW offered by B. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, ( _A Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament_) are "rebuke," "reprove," "censure," "speak seriously" or "warn," but not "charge!" Why did the NRSV translators translate EPITIMAW in 8:30 as "charge" rather than "rebuke," "reprove," or "censure?" Could it be they did not want their translated text to appear to suggest that Jesus was actually rebuking the disciples for making a christological confession, through their spokesperson Peter, and demanded they keep their mouths shut about it? But that is exactly what, in my judgment, the Greek text says. The proper translation of 8:30, I would suggest, is this: "And he rebuked (or censured) them in order that they not speak concerning him."

Aside from the occurrences of EPITIMAW in 8:32 and 33 where the meaning of the word is clearly understood to be "rebuke," what other support is there for translating EPITIMAW in its appearance in 8:30 as "rebuke?" Consider for moment the three other uses of EPITIMAW in Mark’s drama prior to 8:30. EPITIMAW occurs in 1:25 following the "confession of the unclean spirit in 1:24, " hO hAGIOS TOU THEOU. Jesus’ response to this demonic’s confession in 1:25 is thus: KAI EPETIMHSEN AUTW hO INSOUS .... The NRSV translates the Greek thus: "And Jesus rebuked him." The next appearance of EPITIMAW in the Markan drama is in 3:11. There the unclean spirits cry out to Jesus, SU EI hO hUIOS TOU QEOU. And Jesus’ response to the unclean spirits’ "confession" is as follows: KAI POLLA EPETIMA AUTOIS hINA MH AUTON FANEPON POIHSWSIN. That response is almost exactly the same as the one in 8:30 (Unfortunately the NRSV translates EPITIMAW in 3:11 as "strictly ordered."). The third instance of EPITIMAW prior to 8:30 is found in 4:39 where Jesus EPETIMHSEN TWi ANEMWi (NRSV translation: "*rebuked*" [emphasis mine] the wind") Thus, in my judgment, what Mark wants his hearers to understand in his scripting of 8:30, and his specific use of the word EPITIMAW in that scripting, is that Jesus censured the confession of Peter and, as in the case of the confessions of the demons, rejected it.

Now, if EPITIMAW is translated in the same way in 8:30 as it is in 8:32 and 33 as "rebuke or "censure," then what is revealed is a consistent, carefully structured pattern which Mark created for the exchange between Jesus and Peter, the spokesperson for the disciples, from 8:28 through 8:33. It is a pattern of identity-proclaimed and identity-rejected, a pattern actuated by Mark’s leitmotiv. This is how I see the pattern as created by Mark. He introduces the pattern by having Jesus ask the disciples who do they say he is. As spokesperson for the disciples, Peter christologically identifies and proclaims that Jesus is "the Christ." In response Jesus rebukes or censures them for the christological identity which Peter, their spokesperson, ascribed to Jesus. And in so doing Jesus rejects Peter’s identity proclamation. Jesus then proceeds to proclaim to the disciples his self-defined christological identity. Hearing Jesus’ proclamation of his self-defined christology, Peter rebukes Jesus and thereby rejects Jesus’ christology. Finally, Jesus retaliates against Peter by rebuking him, as Jesus has rebuked demons previously. Jesus then denounces Peter and calls him "Satan" for not thinking the way God does but rather as humans do (hOTI OU FRONEIS TA TOU QEOU ALLA TA TWN ANQRWPWN, 8:33). This pattern of identity-proclaimed and identity-rejected continues to echo in the teaching of Jesus that follows. Jesus summons a multitude, that appears from nowhere, along with the disciples. Jesus urges them all to personify a suffering-servant discipleship and, as I see it, warns them that if they become ashamed of him as he self-defines himself christologically, then when he reappears at the eschatological end-time, he (the Son of the Human One) will express his shame of them (8:34-38) before the heavenly court of judgment.

What is behind Mark’s crafting of this identity-proclaimed/identity-rejected pattern that drives the relationship between Jesus and his disciples at Caesarea Philippi? Christology! Mark’s purpose in composing his gospel, as I have stated, was to discredit in the minds of his hearers the christolgy of Mark’s opponents. In order to accomplish this Mark knew he had to discredit his opponents’ authorities by drawing upon a greater and more revered authority to do so, namely, Jesus. He set out to accomplish his purpose by creating a drama that in form and structure is a parable, namely, a parabolic drama. Thus Mark borrowed from the historical Jesus the parabolic technique of confronting hearers with the need to make a decision between two opposing worldviews. So, like Jesus, Mark structured his drama parabolically such that his hearers would first be drawn into the christological worldview of his opponents. Then at a timely point in the drama he introduces a parabolic jolt that launches his hearers into experiencing a radically different christological worldview, his own. By using a parabolic form for his drama Mark did not have to enter personally into arguing for his position in the heated controversy raging in his community. He lets Jesus, through his parabolic drama, argue for him. In so doing Mark avoided the problem of having his opponents wage *ad hominen* attacks against him, a problem Paul often experienced when he attacked the "false" position of his opponents (see particularly II Cor. 10-13).

So, Mark begins his gospel parable by dramatizing his opponents’ christological profile of Jesus, namely, a profile of Jesus as a great miracle worker. It is a profile of Jesus to which exorcized demons give verification. As a result of Jesus’ power to exorcize them, the demons evoke christological confessions. But Mark cannot allow those christological confessions to go uncensured because such confessions are evoked out of miracle working activity. Mark does not want to lead his hearers into believing that Jesus’ christological identity can be defined by Jesus’ power to perform miracles. So Mark employs a dramatic device of silencing to censure any attempt to link christolology with miracle working. This Markan muzzling of christological confessions (1:25; 1:34; 3:12; 5:7 appears to be an exception) evoked as a result of Jesus’ miracle working is what I have referred to previously as "christology control." It is this same christology control that Mark enforces in his censuring of Peter’s confession.

Peter’s confession represents for Mark his opponents’ christological orientation, even though the Petrine confession uses Mark’s own christologically accepted title of "Christ." But in Mark’s dramatization the hearers are intentionally led by Mark, as I shall soon note, into believing that Peter came to his confession as a result of Jesus’ miracle working activity. Thus the title of "Christ" on Peter’s lips must be censored. It can only be permitted by Mark as an acceptable title for the hearers when Jesus, having defined and lived out the Markan cruciform content of that christological title, affirms it himself (14:62). I recognize that Mark also introduces the title "Christ" on Jesus lips in 12:35-37 at a point where Mark is debunking a Son of David interpretation of the title. And in what appears to be an exception to what I have just said, Mark also places the title "Christ" on the mocking lips of the chief priests and scribes at Jesus’ crucifixion (15:31f.). I will have more to say about those occurrences of the title "Christ" in a future post to Mahlon citing why I think Mark is ant-Judean. May I note, now, in passing that in the drama God’s christological proclamations that Jesus is God’s Son are allowed to stand uncensored, as the hearers will learn, because those proclamations are made in the context of the divine foreordaining (the divine DEI in 8:31) of Jesus being God’s Son, a son who "will" actualize suffering-servant christology.

To continue with Mark’s programmatic schema of drawing his hearers into the christological world view of Mark’s opponents, Mark, in addition to profiling Jesus as divine-man exorcist, describes a number of persons in the drama as recognizing in Jesus the supernatural powers characteristic of a divine man and of one who manifests a divine man christology. However, this apparently widespread recognition of Jesus’ supernatural powers by persons in the drama does not lead these persons to recognize Jesus’ christological identity. And, of course, Jesus’ disciples, the surrogates for Mark’s opponents and their authorities, do not even perceive in Jesus what these outsiders do.

Through his skillful trading upon the disciples’ comprehension deficit, Mark brings his drama to an initial climax when, in a total surprise to his hearers, Peter, as spokesperson for the disciples, proclaims what Mark has informed his hearers in his introduction to begin with. With Peter’s confession, Mark’s hearers are momentarily led to believe that the narrative world they have experienced, in which Jesus performs as a divine man Christ, has been finally affirmed by Mark as the correct christological worldview and the accurate way to view Jesus christologically. It is at this very point that Mark creates his parabolic jolt to launch the drama in an entirely new direction with a completely different view of Jesus’ christology, a view of Jesus as a suffering servant, a view that Mark holds is the authentic view and the view which he has Jesus self-define.

The parabolic jolt to which I refer, is created by the four surprises Mark hits his hearers with, namely, (1) the surprise confession of Peter, (2) the surprise silencing of Peter’s confession, (3) the surprise self-defining christology of Jesus as one who suffers, is rejected and dies at the hands of the religious leaders, and (4) the surprise Petrine repudiation of Jesus’ view followed by Jesus’ rebuke of Peter and denouncing him as Satan. In the first surprise, Mark brings the narration of his opponents’ triumphalist divine man christology to a peak and close with Peter’s confession which titularly encapsulates that christology. In the second surprise, Mark has Jesus silence that christology. In the third surprise, Mark has Jesus present the authentic christology, Mark’s own suffering servant christology. And in the fourth surprise, Mark has Peter, as surrogate for Mark’s opponents, reject that christology and has Jesus in turn denounce Peter, the authority of his opponents, as Satanic. From that carefully constructed parabolic jolt of these four surprises, Mark introduces his hearers to the dramatization of entirely new worldview, a worldview which recognizes that Jesus’ true christological identity is precisely as Jesus himself defines, a christological identity which Jesus fulfills in his passion and death as Jesus he had predicted he would. And, if I may note, all of these four surprises, which constitute Mark’s parabolic jolt, occurred in the region of Caesarea Philippi (8:27), which my guidelines for locating the Markan community (Xtalk post, 2/29/00; Kata Markon post, 2/29/00) have convinced me is the site of Mark’s community.

VI. The "Snake in the Grass:" Christology

But what caused Mark to treat Peter with such rancor? The only answer I can come up with is that it must have something to do with Peter’s confession of Jesus’ christological identity vis-a-vis Jesus self-defined christology. Why do I say that? I find two things striking about Peter’s christological confession and Jesus self-defined christology. In the case of the first, as soon as Peter pronounces his christological identity of Jesus as "the Christ," Jesus silences it, as I have noted above. But when Jesus proclaims his own self-defined christological identity, Jesus does not follow it up, as in the case of Peter’s confession, with a command not to tell anyone about him. Rather, what Jesus does is turn to the disciples and a multitude that somehow suddenly appears on the scene and urges them all to embrace and live a suffering-servant discipleship which is obviously what would be expected of a disciple of one who claims for himself a suffering-servant christology (8:34-37). Furthermore, Jesus concludes his preaching to the multitude by warning them that if anyone is ashamed of him and his word– presumably what he has just revealed about himself and the type of discipleship that one must live if one is to follow him– the Son of the Human One will be ashamed of that person in the eschatological end-time (8:38 vis-a-vis 13:26). That does not sound like Jesus wants his words about his christological identity kept private and not shared with others.

Yet, even though the Markan Jesus appears to want his words shared with others but does not want Peter’s confession shared publicly, how does that prove that the issue behind the silencing of Peter’ confession is christological? On the surface it does not. But if you dig beneath the surface, I think you do find evidence that the issue between the Markan Jesus and the Markan Peter is christological. And the place to begin digging for that evidence is with the words Jesus uses to demand silence on the matter. A careful reading of the Greek text belies the meaning the English translations give to it. Take for example one of the most accurate translations, the NRSV. The NRSV translates the Greek of 8:30 thus: "And Jesus charged them [the disciples] not to tell anything to anyone." But that is neither the meaning nor the force of the Greek text. The Greek of 8:30 reads: KAI EPETIMHSEN AUTOIS hINA MNDENI LEGWSIN PERI AUTO. Notice that the Greek word which was translated into English as "charged" in the NRSV is EPETIMHSEN. Notice to that the exact same word, EPETIMHSEN, appears in 8:33 and its cognate EPITIMAN appears in 8:32. In both instances, the word is used to describe the hostile character of the verbal assaults between Peter and Jesus. And in both instances the verb EPITIMAW 8:32 and 33 is correctly translated by the NRSV as "rebuke."

Yet, in its appearance in 8:30, which is found in the same context of the dialogue between Jesus and Peter, EPITIMAW is translated "charge" and not "rebuke?" The definitions of EPITIMAW offered by B. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, ( _A Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament_) are "rebuke," "reprove," "censure," "speak seriously" or "warn," but not "charge!" Why did the NRSV translators translate EPITIMAW in 8:30 as "charge" rather than "rebuke," "reprove," or "censure?" Could it be they did not want their translated text to appear to suggest that Jesus was actually rebuking the disciples for making a christological confession, through their spokesperson Peter, and demanded they keep their mouths shut about it? But that is exactly what, in my judgment, the Greek text says. The proper translation of 8:30, I would suggest, is this: "And he rebuked (or censured) them in order that they not speak concerning him."

Aside from the occurrences of EPITIMAW in 8:32 and 33 where the meaning of the word is clearly understood to be "rebuke," what other support is there for translating EPITIMAW in its appearance in 8:30 as "rebuke?" Consider for moment the three other uses of EPITIMAW in Mark’s drama prior to 8:30. EPITIMAW occurs in 1:25 following the "confession of the unclean spirit in 1:24, " hO hAGIOS TOU THEOU. Jesus’ response to this demonic’s confession in 1:25 is thus: KAI EPETIMHSEN AUTW hO INSOUS .... The NRSV translates the Greek thus: "And Jesus rebuked him." The next appearance of EPITIMAW in the Markan drama is in 3:11. There the unclean spirits cry out to Jesus, SU EI hO hUIOS TOU QEOU. And Jesus’ response to the unclean spirits’ "confession" is as follows: KAI POLLA EPETIMA AUTOIS hINA MH AUTON FANEPON POIHSWSIN. That response is almost exactly the same as the one in 8:30 (Unfortunately the NRSV translates EPITIMAW in 3:11 as "strictly ordered."). The third instance of EPITIMAW prior to 8:30 is found in 4:39 where Jesus EPETIMHSEN TWi ANEMWi (NRSV translation: "*rebuked*" [emphasis mine] the wind") Thus, in my judgment, what Mark wants his hearers to understand in his scripting of 8:30, and his specific use of the word EPITIMAW in that scripting, is that Jesus censured the confession of Peter and, as in the case of the confessions of the demons, rejected it.

Now, if EPITIMAW is translated in the same way in 8:30 as it is in 8:32 and 33 as "rebuke or "censure," then what is revealed is a consistent, carefully structured pattern which Mark created for the exchange between Jesus and Peter, the spokesperson for the disciples, from 8:28 through 8:33. It is a pattern of identity-proclaimed and identity-rejected, a pattern actuated by Mark’s leitmotiv. This is how I see the pattern as created by Mark. He introduces the pattern by having Jesus ask the disciples who do they say he is. As spokesperson for the disciples, Peter christologically identifies and proclaims that Jesus is "the Christ." In response Jesus rebukes or censures them for the christological identity which Peter, their spokesperson, ascribed to Jesus. And in so doing Jesus rejects Peter’s identity proclamation. Jesus then proceeds to proclaim to the disciples his self-defined christological identity. Hearing Jesus’ proclamation of his self-defined christology, Peter rebukes Jesus and thereby rejects Jesus’ christology. Finally, Jesus retaliates against Peter by rebuking him, as Jesus has rebuked demons previously. Jesus then denounces Peter and calls him "Satan" for not thinking the way God does but rather as humans do (hOTI OU FRONEIS TA TOU QEOU ALLA TA TWN ANQRWPWN, 8:33). This pattern of identity-proclaimed and identity-rejected continues to echo in the teaching of Jesus that follows. Jesus summons a multitude, that appears from nowhere, along with the disciples. Jesus urges them all to personify a suffering-servant discipleship and, as I see it, warns them that if they become ashamed of him as he self-defines himself christologically, then when he reappears at the eschatological end-time, he (the Son of the Human One) will express his shame of them (8:34-38) before the heavenly court of judgment.

What is behind Mark’s crafting of this identity-proclaimed/identity-rejected pattern that drives the relationship between Jesus and his disciples at Caesarea Philippi? Christology! Mark’s purpose in composing his gospel, as I have stated, was to discredit in the minds of his hearers the christolgy of Mark’s opponents. In order to accomplish this Mark knew he had to discredit his opponents’ authorities by drawing upon a greater and more revered authority to do so, namely, Jesus. He set out to accomplish his purpose by creating a drama that in form and structure is a parable, namely, a parabolic drama. Thus Mark borrowed from the historical Jesus the parabolic technique of confronting hearers with the need to make a decision between two opposing worldviews. So, like Jesus, Mark structured his drama parabolically such that his hearers would first be drawn into the christological worldview of his opponents. Then at a timely point in the drama he introduces a parabolic jolt that launches his hearers into experiencing a radically different christological worldview, his own. By using a parabolic form for his drama Mark did not have to enter personally into arguing for his position in the heated controversy raging in his community. He lets Jesus, through his parabolic drama, argue for him. In so doing Mark avoided the problem of having his opponents wage *ad hominen* attacks against him, a problem Paul often experienced when he attacked the "false" position of his opponents (see particularly II Cor. 10-13).

So, Mark begins his gospel parable by dramatizing his opponents’ christological profile of Jesus, namely, a profile of Jesus as a great miracle worker. It is a profile of Jesus to which exorcized demons give verification. As a result of Jesus’ power to exorcize them, the demons evoke christological confessions. But Mark cannot allow those christological confessions to go uncensured because such confessions are evoked out of miracle working activity. Mark does not want to lead his hearers into believing that Jesus’ christological identity can be defined by Jesus’ power to perform miracles. So Mark employs a dramatic device of silencing to censure any attempt to link christolology with miracle working. This Markan muzzling of christological confessions (1:25; 1:34; 3:12; 5:7 appears to be an exception) evoked as a result of Jesus’ miracle working is what I have referred to previously as "christology control." It is this same christology control that Mark enforces in his censuring of Peter’s confession.

Peter’s confession represents for Mark his opponents’ christological orientation, even though the Petrine confession uses Mark’s own christologically accepted title of "Christ." But in Mark’s dramatization the hearers are intentionally led by Mark, as I shall soon note, into believing that Peter came to his confession as a result of Jesus’ miracle working activity. Thus the title of "Christ" on Peter’s lips must be censored. It can only be permitted by Mark as an acceptable title for the hearers when Jesus, having defined and lived out the Markan cruciform content of that christological title, affirms it himself (14:62). I recognize that Mark also introduces the title "Christ" on Jesus lips in 12:35-37 at a point where Mark is debunking a Son of David interpretation of the title. And in what appears to be an exception to what I have just said, Mark also places the title "Christ" on the mocking lips of the chief priests and scribes at Jesus’ crucifixion (15:31f.). I will have more to say about those occurrences of the title "Christ" in a future post to Mahlon citing why I think Mark is ant-Judean. May I note, now, in passing that in the drama God’s christological proclamations that Jesus is God’s Son are allowed to stand uncensored, as the hearers will learn, because those proclamations are made in the context of the divine foreordaining (the divine DEI in 8:31) of Jesus being God’s Son, a son who "will" actualize suffering-servant christology.

To continue with Mark’s programmatic schema of drawing his hearers into the christological world view of Mark’s opponents, Mark, in addition to profiling Jesus as divine-man exorcist, describes a number of persons in the drama as recognizing in Jesus the supernatural powers characteristic of a divine man and of one who manifests a divine man christology. However, this apparently widespread recognition of Jesus’ supernatural powers by persons in the drama does not lead these persons to recognize Jesus’ christological identity. And, of course, Jesus’ disciples, the surrogates for Mark’s opponents and their authorities, do not even perceive in Jesus what these outsiders do.

Through his skillful trading upon the disciples’ comprehension deficit, Mark brings his drama to an initial climax when, in a total surprise to his hearers, Peter, as spokesperson for the disciples, proclaims what Mark has informed his hearers in his introduction to begin with. With Peter’s confession, Mark’s hearers are momentarily led to believe that the narrative world they have experienced, in which Jesus performs as a divine man Christ, has been finally affirmed by Mark as the correct christological worldview and the accurate way to view Jesus christologically. It is at this very point that Mark creates his parabolic jolt to launch the drama in an entirely new direction with a completely different view of Jesus’ christology, a view of Jesus as a suffering servant, a view that Mark holds is the authentic view and the view which he has Jesus self-define.

The parabolic jolt to which I refer, is created by the four surprises Mark hits his hearers with, namely, (1) the surprise confession of Peter, (2) the surprise silencing of Peter’s confession, (3) the surprise self-defining christology of Jesus as one who suffers, is rejected and dies at the hands of the religious leaders, and (4) the surprise Petrine repudiation of Jesus’ view followed by Jesus’ rebuke of Peter and denouncing him as Satan. In the first surprise, Mark brings the narration of his opponents’ triumphalist divine man christology to a peak and close with Peter’s confession which titularly encapsulates that christology. In the second surprise, Mark has Jesus silence that christology. In the third surprise, Mark has Jesus present the authentic christology, Mark’s own suffering servant christology. And in the fourth surprise, Mark has Peter, as surrogate for Mark’s opponents, reject that christology and has Jesus in turn denounce Peter, the authority of his opponents, as Satanic. From that carefully constructed parabolic jolt of these four surprises, Mark introduces his hearers to the dramatization of entirely new worldview, a worldview which recognizes that Jesus’ true christological identity is precisely as Jesus himself defines, a christological identity which Jesus fulfills in his passion and death as Jesus he had predicted he would. And, if I may note, all of these four surprises, which constitute Mark’s parabolic jolt, occurred in the region of Caesarea Philippi (8:27), which my guidelines for locating the Markan community (Xtalk post, 2/29/00; Kata Markon post, 2/29/00) have convinced me is the site of Mark’s community.