The Gospel of Mark is interesting in its structure. He constructs his Gospel literally as a road map of Jesus’ life. Rather than giving in-depth descriptions with each story about Jesus, he gives simple explanations at the beginning. His construction can figuratively show Christian’s their path to believing—it starts off with little knowledge but then grows to have all the knowledge necessary to make his or her decision on what to believe.
Mark does not give any mention to Jesus’ birth, rather, he begins immediately with Jesus’ adult life. Why is it that he skips such an important part of Jesus’ life? Isn’t this the story that every Christian child can recite my memory? I find this ironic, yet I reasoned that whom Mark was writing to (the Gentiles) did not care how Jesus was born. The Gentiles cared more about Jesus’ preaching and scripture. I also reasoned that the Gentiles needed to be able to relate more easily to how to live a Christian life, so the birth of Jesus did not contribute to such understanding.
As I read through the Gospel, I realized that the disciples misunderstanding of who Jesus was and what He was teaching increased as Jesus traveled along the Way. This is especially important to Mark’s audience. Mark was showing to the Gentiles that even those closest to Jesus still did not grasp Jesus’ importance, especially those disciples who were predominantly with Jesus throughout his adult life. To be a disciple was not to be able to have all the immediate knowledge and understanding in the world about Jesus. To be a disciple was to question and suffer to finally realize what to believe. As the Gospel nears ending, the stories become more descriptive. I believe this is because Mark is showing that misunderstanding and doubt is part of the religious stages of development, even if more information is provided.
I wish the ending was kept the way it was written, with an abrupt ending. I find this is so important for Mark’s audience. I also thought it was very interesting that Mary Magdalene was the person who witnessed Jesus’ resurrection. How could a woman be so important during this time? Is she present in all the Gospels? What does this signify? As I searched the Bible, I found that Mary Magdalene is mentioned in all four Gospels. I found it very interesting that John even mentioned her because he is so different than the other Gospels. Gerald O’Collins’ article even made me question whether the “postresurrection appearances were necessary to resurrection belief?”[1] As I continued reading the article, I realized that it was a Christian tradition that “women are the first witnesses,” which is cited in the article by Thompson. With this being tradition, I find this so important for all Christian faiths.
Mark’s ending leaves out the major aspects of Jesus’ resurrection and ascension, which is similar to him leaving out Jesus’ birth – very important stories that everyone knows. I believe Mark was telling the Gentiles that it was their responsibility to tell of Jesus’ resurrection. I also assume that the important stories that Mark leaves out are done so because these stories are already known to the Gentiles and do not need to be repeated. What Mark has written down are the important stories that can help the Gentiles understand and be better able to follow Jesus. Mark’s portrayal of Jesus and the disciples are very interesting to me because they are opposite of what I was taught in my Catholic upbringing. This is so ironic because Mark is the source for Matthew and Luke, which both portray Jesus and the disciples in different ways.
Witherup, Ronald D., The New Testament. Little Rock Catholic Study Bible. Arkansas: Liturgical Press, 2011.
O’Collins, Gerald. “Mary Magdalene as Major Witness to Jesus’ Resurrection.” Theological Studies 48:4 (1987): 631-646.
No comments:
Post a Comment