Introduction Paper title The Marcan concept of discipleship: An exegesis of Mark 8.27-10.52. Focal theory The concept of discipleship which involves ‘taking up one’s cross’ within the daily Christian experience remains a challenging and often distant concept for modern Christians within affluent communities. Purpose of the paper The purpose of the paper is to explore the Marcan concept of discipleship through an exegesis of Mark 8.27-10.52. The paper’s hypothesis is that whilst recognizing that Mark provides a complex soteriology’,1 and a multi-faceted Christology, the evn th/| o`dw/| motif contained within the focus passage, understood in the light of the Son of Man’s earthly and eschatological roles, incorporates key Marcan theology that directly addresses the understanding of discipleship within the modern context. 1 The complex soteriology within Mark has attracted much debate, particularly focusing on the so-called ‘ransom saying’ of 10.45, a debate that can be traced back to the subjective and objective view of the atonement as classically understood by Abelhard (subjective) and Anselm (objective). Stott provides an excellent overview of the history of the debate between the objective and the subjective views of the atonement (see John R.W. Stott, The Cross of Christ (Leicester, UK: Inter-Varsity Press, 1986), pp. 17-351). Within modern scholarship, some such as Allison opting for a more ‘Jewish’ understanding of Jesus’ death (partly as a result of the understandings gained in the so-called ‘Third Quest’ for the historical Jesus), and others such as Hengel opting for an approach based on an understanding of the early kerygmatic preaching of the apostles. See J.B. Green, ‘Death of Jesus’ in Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight and I. Howard Marshall (eds.), The Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (Leicester, UK: Inter-Varsity Press, 1992), pp. 146-63, Dale C. Allison, The End of the Ages Has Come: An Early Interpretation of the Passion and Resurrection of Jesus (Edinburgh, UK: T. & T. Clark, 1987), pp. 1-50, and Martin Hengel, The Atonement: The Origins of the Doctrine in the New Testament (London, UK: SCM Press, 1981), pp. 1-75. 1 Significance of the paper This paper’s hypothesis is significant because whilst modern scholarship focuses on discipleship in the light of Jesus’ earthly ministry and the cross, this paper proposes that discipleship, participating evn th/| o`dw/| whither Jesus leads, can be more fully understood in both the context of Jesus’ earthly and eschatological roles as the Son of Man. If discipleship evn th/| o`dw/| is understood purely retrospectively, Jesus’ commands become little more than one amongst many ethical options available, with no ultimate significance. If discipleship evn th/| o`dw/| however is also lived with an appreciation for Jesus’ eschatological role as the Son of Man, then participation evn th/| o`dw/| has ultimate significance, leading the disciple into the Kingdom of God. Method and methodology The paper will utilize the following method: a) introduction (parameter setting); b) outlining the Marcan background of the focus passage; c) a brief exegesis of Mark 8.27-9.29; d) a brief exegesis of Mark 9.30-10.31; e) a brief exegesis of Mark 10.32-52; f) identification of Marcan discipleship theology within the focus passage; and g) conclusions. The paper will use the above method because any valid conclusions about the Marcan theological concepts of discipleship require a systematic exegesis of the focus passage.2 After the prologue (1.1-15), Jesus is the focus of the entire gospel, appearing in all pericopes except for the two concerning John the Baptist,3 and He is presented from 1.16-8.26 primarily as a man of 2 The Marcan portrait of the disciples, and their role in his Gospel, are still the subject of much debate. The disciples play a central role, but there remains no consensus about what that role is. See M.J. Wilkins, ‘Discipleship’ in Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight and I. Howard Marshall (eds.), The Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (Leicester, UK: Inter-Varsity Press, 1992), pp. 182-189. 3 Mark 1.2-8, 6.14-29. 2 action or a ‘divine man’:4 casting out demons; quelling the forces of nature; healing the sick; and demonstrating evxousi,a. However, apart from 4.1-34,5 the exact content of Jesus’ teaching is not provided, even though the crowds refer to the ‘new teaching – with authority’.6 The focus passage provides the first sustained record of Jesus’ teachings within the Marcan account, teachings that are directed primarily at those who (would) follow Him. Such discipleship teachings follow the following structural pattern:7 Geographical reference: 8.27 9.30 10.32 Prediction: 8.31 9.31 10.33-34 Misunderstanding: 8.32-33 9.32-34 10.35-41 Teaching: 8.34-9.1 9.35-37 10.42-45 Limitations and delimitations Whilst recognizing the complexity of the Marcan portrait of the disciples, the Marcan soteriology and Christology, the paper will not a) engage in a systematic analysis of Marcan soteriology or Christology; b) seek to provide a systematic analysis of the function of the disciples throughout the Gospel; c) seek to ascertain the exact personal traits of any of the actors in the focus passage; d) seek to evaluate the historicity of the events in the focus passage; e) seek to provide an 4 The concept of the ‘divine man’ postulates that the role of Jesus portrayed in Mark 1.16-8.26 represents a portrayal of Jesus as a ‘divine man’. Such a concept is taken from mythical, legendary or historical religio-philosophical heroes who were characterized by ‘moral virtue, wisdom and / or miraculous power so that they were held to be divine’. Within Mark, scholars have argued that the author ‘synthesized the portrait of Jesus as a ‘divine man’ found in the miracle traditions with the perspective found in the sayings source Q and the passion and resurrection narratives’. See B.L. Blackburn, ‘Divine Man’ in Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight and I. Howard Marshall (eds.), The Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (Leicester, UK: Inter-Varsity Press, 1992), pp. 189-92. 5 The linked (linguistically through the use of catchwords) parables of Mark 4.1-34 are understood from a form-critical perspective (e.g. Bultmann) to be a composite unit of linked material that comes from an earlier oral tradition. See E.J. Pryke, Redactional Style in the Marcan Gospel (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1978), pp. 10-30. 6 Mark 1.27. 7 See Norman Perrin, The New Testament: An Introduction – Proclamation and Paraenesis, Myth and History (New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1974), p. 155 3 exegesis from all possible hermeneutical approaches;8 f) seek to provide a critique of seminal Marcan works such as those by Wrede or Marxsen.9 The paper will however a) outline the Marcan background of the focus passage; b) seek to understand the role and function of the focus passage within the overall structure of Mark’s gospel; c) conduct an exegesis of the constituent pericopae within the focus passage; d) seek to identify the underlying theology of discipleship contained within the focus passage; and e) provide conclusions which summarize the Marcan concept of discipleship. Having defined the parameters of the paper, we now turn to a brief overview of the Marcan background for the focus passage. 8 Different hermeneutical approaches to Mark have been developed over and above the ‘traditional’ forms of historical- criticism. These more recent approaches have developed further their own unique hermeneutical perspectives and presuppositions. Such approaches, when used in study of the Gospel of Mark, include narrative criticism (e.g. as used by Elizabeth Struthers Malbon), reader-response criticism (e.g. as used by Robert M. Fowler), deconstructive criticism (e.g. as used by Stephen D. Moore), feminist criticism (e.g. as used by Janice C. Anderson), and social criticism (e.g. as used by David Rhoads). See Janice Capel Anderson and Stephen D. Moore, (eds.), Mark and Method: New Approaches in Biblical Studies (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg-Fortress, 1992), pp. vii – 159. 9 Whilst recognizing the importance of these works to the understanding of Mark, such works do not directly address the Marcan concept and theology of discipleship. William Wrede argued for an understanding of Mark not just as an author but as a theologian concerned with trying to synthesize the seeming discontinuity between the lack of Messianic understanding in Jesus’ ministry and the Messianic understanding of Jesus in the post-Easter church. Marxen argued that the predominant form-criticism of his time did not recognize sufficiently the unity and internal coherence of the Gospel, and that there was a new approach required. 4 Exegesis I - The Marcan Background Introduction Understanding of the Marcan background to the focus passage may be enhanced by a consideration of the related questions of the synoptic problem, authorship, date and purpose. The putative conclusions to each of these questions are mutually interdependent, so the conclusions must demonstrate an internal coherence or be viewed as untenable. Synoptic problem The so-called ‘synoptic problem’ arises out of the question of literary relationships between Matthew, Mark and Luke because of observed convergences10 and divergences. Whilst recognizing this critical problem, it is beyond the scope of this paper to evaluate all the solutions proposed. This paper will therefore presuppose Marcan priority, based on an understanding of the Holtzmann- Streeter hypothesis.11 Author There is minimal internal evidence within Mark concerning the author’s identity, but the external evidence from the early Church is consistent: ‘Papias,12 Irenaeus, probably the Muratorian Canon, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Jerome all refer to Mark’s authorship of the Gospel.