Mark's Jesus and Jewish Eschatology

Many commentators have placed Mark’s Jesus within the Jewish eschatological tradition. To understand what this means, it is helpful to begin with Jewish history. The religion of Israel was created when God made certain promises to Israel. A covenant was established in which God promised to be Israel’s God and to protect her, while Israel agreed to obey God’s law.

A problem with this central tenet of Israel’s faith emerged when Israel came under colonial rule. The first invasion came from Assyria in 721 B.C.E. Israel’s colonial status continued, with few exceptions, into the time of Jesus under the Romans and beyond.

The question became, How do you explain colonial oppression in light of God’s promise of protection? The prophetic answer was that oppression was punishment for Israel’s failure to obey God’s law. This explanation made some sense until the second century B.C.E. when an especially brutal Syrian king tried to destroy the Jewish religion. Jews were killed for circumcising their children and for otherwise obeying religious law.

Thus, a new explanation was needed. The prophet Daniel provided it in the second century B.C.E. He argued that God was a just and a loving God, and was not responsible for the people’s suffering. Rather Satan was, the power of evil. However, at the end of time, when conditions were at their absolute worst, God would intervene, defeat Satan, and establish his kingdom. Jewish eschatology concerns itself with ideas about the end of the world, and the coming of God’s kingdom.

At the time of Jesus, three different approaches to eschatology were swirling around. The first one, apocalyptic eschatology, called for the destruction of the world. It was mean-spirited in that a select group would be taken to heaven while the vast majority of humans would burn. This approach was motivated by revenge. God will intervene to even the score with one’s enemies. A second approach, prophetic eschatology, posited a new order for this world, a renewed Israel in which God’s anointed would rule as king. A third approach, realized eschatology, argued that the kingdom had arrived in the works and acts of Jesus, and that it was essentially a matter of the heart—a kingdom within.

A prominent figure in the apocalyptic drama is the Son of Man, first described in Daniel (see Daniel 7:13). Many Jews came to believe that a Son of Man would return to earth at the end of times from the clouds of heaven to judge the people. Those deemed righteous would be taken with the eschatological judge to heaven to live with God forever. Those deemed unrighteous would receive the wrath of God’s judgment. The Jesus pictured in Mark believes that he is this Son of Man (see Mark 2:28, 9:31, 10:33, 14:21, 14:42, and 14:63).

In addition, it is the contention of Mark’s Jesus that these dramatic events will unfold within the generation of his followers. Read Chapter 13, the eschatological chapter, with special attention to Mark 13:30. See also Mark 1:15, 9:1, and 12:34. All of these passages indicate that the coming kingdom was imminent, within the first century.

The idea of the imminent approach of the kingdom within the generation of Jesus’ followers is reinforced by several stories in Mark. The gospel begins with Jesus being tempted by Satan (1:12-13). Matthew expands the story (Matthew 4:1-11) in a way that suggests that Satan wanted to make a deal with Jesus for joint control of the universe. Jesus rejects Satan’s scheme. It will be war between these two forces.

The healing stories in Mark indicate that the battle against evil at the end of times has already begun in the work of Jesus. For ancient people the cause of disease was not biological but the action of evil forces invading the body, forces controlled by Satan. So when Jesus heals the sick and casts out demons, he is battling evil. It is a sign that the final battle against Satan has begun and that the victory of God over evil is imminent. The kingdom of God is coming very, very soon. It has in fact partially arrived because of Jesus’ war against Satan.

The eschatological focus of Mark’s gospel raises two important New Testament questions. The first relates to the Jesus of history. Who was he—the Son of Man or the prophet of a renewed Israel? Many New Testament scholars argue that the historical Jesus can’t be found. Few doubt that Jesus existed as a first century flesh and blood human being, but determining precisely who he was is not possible from the New Testament record. John Dominic Crossan draws an interesting analogy to quantum mechanics. We cannot see the parts of atoms even with the most powerful microscopes. We can only detect their effects.

The problem with determining who was the historical Jesus is that three voices intermingle within the four gospels, and it is next to impossible to separate them. These voices include that of Jesus, the early Church, and the writer of the gospel. Many scholars argue that the Jesus who claims to be the Son of Man in Mark is an invention of the early Church, that the statements listed above pertaining to the Son of Man were not made by the Jesus of history but put in his mouth by the early Church.

I agree with this conclusion for two reasons. First, I cannot picture a mean-spirited Jesus who will lead a few to heaven while the rest of humanity suffers a horrible end. John the Baptist was an eschatological prophet within this camp. There are some hints in the New Testament that Jesus began his career as a member of John’s movement, but he left. The message of Jesus was one of love, not revenge. Second, Jesus speaks and acts like a prophet of a renewed Israel. His message is prophetic: the imminent coming of the kingdom of God. His actions are prophetic: the cleansing of the Temple, and the performance of miracles modeled after those performed by Elijah (Luke 7:11-17). He tells his disciples that he will drink wine with them in the new kingdom (Matthew 26:29), and he suggests that the disciples will have a special role to perform in a renewed Israel (Matthew 19:28). But the idea that Jesus saw himself as a prophet of a renewed Israel is speculative, my best guess based on evidence reported in Matthew and Luke. The New Testament is ambiguous, often misleading, and yes infuriating when it comes to the question of whether Jesus thought of himself as the Son of Man. The gospel of Mark may report his statements accurately.
There is little doubt, however, that the historical Jesus must be understood within this Jewish eschatological tradition. His words and deeds were eschatological as reported in the gospel of Mark. It is also clear that the kingdom of God was expected to come very soon, within the generation of Jesus’ followers. As I point out in my book on Evangelical Christianity, this view of the imminent approach of the kingdom is unanimously held by all New Testament writers.

This leads to a far more important problem for Christians living in the twenty-first century. Jesus was wrong. If Jesus was a prophet of a renewed Israel, his message was not accurate. God did not establish a new state of Israel which was free from colonial rule. If Jesus thought of himself as the Son of Man, he has yet to return, his time frame clearly off schedule by some 2,000 years. Mark’s Jesus is pictured fighting and defeating the forces of evil, and yet not much seems to have changed. The message of Jesus was directed at the twelve tribes of Israel. Salvation was seen as a corporate event for the state of Israel, not pertaining to the individual believer which came from Paul and the early Church.

Modern Christians do not read what the Bible says about Jesus. Instead they invent a Jesus that they need and want. The message of salvation in the gospel of Mark has no relevance for Christians living today. As you will see in the weeks that follow, the messages of salvation in Matthew and Luke are no different.

And yet, Mark’s gospel may provide a way out. The creative thrust of this work, the subject of last week’s blog, paints a picture of Jesus that has nothing to do with salvation. The Jews, without exception, see Jesus as a salvation figure, and they miss the point. The one who gets it is the centurion, the Gentile crucifier who encounters the suffering Jesus on the cross. This encounter leads him to God.

The central message of Mark is a powerful one. Participating in the suffering of another leads one to God because the enormity of the experience broadens one’s focus beyond egocentric concerns. In expanded awareness, divine love touches human life. The suffering Jesus shows us the way to God. That is a Jesus that modern Christians can enthusiastically embrace.