As Mark is written
within the confines of the early church that found itself immersed within much
knowledge of the historical Jesus, along with resounding and powerful traditions
about Him that would clearly have weighed heavily upon them in the area of
practice, it is right to call attention to the marked contrast between what can
be observed here in Mark and what one finds presented in a situation in the
Gospel of John (which is also written during a time and within a community
steeped in first-hand knowledge of Jesus).
In John, after Jesus’
arrest and initial questioning by Annas and Caiaphas, “they brought Jesus from
Caiaphas to the Roman governor’s residence” (John 18:28a). The author
then reports that “They did not go into the governor’s residence”
(18:28c). Why did they not go in? It was “so they would not be
ceremonially defiled, but could eat the Passover meal” (18:28d). A stark
contrast indeed. In Mark, Jesus dines with a leper, sitting on his
furniture and sharing a table with him in complete disregard of established
custom, clearly communicating truths about the kingdom of the Creator God and
about the nature of His own rule of that kingdom through what He was knowingly
and consciously doing.
When these two
accounts of Jesus’ life and ministry include such stories, both are making
points that are not easily dismissed. One account represents separation
and exclusion, whereas the other highlights inclusion --- pointing to a highly
necessary aspect of ecclesiology. John’s account of a concern to not
become ritually impure before the commencement of Passover is useful because it
points up the high level of seriousness with which such things were taken at
the time. For the sake of rabbinic credibility, and especially that of a
rabbi that carried and stoked messianic expectations, issues of impurity would
have been a concern.
With no real record
of time, and no textual sense of time between His certain contracting of
ceremonial impurity while at this house and the celebration of Passover with
His disciples, it would appear to His fellow members of the house of Israel
that Jesus has, in fact, presided over a Passover (His last supper) celebration
while he found Himself in a state of impurity. With what one must presume
is a well-founded grasp of this information, Mark demonstrates a complete lack
of concern in this area, and instead presents this picture of Jesus that is
stocked with a great deal of implications for those, both inside and outside of
ethnic and national Israel, who call or will come to call Him Lord.
There are other quite
significant points to be made. One of those points has to do with the
fact that Jesus has chosen to dine in this particular house. Calling upon
the Gospel of John for assistance, one is reminded that Bethany is the place of
Lazarus’ residence. In chapter twelve of John, it appears that the reader
is presented with a story (unless there was another story about Jesus being
anointed with costly oil, the action being criticized as wasteful, and Jesus
criticizing the criticizers and commending the “waste”) that is based upon the
same meal as that which is reported in the fourteenth chapter of Mark.
No comments:
Post a Comment