Faith at the Cross of Jesus

It is Friday around 3pm Jesus is pronounced dead. The long awaited Messiah who would regather the Jews and restore Israel is hanging on a cross. Didn't He say He was the King of the Jews? Didn't He say the kingdom was at hand? Where is the kingdom? How can a dead King reign?

When all of Jesus followers had denied and deserted Him (Mark 14:50, 14:66-72; Matt 26:55-56), and even the women who supported Him were at a distance (Mark 15:40-41;Luke 23:49), an unexpected person comes forward to insure Jesus' body is properly handled. According to Josephus (writing around 70 AD) this was a common practice

Nay, they proceeded to that degree of impiety, as to cast away their dead bodies without burial, although the Jews used to take so much care of the burial of men, that they took down those that were condemned and crucified, and buried them before the going down of the sun.

- Jewish War Book 4 Chapter 5.2

This most unlikely person and the last hero of faith presented in Mark (assuming that 16:8 marks the ending of the authentic text) is Joseph of Arimathaea. He is a highly respected/prominent member of the council, which is generally considered to be the Sanhedrin making him a religious leader (Mark 15:43). He is also wealthy (Matt 27:57).

Let's look at what we learn from his faith at the tomb of Jesus. As a religious ruler, Joseph would have been a learned man who studied the Scriptures. He was also regarded as a man who followed the Law (Mark 15:43; Luke 23:50) and was waiting for the kingdom of God (Mark 15:43; Luke 23:51).

His expectations about the kingdom probably aligned with the Jews of that day. That the Messiah would come, regather the Jews to the land of Israel, restore Israel to prominence, and bring retribution on their enemies. However, something about Jesus has attracted his attention and he starts to follow Him but very covertly becoming a secret disciple of Jesus (Matt 27:57; John 19:38). Certainly he lived and worked among people who were very hostile to Jesus.

On that fateful Thursday Jesus was given a mock trial by the religious leaders and condemned despite the lack of evidence (Mark 14:55,64-65). Here we start to see Joseph have to make a step to becoming a bolder disciple who took a stand for Christ in a hostile environment. Unlike the other religious leaders he did not consent to the plan to kill Jesus (Luke 23:51). That was not the end of the stand that he would have to make that weekend. As Jesus died and with it much of his expectations and theology regarding the kingdom he would have to decide whether Jesus’ body would be properly taken care of. His bold action (Mark 15:43) should be noted for its contrast to the fear in the rest of the discourse presented in Mark (Mark 14:50, 68, 15:40, 16:8).

Going before all of his council members, countrymen, and the Roman government, Joseph asked for the body of Jesus. Mark portrays the hostility of the people around the cross - they were mocking and spitting at Jesus (Mark 15:29-32), so it is not unlikely that Joseph bore similar treatment as he took the body down from the cross and wrapped it in a linen cloth (Mark 15:46). Then he took the wrapped body and laid it in a tomb and rolled a stone in front of it. From the other accounts we see that it was his tomb (Matt 27:60) and he likely had the help of another council member, Nicodemus (John 19:39).

We can see on that day that Joseph went from covert discipleship to having an active bold faith (the major theme of Mark's gospel).

• He was no longer ashamed of Jesus (Mark 8:38)
• He was willing to deny himself (Mark 8:34) – his action would likely cost him his high regard (reputation) and his position on the council (work). It also likely made him an outcast among other Jews (friends).
• He was looking forward to the kingdom of God, but was willing to repent (Mark 1:15) – that is he changed his mind about what he thought regarding the timing of the kingdom, the work of the Messiah/King, and how one could enter the kingdom.

 Joseph of Arimathaea had a faith that follows Jesus. May we have that faith as well.

Faith and Signs. a lesson from the Cross in Mark

What is faith? Many define faith as "blind trust" or irrational beliefs:

[Faith] means blind trust, in the absence of evidence, even in the teeth of evidence. ... The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry. Blind faith can justify anything. (Dawkins, the Selfish Gene, 198)

Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence (Dawkins)

Is faith really blind? Does faith require us to give up rational thinking? I don't think this is the case. I believe that the Scriptures encourage us to investigate facts and provide reasons for our faith (1 Pet 3:15). The problem is most people will not trust God no matter how much evidence they are given. Consider two responses to Jesus on the cross in the Gospel of Mark.

After a mock trial in which no criminal charges or corroborating witnesses could be found and no wrong could be named (14:55-63; 15:12-14) Jesus was charged with being the King of the Jews. He was crucified Friday morning at around 9am. After 3 hours on the cross darkness came in the middle of the day and 3 hours after that, at 3 pm Jesus died. On that day there were several different groups of individuals that witnessed the event and responded. We will look at two groups - the crowd and the centurion.

The crowd (Mark 15:29-37)
The religious leaders, the crowd, and the thieves are all witnesses to Jesus' crucifixion. As Jesus hung on the cross they came and spit on him, mocked him, and ridiculed Him. They challenged Jesus to prove that He was the Messiah.

• (15:30,32) Come down from the cross!
• (15:31) Save yourself!
• (15:36) Let’s see if Elijah will save Him!

This group were asking for more evidence so that they could "see and believe" (Mk 15:32). They were not going to accept blind faith, they wanted proof! However their a priori convictions (the Messiah would come as King and reunite Israel) and their derisive attitude demonstrate that they were not making an honest inquiry. In fact this group had already been given many signs. The religious leaders had seen Jesus' miracles (Mk 2:1-3:6) and rejecting them declaring they were from Satan (Mk 3:22). The crowd had also witnessed many signs including many healings, exorcisms, and the feeding of 5000 (Mk 6:33-34). Refusing to believe "even in the teeth of evidence" they demanded even more signs (Mk 8:11-13).

The centurion (Mark 15:39)
The antagonists were hostile and demanded proof from Jesus.  The centurion however started off that Friday just doing his job. He had to oversee the scourging and crucifixion of three people that day. It was his responsibility to make sure that all three condemned men actually died (Mk 15:44-45). Jesus was just another convict that had to die. But that was not how the day ended.

Now when the centurion, who stood in front of him, saw how he died, he said, “Truly this man was God’s Son!”

The centurion did not demand signs but he did observe what God chose to reveal that day, evaluated the evidence, and accepted that as testimony that Jesus was the Son of God.

What did the centurion see that convinced him?
As a Roman soldier he would not have much background in the teaching of the Scriptures. He may or may not have heard of Jesus' ministry and miracles and he probably witnessed Jesus' trial. We can say with certainly that he saw the darkness in the middle of the day and would have heard all of the things that Jesus did and said while on the cross – though Mark records almost none.

All these likely contributed to his faith that day. But the text says that what convinced Him as he stood in front of Jesus was how Jesus died. Most crucified victims took long hours and days to die on the cross (that is why the thieves legs had to be broken and Pilate is surprised how quickly Jesus died) but there must have been something else that was different in how Jesus died. Something besides His quick death that caught the attention of a man who had witnessed many deaths on the cross. He had heard the curses and insults that men in pain screamed at him and contrasted that with Jesus looking over at him and saying "I forgive you". He saw men struggle to breathe and hold on to life until they collapsed. But that day he saw Jesus give His life. He realized that when Jesus died it was His giving not the cross taking His life.

What ever convinced the centurion that day, he left that day convinced that Jesus was the Son of God. Would that have been enough evidence for you? While we are told walk by faith and not by sight (2 Cor 5:7), we must remember that God does not expect blind faith but honest seekers that investigate the evidence that God does provide and think it through. That is what the centurion did that day.

Who wrote Mark and those letters if Peter was illiterate?

The Debunking Christianity blog is challenging Christians to read books that refute Christianity. While I don't have time (nor the desire) to read all of the books on the challenge list I do from time to time read some of what Bart Ehrman writes as I enjoy studying early church history. His latest book "Jesus Interrupted" is on the list. I have not read this entire book but have read some of it in the book store and online.

In chapter 4 Dr. Ehrman claims that the Gospels are not written by eyewitnesses because the disciples of Jesus would have been illiterate.

"From the Gospels we learn that the disciples of Jesus, like him, were lower-class peasants from rural Galilee. ... We have some information about what it meant to be a lower-class peasant in rural areas of Palestine in the first century. One thing it meant is that you were almost certainly illiterate. Jesus himslef was highly exceptional, in that he could evidently read (Luke 4:16-20), but there is nothing to indicate that he could write. In antiquity these were two separate skills, and many people who could read were unable to write.
...
[the] upper class people who had the time and money to get an educations (and their slaves and servants taught to read for the benefit of such services to their masters). Everyone else worked from an early age and was unable to afford the time or expense of an education. "

Ehrman notes that even the Bible teaches that the apostles were illiterate and unable to write since Peter and John are described as being "unlettered" in Acts 4:13 by the Council of religious leaders using the Greek word agrammatos. He then states that they would have known Aramaic and not Greek. Thus concluding that the disciples were "[l]ower-class, illiterate, Aramaic speaking peasants from Galilee" who could not have written the Greek Gospels that we have today.

Now Bart Ehrman knows a lot more than I do regarding ancient history, the Greek language, etc., however he does seem prone to taking facts and possibilities and accentuating them in the most negative light (see Daniel Wallace relating his debate experience with him regarding textual variants here and here). The claims he makes regarding the education and literacy of Peter and John based on Acts 4:13 are not accepted by others with expertise in the Greek language (see NET Bible translation notes for that verse). All good readers know that the context should dictate how a word should be interpreted. In this passage the Council which consisted of experts in the Scriptures (Acts 4:5) could have been amazed at the ability of fishermen to expound on the meaning of the Scriptures because they were untrained in such matters. This certainly fits with the overall passage and does not require Peter or John to be illiterate (unable to read/write). The Law was what the Council were experts in so they may have been amazed at how Peter & John could be so confident in what they were teaching. In fact this confidence may have been what reminded them of Jesus (Acts 4:13; Mark 1:22).

However even assuming that Dr. Ehrman's claims are correct, we can defend the Petrine writings. I am focusing on these writings since I have been studying the Gospel of Mark. The Gospel of Mark has a long history of being written by a man named Mark who worked with Peter and recorded his teachings. See prior blog entries on the Gospel of Mark for details. Mark himself was a cousin of Barnabus (Col 4:10) and part of the tribe of Levi (Acts 4:36). Barnabus having owned land (Acts 4:37) would have been educated and able to read and write using the criteria laid out in "Jesus Interrupted". It is therefore likely that Mark, his cousin could have these skills as well. Mark is noted as being with Peter in one of Peter's epistles (1 Peter 5:13) and if Peter could not write then it makes sense that he needed someone like Mark to travel with him. So the Gospel of Mark contains the recollections of Peter but were written down by Mark who could read/write and was a traveling companion of Peter.

The epistle known as 1 Peter is explicitly noted as being written by Silvanus (1 Peter 5:12) an amanuensis so we have no problem here. Silvanus would have recorded the thoughts of Peter.

The epistle known as 2 Peter is considered to be written in rough, unpolished Greek - see Wallace's article for details. This could allow for Peter having learned enough Greek to write it himself since no amanuenses is mentioned, though it still could have been written by an amanuenses without the attribution.

The main point is even if the apostles were unable to write this does not force us to reject the writings attributed to Peter (including the two epistles or the Gospel of Mark). These writings can contain the thoughts and recollections of Peter - an eyewitness of Jesus (Acts 4:13; Mark 1:16, 14:66) - that were physically written down by two other men - Silvanus and Mark.

Who wrote Mark Part III?

In the first two blogs on the Gospel of Mark we have examined the historical records of the Papias (110) and Irenaeus (180). Both men are from Asia Minor and preserve information regarding the author and dating of the book. They are two of the earliest pieces of information that we have.

Combining the two accounts we learned the following regarding the Gospel of Mark:

1. Mark was the author.
2. Mark was a disciple of Peter recording what he preached.
3. Mark was not a disciple of Jesus (while Jesus was alive).
4. Mark was enabled by the power of the Holy Spirit.
5. Mark wrote after Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome.
6. The Gospel of Matthew was written before the Gospel of Mark.

Another source of information regarding the Gospel of Mark is found in the Anti-Marcionite Prologues. These prologues were included with the Gospels in many Latin manuscripts and would have served a purpose similar to the summaries that precede a Biblical book in Bibles today. They provided the reader with information about the book.

All the prologues except for the Gospel of Matthew are still extant. The Anti-Marcionite Prologues are generally dated from the 2nd to the 4th century.

Mark made his assertion, who was also named stubby-fingers, on account that he had in comparison to the length of the rest of his body shorter fingers. He was a disciple and interpreter of Peter, whom he followed just as he heard him report. When he was requested at Rome by the brethren, he briefly wrote this gospel in parts of Italy. When Peter heard this, he approved and affirmed it by his own authority for the reading of the church. Truly, after the departure of Peter, this gospel which he himself put together having been taken up, he went away into Egypt and, ordained as the first bishop of Alexandria, announcing Christ, he constituted a church there. It was of such teaching and continence of life that it compels all followers of Christ to imitate its example.

The prologue confirms that Mark was the author and a disciple of Peter, which is also confirmed by Peter (1 Pet 5:13). However it does add some additional information:

1. The book was written in Rome at the request of believers.
2. Peter approved of the writing.

However, this information does contradict the account in Irenaeus that the gospel was written after Peter was martyred.

We learn from this prologue another important piece of information regarding Mark. That after Peter died he went to Alexandria, Egypt and founded the church there. A fact that Eusebius (around 325) also records.

And they say that this Mark was the first that was sent to Egypt, and that he proclaimed the Gospel which he had written, and first established churches in Alexandria. (Eccl Hist 2.16)

Eusebius also confirms that the church of Rome requested Mark to write down Peter's preaching and that Peter approved citing Clement of Alexandria and Papias as witnesses.

And so greatly did the splendor of piety illumine the minds of Peter’s hearers that they were not satisfied with hearing once only, and were not content with the unwritten teaching of the divine Gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they besought Mark, a follower of Peter, and the one whose Gospel is extant, that he would leave them a written monument of the doctrine which had been orally communicated to them. Nor did they cease until they had prevailed with the man, and had thus become the occasion of the written Gospel which bears the name of Mark. And they say that Peter when he had learned, through a revelation of the Spirit, of that which had been done, was pleased with the zeal of the men, and that the work obtained the sanction of his authority for the purpose of being used in the churches.
(Eccl Hist 2.15)

Given the extant information of Papias' writings Eusebius may have gone too far in stating that Papias confirms much more than Mark being the author and follower of Peter. He gives no information related to Peter's approval or when the text was written. Clement was a bishop of Alexandria and prolific author. Eusebius does quote from Clement of Alexandria's (180-200) work:

Again, in the same books, Clement gives the tradition of the earliest presbyters, as to the order of the Gospels, in the following manner: The Gospels containing the genealogies, he says, were written first. The Gospel according to Mark had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it. (Eccl Hist 6.14)

Origen, a student of Clement, who later succeeded him as bishop of Alexandria himself confirmed this same thing (215-220) quoting his commentary on Matthew:

“Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew,... The second is by Mark, who composed it according to the instructions of Peter,... (Eccl Hist 6.25)

With the addition of the Anti-Marcionite Prologue, Clement, and Origen we get another line of information coming primarily from Alexandria, Egypt. What makes this information interesting is that history records that the author Mark was the founder of the church there and its first bishop. Their information may be better even if it is later than Papias and Irenaeus since it would likely be derived from the author of the book.

However there is a possibility that all of the historical information presented is correct in regards to the time of the writing. When one examines 2 Peter, we see that Peter knows that he is close to his death and is writing to remind the readers of many things including the removal of sin (2 Pet 1:9), our being allowed into the Kingdom (2 Pet 1:11), and the power to live for Christ now (2 Pet 1:3). He includes as one of his goals to make sure they have a record of these things.

Therefore, I intend to remind you constantly of these things even though you know them and are well established in the truth that you now have. Indeed, as long as I am in this tabernacle, I consider it right to stir you up by way of a reminder, since I know that my tabernacle will soon be removed, because our Lord Jesus Christ revealed this to me. Indeed, I will also make every effort that, after my departure, you have a testimony of these things.
(2 Peter 1:12-15 NET)

Could it be that Peter (as well as the church of Rome) wishing to make sure that the gospel of Jesus that he was sharing was preserved after he was gone helped Mark get started on the project of writing the Gospel of Mark. However before the work was completed Peter was martyred leaving Mark to finish it. This would allow the tradition that Mark wrote the gospel after Peter died be accurate (per Irenaeus) since that would be when the work was completed while also allowing the strong tradition from Alexandria (where Mark founded the church) that Peter was involved with the work be true as well.

Note: Other early affirmations of Mark recording Peter's preaching include Tertullian (208) in his books Against Marcion 4.5, however this account does not include information that helps us determine Peter's involvement in the creation of the work.

Who wrote Mark Part II?

As we continue to look at the history of the early church to learn what we can about the gospel of Mark, we next can look at the works of a man named Irenaeus. His information regarding the book is ultimately tied to the same sources that Papias had since Irenaeus knew about Papias' works (Ad Haer 5.33.4) and both he and Papias knew Polycarp (Ad Haer 3.3.4; 5.33.4). Polycarp,bishop of Smyrna, is said to have learned about the Christian faith from the apostles (Ad Haer 3.3.4).

Irenaeus was an apologist defending the Christian faith against the Gnostic heresies writing 5 books (Against Heresies) dealing with them. He also wrote a book Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, describing Christian teaching. All of these works are available to us today. In Against Heresies Book 3 (circa 180), Irenaeus describes how the gospel message was handed down from the apostles first through preaching, then by writing the Scriptures all with the power of the Holy Spirit.

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge,” as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.
(Ad Haer 3.1.1)

From this passage we learn the following regarding the Gospel of Mark:

1. Mark the disciple of Peter wrote what Peter preached.
2. Mark was enabled by the power of the Holy Spirit.
3. Mark wrote after Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome.
   
4. The Gospel of Matthew was written while Peter and Paul were preaching, and therefore was written before the Gospel of Mark.

All of this lines up with the account that Papias gave us (70 years earlier). It also helps us start to give us a range of dating for Mark as between 65-69 AD (at least until we consider additional information). This is based on the fact that Peter and Paul were martyred around 65-67 AD. The end of the range is based on the fact that Mark does not note the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in the book. This would likely have been used to bolster the account in Mark 13.

And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here! And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. And as he sat upon the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?(Mark 13:1-4 KJV)

It is strongly argued (and I have to agree) that Mark would certainly have mentioned the fulfillment of the prophecy here if it had already occurred.

That is all for tonight...

Edit: added link highlighting Irenaeus knew Polycarp in his youth.

Who wrote Mark?

We are getting ready to study the gospel according to Mark in Sunday school and I have been preparing for the first class where we will deal with the introduction and overview of the book. In this class one of the things we want to deal with are the questions 1) who wrote the book, 2) when was the book written, 3) where was the book written, and 4) why was the book written.

The book is technically an anonymous work, as are all of the gospels. In no part of the original text is the author identified. So how do we know who wrote the book that we know as "the Gospel according to Mark"? To answer that question we have to turn to the history of the early church for it not only has preserved the text of the book, but also the history about the book. While the records and documents that we have from the early church are valuable, it is worth stating up front that they are not Scripture and they are not free from error.

The early church is unanimous in claiming that the author of the book is Mark, who served alongside Peter and recorded the things that he taught. The earliest such testimony is found in the writings of Papias. He wrote 5 books that were called Expositions of Oracles of the Lord (circa 110). These books are no longer extant, but they were available to Irenaeus (180) and Eusebius (325) the latter having preserved most of what we have today in his Church Histories.

Papias was a bishop of Hierapolis (in Asia Minor near Colossae and Laodicea). According to Eusebius, who had access to his full works, stated that Papias heard much of his information second hand from those who studied under the apostles.

But Papias himself in the preface to his discourses by no means declares that he was himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles, but he shows by the words which he uses that he received the doctrines of the faith from those who were their friends. ... And Papias, of whom we are now speaking, confesses that he received the words of the apostles from those that followed them, but says that he was himself a hearer of Aristion and the presbyter John. At least he mentions them frequently by name, and gives their traditions in his writings. These things we hope, have not been uselessly adduced by us.(Eccl Hist 3.39.2,7)

There is some debate today as to whether Papias himself was a student of the Apostle John or an elder named John. It is the elder John (possibly the Apostle John) who passed on to Papias the earliest information we have about the author of the gospel.

"This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.” These things are related by Papias concerning Mark. (Eccl Hist 3.39.15)

From this passage we learn the following:

1. Mark was the author, recording what Peter preached.
2. Mark was not a disciple of Jesus (while Jesus was alive).
3. Mark wrote his account without error.

From this account we do not learn anything about when Mark may have written the book. For that we have to check out some other early church writers.