Mark's Gospel as sequel: Understanding the Backstory, part II: Elijah

 


     From the very first verses of his Gospel, Mark plugs his story into the narrative of the Hebrew Scriptures (i.e., Old Testament).  Mark has written a story (Gospel) about a first-century Jew who lived in Northern Palestine (Galilee).  Mark is presenting the story of Jesus as the fulfillment of the story of Israel, which began in Gn. 12.1-3 with God’s calling of Abra(ha)m.  Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses and all the other OT characters were part of the “people of God”, the family that God promised to give to Abraham that would be God’s agent of salvation in the world.  God revealed his name (Yahweh) to Moses in Ex. 3.14, and as the Israelites gathered at the base of Mt. Sinai, Yahweh renewed and expanded the covenant that he had first established with Abraham (Ex. 19—20; cf. Gn. 12, 15, 17).  A covenant is a sacred agreement made between God and his people, with promises of blessing for faithfulness and cursing for unfaithfulness (cf. Dt. 28—30).  Mark’s “Gospel” (i.e., “good news”) is the astounding and incredible news that Yahweh has kept the promises he made to his people throughout the 20 centuries which had passed since Abraham.  Yahweh has proved himself faithful (i.e., “righteous”, “just”) to his covenant promises, despite the persistent unfaithfulness of his people Israel.

     To fully understand Mark’s “sequel” to the Scriptures of Israel, we need to look at 7 previous “episodes”, 7 OT characters which shed light on what Mark is saying about John the Baptist and Jesus in chapter 1.  The second character from the “original story” is Elijah.  Elijah was a 9th century B.C. prophet to the Kingdom of Israel, known for his confrontation with the King and Queen, Ahab and Jezebel, who had led Israel into idolatry, i.e., the worship of false gods, especially the chief Canaanite divinity called Baal (cf. 1 Kings 17—18).  Mark describes John the Baptist in terms reminiscent of Elijah (compare Mk. 1.6 with 2 Kings 1.8).  Further along in Mark’s Gospel, Jesus identifies John with Elijah (Mk. 9.9-13; some people thought that Jesus was Elijah: cf. Mk. 6.14-16; 8.27-30).  Indeed, Elijah haunts Mark’s Gospel – from John “channeling” the spirit of Elijah in the opening verses as he calls Israel to repentance and renewed faithfulness to Yahweh, to Elijah’s appearance with Moses on the Mount of Transfiguration (Mk. 9.2-8), to the bystanders’ misinterpretation of Jesus’ last words spoken from the cross (cf. Mk. 15.35-36) – Elijah’s shadow falls across the pages of the story from beginning to end.  In order to better grasp this rather bizarre phenomenon, it’s important to remember that there was an expectation among first-century Jews that Elijah would return to herald the coming of the Messiah, i.e., the king who would rescue Israel from her enemies (cf. Gospel of John 1.19-28; Malachi 4.5-6; Gospel of Luke 1.13-17).  Indeed, all four Gospels present John the Baptist as being “Elijah”, i.e., the one who prepares the way for Jesus, the Messiah (“Christ”).  The reason that people were expecting Elijah to return was the fact that in the Scriptures, Elijah is described as having never died, but as having been taken to heaven in a “chariot of fire” (cf. 2 Kings 2.9-14).  Interestingly, this “assumption” of Elijah into heaven took place on the eastern bank of the Jordan River…

     Mark’s identification of John with Elijah alerts us to the fact that John is announcing a word of warning about coming disaster.  Elijah had called the Northern Kingdom of Israel to “repent”, i.e. to “return” to being faithful to Yahweh, to the exclusion of all other gods.  Sadly, Israel largely ignored Elijah’s warnings, in spite of the spectacular demonstration on Mt. Carmel of Yahweh’s power as being far greater than that of Baal (cf. 1 Kings 18).  A century after Elijah’s “departure”, disaster finally struck – the Assyrians invaded the Northern Kingdom, destroyed the capital city of Samaria in the year 722 B.C. and exiled the population into the far reaches of the Assyrian empire.  If John is, like Elijah, calling the people of God to return to faithfulness to the covenant with Yahweh, what king of disaster might befall Israel if the people ignore John’s message?  Let’s not forget that in the first century, Palestine was under Roman hegemony – the situation of the people of God was already far from ideal.  Could it possibly get any worse?  Would the Messiah announced by John transform Israel’s situation?  So many questions, so much expectation…

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A 40-DAY JOURNEY WITH THE KING: Lenten reflections from Mark’s Gospel (5)

Image
“A leper came to him begging him, and kneeling he said to him, “If you choose, you can make me clean .”   Moved with pity, Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, and said to him, “I do choose. Be made clean !” Immediately the leprosy left him, and he was made clean .   (Mk. 1.40-42)      Along with exorcisms, Jesus performs many healings of various physical ailments in the early chapters of Mark’s Gospel.   Jesus’ first healing is that of Simon’s mother-in-law (1.29-31).   With the restoration of the leper, we begin to understand the meaning of Jesus’ healings (and exorcisms).   The thrice-repeated word “clean” in the above passage reveals what is truly going on when the King restores the members of the people of God to wholeness.   Leprosy rendered its victim “unclean”, i.e., it proscribed that person from participation in the life of the community, of both civil society and the worship/litur...
Read more

The Protestant Reformation - good news?

Image
  The study of Reformation Europe makes many Christians wish that they had lived in the 16th century. Name 1) Some good reasons for not living in the sixteenth century and 2) Some ways in which we can live more deliberately as Christians today because of the events of that century. How should it and how should it not make a difference?    Some good reasons for not living in the 16th century include the climate of religious intolerance and violence.   Religious affiliation and observance were compulsory and imposed on the people by the state, especially it seems, in Protestant countries.   There was no freedom of conscience, except perhaps in England during the reign of Elizabeth, where the windows to people’s souls remained shut to the state, so long as they publicly conformed to the monarch’s religion (as enforced by parliament).   One may have thought that Luther’s appeal to conscience at the Diet of Worms would have inspired a broader and more sensit...
Read more

“Walking the tightrope” (St. Luke’s: Wednesday, August 22nd, 2018: Ez. 34.1-11; Ps. 23; St. Mt. 20.1-16)

Image
Ancient relevance.   Any conscientious catholic who has the habit of watching the news cannot help but notice a direct link between today’s first reading and what is going on in the Church these days.   Last week, a grand jury released a report detailing the results of their 2-year long investigation into dozens of clergymen who had abused upwards of 1,000 children in various dioceses in the state of Pennsylvania.   Every time cases of the abuse of children by priests and religious come to light, we are reminded that we live in a world – and are part of a Church – deeply infected by evil .   And of course, let’s not forget that the line between good and evil runs through each one of us (cf. Solzhenitsyn).   In today’s first reading, the prophet Ezekiel proclaims an oracle of judgment against the false “shepherds” of God’s “flock”.   Instead of caring for, protecting and nurturing God’s people , Israel’s leaders had exploited the people for their...
Read more