Robert J Rolle has decided to publish his thoughts about Mark’s Gospel on his YouTube channel. He brings up a number of issues, so I thought I would address them here, since they represent the sort of thing that I see on Instagram as well as YouTube these days.
Anonymous Authorship
He notes that the Gospels are all anonymous. No, they aren’t. See here.
He also notes that Mark doesnt contain a birth narrative, which is true. I’m not really sure why critics think this an issue.
Lack of a Birth Narrative
The absence of a birth narrative does not put the text at odds with Matthew & Luke. Rather, it demonstrates that the author had a specific narrative intent related to the possibility that the text would one day be used for teaching purposes related to their understanding of the 3fold use of the Law & Gospel.
King: Luke’s primary audience is the Gentile community. He depicts Christ as the theandric Caesar. The scope of His person & work exceeds Israel’s borders. That requires a birth narrative & kingly genealogy.
Prophet: Matthew’s Gospel focuses heavily on the prophetic lawsuit Yeshua delivered. He’s the Prophet - Lawgiver on Sinai who restates the Law & Gospel & calls the Sanhedrin, the Herodians, the Zealots, & the Occupation to repent. The birth narrative goes with the covenantal, epochal genealogy.
Priest: Mark’s purpose is priestly as well as prophetic. How many OT priestly prophets receive an epochal genealogy intended to convey the authority of their office? Basically, none. Aaron’s genealogy goes back to Levi, but the text of Exodus doesn’t take us all the way back to Adam. Yeshua is also a minister to the everyman like Elisha. Elisha received no exhaustive genealogy. Mark’s narrative choice is congruent with the perspective he has chosen to convey.
Abiathar or Ahimelech?
The author knew what he was doing. There is no contradiction.
The Time of the Crucifixion
Does Mark 15 (the 3rd hour) contradict John 19:14?Considering that the author of Mark & the author of John are the same individual, perhaps rather than approaching the text adverarially we ought to ask ourselves what the narrative intent was in choosing those particular numbers.
3rd Hour: The number 3’s meaning in gematria indicates unity, harmony of opposites, and is associated with Israel’s patriarchs. It denotes permanence, mediation, & common purpose. In Christian theology, 3 refers to the Godhead & is frequently associated with the spirating of God’s Spirit.
Mark is using the Jewish time keeping system for daylight hours here. The hour of the crucifixion is at 9am, 3 hours after sunrise (6am).
6th hour: In gematria, 6 denotes hope, connection, unity. It denotes connection in real time & real space. John is calling on the mobile glory of God in Ezekiel (cf John 3) that is simultaneously high, holy, & lifted up (transcendent) & yet present in the physical world (immanent). Yeshua is the Cosmic Paraclete set to accomplish cosmic redemption.
John is using the Roman system for time-keeping here. The 6th hour is 6am, the time of Pilate’s declaration on the Stone Pavement, about 6 hours after midnight.
Yet again, this is not the contradiction you’re looking for.
Three Women or only Mary Magdalene?
Mark:
When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. 2 And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb. 3 And they were saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?” 4 And looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled back—it was very large. 5 And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe, and they were alarmed.
John 20:1
Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb.
This is only a contradiction if you ignore the rest of the text.
John continues…
So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.”
John only focuses on one member of the trio who went to the tomb. He doesn’t state she was the only one of them who went.
In addition, she represents them all. The Gospels were used as teaching modules, & one of John’s major themes is Representational Theology. Christ represents God to the world & the world to God. The wine represents the covenant, as does the bread. Both represent Christ’s body & blood.
Divorce & Adultery
Mark 10:11 - 12
And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”
Matthew 19: Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
Is this a contradiction? In Mark, Yeshua says that if someone puts away his wife or divorces them cannot remarry without committing adultery. In Matthew, it’s not adultery if there was sexual immorality.
First, Matthew 5 is clear about what constitutes adultery.
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
We learn here that lustful intent underwrites sexual immorality in general. The object of that intent defines the species of sexual immorality in view.
In Matthew 19, Yeshua is speaking to the Pharisees. They have asked him a **legal** question: “Is it lawful to divorce his wife for any reason whatsoever?”Yeshua replies by pointing to the covenantal nature of the marriage union rooted in the created order itseif all the way back to Eden, and he alludes to texts in Deuteronomy, Jeremiah, & Malachi that address divorce.
He says that sexual immorality is a sound **legal** ground for divorce. Divorcing his wife for any reason whatsoever is grounds for a legal charge of adultery on the part of the Pharisee engaging in that behavior.
When read harmoniously, especially in light Matthew 22:34 - 39, Matthew isn’t morally excusing adultery in its relation to divorce. Rather, Matthew is addressing it as a matter of legal regulation. In the Bible as in modern jurisprudence, the civil code regulates activity that the moral code finds odious. Just because we legislate the use of motorcycle helmets & seat belts in automobiles it doesn’t therefore follow we advocate reckless driving.
34 But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. 35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”
The First Table of the Law charges us to love God exhaustively & perfectly first & to love our neighbor before ourselves secondly (& then ourselves). In **moral** terms, adultery is a product of loving yourself before God & your wife and the person or persons you have targeted with your affections.
Mark is focusing on the **morality** of the divorce. He also goes out of his way to point out that the divorce puts the (ex)wife into a morally compromising position.
In that society, misogyny was so deep that the women depended on the men for a great deal more than they do in modern day society. The text depicts Yeshua reminding his foils that life isn’t only about them — divorce among narcissists & misogynists of the Pharisaic caliber is an act of moral adultery for them, & it’s results could lead to morally disastrous results for the (ex)wife as she looks about for legal & social support.
The Fig Tree
Mark 11: The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. 13 Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. 14 Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard him say it.
This doesn’t make sense, Isn’t Jesus acting in an ignorant or unreasonable manner, thus undercutting Mark’s veracity & his moral authority?
Instead of dismissing the text because it makes Yeshua appear unreasonable, let’s ask ourselves why Mark would go out of his way to point out that it was not yet the season for figs?
The text is probably a short fictional note that serves an eschatological purpose. Its meaning is bound up with teaching later in the narrative.
Reading the text as if the figs in Mark’s account represent the fruits of the Sanhedrin’s labor leads to the possibility that Yeshua was being unreasonable.
In Mark, the figs pertain to the coming Judgment. This is not a tree with which to trifle. His judgment is a warning that figs are on the way, & the figs are poison to those under the judgment. Yeshua is there trying to stop this dragon from laying eggs that could destroy them all.
Mark 13:28 - 37
As to the poison figs:
28 “From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near. 29 So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates. 30 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. 31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.
As to the season:
32 But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 33 Be on guard, keep awake. For you do not know when the time will come. 34 It is like a man going on a journey, when he leaves home and puts his servants in charge, each with his work, and commands the doorkeeper to stay awake. 35 Therefore stay awake—for you do not know when the master of the house will come, in the evening, or at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or in the morning— 36 lest he come suddenly and find you asleep. 37 And what I say to you I say to all: Stay awake.”
Matthew doesn’t include the detail of the season. Why? In Matthew, the tree is the nation having endured its rulers. His narrative purpose involves calling the nation to recognize that laboring under their own strength was a dead end morally & could potentially result in the ruination of the people, land, & temple if they didn’t turn themselves around and put an end to the bigotry, gluttony, warmongering, & hypocrisy that was ruling over them & among them.
The Long Ending of Mark:
Why do you impute invidious motives to the scribes in charge of Mark?
See here: https://thepropheticpresbyterian.blogspot.com/2024/12/tackling-tradition-part-13-inspiration.html
and here:
https://thepropheticpresbyterian.blogspot.com/2024/12/tackling-tradition-14-easter-as.html
Low Christology:
Mark says that Yeshua didn’t know the day or hour. Therefore, this shows Mark’s Christology is not congruent with what Christians believe.
First, via the Communicatio Idiomatum, as to His humanity, He is professing to not know that date @ His Vox Kephale. Second, the text, is deploying a business metaphor. The Son is so busy that the date seems have gotten lost in the shuffle, but the Father has been keeping track of it . In truth, the Son knows full well when this is all happening but He has His reasons for giving the appearance that He doesn’t.
Christ hasn’t returned yet.
Yes, that particular generation passed, but the text isn’t meant to be understood with the level of wooden literalism you are using. The author speaks in general terms & reminds us that there are many fulfillments of these words. The imminence of the coming of the Son of Man & the judgment is a cyclical event, & the epochal (as well as personal) cycles are part of a partially realized eschatology that grows larger and larger. That takes time to unfold. The fact of the matter is that the text applies to each & every day as well as broad covenant epochs.
May God bless us all, each & every one & “Go and sin no more.”
