by Herman Hendrickx, C. I. C.M.
MARK'S COMMUNITY
I. The setting of Mark's Gospel
1. When and Where ?
A considerable number of scholars have held that Mark's Gospel was written for predominantly Gentile Christians at Rome shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple by the Romans in 70 A. D. and in the aftermath of Nero's persecution.(1) But a growing number of scholars propose that the Gospel was composed in or near northern Palestine (Galilee - Syria) around the time of the destruction of Jerusalem.
The manner in which Mark writes about Galilee, and the way he describes Galilee as the place of Jesus' activity, and other data within the Gospel appear to indicate that, for the Markan community, Galilee, and perhaps the sea of Galilee, had special significance. The Markan Gospel summons Christians to the land of Galilee, where the risen Lord will soon return. Galilee becomes a Christian Holy Land (Willi Marxsen).(2)
Mark was probably written in close chronological proximity to the first Jewish revolt, in all likelihood before it came to an end with the capture of the city and the destruction of the temple.(3)
2. The Socio-Economic, Political Situation
Palestine, and in a special way Galilee, was an occupied country. Herod the Great was permitted to be king of the Jewish people under the auspices of Rome. However, he was not accepable to many Jews, partly because of his non-Jewish ancestry and partly because of his cruelty and his oppressive taxation. When he died, in 4 B. C., revolts occurred and continued sporadically until the outbreak of war in 66 A. D.
In addition to trouble during and after the reign of Herod the Great, there were other causes of unrest. The main ones were:
(1)occupation by foreign troops;
(2)class conflicts, which included anticlericalism;
(3)social banditry;
(4)religious fanaticism and the concept of God as a divine warrior;
(5)revolutionary prophets and messianic pretenders;
(6)misconduct on the part of Roman officials;
(7)strife between the various factions of Jewish revolutionaries;
(8)taxation, both by the Romans and by Herod and his successors;
(9)the bitter hostility between the Jews and the Samaritans.(4)
The Latinisms found in Mark, often referred to in support of the Roman hypothesis, indicate rather the expected linguistic penetration in the socio-economic and administrative spheres of the colonized culture of Palestine. A socio-political description must, then, focus upon conditions in agrarian Palestine, which were very different from those in urban Hellenism.(5)
In Palestine, the majority of an estimated population of seven hundred and fifty thousand was peasant. A very small independent artisan and bureaucratic class, and a tiny aristocracy, made up less than one-half of one percent. The local ruling class after Herod was increasingly urban-based, and tended to accommodate the colonial forces culturally and economically. The rural peasantry on the other hand experienced hellenization as further economic marginalization and cultural isolation, especially in Galilee. The main socio-economic conflict was the economic threat to the traditional agrarian way of life posed by the urban oligarchy, due to the economic vulnerability of small landholders and tenant workers.(6)
For the Galilean peasantry, the perennial burden of the imperial tribute, the social pressure of the nearby Hellenistic cities, and the repeated experience of retribution at the hands of Roman legions, would have been more than enough to sow deep-seated alienation. At the same time there would have been a natural class alienation from the native aristocracy, whom the peasant saw not as leader but as collaborator and landlord. This double antipathy could have translated into solidarity with the local social bandits and subsequently the Zealots, and for many it did, but the evidence indicates that this was a minority. We know, for example, that in Galilee the organized insurrection collapsed early, and that Josephus complained bitterly of the difficulties of trying to organize resistance there.
What if a prophet arose who advocated a strategy that disdained the collaborationist aristocracy and Romans equally, and who repudiated Qumranite withdrawal and Pharisaic activism on the grounds that neither addressed the roots of oppression in the dominant symbolic order? We know that uneducated peasants, largely unable to articulate their dissatisfaction, often looked to those able to express in popular discourse a populist vision. It is not difficult to imagine such a prophet invoking the Deuteronomist vision of a just redistributive system, and appealing to the subversive tradition of the great prophetic social critics of Israel. A pedagogy could have been developed to help the peasants unmask the oppressive economic self-interest of the Jerusalem leaders. There is no a priori reason why an alternative to the reformists and rebels could not have been proposed that addressed peasant grievances more concretely. And although it would have been remarkable, it cannot be ruled out that such a prophet might have taken the logic of solidarity among the poor so far as to challenge the artificial gulf that kept the oppressed Jew and Gentile segregated.
There was ample social, economic, political, and cultural justification for a strategy that delegitimized both the Roman presence and the authority of the Jewish aristocracy as it was embedded in the debt and purity systems and reinforced in the temple cult and the dominant interpretation of the Torah. We can only conclude, without further evidence, that the determinate social formation of Palestine in the 60s A. D. produced conditions which render such an "alienative, confrontative and nonaligned" ideology hypothetically plausible. If such an outlook manifested itself as literature which we know to have come from this period, this should be accepted as concrete evidence for a unique social movement which must be evaluated on its own terms.
Mark's Gospel may be such a document, articulating a grassroots social discourse which is at once subversive and constructive. This document was probably written during the Roman reoccupation of Galilee, between the first (66-67 A. D.) and the second (69-70 A. D.) Roman sieges of Jerusalem. The immediate and specific issue occasioning the Gospel was the challenge of rebel recruiters in Galilee, who were trying to drum up support for the resistance around Palestine, and no doubt demanding that Mark's community "choose sides." Though sympathetic to the socio-economic and political grievances of the rebels, Mark was compelled to repudiate their call to a defence of Jerusalem. This was because, according to his understanding of the teaching and practice of a Nazarene prophet, executed by Rome some thirty-five years earlier, the means (military) and ends (restorationist) of the "liberation" struggle were fundamentally counterrevolutionary.(7)
Mark's concern is not only liberation from the specific structures of oppression embedded in the dominant social order of Roman Palestine; it also includes the spirit and practice of domination ultimately embedded in the human personality and corporately in human history as a whole. The struggle against the powers and the individual and the collective will to dominate, is articulated over and over again in different ways throughout the story. This strategy of repetition represents an apocalyptic characteristic of the Gospel: the narrative device of "recapitulation." First in his miracle stories and again in a cycle of visions, Daniel dramatized a single point: the imperative and possibility of resistance to the Seleucid state. So too does Mark restate the discipleship of the cross in a variety of ways. His focus upon the cross set him against those who used apocalyptic symbols to legitimate a militant practice of "holy war" against their enemies. By anchoring the story of discipleship firmly in the lived world of his audience, he stood against those who used heavenly visions to legitimate a withdrawal from political struggle into gnostic communities.(8)
1.Cf. Frank J. Matera, What Are They Saying About Mark? (New York: Paulist Press, 1987)7-11.
2.Ibidem, 11-12.
3.Howard C. Kee, Community of the New Age. Studies in Mark's Gospel (London: SCM Press, 1977) 100.
4.J. Massyngbaerde Ford, My Enemy is My Guest (Maryknoll, N. Y.: Orbis Books, 1984) 2-12, 65-95.
5.Ched Myers, Binding the Strong Man. A Political Reading of Mark's Story of Jesus (Maryknoll, N. Y.: Orbis Books, 1988) 41.
6.Ibidem, 50-51.
7.Ibidem, 85-87.
8.Ibidem, 103-104.
II. The Community of Disciples in Mark
To ask about Mark's understanding of discipleship in community is to speak about Mark's understanding of the church. However, this task is made difficult by the absence in Mark of specifically ecclesiological language. Unlike Matthew (Mt 16:18; 18:17) and Luke (in Acts 8:1; 9:31, for example), Mark never uses the term ekklesia and lacks the kind of incipient picture of church office which Matthew gives in the story of Peter (esp. Mt 16:18-20) or Luke in the depiction of the authority of apostles (Acts 1:26; 2:42; 4:37).
However, there is one set of related terms which Mark shares with other parts of the New Testament and which were used very early by the church to describe itself: the language associated with household and family. Recent studies have shown the importance of this language for understanding both the theology and social setting of an important early Christian community. There has also been a resurgence in New Testament studies dealing with early Christian "house churches." In the following we select four passages in Mark where household language becomes a prism through which we can see different shades of his understanding of discipleship as life in community.(9)
1. Mk 3:20-35: The True Family of Jesus
This rather complex section of Mark consists of:
a.an attempt by those of Jesus' company (hoi par' autou) to restrain him because they think he is "beside himself (Mk 3:20-21);
b.a charge by scribes from Jerusalem that Jesus is possessed by Beelzebul, along with Jesus' response to them in the parables of the divided house and the divided kingdom and his pronouncement that the sin against the Holy Spirit is the unforgivable sin (Mk 3:22-30);
c.a statement by Jesus on who constitutes his true family (Mk 3:31-35).
What unites the section is the location of all three incidents in the house mentioned in Mk 3:20, as well as the use of household and family imagery (Mk 3:25, 32, 34-35). The whole section also uses the technique of intercalation: a narrative is begun (Mk 3:20-21), interrupted by another narrative (Mk 3:23-30) and then resumed (Mk 3:31-35), so that the two narratives interpret one another.(10)
The Jesus who is thought by his family or close associates to be out of his mind and by his opponents to be possessed is actually the strong one. From Mk 1:7 the reader knows that Jesus is "the stronger one" predicted by John, and the early exorcisms (esp. Mk 1:21-28) depict Jesus as one who despoils the kingdom of Satan. This same Jesus, as master of an undivided household, can determine who will be the true members of his family. Thus the intercalation of the two narratives functions in the service of Christology and discipleship. What concerns us most is the response which comes during the third incident, when the mother and brothers of Jesus are outside and "seek" him (zetousin), a term which in Mark generally has a pejorative connotation (Mk 3:32; cf. 1:37; 11:18; 12:12). When the crowd informs Jesus that his family is calling to him and seeking him, he replies, "And who are my mother and brothers?" He then turns to the crowd sitting around him (the standard position for disciples listening to a teacher) and says: "Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother" (Mk 3:34b-35).
An initial entree to the significance of this text is provided by the context of the whole section, Mk 3:13-6:6, beginning and ending with the choosing and the sending of the Twelve respectively. The context and the relation of the saying on the true family to other parts of the Gospel sheds light on its meaning. Jesus is the one who calls those he wishes and his activity precipitates opposition and rejection by his natural family. However, Jesus forms a new family which will be constituted by those whom he explicitly calls (the disciples) as well as those who gathered around him to hear his teaching and are summoned to do the will of God and thus become members of a new family.
At this point the Markan Jesus does not indicate what in the concrete doing the will of God involves. However, later on Mark offers a key to its meaning: in Gethsemane, immediately prior to those events where the divisions which Jesus causes will come to a head in his final rejection by his own people and his abandonment by his disciples. In his agony Jesus prays: "Abba, Father, all things are possible to you; remove this cup from me; yet not what I will, but what you will" (Mk 14:36). Jesus is portrayed here fulfilling the conditions of discipleship which he himself has stated earlier in the gospel. The disciple is to pray to God with faith which believes that God will bring about what is sought (Mk 11:23-24). The disciple is also to become like a child in order to enter the kingdom of God (Mk 10:15). Here Jesus uses the familiar and familial language of a child to a father in addressing God as Abba, and as one to whom all things are possible. However the radical disposition of Jesus is to accept the will of God, even while praying that it could be otherwise. Therefore, "doing the will of God" (in Mk 3:34) and becoming a member of Jesus' family is in its most radical sense being willing like Jesus to accept even suffering and rejection as being willed by God. It is this which Peter fails to do in Mk 8:32, when Jesus characterizes him as "thinking human thoughts", not "the thoughts of God" (Mk 8:33). Solidarity with Jesus makes of one a brother, sister or mother to Jesus, who himself is truly Son of God when he can address his father in faith and trust before his impending cross. Such solidarity also involves membership in a new human family. This perspective emerges most clearly in the next text we will discuss.
2. Mk 10:29-31: The New Family
The interrelationship of household and family language, discipleship and suffering, brings us to the second major text of Mark which sheds light on his understanding of community. In response to the statement of Peter, "Look, we have left everything and followed you," Jesus says:
Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands for my sake and for the gospel, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life (Mk 10:29-30).
As in the case of Mk 3:31-35, this text must first be consider in its larger context before its importance to the whole Gospe1 can be assessed.
The overriding context of this passage is the great middle section of Mark, the transition between the Galilean ministry and the Jerusalem Passion (Mk 8:22-10:52). This section is structured geographically around references to Jesus being "on the way" (Mk 8:27; 9:33; 10:32). This phrase suggests both the way of Jesus to suffering and death and the way of discipleship which he will teach during this journey to Jerusalem. The section mostly deals with Jesus instructing his disciples. Furthermore, the whole section is bracketed by two stories of Jesus healing blind men (Mk 8:22-26; 10:46-52), the latter of whom tries to follow Jesus on the way (Mk 10:52). All of this suggests that Jesus is engaged in giving insight to blind disciples.(11)
The section is also structured around three passion predictions of Jesus (Mk8:31;9:31;10:33), followed by three misunderstandings on the part of the disciples, which evoke further instruction by Jesus.
Despite the fact that many commentators hold that the overarching theme of this whole section is the necessity of suffering and the failure of the disciples to understand the message of the cross, it is actually only after the first passion prediction that Jesus gives any extended instruction on the necessity of taking up one's cross to become his follower (Mk8:34-38).
After the second and third passion predictions the instructions are much more about the demands of a life of service or diakonia in contrast to the squabbles of the disciples over positions of prestige. In fact the whole material between the second passion prediction and the final words of Jesus in the section is bracketed between two sayings on such service, both addressed to the twelve and both capturing an essential component of discipleship in community for Mark:
If anyone wants to be first of all, let that one be last of all and servant (diakonos) of all (Mk 9:33). Whoever wishes to be great among you, let that one be your servant (diakonos) and whoever wishes to be first among you, let that one be the slave of all (Mk 10:43-44).
Therefore, the imagery of household service (diakonia) is to characterize the way of discipleship.
The proximate context of Mk 10:29-31 is at the conclusion of a long instruction on discipleship which follows the second passion prediction. It has been noted that, especially in Mk 10, Mark has incorporated much traditional material which deals with the kinds of social concern manifest in other first century religious communities, e.g., questions of marriage and children, wealth and riches, rank and order in the community.
The immediate context of the saying under consideration is the private instruction Jesus gives his disciples after the pericope of the rich young man (Mk 10:17-31). The one who leaves many possessions will have these a hundredfold and will also receive that eternal life which the rich man sought by observing the law.
Leaving family and home to follow Jesus is a well established part of the tradition of the sayings of Jesus. But in Mk 10:29-31 we find interesting variations of the motif.
First, Mark is alone in joining to the command to leave one's family the promise of a new family described as the hundredfold "now in this time (kairos)". Matthew, who follows Mark closely at this point, simply says that such people will receive a hundredfold (Mt 19:29), and Luke states simply that they will receive "manifold more" (Lk 18:30). While all three evangelists promise eternal life, only Mark states that the family which has been left behind will be replaced by a new family. The hundredfold, which the Markan reader knows from Mk 4:20 is the fruit of hearing and doing the word of God, is a new family based not on natural kinship but on the power of God. Such language should not be considered merely as a metaphor, since in the early church the sense of community was expressed in familial language. Paul speaks of Onesimus as his child (Philemon 10) and tells the Corinthians that he became their father through the gospel (1 Cor 4:15). He compares his work among the Thessalonians to a nurse caring for children (1 Thess 2:7), and calls the mother of Rufus his mother (Rom 16:13).
Second, while the second part of the saying, the description of the new family, parallels the first part in virtually every detail, there is a significant omission. Though the disciple is said to leave "home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children ...", the disciple will receive "homes and brothers and sisters and mothers and children." Expected but omitted is the reception of a new father. Possible explanations for this would be that for Mark the only father is God, whom both the Christian community and Jesus are to address as such in prayer (Mk 11:25; 14:36). Equally possible is that the Markan version of the statement embodies an "anti-patriarchal" stance and indicates the radically egalitarian nature of the Markan community, a perspective which is in tune with the general context of Mk 9:30-10:45.(12) Mark's community is one where people are to be last of all and servants of all (Mk 9:35; 10:42-45), where children, who often symbolize the powerless, are to be accepted and embraced (Mk 9:36; 10:13-16), where husbands and wives cannot treat each other as property to be discarded (Mk 10:1-12), and where wealth and the social divisions it causes make it virtually impossible to enter the kingdom (Mk 10:17-27). Mark's new family is to be characterized by the renunciation of dominating power and by mutual service.
Third, the final element of this saying which evokes comment is the curious addition of "with persecutions" to the new family. In form the phrase breaks the rhythmic parallelism of the verse and in content it relativizes the reward of the new family. One rather convincing explanation is that Mark wants to convey that one who leaves family for Jesus' sake and for the sake of the gospel will necessarily be involved in following the way of the cross. Another intriguing explanation is offered by the literary analysis which views the addition as an ironic joke. The reader is said to be caught up in the prospect of rewards which far exceed the sacrifice. The addition creates a humorous incongruity which like all jokes debunks our pretensions by suggesting that the final reward (the hundredfold) does not absolve one from engagement with the contingencies of history (persecution).
While both these explanations have much to recommend them and provide an example of a text open to multiple interpretations, we would like to propose a less theological or literary interpretation which reflects the realities of Mark's community. The conjunction of the new family with persecution is in accord with other statements in Mark about family relationships. As we have seen in Mk 3:20-35, it is misunderstanding between Jesus and his natural family which evokes Jesus' statement that the new family is constituted, not by natural ties, but by doing the will of God. In Mk 6:1-6, Jesus is himself rejected by his own kin and household. In Mk 13, which may mirror actual recent experiences of the community, one of the sufferings is that "brother will deliver up brother to death, and the father his child, and children will rise up against parents and have them put to death" (Mk 13:12). For Mark, life in the new community very often involves persecution by the old one.
We would also suggest that this juxtaposition of family and persecution sheds light on the social setting of the Markan community. It has been shown in the case of 1 Peter that household language is a key not only to the ideology of self-definition of a community but to its actual situation." We would stress the positive aspect of this in terms of the internal strength and coherence it gives to the community. Mark's use of household language serves a similar function. It also indicates one of the reasons why the new family may have evoked persecution.
In Mark's time Jewish, Hellenistic and Roman perceptions of family life are quite conservative. Strong family bonds were supported not only by social pressure but by a host of laws governing marriage, inheritance and relation of different members of the natural and extended family. A Christian community which evoked a saying of Jesus to claim that doing the will of God is more important than loyalty to the natural family would naturally provoke suspicion and persecution. It has been suggested that the statement of Tacitus (Annals 15:44), that Christians were persecuted during the time of Nero because of "their hatred of the human race", meant that for Tacitus Christians were a disruptive social phenomenon. Leaving parents, abandoning occupations and the pursuit of wealth, observance of Jesus' teaching on divorce, consideration for children－all these would bring Christians into conflict with the prevailing ethos and values and evoke that kind of suspicion and hatred which meant that the possession of new mothers, brothers and sisters would exist only "with persecution."
3. Mk 10:42-45: A Community of Service
The third text which offers insight into Mark's understanding of discipleship in community comes at the end of the middle section (:22-10:52). After the third passion prediction, the disciples again engage in a dispute over power and precedence; in this case, James and John request positions of authority with Jesus "in your glory" (Mk 10:37). Jesus responds with a counter question asking them whether they are prepared to follow him on the way of suffering. James and John respond that they are and Jesus predicts their future martyrdom, but says that it is not his to grant positions of power and authority but these are for whom such positions are prepared by God (Mk 10: 40). Rather subtly, the Markan Jesus responds to a question about power and glory by starting his own limitation in face of God's plan. This part of the discussion then concludes.
In the second part of the dialogue the other ten are indignant at the request of James and John, manifesting that same concern for power and precedence which appeared in Mk 9:34. Jesus then responds in three sayings which sum up both the ethics and Christology of the whole middle section of Mark. In the first saying (Mk 10:42-43a) Jesus contrasts the expected behavior of his followers with those who are supposed to rule over Gentiles and lord it over them, and with their great men who exercise authority. It shall not be so among Christians. Jesus thus rejects the mode and manner in which power is exercised in the surrounding environment as acceptable in a community of disciples. The second saying describes the way precedence and authority is to exist in the community: "whoever would be great among you must be your servant (diakonos) and whoever would be first among you must be the slave of all" (Mk 10:43b-44).
The use of servant (diakonos) to characterize Christian behavior provides the point of contact between this section and the household / family theme. Though it is used figuratively and even becomes a term for an office in early Christianity (Phil 1:1), diakonos never loses its root meaning of a table servant or household lackey. This Markan perspective of mutuality rather than dominance is in contrast to that of other religious communities of the time. For example, at Qumran there was great concern for precedence and the proper seating of leaders of the community at the communal meals. Paul indicates that one of the problems at Corinth seems to be that important people in the community manifested their power in the way they celebrated the Lord's supper (1 Cor 11:17-34). Mark's image of the community leaders as table servants rather than as those sitting in the places of honour is a clear affront to the social norms of the time and again conveys the radically egalitarian ethos of the Markan community.
The final saying of Jesus in this section, "For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many," picks up this language of table service but extends it to an understanding of his whole life and crystallizes the meaning of suffering which has permeated this section. As the reader knows from Mk 2:10, Jesus is the Son of Man who possesses authority on earth. As Son of Man he will suffer, die and be raised up (Mk 8:31; 9:31; 10:33), and as such he will come in glory (Mk 8:38). And yet this same Son of Man is to be the servant who performs the ultimate service by giving his life that others may be free ("a ransom for many"). For Mark, then, the ethics of discipleship is possible only when combined with a Christology of redemptive liberation. The community is one which has been freed by Jesus, but freed for a deeper level of mutual service in solidarity with Jesus, who by the paradoxical renunciation of power became the source of liberation for others.
4. Mk 13:33-36: A Watchful Community
The final use of Markan household language which we will treat provides a brief underscoring of the perspective we have developed. At the end of the long eschatological discourse of Mk 13, Mark appends two parables which tell his church how to live during the period prior to the return of Jesus. The certainty of the end is as assured as the coming of summer follows the spring budding of the fig tree (Mk 13:28-29). However only the Father knows the exact time or hour and in the intervening time the Christian posture is to watch (Mk 13:32-33). The final verses of the discourse are a virtual allegory of life in the Markan community. Their life is that of servants who are waiting for the master to return (Mk 13:34-46). The man who goes on a journey leaves his house (oikia) and gives to his servants (doulois) authority (exousia) and an assigned task (ergon). The posture of the whole community waiting for the return of the "lord of the house" (kyrios tes oikias) is watchfulness, that is active waiting. Behind this allegorical language are clear references to the situation of the Markan church. We have already seen that the community are to be servants of each other (Mk 10:43-44). Like the servants in the parable, the disciples of Jesus possess the exousia (authority) which he gives (Mk 6:7). The community exists in a period between the resurrection and the parousia of Jesus, which the parable describes as the return of the "lord of the house." We would claim that this allegory reflects the experience of a Markan house church, assembled in mutual service and watchfulness, which recognizes only Jesus as the lord of the house and waits for his return.
5. Conclusion
Mark is writing principally for believers and describing the consequences of discipleship, not its conditions. Mark presents a narrative picture of the implications of the faith they share with each other and the engagement with the mystery of Christ which results from their baptism. As such, Mark is a narrative expansion of the journey of commitment and recommitment that is to characterize Christian life.
Such a life is to hear again the proclamation of Jesus, "be converted and believe in the good news" (Mk 1:15). To believe, however, is to be called by Jesus in the midst of one's ordinary activity, to leave an old way of life and to follow a new path of companionship with Jesus and with others who have heard this call. The call is also an empowerment for mission and a life doing the things of Jesus. To share the life of Jesus in its most radical dimension involves trust in God even in the midst of undeserved suffering and a willingness to give one's life so that others may be free. Those who are called must be ready to leave old sources of identity and 0security, family and possessions, but will become members of a new family. This new family will be characterized by mutual service and the renunciation of the desire for power and prestige which is the way of the Gentiles and not of the Son of Man.
We would claim that such a vision of discipleship was for Mark not simply an ideal, but was meant to describe the religious life of his house churches. While at this point the exact setting of Mark's theology of discipleship cannot be specified, we would claim that it is in a house church that the Markan Christians live out their story of Jesus, Mark's good news. It is a community trying to be hearers and doers of the word (Mk 4:20). It is also a community which recognizes the good news of Jesus as its sole authority. Those who attempt to appropriate the authority of Jesus are called "deceivers" (Mk 13:6, 21-22).
Mark's community seems to be radically egalitarian in nature and the only visible structure of authority seems to be that of mutual service. At the same time it is not a sectarian community dedicated only to inner nurture. The one called to be with Jesus is also called to mission. The members of Mark's church, like Jesus, are to break down the barriers between Jew and Gentile. Exclusivism is also to be avoided. The one who is not against Jesus is for him and the stranger who gives a drink of water will receive a reward. The major ethical posture of the community is the twofold command of love of God and neighbour (Mk 12:28-34).(14)
Mark's vision of discipleship has a dual setting. The primary one is the historical setting where as prophet and pastor Mark brings the teaching of Jesus and the traditions of his church to bear on the concerns of the community. Mark's understanding of discipleship and life in community seems not to have had a great influence. Matthew and Luke alter Mark's picture of community life, as characterized by solidarity, mutuality and service, by showing more concern for issues of institutionalized authority and ministry. In later New Testament writings such as Colossians, the Pastorals and 1 Peter, household language is used to support structured authority and subordination, rather than to describe a situation in which those in authority are to be ministers (diakonoi) and servants (douloi) as in Mark.(15) While such a development may mirror a necessary stage in the evolution of a religious movement or may reflect varied responses of diverse groups to different social pressures, it does stand in tension with Mark's vision.
Mark's vision also has a setting in the canon of the Christian scriptures. In canonizing Mark as an independent book, the church sanctioned a dynamic and prophetic vision of discipleship and community which stands in tension with other New Testament perspectives and with that very institutionalized ethos out of which canonization emerges. To return to Mark's story of discipleship is not simply to recapture the experiences of a transient New Testament community; it is to recapture a picture of Jesus and what it means to respond to his call, which the church says should never be forgotten or glossed over by other more appealing or more relevant pictures.
It is our task today as a community of disciples to hear again Mark's old story and to transform it by our lives into a better story for our age than the ones people live by. Such transformation into an individual and community style of life based on Mark, which renounces the striving for prestige and power over others, and at the same time confronts the evil forces which oppress our society, will bring with it suffering and persecution, as it did for John the Baptist, for Jesus and for Mark's community.
And yet this is not the final word. To hear the final word we must take our stand with the women before the door of death, now emptied of its power and hear again "he has risen; he is not here" (Mk 16:6).(16)
9.John R, Donahue, The Theology and Setting of Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1983) 31-32.
10.John R. Donahue, Are You the Christ? The Trial Narrative in the Gospel of Mark (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1973) 58-63.
11.Ernst Best, Following Jesus. Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark (Sheffield: University of Sheffield, 1981) 58-63.
12.Elizabeth Schuessler-Fiorenza, "The Biblical Roots for the Discipleship of Equals", Duke Divinity School Review 45 (1980) 87-97.
13.John Elliott, A Home for the Homeless. A Sociological Exegesis of I Peter (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981) 165-237.
14.John R. Donahue, "A Neglected Factor in Mark's Theology", Journal of Biblical Literature 101 (1982) 578-581.
15.Daniel Harrington, "The 'Early Catholic' Writings of the New Testament: The Church Adjusting to World History", in: Light of All Nations: Essays on the Church in New Testament Research (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1982) 61-78.
16.Donahue, Theology, 32-56.