Search
Second Sunday of Lent (B)
Psalm 22:23-31
Mark 8:31-38
Romans 4:13-25
This psalm is a lament, as the first words, “My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?” indicate. The psalm goes on to describe the miserable condition of the psalmist; for example, see verses 6 and 7, where he likens himself to a worm and notes how he is ridiculed. The petitionary part of the lament ends with a series of requests in verses 19-22, which ask for God’s salvation from his foes. Then comes the rapid change of mood that is normal in the biblical laments. The petitioner switches from supplication and pleading to statements of assurance, trust, and praise. It is this ‘happy’ section that forms the reading for this, the second Sunday of Lent.
The selection of the optimistic and joyful ending of this lament is normal in our liturgical usage of these psalms. Although there are more lament psalms than any other type in the Psalms, almost none of these find their way into worship as laments and petitions. Instead, the lament part is left behind and only the celebrative ending is used. This results in a profound loss and raises a basic spiritual question: When the pain of the world and its people is shut out of worship, how real is our worship?
In this time of Lent we have permission to grieve--to grieve our own shortcomings; to grieve the death of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ; and perhaps even to extend our grieving to the pains of those among us. In this period of the church year we have an open invitation to use the laments as laments and to admit into our worship the pain in our world. Rather than skip over the lament of this psalm, let it speak out. It may give voice to the pains of a battered or abused woman. It may open us to the pain and suffering of the oppressed around the world--as those who have been to Mennonite World Conference have only recently experienced it.
Perry B. Yoder
This text is part of Mark’s carefully crafted mid-section, Jesus’ movement from Galilee to Jerusalem, with sustained emphasis on teaching the way of discipleship that leads to God’s kingdom. Three times Jesus announces his coming passion and resurrection: in 8:31, 9:31, and 10:33.
In order to grasp the content of this crucial carefully crafted section, Mark 8:27–10:52, observe the following pattern:
| Passion-Resurrection Announcement | Disciples Don’t Understand | Teaching On Discipleship |
| 8:31 | 8:32-33 | 8:34-38 |
| 9:31 | 9:32-34 | 9:35-50 |
| 10:32-34 | 10:35-41 | 10:38:45 |
Each of these three cycles follows the same sequential pattern, and each is connected to Mark’s use of way(hodos), which here in Mark is the way that leads to Jesus’ suffering and death. The phrase, “whoever will come after me (opiso mou)” in 8:34 connects the teaching and the cycle as a whole back to 8:27 where the section introduces Jesus as going “on the way” ( en te hodo). In the center of the second cycle (9:33-34), the phrase occurs twice. The third cycle begins with the phrase, “As Jesus was going on the way ( en te hodo)” (10:32; cf. 10:46, 52).
Of the numerous explanations for this distinctive use of hodos, two emphases are crucially important. First, as Joel Marcus puts it: “The way is the way that the Lord leads; the disciples follow. The hodos of the journey section is not a “human way to the Basileia but rather ... God’s way, which is his Basileia, his own extension of kingly power.” 1 Second, as Jesus leads (or makes) the way he teaches discipleship with sustained effort to assist his followers to also walk the way that he leads. The way (hodos), the symbolic frame for the section, embraces both the theological and ethical emphases. Here I disagree with Joel Marcus who stresses the former and denies the second. 2 That hodos teaching on discipleship within the context of Jesus’ Christological disclosure is both evident and striking. This does not mitigate Marcus’ emphasis that the “journey” is not a human way to the Kingdom, but an extension of God’s kingly power. Rather it joins together this important point with the intentional structural design of the section: the linking of Christology with discipleship. Neither pole of this relationship is to be glossed over for the sake of the other. Jesus therefore teaches the necessity (dei) of the Son of Humanity to suffer, for it is in Jerusalem, the destination of the journey, that this will take place (8:31; 9:31; 10:32-34).
In 8:31 Jesus begins to teach “that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.” Mark takes great care in the arrangement of the truth that he seeks to communicate because this truth is so precious and so central to the whole Gospel.
Immediately after Jesus’ three announcements of his passion, the text indicates that the disciples do not understand what Jesus was talking about. As soon as Peter announces Jesus as Messiah, Jesus begins to teach what Messiahship means. But Peter was not ready for it; nor were the other disciples. Immediately after Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Messiahship, Jesus begins to present another view of Messiahship.
In 8:32, Peter rebukes Jesus! Peter knows what messiahs should do. Messiahs rule! They don’t die! Even prior to this the first announcement, note that in 8:30 Jesus reprimands (rebukes, same epitima? that occurs in next verses), thus strongly sealing this Christological disclosure. Certainly this is a high point of the narrative as a whole and the denouement of the secrecy emphasis so distinctive to Mark. This command not to tell anyone that Jesus is Messiah raises the question, why?
But Peter is wrong and Jesus severely rebukes him. Jesus turns to Peter and says, “What you are saying is of satanic origin. It is not of God. Get behind me.” This extends an earlier emphasis in Mark, from 3:20-27, where in the controversy over Jesus’ source of power—whether Jesus is doing his work by God’s power or Satan’s—Mark makes clear that Jesus’ exorcisms and miracles are God’s work through Jesus, not Satan’s power. In light of that earlier controversy, where all failed to understand Jesus, the cruciality of the Peters’--and the disciples’-- failure to understand here raises the stakes. On which side will the disciples be on, when it comes to the ultimate crisis? In 8:34 the new value-orientation becomes clears, “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me…. For what will it profit them, to gain the whole world and forfeit their life? Indeed, what can they give in return for their life?” The answer to the disciples’ grasp for political power is the way of the cross. This is Jesus’ way (10:45 and the passion narrative).
As disciples we are not called to atone for the sins of the world through death on a cross. But we are called to participate in Jesus self-sacrificial paradigm in which we reject domination patterns and take up servant roles. I suggest this model of thinking and living is our assurance in judgment: “ Those who are ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of them the Son of Man will also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” (v. 38). Indeed, Peter later denied; he was ashamed of a ‘powerless’ Jesus headed for criminal death. But thanks to God’s power, the resurrection, and outpouring of the Spirit on Peter, he became a fearless witness to Jesus’ new way of life (so 1 Peter 2:21-24!).
1 The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1992), 33.
2 Ibid., 33-36.
Willard M. Swartley
The season of Lent invites us to discipline and self-examination. One of the disciplines appropriate for Lent is to meditate on scripture, especially to identify with those women and men in the biblical narrative who faced the darkness on their way to their promised inheritance. One such story features Abraham and Sarah, who as centenarians are understandably incredulous at the preposterous promise that they will have a son (Genesis 17). In Romans 4 Paul offers a midrash (commentary) on this story of Abraham and Sarah. However, Paul emphasizes their faith in the face of bleak prospects.
A dominant theme in the preceding chapters of Romans is the righteousness of God (note especially 1:16-17 and 3:21-26). God’s righteousness needs to be understood in a dynamic sense, such as “the triumphant saving faithfulness of God” (Käsemann) rather than as a static entity which is conferred on people as a gift on the basis of their faith (see Charles Cousar, A Theology of the Cross p. 39). In 1:16-17 Paul announces that God’s righteousness is revealed in the gospel. Both God’s grace initiative and human obedient response are involved: through faith (a reference to Jesus’ faith/fulness even unto his death on the cross) for faith (an allusion to human responsive faith) (1:17). Having asserted that God’s triumphant saving faithfulness is unleashed into the needy world as both gracious gift and empowerment through responsive faith, Paul proceeds to emphasize that this is true for Jews and Gentiles alike (1:18-3:20). After all, God is one, and God will justify the circumcised on the ground of faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith (3:30)
In 4:1 Paul launches an extended appeal to scripture to support this assertion. He does so by citing the towering figure of Abraham, who was traditionally viewed within Judaism as worthy of acclaim because of his mighty deeds and his endurance when he was tested (eg. 1 Maccabees 2:51-52; Ecclesiasticus 44:19-21). Paul, however, portrays Abraham as first and foremost as a person of faith. Abraham and Sarah’s heirs are defined as all those who believe God. In fact, Paul’s argument from the chronology of events leads him to point out that Abraham’s faith led to his righteousness before circumcision had been introduced as a covenant requirement. Abraham and Sarah’s spiritual descendants therefore include both uncircumcised Gentiles and circumcised Jews (4:16; cf. 4:11-12).
In light of this literary and historical background, what might a Lenten homily on Romans 4:13-25 seek to convey?
- Our contemplation of the story of Abraham and Sarah can help us to see ourselves as desperately needy people. “Abraham was looking into the abyss of nonbeing as he contemplated his own body, ‘already as good as dead,’ and ‘the barrenness of Sarah’s womb.’” (Miroslav Volf, Exclusion and Embrace p. 38)
- In the face of nonbeing, we are invited to believe God. Yet faith does not consist of coercing your mind into giving assent to the impossible. A better word is “trust.” We are invited to trust God who calls into existence the things that do not exist (4:17).
- This anticipates the salvific outcome of the Christ event. Through responsive trust in God who raised Jesus from the dead, believers are reckoned righteous (4:23-24). Through identification with Jesus who was handed over to death for our trespasses and was raised for our justification, believers are justified (4:25).
Jacob W. Elias
