Mark's Message - "The Oddity of a Crucified Messiah"

Illustration by R.E. Slater & ChatGPT

The Oddity of

a Crucified Messiah

A Markan portrait of a kingship revealed in

suffering, service, and misunderstood glory

by R.E. Slater & ChatGPT

“For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve,

 and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

- Mark 10:45

“He was despised and rejected by others;

a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief.”

- Isaiah 53:3

“See, my servant shall prosper; he shall be

exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high.”

- Isaiah 52:13

“The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are

perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.”

- 1 Corinthians 1:18

“Though he was in the form of God… 

he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant.”

- Philippians 2:6-7

“The cross is not an event that happened to Jesus;

it is the shape of his life.”

-  adapted from Jürgen Moltmann

“God is not the power that crushes suffering, but the love that endures it.”

- paraphrase of Simone Weil

“Love is the willingness to be vulnerable.”

- C.S. Lewis

“Reality is not redeemed by force, but by fidelity.”

- ChatGPT (processual aphorism style)

“If divinity is to mean anything, it must mean love, or it must mean nothing.”

- R.E. Slater

---

Preface

In the long arc of Israel’s hope, “messiah” (anointed one) most often gathers around images of vocation and vocation’s burden:

• kingship for the sake of justice,
• priesthood for the sake of reconciliation,
• prophecy for the sake of examination and repentance.

Yet the Gospel of Mark presses an older, sharper question: What if the anointed one is recognized not by triumph but by cruciform fidelity - by a reign that arrives as service, and a glory that appears as surrender? Mark’s narrative does not merely report that Jesus was crucified; it builds an argument that the cross is not an interruption to messiahship but its unveiling.

In this brief discussion of Mark’s depiction of Jesus’ disciples and the Gospel’s larger literary-and-theological aims, we see how Mark frames Jesus as Messiah precisely because of his rejection by the Jerusalem leadership and crucifixion on a Roman cross by the state of Rome. Mark’s portrait of a “crucified Messiah” would likely have sounded difficult - if not scandalous - to many first-century hearers, since it redefines "messiahship" as a path in which God’s king is revealed as suffering savior before being vindicated and enthroned at the right hand of the Father.

---

Introduction: A Messiah No One Expected

Mark 1.1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God,

2 just as it is written in Isaiah the prophet:

“Behold, I am sending My messenger before You,

Who will prepare Your way;

3 The voice of one calling out in the wilderness,

‘Prepare the way of the Lord,

Make His paths straight!’”

Mark begins with a claim that is intentionally disproportionate to the story’s opening “normalcy”: “Jesus the Messiah” (Jesus the Christ), “the Son of God.” Initially an innocuous statement to the modern reader, but startling to the reader of Mark's era when connecting God's anointed (kingly) servant who, if to be raised to divine Royalty (sic, "Sonship") must first die an ignominious, tortuous death, in order to be crowned.

Mark then spends the entirety of his gospel asking the reader two questions:

• If Christ is God's earthly King, then why must he die to inherit his reign?
• And secondly, why, does almost nobody in the story understand this staggering truth?

The answer is not simply “people are slow to apprehend, stupid, or dense.” The more obvious realization is that those coming to Jesus' story for the first time were using the wrong definition for messiahship. They weren't connecting "cruciformity" to "anointed Messiahship". It was never done... and for good reason! The one didn't make the other: "If a would-be king were crucified then that person's mortality would exclude him from further pursuit of royal office!" The one event could not lead to the next event. When you're dead, you're dead. You can't be king if you're dead!

In the ancient world in which Mark narrates, the Messiah was expected to be a figure of reversal-by-power: a liberator-king, a public victor, a restorer of national dignity. Mark insists, however, that Jesus embodies a different messianic logic - one that echoes the biblical “servant” pattern of the Old Testament (suffering, sacrificing, serving, bearing, restoring) rather than the common “conqueror” pattern of the world (dominating, seizing, outperforming).

In a phrase, the Markan Messiah reigns by giving; he wins by losing; he is revealed not by taking life but by giving his life.

This is where the title “Servant Messiah” becomes not devotional poetry but a close reading by Mark’s thematic design.

---

I. Mark’s Strategy: The Disciples as a Mirror of Misunderstanding

At Jesus’ baptism, a voice from heaven (God) declared: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" (Matthew 3:17, NKJV). Other translations record this as "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased" (Mark 1:11, Luke 3:22, NIV), affirming his identity as the Messiah. 

A striking feature in the gospel of Mark is the way the disciples function as narrative pedagogy. Readers expect the inner circle of Jesus' fellowship to be competent interpreters of Jesus mission and ministry. And yet, the disciples repeatedly frustrate our expectations.

It is not that the disciples are portrayed as cartoonishly stupid. Rather, they represent what happens when good-faith loyalty is still captivated by a cultural script of royalty. They follow Jesus, eat with Jesus, walk with Jesus, converse with Jesus, minister with Jesus, but they keep translating him back into familiar categories of expectation: prestige, victory, rank, control. In Mark, it becomes apparent that "discipleship" was not merely proximity to Jesus; it is conversion of the prophetic imagination - a shift in what “messiah,” “kingdom,” and “glory” must mean in light of Jesus' ultimate end and meaning.

Mark uses their unimaginative, studied literalism, as a mirror for later believers to examine themselves in:

"If the first followers of Jesus struggled to grasp a that a divinely anointed Messiah was to become a "crucified" Messiah, then later Christians must be forgiven for not readily grasping this same fact that Christ's Messiahship would prove to be God's winnowing fields for redemptive transformation."

---

II. The Three Passion Predictions: A Template for Servant Messiahship

Mark 8:31 - And he (Jesus) began to teach them 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 from the dead.

Mark 9:31 - For He was teaching His disciples and telling them, “The Son of Man is to be handed over to men, and they will kill Him; and when He has been killed, He will rise three days later.”

Mark 10:33-34 - (Jesus to his disciples) saying, “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and the scribes; and they will condemn Him to death and will hand Him over to the Gentiles. 34 And they will mock Him and spit on Him, and flog Him and kill Him; and three days later He will rise from the dead.

In Mark's gospel there is a threefold numeric pattern which has been taught as a literary mnemonic of Christ's steady progression towards Jerusalem: Three passion predictions ---> appearing in three successive chapters ---> with each prediction showing the disciples' obtuse misunderstanding to Jesus' teaching.

How the Disciples Misread Jesus

1) DENIAL - "You are the Messiah! But you cannot die!" (Mark 8)

Peter confess Jesus as Messiah - “You are the Messiah” - then immediately rebuked Jesus saying, “No, not the cross,” rejecting the idea that Messiahship required rejection and death. To this Jesus rebuked Peter and spoke to a crowd following him.

32 And He was stating the matter plainly. And Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him. 33 But turning around and seeing His disciples, He rebuked Peter and *said, “Get behind Me, Satan; for you are not setting your mind on God’s purposes, but on man’s.”

34 And He summoned the crowd together with His disciples, and said to them, “If anyone wants to come after Me, he must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Me. 35 For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it. 36 For what does it benefit a person to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul? 37 For what could a person give in exchange for his soul? 38 For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.”

In Mark, the temptation is to teach a non-cruciform messiahship - to speak of a “kingdom” that is without any quality of self-giving; or to speak of earthly glory without a suffering, sacrificing love.

2) MISDIRECTION - “Which of us is the greatest?” (Mark 9)

Mark 9.32 - But they did not understand this statement, and they were afraid to ask Him.

33 They came to Capernaum; and when He was in the house, He began to question them: “What were you discussing on the way?” 34 But they kept silent, for on the way they had discussed with one another which of them was the greatest. 35 And sitting down, He called the twelve and *said to them, “If anyone wants to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all.” 36 And He took a child and placed him among them, and taking him in His arms, He said to them, 37 “Whoever receives one child like this in My name receives Me; and whoever receives Me does not receive Me, but Him who sent Me.”

Immediately after Jesus teaches the cost of the cross, the disciples argue about status. Mark is not merely reporting irony; he is exposing a spiritual reflex: when confronted with the path of service, the typical response is to reach for prestige to stabilize oneself.

3) OPACITY - “Let us sit at your right and left.” (Mark 10)

35 James and John, the two sons of Zebedee, came up to Jesus, saying to Him, “Teacher, we want You to do for us whatever we ask of You.” 36 And He said to them, “What do you want Me to do for you?” 37 They said to Him, “Grant that we may sit, one on Your right and one on Your left, in Your glory.” 38 But Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” 39 They said to Him, “We are able.” And Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink you shall drink; and you shall be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized. 40 But to sit on My right or on My left is not Mine to give; but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.”

Lastly, Mark points out how the disciples, James and John, requested thrones seated next to King Jesus. But Jesus replies that they do not know what they are asking: the “right and left” of Jesus’ enthronement in Mark is not a pair of cushioned seats - they are two crosses raised on either side of him. Hence, Mark  redefines humanity's understanding of divine glory: the Messiah’s kingly Coronation is Cruciformity, not worship. Death, not Immortality. Sacrifice, not adulation.

Together, these three scenes function like a catechism of reversal.

They repeatedly teach:

• Messiah = suffering servant
• discipleship = costly participation
• greatness = self-giving sacrifice

---

III. The “Messianic Secret” as a Moral and Theological Device

Mark’s consistent thematic secret is then, a “Messianic secret,” which fits perfectly with his observations of Christ's closest disciples. He repeatedly shows Jesus silencing premature, distorted, and false messianic conclusions. Why? Because a public messiah-title without a cruciform definition becomes misinformation about God's true divinity. A divinity which no other gods, goddesses, kings, or ruling powers ever envisioned. In Jewish terms, a God who served, sacrificed, and died was truly unusual.

And consequently, in Mark’s logic, you cannot safely announce “Messiah” until you have watched what kind of Messiah Jesus is. Otherwise the word “Messiah” will be filled with the wrong content (as a warrior-king, nationalist liberator, status-granter).

Mark’s thematic "secrecy" is not simply a plot suspense; it is semantic discipline - a way of saying:

“Do not speak the title until the cross has taught you its meaning.”

---

IV. Who Recognizes the Servant Messiah - and When?

The bitter irony in Mark's estimation is that "those who “should have” understood Jesus' divine anointing often did not... but those who “should not” have understood it, did.

1) The unnamed woman who anoints Jesus

Mark’s narrative presents an unnamed woman's act as anointing “for burial.” Whether she fully understands or not, Mark places her action as a truth-bearing sign: Jesus is anointed not toward pomp but toward death. This is messiahship reframed as offering.

2) The tearing of the temple veil

In the transcript, the torn curtain signifies a shift: access to God is no longer mediated through the old sacrificial separation. Mark’s theological claim is not merely “something dramatic happened.” It is: Jesus’ death itself constitutes a new openness - God’s nearness arriving through the servant’s suffering - and making a hidden, feared, God available to all.

3) The centurion’s confession (the climactic human recognition)

Mark’s most startling recognition comes from a Roman executioner: “Truly this man was the Son of God.” Whatever one makes historically of that detail, literarily it functions as Mark’s culminating reversal: the servant Messiah is recognized at the moment of death, and by the least expected witness. Mark is teaching that crucifixion is not the disproof of messiahship but the disclosure of its deepest form.

This is central to “Servant Messiah”: Jesus is most himself - most revealed - as he gives himself away epitomized in his last dinner with his disciples of broken bread and poured out drink offering (cf. Leviticus Passover mean 23, 26).

---

V. Servant Messiah: Two Readings Held Together

Mark’s Servant Messiah lends itself to a dual frame without collapsing into relativism.

A. The confessional (Christian) reading

In Christian terms, Mark offers a theology of redemption in narrative form: the Messiah’s suffering is not accidental, not merely political tragedy, but the chosen path of divine solidarity and deliverance. The servant Messiah “ransom” language (Mark 10:45) becomes a claim about reality: love saves not by domination, but by self-gift that transforms the world’s moral physics.

B. The historical-philosophical (non-confessional) reading

Even without affirming resurrection or divinity, Mark can be read as a profound critique of status, violence, and power. The “servant Messiah” becomes a counter-myth to imperial ideology: true greatness is not the ability to crush enemies but the capacity to bear cost for others.

Regarding this form of teaching, Mark is offering an ethic and an anthropology:

Humans default to greatness-as-rank; Jesus embodies greatness-as-service; communities are judged by which definition they enthrone.

Either way, Mark’s gospel attacks the same illusion: that "the highest good is secured by supremacy rather than by sacrificial fidelity."

---

Conclusion: The Messiah Rewritten as Servant, and the Servant Revealed as King

Mark’s portrait of Jesus is not simply “a Messiah who suffers.” It is more radical: that suffering is the ULTIMATE messianic signature.

The disciples’ incomprehension is not a side plot; it is the dramatic representation of how hard it is to accept a kingdom that arrives through service.

The “secret” is not mere concealment; it is protection against misnaming.

And the final recognition at the cross is Mark’s thesis stated in narrative form: the servant Messiah is revealed where the world expects only defeat.

If Mark is right, then discipleship is not admiration plus morality. It is participation in a new definition of reality’s power: the power to heal by giving, to lead by serving, and to become truly great by carrying another’s burden.

---

Right and Left

They asked for thrones -
for right-hand light,
and left-hand honor,
for seats that did not bleed.

He answered with a basin,
with water poured like service,
with a towel’s quiet revolution -
and a road that narrowed into wood.

In Mark’s strange kingdom
the crown is not seized -
it is endured,

it holds pain.

The right and left
are not cushions in a palace,
but witnesses to self-giving,
where love refuses to retaliate
and does not abandon or turn away.

O Servant Messiah -
teach our austere hearts
the grammar of your glory:

  that power is not what wins,

  but what gives;
  that greatness is not what rises,
  but what carries;
  and that the door to God
  opens -
    not by the sword,
    but by the torn veil
    of a life poured out.

R.E. Slater
January 24, 2026
@copyright R.E. Slater Publications
all rights reserved

---

BIBLIOGRAPHY

---

Primary texts

• The Gospel According to Mark (esp. 8:27–10:45; 14–16)

• Isaiah 52:13–53:12; Psalm 22 (as later Christian interpretive touchpoints, with attention to historical context)

Historical-critical and Mark studies

• D. Edmond Hiebert, Mark. A Portrait of the Servant.

• Adela Yarbro Collins, Mark: A Commentary (Hermeneia)

• Joel Marcus, Mark 1–8 and Mark 8–16 (Anchor Yale Bible)

• Morna D. Hooker, The Gospel According to Saint Mark (Black’s NT Commentaries)

• Ched Myers, Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark’s Story of Jesus

• John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: Messianism in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls

• N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (useful for a robust “messiahship” frame, even when debated)

Essential Kenosis - Why A Loving and Powerful God Cannot Prevent Evil

The Most Neglected Issue in Explanations of Evil

http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/the_most_neglected_issue_in_efforts_to_solve_the_problem_of_evil/#.VA1PmfldVfc

by Thomas Jay Oord

September 4, 2014

In my current book, I offer a model of providence I call “Essential Kenosis.” One of my main arguments is that this model gives a plausible reason why a loving and powerful God fails to prevent genuine evil. One aspect of my argument, however, addresses what we might call God's "constitution." I find this aspect neglected more than any other by those who address the problem of evil.

My solution is, I believe, novel, because I point to God’s nature of love as the reason God cannot prevent genuine evil caused by random events or free creatures. My work is funded by the Randomness and Divine Providence project, directed by James Bradley.

But there is another, often overlooked, aspect to what I think is a plausible solution to the problem of evil. This aspect addresses an aspect of the problem of evil not directly tied to God's love and power.

God as Omnipresent Spirit

It is important to say God cannot prevent genuine evil because doing so requires nullifying the divine nature of love. This is the heart of the essential kenosis model of providence. But another set of issues remain. We can address these issues by asking this question:

If we creatures sometimes thwart a planned terrorist attack by using our bodies, sending agents, or using various instruments, why can’t God do this?

To ask the question more specifically, if we creatures can step between two combatants and thereby prevent evil, why can’t God do the same? If creatures can use their bodies to prevent evil, why can’t God prevent evil in this way? And if creatures can marshal others to use objects to prevent genuine evil, why doesn’t God do the same?

God is a Loving Spirit

Essential kenosis answers this set of questions by affirming the traditional view that God is a loving spirit and lovingly omnipresent. Unfortunately, those who believe in God often fail to think through the implications of these traditional views.

Believing God is an omnipresent spirit has implications for thinking well about why God cannot unilaterally prevent evil in ways we might sometimes prevent it. Being an omnipresent spirit affords God both unique abilities and unique limitations.

To say God is a loving spirit is to say, in part, God does not have a divine body. God’s essential “being” or “constitution” is spiritual. In fact, because God is spirit, we cannot perceive God with our five senses. Christians have proposed various theories to explain how God’s invisible spiritual life exerts causal influence, and many involve affirming some form of nonsensory causation. The details of these theories deserve fuller explanation than what is possible here.

God is Lovingly Omnipresent

The second divine attribute typically neglected in discussions of evil is God’s universality. God is present to all creation and to each individual entity. God is omnipresent, most believers say. Rather than being localized in a particular place as creatures are localized, the Creator is present to all.

As an omnipresent spirit with no localized divine body, God cannot exert divine bodily influence as a localized corpus. God cannot use a divine body to step between two parties engaged in a fight, for instance. God doesn’t have a wholly divine hand to scoop a rock out of the air, cover a bomb before it explodes, or block a bullet before it projects from a rifle. While we may sometimes be morally culpable for failing to use our localized bodies to prevent such genuine evils, the God without a localized divine body is not culpable.

God cannot prevent evil with a localized divine body, because God is an omnipresent spirit.

God Calls Upon Creatures with Bodies to Love

God can, however, marshal those with localized bodies to exert creaturely bodily impact in various ways. God can call upon a teacher to place her body between a bully and his victim. God can call upon the fire fighter to reach through a burning window to grab a terrified toddler. God can even call upon lesser organisms and entities to use their bodily aspects, in whatever limited way possible, to promote good or prevent evil. We rightly regard the positive responses of less complex organisms, for instance, as instrumental in the physical healings we witness in our world. And we rightly honor humans who respond to God’s calls to use their bodies to prevent genuine evil or do good.

Of course, we with localized bodies do not always respond well to God’s call. God may want to prevent some evil and call upon a creature to use its body for this purpose. But creatures may fail to respond well, disobey, and sin. God is not culpable for the evil that results when we fail to love. God may marshal groups to intercede to help, but these groups may ignore God’s commands. When God calls and we fail to respond well, we are to blame.

Creatures sometimes respond well to God’s call, however. They “listen” to God’s call to prevent some impending tragedy or stop an ongoing conflict. When creatures respond well, we sometimes even say, “God prevented that evil.” This should not mean that God alone prevented it. Creatures cooperated, playing necessary roles by using their bodies to fulfill God’s good purposes. Our saying, “God did it,” simply expresses our belief that God played the primary causal role in the event.

We Can Be God’s Co-Workers

Creaturely cooperation inspired the phrase, “we are God’s hands and feet.” It also inspired the saying “the world is God’s body” and God is the “soul of the universe.” These phrases only make sense, however, if we do not take them literally. We do not literally become divine appendages; the world is not literally a divine corpus. God remains divine; and we and world are God’s creations.

But when creatures respond well to God’s leading, the overall result is that God’s will is done in heaven and on earth. When God’s loving will is done, we might feel provoked to credit, praise, and thank the Creator. And this is appropriate. But when we do so, we can also rightly acknowledge the creaturely cooperation required for establishing what is good. God gets the lion’s share of the credit, but should appreciate creatures who cooperated with their Creator.

We can be God’s co-workers (1 Cor. 3:9; 2 Cor. 6:1; 3 Jn 1:8). Hallelujah!

Kenosis and God’s Eternal Nature

In Christian theology, kenosis (from the Greek word for emptiness κένωσις, kénōsis) is the

'self-emptying' of one's own will and becoming entirely receptive to God's divine will.

The word ἐκένωσεν (ekénōsen) is used in Philippians 2:7, "[Jesus] made himself nothing ..."

[Phil. 2:7] (NIV) or "...[he] emptied himself..."[Phil. 2:7] (NRSV), using the verb form

κενόω (kenóō) "to empty". See also Strong's G2758.

- Wikipedia

Kenosis and God’s Eternal Nature

http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/kenosis_and_gods_eternal_nature/#.U_VYyfldXfs

by Thomas Jay Oord

August 19, 2014

Deer in Moonlight. [Photo by Thomas Jay Oord]

A growing number of Christians think Jesus' kenotic love tell us something about God's essential nature. If true, this sheds light on ongoing questions about the relationship between divine love and power.

The verb form of the Greek word “kenosis” appears about a half dozen times in the New Testament. Perhaps the most discussed appearance comes in the Apostle Paul’s letter to believers in the city of Philippi. Here is the Philippians text in the New Revised Standard Version translation, including verses surrounding the word “kenosis” to provide context for help finding its meaning:

"Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others. Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself (kenosis), taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death -- even death on a cross. Therefore God also highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Therefore, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed me, not only in my presence, but much more now in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:3-13).

What Does It Mean?

All Scripture requires interpretation. Theologians interpret this passage in various ways and apply it to various issues. Before looking at those interpretations, let me summarize the context in which we find the word “kenosis.”

The passage begins with Apostle Paul’s ethical instructions: look to the interests of others, not your own. He points to Jesus Christ, who is divine, as the primary example of someone who expresses other-oriented love. Jesus’ love is evident, says Paul, in his diminished power and his service to others. The weakness of the cross is an especially powerful example of Jesus acting for the good of others. God endorses Jesus’ other-oriented love, and God enables those who follow Jesus’ example to pursue salvation. God desires that we take this approach to life. Paul tells readers to pursue the good life (salvation) fastidiously.

When considering the meaning of kenosis in this passage, most theologians in previous centuries focused on the phrase just prior to kenosis: “(Jesus) did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited.” They believed it provided clues for explaining Jesus’ humanity and divinity.

At a fifth-century meeting in Chalcedon, Christian theologians issued a statement saying Jesus Christ has two natures “communicated to” one person. Jesus is the God-human, they said, because he is fully divine and fully human.

Theologians thereafter pondered which divine attributes Jesus retained in his human life and which, as a result of self-emptying, he did not. The Chalcedonian creedal statement offers little to no help in answering the specifics of this issue. Theologians today still ponder how Jesus is both human and divine.

Kenosis Tells Us about God

In recent decades, however, discussions of kenosis have shifted. Instead of appealing to kenosis in the debate over how much of God’s nature Jesus possesses, theologians today use kenosis primarily to describe how Jesus reveals God’s nature. Instead of imagining how God may have relinquished attributes when becoming incarnate, many now think Jesus’ kenosis is less about relinquishing attributes and more about telling us who God is and how God acts.

The contemporary shift to thinking of kenosis as Jesus’ revealing God’s nature moves theologians away from phrases in the passage preceding kenosis. Many now read kenosis primarily in light of “taking the form of a slave,” “humbled himself,” and “death on a cross.” These phrases focus on Jesus’ diminished power and his service to others. They describe forms of other-oriented love.

I follow the contemporary trend of interpreting kenosis primarily as Jesus’ qualified power, other-orientation, and servant love. This interpretation seems more fruitful overall than discussions about what might be communicated between Christ’s two natures, although I don’t mean to say such discussions have no place. My interpretation also helps us consider God’s essential power given God’s loving nature and orientation toward loving creation. Consequently, I refer to kenosis to talk not so much about how God became incarnate as who God is in light of incarnate love.

In short, we know something about God’s eternal nature in the light of Jesus Christ’s kenotic love.

The Cost of True Leadership in the Failure of the Jesus' Twelve Disciples

On Jesus’ Choosing Twelve Males, take 1 

http://www.jrdkirk.com/2012/02/03/on-jesus-choosing-twelve-males/

by JRD Kirk

February 3, 2012

I know that many of you wake up on Fridays eager for the weekly Karl Barth post. I hate to put you off another day, but today I have something a bit more pressing to take care of.

Yesterday, I posted the first of two responses I wanted to make to John Piper’s description of Christianity as a “masculine” religion. Rachel Held Evans has issued the summons for replies, and I think this is an important moment to inject a more biblically sound reading of gender issues in the church. Thanks, Rachel, for stirring us to positive response.

Today’s issue has to do with the significance of Jesus’ choosing of twelve men to be his disciples. This is one of several issues I take up in Jesus Have I Loved, but Paul?.

The story within which this selection of the twelve is embedded leads us to draw a very different point from Piper’s.

Jesus chooses twelve men. These twelve Jesus specially commissions. Jesus came preaching, casting out demons, and healing. The disciples are sent to preach and heal and cast out demons.

Jesus comes proclaiming and inaugurating the reign of God, and these men are sent out to participate in that coming. When Jesus feeds the 5,000, he hands the bread to them. They are the chosen. They are the insiders.

In contrast (let’s stick to Mark’s Gospel here), the women in the story are marginal. There are small handfuls of nameless women. They touch Jesus’ robe, they ask for healing for their daughters, they throw a few coins in a box in the temple, they anoint Jesus’ head with oil.

So while the women are coming in and going out, acting on faith and finding praise for their faith, it’s the boys who are getting it done!

Getting it done, that is, right up until the great, transitional moment in the story.

1. “Who do you say that I am?” “You are the Christ.” Ok, so far so good. Then, Jesus begins to tell them what this title entails: “The Messiah must be rejected, suffer, and die. Then he’ll be raised.”

Peter rebukes Jesus. Jesus rebukes him back: “Get behind me Satan.”

What happens then?

Move on to ch. 9, and the disciples who had been empowered to exorcise are unable to cast out a demon. The disciples who had been given the charge to proclaim cannot overcome the mute-making spirit.

2. Later that same chapter Jesus again predicts his death. The disciples’ reaction? They walk along debating with each other about who is going to be greatest in God’s coming kingdom.

We begin to see what they don’t get about Jesus’ ministry: the cross turns the economy of the world on its head. They have a standard of greatness that entails a certain kind of leadership and power, but Jesus wants to transform their ideas. He wants them to see greatness in the cross and the child.

As if Mark, or Jesus, thought we might miss the point, we get the whole thing a third time.

3. Jesus predicts his death, and this time the subsequent response of the disciples is James’ and John’s request to sit at Jesus’ right and left hand. Again, Jesus has to combat not merely the request, but the wrongheaded assumption about what greatness in the kingdom of God looks like:

Jesus called them over and said, “ You know that the ones who are considered the rulers by the Gentiles show off their authority over them and their high-ranking officials order them around. But that’s not the way it will be with you. Whoever wants to be great among you will be your servant. Whoever wants to be first among you will be the slave of all, for the Human One didn’t come to be served but rather to serve and to give his life to liberate many people.” (Mark 10:42-44, CEB)

In the story, the disciples do not understand what is entailed in leading the people of God. They think it is about greatness and power rather than service and death.

And so, we have the group represented by Peter. The rock. Is being “the rock” a good thing? In Mark, the rocky soil indicates plants that spring up well, but fall away when danger or persecution arise on account of the word. Mark repeats the language of “falling away” when the disciples scatter, leaving Jesus to die alone.

The Twelve were committed to Jesus, and happy with him–but only as one who came with power. They had no faith in their calling to participate in his way of death. They did not have eyes to see that the ministry of Jesus turned the economy of the world on its head....

Shall we return to the women now?

How are we to assess these women who, in the narrative world, are outsiders, on the margins?

Unlike the disciples who are rebuked for being of little faith, Jesus commends these women as having great faith: “Daughter, go in peace, your faith has made you well.”

Moreover, there is one episode where Jesus ties a human inseparably to the gospel story. It is the episode of the woman who pours out oil over Jesus’ head. This looks to be a royal anointing! But when Jesus defends her he says, “Leave her alone, she has prepared my body beforehand for burial.”

The act of anointing prepares Jesus for burial: Messiahship and death are held together, and here is the only person in the whole story to get it. This is why “wherever the gospel is preached what she has done will also be told in memory of her.”

What does it mean to live at the margins, to be unnamed? How does this compare with being the twelve, the dudes, the insiders?

According to the economy of the world, with its measures of greatness, to be the twelve is to be exemplary, in the place to lead, to exclude others from leadership, to stand close to Jesus and guard the gates of who else can draw near.

And to the extent that we look to Jesus’ selection of them, and the apparent marginalization of the women, as paradigmatic for male leadership in the church, we show ourselves to be people whose minds have not yet been transformed by the very story to which we are appealing.

It is only by agreeing with the disciples’ way of assessing the world that we can see their “insider status” as a true insider status, to be replicated by other men in church history.

Jesus offers another way: You guys don’t get it! It’s the rulers of the Gentiles who lord authority over people. It shall not be so among you.

There is another way. It is the way of the cross.

There is another way. It is the way of the “marginalized” in the worlds eyes lying closest to Jesus in faith and understanding.

Are we really supposed to hold up as our model the “Satan” who denied the gospel of the crucified Christ, and claim that Peter is paradigmatic of the place of men as insiders and faithful leaders in the church?

Or should we not seek out the one who did the good deed for Jesus, holding together Messiah and death from her place at the margins? Should we not seek out the one who sought out Jesus merely to touch the fringe of his garment and learn from her what it means to walk in faith?

The irony of appealing to the boys as insiders is that in so doing we show ourselves to be adopting the boys’ understanding of power, privilege, and leadership in the kingdom.

And this view is roundly rebuked by Jesus in words of dissuasion and the work of the cross.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Power-Inverting Kingdom, take 2

http://www.jrdkirk.com/2012/02/06/power-inverting-kingdom-take-2/

by JRD Kirk

February 6, 2012

On Friday I said a few words about the twelve disciples. How normative is Jesus’ selection of twelve men to be his ministry-extenders while on earth? This is a question that cannot be answered in a way that is abstracted from the narrative. The story of their failure, of their rejection of the gospel of the crucified messiah, undermines the claims to their normativity.

We have to remember that we’re reading stories. In stories, characters develop. Events in the narrative shape them. They respond. We all know that the twelve includes the betrayer Judas, but we also need to look closely at the other eleven and their betrayal of Jesus.

As I mentioned Friday, the turning point in the story is a turning point for the twelve: Yes, Jesus is the Christ (Peter’s confession in ch. 8), but this Christ is a suffering Christ–a claim for which Peter rebukes Jesus in a Satanic denial of the road ahead.

From this point on, the disciples lose their kingdom-extending role. Their failure plays out in several subsequent scenes.

After the second passion prediction, Jesus confronts the disciples about what they were arguing about on the road. They are shamed. They had been arguing about which is greatest.

Jesus inverts their assessment of the world: to be great is to be least and servant of all.

Then, Jesus takes hold of one of the least, the most powerless members of society, and shows the disciples what it means to be agents of the kingdom: “Welcome the child in my name.”

Of course, this has nothing whatsoever to do with who can minister in Christ’s name, right? I mean, this is just about patting little kids on the head, right?
Well, that’s what John thought: “Teacher, we saw someone throwing demons out in your name, and we tried to stop him because he wasn’t following us.”

Clearly, welcoming kids is one thing, taking up the master’s name and performing unauthorized ministry, ministry not delineated by the Twelve is something else!

Or maybe not.

Jesus said, “Don’t stop him. No one who does powerful acts in my name can quickly turn around and curse me. Whoever isn’t against us is for us” (Mark 9:39-40, CEB).

So I ask again: does the narrative of Mark uphold the idea that the twelve delineate the parameters for faithful ministry in the church?

And again the unfolding story itself pushes me in a different direction.

To the extent that we use the disciples as paradigmatic figures for excluding people from ministry we are embodying their own failed understanding of ministry in and for and under the Reign of God in Christ.

The gospel of the cross overturns such understandings of insider standing, power, and status. It rebukes our natural tendency to affirm as eligible leaders only those who are like the original insiders.

When we use the Twelve as a weapon for fending off women from church leadership we align ourselves with the misapprehending disciples rather than the gospel proclaiming Christ.