The leaders of Mark’s church seem to have referred to themselves, by ap
lay on words which Greek makes possible, as ‘servants’ or ‘children’. Significantly,
they enjoy and unqualified identity with Jesus that is never granted to the
Twelve. For instance, while the latter speculate about their relative prestige,
Jesus replies, “If anyone wants to be first, he must make himself last of all
and servant of all.” Then he took a child, set him in front of them, and put his
arm round him. “Whoever receives one of these children in my name”, he said, “receives
me; and whoever receives me, receives not me, but the One who sent me”’
(9.35-37). The significance of this text for understanding the community in
which Mark was written cannot be overestimated. The authority of the child and
servant is thus set over the Twelve, and given the highest possible importance.
The assertion of claims to leadership by deceptively modest rhetoric has
already been discerned by Paul, the slave of Christ Jesus (Rom. 1.1). and is developed
most elaborately in the letter to the Colossians (cf. pp. 126f.). The awareness
that ‘the children’ of Mark’s Gospel are not necessarily the sentimental creatures
of Margaret Tarrant’s art makes intelligible the jealously of the disciples for
such privileged beings.
Mark shows the two groups in conflict with each other, and portrays
Jesus as unequivocally on the side of the children:'’They brought children for
him to touch. The disciples rebuked them, but when Jesus saw this he was
indignant, and said to them, “let the children come to me; do not try to stop
them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you, whoever does
not accept the kingdom of God like a child will never enter it.” And he put his
arms round them, laid his hands upon them, and blessed them’ (10.38-41). The
community of the children is here equated with the kingdom of God; only
children may enter it, and it is by no means clear whether the Twelve qualify.
We can see the criticism in Mark’s community of the claims to dominance put
forward by the Twelve or their successors most forcefully stated after the
abortive request of James and John for promotion: ‘Jesus called to them and
said, “You know that in the world the recognized rulers lord it over their
subjects, and their great men make them feel the weight of authority. That is
not the way with you; among you, whoever wants to be great must be your
servant, and whoever wants to be first must be the willing slave of all. For
even the Son of man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give up his
life as a ransom for many”’ (10.42-45). Here the claims to primacy of the
Twelve, which Pual half accepts even in Galatians, are specifically denied by
Jesus; instead he establishes the position, not of the Twelve, but of the
servants. In those words the leadership of Mark’s own church would have heard a
reassuring reference to themselves. In the same way the closing words of the
apocalypse describe very closely the structure of authority, which governed
Mark’s church: ‘It is like a man away from home: he has left his house and put his
servants in charge, each with his own work to do, and he has ordered the
door-keeper to stay awake’ (13.34). Jesus, the absent source of authority, is
represented by servants, to whom he has delegated his power.
The equivocation between the humility of the designation ‘servant’ and
the assertion of authority is here quite explicit. Moreover ‘the servant’
establishes his credentials by ‘staying awake’, which interweaves anxiety about
the end with perseverance in prayer. It is a telling profile of ecclesiastical prestige.
When therefore Mark tells the story of the authorized exorcist, we
should not rush to the conclusion that this represents a generous disclaimer of
monopoly powers; it is most probably self-defence. John’s words, ‘Master, we saw
man driving out devils in your name, and as he was not one of us, we tried to
stop him’ (9.38) may well describe how the Twelve regarded the leadership of Mark’s
community; unauthorized, not properly belonging , to be opposed. Jesus’ reply
which appears simply permissive may actually be legitimating: ‘Do not stop him;
no one who does a work of divine power in my name will be able the next moment
to speak evil of me. For he who is not against us in our side’ (9.39f.). If
this understanding of Mark is correct, then like Paul he is writing to justify
an identity and authority which was suspect in the eyes of other Christian
leaders. His position is not derived from the Twelve, but in tension to them. He
is the true church of the children, the servants who establish after their position
by their manifest poverty and unrelenting prayer, and who prove their credentials
by the exorcisms. We now see why Mark responds to bitterly to the suggestion of
the lawyers that Satan can cast out Satan. It is not simply Jesus’ bona
fides which are thus placed in doubt, but their own. (Graham Shaw, The Cost
of Authority: Manipulation and Freedom in the New Testament [London: SCM
Press, 1982], 260-62)
