Assumptive Theology

They seized upon that statement, discussing with one another what rising from the dead meant. Mark 9:10 NASB

Meant – Do you find this verse a bit odd? It suggests that the disciples didn’t quite know what Yeshua was talking about when he told them to keep quiet until the Son of Man should rise from the dead. It’s noteworthy to recognize that they were not confused about the reference to the Son of Man. They were confused about rising from the dead. But haven’t we assumed that Jews in the first century believed in the resurrection of the dead? If that’s the case, then why are his disciples confused? The Greek text shows us that their confusion was deeper than a question about definitions. syzetountes estin nekron anastenai is “questioning the existence (the being of) the dead rising.” In other words, they were not confused about the meaning of Yeshua’s words. They were confused about whether or not such a thing was even possible!

That should tell us something about the theology of these disciples. They probably weren’t in the camp of the Pharisees. By the first century, the Pharisees already adopted the idea of the resurrection of the dead. But some circles of Jewish thought, particularly those associated with the more conservative view of the Torah as the Pentateuch, did not believe in resurrection. The Sadducees rejected the idea of the resurrection of the dead because it was not found in the Torah of Moses. Is this because they viewed the Torah of Moses as eternal and timeless instruction but the rest of the Tanakh as conditionally dependent on historical circumstances? Notice that non-canonical books include the idea of resurrection of the dead, and these books were recognized in the first century BCE, but that did not change the opinion of the Sadducees.

We see this great conflict in the life and trials of Paul. Here we have some of Yeshua’s disciples questioning the same idea. Can a man rise from the dead? Is it even possible? Now perhaps we can appreciate the utter despair of the disciples when Yeshua is crucified. If they didn’t believe resurrection was possible, what reason would they have to hope for his return from the grave?

We could skip over this little lesson, ignoring the implications about the disciples’ thought, and simply declare that since Yeshua spoke of his resurrection, they should have believed it just as we do. But that would mean we would have to ignore the sitz im leben of the first century disciples. We would read the text from our perspective, with perfect hindsight, not acknowledging that the disciples were products of their age and culture. In other words, we would completely overlook the emotional impact on the disciples when they heard things they didn’t think were possible. As a result, we wouldn’t see these men as they really were—followers of a champion of their own making. They had a lot to learn. So do we.

One of the most important tasks in biblical interpretation is to get inside the heads of those who were there. This usually means putting aside a lot of our assumptions, often hidden to us because they have been so much a part of our own biblical training. But real connection with the events of Scripture means trying, as best we can, to be part of the experience when it happened. The effort is to rewrite the text for ourselves by becoming actors in the story instead of observers from another time. These real men and women struggled to understand things we take for granted. Maybe we’re the ones who need a bit more confusion.

Topical Index: exegesis, resurrection, confusion, meant, Mark 9:10