Author: Wesley White

and, wherever it seizes him, it dashes him down; he foams at the mouth and grinds his teeth, and he is pining away. I asked your disciples to drive the spirit out, but they failed.”

---

here are the details
how life falls apart

power beyond our control
casts a shadow over us

we respond a-shivering
in its shaking cold grasp

with intense stammering
no swallowing foaming spittle

teeth grind our meaning
into nonsense bits of noise

finally centered in hell is darkness
we are frozen still

we came with hope now dashed
children dismissed turned away

whether they couldn’t or wouldn’t
your so-called healers are failures

---

How helpless the child!

How helpless the parent!

How helpless the disciples!

Not only helpless, but nigh on to hopeless!

The evocative word beyond simple description is ξηραίνω (xērainō, dry up, wither, grow rigid). This is the same word used back in 3:1 about a man with a withered hand.

In Mark repetition bears attending to. Since it is written to his readers there is opportunity here to reflect on what has dried up, withered, stiffened in our life. We may even be able to get back to the description of people who have relied on external power and developed a “stiff neck” or “hardened heart”.

Though not described in this detail, we may also remember Jairus’ daughter and the sense of helplessness that comes through that story. Or, some of the details may remind us of the Gerasene being full of power but unable to control it.

Of significance, LaVerdiere-2₄₉ recalls, “Jesus had sent the Twelve on mission with authority over unclean spirits (6:7). Summarizing their mission, the Gospel said that the Twelve drove out many demons (6:13).” So what has gone on here that their practice hasn’t borne fruit in this instance? This question is good ground for the breaking out of an argument. It doesn’t need the fleeting mention of the Scribes. It can be expected simply on the basis of different understandings among the 9 disciples left behind. A question still facing the church—What is our excuse that justifies our failure?

“Teacher,” answered a man in the crowd, “I brought my son to see you, as he has a spirit in him that makes him mute;

---

where have you been so long
my son is as important to me
as any religious leader’s daughter

I’ve traveled far not just waited
for you to come close to me
and where were you gone

my son my image my beloved
closes down to wilderness silence
a cold choking wind takes him away

I claim a diagnosis to soothe our minds
I demand a cure lest our hearts break
I will pay for this with my life

are we clear it is your reputation
that is on the line with inept disciples
now that you’re back don’t just stand there

---

A spirit that won’t brook any speaking not only has a personal aspect, as here, but a social one as well. Speech is never free, it always has a consequence.

The same hope that drives someone (mother? father?) to lead their young one to Jesus fills the whole crowd, silenced by the Romans, to see what happens here and then take it to the socio-political level as well.

This story about a child reminds us to look back at Jairus’ daughter. Those shut out of that scene are looking to get a closer peek about technique.

Ultimately there will be as much disappointment in this quest as in the previous one or at the later one with the youth in a tomb. Dealing with spirit is never able to be consolidated into a technique, it remains ever live (reading Jacques Ellul is helpful here).

Waetjen₁₅₅ has a footnote that includes:

“This spirit appears to be different from the ‘unclean spirits’ or ‘demons.’ It does not cry out Jesus’ identity, as the others did. Unlike the others it may not be generated by institutional realities or systemic structures.

This opens us to seeing this story as more than a healing. The main character is the parent and may assist with the solution Jesus arrives at. As a child can reflect their parent, we could be dealing with that constriction of conscience that keeps us silent when ourselves or others are being harmed and we feel powerless.

“What are you arguing about with them?”Jesus asked.

---

a first sign of resolution
definition of where the rub is

can we even accept or restate
articulation of another’s experience

such mediation can get stoned
from both sides now

a first sign of power
finding a choice to arbitrate

right and wrong take second place
to extending a divine right to rule

every simple question is full
of nuance agenda conclusion

---

Is this the first question you would ask when coming into a contentious setting? How do you even get attention to ask this question in the midst of the crowd energy in seeing Jesus?

To whom did Jesus pose this clarifying question?

The commentators are all over the map on the focus of the question. The four most likely candidates are:

1. The Disciples. The argument is that these are the ones Jesus is familiar with and he wants their input. This gives great power to the in-group as the setter-of-the-agenda. It is what is present in white privilege settings—those closest to the center of power keep their position by framing the argument in their favor.
2. The Scribes. Here it is noted that a number of early manuscripts deliberately add “Jesus asked the Scribes”. Since we don’t have the earliest manuscripts, it has to be asked if this is an addition by a scribe or if it is a correction to a dropped word in a previous copying. But there is textual evidence of Scribes being the ones asked. It is also good form to ask the complainant what the issue is.
3. The Crowd. Evidence for this will lie in the next verse when an individual from the crowd is the one who responds to the question.
4. The Whole Scene—Disciples, Scribes, and Crowd. Remembering the excitement and movement of the crowd it will be difficult to sort out a particular component. We can imagine the ancient equivalent of a bull-horn being needed.

In the end, Mark doesn’t need a choice to be made about this detail. It is the question that is needed to set up the rest of the scene.

It may be that the response chosen reflects personality or temperament differences between commentators.

But, as soon as they saw Jesus, all the people, in great astonishment, ran up and greeted him.

---

so focused on the center of attention
it takes awhile to notice
we also have a peripheral vision
quietly signaling to us

arguments threats outrageous tweets
easily rise to take center stage
distracting and confusing everyone
participant and observer

slowly from the outside in
awareness of another way
surfaces from self-imposed darkness
turning any difference into win or die

and a fickle crowd shifts energy
as reinforcements for a losing side
promise an enlarged extended hubbub
its circus experience enhanced

---

Talk about changing dynamics! An argument between Scribes and Disciples is set by the side when a better show comes along.

In fact the welcome of the crowd is not just excitement for excitement’s sake (think TV game shows), but there being real awe, fear, joy at the unexpected presence of Jesus. This shift feels a bit like the difference between a cardboard cutout and a live person.

We have not been noting all the usages of euthus (immediately, BANG) along the way. As we start into the second half of Mark it is good to remember one of his most-used words. It reminds us of the kind of surprise we have yearning under our surface attempts at control of our situation. It took bright light and cloud voice to surprise Peter, James, and John on a mountain. Here it is a collective remembrance of times past when our expectations were taken off-guard.

Like Moses spending too much time on a mountain, it seemed like forever since Jesus and his three companions had left. It was almost as if time had stood still and now, with a lurch, caught up to itself. Disorientation and Hope teeter-tottered.

This is a good time to review Jesus’ interactions with crowds and assess what seems like his interaction with them. This will inform our own public engagements.

Here is a smattering of remembrances of ὄχλος (ochios, crowd) in Mark 2:13; 3:32; 4:1; 5:27; 6:34; 6:45; 7:14; 8:2; 8:34 and anticipation of next gatherings: 10:1; 11:18; 12:12; 14:43; and 15:8.

When they came to the other disciples, they saw a great crowd around them, and some teachers of the Law arguing with them.

---

remember your mountain
adventure
through all subsequences
to heal or not to heal
plainly
not a question

disappointment comes around
regularly
arguing to argue
compromises immune systems
directly
no questions asked

transitions are difficult
everywhere
tempted to give up
choice still abides
eternal
steady steadily steadied

---

The CEB that we have been using as a standard text has chosen here to name Jesus, Peter, James, and John rather than to leave it with a more literal translation of an implied and indefinite “they” which, in context, would refer back to those who came down the mountain. It is always tricky to know when to add a clarifying word and when to let the story flow.

An example of that flow is the lack of description of what the Scribes were arguing about. Whether it is a repeat of one of their previous bones-to-pick or a new tack, is not Mark’s concern here. The course is already set, suffering and death, increasing conflict is built in to this arc.

We are to understand that we are back to work with the learners, pupils, disciples. The tools are the usual ones of healing (specific event) and teaching (understanding).

Before getting into the story as such, it is helpful for a reader to pause and reflect on how they (better, “I”) react when seeing a negative encounter going on. Does that change whether we know participants on both sides or just one? What happens to my attention and energy? Does my fight-or-flight analyzer ratchet up? Does my truth-O-meter start finding projected arguments based on my expectation of being a mediator or judge? Does my mouth go dry or salivation kick in?

Whatever your usual markers are when anticipating participation in a tense setting, they are a helpful backdrop to best hear the unfolding of a story that continues from 9:1—“to see the presence of G*D active in the present”.

But I tell you that Elijah has come, and people have treated him just as they pleased, as scripture says of him.”

---

so many anonymous Elijahs
have returned with rainy day oil
only to have first been ignored
then put under house arrest

bored out of their mind
many an Elijah faded away
a mere ghost of themself
slumped in an empty chair

too expected to be seen
a sadly overlooked Elijah
prepares needed suffering
to clear established cataracts

---

Mark is not as explicit about relating Elijah with Baptizer John as is Matthew 17:13, “Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them about John the Baptist.”

Since there is no tradition about Elijah being mistreated when he returns to herald a “Great Day of Judgment” that will get everyone trod out of existence except for parents and children who are in accord with one another (Malachi 4), this verse seems to refer to the difficulties Elijah had with Ahab and Jezebel.

Elijah’s confrontation with power that was distracting and working against the common good of its day led to his being chased to exhaustion. Only at the last moment, while despondent and asking to die, was he fortified with angel cake and drink. This part of Elijah’s story fits with Jesus’ understanding of his suffering and death.

A difference is, Elijah heard a strange, still, small voice sending him into the wilderness to anoint other kings with oil (similar to John’s anointing with water on the other side of the Jordan) and Jesus’ death throes which will have silence instead of a “Who-sized” voice—“Why have you forsaken me? Where is my angel chef?”

In the scene at the cross (15:33–37) Elijah is back one more time through the mistaken hearing of the crowd. In some fashion, Jesus becomes Elijah, a witness against those whose power has gone to their head and will get a curse as Jesus’ death sets up a rationale for a Great Judgment to come.

Galston₁₀₈ notes a progression: “The great thing about [Jesus’] death is his resurrection, and the great thing about his resurrection is that he is returning to judge the world, and the great things about his return is that it never happens, leaving the Church in charge.” How has the Church done with its “rituals of salvation”? Has it substituted “power” for “character development” and “spiritual maturity”?

“Elijah does indeed come first,” answered Jesus, “and re-establish everything; and does not scripture speak, with regard to the Son of Man, of his undergoing much suffering and being utterly despised?

---

before a restart
comes a restore
now we can deconstruct
code’s orderliness
into quanta

straight lines
give way to Euclid
an apple’s gravity
bends trees and seasons
in their time

even in their simplest
thoughtful experiment
blood is sweated
tears are wept
suffering for beauty

a cat in a box
seen in a mind’s eye
does and doesn’t shed
abundantly mysterious
practically perfect

---

To begin from the continuation of an affirmation of suffering and rejections—when looking at the way Elijah is presented in the scriptures Jesus would have known, there is no warrant for Elijah to be an Isaiahan Suffering Servant.

Neither the remembrance of the Elijah cycle (1 Kings 17:1 – 2 Kings 2:11) nor the assertion in Malachi 4:5–6 about his return suggest there is going to be any suffering by Elijah. LaVerdiere-2₄₅ says it concisely, “Elijah’s return was supposed to prepare the way for the Lord’s glorious coming, not for his death.”

The early tradition that equates Baptizer John with Elijah is more to the point here than previous writings about Elijah. In this way John comes first to restore (repent-and-trust good news) and sets the tone of Jesus’ first message.

This repent-and-trust model is one that Jesus returns with from his retreat to the wilderness. This process is used to signal a turning or restoration or metamorphosis.

Still this does not lie easy with Jesus as he used compassion as a Way to repentance and adds a picture of suffering as a result of compassion angering an indifferent world. Though it sounds as if the suffering brings restoration, it is a consequence of healing the gaps of life.

This is not an easy text in Mark as there are several ways to punctuate it. This is not dissimilar to the stanzas throughout this book where punctuation decisions need to be made by the reader. Marks’ difficult use of language and ideational constructs is more intentional than rustic. There is method in his madness that repetition assists.

For now we have an affirmation of restoration and an awareness that such does not come without a cost. Prepare to ante up.

“How is it,” they asked Jesus, “that our teachers of the Law say that Elijah has to come first?”

---

afraid of asking
my life and death question
I fall back
to inquire of others

why do they
when did that start
how do they
who do they think they are

once established
tradition is pervasive and tenacious
kudzu spreads
all is ordered through time

meaning is set
confirming signposts found
surprise dispatched
Elijah is everywhere

---

Thoughts move quickly in disciple’s brains. This may be why their teacher speaks of “monkey brain”.

The last we knew the Three agreed to not talk outside of their foursome and were wondering about resurrection. Almost immediately they jump back to a question about Elijah.

All manner of stories could arise out of this question. Among them is a return to Peter’s resistance to suffering and death. If Elijah hasn’t come, then maybe Jesus doesn’t have to continue his crazy talk.

We are always invited to remember prior connections. Back in verse 6:15 Herod and others speculated that Jesus might be Elijah. It is difficult to disconnect from cultural memes. Is this simply a circumlocution for a “Triumphant Messiah” that Jesus doesn’t agree to?

Another way of seeing how deeply rooted some religious ideas are is to look through the eyes of Myers₁₀₉, “Despite having just been instructed by the voice from heaven to listen to Jesus, the three disciples are still preoccupied by the authority of the scribal class: Why do the scribes say…?”

Of course the Three are also trying to get absolute answers when a cognitive dissonance has set in. LaVerdiere-2₄₆ puts it this way. “The problem was quite simple. The disciples [along with religious leaders and the public] expected Elijah to come and prepare the Lord’s manifestation in glory, not his suffering and death.”

This same expectation of “manifestation in glory” continues to this day in Prosperity Gospel doctrine. In fact it presages a glory to come with the glory of wealth here on earth.

They seized on these words and discussed with one another what this ‘rising from the dead’ meant.

---

the earthy one says shhh
in due time today’s choices
will be revealed
until that brighter day
our darkness holds a tight reign
on improbabilities

what is a brighter day
what soil and seed multiply
what rises from mothering
such questions bring forth
more questions until
a question authority is stumped

of such there is no end
our experiences hide and reveal
fear and hope in their turn
turning speculation to fate
limiting horizons
favoring fantasies

rising from the dead
asks us to bury
each and every boundary
until a small blue dot blesses
our death-wish divisions
with dearly beloved

---

It is difficult to live in ambiguity, but this is exactly what Mark leads us to. There are questions from the Pharisees, scribes, disciples, Pilate, and even Jesus himself about his being—“Who do people say I am?”, “What might it mean to rise from the dead?”

With framing questions such as these in the background, Aichele₃₃ recognizes the reader’s position, whether contemporaneous with Mark’s writing or generations and centuries later, when he reflects:

But the gospel of Mark, like the character Jesus in its story, gives the reader “no answer.” Its enigmatic style and paradoxical narrative provide no readerly satisfactions. Mark is a great tease, suggesting possibilities which it then fails to fulfill; as a story it is profoundly incomplete. It is not surprising, then, that readers, beginning with Matthew and Luke, go beyond Mark, re-framing Mark and rewriting it to satisfy their own desires.

Sabin-1₁₇₆ moves this unsatisfactory-ness from the nature of narrative to a related category of the human condition. She notes that the command from the previous verse “seems to be superfluous; the disciples have already returned to their uncomprehending state.” Sabin continues, “They appear to have already forgotten the vision, and not linking the idea of resurrection with their most recent experience, they are “seeking together what it is to be risen from the dead”.

Both comments reveal how much we desire to get our story in. We will reframe and seek reductive “meaning” to comfort ourselves.

As they were going down the mountainside, Jesus cautioned them not to relate what they had seen to anyone, until after the Son of Man had risen from the dead.

---

to report a ridiculous or sublime
is a deeply serious folly
its approximation slips away
into misrepresentation and creed
giving away truth for certainty

a word to the wise
cautions against over-selling
what is not for sale
until earthy soil
is actually harvested

---

Any attempt to report a mystical experience is going to be frustrated in the short-term and corrupted over time as the meaning of words shift. There needs to be some grounding in experience to keep such reporting alive enough to navigate both the limitation of a hearer without enough experience to appreciate the attempted retelling and the restrictions of generational change.

It is helpful to have Myers₁₀₉ remind us of a Mosaic setting after a mountain-top experience. “As this group returns down the mountain we may recall what Moses saw upon his descent from Sinai (see Exodus 32). What happens here, however, is not Israel dancing around a golden calf but the disciples’ deepening bafflement.”

It is not uncommon for people on a pilgrimage to return with heightened expectation of a changed life only to find everyday care have also grown and quickly pull one away from resolutions that have not been deeply resolved enough to be ingrained.

This triggers remembrance of Elijah also returning from his mountain-top experience with a still, small voice only to find himself back in the same struggle he left (1 Kings 18:11ff.). Even in silence there is directionality. What has changed for Elijah is that his next actions before his chariot ride will have circles of import far after his leaving. Freed from only having fear as prelude to death, there is now purpose to life until death.

N.T. Wright₁₁₆ locates this cryptic comment about rising from the dead, “In Jewish thought of the time, ‘the resurrection’ would happen to all the righteous at the end of time, not to one person ahead of all the others. What could Jesus mean by implying that ‘the son of man’ would rise from the dead, while they would be still living the sort of normal life in which people would tell one another what they had seen months or years before?” We are still puzzling this out, along with where Galilee is today, where we will meet a risen Jesus.