Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood in the Gospel of Mark

Abstract

This book is a slightly revised version of a doctoral thesis completed at the School of Divinity at the University of Edinburgh in 2016 under the supervision of Matthew Novenson. Bernardo Cho investigates how Jewish messianism from the mid-second century BC to the late first century AD envisaged the proper relation between the Israelite king and the Jerusalem priests in the ideal future, and then attempts to describe how the Gospel of Mark addresses this issue in depicting Jesus. Cho’s argument comprises two major sections. The first section is a synchronic analysis of how the Israelite king was expected to interact with the high priest in the ideal future (chs. 1–2). In the second part of this book, Cho offers a close reading of the passages in Mark that are relevant for his purposes (chs. 3–5).Chapter 1 examines important passages from the Dead Sea Scrolls under the headings “Davidic Branch” and “Prince of the Congregation” (4Q252, 4Q174, 4Q285, 4Q161, 1QM, and 1QSB) and the “Messiahs (or Messiah) of Aaron and Israel” (1QS, CD, 1QSa). Cho concludes that, despite the preeminence of the messiah of Aaron in cultic procedures, kingship and priesthood are regarded as complementary in the messiah texts from the Scrolls. Chapter 2 focuses on texts from the Pseudepigrapha including Ps. Sol. 17, the Son of Man in the Similitudes of Enoch, and the Messiah in 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch. Cho claims this literature also takes it for granted that the Jerusalem priesthood would occupy a prominent place in the messianic kingdom, as the end-time royal ruler would bring about the purification of Zion.Cho argues in ch. 3, against recent critics, that Mark portrays the messiahship of Jesus in royal terms. According to Cho, the Markan Jesus fulfills the role of a royal messiah—he is the Son of God in the pattern of Ps 2 and the Israelite king in the patterns of Pss 109 and 117. Jesus in Mark does not achieve his goal by means of military force, but he is nonetheless the royal messiah, the one who brings about the kingdom of God.Chapter 4 examines three relevant passages in Mark 1–10 in which Mark portrays Jesus’s stance toward the Jerusalem priesthood prior to his climactic arrival into the Holy City. Cho begins with a preliminary discussion on Jesus and the chief priests in Mark. He then examines the Baptism of John (1:1–8), the healing of the leper and the witness to the priests (1:40–44), and the example of King David and Abiatha the High Priest (2:23–28). Despite the paucity of direct references to the temple establishment in Mark 1–10, there is an aggregation of passages that evince the hope for the priests to recognize the authority of Jesus.Chapter 5 analyzes five key passages in which Jesus interacts with the temple rulers in Jerusalem (Mark 11:15–18; 11:27–33; 12:1–12; 14:55–64; 15:33–39). According to Cho, what motivates Jesus’s clash with the priestly leaders is not his rejection of the Israelite worship but rather their obstinate refusal to acknowledge him. Mark tells us that it is because the priests repudiate the royal messiah that they, along with the temple itself, are doomed to face divine judgment. The priests could have secured their place in that vision, but, by rejecting the royal messiah, they put themselves outside the kingdom.In the concluding chapter, Cho draws some implications for the study of Jewish messianism in Mark and suggests the reasons Mark depicts Jesus vis-à-vis the Jerusalem priesthood the way he does. The book contains a bibliography of primary and secondary sources, an index of references, and an index of authors.Cho demonstrates a scholarly command of Second Temple Judaism and Markan studies. He engages in detailed exegesis of multiple passages. Cho also provides notes on the textual criticism of a passage. All translations from the ancient sources are done by Cho unless otherwise indicated. Cho considers and evaluates alternative points of view in the exegesis of passages. Some of Cho’s interpretations seem forced to converge with his thesis. As the author readily admits, Ps. Sol. 17 does not mention the priests as ruling alongside the king (p. 68). Cho also seems to suggest there were priests from Jerusalem present during the ministry of John the Baptist (p. 121) even though none are mentioned in the narrative (cf. Mark 1:5). In the final analysis, the author makes a plausible case for his thesis that Mark is concerned with the relationship between Jesus and Jerusalem priests. This book is a valuable contribution to our understanding of both messianic expectations in Second Temple Judaism and the Christology of Mark’s Gospel.