JBL 130, no.

1 (2011): 755-774

Reconfiguring the Akedah

and Recasting God: Lament and
Divine Abandonment in Mark
MATTHEW S. RINDGE
rindge@gonzaga.edu
Gonzaga University, Spokane, WA 99258

To David M. Scholer
In 1975, Nils A. Dahl identified God as the neglected factor in NT theology
and encouraged scholars to pay more attention to the treatment of God in NT
texts.1Markan scholarship seems to confirm Dahls critique; scholars of the Second
Gospel evince minimal interest in Marks understanding of God.2 As a way of
redressing this lacuna, I propose that Jesus cry of dereliction (Mark 15:34) is a
helpful starting point for illuminating Marks depiction of God.

I presented versions of this paper to the Gospel of Mark group (SBL annual meeting in
Atlanta, Georgia, in 2010); the SBL Pacific Northwest Regional meeting (Spokane, Washington,
in 2011); the SBL international meeting in London in 2011; a Religious Studies department colloquy at Gonzaga University; and the Paul J. Achtemeier Award Session (SBL annual meeting in
San Francisco, California, in 2012). I thank respondents for their feedback and am especially
grateful to Joel Marcus for his thoughtful and constructive response at the session in San Francisco. I thank my colleague Kevin McCruden for his instructive comments about Mark and its secondary literature.
1 Dahl, The Neglected Factor in New Testament Theology, in Jesus the Christ: The
Historical Origins of Christological Doctrine (ed. Donald H. Juel; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991),
153-63; repr. from Reflection 73 (1975): 5-8.
2 For similar claims, see John R. Donahue, A Neglected Factor in the Theology of Mark,
JBL 101 (1982): 563-94, esp. 564,592-93; Jack Dean Kingsbury, God within the Narrative World
in Mark, in The Forgotten God: Perspectives in Biblical Theology. Essays in Honor of Paul J. Achtemeter on the Occasion of His Seventy-Fifth Birthday (ed. A. Andrew Das and Frank J. Matera;
Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 76.

755

756

Journal of Biblical Literature 131, no. 4 (2012)

Despite the explicit focus on God in Mark 15:34 ( /

, ), most commentators on this verse are
silent about what Jesus' cry might reveal about Marks understanding of God.3Some
treatments of Jesus death in Mark scarcely attend to Jesus cry.4 Mark 15:34 is even
omitted in explicit theological analyses of Mark. W. R. Telford, for example, apparently finds no theological value in Jesus final cry.5 More surprising is Jack Dean
Kingsburys complete neglect of 15:34 in an article entitled a God within the Narrative World in Mark.6 John R. Donahue devotes only one sentence to 15:34 in an
article whose stated focus is to see whether there is a distinct understanding of
God in the gospel.7
Neglecting or minimizing 15:34 contributes to incomplete and inaccurate
understandings of Markan theology. Donahue notes, for instance, that in Mark
13:32 and 14:35-36, the image of Jesus as son is one offaithful trust in the Father,
even in the face of mystery, the mystery of the end time and of the passion.8 Mark
15:34 provides an image of Jesus, however, that diverges sharply from Jesus as a
model of trusting fidelity.9 Similarly, Donahue contends that in Mark the posture
during suffering is to be one of faithful endurance (13:13) and watchfulness before
the end (13:34-36).10 Yet in Mark 15:34 there appears a distinctly dissimilar attitude toward sufferingone of questioning Gods abandonment. Donahue notes
that Mark has Jesus speak of God throughout the gospel in the language of reverential transcendence, while at the same time speaking/or God with a unique authority which is the teaching of the way of God in truth.11 But Mark also has Jesus

3 See, e.g., Paul J. Achtemeier, Mark (2nd ed.; Proclamation Commentaries; Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1986), 62,72,103,130; Ched Myers, Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Marks
Story of Jesus (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1988), 389-90; Morna D. Hooker, The Gospel according to
Saint Mark (BNTC 2; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), 376-77; John R. Donahue and Daniel J.
Harrington, The Gospel of Mark (SP 2; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2002), 447, 450-52;
Adela Yarbro Collins, Mark: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 753-55.
4 See, e.g., the chapter on the cross in Marks Gospel in Roy A. Harrisville, Fracture: The
Cross as Irreconcilable in the Language and Thought of the Biblical Writers (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2006).
5 Telford, The Theology of the Gospel of Mark (New Testament Theology; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 11,22. Eduard Schweizer offers one comment on 15:34, seeing in
this line the hiddenness of God at its most radical( Marks Theological Achievement, in The
Interpretation of Mark [ed. William Telford; IRT 7; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985], 42-63, esp. 57;
repr. from vT24 [1964]: 337-55).
6 Kingsbury, Narrative World in Mark, 75-89.
7 Donahue, Neglected Factor, 569. He notes that Jesus final words stress the absence of
God in the mystery of the cross. . .
8 Ibid., 592 (emphasis mine).
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid., 587.
11 Ibid., 581 (emphasis his); cf. 589.

Rindge: Lament and Divine Abandonment in Mark

757

speak to God, and his words to God in 15:34his only words on the cross and the
very last words he speaksdeserve consideration in discerning Mark's theology.12
In 15:34, Mark portrays a God who abandons Jesus, and a Jesus who laments
this abandonment. Marks narrative develops these twinned motifs of lament and
divine abandonment by appropriating and reconfiguring the Akedah in Genesis
22. Before explicating Marks reconfiguration of the Akedah, I will consider briefly
the intertextual relationship between Mark and Psalm 22.1 conclude the article by
considering the potential meaning(s) of this construal of God and Jesus for Marks
authorial audience.13

I. M a r k 15:34, P s a l m 22 ( 2 1 LXX), a n d L a m e n t

Many arguments against understanding 15:34 as a lament of divine absence or

abandonment are tenuous.14 Donahue and Daniel J. Harrington maintain that it
makes no sense at all for Jesus to utter a cry of despair since it would be incompatible with Marks genre as a gospel (good news).15 Paul J. Achtemeier claims
that Jesus cry must be seen within the broader context of Marks Christology, in
which Jesus will return with Gods power to assume his rule (13:26-27).16
Thomas E. Schmidt avers that Jesus cry is offered not for himself but on behalf of
sinners or the entire Jewish nation.17It is questionable, however, if Marks narrative
logic invites reading 15:34 through these various filters. It is difficult not to conclude
that the reluctance to see 15:34 as a lament is partly due to theologies or Christologies that preclude divine abandonment of Jesus.18
Many commentators minimize the accent on lament in 15:34 by claiming that
Jesus cry should be understood as a reference to the entirety of Psalm 22 (21 LXX),
and not merely to its opening line.19As such, 15:34 would point beyond lament to
12 If, as seems likely, 16:8 is the more original ending.
13 For a blend of intertextual analysis with discerning a texts potential meanings for an
authorial audience, see Matthew S. Rindge, Jewish Identity under Foreign Rule: Daniel 2 as a
Reconfiguration of Genesis 41, JBL 129 (2010): 85-104.
14 For such an argument, see Donald Senior, The Passion of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark
(Passion Series 2; Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1984), 123-24. For a critique of Senior, see
Francis J. Moloney, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002), 326
n. 266.
15 Donahue and Harrington, Mark, 450-51.
16 Achtemeier, Marky63-64.
17 Schmidt, Cry of Dereliction or Cry of Judgment? Mark 15:34 in Context, BBR 4 (1994):
145-53, esp. 146.
18 Hooker speaks of commentators tendencies to disguise the horror of the scene as it is
portrayed by Mark (Saint Mark> 376). Cf. Moloney, Mark, 326-27, esp. nn. 266-67.
19 So D. E. Nineham, The Gospel of Mark (New York: Seabury, 1963), 428-29; Josef Blinzler,
Die Prozess Jesu (4th ed.; Regensburg: Pustet, 1969), 373; Hans Ruedi Weber, The Cross: Tradition

758

Journal of Biblical Literature 131, no. 4 (2012)

include a focus on the praise and vindication that occur later in the psalm (22:2231). Corresponding to this view of 15:34 as an incipit is seeing in Jesus cry a reference to the prayer of a suffering righteous person, one that might begin in lament
but that concludes in a statement of confidence in God s power to act and to vindicate the suffering righteous speaker.20 Many interpreters see Marks Jesus as a
righteous or innocent sufferer and read the citation of the psalm as a reference to
subsequent divine vindication.21 Uncertainty remains, however, about whether
Mark 15:34 evokes the entire psalm,22 and if doing so even necessitates an emphasis on praise and vindication.23 Dispute also exists about using righteous sufferer
as a legitimate category for understanding Marks Jesus.24
I contend that 15:34 is a lament of divine abandonment.25 Psalm 22 (21 LXX)
is important for Marks passion narrative, as is evidenced by the multiple interand Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 38; Frank J. Matera, The Kingship of Jesus:
Composition and Theology in Mark 15 (SBLDS 66; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982), 132-35; Joel
Marcus, The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark
(1992; repr., London: T&T Clark International, 2004), 180-82; Joachim Gnilka, Das Evangelium
nach Markus (6th ed.; 2 vols.; THKNT 2/1-2; Zurich: Benziger, 1998), 2:322; Eugene LaVerdiere,
The Beginning of the Gospel: Introducing the Gospel according to Mark (2 vols.; CoUegeville, MN:
Liturgical Press, 1999), 2:301-3; Donahue and Harrington, Mark, 451; Whitney Shiner, The
Ambiguous Pronouncement of the Centurion and the Shrouding of Meaning in Mark, JSNT 78
(2000): 3-28; Stephen P. Ahearne-Kroll, Challenging the Divine: LXX Psalm 21 in the Passion
Narrative of the Gospel of Mark, in The Trial and Death of Jesus: Essays on the Passion Narrative
in Mark (ed. Geert van Oyen and Tom Shepherd; CBET 45; Leuven: Peeters, 2006), 119-48;
Holly J. Carey, Jesus Cryfrom the Cross: Towards a First-Century Understanding of the Intertextual
Relationship between Psalm 22 and the Narrative of Marks Gospel (Library of New Testament Studies 398; London/New York: T&T Clark, 2009).
20 Donahue and Harrington, Mark, 451.
21 For Jesus as a righteous sufferer in Mark, see Lothar Ruppert, Jesus als der leidende
Gerechte? Der Weg Jesu im Lichte eines alt- und zwischentestamentlichen Motivs (SBS 59; Stuttgart:
Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1972); Frank J. Matera, Passion Narratives and Gospel Theologies:
Interpreting the Synoptics through Their Passion Stories (Theological Inquiries; New York: Paulist,
1986), 40,43-44; Larry W. Hurtado, Mark (New York: Harper & Row, 1983), 256; Schmidt, Cry,
146; Carey, JesusCry, 94-105,126-38.
22 So C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel According to Saint Mark: An Introduction and Com
mentary (CGTC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966), 458; Raymond E. Brown, The
Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave. A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in
the Four Gospels (2 vols.; ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1994), 2:1047; Grard Ross, The Cry of
Jesus on the Cross: A Biblical and Theological Study (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1987), 103-7; Donald
Juel, Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early Christianity
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 114; Hooker, Saint Mark, 376.
23 So Anna Maria Schwemer, Jesu letze Worte am Kreuz (Mk 15,34; Lk 23,46f; Joh 19,28ff),
TBei 29(1998): 5-29.
24 So Mark G. V. Hoffman, Psalm 22 (LXX 21) and the Crucifixion of Jesus (Ph.D. diss.;
Yale University, 1996); Ahearne-Kroll, Challenging, 133-48.
25 So M. Eugene Boring, Mark: A Commentary (NTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox,
2006), 430.

Rindge: Lament and Divine Abandonment in Mark

759

textual links to the psalm in Mark 15.26 The number of possible allusions to this
psalm in Mark 15 is so high that some contend that Mark constructed his passion
narrative around Psalm 22.27 However, even considerations of the broader context
of Psalm 22 do not require reading 15:34 as a reference to, much less an emphasis
on, future vindication and praise.28 Drawing on Claus Westermann and Tony W.
Cartledge, Stephen Ahearne-Kroll sees in Psalm 21 (LXX) not a transition from
lament to praise (in which praise is a response to an oracle), but rather praise as
promised praise rather than actual praise or praise in anticipation of expected sal
vation.29 Based in part on some of the future-tense verbs in the praise section, he
argues that Davids promised praise isalong with the pleas in the beginning of
the psalmpart of the rhetorical attempt to persuade God to act. The psalm, he
concludes, is not about eschatological vindication of the righteous sufferer who
cries out to God and then is saved because of his righteousness.30
The order of the citations ofand allusions toPsalm 22 in Mark 15 hints at
a greater interest in abandonment than in vindication. Vernon K. Robbins has
shown that these allusions are in reverse order, producing in Marks passion narrative a backwards reading of Psalm 22.31 Robbins concludes that the context of
mockery into which Markan discourse places Psalm 22 reverses the sequence of
scenes in the psalm and subverts the rhetoric of confidence expressed in if.32 Thus,
even if one sees 15:34 as an incipit of Psalm 22, Marks literary context reconfigures
26 Marcus notes the following five parallels: Mark 15:24 // Ps 22:18; Mark 15:29 // Ps 22:7;
Mark 15:30-31 // Ps 22:8; Mark 15:32 // Ps 22:6; Mark 15:34 // Ps 22:1 (Way of the Lord, 174-75).
In addition to these, Matera cites Mark 15:27 (// Ps 22:12,13,16) and 15:39 (// Ps 22:27-31) as possible allusions (Passion Narratives, 40).
27 Matera, Kingship of Jesus, 125-35.
28 So Boring, Mark, 430.
29 Ahearne-Kroll, Challenging, 129 (emphasis his); cf. 132. See Westermann, Praise and
Lament in the Psalms (trans. Keith R. Crim and Richard N. Soulen; Atlanta: John Knox, 1981), 7578; Cartledge, Conditional Vows in the Psalms of Lament: A New Approach to an Old Problem,
in The Listening Heart: Essays in Wisdom and the Psalms in Honor of Roland E. Murphy (ed.
Kenneth G. Hoglund; JSOTSup 58; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), 77-94.
30 Ahearne-Kroll, Challenging, 132 (emphasis his). For the same argument, see idem, The
Psalms of Lament in Marks Passion: Jesus Davidic Suffering (SNTSMS 142; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007).
31 (1) Mark 15:24 11 Ps 22:18 (21:19 LXX); (2) Mark 15:29-31 // Ps 22:7-8 (21:8-9 LXX);
(3) Mark 15:32 // Ps 22:6; (4) Mark 15:34 // Ps 22:1 (21:2 LXX). See Robbins, The Reversed Contextualization of Psalm 22 in the Markan Crucifixion: A Socio-Rhetorical Analysis, in The Four
Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck (ed. F. Van Segbroeck et al.; 3 vols.; BETL 100; Leuven:
Leuven University Press, 1992), 1:1179; cf. 1176-79,1182.
32 Robbins, Reversed Contextualization, 1164 (emphasis mine). Drawing on Robbins,
William Sanger Campbell notes that the psalm as employed in Mark descends toward defeat and
abandonment instead of ascending toward deliverance and thanksgiving, a decline capped by
Jesus outcry in 15:34 (Why Did You Abandon Me? Abandonment Christology in Marks
Gospel, in van Oyen and Shepherd, Trial and Death of Jesus, 99-117, here 114. For a critique of
Robbins, see Carey, Jesus' Cry, 164-66.

760

Journal of Biblical Literature 131, no. 4 (2012)

the psalm by muting the vindication and praise and accenting the motif of abandonment. Robbins maintains that interpreters who insist on seeing in 15:34 a reference to praise and vindication have imposed the rhetoric of Psalm 22 on the
rhetoric of Markan discourse, with the result that they silence the rhetoric of abandonment displayed in Mark.33
That Marks rhetoric highlights motifs of lament and abandonment is evident
both in the portions of the psalm that appear in the passion narrative and in those
that are absent. Every citation of Psalm 22 in Mark 15 draws attention not to praise
or vindication but rather to the suffering of the psalmist (cf. Ps 22:1,6-8,18). Furthermore, the opening line of the psalm cited by Mark could not be more antithetical to notions of praise or vindication.34
Although some claim that it was common in the Hebrew Bible and in rabbinic texts to refer to an entire psalm or prayer by citing its incipit,35 Robert H.
Gundry points out that many citations of the HB/LXX in the Gospels are of a line
from the middle of a pericope.36 Jesus' final words on the cross in Luke are a citation not of the first line of Psalm 31 (30 LXX) but of a specific line to which Luke
wants to draw attention (Luke 23:46).37 Some of Marks citations of Jewish Scripture
are examples of metalepsis (e.g., Isa 56:7b and Jer 7:11 in Mark 11:17), but the
broader literary context of these intertexts usually comports with the peshat meaning of the cited text. It seems unlikely that Mark would cite a line that expresses the
precise antithesis of the specific citation.38
The citation of Psalm 22/21 belongs to a broader pattern of allusions and
echoes to lament psalms in Marks passion narrative.39 The prevalence of lament

33 Robbins, Reversed Contextualization, 1178-79.

34 So A. M. Hunter, The Gospel According to Saint Mark (TBC; London: SCM, 1948), 144;
Juel, Messianic Exegesis, 114; Robert H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the
Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 966.
35 So Weber, Cross, 38; Carey, Jesus Cry, 106, 173. For a critique of this view, see Lorraine
Caza, Mon Dieu, mon Dieu, pourquoi mas-tu abandonn? comme bonne nouvelle de Jsus-Christ,
fils de Dieu, comme bonne nouvelle de Dieu pour la multitude (Recherches n.s. 24; Montreal: Bellarmin, 1989).
36 Gundry, Mark, 966.
37 It seems unlikely, moreover, that Lukes citation of Ps 31:6 is intended to evoke the psalms
subsequent line regarding God hating those who persist in meaningless vanities.
38 Boring (Mark, 430 n. 130) suggests that the final lines given to Jesus in Luke and John,
which convey a sense of Jesus trusting in God, indicate that Luke and John did not perceive the
Markan version of Jesus last words as a prayer of trust (cf. Luke 23:46; John 19:30). Cf. David J.
Lull, Interpreting Marks Story of Jesus Death: Toward a Theology of Suffering, in SBL 1985
Seminar Papers (ed. Kent H. Richards; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), 1-12, esp. 6; Sharyn Echols
Dowd, Prayer, Power, and the Problem of Suffering: Mark 11:22-25 in the Context of Markan
Theology (SBLDS 105; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 158 n. 28.
39 Ahearne-Kroll (Challenging, 127 n. 26) identifies five individual psalms of lament (21,
40,41, 42, 68, all LXX) in Marks passion narrative: Mark 14:18, 34; 15:24, 29-32, 34, 36.

Rindge: Lament and Divine Abandonment in Mark

761

language invites consideration of how lament psalmsboth their function and theological importmight enhance, while in no way determining, the potential meanings of Mark 15:34. Jesus addresses to God in Mark 14:34-36 and 15:34 contain
what Hebrew Bible scholars have identified as standard components of a lament
psalm: an expression of human suffering; mourning for one's suffering; an appeal
to God to remove suffering; expression of volatile emotions directly to God, a complaint to God about God; and a question about the perceived distance of God.40 It
is perhaps unsurprising that Hebrew Bible scholars who comment on Mark 15:34
see in Jesus cry an emphasis on lament rather than on praise or vindication.41

II. A p p r o p r i a t i n g

and

R e c o n f ig u r in g

the

A kedah

Mark 15:34 can be read as a lament of the near total rejection Jesus experiences
in Mark 14-15; almost every character in this section rejects Jesus in some way.42
God becomes the final, and perhaps the most significant, character to reject Jesus.
Jesus experience in Mark 14-15 is rooted in a broader pattern of rejection and suffering that is foreshadowed throughout the Second Gospel.43 Episodes that anticipate Jesus future rejection and/or death include the arrest and execution of John
the Baptizer (1:14; 6:16-29);44 the saying about the departure of the bridegroom
(2:20); conspiracies to arrest and destroy Jesus (3:6; 11:18; cf. 12:12); the rejection
in his hometown (6:1-6); the three passion predictions (8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34; cf.
10:45); the parable of the tenants (12:1-9, esp. 6-8); Jesus prediction at his anointing (14:7-8); his words at the Passover dinner (14:24-25); and his prayer in Geth-

40 On issues related to suffering, see Westermann, Praise and Lament, 261-62,264,266; cf.
272; Walter Brueggemann, The Costly Loss of Lament, in idem, The Psalms and the Life of Faith
(ed. Patrick D. Miller; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 106-7; repr. from JSOT 36 (1986): 57-71;
idem, The Message of the Psalms: A Theological Commentary (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984), 52.
On volatile emotions, see ibid., 52-53. On complaining to God, see idem, Costly Loss of Lament,
106-7. On Gods distance, see Patrick D. Miller, Interpreting the Psalms (Philadelphia: Fortress,
1986), 101.
41 So, e.g., Westermann, Praise and Lament, 275; cf. 265; Miller, Interpreting the Psalms, 63,
109.
42 Such characters include the chief priests/scribes (14:1, 11, 43, 46, 48, 55, 64-65; 15:1, 3,
10-11, 31-32); guards (14:65); crowds/anonymous groups (14:56-59; 15:13-14, 29-30); priests,
elders, and Sanhdrin (15:1); Pilate (15:15); Roman soldiers (15:17-19, 20, 24-25); criminals
(15:32); and disciples (14:10,11,18-21,33-41,42-45,50,67-72; cf. 14:27). Women do not reject
Jesus in Mark 14-15 (14:3-9; 15:40-41; 16:1-8).
43 On the foreshadowing of this theme, see Campbell, Abandonment Christology; John R.
Donahue, Windows and Mirrors: The Setting of Marks Gospel, CBQ 57 (1995): 9; cf. Harrisville,
Fracture, 125-26.
44 Note especially the occurrence of and its subsequent use to describe the
betrayal and arrest of Jesus (3:19; 9:31; 10:33; 14:10-11,18, 21, 41-42, 44; 15:1,10,15).

Journal of Biblical Literature 131, no. 4 (2012)

762

semane (14:34-36). As a lament, Jesus cry in 15:34 is an appropriate response to

this broader context of rejection and suffering.
Mark is indeed a passion narrative with a long introduction.45 But Mark is
also the story of divine abandonment with a long introduction. The motif of Gods
abandonment, central to many laments, not only surfaces in Marks passion narrative but is also a prominent theme throughout the Gospel.46 Marks depiction of a
forsaking God comports with and helps explicate many episodes in the Second
Gospel. Moreover, Mark uses various episodes to prepare readers/hearers for Jesus
lament in 15:34.
One of the primary ways that Mark foreshadows Gods abandonment of Jesus
is through intertextual connections with the Akedah in Genesis 22. In the baptism,
transfiguration, parable of the tenants, and Gethsemane prayer, Mark alludes to
the Akedah and foreshadows Jesus death and his abandonment by God.47

The Baptism and the Akedah

Mark uses the voice from heaven (1:11) following Jesus baptism to introduce
and foreshadow both Jesus passion and divine abandonment. Lexical similarities
suggest that 1:11 is an allusion to Gen 22:2:48
Mark 1:11

Gen 22:2 LXX

49

Mark 1:11 may also echo other intertexts such as Ps 2:7 or Isa 42:1; in some ways,
the language of 1:11 resembles Ps 2:7 ( ) more closely than it does Gen
22 :2.50
So Martin Khler, The So-called Historical Jesus and the Historic Biblical Christ (trans. and 45
ed. C. E. Braaten; Fortress Texts in Modern Theology; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1964; 1st German
ed., 1892), 80 n. 11. For a critique of Khler, see Robert C. Tannehill, The Gospel of Mark as
Narrative Christology, Semeia 16 ) 1979(: 76-77 .
So Campbell (Abandonment Christology, 99,114), who focuses primarily on persons 46
.abandoning Jesus; my focus is on divine abandonment
Campbell cites Mark 1:11 and 9:7 as texts that cause Jesus cry in 15:34 to become even 47
more powerful, but he does not mention any intertextual parallels with the Akedah, nor does he
discuss how 1:11 and 9:7 might anticipate either Jesus death or Gods abandonment of Jesus
Abandonment Christology(, 115-16 (.
48For Gen 22:2 as an intertext to Mark 1:11, see Jon D. Levenson, The Death and
Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity
New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993), 30-31, 200-202, 228-29; Boring, Mark, 45. Collins(
thinks that influence from Gen 22:2 is possible but unlikely (Mark, 150(.
The MT reads 49: .
For Psalm 2 as an intertext, see Marcus, Way of the Lord, 48-49. For Ps 2:7 and Isa 50 42:1,
see Rikki E. Watts, Isaiah's New Exodus and Mark (WUNT 2/88; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997(,
Joel Marcus, Mark 1-8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB ;108-18 27;

Rindge: Lament and Divine Abandonment in Mark

763

Yet for several reasons Gen 22:2 remains a probable intertext for Mark 1:11.
First is the similar phrasing ( // ).
Second, Gen 22:2 is the only one of these three (inter)texts that uses , a
term whose importance in the Akedah is evidenced by its threefold repetition (Gen
22:2, 12, 16).51 Third, other parallels with the Akedah appear in the baptism
episode. Fourth, allusions to Gen 22:2 appear elsewhere in Mark (9:2,7; 12:6) where
Jesus death is also foreshadowed.
Two possible allusions to Gen 22:1-3 occur in the immediate proximity of
Mark 1:11. Just as God tests () Abraham, so too is Jesus tested ()
immediately after the divine voice speaks (Gen 22:1; Mark 1:13).52 Mark uses the
same word () to describe the tearing of the heavens that is used to refer to
Abrahams splitting the wood to prepare for the killing of Isaac (Mark 1:10; Gen
22:3).53
The likelihood that the divine voice in Jesus baptism alludes to the Akedah is
increased by the four lexical parallels between the baptism and Jesus death. Marks
only two uses of occur in these two episodes (1:10; 15:38), and some see the
tearing of the heavens and the curtain as two divine acts that form an inclusio.54 A
voice () from the heavens speaks (1:11), and Jesus later cries out with a great
cry () and lets go a great cry () (15:34,37; cf. 15:35). The divine voice
calls Jesus (1:11), and Jesus is later called by the centurion
(15:39). Many see in Jesus expiration () (15:39) an inclusio with the Spirits
descent into () Jesus (1:10).55 Perhaps it is no coincidence that Mark uses -

New York: Doubleday, 2000), 162-63; Collins, Markt 150; Donahue and Harrington, Mark, 65. For
-Isa 42:1, see Fritzleo Lentzen-Deis, Die Taufe Jesu nach den Synoptikern: Literarkritische undgat
tungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen (Frankfurter theologische Studien 4; Frankfurt am Main: Josef
Knecht, 1970), 183-93. Hardly any explicit lexical similarity exists between Mark 1:11 and Isa
LXX; Mark 1:11 is more similar to the extant MT version of Isa 42:1 than it is to the extant 42:1
.Greek version
Collins cites Mark 1:11 and Matt 12:18 as evidence of their familiarity with a version of 51
Isa 42:1 that contained the word beloved (Mark, 150). Following Marcus (Way of the Lord, 51(,
she suggests the alternative possibility that Mark uses because of the presence of the
verbal form in Isa 41:8 and 44:2 LXX. A Targum on Ps 2:7 that postdates Mark includes
).)beloved
All translations of primary texts are my own. See Heb 11:17 for an association between 52
. and the Akedah
There is also the possibilityadmittedly slimthat (Mark 1:11) reflects either 53
a misreading of the Hebrew ) Gen 22:2) or a textual variant of Gen 22:2 that is no longer
extant. In the LXX, is used twice to translate ) Judg 11:17; 19:10(.
So Boring, Mark 54, 432.
So Matera, Kingship of Jesus, 139; H. M. Jackson, The Death of Jesus in Mark and the 55
Miracle from the Cross, NTS 33 (1987): 21-22; S. Motyer, The Rending of the Veil, NTS 33
) David Ulansey, The Heavenly Veil Torn: Marks Cosmic Inclusio, JBL ;155-57 :)1987 110 ) 1991(:
Robbins, Reversed Contextualization ;123-25 , 1180.

764

Journal of Biblical Literature 131, no. 4 (2012)

/ as a metaphor for Jesus future suffering (10:38; cf. 1:4, 9). Pointing
forward to Jesus death enhances the baptisms intertextual connections with the
.Akedah, a story at whose center is the possible death of the beloved son

in Second Temple Jewish Texts

In Jewish biblical texts, the term (or the feminine form) frequently
describes lamentation over a child who is in danger of death. Most similar to the
Akedah is the use of to describe Jephthahs daughter shortly before (what
appears to be) her sacrifice at the hands of her father (Judg 11:34,39; cf. 11:30-31(.
-Other lexical parallels exist between this story and the Akedah: Abraham is com
-manded to offer (nVp/) Isaac as a whole burnt offering (^/
), and later offers up )/ ) a ram as a whole burnt offering
^/) (Gen 22:2, 13). Jephthah similarly vows to offer up( )/
) someone as a whole burnt offering )/ 0 0^ ^ Judg( ) ^ 0 11:31(.56
The Jephthah narrative provides one possible appropriation and reconfiguration
.of the Akedah; Marks Gospel may offer another
Other Jewish (canonical and extracanonical) texts associate the term
with a childs death and with mourning over such a child. The exposure of the
) to mortal danger likely explains the comment about mourning (
and lamentation () over an (Jer 6:26). The psalmist hopes that
God will rescue () and save () Gods (Ps 59:7 LXX). The
prophets describe lamentation () and mourning () for an
Zech 12:10; Amos 8:10). Sarah, who had planned to hang herself, attributes her(
.)]change of plans to the fact that she is her fathers (Tob 3:10 [S
A Jewish tradition thus exists apart from Gen 22:2though perhaps influenced by
-itof associating with a child in mortal danger, lamentation or mourn
.ing over a child, and hope that God will deliver the child from danger or death (cf
En 1. 10:12; 12:6; 14:6; 99:5(.
Philo regularly calls Isaac when discussing the Akedah. He uses the
.term twice when citing Gen 22:2 (Somn. 1.195)57 and Gen 22:16 (Leg. all. 3.203; cf
When retelling or paraphrasing the Akedah, Philo often refers to Isaac as .)3.209
(Somn. 1.194; Deus 1.4; Abr. 168).58 He also uses the term to describe
Isaac when reflecting on Abrahams act (Abr. 196). In two instances, Philo calls
Isaac as a substitute for Isaacs name (Migr. 140; Abr. 168). This
specific association between and Isaac in the Akedah raises the possibil-

56 Philo uses when retelling the story of the Akedah (Somn. 1.34).
57 His citation of the first part of God s speech to Abraham parallels the extant LXX version
precisely (cf. Gen 22:2a).
58 Philo also calls Isaac here (cf. Abr. 32.168; 35.196).

Rindge: Lament and Divine Abandonment in Mark

765

ity that other Jews in the Second Temple period would recognize in Mark 1:11 an
allusion to Isaac. Such a possibility might be enhanced in view of Philos description of Isaac as son of God ( ), a term with obvious pertinence for Jesus
identity in Mark (Mut. 121).
The documented familiarity of early Jewish-Christians with the Akedah
increases the likelihood that Mark too was aware of it. The importance of the
Akedah for NT writers is indicated not only by allusions to it but also by its prominent role as a warrant in the development of significant theological formulations
(Jas 2:21-24; Heb 11:17-19).59 Patristic authors associate Jesus with Abrahams sacrifice of Isaac and see in Isaac a type of Jesus.60 Understanding Isaac as a Jesus figure likely explains the prominence of the sacrifice of Isaac in early Christian art.61
The prevalent association between Jesus and Isaac in geographically diverse circles
of early Christianity enhances the possibility that Mark was familiar with this association. The most compelling evidence for this contention is Marks own narrative,
in which Jesus is presented as a reconfigured Isaac.
Potential insights result from reading Mark 1:11 as an allusion to Gen 22:2. On
the one hand, Jesus can be understood as an Isaac figure, one whom the divine
voice describes as my son the beloved. To call Jesus , in light
of Gen 22:2,12, 16, is to consider himlike Isaaca son. Mark presents Jesus as
God's son, and Jesus status as Gods son is reinforced throughout Mark, most
notably in the opening line (1:1),62the centurions confession (15:39), the two divine
voices from heaven (1:11; 9:77), Jesus own admission (14:61b-62), and elsewhere
(e.g., 3:11; 5:7; cf. 12:6). Jesus status as Gods son is reinforced also with language
about God as Jesus father (e.g., 8:38; 14:36; cf. 13:32).
Marks appropriation of the Genesis narrative calls to mind the divine command for Abraham to kill his son Isaac. To see Jesus as an Isaac figure is to understand that, as was the case with Isaac, potential death awaits him. In light of the
Akedah, the identification of Jesus as the beloved son foreshadows his own
death.63 Such anticipation belongs, as noted previously, to a broader pattern in
which Jesus death is foreshadowed throughout Mark.

59 For the importance of the Isaac motif in Matthew s Gospel, see Leroy A. Huizenga, The
New Isaac: Tradition and Intertextuality in the Gospel of Matthew (NovTSup 131; Leiden: Brill,
2009).
60 See, e.g., Barn. 7.3; Irenaeus, Haer. 4.5; Tertullian, Marc. 3.18; Origen, Horn. Gen. 8.
61 See Alison Moore Smith, The Iconography of the Sacrifice of Isaac in Early Christian
Art, A]A 26 (1922): 159-73; cf. Isabel Speyart Van Woerden, The Iconography of the Sacrifice
of Abraham, VC 15 (1961): 214-55.
62 Notwithstanding the manuscripts (such as the first hand of Sinaiticus) that lack .
63 Moloney thinks that Mark might offer here a first subtle hint of Jesus destiny (Mark,
37 ).

766

Journal of Biblical Literature 131, no. 4 (2012)

Yet, in stark contrast to Genesis, Jesusas Marks reconfigured Isaacwill

not be rescued by a divine voice. In Mark, God is ominously silent when Jesus faces
death.64 Unlike in the Akedah, no divine voice intervenes to deliver Jesus. God is
not completely silent in Mark, but when God does speak (1:11; 9:7), it is to foreshadow Jesus future death. Mark thus reconfigures the Akedah by contrasting Jesus
ultimate execution with Gods deliverance of Isaac. This divergence both underscores the element of divine abandonment in Jesus death and illumines Jesus final
cry (15:34).
The threefold use of in Mark (1:11; 9:7; 12:6) resembles the threefold use of the term in the Akedah (Gen 22:2,12,16). It is significant, moreover, that
each of Marks three uses of (1:11; 9:7; 12:6) is linked to Jesus status as
Gods son, his future death, and abandonment by God his father. I maintain that
each of these three episodes alludes to the Akedah and points forward to Jesus
death.

The Transfiguration and the Akedah

There are nine specific lexical parallels and a few additional similarities
between Marks transfiguration and the Akedah. Many of these parallels occur in
the respective introductions to these texts (Gen 22:2; Mark 9:2). Each account
involves a journey to () a mountain () (Gen 22:2; cf. 22:14; Mark 9:2). Abraham is told to go to a high () land; Jesus goes up to a high ()
mountain (Gen 22:2; Mark 9:2).65 Abraham took () two servants
and Isaac (Gen 22:3); Jesus took () Peter, James, and John (Mark
9:2). Abraham and Jesus each take three other people with them (Gen 22:3; Mark
9:2).66 Abraham is told to offer () his son Isaac; Jesus brought
() others on the journey (Gen 22:2; Mark 9:2).67 A divine voice ()
speaks from () heaven or a cloud (Gen 22:18; Mark 9:7)68 and refers to your
son, the beloved ( )69 (Gen 22:2,12,16) or my son, the
beloved ( ) (Mark 9:7). The Lord appeared () to Abra-

64 Unless, like Elizabeth Struthers Malbon, one reads the darkness and tearing of the curtain
as divine responses {Marks Jesus: Characterization as Narrative Christology [Waco: Baylor University Press, 2009], 189). The parallels between Amos 8:9-10 LXX and Mark 15:33 suggest a possible allusion in the latter to some type of mourning over the death of the beloved son (
), but the one mourning is not specified.
65 Philo mentions a very high hill ( ) (Abr. 32.169).
66 In one of his retellings, Philo emphasizes that Abraham takes three others with him,
making four in all (Abr. 170).
67 James uses to describe Abrahams offering of Isaac (Jas 2:21).
68 Cf. 2 Pet 1:17-18, where a speaks from heaven [ ] and declares:
.
69 The genitive case is used in Gen 22:12,16.

Rindge: Lament and Divine Abandonment in Mark

767

ham, and there is an appearance () of Elijah and Moses (Gen 22:14; Mark 9:4).
As Abraham obeyed () the voice from heaven, so the disciples are told to
listen to () Jesus (Gen 22:18; Mark 9:7). Finally, there is a return from the
mountain (Gen 22:19; Mark 9:9).
In Marks narrative context, the transfiguration reiterates Jesus' status as Gods
beloved son (9:7; cf. 1:11). The intertextual parallels between Mark 9:2-9 and Gen
22:1-19 reinforce the portrayal of Jesus as an Isaac figure whose identity as a
beloved son involves a journey toward possible death. Perhaps not coincidentally,
Mark explicitly refers to Jesus death at the conclusion of the transfiguration episode
(9:9).
Whereas a function of the divine voice after the baptism is to identify and
introduce Jesus as an Isaac figure, the transfiguration functions metaphorically as
a parallel of Isaacs journey to the mountain. The transfiguration is a reminder that,
like Isaac, Jesus is journeying toward a likely death. Moreover, it is a death in which,
as in the Akedah, God plays a significant role. Potential suspense lies in the narratives uncertainty of whether, like Isaac, Jesus will be delivered from his impending
doom. For unlike the second use of beloved son in the Akedah, which coincides
with God's preventing Abraham from killing Isaac (Gen 22:12), the second use of
beloved son in Mark carries with it no certainty about whether Jesus future death
will be similarly averted (Mark 9:7).

The Parable of the Tenants and the Akedah

What is foreshadowed and anticipated in the baptism and transfiguration
becomes explicit in the parable of the tenants (Mark 12:1-9). In this third and final
use of the phrase 70 (and ) (Mark 12:6), Mark both reidentifies Jesus as Gods son71 and provides the clearest picture of the specific fate that
awaits him. The tenants plot to kill () the beloved son (12:7), and their
success in killing () him (12:8) mirrors both the plot of the chief priests
and scribes to kill () Jesus (14:1), and Jesus three predictions that he
would be killed () (8:31; 9:31; 10:34). Just as the tenants took () the beloved son prior to (or as part of) killing him (12:8), so too did the
guards take () Jesus with blows (14:65).
The verb also figures somewhat prominently in the Akedah; four of
its five uses refer to Abraham preparing to kill Isaac. It is the first word in Gods initial communication to Abraham: Take [] your son the beloved... (Gen 22:2).
Abraham took both the wood of the burnt offering, laying it on Isaac, the fire
and knife (Gen 22:6), and the knife in his hand in order to slay () Isaac (Gen
22:10). Finally, Abraham took a ram, sacrificing it instead of Isaac (Gen 22:13).
70 Note the parallel to and the repetition of in Isa 5:1.
71 Cf. Ahearne-Kroll, Challenging, 139.

768

Journal of Biblical Literature 131, no. 4 (2012)

The parable of the tenants thereby both recalls previous anticipations of Jesus death
and points forward to his death.
This parable also highlights Gods complicity in Jesus death. As part of the
Markan narrative arc that parallels the narrative arc of the Akedah, the parable of
the tenants introduces the father of the beloved son. As with Abraham, a father is
faced with a choice regarding the fate of his beloved son. Like Abraham, the father
in the parable pursues a plan that seems likely to result in violence being visited
upon his son. For in the parable, the fathers decision to send the son to the tenants
is the proximate catalyst for the sons death (12:6-8). Like the son in the parable,
Jesus is presented as being sent () (9:37) by God.
As Jesus fate mirrors that of the son in the parable, so also does Marks portrayal of God resemble the character of the father in the parable. In the parable, the
father sends the son into the hands of tenants whose violence has already been
demonstrated. In Marks Gospel, God appears to will the death of Jesus, does not
remove the cup from him (cf. 14:35-36), and remains silent in the face of Jesus
agonizing death. The parable thus anticipates both Jesus death and the divine abandonment he experiences. Whereas the chief priests, scribes, and elders hear the
parable as being told against them (12:12), there is a sense in which the parable is
also told against a God who refuses to rescue his son from death.
Two other Markan episodes that anticipate Gods abandonment of Jesus
include what many regard as the use of the divine passive () in the first passion
prediction (8:31), and the citation of Zech 13:7 in Mark 14:27. Donahue understands the use of (I will strike)and its contrast to the imperative in the
MT/LXXto mean that God is the agent of the passion who thus occasions the
scattering.72

Jesus* Prayers of Deliverance and Lament

The final key foreshadowing of Gods abandonment of Jesus is the latters
prayer at Gethsemane. Jesus prayer is a narrativized lament, and in many ways it
parallels Isaacs speech to Abraham in the Akedah.73 As Isaac does with Abraham,
Jesus speaks directly to his father shortly before his anticipated death (Gen 22:7;
Mark 14:35-36). Jesus also addresses God with the same term that Isaac uses for
Abraham: (father) (Gen 22:7; Mark 14:36).74 Jesus use of (14:36)
72 Donahue, Neglected Factor,586 ,565-66 n. 83.
73 Dowd notes the parallel between Jesus taking Peter, James, and John with him, but leaving
the other disciples behind, and Abraham taking Isaac but leaving his servants behind (Mark 14:33;
Gen 22:5) (Suffering, 153).
74 This similarity is noted in Sharyn Dowd and Elizabeth Struthers Malbon, The Significance of Jesus Death in Mark: Narrative Context and Authorial Audience, in van Oyen and Shepherd, Trial and Death of Jesus, 16. The narrator of the Akedah also calls Abraham Isaacs father
() (Gen 22:7).

Rindge: Lament and Divine Abandonment in Mark

769

also parallels Isaacs use of *abb* ) (to address Abraham in Targums Onqelos
and Pseudo-Jonathan on Gen 22:7.75 Finally, Jesus recognition that with God all
things are possible [ ] (Mark 14:36; cf. 10:27) is a striking parallel to
the words Philo attributes to Abraham in a retelling of the Akedah. In response to
Isaacs question about where the sacrifice76 is, Abraham responds: but know all
things are possible with God ( 9 ) (Abr: 175). Both Isaacs
request in Gen 22:7 and Jesus prayer can be understood as efforts to avert their
respective deaths.77The respective comments by Abraham and Jesus (that all things
-are possible with God) can likewise be read as an attempt to persuade God to inter
.vene so as to remove death from the beloved son
Within Marks broader narrative arc, the Gethsemane prayer functions as
Jesus most explicit statement of his desire for God to remove his future death
and/or suffering. This desire is emphasized through indirect narration ) 14:35(,78
direct speech by Jesus (14:36),79 and a final indirect narration (14:39). Jesus direct
speech represents a shift in certainty and intensification from the indirect narration
-i/it is possible [ ]) by claiming that with God all things are pos(
sible [ ] (14:35-36). There is a similar shift from the subjunctive of
- (might pass) to the indicative (all things are possible) and impera
-tive of (remove) in 14:36. This claim of divine ability functions rhetor
ically as a basis for Jesus subsequent plea. Part of Jesus persuasion is a reminder
to Godof Gods ability to do anything. In light of the parallels with the Akedah
-and the previous uses of beloved son, Jesus here pleads that God will not aban
don him to death. Jesus attempts, perhaps, to convince God to intervene as God did
.to save Isaac
In these ways, Jesus prayer in Gethsemane can be understood as a lament. He
specifically asks God to remove suffering from him (cf. 10:38-39); he does not will
-to die.80 His willingness to submit his will to Gods indicates the disparity Jesus rec
ognizes between the two. In addition to the petition and plea components that
characterize laments, Jesus displays intense emotions (he began to be distressed
and in anguish [' ]) that also typify lament psalms
Moreover, his admission, My life is deeply grieved to death [ .)14:33(

Targums Cairo-Genizah and Neoflti on Gen 22:7 use 75 . The MT reads my father ][
)Gen 22:7). The presence of in these Targumim on Gen 22:7 leads Joseph Grassi to see a
,parallel between Jesus prayer and the Akedah (Abba, Father [Mark 14:36]: Another Approach
JAAR 50 ]1982[: 449-58 (.
LXX: ; Philo: ; MT 76: .
Contra Grassi (Abba, Father), who sees Marks portrayal of Jesus here as an obedient 77
.Isaac-like figure
Jesus prays that if it is possible, the hour might pass [] from him 78 ) 14:35(.
Remove [] this cup from m e 79. . ) 14:36(.
So Dowd, Suffering 80, 157.

770

Journal of Biblical Literature 131, no. 4 (2012)

] (14:34), echoes language in the psalms (e.g., 42:6,

12 [41:6,12 LXX]; 43:5 [42:5 LXX]).
Jesus plea that God avert his future suffering/death heightens the tension in
Marks theological narrative regarding Gods role in his death.81 There are further
signs in the passion narrative that Jesus might avoid his fate.82 Narrative tension
results from the juxtaposition of the three previous beloved son sayingseach
of which foreshadows Gods role in Jesus deathand these hints in the passion
narrative of the possibility that God might intervene to save Jesus. This narrative
tension, enhanced by Jesus explicit plea to God, underscores the tragic nature of
Marks ending, in which God does not deliver Jesus.83 Compounding this tragedy
is the clear disparity between Gods intervention to save Isaac and the lack of a
divine rescue to save Jesus.
In light of these contexts (intertextual and intratextual), Jesus cry in 15:34
laments Gods abandonment.84 The cry is to be read in light of his previously articulated hope in Gethsemane that God would rescue him.85 Raymond E. Brown finds
it telling in this regard that each prayer uses Aramaic, and that, in 15:34, Jesus
addresses the deity as God rather than Abba or Father.86 Patrick D. Miller
notes that the repetition of My God, my God is unusual in the laments, [and] a
clue to the intensity of the cry in this case.87 The repetition of the pronoun
(My God, my God) parallels and calls to mind the use of in two of the three
beloved son episodes where the divine voice calls Jesus my [] son (Mark
1:11; 9:7).
Underscoring and intensifying the sense of Jesus cry as a lament are the two
descriptions of him crying out: he cried out with a great voice (...
81 So Dowd, who sees in everything is possible for you a suggestion that God might still
intervene {Suffering, 156 n. 25).
82 So Tannehill, Narrative Christology, 85-87; Dowd, Suffering, 157-58. Dowd cites the
short-lived attempt at armed resistance (14:50), the disagreement of the trial witnesses; the
possibility of Elijah rescuing Jesus (15:36), and Jesus final cry (15:34).
83 For Campbell, the lack of a response to Jesus prayer anticipates Gods disappearance at
his crucifixion (Abandonment Christology, 115). Cf. idem, Engagement, Disengagement and
Obstruction: Jesus Defense Strategies in Marks Trial and Execution Scenes (14.53-64; 15.1-9),
JSNT 26 (2004): 287-88.
84 See Lull, Jesus Death, 10; Ahearne-Kroll, Challenging, 143. Struthers Malbon insists
on recognizing both the note of divine abandonment in 15:34 and the narrators contrasting
view that God is present in the daytime darkness, in the torn temple curtain, and in the centurions words (Mark's Jesus, 189). She identifies a stereophonic message in Mark that stands in
tension and need not be resolved: Jesus is abandoned by God, but God is still present (ibid.,
190).
85 So Brown, Death of the Messiah, 2:1046; Moloney, Mark, 326 n. 266; cf. Struthers Malbon,
Marks Jesus, 186.
86 Brown, Death of the Messiah, 2:1046; cf. Campbell, Abandonment Christology, 114.
87 Miller, Interpreting the Psalms, 101.

Rindge: Lament and Divine Abandonment in Mark

771

) and having let go, he breathed out a great voice [

] (15:34, 37).88 Jesus cry (or cries) parallels the second part of Ps 22:2:
Why are you so distant from my salvation, the words of my roaring ] ?[Jesus
cry more closely resembles the (extant) MT than the (extant) LXX.89 The words
of roaring (lacking in the extant LXX) are an important intertext for Mark 15:34
-since, in Millers words, Marks audience hears not simply moans but the desper
ate, even angry, outcry of the sufferer.90 The roaring in the psalm draws attention
to the intensity of the psalmists complaint, one that is also reflected in Marks
description of Jesus suffering.91 Related to this intensityand the question that
-opens the psalmis the accusation that God is to blame for the psalmists suffer
ing (cf. Ps 21:16).92 Jesus cry in 15:34 reinforces a central component of lament
psalms, namely, the complaint that God is the direct cause of the suffering of the
one who laments.93

I II. M a r k s A u t h o r i a l A u d i e n c e

Marks Gospel, as read here, involves the story of divine abandonment with a
long introduction.94 What might Marks portrayal of a lamenting Jesus and a forsaking God mean to his authorial audience?95 The precise location and makeup of
Marks community are far from settled, and at present no hypothesis is conclusive.96

88 Hooker sees 15:37 as a reinforcement of Jesus rejection (Saint Mark, 377).

89Contra Ahearne-Kroll, Challenging, 119-20,129 n. 30; Joel Marcus, Mark 8-16: A New
Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Yale Bible 27A; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 1055. Marcus claims that 15:34 in Greek is identical to the LXX, except that
the latter has hia ti rather than eis ti. Marcus neglects to mention that the extant LXX only has
one (after the second ), and that the LXX also has .
90 Miller, Interpreting the Psalms, 102.
91 Miller notes that Marks translation of groaning in 15:34 understates the Hebrew
expression. It is the language used of the roaring of a lion, and we hear it elsewhere in reference
to complaints (Pss. 32:3; 38:9; Job 3:24) (Interpreting the Psalms, 101-2).
92 See Ahearne-Kroll, Challenging, 139.
93 So ibid., 135.
94 Divine abandonment is by no means the only theme that permeates Mark; I am arguing, however, that it is a primary motif in Mark, and one that has been given little attention by
scholars.
95 Warren Carter defines an authorial audience as a contextualized implied reader that is
reconstructed from the interrelation between the text and the context in which the work was
produced (Matthew and Empire: Initial Explorations [Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International,
2001] 4-5).
96 For arguments favoring Rome, see Benjamin W. Bacon, Is Mark a Roman Gospel? (HTS
7; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1919); Raymond E. Brown and John P. Meier,
Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity (New York: Paulist, 1983), 191-

772

Journal of Biblical Literature 131, no. 4 (2012)

I will here not wade into these detailed and unresolved disputes. I do, however,
wish to offer some tentative ideas about what Marks portrayal of a lamenting Jesus
and a forsaking God may have meant to an audience that experienced persecution.
That Marks authorial audience has experienced persecution is suggested by internal evidence (e.g., 4:17; 8:34-35; 10:30, 39; 13:9-13). External elements can also
provide corroborating evidence of persecution if one situates Mark in certain geographic locales.97
In addition to the function of Mark s passion narrative (and his entire Gospel)
as an apologia for a crucified Messiah,98 Mark also offers and functions as an apologia for a suffering, persecuted (and, perhaps in some cases, crucified) community
of Jesus followers. Marks community may find in Jesus suffering and death a mirror of their own experience, one in which there is no glorious resurrection but only
the sliver of a hope of one.
Mark presents God as one who willed and participated in Jesus suffering and
death and did noteven when askeddeliver him. God can will suffering, not
only for Jesus but also for his followers. Suffering and death may well indeed be

97; Rudolf Pesch, Das Markusevangelium (4th ed.; 2 vols.; HTKNT; Freiburg i. B: Herder, 1984),
1:112-14; Martin Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark (trans. John Bowden; London: SCM, 1985),
1-30; Donald Senior, With Swords and Clubs .. .,The Setting of Marks Community and His
Critique of Abusive Power, BTB 17 (1987): 10-20; Donahue, Windows and Mirrors; Brian J.
Incigneri, The Gospel to the Romans: The Setting and Rhetoric of Mark's Gospel (Biblical
Interpretation Series 65; Leiden: Brill, 2003).
For Galilee, see Ernst Lohmeyer, Galila und Jerusalem (FRLANT n.F. 34; Gttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1936); R. H. Lightfoot, Locality and Doctrine in the Gospels (London:
Hodder & Stoughton, 1938); Norman Perrin, Towards an Interpretation of the Gospel of Mark,
in Christology and a Modern Pilgrimage: A Discussion with Norman Perrin (ed. H. D. Betz;
Claremont, CA: Society of Biblical Literature, 1971), 1-78; Theodore J. Weeden, Mark: Traditions
in Conflict (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971); Myers, Binding the Strong Man, 39-87; Hendrika
Nicoline Roskam, The Purpose of the Gospel of Mark in Its Historical and Social Context (NovTSup
114; Leiden: Brill, 2004).
For Syria, see Herman C. Waetjen, A Reordering of Power: A Sociopolitical Reading of Mark's
Gospel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989); Gerd Theissen, The Gospels in Context: Social and Political
History in the Synoptic Tradition (trans. Linda M. Maloney; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991). For
southern Syria, see Howard Clark Kee, Community of the New Age: Studies in Mark's Gospel
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977), 100-105; Moloney, Mark, 12-15. For Egypt, see Chrysostom,
Horn. Matt. 1.7.
97 If, for example, one identifies Marks authorial audience with Rome and, in particular,
with the Christians who Tacitus claims were persecuted by Nero (Ann. 15). So Ralph P. Martin,
Mark: Evangelist and Theologian (Exeter: Paternoster, 1972), 61-70.
98 So, e.g., C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures: The Sub-structure of New Testament
Theology (New York: Scribner, 1953), 72, 92-93, 127; Morna D. Hooker, Not Ashamed of the
Gospel: New Testament Interpretations of the Death of Christ (Didsbury Lectures; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1995), 48; cf. Delbert Royce Burkett, Rethinking the Gospel Sources: From Proto-Mark
to Mark (New York: T&TClark International, 2004), 160.

Rindge: Lament and Divine Abandonment in Mark

773

the things of God( Mark 8:33). What Mark conveys about God bears some similarity to Dietrich Bonhoeffer s reflection on Mark 15:34:
God would have us know that we must live as men [and women] who manage
our lives without [God]. The God who is with us is the God who forsakes us
Before God and with God we live without God. God lets himself be pushed out
of the world on to the cross. He is weak and powerless in the world, and that is
precisely the way, the only way, in which [God] is with us and helps us."

Mark depicts Jesus as one who laments God s role in his suffering and death.
As in Jewish lament literature (Psalms, Job, Lamentations), God is presented as one
who can be accused, questioned, and blamed. In his prayer in Gethsemane and,
even more so, in his cry from the cross, Jesus models a response to suffering that
is far from passive or resigned. Jesus laments his suffering and protests Gods abandonmentand perhaps complicityin it. Marks authorial audience is thereby presented with a model of how one might respond to suffering.
Jesus' cry in 15:34 can function in two interrelated ways for Marks authorial
audience. On the one hand, Marks audience may be able to see their own suffering and persecution articulated in Jesus cry.100 On the other hand, Jesus' cry models for Marks authorial audience a lament that they can make their own. Jesus gives
voice in 15:34 to their own lived experience and directs this voice to the God that
they worship. Members of Marks authorial audience who have experienced persecution can express themselves in and through Jesus cry.101 They can do so, moreover, in the context of worship, liturgy, and the faith community. Articulating such
laments would confirm for them what Walter Brueggemann calls the most important component of laments, the recognition that life is not right.102Laments would
thereby enable them to express that which comports with their actual experience
of pain, suffering, and/or death. Mark thus not only provides a theologia crucis but
also a vehicle for the persecuted community who follows in the way of the cross to
articulate their mourning, grief, and lamentation to God.103
Brueggemann s work on the personal and social functions of laments can illumine the value of lament for Marks authorial audience. Brueggemann views lament
psalms as a vehicle enabling the petitioner to become individuated in ones relationship with God. Through a lament one can take initiative with God and so
develop over against God the ego-strength that is necessary for responsible faith.104

99
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison (ed. Eberhard Bethge; 1953; New
York: Collier, 1972), 360.
100 See Westermann, Praise and Lament, 275.
101 So Dowd Suffering, 162.
102 Brueggemann, Costly Loss of Lament, 105.
103 See Theodore J. Weeden, The Heresy that Necessitated Marks Gospel, in Telford, Interpretation of Mark, 64-77; repr. from ZNW 59 (1968): 145-58.
104 Brueggemann, Costly Loss of Lament, 103.

774

Journal of Biblical Literature 131, no. 4 (2012)

Laments allow the petitioner to enter into genuine obedience, which is not a contrived need to please, but a genuine, yielding commitment.105 It is, perhaps, this
kind of obedience that Jesus embodied, one enabling him to submit initially to a
contrary will (14:36) and, subsequently, to question and protest against that same
wi (15:34).
Laments also provide speech that addresses concrete political realities and
power relationships embedded in social structures. For Brueggemann, laments seek
to redress power inequities by redistributing power.106A refusal by those in power
to permit lament language reinforces the legitimacy of the status quo and sanctions
social control. In the absence of lament, a theological monopoly is reinforced,
docility and submissiveness are engendered, and the outcome in terms of social
practice is to reinforce and consolidate the political-economic monopoly of the status quo.107 Brueggemanns comments on the relationship between lament and
social power dynamics are apropos for Marks authorial audience: The claims and
rights of the speaker are asserted to God in the face of a system that does not deliver.
That system is visible on earth and addressed in heaven with the passionate conviction that it can, must, and will be changed.108 Faced with a hostile sociopolitical system that is likely a source of persecution, Marks Gospel offers its authorial
audience a form of speech that dares to challenge both the injustice of that system
and the divine abandonment that accompanies it.
105Ibid., 104.
106 Ibid., 102. Cf. idem, Lament as Wake-Up Call (Class Analysis and Historical Possibility), in Lamentations in Ancient and Contemporary Cultural Contexts (ed. Nancy C. Lee and
Carleen Mandolfo; SBLSymS 43; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), 221-36.
107 Brueggemann, Costly Loss of Lament, 102.
108 Ibid., 106.

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(sV express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder( s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of ajournai
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously
published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.
The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.