Mark's Sandwiches 1.4

Here is another one of Mark’s Sandwiches - the tearing of the Temple veil at the crucifixion [1]. This one is particularly interesting as it also challenges a few traditional interpretations. Traditionally, many people understand the tearing of the Temple veil to be indicative of the tearing of the barrier between God and man. That is, many people assume that it was the inner veil of the Temple, the veil that led into the Holy of Holies, that was torn. But if we see another one of Mark’s sandwiches here, we’ll see that it was not the inner veil of the Temple, but the outer veil that was torn, and we will also see how to understand this.

The sandwich itself is formed by two, at first glance, seemingly unconnected events: Jesus’ baptism and the crucifixion. But what appears to be unconnected at first is connected by a series of common elements and themes that happen both at the baptism and the crucifixion in Mark. The sandwich itself encloses Mark’s entire gospel by the two crucial events in Jesus’ life. Here are the relevant passages:

Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God………..1:9 Now in those days Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan River. 1:10 And just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens splitting apart and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 1:11 And a voice came from heaven: “You are my one dear Son; in you I take great delight.” 1:12 The Spirit immediately drove him into the wilderness. 1:13 He was in the wilderness forty days, enduring temptations from Satan. He was with wild animals, and angels were ministering to his needs.

15:33 Now when it was noon, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon. 15:34 Around three o’clock Jesus cried out with a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” 15:35 When some of the bystanders heard it they said, “Listen, he is calling for Elijah!” 15:36 Then someone ran, filled a sponge with sour wine,put it on a stick, and gave it to him to drink, saying, “Leave him alone! Let’s see if Elijah will come to take him down!” 15:37 But Jesus cried out with a loud voice and breathed his last. 15:38 And the temple curtain was torn in two, from top to bottom. 15:39 Now when the centurion, who stood in front of him, saw how he died, he said, “Truly this man was God’s Son!”

Here are the common elements that you see in the baptism and the crucifixion:

(1) At both times something descends. At the baptism it’s the spirit descending while at the crucifixion it’s the veil that is torn from “top to bottom” in a downward motion.

(2) At both times the Spirit is mentioned. At the baptism the “Spirit” descends while at the crucifixion Jesus gives up the “Spirit”, a fact which is demonstrated by Mark’s twice repetition of Jesus “breathing” (a Greek cognate of the word for Spirit: “pneuma”) his last.

(3) At both times there is the presence of Elijah. At the baptism it’s John the Baptist who is “Elijah” (Mark 9:11-13), while at the crucifixion the people believe that Jesus is calling for Elijah, and they want to see if Elijah will come save him.

(4) At both moments something is “split open”. At the baptism the heavens are torn, while at the crucifixion the veil is torn. To make this more interesting, we astonishingly learn in the description of the Temple equipment from the Jewish historian Josephus that the outer veil of the Temple was a “typified the universe” and was a “panorama of the entire heavens“ (Jewish War 5.5.4). So at the baptism and the crucifixion it’s not merely that something is “tearing open”, but in BOTH cases it’s the heavens that are tearing open. I don’t think the coincidence of the relation between the tearing of the heavens at the baptism and the veil to the outer court’s being symbolic of the heavens can be ignored as a mere coincidence. I think it’s clear that Mark intends us to understand the veil that is torn to be the outer veil, not the inner one. Noteworthy here too is that if the sequence in the events of the crucifixion are followed, the centurion makes his declaration of Jesus’ Sonship once he feels the earthquake and sees the veil torn. Of course, had the veil been to the Holy of Holies, the centurion could not have seen it torn in two and so he would not have been shocked into making his declaration.

(6) At both times Jesus is declared to be the Son of God. At the baptism it’s the voice from heaven that declares Jesus to be the Son, while at the crucifixion it’s the Roman Centurion that declares Jesus to be the Son. Interestingly, this is also Mark’s self proclaimed point of his own writing (Mark 1:1). He wants to tell us the gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God.

Mark’s creative genius also takes themes of Jewish apocalyptic imagery (the heavens tearing) and works them in such a manner to signify Jesus’ importance in the revelation of God’s plan. Jewish apocalyptic work is generally meant to be a ‘pulling back of the curtain’, a revelation of the hidden plan of God [2]. Mark takes this idea and shows how God’s hidden plan if finally revealed in the crucifixion of the Son of God.

Mark’s frame, the sandwich, around his entire work is done on purpose to point out to us that the entire story Mark has just told should be understood as just how it was that God revealed his age old plan in the revelation of Jesus Christ the Son of God. He does this by framing his entire gospel around the two biggest events in Jesus’ life: baptism and crucifixion.


[1] Cf: “The Heavenly Veil Torn: Mark’s Cosmic Inclusio”. David Ulansey. Journal of Biblical Literature 110:1 (Spring 1991) pp. 123-25

[2] For more on Jewish apocalyptic writings see “The Open Heaven” by Christopher Rowland.

Mark's Sandwiches 1.3

There is one of Mark’s Sandwichs that I think people often interpret wrongly. Here I am talking about Mark 11:12-25:

11:12 Now the next day, as they went out from Bethany, he was hungry. 11:13 After noticing in the distance a fig tree with leaves, he went to see if he could find any fruit on it. When he came to it he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. 11:14 He said to it, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard it.

11:15 Then they came to Jerusalem. Jesus entered the temple area and began to drive out those who were selling and buying in the temple courts. He turned over the tables of the money changers and the chairs of those selling doves, 11:16 and he would not permit anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. 11:17 Then he began to teach them and said, “Is it not written: ‘My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations’? But you have turned it into a den of robbers!” 11:18 The chief priests and the experts in the law heard it and they considered how they could assassinate him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed by his teaching. 11:19 When evening came, Jesus and his disciples went out of the city.

11:20 In the morning as they passed by, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. 11:21 Peter remembered and said to him, “Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered.” 11:22 Jesus said to them, “Have faith in God. 11:23 I tell you the truth, if someone says to this mountain, ‘Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. 11:24 For this reason I tell you, whatever you pray and ask for, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. 11:25 Whenever you stand praying, if you have anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven will also forgive you your sins.”

Here we have the “turning of the tables” in the Temple. But the turning of the tables here in Mark actually splits another story into two halves forcing that story to sandwich the Temple incident. This passage is admittedly more difficult to interpret mainly due to what many people believe about the Temple incident. Many believe that the Temple incident is Jesus cleansing the Temple of the corrupt money changers who infest the Temple courts. But, if we see the Mark’s Sandwich here we see that the Temple incident mutually interprets the cursing of the fig tree story. It seems to be the case that the Temple incident isn’t a mere running out of some money changers, but rather it’s a more serious symbolic act of judgment on Israel.

The fig tree should be understood to symbolically represent Israel,. In the OT, the fig tree either directly represents Israel [1] or it is used to represent God’s favor or disfavor to Israel; if Israel was doing right, the fig trees blossomed [2] if Israel was in the wrong the fig trees were dying [3].

The Temple incident mutually interprets the fig tree cursing. When Jesus comes up to the fig tree it was producing no fruit, though he seemed to think it should have been. If understood to represent Israel, the fig tree producing no fruit represents Israel not living up to her calling. Jesus then curses the fig tree and we roll right into the Temple incident. The Temple incident, if mutually interpreted with the fig tree story, is a symbolic act of judgment on Israel [4]. Jesus’ actions in the Temple are very comparable to other symbolic actions done by the Prophets like Jeremiah, Hosea, and Ezekiel where the Prophet symbolically acts out their message (often in very vivid ways). The crashing of the Temple tables is symbolic of the much larger “crashing” that would eventually come in the form of Roman weapons and the Temple’s actual destruction.

This understanding also helps make sense of what would otherwise be very cryptic words that follow in verses 22-25. Jesus’ actions seem to be troubling for the disciples who comment on the withered fig tree (vs. 20). Jesus responds by going on about how if one has faith they can say to “this mountain” to be thrown into the sea. “This mountain” that can be thrown into the sea should be understood to be the Temple Mount whose destruction was just prophesied by the fig tree and Temple incidents. Jesus then goes on to talk about the disciples ability to forgive the sins of others. It’s important for Jesus to talk about this at this point since the place where forgiveness of sins took place (aka: the Temple with a sacrifice) just had it’s destruction prophesied. The disciples were concerned not just about the destruction that was coming, but the implication it carried about the forgiveness of sin and man’s ability to come into the presence of God.

Here we have another one of Mark’s Sandwiches which yields interesting results. Jesus directly prophecies against the Temple and predicts it’s fall, and he does so by use of symbolic actions in the Temple and with the fig tree.

[1] Jer 24:5; Hos 9:10
[2] 1 Kings 4:25; Hos 9:10; Joe 2:22; Mic 4:4; Zech 3:10),
[3] Jer 5:17, 8:13; Joe 1:7; Am 4:9; Hag 2:19; Hos 2:12
[4] “The Last Week”, Borg & Crossan, pp 34-53.
“The Gospel of Mark”, Witherington, pp 311-318.
“Jesus Remembered”, Christianity in the Making vol. I, Dunn, pp 769-770.
“Jesus and the Victory of God”, Wright, pp 333-336.
“Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament”, Beale & Carson, pp 208-212.
“Jewish New Testament Commentary”, Stern, pp 95-96.

Mark's Sandwiches 1.2

Here is an interesting example of one of Mark's sandwiches. Here the story of Jesus' being rejected by his family has been split into 2 by the story of rejection by some of the Jewish leaders:

Mark 3:20 Now Jesus went home, and a crowd gathered so that they were not able to eat. 3:21 When his family heard this they went out to restrain him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.”

3:22 The experts in the law who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Beelzebul,” and, “By the ruler of demons he casts out demons.” 3:23 So he called them and spoke to them in parables: “How can Satan cast out Satan? 3:24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom will not be able to stand. 3:25 If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. 3:26 And if Satan rises against himself and is divided, he is not able to stand and his end has come. 3:27 But no one is able to enter a strong man’s house and steal his property unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can thoroughly plunder his house. 3:28 I tell you the truth, people will be forgiven for all sins, even all the blasphemies they utter. 3:29 But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, but is guilty of an eternal sin” 3:30 (because they said, “He has an unclean spirit”).

3:31 Then Jesus’ mother and his brothers came. Standing outside, they sent word to him, to summon him. 3:32 A crowd was sitting around him and they said to him, “Look, your mother and your brothers are outside looking for you.” 3:33 He answered them and said, “Who are my mother and my brothers?” 3:34 And looking at those who were sitting around him in a circle, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! 3:35 For whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother.”

The two stories mutually interpret each other. Both groups of people, the experts of the law and Jesus' family, want to divert Jesus from his mission. The experts in the law try to publically brand him as an outcast to stop him; his family wants to restrain him. The experts of the law try to say that he is demon possessed; his family thinks he is crazy. Both groups have rejected his mission and so Jesus has parted ways with them as well. For those who would try to stop him or associate him with demons, be they the experts in the law or his closest kin, they are committing the equivalent of blasphemy and doing the work of satan.

As a side note here, and very strangely, Jesus' own mother is grouped in with the rest of his family that seeks to restrain him.

Mark's Sandwiches 1.1

Here is a simple example of one of Mark's sandwiches:

Mark 2:1 Now after some days, when he returned to Capernaum, the news spread that he was at home. 2:2 So many gathered that there was no longer any room, not even by the door, and he preached the word to them. 2:3 Some people came bringing to him a paralytic, carried by four of them. 2:4 When they were not able to bring him in because of the crowd, they removed the roof above Jesus. Then, after tearing it out, they lowered the stretcher the paralytic was lying on.

2:5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” 2:6 Now some of the experts in the law were sitting there, turning these things over in their minds: 2:7 “Why does this man speak this way? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” 2:8 Now immediately, when Jesus realized in his spirit that they were contemplating such thoughts, he said to them, “Why are you thinking such things in your hearts? 2:9 Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Stand up, take your stretcher, and walk’?

2:10 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins,” – he said to the paralytic – 2:11 “I tell you, stand up, take your stretcher, and go home.” 2:12 And immediately the man stood up, took his stretcher, and went out in front of them all. They were all amazed and glorified God, saying, “We have never seen anything like this!”

Here the story of the physical act of healing the paralyptic man is split
into 2 by the discussion of Jesus' authority to forgive sins. The healing
and the forgiveness of sins are tied together here and mutually interpret each
other. The act of healing is the proof that Jesus has the authority to
forgive sins.

Mark's Sandwiches 1.0

The gospel writers seem to use a literary technique sometimes called an "inclusio" or a "sandwich". This is a device where you have 2 sections of text with common elements and themes that 'bracket off' and mutually interpret another section of text. Or it may be that there is a story that is split into two with another story sandwiched in between it. The story in the middle mutually interprets the surrounding story.

This techinque is often overlooked by most people. I think this is due to our (Protestants in general) tendency to read the New Testament either as a sort of textbook that follows a linear historical sequence of events or our tendency to read the text in a piecemeal fashion where we read a couple of verses at a time and don't consider Mark as a whole. I think it's important to realize that the gospel writers aren't trying to write a textbook or a dissertation for a PhD in history. It shouldn't surprise us if they write a little creatively so they don't bore their readers to tears, not to mention that trying to make the gospel writers write as we assume they should might just be anachronistic on our part.

I was trying to think of a modern day example of this literary technique. Perhaps a good example would be a "flashback" moment in a movie. A character in the movie is faced with some situation, and in the middle of the narrative the character has a flashback to some previous experience that relates to his present situation. After this flashback, the movie viewer is rushed foward in time and the narrative resumes where it left off. This is a simple "inclusio" where the story that has been split in half by the flashback is used to mutually interpret the flashback itself.

The gospel writers use similiar techniques, and Mark seems to use it heavily.