CONVERSION NARRATIVES:
WESLEY'S ALDERSGATE NARRATIVE AND THE PORTRAIT OF PETER IN THE GOSPEL OF MARK

by
Thomas P Haverly

I. CONVERSION NARRATIVE IN WESLEY'S JOURNAL

Commemoration of the two-hundred-fiftieth anniversary of John Wes­ley's Aldersgate experience" has brought about both celebrations and reap­praisals of that event. Aldersgate" is commonly celebrated as Wesley's conversion, but questions have been raised as to whether this is the appropri­ate way to understand it. These questions are not new. In fact, Wesley him­self appears to have been the first to raise the issue.

The first published extract from Wesley's Journal ends in January, 1738. upon his return from Georgia. Wesley was thoroughly convinced he was not and never had been a Christian.¹ His own understanding of his experience in Aldersgate Street and consequently his Aldersgate narrative, published in the second extract, were conditioned by this conviction.² But in later editions (1774 and 1775) of the first Journal extract, Wesley added several foot-notes which indicate a changed perspective: he was no longer "sure" that he had never been converted, he had not after all been a "child of wrath," but he had "even then the faith of a servant, though not that of a son."³ Wesley appears to retreat from the conviction that Aldersgate was truly his conversion.

Wesley appended similar comments to later editions of the second Journal extract. Several are found in the Aldersgate account itself. Referring to his youthful response to reading William Law, the original edition of the Journal had cast doubt upon his belief that at the time he "was even then in a state of salvation." A later note however affirms, "And I believe I was."⁴ In 1738, Wesley saw his former efforts as "building on the sand:' He later corrected this, writing "Not so: I was right, as far as I went."⁵ Again he later modified an original description of his pre-Aldersgate condition as "this vile, abject state of bondage to sin" to read, less categorically, "this state."⁶

Farther along in the second extract, Wesley listed several aspects of Count Zinzendorf's doctrine of justification, which he heard firsthand in Germany. Among these was the assertion that, "the assurance of it is distinct from justification itself." A handwritten note in Wesley's personal copy of the 1774 edition of the Journal reads, "Most true."⁷ By 1774, Wesley appears to have come to see Zinzendorf's statement in a new light, consistent with the view that his justification, and therefore his Christian conversion, had preceded the sense of assurance he experienced at Aldersgate regarding his justified state.

The effect of all of these comments is that Wesley's own mature under­standing of Aldersgate differed from his earlier one. Earlier, he had believed that only then had he experienced a genuine Christian conversion. The biographical resume' prefaced to his account of the Aldersgate event tells how, in 1725, at the age of 22, his reading of Thomas a Kempis prompted him to "set in earnest upon a new life." In the same entry, he recorded that, upon reading William Law, "the light flowed in so mightily upon my soul, that everything appeared in a new view."⁸ Wesley's modifications of the first and second Journal extracts in 1774-1775 show that he did not continue to dismiss the importance of these two events as the Wesley of 1740⁹ did (e.g., referring to them as "building on the sand"). In fact, by the 1770's, Wesley's own account allows us to believe that these earlier events may fairly be called his conversion. As we see Wesley "editing himself,"¹⁰ the Aldersgate "conversion" narrative undergoes a subtle change before our eyes; the later Wesley might have written it quite differently.

Other modifications, however, appear to cloud the apparent retraction of Aldersgate as a conversion. Even the later Wesley distinguished his pre­-Aldersgate faith as the "faith of a servant," rather than that of a "son."¹¹ The second extract cites a letter written to a friend shortly before Alders-gate in which Wesley described his woeful condition and his understanding of faith as complete peace and joy. In it he stated, "Let no one deceive us by vain words, as if we had already attained this faith!" In 1774, he added a comment to this exclamation, "I.e., the proper Christian faith,"¹² which gives the impression that he still perceived vital significance in the Aldersgate event. Finally, in describing his response to Peter Bohler's description of faith. Wesley originally wrote:

I well saw no one could (in the nature of things) have such a sense of forgiveness and not feel it. But I felt it not. If then there was no faith without this, all my pretensions to faith dropped at once.

Later he added, "There is no Christian faith without it."¹³

Although interpretations of the last pair of remarks vary, all three do seem to indicate that Wesley continued to understand Aldersgate as a turn­ing point in his Christian pilgrimage. Whether or to what extent Wesley identified it as his "conversion" is no longer clear, however.

A certain degree of ambiguity is therefore attached to the significance of Aldersgate for Wesley in his own writings. This ambiguity is subsequently reflected in the divergent estimations of Aldersgate by Wesley's many biographers. Frederick Maser's survey of biographies¹⁴ describes views ranging from an understanding of Aldersgate as Wesley's conversion and the beginning of Methodism to the understanding that Aldersgate is an event of no real significance in his life. Mediating interpretations credit the Aldersgate experience as the source of new spiritual power or new doctrinal ideas, mak­ing it a more or less significant element in his life.

Still other ambiguities are connected with the actual nature and effect of the Aldersgate experience. In 1738, Wesley was under the heavy influence of Moravian piety and clearly struggled with the realization that even Alders-gate did not fulfill what Bohler and others had led him to expect of a conver­sion experience. The preface to the second Jourital extract seems to indicate that he was both defending and analyzing the Moravian views by the time of its publication in 1740.¹⁵ The formal break with the Moravians occurred in that same year, as the fourth Journal extract describes.¹⁶

When we ask Wesley's biographers what exactly did happen to Wesley at Aldersgate, and what was its lasting sighificance for him, we again receive a mixed response. Theedore Jennings, in a sharply-worded critique of "Aldersgatism," finds it merely one of a series of "moments of assurance" experi­enced by Wesley. He argues that its elevation to a narrative description of his "conversion" has resulted in a fundamental distortion of Wesley's own theology¹⁷ Richard Heitzenrater, somewhat more moderately, allows that Aldersgate was a "crucial step" for Wesley, but finds that his subsequent theological development led him to "modify most of the theological premises" that had led him to the experience in the first place.¹⁸ Maser himself claims that Aldersgate effected a real change in Wesley's theological perspective and relation to God, and attributes Wesley's subsequent doubts to his "spir­itual hypochondria," and to the psychological depression not uncommon fol­lowing dramatic conversions.¹⁹ Maser reports it as the consensus view of scholars at the 1976 "Wesley Consultation" that Wesley experienced "many conversions."²⁰

These ambiguities and differences of scholarly opinion force an open ques­tion upon us: What are we to make of the Aldersgate experience? Were the ambiguities in Wesley's own analyses simply a by-product of his psychology, or were they perhaps endemic to an experiential faith like his? The issue in turn transcends our understanding of Wesley's own personal experience: what are we to make of conversion itself? Is the ambiguity more deeply rooted in the nature of Christian faith and of conversion itself? With these questions in mind, I wish to consider conversion narratives in the New Testament.

II.  CONVERSION NARRATIVES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

The New Testament writings not only serve as an authority for us in dealing with these matters, but they also contain other narratives which we may compare with Wesley's account of Aldersgate. Typically; New Testament "conversion narratives" are drawn from the Acts of the Apostles. These conversions were narrated by Luke as a series of isolated events (the Ethiopian eunuch, the Philippian jailer and his household, etc.), and there is not much description of the internal struggles or feelings that the converts may have experienced. Wesley's struggles and ambiguities find no clear parallel in Acts.

Not even the Apostle Paul, the only Christian convert for whom Acts offers a continuous account of sorts, is described as experiencing any conflicting feelings-neither before nor after his encounter with the Risen One on the Damascus Road. Claims that "Saul the Pharisee" had experienced tremendous inner doubt and struggle before his "Damascus Road experience" are grounded in a traditional, autobiographical interpretation of Romans 7. Krister Stendahi has shown that this interpretation is conditioned more by the introspective struggles of Augustine and Luther (and, one might add, Wesley) than by anything that can be evidenced in Paul.²¹ It flies in the face of other affirmations by Paul (e.g. "as to righteousness under the Law, blameless." Philippians 3:441). And it finds support neither in his own actual references back to his conversion (e.g., Galatians 1:1147 and 1 Corinthians 15:8-10), nor in the accounts in Acts.²²

The conversions recorded in Acts do not yield much information about the preceding conditions or subsequent effects of the events themselves, This, in turn, may lead to an over-simplified impression of what conversion entails. Significantly, in his Journal Wesley recorded the following when seeking proof of Bohler's argument for an "instantaneous work" of conversion:²³

I searched the Scriptures again, touching this very thing, particularly the Acts of the Apostles. But, to my utter astonishment, found scarce any instances there of other than instantaneous; scarce any so slow as that of St. Paul, who was three days in the pangs of the new birth.

For Wesley himself and for many others since, exclusive focus on Acts as the source of New Testament conversion narratives has had two effects. First, it encourages the notion that conversion is essentially a well-marked passing from "darkness into light," and not a matter shadowed by ambigui­ties. Second, it reinforces treatment of experiences like Aldersgate as isolated events by fostering the perception that this is the only way in which the New Testament describes conversions, and that therefore this is how conversions are to be understood. These effects are misleading.

Wesley's biographers, despite their mixed evaluations of the significance of Wesley's Aldersgate experience, agree that neither the experience nor his narrative account should be treated in isolation. The experience needs to be considered in light of Wesley's previous spiritual and intellectual develop­ment, his failed mission in Georgia and his link with the Moravians, as well as his subsequent reflections and activities. Wesley's Aldersgate narrative similarly needs to be read in light of his purposes for its composition and publication in 1740, and for its reissuance in several later editions down to 1775. Similar concerns for literary context and purpose must of course be brought to bear in reading New Testament conversion narratives such as those in Acts.

The conversion accounts in Acts were not primarily intended as paradigms for Christian conversion. Rather the narratives were selected and re-told in order to illustrate the universal character of the Christian faith and the dynamic spread of the Gospel.²⁴ The Ethiopian eunuch and the centurion Cornelius are classic examples of universality; the conversions of Paul and the Philippian jailer are important "reversals" of opponents which are necessary to or illustrative of the divine power at work in the Gospel's proclamation.²⁵ Neither the psychological state of these converts nor the character of their subsequent response to conversion are in Luke's purview. A different source is therefore needed to provide insight into the dynamics of con­version as these appear in Wesley's experience and writings.

Only in the Gospel accounts of Jesus and His disciples does the New Testament provide connected narratives which may allow an examination of the circumstances leading up to conversion and its consequences. Despite major differences in genre between the Gospels and Wesley's Journal, study of a Gospel may provide a better perspective on understanding Wesley's Aldersgate experience and narrative than Acts does. This is primarily true because the ambiguities found in the relation of the first disciples to Jesus in the Gospels, particularly in the description of Peter in Mark's Gospel, provide a significant parallel to those we have uncovered in Wesley.

III. THE CONVERSION(S) OF PETER IN MARK'S GOSPEL

The role of Peter and the other disciples in Mark's Gospel has received a great deal of attention in recent scholarship. A forceful group of scholars has argued that Mark's treatment of the disciples is decidedly negative. Many have followed Theodore Weeden who claimed that the disciples are a mask for some heretical party whom the author of Mark opposed. ²⁶ Robert Tannehill rejects this polemical approach, but still holds that Mark intends his reader to "distance himself from them and their behavior."²⁷

But, as Tannehill himself points out, the depiction of the disciples is not entirely negative. The disciples are portrayed positively at some points, as we shall see, and at the end Jesus declares His intention to restore His relationship with them.²⁸ Ernest Best undertakes a strenuous refutation of the polemical interpretation of Mark's portrait of Peter and the disciples. ²⁹ Instead he finds Mark's purpose to be primarily pastoral and finds the problems of the disciples to be those which are issues for all faithful Christians.³⁰ For much of his argument, Best appeals to what Mark's (Roman) readers must have known about Peter outside the narrative.³¹ This has a certain force to it, although it remains uncertain too. Our approach will follow developments within Mark's narrative only.

The approach taken to Mark's Gospel here is primarily a literary one. The best analogy for understanding the composition of the Gospel is as the telling of a story. This process is similar to what standard redaction-critical approaches have argued, except that it rejects a mechanical, scissors-and-paste process of composition from the oral tradition. At the same time, nei­ther the events nor the narratives are fresh literary creations of Mark's: he draws upon and "performs" the material of the tradition in his composition.

Oral tradition is both more fluid and more structured than Biblical scholarship generally considers it to be.³² Oral traditional narratives are not ver­bally fixed, so that Mark does not deal as an editor with the "text" or wording of the tradition in his composition; instead he retells the story or stories in words that were probably neither completely original nor completely provided by the tradition. At the same time, oral tradition is by no means as fragmentary as form and redaction criticism have often supposed. The idea that brief, fragmentary units originatc anonymously among the "folk" or in primitive" cultures, and only gradually evolve into longer, more complex compositions, was apparently taken over by Herman Gunkel from the folklore studies and anthropology of the late 1800'siearly 1900's. Both these disciplines were then as "primitive" as the people whom Gunkel thought had originated the Old Testament traditions! Biblical scholarship has generally assumed uncritically Gunkel's view of oral tradition and the form criticism based upon it.

It is better to take the "forms" as paradigms for the (oral or written) construction of particular kinds of expression, for which length and complexity are subject only to the skill and purpose of the composer. Narrative forms can in turn become the building blocks for longer, connected narratives.³³ In this way Mark's Gospel may be understood to exemplify a "performance" of the early Christian oral tradition about Jesus.

Mark's purpose may be polemical, pastoral, or evangelistic, or some com­bination of these and other interests to which our categories do not exactly correspond. The Gospel of Mark resists the kind of focused occasion which scholarship usually strives to achieve for Biblical literature. Most interpretations, from the early "Markan hypothesis" of Peter's diary and Wrede's "Messianic Secret," through Bultmann"s form-critical dismissal of its significance as such, down to many current, sophisticated literary and redaction-critical treatments, seem forced.³⁴ What does seem to emerge is that it is an engaging narrative, a story with depths of meaning and signification disguised by its rough style and uneven plot progression. Several sub-themes and subplots have been delineated, however. Among these are the twin themes of the suffering Christ and discipleship and the sub-plot of the relationship between Jesus and His disciples, particularly Peter.

Mark's success as an engaging story is the best clue as to its nature. It was a popular account of Jesus, best understood by analogy as a narra­tive sermon, meant to be heard and to elicit a definite response from the hearers.³⁵ It presents invaluable historical information. However, an approach to Mark as a bare record of what happened robs the narrative of its true force and impact.³⁶

As a sermonic narrative, Mark calls for the response of the hearer to the Jesus whom it presents. The disciples, and particularly Peter, are foils by which Jesus' character and purposes are more clearly understood. But the disciples are more than stick figures in the Gospel. They too elicit response and identification from the reader.³⁷ It is true that they serve to highlight Jesus' identity and power. It is also true that their doubts and failures, as well as their faithfulness and participation, serve to focus Jesus' demands upon Mark's hearers and what is involved in their (our) response. The nature of the disciples' faith is to be the nature of our faith; the disciples' failures are the failures endemic to Christian faith.³⁸ The disciples then are paradigms for Christians and their conversions become paradigmatic as well.

Peter himself is not a fully rounded character in Mark. He only begins to emerge over against the rest of the disciples in the second half of the Gospel. Even then for the most part Mark presents him as the representa­tive of the Twelve, or as one of an inner circle of three or four. But enough prominence is given Peter to sense his distinct importance to the narrative, and to create a growing sub-plot involving his interaction with Jesus, which comes to a head at Jesus' trial. This blend of distinctive and representative character makes an Everyman out of Peter. He is sufficiently distinct to elicit individual attention and concern, and sufficiently open to invite hearers to project themselves upon his character.

It is difficult to define in advance the "conversion" of Peter that we are seeking. As a presumably faithful, first century Jew, Peter need not be converted at all to begin following a particular Jewish teacher and messianic claimant.³⁹ Yet such a transition can be quite a significant step, deserving some such term as conversion.

Beverly Gaventa has suggested a threeefold typology for conversion, based on social-scientific studies: (1) "alternation," a new experience or commitment growing out of one's own past and consistent with it; (2) "pendulum-like conversion," in which one totally rejects one's past in favor of a new "affirmed present" commitment; and (3) "transformation," in which "perceptions" of one's past and of the world are radically "altered" by new perceptions, although without a necessary rejection of the old.⁴⁰

This typology wili prove helpful in our reading of Mark's account of Peter. We will examine the narrative "turning points" for Peter and evaluate them as candidates for Peter's "moment" of conversion.

The Gospel of Mark narrates four turning points for Peter in his relationship with Jesus. These are: (A) Peter's decision to follow Jesus, Mk. 1:16-20; (B) Peter's confession at Caesarea Philippi, Mk. 8:27-30; (C) Peter's declaration of loyalty at the Last Supper, Mk. 14:27-31; and (D) Peter's imminent encounter with the risen Jesus anticipated by Mk. 16:1-8. Each of these may initially be described as a conversion. What I hope to show is that the last event constitutes the event most comparable to Aldersgate, but that each turning point requires its successors and was made possible by its predecessors.

A.   Peter's Decision: Mk. 1:16-20. Peter is called by Jesus to follow Him and become a "fisher of men." He responds immediately, leaves "all," and joins Jesus in His travels. This is clearly a turning point in Peter's life. That it was (or came to be) understood as such is made explicit later, in Mk. 10:28, where Peter declares, "We have left everything and followed you." The response of Jesus accepts this as true, although with a curious twist (10:29-31).

But what is the depth or the character of Peter's decision, considered as a conversion? Even Mk. 10:28 shows Peter reacting somewhat defensively, as if to remind Jesus of what he has done despite other problems. The event comes in the middle of the passage in which Mark emphatically describes the disciples' misunderstanding of Jesus and His message. Peter's loyalty and interest are indicated by his decision to follow Jesus, but there is no real indication of the content or character of his "faith."

The Gospels of Luke and John make their versions of Peter's decision to follow Jesus much more explicit regarding Peter's awareness of His sig­nificance. In Luke 5:1-11, Peter's first narrated encounter with Jesus occurs, as with Mark, as Peter was caring for his nets. Jesus has him go out in a boat, drop his nets and bring in a huge catch. Peter comes to shore, falls down on his knees, and exclaims, "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord!" Jesus promises to have him fishing for people from then on and Peter, James and John leave "all" to follow Him. Luke's version of the call of the first disciples, interestingly, comes after the healing of Peter's mother-in-law (Lk. 4:38 if.), an incident which follows the call narrative in Mark. Several features of Peter's response in Luke find no parallel in Mark's narrative: Peter falls on his knees in a posture of worship, addresses Jesus as "Lord" (kyrie), and acknowledges his sinfulness. While these might have been implicit in Peter's decision, such an attitude is hardly indicated by what follows in Mark's nar­rative. In any case, Luke narrates Peter's calling as a much more explicit experience of conversion than does Mark. John's account is likewise more explicit in that Peter's brother Andrew, who John alone tells us was a disciple of John the Baptist, intreduces Peter to Jesus as the Messiah (Jn. 1:4 if.). Mark gives no indication yet that Peter is aware of such a title for Jesus.

The following chapters of Mark do contain several episedes which cast Peter⁴¹ and the disciples into the sort of positive light one might expect for disciples to a great person.⁴² Jesus selects the Twelve in Mk. 3:13-19, with Simon "surnamed Peter" at the head of the list. They are designated as companions to Jesus, preachers and exorcists. in Mk. 6:743, the Twelve are sent out on a preaching and healing mission whose success is described by Mark in terms similar to those used in summarizing Jesus' own activity.⁴³

The companionship of the disciples is displayed positively in contrast with Jesus' family in Mk. 3:20f., 31-35. Those "around him," which includes the disciples,⁴⁴ are Jesus' true family as they are doing God's will. Later in 4:1 off., the disciples are in position to receive the hidden meaning of the parable of the sower and the "mystery of God's kingdom." This is exactly the privilege one expects disciples to experience. Nevertheless, the passage also gives a hint of the negative image Mark portrays for them when Jesus criticizes their failure to have understood in the first place (4:l3).⁴⁵

These positive depictions of the disciples stand in sharp, ironic contrast to the negative depictions that occur in Mk. 1-8. The negatives are portrayed so starkly as to overwhelm the positives. The first indication of a negative depiction comes early, in Mk. 1:35-39, shortly after the account of the heal­ing of Peter's mother-in-law. Jesus retreats to pray, but Peter tracks Him down.⁴⁶ Not only does Peter interrupt Jesus' prayer, but he urges Him to return "home" to town where everybody seeks Him. Jesus announces His intention to go elsewhere. Peter's agenda already diverges from that of Jesus hlmself.⁴⁷

Later, in Mk. 4-8, a series of events highlights the problems the disci­ples are having in comprehending Jesus' words and actions. One might expect a reaction of uncomprehending astonishment or fear from the crowds, but one entertains higher expectations of the disciples. Intriguingly the disciples' incomprehension is tied to three incidents in boats on the Sea of Galilee and to the feeding miracles which precede two of them. Tannehill, who points out this common setting, notes how these "boat scenes" serve to "isolate Jesus and the disciples from the crowds;' giving the events greater focus.⁴⁸ They underline Mark's intention for his hearers to perceive problems.

The stirring of the storm, Mk. 4:35-41, is the first unambiguous indica­tion of the distance between Jesus and the disciples. First they doubt His concern for their lives (v.38), a doubt suppressed by Matthew and Luke. After "rebuking" the storm, Jesus sharply rebukes their fear and lack of faith.⁴⁹ The disciples' response to all of this is utter confusion over Jesus' identity, "Who is this?" Jesus asks if they have no faith "yet"; but the disciples do not seem ready to have faith at all.

The next negative depiction of the disciples comes immediately alter their return from the successful preaching mission, 6:7-13, 30. Despite Jesus' attempt to provide them some rest, a crowd gathers. He tells the disciples to provide food for them (6:37). They do not think it possible, and He proceeds to do it himself, with five loaves and two fish. After the feeding mira­cle the disciples again find themselves at sea in a storm, this time without Jesus. Their fear of the storm and of Jesus' coming to them on the sea is well founded. But Mark closes the incident by citing their utter astonish­ment, their failure to understand the loaves(!), and their hardened hearts (6:51f.). Matthew (14:28-33), by contrast, has Peter try out walking on the sea himself, omits the loaves and the hardened hearts, and in place of the astonishment has a reaction of worship and the confession, "You are the Son of God." Luke describes no reaction at all. In Mark's view the disciples' astonishment is a failure of faith on their part.

The significance of what is going on here for Mark is seen even more clearly after the next feeding miracle and "boat scene" (8:1-21), in which the disciples' failure is reiterated in almost identical terms. Once again the disciples do not think it possible to feed a crowd in the desert. As Tannehill observed:⁵⁰

It is not surprising that the disciples do not know what to do in the first feeding, but when the very same situation arises again, the reaction of the disciples suggests a perverse blindness that must disturb the reader.

Here is one level, at least, at which the disciples did not "understand about the loaves" (6:52): how can they yet have no clue as to Jesus' ability? But there is still another level of incomprehension which appears in here Both the loaves (the word can also mean generically "bread") and the number of baskets of leftovers had some sort of symbolic significance which the disciples were missing (and which modern readers find difficult as well!). The figurative nature of the terms is indicated by (a) the interposition of the Pharisees' request for a "sign" (8:11-13) between the feeding and the boat scene; (b) the curious, contradictory wording of 8:14, "they had forgotten to bring bread ['loaves']; and they had only one loaf with them in the boat"; (c) the clearly metaphorical "leaven" of the Pharisees and Herod against which Jesus warns (8:15), but which the disciples somehow mistake; and (d) Jesus' mysterious emphasis upon the number of baskets left after each feeding, the highly sug­gestive numbers twelve and seven, respectively.

Jesus' attack (there is no other word) on the disciples' incomprehension here (8:17-21) is sharp and prolonged. He asks if their hearts are hardened. Mark had told us earlier that they were (6:52). He asks if they have eyes to see or ears to hear: this is what those on the "outside" lack according to Jesus' citation of Isaiah back in Mk. 4 when he was speaking about the parables. After getting them to recall that there were twelve and seven baskets of bread left after the feedings, Jesus asks one, last, rhetorical question, "Do you not yet understand?" There can be no answer other than "no."⁵¹

Matthew and Luke again have softened this attack considerably. Luke does not have the second feeding nor its boat scene, and he resolves the metaphor of the leaven, which occurs in a quite different context, simply as "hypocrisy" (12:1). He records no parallel to Jesus' attack. Matthew's version of the events (16:5-12) treats the disciples' misunderstanding as a simple case of confusion: when Jesus warns about leaven, they think He means bread, whereas He really meant the "teaching" of the Pharisees and Sadducees.⁵² (Note that this is a different understanding of the metaphor that Luke offers!) The symbolism of the numbers of baskets is omitted, even though Matthew is known for his interest in symbolic numbers.

The first half of Mark's Gospel ends on this low note. Although few par­ticulars are given about Peter, it is clear that he and his colleagues are united in a fundamental failure to understand Jesus in His identity and His actions. They are no better than those on the outside of their circle. Although they do remain in contact with Jesus, it is clear that a significant change in their understanding, a "transformation," still needs to occur.

This situation is underlined-and perhaps also qualified-by Mark's unique account of a blind man who comes to see in a two-stage miracle (8:22-26). The pericope occurs at a major turning point in Mark's narrative, just before the "Great Confession." Eyes and sight are frequent metaphors for understanding in Mark and the entire Bible, and were used as such in the immediately preceding conflict (8:18). It is not hard to find in this passage, with its curious limitation on Jesus' power, a transition from the apparently total blindness of the disciples to the partial sight of Peter, which is to be described next. We may also see a ray of hope that a good bit of "eye-opening"' remains to be accomplished.

B. Peter's "Confession": Mk. 8:27-30. The dilemma of Peter's imperfect faith next comes into crisis at Caesarea Philippi. Peter makes the correct con­fession (in contrast to people at large, and also Herod, Mk. 6:1446), identify­ing Jesus as the Christ. From the standpoint of how the narrative has progressed, it comes as a surprise that when Jesus asks His question, "Who do you say that I am?" Peter has the right answer (8:29)! We might expect either no answer or an answer no better than the "outsiders" gave (8:27f.). A conversion has occurred for Peter (as Matthew's more elaborate account recognizes). He no longer asks, "who is this?"; he recognizes Jesus as the Christ, the Holy One of God.

But his confession is nevertheless seriously flawed, for he rebukes the Christ at the latter's first prediction of His coming passion and resurrection (8:31f.), a prediction delivered, as Mark stresses, "plainly." Peter's rebuke merits the well known, stinging reply: "Get behind me,⁵³ Satan. You are not on the side of God but of men!" One gets the impression that a good deal of "converting" remains to be achieved.

This flaw is reinforced in Mark's account of the transfiguration (9:243). Peter sees Jesus conversing with Moses and Elijah, and addresses Jesus as "rabbi:' thereby seeming to take Jesus as one of their students rather than as the Christ. Certainly the voice from heaven ("this is my Son, listen to him[!]"') and the disappearance of Moses and Elijah, leaving, as Mark says pointedly, "no longer anyone but Jesus only." together indicate a status for Jesus even greater than parity with those esteemed Biblical figures. Peter thus knows the right title for Jesus, but has something to learn about the revelatory authority vested in that role as well as about the mode of his Messianic deliverance, which is the way of the cross.

One clue that helps us to understand Peter's situation here and which points forward to its final resolution is provided at the end of the transfiguration episode. Jesus commands Peter and the others to silence about this remarkable incident (as He does concerning other matters), but He qualifies the command with a time limit: "until the Son of Man be raised" (9:9). We are not told whether the disciples obeyed Jesus' command to silence about the transfiguration, but we are told they were silent about their inability to understand what Jesus meant by the rising of the dead (9:10)!

Earlier, following Peter's confession, Jesus had predicted to Peter and the other disciples not only the passion of the Son of Man but also His resurrection.⁵⁴ The disciples' inability to accept the passion there was undoubtedly linked to an inability to comprehend the resurrection which is made explicit here in the transfiguration narrative. This underlines the crucial significance of Mark's brief account of the resurrection. Jesus' command also suggests that the transfiguration itself foreshadows the resurrection appearance, which Mark does not narrate. In Mark, no less than in Paul, the death and the resurrection of Jesus are necessarily connected.

Peter's resistance to Jesus' predicted death has implications not only for his view of the messianic role of Jesus, that is, for His "Christology," but also for the character of his own "discipleship." This connection is made clear in the well delineated, threefold repetition of a controversial passion predic­tion plus teaching on "suffering discipleship" which occurs in Mk. 8:3l-l0:45.⁵⁵ It is within this context that Jesus responds to Peter's declaration of commitment (noted above), with a list of the benefits for disciples who have "left all": the list concludes (10:30), "with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life."⁵⁶ Belief in a suffering Messiah entails suffering discipleship. Peter's resistance to the announced passion involves more than concern for Jesus alone!

This entire section is bracketed by two narratives of the healing of blind persons. The first blind person (8:22-26), as has been noted, has difficulty perceiving clearly until Jesus touches him a second time. The second, Bartimaeus (10:46-52), recognizes Jesus as "Son of David" as He leaves Jericho on the last stage of His journey to Jerusalem (the significance of this jour­ney is clearly felt by the disciples and Mark's hearers, 10:32), and is commended for his faith. One cannot escape the impression that these healings comment metaphorically on the issues of misperception and faith raised by the enveloped material. Peter makes the correct confession, but the content of his faith is still dramatically deficient; he does not yet "see."

C. Peter's Declaration of Loyalty: Mk. 14:27-31. Peter's next turning point occurs when, after the Passover meal, Jesus predicts the failure of the disci­ples. This failure is connected with His coming death, to which Mk. 14 makes repeated references. Once again the coming passion is accompanied by refer­ence to the coming resurrection (28): "But after I am raised I will go before you into Galilee." The point of this expression in itself is mystifying, even apart from lingering questions about what resurrection might mean. The nature of the connection between the disciples' failure and Jesus' travel "back" to Galilee after the resurrection is hardly obvious at this point, either to the disciples or to the hearer. That the connection is necessary in order to resolve their predicted failure is unmistakable however.

In any case, we now discover that Peter has once again become converted, this time to those twin ideas of suffering Messiahship and suffering discipleship at which he and the others had balked earlier. Peter declares (14:29), "Even if they all fall away, I will not!" When corrected by Jesus' prediction of his personal, triple denial, he responds (31) with a preliminary "denial" of that prediction here, "If necessary, I am ready to die with you!" Peter now clearly accepts the coming death of Jesus, and equally clearly indicates his own acceptance of the implications of this death for himself (albeit with the qualification, "If necessary"). He has been converted to the "way" of Jesus for himself and His followers.

Of course it will become quite apparent that Peter is not empowered to carry out his declared intent! Having predicted the collective failure of the disciples, Jesus then predicts Peter's personal failure in detail. In the garden Peter, again singled out (14:37), cannot stay awake one hour. And finally Peter with an oath denies any knowledge of Jesus to the high priest's household (14:71), a denial uttered in juxtaposed contrast to Jesus' own direct, climactic confession to the high priest himself: "I am (the Christ)" (14:62).

So Peter's conversion is still not complete, if "conversion" means any­thing more than intellectual conviction. Yet only after his denial, as he goes off weeping bitterly, does Peter, in Mark, finally seem to realize any distance between his own understanding and truth, between his own self projection ("even if they all fall...") and his real actions. Only now perhaps (especially if repentance is a necessary ingredient of conversion) is Peter a candidate for a conversion in the now traditional sense of the term.

D. Peter's Coming Encounter: Mk. 16:1-8. Mark does not narrate an explicit resolution to the issue of Peter's relationship to Jesus. Such a resolution is foreshadowed, Mk. 13, for example, requires such a resolution because it contains warnings that can only apply to a faithful Christian community after the resurrection.⁵⁷ It may be significant that these predictions are addressed to Peter, James, John and Andrew (13:3), who were the disciples first called in 1:16-20. But this does not provide a satisfactory resolution to the situation of the disciples at the end of the Gospel.

However, the end of Mark itself does leave the hearer with an unambiguous confidence concerning the restoration of Peter, despite frequent claims to the contrary. Indeed, the restoration will entail the most thoroughgoing conversion of Peter yet. The key to this realization lies in the interpretation of Mk. 16:1-8.

The end of Mark's Gospel has been the cause of controversy for a century. The text-critical issue has been in little doubt for some time: Mk. 16:8 is the last verse that belongs to the original Gospel. Problems of grammar and style surrounding the verse have also been resolved: it is a complete sentence, stylistically characteristic of Mark, and it does end the pericope, 16:1-8, in a way not unusual for the Gospel.⁵⁸ Until recently, however, interpreting this passage as the formal ending of the Gospel has itself has seemed quite risky. The risk was twofold: could one assume that an ancient, popular writing like Mark might end in such an open manner; and if one did assume so, how should the sense of the ending be interpreted? Such a "suspended ending" and its interpretation seemed too modern and sophisticated for a popular narrative like Mark's.

The numerous studies which argue that Mark deliberately portrays the disciples negatively have used Mk. 16:1-8 with considerable force. There is no resurrection appearance by Jesus to the disciples (or to anyone). Neither word of the empty tomb nor the words of the angelic figure appear likely to reach the disciples through the terrified women who, we are told, say "nothing to nobody" The disciples' failure is not redeemed.

A recent study by J. Lee Magness, Sense and Absence, has provided a number of analogous suspended endings in ancient popular literature. He also offers some interpretive strategies which make for a better reading of the end of Mark. Magness finds such endings in Greek epics, plays and popular romances, in Old Testament writings, particularly Jonah and 2 Kings, and in New Testament writings, particularly the Acts of the Apostles.⁵⁹ Based on a general theory of creative interaction between a text and its reader, he argues that the reader may complete the suspended ending using clues provided in the text. This participation adds emphasis and existential force to the story's ending.⁶⁰

On the basis of his study of the suspended endings in this literature, he derives three principles for interpreting then which may be used for Mark:

(1) interpretation may proceed along lines provided by internal suggestions that foreshadow unnarrated events; (2) interpretation may proceed along lines provided by structural patterns in the text that prepare one to fill in the "empty structure" at the end; and (3) interpretation may proceed on the assumption that synecdoche, a narrated element at the end which implies the absent ending "by substitution or analogy" may be in play.⁶¹ Magness devotes a chapter to the structure of Mark which I found unconvincing. The other two strategies are more fruitful, although I apply them differently.

Several instances of foreshadowing, as prediction, occur in the Gospel.⁶² Some, like the passion predictions, find a narrated fulfillment. Others remain open, that is, unfulfilled and unnarrated. The credibility of Jesus and the literary "narrator" enable the readers to construct the fulfillment for themselves. This is true, broadly, of Mk. 13, in which Jesus' predictions of the elect enduring persecutions carry the "total 'story' beyond [Mark's] actual 'plotted narrative.'"63 The transfiguration episode foreshadows the resurrection itself, and gives a mode] for "understanding the nature of the experience for the disciples."⁶⁴ (A connection with resurrection is made explicitly at Mk. 9:9, as was noted.)

The most explicit example of foreshadowing in Mk. 16:1-8 is not recognized as such by Magness. In 14:28, Jesus had predicted, "After I am raised, I will go before you into Galilee." This prediction is reiterated, almost verbatim, by the figure at the empty tomb in 16:7, with the addition, "there you 'will see him, just as he told you." There can be little doubt that Mark's hearers are to accept this foreshadowing at face value and to anticipate such a reunion in the near future. Magness does assert that the "presence" of the prophecy and command to the women in Mk. 16:7 "overcomes the absence of their words and the absence of any narration about their report by speak­ing their words for them in the readers' minds."⁸⁵ The repeated prediction is directed specifically to "his disciples and Peter." Although the final turn­ing point for Peter is still ahead, it is distinctly foreshadowed in the narrative.

Even more can be said about that turning point through the final strategy for interpreting absent endings, the assumption that Mark is using synec­doche.⁶⁶ The presence and flight of the "young man in Gethsemane (14:51L) has long intrigued interpreters.⁶⁷ It has often been overlooked that the young man reappears at the empty tomb in Mk. 16. An angel is a typical figure in such situations, and the young man is frequently understood as such.⁶⁸ But Mark has used the term "angel" elsewhere. "Young man" (neaniskos) is found only in these two places, and the descriptions off the figure are par­allel. In 14:51-52, the young man was "wrapped" (peribeblēmenos) in a linen cloth, but flees away naked; here in 16:5, he is seated "on the right side" and is once again "wrapped" in a white robe. The contrast is similar to the transformation that occurred in the Gerasene demoniac, from running wildly among the tombs, to seated, clothed, and in his right mind (5:15). The young man too has been transformed, his nakedness clothed, and his fear replaced by quiet certainty.

Arguably, the young man is a witness to the resurrection, the only one in Mark's Gospel. Magness' principles help us understand that the young man, whoever he may be, functions as a synecdoche for Peter and the discipies: before the resurrection appearance, frightened, fleeing, and (metaphorically) naked. Mark's hearer may anticipate a similar transformation, conversion, to occur in Peter when Jesus appears to him. This conversior will be the most thoroughgoing yet. The turning of the young man is nol a simple "alternation," in Gaventa's terms, but a "transformation" of his perspective and character, and this is what we expect for Peter, too.

Magness makes much of the emphatic character of an absent ending and the audience's involvement and investment in concluding the narrative men tally. Jesus will be present to disciples, but He is also "most directly present in the readers' present, as they tell the absent ending of his story"⁶⁹ Our focm on Peter suggests something more: in contrast to the other Gospels, Petei is not (yet) a witness to the resurrection. Rather, because of the open ending he stands in need of an encounter with the Risen One. The audience's identification with Peter is not interrupted. As a "witness" to the resurrection Peter would stand apart from us as a unique historical figure necessary to our faith. However, as Ernest Best observed,⁷⁰

By emphasizing the empty tomb and the statement that Jesus is risen, Mark turns thought on the resurrection away from the idea of a number of isolated and discreet appearances which Jesus made to some or all of His historical disciples. He can be present at all times with all who believe in Him.

As a yet fearful disciple, Peter remains Everyman, in need of the trans forming grace of his risen Lord, but promised to receive it. Peter, like the young man, will meet the risen Jesus. At that encounter, the nakedness of his denial is to be clothed with affirmation and witness; the running feet ol his fear will be replaced with the unhurried rest of his faith.

Even so, as Mark ends, this last of Peter's conversions, while clearly fore­seen and foreshadowed, is yet unrealized. The story is open-ended; both for the resurrected Jesus and for the "in-the-process-of-being-converted" Peter. Peter could not have come to the final conversion without the initial and the succeeding ones. The drama must have all its parts to be complete. Even this last and most important of Peter's conversions to which Mark clearly points us does not constitute the finale of Peter's life with Jesus, as we know, and as perhaps Mark's hearers also knew, from other stories. In this sense conversion may be understood (like Mark's narrative) as an open-ended matter.

As Best points out, Mark's narrative description of discipleship, with its setting on the "journey" of Jesus and His disciples, "is capable of indefinite extension."⁷¹ Although Best is referring to the ability of Mark's concept to transcend the delay of the parousia, the indefinite extension may also relate to our idea of conversion and the Christian life. The crucial elements are: (1) that Peter continued to "follow Jesus," that is he remained in an on-going "engagement" with Jesus, even during the times of his greatest doubt and disagreement with Jesus; and (2) that Jesus in turn proves faithful to him in the middle of and beyond his own failings. Peter's conversions are mile­stones along the way of discipleship.

IV. CONCLUSION

We may now return to the "ambiguities" of Aldersgate for John Wesley. Viewed as a single, once-for-all experience of conversion, Aldersgate raised many problems. Wesley himself wrestled with these immediately afterward as it failed to satisfy his Moravian-bred expectations. Later, in open controversy with Moravian teaching on conversion, he developed his idea of "degrees of faith," this development entails, it seems, experiencing more than one moment of "conversion."

Aldersgate certainly remains a significant element in his theological and spiritual formation, even if only as the catalyst to a way of thinking quite different from that which led to the experience in the first place. Initially, Wesley appears to have understood Aldersgate as a "pendulum-like conversion," entailing the rejection of all that he had undergone before, including his earlier commitments. Subsequent editions of the Journal indicate that later a "transformation" of Wesley's understanding of Aldersgate itself occurred, even though it is not easy to pinpoint this post-Aldersgate conversion. As with Peter, we find that conversions occur at several points along Wesley's journey. Conversion is, as L. D. McIntosh affirms, a "continuum"; this is clearly to be observed in Wesley's life.⁷²

It would not be wise to press a point for point analogy between Peter and Wesley, but parallels exist. Wesley's early attempts to achieve holiness and assurance by "methodism" find a certain analogy to Peter's early deter­mination to follow, and also to direct, Jesus. Wesley's sense of failure upon returning from Georgia is paralleled by Peter's ultimate realization of his fail­ure in the denial of Jesus. Aldersgate may or may not be analogous to Peter's encounter with the risen Jesus. We may only idealize that encounter, as Wesley idealized conversion or "faith" immediately prior to Aldersgate.

The "degrees" of Peter's faith in his engagement with Jesus certainly answer to the degrees experienced and taught by Wesley. Similarly, Mark's narrative demonstrates Jesus' faithfulness to Peter all along the way, and Wesley had a firm belief in that same faithfulness through all the degrees of faith. As he wrote in his sermon "On Faith:"⁷³

It might have been said, "Hitherto you are only a servant, you are not a child of God. You have already great reason to praise God that he has called you to his honorable service. Fear not. Continue crying unto him, 'and you shall see greater things than these.'

And, indeed, unless the servants of God halt by the way, they will receive the adoption of sons. They will receive the faith of the children of God, by his revealing his only begotten Son in their hearts.

The Christian life may well be initiated and sustained by crises of conversion, but no one such experience stands alone or completes the process of conversion, as Mark's narrative of Peter and Wesley's Journal both appear to affirm. Initial Christian conversion is entering into a continuing engage­ment with Jesus involving the whole person, which is the nature of discipleship. The ambiguity that attaches itself to this or that particular religious experience may be resolved only in the context of the larger course of the journey with the God who is faithful. A conversion narrative is properly the narrative of one's whole life.

Notes

¹See entries for Sun., Jan. 8, 1738 ["p. 208f.]; Thes. 24 ["p. 211f] and Sun. 29 ["p. 214f.]. Page numbers in brackets for this note and others refer to the new critical edition of Wesley's Journals and Diaries~ I (1735-38), eds., W. Reginald Ward and Richard P Heitzenrater, vol.18 of The Works of John Wesley (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1988).

²This is clearly indicated in the remarks prefaced to the Wed., May 24, 1738 entry, especially sections 8-10 ["p. 246f.].

³A11 three of these were attached to the Journal entry for Jan.29, 1738 ["p. 214f.]. They first appeared on an "errata" sheet to his collected Works (1771-1774) and then as footnote to the Journal in 1775: Frank Baker, 'Aldersgate' and Wesley's Editors,"" London Quarterly and Holborn Review 191(1966), 312.1 am indebted for this and several other references in period­ical literature to my friend, Dr. Randy Maddox.

⁴See the fifth numbered section in his prefatory remarks to the Wed., May 24,1738 entry ["p. 244f.]. The footnote was added in the 1775 edition.

⁵See the sixth numbered section to the May 24 entry [". 245]. The foot­note was added in the 1775 edition.

⁸See the tenth numbered section in the May 24 entry [". 247]. The revi­sion was done in the 1775 edition.

⁷In the Sun., July 9, 1738 entry [".261].

⁸Cf. note 4 above. "The publication date of the second extract, Baker," 'Aldersgate,' "312.

¹⁰The phrase is Frank Baker's, " Aldersgate,' " 312.

¹¹See note 3, above.

¹²See the Fri., May 19,1738 entry [".242].

¹³Section 11 of the May 24, 1738 entry [".248]. The footnote was added in 1775.

¹⁴"Rethinking John Wesley's Conversion," part 2 of "Second Thoughts on John Wesley;' The Drew Gateway 49 (1978), 31-35.

¹⁵It is interesting to observe that immediately after listing the beliefs of Zinzendorf regaiding justification, Wesley listed beliefs of Peter Bohler; see Journal entry for Sun., July 9, 1738 [261]. The lists conflict: Wesley seems to be implying that the perfectionist views of B6hler were not authentically Moravian. Cf. John A. Vickers, "The Significance of 'Aldersgate Street; Epworth Review 15, no.2 (May, 1988), 9f., who sees the extract as a response to "Moravian 'stillness.'

¹⁶The fourth extract covers the period November 1, 1739, to September 3, 1741, and was first published in 1744: Albert Outler, ed., John Wesley (New York: Oxford University Press, 1964), pp. 353f. Events seem to have come to a head beginning on June 22, 1740, when Wesley decided "to strike at the root of the grand [Moravian] delusion": cf. Outler, pp. 360ff.

1⁷"John Wesley against Aldersgate," Quarterly Review 8, n~ 3 (Fall 1988), 4, 19f.

¹⁸'Aldersgate: Evidences of Genuine Christianity;' Circuit Rider 12, no. 4 (May, 1988), 4-6.

¹⁹Maser, "Rethinking;' 44-49.

²⁰Ibid., 35.

²¹Paul among Jews and Gentiles (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976), pp. 747, 22.

²²The nature of the "conversion" of Paul and of Luke's account of it has been much debated. A good recent treatment of conversion in the New Testa­ment, including Paul's, is that of Beverly Roberts Gaventa, From Darkness to Light: Aspects of Conversion in the New Testament (Philadelphia: For­tress Press, 1986). She concludes, p.40, that Paul's conversion, as described in his letters, should be understood as "transformation"; that "the revelation of Jesus as Messiah brought about in Paul a transformed understand­ing of God and God's actions in the world." She convincingly rejects Stendahl's notion that "conversion" cannot even be applied to Paul. The accounts in Acts successively describe Paul's conversion as the miraculous "reversal" or "overthrow of an enemy" (Acts 9, pp. 65f.), the "call of the faith­ful Jew" (Acts 22, p.76), and his "encounter" with Jesus that constituted him as "servant and witness" to the Risen Lord (Acts 26, p.90).

²³Sat., Apr.22, 1738 [p. 234].

²⁴Gaventa, pp. 65, 124.

²⁵Ibid., pp.106 (the eunuch), 122 (Cornelius), 675 (Paul).,

²⁶Theodore Weeden, Mark-Tradition in Conflict (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971). See the list of writings in Ernest Best, Mark: the Gospel as Story (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1983), pp. 76ff., fn. 158.

²⁷Robert Tannehill, "The Disciples in Mark: the Function of a Narrative Role;' Journal of Religion 57 (1977), 393f.

²⁸Ibid., 394.

²⁹Best, pp. 34ff., 45-52, 76ff.

³⁰Ibid., p. Sif; cf. pp.115, 138, 146f.

³¹Ibid., pp.47f., e.g.

321 have argued this case in my Edinburgh doctoral thesis, "Oral Traditional Literature and the Composition of Mark's Gospel" (1983), based on the Homeric studies of Albert B. Lord, Singer of Tales (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960), and on studies of narrative folklore. See now Best, Mark, pp.100-114. Best seems somewhat inconsistent on this point, often working from a straightforward redaction-critical perspective.

³³Albert Lord in the Singer of Tales has argued that this is the basis for the composition of the Homeric epics, based upon field study of epic min­strels in Eastern Europe.

³⁴Cf. Best, pp. 137f. on the difficalty of reducing Mark to a "kerygmatic" outline: the whole story of Jesus is needed to make Mark's point.

³⁵Best, p.39, prefers to call it "a preaching" rather than a sermon in order to describe the relationship and to preserve a cautious distinction from the modern category.

³⁶Cf. Best, pp.39, 51, 93, 146.

³⁷Tannehlll, "Disciples;' 386, 392f.

³⁸Cf. Best, pp.32, 46.

³⁹Stendahl has argued that this was the case for Paul: he was called to be an apostle of Jesus, but not really "converted" from Judaism; see his Paul among Jews and Gentiles, pp.7-23. 

⁴⁰Gaventa, From Darkness to Light, pp.4-12, esp. pp. 10ff.

⁴¹Peter himself does not figure largely in Mark's narrative until after 8:27.

⁴²Cf. Tannehill, "Disciples;' 396f., who suggests the following passages.

⁴³Compare Mk. 6:12f. with 1:14f., 1:34, 3:l0f.

⁴⁴Tannehill, 'Disciples," 397, cites 4:10 where the same phrase, noi peri auton, explicitly includes the Twelve.

⁴⁵Ibid., 398.

⁴⁶The verb katadioko, 1:36, is a strong one, frequently used in a "hostile sense;' as in "track down": Vincent Taylor, Gospel according to Saint Mark, 2nd ed. (London: Macmillan, 1966), p.183. But the negative sense here is not certain according to C.E.B. Cranfield, SL Mark, Cambridge Greek Testa­ment Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959), p.89.

⁴⁷Cf. Eduard Schweizer, Good News according to Mark,, trans. Donald H.  Madvig (Atlanta: John Knox, 1976), p.56.

⁴⁸"Disciples," 398f.

⁴⁹The "rebuke of the storm uses language associated with exorcisms and with sharp commands to silence others (as in 8:30-33) in Mark. The word used to describe "fear;' deilos, occurs only here in Mark, suggesting an emphatic accusation. This rebuke of the disciples is omitted by Matthew (8:26) and softened by Luke (8:25).

⁵⁰Tannehill, "Disciples;' 399 (my emphasis).

⁵¹The difficalty the modern reader has with the significance of these num-hers may arise from some key that was more clear to Mark's original audience. The possibility that they were equally obscure for the audience has not been given much weight. Much is made in literary readings of Mark of the privi­leged position of the "implied reader" over the characters within the Gos­pel, particularly the disciples. If these numbers were not clear, however, the audience would have the uneasy sense of being in the same "boat" as the disciples: a significant possibility!

⁵²Matthew's version of events reflects his dominant interest in the rela­tion of Jesus' teaching to the majority Jewish positions, a concern appar­ently grounded in the conflicts experienced by his own audience.

⁵³Thls might also be translated, "follow me; 'the verb is frequently used in Mark with the sense of a commission to act in a certain way.

⁵⁴This is a point not generally emphasized in Markan studies, but see Best, pp.44, 76ff.

⁵⁵Mk. 8:31-33 plus 8:34-9:1; 9:30-32 plus 33-50; and 10:32-34 plus 35-45.

⁵⁶Tannehill, "Disciples." 401.

⁵⁷This is commonly noted: cf., e.g., Tannehill, "Disciples;' 404. Some have tried to make Mark 13 the hinge of the gospel, as the part most relevant to the time of Mark's audience. But this is to ignore the power and univer­sality of Mark's narrative.

⁵⁸See the review of this discussion in J. Lee Magness, Sense and Absence (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), pp.1-9.

⁵⁹Ibid., pp.28-47, 55-62, 83 ff., respectively.

⁶⁰Ibid., pp.8, 13-22.

⁶¹5ee his summary statement of these, e.g., Ibid., p.87.

⁶²Cf. Magness, pp. 108-113.

⁶³Amos N. Wilder, "Gospels as Narrative," Interpretation 34 (1980), 296-299, cited by Magness, p.109.

⁶⁴Magness, p.112.

⁶⁵Ibid., p.115.

⁶⁶Magness, pp.1 14f., interprets the "announcement" of 16:7 as synec­doche. This is true enough, but there is more than this to the pericope, in my view.

67Tthe discussion of views in Best, pp. 26f.

⁶⁸Even by Magness, pp.1 14f.

⁶⁹Magness, p.116; cf. pp. 123f.

⁷⁰Best, Mark, p.74.

⁷¹Ibid., pp. 146f.

 ⁷²L. D. McIntosh, "John Wesley: Conversion as Continuum." Mid-Stream 8:3 (Spring, 1969), 50-65.

⁷³Sermons, IlL 71414, ed. Albert Outler, vol.3 of The Works of John Wes­ley (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1986). The quotation is from sections 11-12 [p.497]; emphasis Wesley's. I am indebted to my friend and colleague, Dr. Laurie Braatan, for this reference.

Edited by Michael Mattei for the
Wesley Center for Applied Theology
at Northwest Nazarene University
© Copyright 2000 by the Wesley Center for Applied Theology

Text may be freely used for personal or scholarly purposes, provided the notice below the horizontal line is left intact. Any use of this material for commercial purposes of any kind is strictly forbidden without the express permission of the Wesley Center at Northwest Nazarene University, Nampa, ID 83686. Contact the webmaster for permission or to report errors.