A THEOLOGICAL EXAMINATION
OF JESUS AND COMMUNITY IN THE GOSPEL OF MARK
The theology of Mark's gospel centers on the identity of Jesus. Consequently, two approaches have been taken in its interpretation. The first is to eschew any attempt to reconstruct history and simply look at the gospel document as it stands. As William Wrede writes, "We must hold on to the fact that the first and given object of critical activity is not the possibilities of the life of Jesus but the definite Gospel texts we have before us." The second approach has been to view the Gospel of Mark as a tool in discovering the historical Jesus. Mark, believed by scholarly consensus to be the earliest canonical gospel, along with the Gospel of Thomas and the hypothetical construct Q are the primary textual sources for this endeavor. In examining the theology of Mark, however, the former approach appears to be preferable; the danger of the second is to read into Mark one's own conclusions concerning the theology of Jesus. A structural examination of the book reveals that it divides neatly into two halves surrounding the climax in the middle. The first verse of chapter 1 sets the tone for the gospel: "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, [the] son of God." (The phrase
uiJou` qeou` is absent from Å*, Q and 28c, although present in Åa, B, D, L and W; uiJou` tou` qeou` is present in A, K, D, II and many others. Including the phrase is consistent with Mark's theology.) The first half of the gospel then centers on the activity of Jesus in which he is recognized by demoniacs as the Son of God. The climax occurs in 8:27-31, roughly the middle of the gospel, in the form of Peter's confession: "And answering, Peter says to him, 'You are the Christ.' And he warned them that they may tell no one about him." Immediately after the climax, a series of passion predictions occurs in 8:31, 9:31, and 10:33. These serve as a transition to the second half, the passion story. The end of the passion is summarized by the Roman soldier in 15:39: "Truly this man was a son of God." Thus, the introduction and conclusion of Mark identify Jesus as a son of God and the climax of the gospel is Peter's confession of Jesus as Christ. Surely, this is Mark's central message. This paper will examine Mark's christology in terms of the Messiah, Son of God, look at contemporary attempts to understand the term Son of Man and conclude with Mark's theology of community, the Kingdom of God. We may even hope that Mark's Jesus would not be a complete stranger to the Jesus of history.Jesus, the Messiah, Son of God. The identification of Jesus as the Son of God is the central purpose of Mark. It is of little importance that this momentous phrase is put into the mouth of a Roman soldier. Our concern is not what it might have meant to the average Roman, but rather what it meant to Mark and his readers. Mark's view of Jesus as the Son of God appears tied to 1:11, the scene of Jesus' baptism: "And there was a voice out of the heavens, 'You are my beloved son, in whom I take pleasure.'" Mark contains no scenes of miraculous conception. Jesus is first acknowledged as the Son of God at his baptism, implying an adoptionist position. This station is further enhanced by demons who recognize him as such. Wrede argues that the phase "Son of God" must refer to some degree of divinity or the charge of blasphemy would make no sense; Mowinckel is in agreement. However, Mark's grammar even seems to argue against this. For example, in the passion predictions Mark uses the verb
ajnasth`nai, which is an intransitive aorist active infinitive. An English translation in the passive is correct, "will be raised." However, it does not follow that Jesus will be raised by his own divine power, for the same word is used of all humans in the general resurrection. Note that Mark does not make the decision of the author of Acts in using an aorist active indicative, h[geiren, as in Acts 3:15 with God as the subject. Dunn suggests that the Son of God language served as a bridge between Gentile and Jewish Christianity, both communities recognizing that a great man could be indicated by this title.In Perrin's view, Mark challenges a false "divine man" christology. Jesus' death is therefore interpreted as a ransom (10:45), not an atoning sacrifice. This view does not assume incarnation. In fact, for Mark, Jesus is never an incarnate being, but a human (a son of man) whose death is vindicated by resurrection and exaltation. Still, Mark makes no direct assertion of a physical resurrection. No where is there a statement to the effect that Jesus is divine or of a single "substance" with the Father. The message is one of vindicated innocence rather than vicarious expiation.
It is no coincidence that the predictions of the passion occur in rapid succession immediately following Peter's confession. Although the idea of a suffering servant was current in Judaism, it was long thought that linking this concept to the messiah was unique to Christianity. Presently, one interpretation of a Dead Sea scroll fragment challenges this view. Nevertheless, if any such link occurred in first century Judaism it must have been rare and it is little wonder that the disciples seem not to understand Jesus. A messiah who would suffer and die would have seemed a contradiction in terms. The title should have implied eschatology and victory, not death. The passion predictions follow a pattern: after the prediction itself, the disciples show an unwillingness to believe it. This is followed by the teaching that suffering is the way for Jesus and for those who would follow him. Moreover, resurrection comes only after a time of suffering. Mark redefines the messiah; the suffering servant becomes the suffering messiah.
Despite this, the evangelist is also careful to portray Jesus as rejecting the title messiah, at least until the end. Jesus even calls Peter Satan when tempted with abandoning his suffering -- and thereby becoming a victorious messiah. Could Mark's Jesus have been thinking of the satan of Job, another righteous sufferer, rather than the personified Satan? If so, Peter then accused (
ˆfoc]YI) Jesus of becoming something he had just rejected. Wrede expands this denial of messiahship into his hypothesis of the messianic secret, noticing throughout the gospel the words of secrecy placed in the mouth of Jesus. Earlier, Sjöberg pointed out that a secrecy motif was current in Judaism and could have been used by Jesus. Several types of secrecy commands are present in Mark. They are addressed to demons in connection with exorcisms, given after miracles are performed and given after Peter's confession. According to Wrede, Mark's Jesus tries to hide his identity as messiah and son of God; his miracle working, which might betray his identity; the entire body of his teaching, disguised to the public in the form of riddles (parables); and the secret of the need for the messiah to suffer and die. It is not until Jesus is before the high priest that he acknowledges messiahship, revealing the secret just before his death and resurrection. Prior to this, only the disciples are pictured as knowing of the messianic secret, despite the fact that they do not understand it. Wrede believes that the early church constructed the messianic secret to explain why they called Jesus messiah after the resurrection when it was a term not used by Jesus. Real understanding of Jesus begins with his resurrection, which makes his suffering comprehensible.More recent scholars have found problems with the messianic secret, some of which Wrede himself saw. Few present scholars would accept Wrede without qualification. As presented in Mark, Jesus' prohibitions seem not to have been followed. Moreover, it has been suggested that his miracles and teachings would give away his identity to anyone who witnessed them; it would be rather difficult to imagine the resurrection of a dead child not becoming public. Mann suggests that the parables were intended to be understood. The scene of Jesus' entry into Jerusalem, hailed as the son of David, is a further problem. Messianic overtones may have been deliberate. However, Mann suggests that the idea of some secrecy can be maintained concerning the meaning of the Kingdom of God. Five times Jesus explains his teachings on the topic to his disciples (4:13-20; 4:22; 7:17-23; 9:49-50; 13:34) and only once to the crowds (3:26). Moreover. unexplained material is never presented to the disciples, but is presented six times to the crowds (2:19-21; 2:21; 2:22; 3:27; 4:30-32; 12:1-2).
Jesus, the Son of Man. Much has been written in recent years about the meaning of the phrase
to;n uiJo;n tou` ajnqrwvpou. It would appear to have little meaning in Greek. Some scholars suggest it was the earliest Christian confession, while others insist that it was rarely used by the early church. The first occurrence of the Hebrew phrase on which it may be based (µd;a;Aˆb,) is found in Isaiah 51:12 and 56:2. In both instances the phrase is in poetic parallel with "man" (i.e., "What is man...or the son of man?). It is clear that in Isaiah the phrase is used to indicate a person who is only mortal. The same phrase is used in Daniel 8:17 where again it refers to a human. Daniel 7:13 is written in Aramaic; there the phrase vn:a‘ rb'K], "[one] like a son of man" is used. This son of man comes with the clouds to appear before the Ancient of Days. The Septuagint translated both phrases with ajnqrwvpou. The meaning of the phrase has become unclear, however, because the Book of Enoch used it in a variety of ways including apocalyptically. Bultmann believes that the title was apocalyptic and would never have been used by Jesus. Nevertheless, the common meaning of the Aramaic term was "I." It could also function as a modesty idiom. Hare admits that the philological evidence to support this limited translation is slim, but states that there is no philological evidence at all that vn:a‘ rb'K] was used apocalyptically. Obviously, determining which concept Mark had in mind is crucial in understanding his christology. Some scholars conclude that it was a phrase used by Jesus himself that disappeared from the early church.The phrase occurs fourteen times in the Book of Mark. Hare, arguing against an apocalyptic use, observes that in only three cases (the passion predictions) does the term refer to future events. He concludes that the term was nothing more than a modesty idiom used by Jesus and that it did not have any theological meaning for him or for his immediate followers. Bultmann does not believe that Mark made any distinction between Jesus and the Son of Man. The most difficult use of the term is its use by Jesus before the high priest in 14:62. When asked if he is the messiah, Jesus replies with a quote from Daniel: "And Jesus said, 'I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting to the right of the power and coming with the clouds of heaven.'" Wrede sees here the final revealing of the messianic secret. Moule believes that Jesus interpreted the figure in Daniel as a symbol of victory through obedience and martyrdom, to which the disciples were also called. Although Jesus may have been speaking of someone other than himself, this assumption does not seem to fit the context of the sentence or the gospel. Slater warns against reading New Testament interpretation back into Daniel and points out that there is no scholarly consensus on the meaning of Daniel 7:13. In his view, the term Son of Man in both Ezekiel and Daniel are only a means of address to a human being. Nevertheless, the use of "son of man" in Daniel to refer not to a mere human being but to corporate Israel is a widely supported view. Consequently, present scholarship recognizes three uses of the term in Mark. The first is a reference to self (the ministry sayings), the second is the Son of Man defined in terms of suffering (the passion predictions), and the third (14:62) is recognized as apocalyptic.
Mark's Community, the Kingdom of God. Mark thinks of his church or community as the Kingdom of God. If Mark's first concern is the identity of Jesus, his second is discipleship, the means of entering the Kingdom. Two themes that Mark elaborates for the community are present failure versus future vindication and the ongoing warfare against evil. This has led to the common assertion that Mark's community is faced with struggle and that, therefore, the theme of conflict is prominent in his gospel. The miracle stories may be interpreted as God's order triumphing over chaos, further evidence to the community of eventual success as the Kingdom of God has already appeared in the words and actions of Jesus. Mann sees in Mark three aspects of the Kingdom: its arrival through Jesus, its hidden character, and its promise of future revelation or vindication, thereby combining elements of inaugurated, realized and thoroughgoing eschatology. Caird agrees that all three uses of the Kingdom appear in Mark. In other words, the Kingdom arrives by suffering with the apocalyptic imagery of Daniel 7:13 tied to the suffering servant image of Isaiah 53.
Determining the date of Mark would be helpful in determining something about his community. Mann dates Mark early, at 55 C.E., when Peter left Rome, although most scholars hold to a date around the time of the First Roman-Judean War (66-70 C.E.). Mann also believes that Mark is an abbreviated form of Matthew, which is contrary to the commonly accepted belief that Mark is the first canonical gospel. However, in this position Mann is in agreement with earlier scholars. Generally, Mann sees reflected in Mark the impending struggle with Rome and the need of a community for an abbreviated gospel, with less teaching and more urgency. Mark's lack of an ending is intentional for Mann, meant as a literary device to startle his readers who were fearing persecution. They would already know the ending and would be reminded that they too would be vindicated at the end of their struggle.
Returning from speculation, however, we are left with some basic observations. Mark is concerned with the identity of Jesus and with the community that follows him. Mark's Jesus is purely human, one who suffers unjustly and is vindicated by God through resurrection and exaltation. He is adopted as Son of God, not God incarnate. His death is a ransom, not a sacrifice. He may be called messiah only in the redefined terms of suffering. The community that follows him must also be ready to suffer even in the face of martyrdom. The confident hope is that present failure will result in future vindication, just as it did for Jesus.