The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown (60 page)

In an effort to explain this “messianic secret,” W. Wrede suggested that Mark himself created this motif because, although he believed that Jesus was the divine Christ and Son of God, Jesus unfortunately made no such claims. As Blomberg said, “In other words, by
creating both the claims and the ‘cover-up,’ Mark could account for why earlier stages of Christianity had not believed in Jesus as Messiah, and yet Mark himself could still promote the notion.”
⁹⁷
A more probable explanation is that although Jesus was aware of his messianic status, he was wary of accepting the title from the Jewish people because of the prevailing Christological expectations, which tended to focus more on a political messiah and left little room for a Suffering Messiah (see 10:45).
⁹⁸
In addition, Hurtado suggested that its prominence is to be understood as part of a larger Markan theme. Since Jesus' crucifixion was his key work, “In Mark's view, no one could understand the true meaning of Jesus and his work until Jesus had actually completed it by his death as a ransom for others (10:45).”
⁹⁹
Guelich stated that this messianic secret is further enhanced by Jesus' rejection by the religious authorities (see 3:22–30; 14:63–65), his parents (see 3:21), his hometown (see 6:1–6), and even the misunderstanding of his disciples (see 4:35–41; 6:45–52; 8:31–33). He added, “Furthermore, Jesus' silencing of the demons and his disciples whenever his true identity is involved, as well as his exclusive use of the ambiguous ‘Son of man’ to refer to himself, enhances this ‘messianic secret.’”
¹⁰⁰
This secret is lifted at the climax of Mark's Gospel, when the Roman centurion exclaims at the foot of the cross, “This man really was God's Son!” (15:39), indicating that now the messianic secret has been removed even for the (Roman) Gentiles, so that the missionary power of Jesus' suffering and death has been extended also to non-Jews.

The Nature of Discipleship
In Mark's account of the calling of the disciples, he revealed the authority that Jesus wields over men. When he called the first four disciples, first Simon and Andrew, and then James and John the sons of Zebedee, his call was abrupt and the response was prompt (Mark 1:16–20). In this introduction to Jesus, “the abruptness of the call and the promptness of compliance casts
[sic]
Jesus in an impressive, commanding light; he summons people and they obey.”
¹⁰¹
As Mark progressed in his narrative, he revealed the nature of true discipleship: following Jesus involves conflict, rejection by one's own, even the bearing of one's cross. By distancing himself from his own family, and through the cross, Jesus modeled in his own life a stance toward kingdom membership that the disciples are to emulate in their relationships with one another and in their mission. As Williams said, “Following a Messiah who came to die on a cross involves sacrifice, Suffering and service.”
¹⁰²

The initial picture of the disciples is soon overshadowed by Mark's portrayal of their frequent failures and misunderstandings, an emphasis that is absent in the other Gospels. Of the four evangelists, Mark duly noted the disciples' obduracy and magnifies their failure, which is displayed through a lack of understanding despite the repetition of Jesus' feeding miracle, while at the same time portraying their increased involvement in Jesus' mission.
¹⁰³
W. Lane found in “the juxtaposition of rejection and mission, a pattern confirmed in the rejection of Jesus by the nation, climaxed by crucifixion and resurrection, which created the apostolic mission.”
¹⁰⁴
The disciples fail to grasp Jesus' parables (4:11–13,33–34); where one expects to see a response of faith, one reads instead of their hardened hearts, their little faith, and their perplexity after crucial miracles (4:40; 6:51–52; 8:4, 14–21), and where one expects them to exercise their Christ-given authority over demons, they fail miserably (9:14–21). Peter himself is cast in an extremely negative light after his confession for failing to leave room in it for a suffering Messiah (8:33).
¹⁰⁵

Hence, Mark frequently depicted the disciples in a manner that reveals they do not understand Jesus' mission. Their blindness is brought even more sharply into focus as Mark narrated two stories in which spiritual and literal blindness are set in stark contrast (8:22–26; 10:46–52). As long as the disciples failed to understand the true meaning of the cross, they would not recognize their mission since it is contingent upon the disciples' following of Jesus in the way of the cross (see 8:34).
¹⁰⁶
The record of Peter's denial, Judas's betrayal, and the desertion by the rest of the disciples demonstrates how patently true this observation is (chaps. 14–15).

The response of the disciples to Jesus is often frustrating to readers. Guelich wrote:

Called and privileged to be with Jesus (1:16–20; 3:7–12), privately taught by him (e.g., 4:10–20, 33–34), commissioned to participate in his ministry (e.g., 6:7–13, 30), they continually fail to understand him or accurately recognize who he really is and the implications of who he is for their discipleship (e.g., 8:27–10:45). They waffle between having their mind on “divine things” and having their mind on “human things” (8 :33).
¹⁰⁷

Evans accurately summarized Mark's purpose in this negative portrayal:

The evangelist's purpose in portraying the disciples in this way is not to denigrate them, or to correct an unhealthy triumphalist Christianity that identifies with them. The purpose is to highlight the contrast between the
masterful, commanding Jesus on the one hand, and the much weaker and less comprehending disciples on the other. The evangelist wishes to present Jesus to the Roman world as a compelling figure, as the true savior.
¹⁰⁸

Jesus as the “Son of Man”
Apart from the designation “Son of God,” Jesus is identified in Mark's Gospel also as the “Son of Man.” Notably, people in general are called “sons of men” in Mark (see 3 :28). Thus, in one sense the title “Son of Man” marks Jesus as fully human (though clearly Jesus is portrayed also as fully divine in Mark's Gospel).

In another sense, however, the epithet “Son of Man” designates Jesus as a messianic figure in keeping with Daniel's reference to the mysterious figure of one “like a son of man” (Dan 7:13; see especially Mark 8:38; 13:26; 14:62). Jesus as the “Son of Man” claimed to have authority to forgive sins (2:10), and he claimed to be Lord over the Sabbath (2:28). Jesus also referred to himself as the Son of Man when predicting his suffering and resurrection (8:31; 9:9,12,31; 10:33,45; 14:21,41). The title therefore is bound up with Jesus' vicarious death on the cross for humanity.

Hence Jesus' use of the title “Son of Man” in Mark's Gospel (which is similar to the other Gospels) identifies him both as fully human—and thus able to render substitutionary atonement for sin—and as the Messiah and Son of God who came in fulfillment of OT predictions to establish the kingdom of God.

CONTRIBUTION TO THE CANON

• Presentation of a Gospel of Jesus narrating his ministry from Galilee to Jerusalem
  
• Jesus as the miracle-working Son of God (1:1, 11; 5:7; 9:7; 15:39)
  
• Jesus' displaying his power over nature, demons, sickness, and death (4:35–5:43)
  
• Discipleship failure (4:40; 6:51–52; 8:16–21, 33; 9:18–19; 14:66–72; 16:8)
  
• Jesus' sacrificial, vicarious death as a ransom for many (10:45)
  

STUDY QUESTIONS

1. Who does ancient tradition suggest wrote Mark's Gospel? Who was believed to be his close associate?
   
2. Why do some posit a late date for Mark?
   
3. What linguistic evidence points to a Roman destination?
   
4. What is the major Christological title in Mark?
   
5. How does the structure of Mark fit with his purpose?
   
6. What are the reasons given for a date in the second half of the 50s for the writing of Mark's Gospel?
   
7. According to this chapter, what are four interrelated purposes of Mark's Gospel?
   
8. What is the textual issue in Mark 1:1?
   
9. According to the authors, what are at least two reasons the longer endings of Mark should not be considered original?
   
10. Why is Mark's Gospel called “action rich”?
    
11. How many major parts are there in the structure of Mark's Gospel, and which verse is the turning point?
    
12. To what does the “messianic secret” refer?
    

FOR FURTHER STUDY

Best, E.
Mark: The Gospel as Story.
Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1983.

Bolt, P.
Jesus' Defeat of Death: Persuading Mark's Early Readers
. Study for the New Testament Monograph Series 125. Cambridge: University Press, 2003.

Brooks , J. A.
Mark.
The New American Commentary 23. Nashville: Broadman, 1991.

Evans, C. A.
Mark 8:27–16:20.
Word Biblical Commentary. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001.

France, R. T.
The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text.
New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.

Garland, D. E. “Mark.” In
Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary
. Vol. 1. Edited by C. E. Arnold. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002.

__________.
Mark.
NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

Guelich, R. A.
Mark 1–8:26
. Word Biblical Commentary. Volume 34A. Dallas: Word, 1989.

__________. “Mark, Gospel of.” Pages 511–25 in
Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels
. Edited by J. B. Green, S. McKnight, and I. H. Marshall. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1992.

Gundry, R. H.
Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross
. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.

Hahn, F.
Mission in the New Testament.
Studies in Biblical Theology 47. London: SCM, 1965.

Hengel, M.
Studies in the Gospel of Mark.
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985.

Hurtado, L. W.
Mark.
New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1989.

Juel, D.
Messiah and Temple.
SBL Dissertation Series 31. Missoula: SBL, 1977.

Kato, Z.
Die Völkermission in Markusevangelium.
Europäische Hochschulschriften XXIII/252. Bern/Frankfurt am Main/New York: Peter Lang, 1986.

Kelber, W
. The Kingdom in Mark.
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974.

Lane, W. L.
The Gospel According to Mark: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition, and Notes
. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.

Lincoln, A. T. “The Promise and the Failure: Mark 16:7,8.”
Journal of Biblical Literature
108/2 (1989): 283–300.

Martin, R.
Mark: Evangelist and Theologian.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972.

Pesch, R.
Das Markusevangelium.
Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament. Freiburg: Herder, 1980.

Rhoads, D. M., and D. M. Michie.
Mark as Story: An Introduction to the Narrative of a Gospel.
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982.

Stein, R. H.
Mark.
Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008.

Stock, K. “Theologie der Mission bei Markus.” In
Mission in Neuen Testament.
Quaestiones disputatae 93. Edited by K. Kertelge. Freiburg/Basel/Vienna: Herder, 1982.

Telford, W. “Introduction: The Gospel of Mark.” In
The Interpretation of Mark.
Issues in Religion and Theology 7. Edited by W. Telford. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985, 1–41.

Williams, J. F. “Mission in Mark.” In
Mission in the New Testament: An Evangelical Approach.
Edited by W. J. Larkin Jr. and J. F. Williams. Maryknoll: Orbis, 1998.

__________. “Literary Approaches to the End of Mark's Gospel.”
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
42 (1999): 21–35.

Wrede, W.
The Messianic Secret.
London: J. Clark, 1971.

¹
While it is possible that this phrase serves as the title for the Gospel as a whole, it most likely refers, as in Paul, to the saving message about Jesus and the salvation he provides (see M. Hengel,
Studies in the Gospel of Mark
, trans. J. Bowden [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985], 53). The beginning of Mark's account sets forth the prolegomena to Jesus' ministry, including the ministry of John the Baptist (1:2–8) and Jesus' baptism and temptation (1:9–13). For helpful discussions, see C. E. B. Cranfield,
The Gospel According to Saint Mark
, CGTC (Cambridge: University Press, 1966, 34–35); and D. A. Carson and D. J. Moo,
An Introduction to the New Testament
, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 169.

²
See B. L. Mack,
A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988); W. Schmithals,
Das Evangelium nach Markus
(Gütersloh: G. Mohn/Würzburg: Echter, 1979).

³
R. A. Guelich, “Mark, Gospel of,”
Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels
, ed. J. B. Green, S. McKnight, and I. H. Marshall (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1992), 512.

⁴
R. A. Guelich,
Mark 1–8:26
, WBC 34A (Dallas: Word, 1989), xviiii.

⁵
See the discussion in chap. 3 above.

⁶
For an alternative view advocating Matthean priority, see D. A. Black,
Why Four Gospels? The Historical Origins of the Gospels
(Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2001).

⁷
See Bauckham,
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses
, chap. 7: “The Petrine Perspective in the Gospel of Mark.” Compare with W. L. Lane,
The Gospel of Mark: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes
, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 10–11.

⁸
Guelich, “Mark, Gospel of,” 513.

⁹
Controversy surrounds the understanding of the term “gospel” as used here. Is it the message preached
by
Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God (see Mark 1:14); the message
about
Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God as understood and proclaimed by the church; or the story that follows? See D. E. Garland, “Mark,” in
Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary
, ed. C. E. Arnold (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 1:207. Most likely, “gospel” refers to the story about Jesus narrated in the text, but it also includes the oral tradition that supplements the text. It comprises Jesus' words, deeds, death, and resurrection as God's direct intervention into history, and it challenged imperial cult propaganda that promoted a message of good tidings and a new age of peace through the Roman emperor (Guelich, “Mark, Gospel of,” 513).