Overview1
The existing manuscripts supporting the Greek text of the Gospel of Mark are relatively old and highly reliable. As part of the NT, Mark ranks among one of the best documented texts of the ancient Greco-Roman world when comparing various ancient texts dated between 100 BC and AD 100.2 Some copied manuscript fragments of Mark date from as early as the third century AD. Most authorities on textual transmission agree with this general assessment.
The literary character of Mark is akin to that of an ancient biography (Gk. bios), thus establishing the claim made by the author that his work represents a true, historical circumstance in which the key person lived and spoke. It also indicates that there is a message for life contained therein.
The historical content of Mark has been scrutinized critically for centuries. Archaeological, documentary, and theological studies have not produced any significant evidence against the overall authenticity of Mark’s account as a reliable witness to Jesus (cf. Author; Date and Occasion). Despite many skeptical publications, many scholarly investigations have directly or indirectly demonstrated the overall reliability of Mark’s account.
The theological content of Mark displays a compelling continuity with the OT, exhibiting the important trajectory of promise (OT) and fulfillment (NT). The content of Mark thus functions theologically as the fulfillment of what God promised through his prophets long ago. We also discover various aspects of discontinuity (e.g., regarding ceremonial food laws). These aspects arise especially through the fact that Jesus brings OT laws to fulfillment. The Markan report is also congruent with its purported religious and social setting in Second Temple Judaism (cf. esp. the writings of Josephus and the Qumran community) and the Greco-Roman world. It also displays a compatible correspondence with the other Gospels and the rest of the NT.
Finally, the message of Mark corresponds to our contemporary dilemma of human existence expressed in the paradox of inspiring progress and catastrophic destruction. The message of Mark points to a way out of this dilemma by addressing and solving underlying paradoxes and contradictions in human beings and their relationships with each other and with nature. At the core, a broken relationship with the creator God causes the paradoxes and contradictions. This broken relationship is addressed and bridged in the advent of the unique figure of Jesus.
Author
Virtually all early church fathers3 affirm that John Mark, an associate of both Peter4 (Acts 12:12, 25; 1 Pet. 5:13) and Paul (Acts 13:2–13 [cf. 15:37–40]; Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 4:11; Philem. 24), is the author of the Gospel of Mark. Evidence for the inscription KATA MARKON (“According to Mark”) goes back only as far as the end of the second century AD. From that standpoint, Mark would be an anonymous work.5 There is, however, no reason to doubt that the association of the Gospel with the name Mark is original since there is no evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, Peter and John Mark might have been aware of 2 Maccabees, which followed various Greek approaches to writing an account but refrained, in line with the OT Historical Books, from naming its author.
Peter as the Source of the Gospel of Mark
For the question of authorship, the few preserved statements by Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis (c. AD 120), recorded by Eusebius of Caesarea (AD 260–340) are particularly noteworthy. Papias declares that he had been given oral tradition from the presbyter and apostle John. A piece of this oral tradition pertains to the origin of the Gospel of Mark.
Papias states the following: (1) Mark served as writer (Gk. hermeneutēs) for Peter. This means that Peter conveyed accounts of the words and deeds of the Jesus to his attendant Mark (cf. Acts 13:5). Most convincingly, the term hermeneutēs refers to a “writer,” “reporter,” “conveyor,” or “recorder,” for the emphasis in Papias’s report rests on Mark’s writing down that which Peter remembered about Jesus.6 Justin Martyr appears to support this view, as he views Mark to be the writer of what Peter remembered.7 Justin Martyr identifies Mark 3:16–17 as a segment of the “memoirs” of Peter.8 Irrespective of the exact definition of hermeneutēs, however, Papias clearly outlines the trustworthy transmission of tradition from Jesus, to Peter, and eventually to the Gospel of Mark by means of John Mark. (2) Mark recorded accurately what Peter remembered. As such, Peter passed on the teachings and acts of Jesus in the literary form of biographical chreiai. (3) Nevertheless, he accomplished this while not necessarily reflecting the exact order in which these teachings and acts occurred. Papias stresses that the lack of an exact chronological order guarantees the reliability of the Gospel and supports the fact that it originates with Peter. Accordingly, the Gospel of Mark is a trustworthy, apostolic document. (4) Mark himself was not an eyewitness or a disciple of Jesus. (5) Mark did not intend to overlook or misrepresent anything. According to Papias, the Gospel of Mark maintains its apostolic and trustworthy character on account of these five factors.
Elements of internal evidence reinforce the tradition of the church fathers that the apostle Peter provided the content of the Gospel. When compared in general terms with Matthew and Luke, the Markan account (1) is livelier when recounting particular events involving Peter, (2) is more direct about the weaknesses and failures of Peter (cf. Mark 8:33; 9:5; 14:30–31, 37, 54–72; 1 Pet. 5:1–6),9 and (3) does not mention more laudable references to Peter reported in Matthew and Luke. For instance, Mark does not mention (a) the event of Peter walking on water (contrast Mark 6:45–52 with Matt. 14:28–31); (b) the story about temple tax, in which Peter has an important place (Matt. 17:24–27; no parallel in Mark); (c) Jesus’ intercessory prayer for Peter in Gethsemane (Luke 22:31–32; no Markan parallel); or (d) Jesus’ word on “Peter” and “the rock” (Matt. 16:18; missing in Mark). At times, Peter is not mentioned by name in Mark when Matthew, Luke, and/or John identify him (compare Mark 7:17 with Matt. 15:15; Mark 14:13 with Luke 22:8; Mark 14:47 with John 18:10–11). Mark 14:13 may also indicate that the eyewitness is reporting in an unpretentious way (cf. Matt. 26:17). In Mark 14:13, Peter is not identified as one of the two disciples who are sent to prepare the Passover meal (contrast this with Luke 22:8–13, where both Peter and John are mentioned). Mark 14:72 does not mention the term pikros (“bitter”) when describing the remorseful repentance of Peter (cf. Matt. 26:75; Luke 22:62). If Peter was the source of the Markan account, he would not want to emphasize how “well” he repented following his shameful denial of Christ.
The overall trend in Mark’s account is thus clear: where Peter could be presented in a praiseworthy or significant way, Mark’s account is more modest than that of Matthew or Luke. Against this background it is all the more noteworthy that Mark still reflects the general eminence of Peter as the spokesman of the Twelve. Note, here, the Matthean and Lukan parallels to Mark 1:36 (Luke 4:42–43); Mark 5:37 (Matt. 5:37; Luke 8:51) Mark 8:29 (Matt. 16:16; Luke 9:29); Mark 9:2 (Matt. 17:1; Luke 9:28); Mark 11:21 (Matt. 21:20); Mark 13:3 (Matt 24:3; Luke 21:7); and Mark 14:33 (Matt. 26:37; Luke 22:39–40). Sometimes Mark’s account also gives the reader Peter’s particular vantage point, such as in Mark 1:16–20 (the calling of disciples), 1:29 (Jesus in the house of Peter and Andrew), 5:41 (the raising of Jairus’s daughter), 9:2–9 (the transfiguration account), 14:54, 72 (interaction between Jesus and Peter), and 16:7 (the report concerning Jesus’ resurrection). In each case, Peter functions as the key figure. Additionally, vivid characteristics of eyewitness reporting are noticeable in the above-mentioned passages, as well as in 14:33–42. Finally, some scholars have also observed that there is a certain structural similarity between Peter’s Caesarea speech recorded in Acts 10:34–43 and the Gospel of Mark, thus suggesting that the overall structure and narrative sequence of the Gospel of Mark stems from Peter’s early, post-Easter testimony.
While various aspects of internal evidence can, at best, only corroborate the evidence of the early church fathers, it is important to observe the following: there is a natural and constant harmony between (1) the testimony of the early church fathers, stating that John Mark, the companion of Peter, is the author of the second Gospel, and (2) internal factors in the Gospel of Mark that support the notion of Peter as the primary source of the Markan account.
As the spokesman of the Twelve, Peter transmits to John Mark what he believes to be a significant and characteristic sample of Jesus’ teaching. In his eyewitness testimony, Peter not only conveys systematically memorized material but also points to the deep impression Jesus made on his inner being in terms both of his God-perception and of his self-perception. He testifies to the surprising mission of the Messiah and thus the mission of God. He sheds light on the ultimate purpose of the OT, being captured by Jesus’ inclusion of the Gentile world. He labors toward building the living and witnessing temple of God (Mark 11–13; Acts 15:15–17; cf. Amos 9:11–12; cf. the discussion of a new, eternal temple in Response section on 11:1–26).
John Mark as the Writer of the Gospel
As mentioned above, the evidence suggests that the “Mark” of Papias is the John Mark of the NT, the attendant of both Peter and Paul. A simple analysis of John Mark’s life leads to the following results:
Until about AD 44, John Mark spent his early Christian years in Jerusalem with his mother, Mary (cf. Acts 12:12). During this time he had contact with Barnabas and, at times, Peter. Around AD 45 he traveled with Paul and Barnabas to Syrian Antioch (Acts 12:25). In AD 46 he accompanied Barnabas and Paul on Paul’s first missionary journey (Acts 13:5). However, he left them prematurely and returned alone to Jerusalem (Acts 13:13). Around AD 49, John Mark and Barnabas set sail for Cyprus instead of joining Paul on his second missionary journey (see the so-called Antiochene conflict, Acts 15:36–40; cf. Acts 13:13). Toward the end of Paul’s life, however, John Mark was reconciled with him. Around AD 61 or 62, he spent time with Paul in Rome; perhaps he also worked as a missionary in Asia Minor (Col. 4:10; Philem. 23–24). Likewise, around AD 63 John Mark was again with Peter (1 Pet. 5:13) in Rome. It is possible that around AD 64 John Mark visited Ephesus (2 Tim. 4:11; after joining Timothy to see Paul in Rome). In the NT, John Mark is also frequently associated with Demas and Luke (Col. 4:10–14; 2 Tim. 4:11–12; Philem. 24).
John Mark was raised in the cultural and religious milieu of Hellenistic Judaism, just like his relative Barnabas. It was Barnabas who introduced John Mark to the apostles Peter and Paul and their respective teaching (cf. Acts 4:36–37; 9:26–27). Schlatter rightly observes: “Mark thus held from the beginning a central place in the church. He witnessed how the Jewish and Greek churches took shape; he enjoyed extended times of personal contact both with Peter and Paul, and thus became a special witness to the apostolic preaching. Furthermore, he himself engaged in an extensive teaching ministry in the church.”10 It is uncertain whether John Mark was an eyewitness of events described at the conclusion of the Gospel account. The serendipitous mention of a young man in Mark 14:51–52 may reflect a personal reminiscence. Likewise, the detail in 15:21 (Simon of Cyrene, father of Alexander and Rufus) may also reflect personal eyewitness reporting (cf. 15:39).
Based on the available evidence, it is clear that John Mark had direct and personal contact with Peter, spokesman of the early Christian disciples and eyewitness of Jesus and his teaching. According to later, less certain patristic information, Peter sent John Mark to Egypt as a missionary. There, John Mark is said to have established the church in Alexandria and to have become its first bishop. John Mark is said to have been martyred in Alexandria around AD 68. His remains are said to have been taken to Venice.
Date and Occasion
Date
The external (the testimony of the early church fathers) and internal (references in Mark to datable events) evidence points most convincingly to a date of the composition of Mark around AD 65 and thus before the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in AD 70.
Occasion
Location of Composition
Early church fathers often point to Rome as the location at which Mark was written. Without doubt, Peter lived in Rome for at least the last two decades of his life before his martyrdom around AD 67. It is also very likely that John Mark lived in Rome during at least some of this time (cf. 1 Pet. 5:13). In the likelihood that John Mark lived in Rome around AD 63–65, the horrific events of Emperor Nero’s persecution of Christians in AD 64 may have contributed to the urgency of writing the Gospel of Mark. Peter’s witness account reminds the Christians in Rome and elsewhere that their master had also suffered (Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:33–34, 45) and had spoken about the suffering of his followers (8:34–38). Also, Jesus had predicted the persecution of his followers (13:1–13).
It is unlikely, however, that the Neronian persecution was the sole motive for writing the Gospel. The theme of Jesus’ message—his general call to discipleship (which includes many other aspects of surrender besides that of suffering persecution) in the wider context of God’s visitation of his people—goes beyond a particular occasion of persecution. The Gospel was thus written for a very wide readership. As such, the message could not be passed down orally only; it had to be written down.
Purpose
The ultimate intent of Mark’s Gospel is to present and legitimize Jesus’ universal call to discipleship as he inaugurates God’s eternal and universal rule and builds his eternal temple made of “living stones” (1 Pet. 2:5). This purpose statement is supported by the repetition of this theme in the unfolding story. It is also supported by the fact that the chief audience of Jesus divides into followers and opponents as the narrative is presented. The two-part outline of Mark (cf. Outline) also supports this view.
The above-mentioned purpose statement suggests that discipleship in Mark is essentially a life-giving relationship with Jesus resulting in godly personal and social conduct, not primarily and exclusively following a certain code of conduct. Fellowship with Jesus—personally receiving his substitutionary atonement, learning from him, confessing him, paying attention to his conduct, and being shaped by him—circumscribe the core of the disciples’ individual and corporate life. Obviously, moral conduct is a necessary expression of such thoroughgoing transformation.
Among secondary elements to this overarching theme are (1) to convey the gospel not only to Jews but also to Gentiles, (2) to explain the messianic identity of Jesus as Son of Man and suffering servant in contrast to widespread contemporary, political messianic expectations, and (3) to describe similar patterns between Jesus and his followers while at the same time retaining unique and characteristic elements of Jesus’ power and unparalleled atoning sacrifice.
Recipients
Even at the time of the early church fathers, Gentile Christians are most often mentioned as the recipients of the Gospel. Mark writes to an audience generally unfamiliar with details of the OT and Jewish customs of the day of Jesus. He sets out to acquaint them with these factors because only then will his audience grasp the coming of Jesus as the fulfillment of God’s promised work with Israel and the Gentile world.
Genre and Literary Features
The Gospel of Mark is similar to the genre of ancient biography (bios), reflecting the characteristics of a historical witness account combined with a message (eyewitness proclamation). However, unlike other similar ancient biographies that merely include the mention of the honorable deaths of their subjects at the end of their accounts, all canonical Gospels display an unusual focus on the death (and resurrection) of the chief protagonist by stressing its rescuing significance for the disciples.11
Characteristics of the Narrative Discourse
Argumentative discourses such as Peter’s letters (1–2 Peter) convey their message in a direct fashion. Narrative discourses such as Mark’s Gospel, on the other hand, are more indirect. Such elements as the setting, time frame, plot, and key figures characterize narrative texts, while argumentative texts tend to state their message in a logical sequence of statements. Narrative texts generally involve the reader or hearer emotionally and mentally in the events described before confronting him or her with a particular exhortation. A typical OT example of the convicting use of narrative discourse is Nathan’s exposure of David’s adultery and murder (2 Sam. 12:1–15). Notable structural markers such as headings, summaries, and transition statements also lend a narrative character to the Markan text (e.g., Mark 1:14–15; 3:7–12; 6:6b; 8:22–26).
Among various other structural signposts in the Markan narrative is the inclusio (“bookends”). This occurs, for example, in the two healings of blind men (Mark 8:22–26; 10:46–52), thus bracketing a significant section of Mark (Mark 8:27–10:45). Another significant literary phenomenon in the section of 8:27–10:45 is the fact that every prominent prediction of Jesus’ passion and resurrection (8:31; 9:31; 10:32–34) is directly followed by a teaching on discipleship (8:34–38; 9:32–50; 10:35–45). Also, the literary feature of insertions (“sandwiching”12) plays an important role in Mark’s text. Particularly, when key themes such as discipleship and faith are mentioned, Mark appears to “interrupt” his story by telling another event before returning to the previous subject (Mark 3:20–21, 22–30, 31–35; 4:1–9, 10–13, 14–20; and esp. 14:1–2, 3–9, 10–11, 17–21, 22–26, 27–31, 53–54, 55–65, 66–72). Edwards argues that such inserted sections, especially by way of illustration or contrast, are crucial to the interpretation of the entire A-B-A segment.13
Major figures in Mark’s account are Jesus, the disciples, and the Jewish leaders. Additionally, various minor figures, such as the reference to “the people,” play important roles as well.
Plot Development
The plot of Mark’s narrative becomes clear once one traces the dynamic relationship between Jesus and his disciples, in which Jesus arises as the relentless initiator. The plot can be further crystallized by noticing the tragic conflict between Jesus and his opponents, as well as the frequent tensions between Jesus and his immediate family. The puzzling question of “Who is this Jesus?” becomes more and more pressing when exploring the plot in Mark.
On account of various literary indicators in the text, one can identify the following characteristic stages in the plot development of Mark’s narrative:
Stage 1: Description of the Situation (1:1–15)
Stage 2: The Rise of Tension (1:16–6:6)
Stage 2a: The Beginning of Tension (1:16–3:12)
Stage 2b: The Concrete Description of Tension (3:13–6:6)
Stage 3: The Steady Increase of Tension (Mark 6:7–13:37)
Stage 3a: The Increase of Tension (6:7–8:26)
Stage 3b: The Consolidation of Tension (8:27–10:52)
Stage 3c: The Seemingly Unresolvable Tension (11:1–13:37)
Stage 4: The Tragic Culmination of Tension (14:1–15:47)
Stage 5: The Exceptional and Astonishing Resolution of Tension and Its Consequence (16:1–8 [9–20]).
Theology of Mark
Select, General Characteristics of the Theological Content of Mark
Mark focuses on the public ministry of Jesus, described in vivid terms and rapidly following sequences (note, e.g., the very frequent use of “immediately”), thus foregoing, for example, genealogies and stories of Jesus’ infancy. Lengthy speeches given by Jesus are mostly absent (contrast with Matthew and Luke), with the exceptions of Mark 4, 7, and 13. Mark also contains relatively few parables: the sower (4:3–20), the self-growing seed (4:26–27), the mustard seed (4:30–32), and the wicked tenants (12:1–12).
The account contains, relatively speaking, many miracle stories: exorcisms (1:23; 5:1–20; 7:29–30; 9:25–27), healings (1:30, 40; 2:3; 3:1; 5:21–43; 6:53–56; 7:31–35; 8:22–26; 10:46–52), stilling of a storm (4:35–41; 6:51–52), and feeding of a multitude (6:35–42; 8:1–10). Jesus’ first major announcement of his death and resurrection (8:31) is placed very prominently in the flow of the text. The crucifixion of Jesus is emphasized as a religious and political event (12:12; 14:1–2; 15:10) as well as, paradoxically, a divinely orchestrated necessity (8:31).
Christology
The Biblical Messianic Secret
Generally speaking, Jesus had to defer the full disclosure of his identity (cf. Mark 7:24, 8:30, 9:9, 30) because God’s Messiah was to die and be raised from death in order to be enthroned as the eternal Messiah-ruler (Acts 2:36; contrast with John 6:15). During the time of Jesus’ public life, there was, therefore, an anticipation of the ultimate disclosure of his unusual messianic identity (Mark 9:9).14
Historically speaking, popular Judaism at the time of Jesus expected a Davidic, political messianic king who would arise to liberate the Jewish people from Roman oppression and impurity. Various other forms of messianic expectation of Jews at the time of Jesus have also been noted,15 but these were not general or prevalent views. The heightened hope for a political messiah among Jewish people (esp. among the Pharisees; e.g., Acts 5:36–37) in the first half of the first century AD went hand in hand with a narrowing of OT messianic expectations (cf. the narrow focus on 2 Sam. 7:12–14, 16 in Second Temple Judaism; cf. 4QFlor [Dead Sea Scrolls] I, 11–13).
Such narrowing was flavored by the memory of the Maccabean uprising.16 The Maccabean revolt had led to the reestablishment of Israel’s theocracy around 164 BC. This was viewed as the victory of God via his emboldening guerrilla fighters to resist a great military power. At the time of Jesus, this now-past revolt might have become one of the primary lenses through which the OT was read by an oppressed people. The likelihood that someone would call for a revolt against Rome was thus high.
Generally speaking, then, the people of Israel held a predetermined expectation for their coming Messiah (cf. John 6:15). Such a politically narrowed expectation would certainly be at variance with the challenging messianic claims and mission of Jesus (see below). When one inserts the unique claims of God’s Messiah, Jesus, into the historical matrix of the narrow, messianic expectation of Second Temple Judaism, one is faced with a seemingly insurmountable conflict. Should Jesus act even faintly like the hitherto expected political-messianic figure (e.g., Mark 11:1–10), it could trigger a political revolt (cf. John 6:15).
Jesus, the eternal Son of God, was commissioned to accomplish a very comprehensive purpose that included a broad spectrum of the OT anticipation of liberation effected by God, while the general, messianic expectation centered on one particular hope surrounding political liberation.
The OT Background of the Messiah of God
In contrast to the popular, messianic expectation at the time of Jesus, partially fueled by the memory of the previous Maccabean uprising in the middle of the second century BC, the overall message of the OT cultivates the surprising expectation that Yahweh will come. The unfolding expectation of the OT focuses on Yahweh’s coming (in a covenantal way) as prophet,17 priest, and king. Granting this overall expectation in the OT, the question, nevertheless, remains whether Yahweh would come himself or through a mediator.
Some OT anticipations suggest that he would indeed come himself (e.g., Isa. 9:6; 40:3, 10). Many others state, however, that he would come through a prophetic (Deut. 18:15, 18; cf. Mark 9:7), priestly (Isa. 52:13–53:12; Mal. 3:1; cf. Mark 10:45; 14:24), and especially kingly mediator (2 Sam. 7:14–16; Ps. 110:1, 5; Isa. 9:6; 61:1–2; Dan. 7:13–14; cf. Mark 8:29, 31, 38, 12:35–37; 14:62). The most coherent answer as to how Yahweh would eventually “come,” according to the OT, is that he would come both himself and by means of a unique mediator and messenger. The account of Mark shall resolve this apparent paradox.
According to the OT then, Yahweh rules, saves, and comes (Deut. 31:8; 1 Sam. 8:7; Ps. 110:1; Isa. 40:1–11; 51:5, 9, 11; Ezek. 34:11–22) by means of a unique, divine-human mediator (Ps. 110:1 [Adonai; “Lord”]; Isa. 9:6–7 [“son”]; Mal. 3:1 [“messenger of the covenant”]; Dan. 7:13–14 [“son of man”]; Zech. 9:9 [“king”]). This royal mediator shall shepherd the people (Mic. 5:4) as God’s “David” (Ezek. 34:23–24). He is the “prophet like [Moses]” (Deut. 18:15, 18), performs miracles (Isa. 35:4–6), and atones for God’s people as the unique servant of Yahweh (Isa. 52:13–53:12). He rules righteously on the throne of David forever (2 Sam. 7:13, 16; Acts 2: 30–31) and is a light to the nations (Isa. 42:6; 49:6; 51:4–5).
Given this OT background, Jesus’ teachings and claims thus contain corrective aspects with regard to the popular, Davidic-royal, messianic hope of the disciples and Second Temple Judaism at the time of Jesus. By introducing these corrective elements, Jesus realigns human expectations with the overall messianic anticipation of the OT. The disciples thus encounter Jesus not merely and primarily as the expected, political Messiah (2 Sam. 7:14; cf. Mark 8:32b–33; John 6:15; Acts 1:6). Rather, they encounter a Messiah who aligns himself to the broad and astounding range of redemptive motifs found in the OT. While his plan does not turn a blind eye to the oppression of the Jewish people at the time of the NT, it contains a much more radical and universal approach to God’s purposes. Above all else, the root problem of mankind’s alienation from God, the promise of reconciled relationships, and the role of God’s creation is addressed therein.
Therefore, the temptation for the disciples and other hearers to attempt to coerce Jesus into the function of a narrowly prescribed, political rebel against the Roman Empire, like that of the Maccabean uprising, was real and understandable (cf. Mark 8:32; Luke 24:21; Acts 1:6). John’s Gospel contains the incidental and therefore perhaps most significant remark: “Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by himself” (John 6:15).
The above-noted historical necessity for a biblically based, “messianic secret” now becomes fully plausible, given the historical, religious-political framework with which the Messiah of God had to wrestle. It also underscores the fact that the disciples (together with Second Temple Judaism) did not initially comprehend the significance of God’s Messiah and his mission. The sheer fact that Jesus had to remind his persistently clueless disciples repeatedly about the conflict of sharply divergent, messianic expectations (Mark 8:27–33; 9:31; 10:32–34) undergirds the necessity for a temporary “messianic secret.” Based on the precarious nature of the challenging historical circumstance of conflicting messianic views, it was therefore necessary that Jesus would issue repeated injunctions to silence to his disciples. He repeated this until they apprehended the broad mission of God’s Messiah, which included his purifying suffering and death, as well as his powerful exaltation (see the many OT anticipations, including Isaiah 53).18 In summary, it is this profound and perplexing tension between the perspective (congruent with the OT) of the suffering and subsequently highly exalted Messiah of God and the political, messianic expectations in first-century Judaism that necessitated Jesus’ own “messianic secret.”
On the basis of these considerations, Jesus’ injunctions to silence to the disciples (until his resurrection, Mark 9:9) make sense, since the religious and political circumstances at the time of Jesus were like fuel-enriched air (cf. comments on 1:32–34; 8:29–30; 9:9–10). All that would be needed would be a spark to trigger an explosion. Such a trigger could have come from someone who claimed to be such a political messiah. According to the Jewish historian Josephus, many Jews anxiously awaited the coming of a messianic liberator at the time of Jesus (cf. Acts 5). The danger of calling for an uprising and rebellion ran very high. Jesus thus had to present and declare God’s purposes in the midst of a setting in which he could easily have been misinterpreted. In other words, Jesus constantly had to navigate these starkly differing messianic expectations. He had to walk the difficult line of rejecting limited, political messianic expectations (John 6:15) while also upholding many biblical messianic truths (Mark 8:30; 9:9).
In accordance with the OT, Jesus presents a dynamic and corrective messianic spectrum of humiliation-exaltation (cf. Isaiah 53; Dan. 7:13–14) that is characteristically distinctive. The messianic figure of the representative servant of God (‘ebed YHWH; Isaiah 53) takes an especially prominent place here, together with the motif of the rejection and vindication of the Messiah as the Son of Man (cf. Mark 8:31; 10:45). According to Jesus, the exaltation of the Messiah of God as Lord (14:62; Ps. 110:1, 5; Dan. 7:13–14) follows a time of profound humiliation and rejection (cf. Mark 14:64–65).
The first of Jesus’ correctives is thus the messianic motif of the humble servant of Yahweh (cf. 2:20; Isa. 52:13–53:12//Mark 8:31; “to atone for many,” 10:45; 14:22–24; cf. Psalm 16; Dan. 9:24–26; Zech. 12:10; see also Moses as a servant, e.g., Ex. 14:31). The servant of Yahweh who gives his life for the many (Isa. 52:13–53:12) is simultaneously the suffering King of his people. Note that in Isaiah 53:7–9 the themes of shepherding, serving, and ruling are combined (cf. 2 Sam. 5:2, 7:8; 1 Chron. 11:2–3). We note also Ezekiel 34:11–22, where Yahweh takes on the role of shepherd and, simultaneously, establishes his “servant David”19 (MT ‘ebed; LXX doulos) as prince (MT nasi’ = “chief,” “king”; LXX archōn = “ruler,” “lord”; Ezek. 34:24; cf. also the combination of the motifs of servant and king in 1 Chron. 17:4, 7). The coming of Jesus thus unleashes a historical tension between the suffering (and highly exalted) Messiah of God on the one hand and the limited, political messianic expectations in first-century Palestinian Judaism, also held by Jesus’ disciples, on the other. The motif of the rejection of the Messiah (Mark 8:31; 10:45) is very significant, paving the way for atoning reconciliation of human beings with God.
The second corrective element to the popular, political-royal narrowing of messianic expectations is Jesus’ reference to the majestic exaltation of the Messiah of God (Ps. 110:1, 5 in Mark 12:35–37; Dan. 7:13–14 in Mark 8:38 and Mark 14:62; cf. the enigmatic and post-Davidic “David-of-God” references, e.g., Ezek. 34:23–24, and the “messenger of the covenant,” Mal. 3:1). As stated above, such majesty follows a time of severe suffering.
In this context it is noteworthy that Mark portrays the disciples in a very credible way: they are certain how the Messiah will look and act. They possess clearly defined messianic hopes, based on a limited number of—and peculiarly interpreted—OT Scriptures, taught for centuries by synagogue teachers all over Israel. One of the most important factors supporting the authenticity of the Markan account is the fact that Jesus radically and persistently challenges and modifies his disciples’ predetermined expectations and interpretations. Mark testifies to the fact that Jesus repeatedly brings to light the disciples’ misguided hopes and acquired expectations. The disciples’ subsequent witness to Jesus thus arises against the backdrop of their crushed messianic hopes. They have to cease projecting on Jesus their own expectations and wishes, as he challenges their ill-placed self-assurance and their static belief systems. By doing so, he reestablishes them in personal trust in the triune God who has already revealed himself in the OT. Significantly, he does this without reinterpreting or denying the OT. Rather, he brings multiple strands of OT promises to the surface.
Various other types of injunctions to silence found in Mark’s Gospel need to be distinguished from the injunctions to silence given to the disciples. These additional injunctions include (1) commands to the demons, which are necessary on spiritual grounds, since demons always turn, twist, and contradict aspects of the truth (cf. comments on 1:23–28; 1:32–34; 3:9–12); and (2) injunctions to healed persons (cf. comments on 1:32–34; 1:43–44; 5:18–20, 34; 5:42–43; 7:36; 8:26). As he heals and shows mercy, Jesus always works in situations that harbor the potential for misunderstanding. It is true that Jesus often says to healed persons that they should not speak about it, only to see the particular person go and tell everyone.20 Nevertheless, these general injunctions to silence of healed persons are necessary since their disregard tends to affect Jesus’ freedom of movement. They are also necessary on political grounds (see above). Unlike these presently enumerated injunctions, Jesus forbids his disciples to spread his messianic identity until the Messiah of God has achieved his goal of atoning death and resurrection (Mark 9:9).
In summary, the above-stated historical and theological urgency for keeping a messianic secret on the part of Jesus is plausible because of the potentially explosive, religious-political climate in which God’s Messiah had to operate (John 6:15). More specifically, it was necessary because the disciples, along with most Jews of Second Temple Judaism, were not open to God’s Messiah because of a politicized narrowing of OT messianic expectations along Maccabean lines. The resistance of the disciples to the Messiah of God continues even though Jesus repeatedly challenges his disciples’ views (e.g., Mark 8:27–33; 9:31; 10:32–34). It thus should not be underestimated how serious was the tension between Jesus’ insistence on the suffering, death, and exaltation of the Messiah of God on the one hand and the virtually static, political messianic expectation pervasive in first-century-AD Palestinian Judaism, which was initially also held by his disciples, on the other hand. In the context of such a complex and volatile situation, Jesus’ temporary injunctions to silence to his disciples are not only reasonable but absolutely essential.
The Messiah of God: Jesus as a Human Being
Mark, based on Peter’s testimony, describes Jesus as a real human being with feelings such as empathy and kindheartedness (e.g., 1:41; 6:34; 8:2). Jesus expresses righteous anger and outrage (e.g., 3:5; 8:33; 10:14). He is distraught in misery (e.g., 14:33–34) and experiences emotional weariness (e.g., 7:34; 8:12). He struggles with hunger (e.g., 11:12), needs sleep (4:38), and breaks out in amazement (e.g., 6:6).
The Messiah of God: The Power and Authority of Jesus
Jesus calls his disciples with the authority of a prophet (e.g., 1:16–18). He displays power over forces of nature (e.g., 4:35–41; 6:45–52), demons (e.g., 1:23–27; 3:11–12), and sickness (e.g., 1:29–31; 2:3–12). He interprets the five books of Moses (Torah) with authentic authority (e.g., 1:21–22; 2:23–28; 7:1–23; 10:1–9). Some of these elements are also connected with the power of the Son of Man.
The Messiah of God: Jesus as Eternal Son of God (Who Became a Human Being)
The disciples are introduced to a person who displays not only human but also divine attributes. This is all the more puzzling since the Markan, post-Maccabean testimony of Peter focuses on a Galilean Jewish Jesus who is steeped in the monotheistic worldview of the OT.
The title “Son of God” (1:1; cf. 15:39) is a significant phrase in Mark alongside Jesus’ claims to be the “Son of Man” and “Lord” (see below). It is found in key sections of Mark, especially at Jesus’ baptism (1:11; “my beloved Son”), at his transfiguration (9:7), and in conjunction with the parable of the wicked tenants (12:6–8). Noteworthy are also statements that (1) the Son knows not the hour (13:32; cf. comment on 13:30–32), (2) demons speak of Jesus as the Son of the Most High God (3:11; 5:7), and (3) the high priest associates the Messiah with the “Son of the Blessed” (14:61; cf. comment on 14:60–62). Finally, references to God as Jesus’ unique Father (8:38, the Father of the Son of Man; 13:32, the Father who knows the hour; 14:36, “Abba, Father”) round out this unique portrait. Jesus’ divine nature is also hinted at by means of his unique power over nature (e.g., 4:35–41) and demons (e.g., 3:11–12), his audacious claim to be able to forgive sins directly (2:10), and his transfiguration (9:2–8).
The transfiguration narrative, in particular, discloses the divine glory of Jesus as the Son of God. Prior to this account, Mark 9:1 announces the imminent transfiguration of Jesus as an anticipation of the future coming of the kingdom of God. For a brief time, Jesus allows the three disciples of his inner circle a glimpse into his divine glory. The supreme glory of Jesus is also expressed in the meeting between him, Moses, and Elijah. In this encounter, Moses represents the Torah (Law) and Elijah represents the Prophets. The chief function of the OT prophets was to call the Jewish people back to the ways (Torah) of God. In this case, however, both Moses and Elijah ponder with Jesus the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets (cf. Matt. 5:17).
While Jesus’ divine nature is revealed, he shines as the source of light21 from the inside out.22 Contrast this with the fact that Moses reflected the glory of God as he received the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai (Ex. 24:15–18; 34:29–30, 33, 35; cf. Dan. 7:9–10).23 While Jesus is transfigured, Peter plans to build three tabernacles. At that moment, he still views Moses and Jesus as equals. Peter will only gradually realize who God’s Messiah truly is (cf. Acts 1:6).
It is significant that the three witnesses of the transfiguration belong to Jesus’ inner circle. They will later relay this event. Shortly before his martyrdom, Peter mentions the transfiguration (2 Pet. 1:16–18). He also identifies the voice at the transfiguration as the voice of God who honors and glorifies Christ (2 Pet. 1:17). Regarding the phrase “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased” in 2 Peter 1:17, see also Psalm 2:7 (cf. Gen. 22:2; Isa. 42:1). Lastly, Peter notes that the transfiguration renders the fulfillment of OT prophecies about Christ “more fully confirmed.”
The Messiah of God: Jesus as Son of Man
The formulation “Son of Man” is found approximately seventy times in the Synoptic Gospels and always in statements of Jesus.24 It must be emphasized that the expression “Son of Man” provides one of the most important historical glimpses into the self-understanding of Jesus. He probably uses this relatively unspecified phrase as a key component to correct narrow messianic expectations of his disciples and Second Temple Judaism in general (cf. The Biblical Messianic Secret above). The phrase “Son of Man” is unique in that early Christianity never transmitted a saying such as “If you confess Jesus as Son of Man, you shall be saved.” The phrase “Son of Man” is virtually absent outside the Gospels. One of the few exceptions is found in the account of the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7.25 Coming close to death, Stephen notices the exalted Son of Man standing in the presence of the Almighty Father. Interpreters have observed that Jesus is usually depicted as seated at the right hand of the Father. When one of Jesus’ followers, Stephen, is close to death, he sees Jesus standing as an advocate on his behalf (Acts 7:56). Stephen gets to look into the reality of the triune God amid agonizing pain.
Three separate but connected motifs can be isolated concerning the phrase Son of Man:
(1) The humble, human state of the Son of Man. This motif is more emphasized in Matthew and Luke (e.g., “The Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head”; Matt. 8:20). Furthermore, the phrase can represent in Aramaic the circumlocution for the personal pronoun “I,” that is, “someone like me.”
(2) The necessity that the Son of Man suffer and be vindicated (Mark 8:31; 10:45; 14:21, 36). This represents the most significant and simultaneously the most debated Son of Man aspect in the Gospels. It seems that Jesus uses this mostly unknown and, for his purposes, very suitable phrase to challenge popular messianic expectations (cf. The OT Background of the Messiah of God) and to stress that the Messiah of God must suffer on behalf of “many” (10:45). In the life of Jesus there are simple, historical indicators pointing to the likelihood that he anticipated his violent death. The death of John the Baptist, for example, serves as a warning of what might happen to someone who challenges those in authority. Note in this context the fifteen conflict stories found in Mark 1–12 alone. Opposition to Jesus increases in proportion to his audacious claims. Jesus’ teaching about the suffering Son of Man brings such dangers into sharper focus. In the end, the divine necessity and human enmity lead to the death of the Son of Man, which echoes the suffering servant of Isaiah 52:13–53:12.
Strikingly, Jesus himself links the thematically compatible motifs of the humble Son of Man and the suffering servant of Isaiah (compare Isa. 52:13–53:12 with Mark 8:31; 10:45; 14:24). On account of this telling link, it is important to grasp the significance of Isaiah 42–53 in its OT context before understanding it in the context of Jesus’ Son of Man references. In a previous publication we noted the following:26
On the surface, a major interpretive problem arises with the Servant Songs of Isaiah 42–53 when we compare Jewish and Christian commentaries on these texts. The prevailing Jewish interpretation of the Servant of Yhwh songs in these chapters is that the Ebed Yhwh is always to be identified as the people of Israel. Many sections in Isaiah 42:1–52:12 can––and should be––interpreted in this manner; they may very well represent Israel as a suffering people (cf. especially Isa 44:1–2, 21; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3). However, it is very difficult to apply this interpretation to Isaiah 52:13–53:12, because here an individual Servant of Yhwh suffers on behalf of his people Israel (Isa 53:4–6, 8). If we consistently defined ‘Servant of Yhwh’ as referring collectively to Israel, then Israel would suffer in Isaiah 52:13–53:12 on behalf of Israel, effectively atoning for itself. This contradicts the very tone of Isaiah 42–53, where it is God who saves and redeems.
There is, however, a more fitting explanation for the identity of the ‘Servant of Yhwh’ in the context of Isaiah 42–53. The Ebed Yhwh, which may very well be collective Israel, suffers much. However, it is the royal leader and representative head of the people who will ultimately suffer and give his life as an atonement on behalf of the people (Isa 52:13–53:12), just as Mark tells us in 10:45 (cf. 1 Pet 2:21–24).27
The section is closely connected with psalms of suffering (cf. especially Pss 22 and 69) and psalms of kingly suffering (Pss 89:39, 44 and 118). The fourth Servant Song likewise contains hints of further kingly functions, such as enthronement (Isa 52:13), exaltation of other kings (Isa 52:15), and victory. Furthermore, references to ‘root’ (Isa 53:2) mirror Isaiah 11:1, 10. Isaiah 53:6 might furthermore point to the motif of a royal shepherd (Ps 78:70–72; Isa 40:11; 44:28; Ezek 34). The lengthening of the days of the Servant (Isa 53:10) may echo 2 Samuel 7:12–13. The Davidic covenant is connected with the Servant (Isa 53:10), and the people find life in the Servant’s substitutionary suffering (Isa 53:11).28 Just as Isaiah 24:16 identifies Yhwh as the ‘Just One’, so is the Servant in Isaiah 53:11 ‘righteous’ (see the righteous rule of the Messiah in Ps 72:1–2; Isa 9:7; 11:4–5; 32:1). The nation is found righteous based on his sacrifice.29
Rowe concludes that this messianic individual unites in himself both royal dignity and sacrificial humility (cf. Heb 10:12–13). This messianic figure serves the community of the people of God.30
The development of motifs from Isaiah 53 in the Gospel of Mark is particularly conspicuous in Mark 10:45 (cf. 14:24). This verse represents a unique and very significant self-identification of Jesus. Many scholars believe that Jesus hints here at Isaiah 53:8 (“stricken for the transgression of my people”; Isa. 53:8 LXX, apo tōn anomiōn tou laou mou ēchthē eis thanaton; cf. lytrōthēsesthe, Isa. 52:3 LXX) as well as Isaiah 53:12. The suffering people of God (corporate servant of Yahweh in Isaiah 42–44) are thus purified and healed by their royal leader and head (the servant of Yahweh), Jesus, the divine Messiah of God.31 It must be stressed here that Jesus’ entire conduct speaks in favor of his identification with the figure of the servant of Isaiah 53. As the rejected and humble Son of Man, he endures the life of the servant of Yahweh. Both his deeds and his explicit references to the humble and vindicated Son of Man (Mark 8:31; 10:45) draw attention to the motif of the rejection and substitutionary suffering of the servant of Yahweh (Isa. 52:13–53:12).
Considering the likelihood that Peter stands behind the witness-content of Mark’s Gospel, it is significant to note that Isaiah plays a very significant role in Peter’s overall witness to Jesus, reaching beyond the Gospel of Mark. His references and allusions to Isaiah are found not only in Mark but also in his speeches recorded in Acts (esp. 3:13–15, 26; 4:27, 30; 10:34–47) as well as in 1 Peter. The following factors arise:
(a) In the Gospel of Mark, note especially Mark 1:2–3//Isaiah 40:3 LXX; Mark 4:12//Isaiah 6:9–10; Mark 7:6–7//Isaiah 29:13 LXX; Mark 9:48//Isaiah 66:24; Mark 11:17//Isaiah 56:7; Mark 13:24–26//Isaiah 34:4. Cf. the allusions to Isaiah 53 in Mark’s passion account: Mark 14:24–25//
(b) In Acts, note, e.g., Acts 3:13//Isaiah 52:13; cf. Acts 3:26; 4:27, 30. In Acts 10:34–47, allusions to Isaiah 52:7; 53:4–5, 8, 10–12; 58:10–11; and 61:1 can be found.
(c) In 1 Peter, note especially 1 Peter 1:24//Isaiah 40:6, 8; 1 Peter 2:6//Isaiah 28:16; 1 Peter 2:8//Isaiah 8:14; 1 Peter 2:22 (1 Pet. 1:11)//Isaiah 53:9. Allusions to Isaiah 53 are found in 1 Peter 2:23//Isaiah 53:6, 12; 1 Peter 2:24d//Isaiah 53:5; and 1 Peter 2:25a//Isaiah 53:6.
Such a preponderance of Isaiah references, especially of allusions to the suffering servant of Isaiah 53, suggests the importance Jesus placed on these texts as he formed his disciples.
(3) The exalted Son of Man. Jesus as the highly honored Son of Man has the sole authority to forgive sins directly (Mark 2:10; a prerogative reserved for God alone). As the exalted Son of Man, he is also the Lord over the Sabbath (Mark 2:28). At the end of this eon, the exalted Son of Man will also stand in judgment over all mankind (Mark 8:38; 13:26; 14:62).
In the OT, the phrase occurs in one apocalyptic context (Dan. 7:13–14).32 There, the exaltation and authority of a “son of man” coming before the “Ancient of Days” is emphasized. In this text, the Eternal One shares his divine glory with a Son of Man (Dan. 7:13; cf. Mark 8:38, where Jesus speaks of coming in the glory of his Father). Furthermore, the Eternal One shares with the Son of Man everlasting power and kingly rule. All people (i.e., people of all nations) will honor and worship the Ancient of Days, together with the Son of Man (compare Dan. 7:14 with Dan. 7:27; cf. Isa. 53:10–12). The people of God, in turn, will co-reign with the Ancient of Days and the Son of Man (Dan. 7:27). As was noted above regarding Isaiah 52:13–53:12 (in the context of Isaiah 42–53), Jesus likewise functions in Daniel 7:15–27 as the representative head of his people, co-ruling with the Ancient of Days.33 Finally, the universal mission of God shines through in Daniel 7:13–27, whereby people from every nation serve the Ancient of Days and the exalted Son of Man (Dan. 7:14, 27). The people of God, in turn, shall co-reign with the Ancient of Days and the Son of Man (Dan. 7:27).
The Messiah of God: Jesus as Lord
Pre-Christian Jewish translators of the Hebrew Bible into Greek (LXX) used the Greek word kyrios (Lord/Lord) to translate the Hebrew terms Yahweh and Adonai. The question, then, is how this important OT term came to be linked with Jesus of Nazareth. An initial clue might be found in Mark 2:28, where Jesus claims that the Son of Man is “lord” of the Sabbath. The central text pointing to the connection between Jesus and the “Lord” is, however, Mark 12:35–37. In this text Jesus associates the messianic “son of David” with the Lord of David. Indirectly, Jesus applies Psalm 110:1, 5 to himself, thus taking the messianic place of Adonai (“Lord”) to whom Yahweh (“Lord”) speaks. The exaltation of the messianic Adonai to the right hand of Yahweh and subsequent subjugation of Adonai’s enemies (Ps. 110:1, 5) suggests the following interpretation: Jesus identifies himself as the exalted Lord who co-rules with God, the Father. As such, he shares in the divine nature and glory of the Father (compare Phil. 2:9–11 with Isa. 45:22–23). Jesus himself thus establishes the crucial connection between Psalm 110:1, 5 and the exalted Messiah as Lord in Mark 12:35–37.
If this were not enough, he later reiterates this bold link while on trial before the high priest (Mark 14:62). The high priest’s chief commission is to intercede before God on behalf of the people of Israel and to represent and safeguard God’s will and purposes before his people Israel. Given this fact, Jesus nevertheless stands boldly before him. As he replies to the high priest’s inquiry about whether he is the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One, he audaciously intertwines references to Daniel 7:13–14 and Psalm 110:1. Mark 14:62 thus constitutes an exceptional and unique combination of these two passages. On the surface, both texts appear to be at variance with a basic affirmation of the OT, namely, that God does not share his glory with another (cf. Isa. 42:8; 48:11).
Remarkably, both sections, Daniel 7:13–14 and Psalm 110:1–5, unequivocally stress that Yahweh does nevertheless share his glory with someone. In Daniel 7:13, God, the Ancient of Days, shares his glory with a “son of man,” even endorsing the worship of the Son of Man (Dan. 7:14). In Psalm 110:1, 5, Yahweh shares his glory with Adoni/Adonai, the “Lord of David.” Both texts had been interpreted in a messianic fashion before the time of Jesus. However, few individuals—if any—made the claim to be such a person.34 The most convincing interpretation of the two OT texts is that they respectively afford a glimpse into the complex, Trinitarian God who remains as one (Deut. 6:4).
Only in a Trinitarian framework do these messianic texts make any sense, given the strictly monotheistic context of the OT. As a rose gradually unfolds into three petals, so the one God reveals himself in three persons. As noted above, there is little evidence that a messianic candidate around the time of Jesus claimed to be the fulfillment of both messianic texts. Jesus’ bold combination of these two OT texts in Mark 14:62, with its daring, personal application, thus appears to justify the high priest’s accusation that Jesus is indeed blaspheming the very person of God. At that juncture, there are only two options: either Jesus is directly challenging the exclusive dignity of God, and therefore has to be stoned for committing blasphemy, or he is who he claims to be: a member of the one triune God.
The various validations of Jesus’ claims by his heavenly Father are thus very important: God the Father is “pleased” with his Son (Mark 1:11), affirms him as his “beloved Son” (9:7), glorifies him (Acts 3:13), and raises him from the dead (Mark 16:7–8; Acts 3:26; 1 Cor. 15:3–11). The reality of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead undergirds his exceptional claims to divinity. It also indicates that God the Father is the mastermind behind the humiliation, resurrection, and exaltation of Jesus (cf. the divine necessity expressed in Mark 8:31). Indeed, the Father curses and judges Jesus by crucifixion (see Gal. 3:13; cf. Deut. 21:23) because of the sinfulness of mankind (cf. Mark 10:38–39, 45; substitutionary atonement). Likewise, he vindicates him and thus validates and affirms all of Jesus’ claims, including the statement that his death effects divine ransom (Mark 10:45; cf. Isa. 53:4–6, 8–10, 12). The human trial and divine judgment of Jesus make historical sense only if Jesus did indeed mount such a bold claim. All of what Jesus represents is authenticated by his physical resurrection from death to eternal immortality.
Jesus as Savior (Soteriology)
Confessing the Son of Man before human beings is of ultimate eternal consequence (Mark 8:38). Such public and holistic confession is intimately connected with individual and corporate discipleship. At the heart of Jesus’ teaching lies the fact that he died a substitutionary death on behalf of his followers (10:45; Isaiah 53). Without the atoning reconciliation, including the shedding of blood, there is no hope of reconciliation with God. Once the redeemed disciples join together as God’s universal people, they realize that they, too, will suffer much (e.g., Mark 8:34–38; 13:9–13; cf. Isaiah 42–53).
The Kingdom of God and the People of God (Ecclesiology)
Jesus’ instruction about the kingdom of God (cf. Mark 1:15; 4:1–41; 9:1; 14:25; 15:43) implies that God continues to prepare a particular Jewish and Gentile people unto himself. This is already suggested by the fact that Jesus systematically shepherds a group of disciples. The mission of God in the OT is to create a universe in which teeming life is possible and in which human life crowns God’s creation. Mankind is created to “walk with him” and to cultivate and guard God’s good earth (Gen. 1:28; 2:15–19). Despite the fall of mankind (Genesis 3), Yahweh has upheld mankind’s calling and, simultaneously, pursued the redemption of mankind by calling a people through repentance unto himself. The above-mentioned, long-awaited coming of Yahweh ultimately occurs both in the form of the “messenger of the covenant” (Mal. 3:1–2; cf. Mic. 5:4, “and he shall stand and shepherd his flock in the strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God”) and as Yahweh (Isa. 40:3; i.e., the eternal Son of God). The expected coming kingdom of God thus finds its place at this juncture: God has always been King over his creation. He governs his people despite the rebellion of mankind and the enmity of Satan, as well as a lengthy period of human kings’ reigns over Israel.
The following details can be added to the general preceding overview. It is noteworthy that the phrase “kingdom of God” is seldom used in the OT. However, the idea of the royal rule and power of God is often mentioned. The rule of God is expressed as follows:
(1) God is ruler over his own creation. Note especially 2 Chronicles 20:6 (“You rule over all the kingdoms of the nations”), as well as Psalms 29:10; 47:6–9; 95:3; 103:10–19; 145:13; Isaiah 6:5; 24:21–23; and Jeremiah 10:10; 46:18.
(2) In the history of redemption, God acts as the sovereign Lord of his people (cf. Ex. 15:18; 19:6; Pss. 10:16; 29:10; 114:7; Isa. 24:23; 43:15; Jer. 31:31–34; Zech. 14:1–10; Obad. 21). He remains as their sovereign Lord even when, at times, different judges, priests, prophets, and kings represent him (Deut. 18:15, 18; Isa. 9:11; Jer. 33:15–16; Ezek. 11:17; Amos 9:11, 13–15).
(3) In various OT texts there is a combination of human and divine, earthly and transcendent, present and future elements of the rule of God (esp. Psalm 2; 2 Sam. 7:11–16; cf. Isa. 2:12–17; 9:6–7; 11:1–5; 35:4–5, 10; 40:1–11; 53:1–12; Jer. 30:4–9; Ezek. 34:23–31; 37:26–28; Dan. 2:36–45; 7:13–27; Mic. 4:1–5). These divergent perspectives are eventually combined in the person of Christ.
The renewed and universal messianic rule of God is thus the outcome of the coming of Yahweh. Being both divine and human, only Jesus is able to combine these distinct strands and to create a universal people of God (Mark 13:10). The universal expansion of God’s rule (13:10; compare Acts 1:6 with 1:8 and 3:21) moves beyond a specific land (Israel), a specific people (Jewish people), and the expected reestablishment of a theocracy in Israel. Rather, Jesus now reigns on the throne of David from heaven (Acts 2:30; cf. 1 Kings 2:45) over the entire world as the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham (Rom. 4:13), and his people are drawn from all nations (Mark 13:10; [16:15]) to worship the one, true, and triune God (John 4:21–24).
In the wake of the coming of his eternal Son, God gradually retakes this kingdom from Satan as well as exploitative human rulers. He calls autonomous human beings to eternal life and salvation, which begins at the point in which a human being sets out to trust Jesus (Mark 10:17, 26, 30). This is simultaneously a call to discipleship (8:34) as a consequence of such faith-based entry into the kingdom (10:23–25). As part of the triune God, Jesus brings human beings back to himself by his death and thus inaugurates his eternal, messianic kingdom, enabling his people to fulfill, once again, the creation mandate (Gen. 1:28; 2:15; Mark 8:34), including the restoration to living as image bearers of God (Gen. 1:27).
Just as there are contrasting expectations of the Messiah—the Messiah of God versus political Davidic-royal expectations—the divergent hopes attached to the kingdom of God are very dissimilar as well. On the one hand are popular expectations of the political rule of God in Second Temple Judaism, while on the other is Jesus’ broader teaching on the kingdom of God. From the perspective of most first-century-AD Jews, the coming kingdom of God was chiefly associated with the renewed formation of a Jewish theocracy in Palestine subsequent to deliverance from Roman oppression. Such a new theocracy was to be governed by a Davidic king. As is apparent, the primary template for such hopes was the memory of the Maccabean uprising against the Seleucid powers, particularly against Antiochus IV Epiphanes (2nd century BC; cf. The OT Background of the Messiah of God above). Various factions within Second Temple Judaism differed, however, on the question of how this new theocracy would come about, either by means of force or primarily by means of divine intervention. Besides this popular expectation, various forms of apocalyptic anticipation of the coming kingdom of God were also present at the margins of Jewish hope.
A common thread to both the political and the popular, as well as the apocalyptic and less popular, perspectives at the time of Jesus was the view that the new eon would arise at the end of the old, present eon (cf. Matt. 3:1–12; 12:32). Especially in contrast to the narrow, political expectation prevalent in first-century-AD Judea and Galilee, Jesus taught about the kingdom of God in terms of the fulfillment of many different motifs present in OT prophecy. And eventually the kingdom of God will be visibly manifest when the “kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever” (Rev. 11:15).
In short, Jesus pronounces the kingdom of God to be near at hand. This signals a marked change of perspective. It turns attention away from human expectations and focuses on God’s view and purpose for the world. Essentially, Jesus declares that God’s will and rule shall again become foundational in all of human life and all over the world. Ushering in the messianic kingdom of God also announces the impending fundamental challenge to human autonomy and direct resistance to God’s mission in his world. Mankind’s autonomy and God’s sovereign reign cannot, in the end, be upheld side by side. One of them must give way. Jesus’ ominous call to surrender self-sufficiency in exchange for trust in God must therefore be viewed in the context of the imminent and growing messianic kingdom of God. The declaration of the nascent, messianic kingdom of God thus announces God’s overarching answer to the profound brokenness of human existence.
God’s People
Jesus’ instruction on the corporate kingdom of God (cf. Mark 1:15; 9:1; 14:25; 15:43) clearly indicates that God will continue to call a people to himself. Now, however, the people of God are drawn from the entire world. They are no longer limited to a specific theocracy in Israel.35 God’s people are now drawn from both Jewish (cf. the “holy remnant” in Romans 9–11) and Gentile origins. In continuation with his presence among the people of Israel, God now rules as King over his worldwide messianic people (Mark 13:10). In this way, Jesus is perpetually ruling on the messianic throne of David (Acts 2:30), thus co-reigning with the Father (see Dan. 7:13–27).
The New Eon (Age) Arises during the Time of the Old Eon
In contrast to popular Jewish expectations at the time of Jesus, a unique element in Jesus’ kingdom message is that the new eon of God’s eternal rule intrudes, so to speak, into the old order in inconspicuous but powerful ways (Mark 4:26). Popular Jewish expectation held that the new eon would replace the old eon at a given time (cf. Matt. 3:1–12; 12:32). According to Jesus, the rule of God begins presently as the new God-birthed eon arises within—and simultaneous to—the old one (Luke 4:21//Isa. 61:1–2; Matt. 11:2–6//Isa. 35:5–6). This is a truly eschatological event, bringing the future and enduring reality of God into the present imperfect world. This “eschatological intrusion” is inaugurated by Jesus’ coming as the eternal Son, by his substitutionary atonement (Mark 10:45) and resurrection (8:31), and by the eternal covenant in his blood (14:24). Mark, together with the other three canonical Gospels, testifies to both present (Mark 1:15; 10:14–15, 23–25; 12:34; cf. Matt. 11:13; 12:28–32; 13:16; Luke 11:20; 16:16; 17:20–21) and future, universally visible dimensions of God’s kingly rule (Matt. 6:10; 25:34; Mark 9:47–48; 14:25; Luke 16:19–31; 19:11). From time to time, both present and future dimensions appear to be present in Mark’s account (cf. Mark 4:11, 26, 30). Note also the timeless statement in 15:43.
The present world will end in the last judgment (cf. comments on 13:1–37) and then the physical and spiritual reality of God’s eternal rule will endure forever (cf. John 18:36). The worldwide repentant people of God (Mark 1:14–15; 4:12) thus still live in the old eon. Such a life between the already and not yet also includes the battle against—and overcoming of—Satan (Matt. 12:29). It is graced, however, with the indestructible fact of becoming a new creation and developing into a living temple, to God’s glory.
Repentance as Condition for Entry into the Messianic Kingdom
As noted above, the call to repentance (cf. Ps. 32:5) and the offer of forgiveness through Jesus are intimately connected with the coming of the kingdom of God (Mark 4:12; cf. 1:14–15//Isa. 52:7). All disciples are called to “enter” and “receive” the kingdom in this particular fashion (Matthew 13; Mark 4; Luke 8; cf. Matt. 6:33; 11:11; Luke 7:28; 18:17).
To a certain degree, Jesus’ announcement of the imminent coming of the kingdom serves as a public portrayal of his private messianic call to discipleship. Jesus’ life and instruction serve as a comprehensive call to individual and corporate discipleship. In issuing this call, Jesus seeks to restore human beings to a life lived under the eternal and life-giving rule of God. In this context it is important to realize how close Jesus’ teaching on entering the kingdom of God (Mark 10:15, 23–25; cf. John 3:3, 5) is to the unmerited gift of salvation (Mark 10:26) and eternal life (10:17, 30).
The Kingdom in Jesus’ Parables
The Kingdom’s Inconspicuous Beginning and Great End
The messianic kingdom of God commences with the first coming of Jesus in a modest and unassuming way (cf. Mark 4:26). It progresses relentlessly toward an ultimately triumphant, universal goal. Regardless of the timing of this culmination, the following holds true even now: where Jesus is, there is already the manifestation of the eternal messianic kingdom. His everlasting dominion has begun.
The Kingdom’s Inviting Father and Judge
Jesus’ parables about the kingdom of God also speak of God as Father (Matt. 6:26; Luke 12:32) and as the one who summons (Matt. 22:1–14; Luke 14:16–24; 15:1–32; cf. Mark 2:15–17). They also portray him as the one who ultimately judges (Matt. 25:34, 41). The three brief kingdom parables found in Mark 4 convey the common theme that it is God who sees to the growth of his kingdom. The parable of the sower (Mark 4:1–20) teaches that the Word of God, particularly Jesus’ own life and work, leads to much fruit of reconciliation, worship, and holistic witness. Those who receive this Word are called to let go of self-sufficiency in order to bear much fruit (cf. John 12:23–24). The parable of the self-growing seed (Mark 4:26–29) stresses that it is God who causes growth (progressive sanctification and maturity in Christ). In the parable of the mustard seed (Mark 4:30–32) Jesus emphasizes that despite very inconspicuous beginnings to the kingdom, there will be a splendid and glorious end.
The Relationship of the Gospel of Mark to the Rest of the Bible and to Christ
The Place of Mark in the Context of the Biblical Narrative36
Surprisingly, Mark begins his story with a reference to the fulfillment of Isaiah 40:3. John the Baptist applies Isaiah 40:3 to himself as the one who prepares the people of Israel for the comforting and restorative coming of Yahweh to his own people (cf. also Mal. 3:1 and Ex. 23:20). In the context of the overall drama of the OT (cf. comments above), its culminating promise and expectation is that Yahweh will come in order to (1) reveal himself, (2) pardon, and (3) reign over his people (cf. Isa. 40:1–11; 52:7–10). Such actions constitute the continuation of God’s patient and persistent pursuit of his people (Mark 12:1–6; cf. Heb. 1:1–2). In other words, Yahweh comes to his earth to assert his universal place in the threefold role of prophet (revelation), priest (covenant), and, especially, king.
God’s long-standing pursuit of mankind finds its beginning in his good creation, as he places Adam, Eve, and their offspring in a relationship with himself. This relationship has the following dimensions: it is
(1) creational (i.e., existing in God’s creation);
(2) covenantal (i.e., in the binding security of God’s loving faithfulness and requirements); and
(3) kingly (i.e., under God’s rule to pursue the creation mandate; Gen. 1:28; 2:15–20).
After the catastrophic and far-reaching fall of mankind through Adam and Eve’s sin (Genesis 3), God attends to his purposes particularly through his call of Abraham as the father of his redeemed people. From then on, trust in God’s unmerited provisions (whatever they may be) will characterize the way human beings are meant to live throughout redemptive history, including Israel’s divinely orchestrated exodus from slavery in Egypt (Exodus 13–19) as well as the gracious gift of the Mosaic law (Exodus 20–23). God’s caring pursuit is also expressed by means of human mediators such as judges, prophets, priests, and kings.
God is faithful to his promises. Throughout redemptive history, he seeks to purify a people for himself (cf. comment on 14:53–65) and to rule over it (Isa. 40:10–11). The overarching biblical theme and motif of God living among his people (cf. Lev. 26:11; Rev. 21:3) continues even when the people of Israel seek their own human king (1 Sam. 8:5). First Samuel 8:7 (cf. also 8:9 and 10:19) implies that God remains the true king of Israel (1 Sam. 8:7; Psalm 24). While condescending to the demand for human kings for a certain period of time, God will, in due time, return as King over his people (Isa. 40:1–11). As stated above, Jesus’ teaching on the coming of God’s kingdom arises from this overarching motif and renders the period of Israel’s kings as a temporary interjection. The extensive messianic interpretation of a future Davidic kingship among the OT prophets (Isa. 7:14; 9:7; 16:5; 22:22; Jer. 23:5; 30:9; 33:15, 17; Ezek. 34:23–24; 37:24–25; Hos. 3:5; Zech. 12:8, 10; 13:1) and its reception in the NT (Matt. 12:23; 21:9, 15; Mark 11:10; Luke 1:32, 69; Acts 2:30; 15:16; Rev. 3:7; 5:5; 22:16) also leads to the conclusion that the triune God will himself ultimately be King over his people, thus absorbing messianic Davidic kingship promises and expectations by means of the God-man, Jesus (Acts 1:6–8; 2:30).
God, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, returns as King over his people after incorporating messianic kingship expectations into his grand and prophesied purposes by sending the God-man, Jesus (Acts 3:17–21). The triune God reigns as King after the Servant-King atones for the sins of his people once and for all (Isa. 52:13–53:12).
Long after the return of the people of Israel from Babylonian exile (cf. Ezra; Nehemiah), it is John the Baptist who declares that the great intervention and coming of Yahweh is imminent. He speaks in a deserted place, i.e., a place of purification, testing, and also preparation. It is true that Isaiah 40 is meant to be seen initially in the comforting context of the return of the people of Israel from Babylonian exile (Isa. 40:1–2). Ultimately, however, it points to the coming of Jesus (Mark 1:1–13). Compare this observation with Micah 5:4, which states, “He shall . . . shepherd his flock in the strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God.”
The Message of Mark in the Context of the Unfolding Biblical Narrative
As noted above, the ultimate purpose of Mark is to legitimize Jesus’ universal authority to call people to far-reaching discipleship. In the setting of God’s ongoing redemptive-historical pursuit of his people, discipleship in Mark thus means that God is in the process of restoring his worldwide people to the initial creational design and intent. As such, followers of Christ learn to walk with God once again (cf. Gen. 5:22–24), thus becoming gradually the authentic image bearers of God they were created to be (cf. Rom. 8:29; 1 Cor. 15:49; 2 Cor. 3:18; Col. 3:10). Such radical renewal leads to a gradual reversal of the defacing effects of the fall, beginning with Jesus’ death, example, teaching, and enabling power. This progressive restoration will remain unfinished until his return. Christlikeness is the present fruit of such discipleship. Jesus’ sovereign call to radical discipleship thus remedies mankind’s persistent and pervasive self-sufficiency, autonomy, and moral disobedience.
Becoming a reconciled follower of Christ and returning to his eternal, covenantal, and kingly rule leads to joining the people of God in pursuit of the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18–20). Such a pursuit is, however, lived out amid God’s total creation. This means that disciples of Jesus will discover anew how significant and relevant God’s creation mandate (Gen. 1:28; 2:15–20) really is.37 They will pursue the Great Commission and the creation mandate in growing and existential dependence upon the triune God. It is thus crucial to view discipleship in Mark essentially as a function of the eminence of the Master’s atoning work, example, teaching, and enabling power. Essentially, discipleship does not consist of a certain set of moral codes to be acted out by the disciples independent of Christ. This reflects the fact that Jesus, as the eternal Son of God, now reigns (Isa. 40:3, 10). The individual call to discipleship always flows into corporate fellowship, since God’s design is to build a universal temple consisting of “living stones” (1 Peter 2:5), that is, regenerate, restored people of God (cf. the discussion of a new eternal temple in Response section on 11:1–26).
The Central Contribution of the Gospel of Mark to Knowing Jesus Christ
Surprisingly, as Mark presents Peter’s testimony, Yahweh “arrives in sandals,” suggesting the concept of complex monotheism. The reader of Mark’s Gospel discovers the divinity of Christ in such sections as 2:5–12; 9:2–13; 12:1–12; and 14:62. Within such a complex monotheism, God exists eternally in three persons, that is, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (cf. 1:10–11). Yahweh thus comes himself in the person of his eternal Son. As such, he commences the fulfillment of the kingdom-expectations embedded in the OT (e.g., Isa. 40:10–11). As noted above, such expectations contain both earthly (Mark 10:48; 2 Sam. 7:12–15) and transcendent aspects (Mark 14:25; Pss. 2:1–12; 110:1, 5; Isa. 9:6–7; 11:1–10; Jer. 33:14–18; Dan. 7:13–14; cf. 2 Sam. 7:16; Acts 2:30–31).
Initially Jesus, the eternal Son of God, arises to declare the kingdom of God as the grand culmination of the coming of Yahweh. In the course of the public ministry of Jesus it becomes apparent that the One who proclaimed the coming kingdom has paradoxically come to inaugurate it through his own death and resurrection. Gradually, Jesus becomes known not only as a prophet but as the eternally ruling, messianic King as well (2 Sam. 7:16), co-ruling with his eternal Father (Dan. 7:14; Mark 14:25; Acts 2:30–32; 1 Cor. 15:25; Phil. 2:9–11; Col. 1:13, 18) and with the person of the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 3:17–18). As God begins to dwell more intimately among his people through Jesus and the Holy Spirit, the eternal, missional, and pure temple is being built (Mark 11:1–11; 12:1–12; John 2:19; Acts 15:15–17; 1 Cor. 3:9–17; Eph. 2:20–22; 1 Pet. 2:5; Rev. 21:3; cf. the discussion of a new, eternal temple in Response section on 11:1–26).
The Place of Mark in the Context of the NT
In concert with the other three Gospels, Mark testifies to the work of Jesus as the foundation on which the remainder of the NT stands. As noted above, discipleship is best viewed as the culminating pursuit of God to purify a perpetually worshiping people (i.e., a temple of living stones) from all over the world. This grand culminating mission of God paradoxically commences in Jesus’ death, resurrection, and ensuing rule (kingdom). It is borne out in the midst of pursuing the partial realization of the perpetually valid creation mandate given in Genesis, now in restored dependence upon God. The book of Acts, the Epistles, and Revelation further build on this foundation. They encourage progressive maturing by way of internal (individual and corporate) and external (pursuing the Great Commission in the context of the creation mandate) development.
Preaching from Mark
It is important to preach from longer sections of Mark and not from a few verses only, since the meaning of a narrative section becomes clearer when larger sections are considered. Before preaching through Mark it is helpful to write out a three-to-five-page “flow of the argument” (cf. Outline). In this flow of the argument, each section in Mark needs to make sense in its literary and, through background study, historical context. For instance, the preacher or teacher must discern why Mark 11 stands between Mark 10 and Mark 12, and what purpose Mark 11 serves in the unfolding development of the historical narration. After the preacher has constructed such a flow of the argument, individual passages of some ten to fifteen verses can serve as the basis for preaching. The preacher or teacher needs to answer, for example, the following questions:
(1) What is the literary context of this passage; that is, what comes before and what comes after it?
(2) What is the historical situation of this text?
(3) What connection might this text have to the OT?
(4) How would the first hearers of Mark, including the original disciples following Jesus, have understood the message of this text?
(5) What connection does the given text have to the creation purpose of God?
(6) What connection does the text have to the fallen state of mankind (cf. Gen. 3:1–24)?
(7) What connection does this text have to the redemption and healing of Christ?
(8) How should we understand and apply the text?
(9) How does this text speak to our individual hearts and to our communal life?
(10) How does the text speak to the society at large?
Interpretive Challenges
Many narrative texts, such as Mark, do not explicitly state their purpose; rather, it is only implied in the unfolding narrative. It is therefore especially important to find the author’s purpose in the entire book. One approach to finding an answer to this significant question is to explore literary structures, including explicit repetitions, hinges, and transitions, as well as conclusions and introductions (cf. Genre and Literary Features; Preaching from the Gospel of Mark; Outline).
A particular challenge lies in interpreting the parables. The Markan use of the word “parable” (= Hb. mashal) refers to a broad spectrum of literary forms (cf. comments on 3:23; 4:2–34; 7:17; 12:1, 12). Some of Jesus’ teaching in parables belongs to the category of a simile (cf. 4:30; “With what can we compare the kingdom of God, or what parable shall we use for it?”), and some to the category of comparisons (e.g., 7:17). Some Markan parables are short stories that contain one major point of connection between the story and its intended message. Other parables are more complex stories with multiple emphases corresponding to several truths conveyed in the intended message. In this case, interpreters speak of allegories. Often, parables are stories with two or three major points of connection between the story and its intended message. These are thus a cluster of metaphors (cf. 4:3–9, 13–20; 12:1–12).
The interpretation of any parable must start with understanding the statement or the story itself through literary analysis and a basic grasp of the storyline, without trying to determine immediately the intended message. Interpreters must carefully guard against arbitrary interpretations of parables when an interpretation is not given in the biblical text (which is the case with most of the parables of Jesus). The interpreter must be guided by the emphases of the story itself and look especially at the introduction and at the end of a story to find the “moral of the story.” The interpreter must also ask: does the story emphasize one, two, or even three major points? As the interpreter moves from the story to identifying its message, one or two or three major points may be part of the intended message conveyed by the story.
Outline
It is generally agreed that the gospel of Mark consists of two major parts. Part 1 describes the ever-expanding authority and reach of Jesus. Part 2 recounts the profound testing and ultimate divine vindication of Jesus and his authoritative claims, as well as the divine necessity of his suffering and atonement.
I. Introduction (1:1–15)
A. Introduction to the Account (1:1)
B. Presentation of John the Baptist (1:2–6)
1. John the Baptist Fulfills the OT (1:2–3)
2. John the Baptist’s Circumstance and Message (1:4–5)
3. John the Baptist’s Clothing and Food (1:6)
C. John the Baptist and the Coming One (1:7–8; hinge)
D. Presentation of Jesus (1:9–13)
1. Introduction of Jesus (1:9)
2. Jesus’ Baptism (1:10–11)
3. Jesus’ Temptation in the Desert (1:12–13)
E. Summary of Jesus’ Message (1:14–15)
II. Part 1: Demonstration of Jesus’ Authority (1:16–8:26)
A. Work in Galilee (1:16–3:12)
1. Jesus’ Initial Deeds in Galilee (1:16–45)
a. The Call of Disciples (1:16–20)
b. Teaching, Exorcism, Healing (1:21–45)
2. Forgiveness of Sins, Healing, and Further Call to Discipleship (2:1–17)
a. Jesus Forgives Sins and Heals (2:1–12)
b. The Call of Levi (2:13–14)
c. Jesus’ Controversial Association with “Sinners” (2:15–17)
3. Instructions amid Conflict (2:18–3:12)
a. Jesus’ Teaching on Fasting (2:18–22)
b. Jesus’ Teaching on Keeping the Sabbath (2:23–28)
c. Healing on a Sabbath (3:1–6)
d. The Growing Popularity of Jesus (3:7–12; summary and transition)
B. Climax in Galilee (3:13–6:6)
1. Appointment of the Twelve, Accusations, and the Family of God (3:13–35)
a. Appointment of the Twelve (3:13–19)
b. The Natural Family Maligns Jesus (3:20–21)
c. Jesus Is Accused of Being Demon Possessed (3:22–30)
d. Opposition from Jesus’ Natural Family; the True Family of God (3:31–35)
2. Parables and Their Purpose (4:1–34)
a. Introduction to Jesus’ Teaching in Parables (4:1–2)
b. The Parable of the Sower (4:3–9)
c. The Purpose of Jesus’ Teaching in Parables (4:10–12)
d. Jesus’ Explanation of the Parable of the Sower (4:13–20)
e. The Parable of the Lamp under a Basket (4:21–22)
f. Valuing Jesus’ Teaching (4:23–25)
g. The Parable of the Self-Growing Seed (4:26–29)
h. The Parable of the Mustard Seed (4:30–32)
i. Conclusion to Jesus’ Teaching in Parables (4:33–34)
3. Nature Miracle and Exorcism (4:35–5:20)
a. Jesus Stills the Storm (4:35–41)
b. Exorcism near Gerasa (5:1–20)
4. Miracles and Rejection in Nazareth (5:21–6:6)
a. Raising Jairus’s Daughter; the Woman with the Discharge of Blood (5:21–43)
b. Rejection of Jesus in Nazareth (6:1–6; 6:6 as a transition)
C. Work beyond Galilee (6:7–8:26)
1. Sending of the Twelve; the Death of John the Baptist (6:7–29)
a. Sending of the Twelve (6:7–13)
b. The Execution of John the Baptist (6:14–29)
2. Miracles (6:30–56)
a. The Feeding of the Five Thousand (6:30–44)
b. Jesus Walks on Water (6:45–52)
c. Healing (6:53–56)
3. Defilement of an Unclean Heart; Exorcism (7:1–30)
a. The Contrast between Human Tradition and God’s Word (7:1–9)
b. The “Corban” Example (7:10–13)
c. The Defilement of the Human Heart (7:14–19)
d. Elements of Personal Defilement (7:20–23)
e. Exorcism of the Daughter of the Syrophoenician Woman (7:24–30)
4. Healing of Deafness; Feeding the Four Thousand; Instruction; Healing of Blindness (7:31–8:26)
a. The Healing of the Deaf-Mute Man (7:31–35)
b. Injunction to Silence; Amazement (7:36–37)
c. The Feeding of the Four Thousand (8:1–10)
d. The Disbelief of the Jewish Leaders (8:11–13)
e. The Hard-Heartedness of the Disciples (8:14–21)
f. The Two-Stage Healing of the Blind Man (8:22–26; transition)
III. Part 2: Testing Jesus’ Authority in Suffering and the Necessity of His Death (8:27–16:8 [9–20])
A. Caesarea Philippi; Journey to Jerusalem (8:27–10:52)
1. Peter’s Confession; First Passion Prediction; Cost and Promise of Discipleship (8:27–9:1)
a. Popular Opinions about Jesus (8:27–28)
b. Peter’s Confession; Injunction to Silence (8:29–30)
c. Jesus’ First Passion and Resurrection Prediction (8:31)
d. Exhortation (8:32–33)
e. The Cost and Promise of Discipleship (8:34–9:1)
2. Transfiguration; Healing; Faith (9:2–29)
a. The Transfiguration of Jesus (9:2–8)
b. Injunction to Silence; the Coming of Elijah (9:9–13)
c. Exorcism (9:14–29)
3. Second Passion Prediction; Discipleship; Instruction (9:30–10:16)
a. Jesus’ Second Passion Prediction (9:30–31)
b. Discipleship Instruction on Humility (9:32–37)
c. Instruction in Patient Endurance and Service (9:38–41)
d. The Radical Nature of Discipleship (9:42–48)
e. The Cleansing Nature of Discipleship (9:49–50)
f. Controversy with Jesus’ Opponents concerning Divorce (10:1–12)
g. Jesus Blesses Little Children (10:13–16)
4. Cost of Discipleship; Third Passion Prediction; Discipleship (10:17–52)
a. Requirements for Entry into the Kingdom of God (10:17–27)
b. The Cost and Promise of Discipleship (10:28–31)
c. Jesus’ Third Passion and Resurrection Prediction (10:32–34)
d. Instruction on Servant Leadership (10:35–45)
e. Jesus Heals Blind Bartimaeus (10:46–52; transition)
B. Work in Jerusalem (11:1–13:37)
1. Entry into Jerusalem; Cleansing of Temple; Instruction (11:1–26)
a. Jesus’ Triumphant Entry into Jerusalem (11:1–11)
b. The Cursing of the Fig Tree (11:12–14)
c. Jesus Cleanses the Temple; the Withered Fig Tree (11:15–21)
d. Faith, Prayer, and Forgiveness (11:22–26)
2. Jesus’ Authority Questioned; Jesus’ Response (11:27–12:12)
a. Jesus’ Authority Questioned (11:27–33)
b. Jesus Pronounces Judgment over the Jewish Leaders (12:1–12)
3. Controversies (12:13–44)
a. The Question concerning Taxes (12:13–17)
b. The Question concerning Marriage in the Afterlife (12:18–27)
c. The Question concerning the Chief Emphasis of the OT Law (12:28–34)
d. Jesus as the Messianic Lord of David (12:35–37)
e. Hypocrisy versus Sincerity (12:38–44)
4. Jesus and the Future (13:1–37)
a. The Prediction of the Destruction of the Temple (13:1–4)
b. Warning about Deceptions (13:5–7)
c. The Suffering and Witness of the Disciples (13:8–13)
d. Tribulation (13:14–20)
e. Warning of False Messiahs and False Prophets (13:21–23)
f. The Second Coming of Jesus (13:24–27)
g. The Metaphor of the Fig Tree; Time Sequences (13:28–32)
h. Exhortation to Watch and Pray (13:33–37)
C. Passion and Resurrection in Jerusalem (14:1–16:8 [9–20])
1. Anointing; Betrayal; Last Supper; Denial (14:1–42)
a. Introduction (14:1–2; transition)
b. Anointing of Jesus (14:3–9)
c. The Betrayal of Jesus (14:10–11)
d. The Preparation of the Passover (14:12–21)
e. The Celebration of the Last Supper (14:22–26)
f. Prayer in Gethsemane and Anticipation of Denial (14:27–42)
2. Arrest; Trial before the Sanhedrin (14:43–65)
a. Arrest of Jesus and Desertion by the Disciples (14:43–52)
b. Jesus’ Trial before the Sanhedrin (14:53–65)
3. Peter’s Denial; Trial before Pilate (14:66–15:20)
a. Peter’s Denial of Jesus (14:66–72)
b. Jesus’ Trial before Pilate (15:1–13)
c. Pilate’s Verdict (15:14–15)
d. The Roman Mocking and Mistreatment of Jesus (15:16–20)
4. Crucifixion; Death; Burial; Empty Tomb (15:21–47)
a. Jesus’ Crucifixion (15:21–36)
b. Jesus’ Death; Attendant Occurrences (15:37–39)
c. The Women as Witnesses (15:40–41)
d. The Burial (15:42–47)
5. Announcement of the Resurrection (16:1–8)
a. The Women at the Tomb (16:1–2)
b. The Empty Tomb (16:3–5)
c. The Announcement of Jesus’ Resurrection (16:6–7)
d. The Women Leave the Tomb (16:8)
6. [Resurrection Appearances (16:9–18)]
a. [Two Resurrection Appearances (16:9–13)]
b. [Jesus’ Appearance to His Disciples (16:14–18)]
7. [Ascension (16:19–20)]