Jesus’ Paradoxical Teaching in Mark 8:35; 9:35; and 10:43-44

By Narry F. Santos

[Narry F. Santos is Professor of New Testament, International School of Theology—Asia, and Associate Pastor, Greenhills Christian Fellowship, Manila, Philippines.]

Three related instances of verbal paradox in the Gospel of Mark include 8:35 (“whoever wishes to save his life shall lose it” and “whoever loses his life … shall save it”); 9:35 (“If any one wants to be first, he shall be last of all”); and 10:43–44 (“whoever wishes to become great … shall be your servant” and “whoever wishes to be first … shall be slave of all”). These statements occur within the context of Jesus’ three Passion predictions (8:31; 9:30–31; 10:32–34), the disciples’ misunderstanding of His passion predictions (8:32; 9:32; 10:35–41), and the ensuing three discipleship discourses of Jesus (8:34–9:1; 9:35–50; 10:42–45). This article seeks to “unpack” the meaning of these three paradoxical statements by Jesus, using Fowler’s method of “transfiguration” in understanding them. This “transfiguration” is the rhetorical process of transforming verbal paradox into metaphors.[1] It makes the paradox more understandable so that readers can see its relevance to discipleship and its application to their own lives as followers of Jesus Christ.

Verbal Paradox

A paradox is an apparently self-contradictory statement, containing truth that reconciles conflicting opposites. The English word comes from the Greek word παράδοξος.[2] It is a combination of the preposition παρά, which can mean “contrary to,”[3] and the noun δόξα, which means “opinion,”[4] producing in its earliest stages the meaning of “contrary to opinion or expectation.”[5] Since the eighteenth century the meaning of paradox has been extended to denote a concept, proposition, or statement that seems to be self-contradictory or absurd, yet turns out to make good sense.

According to Fowler, the Gospel of Mark includes both verbal and dramatic paradox. Verbal paradox occurs in statement form, while dramatic paradox occurs by means of the author’s use of events and characters in the narrative. Verbal paradox conveys an oxymoronic turn of phrase.[6] An oxymoron[7] is a verbal play or figure of speech that combines incongruous and apparently contradictory words and meanings for a special effect.[8]

The special effect of this literary device is twofold: It forces readers to read the opposing sides thoughtfully, enabling them to become aware of the conscious execution of the words; and it makes readers ponder the meaning beyond the contradiction.

Fowler’s “Transfiguration” Method

Fowler comments, “Sometimes paradox puts us and leaves us between conflicting poles, there to live for a moment, but sometimes we have ways to escape the tension of paradoxical incongruity.”[9] He is right in contending that there is escape from the potential “prison” of paradox, and that there is a way to soften the paradoxical tension.

The attractive option for negotiating a paradox, which Fowler recommends, is to “transfigure” the paradox into another figure. This is the rhetorical figure of metaphor,[10] “which can lead us into and also out of paradox.”[11]

In explaining the transformation of paradox into metaphor Fowler refers to Jesus’ strategy in handling a verbal paradox in Mark 3:22. The scribes charged that Jesus was “possessed by Beelzebul,” and that He cast out the demons “by the ruler of the demons.” Fowler says Jesus did four things in handling this verbal paradox.

First, He transfigured the paradox into the question it seems to imply. He asked the scribes, “How can Satan cast out Satan?” (v. 23).

Second, He transformed the paradox into a metaphor. Jesus adopted a kingdom metaphor (“And if a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand,” v. 24) and a house metaphor (“And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand,” v. 25).

Third, Jesus applied a logical implication as He returned to the scribes’ accusation: “And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but he is finished” (v. 26). Regarding this third step, Fowler writes, “This reply does not answer the question of 3:23 explicitly, but it does imply that if the scribes really believed what they were saying they would not oppose him; they would instead encourage and congratulate him for hastening the demise of the kingdom of Satan.”[12]

Fourth, Jesus presented a typically indirect statement by concluding the paradoxical interaction with the metaphorical picture of a “burglar” and a “strong man”: “But no one can enter the strong man’s house and plunder his property unless he first binds the strong man, and then he will plunder his house” (v. 27). This metaphor is offered not as an interpretation of the verbal paradox, but rather as a metaphorical substitute for the seemingly paradoxical suggestion that Jesus cast out demons by demonic power.

This brief sampling of Fowler’s method in transforming paradox into metaphor is now applied to the verbal paradoxes in Mark 8:35; 9:35; and 10:43–44, which are located within the three discipleship discourses in the narrative (8:34–38; 9:33–50; 10:35–45). His system of transformation provides this study with a practical and viable method for interpreting verbal paradoxes.

Transfiguration of the Verbal Paradox in Mark 8:35

Jesus issued His first Passion prediction in 8:31. Peter misunderstood Him, as seen in his clear rebuke of Jesus (v. 32). What followed is Jesus’ first discipleship discourse (8:34–9:1), which contains a verbal paradox in 8:35.

Jesus’ verbal paradox was given in a forceful way. The first clause has the contrasting “save”/“lose” pair (“For whoever wishes to save his life shall lose it”), and the second clause has the same antithetical pair of words but in reverse order (“but whoever loses his life … shall save it”). But how can wishing to save one’s life result in losing it, and how can losing one’s life lead to saving it?

As Fowler suggests, the way to determine the significance of a verbal paradox is by means of metaphor. This paradox in Mark 8:35 can best be understood by looking at the rest of the antithetical saying and the paradoxical discourse. The rest of the antithetical saying in this verse contains the “asymmetrical or skewed”[13] phrase, “for My sake and the gospel’s.” This suggests that “losing one’s life” is directly linked to the motivation of doing it for Jesus’ sake and the gospel’s. Aside from these two reasons for losing one’s life, other factors are not valid in ensuring the saving of one’s life.

Verses 36–37 include two rhetorical questions that expect negative answers. The first question basically claims that it does not profit a person at all to gain the whole world and forfeit his or her soul. Similarly, the second question actually asserts that there is nothing a person can ever give in exchange for his soul. These two assertions relate directly to the “save”/“lose” terminology in verse 35 in a metaphorical way. The expressions “saving one’s life” and “losing it” are later expressed as “gaining the whole world” and “forfeiting his soul.” Thus the desire to save oneself is related to the desire to gain authority and power in this world. Saving oneself is a manifestation of the world’s standard of striving for authority, a standard characteristic of the religious leaders in Jesus’ day. Saving oneself can be linked with setting one’s mind on one’s own interests, not God’s (cf. v. 33).

Conversely the “losing” of one’s life refers figuratively to the loss of one’s ultimate, spiritual existence, the loss of one’s soul[14] to eternal ruin.[15] This is reinforced by Jesus’ second rhetorical question in this discourse, “For what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?” (v. 37). “Soul” translates ψυχή, which occurs four times in the discourse (“save his life,” “loses his life,” “forfeit his soul” “exchange for his soul,” vv. 35–37; also twice the personal pronoun “it” in verse 35 refers to the soul). Thus by means of the transformation of the first clause in the paradox readers see that seeking after authority in this world is not at all profitable, since it leads to the grim end of losing one’s soul to eternal ruin. Setting one’s mind on mere human interests (at the expense of God’s interests) results in a tragic end.

Also the expression “for My sake and the gospel’s” (v. 35) is transformed in verse 38 into another metaphor. Stated negatively, the refusal to “lose one’s life for Jesus’ sake and the gospel’s” means “being ashamed of Jesus and His words.” So this transformation shows that not being ashamed of Jesus and His words relates to believing the importance of His passion prediction in verse 31. The disciples need not be ashamed of Jesus’ impending suffering, rejection, and death at the hands of the religious leaders because being unashamed verifies that they are following God’s thoughts, not man’s.

Thus the second clause of the paradox (losing one’s life), is revealed as not being ashamed of Jesus and His words. It entails going against the values and standards of “this adulterous and sinful generation,” which sought to disown Jesus. In view of the admonition in verse 34 at the outset of the paradoxical discourse, losing one’s life also includes denying oneself, taking up one’s cross, and following after Jesus and His ways. Such expressions of discipleship are further encouraged by Jesus, as stated in His stern warning to the person who is ashamed of Him: “the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His father with the holy angels” (v. 38). So saving one’s life will occur as a result of being unashamed to stand for Jesus, and this “saving” will happen at the future coming of the Son of Man.

In summary the verbal paradox in verse 35 can be understood in this way: The desire to claim and cling to worldly authority (i.e., wishing to save one’s life) is not profitable because it leads to the loss of one’s soul to eternal ruin (i.e., losing one’s life). In the same manner, being unashamed of Jesus and His words and being a servant for the sake of Jesus and the gospel is profitable because it leads to the gaining of a glorious future (i.e., saving one’s life). This shows that the pursuit of authority is not the way of Jesus; instead, servanthood is His way.

Transfiguration of the Verbal Paradox in Mark 9:35

Similar to the context of the first verbal paradox (8:35), the second instance of verbal paradox also is set in a Passion prediction (9:30–31), followed by the disciples’ misunderstanding and fear to ask Jesus (vv. 32–34). The disciples’ desire for authority (vv. 33–34) triggered the occurrence of the second verbal paradox (v. 35), which, in turn, led to the second discipleship discourse (vv. 35–50).[16] Jesus told the Twelve, “If anyone wants to be first, he shall be last of all, and servant of all” (v. 35).

This second verbal paradox, expressed in the contrasting pair of “being first” and “being last,” emphasizes the reversal of values[17] Jesus requires of His disciples. The reversal of values relates to Jesus’ way of attaining precedence. However, the disciples must have been startled to hear that the way to be first is to be last of all. Since they had just been jockeying among themselves for the greatest position of authority (v. 34), how could they simply give up the fight for the most respected and privileged rank? In this “first”/“last” paradox how can they be first when they are being commanded to be last not only of some, but of all?

The phrase “and servant of all” is crucial in transforming the intriguing phrase “last of all” (v. 35). Mark’s intentional repetition of the word “all” in both phrases points to the close link in meaning between the two phrases. Being last of all relates to being a servant (διάκονος) of all.

In the first half of the following discourse (vv. 36–41),[18] helpful word pictures or metaphors are included in the three short segments (vv. 36–37, 38–40, 41). In the first segment the metaphors relate to “receiving a child” (whom Jesus took in His arms) and “receiving Jesus” (and ultimately the one who has sent Him). The act of “receiving” means to be concerned about, to care for, to show kindness to someone. By receiving the child, the disciples were to show concern and kindness to that child, knowing that doing so would also show their concern and kindness to Jesus Himself.[19]

Moreover, Mark transformed the expression “being last of all” into “receiving a child.” Receiving a child would truly make the disciples part of the last or lowest class in society because welcoming a child would identify them with this typically unimportant person,[20] who is variously described as orphaned,[21] insignificant,[22] lowly,[23] helpless, or needy.[24] Thus being viewed as last in society occurs when Jesus’ followers welcome an unimportant person and treat that person as very important in the way Jesus has been valuing people around Him. In addition the expression “servant of all” is transformed by the picture of “receiving a child.”[25] Jesus’ followers are not simply to serve those who are considered superior to them (e.g., Jesus), but also those whom society considers inferior. When Jesus’ followers attend to the needs of the unimportant, they practice the servanthood that enables them to experience greatness in the sight of God.

In the first half of the discourse “receiving a child” (v. 37) is transferred into not hindering an exorcist (v. 39). John had attempted to hinder an unknown exorcist who was casting out demons in the name of Jesus but who did not follow Him and the disciples (v. 38). This indicates that the disciples had not learned the lesson of receiving or welcoming others. The disciples were concerned about the stranger’s apparent usurping of their authority to exorcize. They were intolerant toward someone who did not belong to their group.[26] Such a negative attitude is ironic in light of the disciples’ helplessness in exorcizing a demon-possessed boy (vv. 14–29) and in light of the unknown exorcist’s implied success in casting out demons.

Jesus’ vindication of the unknown exorcist reinforces the need to receive or welcome others. This corrective teaching of Jesus transforms “receiving a child” into “not hindering a stranger” who also does the work of God. Welcoming others encompasses those who may come from “unexpected quarters,”[27] yet who are wholly accepted by Jesus Himself. The basis of this acceptance, which links the two expressions of “receiving a child” and “not hindering a stranger,” is the commonality of doing so “in the name of Jesus” (i.e., under His authority and will). Thus the act of receiving a child and the act of exorcizing are both to be done in Jesus’ name.

The expression “servant of all” is also enacted in giving a cup of water (v. 41). Such an act will be rewarded, as verified by Jesus’ authoritative words, “Truly I say to you, he shall not lose his reward.” This seemingly minimal form of service is recognized by Jesus. Thus “being a servant of all” entails being a servant to a seemingly insignificant person (a child) who needs help, and doing a seemingly insignificant act of service (giving a cup of water) for Jesus’ followers.

In summary the first half (9:35–41) of the second paradoxical discourse presents and explains the second verbal paradox. The process of transforming the verbal paradox yields helpful insights that aid readers in understanding the point of the paradox and in easing the antithetical tension of being first and last at the same time. Based on the disciples’ debate about greatness, being truly great and authoritative in the sight of Jesus (i.e., being first) demands from His disciples the attitude of welcoming and caring for those people in society who are commonly viewed as insignificant and strangers (i.e., being last of all), and of ministering to them, even in ways that are viewed as insignificant by others (i.e., being servant of all).

The paradox also points up the truth that servanthood that is done in Jesus’ name is a rewarding expression of one’s true authority according to God’s standard of greatness.

Transfiguration of the Verbal Paradox in Mark 10:43-44

Like the first two instances of verbal paradox, the third one appears in the context of Jesus’ Passion prediction (10:32–34) and the misunderstanding by His disciples (vv. 35–41). Jesus’ third discipleship discourse includes the verbal paradox in verses 43–44. The disciples were puzzled to know how servanthood could be linked with being great.[28]

In this third paradox a set of parallel patterns is seen in the words “whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant” (v. 43) and “whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all” (v. 44). The first portion of verse 43, “whoever wishes to be great,” corresponds to the first part of verse 44, “whoever wishes to be first.” And the second portion of verse 43, “shall be your servant,” corresponds to the second portion of verse 44, “shall be slave of all.” Such correspondence shows intensification, which reaches a climax. Wishing to be “great” becomes wishing to be the “first” (i.e., the highest form of greatness), and being “your servant” becomes being “slave of all” (i.e., the highest form of daily servanthood).

The expression “become great” is antithetical to the words “be your servant,” and “be first” is antithetical to “be slave of all.” The way of greatness is connected to the way of being a servant, and the way of being first is connected to the way of being slave of all. Moreover, the word “slave” (δοῦλος) occurs here in the Gospel of Mark for the first time. It carries the idea of someone who has no authority or privilege at all,[29] and who is expected to serve his master without recognition or commendation. This is a shocking affirmation, and it is puzzling to know how utmost servanthood can be linked with being first or great.

This verbal paradox is transformed, however, by Jesus’ words in verse 45: “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” One can fathom how to be servant and slave of all only by following Jesus’ servanthood. Since Jesus, who deserves to be served as Son of Man, came instead to serve others, then they who have little authority can follow the same path of service. Jesus “set himself before the disciples as an example to follow … something that often has been forgotten by his followers.”[30] As Kingsbury notes, “Just as it is his purpose to serve and not to be served, so it is the purpose of disciples to be servants of one another and ‘slaves’ of all.”[31] Jesus’ words “did not come to be served but to serve” underline the emphasis on servanthood. Jesus, the One who serves others, expects His followers to be servants too.

In mentioning that His life is given as a “ransom” (λύτρον), Jesus appealed to the “prevailing notion behind the metaphor” (i.e., deliverance by purchase, whether of a prisoner of war, a slave, or a forfeited life).[32] A “ransom” also speaks of a liberation that suggests a servitude or an imprisonment from which a person cannot free himself or herself. Jesus’ suffering and death are to be viewed as the price for the liberation of many, and His death as a ransom is the “greatest example of service.”[33] Also His “being slave of all” involves giving His own life so that others may live.

Though they cannot duplicate Jesus’ act of paying the ransom for their sins, His followers see how that act of service can result in the good of so many who have faith in Him and obey Him. Thus the reality of Jesus’ death reminds them not to hold back anything in serving the very people whom Jesus served. In fact His death shows that servanthood may call for the ultimate sacrifice of self for the welfare of others.

Conclusion

This “transfiguration” method yields the following meaning in Jesus’ paradoxical sayings in Mark. First, regarding saving and losing one’s life (8:35), the desire to claim and cling to worldly authority (i.e., wishing to save one’s life) is not profitable because it leads to the loss of one’s soul to eternal ruin (i.e., losing one’s life). Similarly, not being ashamed of Jesus and His words and serving others for His sake and the gospel are profitable because they lead to gaining a glorious future (i.e., saving one’s life).

Second, regarding being “first” and “last” (9:35), to be truly great in Jesus’ sight (i.e., being first) demands welcoming and caring for the insignificant and strangers (i.e., being last of all), and serving them, even in simple ways (i.e., being servant of all).

Third, regarding “great” and “servant,” “first” and “slave of all” (10:43–44), the best expression of greatness is seen in Jesus’ model of servanthood and in His giving His life as a ransom for many. Thus Jesus’ teaching, model, and death remind His followers not to hold back service from the very people whom He served.

Notes

1. Robert M. Fowler, Let the Reader Understand: Reader-Response Criticism and the Gospel of Mark (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 184–94.
2. Gerhard Kittel, “παράδοξος,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. G. Kittel, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 2:255. Kittel writes that παράδοξος is “quite common in secular Greek, Philo, Josephus, and the Septuagint. It always denotes an ‘unusual event contrary to belief and expectation.’ ”
3. Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2d ed., rev. F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), 609. Bauer adds that δόξα can be used as an adversative, meaning “against, contrary to.”
4. Gerhard Kittel, “δόξα,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 2:233–36. Kittel argues that δόξα “has in all non-biblical Greek a basic meaning which reflects its link with δοκέω, namely, ‘what one thinks,’ ‘opinion’ ” (ibid., 233).
5. The Greek usage goes back at least to Plato, who entitled a section of his Republic “The Paradox: Philosophers Must Be Kings” (Republic, trans. Francis MacDonald Cornford [New York: Oxford University Press, 1963], 471c–474b). Cf. Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, rev. and augmented by Henry Stuart Jones et al., 9th ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1948), 2:1309.
6. Fowler, Let the Reader Understand, 184.
7. Joseph T. Shipley, ed., Dictionary of World Literature: Criticism-Form-Technique (New York: Philosophical Library, 1943), 417. Shipley comments that the word “oxymoron” itself is a contradiction in terms. It comes from the Greek word which means “pointedly foolish.” He gives these examples of oxymoronic expressions: “pleasing pains,” “I burn and freeze,” “loving hate,” “their silence is eloquent” (Cicero), “I must be cruel only to be kind” (Hamlet).
8. J. A. Cuddon, “Oxymoron,” in A Dictionary of Literary Terms (England: Penguin, 1977), 471. For several other examples of oxymora, see pages 472–73.
9. Fowler, Let the Reader Understand, 185.
10. “Metaphor consists in giving the thing a name that belongs to something else” (Aristotle, Poetics 21.1457b). Fowler adds, “Metaphor derives its power from the tension between dissimilars that are posited to be similar” (Fowler, Let the Reader Understand, 176). For more helpful information on metaphor, see Sheldon Sacks, ed., On Metaphor (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979). Sacks includes helpful summaries by Ted Cohen, “Metaphor and the Cultivation of Intimacy,” 6; Donald Davidson, “What Metaphors Mean,” 43; and Wayne Booth, “Metaphor as Rhetoric: The Problem of Evaluation,” 52. See also John Dominic Crossan, “Paradox and Metaphor,” in Cliffs of Fall: Paradox and Polyvalence in Parables of Jesus (New York: Seabury, 1980), 1–24; and idem, “Paradox Gives Rise to Metaphor,” Bible Review 24–25 (1979–1980): 20-37.
11. Fowler, Let the Reader Understand, 185.
12. Ibid., 186.
13. Ibid., 190.
14. Ibid., 189.
15. John D. Grassmick, “Mark,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1983), 141; cf. Walter W. Wessel, “Mark,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 8:697. Wessel argues that the opposite of losing one’s life is to be assured of salvation and eternal life.
16. Harry Fleddermann, “The Discipleship Discourse (Mark 9:33–50),” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 43 (1981): 61; and Frans Neiynck, “The Tradition of the Sayings of Jesus: Mark 9, 33–50, ” in The Dynamism of Biblical Tradition (New York: Paulist, 1967), 65.
17. James A. Brooks, Mark, New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman, 1991), 150; William Lane, The Gospel of Mark, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 339; and Urban C. Von Wahlde, “Mark 9:33–50—Discipleship: The Authority That Serves,” Biblische Zeitschrift 29 (1985): 54.
18. The Gospel of Mark has a careful two-part structure in the second discourse. The first half of the discourse (9:36–41) is positive in its orientation and recommends three actions to be performed (9:37a, 39a, 41a), while the second half is negative in orientation and comprises three warnings against conduct to be avoided.
19. Marcan scholars have argued that the issue of “receiving” can mean either that the disciples are the ones to do the receiving or are the ones to be received. Scholars who take the first view are Rudolf Schnackenburg, “Mk 9, 33–50, ” Synoptische Studien: Festschrift für A. Wikenhauser (Munich: Karl Zink, 1953), 184–206; Dennis Eric Nineham, St. Mark (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963), 252; Vincent Taylor, The Gospel according to St. Mark (London: Macmillan, 1959), 405–6; Rudolf Pesch, Markusevangelium (Freiburg: Herder, 1984), 105; and Joachim Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus (Zurich: Benziger, 1979), 57. Scholars who take the second view are Hugh Anderson, The Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 234–35; Harry Fleddermann, “The Discipleship Discourse (Mark 9:33–50),” 57–75; and Eduard Schweizer, Good News according to Mark, trans. Donald Mavig (Atlanta: Knox, 1970), 192–93. The present writer takes the first view because the context deals with what the disciples needed to do to overcome their propensity toward seeking greatness.
20. Ernest Best, “Discipleship in Mark: Mark 8.22-10.52,” Scottish Journal of Theology 23 (1970): 332.
21. Albert L. Deschamps, “Du discours de Marc ix, 33–50 aux paroles de Jésus,” in La formation des évangiles, Rescherches Bibliques (Brower: Desclee, 1957), 2:154–55.
22. Gnilka, Markus, 2:57; and Nineham, Mark, 252.
23. Taylor, Mark, 405–6.
24. Pesch, Markusevangelium, 2:105.
25. Fleddermann, “The Discipleship Discourse (Mark 9:33–50),” 63–64. Fleddermann comments on “receiving a child” and “being a servant of all”: “The ‘receive’ of v. 37a is colored by the ‘servant’ of v. 35—to receive a child is to serve a child. Both the lowliness of the child and the ideal of service to the community are opposed to the status-seeking of the disciples.”
26. Fleddermann, “Discipleship Discourse (Mark 9:33–50),” 65–66; and Von Wahlde, “Mark 9:33–50—Discipleship: The Authority That Serves,” 55–56.
27. Lane, Mark, 344.
28. Robert C. Tannehill, The Sword of His Mouth (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 104–6.
29. Ibid., 104; and Lane, Mark, 382. Lane also comments that servants and slaves are “men whose activities are not directed toward their own interests but to those of another.” For information on the approximate equivalence of the two terms “servant” and “slave” see Best, Following Jesus, 125–26; Klemens Stock, Boten aus dem Mit-Ihm-Sein: Das Verhältnis zwischen Jesus und den Zwölf nach Markus (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1975), 140; and C. S. Mann, Mark: A New Translation and Commentary, Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1986), 414.
30. Brooks, Mark, 17.
31. Jack Dean Kingsbury, Conflict in Mark (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 110.
32. Lane, Mark, 383; cf. Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 482; F. Büschsel, “λύτρον,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 4 (1967), 340–49; Brooks, Mark, 171; and Larry W. Hurtado, Mark (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1989), 172.
33. Brooks, Mark, 170.