The Theological Message Of The Gospel Of Mark

By Kenneth R. Cooper

[Kenneth R. Cooper, Ph.D, professor of Bible and theology, Tyndale Theological Seminary and Biblical Institute]

Of all the Gospels, Mark comes to us in a rather compact, terse, fast-paced manner. Believed by most to be the earliest Gospel, Mark may have provided a major source for Matthew’s and Luke’s Gospels. Approximately 90% of the Gospel of Mark may be found in Matthew and Luke; yet, until the twentieth century, Mark virtually “lay on the shelf” little read and less studied. According to Luke Timothy Johnson, this may in part be due “to the widespread opinion that he had only condensed Matthew’s version, and partly due to the fact that his narrative met liturgical and catechetical needs less adequately than his synoptic successors.”[1] Johnson noted that no commentary on Mark appeared until the sixth century; then it took until the ninth century before another appeared. Mark seems to have faded into the shadows of Matthew and Luke. Add to this his apparent lack of narrative order and he falls deeper into the shadows.

In the twentieth century, scholars appear to have “rediscovered” the Gospel of Mark. For twentieth century scholars, Mark has become the most popular of the synoptic Gospels. According to Johnson, this was due largely to the “thought that Mark provided the earliest and most reliable historical source for those seeking to uncover the historical Jesus.”[2]

Mark should present little difficulty to those seeking to uncover his theology because of its brevity and its conciseness. Upon closer examination, however, one can see that this is not the case. For one thing, there appears to be no logical literary or theological structure to the book. In fact, structure provides one of the major concerns of the study of Mark. For instance, Mark is unlike Luke who states that “it seemed fitting for me . . . to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus’” the things that Luke had carefully investigated (Luke 1:3, emphasis added).[3]

While Luke establishes basically a chronological order for his account, Mark does not seem to have a specific order for his, logical or chronological. In light of this fact, Merrill C. Tenney noted, “an outline of Mark is difficult to construct because of the impressionistic character of the Gospel.”[4] Norman Perrin added, “When he wrote his Gospel, Mark does not have the resources of such externals as divisions and headings to outline the structure of his work. He had to rely on internal indices of the movement of his narrative. . . .”[5] Perrin suggested two ways in which Mark organized his material internally: by giving geographical references and by providing summary reports. The geographical references divide the material into two or three major blocks, suggesting a possible means of actually outlining the book and expressing the movement from Galilee where Jesus appears to have begun his public ministry, through Judea to Jerusalem, and finally to the cross. The summary reports introduce respectively Jesus’ apocalyptic discourse as He came out of the temple at Jerusalem, and the passion narrative itself. These certainly provide valuable clues to Mark’s structure; and as a result, Tenney actually did outline the Gospel geographically, as did, for example William L. Lane, R. A. Cole, and Vincent Taylor.[6]

The Nature Of The Gospel

There are other clues that may help unlock the theological content of Mark. In all the Gospels, one unique personality dominates, of course: the personality of Jesus Christ. While this may be a given, it still provides a clue to help understand the arrangement of the material, especially since each Gospel arranges the material differently because each Gospel views the Person of Jesus in a different light. Matthew, for instance, portrayed Him as a King; Luke saw Him more in his humanity, as a physician might, thus Luke sees Him as a man. John sees Him as God; while Mark portrays Him as the humble but perfect Servant of Yahweh. While all the Gospels in some way portray Christ under each of these figures, each of them seems to major in one of them as noted.

In Mark, Jesus is the consummate Servant rather than the great teacher, although Mark does contain some of his teaching. Mark portrayed Jesus as lowly and meek, ministering to the people of God as the Servant of God that He came to earth to be (cf. Phil 2:8–11). Over a hundred years ago, Andrew Jukes noted, “He stands here as the patient Servant and Sacrifice for others, spending and being spent to serve the sons of men.”[7] The picture of Christ that Jukes portrayed seems to pervade the Gospel of Mark, and is consistent with Old Testament foreshadowing of the Messiah. Isaiah, for instance, described Him as a “tender shoot, and like a root out of parched ground; He has no stately form or majesty That we should look upon Him, Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him” (Isa 53:2). Jeremiah noted, “Behold, the days are coming,” declares the Lord, “When I will raise up for David a righteous Branch” (Jer 23:5). Zechariah simply identified Him as God’s “Servant the Branch” (Zech 3:8).

To stress the character of Jesus as Servant, Mark included no genealogy as Matthew and Luke did, because such is not important to a servant. Furthermore, Mark gathered together narrative traditions in which people found Jesus serving others. Although Mark did not use this title of Jesus, he did describe Him as God’s Servant, indicating this poignantly in the words of Jesus, recorded in a key verse, where He said, “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). In keeping with this servant character, therefore, Mark focused on the deeds of Jesus rather than his discourses.

In the opening verse, Mark provided another clue to the theological structure of the book. He characterized his writing as “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (1:1). Many scholars agree with Johnson that “Mark was the first to connect the notion of ‘good news’ (Euangelion)—first understood in what God had accomplished in the death and resurrection of the Messiah—to a narrative of what Jesus Himself had said and done, calling it ‘good news’ (1:1).”[8] The first verse indicates that the key to Mark’s Gospel is not just Jesus, but Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Moreover, the knowledge of Jesus as Son of God is good news, indicating an evangelistic character to Mark’s Gospel. In fact, as Johnson noted, Mark is the first to call the news about Jesus Christ a gospel: “good news.” George Ladd noted,

It is generally agreed that the use of the term “gospel” (euangelion) to describe a genre of literature derives from its use in Mark 1:1, whether or not Mark himself so intended it. He introduces his story with the words “the beginning of the euangelion of Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God.” This is no mere historical record, but “good news”; and the good news is Jesus. The very first verse therefore alerts us to expect a theological, indeed “evangelistic,” presentation of the life and teaching of Jesus.[9]

Therefore, it would seem that Mark’s Gospel is good news about a special person whom he called, the Messiah, who is also the Son of God. In the context of “gospel,” Mark told the story of Jesus to persuade his readers to receive Christ as Savior. Johnson noted further, “In these opening verses, Mark’s readers encounter the story of God’s unique Son, who spins history on its axis and calls for conversion, a change of heart and mind. In the story of this man the mystery of God is at work.”[10] So far, it appears that, theologically, Mark is about a special personality, and his narratives about this personality comprise a genre of literature he identified as gospel.

The Structure Of The Gospel

At a high point in the ministry of Christ, Mark offered another clue to the theological content of his Gospel. While traveling northward in Galilee from Bethsaida to Caesarea Philippi, Jesus questioned his disciples about what people were saying regarding Him. Who did people say He was? The disciples offered several options from the people: John the Baptist, Elijah, or one of the prophets. Then came the challenge when He asked, who do you say that I am? Mark reported, “Peter answered and said to Him, “Thou art the Christ” (Mark 8:29b).[11] Matthew recorded an expansion of this confession, when he noted that Peter said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt 16:16).

Although Jesus warned his disciples to tell no one about Him as Messiah – a silencing that has aroused a lot of academic discussion – this confession is itself a significant point in the ministry of Jesus as well as a key part of Mark’s Gospel, consistent with the opening verse. Peter’s confession expresses the reality of the first part of Mark’s Gospel from verse 1: “the gospel of Jesus Christ.” After the crucifixion, a Gentile Roman soldier standing beneath the cross heard Jesus’ final cry and confessed, “Truly this man was the Son of God!” (Mark 15:39b). Here is the second part of verse 1: “the Son of God.” The two confessions seem to frame the Gospel of Mark, provide the key to his theology, and establish a two-part structure to his message.

Perhaps, therefore, these two confessions aid in establishing at least a theological framework for the Gospel of Mark. Although ideas may differ on the details of the structure within these parts of the Gospel of Mark, scholars seem generally to agree that the book breaks down into two main parts after the prologue. The first part covers the Galilean ministry following the baptism and temptation of Christ through the confession of Peter that Jesus is the Messiah: Mark 1:16–8:30. Interestingly the second part, therefore, begins with Jesus teaching his disciples about his coming suffering, rejection, death, and resurrection. This part of the Gospel consists of his actually traveling in the direction of these events as He moved steadily toward Jerusalem, and, therefore, ends with the actual suffering, rejection, etc: 8:31–16:8 (or 16:20).[12] In fact, Jesus’ suffering and death seems to be the major objective of Mark’s narrative.

Echoing in the background of most Markan studies is the oft-repeated statement of Martin Kähler, who said, “To state the matter somewhat provocatively, one could call the Gospels passion narratives with extended introductions.”[13] Kähler’s assertion is true especially of Mark and has become almost a theological slogan; and unfortunately, slogans can be terribly misleading unless their substance is given thorough thought. However, in the case of Mark, at least, there may be some validity to Kähler’s observation. C. E. B. Cranfield noted, “The movement of the Gospel is the march of Jesus toward the cross and the resurrection.”[14] If this is not clear enough, he added, “Mark’s emphasis on the Passion is an indication of his purpose set forth in the good news of the Deed of God for the world’s salvation.”[15] Willi Marxsen stamped this concept with a strong imprimatur when he said,

The passion narrative admittedly represents the first stereotyped written unit in the tradition of Jesus. The tradition then developed backward. This is true at least of the Gospel of Mark—naturally not of every individual piece of tradition, but certainly of the complexes. Mark thus prefixes the passion narrative with the tradition of Jesus, and prefixes that tradition with the tradition of the Baptist.[16]

Ralph Martin agreed and noted that it seems to tie the book together when he said:

It seems pretty clear that Mark’s intention is to lay heavy stress on the Passion story by working backwards from the event to embrace the Baptist’s destiny as being handed over by God to his death; by making the pericope of 8:27–9:1 the central section; by the insertion of three explicit passion prophecies; and by so constructing his whole gospel that a topheavy weight falls on the end-section.[17]

Conversely, Martin noted a crucial defect in Kähler’s observation. “By its very emphasis on the cross and Passion of Jesus,” he said, “it fails to account for the need of a ‘rather long introduction’ . . . to preface the Passion story.”[18] Martin felt that Kähler’s statement failed to explain the collection of narratives that constitute most of the book leading to the Passion narratives. Simply to call them an extended introduction is insufficient. What, for instance, does the extended introduction ultimately present? How do they relate to the Passion narrative? How do they do justice to and correspond to Mark’s purpose?

To answer these questions, Martin referred to the relatively new discipline of redaction criticism, in which a fundamental idea is to “maintain that the evangelist inherited traditional sections of gospel material which he then editorialized and conformed to his own theological bent.”[19] To explore this area of theological thought further requires some cautious handling, as Martin noted, because it is a speculative exercise. There is no certainty over the limits of the pre-Markan tradition and one can really know it only by critical examination of the data available. Still, that tradition may offer some significant clues to the theological purpose and structure of the writer.

When Mark wrote his Gospel, he wrote it in a context of controversy and false teaching; and frequently, the false teaching centered on the person Jesus Christ, which would make the chief burden of the Gospel Christological, and this is consistent with Mark’s stated purpose to present the beginning of the gospel which finds its center and substance in “Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (1:1). Norman Perrin agreed with this idea when he noted that Mark’s purpose was “to teach the Christian of his day a true Christology in place of the false Christology that he felt they were in danger of accepting.”[20] To teach this thorough-going Christology, Mark provided a blend of a characterization of Jesus in his weakness and limitations as truly a man, with a portrayal of a strong Son of God, healing, exorcizing demons, working sundry miracles, and teaching with authority.

Furthermore, in the context of gospel, Mark’s intention appears to be strongly kerygmatic, according to Martin, “not to record history but to proclaim a message.”[21] The message that Mark proclaimed is that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. How is that message expressed in the theological structure of Mark’s gospel? Perrin suggested,

[Son of God] is the title which Mark uses in these narratives where it is clear that he sees something happening that is crucial for an understanding of Jesus and where his own interpretive work is at a maximum: the baptism (1:11), the transfiguration (9:7), and the confession by the Centurion already mentioned (15:39). Occurring as it does, therefore, in the superscription, the confessional climax, and the two crucial episodes of baptism and transfiguration, Son of God may justly be described as the most important title for Mark, and the basic christological structure of his Gospel may be held to be built upon these references.[22]

Therefore, it seems evident that Mark intended to proclaim that Jesus is both Messiah and Son of God to a post-resurrection world, and that that Son of God declaration is the most dominant revelation in the Gospel, if not in the actual ministry of Christ as described by Mark. How does all this fit together to provide a framework for Mark’s Gospel?

A possible twofold division separated by two confessions concerning Jesus has already been noted: one as the Christ and one as the Son of God. Since both titles apply to the same person, it seems legitimate to say that they are related to each other in some way. However, each does reflect a different aspect of the ministry of Jesus as He moved from his baptism to the cross. In the first division noted (1:16–8:30), for example, Mark presented Jesus more as the Christ, the Messiah. Isaiah described the ministry of the Messiah in strong humanitarian terms: “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me to bring good news to the afflicted; He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to captives and freedom to prisoners; to proclaim the favorable year of the Lord” (Isa 61:1–2a).

Mark filled the first division of his Gospel with narratives of Jesus, completing this description of the Messiah. Almost immediately after returning from his temptation in the wilderness and calling some of his disciples, Jesus entered a synagogue and began to teach. Although Mark included very little of the explicit content of Jesus’ teaching, he noted immediately that his teaching amazed the people who heard it. Interestingly, it was not the content of his teaching that affected them, but the manner of it. “He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as the scribes” (Mark 1:22, emphasis added). The comparison suggests that Jesus was teaching from the Law of Moses; but rather than quote the interpretation of other “authorities” to substantiate his interpretation as did all the scribes, Jesus spoke as if He were the authority. In Mark 7:7, Mark portrayed the scribes as legalists who “teach . . . as doctrines the precepts of men.” As a result, they quoted many other teachers to give, or appear to give, greater authority to their own teaching. Jesus, conversely, taught with the authority of God, because, as Jack Dean Kingsbury noted, “What Mark emphasizes more about the teaching of Jesus is its divine origin and character.”[23] Jesus is the Son of God. He is the origin and character of his own teaching. So, it should come as no surprise that He teaches with authority.

As Messiah, the anointed of God, Jesus was to “proclaim liberty to captives and freedom to prisoners” (Isa 61:1). Whatever this may have meant to the prophet, Mark indicated that it does have a spiritual application at this time to Jesus. While teaching in the synagogue, a man with an unclean spirit entered. The spirit cried out against Jesus, and in the midst of his cry identified Jesus as “the Holy One of God!” (Mark 1:24). The assertion may serve to confirm his identity as Son of God from a rather unlikely source. Kingsbury made an interesting observation concerning this incident. He said, “the demons’ knowledge that Jesus is the Son of God plainly coincides with God’s ‘evaluative point of view’ regarding Jesus’ identity expressed at the baptism.”[24] At the same time, Jesus’ actions portray Him as the Messiah described by Isaiah in that He proclaimed liberty to one who was captive by the demon, and even this release from spiritual captivity was identified as part of his teaching with authority (v. 27).

As his ministry continued, Jesus brought “good news to the afflicted,” not only in word but also in deed. In Mark 2, four men brought a paralytic to Jesus for healing. Not only did Jesus provide healing for his physical affliction, but also for his spiritual affliction. Prior to completing the physical healing, Jesus said to the paralytic, “My son, your sins are forgiven” (2:5), which led to a controversy with the scribes over who can forgive sins. The incident ended with Jesus healing the man, forgiving his sins, and moving outside to the seashore where He continued teaching the multitudes.

In chapter 3, Jesus healed a man with a withered hand. In chapter 5, He healed the woman with an issue of blood when she touched the hem of His prayer shawl. Following this, He raised from the dead the daughter of a synagogue official. In all these incidents, He was binding up the brokenhearted as well as comforting the afflicted. In chapter 6, He provided food for the hungry, feeding over five thousand with a couple of fish and a few loaves of bread. They had so much to eat that the disciples gathered twelve baskets of the leftovers. In chapter 7, Jesus healed the daughter of a Syrophoenician woman, as well as healed a deaf man. In chapter 8, He fed another large crowd from only a small provision of bread. In each case, He was fulfilling some aspect of the prophet’s description of the Messiah.

Interspersed throughout these narratives, Mark recorded in this section of his Gospel occasional segments of Jesus’ teaching that indicated further that He is indeed the Christ, the Messiah. He established the focus of Jesus’ teaching at the beginning when he introduced Jesus’ ministry. “Now after John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel’” (1:14–15). Is the kingdom of God the same as the favorable year of the Lord? If so, then this is a clear indication that Jesus functioned in some way as Messiah from the beginning. The parables of Mark 4 expound this message of the kingdom of God further, but in a manner that Jesus called a mystery which, at the time, only the disciples were allowed to understand. The discourse in chapter 7 stresses the moral character of the citizens of the kingdom, character that builds on the Law to which the scribes gave only insincere expression of agreement and support. Jesus taught that this character had to come from within the person.

At this point, it is important to note that the gospel Jesus proclaimed differs from the gospel Mark proclaimed. Referring to the opening phrase of chapter 1, Eugene E. Lemcio noted the uniqueness of the phrase to the Gospel of Mark, but he also noted,

Of greater importance, however, is the fact that Mark’s εὐαγγέλιον differs on two accounts from that which he purports Jesus to have preached in [Mark 1:] 14–15. While Mark’s is christocentric, Jesus’ is theocentric: τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ (v. 14c). Moreover, the content of the message is His Kingdom’s having drawn near in a previous event: either John’s ministry or Jesus’ temptation, as the perfect tenses of πεπλήρωκεν and ἤγγικεν demand (v.15a). Mark’s gospel about Jesus presupposes the subsequent events of His death and resurrection as well as the Kingdom’s full arrival in the future.[25]

Furthermore, Lemcio argued that those who interpret the Gospel kerygmatically ignore this distinction or fail altogether to notice it. In fact, he argued further that Mark nowhere portrayed Jesus as indicating publicly or privately that He is the object of either the gospel (εὐαγγέλιον) or faith (πιςτεύειν). He concluded, therefore, that “Mark distinguishes between the gospel which Jesus proclaimed about the inauguration of God’s Rule and the evangelists own kerygma that God had begun it in Jesus.” He added concerning the occurrences of πίςτις (“faith”), that “all of the five occurrences of the noun have to do with a mighty work of healing. None has Jesus as the object of faith. One has God as the focus (11:22). Two imply faith in Jesus to provide a cure (2:5) or still the storm (4:40). In two others, it is faith that occasions the cure (5:34; 10:52). Similar features characterize the ten instances of the verb.”[26] Lemcio indicated that one of the factors that contribute to this distinction is the secrecy phenomena, in which Jesus not only hid his identity until it was manifest at the cross, but also admonished his disciples to do the same. Hence, when Peter confessed that Jesus is the Christ (8:29), Jesus “warned them to tell no one about Him” (v. 30).

The notion of a secrecy phenomena (generally known as the Messianic Secret) has its origin with William Wrede around the turn of the twentieth century and has, according to James Blevins, “been hotly debated among Markan scholars since the publication of William Wrede’s The Messianic Secret in 1901.” He added, “For three quarters of a century, this book has loomed as a bright star over the horizon of Markan studies. Every work dealing with the Second Gospel has had to take its stance in reference to Wrede’s theory of the Messianic Secret.”[27] In a few words, Wrede maintained that Jesus is frequently portrayed as seeking to maintain an element of secrecy about his own person and work. Starting with the Gospel of Mark and focusing his analysis on texts in Mark, Wrede sought an explanation for the secrecy in the narratives about Jesus’ ministry. He concluded that all the secrecy elements in Mark were later additions to the tradition and were therefore unhistorical. While most scholars would agree that the secrecy motif is a part of Mark’s narrative, Christopher Tuckett also noted, “Most critics today would probably agree that Wrede’s original explanation of the secret is not tenable, and that he tried to explain too many features of Mark’s Gospel by his theory.”[28] Tuckett also noted that other disciplines such as literary criticism and sociology may shed some light on this issue. The secrecy motif has raised many questions and resulted in many differing answers. Consequently, it remains open for further dialogue and discussion into some vital area of the Christian faith.[29] Interestingly, the first segment/half of Mark’s Gospel ends with an expression of the “Messianic Secret” where “He warned them to tell no one about Him” (8:30).

The second segment/half (8:31–16:8[20]) begins with Jesus’ discussion of his sufferings, rejection by the elders, death and resurrection, and ends for all practical purposes with the actual events constituting his rejection, suffering, death, and resurrection. During this part of the book, the Messianic Secret continues to play a part because Jesus appears to intend his identity to remain secret until He reveals it in the passion experience itself. Georg Strecker noted, “The hiddenness remains until the fulfillment; but after this it comes to an end; the disciples understand, and open proclamation of Jesus’ messiahship is permitted.”[30] Lemcio concluded that the secrecy motif ends at the passion story because “when its temporal conditioning is recognized . . . , the secret has no function beyond the resurrection, its terminus.”[31]

The second half of Mark’s Gospel, as noted by Tenney and others, presents a major movement geographically toward Jerusalem and the cross. In this section, the focus shifts from Jesus as Christ to Jesus as Son of God. Although Jesus is Son of God throughout the Gospel, Mark seems to lay stress on his character as Messiah in the first part, and stress on his character as Son of God in this last part. In chapter 9, for instance, Jesus took Peter, James, and John to a high mountain somewhere outside Caesarea Philippi; and there “He was transfigured before them; and His garments became radiant and exceedingly white, as no launderer on earth can whiten them” (9:2c-3). Although Jesus referred to Himself on this occasion by the term “Son of Man,” it is clear that Mark included the narrative as added evidence that He is the Son of God as well. As Peter responded to the experience, “a cloud formed, overshadowing them, and a voice came out of the cloud, ‘This is My beloved Son, listen to Him!’” (9:7). So, essentially at the beginning of this segment and at the end (15:39), Mark provided a testimony to Jesus as the Son of God.

As they departed from the mountain, Jesus again enjoined his disciples to secrecy; only in this case, He designated a temporal boundary, as already noted by Lemcio (see fn. 31). Mark told his readers that “[Jesus] gave them orders not to relate to anyone what they had seen, until the Son of Man should rise from the dead” (9:9, emphasis added). The “secret” must remain a secret until Christ has accomplished all that the Father required for the redemption of men; then the secret can be revealed.

Following this conversation, Jesus continued his ministry of casting out demons from those afflicted by them (9:14–29). In chapter 10, He left Galilee and traveled to Judea, now on his way to Jerusalem. As He went, He debated with the Pharisees about matters of the law and the kingdom of God. He discourses on the need to receive God’s Kingdom as a child, the only way for entrance into the Kingdom. Following this discourse, He dialogued with a wealthy man about eternal life. The man called Him good teacher; and Jesus asked him why since no one is good but God. Could this be an indirect suggestion that He is indeed the Son of God? Shortly afterward, Jesus referred to this encounter to explain to his disciples the difficulties of entering the kingdom of God. Subsequently, two of his disciples requested to sit on either side of Him in the kingdom of God. Did they recognize Him as the Son of God and use this opportunity to curry favors? Possibly. In any case, their request led to a response that is probably the key verse of the Gospel: “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (10:45, emphasis added). Although He again used the term Son of Man, Jesus did give his life a ransom as the Son of God. John made this clear when he said, “In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 4:10).

What is significant to note in this context is that in Mark’s narratives, Jesus never used the expression “Son of God” to refer to Himself or to his mission. In each situation that He experienced, He referred to Himself as the Son of Man. In fact, as Lemcio noted,

Jesus . . . consistently avoids making positive use of “Christ” and “Son of God” both in public and in private. The only possible exception might be His attempt to elevate the status of the Messiah from being David’s son to his Lord (12:35–37). . . . Certainly many have noted that Jesus alone defines Himself and His role exclusively by means of “the Son of Man,” whether this be privately or publicly: forgive sins upon the earth (2:10); exercise lordship over the sabbath (2:28); suffer, be rejected, die and rise (8:31; 9:12, 32; 10:33); serve, give His life a ransom for many (10:45); and come in glory (8:38; 13:26; 14:62). Yet none of these functions ever is closely and clearly associated with “Christ” and “Son of God,” the titles by which Jesus is known and addressed in Mark’s church. Of course, even “the Son of Man” belonged to Christians with all of the other titles. But the point here is that they used them differently when affirming their conviction about Him in the present than when narrating the story of His past.[32]

Lemcio noted further that “the Jesus of the narrative qualifies or interprets those Christologies to which Mark adheres. It is quite common for Him to shift to ‘Son of Man’ when others use ‘Christ.’”[33] As such, Son of Man is more than just a Messianic title, it is an all-inclusive title gathering into itself not only all of the other titles but also all of the functions that go with them so that when his identity is revealed and proclaimed after the resurrection, his followers can see how it all fits together. Until then, Jesus continued with his mission, keeping it all “secret” and admonishing his disciples to do likewise.

In chapters 11 and 12, Mark recorded Jesus moving into Jerusalem to again discourse on the kingdom of God and to debate with the Pharisees there. There continues to be unrest among the Jewish leaders concerning Jesus’ authority, as well as the controversial content of his teaching. In chapter 13, as they exited the temple, the disciples called his attention to the magnificent buildings, which led Jesus into the one major eschatological discourse recorded in Mark. Eschatology is a significant theological theme at this point in Mark, because it carries Jesus’ ministry and mission as both Messiah and Son of God to their ultimate consummation at the end of the age. The discourse has implications for all generations of Christians because it explains the opposition to their kerygma as well as the natural results of the corrupted world order as it progresses continually downward; it also instills hope within believers with the promise of the coming of the Son of Man in power and glory to gather his own to Himself and to establish his kingdom, although Mark did not say all this explicitly. Instead, he recorded Jesus as concluding with a warning to his disciples to be on the alert for his return.

The remaining chapters describe the final approach to the cross during the observance of the Passover by Jesus and his disciples, and a memorial to his coming death and its significance. Mark continued with a description of Jesus’ betrayal into the hands of the chief priests, his mock trials, and finally his crucifixion. Chapter 16 concludes the gospel message with the resurrection and its effects. Whether one ends the Gospel at verse 8 or at verse 20, he or she will have a narrative of some of the effects of the resurrection.

Some Key Phrases In The Gospel

As he developed the story of Jesus, Mark used certain significant words and phrases to express some of the key ideas of his message. Not the least of these is the word “gospel” itself. As noted previously, Mark was the first to apply the term to the story of Jesus. In so doing, he gave a name to a new genre of writing, which was not biography as such, or history of a hero’s exploits, but as Ralph Martin called them, preaching material. Mark’s purpose was evangelistic: to proclaim “good news.” So, Martin said,

The “stories of Jesus’ life” were called among Christians themselves as gospels (Greek εὐαγγέλια). And in so doing they were laying claim to the appearance of a new genre of writing for which no current categories would do. Therefore, they chose a new word to describe a new phenomenon, namely, a type of literary composition which would not properly be called a biography of Jesus or a chronicle of His exploits or even a set of reminiscences by His friends and followers. Rather these books were preaching materials, designed to tell the story of God’s saving actions in the life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. They were called “gospels” because they gave the substance of “the gospel,” declared in Romans 1:16 to be God’s power to salvation to all who believe.[34]

The word gospel means “good news;” for Mark and the others, the gospel was good news about Jesus Christ but their manner of disseminating the good news was preaching or proclaiming. The gospel was the message they proclaimed. C. F. D. Moule agreed with Martin on this when he said, “I still believe that the Synoptic Gospels (not St. John) were written not primarily to convey the Christian message independently and self-containedly, but to supplement the preaching of it with historical explanations.”[35] So, Mark introduced a new, special kind of literature aimed at proclaiming good news to its readers; for this he has given the term gospel.

Mark also used the term “Messiah” in a distinctive sense. While neither he nor the Lord in his narrative ever actually declared that Jesus is the Messiah, he did not deny it. In fact, his use of the term in the first verse of the book is somewhat ambiguous. There it could be just a part of Jesus’ name, or it could be a title. The absence of the definite article in the verse may indicate that at least here, it is only a part of his name. Nevertheless, at least one scholar — George Ladd — took it as a title and so translated it in his work.[36] The term Messiah is represented in most Greek texts by the name “Christ.” Both words (Christ and Messiah) generally mean “anointed.” In early times in Israel, kings and priests were anointed with oil as a sign that God had chosen them for their offices. In the New Testament, the title came to be applied to “the human son of David” whom God would raise up to be the king of a restored Davidic kingdom,[37] which would help explain the following Jesus had accumulated throughout his ministry. Many of those who followed Him believed like Peter did in his crucial confession, “Thou art the Christ” (Mark 8:29). They expected Him to overthrow the Romans and establish God’s kingdom on earth right then. The popular idea of Jesus might also explain why Jesus silenced Peter and refused on other occasions to acknowledge his identity as Messiah.

If He came into the world, as Jesus said, “to give His life a ransom for many” (10:45), He could not legitimately acknowledge any connection with the Messianic expectation of Israel until after He accomplished his purpose on the cross. His purpose at that time was evangelistic, not political; this fact may also lend some credence to the idea of Wrede’s theory of the “Messianic secret,”[38] if it were limited only to Christ’s identity as Messiah. Others, however, argue that Mark’s secret was not that Jesus was the Messiah, but that He is the Son of God,[39] or that his mission entailed not a political coup, but the suffering by way of the cross.[40] Perhaps the secret actually goes beyond these brief descriptions and involves the entire gospel. In other words, until the resurrection, Jesus kept secret that He is the Messiah who would deliver his people, but would do so by suffering and death by crucifixion rather than by political revolution (at least at this time). After all, when He explained this plan to his disciples on several occasions, they never fully understood it, not even after the resurrection (cf. Acts 1:1–8).

Mark also used the word “lord” occasionally in a distinctive theological sense. Most often the word κύριος occurs as a form of address (viz. “sir”). Mark, however, appears to use it this way only once when the Syrophoenician woman addressed Jesus after He said the children should first be satisfied. Her response was essentially, “Yes, sir [κύριος], but even the dogs under the table feed on the children’s crumbs” (Mark 7:28). In all the other uses by Mark, he used κύριος as a designation or title of Jesus: Lord. In this way, Mark signified Jesus as Master, one who has power over and control of something. For example, the mission of John in chapter 1 includes the proclamation, “Make ready the way of the Lord” (1:3). Consider also Jesus’ admonition to the man who had been demon-possessed. “He said to him, “Go home to your people and report to them what great things the Lord has done for you, and how He had mercy on you” (5:19b).[41]

Finally, Mark used two significant phrases in his Gospel that, while not necessarily unique to him, are key phrases in his theological vocabulary: “Son of Man” and “Son of God.” The latter may be a Messianic title, but Mark seems to have used it more as a designation of Jesus’ identity. He openly declared Him to be the Son of God in the first verse of his narrative; then, at strategic places throughout his Gospel, Mark framed his narrative with declarations of Jesus as the Son of God. On two occasions, for instance, the demonic world declares his identity as Son of God (3:11; 5:7); but the real framework appears in 1:11 and 9:7 wherein God Himself declares Jesus as his Son. He did this initially at Jesus’ baptism at the beginning of the Lord’s Galilean ministry; then at Jesus’ transfiguration, at the beginning of his journey to Jerusalem to complete his earthly ministry; and, then finally, as He breathed his last breath on the cross, the Roman centurion acknowledged Him as the Son of God.

Concerning the use of the term “Son of God,” Ralph Martin noted that Mark “is harking back to the Old Testament-Jewish tradition by which ‘Son of God’ denoted a special agent chosen and invested with a mission, offering obedience to the point of suffering and humiliation, and vindicated at length by God.” To this he added a note to bring Mark’s use of the term to completion, specifically in relation to Jesus’ identity. “In Mark’s hands, the figure is enriched by the personal element of a unique relationship in which Jesus stands to God as His beloved one, the Son par excellence.”[42] Even though in the first “half” of his Gospel, Mark showed Jesus functioning as Messiah, he never lost sight of his true identity as God’s beloved Son; and he seems to have framed the entire gospel message with these references to assure his readers, too, that they would not completely lose sight of this fact.

The first of these phrases — “Son of Man” — is the more comprehensive one as used by Jesus Himself. The prevailing view among New Testament scholars is that this phrase was a Messianic title in use among the Jews of Jesus’ day. If this is true, it probably originated from the passage in Daniel (7:13ff.) in which the prophet had a vision of the coming kingdom of God. Commenting on this possibility, J. Y. Campbell noted, “It is therefore possible that Jesus Himself took the title directly from Daniel, and that by using it of Himself was claiming to be that Son of Man to whom had been given, the everlasting kingdom foretold in the prophet’s vision.”[43] Lemcio would agree with this because, as previously noted, he observed, “Jesus alone defines Himself and His role exclusively by means of ‘the Son of Man,’ whether this be privately or publicly. . . .” In keeping with the secrecy idea, particularly in connection with Christ’s Messianic role (or identity as Son of God, depending with whom one agrees), Lemcio added, “It is quite common for Him to shift to ‘Son of Man’ when others use ‘Christ.’”[44] In fact, it appears that Jesus used the title Son of God quite sparingly while frequently referring to Himself and his mission with the phrase “Son of Man.”

The distinct phrases and terms Mark used in developing his narrative of the gospel of Jesus Christ all reflect in some way the identity of Christ. Jesus is the Messiah whether or not He initiates a political revolution at this time. The entire spirit world and a few members of the human world acknowledged Him as Son of God. He is Lord; and as Son of God, Lord, and Messiah, He is the Son of Man in both its human connotations and its Messianic sense to accomplish the mission entrusted to Him by his heavenly Father.

Mark’s Gospel And Others

Since Mark penned the first Gospel, it is natural to consider what relationship the other Gospels bear to his. Luke Timothy Johnson noted, “Most scholars think that Mark was written first and that Matthew and Luke followed Mark in the composition of their narratives, deriving from him the basic order of the story as well as much of their material.”[45] Each of the writers obviously did some picking and choosing from the traditions available to them according to their own purposes, but essentially, they followed a similar narrative pattern to Mark’s so that all three Synoptic Gospels develop a narrative of events in the life of Christ that provides substance to the New Testament proclamation of God’s good news.

The Synoptic Gospels delineate various facets of Jesus as the Son of Man in the human sense. John went a step further to declare and expound Jesus’ identity as the Son of God. In this sense, John and Mark contrasted their themes, while portraying the whole picture of Christ as the God-Man.

Furthermore, the Epistles of Paul develop in an expository way the good news of Jesus Christ portrayed in the Gospels. If the gospel is essentially summarized in the experience of the cross (i.e. the passion narrative), then Mark’s narrative expands upon the declaration of Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3–5, “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.” The Epistles of Paul, Peter, James, John, and even the writer to the Hebrews all basically develop an exposition of the good news that Mark and the other Gospel writers established with their narratives, focusing on Jesus to explain the implications of his death and resurrection, as well as the responsibilities of his disciples as they follow Him. In effect, the Gospels are the heart of the New Testament, while the rest of the New Testament is commentary, that is, the expression and explanation of that spirit to his people and to the world.

Only Revelation, with its apocalyptic visions is different; but it, too, relates to Mark in that while Jesus expressed his eschatological discourse in Mark 13, Revelation completes the picture to give a fuller depiction of the consummation of the gospel both of Jesus Christ and of the kingdom of God. One could diagram the relationship this way:

Mark	Gospels	Acts	Epistles	Revelation
First Gospel	Expansion of Mark’s Basic Narrative	Transitions to the Expositions and Continuation of the Gospel	Exposition of the Gospel	Consummation of the Gospel
Introduction of the Gospel		Proclamation of the Gospel: through Word and Life

Thus, Mark actually consists not only of the first and earliest of the Gospels, but also it provides the introduction to the Gospel message of the entire New Testament. Mark’s Gospel establishes and summarizes key theological themes for the New Testament, focusing on the good news message of Jesus Christ, the mission of the Lord, and the eschatological message of the Messiah, as well as relating other themes to the gospel as appropriate.

To summarize, this brief Gospel has a twofold theology designed to motivate disciples to follow Christ and to proclaim his Gospel. Mark described Jesus as the Servant of God ministering to others in the first half of his Gospel, and as the Son of God traveling to the cross to die as a ransom for many in the second half of his Gospel. According to the key verse, Jesus came to serve and to die; then He called his disciples to follow Him in service and death.

Make us Thy labourers,
Let us not dream of ever looking back,
Let not our knees be feeble, hands be slack,
O make us strong to labour, strong to bear,
From the rising of the morning till the stars appear.

Make us Thy warriors,
On whom Thou canst depend to stand the brunt
Of any perilous charge on any front,
Give to us skill to handle sword and spear,
From the rising of the morning till the stars appear.

Not far from us, those stars,
Unseen as angels and yet looking through
The quiet air, the day”s transparent blue.
What shall we know, and feel, and see, and hear
When the sunset colours kindle and the stars appear?[46]

Notes

1. Luke Timothy Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation, rev. ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999) 159.
2. Ibid.
3. Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture references are from the New American Standard Version, 1995 edition.
4. Merrill C. Tenney, New Testament Survey (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961) 159.
5. Norman Perrin, The New Testament: An Introduction (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1974) 146.
6. See William L. Lane, The Gospel According to Mark (New International Commentary on the New Testament) (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974) 29–32; R. A. Cole, The Gospel According to St. Mark: An Introduction and Commentary (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961) 51–54; Vincent Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1957) 107–11.
7. Andrew Jukes, Four Views of Christ (1853; reprint, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1982) 53.
8. Johnson, Writings of the New Testament, 160.
9. George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) 229.
10. Johnson, Writings of the New Testament, 170.
11. This was an insightful confession since the word Christ is the Greek word Χριςτός, (Christos) corresponding to the Hebrew מָשִׁיתַ (Mashiach), Messiah.
12. The ending of the Gospel of Mark has been the subject of academic debate for some time. Paul J. Achtemeier noted, “The last verses in the text of Mark (16:9–20) are included in some translations, but they do not appear in the earliest manuscripts. These verses are clearly an amalgam of traditions from the other three gospels which was appended to the Gospel of Mark to provide it, like the others, with resurrection appearances” (“Mark, Gospel of,” in Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6 vols. [New York: Doubleday, 1992] 4:546]. For additional discussion, see Norman R. Peterson, “When the End is Not the End? Literary Reflections on the Ending of Mark’s Narrative,” Interpretation 34 (April 1980): 151–66; Donald H. Juel, The Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999) 167–76; William L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974) 601–05; John Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of Mark (1871; reprint, Grand Rapids: Associated Publishers and Authors, n.d.).
13. Martin Kähler, TheSo-called Historical Jesus and the Historic Biblical Christ (Fortress Texts in Modern Theology), trans. Carl E. Braaten (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1964, 1988) 80, n. 11.
14. C. E. B. Cranfield, “Mark, Gospel of,” in Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, 5 vols. (New York: Abingdon Press, 1962) 3:270.
15. Ibid.
16. Willi Marxsen, Mark the Evangelist, trans. James Boyce, Donald Juel, William Poehlmann, with Roy A. Harrisville (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1969) 31.
17. Ralph Martin, Mark: Evangelist and Theologian (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972) 141.
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid. 142.
20. Norman Perrin, “The Creative Use of the Son of Man Tradition by Mark,” Union Seminary Quarterly Review 23 (1968): 357.
21. Martin, Mark, 144.
22. Perrin, “The Creative Use of the Son of Man Traditions by Mark,” 358.
23. Jack Dean Kingsbury, The Christology of Mark’s Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983) 75.
24. Ibid. 86.
25. Eugene E. Lemcio, The Past of Jesus in the Gospels (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1991) 32.
26. Ibid. 33.
27. James L. Blevins, “The Christology of Mark,” Review and Expositor 75 (Fall 1978): 506.
28. Christopher Tuckett, “Introduction: The Problem of the Messianic Secret,” in The Messianic Secret, ed. idem (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983) 21.
29. Tuckett’s work offers nine essays originally written over nearly two decades (1961–76) from which a dialogue could begin on this subject. He concluded with an extensive bibliography for further research. In addition to Tuckett, one may consult Heikki Räisänen, The “Messianic Secret” in Mark’s Gospel, in The Messianic Secret; and, C. M. Tuckett, “Messianic Secret,” in Anchor Bible Dictionary, 4:797–800.
30. Georg Strecker, “The Theory of the Messianic Secret in Mark’s Gospel,” in The Messianic Secret, 61.
31. Lemcio, Past of Jesus in the Gospels, 41.
32. Ibid. 37.
33. Ibid.
34. Martin, Mark, 21.
35. C. F. D. Moule, The Birth of the New Testament, 3rd ed. (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1981) 4, emphasis added.
36. Ladd, Theology of the New Testament, 229.
37. J. Y. Campbell, “Christ,” in A Theological Word Book of the Bible, ed. Alan Richardson. (New York: MacMillan, 1950) 45.
38. See William Wrede, The Messianic Secret, trans. J. C. G. Greig (Cambridge: James Clarke & Co., 1971) 24–81, 211–30.
39. Compare, for example, Kingsbury, Christology of Mark’s Gospel, 15, 21–22.
40. Compare, for example, T. A. Burkhill, “The Hidden Son of Man in Mark’s Gospel,” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 52 (1961): 190; Eduard Schweitzer, “The Question of the Messianic Secret in Mark,” in The Messianic Secret, 69–70.
41. Mark also used κύριος as a title in Mark 2:28; 11:3, 9; 12:11, 29–30, 36–37; 13:20; 16:19–20. The last two references included if one accepts, as this author does, the full closing as a legitimate ending to the Gospel.
42. Martin, Mark, 106.
43. Campbell, “Son of Man,” 231.
44. Lemcio, Past of Jesus in the Gospels, 37.
45. Johnson, Writings of the New Testament, 156.
46. Amy Carmichael, Toward Jerusalem (Fort Washington, PA: Christian Literature Crusade, 1936, 1977) 98.