M10a
The Gospel of Mark
Introduction
​
Throughout the history of Christianity, Mark has been recognized as one of the four canonical Gospels, but for most of that time it lay in the shadows of Matthew. It has only been in the last century or so that Mark has been viewed as Matthew’s source instead its abridgment. Today it is widely believed that Mark is the oldest written account of Jesus' ministry that we possess. As such, it is one of the most important sources for historical Jesus research. Historians have used Mark to validate numerous reconstructions of Jesus, which have not always agreed with one another, such as an eschatological prophet, a subversive wisdom teacher, a wandering cynic, and a nonviolent revolutionary.
​
​
Emmanuel Tzanes, Icon of St. Mark the Evangelist, 1657. Scanned from A Guide to the Benaki Museum, by Angelos Delivorrias.
​
​
Mark is the shortest Gospel. Unlike the other Synoptic Gospels, it does not include an infancy narrative of Jesus or a resurrection account. The story begins with the ministry of John the Baptist and ends with the discovery of an empty tomb by three women who are told by a figure dressed in white that Jesus has risen from the dead. The women flee the scene, afraid (16:8).
​
First-century Jewish tomb, Emmaus Nicoplis, 30km west of Jerusalem.
Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem. According to Christian tradition, this church (initially constructed in the 4th century) was built on the site of the tomb where Jesus was buried. If correct, this site may have looked something like the one on the left.
​
​
The first half of Mark is fast paced, moving from one vignette to another, holding the interest of its readers. The story slows down significantly after Peter confesses that Jesus is the Messiah (8:29). In contrast to the first half of the Gospel, which covers approximately a year of Jesus’ ministry, the second half covers approximately a week. With so much emphasis placed on the last week, some have called Mark a Passion Gospel with an extended introduction. By “passion” scholars refer to the suffering and death of Jesus.
​
Throughout the story, Jesus is portrayed as a misunderstood, secretive, and suffering messianic figure who announces the kingdom of God and attempts to enact it through the gathering of disciples, healings, exorcisms, legal and prophetic teaching, confrontations with the religious establishment, and predictions of restoration and resurrection.
​
Info Box 10.1: Longer Endings of Mark
While most bibles conclude Mark at 16:8 with the words, “and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid,” they also contain verses that extend Mark’s ending to 16:20. Mark 16:9-20, however, are almost always placed in parentheses with an accompanying explanation that they are not found in the most reliable manuscripts. Ancient manuscripts that contain all of Mark actually testify to four different endings: (1) at 16:8; (2) at 16:20, which is often called the “Long Ending”; (3) at 16:8 with an accompanying extension, often called the “Short Ending” (“And all that had been commanded them they told briefly to those around Peter. And afterward Jesus himself sent out through them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation”); and (4) at 16:20 along with the “Short Ending.” What is most interesting is that portions of Mark 16:9-20 appear to abbreviate and/or summarize accounts found in the other three Gospels and Acts, which suggests that some later scribes tried to harmonize Mark’s ending with other canonical writings.
Sources
​
In comparison to the other Gospels, the sources for Mark are much more difficult to determine. The overall composition conveys organization, consistency, and deliberate planning, which strongly indicates that it is the work of a single author. For example, predictions by Jesus in the earlier portions of the story are fulfilled later in the passion account. Themes also remain consistent throughout, such as secrecy and concealment of Jesus’ true identity. The uniformity of Mark adds to the difficulty of determining the sources that were used. They may have been written and/or oral. There is no way to be entirely certain. Even so, scholars offer a few theories of possible source material that was used by the author of Mark.
Written External Material
​
Mar Saba Monastery overlooks the Kidron Valley on the eastern side of the Old City of Jerusalem.
​
​
The most controversial proposal is that the author of Mark used external written sources in the composition of his Gospel. One of these sources is a document called the Secret Gospel of Mark. It is alleged by a handful of scholars that this document was an early edition of Mark. The document was discovered by Morton Smith at the Greek Orthodox monastery of Mar Saba near Jerusalem. While reading through ancient manuscripts, Smith came across a copy of a letter supposedly written by Clement of Alexandria (d. 215 CE), which included the Secret Gospel of Mark.
​
Another controversial source that a few scholars have proposed as a source is a shorter form of the Gospel of Peter, particularly for Mark’s composition of the passion narrative. Advocates, like John Dominic Crossan, have argued that portions of the passion account contain the earliest Jewish retellings of Jesus’ final week. The vast majority of scholars, however, argue that the Gospel of Peter is dependent on the canonical Gospels.
​
These proposals are intriguing and have captured considerable media attention, but among New Testament scholars they have a small following.
​
A page from the Secret Gospel of Mark. Photo by Kallistos Dourvas.
​
​
Info Box 10.2: On the Secret Gospel of Mark
Clement of Alexandria allegedly wrote against a Gnostic group’s pseudo-version of Mark, saying that he only recognized two versions. The first version was a public edition of the Gospel, which the evangelist Mark composed under Peter’s influence. This version was presumably the canonical Mark. The second version was a secret gospel written by the same Mark, which was a spiritual gospel written for elite devotees. According to Clement’s letter, when the evangelist died he left the secret gospel in the care of the Church of Alexandria, where it continued to be carefully guarded, only to be accessed by those initiated into the great mysteries. The publication of this secret Gospel caused a sensation both in academic and public spheres. Some scholars argued that the Secret Gospel of Mark was a forgery, even accusing Morton Smith directly. A few scholars still maintain that the work is legitimate. Morton Smith maintained the document’s authenticity until his dying day.
​
​
​
Internal Material Preserved in Mark
​
Another means of determining possible sources used in the composition of Mark is by analyzing the style of writing. Changes in style may indicate a reliance on sources, but it is very difficult to be certain what those sources would have looked like.
​
Some scholars have turned to the study of orality and social memory in order to find underlying layers of Mark that may have at one time functioned as sources. This approach draws on the social-scientific study of how stories are transmitted in non-literary cultures. We know that stories about Jesus and his teachings were transmitted orally long before they were written down in the Gospels. Many of Mark’s vignettes in the first half of the Gospel may well have circulated independently in early Christian preaching. A few scholars, like Joanna Dewey, have even argued that Mark’s Gospel has all of the characteristics of being a theatrical performance before it was written in the way that we today have it.
​
​
Roman theatre at Bosra, Syria, 2nd century CE. Although this theatre post-dates Mark, its appearance would not have differed from a 1st century theatre wherein Mark may have been performed.
​
​
Although this approach has yielded insights into the function of Mark’s material before it was embedded in the Gospel, it has produced minimal results with respect to the identification of actual sources. The main reason for this, as Walter Ong argues, is that the function of memory in oral cultures is oriented toward contemporary relevance. Events committed to memory tended to be synthesized into memorable patterns of speech so they could be easily recalled. The events remembered may well have a high degree of historicity, but they are not ultimately preserved for their own sake in an exact manner. If Mark is following this process, his sources, if any, are overshadowed by his focus on relevance. In other words, like other ancient writers, Mark’s concern for meaning would have overshadowed any concerns for reconstruction.
​
In contrast to Matthew and Luke, whose sources are identifiable, Mark’s sources at this point are much more tenuous. Sources from the early preaching of the church were certainly used, but their reconstruction and verification is difficult.
Authorship
​
Mark’s Gospel is anonymous, meaning that the author did not identify himself in the body of the writing. If the writing were aimed at the evangelist’s local congregation, instead of broad circulation, there would have been no need to include the author’s name. His identity would have been assumed.
​
Winged Lion, St. Mark’s Square, Venice. The symbol of a lion for Mark the evangelist is believed to have derived from Rev 4:7, which mentions the creatures around the throne of God (similar to that of Ezekiel). The lion may symbolize might or power and the wings may symbolize spirituality.
​
​
How then should we understand the title attributed to this work, “The Gospel According to Mark”? The origin of the title is debated. While a few scholars argue that it was part of the original writing, most opt for its later inclusion. It would have been a permanent fixture in the document by the end of the first century, probably when the Gospels started circulating together.
​
​
​
External Data
​
Triple arch gate of Domitian, built in the latter part of the first century CE, Hieropolis (today’s Pamukkale), Turkey.
​
​
Associating this Gospel with a person named Mark appears to be much older, probably going back to the time of the writing itself. So, who was Mark? The earliest traditions identify Mark as an associate or follower of Peter. The clearest reference comes from Papias, the bishop of Hieropolis (c. 120 CE). Although Papias’ writings have not survived, quotations from them have been preserved in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical Histories, written in the fourth century. According to Eusebius, Papias writes,
This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.
Scholars have been baffled by Mark’s connection to Peter because the Gospel does not paint a flattering picture of him, despite his leading position among the disciples. This is especially noticeable when the same accounts are compared in Matthew and Luke. In fairness, however, none of the disciples are portrayed any better in Mark (see chapter 9).
​
There are several references to individuals named Mark in the New Testament. In the book of Acts a certain John Mark, who is also simply called Mark, is associated with Peter, Paul and Barnabas (12:12, 25; 15:37, 39). In Philemon 24, Paul refers to a person named Mark in a list of “fellow workers.” In Col 4:10, a certain Mark is the cousin of Barnabas. In 2 Tim 4:11, Paul asks for Mark to be brought to him because of his useful service to his ministry. Finally, in 1 Pet 5:13, Mark is identified as Peter’s son, which may well be a metaphorical reference.
​
​
Lorenzo Veneziano, “Preaching of the Apostle Peter,” c. 1370. Staatliche Museen, Berlin.
​
​
All of these references could be combined into a composite picture of an individual named John, surnamed Mark. He was known to Peter in Jerusalem, and then became the companion of Paul with whom he had a falling-out. After they reconciled, Mark served both Paul and Peter in Rome, before their respective martyrdoms.
​
This composite, however, is difficult to verify. The New Testament texts might be referring to different individuals. We have no way of knowing. Mark was not an uncommon name in the Roman Empire during the first century. All the more it is difficult to associate any one of the references with the Mark to whom Papias was referring.
​
​
​
Internal Data
​
First-century Galilee, with Tyre, Sidon, and Gerasa in red font. Click on the image to expand.
​
​
From the Gospel itself, we can discern a few things about Mark the evangelist. He was a Jewish Christian who understood Aramaic, but wrote in Greek, which was probably his dominant language. He assumed that the scriptures of Israel were the Word of God (7:8). He was probably a leader of a community that had a basic understanding of Christianity. He was also probably not a native of the northern regions of Palestine, given some of the irregularities in his geographical descriptions of this region. For example, in 5:1 and 5:13, the distance between Gerasa and the Sea of Galilee is assumed to be much closer than it is. Likewise, the journey from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee via Sidon in 7:31 appears geographically awkward. Sidon is north of Tyre and the Sea of Galilee is south east of Tyre.
​
Theologically, the evangelist shares several ideas found in Paul’s writings, such as the centrality of the cross, the faithfulness of Jesus to his mission, the importance of devoted discipleship, and the evangelization of the Gentiles.
​
​
Date of Writing
​
Although there are sporadic attempts to date Mark in the 40s CE, the vast majority of modern scholars argue for a date just before or just after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 CE. The crux of the debate is the prophetic material concerning the destruction of the Temple in Mark 13. Two passages are prominent in dating process.
​
The first text is 13:1-2 where Jesus says to his disciples concerning the Temple, “Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down.” The second text is the warning of the “abomination of desolation” (referring to Roman presence) entering the sacred grounds of the Temple in 13:14.
​
​
Francesco Hayez, “Destruction of the Jerusalem Temple,” 1867. Galleria d’Arte Moderna, Venice.
​
​
Scholars are divided whether these predictions and warnings constitute actual predictions or recollections of the recent past in the form of predictions (so-called “post-eventu prophecy”), which were not uncommon in the ancient world. Post-eventu prophecies insured the credibility of the prophet and his supporters.
Those who advocate a post-70 dating often regard the events of Mark 13—such as wars, rumors of wars, false prophets, the abomination, famine, persecution, and fleeing to the mountains—as being too accurate in the life of Israel and the early Church to be regarded as pre-70 predictions. The events must have already happened when the evangelist wrote his Gospel.
​
​
Ruins from the destruction of the Jerusalem temple.
​
​
Others who advocate a pre-70 dating point out that the situation during the war would not have even required special prophetic powers. The warning of the “abomination of desolation” well fits the occupation of the Temple by the Zealots under the leadership of Eleazar in 67-68 and the events described throughout Mark 13 are thought to be too general for a post-eventu composition. It is also pointed out that the huge fire that caused the Temple to collapse, recorded in Jewish and Roman histories (Josephus War 6.250-87; Dio Cassius, History 66.6), is surprisingly missed if Mark wrote after the fact. Moreover, some have argued that since there were other Jewish public protestors and prophets who criticized the establishment throughout Israel’s history and even in the first century, like Jesus ben Ananias (Josephus War 6.300-6), it is not improbable that Jesus himself would have engaged in similar prophetic criticism.
​
​
Info Box 10.3: Antiochus IV and the Abomination of Desolation in 1 Maccabees
The warning in Mark 13:14 is reminiscent of an event that occurred less than 200 years earlier. The writer of I Maccabees recalls how the forces of Antiochus IV decimated the Temple in Jerusalem. He writes “So all the army assembled and went up to Mount Zion. There they saw the sanctuary desolate, the altar profaned, and the gates burned. In the courts they saw bushes sprung up as in a thicket, or as on one of the mountains. They saw also the chambers of the priests in ruins. Then they tore their clothes and mourned with great lamentation; they sprinkled themselves with ashes and fell face down on the ground. And when the signal was given with the trumpets, they cried out to Heaven (4:37-30, NRSV)”
​
​
Although it is difficult to know whether Mark was written before 70 CE or after, we can say that Mark was written in close proximity to the Temple’s destruction during a time of social unrest and eschatological fervor.
​
​
Place of Writing
​
Identifying the location of an ancient writing is an important step in its interpretation. Determining the social context helps us to better understand important terminology, such as “son of God,” and the conflicts that generated many of the New Testament writings.
​
Much of what we can determine about the location comes from the Gospel itself. Mark’s audience consisted mostly of recently converted Christians who were expecting the return of Jesus. They appear to have consisted of Greek speakers, who knew some Latin, but did not know Aramaic. We can surmise that at least part of the audience was not Jewish based on the author’s explanation of Jewish purification rituals and some Jewish religious terms such as “Satan,” “Beelzebul,” “Gehenna,” “Hosanna,” and “amen.”
​
So, where would have this audience resided? Over the years, Mark’s location has been narrowed down to either Rome or the Province of Syria.
Rome
​
Roman Forum.
​
​
Scholars have traditionally insisted that Rome was the place where Mark was composed and preached to a Jewish and Gentile Christian audience. This was the dominant view in the early Church. One of the earliest references comes from Clement of Alexandria, who may have been influenced by Papias’ attestation that Mark was a follower of Peter (see Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical Histories 2.15; 6.14.6). Since Peter was widely believed to have been a bishop of Rome, and later martyred there, Mark was likewise connected with that city. Historians today, however, are skeptical about Peter ever visiting Rome since this tradition about him developed over a century after his death, when the primacy of the Roman church was being forged.
​
Contemporary scholars who still regard Rome as the location of Mark point to several identifying features in the Gospel. (1) Mark contains several Latin words and expressions which would have been common in Rome, such as “legion” (5:9), “centurion” (15:39), quadran, which was a reference to a coin (12:42), and praetorium, which was the location where Jesus was tried by Pilate (15:16). (2) The implied suffering of Mark’s audience has been linked to the persecution of Christians in Rome during the reign of Nero. (3) The mention of a certain Rufus in Mark 15:21 along with Jesus’ cleansing of all foods in Mark 7:19 corresponds respectively to a reference to Rufus in Rom 16:13 and to Paul’s statement “I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean” in Rom 14:14. (4) Finally, since the author needs to translate Aramaic expressions (3:17; 5:41; 7:34; 14:36; 15:34), the audience would not have been residents of Palestine.
​
​
Syria
​
Several recent studies have pointed to a location much closer to Palestine, particularly the Roman province of Syria in the eastern part of the Empire. It is argued in light of Mark 13, which anticipates the destruction of the Temple, that the evangelist’s audience had recently experienced (or were in the process of experiencing) the effects of the Jewish war with Rome. Like many of the contemporaries, the audience may have been part of a large refugee movement that eventually settled in the Province of Syria. The preoccupation with the Temple’s destruction along with the implied anxiety about Jesus’ return points to a location where such issues were prevalent.
​
Roman Provinces of Palestine in the first century.
​
​
Mark’s Latin terms and expression (e.g. 12:42; 15:16), which have often been used as evidence for Rome, are no longer being limited to the western part of the Empire. Moreover, the references to persecution are more often being interpreted in light of the events connected with the revolt by Palestinian Jews against the Romans, rather than Roman persecutions of Christians. Exhortation to persevere before governors and kings (13:10) and warning of persecution and hatred of those who identify with Christ (13:12-13) can just as well be explained in the eastern part of the Empire, even Palestine.
​
When a broader survey of early Christian persecution is taken, the offending party is usually not Rome, but Jewish authorities, mobs, and client kings. For example, Josephus records that James, the brother of Jesus, was killed by a Jewish mob (Ant. 20.200). Likewise, Luke records that Agrippa I was responsible for the execution of James the son of Zebedee and the imprisonment of Peter (Acts 12:1-5). Mark 13 seems to reflect a similar situation, which would explain the warning in 13:9 of being tried and beaten in synagogues. Although there are no extant texts that record the persecution of Christians during the war, Josephus’ description of the mock trials held in Jerusalem by the Zealots between 68-70 CE (War 4.335-44; cf. 13:9) and references to the persecution of Christians by the Jewish leadership during the Bar Kokhba war in 132-35 CE suggest that Mark’s community experienced similar treatment. From a narrative perspective, the primary target of the political and religious hostility in Mark’s story is not the Romans, but the Jewish establishment.
​
​
Purpose
​
Identifying the purpose of any writing is another important step in the interpretation process. This is increasingly more important as the writing is further removed from the interpreter’s context. Since the New Testament writings were written in another language, culture, worldview, time, and addressed vastly different issues than ours, attention to the writing’s purpose is vital. The problem with many of the New Testament writings (Mark included) is that no explicit statement about the purpose is stated. What we have is one side of the original conversation—much like a one-way telephone conversation or only text messages from the sender. One of the many tasks in which biblical scholars engage is to reconstruct the original conversation by closely examining potential hints in the text. It is like detective work from a literary vantage point.
​
​
Il Pordenone, “St. Mark,” 1535. Museo Bella Arti, Budapest.
​
​
Traditionally, the purpose of Mark was understood to be general and practical—and extended to all the Gospels. Since Jesus’ disciples and other eyewitnesses either were dying or being killed, the evangelist composed his Gospel in order to preserve the early traditions about Jesus. The evangelist feared, supposedly, that the earliest testimonies about Jesus would perish along with the earliest followers. This view is rarely considered today because it does not address the specific issues and struggles with which Mark’s audience was wrestling. It also wrongly assumes that traditions were accurately preserved in written forms like archives. The process of transmission, which was largely oral, was far more complex. In addition, it assumes that Mark is simply a collection of traditions about Jesus. We know today that it was much more than that. The evangelist reworked the traditions and contemporized them, as did his fellow evangelists, for the benefit of his community.
​
In recent years a number of options have been proposed for the purpose of Mark. A few of these continue to receive attention.
(1) Some Markan scholars have seized on select passages that contain predictions of Jesus’ return and judgment (such as 8:34-9:1; 14:62; and especially chapter 13), arguing that the Jewish War led to an eschatological crises. Since Jesus had not returned and delivered his followers from the tragedies brought on by the war, Mark’s community experienced anxiety, abandonment, and a deterioration of faith. Mark’s Gospel is written to address these issues by assuring the audience that Jesus will return, even if the time is unknown. During the time of suffering, Mark stresses that faithful discipleship is the priority.
​
(2) Other scholars have argued that the overall aim of Mark was to confront opposition or confusion about Jesus’ messianic identity. It is difficult to know if Mark or his community was being confronted by Jewish opponents who denied Jesus’ messianic status or by rival Christian groups who believed that Jesus was messiah, but had a radically different understanding from that of Mark. Certainly, one of the pending problems for Christians in the first century was a crucified messiah. For Jews, the expectation of a messiah was tied to nationalism, vindication, and even supremacy. Messiah was to be king of an independent Israel, not crucified as a criminal by Israel’s oppressors. In light of this reconstruction, Mark was written as an apology (or defense) of Jesus as the crucified messiah. The evangelist attempts to demonstrate Jesus’ identity through his great deeds, character, prophetic abilities, teachings, and resurrection.
​
​
Mosaic of Jesus the Pantacrator, 1261, Hagia Sophia, Istanbul.
​
​
Other factors may have also precipitated writing a defense of Jesus as a crucified messiah. There may have been a considerable amount of shame associated with a belief in a messiah that was crucified by the Romans, which hindered evangelistic efforts. Mark’s Christians may have also needed to respond to allegations that Jesus never publicly claimed to be messiah. In his apologetic response, Mark demonstrates that Jesus revealed his identity only to those who were close to him, in secret.
​
(3) A few scholars have argued that Mark was written to encourage proper discipleship. It was meant to be a pastoral Gospel for a community of Christians struggling with faith in the context of social conflict. Mark intentionally presented Jesus’ disciples as representatives of his own community. As we have seen in chapter 9, when Mark’s portrayal of the disciples is compared with those of Matthew and Luke, they clearly appear to be struggling with their understanding of Jesus’ identity, mission, and teaching, lacking in sophistication and faith. Like the disciples, members of Mark’s community were lacking understanding and faith, perhaps even contemplating apostasy. Mark’s Gospel addressed this problem by essentially encouraging his congregants that faith crises are part of the pilgrimage of the disciple. As a pastoral question, Mark rhetorically asks, If Jesus’ disciples experienced struggles, while being close to him, how much more will disciples who are further removed from him experience similar (or even worse) crises of faith?
Whatever reconstruction one advocates, it needs to derive from, and be supported by, the writing itself in the broadest way possible. It is too easy and sometimes tempting to turn sacred texts into personal or denominational manifestos. The purposes of New Testament writings as sacred religious texts extend beyond the historical circumstances within which they were composed. They endure in the community of faith, spanning cultures and generations. Inquiry into the historical purpose, however, provides a safeguard when application and relevance takes on a self-serving guise.
Themes
​
Themes can provide rewarding entries into narratives by allowing for purposeful readings. Reading a story each time from the perspective of a different theme provides for a different vantage point and can lead to new discoveries. Each reading can bring to light previously hidden parts of the story. When reading Mark (and all the Gospels), students are encouraged to read it in its entirety each time from the perspective of the following themes.
The Centrality of the Cross
Pietro Perugino, “Deposition from the Cross,” c. 1507. Academia Gallery, Florence.
​
​
There is broad consensus that most of Mark’s Gospel concentrates on Jesus’ rejection, suffering, and death. This should come as no surprise since the last week of Jesus’ life, often called the Passion Account, dominates the entire Gospel. After Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Messiah in 8:29, the story slows down dramatically. The focus on the passion of Jesus has prompted some scholars to echo Martin Kähler’s now well-known description that Mark is essentially “a passion narrative with an extended introduction.” Mark’s focus is especially noticeable when compared with the other Synoptics. Unlike the other Gospels, Mark moves through the events leading up to the passion more abruptly, almost as if he wants to get the preliminary vignettes out of the way. One of the ways in which Mark achieves the rapid succession of events is by introducing the vignettes with the term “immediately.” In comparison, Matthew does not begin to introduce the plot to kill Jesus until chapter 12; and Luke waits until chapter 19.
​
Anyone who has spent time reading the New Testament will notice that the theme of the cross is not unique to Mark. It dominates early Christian thought, taking on multiple meanings. Mark’s understanding of the cross is also nuanced. It is not the same as Paul’s, for instance. While Paul was also interested in proclaiming the significance of Jesus’ death, his focus was often on its meaning for the Gentiles. Mark shares much of Paul’s perspective theologically, but does so in the context of Jesus’ ministry through his teachings, dialogues, parables, and miracles.
​
In Mark, Jesus does not merely come to heal the sick, win a couple of debates with the Pharisees, or tell a few cryptic stories to the masses. Mark tells his audience in one of the most revealing passages that “the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many” (10:45). We are not told exactly how this worked, why Jesus had to do it, or why God wanted it done. The idea of paying a ransom implies liberation from bondage. Mark may be saying that Jesus’ obedience, which culminated in his death, resulted in a new lease on life for “the many,” presumably those who follow him. Mark’s intention, though, may be broader, implying that his death enacted a covenant (14:24) that established peace between God and humanity. Either way, the cross serves as the primary symbol of a life lived in self-denial, service, and ultimately sacrifice.
​
​
Info Box 10.4: A Ransom for Many
Mark 10:45 is probably the most enigmatic and most debated passage in the Gospel. In addition to disputes about the saying’s origin—whether it came from Jesus, Paul, Palestinian-Jewish Christianity, Hellenistic-Jewish Christianity, or whether it was independent of the evangelist or written by him—it has been understood in two primary ways. Some scholars have argued that the motif of the suffering servant in Isa 52:13-53:12 (particularly 53:12, which describes the Servant interceding for transgressors) is the key to understanding the idea of a ransom. Jesus dies so that Israel would be freed from divine punishment. Others do not think that the Servant Songs in Isaiah play a role because the parallels are very slim. There is nothing in Mark’s context about a redemptive or atoning death. Instead, it is argued that since the Greek term for “ransom” (lutron) was never used of a sin offering, but of deliverance such as the exodus from Egypt, Jesus is talking about a freeing from the bondage of devils and this world into the kingdom of God. Jesus’ whole ministry is a service of self-sacrifice. Since he is the obedient one, he is the pattern. Those who follow in the service will be great in the kingdom of God, which was covenanted to Jesus by the Father. The idea of greatness is contrary to popular ideals. Since the authority of the son of man is not recognized, he suffers, but one day will be glorified much like we see the son of man glorified and served by the world in Daniel 7.
​
​
Hieronymus Bosch, Christ Carrying the Cross, c. 1516. Royal Palace of Madrid.
​
​
Jesus’ death does not seem to be viewed as a substitution for others. It is rather presented as a pattern for his followers. The pattern is the entirety of Jesus’ life of obedience, culminating in its highest expression, death. True discipleship emulates this pattern. For example, in 8:31, Jesus summons the crowd and challenges them, “if anyone wishes to come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.” This would have been an astounding request. The disciples could not comprehend it. Denying oneself, serving others, and embracing a cruel and shameful death was the mark of greatness (e.g. 10:33).
​
Mark tells his audience on several occasions that the life of service results in vindication, which is resurrection from the dead. For example, in 9:31 Jesus says, “The Son of Man is to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him; and when he has been killed, he will rise three days later.” Again in 10:34, Jesus says that after his suffering and execution at the hands of the Gentiles (presumably the Romans), he will be raised three days later. Against a Jewish backdrop, Jesus’ resurrection would have been understood as the beginning of the resurrection of Israel.
​
​
​
(Continued on next page)
​