M10b
The Kingdom of God
​
The focus of Jesus’ message in Mark’s Gospel is the kingdom of God. On this there is unanimity. The meaning of this message, however, for Jesus, Mark, and even for today continues to be debated. Greek and Hebrew word studies of “kingdom” in early Jewish and Christian literature have revealed abstract nuances of usage which often include the sovereign rule of God over all the nations, the manifestation of the strength of God, or the domain of God in an eschatological sense. Contrary to popular opinion, “kingdom of God” did not refer to heaven.
​
Jesus initiates the kingdom, but it does not appear to be fully realized during his ministry. One of the difficulties in understanding the kingdom is that it conveys both a future and present manifestation. On the one hand, Jesus announces that the time is fulfilled (1:15) and begins to demonstrate its present through acts of restoration, like exorcisms and the healing of the sick. Yet, on the other hand, it is implied that the kingdom will not fully come until Jesus returns; at which time, he will judge the wicked and vindicate those who have trusted in God’s reign (Mark 13:25-36), especially those who have suffered because of it. As for when this return will happen, Mark does not say. He is content to encourage his reader to live right on the edge, where the kingdom has arrived already, but not yet in its fullness (Mark 13:5-8; 21-22; 28-30). Furthermore, at the end of the story, when Jesus is on the cross, his cry “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” certainly does not convey that the kingdom of God has come. If anything, it implies despair.
​
​
Info Box 10.5: The “Nearness” of the Kingdom
Jesus’s proclamation in Mark 1:15 (“The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news”) is central to understanding his mission. The Greek word for “come near” (Ä“ngiken) can either mean “has arrived” or “is soon to arrive.” Some scholars also believe that the ambiguity was cleverly intended. The meaning of the word “come near” impacts how we understand the eschatological activities in ministry of Jesus, such as the gathering of twelve disciples, exorcisms, healings, and the transfiguration. If the kingdom has “come near,” then such activities have a foreshadowing role. If the kingdom has “arrived,” then these activities are its results.
​
​
So what does Mark mean by the arrival of the kingdom, even if it is not fully realized? The kingdom of God conveys both political and spiritual nuances. Politically, the kingdom of God should be viewed as a confrontation with the kingdom of Caesar. On one level of the story, Mark tells his audience that the good news of the kingdom is not to be found in the peace and prosperity of Rome, initiated by Caesar, the “son of a God.” Instead, true peace and vindication is achieved in the coming of the kingdom of God, initiated by Jesus, the true Son of God (cf. 1:1; 15:39). It is in the new community of disciples, not the empire, where God resides.
​
On another level of the story Mark tells his audience that God’s kingdom has finally come to confront the kingdom of Satan. Jesus’ healings and exorcisms throughout the story convey that the spiritual battle has begun. God, through Jesus, has come to win back his people and territory. The impact of this confrontation is realized when it is viewed against early Jewish eschatological expectations, which associated healings and exorcisms with the final battle of the age when God would come and establish his rule.
​
Mosaic of Jesus casting out demons into the Gerasene pigs (Mark 5). 6th century. Basilica of San ’Apollinare, Ravenna.
​
​
Both of the these nuances are brought together in the establishment of a renewed (eschatological) people of God rooted in the coming of Jesus who expresses the freshly operative strength of God and exemplifies the ideal devotee. The kingdom of God is not identified as a political or earthly institution that comes to overthrow the Roman and Jewish establishments. It comes to confront all earthly powers as a dynamic and mysterious coming of God in and through Jesus who is the expression of divine will and power.
​
The kingdom is not experienced in an individualistic or existential sense, but in a communal, even familial, setting consisting of those who, despite their bouts of misunderstanding and fear, have given up all things to follow Jesus. Entrance into the community of the kingdom is open to all who do the will of God (3:35), accept the word of God (4:20), trust in Jesus (10:14-15) and sacrifice everything (10:21-25, 28). Jesus’ choice of twelve disciples, who make up the core of the community, may even be symbolic of a renewed Israel, which includes Gentiles, such as the Syrophoenician woman (7:24-30) and the centurion who oversees the crucifixion (15:39). The new community is the “renewed people of God” or the “eschatological people of God” who are the expression of the encroachment of the kingdom insofar as they are constituted around Jesus.
​
The founding of a new community provides an important unifying perspective for reading Mark because it identifies Jesus’ mission. He does not arrive on the scene simply to confront the religious establishment or to reveal his own authority. His coming is not self-serving, nor is his mission simply to condemn his opponents. Instead his aim is one of service, from his baptism to his death, for the benefit of all who would follow (10:45).
Conflict
​
The encroachment of the kingdom of God upon the world initiates the conflicts that propel the plot. Jesus’ preaching of the kingdom, his signs of the kingdom and his establishment of the communality of the kingdom provoke an inevitable antagonism on the part of the Jewish religious leaders who are convinced that Jesus is neither the messiah nor the one through whom the coming of God is manifested. All who reject Jesus’ ministry are not only on the “outside,” but they represent the opponents of the kingdom of God because their allegiances are to competing kingdoms.
​
​
Relief of the Ara Pacis Augustae with Procession. Replica of 1st century original. Uffizi, Florence.The procession is led by Emperor Augustus (middle) as the pontifex maximus (“greatest pontiff”), the supreme priest of Rome.
​
​
The clash between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Caesar (or Rome) is more subtle and implied. Mark’s first verse identifies Jesus as both Christ and Son of God. His coming is the “beginning of the gospel.” As we have seen above, this kind of language would have subverted the widespread propaganda that the investiture of the emperor (especially Augustus), who was likewise called “son of a god,” was the beginning of the gospel (or good news). At the end of the story, Jesus is executed for sedition, and mocked as the king of the Jews, but shockingly identified by a Roman centurion, of all people, as the Son of God, which subverts the kingdom of Caesar.
​
Underlying the clash between Jesus and the religious authorities (also implying the Roman Empire) is the metaphysical struggle between God’s kingdom and Satan’s kingdom. As the former confronts the latter, beginning with the temptation account, the reader knows that despite apparent setbacks and tragedies, such as Jesus’ arrest and execution and the apostasy of the disciples, victory is assured. Since Satan cannot cast out Satan, those who have been exorcised actually represent the overpowering of Satan’s kingdom. In the language of analogy, Jesus claims that the “strong man” has been bound and his house has been plundered. Though victory is assured, the battle is not complete; for the initial actions of Jesus provide the basis and pattern for the ongoing conflict in which the disciples have been given authority to engage. The disciples are commissioned to follow Jesus in the ongoing process of the advancement of the kingdom (6:7-13; cf. 13:9-13).
​
Conflict permeates Mark even further. We find conflict between Jesus and his family who want to rescue him because they believe he has gone mad (e.g. 3:20-21, 31-35). Throughout the story there is conflict between Jesus and his disciples who constantly fail to understand his mission and teachings (e.g. 4:40; 8:14-21; 14:26-31). Finally, there is even conflict between Jesus and God, as seen for example in one of the most emotional passages in the New Testament where Jesus cries out his final words, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (15:34; see also 14:35-36).
Secrecy and Mystery
One of the most discussed themes in Mark is the secrecy and mystery associated with Jesus’ teachings and identity. Some of Jesus’ teachings contain cryptic parables, formulated as though they were only intended for the “insiders” or the enlightened among the crowds. On one occasion Jesus even tells his disciples that they alone were given “the secret of the kingdom of God” (4:11). By contrast, those on the “outside” are given parables, implying cryptic teachings that are difficult to decipher.
The entire passage is noteworthy:
​
When he was alone, those who were around him along with the twelve asked him about the parables. And he said to them, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything comes in parables; in order that
​
‘they may indeed look, but not perceive,
and may indeed listen, but not understand;
so that they may not turn again and be forgiven.’”
And he said to them, “Do you not understand this parable? Then how will you understand all the parables? (4:10-13).
​
​
At other times, Jesus tells those whom he heals not to divulge any information about their healing (e.g. 1:43-44; 5:43; 7:36; and 8:26). While all the Synoptics contain these kinds of requests, Mark makes them emphatic. The following parallel provides a good example of Mark’s tendencies.
​
​
​
The most common expression of secrecy, however, is associated with Jesus’ messianic identity. While the reader knows that Jesus is the messiah and Son of God (e.g. 1:1), the characters in the story are unaware, lack understanding, silenced, or not given the information. For example, when Peter confesses that Jesus is the Christ (even though his understanding is skewed), Jesus tells him not to tell anyone (8:30). When Jesus casts out demons, they acknowledge his identity as the Son of God, but he commands them to keep silent (e.g. 3:11-12). When Jesus is asked by Pontius Pilate, “Are you the king of the Jews?” (which is Roman terminology for messiah), his answer is vague, responding, “You say so” or “You say that.” Some scholars argue that since Pilate does not react in a stern manner, he understood Jesus’ answer as a negation. This reading parallels Luke’s version where Pilate issues the verdict “I find no crime in this man” (23:4). Others argue that Jesus’ answer is an affirmation, much like the exchange in the Gospel of John (18:33ff.) where Pilate’s question is followed by the dialogue about the “kingdom not of this world.” Another alternative is that to Pilate the answer means “no,” but to Jesus it means “yes”. Pilate only understands one kind of messiah, namely one who is a political threat.
​
​
Duccio, “Christ before Pilate,” 1311. Museo dell’ Opera del Duomo, Florence.
​
​
When Jesus is interrogated by the Jewish religious authorities, and asked, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” it appears as though Jesus finally acknowledges his identity. Jesus responds, “I am; and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power” (14:62). Scholars have pointed out, however, that not all of our best manuscripts agree on Jesus’ answer. Some of our manuscripts do not read “I am,” but instead read “You say so” or “You say that”, which can imply “not I, but you say that.” This is exactly how Matthew (26:64) records it. In Luke (22:66-67) Jesus responds, “If I tell you, you will not believe.” Whatever the reading, it is interesting to note that Jesus’ answer once again contains the title “Son of Man,” and not “Christ.” This pattern may suggest that Jesus disliked being called “Messiah,” perhaps due to the title’s strong political nuance.
​
Jesus’ reticence to use the title “messiah” (and even “Son of God”), technically termed the “messianic secret,” has generated considerable discussion. Scholars are perplexed why Jesus would have wanted to conceal his identity. Why is Mark’s portrayal of Jesus so different in this way than John’s, for example, where Jesus does not shy away from his identity? Proposals vary and are often dependent on how the conflicts in the evangelists’ communities are reconstructed.
​
​
Mosaic of Jesus healing the paralytic, from Mark 2, c. 6th century. Basilica of San ’Apollinare, Ravenna.
​
​
A few scholars speculate that Mark used ambiguity and secrecy to respond to assertions that Jesus never performed miracles. By couching the miraculous activity within the confines of secrecy, Mark could construct a variety of stories about Jesus and avoid criticism. The miracles were unknown because they were intentionally concealed by Jesus and his followers until the writing of Mark’s Gospel. This theory has not received much traction by the majority of scholars.
​
Others have proposed that the evangelist used the secrecy motif to explain why Jesus was not recognized as the Messiah in the public sphere. According to this view, Mark’s community may have faced opposition from Jewish contemporaries of Jesus who said that they never heard him claim that he was the Messiah. Mark’s response: Jesus did, but in private. While this explanation is more widespread, many scholars do not think that the evangelist would have faced opponents that had historical objections.
​
The majority of scholars hold that the evangelist used the secrecy theme theologically to explain that Jesus’ messianic identity was unique. It was not to be associated with the popular messianic movements that were characterized by military revolt. Rather, the proper understanding of Jesus’ messianic identity can only be seen in light of the cross, namely his service and obedience. Peter’s confession serves as a touchstone here. Though Peter correctly confessed Jesus to be the Messiah (Mark 8:29–30), he did not fully understand the type of Messiah Jesus was. Peter was, after all, expecting a conquering messiah who would liberate Israel from the yoke of the Roman occupation. So, when Jesus predicted his suffering and death, it did not correspond with the popular expectation. Jesus’ understanding of Messiah, according to Mark, was one who represents faithfulness, compassion, and love—a pattern for Israel to follow. It is possible that Mark may have been responding to the widespread Jewish criticism that Messiah would have been crowned in Jerusalem, and not crucified outside its gates.
Confusion about Jesus’ Identity
​
The theme of confusion about Jesus’ messianic identity is closely connected with the theme of secrecy. In the first half of the Gospel, none of the characters, apart from the demons, understand Jesus’ identity and mission. The examples are abundant. The religious leaders deny Jesus’ authority to forgive sins and convict him of blasphemy (2:6-7). They don't understand why his disciples do not fast (2:18). They do not understand why his disciples break the Sabbath (2:24) and the traditions of the elders (7:5). They are convinced that he is possessed by an unclean spirit (3:22). Jesus’ family tries to rescue him and take him home because they think he has gone mad (3:21). The fellow townspeople only see him as a carpenter (6:1-6). The crowd thinks that Jesus is John the Baptist, Elijah, or one of the prophets (6:14-15). Herod Antipas believes that Jesus is John the Baptist come back to life (6:16). The disciples marvel at the stilling of the storm and are confused (4:41). Finally, they continue to be confused after the feeding of the 5000 and the 4000 (8:14-21).
​
At the mid way point of the Gospel, Peter confesses that Jesus is the Messiah (8:29). A breakthrough seems imminent. The primary disciple has finally understood. But the illumination quickly gives way to more confusion. Peter fails to grasp the meaning and significance of Jesus’ messianic identity, interpreting it politically like his contemporaries. Soon after the confession, Jesus takes Peter, James, and John on top of a mountain where he is transfigures and identified by the voice from heaven as God’s son. When Jesus explains that he must suffer and die and rise on the third day, the disciples again misunderstand and remain blind to Jesus' true mission.
​
As the Gospel reaches its climax in the passion of Jesus, the confusion escalates. Judas betrays Jesus (14:10-11). The disciples flee (14:50). Peter denies Jesus (14:66f). He is mocked as a false messiah by the religious leaders (14:65), the Roman soldiers (15:16f.), the passers-by (15:29f.), the chief priests, the scribes (15:31f.), and even the criminals (15:32).
​
When Jesus dies, a Roman Centurion breaks through all of the confusion and ironically declares him to truly be the Son of God (15:39). This declaration, which directs us to the opening line, is the climax of the Gospel.
​
​
Info Box 10.6: Confusion Feeds Irony
Confusion feeds to irony throughout the Gospel, but emphatically so in the passion account. The outrageous message of the earliest Christians is well captured in Paul’s acknowledgement that the proclamation of a crucified Messiah is a “stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles” in 1 Cor 1:23. The same sentiment is found interwoven throughout the passion accounts of the Gospels. The disciples cannot make sense of Jesus’ predictions that he will suffer and die. When Jesus is arrested, their hopes are dashed and they flee. Like their contemporaries, they hoped for a Messiah who would alleviate suffering, not succumb to it. A suffering Messiah was simply not part of their eschatological repertoire. The irony was too big to grasp. Some have argued that even Jesus himself fell victim to dismay when he uttered the cry of dereliction, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34). Mark’s use of the Aramaic “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” appears to be intentional so as to create one last misunderstanding in a whole slew of misunderstandings. Once again, Mark creates irony. Those who should have known not only that Jesus is the messiah didn’t even pick up on the text that he was citing in their own language. They think that Jesus is calling on Elijah, which Matthew makes even more explicit, but like John the Baptist who is the Elijah figure in the narrative, Jesus suffers the same fate. It has often been said that the misunderstanding even extends to Jesus himself, who as Israel’s king, becomes the speaker of the psalm and feels the rejection of the one who sent him. The audience simply does not understand.
​
​
The surprising aspect of this theme is the constant confusion and misunderstanding on the part of the disciples who are most acquainted with Jesus and are privy to inside information. The disciples do not fair well in Mark, stumbling along in confusion and misunderstanding. They are a disappointment to Jesus from the moment they leave their nets to follow him. Yet, up until Jesus’ arrest, they remain by his side.
Mark’s unflattering portrayal of the disciples still baffles scholars. In addition to the explanations discussed above Section 10.6 (“Purpose”), one of the most common theological theories is that the evangelist wanted to present Paul’s understanding of election and justification (which is initiated by God alone) in narrative form. Since the disciples lack faith and understanding, there is nothing on their part that could hold them to follow Jesus. Their commitment to Jesus is attributed to Jesus’ call (1:16-20; 2:13-14; 3:13) and empowerment for mission (3:14-15; 6:7-13). Jesus calls and keeps them in spite of their obtuseness, and in spite of his knowledge that they will in the end betray, deny, and abandon him. Mark’s point seems to be that discipleship is a relationship initiated by the call of Christ, and maintained by his own faithfulness, not by anything the disciples did.
Jesus the Man
​
Anonymous, Christ with the crown of thorns, 15 c. National Museum of Warsaw. This German depiction captures the emotional state of Jesus during his suffering.
​
​
It is often said that Mark paints a portrait of Jesus that contains human frailties and limitations. While all of the Gospels describe Jesus as a man, in contrast to Gnostic descriptions where he only appears as a man, Mark does not shy away from attributing human weaknesses and shortcomings to him. For example, Jesus is described as a man prone to hunger (11:12) and susceptible to fatigue (6:31). He does not know when “this generation” will come to an end (13:32). He exhibits a full range of human emotions including pity (1:41), anger (3:5), compassion (6:34), resentment (10:14), love (10:21), and anguish (14:34). He struggles at times to understand the will of God (14:36). And his final words on the cross have often been understood as a cry of dereliction (15:34).
​
Mark’s tendency to portray Jesus with limitations is especially noticeable when parallel Gospel accounts are compared. For example, When Jesus travels back to his hometown (Mark 6:1-6; Matt 13:54-58), Matthew’s assessment differs from that of Mark.
​
​
​
Alongside these normal human experiences, Jesus is presented occasionally as one who transcends human abilities. For example, he is described as having knowledge of the future (e.g. 10:32-34; 13:2, 24-27; 14:18-20, 27-30) and knowledge of other peoples’ inner thoughts (2:8 and 12:15). He is transfigured before the disciples (9:3). He performs miracles that even surpass contemporary wonder workers (e.g. 6:47-50). Finally, he has an unusually close relationship with God (e.g. 1:11; 9:7).
​
​
Info Box 10.7: A Man Adopted by God?
Unlike in the other Gospels, Jesus’ divinity is not explicitly conveyed in Mark. Jesus appears on the scene as a man who followed in the ministry of the Baptist. Mark’s baptism scene (1:9-11), however, may imply that Mark understood Jesus as being more than human, possibly divine. When Jesus is baptized for the forgiveness of sins, a voice from heaven calls Jesus “my son.” Is this adoption? If so, then in the Roman context, Jesus is understood as inheriting all of the authorities and powers of God, in much the same way that Octavian inherited the Empire from Julius Caesar. This portrayal of divinity is different in both Matthew and Luke, where Jesus is born divine through the impregnation of the Virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit. It also differs from John, who portrays Jesus as pre-existing before creation as the Logos with the Father. When we talk about Jesus as being divine in the Gospels, we need to consider in what sense he is divine within the Greco-Roman context, which was more varied than in ours.
​
​
​
Try the Quiz
​
​
​
Bibliography
​
Beavis, M. A. Mark. Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011.
Collins, A. Y. Mark. Hermeneia Commentary. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007.
Dewey, J. “The Gospel of Mark as an Oral-Aural Event: Implications for Interpretation.” In The New Literary Criticism and the New Testament. Ed. E.
McKnight and E. S. Malbon. Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1994. Pages 145-63.
Evans, C. A. Mark 8:27-16:20. Word Biblical Commentary 34B. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001.
France, R. T. The Gospel of Mark. The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.
Guelich, R. Mark 1:1-8:26. Word Biblical Commentary 34A. Dallas: Word, 1989.
Gundry, R. H. Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.
Hare, D. R. A. Mark. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996.
Hatina, T. R. In Search of a Context: The Function of Scripture in Mark’s Narrative. JSNTSup 232. SSEJC 8. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002.
Horsley, R. A. Hearing the Whole Story: The Politics of Plot in Mark’s Gospel. Louisville, KY: Westminster/ John Knox, 2001.
Kelber, W. H. The Oral and Written Gospel: The Hermeneutics of Speaking and Writing in the Synoptic Tradition, Mark, Paul, and Q. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1997.
–––––. Mark’s Story of Jesus. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979.
–––––. The Kingdom in Mark: A New Time and a New Place. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974.
Kingsbury, J. D. Conflict in Mark: Jesus, Authorities, Disciples. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989.
Marcus, J. Mark 1-8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 27. New York: Doubleday, 2000.
–––––. The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark. Westminster/John Knox; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1992.
Moloney, Francis J. Mark: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004.
Nineham, D. E. St. Mark. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963.
Ong, W. J. Orality and Literacy. London: Routledge, 2002.
Rhoads, D., and D. Michie, Mark as Story: An Introduction to the Narrative of a Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982
​
Thompson, M. R. The Role of Disbelief in Mark. New York: Paulist Press, 1989.
Witherington III, B. The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.
​
​
​