The Traditional View about the Gospel of Mark - Essay Example

Mark’s Gospel: Understanding the Identity of Christ Introduction Insofar as the Gospel of Mark is thought to be the first of all the gospels, hencethe earliest form of Christian preaching, the quest for Jesus’s identity, including the historical Jesus, would have begun with Mark’s gospel (Barkley, 2001, p.2; Court, 1990, p.47). The traditional view about the Gospel of Mark had been that the Gospel was written in Rome in the second half of the first century AD, after the death of Apostle Peter, representing a “straightforward transmission of Peter’s reminiscences” by John Mark (Court, 1990, p.47). Thus, Mark was seen as a “translator or interpreter” of Peter – according to a statement made by a church father called Papias – with many commentators trying to identify his work with what “could only have come from Peter” (Court, 1990, p.47). On the other hand, as Drane points out, there are “remarkable similarities” between the first three gospels, aka the synoptic gospels, namely Matthew, Mark and Luke, which contain almost identical accounts of the teachings of Jesus; this comes to mean that they either derived their material from a common source or two of them are based on the third (2001, p. 1-2). Court writes that there has been “an explosion of a different kind of scholarly interest” in the Gospel of Mark during the second half of the twentieth century, with a different emphasis on what the writer – referred to as “Mark” – himself intended, presenting the materials he had collected in a particular way (1990, p. 47). Moreover, a close examination of the three synoptic gospels indicates that both Matthew and Luke used Mark’s gospel as the basis, “into which they fitted the extra material” they deemed it necessary (Drane, 2001, p.3). However, scholars widely agree that the Gospel of Mark is the “nearest thing” to a report of Jesus’s life, aiming to communicate a “picture of Jesus as he was” (Drane, 2001, p.6); while the complex themes Mark treats about the person of Jesus, along with the most pervasive and problematic feature – the theme of mystery and the hidden identity of Christ – actually denote a theological approach in the understanding of Christ (Court, 1990, p.48-49; Moloney, 2002, p.6). The Concept of the Kingdom of God Although Mark’s gospel tells the facts of Jesus’s life, as stated by Drane, “in the simplest and most dramatic way”, it begins with the declaration of faith (2001, pp.6-7): “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ (the Son of God)” (Mark 1:1 New American Bible). Moving rapidly from John the Baptist to Jesus by means of water-baptism and the voice from heaven, Mark introduces the closely interrelated themes of the Kingdom of God and Jesus’s status; while in chapter four, beginning with the story of the sower, the proclamation of the Kingdom of God is directly and inextricably bound up with the “presence and teaching of Jesus himself” (Court, 1990, p.49) – “The mystery of the kingdom of God has been granted to you. But to those outside everything comes in parables” (Mark 4:11 New American Bible). Thus, “the mystery of the Kingdom of God” would appear the basis for the understanding of Christ as an “eschatological figure and worker of miracles”, while, at the same time, the gospel renders quite a human picture of Jesus (Court, 1990, p.49; Drane, 2001, p.7). The status of Jesus is further enhanced by the miracle stories, like the faith healings, expulsion of demons, feeding the crowds, etc., which indicate the availability of special powers and create not only a sense of mystery and awe, but also, and more importantly, a picture of caring compassion (Court, 1990, p.12). The fundamental questions of Jesus’s identity and authority are dealt with throughout the gospel; however, as Court points out, there are passages that reveal specific answers to these questions (1990, p.50). In chapter 1, the brief but impressive account of both the baptism and transfiguration of Jesus – “And a voice came from the heavens, You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased” (Mark 1:11 New American Bible) – denotes the conformation of Jesus’s status by God himself (Court, 1990, pp.49-50). In turn, the divine authority of Christ is affirmed later on, during the episode in Capernaum – “The people were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority and not as the scribes” (Mark 1:22 New American Bible). Another, much more definite affirmation of Jesus’s authority is found in the words of “a man with an unclean spirit” (Mark 1:23 New American Bible) during that very preaching in the Capernaum synagogue – “What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are – the Holy One of God!” (Mark 1:24 New American Bible). Chapters eight and ten of Mark’s gospel present additional answers in regard to the question of Jesus’s identity. Thus, having set out “for the villages of Caesarea Philippi” with his disciples, Jesus asked them “Who do people say that I am?” (Mark 8:27 New American Bible); and the answer of Peter is rather indicative – “You are the Messiah” (Mark 8:29 New American Bible). The broad outline of Jesus’s mission is given via His words – “For the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45 New American Bible). Thus, in the process of answering the questions of Jesus’s status and authority, Mark implies the idea of “a hidden identity of Christ”, which, according to Court, is expressed “fairly consistently” throughout the gospel via different devices and formulas (1990, p.50). The Hidden Identity of Christ In formulating the “messianic secret” theme, or, as Court points out, the Christological insight into Christ’s hidden identity, Mark employs literary means; being regarded more as a “complex development of implications”, rather than a “straightforward set of historical statements”, what is considered “hidden” in the identity of Christ is actually what Christians claimed for Christ by that time, but not Christ for himself (Court, 1990, p.51). Thus in Chapter one, Christ commands silence from demons – “Jesus rebuked him and said, “Quite! Come out of him!” (Mark 1:25 New American Bible); while other miracle stories reveal His formidable power over demons, diseases and death – “He cured many who were sick with various diseases, and he drove out many demons, not permitting them to speak because they knew him” (Mark 1:34 New American Bible). The theme of ‘secrecy’ is further advanced when witnesses of the miracles are warned against telling anyone about their experiences – “Then, warning him sternly, he dismissed him at once. Then he said to him, “See that you tell no one anything” (see Mark 1:43-44 New American Bible); as well as when Jesus commands silence from the disciples – “Then he warned them not to tell anyone about him” (Mark 8:30 New American Bible). The theme also could be traced in the attempts to conceal where Jesus is (Mark 7:24; 9:30 New American Bible) and the cryptic speech – as Court (1990) points out – the private teaching to a few (Mark 7:17; 10:10 New American Bible); as well as in the cryptic action, or miracles with few witnesses (Mark 1:29-31; 5:40 New American Bible). Court also indicates the theory of parables as consealing meaning and the failure of disciples at understanding Jesus as further continuation of the secret theme (1990, p.51; see Mark 4:10-13, 33, 40; 6:50; 7:18; 8:16; 9:5 New American Bible). Thus, Jesus in the Gospel of Mark appears a figure “with an aura of mystery”, while the secret of “who Jesus really is” is shared by relatively few in the gospel; whereas the demons, who were expelled from humans, knew the truth that was concealed from most of the human participants in the story (Court, 1990, p.51). Some of the disciples, despite having generally failed to understand Jesus, sometimes glimpsed the truth; just like Peter did at Caesarea Philippi, although his understanding is partial: “He spoke this openly. Then Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. At this he turned around and, looking at his disciples, rebuked Peter and said, “Get behind me, Satan. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do” (Mark 8:32-33 New American Bible). On the other hand, having witnessed the Transfiguration, James, John and Peter did share the insight but are forbidden to “to relate what they had seen to anyone, except when the Son of Man had risen from the dead”, i.e. after the Resurrection (Mark 9:9 New American Bible). Thus, the whole complex of mystery, along with the true meaning of the parables would be revealed after the Resurrection; however, since the disciples still fail to understand “both immediately after the revelation and subsequently”, the key to understanding Jesus was the experience of His Resurrection (Mark 9:19; 10:24; 14:37 New American Bible; Court, 1990, p.52). Another person in Mark’s gospel, who shares the secret of Christ’s identity with “supernatural beings and the occasionally comprehending disciples”, was the Roman centurion who witnessed the death of Christ on the cross (Court, 1990, p. 52) – “When the centurion who stood facing him saw how he breathed his last he said, “Truly this man was the Son of God” (Mark 15:39 New American Bible). Thus, one of the two major titles used by Mark for delineating Jesus’s identity is employed at that point most dramatically – a Gentile “penetrates” the secret of Jesus’s identity; where the revelation moved from the experience of Resurrection to the experience of the death, which is considered very important in doctrinal terms (Court, 1990, p.52). The Son of God and the Son of Man As stated above, Mark uses the two titles “Son of God” and “Son of Man” for delineating Christ’s identity against the general background of mystery and hidden meanings; while in regard to the former title, opinions are divided as to how it should be understood (Court, 1990, p.55). There are two possible interpretations – the one is of a Jewish term which denotes “the loyal and suffering servant of God, or the royal messianic figure”, but which do not designate an essentially divine status; whereas the Greek term refers either to a supernatural being, a “divine man”, or a ,manifestation of God in human form (Court, 1990, p.55). The origin of the term “Son of Man” is considered even more problematic than the previous one, being freely available within Judaism to apply to a messianic figure, or mediator between God and man, as well as either a generic form of humanity, or a particular human being such as a prophet (Court, 1990, p.57). The term, however, underwent considerable development with Christianity towards an individual interpretation, which in the work of evangelist Mark could serve to underline the identification of Jesus with human beings, and the peculiar to humans experiences such as suffering, passion and death (Court, 1990, p.58). Conclusion According to Wrede, Mark did not write history, but rather had told the story of Jesus of Nazareth, deliberately imposing “a Christian dogma upon the narrative” (Moloney, 2002, p.6). Thus, Mark’s gospel, along with the others that followed, is considered theologically motivated (Moloney, 2002, p.6); insofar as the most mysterious truth for Mark is that Jesus goes the way of the cross and dies “as a matter of divine necessity”, it apparently represents the central doctrine in Mark’s theology (Court, 1990, pp.58-59). So, the very heart of Mark’s understanding of Christ is to be sought and found in the apparent paradoxes of, and contrasts between “the hidden Son of God” and “the suffering Son of Man” (Court, 1990, p.60). References Barclay, William. (2001). The Daily Study Bible: The Gospel of Mark. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press. Court, John M., and Court, Kathleen M. (1990). The New Testament World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Drane, John. (2001). Introduction. In W. Barclay, The Daily Study Bible: The Gospel of Mark. (pp. 1 – 11). Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press. Moloney, Francis J. (2002). The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. Read More