Part 86
(1:1-13) Introduction There is widespread agreement that the opening verses of Mark form an introduction to the book as a whole. As such they set the scene for the detailed story that is to come. Moreover, in many respects they identify the characters of the story and define the terms in which Mark intends it to be read. As we shall see, the motif of secrecy is an important theme in Mark's narrative: on several occasions characters in the story fail to understand who Jesus is or what his ministry is about. Yet for the reader of the gospel there is no secrecy at all: Jesus' identity is disclosed right from the start. On the other hand, not everything is revealed, otherwise Mark's story would be redundant. Thus Jesus is identified as Son of God in these introductory verses; but the full significance of what it means to be a/the true Son of God is maybe only shown by the ensuing narrative. Older editions of the text, and older commentaries, suggested that the introduction comprised w. 1-8. However, it is now widely accepted that the introduction goes at least as far as v. 13, if not v. 15. Certainly w. i—8 are incomplete without the sequel in w. 9—13 which serve to identify the person of Jesus.
This is made clear in v. 9: the one announced by John is Jesus from Nazareth. Further, Jesus is now baptized by John. Historically it seems very likely that this reflects a real event in the life of Jesus. (Later writers are clearly embarrassed by it: why should Jesus, the sinless Son of God, be baptized for the forgiveness of his sins? However, Mark shows no such embarrassment.) But what the event might have meant in Jesus' psyche we just do not know. The most we can say is that it probably signified Jesus' commitment to John's cause and expressed his agreement with his message. For Mark, the significance of the event is that this is the moment when Jesus' identity is given the absolute seal of divine approval: God himself declares Jesus to be His Son. The reader is now in no doubt: the story to come is the story of the Son of God. The precise meaning of'Son of God' in Mark is much debated. The words of the voice from heaven here conflate two OT verses in
Almost every aspect of v. i is debated. The words 'the Son of God' are missing from some Greek manuscripts, but probably do represent the original text of Mark: the importance of the term for Mark's Christology, and the key place of this opening verse to announce the terms of the story to come, make this highly probable. The 'good news' is in Greek euaggdion, or 'gospel'. Elsewhere in the NT, the gospel is the Christian message which is preached; it is not a literary product which is written or read. The same is probably true here, though this verse may have contributed to the process whereby 'gospel' became the term to refer to a written account of the life of Jesus. It is not clear how this gospel is the gospel 'of Jesus
MARK
good news'. It is worth noting that here, as throughout the synoptic gospels generally, the object of faith is not Jesus himself. Here it is the gospel, the good news, which must be 'believed'. Jesus becomes the object of faith after Easter. Thus Mark seems to reflect the pre-Easter situation quite well in that Jesus does not refer to himself explicitly as the focus of the belief of others.
addressing Jesus as 'Son': Ps 2:7 (suggesting a royal figure) and Isa 42:1 (implying an idea of Jesus as the servant); in addition the words 'the beloved' may recall the words of Abraham about Isaac (cf Gen 22:2). The phrase 'Son of God' can have a wide range of meanings. Later it came to signify Jesus' full divinity as a member of a divine Trinity. But in the first century the term had no necessary overtones of divinity: it could refer to a royal figure (cf. Ps 2:7), or to the nation Israel (cf. Hos 11:1) or to a righteous sufferer (cf. Wis 2:17). Perhaps it would be wrong to press Mark into too rigid a mould here: Jesus is a royal figure (as will be stressed particularly in ch. 15); but as Son of God he is supremely one who will suffer and die. Indeed it may be Mark's intention precisely to spell out in his story the way in which true divine sonship should be seen. The reference to the heavens being 'torn apart' indicates a theophany (cf. Isa 64:1); and the coming of the Spirit again implies the fulfilment of Jewish eschatological hopes (cf. Joel 2:28—31 cited in Acts 2:17—21). The significance of the Spirit being symbolized as a 'dove' is uncertain, but may allude to the creation story in Gen 1:2 where some Jewish exegetes interpreted the words there as referring to the Spirit 'hovering' like a dove. In that case, the story here may again be indicating the start of a new creation.
What is announced here is that the kingdom in its fullness is still to come. However, there is a sense in which the events of Jesus' ministry represent the fulfilment of eschatological hopes, so that the kingdom is in part already present in the work and preaching of Jesus. Thus the eschatological claims in Mark have a characteristic dual element: the eschatological events are proclaimed as due to come—and to come soon— but also they have already partly arrived in the person of Jesus.
After the summary statement of Jesus' preaching the story moves on to a different level with the more historical account of Jesus' ministry in Galilee.
(1:16-20) Call of Four Disciples The first event narrated by Mark is the call, and response, of the first four disciples of Jesus. The story is told in an extremely compressed way. No unnecessary detail of information is supplied. It is thus quite pointless to speculate, for example, on why the disciples responded without demur, or whether Jesus had met them beforehand. Mark is not interested in the psychology of the disciples or of their response. Rather, for him the centre of the action is once again the person of Jesus: Jesus is the one who calls and summons others to be his followers with the single authoritative word 'Follow me!'; and those who are summoned in this way obey him without any hesitation. Yet whilst it is the case that Jesus is the central character in the story, it remains the case that the disciples will also occupy a key role in the narrative to come. Much has been written on the role played by the disciples in Mark's story, focusing in particular on the very bad press they get later, when they fail to understand Jesus (cf 8:17-21) and finally desert him completely (cf. 14:50). (See Weeden 1971; Tannehill 1977.) Here it must be said that the portrait of the disciples is entirely positive: Jesus calls them and they obey him instantly and without reserve. The effect of the story is thus to place the disciples in a good light so that the reader responds to them thoroughly positively. Any negative portrayal of the disciples later in the story will have to be balanced against this initial picture.
w. 12-13 recount the so-called 'temptation' of Jesus ('testing' would be a better description.) The story is much shorter than the threefold temptation story of Jesus in Matthew and Luke. Jesus is in the wilderness for 'forty days' (a time with many OT resonances: cf. Moses in Ex 34:28; Elijah in i Kgs 19:8). The 'testing' by Satan is probably to be thought of as a titanic struggle with the powers of evil. The exact details are uncertain (e.g. does the struggle last for forty days? Do the angels minister during, or after, the struggle? What do the wild beasts signify?). But the general thrust of the narrative seems to be that Jesus is victorious in the battle against Satan. Mark probably intends the story to act as the interpretative key for at least part of the narrative to come. Exorcisms and battles with unclean spirits will occupy a significant part of Jesus' ministry. The temptation narrative shows that these are part of a broader eschatological battle with the powers of evil; and also that Jesus is victorious in that battle, as 3:22-30 will show.
(1:14—15) Jesus' Preaching This is something of a transition, in which Mark gives what is probably intended as a summary of Jesus' preaching. John is almost forgotten (his arrest is mentioned only in passing, and no reason for it is given): all attention is focused on the person of Jesus. Yet Jesus' preaching does not focus on himself, but on God. It is the time of the fulfilment of Jewish eschatological hopes ('the time is fulfilled'), and Jesus proclaims the imminence of the kingdom of God. (The verb 'has come near' represents a Greek word which probably implies that the kingdom is very close, but not yet present.) Reflected here are Jewish eschatological hopes for the intervention of God in the affairs of the world to establish himself as king and for his kingly rule to be acknowledged by all. (The 'kingdom of God' is probably meant in an active sense of God ruling as king, rather than as a spatial area over which he rules.) The time is thus one of the imminent fulfilment of eschatological hopes. In the face of this imminent event, people must 'repent', i.e. change their lifestyle in preparation for what is to come, and 'believe in the
The phrase 'fish for people' (lit. 'fishers of men/people') is highly unusual, despite its later popularity in Christian hymns and songs: the phrase suggests a somewhat harsh and negative activity of ensnaring for judgement (cf. Jer 16:16; Ezek 29:4—5). Mark refers to 'Simon' here, and only later (after 3:16) does he use the name 'Peter'. All four men called are fishermen; as such they were certainly not destitute in economic terms, apparently owning boats and probably making a reasonable living (cf. 10:28). Jesus' call to others to 'follow' him by joining him physically in his itinerant ministry is quite unlike that of a Jewish teacher having pupils who study the law under him. It is thus difficult to find any close analogies in the immediate Jewish background for the phenomenon of discipleship in the sense envisaged in the gospels. The theme of the authority of Jesus, which is clearly
MARK 890
by a demonstration of the cure or an acclamation. The final phrase ('she began to serve them') might be intended as just a piece of evidence that she really had been cured; alternatively, and more probably, it also shows Peter's mother-in-law performing what is, for Mark, the supreme Christian action of 'serving' others (cf. 10:44—5). ^n Mark's gospel it is striking how often the women characters are presented in a far better light than the male disciples. Here Peter's mother-in-law does what every Christian is called to do, namely to serve others.
central for Mark, is continued and developed in the next story.
(1:21—8) An Exorcism in Capernaum The action takes place on the sabbath (though no question of a possible breach of sabbath law is raised here). The pericope consists of the account of the exorcism, which Mark appears to have framed between two notes about Jesus' teaching (w. 21—2, 27). Such a sandwiching technique is very typical of Mark, who seems to use the resultant structure to allow one part of the sandwich to provide an interpretative key for the other part. The story of the exorcism itself may well be traditional. There seems to be a note of secrecy here, and secrecy is a characteristic Markan motif; but in fact it is really only apparent. The unclean spirit tries to utter Jesus' name (v. 24). The motif can be paralleled in other similar exorcism stories: uttering the other person's name was thought to be a means of overpowering your opponent. Jesus thus silences the demon (v. 25), not to impose secrecy, but in order to stop the demon naming him: the act of silencing is itself the action which gains mastery over the demon. However, as we shall see, Mark develops this motif in a peculiar way later (see 1:34; 3:12). Jesus' activity as an exorcist is well attested. Jesus was by no means unique in claiming the power to exorcize (cf Lk 11:19), though in the Christian tradition, Jesus' exorcisms are claimed to be the manifestation of the arrival of the kingdom of God (Lk 11:20, cf. Mk 3:22-30). For Mark the emphasis clearly lies on the authority and power shown by Jesus in exorcizing. This is shown in part by the way in which Mark inserts the exorcism story into two notes about Jesus' 'teaching' with 'authority' (w. 22, 27). The fact that the story itself is not about Jesus' teaching at all suggests that these framing references are secondary; moreover the fact that, so far in Mark's story, Jesus has given virtually no explicit teaching suggests that Mark is at this stage more interested in the fact that Jesus' teaching is authoritative than he is in the contents of that teaching. (The contents will come later, e.g. in ch. 4.)
(1:32—4) General Healings and Exorcisms The note about 'evening' (v. 32) indicates that the sabbath (cf. v. 21) is over, and so people are allowed to carry the sick to Jesus. The account is general and the details rather hyperbolic ('all who were sick', v. 32, 'the whole city', v. 33). Mark thinks that this reflects Jesus' usual activity, and it shows the importance Mark places on Jesus' miracles. There is thus no real place for any theory that Mark positively disapproved of this aspect of Jesus' ministry, as some have argued (cf. Weeden 1971); however, as we shall see, there may be a sense in which Mark shows an element of reserve about whether this is the most significant aspect of Jesus' life and work. A characteristic Markan note comes for the first time in v. 34, where Jesus commands the demons to be silent. The motif was present in Mark's tradition (cf. v. 24), but Mark seems to develop it in a peculiar way: now the demons know Jesus' identity and are forbidden by Jesus to make this knowledge public (cf. too 3:12) so that others remain in ignorance. This is then the first appearance of the so-called 'messianic secret' in Mark. In many respects it is somewhat artificial and probably represents Mark's own interpretation of his tradition. (Certainly v. 34 alongside v. 24 indicates that the secrecy motif has been imposed secondarily as a development of the earlier tradition.) The significance of the secret in Mark is debated (see the survey of views in Tuckett 1983). Perhaps the best solution is that, via the secrecy charges, Mark indicates to the reader (for whom there is no secret at all! cf. 1:1) that Jesus' identity must remain a secret to human characters in the story—at least prior to the cross. Jesus' identity is finally recognized by a human being atthe cross (cf. 15:39), but not before. Markmay thereby wish to indicate that Jesus' identity can only be truly perceived in the light of the cross. Hence, in the story-world created by Mark, before one gets to the cross, Jesus keeps his identity secret. (See Raisanen 1990.)
One other detail should be noted here. Jesus' authority qua teacher is said to be 'not as the scribes' (v. 22). (The scribes were the legislators in Judaism, those who decided how the law should be applied in new situations, and made decisions when different laws clashed; but it is not apparent that Mark knows clearly the differences between the Jewish groups he mentions.) The reference here is left hanging, but the scribes reappear soon, i.e. in 2:6, where they are again opponents of Jesus. This is the first hint of a theme that will dominate the whole gospel: Jesus as the authoritative figure who teaches and exorcizes is the one who as such will clash with the Jewish authorities, and that clash will ultimately lead to the cross. The theme is only hinted at here, but will be developed significantly in the next chapter.
(1:35—9) Extension of the Ministry These verses portray a slight interlude in the narrative. Not all the details are entirely clear. Jesus withdraws to a private place to pray (v. 35): perhaps the note underlines the fact that Jesus is ultimately dependent on God for all that he does. Does the withdrawal indicate also an element of reserve on Mark's part about the importance of the miracles? This is possible (cf. too 8:27-30), though in v. 29 Jesus goes out and about not only preaching but also 'casting out demons'. The disciples are said to 'hunt' for Jesus (v. 30). The verb used is rather unusual, indicating perhaps some kind of hostile pursuit. It is possible that this is the first indication in the narrative of the motif which will be considerably developed later whereby the disciples fail to respond properly to Jesus (ctr. MK 1:16—20). Perhaps then the story hints here at what will come more fully later. The disciples have, it is true, followed Jesus in one sense: but the true
(1:29-31) The Healing of Peter's Mother-in-Law As in previous stories, the extraneous detail is kept to an absolute minimum. Some have suggested that the story may be due to Peter's own recollections: this is possible, but scarcely provable one way or the other. For Mark the story no doubt shows Jesus' continuing authority, here extending to an ability to heal physical illness as well as to exorcize. The story is told in the form of a classic healing story: the description of the illness with a request for healing, the healing itself, followed
891 MARK
authorities, and this series reaches its climax in the plot to have him killed (3:6). Although it is sometimes argued that the collection is pre-Markan, partly because the plot to kill Jesus seems to come very early, such a theory is unnecessary. The note in 3:6 is not isolated: as we shall see there are a number of details pointing the reader forward to the passion to come (see MK 2:7, 20, as well as the references to Jesus as
following will be shown later to be rather different (cf 8:34; 10:52). Jesus' response is to go 'throughout Galilee'. Again we have a summarizing statement from Mark, showing Jesus' universal activity in preaching and healing. The reference to 'their' synagogues in v. 39 may be revealing: does this show that for Mark, the Christian community had separated from the Jewish community? Certainly it is likely that Mark was writing for a Gentile audience and this may be one piece of evidence for this. (1:40-5) A Leper Healed The next story, only loosely connected with its context, shows Jesus healing a leper. (The condition referred to as 'leprosy' in the Bible probably covers a wide range of illnesses.) A number of details in the story are obscure. Jesus' action is said in v. 41 to be due to his 'pity', or compassion; however, some Greek manuscripts say here that Jesus was 'moved with anger'. In view of the fact that it is hard to see why 'pity' might have been changed to 'anger' by a scribe, but very easy to see how the reverse change might take place, some have argued that the reference to 'anger' here may be original. Matthew and Luke also both omit the phrase, which would also be easier to explain if the original reference here was to Jesus' anger. References to pity, or compassion, as the motive for Jesus' miracles in the gospels are rare. However, the reason for any 'anger' here is not clear (cf. also below on v. 43). Touching the leper would render Jesus unclean according to Jewish purity laws. Jesus' action here may thus show him seeking to break down the barriers created within human society by such purity laws. (Cf. further MK 5:21-43.) The reference to Jesus 'sternly warning' the man (v. 43) is also difficult. The verb used is a rare one, usually expressing intense anger. But who or what is Jesus angry with? The man? The leprosy? Evil spirits thought to be behind the illness? Perhaps Mark simply understands the note as referring to Jesus' urgency in sending the man to the priests; but in an earlier version of the story, Jesus' anger might have been thought to be directed against evil spirits.
Son of Man). This series may in fact be Mark's way of indicating very early in his story the course which the ensuing narrative will take. For Mark Jesus is supremely the one who will suffer and die, and this theme dominates the account. The collection here, with all its forward-looking references to the passion, may well be Mark's own composition.
(2:1—12) The Healing of the Paralytic The story in its present form is probably composite: a straight healing story (w. 1—5, 11-12) has been disrupted by the insertion of a debate between Jesus and the scribes about his authority (w. 6—10). The healing story itself is fairly straightforward, but it is important to note the reference to 'faith' in v. 5: miracles in Mark generally only occur, and can only occur, in a context of faith (cf. 6:5). Yet it should also be noted that this faith is not necessarily faith 'in Jesus', but rather in God who works through Jesus; moreover, the faith here is not that of the paralysed man himself, but of his friends. This is then not quite the same as some presentday kinds of'faith-healing' that emphasize the faith of the sick person. The connection between illness and sin is here assumed and not discussed (cf. Jn 9:2-3); though whether this element was present in the original healing narrative is uncertain. Perhaps it was added as simply the motif to generate the following controversy about Jesus' authority.
The debate in w. 6-10 focuses on Jesus' authority (cf. 1:22), an authority which is questioned by the scribes (again reminiscent of 1:22: thus the implicit opposition between Jesus and the scribes now becomes explicit). The scribes accuse Jesus of'blasphemy' (v. 7), which is precisely the charge on which Jesus will be condemned to death at his trial (14:64). The historical problems are acute as Jesus has not technically committed blasphemy, an offence which involved uttering the divine name (m. Sank. 7.5: see MK 14:64). It is possible that, if the account here is at all historical, the scribes may have meant that Jesus was guilty of blasphemy in a looser sense than that defined by Jewish law. However, Mark may not have been aware of such details. For him, what is important is to show that the conflict between Jesus and the scribes here is literally a life-and-death struggle.
Jesus commands secrecy in v. 44: the man is to say nothing but to go to the priests to have his cure certified (as required by the law in Lev 14: at this point there seems to be no critique of the law at all). Although these secrecy commands after miracles have sometimes been linked with the messianic secret, they should probably not be so interpreted. Here the secrecy commanded in v. 44 is limited, since the man is to make his cure known to the priests. But in any case v. 45 shows that secrecy is not in fact maintained: the man goes out and proclaims openly what has happened. Perhaps this is one way in which Mark's narrative emphasizes the success of Jesus' activity as a healer: despite Jesus' own attempts to keep things quiet, the news spreads like wildfire! This then is rather different from the secrecy of 1:34 where other people in the story do not come to share the knowledge about Jesus that the demons had. Thus it is probably right to distinguish between a 'messianic secret' which is kept (as in 1:34) and a 'miracle "secret"' which is immediately broken (as here). (See Luz 1983.) The story thus ends on a note of Jesus' great popularity. The very next story will show that such popularity is not universal. (2:1-3:6) The next section of the gospel comprises five stories showing Jesus in a series of controversies with the Jewish
The debate is about Jesus' authority, and his authority to forgive. By implication, the story claims that Jesus does have this authority, which is usually the prerogative of God alone
(though strictly Jesus does no more than declare God's forgiveness). At this point, Jesus' authority is said to be signalled in part by reference to him as Son of Man. This enigmatic phrase has generated enormous discussion. It is possible that the phrase alone (in Aramaic) simply means 'a man', or 'someone'. Yet this scarcely fits the present context where the issue is the authority of Jesus, not of any human being. Elsewhere in Mark, 'Son of Man' is a term used to refer to Jesus' suffering (cf. 8:31 etc.) and future vindication (14:62 etc.). Although disputed, one very plausible background for the term, certainly at the level of Mark's understanding, is that of Dan
MARK 892
Pharisees so bitterly opposed Jesus. For Mark, however, the Pharisees seem to be no longer very relevant for his own community: e.g. in 7:3—4 he has to explain some of their customs for his readers.
7:13, where a figure described as 'one like a son of man' appears as a symbol for the vindicated people of God in the heavenly court; and since the people concerned in Daniel are presently suffering violent persecution (probably under Antiochus Epiphanes), the figure of Dan 7 may be associated with suffering as well as vindication. (This last point is more disputed.) If so, then the term 'Son of Man' as applied to Jesus by Mark may be intended to evoke this twin idea of suffering and vindication as the role which lies ahead for Jesus.
Jesus' final reply in v. 17 is enigmatic. Does it imply that there are righteous people who need no call? It is perhaps better taken as ironic. The righteous need no call—but by implication those who think that they are righteous are perhaps thereby showing they are not righteous. Certainly the saying links with the previous story in showing both Jesus' concern with sinners and sin and his unique authority. (2:18-22) Old and New The next story concerns the issue of fasting. Again the story is probably composite, with w. 19/7-20 representing a secondary allegorizing of an original tradition.
The present reference to Jesus as Son of Man may seem out of place in such a schema. In fact it is probably thoroughly appropriate. The wider context in Mark is the series of controversies leading to Jesus' death; so here then, Mark may also be indicating allusively (as in v. 7) that the controversy is one which will lead to death: the one with authority is the 'Son of Man', i.e. the one who must suffer and die. Since the reference to 'Son of Man' here makes excellent sense in Mark's literary scheme, and really makes sense only there, it is probably due to Mark himself, though the substance of the saying, without Jesus' explicit self-reference as Son of Man, may be preMarkan.
John's disciples and Pharisees are said to be fasting, and Jesus is asked why his own disciples do not. Fasting was required of all Jews at times, though the story here, by singling out the Pharisees and John for mention, suggests that the fasting in question was an extra obligation taken on freely. The very fact that Jesus is asked why his disciples do not join in is a further indication that Jesus may once have had close links with the Pharisees and hence his failure to follow their practices was a matter of surprise to them. Jesus' reply is to refer, in a variety of metaphors, to the totally new situation that now obtains and its incompatibility with the old: it is like a wedding when fasting is simply inappropriate; similarly, the old and the new will not mix, just as one cannot mend a cloak with unshrunk material, or use old wineskins for new wine. By implication, the 'new' is the presence of Jesus in his ministry: as such it is incompatible with the old ways. The new life of the kingdom is one of joy and celebration and renders fasting obsolete. The implicit claim by Jesus is startling in its scope.
(2:13-17) Jesus and Social Outcasts The second of the five controversy stories concerns Jesus' relationship with taxcollectors and sinners. In what may originally have been a separate story, Mark tells of the call of Levi in w. 13—14. The story, with its stark simplicity and lack of any extraneous detail, is similar in form to the call stories of 1:16-20. Levi appears nowhere else in this gospel (though Matthew evidently identified Levi with 'Matthew', one of the twelve: cf. Mt 9:9; 10:3). Levi is said to be a 'tax-collector': what is probably meant is not someone who collected taxes for the Romans directly, but an employee of Herod responsible for collecting some of the local tolls. Such people had a uniformly bad name amongst Jews, primarily for their unscrupulousness and dishonesty.
w. 19/7-20 probably represent a secondary allegorizing of the tradition, looking ahead (in the story's terms) to the time when the bridegroom (i.e. Jesus) will be 'taken away' (i.e. die). Fasting will then be reintroduced (as we know it was in the early church). These verses may then be looking ahead to the time of the church, and justifying current church practice; but they also draw the reader's attention forward to the moment of the taking away of the bridegroom, i.e. to the death of Jesus. Like the hints in v. 7 and perhaps v. 10, the reader's gaze is directed to the cross which, for Mark, is never far away in the story.
Levi's response to the call is to invite Jesus to his house (v. 15: it is possible that the house actually belongs to Jesus—the Greek is ambiguous, speaking only of 'his' house—but this seems unlikely). Again Jesus comes into conflict with the authorities, here 'the scribes of the Pharisees'. The exact nature of the Pharisaic party is debated. They seem to have been an influential group of lay people, deeply concerned to apply the law to ever new situations, if necessary by legislating afresh, and also concerned to maintain a higher than normal level of purity in their everyday lives. Here they accuse Jesus of eating with tax-collectors and sinners. Eating with such people may have signified an offer to associate with them without condemning their faults, and this may have offended a strict law-abiding group such as the Pharisees. The identity of the 'sinners' is even more uncertain. The term might refer to those who did not maintain a Pharisaic interpretation of the law; or it may refer to those who deliberately flouted the law. The former is perhaps more likely: the term is often used in polemical contexts to refer to those who do not belong to the speaker's own in-group; it is then a way of castigating outsiders. If so it may indicate that the Pharisees expected Jesus not to consort with those outside their group, and hence may suggest that in fact Jesus had quite close links with the Pharisees. If that were the case, it might explain better why the
(2:23—8) Jesus and the Sabbath: The Cornfields The final two controversy stories involve sabbath law, the command that one shall do no 'work'. In the first of these stories, Jesus and his disciples go through the cornfields, plucking corn as they go (v. 23). Such action was not in itself illegal, but interpreters of the sabbath legislation decided that reaping and threshing should count as work and hence were not allowed on the sabbath. The presence of Pharisees, apparently spying in a cornfield on the sabbath, strains credulity and is unlikely to be historical. Possibly we have here then a reflection of a debate in the early church about how far sabbath law should be obeyed by Christians (note it is the disciples, not Jesus, who perform the questionable activity); yet it seems equally likely that Jesus himself was engaged in similar debates.
Jesus' first reply (w. 25-6) refers to the example of David breaking the law by eating the shewbread when he was
893 MARK
'Herodians' seems implausible historically. The Herodians were not a party, but may have been the supporters of Herod Antipas: as such they would normally have been opposed by the Pharisees. It is notable too that the Pharisees rarely make any appearance in the passion narratives themselves. Perhaps the mention of the two groups here is intended by Mark simply to indicate the combined forces of religious and secular power in general. The key point is the note that the authorities plot to have Jesus killed. The controversies are so deepseated that they will lead to Jesus' death. For the reader, the cross is now clearly in view. Jesus' life and ministry inevitably lead to conflict, suffering, and death. The cross for Mark is an inalienable part of what it means for Jesus to be God's Son.
hungry (i Sam 21: the reference to Abiathar being high priest at the time is wrong, and Matthew and Luke both omit the note). The example provides some precedent for acting illegally, but scarcely provides a strong argument for breaking such an important law as the sabbath law. The repeated introductions in v. 25 and v. 27 may indicate a seam in the tradition, and v. 27 is more likely to be the original conclusion to the story. The lack of appositeness in w. 25-6 may betray the secondary origin of this tradition.
Jesus' second reply is far more devastating, v. 27 seems to relativize the whole sabbath law, so that any human need would legitimize not keeping the sabbath. (Jews at the time certainly allowed work on the sabbath if life was in danger, but this verse seems to go much further.) The implication of this saying in relation to the law is very radical. (Matthew and Luke, perhaps because they realize this, both omit the verse.) v. 2 8 may represent a slight backing away from the radicalness of v. 27: Jesus (as Son of Man) is lord of the sabbath. Does this imply that Jesus can abrogate sabbath law, but not anyone else? (If we took 'Son of Man' as meaning 'a man', then v. 28 would say the same as v. 27: human need would override the sabbath; but this seems impossible for Mark—for him the Son of Man is Jesus and Jesus alone.) Certainly in Mark's eyes it would seem that the one with the unique authority to dispense sabbath law is Jesus alone. Why then is he referred to as Son of Man? Perhaps again, as in v. 10, it is Mark's way of pointing forward to what is to come: the one who claims this authority inevitably clashes with other authority figures, a clash which will lead to suffering and death, the appointed lot of the one who is 'Son of Man'.
(3:7—12) General Healings Mark now gives another summary statement about Jesus' activity as a healer and an exorcist, similar to 1:32-4. Jesus' popularity and success are again emphasized. As in 1:34, however, a typically Markan motif recurs in v. 12: Jesus commands the demons not to make known his identity (here as Son of God): other human beings in the story are not allowed to know who Jesus is at this stage. Once again Mark seems to be taking up a traditional motif from exorcism stories (the exorcist silences the demon) and giving it his own peculiar interpretation. As before, for Mark the true nature of Jesus' divine sonship cannot yet be revealed: such knowledge will only come at the cross. (3:13-19) The Call of the Twelve The appointment of an inner group of twelve disciples is well attested in the earliest Christian tradition (cf i Cor 15:5). Mark does not make a lot of this. The number twelve is probably deliberately intended to evoke the number of the tribes of Israel: the new body round Jesus is the nucleus of a new people of God. The fact that the number is twelve, not eleven, so that Jesus himself is not one of the number, implies an even more privileged place for Jesus. He is the creator and inaugurator of the new Israel. The twelve are said to be 'apostles' here (though the phrase is absent from some Greek manuscripts). Mark uses the term elsewhere only at 6:30. The use of the word may be anachronistic here and reflect post-resurrection usage: it was used in the later Christian church to refer to special authority figures in the movement, but it is doubtful if Jesus himself used the term. The names of the twelve are mainly traditional, and nothing is known of most of them. The extra name of Peter given to Simon is not explained (cf. Mt 16:18); the name 'Boanerges' given to James and John is peculiar to Mark here. Some discussion has taken place over the penultimate name 'Simon the Cananaean' (NRSV). The word for 'Cananaean' has been interpreted as 'Zealot', with conclusions drawn about the possible presence in Jesus' immediate circle of a member of the Zealot party, the political group later very influential in fomenting armed rebellion against the Romans. However, it is almost certain that such a party did not exist prior to the time of the Jewish War in c.66 CE. Hence no conclusions can be drawn about Jesus' possible involvement with the activity of such a group, which is in any case extremely unlikely. The word here may simply imply that Simon was a very zealous character.
(3:1-6) Jesus and the Sabbath: The Man with the Withered Hand In the last of the five controversy stories here, Jesus is again in dispute over sabbath observance. The occasion is a miracle, Jesus healing a man with a withered hand. But in form-critical terms, the story is not a 'miracle story': the focus of attention is not the miracle for its own sake, but the controversy between Jesus and the authorities about his right to heal the man on the sabbath. There is debate about whether Jesus' actions here do in fact constitute 'work' and thus breach sabbath law. Strictly speaking, Jesus is recorded as doing nothing that could be deemed to be work. However, in its present form, all the parties concerned in the debate presuppose that Jesus has worked. Jesus' justification for his action would scarcely satisfy a Jewish opponent. The principle of working on the sabbath to save life was accepted by all; but a man with a withered hand was not in danger of losing his life. Jesus' rhetorical double question in v. 4 would have had a clear answer from Jews: one must of course save life on the sabbath; otherwise one 'does good', which means obeying God's law and not working. Jesus' saying here seems to presuppose a significant extension of the meaning of saving life: his own ministry is an activity of saving life in a radical sense, and hence justifies relativizing the sabbath law. Yet it is hard to avoid the impression that the story here shows Jesus acting in a rather provocative way in relation to his Jewish contemporaries and their sensibilities regarding what was acknowledged as one of the most important parts of the whole Jewish law.
The reference to Judas Iscariot once again reminds the reader of the story to come: even at this moment, betrayal and its consequences are not far away.
The conclusion to the story—and to the series of five stories—is a plot to kill Jesus (v. 6). The alliance of Pharisees and
MARK 894
first time, some content is given. The content here consists mostly of parables. The parables are widely thought to be the most characteristic part of Jesus' teaching, though Mark does not give many examples. Christians very soon interpreted Jesus' parables as allegories, finding significance in each detail of the story, and we can see that process starting as early as Mark himself (see w. 14—20). The recognition that Jesus' parables were not originally allegories in which every detail of the story has significance is now well accepted in modern scholarship. Some though have taken this to the other extreme, arguing that they have only one single meaning. This is probably too rigid: the parables may have been intended to make more than one point, even if a detailed allegorical interpretation by Jesus is unlikely. It is generally thought that Jesus used parables in order to enhance his teaching and to get his message across. As we shall see, this makes Mark's account of Jesus' speaking about his own parables in w. 11-12 here extremely difficult to accept as historical.
(3:20-35) Further Controversy This section represents another example of Mark's sandwiching technique: the story of the Beelzebul controversy with the scribes (w. 22—30) conies between the two halves of the story of the dispute between Jesus and his family (w. 20-1, 31-5). Mark thereby shows the increasing hostility and alienation experienced by Jesus: the failure of his family to accept him is shown to be akin to the hostility of the scribes. Throughout the gospel, Jesus becomes more and more isolated, as one group after another—steadily getting closer to home—deserts him. The Beelzebul controversy demonstrates the increasing intensity of the hostility from the 'scribes' (cf. 1:22; 2:6). Here they are said to be 'from Jerusalem', one of the first indicators in Mark of what will be a strong distinction between Galilee and Jerusalem, with Jerusalem as the place of hostility and, finally, death. The issue is again about Jesus' authority and power, the scribes accusing him of using demonic power. ('Beelzebul'— the name varies in different manuscripts—was probably originally the name of a minor demon: this period was a time of great flux in beliefs about demonic figures, with no standardized model of a monolithic Devil figure universally established. However, Mark himself does seem to presuppose such a model and evidently regards the two names as referring to the same figure.) Jesus replies at first in a series of images (literally 'parables', v. 23), but all based on the same theme: a power fighting against itself would collapse immediately. By implication, Satan's kingdom is thought of as still standing: hence it cannot be opposed by its own forces— Jesus' power must have other roots.
This section in Mark is almost certainly composite. The large number of (often unnecessary) introductions (cf. w. 2, 10, 13, 21, 24, 26, 30), as well as the inconsistency in the settings (Jesus speaks to the crowd in v. 2, withdraws to an inner group in v. 10, but still seems to be speaking to the crowd in v. 33) suggest that originally separate traditions have been combined here. For example, some have argued that Mark has taken over a prior collection of three 'seed' parables. Whether there is such a pre-Markan collection here is uncertain. Much depends on one's interpretation of the difficult w. 10-13 (see
below), and whether one judges the ideas there to be nonMarkan and hence pre-Markan.
The saying in v. 27 may have had a separate origin. The presuppositions now seem to be different: Satan is the strong man who has now been bound and his property is being plundered, i.e. by Jesus. The image derives from Jewish eschatology (cf. Rev 20:2): the binding of Satan is a feature of the eschatological end-time. The claim being made here is then that the end-time has arrived: Jesus' exorcisms are not just everyday events, but the final overthrow of the power of Satan. Moreover, Mark's arrangement of the material, with v. 27 following w. 24—6, suggests that he regards v. 27 as providing the hermeneutical key for the previous verses. Thus, whatever these sayings may have implied earlier in the tradition, Mark regards Jesus' argument in w. 24—7 as claiming to have won the final victory over Satan. The saying in w. 28—9 reverts to the issue of Jesus' authority. The Markan version is probably more original than the parallel in Q (cf. Lk 12:10) which speaks of blasphemy against the Son of Man being forgivable. Here all sins are said to be forgivable, except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. In context the meaning is clear: blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is a denial of the power of Jesus in his exorcisms. By implication, therefore, Jesus exorcizes by the power of the Holy Spirit (cf. 1:12—13), an(^ a refusal to accept this by the scribes is the unforgivable sin. Yet again Mark focuses all attention on the person of Jesus and the authority by which he acts. For Mark the centre of attention is supremely the Christological question of who Jesus is. (4:1-34) Parables At this point, Mark gives the first extended block of teaching by Jesus. Up to now, Jesus' teaching has been important as illustrating his authority (cf. 1:22); here, for the
(4:1—9) The Parable of the Sower It is generally assumed that Jesus' parables are true to life and not artificially constructed, unrealistic stories. (Such a broad generalization is unlikely to be true always: sometimes they make their point precisely because what they describe is unexpected and extraordinary.) Much discussion has taken place about whether the details of the parable of the sower are true to life: is the action of sowing seed 'on the path' (v. 4) normal practice? Are the yields of the good earth (v. 8: 'thirty and sixty and a hundred fold') normal or abnormal? Perhaps the issue, at least in relation to the first point, is not too important: this is not a story inculcating good horticultural practice! It is a story about how preaching is received. The story is thus almost inherently allegorical—at least to a certain extent, if not down to the smallest detail. The yields in v. 8 arc probably extraordinary: the result of the seed falling on good earth is not just what 'normally' happens, but a divine miracle.
The overall interpretation of the parable can be taken in two quite different ways: it can be assurance to those who receive the 'seed' that all in the end will be well—the harvest will come; or it can be a warning to those who hear the message to ensure that they receive it properly and not be like the three types of unproductive soil. The first interpretation has in its favour the fact that the other two parables in this chapter probably have a similar message. However, there is no reason why all three parables should be saying the same thing; and the fact that all three are included suggests that maybe Mark at least thought they were not simply repetitions of each other in slightly different wording. Further, the considerable detail
895 MARK
also in v. 13 here, where it seems that even the disciples fail to understand: hence, it is argued, perhaps w. 11—12 are a preMarkan tradition which Mark has radicalized by making even the disciples fail to understand.
given to the first three kinds of soil suggests that these are of interest in themselves, and are not simply negative foils to the good soil which is alone the point of the story. Thus it seems likely that the parable is in some sense a warning to people to take care how they receive the preaching of Jesus. It is not just encouragement to the 'good' that all will be well in the end; it is as much a warning to those who listen to make sure that they are 'good soil'. Mark's own interests may come to the fore in his description of the second type of soil (w. 5-6). The description here is longer than the other three and may have been expanded by Mark: for Mark, 'rootless' Christians are perhaps the cause for most concern. What this might mean in practice is spelt out later (see on v. 17).
This however makes Mark into something of an authorial idiot, including verses with which he apparently patently disagreed and which he immediately had to correct. In fact it is not said in v. n (or indeed in v. 34) that the disciples actually understand Jesus. In one sense of course they do, as indeed do the crowds: they 'understand' parables (cf 3:23; 12:9) in that the latter are not unintelligible nonsense. Nevertheless, they do not lead everyone to faith: in that sense they do not lead to (deeper) 'understanding'. The disciples are in a different position, which is somewhat ambivalent. They do not yet fully 'understand', indeed perhaps they cannot (in the story-world) yet understand—prior to the cross. Yet they are in a uniquely privileged position. They have been given the 'mystery' of the kingdom. Unlike Matthew and Luke, who both talk of 'knowing mysteries' (plur.) here, Mark talks only of a single mystery. Perhaps the reference is primarily Christological: Jesus himself is the mystery, and the disciples are privileged by being called by Jesus to be 'with him' (cf. 3:14). Their understanding can only—but will—come later.
(4:10-13) The Theory of Parables These verses are, by almost universal consent, among the hardest in the whole gospel to interpret, w. 11—12 seem to ascribe to Jesus the view that he teaches in parables precisely in order to hide his meaning and to prevent other people (the crowds) from understanding him. This is what Mark's Greek clearly means, and it is thus virtually impossible to see this as coming from Jesus himself, who (it is usually assumed) used parables to enable understanding, not prevent it. Hence the saying in its present form is almost certainly the product of someone writing later than Jesus, v. 12 uses the words from Isa 6:9 to say that the failure of people to understand Jesus' message is due to divine predestination. Attempts are sometimes made to rescue the saying for the historical Jesus by claiming that the words 'in parables' in v. n originally (in Aramaic) meant 'in riddles', and were unrelated to Jesus' using stories ('parables') to enhance his message. Hence Jesus was simply reflecting on the fact that people had not accepted his message (so Jeremias 1963). However, this scarcely solves the problem of what the saying now means in Mark's Greek: at this level it clearly relates to Jesus' use of 'parables', i.e. stories.
There is thus no need to drive a wedge between w. 11-12 and the rest of Mark, even though Mark is maybe trying to say more than one thing here. The crowds' failure to understand—a mirror of the rejection experienced by later Christians—is the result of God's will. The disciples' privileged position is also the result of the same will; yet their failure to understand at this stage in the story is not minimized.
(4:14—20) Interpretation of the Parable of the Sower Mark now gives a detailed, allegorical interpretation of the parable of the sower. Jeremias (1963) has shown that the vocabulary here is almost exclusively language characteristic of the early church, not of Jesus. Hence the interpretation is unlikely to be dominical, even though, as argued above, it is likely that the parable did have an inalienable 'allegorical' slant originally, with the different soils all having significance. Some have tried to correlate the different descriptions with characters in the story (Tolbert 1989: e.g. the first group are the Jewish opponents; the rocky ground represents the disciples, etc.). This may, however, read too much into the details; in any case, the warnings implied in the descriptions of the different soils seem to be more directly related to Mark's Christian readers who could only with some difficulty identify with, say, the Jewish opponents in Mark's story. The longest description of the poor soil concerns the rocky ground and those who have 'no root' (w. 16—17, corresponding to the longest description in Mark's version ofthe parable itself: w. 5-6). Perhaps this is the danger Mark feels most acutely: the detailed explanation refers to 'trouble or persecution' threatening initial commitment. It is possible that one sees here a reflection of (part of) Mark's own situation of a community facing the threat of persecution and leading to some followers giving up their Christian commitment. Perhaps too the warning against 'the cares ofthe world and the delight in riches' reflects other problems within Mark's community (cf. 10:17-22). In this interpretation ofthe parable in Mark, relatively little space is given to the description ofthe good soil (v. 20): the aim ofthe
The verses suggest a rigid division between a privileged ingroup and a condemned out-group. The latter fail to understand the message as a result of a divinely predetermined decision (v. 12). The text cited (Isa 6:9-10) is one of the classic texts used by Christians to seek to explain the failure by others to respond positively to the Christian message (cf Jn 12:40; Rom 11:8). In the light of hostility experienced, Christians sought to come to terms with apparent failure by 'explaining' their lack of success as due to predetermined action by God. What we see here, therefore, is probably not any reflection of a conscious decision by Jesus, but an attempt at rationalization by a later Christian group in the light of bitter experience of rejection, but struggling to maintain an overall theistic worldview. The sentiments here may be unattractive in one way; but the struggle to reconcile belief in God with apparent failure in the world's terms is a perennial problem for many.
The in-group are said to be those who have received the 'secret' (NRSV, lit. mystery) of the kingdom. The benefits enjoyed by this in-group of disciples are often read out of v. 12 by reversing what is said there: the disciples must 'understand'. Perhaps too, taking into account v. 34, the disciples have been privileged to receive 'interpretation' of the parables which is denied to the crowds. This is sometimes then contrasted with the picture elsewhere in Mark (e.g. 8:17-21), and
MARK 896
may again be to the person of Jesus himself: Jesus in his ministry brings God's kingly rule into the present as a reality now. As noted before, eschatology for Mark is both futurist and realized. However, the idea of the presence of the kingdom in an institution such as the church, after Jesus and before the Eschaton, seems foreign to Mark.
interpretation is thus not so much to give assurance that all will in the end be well, but to warn people of the dangers of the present. As noted on the parable itself, the aim is more that of warning than encouragement. (4:21-5) Collected Sayings Mark now collects together a series of what originally were almost certainly isolated sayings in the tradition. (They appear scattered in widely different contexts in Matthew and Luke.) w. 21-2 continue the theme of secrecy and openness. The opening ofv. 21 is in Greek literally 'Does the lamp come... ?' The unusual personification of the lamp, and the significant way in which, for Mark, Jesus has 'come' (cf. 1:38), suggests that Mark sees Jesus himself as the lamp. The aim of Jesus' coming is not in the end permanent secrecy or hiddenness. Rather, any secrecy will in the end result in openness. Exactly when this will happen is not specified precisely here; but the purpose of the sayings seems to stress the inevitable end of any secrecy surrounding Jesus and his person, w. 24—5 strike a rather different note, with warnings as well as encouragement. Human response is also required in full measure. Perhaps what is in mind is the preaching of the gospel by later Christians. Those who respond positively will be rewarded abundantly; those who do not will forfeit even what they have.
(4:33—4) Jesus' Use of Parables The conclusion of the discourse takes up the division outlined in w. 11-12. v. 33 is often taken as the tradition used by Mark, apparently implying that parables were used to be understood; this was then glossed by Mark in v. 34, suggesting that only the privileged in-group of disciples are allowed to receive the interpretation of the parables, so that everything remains enigmatic to outsiders. As we saw in w. 11—12, there is a division between disciples and others, Mark in part reflecting on the mixed responses to the Christian message which have been experienced. And the disciples are in a privileged position. But the division is not clearly one of understanding: even though the disciples have had Jesus explain 'everything' to them, they still fail to understand at a deep level who he is and what he is about. The next story will illustrate this. In the narrative, the time for openness is not yet.
(4:35—5:43) Nature Miracles Mark now gives a series of three stories of Jesus' miracles, showing his power over the forces of nature as well as his ability to heal and to exorcize. Although modern interpreters might wish to distinguish between healing/exorcistic powers and claims to be able to change the course of nature, such a distinction would be foreign to a first-century reader or writer. Both alike show the divine power at work in Jesus. But equally, it is clear from these stories that miracles alone have little evidential value: they cannot create faith where none is present.
The section as a whole thus combines assurance and exhortation with warning. As with the previous parable of the sower and its interpretation combined with w. 10-13,mere are
both encouraging and warning elements in the Christian gospel. But if the warning side has been stressed so far, the encouragement is not forgotten, as the next two parables show.
(4:26-32) Two Seed Parables Mark gives two parables, very closely related to each other and probably (in his view) with very similar meanings. The first, the parable of the seed growing secretly (w. 26-9), is peculiar to Mark; the second, the parable of the mustard seed (w. 30-2) is shared with Matthew and Luke who probably also know a Q version of the parable (cf. Lk 13:18—19). Both parables are said to be parables illustrating the reality of the 'kingdom of God'. Both imply that the kingdom is present in minute, hidden form as a 'seed', but that it will be shown in its full glory in the future. The parable of the seed growing secretly (w. 26—9) uses the image of the harvest, perhaps alluding to the final judgement (cf. Joel 3:13). The parable of the mustard seed (w. 30-2) uses the image of the birds flocking to nest in the branches of the tree, perhaps alluding to the Gentiles coming into the kingdom (cf. Dan 4:12; Ezek 31:6). The stress in both parables is on the divine miracle and lack of human influence in the process of growth. There is no hint of any long period of time, nor of any idea of the kingdom 'growing in the hearts of men and women', an idea popular in nineteenth-century liberal theology. Rather, all the emphasis is on the divine initiative and the assurance of the end result.
(4:35—41) The Stilling of the Storm The story is somewhat artificial: fishermen used to the lake and its ways are terrified by a sudden storm, a storm so severe that they panic, and yet through which Jesus sleeps. But Mark is not interested in such niceties; for him, the story shows Jesus' ability to deal with the primeval forces of chaos. The 'sea' in the OT sometimes stands for the primal chaos which God alone can order and calm (cf. Ps 65:7; 74:13), as well as being used often as a symbol for the sufferings endured by human beings (cf. Ps 107:23-32). Mark's verb in v. 39, referring to Jesus 'rebuking' the wind, is the same as thatused in 1:25 where Jesus 'rebukes' a demon. Perhaps it is implied that the ability to control the storm shows a victory over the demonic powers of chaos and evil.
The disciples' reaction is not presented positively. Their question in v. 38 ('do you not care that we are perishing?') suggests a harsh accusation against Jesus. Jesus' reply is to still the storm and then address them with the rhetorical questions 'Why are you afraid? Have you still no faith?' By implication they do not. They are as yet blind. They ask 'Who then is this?' (v. 41) and cannot provide an answer. They have not yet reached any insight into who Jesus is, despite their privileged position. The negative portrait of the disciples in the story is thus developed a stage further; and even a stupendous miracle such as this has not created any 'faith'.
This might be thought to contradict the emphasis in the earlier part of the chapter on human responsibility and involvement. In one sense, this is true. But perhaps Mark is emphasizing the other side of the coin here: the kingdom will come in its fullness, and of this the followers of Jesus can be assured. Moreover, the kingdom is something which is present already in hidden form (as a seed) now. The reference
The note about the 'cushion' in v. 38 has sometimes been seen as a vivid life-like feature, perhaps indicating an eye-
MARK
«97
raising of Jairus' daughter. The former is sandwiched in between the two parts of the latter story, a Markan technique already noted. Mark clearly wants the two stories to interpret each other. Both focus on the theme of faith as the important precondition for any miracle to occur (w. 34, 36), as well as being linked to the number twelve (w. 25,42; though whether there is any significance in this is not clear).
witness account. This seems difficult to prove one way or the other: but the detail could just as easily be invented precisely in order to create a vivid narrative and to make it seem life-like.
(5:1—20) The Gerasene Demoniac Mark follows with a story of a further exorcism by Jesus. The story is told with a wealth of circumstantial detail, designed above all to show Jesus' great power in overcoming such massive opposition in the forces of evil. However, a number of details and inconsistencies within the present narrative suggest that Mark may be combining more than one tradition here into a single story, (v. 6 is awkward after v. 2; v. 8 seems an awkward interruption; v. 15 seems odd after v. 14, since the latter presupposes a considerable time lapse.) But whatever the prehistory of the story in its present form, Mark's narrative serves to highlight the terrible initial state of the man, and hence to magnify the significance of the cure effected.
The condition of the woman with the haemorrhage is described in terms very similar to Lev 15:25 LXX. The woman's condition rendered her unclean, and also anything or anyone she touched would be unclean. Her action in explicitly touching Jesus' clothes thus brings Jesus into the realm of the unclean. Quite as much as dealing wiht the disease itself, the miracle thus serves to break down the social and religious barriers created by the purity laws (cf MK 1:40-5). In an aside, the disciples are shown to be somewhat lacking in insight
(v. 31, cf. MK 4:38). By contrast, the woman comes forward and confesses publicly what she has done. Jesus' reply is to commend her 'faith', which is the necessary prerequisite for the miracle to happen. The miracle does not generate faith; rather, faith must be present for the miracle to occur.
Some details of the passage remain obscure, v. i states that the action takes place as Jesus crosses the Sea of Galilee to the country of the 'Gerasenes' (so most MSS), although Gerasa is £.30 miles south-east of the Sea of Galilee: perhaps this simply indicates Mark's lack of detailed knowledge of Galilean geography. Probably Mark does intend that the incident take place in the partly Gentile territory of the Decapolis.
A similar point is made in the story of Jairus' daughter: news of the death of the child (v. 35) leads Jesus to address Jairus and exhort him to 'believe', have faith (v. 36). Jesus tells the crowd that the girl is not dead but sleeping, a statement which produce mocking laughter (v. 40). They show no faith. Perhaps this can then explain the strange feature of the story which follows, i.e. the otherwise inexplicable secrecy command in v. 43: Jesus takes a small group of his disciples together with the girl's parents with him, and raises the child to life; but then he commands secrecy about what has happened! For many such a command is impossible historically (how could such an event be kept secret?), but also difficult to fit into any consistent Markan pattern: elsewhere in Mark commands for secrecy after miracles are regularly broken (1:45; 7:36). Should one assume the same here and see the motif as highlighting by implication Jesus' success (cf. 1:45: so Luz 1983) ? But this is not what Mark says. Perhaps the point is that the crowds outside have shown no faith at all in their mocking laughter (v. 40). By implication they already have a very superficial explanation of what will inevitably be the public knowledge of the girl's health: she was simply asleep and not really dead at all. The true nature of the action of Jesus, in rescuing the girl from death itself, is only open to the eye of faith and publicizing it in a context of unbelief will not by itself create faith.
The battle about the names of the protagonists is similar to that seen before (cf MK 1:22—7). Th£ name given to Jesus by the demon ('Son of the Most High God') uses a description of God often used by, or in relation to, non-Jews (cf. Gen 14:18; Dan 3:26; 4:2). Jesus does not here explicitly silence the demon, perhaps because in the story there are no bystanders at this point. The significance of the name of the demon as 'Legion' is not quite clear: it is possible that this is an attempt to evade giving a name. However, for Mark, such niceties are probably lost: for him, the giving of the name may simply show that the demon cannot resist Jesus' demand for a name, and the name itself indicates the huge power of the demon, equivalent to a Roman legion in number, i.e. 6,000 men. The details of the pigs and their destruction grates on some modern sensibilities in relation to animal welfare, though in a Jewish context pigs were regarded as unclean animals. Their destruction would therefore be seen as appropriate. Trying to discover possible natural causes for the pigs' sudden flight is probably a fruitless exercise.
The story ends with Jesus' refusal to accept the man as an immediate follower (v. 18): Jesus' authority here is absolute. Jesus commands him to tell his friends what has happened (v. 19). It is not quite clear if this is intended as implying an element of secrecy (i.e. tell your friends and no one else). Certainly the sequel suggests otherwise: there is no adversative in v. 20, and it implies that the man obeys Jesus in proclaiming publicly what has happened. (Alternatively, one could interpret v. 20 as implying that the man disobeyed Jesus, as in 1:45.) Either way the net result is the same: Jesus' power as an exorcist is publicized freely and everyone is amazed. There is then no hint of any critique of Jesus' activity in this respect.
Jesus' words to the girl are given in v. 41. Mark uses the Aramaic words talitha cum, even though he is writing in Greek. Some non-biblical healing stories do use 'magical' formulae, often a jumble of unintelligible words. Here, however, the works are not unintelligible but simply in a foreign language and Mark does translate them. Cf. too 7:34. (6:1-60) Jesus Rejected in his Home Town The themes of faith, and the growing opposition faced by Jesus, are continued in the story of the rejection of Jesus in his home town. Jesus has come into conflict with the authorities (2:1—3:6) and with his own family (3:21-35). Now the opposition seems to spread to his own home town (not explicitly stated here to be Nazareth, though cf. 1:9). As in 1:22—3, me occasion is Jesus'
(5:21-43) The Haemorrhaging Woman and Jairus' Daughter The final unit in this section comprises two miracles: the healing of the woman with the haemorrhage and the
MARK
the tradition. However, Mark seems to know virtually nothing of what may actually have happened on the mission except in the most general terms, and the gesture is not expanded here.
teaching (v. 2), and again Mark seems more interested in the negative reaction this provokes than in the actual contents of the teaching. This reaction is articulated in the rhetorical questions about Jesus' origins and his family (v. 3). At one level, all that is said is that Jesus' origins imply that he is a very ordinary person. Whether anything more is implied is not clear. It was very unusual to refer to a Jewish man as the son of his mother, rather than his father. Various possible interpretations of this have been suggested: is this a hint of doubts about the legitimacy of Jesus' birth (Joseph was not really his father)? Is this a hint that Jesus has no human father because he is the Son of God? It is doubtful though if Mark sees any great significance in the words here: any hints of the type suggested are at most extremely allusive. Likewise the mention of Jesus' brothers and sisters (v. 3) is probably to be taken at face value and can only with difficulty be interpreted as referring to, say, half-brothers and half-sisters. The notion of the perpetual virginity of Mary comes from a much later period of Christian history, and Mark shows no awareness of it. Jesus' reply in v. 4 implicitly compares his own position with that of a prophet. The saying may be traditional: Mark nowhere else makes much of the idea of Jesus as a prophet. If anything, the saying is more at home on the lips of the historical Jesus.
So too it seems that Mark envisages the mission as taking place in Jesus' lifetime, and he gives no indication that these instructions are to apply to Christian missionaries in his own situation.
(6:14—29) Herod and the Death of John the Baptist Between the sending out of the twelve on mission and their return
(v. 30), Mark inserts the note about Herod's views on Jesus, which leads into a retrospective account of the death of John the Baptist. In literary terms, the insertion serves to fill a gap in the story of the mission (about which Mark seems to have had very little information); but it also serves to intensify the general theme of the fate that awaits Jesus. John is the forerunner of Jesus, and here his violent death is recalled. The reader cannot fail to be reminded of the similar fate that awaits the one to whom John has pointed (cf. too 9:12-13).
The opinions about Jesus echoed in w. 14-16 may reflect views held by some at the time, though it is unclear whether anyone would have seriously thought that Jesus could be an executed John brought back to life. The structure of the story in the overall narrative (as in 8:28 where very similar opinions are also recorded) suggests that Mark thinks that these opinions are at best inadequate (Jesus is 'one of the prophets'), at worst quite clearly wrong (Jesus is John returned).