Part 87
The story concludes with the note about Jesus' inability to do any miracle because of the unbelief of the people. (The apparent reference to Jesus' impotence here is toned down by Matthew.) This is the negative side of the positive correlation between faith and miracles seen already in Mark: miracles can and do take place in a context of faith (cf 2:4; 5:43, 36); conversely, where there is no faith, miracles cannot occur.
The story of John's death itself has a number of bizarre features and is quite unlike Josephus' account of John's death, where John is executed because Herod fears an insurrection. Mark has probably confused personnel in identifying Philip as the (first) husband of Herodias: Philip was in fact Herodias' son-in-law. However, the relationships of the Herod family were so incestuous and tortuous that anyone could be forgiven for being somewhat confused! The picture in Mark's story of Herod as full of respect for John, but feeling morally bound to agree to honour a 'blank cheque' offered to his/ Herodias' daughter, strains credulity. The account in Josephus seems far more plausible. For Mark though, the function of the story is to point to the similar fate awaiting Jesus. Thus the note about the burial of John at the end of the story (v. 29) is reminiscent of the note of the burial of Jesus (15:45—6). Even in the midst of the apparent success of the mission, the shadow of the cross falls.
(6:66—13) The Mission of the Twelve Mark records the tradition (probably also found in Q: cf. Lk 10:1-16) of Jesus giving instructions for a 'mission' by the disciples, commanding them to take only the barest minimum by way of clothing or supplies, and with instructions about what to do when they are not accepted. The widespread nature of the tradition suggests that it is old (i.e. pre-Markan), though whether it goes back to Jesus himself is not certain. It seems likely that some Christians did take these instructions to the letter (cf. G. Theissen's suggestions about the existence of 'wandering charismatics' in the early church: Theissen 1978). However, Mark does not make much of it. For him, the story further develops the mixed portrait of the disciples in his story. We have already seen the beginnings of the negative picture that will come more strongly from now on (cf. 1:36; 4:38). But this negative picture is always the counterfoil of a positive side which should not be forgotten (cf. 1:16—20; 3:13): here too the disciples are instructed by Jesus, and they obey his instructions fully and without demur.
(6:31-44) The Feeding of the 5,000 This feeding story has a doublet in the account of the feeding of the 4,000 in ch. 8. Several commentators have pointed to a possible parallel structure in the two sequences of events in 6:31-7:37 and 8:1-26: a feeding story (6:35-44; 8:1-10) is followed by a journey across the lake (6:45-52; 8:10), a dispute with Pharisees (7:1—23; 8:11—13), a discussion about bread (7:24—30; 8:14—21) and a healing involving some kind of'magical' techniques (7:31-7; 8:22-6). However, too much should probably not be made of this. Mark is certainly aware of the duplication in the feeding narratives (cf. 8:17—21), but not of the other parallels which in any case are at times rather weak (there is no miracle in the crossing of 8:10, unlike 6:45-52; the dispute with the Pharisees in 8:11-13 does not concern the law as in 7:1—23). The sequence may be in part traditional (cf. Jn 6,
Some details remain obscure. Mark allows the disciples to wear sandals (v. 9: Q does not: cf. Lk 10:4). Perhaps Mark is easing an almost impossibly ascetic earlier version to make it more practicable. The significance of shaking the dust off one's feet against unresponsive places (v. n) may allude to the practice of Jews shaking the dust off their feet when they entered the land of Israel to avoid contaminating the holy land. Does this gesture then imply rejection from the (new) people of God by the disciples? This may have been the case in
MARK
«99
of passing through the Red Sea at the Exodus attests to YHWH's power (Ps 77:19; Isa 43:16). The latter motif may provide some link with the feeding story in so far as the latter is redolent of the manna incident: both stories may then show Jesus as a latter-day Moses, feeding people miraculously and passing on/over the sea. This is however more likely to be characteristic of the pre-Markan tradition than of Mark himself who does not generally make much of Jesus as a Moses figure (such a typology is more prominent in Matthew). For Mark, the story may simply illustrate Jesus' power over the forces of nature once more.
where the feeding story is also followed by the walking on the water: unless one posits John's dependence on Mark, the parallel structure indicates a common tradition available to both evangelists). For the possible significance of the doublet in the feeding story, see MK 8:1-10.
What actually happened is probably impossible to say, though many have tried to do so. The famous lunch-box' theory—everyone had brought their own supplies and were encouraged to share what they had brought—can gain a little support from the fact that there is no report of an acclamation from the crowd that a great miracle has occurred. Nevertheless, it is quite clear that Mark himself regarded the event as a miracle. It is probably more fruitful to ask what the evangelist made of the story.
Jesus' words to the disciples in v. 51 (NRSV 'it is I') are literally T am' (Gk. ego eimi). It is just possible that this is an allusion to the divine name of YHWH himself (the Greek LXX renders the divine name 'YHWH' as ego eimi). However, the Greek is ambiguous (NRSV's translation is perfectly possible) and Mark does not clearly take it as a claim to divinity as such.
The account is full of many reminiscences, from both Jewish and Christian tradition. The story recalls the giving of manna in the desert, and perhaps the miraculous feeding by the prophet Elisha in 2 Kings 4:42—4. Likewise the note about 'sheep without a shepherd' (v. 34) reminds one of David as the shepherd and the people of Israel as the sheep; since too by implication, Jesus fills the role of the missing shepherd, one recalls various OTpassages which speak of the future Davidic leader as a shepherd (Jer 23:1—6; Ezek 34:23).
A typically Markan motif comes at the end in v. 52. After the general note of astonishment in v. 51 (the expected end of a miracle story), Mark records the inability of the disciples to understand 'about the loaves'. In general terms this portrays the now increasingly negative portrait of the disciples in the narrative: they fail to understand almost everything about Jesus from now on. With 'their hearts ... hardened', they are almost in as bad a position as the Pharisees of 3:5 (but see further on 8:17—21). What it is about the loaves which they should have understood here is not spelt out explicitly. Clearly Mark sees the two stories as closely linked: both show Jesus' power and authority to act in sovereign freedom and in the power of God.
But the strongest parallel for Mark is probably the Christian tradition of the eucharist: Jesus' actions in v. 41 of blessing, breaking, and giving bread are the same as at the Last Supper
(14:22), and bread and fish very soon became eucharistic symbols. Jesus' feeding the crowds here is no doubt seen by Mark as a symbol of the feeding of the new people of God through the Christian eucharist in his own day in his community's worship. This is probably also the relevance of the note about the grass being 'green' (v. 39). This is sometimes taken as an indication of an eyewitness account (and is of course by no means trivial: grass in Palestine would not often be green, but very quickly became scorched and brown in the heat). It may though be a symbolic hint: grass is green in the spring, and for a Christian reader this evokes ideas of Jewish Passover, Christian Easter, and everything associated with them, including (for Mark's readers) the institution of the eucharist. Hence the greenness of the grass may be a further subtle allusion to the eucharistic symbolism and significance of the story.
(6:53—6) General Healings The same power and authority are exhibited in the summary statement which now follows, Mark recording general healings by Jesus in the area. Again there is no hint of a critique by Mark of the miracles performed by Jesus.
(7:1—23) Dispute about Purity Mark now gives a long section of Jesus' teaching, delivered apparently in relation to a dispute raised by Pharisees and some scribes. The section is almost certainly composite: the repeated introductory phrases (w. 9, 14, 18, 20) and changes of venue or audience (w. 14, 17) suggest that different traditions are being brought together, a view supported by the fact that some of the traditions do not cohere very well with the wider context in which they have been placed here by Mark.
The gathering of the fragments (in itself a miracle, since more is collected than distributed) no doubt had symbolic significance for John (cf Jn 6:12), though Mark makes nothing of it. For the possible significance of the numbers involved, see on 8:1—10.
The initial issue raised is why Jesus' disciples eat with unwashed hands. The 'washing' refers here to ritual purity, not to simple hygiene. Mark then seeks to explain the practice of hand-washing for his (almost certainly Gentile) audience in w. 3—4. Unfortunately, his explanation is, by universal consent, confused and erroneous: Mark says that hand-washing was incumbent upon 'all Jews', whereas we know that such ritual cleansing was only required of priests atthis time. (Such hand-washing was practised by all Jews at a later period, after 100 CE.) Clearly Mark is unaware of some of the details of Jewish Torah observance. There is though the question of why this practice should be expected of Jesus' disciples. It is possible that the story is wholly artificial; alternatively, the implicit assumption made here—that Jesus' disciples would obey
(6:45-52) The Walking on the Water This story was probably already connected with the feeding story in Mark's tradition (see MK 6:31—44). The historical basis for the account, as with the feeding miracle, is probably irrecoverable, though some have again sought to solve the problem of the miracle by a natural explanation (e.g. Jesus was on solid ground in very shallow water and the disciples thought he was actually walking on water). As before, this is certainly not the view of Mark, who doubtless regarded the story as a genuine miracle. God's power to subdue the sea and its forces (see MK 4:35—41) is well attested in the OT, and sometimes described in terms of walking on or through the sea (Job 9:8); so too the miracle
MARK 900
claiming in part that the subsequent controversies in the early church on the food laws are unintelligible if Jesus had ever said anything as clear as this (Raisaneni982). Itseemshardto deny that in some ways Jesus did play free with the law and claimed the right to do so. As such, it may explain part of the opposition and hostility he clearly aroused in the Jewish establishment and also amongst the Pharisees. It may be therefore that Mark's understanding of the saying is not so far removed from Jesus as some have claimed.
such rules—may indicate that Jesus and his disciples were closely connected with the Pharisaic movement and hence were expected, at least by other Pharisees, to adopt the Pharisaic way of life which may well have involved the voluntary taking on of such extra purity requirements. Cf. MK 2:16, 18.
Jesus'first reply in Mark comes in w. 6—8. He cites 13329:13 to reject the Pharisees' complaint, claiming that their human tradition is jeopardizing the obeying of the Torah itself. The 'reply' is scarcely apposite. It is not said, for example, how the practice of hand-washing has actually led to any abandonment of the written law. Moreover, it is not clear how the Pharisees' behaviour justifies the charge of their being 'hypocrites' (v. 6: generally this refers to saying one thing and doing another, but it is not said that the Pharisees themselves have not washed their hands.) Further, the version of Isa 29:13 cited here is that of the LXX, which differs markedly from the Hebrew text, and which can only make the relevant point (about the human, as opposed to divine, origins of the commands) precisely at the points where the LXX differs from the Hebrew. The saying can thus scarcely go back to the historical Jesus, and the connection with the present context is very artificial. Nor are the sentiments expressed here (maintaining the written law and simply rejecting the later tradition) Mark's last word on the topic. Perhaps Mark simply uses this tradition to castigate Jesus' opponents.
But whatever the meaning of the saying on the lips of Jesus, Mark is in no doubt: his explanatory gloss in v. 19 says explicitly that Jesus' saying, backed up by an explanation in v. 18 (which is in fact little more than a restatement of the saying) has 'made all foods clean'. Certainly by now Mark has gone far beyond the claims of w. 6-8 or 9-13, that the issue is simply one of human tradition over against a valid written law. The written law itself is now questioned.
The positive side of what is required of men and women is spelt out in w. 21-2. This list of inner thoughts and actions is typical of many Hellenistic ethical instructions. The ethic propounded here would thus be at home in the wider Hellenistic world. But en route to this, parts of the Jewish legal system, especially the purity laws and the social and religious barriers they create, are radically called into question by Mark's Jesus by the end of this section.
The second reply is even harder to integrate into the context. Jesus refers to the apparent practice of people evading their responsibilities to parents as set out in the Decalogue by appealing to the inviolable nature of an oath which dedicates an offering to the service of the temple. Such practice is condemned here in forthright terms. But other Jews would be equally forthright and would have—and did—stress the primacy of filial obligations. Further, it is not at all clear how this relates to any antithesis between written law and human tradition, since the inviolability of oaths was also part of the written law (Num 30:2). Once again, a separate tradition seems to be incorporated here, somewhat clumsily. For Mark, the prime point again seems to be the polemic against the opponents of Jesus.
(7:24—30) The Syro-Phoenician Woman It is surely no coincidence that Mark follows the controversy with the Pharisees, where Jesus has implicitly claimed to pull down the barriers separating Jews and Gentiles, by showing Jesus explicitly crossing those barriers himself. Jesus goes to the region of Tyre, i.e. to an area which was at least partly non-Jewish. There he meets a Syro-Phoenician woman who is explicitly said to be a Gentile (lit. 'Greek', v. 26). The woman begs Jesus to heal her daughter. The ensuing dialogue creates many difficulties. Jesus' first statement (v. 27) seems rude and offensive, apparently refusing to help and referring somewhat abusively to the woman and (by implication) other non-Jews as 'dogs'. It seems highly likely that in fact Jesus himself did restrict his ministry almost exclusively to Jews and saw himself as primarily involved in addressing, and restoring, Israel. A saying such as v. 27 is not impossible in general terms on the lips of Jesus. (How offensive the reference to 'dogs' is is not certain: it is possible thatthe dogs concerned are pets and not thought of as distasteful.) Or perhaps the saying is intended to try to evoke a response from the woman.
Jesus' positive reply to the initial charge, at least in Mark's story, comes in v. 15. However, the extra introduction in v. 14, and the summoning of the crowd, may indicate a further seam in the tradition. Moreover, the question of handwashing seems now to have been left far behind and the issue is now one of the purity of food on its own. Jesus' saying in v. 15 has been extensively discussed, above all because of its possible implications for determining Jesus' attitude to the law. At first sight, the saying appears to deny that any food in and of itself can be unclean, and hence calls into question all the food laws of Leviticus. Those who see the saying as authentic, but find such a radical claim hard to credit to Jesus, have argued that perhaps the negative statement in the first half of the saying is not to be taken too literally but only comparatively: the antithesis (not A but B) means that one thing (B) is much more important than the other (A), not that the other (A) itself is to be rejected. This is possible, though it is not what Mark's Greek says, and Mark himself clearly understands the saying as implying that Jesus has abrogated the food laws of the OT (cf v. 19). Others accept this meaning of the saying, but then deny that Jesus could ever have said it,
No doubt for Mark, the woman simply exhibits the necessary response of faith and trust in Jesus. Her initial address of Jesus is in Greek kyrie—which can be translated as simply a polite form (NRSV, 'Sir!'), or as 'Lord!', expressing a much higher Christology. Mark does not elsewhere make much of the idea (common in Hellenistic Christianity) of Jesus as 'Lord', but it may be alluded to here. Thus the woman makes an exemplary response. Again it is noteworthy that a woman responds in a way that the male disciples have failed to do (see MK 1:31). Moreover, despite any apparent initial reluctance by Jesus to act, the woman's response does create the necessary preconditions for a miracle to occur: hence the girl is healed, and Mark's Jesus has put into practice what was implicit in his teaching about purity immediately prior to this story.
goi MARK
More directly, the story serves in Mark to underline the obtuseness of the disciples. The very fact that the two stories occur so close together in the gospel, and the accounts are so closely parallel, makes the disciples' initial reaction here all the more pointed. They have just witnessed Jesus feed 5,000 people miraculously; exactly the same situation recurs and yet the disciples again ask 'How can one feed these people with bread in the desert?' (v. 4). What they have just experienced should surely tell them how! The duplication in the story thus serves to highlight the growing incomprehension of the disciples. (See Fowler 1981.) (8:11-13) Request for a Sign The story highlighting the obtuseness of the disciples is followed by a short incident showing the total blindness of the Pharisees. Immediately after Jesus has performed a clear sign of his credentials, the Pharisees come and ask for a sign from heaven! In the present Markan context, the very existence of the request shows the failure of the Pharisees to grasp anything at all about Jesus. Jesus' blanket refusal to give a sign inevitably follows.
(7:31-7) The Deaf Man Cured There is uncertainty as to whether Mark thinks that the next story, the healing of the deaf mute, concerns a Gentile or not. The route taken by Jesus according to v. 31 (from Tyre through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee) is very circuitous: Sidon is well to the north of Tyre, which in turn is north of the Sea of Galilee. Perhaps Mark does not know very much about Galilean geography (cf. MK 5:1). It is also not clear if Mark realizes that the region of the Decapolis, where the story is sited, is well away from the Sea of Galilee and also predominantly Gentile. Mark's story seems to suggest a return from Gentile territory. Certainly little in the story itself suggests a Gentile milieu.
The description of the man's condition, having 'an impediment in his speech' (v. 35), uses a very rare Greek word mogilalos. This occurs only once in the LXX, in Isa 35:6. The allusion then seems to be clear: Jesus' action in healing the man is the fulfilment of Jewish eschatological hopes as articulated in such passages as Isa 35. The word Jesus speaks to the man here is given by Mark in Aramaic, as in 5:41. But as in the other context, there is no idea that this word can act as a quasimagical formula. There is an element of secrecy about the healing: Jesus takes the man aside privately (v. 33) and orders him to be quiet afterwards (v. 36). But this results in even more publicity (v. 37). Rather than trying to impose any real secrecy, the motif here probably simply serves as a means of highlighting the success and popularity enjoyed by Jesus as a result of the cure. (See MK 1:44—5.) We should probably distinguish between a 'miracle secret' and the messianic secret proper, and see here only an example of the former.
Matthew and Luke (and hence probably Q) have a different version of the incident: here Jesus' refusal is qualified by the phrase 'except the sign of Jonah'. Mark may have omitted this (perhaps because it was unintelligible to his audience); but the Markan account is almost certainly pre-Markan: the words of Jesus' refusal are literally: 'if a sign shall be given', reflecting a Semitic oath formula 'May I be cursed if God gives a sign', a feature which Mark is very unlikely to have created himself. Hence Mark's version is not simply due to Mark's own redaction of the Q version. In any case it is likely that the Markan and Q versions mean similar things: both deny, more or less implicitly, that any sign will be given beyond Jesus' own present activity. Once again in Mark, the story shows that miracles cannot engender a positive response to Jesus if no such response is already present.
Jesus here uses a technique which could be conceived of as magical (using spittle). Mark shows no embarrassment about this, but it may be the reason why Matthew and Luke both omit the story.
(8:1-10) The Feeding of the 4,000 The story is clearly a duplicate of the earlier story of the feeding of the 5,000. A few details disappear here, but the overall structures of the two accounts are so similar that one is forced to conclude that both reflect the same original tradition. Why then does Mark include both accounts?
(8:14—21) Discussion about Bread The section brings to a climax the theme of the disciples' growing obtuseness. They are in a boat with Jesus and worried about lack of food. In general terms the story is clear: they obviously should have realized what Jesus can do by way of feeding large masses, and yet once again they show their lack of trust and faith (w. 14— 16). Some details are, however, not quite so clear. The significance of the 'one' loaf the disciples do have with them (v. 14) is disputed. Some have seen this as a eucharistic allusion to Jesus as the one bread, others more generally as a Christological allusion to the person of Jesus, others to the one bread sufficient for Jews and Gentiles. Mark, however, gives no direct hint. It may simply be another way of highlighting the disciples' obtuseness: they do have one loaf with them and so, since Jesus has fed 5,000 people with twelve loaves, feeding twelve people with one loaf should be relatively easy; the fact that they still worry brings out their total lack of faith.
Much has been made of the possible symbolism in the numbers involved in the two stories, whereby the story of the 5,000 may reflect the gospel going to the Jews, that of the 4,000 reflecting the gospel going to the Gentiles. Thus, 5,000 and twelve baskets may allude to the five books of the Pentateuch and the twelve tribes of Israel; 4,000 may reflect the four corners of the earth, and the seven baskets the seventy nations of the world. Possibly too the different Greek words for the 'baskets' used to collect the fragments in the two stories may be relevant: it is sometimes said that the word used in the story of the 5,000 implies a more Jewish kind of basket, that in the 4,000 a more common Hellenistic basket. However, the most one can say is that this is possible but by no means certain. The symbolism makes at times for a bizarre set of parallelisms. (Surely 'twelve' would be better as parallel to the number of people, and 'five' to what they are fed with, if the above symbolism were in mind.) Moreover it is not at all clear that Mark thinks that Jesus is among Gentiles (see MK 7:31). There is nothing in the story itself to indicate that the crowd here is Gentile.
The warning of Jesus against the 'leaven' of the Pharisees and of Herod (v. 15) seems at first sight out of place. It is not picked up in the ensuing dialogue which focuses only on the issue of lack of food. Again many possible interpretations have been suggested as to what the leaven symbolizes here. Luke takes it as hypocrisy (Lk 12:1), Matthew as teaching (Mt 16:14). Leaven in Jewish tradition symbolizes evil (i Cor 5:6-8; Gal 5:9). The saying may not, however, be outofplace in Mark.
MARK 902
However, the present story, focusing as it does explicitly on Jesus' identity, with Jesus himself provoking the question of who he is, seems very strange in the life of Jesus: elsewhere Jesus points away from himself to God as the principal actor and focus of concern. The exclusive focus on the explicit Christological question looks more characteristic of Mark than of Jesus.
The Pharisees and Herod have been shown to fail to recognize who Jesus is on the basis of what he has done (6:14—16; 8:n— 12); moreover, supporters of Herod have joined with the Pharisees in plotting to kill Jesus (3:6). The leaven' of Herod and the Pharisees is thus probably the unbelief that refuses to recognize Jesus and hence rejects him.
Jesus' reply to the disciples in w. 17—21 highlights all the details (right down to the numbers of baskets and the Greek words used in the two accounts) of the feeding stories. The disciples have failed to understand; as a result they show themselves to have hardened hearts, eyes which do not see, and ears which do not hear. By implication, they are similar to the outsiders of 4:12 to whom Isa 6:9-10 is applied. (The language is very similar here, though the allusion is in fact closer to Jer 5:21.) Yet the situation of the disciples is not quite the same as that of the crowds. Jesus gives only a series of rhetorical questions, rather than any blanket statements of their rejection; and the warning of v. 15 remains as a warning: they are not yet in the position of Herod and the Pharisees. This ambivalent position of the disciples comes to the fore in the next two stories.
At the level of Mark, the proper interpretation of the story is much debated. Especially the significance of the secrecy charge in v. 30 is disputed. Does it indicate that, in Mark's eyes, Peter's confession is right, or wrong, or half right and half wrong? Some have argued that the secrecy charge, together with the following remonstration by Jesus against Peter, indicates that, for Mark, Peter is quite wrong: Peter confesses Jesus as the Messiah on the basis of the stupendous miracles that have happened so far in the story—hence for Peter Jesus qua Messiah is the wonder worker; Mark's Jesus then rejects such a view by putting forward his own view of himself as the suffering Son of Man (soWeedeni97i). Others, however, have pointed to the positive way Mark uses the term 'Messiah'/Christ elsewhere, including the title to the gospel (1:1): hence Peter's confession must be viewed by Mark positively.
(8:22-6) The Blind Man at Bethsaida Jesus' cure of the blind man here has some affinities with the story of 7:32—7 in that both involve use of a 'magical' technique (use of spittle). However, the closer parallel is probably with the story of the cure of Bartimaeus (10:46-52). The two stories of healing blindness form an indusio round a long section of Jesus' teaching devoted to the meaning of discipleship (8:31-10:45). Probably then Mark intends both stories to illuminate and illustrate Christian discipleship so that the coming to sight of the two men symbolizes the new life and salvation that is available to those who follow Jesus. It is widely agreed that the story here is integrally related in Mark's narrative to the next story of Peter's confession: the man receiving his sight serves as an acted parable for the disciples' coming to insight about who Jesus is. One notable feature of the story is the fact that the man needs two stages in which to be healed. For the possible significance, see MK 8:27-30. The text at the end of the story is uncertain: many MSS add an explicit command to secrecy, though even the shorter text (implied in the NRSV's translation) suggests an element of secrecy. The explicit command in 8:30, and the close parallelism between the story of the blind man and Peter's confession, suggests that a secrecy charge is intended by Mark at v. 26; however, it almost certainly gains all its meaning from 8:27-30, the story that it introduces and that provides for Mark its true significance.
There is strength in the latter argument. Mark nowhere else indicates any reserve about the term 'Messiah', and indeed uses it quite positively in 1:1. There is moreover little indication that Mark positively disapproves of Jesus' miracleworking activity. Indeed verses such as 8:17-21 suggest precisely the opposite. Further, the structure of the present story would seem to support the view that Peter's confession is certainly not regarded by Mark as wholly wrong: Peter's confession is set in clear contrast to the views of other people, which the disciples report in v. 28 (and which in turn echo the views expressed in 6:14—15); by implication these views are wrong and Peter's view is therefore not mistaken.
However, there may be a real sense in which Peter's view is not regarded by Mark as expressing the deepest truth about Jesus. At the level of nomenclature, it may be significant that Mark does not have Peter use the term 'Son of God' here, and for Mark it is that term that expresses the most fundamental truth about Jesus (cf. 1:1; 1:11; 9:7; 15:39). Further, whatever words, or title, Peter uses to describe Jesus, the sequel does make it clear that Peter has not understood the most important thing about Jesus—that he must suffer and die. There is much therefore to be said for the view that, in Mark's eyes, Peter gets things only half right here. Peter is thus perhaps in the intermediate state of the blind man of 8:22—6. He has come to some insight about Jesus, and it is a genuine and valuable insight. Unlike some with mistaken views, he recognizes Jesus as Messiah. But whatever Mark thinks of the title itself, words are not enough. Peter evidently does not yet appreciate the proper significance of who Jesus is and what his role in life (and death) is to be. Thus to reach the deepest insight about Jesus, Peter has to be led further: a need which is met by Jesus' further teaching in w. 31—8.
(8:27-30) Peter's Confession This section is often seen as a watershed in Mark's narrative. Whether it is a watershed in the ministry of Jesus himself is quite another matter. The work of the form critics suggests that we can place little if any reliance on the chronological sequence of the stories in the gospels: rather, the arrangement of the individual stories is due to later editors. Hence we cannot know where, if anywhere, this story might be placed within the life of Jesus himself. In fact the historicity of the whole story must be somewhat questionable. There may be an underlying tradition: e.g. the reference to Caesarea Philippi, a town well to the north of Galilee, is unlikely to have been invented dc novo.
This then may also be the significance of the secrecy charge in v. 30. For Mark secrecy is imposed not because others without Peter's faith are not to identify Jesus. Rather, in Mark's story, people cannot come to the full realization of who Jesus is until the story is complete and Jesus' full role as
9°3 MARK
follower of Jesus. Just as Jesus' destiny is to suffer and to die, so any disciple of Jesus must be prepared to do the same. The fact that Mark has this teaching addressed to the 'crowd' (v. 34) as well as the disciples may suggest that Mark deliberately intends this message to be taken to apply to a wider audience than just the twelve as contemporaries of Jesus. The same may be implied by the reference to the 'gospel' in v. 35 (in a phrase omitted by Matthew and Luke, and probably due to Mark). The 'gospel' here is parallel to Jesus himself, so that suffering for the sake of the gospel and for the sake of Jesus are virtually synonymous. Mark has in mind the later Christian community preaching the gospel, warning them that they too must be prepared to suffer.
the one who dies on the cross has been finally disclosed (see MK 1:34). Quite irrespective of the correctness of any words or titles used, Peter has not yet come to the deepest insight and understanding, and indeed prior to the cross he cannot. Hence Jesus' identity cannot be divulged—yet. If it is, it will be misunderstood, and precisely such misunderstanding is immediately shown by Peter.
(8:31—3) The First Passion Prediction More details about Jesus' future role are now spelt out by Jesus in the prediction of the coming passion. This prediction is the first element in an extended section of the gospel (8:31—10:45) where Jesus predicts his passion and elaborates on the implications of that suffering not only for himself but also for any would-be followers. The passion itself is predicted three times in Mark's story in relatively quick succession (8:31; 9:31; 10:33—4), which gives added emphasis to the motif; and on each occasion, Jesus follows this up with further teaching on the relevance of this for discipleship. Correspondingly, in this part of the gospel, the stress on Jesus' miracles is reduced and more weight is now placed explicitly on the cross and its significance.
The saying about cross-bearing (v. 34) has been much discussed. It is very hard to locate this saying with such vocabulary in the ministry of the pre-Easter Jesus. Crucifixion was a punishment administered by the Roman authorities for political rebels. It is very unlikely that Jesus could have foreseen his own crucifixion, even if he might have realized that his conflicts with the Jewish authorities would lead to death. It is even more improbable that Jesus foresaw crucifixion as being a real possibility for his followers. It is more likely that the detailed imagery is the language of the post-Easter community, looking back on the manner of Jesus' death and claiming that would-be disciples must be prepared to follow in his footsteps. How literally the saying is meant is also not clear. The very finality of death suggests that some metaphorical element is present: if every disciple literally took up his or her cross and was crucified, the movement would die out immediately! Probably what is intended is a vivid and stark metaphor of the call to give up all security and claims to look after one's own interests, even, if necessary, to the point of death itself.
The passion predictions themselves probably owe a lot to later Christian creativity. It is unlikely that Jesus predicted his own trial and death with quite such accurate detail as is recorded here: if he did, the apparently total confusion of the disciples when the events occurred is harder to explain. Jesus may have foreseen in a more general way the opposition his ministry was provoking, and may have realized—and said— that this could lead to violence and even death. Nevertheless, the detail of the predictions, corresponding so precisely to the later passion narrative, is less likely to be genuine.
The passion predictions are all predicated of Jesus qua Son of Man. The stress on the necessity of the suffering of the Son of Man is thoroughly characteristic of Mark. The background of the use of'Son of Man' in the gospels is much disputed, but if one accepts that it lies in Dan 7, with its twin foci of suffering and vindication, there is no need to see any artificiality in the use of the term here in Mark: Jesus quite appropriately talks of his coming destiny involving suffering and vindication (the predictions are all of suffering and resurrection) in terms of his role as Son of Man (see MK 2:10).
Whatthese sayings tell us about the situation of Mark's own community is not clear. It is often assumed that sayings such as this imply that it was suffering violence and persecution, with martyrdoms taking place (possibly in Rome under Nero). On the other hand, there is little here that seems to address such a situation with any note of comfort or help. These sayings give little if anything by way of explanation or interpretation for any suffering. Rather, there is only the somewhat bleak and stark call to be prepared to suffer. It may therefore make more sense if Mark's community were in a situation of relative peace and security, and Mark feels that it needs to be roused out of possible complacency and warned of the dangers that can befall any who claim to be followers of the crucified one.
Peter's rebuke, and Jesus' stern counter in v. 33, are widely regarded as based on firm tradition. (It is unlikely that such a negative view of Peter would be invented by later Christians.) Nevertheless, the picture closely matches Mark's progressive story as well: Jesus' role involves suffering, and denial of that is effectively denial of God and of God's chosen way—hence it is demonic. Whoever opposes God is Satanic, whoever that person may be.
The saying in v. 38 is couched in wholly negative terms as a warning. (The Q parallel has both a positive and a negative element: cf Lk 12:8—9.) The Son of Man here is a figure exercising a key role in eschatological judgement. This saying and its Q parallel have provided the strongest evidence for the theory that Jesus looked forward to the coming of a Son of Man figure other than himself. However, Mark clearly regarded the two as identical and saw no difficulty in taking Jesus' reference to the Son of Man in the third person here as a self-reference. The eschatological role of the Son of Man may be the other pole in the twin theme of suffering and vindication as in Dan 7: Jesus qua Son of Man is a suffering figure in
(8:34—9:1) The Cost of Discipleship Mark follows Peter's rebuke with teaching by Jesus about the implications of his suffering for any who would join his cause and 'follow' him. Mark is probably using a variety of sayings which come from various origins: certainly the parallels in Matthew and Luke appear in scattered contexts—almost certainly many of the sayings belonged to Q as well, and were preserved in different contexts. The present arrangement of the sayings is thus probably due to Mark himself. The kernel of the collection concerns the physical dangers which will face any would-be
MARK 904
Moses, and Elijah. In one way this is another feature of the general incomprehension of the disciples, but it may be implied more specifically that what Peter has failed to understand is that Jesus is so much greater than Moses or Elijah (perhaps reflected too in Peter's address of Jesus as just 'Rabbi' in v. 5: Jesus for Mark is far more than just a Jewish teacher). Elijah was also famous for not having died; and some Jewish tradition also claimed the same for Moses: in such a tradition, both figures were thus translated to heaven without experiencing death. Jesus' path to heavenly glory is, however, via a different route: he must suffer and die first, and the supreme title or term expressing this is his identity as Son of God. By treading this road, he is so much greater. But equally, any follower of his must tread the same road: hence the command of the heavenly voice to 'listen to him' (v. 7), especially to the teaching which he has just given in 8:34-9:1 on the meaning ofdiscipleship.
v. 31; here Jesus qua Son of Man is the one who will exercise judgement (cf. Dan 7:14).
The final saying in this section, in 9:1, is also much debated. It seems to suggest that the final consummation of all things, and the arrival of the eschatological kingdom of God in power, will come within the lifetime of the bystanders of Jesus. If that is what is meant, the promise has clearly failed to materialize. Precisely for that reason, many have seen here a genuine saying of Jesus, on the grounds that such an unfulfilled prophecy would not be invented by later Christians. Attempts to explain the saying away (e.g. by referring it to the cross, or even the transfiguration story immediately following) seem unconvincing. So too C. H. Dodd's famous attempt to interpret the saying as one of realized eschatology (people will realize that the kingdom has already come, i.e. in the ministry of Jesus) has also failed to convince others. As far as detailed time-scales are concerned, the saying has indeed been an unfulfilled prophecy. Yet Mark himself (and probably Jesus too) is not concerned with detailed time-scales (cf. 13:32). Quite as much as expressing a time limit, the saying also expresses the ultimate certainty of the establishment of God's kingly rule. It is that belief and that faith which is perhaps in the end more important than any detailed chronologies.
(9:9-13) Coming Down from the Mountain These enigmatic verses contain a number of exegetical problems. The section is probably composite: w. 9-10 deal with the theme of secrecy and resurrection, w. 11—13 with Elijah, v. 9 is the clearest statement in the gospel that the secrecy surrounding the person of Jesus has a temporal limit, and provides the strongest support for the interpretation of the messianic secret adopted here: until the cross, Jesus' identity remains a secret, but after that all will be revealed, for then its true nature will be clear. (Mark probably conceives of the cross and resurrection as a single point in time for these purposes.) The disciples' response in v. 10 seems to imply that they do not understand what resurrection in general means. This seems incredible in historical terms: resurrection was a well-known idea in Judaism of the period, v. 10 is thus either a highly artificial note by Mark to bolster his motif of the disciples' lack of understanding, or it refers specifically to the resurrection of the Son of Man: resurrection was generally thought to be a corporate affair (of all, or of all the righteous): an individual resurrection prior to the End is not so easy to parallel in Jewish thought of the time.
(9:2-8) The Transfiguration The possible historical origins of this story are probably irretrievably lost. Whether anything like this might have happened we simply do not and cannot know. Attempts have often been made to see this as a misplaced, or displaced, resurrection appearance story; however, the differences between this and the gospel resurrection appearances are considerable. Mark's understanding of the story is not much easier to determine. In one way it is clear that the account gives a proleptic anticipation of Jesus' future glory, and thereby serves to give the reader assurance of the claim made in 9:1. So too the heavenly voice's declaration of Jesus as God's Son serves to reinforce the true nature of Jesus' identity, the issue explicitly raised in 8:27-30. In one way, the heavenly voice confirms the truth of Peter's confession, since Messiah and Son of God can be, and are, used in parallel in Mark (1:1; 14:62); and indeed the words of the heavenly voice simply repeat (though in a third-person statement rather than in a second-person address) the words of the voice from heaven at Jesus' baptism (1:11). But perhaps the use of'Son of God' here also serves to deepen the meaning of Peter's confession of Jesus as (just?) Messiah. For Mark, Jesus' sonship is seen supremely in his obedience which leads to death (cf. 15:39); thus the declaration of Jesus as Son of God here serves to reinforce the passion prediction of 8:31 which has just been given.
w. 11-13 f°cus on the person of Elijah. What seems to be reflected is the expectation that Elijah would reappear at the End (cf. Mai 4:5—6). In Malachi, Elijah appears before the Day of the Lord itself; Christian tradition appears to have taken this schema over and modified it so that Elijah appears as the forerunner of the Messiah, Jesus, though such a twofold expectation cannot be found in non-Christian Judaism of this period. In this Christian modification, Elijah is identified as John the Baptist. The full schema is clearly present in Matthew's parallel to this passage; it is probably present in Mark here as well, though the language is more cryptic. John the Baptist, for example, is not mentioned explicitly, though the allusion seems clear. Whatever the precise background, Mark uses the verses to focus again on the coming passion of Jesus. Elijah's role as a forerunner is made more specific by the claim that 'Elijah' has suffered. In terms of the implied identification of Elijah with John, this suffering has led to violent death: hence a similar fate awaits Jesus. (That such a fate was predicted of the returning Elijah in Scripture (cf. v. 13/7) is otherwise unattested. In mind may simply be the suffering the first Elijah endured: cf. i Kings 19:2-3.)
The precise significance of Moses and Elijah in the story is not certain, and it is noteworthy that Elijah here precedes Moses. (Matthew and Luke both revert to the more 'natural', or certainly chronological, order of Moses followed by Elijah.) Perhaps both appear here as witnesses to Jesus: Elijah as the anticipated forerunner of the Messiah, Moses as the representative of Scripture.
There may also be an element of mild polemic in the story, seeking to counter any claims that Jesus is on a par with Moses and Elijah. This may be the thrust of the implied rebuke of Peter's suggestion that he build three 'booths' for Jesus,
9°5 MARK
once again emphasizes the disciples' failure to understand what is said.
(9:14-29) The Epileptic Child This very long story in Mark may represent the coming together of two stories, or of two versions of the same story: cf. the double description of the child's illness (w. 17-18, 22), and the apparent assembling of the crowd in v. 25, even though the crowd is already assembled in v. 14. The first half of the present story focuses on the failure of the disciples, the second on the faith of the boy's father. Yet fundamental to both parts of the story is the importance of faith—faith not shown by the disciples (v. 19) and the stuttering faith of the father elicited by Jesus (v. 24).
(9:33—50) Further Teaching As after the first passion prediction in 8:31, Mark follows the second prediction with more teaching about discipleship, much of it somewhat disparate and linked by catchword connections. The first unit, in w. 33—7, concerns the importance of humility and the meaning of true greatness. As in ch. 8, the teaching is provoked by a brief note indicating the disciples' failure to grasp the true significance of what it means to be a follower of the crucified one (w. 33—4, cf. 8:33). This motif may well reflect Mark's own concerns in developing the negative portrait of the disciples, though the reference to Capernaum in v. 33, which scarcely fits the wider context in Mark of Jesus passing through Galilee to Judea (9:30; 10:1), may imply the presence of a tradition here. The kernel of the section is the saying on the first and the last and the supreme importance of becoming a servant of all (v. 35). The saying is a popular one and recurs elsewhere in the tradition (Mk 10:43—4; Mt 23:11; Lk 22:26). For Mark, its significance is further developed in 10:41-5. The word for 'servant' here is perhaps better translated as 'slave'. The saying thus advocates a total reversal of the values of contemporary society: all that is regarded as valuable and honoured in human society is here called into question, and the Christian must adopt the role of the lowest and most despised member of the social community.
The story has some features of a 'miracle story' in formcritical terms, though the cry of astonishment does not come at the end but at the start of the story (v. 15, in response to the crowd seeing Jesus, perhaps implying that some vestige of his transfigured form still remains). The stress is not so much on the power of Jesus the miracle worker as on the response of the disciples in the story and hence of any would-be disciple in the Christian community. The disciples have been unable to perform the miracle, and their failure leads to Jesus' cry about them and the crowdas a 'faithless generation'. Miracles in Mark can only take place in a context of faith (cf. 2:4; 5:43; 6:5).
The second half of the story focuses on the man's father. The plea to Jesus evokes an almost contemptuous response by Jesus (v. 23) about his ability. It is, however, not quite clear who 'the one who believes' in v. 23 is meant to be. It appears to be Jesus, and yet Jesus is never portrayed elsewhere in Mark as having 'faith', and the sequel focuses on the father's faith. Perhaps it is impossible to be precise and the ambiguity is intentional. 'Faith' in relation to miracles in Mark is not necessarily the faith of the recipient, nor necessarily the faith of the would-be healer alone. Rather, it is a description of the total human context in which a potential miracle might take place. The man's famous reply (v. 24) shows that faith is both a human response and a gift from outside. Cf. 4:11. Human response is essential, but in the end, for Mark, such response is itself a matter of divine grace.
This is then illustrated by the saying about the child (w. 36— 7). The saying here is a doublet of the similar saying in 10:15. The interpretation is disputed. Matthew clearly takes the child as an example to be imitated, in particular as an example of humility (cf. Mt 18:3). This suffers from some problems: children are not necessarily always humble; further, children in the ancient world were not necessarily as highly valued as they have become in contemporary Western society. Rather, children were considered to be of very low status and of little value. Hence it is more likely that v. 36 sets up the child as an example of the object of the disciples' action: in their role as servants, they are to be slaves of all, even to the most lowly and least esteemed members of society, i.e. children. In so doing they will be serving Jesus, and by implication, God Himself
The final two verses are sometimes thought to be an appendix, not closely related to the rest of the story in that they focus on prayer, rather than faith. However, the motif of Jesus explaining privately to his disciples in a 'house' the deeper significance of what has just happened is typically Markan (cf. 4:10; 7:17; 10:10). Moreover, the difference between prayer and faith as the principal focus can be overstressed: faith for Mark is the absolute trust and dependence on God which can be and is reflected precisely in the activity of prayer.
(v. 37). The last saying is developed elsewhere in relation to Christian missionaries (cf. Lk 10:16; Mt 10:40-2, and perhaps Mt 25:31—46), but the idea that in helping the poor, one is helping God is well rooted in Jewish tradition (cf. Prov 19:17).
The small pericope about the strange exorcist follows (w. 38-40). The story may well reflect problems experienced in the later Christian church (cf. Acts 19:13—17). The reaction of Jesus portrayed here is surprisingly open, and diametrically opposed to its Q parallel (cf Lk 11:23) in its attitude to the neutral and those not explicitly committed to the Christian cause: here anyone who is not an active opponent is regarded as 'one of us'; in the Q version, neutrality is condemned fiercely. The story condemns any factionalism or triumphalism within the body of those who would be followers of Jesus. Just as faith is ultimately a gift and not an achievement (cf. 9:24), so what in the end matters is not church allegiance but allegiance to Jesus: the exorcist still carries out his exorcisms in the name of Jesus. Mark thus has a much more open-ended ecclesiology than, say, Matthew does. For Mark, what is crucial
Mark's vocabulary in w. 26—7, where the boy appears to be dead and Jesus 'raised him' and he 'arose', is similar to other language in the NT used of resurrection. The words can be used quite naturally here, but Christian readers probably saw deeper significance in them: Jesus' action foreshadows the new resurrection life that is available through Jesus to believers in the new age. (9:30-2) The Second Passion Prediction This is the least detailed of the three passion predictions in Mark, and has the greatest claims to historicity: certainly the very general language has been least explicitly influenced by the details of the passion narrative. However, the key element of the fact that it is as Son of Man that Jesus will suffer and be vindicated remains constant through the three predictions. In v. 32 Mark
MARK 906
occasion of the whole complex: disputes about relative superiority within the community are no part of the life of followers of Jesus who must live harmoniously ('at peace') with one another.
is the issue of Christology, the person of Jesus. Everything else is subordinate to that.
The story is followed by a series of sayings, at times only loosely connected by means of catchwords. The first saying
(v. 41) may have continued after v. 37 originally, though there is also a catchword link with w. 38—40 via the use of the word 'name'. But the saying here does represent a shift from v. 37 in that the recipient of the action is no longer the child but the Christian disciple or missionary (as in the parallels to v. 37). The word 'Christ' here seems to be used as virtually a proper name, with all idea of its titular sense (cf 1:1) forgotten. In its present form, therefore, the saying must reflect the vocabulary and thought of early Christians and not Jesus. For Mark, the saying perhaps continues the thought of w. 38—40: any positive service, however small and insignificant, will be rewarded. Plaudits cannot be reserved for an in-group of privileged 'church' members.
(10:1—12) Divorce The next section is somewhat loosely appended and might appear a little out of place in a wider context dealing with specifically Christian discipleship. Some have even suggested that 10:1—31 constitutes a small preformed household code on the themes of marriage, children, and possessions (cf. Col 3:18-4:1; Eph 5:21-6:9). However, this is not necessary: what is presented here is in some ways the ideal for the Christian disciple and the section is not out of place within the broader context of 8:34—10:45.
Jesus is asked about the legitimacy of divorce. The question is in many ways an artificial one coming from Pharisees, since Jewish law clearly assumed that divorce was legitimate, the only discussion being what were the proper grounds for divorce. (The divorce legislation in Deut 24:1-2 is very vague as to the grounds for divorce and deals more with the procedures of the divorce itself.) Yet if, as seems likely, Jesus did express himself very negatively about the whole principle of divorce (it is very deeply embedded in the tradition: see i Cor 7:10, as well as what is probably a Q tradition in Lk i6:i8/Mt 5:32), some such question must have arisen in Jesus' own ministry. Jesus' reply goes behind the divorce legislation of Deut 24 to the principle of creation itself. He claims that divorce was only instituted as a concession to human failure and that the ideal is life-long, monogamous marriage. Although this could be interpreted as an attack on the law, it is not presented as such here. Nor is it necessarily an attack to demand greater strictness than the law technically presupposes. (Further, some of the Qumran texts adopt a position very similar to that of Jesus here, and no one could accuse the Qumran sectarians of playing loose with the law!) Nevertheless, an important part of the law is here relativized, and this shows the great authority implicitly claimed by Jesus. Yet it is important too to note what is proposed. Jesus' saying is not necessarily a legal ruling which brooks no exception (as it has frequently been taken). Rather, it sets up an ideal, and puts forward the divine purpose in marriage. It is an ideal for the Eschaton. (In Jewish thought the end-time was often conceived as representing a return to the primeval conditions of the creation period.) But in a fallen world, that ideal is frequently not met. To apply Jesus' sayings to this situation as a legal ruling forbidding divorce under all circumstances is probably the worst kind of legalism: in the teaching of Jesus, any ideals of the eschatological kingdom would always have to be tempered by the overriding concerns of compassion and love.
The reverse side of the idea of reward is that of punishment and this is developed in the series of sayings in w. 42—8, linked by the common use of the verb 'cause to stumble'
(Greek skandalizo). The first saying (v. 42) picks up from v. 41 the motif of treatment given to Christian disciples: the 'child' from before has become a 'little one who believes', clearly a Christian disciple. (Some, but not all, MSS have 'believe in me' here: this would then be one of the very rare occasions in the synoptics, and the only instance in Mark, where Jesus is the object of faith. More typically for Mark, Jesus points away from himself to God as the important object of faith.) Here the threat of judgement is probably directed at other Christian disciples (rather than, as some have suggested, persecutors of the Christian movement): the saying is a warning to followers of Jesus, not comfort for disciples threatened by opponents. In w. 43-8 the attention shifts from the danger of causing others to stumble to the dangers of causing oneself to stumble (i.e. to threaten one's Christian commitment). In a series of vivid metaphors (which are only metaphors!), Mark's Jesus stresses the extreme nature of the self-sacrifice to which the would-be disciple is called. The thought is in general similar to 8:34—7: the true 'life' of the Christian is far greater than the old life, or even physical life itself, and can call for the ultimate in self-sacrifice at the physical level. The alternative is to be 'thrown into Gehenna' (w. 43,45,47), a valley near Jerusalem used as a rubbish dump which became a symbol for the place of the future destruction of the wicked. The unquenchable fire of v. 48 (several MSS repeat v. 48 in w. 44,46) is probably that which destroys: there is no idea of eternal torment and punishment.
The last two verses of the complex (w. 49-50) are obscure and the connection of thought (beyond the catchwords 'fire' and 'salt') not clear. The image of v. 49 ('salted with fire') is notoriously uncertain. It is possible that both fire and salt are seen as images of purification. Elsewhere in the NT, fire is seen as a process which can be destructive but also purifying (cf. i Pet 1:7). The same may be implied here: the physical dangers to which the Christian disciple is exposed can also act as a purifying agent. The appended sayings about salt in v. 50 defy clear exegesis. The general thought may be that Christian disciples must continually show their true nature as followers of Jesus, otherwise they will be rejected. The final exhortation to live at peace with each other recalls the original
In an 'appendix', Mark's Jesus spells out to the disciples further implications of what he has said. In one way the teaching here is strange, since the issue no longer seems to be that of divorce as such, but of remarriage after divorce. Here any such remarriage is branded as adultery. (Further, the parallel formulation in v. 12, placing a woman's action in divorcing her husband alongside a man divorcing his wife, presupposes the conditions of Roman law: in Jewish law a woman had no such right to institute divorce proceedings.) We may have here a saying of the early church, seeking to interpret the Jesus tradition in relation to the concrete prob-
9°7 MARK
no such measuring is appropriate: the demand of discipleship is total and absolute.
lems faced by Christians in the world. The NT generally does appear to ban remarriage after divorce (cf Lk 16:18; Mt 5:32). Again, whether that should be taken as rigid and eternal legislation for a fallen world seems rather doubtful.
In the case of the young man, the barrier to his total commitment is evidently his wealth. However, the further development in the teaching now extends the difficulty experienced by rich people in responding to Jesus' call to the difficulty experienced by all. Hence v. 24 says how hard it is for anyone to enter the kingdom. This is then illustrated by the hyperbolic (and perhaps partly humorous) image of the camel and the eye of the needle—though now reverting to the question of riches again. (The slight confusion—is it hard for the rich, or for all, to enter the kingdom?—is what has probably led to some scribes adding a phrase in v. 24 to make it apply only to those 'who trust in riches'.) Entry into new life is thus ultimately not a matter of any human achievement or merit at all. It is in one way impossible for anyone with their own resources to enter the kingdom. In the end, it is all a matter of divine grace (v. 27).
(10:13-16) The Children This small section is often taken as composite: w. 14c + 15 seem to interrupt a story about the importance of receiving children with a saying requiring being like children. This pericope was also used later in the early church to justify the practice of infant baptism. Such an application in a later situation is quite natural, but is not hinted at explicitly by Mark, and would clearly be totally anachronistic at the level of Jesus. The saying in v. 15 forms a doublet with 9:37 and many have regarded the latter context as more appropriate. As noted there, the idea of a child as an example to imitate is not easy to interpret. Children in the ancient world were of the lowest status in society (see MK 9:36-7). Perhaps though this is precisely what Mark (unlike Matthew) has in mind. The Kingdom is for those who are like children in the ancient world, i.e. the poor, the hungry, the dispossessed, those without rights and without any esteem amongst their contemporaries. Followers of Jesus can only receive the kingdom, i.e. accept God's rule as king, if they too become like this: they too must recognize their radical dependence on God for all that they have and all that they are, and they must give up all claims to rights over others in the world, a theme which will be developed further in w. 35—45. Taken in this way, the saying in v. 15 is not so out of place within w. 13—16: only if disciples become like children in this sense can they be 'received' by Jesus, i.e. become true followers of the crucified one. As such, the pericope is also firmly in place within the broader context of the general teaching on discipleship in 8:34—10:45.
Yet the consequences of the commitment required of the disciple are not lost. Those who give up everything will be rewarded. And indeed Mark's Jesus here implies that there will be reward both in this life and in the age to come. The reference to the rewards in this life indicate that, even though Christians have given up family and possessions now, they will experience a new family and a new social community, i.e. in the church. Mark thus paints a rather different picture from the Q tradition where (at least some) Christians appear to give up all social ties and adopt a wandering life-style with no settled community existence (the so-called 'wandering charismatics': cf. the mission charge in Matthew and Luke). In Mark, Christians are assured of a place in a new social community. However, two features of this new existence are notable. The list in v. 30 of people/things which will be repaid to the disciple largely repeats the list in v. 29 of things surrendered; but (a) no 'father' reappears in v. 30, presumably because God is Father and cannot be duplicated; (b) v. 30 adds a reference to 'persecutions'. This may reflect the situation of Mark's community; alternatively, it may be a warning to them of things that may come. The final promise of 'eternal life' provides an indusio with the start of this whole complex in v. 17 and the question of the young man about what he should do to obtain eternal life.
(10:17-31) Riches and Possessions The section is again composite. The story of the rich young man (w. 17-22) has been expanded by further sayings about wealth and/or the difficulty of entering the kingdom (w. 23—7), followed by promises about the rewards due to disciples (w. 28—31). However, the sayings are so closely related in one way (though significantly different in another) that it is hard to envisage totally independent traditions being used here: more probably, Mark has expanded the earlier tradition in his own way to develop the themes of particular concern to him.
(10:32—4) The Third Passion Prediction This is the most detailed of all the predictions and seems to have been written in the light of the details of the passion narrative (a Jewish trial preceding a Roman trial, followed by a mockery involving spitting etc.). As before, the 'Son of Man' reference, and the inclusion of a prediction of 'resurrection', remain constant, v. 32 is a little obscure: how are the amazement and the fear related? And are there two groups of people intended here, or one? Jesus is 'on the way', 'going ahead' of his disciples. In one sense he is simply on a road, but in a deeper sense he is also on the 'way' that leads to Jerusalem which for Mark is the place of suffering and death. Jesus is thus on the way of the cross, and this perhaps is part of the reason why those who 'follow' in this way where Jesus 'goes ahead' are 'afraid'.
The kernel of the section is the story of the rich young man. The evident embarrassment caused to later Christians (e.g. Matthew!) by the story in which Jesus appears implicitly to reject the notion that he himself is 'good' suggests that we have here a genuine tradition. (Matthew, for example, rewrites the story to have the man ask Jesus 'what good thing must I do?') The man asks about how to 'inherit eternal life', probably meaning the same as to enterthe kingdom. (The vocabulary of 'eternal life', or life of the age to come, is rare in the synoptics, though it is greatly developed in the fourth gospel.) Jesus' first reply cites the second half of the Decalogue (but replacing 'Do not covet' with 'Do not defraud'), focusing on those commandments which concern human relationships. The young man's reply indicates that he realizes that obeying the letter of the law is not enough, but his further question ('What more must I do?') perhaps suggests that he is still thinking in terms of a measurable human achievement. Jesus' reply indicates that
(10:35—45) True Service Once again the passion prediction is followed by a feature showing the failure of the disciples to understand the full implications of Jesus' teaching about his
MARK 908
kind of price that is paid (e.g. for sin). But the word is also used without any idea of a specific price paid: thus God's deliverance of his people in the Exodus is frequently referred to as his 'ransoming' or 'redeeming' the people of God, with no idea of any price being paid. This may be the underlying idea here: Jesus' death is presented as in some way the rescue, or redemption, of the new people of God. Why this needs a death is not spelt out. Strictly speaking, the preposition translated in the NRSVas 'for' (Greek anti) means 'instead of: hence ideas of substitutionary atonement which have been read into, or out of, this verse. But this is by no means necessary. The word may simply mean 'on behalf of, 'for the benefit of (like the Greek preposition huper, which is the most commonly used NT word in this context). Jesus' saying here thus evokes the idea of a new people of God to be created and formed as a result of his life and death. Further, it is by virtue of his role as Son of Man, as the one who must suffer but who will then be vindicated, that this will be achieved. The saying coheres well with a number of other elements which are firmly embedded in the tradition (e.g. Jesus' choice of exactly twelve disciples, perhaps symbolizing the new Israel), and hence may well be genuine.
future suffering (cf 8:32; 9:33). Here it is a more extended pericope, the story of the request of James and John for the chief seats in the coming kingdom. The two disciples ask for positions of glory. Jesus' reply is at first a question, asking if they can share his cup and baptism. The image is not explicit but probably refers to intense suffering and death. The 'cup' is used in the OT to refer to divine punishment (cf. Ps 75:8), though such ideas are probably too specific here, and the image may simply refer to great suffering (cf. 14:36). The verb 'baptize' can refer to being overwhelmed or flooded with catastrophes (cf. Ps 42:7; Isa 43:2 for a similar idea, if not the word). James and John's first reply is 'we can', perhaps an indication for Mark's readers of their (past?) martyrdoms. (James was killed very early: cf. Acts 12:2; John's fate is less certain and the traditions vary, some having him live to an old age, other having him martyred, though the latter are admittedly very late.) However, Jesus' reply to them puts their apparent acknowledgement into another light. They perhaps have accepted suffering as simply a temporary prelude to more assured glory. Jesus tells them that suffering will indeed await them, but future glory is not, and cannot, be assured: it is a matter of God's grace. There may indeed be an element of savage irony here too: James and John have asked to be at Jesus' 'right' and 'left'—for Mark's readers there is perhaps an echo of the two robbers, one on Jesus' right and one on his left, on their crosses. That in some sense is Jesus' glory. (Cf. the fourth gospel where this is more explicit.) Perhaps then they really 'do not know what [they] are asking' when they make their request!