Christology in Mark’s Gospel— Four Views

Last updated on: January 4, 2022 at 1:58 am by Ben Witherington

Christology in Mark’s Gospel— Four Views 2021-12-24T16:30:59-05:00 Ben Witherington

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

The Christology of Mark’s Gospel has been a flashpoint for scholarly debate for a very long time indeed, not least because it is in all likelihood the earliest of the canonical Gospels. It has especially been fodder for those who subscribe to the notion of some sort of dramatic evolution of Christological thinking beginning with low Christology (Jesus the divinely empowered prophet or sage, but nonetheless purely human) to high Christology (Jesus as both God and human being), with Mark being more nearly in the former category and John being more nearly in the latter category, with Matthew and Luke somewhere in between.

The problems with this whole way of thinking, is of course that Paul’s undisputed letters are chronologically prior to these Gospels in all likelihood, and in various ways, they reflect a very high Christology indeed, including the Son of God’s pre-existence (see Phil. 2) and a willingness to call Jesus God in various ways (see e.g. Rom. 9.5). In other words, historically speaking high Christology already existed among some early Christians, prior to the time when Mark wrote his Gospel in the late 60s or early 70s A.D. Unless one thinks the Gospel writers lived in seclusion from the rest of the Jesus movement and wrote their Gospels in splendid isolation and ignorance of what various of the apostles thought about Jesus, such facts are not irrelevant to the discussion of Mark’s Christology. While clearly there is development over time in the way Jesus was viewed, it does not involve an easy evolutionary spiral from low to high Christology. Equally clearly, it is wrong to anachronistically read the later views from Nicea or Chalcedon back into the discussions we find in the NT documents about Christ.

This particular book about Mark’s Christology involves a genuine scholarly spectrum of views on the subject, and it differs from various earlier 4 views volumes you may remember being published by Zondervan previously. This one clearly doesn’t involve 4 Evangelicals debating things with each other. Rather it reflects a considerably broader spectrum of views and that in itself is not a bad thing at all. Zondervan, like Baker, has decided to have a wing of their publishing operation called Zondervan Academic which allows for such breadth of discussion.

Larry Hurtado, of blessed memory, takes a historian’s approach to the matter especially in light of his previous work on early Christian devotion and devotional practices involving Jesus. Adam Winn wants to read Mark especially in light of the parables of Enoch, and the idea of ‘two powers in heaven’ and wants to suggest that Mark presents Jesus as ‘the imminent manifestation of YHWH’. Sandra Huebenthal takes a narratological text centered approach, indebted to a lot of the recent discussion in Europe, and Daniel Kirk offers a consistent presentation of Jesus as ‘the Human One’ which is the way he wants to render ‘Son of Man’.

And here is where I say that none of these presentations are entirely satisfactory as far as I am concerned. For example, none of them reflect to any significant view on what Mark’s presentation of Christ may tell us about the historical Jesus and his views of himself. Quite surprisingly, nothing is said about the fact that the two phrases constantly found on Jesus’ lips— Son of Man and Kingdom of God, might tell us about both Jesus’ self-understanding and Mark’s Christology, especially since one of the most widely agreed verdicts of historical Jesus work done in the past half century is that the historical Jesus really did use those phrases. Even more surprising is that in none of these 4 presentations is there any real discussion of the fact that the only place in the OT where you find both the notion of the Son of Man and of God’s everlasting Kingdom together is in Daniel 7, a text all these scholars admit Mark is indebted to in his presentation of Christology in general and Jesus in particular. The end result of that oversight is that various errors in the discussion of Mark’s Christology could have been avoided, but weren’t.

One of things I do indeed like about this book is that each of the participants gets to critique the other three, and then after that there is a rejoinder by the person who wrote essay. The discussions are fruitful, not pure polemics, and we get to see the weaknesses and strengths of the various views as a result. This is quite helpful.

A few further observations are in order. While it is a good thing to focus on the actual content of Mark in these discussions and not on theories or collateral matters, a text without a context is just a pretext for whatever you want it to mean, frankly. And sometimes a narratological approach neglects or even ignores the context. I am reminded of what Jimmy Dunn used to say— ‘texts don’t have theologies, people do’. Exactly.

The text doesn’t stand alone and was not intended to stand alone, and so historical reconstruction of the setting, audience, and yes, the possible author is important for understanding the text. I am myself quite tired of hearing about the so-called intentional fallacy, to which I respond— texts don’t have intentions, people do. Figuring out what an author means by what he says is part of the process of doing a critical and historically responsible evaluation of an ancient historical text as influential as Mark’s has been. The text must be evaluated in the context of the larger Jesus movement and its other writing contributors, comparing and contrasting what is said. Obviously, this is part of doing Synoptic Gospels study. And of course it is also critical to evaluate Mark in light of early Jewish literature in general and the Hebrew Scriptures as well.

A second thing, which I have dealt with at some length in my Isaiah Old and New and the two related volumes is that intertextuality studies are regularly in danger of capitulating to a ‘meaning is in the eye of the beholder’ approach. This too is problematic from the point of view of epistemology. The audience didn’t write the text in question, and their reception or reaction to it is a separate matter from the meaning the writer encoded into the text itself. Texts may have various kinds of significances for differing readers or hearers, but the meaning of the text has been determined by the person who wrote it, not by the audience who reacted to it positively or negatively. In this case I am talking not about open-ended modern or ancient poetry that sometimes is like a cloud in which one can see various things if one has a good imagination, but rather about ancient prose works, like the Gospels which take the form of ancient biographies about someone other than the author himself.

A third thing is that try as they might, these 4 scholars sometimes talk past one another. This seems especially to happen when it comes to the essay of Adam Winn who keeps wanting to suggest that Jesus is the imminent manifestation of YHWH, and this despite the clear distinction between the Son of Man and the Ancient Days in Daniel 7, and also between Jesus and that voice from above who calls him his beloved Son and to whom Jesus prays as Father/Abba.

But at the same time equally unhelpful is the idea that Jesus is merely God’s human representative or agent on earth, like previous ones. Previous one’s however did not have the capacity to say what was and was not suitable behavior on the Sabbath from a divine point of view, nor to walk on water, nor to be called God’s unique beloved Son, nor to die as a ransom for the many, and so one. And frankly the phrase ‘the Son of Man’ in Mark’s Gospel does not merely mean ‘a man like me’ or ‘the human one’. It is a deliberate echo of Dan. 7, and as C.F.D. Moule said long ago— the definite article found before the phrase on Jesus’ lips over and over again points to ‘the aforementioned Son of Man in Daniel 7’ as several texts in Mark make abundantly clear. Jesus is clearly unlike any other human being if Dan. 7 is how he viewed himself, for in that text the one like a Son of Man is asked to rule in God’s kingdom forever over everyone not just Israel, and is said to be an object of worship. The contrast could hardly be more dramatic when one compares Dan. 7 with 2 Sam. 7.12ff. which speaks of dynastic succession of the line of King David. By contrast the one like a Son of Man will rule forever and over everyone. Notice as well that Jesus nowhere calls himself Son of David in Mark, indeed he deliberately questions, on the basis of Ps. 110.1ff. whether calling the messiah Son of David is adequate, when in fact David the Psalmist calls him Lord!!

There is much more that could be said, and I was quite sad reading my old friend Larry Hurtado’s contribution to this volume, apparently the last scholarly work he did before he passed away two years ago now. There is so much more he could have added to the conversation in various historically important ways. We sorely miss you Larry and your important contributions to the study of the NT. Thank goodness we have many good books from you.

Suffice it to say here that a measure of a good book is that it teases the mind into active thought. This book has certainly done that in my case, and is well worth reading, as long as one doesn’t take everything said in the book as the Gospel about Mark’s Gospel.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

January 3, 2022

Top Ten War Movies of All Time

Next Post

January 5, 2022 Blinded by The Light

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz